L L990CE10 [91
i
OLNOWOL 30 AL
HANDBOUND
AT THE
wk
Φ
UNIVERSITY OF
TORONTO PRESS
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2008 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation
http://www.archive.org/details/criticalexegeticOOskinuoft
ar
τ ΒΞ
The
Anternational Critical Commentary
7 on the Holy Seriptures of the Old and
dew Cestaments
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 Encyclopedia and Symbolics
Union Theological Seminary, New York
th ΟΝ ὙΡΉτ Ὁ
7 i ke ae
wy οὖν ὌΝ
ha 4
te
¢
Ἰ
4
ὃ _
4
The International
Critical Commentary
On the Holy Scriptures of the Old and
New Testaments
EDITORS’ PREFACE
A Ι ὝΠΕΚΕ are now before the public many Commentaries,
written by British and American divines, of a popular
or homiletical character. Zhe Cambridge Bible for
Schools, the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students,
The Speaker's Commentary, The Popular Commentary (Schaff),
The LExpositor’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 Aurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum
A. T.; De Wette’s Kurzgcfasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum
NV. T.; Meyer’s Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar; Keil and
Delitzsch’s Bzblischer Commentar iiber das A. T.,; Wange’s
Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk ; Nowack’s Handkommentar
zum A.T.; Holtzmann’s Handkommentar sum NN. Ζ: 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 enter-
prise, 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.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
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 th
editorship of Prof. C. A. Briccs, 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 discuss-
ing impartially the questions still remaining open. The details
of criticism will appear in their proper place in the body of the
Commentary. Lach 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 Archzological 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 con-
stitute 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 Chureh
of England, Cambridge, England. [Now Ready.
EXODUS. The Rev. A. R. 5. 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. [Mow Ready.
DEUTERONOMY. The Rey. 5. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Pro-
fessor of Hebrew, Oxford. [Vow Ready,
JOSHUA. The Rev. GEorRGE 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 Theol-
ogy, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Mow Ready.
SAMUEL. The Rev. H. P. Smitu, D.D., Professor of Old Testament
Literature and History of Religion, Meadville, Pa. [Vow 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. Epwarp 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. CuHas. A. Briccs, D.D., D.Litt., Graduate Pro-
fessor of Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolics, Union Theological
Seminary, New York. [2 vols. Now Readw
PROVERBS. The Rev. C. H. Toy, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Mow Ready.
JOB. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor of He-
brew, Oxford.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
ISAIAH. Chaps. I-XXXIX. The Rev. G. BUCHANAN Gray, D.D.,
Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford.
ISAIAH. Chaps. 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. Cooker, M.A., Oriel Professor of the Inter-
pretation of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford, and the Rev. CHARLES F.
BuRNnEY, 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 Presi-
dent 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; ὟΝ. Hayes Warp, D.D., LL.D., Editor of Zhe /ndependent, 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. MircHELL, D.D., Prof. JOHN
P. SMITH and Prof. J. A. BEWER,
ESTHER. The Rev. L. B. Patron, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Hart-
ford Theological Seminary. [Now Ready.
ECCLESIASTES. Prof. Gzorce A. BARTON, Ph.D., Professor of Bibli-
cal Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. [Mow Ready
RUTH, SONG OF SONGS AND LAMENTATIONS. Rey. CHARLESA.
Briccs, D.D., D.Litt., Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclopedia
and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York.
THE NEW TESTAMENT
ST. MATTHEW. The Rey. WiLLouGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow and
Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. [Now Ready.
ST. MARK. Rev. E. P. Goutp, D.D., sometime Professor of New Testa-
ment Literature, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. [Mow Ready.
ST. LUKE. The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., sometime Master of
University College, Durham, [Now Ready.
Tue INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
ST. JOHN. The Very Rev. JOHN HENRY BERNARD, D.D., Dean of &.
Patrick’s and Lecturer in Divinity, University of Dublin.
HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. The Rev. WILLIAM SAanpay, D.D.,
LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and the Rev. WIL-
LOUGHBY 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 Sanpay, 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.
[Wow Ready.
CORINTHIANS. The Right Rev. ARCH. 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. ΑΒΒΟΤΎ, B.D.,
D.Litt., sometime Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin, now
Librarian of the same. [Mow Ready.
PHILIPPIANS AND PHiLEMON. The Rev. MARVIN ΚΕ. VINCENT,
D.D., Professor of Biblicaf Literature, Union Theological Seminary, New
York City. [Mow Ready.
THESSALONIANS. The Rev. JAMEs E. FraAms, 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 Bicc, 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. Ropert H. CHARLES, M.A., D.D., sometime
Professor of Biblical Greek in the University of Dublin.
are
ri aa aya Ba μ ieee
wpa ve Ἢ Ὁ) ἀν. ἢ ven ol ae we ney ms ios Ν,
γον He 4 Lak
Bx ΠῚ αν. ἢ Τῇ Wa ἈΓΕΥῚ ἘΠῚ ἊΝ
aa ΜΝ ἢ ans 3
bias (: i Ἶ
ee Pe Se ie th teeta an a ee oe ad al ον
Par μασι ἡ ΑΗ
νὰ ῥα, γὴ helibwn yy ἐπὶ PE PhO LAE A
oO ie SO UNE Eee
Ἢ Tae Liv Oa ee ‘ aba ith HM "
να
ae ar ἷ 21 ho fe Wedd
i ὗ ' τῳ io ert Ave ᾿ Wy eet
: i ὶ ὌΝ ny ary eat ΝΘ ds ΝΕ
ὅς Wy hiv,
Fue ΠΗ
ft ΔῊ Γ ~ie ΒΚΗ, ae ie
H 4 i 4nau hast
ak) 3)
GENESIS
JOHN SKINNER, D.D.
> ia yt τὸ DEPARTMENTAL '
enes\$ LISRARY
= THE _INTERNATIONAL@-CRITICAt—~COMMENTARY
A
Perr AL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY
ON
ΘΕ Ν E SES
BY
JOHN SKINNER, D.D., Hon. M.A.(CANTAB.)
PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF OLD TESTAMENT LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE,
WESTMINSTER COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS
1910
tT. Tow. mary
Pilg, ἐγ
>
MY WIFE
‘a
ot Lae
PREFACE.
—— ι-
Ir 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 Motes on the text, Bennett’s compressed but sug-
gestive 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
archzological questions, which the present state of scholar-
ship 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 esthetic 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
vil
Vill PREFACE
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 neces-
sary 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 atten-
tion 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 under-
taking required. It will probably appear to some that the
analysis is pushed further than is warranted, and that dupli-
cates 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
PREFACE ΙΧ
differences of representation or language assume a signifi-
cance 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 tocome. 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 archeological experts. It is naturally difficult to
estimate the worth of such an anticipation; and it is advis-
able 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 archeologist, —
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 imagina-
tion, of legend, of poetic idealisation, which are the life and
soul of the narratives of Genesis. It will still be neces-
sary, 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 en-
deavoured 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 parti-
x PREFACE
cular 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 arche-
ology, to which in nearly every instance I have been able to
give effect.
JOHN SKINNER.
CAMBRIDGE,
April τοῖο.
CONTENTS.
--ς--
List oF ABBREVIATIONS . e . e e ᾿
INTRODUCTION. 5 - - - A .
Sar.
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 7, "ypes of eephccal
Motive . . . .
§ 4. Historical Value of the τ radition . A .
8 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 J ana IX °
8 9. Characteristics of ] and E—their Relation to Literary
Prophecy - . .
8 το. Date and Place of OeieRelarion of JE . .
§ 11. Zhe 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 5 . . . e .
The ‘ Protevangelium’ . . ᾿ . .
The Cherubim δ . .
Origin and Significance of the ΠΝ ἸΑΡΡῸΝ . .
Origin of the Cain Legend . . . . .
The Cainite Genealogy - . . . .
The Chronology of Ch. 5, etc. . . . .
The Deluge Tradition δ . e . .
Noah’s Curse and Blessing . - . . .
The Babel Legend . . . . . .
χι
PAGES
ΧΙΠ-ΧΧ
i-lxvii
iii
Viii
Xili
XXVill
XXXil
XXXIV
xliii
xlvii
lii
Ivii
1-540
81
48
41-50
62-66
80
89
9°-97
ITI-115
122-124
134-139
174-181
185-187
228-231
XII CONTENTS
PAGES
Chronology of 111° , : e e . 233
Historic Value of Ch. 14. . e e e 271-276
Circumcision . . . . e e . 296
The Covenant-Idea in P 5 . ° . . 297
Destruction of the Cities of the Plain . ° . 310
The Sacrifice of Isaac 5 . . . . 331
The Treaty of Gilead and its historical Setting . . 402
The Legend of Peniel : . : . δ 411:
The Sack of Shechem . . . δ δ 421
The Edomite Genealogies . . ° ° ° 436
The Degradation of Reuben . . . δ 515
The Fate of Simeon and Levi . δ . . 518
The ‘‘Shiloh”’ Prophecy of 49” ο - . © 521-524
The Zodiacal Theory of the Twelve Tribes e . 534
ΙΝΡΕΧ-- I. English . . . e e . 541-548
II. Hebrew e e e e e . 548-55 I
ABBREVIATIONS.
---4Φ---
1. SOURCES (see pp. xxxiv ff.) TEXTS, AND VERSIONS.
E
Ks .
τ
Por PC .
Pg ἢ
RE
RJ .
RP
RE
RJEP
EVV]. .
Jub. .
J I es .
OF aa .
Aq. . .
ΕΝ ° δ
=. : .
Gr.-Ven. .
& : :
πε τς
x . .
% id Pate
AL . Φ
ee
Gr τς
6) Speer)
Elohist, or Elohistic Narrative.
Yahwist, or Yahwistic Narrative.
Jehovist, or the combined narrative of J and E.
The Priestly Code.
The historical kernel or framework of P (see p. lvii).
Redactors within the schools of E, J, and P,
respectively.
The Compiler of the composite work JE.
The Final Redactor of the Pentateuch.
English Version[s] (Authorised or Revised).
The Book of Jubilees.
Massoretic Text.
Old Testament.
Greek Translation of Aquila.
» AA », Lheodotion.
3 a », Symmachus.
Codex ‘ Grzecus Venetus’ (14th or 15th cent.).
The Greek (Septuagint) Version of the OT (ed.
A. E. Brooke and N. M‘Lean, Cambridge,
1906).
Lucianic recension of the LXX, edited by Lagarde,
Librorum Veteris Testamenti canonicorum pars
prior Grece, etc. (1883).
Codices of && (see Brooke and M‘Lean, p. v).
Old Latin Version.
The Syriac Version (Peshitta).
The Samaritan Recension of the Pent. (Walton’s
‘London Polyglott’).
The Targum of Onkelos [znd cent. a.D.] (ed.
Berliner, 1884).
The Targum of Jonathan [8th cent. a.pD.] (ed.
Ginsburger, 1903).
The Vulgate.
xm
XIV ABBREVIATIONS
2. COMMENTARIES,
Ayles . . . H.H. Β. Ayles, A critical Commentary on Genesis
11. g-ttt. 25 (1904).
Ba{ll] . : . C.J. Ball, Zhe Book of Genesis: Critical Edition of
the Hebrew Text printed in colours... with
Notes (1896). See SBOT.
Ben[nett] . . W.H. Bennett, Genesis (Century Bible).
Calv[in] δ . Mosis Libri V cum Joh. Calvini Commentariis.
Genesis seorsum, etc. (1563).
De[litzsch] . . F. Delitzsch, Meuer Commentar tiber die Genesis
(5th ed. 1887).
Di{ilmann] . . Die Genesis. Von der dritten Aufiage an erklirt
von A. Dillmann (6th ed. 1892). The work
embodies frequent extracts from earlier edns. by
Knobel: these are referred to below as ‘‘ Kn.-Di.”
Dr[iver] . . The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes,
by 5. ΚΕ. Driver (7th ed. 1909).
Gu[nkel] . . Genesis tibersetzt und erkldrt, von H. Gunkel (2nd
ed. 1902).
Hofizinger]. . Genesis erklirt, von H. Holzinger (1898).
ΤΕΖ. - : . Abraham Ibn Ezra (+. 1167).
Jer[ome], Qu. . Jerome (+ 420), Questiones sive Traditiones hebraice
in Genesim.
Knfobel] . . A. Knobel.
Kn.-Di. 6 . See Difllmann].
Ra{shi] : . Rabbi Shelomoh Yizhaki (t 1105).
Spurrell . . 6. J. Spurrell, Motes on the Text of the Book of
Genesis (2nd ed. 1896),
Strfack] . . Die Genesis tibersetzt und ausgelegt, von H. L.
Strack (2nd ed. 1905).
Tu[ch] . . Fr. Tuch, Commentar tiber die Genesis (2nd ed. 1871).
3. WORKS OF REFERENCE AND GENERAL LITERATURE,
Barth, ZS . . Jj. Barth, Ltymologische Studien zum sem. insbe-
sondere zum hebr. Lexicon (1893).
» ἽΕ,- . Die Nominalbildung in den sem. Sprachen (1889-91).
Barton, SO. . 6. Α. Barton, A Sketch of Semitic Origins (1902).
BED. A . S. Baer and F. Delitzsch, Liber Genesis (1869).
The Massoretic Text, with Appendices.
BDB . . . F. Brown, 5. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A
Hebrew and English Lexicon of the OT (ι8οι-- 1).
Benz[inger], Arch.” I. Benzinger, Hebriische Archdologie (2nd ed. 1907).
Ber. R. : . The Midrash Bereshith Rabba (tr. into German by
A. Wiinsche, 1881).
Bochart, Hievoz.. S. Bochartus, Hievozoicon, sive bipertitum opus de
animalibus Sacre Scripture (ed. Rosenmiiller,
1793-96).
Bu[dde], Um. .
Buhl, GP . 3
”
Burck[hardt]
Che[yne], 7BLA]Z
GIS. .
Cook, Gi < :
Cooke, VSJ
Cofrnill], Zz.
Ἔ Hist.
Curtiss, PSR
Dav[idson] .
re OLR ;
DB: :
Del[itzsch], wd.
a3 Par..
= Prol,.
”
Doughty, AD
Dri[ver], LOT
3 Sam.
EB’. . .
ΒΖ, ς . .
Ee({rdmans] :
Erman, LAE
pe PELL
Ewfald], Gr.
sp EEE,
Ἕ Ant.
Field . .
ABBREVIATIONS XV
K. Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte (1883).
Fr. Buhl, Geographie des alten Palaestina (1806).
Geschichte der Edomiter (1893).
Burckhardt, Motes on the Bedouins and Wahdbys.
Travels in Syria and the Holy Land.
T. K. Cheyne, Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient
Israel (1907).
Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (1881- ).
S. A. Cook, A Glossary of the Aramaic Inscriptions
(1808).
G. A. Cooke, A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscrip-
tions (1903).
C. H. Cornill, Zinlettung in das AT (see p. xl, note).
History of the People of Israel (Tr. 1898).
S. I. Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion to-day (1902).
A. B. Davidson, Hebrew Syntax.
The Theology of the OT (1904).
A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. by J. Hastings
(1898-1902).
Friedrich Delitzsch, Assyrisches Handwirterbuch
(1896).
Wo lag das Paradies? Eine biblisch-assyriologische
Studie (1881).
Prolegomena eines neuen hebriisch - aramdischen
Worterbuchs zum AT (1886).
See BA below.
C. M. Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta (1888).
S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of
the OT (Revised ed. 1910).
Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel
(1890).
A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew (3rd
ed. 1892).
Encyclopedia Biblica, ed. by T. K. Cheyne and
J. Sutherland Black (1899-1903).
See Hilprecht.
B. D. Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche Studien:
i. Die Komposition der Genesis.
ii. Die Vorgeschichte Israels.
Ad. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt (tr. by H. M.
Tirard, 1894).
A Handbook of Egyptian Religion (tr. by A. S.
Griffith, 1907).
H. Ewald, Ausfiihrliches Lehrbuch der hebriischen
Sprache des alien Bundes (8th ed. 1870).
History of Israel [Eng. tr. 1871].
Antiquities of Israel [Eng. tr. 1876].
F. Field, Ovigenis Hexaplorum que supersunt;
sive Veterum Interpretum Grecorum in totum
V.T. Fragmenta (1875).
XVI ABBREVIATIONS
Frazer, AAO . J. G. Frazer, Adonis Attis Osiris: Studies in the
history of Oriental Religion (1906).
" ae . The Golden Bough ; a Study in Magic and Religion
(2nd ed. 1900).
" Folklore in the OT (1907).
v. Gall, CS¢. . A. Freiherr von Gall, Altisraelitische Kultstdtten
(1898).
G.-B. . . . Gesenius’ Hebraisches und aramdisches Handwerter-
buch tiber das AT (14th ed. by Buhl, 1905).
Geiger, Urschr.. A. Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel
in threr Abhingigkeit von derinnern Entwickelung
des Judenthums (1857).
Ges[enius], 72. . W. Gesenius, Thesaurus philologicus criticus Lingue
Hebree et Chaldee V.T. (1829-58).
G.-K. . ° . Gesenius’ Hebrdische Grammatik, vollig umgear-
beitet von E. Kautzsch (26th ed. 1896) [Eng.
tr. 1898].
Glaser, Skizze . E. Glaser, Sktzze der Geschichte und Geographie
Arabiens, ii. (1890).
Gordon, ZE7G . A.R. Gordon, The Early Traditions of Genesis (1907).
Gray, 7PN . Ὁ. B. Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names (1896).
Gu[nkel], Schoff H. Gunkel, Schipfung und Chaos in Urseit und
Endzett (1895).
Guthe, GZ . . H. Guthe, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (1899).
Harrison, Prol. . Jane E. Harrison, Prolegomena to the study of Greek
Religion (2nd ed. 1908).
Hilprecht, ZBL. H.V. Hilprecht, Zxplorations in Bible Lands during
the roth cent. [with the co-operation of Ben-
zinger, Hommel, Jensen, and Steindorff] (1903).
Hofizinger], Zz. H. Holzinger, Hinleitung in den Hexateuch (1893).
or Hex.
Hom[mel],44A . F. Hommel, Aufsdtze und Abhandlungen arabistisch-
semitologischen Inhalts (i-iii, 1892— ).
" AHT. The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the
Monuments (1897).
oF AOD. Die altorientalischen Denkméler und das AT (1902).
A Gesch. Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens (1885).
», SAChrest. Siid-arabische Chrestomathie (1893).
Hnupffeld], Qu. . H. Hupfeld, Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art
threr Zusammensetzung (1853).
Jastrow, RBA . M. Jastrow, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria
(1808).
JE. 5 The Jewish Encyclopedia.
Je[remias], ATLO? A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des
alten Orients (2nd ed. 1906).
Jen{sen], Kosm. . P. Jensen, Die Kosmologie der Babylonier (1890).
KAT*. . . Die Keilinschriften und das AT, by Schrader (2nd
ed. 1883).
KoA, . Die Keilinschriften und das AT. Third ed., by
Zimmern and Winckler (1902).
Kent, SOT. -
KIB . : ᾿
Kit[tel], BH
᾽» γε .
Kénlig), Ζρό. ὁ.
” Ss. .
ΚΘ . . .
Kue[nen], Ges. Abh.
ἘΠ πη...
Lag[arde], Ané&. .
names. δᾶ...
" Mitth.
” .
55 SEM: « 5
»» Symm.
OS? "ὁ :
ihe: Lex. « -
a : -
Len{ormant], Or.
Levy, Ch. Wo.
Lidz[barski], 276.
or NSEpigr. .
Lu[ther], VS .
Marquart . .
Meyer, Entst. .
eg .
45 .
“ΔΝ .
Miller, AZ. .
Nestle, ΜΗ͂
N6[Ideke], Bist,
sc Unters.
OH
Oehler, ATT7h
Ols.
b
ABBREVIATIONS XVII
C. F. Kent, Narratives of the Beginnings of Hebrew
History [Students’ Old Testament] (1904).
Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, ed. by Eb. Schrader
(1889-_).
R. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica (Genesis) (1905).
Geschichte der Hebriier (1888-92).
F. E. KGnig, Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebiude der
hebriischen Sprache (2 vols., 1881-95).
Historisch - comparative Syntax der hebr. Sprache
(1897).
E. Kautzsch and A. Socin, Die Genesis mit atisserer
Unterscheidung der Quellenschriften.
A. Kuenen, Gesammelte Abhandlungen (see p. xl,
note).
Historisch-critisch Onderzoek . . . (see p. xl, no0/e).
P. A. de Lagarde, Ankiindigung einer neuen
Ausgabe der griech. Uebersezung des AT (1882).
Gesammelte Abhandlungen (1866).
Mittheilungen, i-iv (1884-91).
Orientalia, 1, 2 (1879-80).
Semitica, 1, 2 (1878).
Symmicta, 2 pts. (1877-80).
Onomastica Sacra (1870).
E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon (1863-93).
An Account of the Manners and Customs of the
Modern Egyptians (5th ed. 1860).
F. Lenormant, Les Ovigines de histoire, (i-iii,
1880-84).
J. Levy, Chalddisches Worterbuch tiber die Targumim
. - « (3rd ed. 1881).
M. Lidzbarski, Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epi-
graphik (1898).
See Meyer, ZS.
J. Marquart, Fundamente israel. und γα. Geschichte
(1806).
E. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judenthums (1806).
Geschichte des Alterthums (Bd. i. 1884).
x F (2nd ed. 1909).
Die Tuisliten und thre Nachbarstimme, von E.
Meyer, mit Beitragen von B. Luther (1906).
W. Max Miiller, Asien und Europa nach altigypt-
ischen Denkmdlern (1893).
E. Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien (1893).
Th. N6ldeke, Bettrége zur semitischen Sprach-
wissenschaft (1904).
Untersuchungen zur Kritik des AT (1869).
Oxford Hexateuch = Carpenter and _ Harford-
Battersby, The Hexateuch (see p. xl, nofe).
G. F. Oehler, Theologie des AT (3rd ed. 1891).
J. Olshausen.
XVIII
Orr, POT . .
Os
Playne] Sm{ith],
Thes.
Petrie .
Pro[cksch] -
Riehm, Hdwd.
Robinson, BR
Sayce, EHH
» ΧΟ
SB
OT. : .
Schenkel, BZ.
Schr[ader], KGF.
Schultz, OTTh
Schirer, G/V
Schwfally] .
Sm
ΕΣ]
end, 4716
GASn{[ith], HG .
Rob. Smith, 17?
Spi
Sta
» OTJC®
Ὁ» Pr.?
ἀν
egelberg
”
[de] 5
~ BTh
GVI
᾽7
Steuern[agel],
TA
Einw. .
ABBREVIATIONS
J. Orr, The Problem of the OT (1906).
See Lagarde.
R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus (1879, 1901).
W. Flinders Petrie, A History of Egypt.
O. Procksch, Das nordhebriische Sagenbuch: die
Elohimquelle (1906).
E. C. A. Riehm, Handwirterbuch des biblischen
Altertums (2nd ed. 1893-94).
E. Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine (2nd
ed., 3 vols., 1856).
A. H. Sayce, The Early History of the Hebrews
(1897).
The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monu-
ments (2nd ed. 1894).
The Sacred Books of the OT, a crit. ed. of the Heb.
Zext printed in Colours, under the editorial direc-
tion of P. Haupt.
D. Schenkel, Bibel-Lexicon (1869-75).
Eb. Schrader, Keilinschriften und Geschichts-
Sorschung (1878).
See KAT and AJB above.
H. Schultz, Old Testament Theology (Eng. tr. 1892).
E. Schiirer, Geschichte des jtidischen Volkes im
Zeitaller Jesu Christi (3rd and 4th ed. 1898-
1901).
Fr. Schwally, Das Leben nach dem Tode (1892).
Semitische Kriegsaltertiimer, i. (1901).
R. Smend, Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religions-
geschichte (2nd ed. 1899).
G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land
(1895).
W. Robertson Smith, Azushif and Marriage in
Early Arabia (2nd ed. 1903).
The Old Testament in the Jewish Church (2nd ed.
1892).
The Prophets of Israel (2nd ed. 1895).
Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (2nd ed. 1894).
W. Spiegelberg, Aegyptologische Randglossen zum
AT (1904).
Der Aufenthalt Israels in Aegypten im Lichte der
aeg. Monumente (3rd ed. 1904).
B. Stade, Ausgewihite akademische Reden und
Abhandlungen (1899).
Biblische Theologie des AT, i. (1905).
Geschichte des Volkes Israel (1887-89).
C. Steuernagel, Die Einwanderung der israelitischen
Staimme in Kanaan (1901).
Tel-Amarna Tablets [A78,v; Knudtzon, Die el-
Amarna Tafeln (τ9ο8-- ))}.
ABBREVIATIONS XIX
Thomson, ZB . W. M. Thomson, 7he Land and the Book (3 vols.
1881-86).
Tiele, Gesch. . C. P. Tiele, Geschichte der Religion im Altertum,
i. (German ed. 1896).
Tristram, VHB. H. B. Tristram, Zhe Natural History of the Bible
(9th ed. 1898).
We[llhausen], Comp.” J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs una
der historischen Biicher des AT (2nd ed. 1880).
» Degent. De gentibus et familiis Judeis que 1 Chr. 2. 4
enumerantur (1870).
» Heid. . Reste arabischen Heidentums (2nd ed. 1897).
» Prol.® . Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (6th ed. 1905).
ae : . Skizzen und Vorarbeiten.
Ἔ TBS. Der Text der Biicher Samuelis (1871).
Wi{nckler], AOF. H. Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen (1893- ).
4 ATU. Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen (1892).
” GBA. Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens (1892).
99 GI. Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen (1. ii., 1895,
1900).
a See KAT® above.
Zunz, GdV . Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortriige der Juden
(2nd ed. 1892).
4. PERIODICALS, ETC,
4JSE. . . American Journal of Semitic Languages and Litera-
tures (continuing Hebraica).
AJTh . . . American Journal of Theology (1807-- ).
ARW. . . Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft.
Ay ς . . Beitrige zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprach-
wissenschaft, herausgegeben von Εἰ, Delitzsch und
P. Haupt (1890-__).
BS ᾿ς . . Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review (1844-- ).
Deutsche Litteraturzeitung (188ο-- ).
Exp. . . . The Expositor.
MET t's 5 . The Expository Times.
GGA . ° . Géttingische gelehrte Anzeigen (1753- ).
σον. . . Nachrichten der kinigl. Gesellschaft der Waissen-
schaften zu Gittingen.
Hebr. . . . Hebriiica (1884-95). See 4752.
JBBW . . [Ewald’s] Jahrbicher der biblischen Wissenschaft
(1849-1865).
J(SIBL . - Journal of [ἴῃς Society of] Biblical Literature and
Exegesis (1881- ).
MER « . - The Journal of Philology (1872- ).
JOR . . . The Jewish Quarterly Review.
JRAS . . - Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain
and Ireland (1834- ).
XX
FES: as
M[B\BA
MVAG
INEZ
OLz .
PAOS.
PEFS .
PSBA.
SBBA.
SAGs
TREES.
FOIE ὁ
TSBA.
ZA 5
ZATW
ZDMG
ZDPV
Zoe
ZAVIP Ne
ABBREVIATIONS
The Journal of Theological Studies (1900- ).
Litlerarisches] Zentralbllatt fiir Deutschland}
(ι85ο- )}.
Monatsberichte der kinigl. preuss. Akadamie der
Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Continued in Sitzungs-
berichte der k. p. Ak. . . . (1881- ).
Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft
(1896- ).
Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift (1890-_ ).
Orientalische Litteraturzeitung (1898- ).
Proceedings [Journal] of the American Oriental
Society (1851- ).
Palestine Exploration Fund: Quarterly Statements.
Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archeology
(.8γ8- ).
See MBBA above.
Theologische Studien und Kritiken (1828-- ).
Theologische Litteraturzeitung (1876- ).
Theologisch Tijdschrift (1867-_ ).
Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archeology.
Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie (1886-- ).
Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
(188:1-- ).
Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenliindischen Gesell-
schaft (1845- ).
Zeitschrift des deutschen Palistina-Vereins(1878- ).
Zeitschrift fiir Keilschriftsforschung (1884-85).
Zeitschrift fiir Volkerpsychologie und Sprachwissen-
schaft (1860- ).
. OTHER SIGNS AND CONTRACTIONS.
‘New Hebrew’: the language of the Mishnah,
Midrashim, and parts of the Talmud.
vide infra ἡ Used in references from commentary
vide supra to footnotes, and vice versd.
Frequently used to indicate that a section is of
composite authorship.
After OT references means that all occurrences of
the word or usage in question are cited.
Root or stem.
Sign of abbreviation in Heb. words.
= 10 = ‘and so on’: used when a Heb. citation
. is incomplete.
INTRODUCTION.
§ 1. Lntroductory: Canonical position of the book—tts general
scope—ana title.
THE Book of Genesis (on the title see at the end of this 8)
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 Ki. 25°°).
The tripartite division of the Jewish Canon has severed the
later portion of this work (Jos.—Kings), under the title of
the ‘‘ Former Prophets” (o'7wWN7n ὮΝ Ν)32Π), from the earlier
portion (Gen.—Deut.), which constitutes the Law (mqynn),—a
seemingly artificial bisection which results from the Térah
having attained canonical authority soon after its com-
pletion in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, while the canonicity
of the Prophetical scriptures was not recognised till some
centuries later.* How soon the division of the Térah into
its five books (ANNA ‘win Hwan: ‘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 Pent.j Inthe case of Genesis, at all events,
* See Ryle, Canon of the OT, chs. iv. v. ; Wildeboer, Origin of the
Canon of the OT, 27 ff., tor ff. ; Buhl, Kanon und Text des AT, 8f. ;
Budde, art. ‘Canon,’ in ZB, and Woods, ‘ OT Canon,’ in DB.
+ Kuenen, Onderzoek, i. pp. 7, 331. The earliest external evidence
of the fivefold division is Philo, De Abvah., intt. (Τῶν ἱερῶν νόμων ἐν πέντε
βίβλοις ἀναγραφέντων, ἣ πρώτη καλεῖται καὶ ἐπιγράφεται Τένεσις, ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ
κόσμου γενέσεως, ἣν ἐν ἀρχῇ περιέχει, λαβοῦσα τὴν πρόσρησιν" καίτοι κτλ.) ;
Jos. c. Ap. i. 39. It is found, however, in a4 and Qh, and seems to
have served as a model for the similar division of the Psalter. That it
a
fl INTRODUCTION
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 con-
trasted 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 Pent., except
Deut., which so readily lends itself to monographic treatment.
Genesis may thus be described as the Book of Hebrew
Origins. It is a peculiarity of the Pent. 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 (chs. 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 con-
nected with them. But this is preceded (in chs. 1-11) by an
account of the origin of the world, the beginnings οἵ 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 tous through the Vulg. from
the LXX, where the usual superscription is simply Γένεσις (Qa EM, most curs.),
rarely ἡ γένεσις ((Χ72), a contraction of Τένεσις κόσμου (Gr4)72r), An
follows natural lines of cleavage is shown by Kuenen (J/.cc.) ; and there
is no reason to doubt that it is as old as the canonisation of the Térah.
INTRODUCTION ili
interesting variation in one curs. (129)—7 βίβλος τῶν γενέσεων (cf. 24 5')*
—might tempt one to fancy that the scribe had in view the series of
Téléd6th (see p. 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.t—So also in Syriac (sephra dabritha), Theod. Mopsu.
(ἡ κτίσις), and occasionally among the Rabb. (ΠῪΞ) 150).—The common
Jewish designation is ΠῚ ΝΞ, after the first word of the book (Origen, in
Euseb. HE, vi. 25; Jerome, Prol. gal., and Quest. in Gen.) ; less usual is
pex won, ‘the first fifth.—Only a curious interest attaches to the
unofficial appellation wn 15D (based on 2 Sa. 1.8) or onw7’d (the
patriarchs) see Carpzov, Jntrod. p. 55; Delitzsch, to.
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 con-
temporary 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
* Cambridge Septuagint, p. τ.
+See the quotation from Philo on p. i above; and cf. Pseudo
Athanasius De synop. script. sac. 5.
NEN!
1V INTRODUCTION
history in this sense, we see from the story of David’s court
in 2 Sa. and the beginning of 1 Kings. There we havea
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 fa/k about
the past, which exists in more or less profusion amongst
ail 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 alegendary heroic age. Such legends, though they
survive the dawn of authentic history, belong essentially toa
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 in-
stinctive selection of the types of character which represent
its moral aspirations, its conception of its own place and
mission in the world; andalso, to some indeterminate extent,
the impact on its inner life of the momentous historic experi-
ences in which it first woke up to the consciousness of a
national existence and destiny.*
* Comp. Gordon, Early Traditions, 84: ‘* As areal expression of the
living spirit of the nation, a people’s myths are the mirror of its religious
and moral ideals, aspirations, and imaginations.”
INTRODUCTION ν
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 priort 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 init. 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 ex-
pression 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, Néldeke, indeed, has
vi INTRODUCTION
shown that the historical memory of the pre-Islamic Arabs was so
defective that all knowledge of great nations like the Nabatzans and
Thamudites had been lost within two or three centuries.* (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 (Di. 218). We may assume
that the scene at the well of Harran (ch. 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 (1 2198: || 201: || 266% ; 16, || 218% ;
15. || 17, etc.).—(3) The subject-matter of the tradition is of the kind con-
genial 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.t 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 appear-
ance of history in this respect is ch. 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 p. 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
* Amalekiter, p. 25 f.
+ Cf. Wi. Abraham als Babylonier, 7.
INTRODUCTION Vil
the scientific knowledge of our time ;* 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 accom-
modated 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 primzeval (chs. 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.+—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.
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 pro-
portions 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 archeology 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 con-
sider later (§ 4), after we have examined the obviously
legendary motives which enter into the tradition. Mean-
while the previous discussion will have served its purpose
* See Dri. XXXI ff. 109 ff.
+ See Reuss, Gesch. d. heil. Schr. AT’, 167 f.
vill INTRODUCTION
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.*
§ 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 OT abundant confirmation of their thesis.
The more prevalent view has been that the mythopceic
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.
For attempts to discriminate between myth and legend, see Tuch, pp.
I-xv; Gu. p. xvi; Hoffding, Phil. of Rel. (Eng. tr.), 199 ff. ; Gordon,
77 ΤΕ; Procksch, Mordhebr. Sagenbuch, τ. etc.—The practically im-
portant 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
* On various points dealt with in this paragraph, see the admirable
statement of A. R. Gordon, Early Traditions of Genesis, pp. 76-92.
+ Goldziher, Der Mythos bet den Hebréern (1876).
INTRODUCTION 1X
solar phenomenon, and Noah a representative of the sun-god (see
p. 180f.). But the utility of this distinction is largely neutralised by a
universal tendency to transfer mythical traits from gods to real men
(Sargon of Agade, 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
(ztiological) myths ; and, while recognising the existence of the latter
in Genesis, considers that the former type is hardly represented in the
OT atall. The distinction is important, though it may be doubted if
zetiology is ever a primary impulse to the formation of myths, and asa
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
ztiological or some similar motive is prominent (see p. xi ff.).
2. The influence of foreign mythology is most apparent
in the primitive traditions of chs. 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 (pp. 45 ff., 177f.). A similar relation obtains between
the antediluvian genealogy of ch. 5 and Berossus’s list of
the ten Babylonian kings who reigned before the Flood
(p. 137f.). 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 (p. goff.). Both here and in ch. 4
a few isolated coincidences with Pheenician 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 concep-
tion of godhead still appears (176 3° 4 δι. 7118.) 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.
xX INTRODUCTION
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 Pent. sources.*
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 trans-
mission, 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.| 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 Bab. 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 Gu. 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 Bab. material by a Hebrew writer ; and the assump-
tion that such a writer in the later period would have been repelled by
the gross polytheism of the Bab. 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 Heb. antiquity extending much further back than the age of
written prophecy, and the present form of the legends is more intel-
ligible 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 ap-
proximate date, of this infusion of Bab. elements into the religious
tradition of Israel.
It is remarkable that while the patriarchal legends exhibit no traces
of Bab. 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 p. 302f.), and the destruction of Sodom (p. 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
*See Bu. Ung. (1883), 515f.; Kuenen, Z7h7, xviii. (1884), 167 ff. ;
Kosters, 2b. xix. (1885), 325 ff., 3443; Sta. ΖΑ ΤῊ (1895), 159f., (1903),
175 ff.
+ Schépfung und Chaos (1895), 143 ff; Gen.? (1902), 64f. Cf.
10 εἰ. 31.
INTRODUCTION ΧΙ
and Jacob embodies a mythological motive (p. 359), which is repeated
in the case of Zerah and Perez (ch. 38). The whole story of Jacob
and Esau presents several points of contact with that of the brothers
Hypsouranios (Samem-rum) and Usdos in the Phoenician mythology
(Usdos=Esau : see pp. 360, 124). There appears also to be a Homeric
variant of the incest of Reuben (p. 427). These phenomena are among
the most perplexing which we encounter in the study of Hebrew tradi-
tion.* 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 (p. ix), to mingle myth
with legend by transferring mythical incidents to historic personages.
4. It remains, before we go on to consider the historical
elements of the tradition, to classify the leading types of
mythical, or semi-mythical (p. 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.{
(a) The most comprehensive category is that of etiological or ex-
planatory myths ; z.e., those which explain some familiar fact of experi-
ence by a story of the olden time. Both the questions asked and the
answers returned are frequently of the most naive and childlike descrip-
tion: they have, as Gu. 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 chs. 2. 3, which con-
tains one explicit instance of ztiology (24: 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. (p. 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
ztiology are practically confined to the first eleven chapters; but the
same general idea pervades the patriarchal history, specialised under
the headings which follow.
* See Gu. p. LVI.
+ The enumeration, which is not quite exhaustive, is taken, with
some simplification, from Gu. p. xvi ff.
xii INTRODUCTION
(5) The commonest class of all, especially in the patriarchal narra-
tives, is what may be called ethnographic legends. It is an obvious
feature of the narratives that the heroes of them are frequently per-
sonifications of tribes and peoples, whose character and history and
mutual relationships are exhibited under the guise of individual bio-
graphy. Thus the pre-natal struggle of Jacob and Esau prefigures the
rivalry of ‘two nations’ (25); the monuments set up by Jacob and
Laban mark the frontier between Israelites and Aramzans (3144%) ;
Ishmael is the prototype of the wild Bedouin (16), and Cain of some
ferocious nomad-tribe ; Jacob and his twelve sons represent the unity
of Israel and its division into twelve tribes; and soon. This mode of
thinking was not peculiar to Israel (cf. the Hellen, Dorus, Kuthus,
Aeolus, Achzus, Ion, of the Greeks) ;* but it is one specially natural to
the Semites from their habit of speaking of peoples as sons (7.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 in-
credible ; 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 occa-
sion to return at a later point (see p. xix ff.).
(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, ch. 17 [but cf. Ex. 4%]; the abstinence from eating the
sciatic nerve, 32%). 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 (21%), Jacob at Bethel—with the reason for
anointing the sacred stone, and the institution of the tithe—(28), and
at Peniel (32%); 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
* See Dri. 112; Gordon, Z7G, 88.
INTRODUCTION ΧΙ
suffers it to appear that the place was holy before the visit of the patriarch
(see on 12°). 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.
(4) Of much less interest to us is the etymological motive which so
frequently appears as a side issue in legends of wider scope. Specula-
lation 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, ch. 30), or to have as many as three sug-
gestions of its historic origin (Ishmael, 16"! 17% 2117; Isaac, 17371814 219).
To claim literal accuracy for incidents of this kind is manifestly futile.
(6) 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 poezic
idealisation. Whenever a character enters the world of legend, whether
through the gate of history or through that of ethnographic personifica-
tion, 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 (ch. 49) with
their appearance in the younger narratives of Joseph and his brethren.
In the former case the sons are tribal personifications, and the char-
acters 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 (p. vii) that there are three
chief ways in which an oral, and therefore legendary, tradi-
χὶν INTRODUCTION
tion 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 ¢hzrdly, through the confirmation
of contemporary ‘archeological’ evidence. It will be con-
venient 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 narratives * 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 ch. 14, that Abraham was contemporary
with Hammurabi, the 6th king of the first Babylonian
dynasty. The date of Hammurabi is probably c. 2100 B.c.f
* The discussion in this section is confined to the patriarchal tradi-
tion, 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.
+ The date here assigned to Hammurabi is based on the recent
investigations of Thureau-Dangin (Journal des Savants [1908], 190 ff. ;
ZA, xxi. [1908], 176 ff.), and Ungnad (OZz. [1908], 13 ff.); with whom
Poebel (ZA, 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 Bab. 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
(GA, τ. ii. 339 ff. [1909]) hold that the Third (KaSSite) 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-eSu’, the 7th and
8th kings of the First dynasty ; and (2) that Ea-gAmil, the last king of
2
INTRODUCTION XV
The lower limit is determined by the Exodus, which is
usually assigned (as it must be if Ex. 1 is genuine) to the
reign of Merneptah of the Nineteenth Egyptian dynasty
δ. 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 chron-
ology assigns nearly the same date as above to Abraham,
but a much earlier one for the Exodus (c. 1490), and reduces
the residence of the patriarchs in Canaan to 215 years;
since, however, the chronological system rests on artificial
calculations (see pp. 135f., 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.*
In the opinion of a growing and influential school of
writers, this period of history has been so illumined by
the Second dynasty, was an older contemporary of a certain KaSSite
(king ?), KaStiliaS. Now, KaStiliaS is the name of the grd king of the
KaSSite dynasty; and the question is whether this KaStiliaS is to be
identified with the contemporary of Ea-g4mil. Th.-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 Ka3Site kings (8th to 15th), where the name of
KaStiliaS may have stood. Meyer accepts the synchronism of Ea-gamil
with the third KaSSite 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 Dri. Gen.’ xxvii. ff. (with lists).—King believes that his
date for Hammurabi (c. 1958-1916) facilitates the identification of that
monarch with the Amraphel of Gn. 14 (see p. 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.
* Thus the Exodus is sometimes (in defiance of Ex. 1!) put back to
c. 1450 B.C. (Hommel, £7, x. [1899], 210 ff. ; Orr, POT, 422 ff.); while
Eerdmans would bring it down to c. 1125 B.C. (Vorgeschichte [sraels,
14; Exp. 1908, Sept. 204). Joseph is by some (Marquart, Wi. al.)
identified with a minister of Amenophis Iv. (c. 1380-1360), by Eerdmans
with a Semitic ruler at the very end of the Nineteenth dynasty (c¢. 1205).
See p. 501 f.
Xv1 INTRODUCTION
recent discoveries that it is no longer possible to doubt the
essential historicity of the patriarchal tradition.* It is
admitted that no externa. 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 laterage. Now, that recent
archeology 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 Habiri (see p. 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 cent. (pp. 360, 389f.), and that
Israel was a tribe living in Palestine about 1200B.c.; also that
Hebrews (‘Apriw) were a foreign population in Egypt from
the time of Ramses 11. to that of Ramses Iv. (Heyes, 82d.
uw. Aeg. 146ff.; Eerdmans, /.¢. 52 ἢ; Exp. Ζ. δι πο Δ
this is of the utmost value; and 7f 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 bio-
* Jeremias, 4710", 365: ‘Wir haben gezeigt, dass das Milieu der
Vatergeschichten in allen Einzelheiten zu den altorientalischen Kultur-
verhidltnissen stimmt, die uns die Denkmaler fiir die in Betracht kom-
menden Zeit bezeugen.”
INTRODUCTION XVii
graphies 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.* 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 over-
stated
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
Hammurabi; these customs had entirely ceased in Israel under the
monarchy ; consequently the narratives could not have been invented
by legend-writers of that period (Je. ATZO*, 355ff.). The strongest
case is the truly remarkable parallel supplied by Cod. Hamm. 146 to
the position of Hagar as concubine-slave in ch. 16 (below, p. 285). Here
everything turns on the probability that this usage was unknown in
Israel in the regal period; and it is surely pressing the azgumentum
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 OT, 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 patriarchial period because two are men-
tioned in Gen. and none at all in the rest of the OT? 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 (zd. 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
* 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 Je. (A 7ZO*, 208 ff.) quotes at length in demonstra-
tion of their verisimilitude. While the latter is full of detailed informa-
tion about the people among whom the writer lived, the former (except
in chs. 14. 34. 38) have hardly any allusions (245 37") to the aboriginal
population of Palestine proper. Luther (ZS, 156f.) even maintains
that the original Yahwist conceived Canaan as at this time an unin-
habited 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 ?
ὀ
XVII INTRODUCTION
question (Lv. 1818) is late; and does not its enactment in the PC rather
imply that the practice against which it is directed survived in Israel
till the close of the monarchy ?—The distinction between the mdhar, or
purchase price of a wife, and the gift to the bride (7.), should not be
cited : the mdhar is an institution everywhere prevailing in early pastoral
societies ; it is known to Hebrew jurisprudence (Ex. 2216); its name is
not old Babylonian; and even its transmutation into personal service
is in accordance with Arab practice (p. 383 below). ‘—In short, it does
not appear that the examples given differ from another class of usages,
“die nicht spezifisch altbabylonisch sind, sondern auch spatern bez.
intergentilen Rechtszustanden entsprechen, die aber . . . wenigstens
teilweise eine interessante Beleuchtung durch den Cod. Hamm. erfahren.”
The “‘interessante Beleuchtung ” will be freely admitted.
Still less has the new knowledge of the political circumstances of
Palestine contributed to the direct elucidation of the patriarchal tradi-
tion, 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 archzology can inform us, a positive anachronism. On the
whole it must be said that archzology has in this region created more
problems than it has solved. The occurrence of the name Yakob-el in
the time of Thothmes 11., of Asher under Seti 1. and Ramses 1., and
of Israel under Merneptah; the appearance of Hebrews (Habiri?) in
Palestine in the 15th cent., and in Egypt (‘Apriw ?) from Ramses 1. 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 ch. 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 imita-
tion 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 (p.271ff.). Here, however, it is in point to observe
that even if the complete historicity of ch. 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
* See S. A. Cook, Cambridge Biblical Essays, 79 f.
INTRODUCTION xix
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 ch, 14.
2. Ethnological theories.—The negative conclusion ex-
pressed above (p. xviif.) 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 tran-
script of actual family life in that remote age, and therefore
susceptible of illustration from private law as we find it
embodied in the Cod. Hamm. 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; * 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 ex-
ponents 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 sub-
sisting, or conceptions formed, after the final settlement in
Canaan;7 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 atten-
* Hist. of Isr. i. 363, 382, etc.
+So We. Prol.® 319 ff. [Eng. tr. 318 ff.], 7157. und γα, Gesch. 11 ff. ;
Sta. GVI, i. 145 ff., ZATW, i. 112 ff., 347 ff.
XX INTRODUCTION
tion to those which do allow a certain substratum of truth
in the pictures of the pre-Exodus period.
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 reinforce-
ment 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 (Hist. 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 mzgrations. As regards the
first, we have seen (p. 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. Ifa 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 relation-
ships of the patriarchs only lands us in confusion.*—The
* Guthe (GVZ, 1-6) has formulated a set of five rules which he thinks
can be used (with tact!) in retranslating the genealogical phraseology
INTRODUCTION ΧΧΙ
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": 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 relation-
ships between them (e.g. Jacob’s journey to Harran: p.
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 Harran (or Ur) can hardly be inter-
preted 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 en-
forced movement of the tribe of Joseph to Egypt in advance
of the rest (see p. 441).
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 as-
signing ethnological significance to incidents which origin-
ally 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 embarass it. Each system has some
plausible and attractive features; but each, to avoid ab-
surdity, has to exercise a judicious restraint on the consistent
extension of its principles. The consequence is endless
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.
ΧΧΙΙ INTRODUCTION
diversity in detail, and no agreement even in general out-
line.*
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 Aramzean. About the middle of the millennium we
find the first notices of the Aramzans as nomads in what is now the
Syro-Arabian desert. Shortly afterwards the Habiri make their appear-
ance 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 Aramzans. 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, be-
cause neither is ever brought into contact with the Aramzans ; Rebekah
is too insignificant. Abraham is excluded by the chronology, unless
(with Corn.) we bring down his date to ¢. 1500, or (with Steuer.) 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
Habiri. In the case of Abraham there may be a conflation of two
traditions,—one tracing his nativity to Harran 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 Habiri, and the other might
have taken place as early as the age of Hammurabi. But these are
speculations no whit more reliable than any of those dealt with above ;
and it has to be confessed that as yet archzology has furnished no
sure basis for the reconstruction of the patriarchal history. It is permis-
sible 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. t
* Luther (ZATW, 1901, 36 ff.) gives a conspectus of four leading
theories (We. Sta. Gu. Corn.), 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, Kinwanderung der. Isr.
Stimme ; Peters, Early Hebrew Story, 45 ff. ; Procksch, Mordhebr. Sagen-
buch, 330 ff. etc.—What Grote has written about the allegorical inter-
pretation 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” (Hist. of Greece, ed. 1888, p. 2).
+ To the whole class of theories considered above (those which try to
go behind the Exodus), Luther (/.c. 44 f.) objects that they demand a
continuous occupation of Palestine from the time when the legends were
INTRODUCTION xxiii
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 accre-
tions some elements of actual reminiscence of the pre-
historic movements which determined the subsequent
development of the national life.* 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
formed. He hints at a solution, which has been adopted in principle by
Meyer (ZNS, 127 ff., 415, 433), and which if verified would relieve some
difficulties, archeological 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 Aramzans, 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 (chs. 34. 38. 48”) ; 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.
* Cf. Winckler, KAZ", 204: ‘“‘Es ist namlich immer wahrschein-
licher, dass ein grosses fiir die Entwicklung des Volkes massgebend
gewordenes Ereigniss in seiner Geschlossenheit dem Gedachtniss besser
erhalten bleibt als die Einzelheiten seines Herganges.”
XXIV INTRODUCTION
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: (4) the personalities of the
patriarchs; and (8) the religious significance of the tradi-
tion.
(2) 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 trans-
parently 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 super-
human beings.—The discussion turns largely on the evidence of the
patriarchal ames; 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 Yizghak-el, etc.) are also most naturally explained
as tribal designations. Meyer, after long vacillation, has come to the
conclusion that they are divine names (Z/VS, 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
INTRODUCTION XXV
(Vakub-ilu, Yasup-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 p. 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 idealisa-
tion. 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.*
* Cf. Hoffding, Phil. of Rel. 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. . . . Inlegends. . . the central interest
is in the subject-matter, in the centripetal power, which depends on an
intensification of memory rather than on any naive personification and
colouring. . . .”
XXVI1 INTRODUCTION
(4) It is of little consequence to know whether a man
called Abraham lived about 2000 B.c., and led a caravan
from Ur or Harran 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 signi-
ficance 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 tradi-
tion 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 (Is. 4188). 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
INTRODUCTION XXVIi
nature to evoke that centripetal ‘intensification of memory’
which Héffding emphasises as the distinguishing mark and
the preserving salt of legend as contrasted with myth. In
the second place, the appearance of a prophetic person-
ality, 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 founda-
tion 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 fac‘h 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 Hammurabi,
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 Harran, the two great centres of the worship of Sin,
migrated to Canaan, beyond the limits of Hammurabi’s empire, to
worship God after his fashion. How much truth is contained in these
brilliant generalisations it is difficult for an ordinary man tosay. 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 tradi-
XXViil INTRODUCTION
tion 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,
ATLO*, 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! cf. 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 Harran, Egypt, Gerar, Damascus, and else-
where, 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.* 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 under-
stand, in some measure, the circumstances of their origin.
The older stratum of the primeval 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 narra-
* Cf. Gu. p. XXXII, to whose fine appreciation of the “" Kunstform
der Sagen”’ this ὃ is greatly indebted.
INTRODUCTION ΧΧΙΧ
tion 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 birth-
right, 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.
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 pro-
ductions of fireside gossip, but bear the unmistakable
stamp of individual genius (Gu. p. 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 con-
serve 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
XXX INTRODUCTION
process of transmission and consolidation related to the
use of writing? Was the work of collecting and syste-
matising the traditions primarily a literary one, or had it
already commenced at the stage of oral narration ἢ
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 pre-
sumption 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 under-
stand 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.*
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
p. 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 com-
pilation 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 consider-
able period of time to have elapsed between the formation
* See Gilbert Murray, Rise of the Greek Epic, p. 92 ff.
INTRODUCTION ΧΧΧΙῚ
of a fixed corpus of tradition and the composition of J and
E. 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: * the sanctuaries were at least the obvious re-
positories 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.t Or we may assign a conspicuous share in
the work to the prophetic guilds which, in the time of
Samuel, were focz of enthusiasm for the national cause, and
might conceivably have devoted themselves to the propaga-
tion of the national tradition. Or, finally, we may assume,
with Gu., 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 enter-
tainment 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 pre-
supposes 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 require-
ments of the case.
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,
concn Ee ee ee ee ee
* Cf. Sta. ZATW, i. 347 ff.
t Pro., however (392f.), suggests Shiloh as the place where the
national legend was developed.
XXXIl INTRODUCTION
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 Gu. (p.
xxix f.) and Pro. (210 ff.), and it is certain to evoke interesting dis-
cussion. 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 rigor-
ously 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 disentangle-
ment 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
Ewald* put an end to the Fragmentary Hypothesis of
* 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 (SA, 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
INTRODUCTION ΧΧΧΙΠ
Geddes and Vater. The ruling idea of the book, as has
already been briefly indicated (p. 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.* 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 accommo-
dated. The method consistently followed is the progressive
isolation of the main line of Israel’s descent by brief genea-
logical summaries of the collateral branches of the human
family which diverge from it at successive points.
A clue to the main divisions of the book is thus furnished by the
editor's practice of inserting the collateral genealogies (7é/édéth) at the
close of the principal sections (111°-*° ; 2512-18 ; 36) 7 This yields a natural
and convenient division into four approximately equal parts, namely :
I. The Primzval History of mankind: i.—xi.t=
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
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.
* See Tuch, XVI ff.
+ The genealogies of 417-425 and 22%-?4 do not count: these are
not 7élédéth, and do not belong to the document used as a framework.
Ch. 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 111°
to find room for the story of the Dispersion (1113). It may be said,
however, that the Zé/édéth of Adam (ch. 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 primzval history as
one section.
t Strictly speaking, the first part ends perhaps at 11” or ™; but the
actual division of chapters has its recommendation, and it is not worth
while to depart from it.
Ζ
XXXIV INTRODUCTION
A detailed analysis of the contents is given at the commencement of
the various sections.
It is commonly held by writers on Genesis that the editor has
marked the headings of the various sections by the formula min a)x[y],
which occurs eleven times in the book: 2 5!* 69 10! 11! 1127 2:12 35)9
36! 36° 37°. Transposing 2 to the beginning, and disregarding 36°
(both arbitrary proceedings), we obtain ten parts; and these are
actually adopted by De. as the divisions of his commentary. But the
scheme is of no practical utility,—for it is idle to speak of 111° or
25." 18 as sections of Genesis on the same footing as 25!°-35” or 377-507;
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 70/édoth, those of Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph fall
under the 70/édéth of their respective fathers. See, further, p. 40 f.
§ 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 1753,7 to the
important discovery which was the first positive achievement
in this department of research. Having noticed the signifi-
cant 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 D'OR, and the other by the use of 7m;
while a series of fragmentary passages where this criterion
failed him brought the total number of his smémozres up to
twelve. Subsequent investigations served to emphasise
the magnitude of this discovery, which Eichhorn{ 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 Ex. 2,—
partly because they were influenced by the traditional opinion
(afterwards abandoned by Eichhorn) of Mosaic authorship,
* nbn ἼΒΌ A}.
+ Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux, dont il paroit que Moyse
s'est servi pour composer le livre de la Genése.
+ Linleitung in das AT, 1780-3 (1st ed.).
INTRODUCTION XXXV
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.
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
Vns. (especially &) show the MT to be so unreliable that no analysis of
documents can be based on its data: see Klostermann, Der Pentateuch
(1893), p. 20ff. ; Dahse, ARW, vi. (1903), 305 ff. ; Redpath, 4/7%, viii.
(1904), 286 ff. ; Eerdmans, Comp. d. Gen. (1908), 34 ff. ; Wiener, BS
(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 frofortion of divergences to
agreements as between @ and MT. In Genesis the divine name
occurs in one or other form about 340 times (in MT, mar 143t. + onde
1771. +‘x 20t.). The total deviations registered by Redpath
(296 ff.) number 50; according to Eerdmans (34f.) 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 (131f.) there is not a
single instance in which G& is ‘demonstrably’ right against MT. 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 «$ and @s greater than between m7’ and onnbx, or even
between "" and ‘x, and (0) a change of divine names more apt to occur in
translation than in transcription, but (c) the distinction between a
proper name m7 and a generic ὈΠῸΝ is much less likely to have been
overlooked in copying than that between two appellatives κύριος and
θεός. An instructive example is 456, where Gk κύριος ὁ θεός is ‘demon-
strably’ 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 Gen. & substitutes θεός for m7 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 ὈΠῸΝ (10 in all: the proportions being very much the
same for the whole Pent.). (ἃ thus reveals a decided (and very natural)
preference for the ordinary Greek θεός over the less familiar κύριος.
XXXVI INTRODUCTION
Dahse urges (p. 308) that MT betrays an equally marked preference
for m7, and has frequently substituted it for o7x ; but that is much less
intelligible. For although the pronunciation of mm as ‘418 might have
removed the fear of the Tetragrammaton,—and that would be a very
good reason for leaving 77” 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 (Vum. p. 311), that ‘‘ wherever [ὁ] κε
appears in (ἃ it deserves attention as a possible indication of the
original text.” (4) The documentary theory furnishes a better explana-
tion of the alternation of the names than any other that has been
propounded. Redpath’s hypothesis of a double recension of the Pent.,
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 MT (and a) 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
p. xlviiif.) on the services of a redactor to resolve isolated problems,
(5) It was frankly admitted by Kuenen long ago (see Ond. i. pp. 59, 62)
that the test of the divine names is not dy ztse/f a sufficient criterion of
source or authorship, and that critics might sometimes err through
a too exclusive reliance on this one phenomenon.* Nevertheless the
opinion can be maintained that the MT is far superior to the Vns., 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
* It should be clearly understood that as regards P and J the dis-
tinction of divine names is but one of many marks of diverse authorship
(see Dri. ZOT*, 131 ff, where more than γῆν such distinguishing
criteria are given), and that after Ex. 6, where this particular criterion
disappears, the difference is quite as obvious as before. As regards J
and E, the analysis, though sometimes dependent on the divine names
alone, is generally based on other differences as well.
INTRODUCTION XXXVII
MT 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 & instead of MT ; 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.
The next great step towards the modern documentary
theory of the Pent. was Hupfeld’s* demonstration that omnbs
is not peculiar to one decument, 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
E), closely parallel and akin to the Yahwistic (J), and that
both J and E 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: P), whose outlines were then first drawn
with a clearness to which later investigation has had little
to add.7
Though Hupfeld’s work was confined to Genesis, it had results of the
utmost consequence for the criticism of the Pent. asa whole. In par-
* 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 p. xxxiif. 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 Pent. was necessarily supplied
by its oldest source; partly on the misapprehension which Hupfeld
dispelled ; and partly on the truth that Yahwistic sections are so inter-
laced 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.
+ See Nildeke, Untersuchungen zur Kritik des AT, 1869, pp. 1-144.
It is worthy of mention here that this great scholar, after long resisting
the theory of the late origin of P, has at last declared his acceptance of
the position of We. (see ZA, 1908, 203).
XXXVIIl INTRODUCTION
ticular, it brought to light a fact which at once explains why Genesis
presents a simpler problem to analysis than the rest of the Pent., and
furnishes a final proof that the avoidance of m7 by two of the sources
was not accidental, but arose from a theory of religious development
held and expressed by both writers. For both P (Ex. 6) and E (Ex.
4138.) 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.* Consistency demanded that these
writers should use the generic name for Deity up to this point ; while J,
who was bound by no such theory, could use m7 from the first.| From
Ex. 6 onwards P regularly uses m7; E’s usage fluctuates between’x
and 7 (perhaps a sign of different strata within the document), so that
the criterion no longer yields a sure clue to the analysis.
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 Pent.,
and the dating of its promulgation in the eighteenth year of
Josiah.{ 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 deter-
mined. The other point is the question of the date of P.
The preconception in favour of the antiquity of this docu-
ment (based for the most part on the fact that it really forms
the framework of the Pent.) was nearly universal among
scholars down to the publication of We.’s Geschichte Israels,
i., in 1878; but it had already been shown to be groundless
by Graf § and Kuenen in 1866-69.
* A curious attempt to turn the edge of this argument will be found
in the art. of H. M. Wiener referred to above (BS, 1909, 158 ff.).
+ For a partial exception, see on 459,
t De Wette, Bettrige zur Einleitung in das AT (1806-7); Riehm,
Gesetzgebung Mose’s im Lande Moab (1854); al.
§ Die geschichtliche Biicher des ATs (1866). Graf did not at first see
it necessary to abandon the earlier date of the narratives of P; 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 Kue. Hex. xix ff., or Ho.’s Einleitung,
especially p. 64 ff.
INTRODUCTION XXXIX
This revolutionary change was brought about by a comparison
of the layers of legislation in the later Pent. 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 be-
longing to P were later than Deut., 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 P, especially those of them in Genesis and Ex. 1-11.
But when the problem was fairly faced, it was perceived, not only
that P 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 J and E, closely parallel documents, both
dating from the best period of Hebrew literature, but dis-
tinguished 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 com-
bined into a composite narrative (JE) by a redactor (R’),
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 com-
position of Deut., so that a third stage in the history of the
Pent. would be represented by the symbols JE+ D. (3) The
remaining source P 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
(ΕἼ, by whom excerpts from JE have been used to fill up
the skeleton outline which P 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,
xl INTRODUCTION
we must here refer to works specially devoted to the
subject.*
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, Zhe Problem of the Old Testament, de-
servedly ranks as the ablest assault on the critical theory of the Pent.
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 ; (6) 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 We.
‘mark an advance,’ in making P a relatively later stratum of Genesis
than JE (pp. 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 OT. 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 J and E (216 ff.).
As soon as Hupf. had effected the separation of E from P, it ought to
have been perceived, he seems to suggest, that the sections thus disen-
tangled are really parts of J (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
J and E were, not indeed independent works, but different literary re-
censions of one and the same old work (229). What is meant by two
versions in circulation alongside of each other, which never had cur-
rency 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 agree-
ment extended. The issue between him and his critical opponents is,
nevertheless, perfectly clear: they hold that J and E are independent
recensions of a common body of tradition, while he maintains that they
* The following may be mentioned: Kuenen, istorisch-critisch onder-
zoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Ver-
bonds*, i. (1885) [Eng. tr., The Hexateuch (1886)]; and Gesammelte
Abhandlungen (transl. into German by Budde); Wellhausen, Com-
position des Hexateuchs, etc. (°1889); and Prolegomena zur Geschichte
Israels (81905) [Eng. tr. 1885]; Westphal, Zes Sources du Pent. (1888,
1892); Reuss, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften. des ATs (71890) ; Robert-
son Smith, Zhe Old Testament in the Jewish Church (71892); Driver,
Introduction to the Literature of the OT (81909); Holzinger, Einleitung
in den Hex. (1893); Cornill, Einlettung (®1908); Kénig, ind. (1893) ;
Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Comp. of the Hex. (1902) [=vol. i. of
The Hexateuch (1900)].
INTRODUCTION xli
were recensions of a single document, differing in nothing but the use of
mm or ands. 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 J and E is mot 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, J and E consist largely of duplicate narratives of the same
event. It is true, this argument is lost on Dr. Orr, who has no diffi-
culty 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,* and regard the stories as traditional
variations of the same theme.—(z2) The second position is that P was
never a distinct or self-subsisting document, but only a ‘‘ framework”’
enclosing the contents of JE (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 inde-
pendent work. The facts that it is now closely interwoven with JE,
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 JE, and is too meagre to be in-
telligible 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 tradi-
tion, we have every proof that could be desired that P was an independent
document, and not a mere supplementary expansion of an earlier com-
pilation (see, further, p. lviiff. 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).t But that preference might just as easily have
* So even Sayce, Early History of the Hebrews (1897), 62 f., 64 f.
t+ It isa grave injustice to Di. to associate his name, however re-
motely, with this theory of ‘collaboration’ (527). What Di. is speaking
xh INTRODUCTION
‘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 Pent
Professor Eerdmans of Leiden, in a series of recent publications, has
announced his secession from the Graf-Wellhausen school, and com-
menced to lay down the programme of a new era in OT criticism (47208.
Journ. 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 P and JE goes overboard
along with that between J and E. Criticism is thus thrown back into
its original chaos, out of which Ee. 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. 35}; the Israel-recension of
the Joseph-stories; the groundwork of chs. 1. 20. 281. 6%g!”. (2)
Legends which recognise Yahwe as one among many gods; 4. 9! 22.
27. 281! 29. 30. 31. 39. (3) In the third stage, polytheistic legends are
transferred to Yahwe as the only God: 2. 3. 6'8 715 890-22 111-9 16, 18. 19
24. 25'9*4 26. (4) Late additions of purely monotheistic complexion:
1516 17. 359° 4855, 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 Ee.’s
classification is based, or to admit that, for example, ch. 17 is one whit
more monotheistic than 20 or 27, or 24. In any case, on Ee.’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 “terary distinction between a Jacob-recension and
an Israel-recension of the Joseph-narratives (on this see p. 439 be-
low). Since the former begins 3py” mdn 7x, it is considered to have
formed part of a comprehensive history of the patriarchs, commencing
with Adam (5'), set in a framework of 70/édéth. This is the ground-
work of Genesis. It is destitute of monotheistic colouring (it contains,
of in the words cited is simply the question whether the three documents,
P, E, and J, 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.
INTRODUCTION xlili
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 7é/édéth-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 ch. 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 rudi-
ments of a successful analysis. There is much to be learned from Ee.’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 Wi. and Jer., and Che., and now Ee., OT 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 J and E.
In J and E 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 com-
pare the two documents, the first thing that strikes us is
their close correspondence in outline and contents. The
only important difference is that E’s narrative does not seem
to have embraced the primitive period, but to have com-
menced with Abraham. But from the point where E strikes
into the current of the history (at ch. 20, with a few earlier
traces in ch. 15), there are few incidents in the one document
to which the other does not contain a parallel.* What is
* 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 com-
mentary, the only episodes in E to which there is no trace of a parallel
in J, after ch. 15, are: the sacrifice of Isaac, 22; Esau’s selling of his
birthright, 257°-*4 (Ὁ). the theophany of Mahanaim, 32* *; the purchase of
land at Shechem, 3318... and the various incidents in 351 Ὁ 1*°. Those
peculiar to J are: the theophany at Mamre, 18; the destruction of
Sodom, 19); Lot and his daughters, τοῦδ. the birth of Jacob and
Esau, 257-8; the Isaac-narratives, 26; Jacob’s meeting with Rachel,
2974; Reuben and the love-apples, 30"; the incest of Reuben, 357): ™ ;
Judah and Tamar, 38 ; Joseph’s temptation, 307. Ὁ ; the cup in Benjamin's
sack, 44; Joseph's agrarian policy, 47.585 ὦ; and the genealogies of
222-24 pol-6,
xliv INTRODUCTION
much more remarkable, and indeed surprising, is that the
manner of narration changes in the two documents pari pass.
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 p. xxviii f.),
is equally noticeable in J and in E. 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.*
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 con-
solidated and reduced to writing. It has been shown with
great probability that both J and E 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 ad-
vocated by most recent critics, that the symbols J and E
must be taken to express, not two individual writers but two
schools, t.e., two series of narrators, animated by common
conceptions, following a common literary method, and trans-
mitting 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
J, composite structure has been most clearly made out in the Primeval
History (chs. 1-11), where at least two, and probably more, strands of
narrative can be distinguished (pp. 1-4). Gu. seems to have shown that
in 12-25 two cycles of Abraham-legends have been interwoven (p. 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 J
and E alike, so that the fusion had probably taken place in the
common tradition which lies behind both. Further, chs. 34 and 38
* 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 Lu. 7S, 169: ‘‘ E steht vollig in seinem [J’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.).
INTRODUCTION xlv
(pp. 418, 450) belong to an older stratum of tradition than the main
narrative ; and the same might be said of ch. 49 (p. 512), which may
very plausibly be regarded as a traditional poem of the ‘ school’ of J, and
the oldest extant specimen of its veferfoire.—With regard to E, the
proof of composite authorship lies chiefly in the Books of Exodus,
Numbers, and Joshua; in Genesis, however, we have imperfectly as-
similated fragments of a more ancient tradition in 34 (?if E be a
component there), 35!’ 48% 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
differentia of any consequence have yet beendiscovered.* The problem
is to frame a theory which shall do justice at once to their material
incongruities and their literary homogeneity.
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 J especially) the stamp of
a powerful and original personality is too obvious to leave
much play for the activity of a‘school.’+ It is very difficult
* The only exception would be Sievers’ metrical analysis, which leads
to results far more complicated than can be justified by other indications
(see p. xxxif.).
+ See the lengthy excursus of Luther in ZS, 107-170, where the
thesis is upheld that the Yahwist (z.e. J’) 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). Lu. seems
to simplify the problem too much by excluding the primeval 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 Lu. assigns to J? (e.g. chs. 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 J', 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 cent., an opponent of the cultus, and
an upholder of the nomadic ideal against the drift of the old tradition,
xlvi INTRODUCTION
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 J! and J?, Εἰ, E? etc.,—z.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 /zterary schools, manipulating written
documents under the influence of tendencies and principles
which had become traditional within special circles. Gu.
goes, however, much further with his conception of J and E
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.
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 J, and describes it in
terms which throw a shade of uncertainty on the alleged unity of author-
ship. When we read of an ‘‘einheitlichen Grundstock, auf den wie in
einen Stamm Geschicten ganz anderer Herkunft gewissermassen auf-
gepropft 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,
INTRODUCTION xl vii
§ 9. Characteristics of J and E—thetr 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 J and E are to be re-
garded 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.
J presents, on the whole, a more uniform literary texture
than E. I[t is generally allowed to contain the best examples
of pure narrative style in the OT; and in Genesis it rarely,
if ever, falls below the highest level. But while E 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. J 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” (cf. Gn. 44'8#-).* E, 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 (2188), the dismay of
Isaac and the tears of Esau on the discovery of Jacob’s fraud
(27*#-), Jacob’s lifelong grief for Rachel (487), or his tender-
ness towards Joseph’s children (48").; 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 J than
* Driver, LOT, p. 119. + Cf. Gunkel, p LXXVII.
xl viii INTRODUCTION
in E. Where parallels are sufficiently distinct to show a
tendency, it is found in several instances that J’s objectivity
of treatment has succeeded in preserving the archaic spirit
of a legend which in E is transformed by the more refined
sentiment of a later age. The best example is J’s picture of
Hagar, the intractable, indomitable Bedawi woman (ch. 16),
as contrasted with E’s modernised version of the incident
(218), with its affecting picture of the mother and child all
but perishing in the desert. So again, E (ch. 20) introduces
an extenuation of Abraham’s falsehood about his wife which
is absent from the older narrative of J (121).
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 J and Elohim in E.* 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.
The divine names.—While the possibility of error in the Massoretic
textual tradition is fully recognised, cases of inadvertence in the use of
* This, it is true, is more than a mere matter of phraseology ; in the
case of E, it is the application of a theory of religious development
which connected the revelation of the name Yahwe with the mission of
Moses (Ex. 3!%15). It is now generally held that the original E con-
tinued 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. Gu., 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 E contains several strong traces of a polytheistic basis of the
narratives (28! 32% 3 357 etc.). But that Elohim had a monotheistic
sense to the mind of the Elohistic writers is not to be doubted (against
Eerdmans).
INTRODUCTION xlix
mn’ and ods are in Genesis singularly few. In E contexts, ma’ occurs
2211. 14 dis 2821 314, where its presence seems due to the intentional action
ofa redactor. J has ovndx (a) in 3! 4% (a special case: see pp. 2, 53);
(4) where the contrast between the divine and the human is to be
emphasised, 32”; (c) in conversations with, or references to, heathen
(real or supposed), 977 39° 4133. 8 43% 29 4416 ; there are also (d) some
doubtful examples which are very probably to be assigned to E,
33° 100. 11 428, It is only in the last group (if even there), with
the possible addition (see p. 155) of 8', that redactional alteration or
scribal error need be suspected.
For the inhabitants of Canaan, J uses ‘1932, 1018 19 126 (7 R), 24% #7
50"! + (with m5, 137 (Κ Ὁ) 34); E “pr, 1516 48%+.*
For the name Jacob, J substitutes Zsvae/ after 357° (exc. 46°) ; E con-
sistently uses Jacob (exc. 467 488: 1+ 31 [50° 27).
The following are selected lists of expressions (in Genesis) highly
characteristic of J and E respectively :
J: ἘΝ and vnx ov in genealogies: the former, 47 2! 107! 1179 22?';
the latter, 47! 1075 (cf. 227! 25°6 38%-).—n3p1 (in connexion with a late-born
child), 2127 2458 379 442°,—in xsp, 68 188 19!9 30% 325 33% 10. 16. 341 308
47% 9 sof+.—nrw (without 3), 2° τοῦ 2415: +,.—yy (in sexual sense),
41: 7 % y9% 8 2416 4836 (also in P).—1b” (=‘ beget’), 418. 10% 18 15.26 25%
25.- Ὁ", 2433. 4249 2816 χ0 6: 58 425 43. 7 4419. 20.26 go6b4 (421 E ?), —
Derivatives of αν 1sy, 316 16 17 529 66 455*.—nypn, 2% 185? 2994 35 3520 4690+,
—vys, trys (for the younger of two brothers or sisters), 1901: 33: 85. 38 2528
29% 43° 48'4.—"» ova wip, 438 128 134 2138 26%+4.—nep> yn, 18? [191] 2417
2013 334.—nnse, 1216 161 δ: 8:8 2495 407: 10. 12 43 426. 38. 3.41. 2. 6 (2014 2018 R ;
also common in P); see on 79x below.— pwn, 1816 1038 268.-.--ὈΡὉ with
following gen., 184 247: 8 43% 11 44”°.—Particles : aya, 3!7 87 1218. 16 126
29. 81. 32 2130 26% p74 10. 19. 31 4634, __r3-Sy3, 185 τοῦ 3310 38° +.—mnbab, 411 415
1921 38°+ (in E and P once each).—n3, in J about 40 times, in E about 6
times (in Gen.).
E : 7x, 20!7 2119. 13. 13 393 31334 (see ansv above).—y3 and jyp (‘ elder’
and ‘ younger’), 2916. 18 4213. 15. 20. 32. 34 (cf, 41511.).. 055, 451! 4713 so”), —
mawD, 29" 317 41. A very characteristic idiom of E is the vocative (some-
times doubled: 22! 462, Ex. 34, [1 Sa. 34 Gh]+) with the answer ‘207:
22) 7-11 271». 18 3711 3713 46?+.—E is further distinguished by a number of
rare or archaic words or phrases: 730x, 20!7+ Jos. 7%; man, 486+ ; 121,
30"; non, 2115-194 5 pm, 218+ ; 13 (Shonest’), 42}}" 19: ὃ1, 83.385 pry,
417. 414 ; an 73, 2133 (cf. Is. 14%, Jb. 189+); Py, 229+ ; dp, 48}; ann,
4055. 4τὸῦ' 4 5 nine, go 41}1- ; ons, 41%; πον, 33+ Jos. 24% [Jb.
42"]+ ; by a partiality for rare infinitive forms (318 46° 50” 481}... and
the occasional use of long forms of the nominal suff. (217° [31°] 412) 42%),
The religious and theological conceptions of the two
documents are in the main identical, though a certain ditfer-
ence of standpoint appears in one or two features. Both
* The cross (+) means that the usage is continued in the other bouks
of the Hex.
a
| INTRODUCTION
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 J than in E.
Thus, while neither countenances the Asherah, or sacred
pole, E alludes, without offence, to the Mazzebah, or sacred
pillar (2815: 22 3118. 45f. 3520) ; whereas J nowhere allows to the
mazzebah 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: E
refers to it only twice (22. 461), and J never at all in the
patriarchal history (ct. 4°% 87°), It is difficult to imagine
that the omission is other than accidental: the idea that it
indicates an indifference (Gu.), or a conscious opposition
(Lu.), 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 repre-
sentation 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 J (chs.
16, 18. 19), and corresponds to the highly anthropomorphic
language which is observed in other parts of the document
(chs. 2. 3. 7. 8. 115-7). E, on the contrary, records no daylight
theophanies, but prefers the least sensible forms of revelation,
—the dream or night-vision (15! 20% ὁ 2112 [cf. 14] 2215: 28108.
3111 24 46),* or the voice of the angel from heaven (211").
In this respect E undoubtedly represents a more advanced
stage of theological reflexion than J.—The national feeling
in both sources is buoyant and hopeful: the ‘scheue
heidnische Stimmung,’ the sombre and melancholy view of
life which marks the primeval history of J disappears abso-
lutely when the history of the immediate ancestors of Israel
is reached. The strongly pessimistic strain which some
* We do not include the dreams of the Joseph-stories, which seem to
stand on a somewhat different footing (p. 345). Nocturnal revelations
occur, however, in J (2653 281%), but whether in the oldest parts of the
document is not quite certain.
INTRODUCTION li
writers note as characteristic of E finds no expression what-
ever in Genesis; and so far as it exists at all (Jos. 24), it
belongs to secondary strata of the document, with which we
are not here concerned,
Here we touch on a question of great importance, and
one fortunately capable of being brought to a definite issue :
viz., the relation of J and E to the literary prophecy of the
8th and following centuries. It is usual to speak of the
combined JE as the Prophetical narrative of the Pent., in
distinction from P, the Prestly narrative; and in so far as
the name is employed (as, e.g., by Dri. ZOZ®, 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
J and E 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, mazzebas,
teraphim, etc.). But that these and similar principles were
first enunciated by the prophets of the 8th cent., we have no
reason to suppose. Nor does the fact that Abraham, as a
man of God, is called Madi’ (20’, cf. Dt. 341°) 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
oth century witnessed a powerful prophetic movement which,
commencing in N 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
li INTRODUCTION
those parts of J and E 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 J and E 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 E, and the redactional additions to JE, 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 JE.
On the relative age of J and E, 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 E.*
Since then, the opposite view has been strongly maintained
by the leading exponents of the Grafian theory,7 although
a number of critics still adhere to the older position.t 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.
To take a few examples from Genesis: Ch. 16!" (J) produces an
impression of greater antiquity than the parallel 21%) (E); J’s explana-
* Hupf. Schr. NG. Reuss, al.
+ We. Kuen. Sta. Meyer ; so Luther, Procksch, al.
+ Di. Kittel, K6nig, Wi. al.
INTRODUCTION liii
tion of the name Issachar, with its story of the love-apples (30!*'), is
more primitive than that of E (30!); J (30°) attributes the increase
of Jacob's flocks to his own cunning, whereas E (31*!*) attributes it to
the divine blessing. On the other hand, E’s recension of the Bethel-
theophany (281: 117.) is obviously more antique than J's (5:16); and in
the Joseph narratives the leadership of Reuben (E) is an element of
the original tradition which J has altered in favour of Judah. A
peculiarly instructive case is 12!" (J) || 20 (E) || 267" (J), where it seems
to us (though Kuenen and others take a different view) that Gunkel is
clearly right in holding that J has preserved both the oldest and the
youngest form of the legend, and that E represents an intermediate
stage,
This result is not surprising when we understand that
J and E 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 stand-
point between the two documents. It is beyond doubt that
E, 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 (p. x\viii),
occupies, on the whole, a higher level of reflexion than J;
but we cannot tell how far such differences are due to the
general social mz/zeu 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 E has occa-
sionally preserved the more ancient form of the tradition,
there is a strong presumption that J as a whole is the earlier
document.
In attempting to determine the absolute dates of J and
E, we have a fixed point of departure in the fact that both
are earlier than the age of written prophecy (p. lif.); in other
words, 750 B.c. is the Zerminus ad quem for the composition
of either. If it be the case that 378 in E presupposes the
monarchy of the house of Joseph, the fermznus a quo for that
document would be the disruption of the kingdom, ¢. 930
(cf. Dt. 337); and indeed no one proposes to fix it higher.
liv INTRODUCTION
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 gth-century prophecy, seem
to us to point to the later part of the period, and in particular
to the brilliant reign of Jeroboam 11. (785-745), as the most
likely time of composition.* In J 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 Jsrael’s destiny is even more marked than in E; and it
has been questioned, not without reason, whether such
feelings could have animated the breast of a Judazan in the
dark days that followed the dissolution of Solomon’s empire.
That argument is not greatly to be trusted: although the
loss of the northern provinces was keenly felt in Judah
(Is. γι), yet the writings of Isaiah show that there was
plenty of flamboyant patriotism there in the 8th cent., 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 J and E are separated by
an interval of two centuries; if E belongs to the first half
of the 8th cent., J will hardly be earlier than the goth.
Specific historical allusions which have been thought to indicate a
more definite date for J (or E) prove on examination to be unreliable.
If 3144% 49°" 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 inter-
pretation to be improbable.—27”” presupposes the revolt of Edom from
Judah (c. 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
oth cent. — The curse on Canaan (9*"-) does not necessarily assume
the definite subjugation of the Canaanites by Israel ; and if it did, would
* So Procksch (178 ff.), who points out a number of indications that
appear to converge on that period of history. We. Kue. Sta. Ho.
agree; Reuss. Di. Ki. place it in the 9th cent.
+ Procksch, 286 ff. + So We. Kue. Sta. Kit. Gu. al.
INTRODUCTION lv
only prove a date not earlier than Solomon.—Other arguments, such
as the omission of Asshur and the inclusion of Kelah and Nineveh in
the list of Assyrian cities in 10" etc., are still less conclusive.
While it is thus impossible to assign a definite date to
J and E, there are fairly solid grounds for the now generally
accepted view that the former is of Judzan 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.* 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 geo-
graphically to Judah, was for some unknown reason a
favourite resort of pilgrims from the northern kingdom
(Am. 5° 8!4, 1 Ki. 19%).—It is when we look at the diver-
gence between the two sources that the evidence of the
Ephraimite origin of E and the Judzan of J becomes con-
sistent and clear. Whereas E never evinces the slightest
interest in any sanctuary except those mentioned above, J
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
(127-8); but we can hardly fail to detect something per-
functory in his description, as compared with E’s impressive
narrative of Jacob’s dream at Bethel (28101? 17-22), or his
own twofold account of the founding of Beersheba (chs. 21.
26). It is E alone who records the place of Rachel’s grave
(351°), of those of Rebekah’s nurse Deborah (8), of Joseph
(Jos. 2453), and Joshua (*°),—all in the northern territory.
The sections peculiar to J (p. xlili) are nearly all of local
* We. Prol.6 317. It is the neglect of this fact that has mainly led
to the belief that J, like E, is of Ephraimite origin (Kue. Reuss, Schr,
Fripp, Luther, al.).
lvi INTRODUCTION
Judzan interest: in 18 the scene is Hebron; 19!8 is a
legend of the Dead Sea basin; 19° 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 p. 455). Finally, while Joseph’s place of honour
was too firmly established to be challenged, it is J who, in
defiance of the older tradition, transfers the birthright and
the hegemony from Reuben to Judah (405: 3576, the Joseph
narratives).—These indications make it at least relatively
probable that in J we have a Judean recension of the patri-
archal tradition, while E took its shape in the northern
kingdom.
The composite work JE is the result of a redactional
operation, which was completed before the other components
(D and P) were incorporated in the Pent.* The redactors
(R’*) 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 J and E (16%-2821b? 41.498. (Aass.)
39! 4159? 46! 501): some of these, however, may be later.
glosses. Of greater interest are a number of short addi-
tions, of similar import and complexion but occurring both
in J and E, which may, not with certainty but with great
probability, be assigned to these editors (13!4- 1817-19 2215-18
26°> 2814 3210-18 4638): to this redaction we are disposed
also to attribute a thorough revision of ch. 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 18!" and 26%>f con-
firms the impression that the redaction took place at some
time between the publication of Deuteronomy and the Exile.
* So N6. We. and most; against Hupf. Di. al.
INTRODUCTION lvii
§ 11. Zhe 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 J or E, 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 Pent., 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 Pent., the document
distinguished by We. as Q (Quatuor foederum liber), by
Kue. as P?, by others as P*.* Although this groundwork
shows traces of compilation from pre-existing material (see
pp. 8, 35, 40, 130, 169, 428f., etc.), it nevertheless bears the
impress of a single mind, and must be treated as a unity.
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 inde-
pendent document, which is a source, as well as the framework, ‘of
Genesis. We have seen (p. xli) that the opposite opinion is maintained
ly Klostermann and Orr, who hold that P is merely a supplementing
redactor of, or ‘collaborator’ with, JE. But two facts combine to
render this hypothesis absolutely untenable. (1) The fragments form
a consecutive history, in which the /acune are very few and unim-
portant, 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 primzval history no hiatus whatever can be detected. Dr.
Orr’s assertion (POT, 348 f.) that P’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 P had ever read the Babylonian story, or that,
if he had, he would have wished to reproduce it intact. As matter of
* Kue.’s P! is the so-called Law of Holiness (P"), which is older
than the date usually assigned to P8,
lviii INTRODUCTION
fact, neither is in the least degree probable; and, as we shall sce
presently, Noah’s sacrifice is an incident which P 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 disyecta membra of P’s epitome of the biography of
Abraham, with no connexions supplied, and only one verse transposed
(19): 124? “Now Abram was 75 years old when he went out from
Harran. ὅ 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. 13° 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. "> So they separated
from one another: > Abram dwelt in the land of Canaan, and Lot
dwelt in the cities of the Oval. 19% 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.—16! Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. 8.90
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.
—17! 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
(ch. 17).—The narrative is resumed in 21! ‘* And Vahwe did to Sarah
as he had spoken, *” 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 ὃ days old, as God had commanded him. ὅ And
Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac his son was born to him,—
23! And the life of Sarah was 127 years; ? 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 (ch. 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; ὃ 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. ® 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: ! the field which Abraham
bought from the sons of Heth: there was Abraham buried, and Sarah
his wife.—" And after the death of Abraham, God blessed Isaac his
son.” The reader can judge for himself whether a narrative so con-
tinuous as this, every isolated sentence of which has been detached
from its context by unmistakable criteria of the style of P, 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 19”, let him
INTRODUCTION lix
note at the same time how utterly meaningless in its present position
that verse is, considered as a supplement to 19'*8,—In the sections on
Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, there are undoubtedly omissions which we
can only supply from JE; 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
JE which will be specified immediately. Dr. Orr’s argument on this
point (POT, 343 ff.) really assumes that the account of JE is the only
way in which the gaps of P 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 JE.—(z) The second fact which makes Dr. Orr's
hypothesis untenable is this, that in almost every instance where P
expands into circumstantial narration it gives a representation of the
events which is distinctly at variance with the older documents. The
difference between P’s cosmogony and J’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 p. 148). In the life of Abraham, we have two
parallel accounts of the covenant with Abraham in ch. 15 (JE) and 17
(P); and it is evident that the one supersedes and excludes the other.
Again, P’s reason for Jacob’s journey to Mesopotamia (281) is quite in-
consistent with that given by JE in ch. 27 (p. 374f.); and his conception
of Isaac’s blessing as a transmission of the blessing originally bestowed
on Abraham (28%) is far removed from the idea which forms the motive
of ch. 27. In JE, Esau takes up his abode in Seir before Jacob’s return
from Mesopotamia (32°); in P he does not leave Canaan till after the
burial of Isaac (35°). P’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 JE (see p. 444). It is
difficult to make out where Jacob was buried according to J and E, but
it certainly was not at Machpelah, as in P (see p. 538f.). And so on.
Everywhere we see a tendency in P 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 JE form parts of a practically complete narrative, we
cannot avoid the conclusion that ΡῈ 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 P£ or from a deliberate re-writing of the history
as told by JE, under the influence of certain theological ideals and
principles, which we now proceed to consider.
lx INTRODUCTION
The central theme and objective of P* 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 man-
kind 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 (17!), and Yahwe to Moses
(Ex. 65). 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 (235); permission of the slaughter
of animals, coupled with a restriction on the use of the
blood (9!*-); 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 P* belonged. The exclusive emphasis on the formal or
institutional aspect of religion, which is the natural proclivity
of a sacerdotal caste, appears in P* in a very pronounced
fashion. Religion is resolved into a series of positive enact-
ments on the part of God, and observance of these on the
part of man. The old cult-legends (p. xiif.), 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
INTRODUCTION Lxi
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 J or E,
whose more imaginative treatment of religious questions
shows a true apprehension of the deeper aspects of the
spiritual life (chs. 3. 6° 8"! 18°" 458 etc.), and succeeds in
depicting the personal religion of the patriarchs as a genuine
experience of inward fellowship with God (cf. 22. 24!" 32%:
48°! etc.). It would be unfair to charge the author of P*
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 character-
istic 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 JE and P is
seen in the enhanced ¢rvanscendentalism of the latter’s con-
ception of Deity. Anthropomorphic, and still more anthro-
popathic, expressions are studiously avoided (an exception
is Gn. 2%: cf. Ex. 3117); 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’ (Gn.
171: 231. 359. 13 488, Ex. 6°), but the manner of His appearance
is nowhere indicated save in the supreme manifestation at
Sinai (Ex. 245: 34> go%4f), It is true that a similar incon-
creteness often characterises the theophanies of J and E,
and the later strata of these documents exhibit a decided
approximation to the abstract conceptions of P. But a
comparison of the parallels ch. 17 with 15, or 35° with
2810f., makes it clear that P’s departure from the older tradi-
tion springs from a deliberate intention to exclude sensuous
imagery from the representation of Godhead.
It remains to consider, in the light of these facts, P’s attitude to the
traditional history of the patriarchs. In the first place, it is clear that
xii INTRODUCTION
he accepts the main outline of the history as fixed in tradition. But
whether he knew that tradition from other sources than J and E, isa
question not so easily answered. For the primitive period, divect
dependence on J is improbable, because of the marked diversity in the
accounts of the Creation and the Flood: here P seems to have followed
a tradition closely akin to, but not identical with, that of J. In the
history of the patriarchs there seems no reason to suppose that he had
any other authorities than J and E. 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
(ch. 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 (35°), or the settlement of Jacob's family in Egypt
(47°); and the author lingers with interest on the transmission of the
patriarchal blessing and promise from Isaac to Jacob (28* 3513), and from
Jacob to his sons (483). But these are practically all the incidents to
which P§ 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 P's epitome would
be ‘unintelligible’ apart from JE, is to confuse his point of view with
our own. It is perfectly true that from P 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 P had no interest in making ‘intelligible.’ He
is concerned solely with events, not with causes or motives. The indi-
vidual 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 P* can be characterised without the reserves
and qualifications which were necessary in speaking of the
difference between J and E (p. xlviif.); there is no better
illustration of the dictum Ze style c’est [homme than in this
remarkable document. Speaking broadly, the style reflects
the qualities of the legal mind, in its stereotyped termin-
ology, its aim at precise and exhaustive statement, its
monotonous repetitions, and its general determination to
INTRODUCTION Ixiil
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. Itis 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 Gn. 1. 47714), it is apt to de-
generate into a tedious and meaningless iteration of set
phrases and rigid formule (see Nu. 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 ch. 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 P; but of all the Priestly documents, P* is the
one in which the literary bent of the school is best ex-
emplified, and (it may be added) is seen to most advantage.
The following selection (from Driver, ΧΟ 75, 131 ff.) of distinctive
expressions of P, 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.
onde as the name of God, uniformly in Gen., except 17? 211>,—}"n,
€kind’; 1212.21. 24.25 620 714 (Ly, τι, Dt. 14; only again Ezk. 47”).—
VW, ‘to swarm’: 170 21 721 81 9’ +* (outside of P only Ps. 105**, Ezk. 47°).
* As on p. xlix, the cross (+) indicates that further examples are
found in the rest of the Pent. 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 Dri. (7.c.) or the Oxf. Hex. (vol. i. pp. 208-221).
lxiv INTRODUCTION
— pw, earns things’: 1°° 7214 (only in P and Dt. 14).—nan mp;
pee PE eH! coy OG sim 28° 351} 477 484 (Ex. 17, Lv. 26°; elsewhere only Jer. 316
inverted, 235, Ezk. 36").—aboxd: 1% 80. 62! 934 (elsewhere only in
Ezk. (10 times), and (as inf.) Jer. 129).—nmn: 10” 25134 (elsewhere
1 Ch. 57 7% 49 88 9% 34 263!), The phrase nbn ΠΟΝ[] occurs in P τὸ
times in Gen. (see p. xxxiv), and in Nu. 3!; elsewhere only Ru. 418, 1 Ch. 1,
—yn: 617771 258 7 35% 4038. (elsewhere poetical : Zec. 138, Ps. 8815 το φῆ,
La. 119, and 8 times in Jb.).—92y, Mx, etc. (appended to enumerations) :
618 77 13 816. 18 o8 284 468-74 non, etc. (after ‘seed’): 99 177 & % 10.19 41
484+.—nin ova oxy: 718 17% 264; only in P and Ezk. 28 24? 4o! (Jos. 1077
redactional). —om—omnpwnd: 819 10% 2 31 3640 + (very often in P: elsewhere
only Nu. 111° [JE], 1 Sa. 107, 1 Ch. 57 647-48), —nhy nna: οὐδ 17713194,
only in P.— xd wpa: 17% 6 %+ Ex, 17; elsewhere only Ezk. 9° 163,—
ean: 125 13° 3118 367 466+; elsewhere Gn. 141: 1216.21 7514; and 15 times
in Ch, Ezr, Dn.—w3): 12° 3118 368 466+ .—w53(= ‘ person’): 125 368 46"
18. 22, 25. 26.274; “much more frequent in P than elsewhere.”—o2—anonw ;
17” 9124. 36 times (only in P).—on39: +178 284 367 37! 479+ Ex. 64; else-
where Ezk. 20%, Ps. 551° 119%, Jb. 189+.—ainx: 178 2349-20 3648 gol
484 49% so8+. Often in Ezk. (4478 455: & 7- 8.610. 18.830. 21.22). elsewhere
Ps, 28, 1 Ch. 73.9? [= Neh. 11°], 2 Ch, 1174 3114+ .—apo: 1713: 18: 28. 27 9318 +
(confined to P except Jer. 3211.15 4 16),_npy (= ‘father’s kin’): 1714
ao 7 35% 49% + (also Ezk. 1818; elsewhere Ju. 5'4?, Ho. 104+),—avin:
23+ 10 times (also 1 Ki, 171}, 1 Ch. 29%, Ps. 39)8).—y"3p: 4118 [3473] 36° +
(outside of P, only Ezk. 38; Pr. 47, Ps. 10474 10571),
In the choice of synonymous expressions, P exhibits an exclusive
preference for 1°17 in the sense of ‘beget’ over 75° (in the genealogies
of J), and for the form "3x of the rst pers. pron. (33 only in Gn. 234).
Geographical designations peculiar to P€ are: Kiryath-Arba' (for
Hebron) 237 357° +; Machpelah, 23% 17:19. 259 4930 sol8+ ; Paddan-Aram,
25° 28% δ. 6. 7 3118 3318 35% 26 4615+ .—To these may be added jy33 pax, 112
125 1312 168 178 23718 3118 3318 356 3714; the expression is found in JE
only in the Joseph-section (chs. 42, 44, 45, 47). P has jy32 without pu
only in jy32 m3 (28! 465).
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 P and JE (Eerdmans) is surely a retrograde step in
criticism.
The date of the composition of P® lies between the
promulgation of the Deuteronomic law (621 B.c.), and the
post-Exilic reformation under Ezra and Nehemiah (444).
It 5 later than Deut., because it assumes without question
the centralisation of worship at one sanctuary, which in
Dt. 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 P
which are too complex to be entered on here. That the
INTRODUCTION Ixv
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 Deut., and of which we find the
origin and justification in Ezk. 44°18, is presupposed as
already established (Nu. 3. 4. 8, etc.). It is possible, how-
ever, that that distinction belongs to a stratum of the
legislation not included in P®; in which case P* might very
well be earlier than Ezk., or even than the Exile. The
question does not greatly concern us here. For the under-
standing of Genesis, it is enough to know that Ῥξ, both in
its theological conceptions and its attitude towards the
national tradition, represents a phase of thought much later
than J and E.
The view that Pf was written before the Exile (in the end of the
qth cent.) is advocated by Procksch (/.c. 319ff.), who reduces this
part of P to narrower limits than most critics have done. He regards
it as an essentially historical work, of considerable literary merit, em-
bracing hardly any direct legislation except perhaps the Law of Holiness
(P*), and recognising the priestly status of the entire tribe of Levi, just
as in Dt. (Nu. 17!%*4 and P» in its original form). If that fact could be
established, it would go far to show that the document is older than
Ezk. It is admitted both by Kuenen and Wellhausen (/ro/.° 116) that
the disparity of priests and Levites is accentuated in the later strata of
P as compared with P8, but that it is not recognised in PS is not clear.
As to pre-Exilic origin, the positive arguments advanced by Pro. are
not very cogent ; and it is doubtful whether, even on his own ground,
he has demonstrated more than the ossidilizy of so early a date. In
Genesis, the only fact which points in that direction is one not mentioned
by Pro. : viz. that the priestly Table of Nations in ch. ro bears internal
evidence of having been drawn up some considerable time before the
5th century B.C. (p. 191 below); but that may be sufficiently explained
by the assumption that the author of ΡῈ made use of pre-existing docu-
ments in the preparation of his work.
The last distinguishable stage in the formation of the
Pent. is the amalgamation of P with the older documents,
—in Genesis the amalgamation of P® with JE. 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 (cf. 67 77 33. 23 107 274 etc.). The
aim of the redactor was, in general, to preserve the zpsissima
é
Ixvi INTRODUCTION
verba of his soufces as far as was consistent with the pro-
duction of a complete and harmonious narrative; but he
appears to have made it a rule to find a place for every
fragment of P that could possibly be retained. It is not
improbable that this rule was uniformly observed by him,
and that the slight Zacuwn@ which occur in P after ch. 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
Pent. we see from 475%, where (ἴχ has preserved a text in
which the dovetailing of sources is much more obvious than
in MT.—If the lawbook read by Ezra before the congrega-
tion as the basis of the covenant (Neh. 8:7.) was the entire
Pent. (excepting late additions),* 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 (P® + P"),7 then the
final redaction is brought down to a later period, the fe
minus ad quem being the borrowing of the Jewish Pent. by
the Samaritan community. That event is usually assigned,
though on somewhat precarious grounds, to Nehemiah’s
second term of office in Judza (c. 432 B.C.).
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 naive legendary narratives
of JE 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 pre-
vailed, 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
* So We. Di. Kit. al. + So Corn. Ho. al.
INTRODUCTION Ixvii
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 P’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.
ΓΙ ΜΑΙ
ει η taro! ἀν κένηνυ, δὲ “ah tae (yin it
ἡ a εἰσ ἄπ Sie τ λον
των ῶὼ On. & Ws ἀν νὴ ἐμ
PT AUST At we i ἡ διὰ ~antal
preity LAN ΠΥ th in
alipiebr ty τ dee, woh) εν ΟΣ
phe wile a1)? Gb Tie aan τ}
breve. ἀνα chy αὐ ἐμ υ i ie
halt “atte Vu; ieee eterlee (elias
ι “oh ie “εὐ ΝΣ
δ ᾿ i" πα ey ΩΣ ;
᾿ , eer "
i ay i ἀ ΝΣ
ve en OL a
Wath oat
7 |
Ta |
“ΜΠ
vot Var
͵ ΠῚ 2
y ie
COMMENTARY.
THE PRIMAVAL HISTORY.
Cos. i=Xl;
It has been shown in the Introduction (p. xxxiii) that the most obvious
division of the book of Genesis is into four nearly equal parts, of which
the first (chs. 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 Pent., 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 chs. 1-11 ; but the closest
examination has failed to produce any substantial evidence that E 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 J.
To the Priests’ Code, whose constituents can here be isolated with
great certainty and precision, belong: 1. The Cosmogony (112%);
2. The List of Patriarchs from Adam to Noah (5); 3. An account of
the Flood (6°-9**); 4. A Table of Peoples (10*); 5. The Genealogies
of Shem (11196), and Terah (1177-***), ending with Abraham. There
is no reason to suppose either that the original P contained more than
this, or, on the other hand, that P 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 (9***).
In marked contrast to the formalism of this meagre epitome is the
* 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.
I
2 GENESIS
rich variety of life and incident which characterises the Yahwistic
sections, viz.: 1. The Creation and Fall of Man (24>—3%); 2. Cain and
Abel (41:16); 3. The Genealogy of Cain (4!"*4) ; 4. A fragmentary Sethite
Genealogy (q**... 57%... )53 5. The marriages with divine beings (6-4);
6. An account of the Flood (6°-8*); 7. Noah’s Curse and Blessing
(9-27); 8. A Table of Peoples (10*); 9. The Tower of Babel (τι);
το. A fragment of the Genealogy of Terah (1175*°), 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 P)
bare lists of names and figures, but preserve incidental notices of new
social or religious developments associated with particular personages
(411. 20-22. 26 529) besides other allusions to a more ancient mythology
from which the names have been drawn (4: 35. 256)
Composition of J.—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
J 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 (p. 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
(p. 115f.). (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 (p. 52f.).
If Gunkel be right, the same is true of J’s Table of Peoples, and of the
account of the Dispersion; but there the analysis is less convincing.
(5) In 47° we read that Enosh introduced the worship of Yahwe. The
analogy of Ex. 65: (P) affords a certain presumption that the author of
such a statement will have avoided the name 7 up to this point ; and
as a matter of fact o7>x occurs immediately before in v.%. It is true
that the usage is observed in no earlier Yahwistic passage except 41},
where other explanations might be thought of. But throughout chs. 2
and 3 we find the very unusual compound name o°7>x m7, and it is a
plausible conjecture that one recension of the Paradise story was dis-
tinguished by the use of Elohim, and that Yahwe was inserted by a
harmonising Yahwistic editor (so Bu. Gu. al. : see p. 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
I-XI 3
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 re-
sources of literary criticism. Here it will suffice to indicate the principal
theories.—(a) We. (Comp.* 9-14) seems to have been the first to per-
ceive that 41 is a late expansion based (as he supposed) on 453
and on chs. 2, 3; that originally chs. 2-4 existed not only without 411%,
but also without 4% and 5%; and that chs. 2. 3. 441119 form a
connexion to which the story of the Flood is entirely foreign and
irrelevant.—(d) The analysis was pushed many steps further by Budde
(Biblische Urgeschichte, pass.), who, after a most exhaustive and
elaborate examination, arrived at the following theory: the primary
document (J!) consisted of 2409 16-2 41:19. 21 68 323 11. 2hB. 16b. 17-24
61-24 τοῦ 1119 g%-27, This was recast by J? (substituting ods for
ma down to 435), 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 re-
censions were then amalgamated by J*, who inserted dislocated
passages of J! in the connexion of 13, and added 4115 5” etc. J?
attained the dignity of a standard official document, and is the authority
followed by P ata later time. The astonishing acumen and thorough-
ness 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 con-
fining 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 (ZATW, xiv.
274 ff. [= Ak. Reden το. Abh. 244-251]) distinguishes three main strata:
Seyens. 2, 3. 11°"; (2) 42 1125 o%77 τοῦ» 6 4?; (3) the Flood-legend,
added later to the other two, by a redactor who also compiled a Sethite
genealogy (47%... 59. . . )andinserted the story of Cain and Abel, and
the Song of Lamech (4**).—(d) Gunkel (Gen.? 1 ff.) proceeds on some-
what 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 5% (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 3”,
and forward to 9”#-. Thus we obtain a faultless sequence, forming
the core of a document where 77" was not used till 47°, and hence called
75, 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 Gu. thinks) the Flood-legend, where Noah
appears in quite a different character: these belong to a second docu-
4 CREATION (P)
ment (Jj). Again, οἵδ" form a connecting link between the Flood and the
Table of Nations; but Gu. 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 We. Bu. Sta. al.) as an editorial expansion.
In this commentary the analysis of Gu. is adopted in the main;
but with the following reservations: (1) The account of the Flood
cannot be naturally assigned to J), because of its admitted incompati-
bility with the assumption of the Cainite genealogy (see above). Gu.,
indeed, refuses to take such inconsistencies into account; but in that
case there is no reason for giving the Flood to Ji rather than to 75,
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 (Sta.), say 74.
(2) With the Flood passage goes the Yahwistic Table of Peoples
(9'*-). The arguments for two Yahwists in ch. 10 are hardly decisive ;
and 75 at all events had no apparent motive for attaching an ethno-
graphic survey to the name of Noah. (3) Gunkel’s analysis of τα}
appears on the whole to be sound; but even so there is no ground for
identifying the two components with J® and Ji respectively. On the
contrary, the tone of both recensions has a striking affinity with that
of J): note especially (with We.) the close resemblance in form and
substance between 11° and 3”%. Thus:
Ji = 322% 24 417-24 G1-4 71-9,
Je = 2th—z19*-23 42 | εἴθ ΟἿ,
74 = 6-82* gl8t- 1o*;
Jr = ghee,
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.—Cvreation of the World in Six Days: Institution
of the Sabbath.
A short Introduction describing the primeval chaos
(11-7) 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, *°; (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 collect-
ing of the lower waters into ‘‘one place,” % 1; (4) the
clothing of the earth with its mantle of vegetation, 8;
(5) the formation of the heavenly bodies, 1.19; (6) the
peopling of sea and air with fishes and birds, 39:28; (7)
I. 1-II. 3 5
the production of land animals, ***; and (8) the creation
of man, 368: 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 (218).
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 νν. 8). That the
writer believed this to be the true view of the universe, and
that the narrative expresses his conception of how it actu-
ally came into being, we have, indeed, no reason to doubt
(Wellhausen, Prol. 296). But the fundamental differ-
ence of standpoint just indicated shows that whatever the
significance of the record may be, it is not a revelation of
* 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) Paleontology 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.
6 CREATION (P)
physical fact which can be brought into line with the results
of modern science. The key to its interpretation must be
found elsewhere.
In order to understand the true character of the narra-
tive, 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 specu-
lation on the structure of the universe. There is ample
evidence, as will be shown later (below, p. 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 there-
fore capable of being moulded in accordance with the genius
of a particular religion; at the same time, being a tradi-
tion, 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 trans-
formed 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,
p. Io).
The religious significance of this cosmogony lies, there-
fore, 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
᾿ς i353 7
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 repre-
sentation goes so far as a creatio ex nihilo, or whether
a pre-existent chaotic material is postulated (see on v.');
it is certain at least that the osmos, 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’ (v.*!), ze. 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 formulz, by which the separate acts
of creation are reduced as far as possible toa 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 @& than in MT. 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
8 CREATION (P)
of copyists to rectify apparent anomalies, and on the other hand for
deliberate omissions, intended to bring out sacred numbers in the occur-
rences of the several formulz.*
The facts are of some importance, and may be summarised here:
(a) The fiat (And God said, Let... ) introduces (both in MT and
(1) each of the eight works of creation (vv.% δ: 9% 11. 14 20. 24. 36) (6)
And it was so occurs literally 6 times in MT, but virtually 7 times:
i.e. in connection with all the works except the sixth (vv, 51: 7.9% 1.15.
24.30); in @ also in v.%. (c) The execution of the fiat (And God
made . . .—with variations) is likewise recorded 6 times in MT and
7 times in (ἃ (νν. 7: [3]. 12. 16. 21.25.27) (7) The sentence of divine
approval (And God saw that it was good) is pronounced over each
work except the second (in @& there also), though in the last instance
with a significant variation: see vv.‘ [8]. 10. 12. 18. 21.25.31, (¢g) The
naming of the objects created (And God called... ) is peculiar to
the three acts of separation (vv.581°), (f) And God blessed...
(3 times) is said of the sixth and eighth works and of the Sabbath
day (vv.?* 38. 28), (g) The division into days is marked by the clos-
ing formula, And zt was evening, etc., which, of course, occurs 6 times
(vv. 5: 8: 18. 19. 23. 81). being omitted after the third and seventh works.
The occurrence of the j3 "πὴ defore 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 G5 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 255 seems a duplicate of 2},
the question arises whether all these circumstances do not point to a
literary manipulation, in which the conception of creation as a series of
jiats 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). ἢ
The Seven Days’ Scheme.—The distribution of the eight works over
six days has appeared to many critics (Ilgen, Ewald, Schrader, We.
Di. Bu. Gu. al.) a modification introduced in the interest of the
Sabbath law, and at variance with the original intention of the cos-
mogony. Before entering on that question, it must be pointed out that
* A familiar instance is the ‘ten sayings’ of Pirké ’Abdth, 5, 1:
oda ΝἼ22 ΠῚ ΟΝ Mwya, where the number 1o is arrived at by adding to
the 8 fiats the two other occurrences of 72x in MT (νν. 38: 39),
+ See, now, Sta. B7h. i. 349 and Schwally in ARW, 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.
I. 1-11. 3 9
the adjustment ot 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 frst 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 //th day witnesses the
peopling of these regions with their living denizens (fishes and fowls) ; on
the ¢hird day the dry land emerges, and on the szx/h terrestrial animals
and man are created. And it is hardly accidental that the second work
of the ¢hird 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” (Dri. Gen. 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 re-
sembling it has as yet been found in Babylonian documents; for the
division into seven tablets of the Zuma eis series has no relation to
the seven days of the biblical account.* 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 dis-
tinctively 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 arrange-
ment which either ignored the seven days altogether, or had them ina
form different from what we now find.
The latter position is maintained by We. (Com#.? 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 2? 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 (vv.*!°); (3) creation of plants;
(4) luminaries ; (5) fish and fowl; (6) land animals ;(7)man. The state-
ment that God finished His work on the seventh day We. considers
*See below, p. 43 ff. On the other hand there are Persian and
Etruscan analogies ; see p. 50.
10 CREATION (P)
to be inconsistent with a six days’ creation, and also with the view that
the seventh was a day of rest; hence in ch. 2, he deletes 2» and *,
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 Bu.
(Urgesch. 487 ff.; cf. also Di. 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 2% by reading szxth instead of seventh (see on the verse).
Bu. 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,* and also (on the
ground of Ex. 20!) 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 Bu.’s argument
(which as a whole seems to me valid against the specific form of the
theory advanced by We.) only pushes the real question a step further
back; and Bu. himself, while denying that the seven days’ scheme
is secondary to P, agrees with Ew. Di. and many others in thinking
that there was an earlier Hebrew version of the cosmogony in which that
scheme did not exist.
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 juxta-
position of two entirely dissimilar works under the third day; (6) 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 Di. 15), and
(4) 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 incon-
gruous, that the latter has been superimposed on the former during the
Heb. 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 P, and in all probability long before his time.
Source and Style.—As has been already hinted, the section belongs
to the Priestly Code (P). 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 P are (be-
sides the divine name o’ndx): ΝΣ (see on v.2), aapn 331 27, pox inn
* See Jerome’s polemical note, in Quest., ad loc.
I. 1-II. 3 II
[π nn] 24. 25. 80 mbox 39. 80. yD 11: 12. 31, 24, 356. yp 10. ΠΣ ΠῚ 32.328. wd, Ὁ
31. 34, 35. 36,38. 0 poy poy 2-21, and non in 24.—Comp. the lists in
Di. p. 1; Gu. p. 107, and OH, 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 his-
torian. The orderly disposition of material, the strict adherence to
a carefully thought out plan, the monotonous repetition of set phrase-
ology, the aim at exact classification and definition, and generally
the subordination of the concrete to the formal elements of composi-
tion: these are all features of the ‘juristic’ style cultivated by this
school of writers,—‘‘it is the same spirit that has shaped Gn. 1 and
Gn. 5” (Gu.).—On the artistic merits of the passage very diverse
judgments have been pronounced. Gu., 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 P as We. is impressed by ‘‘the majestic repose and sustained
grandeur” of the narrative, especially of its incomparable exordium
(Prol.®§ 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 P may, in technical descriptions or
enumerations, degenerate into a pedantic mannerism (see an extreme
case in Nu. 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 P 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” (Dri. Gen. 31). All, therefore, that is necessarily implied in
what has just been said is that the /ater s/ages of that process must
have taken place under the auspices of the school of P, 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. Bu. has sought to prove that the story had passed through
the school of J before being adopted by that of P; that it was in fact
the form into which the cosmogony had been thrown by the writer
called 15. Of direct evidence for that hypothesis (such as would be
supplied by allusions to Gn. 1 in other parts of J*) 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 Heb. recension; (2) that in all other sections of the prehistoric
12 CREATION (P)
tradition P betrays his dependence on 15; and (3) that J? in turn is
markedly dependent on Babylonian sources (see Urgesch. 463-496, and
the summary on p. 491). Even if all these observations be well
founded, it is obvious that they fall far short of a demonstration of
Bu.’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
(zd. 463'); but when we realise how little is known of the diffusion of
literary activity in ancient Israel, the presumption that J? was the par-
ticular writer who threw the Hebrew cosmogony into shape becomes
very slender indeed.
I. We are confronted at the outset by a troublesome
question of syntax which affects the sense of every member
of v.14. While all ancient Vns. 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 v.3 (Rashi, and so most) or v.? (Ibn Ezra, apparently).
On the latter view the verse will read: Zn the beginning of
Gods creating the heavens and the earth: ΓΞ being in
the const. state, followed by a clause as gen. (cf. Is. 29},
Hos. 12 etc.; and see G-K. ὃ 130d; Dav. § 25). Ina note
below reasons are given for preferring this construction to
the other; but a decision is difficult, and in dealing with
1.—nwxi] The form is probably contracted from mvs (cf. n Nv),
and therefore not derived directly from wx. It signifies primarily the
first (or est) part of a thing: Gn. 10! (‘nucleus’), 49° (‘first product’),
Dt. 337, Am. 6% etc. (On its ritual sense as the first part of crops, etc.,
see Gray’s note, Mum. 226 ff.). From this it easily glides into a
temporal sense, as the first stage of a process or series of events: Ho.
919 (‘in its first stage’), Dt. 111? (of the year), Jb. 87 40!’ (a man’s life),
Is. 4619 (starting point of a series), etc. We. (Prol.® 386) has said
that Dt. 11!” is the earliest instance of the temporal sense; but the
distinction between ‘first part’ and ‘temporal beginning’ is so im-
palpable 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 Lv. 2” [Nu. 18!] Neh. 12“: with
these may be taken also Dt. 33"). In its temporal applications it is
always defined by gen. or suff. except in Is. 46", where the antithesis
to mons inevitably suggests the intervening series of which "9 is the
initial phase. It is therefore doubtful if ‘12 could be used of an absolute
beginning detached from its sequel, or of an indefinite past, like mwx73
or πῦπηξ (see Is, 1%, Gn. 13%).—This brings us to the question of
Lyn 13
v.! it is necessary to leave the alternative open.—J/n the
beginning| If the clause be subordinate the reference of
mw is defined by what immediately follows, and no further
question arises. But if it be an independent statement
beginning is used absolutely (as in Jn. 11), and two inter-
pretations become possible: (a) that the verse asserts the
creation (ex nzhilo) of the primzval chaos described in v.?;
or (ὁ) 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 We. But (1) it is not in
accordance with the usage of n'wxn (see below) ; (2) it is not
required by the word ‘ create,’—a created chaos is perhaps
a contradiction (Is. 45! A872 TNS), and We. himself
syntax. Three constructions have been proposed: (a) v.1 an inde-
pendent sentence (αἱ Vns. and the great majority of comm., including
Calv. De. Tu. We. Dri.). JZ 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
art. tells against it, but is by no means decisive. At most it is a
matter of pointing, and the sporadic Greek transliterations Βαρησηθ
(Field, Hexap.), and Βαρησεθ (Lagarde, Ankiind. 5), alongside of
Βρησιθ, may show that in ancient times the first word was sometimes
read ‘13. Even the Mass. pointing does not necessarily imply that the
word was meant as const. ; “Ἢ is never found with art., and De. has
well pointed out that the stereotyped use or omission of art. with
certain words is governed by a subtle linguistic sense which eludes our
analysis (e.g. 0772, UNID, TWN: cf. Kdn. S. § 294g). The construction
seems to me, however, opposed to the essentially relative idea of “Ἴ,--
its express reference to that of which it is the beginning (see above).
(6) v.1 protasis: v.? parenthesis: v.? apodosis ;—When God began
to create . . .—now the earth was . . .—God said, Let there be light.
So Ra. Ew. Di.* Ho. Gu. al. —practically all who reject (a).
Although first appearing explicitly in Ra. ( 1105), it has been argued
that this represents the old Jewish tradition, and that (a) came in under
* Who, however, considers the present text to be the result of a
redactional operation. Originally the place of v.1 was occupied by
2% in its correct form: ὈΠῸΝ oyqz2 PIN ODwA mIdin ads. When this was
transposed it was necessary to frame a new introduction, and in the
hands of the editor it assumed the form of v.} (similarly, Sta. 5.71}.
i. 349). Iam unable to adopt this widely accepted view of the original
position of 2** (see on the verse), and Di.’s intricate hypothesis would
seem to me an additional argument against it.
14 CREATION (P)
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 ovxganised 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’ (v.”); the representation being a
chaotic earth from which the heavens were afterwards made
(6). The verse therefore (if an independent sentence at all)
must be taken as an introductory heading to the rest of the
chapter.”“—God created.| The verb 812 contains the central
idea of the passage. It is partly synonymous with MWY (cf.
vv.21. 27 with 35), but 25 shows that it had a specific shade of
meaning. The idea cannot be defined with precision, but
the influence of @& from a desire to exclude the idea of an eternal chaos
preceding the creation.t But the fact that T° agrees with (ἃ militates
against that opinion. The one objection to (4) is the ‘verzweifelt
geschmacklose Construction’ (We.) which it involves. It is replied
(Gu. al) that such openings may have been a traditional feature of
creation stories, being found in several Bab. accounts, as well as in
Gn. 246, In any case a lengthy parenthesis is quite admissible in
good prose style (see 1 Sa. 3°*8%, with Dri. Motes, ad loc.), and may
be safely assumed here if there be otherwise sufficient grounds for
adopting it. The clause as gen. is perfectly regular, though it would
be easy to substitute inf. 812 (mentioned but not recommended by Ra.).
(c) A third view, which perhaps deserves more consideration than it
has received, is to take νι} as protasis and v.? as apodosis, ‘ When
God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was, etc.’ (ΤΕ 2. ?
but see Cheyne, in Hedy. ii. 50). So far as sense goes the sequence
is eminently satisfactory ; the 79x of v.? is more natural as a con-
tinuation of v.? than of v.4.. The question is whether the form of
v.” permits its being construed as apod. The order of words (subj.
before pred.) is undoubtedly that proper to the circumst. cl. (Dri. 7.
§ 157; Dav. § 138 (c)); but there is no absolute rule against an apod.
assuming this form after a time-determination (see Dri. 7. § 78).
* The view that v.! describes an earlier creation of heaven and earth,
which were reduced to chaos and then re-fashioned, needs no refutation.
+ See Geiger, Urschr. 344, 439, 444. The Mechilta (on Ex. 12”:
Winter and Wiinsche’s Germ. transl. p. 48) gives v.! as one of thirteen
instances of things ‘written for King Ptolemy’; and Gei. infers that
the change was deliberately made for the reason mentioned. The
reading alleged by Mech. is ΠΝ x72 πον, which gives the sense but
not the order of Gr. The other variations given are only partly verified
by our texts of Gr; see on 1357: 2? 117 18! 495.
1.1 15
the following points are to be noted: (a) The most im-
portant fact is that it is used exclusively of dzvine activity—
a restriction to which perhaps no parallel can be found in
other languages (see We. Prol.® 304). (6) The idea of
novelty (Is. 48%: 417° 651", Jer. 317!) or extraordinariness
(Ex. 342°, Nu. 16° [J]) 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 volition® (Ps. 33°).
(4) It is obvious (from this chapter and many passages)
that the sense stops short of creatio ex nihtlo,—an idea first
explicitly occurring in 2 Mac. 7%. At the same time the
facts just stated, and the further circumstance that the word
is always used with acc. of product and never of material,
constitute a long advance towards the full theological doc-
trine, and make the word ‘ create’ a suitable vehicle for it.
Close parallels (for it is hard to see that the "ΠῚ makes any essential
difference) are Gn. γ} (J), 22! (E), or (with impf.), Lv. 720) ee
construction is not appreciably harsher than in the analogous case of
25, where it has been freely adopted,.—xn3] enters fully into OT usage
only on the eve of the Exile. Apart from three critically dubious
passages (Am. 413, Is. 4°, Jer. 31°), its first emergence in prophecy
is in Ezk. (3 times); it is specially characteristic of II Is. (20 times), in
P 10 times, and in other late passages 8 times. The proof of pre-exilic
use rests on Ex. 34”, Nu. 16° (J), Dt. 4°. 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,’ (Ar. bara”, Phoen. x12 [CZS, i. 347*]: see BDB, s.v.; Lane, Zex.
197b; Lidzbarski, VS Epigr. 244 [with ?]); but the evidence of the
connexion is very slight. The only place where 872 could mean
‘carve’ is Ezk. 21%; and there the text is almost certainly corrupt
(see Corn., Toy, Kraetschmar, ad loc.). Elsewhere it means ‘cut
* The same thought was associated by the Babylonians with their
word δα» (see phil. note); but the association seems accidental; and
its significance is exaggerated by Gu. when he says “‘the idea of
creation is that man may form with his hands, the god brings to pass
through his word” (Schépf. 23). Ban is quite synonymous with 7p7sd
(make), and is not restricted to the divine activity.
16 CREATION (P)
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 (173)17n), Darkness, and Water (ὉΠ, 0%).
The weird effect of the language is very impressive. On
the syntax, see above.—waste and void| The exact meaning
of this alliterative phrase—70h2 wa-Bohi—is difficult to
make out. The words are nouns; the connotation of ΠῚ
ranges from the concrete ‘desert’ to the abstract ‘ non-
entity’; while 172 possibly means ‘emptiness’ (v.z.). The
exegetical tendency has been to emphasise the latter aspect,
and approximate to the Greek notion of chaos as empty
down’ (Ezk. 23%) or ‘clear ground by hewing down trees’ (Jos. 1715 18
[J])—a sense as remote as possible from fashion or make (Di., G-B.
s.v.3 We. Prol.® 387). The Ar. bara’a (used chiefly of creation of animate
beings) is possibly borrowed from Heb. Native philologists connect
it, very unnaturally, with darz’a, ‘be free’; so that ‘create’ means to
liberate (from the clay, etc.) (Lane, 178b,c): Di.’s view is similar.
Barth (ZA, iii. 58) has proposed to identify ΝΞ (through mutation of
liquids) with the Ass. vb, for ‘create,’ dana; but rejects the opinion
that the latter is the common Semitic 731 ‘build’ (KAZ, 4981), with
which x73 alternates in Sabzean (Miiller in ZDJ7G, xxxvii. 413, 415).
2. 199) 15n] Cr ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος ; Aq. κένωμα x. οὐθέν ; Σ. ἀργὸν κ.
ἀδιάκριτον ; Θ. κενὸν (or οὐθὲν) καὶ οὐθὲν ; ἜΪ inanis et vacua; ζ 9 ΝΡ) xvas
(‘desolate and empty’); 4 01090 ciol. The fragmentary Jer. Tg.
hasa double trans. : ‘‘ And the earth was nnn xan, and (cf. ©°) desolate
from the sons of men, and empty of work.” An occurs along with 172
in Jer. 475, Is. 3411; 19n alone in 17 pass. besides. The meaning varies
between two extremes: (a) a (trackless) desert (Jb. 12% [=Ps. 107%] 618,
Dt. 3210), and (6) unsubstantiality (woo 1b paw, IEz.) or ‘nonentity,’ a
sense all but peculiar to II Is. (also 1 Sa. 125}, and perhaps Is. 2971), 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 OT usage is entirely based on the
traditional description of the primzeval chaos, and that the word had no
definite connotation in Heb., but was used to express any conception
naturally associated with the idea of chaos—‘ formlessness,’ ‘ confusion,’
‘unreality,’ etc.—71] (never found apart from in) may be connected
with bahiya =‘be empty’; though Ar. is hardly a safe guide in the
case of a word with a long history behind it. The identification with
Baav, the mother of the first man in Phoen, mythology (see p. 49f.), is
I. 2 17
space (Gu.). But our safest guide is perhaps Jeremiah’s
vision of Chaos-come-again (4°°*°), 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 subj. of the sentence,
must be understood as the amorphous watery mass in
which the elements of the future land and sea were com-
mingled.—Darkness (an almost invariable feature of ancient
conceptions of chaos) was upon the face of the Deep| The
Deep (ὉΠ) is the subterranean ocean on which the earth
rests (Gn. 7! 85 49%, Am. 7! 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 7Z7’amat.
The Heb. narrative is free from mythological associations,
and it is doubtful if even a trace of personification lingers in
the name own. In Babylonian, ¢2’amatu or tamtu is a generic
term for ‘ocean’; and it is conceivable that this literal
sense may be the origin of the Heb. conception of the Deep
(see p. 47).—The Spirit of God was brooding] not, as has
sometimes been supposed, a wimd sent from God to dry
probable.—own] is undoubtedly the philological equivalent of Bab.
T?aGmat: a connexion with Ar. 7zhdmat, the Red Sea littoral province
(Hoffmann in ZATW, iii. 118), is more dubious (see Lane, 320b,c;
Jensen, 118, vi. 1, 560). In early Heb. the word is rare, and always
(with poss. exception of Ex. 1558) denotes the subterranean ocean,
which is the source from which earthly springs and fountains are fed
(Gn. 49”, Dt. 33, Am. 74, and so Dt. 87, Gn. 71! 8?(P); cf. Hom. 12.
xxi. 195), and is a remnant of the primal chaos (Gn. 1°, Ps. 1048,
Pr. 857). In later writings it is used of the sea (pl. seas), and even
of torrents of water (Ps. 42°); 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 Ezk. 261),
Though the word is almost confined to poetry (except Gn. 1° 74 85,
Dt. 8’, Am. 75), the only clear cases of personification are Gn. 49%,
Dt. 43,3 (7éhém that coucheth beneath). The invariable absence of the
art. (except with pl. in Ps. 106%, Is. 63:3) proves that it is a proper
name, but zo? that it is a personification (cf. the case of Six). On the
other hand, it is noteworthy that o7n, unlike most Heb. names of fluids,
is fem., becoming occasionally masc. only in later times when its primary
sense had been forgotten (cf. Albrecht, ZA7W, xvi. 62): this might be
18 CREATION (P)
up the waters ((9, IEz., 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. Comp. 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 zz the line of the OT doctrine that he is
the source of life (Ps. 33° 1047), yet goes much beyond
the ordinary representation, and occurs only here (possibly
Is. 4015). (2) The image conveyed by the word brooding
(NBN) is generally considered to rest on the widespread
cosmogonic speculation of the world-egg (so even De. and
Di.), 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 deity *
(Gu.), or an abstract principle like the Greek "Ἔρως, the
Phoen. Πόθος, etc.: for this the Heb. writer, true to his
monotheistic faith, substitutes the Spirit of God, and
thereby transforms a ‘‘crude material representation...
into a beautiful and suggestive figure” (Dri. Gen. 5).
due to an original female personification.—n5mp] Gk. Vns. and Ἐ
express merely the idea of motion (ἐπεφέρετο, ἐπιφερόμενον, ferebatur) ;
T° xavin (‘blow’ or ‘breathe’); S 15...;1ο. Jerome (Quest.): ‘‘in-
cubabat sive confovebat in similitudinem volucris ova calore animantis.”’
It is impossible to say whether ‘brood’ or ‘hover’ is the exact image
here, or in Dt. 32!,—the only other place where the Pi. occurs (the
Qal in Jer. 23" may be a separate root), The Syriac vb. has great
latitude of meaning; it describes, e.g., the action of Elisha in laying
himself on the body of the dead child (2 Ki. 4**); 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, 7165. 3886).
*In Polynesian mythology the supreme god Tangaloa is often
represented as a bird hovering over the waters (Waitz-Gerland,
Anthrop. vi. 241).
I. 3, 4 19
The conceptions of chaos in antiquity fluctuate between that of
empty space (Hesiod, Arist. Lucr., etc.) and the ‘rudis indigestaque
moles’ of Ovid (Jez. 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 v.? only the second (which includes the two
elements mentioned) exercises any influence on the subsequent descrip-
tion (for on any view the ‘waters’ of the third must be identical with
the Zéhém 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 Gu.'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, 7éhém: it denotes the space now occupied by the
earth, which being empty leaves nothing but the deep and the
darkness.
3-5. First work: Creation of light. —[And] God
said| On the connexion, see above, pp. 13 ff.; and on the
significance of the fiat, p. 7.—Let there be light| The
thought of light as the first creation, naturally suggested
by the phenomenon of the dawn, appears in several cos-
mogonies; 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 dramat-
ised 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, Gesch. d. Rel.
ii. 295f.). In Is. 457 both light and darkness are creations
of Yahwe, but that is certainly not the idea here. Comp.
Milton’s Parad. Lost, iii. 1 ff.:
Hail, holy Light! offspring of heaven first-born ;
Or, of the Eternal co-eternal beam,” etc.
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. Gu. goes too far in suggesting
that the expression covers a ‘strong anthropomorphism’
3: ὋΝ "ΠῚ corresponds to the j2 1 of subsequent acts.—4. 3 "3 MNF]
20 CREATION (P)
(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 Heb. conceives of a spatial distinction of light
and darkness, each in its own ‘place’ or abode (Jb. 4819).
Even the separate days and nights of the year seem thought
of as having independent and continuous existence (Jb. 3°).
The Heb. mind had thus no difficulty in thinking of the existence of
light before the heavenly bodies. The sun and moon rw/e the day and
night, but light and darkness exist independently of them. It is a mis-
take, 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 (v.°), that are re-
presented as existing before the creation of the sun.
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 τέ 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
with attracted obj.: see G-K. 8 1172; Dav. 8 146.—5. OY in popular
parlance denotes the period between dawn and dark, and is so used
in 5, 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, z.e., from sunrise to sunrise; and this is the prevail-
ing usage of OT (ποι o”). In post-exilic times we find traces of the
reckoning from sunset to sunset in the phrase 01) 72" (νυχθήμερον), Is. 273
34), Est. 416 P regularly employs the form ‘day and night’; and if
Lv. 2532 can be cited as a case of the later reckoning, Ex. 12% is as
clearly in favour of the older (see Marti, EB, 1036; Konig, ZDMG, Ix.
605 ff.). There is therefore no presumption in favour of the less natural
method in this passage.—x7}] Mil'el,to avoid concurrence of two accented
syll. nbsb] (also Mil'el) a reduplicated form ("4 ; cf. Aram. xo): see
Néldeke, Mand. Gr. ὃ 109; Pratorius, ZATW, iii. 218; Kon. ii. ὃ 526.
—nrnx ov] ‘a first day,’ or perhaps better ‘one day.’ On Ἴπν as ord. see
G-K. §§98 a, 1342; Dav. § 38, &. 1; but cf. Wellh. Prol.® 387.
I. 5, 6 21
sunset to sunset (Tu. Gu. Ben. 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 (De. Di. Ho. al.). One
must not overlook the majestic simplicity of the statement.
The interpretation of 0” as gon, a favourite resource of harmonists
of science and revelation, is opposed to the plain sense of the passage,
and has no warrant in Heb. usage (not even Ps. go4). It is true that
the conception of successive creative periods, extending over vast spaces
of time, is found in other cosmogonies (De. 55); but it springs in part
from views of the world which are foreign to the OT. 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 zons in his mind, he would hardly have missed
the opportunity of stating how many millenniums each embraced.
6-8. Second work: The firmament.—The second
fiat calls into existence a firmament, whose function is to
divide the primeval 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”
(Ps. 104%, Am. 96) supported by ‘‘ pillars” (Jb. 2611), and
resembling in its surface a ‘‘molten mirror” (Jb. 3718).
Above this are the heavenly waters, from which the rain
descends through ‘‘ windows” or ‘‘ doors” (Gn. 7" 83, 2 Ki.
72.19) opened and shut by God at His pleasure (Ps. 78”).
The general idea of a forcible separation of heaven and earth
6. wr] (Gk στερέωμα, PD firmamentum) a word found only in Ezk., P,
Ps. 19?150!, Dn. 12°. The absence of art. shows that it is a descriptive
term, though the only parallels to such a use would be Ezk, 17% 351. rol
(cf. Phoen. ypto=‘ dish’ [Blechschale]: CIS, i. go; see Lidzb. 370, 421).
The idea is solidity, not thinness or extension: the sense ‘beat thin’
belongs to the Pi. (Ex. 39° etc.) ; and this noun is formed from the Qal,
which means either (intrans,) to ‘stamp with the foot’ (Ezk. 6"), or
22 CREATION (P)
is widely diffused; it is perhaps embodied in our word
‘heaven’ (from heave ?) and O.E. ‘lift.’ A graphic illustra-
tion 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 Je. A7ZO?, 7).* But the
special form in which it appears here is perhaps not fully
intelligible apart from the Bab. creation-myth, and the
climatic phenomena on which it is based (see below, p. 46).
Another interpretation of the firmament has recently been propounded
(Winckler, Himmels- u. Weltenbild, 25 ff.; ATZLO*, 164, 174) which
identifies it with the Bab. $upuk Samé, and explains both of the Zodiac.
The view seems based on the highly artificial Bab. theory of a point-
for-point correspondence between heaven and earth, according to which
the Zodiac represents a heavenly earth, the northern heavens a heavenly
heaven (atmospheric), and the southern a heavenly ocean. But what-
ever be the truth about Supuk Samé, such a restriction of the meaning
of y’pr is inadmissible in Heb. In Ps. τοῦ, Dn. 12° it might be possible ;
but even there it is unnecessary, and in almost every other case it is
absolutely excluded. It is so emphatically in this chapter, where the
firmament is zamed heaven, and birds (whose flight is not restricted to 10°
on either side of the ecliptic) are said to fly ‘in front of the firmament.’
9, 10. Third work: Dry land and sea.—The shore-
less lower ocean, which remained at the close of the second
(trans.), ‘stamp firm,’ ‘consolidate’ (Is. 42° etc.). It is curious that
the vb. is used of the creation of the earth, never of heaven, except
Jb. 37!8.—$ 20°] on ptep. expressing permanence, see Dri. 7. § 135,
5.—d7'2: Kon. S. § 319n.—532"] @& supplies as subj. ὁ 6e5s.—7. 13 πὴ}
transposed in (ἃ to end of v.°, its normal position,—if indeed it be not
a gloss in both places (We.).—8. (ἃ also inserts here the formula of
approval: on its omission in Heb., see above, pp. 8, 9.
9. 17] in this sense, only Jer. 41. For opp read with G& mpn=
‘gathering-place,’ as in v.!% Nestle (7717, 3) needlessly suggests
for the latter 1992, and for np’, 73.—nnA>] not ‘from under’ but simply
‘under’ (see v.!°); G—-K. § 119 c?.—nx 7m] juss. unapocopated, as often
near the principal pause ; G-K. 8 1oga.—At the end of the v. G@ adds:
καὶ συνήχθη τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ els τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτών Kal ὥφθη
ἡ ξηρά : 1.6. apa RIAL OMMpO>y On noAD WwW ow NR. The addition is
adopted by Ball, and the pl. αὐτῶν proves at least that it rests on a
Heb. original, ὕδωρ being sing. in Greek (We.).—10. o:] the pl. (cf.
* Comp. also the Maori myth reported in Waitz, Anthrop. vi. 245 ff. ;
Lang, Custom and Myth, 45 ff.
I. 7-11 23
day, is now replaced by land and sea in their present con-
figuration. The expressions used: gathered together...
appear—seem to imply that the earth already existed as a
solid mass covered with water, as in Ps. 104°°8; but Di.
thinks the language not inconsistent with the idea of a
muddy mixture of earth and water, as is most naturally
suggested by v.?. Henceforth the only remains of the
original chaos are the subterranean waters (commonly called
Téhém, but in Ps. 242 ‘sea’ and ‘streams’), and the
circumfluent ocean on which the heaven rests (Jb. 26", Ps.
139°, Pr. 857), of which, however, earthly seas are parts.
We.’s argument, that vv.©! are the account of a single work
(above, p. 9f.), is partly anticipated by IEz., 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 7>x” as plup., and assign vv.*1° 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.
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 powers
—a recognition of the principle of development not to be
explained as a mere imparting of the power of annual
renewal (Di.); see to the contrary v.’? compared with v.*4.
—11. Let the earth produce verdure] SY means ‘fresh
young herbage,’ and appears ere to include all plants in
Gn. 49", Dt. 33%, Ps. 465 [where it is construed as sing.] 24? etc.) is
mostly poetic and late prose; it is probably not numerical, but pl. of
extension like 09, o%2¥, and therefore to be rendered as sg.
II. xvi NvIB] lit. ‘vegetate vegetation,’ the noun being acc. cognate
with the vb.—’p is ἀπ. λεγ. ; on the pointing with Meztheg (Baer-De. p. 74)
see K6n. i. § 42, 7. & (222) must have read xsin as v.!2,—wxv3
avy] (ἃ (βοτάνην χόρτου) and Ἔ 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 Ex. 9” 10)? 15 (all J), and the reasons for rejecting the other are, first,
24 CREATION (P)
the earliest stages of their growth; hence the classification
of flora is not ¢hreefold—grass, herbs, trees (Di. Dri. al.)—
but ¢wofold, the generic xw7 including the two kinds ἰὼν
and /'¥ (De. Gu. Ho. etc.). The distinction is based on the
methods of reproduction; the one kind producing seed
merely, the other fruit which contains the seed.—The v.
continues (amending with the help of (&): grass producing
seed after tts kind, and fruit-tree producing fruit in which
(z.e. the fruit) zs zts (the tree’s) seed after its (the tree’s)
kind.—after its kind] v.t.—upon the earth] comes in very
awkwardly ; it is difficult to find any suitable point of attach-
ment except with the principal verb, which, however, is too
remote.
14-19. Fifth work: The heavenly luminaries. —
On the parallelism with the first day’s work see above,
p. 8f. The vv. describe only the creation of sun and
moon; the clause and the stars in v.1® appears to be an
the absence of } before 1vy ; and, second, the syntactic consideration that
xv as cognate acc. may be presumed to define completely the action
of the vb.—xv denotes especially fresh juicy herbage * (Pr. 27%) and
those grasses which never to appearance get beyond that stage. wy,
on the other hand (unlike '3), is used of human food, and therefore
includes cultivated plants (the cereals, etc.) (Ps. 104!4).—yy] read py
with αὐ Χ 3, and 3 Heb. MSS (Ball).—125, 19325] On form of suff.
see G-K. 8 o91d. (ἃ in v.! inserts the word after yu (rendering
strangely κατὰ γένος καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα,--,απά so v.}), and later in the v.
(κατὰ yév. els Ou.) transposes as indicated in the translation above.—}p]
a characteristic word of P, found elsewhere only in Dt. 141% 15-18 (from
Lv. 11), and (dubiously) Ezk. 471°, everywhere with suff. The etymology
is uncertain. If connected with Anon (form, likeness), the meaning
would be ‘form’ (Lat. sfeczes); but in usage it seems to mean simply
‘kind,’ the sg. suff. here being distributive: ‘according to its several
kinds.” In Syr. the corresponding word denotes a family or tribe.
For another view, see Frd. Delitzsch, Pro/. 143 f.—12. xsim] One is
tempted to substitute the rare swam as in v.! (so Ball).—After py G&
adds 5: Ball deletes the "15 in ν.}},
14. MND "50 (|| DN "πὸ in v.3), On the breach of concord, see G-K.
§1450; Dav. §1134.—7sN»d] a late word, is used of heavenly bodies in
Ezk. 32°, Ps. 7418; it never means ‘lamp’ exactly, but is often applied
collectively to the seven-armed lampstand of the tabernacle; once it is
* In Ar. this sense is said to belong to ‘wsd, but Heb. 1¥y has no such
restriction.
I, 12-14 25
addition (v.z.). The whole conception is as unscientific
(in the modern sense) as it could be—(a) in its geocentric
standpoint, () 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 (Ju. 5”,
Is. 4075, Jb. 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.z.). It is possible, as Gu. 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
ees, etc. Comp. Jb. 38°, Ps. 136’ (Jer. 31). It is
noteworthy that this is the only work of creation of which
the purpose is elaborately specified.—luminaries (M>li]s)]
z.e. bearers or embodiments of light. The word is used
most frequently of the sevenfold light of the tabernacle
used of the eyes (Pr. 1.53), and once of the divine countenance (Ps. οοδ).
—'wn y’pr3] the gen. is not partitive but explicative: Dav. ὃ 24 (a).—G
inserts at this point: els φαῦσιν τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἄρχειν THs ἡμέρας κ. τ. νυκτὸς,
xat.—nnxd] In Jer. 10? ὈΘΨΠ mnx 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.* If we take nk 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 1=4o0th
. and (“‘as signs, both for [sacred] seasons and for days and
years’’): others by a hendiadys (‘‘ signs of seasons"). It would be less
* The prophetic passages cited by Dri. (Gen. 10') all contemplate
a reversal of the order of nature, and cannot safely be appealed to as
illustrations of its normal functions.
26 CREATION (P)
(Ex. 25% etc.),; and to speak of it as expressing a markedly
prosaic view of the subject (Gu.) is misleading.—zz the
jirmament, etc.] moving in prescribed paths on its lower
surface. This, however, does not justify the interpretation
of yp as the Zodiac (above, p. 22).—to separate between
the day, etc.|._ Day and night are independent entities ; but
they are now put under the zwle of the heavenly bodies,
as their respective spheres of influence (Ps. 121°).—/or s7gus
and for seasons, etc.| D°1YV2 (seasons) appears never (certainly
not in P) to be used of the natural seasons of the year
(Ho. 2", Jer. 8’ are figurative), but always of a time con-
ventionally agreed upon (see Ex. 9°), or fixed by some
circumstance. The commonest application is to the sacrea
seasons of the ecclesiastical year, which are fixed by the
moon (cf. Ps. 104). If the natural seasons are excluded,
this seems the only possible sense here; and P’s predilection
for matters of cultus makes the explanation plausible.—
nnx (signs) is more difficult, and none of the explanations
given is entirely satisfactory (v.z.).—16. for dominion over the
day . . . night] in the sense explained above; and so ν. 8.
—and the stars) Since the writer seems to avoid on prin-
ciple 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.z.). 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
(Dus):
The laboured explanation of the purposes of the heavenly bodies is
confused, and suggests overworking (Ho.). The clauses which most
excite suspicion are the two beginning with vm (the difficult > and
loae) s note in particular the awkward repetition of 1 noxos. The
violent to render the first 1 und zwar (videlicet): ‘as signs, and that
for seasons,” etc. ; see BDB, s. 11. b, where some of the examples come,
at any rate, very near the sense proposed. Olshausen arrives at the
same sense by reading ‘19> simply (47BA, 1870, 380).—16. ‘27 ns] Dri.
(Hebr. 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, $7323] On the comp. sheva see
K6n. i. § 10, 6e.
I, 16-20 27
functions are stated with perfect clearness in 1618: (a) to give light
upon the earth, (δ) to rule day and night, and (c) to separate light from
darkness. I am disposed to think that ” was introduced as an ex-
position of the idea of the vb. 5vn, and that %* was then added to
restore the connexion. Not much importance can be attached to the
insertions of @& (v.i.), which may be borrowed from ν. 175,
20-23. Sixth work: Aquatic and aérial 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 Gu. to surmise that
two originally separate works have been combined in order
to bring the whole within the scheme of six days. Ben.
(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 Ra. and IEz.
on 219). The conjecture is attractive, and the construction
has the support of all Gk. Vns. and 3); but it is not certain
that the verb can mean “" produce a swarm.” More prob-
ably (in connexions like the present: see Ex. 7% [J]
[EV 83], Ps. 105°) the sense is simply teem with, indicating
the place or element in which the swarming creatures
abound, in which case it cannot possibly govern iy as obj.—
rw has a sense something like ‘vermin’: z.e. it never
denotes ‘a swarm,’ but is always used of the creatures that
20. pw... sw] Onsynt. see Dav. § 73, Κ᾿. 2. The root has in Aram,
the sense of ‘creep,’ and there are many passages in OT where that
idea would be appropriate (Lv. 11% 41:55 etc.) ; hence Rob. Smith (RS,
293), ‘creeping vermin generally.’ But here and Gn. 87 9’, Ex. 177%,
Ps. 105 it can only mean ‘teem’ or ‘swarm’; and Dri. (Gem. 12) is
probably right in extending that meaning to all the pass. in Heb.
Gn, 1%, Ex. 7%, Ps. 105° are the only places where the constr. with
cog. acc, appears; elsewhere the animals themselves are subj. of the
vb, The words, except in three passages, are peculiar to the vocabulary
of P.—But for the fact that pw never means ‘swarm,’ but always
‘ swarming thing,’ it would be tempting to take it as st. constr. before
mn wp) (Gr, Aq. B). As itis, "π΄. has all the awkwardness of a gloss
(see 213). The phrase is applied once to man, 27? (J); elsewhere
to animals,—mostly in P (Gn. 12) 35. 80 g}0 15. 1δ. 106. Ty, 1110 48 etc. ),—
AD? yn] The order of words as in v.™* (37 7)ym), due to emphasis on
the new subj. The use of descriptive impf. (Gi, Aq. SOP) is mostly
poetic, and for reasons given above must here be refused.—35 2y]=‘in
28 CREATION (P)
appear in swarms (v.z.).—0 WB] lit. ‘living soul’; used
here collectively, and with the sense of W5) weakened,
as often, to ‘individual’ or ‘being’ (ct. v.*° and see on
2’), The creation of the aquatic animals marks, according
to OT 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] z.e. in the atmosphere,
for which Heb. has no special name.—2I1. created] indis-
tinguishable from made in v.”.—the great sea monsters| The
introduction of this new detail in the execution of the fiat
is remarkable. 02°37 here denotes actual marine animals;
but this is almost the only passage where it certainly bears
that sense (Ps. 148’). There are strong traces of mythology
in the usage of the word: Is. 27! 519 (Gu. Schdpf. 30-33),
Ps. 74 (?); and it may have been originally the name of
a class of legendary monsters like Ti’amat. The mytho-
logical 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 (v.™#-), these living beings are endowed
with the right of self-propagation by a separate act—a
benediction (see v.*). The distinction is natural.—dée
fruitful, etc.| ‘‘There is nothing to indicate that only a
front of’: see BDB, 5. m5, II. 7, a,—@& inserts 13 "ΠῚ at the end of the
v.—2I. ovina] It is naturally difficult to determine exactly how far the
Heb. usage of the word is coloured by mythology. The important
point is that it represents a power hostile to God, not only in the pass.
cited above, but also in Job 72. There are resemblances in the Ar.
tinnin, a fabulous amphibious monster, appearing now on land and now
in the sea (personification of the waterspout? AS’, 176), concerning
which the Arabian cosmographers have many wonderful tales to relate
(Mas iidi, i. 263, 266 ff.; Kazwini, Ethé’s tr. i. 270 ff.). Ra., 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
(comp. En. 607%, 4 Esd. 6%, Ber. R. c. 7).*—'n7 wera ne] Cf. 9”,
* In Bab. tanninu is said to be a mythological designation of the
earth (Jen. Aosm. 161 ; Jer. ATZO*, 136’; King, Cr. Zab. 109"); but that
throws no light on Heb.
I, 21-25 29
single pair of each kind was originally produced” (Ben.) ;
the language rather suggests that whole species, in some-
thing like their present multitude, were created.
24, 25. Seventh work: Terrestrial animals. —
24. Let the earth bring forth living creatures] Nn WD) (again
coll.) is here a generic name for /and animals, being re-
stricted by what precedes—‘ living animals that spring
from the earth.’ Like the plants (v.¥), they are boldly said
to be produced by the earth, their bodies being part of the
earth’s substance (27: 19); this could not be said of fishes in
relation to the water, and hence a different form of ex-
pression had to be employed in v.”°.—The classification of
animals (best arranged in v.”) is threefold: (1) wild
animals, ΚΠ NM (roughly, carnzvora); (2) domesticated
animals, 1272 (herbivora) ; (3) reptiles, W287 WD, including
perhaps creeping insects and very small quadrupeds (see
Dri. DB, 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’ (Jen. AZZ, vi. 1,
42f.; King, Cr. Zab. 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
Ly. 11°; 5. though without art. is really determined by 3 (but see Dri.
T. § 209 (1)).— sw wr] ‘x, acc. of definition, as pq in v.,—22, 15} 5]
highly characteristic of P (only 3 times elsewhere).
24. The distinctions noted above are not strictly observed throughout
the OT. anna(from a root signifying ‘be dumb ’—Ar. and Eth.) denotes
collectively, fivs¢, animals as distinguished from man (Ex. 9” etc.), but
chiefly the larger mammals ; ¢#en, domestic animals (the dumb creatures
with which man has most to do), (Gn. 347° 368 etc.). Of wild animals
specially it is seldom used alone (Dt. 324, Hab. 217), but sometimes with
an addition (77x, πη, 1y:) which marks the unusual reference. As a
noun of unity, Neh. 2’*14, See BDB, s.v.—pyx im] an archaic phrase
in which Ἷ represents the old case ending of the nom., τὲ or um (G-K.
8 90%). So Ps. 795; wn in other combinations Is. 56°, Zeph. 24,
Ps. 104"; Ps. 50! 104%, In sense it is exactly the same as the
commoner fp y7 nin (1780 05. 10 ete,), and usually denotes w7/d animals,
though sometimes animals in general (ζῶον). ---δ and pw naturally
overlap ; but the first name is derived from the manner of movement,
and the second from the tendency to swarm (Dri. /.c.).
30 CREATION (P)
vv.2-%8 is surprising, but it is idle to speculate on the
reason.
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 (Gu.). The distinctive features of
this last work are: (a) instead of the simple jussive we
have the cohortative of either self-deliberation or consulta-
tion with other divine beings; (6) 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 pers. pl. has always
been felt.
Amongst the Jews an attempt was made to get rid of it by reading
nyy3 as ptcp. Niph.—a view the absurd grammatical consequences of
which are trenchantly exposed by IEz. The older Christian comm.
generally find in the expression an allusion to the Trinity (so even
Calvin); but that doctrine is entirely unknown to the OT, and cannot
be implied here. In modern times it has sometimes been explained as
pl. of self-deliberation (Tu.), or after the analogy of the ‘we’ of royal
edicts ; but Di. has shown that neither is consistent with native Heb.
idiom. Di. himself regards it as based on the idea of God expressed by
the pl. ods, as ‘the living personal synthesis of a fulness of powers
and forces’ (so Dri.); but that philosophic rendering of the concept of
deity appears to be foreign to the theology of the OT.
26. 13n1273 ynbs3] (ἃ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ἡμέτεραν καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν. Mechilta
(see above, p. 14), gives as @k’s reading m1 0>s2.—On the 3 ‘of a
model,’ cf. Ex. 25%; BDB, s.v. III. 8.—nbs] Ass. salmu, the technical
expression for the statue of a god (1:4 73, 476%); Aram. and Syr. xpbs,
= ‘image’; the root is not galima, ‘be dark,’ but possibly sa/ama, ‘cut
off’ (Néldeke, ZATW, xvii. 185 f.). The idea of ‘pattern’ or ‘model’
is confined to the P pass. cited above; it stands intermediate between
the concrete sense just noted (an artificial material reproduction:
1 Sa. 6° etc.) and another still more abstract, viz. ‘an unreal sem-
blance’ (Ps. 39’ 73°°).—min1 is the abstr. noun resemblance; but also
used concretely (2 Ch. 43, like Syr. {Zako»); Ar. dumyat = ‘ effigy.’
The 1is radical (form nypq, cf. Ar.); hence the ending m is no proof of
Aramaic influence (We. Prol.® 388); see Dri. JPA. xi. 216.—pox7>33)]
Ins. nig with 3 (v.s.). Other Vns. agree with MT.
I. 26 21
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: cf. 3% 117, Is. 68, 1 Ki. 221% (so Philo, Ra. IEz.
De. Ho. Gu. Ben. al.). Di. objects to this interpretation,
first, that it ascribes to angels some share in the creation of
man, which is contrary to scriptural doctrine ; * and, second,
that the very existence of angels is nowhere alluded to by
P 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, p. 46), where a
polytheistic view of man’s origin found expression, This
would naturally be replaced in a Heb. recension by the idea
of a heavenly council of angels, as in 1 Ki. 22, Jb. 1, 387,
Dn. 415 71° etc. That P 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 v.
(εἰκών, ad imaginem) is employed. To speak of it, there-
fore, as ‘‘the distinctive feature of the Bible doctrine con-
cerning 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 (Di.). The idea in this
precise form is in the OT peculiar to P (5)? 09°); the con-
ception, but not the expression, appears in Ps. 86; later
biblical examples are Sir. 17°%-, WS. 27 (where the ‘image’
is equivalent to immortality), 1 Co. 117, Col. 3!°, Eph. 4535,
15 τὸ
The origin of the conception is probably to be found in the Baby-
lonian mythology. Before proceeding to the creation of Ea-bani,
Aruru forms a mental image (zzkrw: see Jen. AJB, vi. 1, 4o1f.) of
the God Anu (zd, 120, 1. 33); and similarly, in the Descent of IStar,
*Comp. Calvin: ‘‘Minimam vero tam preclari operis partem
Angelis adscribere abominandum sacrilegium est.”
32 CREATION (P)
Ea forms a stkru in his wise heart before creating AsiSunamir (2b. 86.
1. 11). In both cases the reference is obviously to the bodily form of
the created being. See, further, KAZ*, 506; ATLO*, 167.
The patristic and other theological developments of the doctrine
lie beyond the scope of this commentary ; * 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 P, who alone uses
the expression, knows nothing of a Fall, and in 9° employs the term,
without any restriction, of post-diluvian mankind. (2) The distinction
between εἰκών (zmago) and ὁμοίωσις (similitudo)—the former referring to
the essence of human nature and the latter to its accidents or its en-
dowments by grace—has an apparent justification in (τ, which inserts
καί between the two phrases (see below), and never mentions the
‘likeness’ after 1°; so that it was possible to regard the latter as
something belonging to the divine idea of man, but not actually con-
ferred at his creation. The Heb. affords no basis for such speculations:
cf. 51:5. o®.—(3) The view that the divine image consists in dominion
over the creatures (Greg. Nyss., Chrysostom, Socinians, etc.) is still
defended by Ho. ; but it cannot be held without an almost inconceiv-
able 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 (cf. Ps. 8%, Sir. τη} ἡ). (ἢ 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 OT theology; and it is
certainly strongly suggested by a comparison of 5° with 5'. God is
expressly said to have a ‘form’ which can be seen (πῆρῃ, Nu. 128,
Ps. 171°); the OT 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 ques-
tioned if the idea of a spiritual zage was within the compass of Heb.
thought. Di., 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 ex-
pression and organ of mind, and inseparable from spiritual qualities. +}
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.t—Note the striking parallel in Ovid, Jez. i.
76 ff.
Man (818) is here generic (the human race), not the
* A good summary is given by Zapletal, Alttestamentliches, 1-15.
+ So Augustine, De Gen. cont. Man. τ. 17: ‘‘Ita intelligitur per
animum maxime, attestante etiam erecta corporis forma, homo factus
ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei.”’
$¢ Cf. Engert, Die Weltschipfung, 33.
I. 27—29 33
proper name of an individual, as 5%. Although the great
majority of comm. 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 (Tu. and Ben.).—/jish of the sea,
etc.| The enumeration coincides with the classification of
animals already given, except that ¢he earth occurs where
we should expect wld beast of the earth. "0 should
undoubtedly be restored to the text on the authority of §.—
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
Ps. 8 (Gu.).—male and female] The persistent idea that
man as first created was bi-sexual and the sexes separated
afterwards (mentioned by Ra. as a piece of Haggada,
and recently revived by Schwally, ARW, ix. 172ff.), is
far from the thought of the passage. — 28. A benedic-
tion is here again the source of fertility, but this time also
of dominion: Gu. regards this as another fragment of a
hymn.
29-31. The record of creation closes with another (tenth)
27. 5.3] (ἃ om. The curious paraphrase of Σ᾿ appears to reflect
the Ebionite tendency of that translator: ἐν εἰκόνι διαφόρῳ ὄρθιον ὁ θεὸς
ἔκτισεν αὐτόν (Geiger, Jud. Zischr. f. Wiss. u. Leben, i. 4ot.). See,
however, Nestle, 2727, 3f., who calls attention to the ὄρθιον in (ἃ of
1 Sa. 2815, and considers this word the source of the idea that the upright
form of man is part of the divine image. But (ἃ in τ Sa. probably
misread jp! as 4p1.—ink] constructio ad formam: on& constr. ad sensum,
os being collective: see G-K. § 132.¢.—72p 121] The phrase confined to
P except Dt. 4°; ‘1 alone in Jer. 317 (a gloss?). Although the applica-
tion to a single pair of individuals predominates in the Law, the coll.
sense is established by Gn. 7'*, and is to be assumed in some other cases
(Nu. 58 etc.). Onits etymology see Ges. 7h., s.v., and (for a different
view) Schwally, ZATW, xi. 181f.—28. 095 ox] G λέγων ; perhaps
original, —7v12)] The only instance of a verbal suff. in this chapter: a
strong preference for expression of acc. by nx with suff. is characteristic
of the style of Ρ (We. Pol.§ 389).—nwnin] ptcp. with art. =relativecl.: see
Dav. § 99, 8. 1. The previous noun is defined by 52, as in v.”! (ax inserts
the art.).—After nw S$ read ππ33) (so Ball). @& has for the end of the
ν. : καὶ πάντων τῶν κτηνῶν καὶ πάσης τῆς γῆς καὶ πάντων [τῶν ἑρπετῶν] τῶν
ἑρπόντων ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.
29. ‘nni] = ‘I give’; Dav. § 406; Dri. 7. § 13.—yv (over Athnach)]
3
34 CREATION (P)
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 9%, 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 P’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 (6) fruit-bearing trees; to the latter
all the greenness of herbage, t.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 chs. 2.
3, where man is made to live on fruit alone, and only as
part of the curse has herbs (vy) assigned to him.—31. The
account closes with the divine verdict of approval, which
wrongly omitted by @.—a$ax] found only in P and Ezk., and always
preceded by ἢ. It is strictly fem. inf., and perhaps always retains
verbal force (see Dri. /Ph. xi. 217). The ordinary cognate words for
food are $2& and b2xp.—30. ‘2. $251 The construction is obscure. The
natural interpretation is that * expresses a contrast to *—the one
specifying the food of man, the other that of animals. To bring out
this sense clearly it is necessary (with Ew. al.) to insert ‘nn3 before
pr-banx. The text requires us to treat a$2x> mn" 02> in 39. as a paren-
thesis (Di.) and pr~d>nw as still under the regimen of the distant ‘nn3.—
win] Ge ἑρπετῷ τῷ eprovr:.—assimilating.—wp3] here used in its primary
sense of the soul or animating principle (see later on 27), with a marked
difference from vv.” %4,—awy py] so 93,=xw7 ° Ps. 377. py (verdure)
alone may include the foliage of trees (Ex. 10); 7Jva "= ‘grass’ (Nu.
224). The word is rare (6t.); a still rarer form py? may sometimes be
confounded with it (Is. 3777 = 2 Ki. 17°°?).—31. ‘wen ov] The art. with
the num. appears here for the first time in the chap. On the construc-
tion, see Dri. 7. ὃ 209 (1), where it is treated as the beginning of a usage
prevalent in post-biblical Heb., which often in a definite expression uses
the art. with the adj. alone (951737 no33, etc.). Cf. G-K. § 126w (with
footnote); Ho. Hex. 465; Dri. /Ph. xi. 229 f.
I. 30—II. 3 35
here covers a survey of all that has been made, and rises to
the superlative ‘very good.’
Vv. differ significantly in their phraseology from the preceding
sections: thus yi instead of yy (29); yu ya py 12 Wwe pya instead
of the far more elegant 12 yu Wx ἽΒ πῶ py; the classification into beasts,
birds, and reptiles (ct. 39 35); mn w5) of the inner principle of life instead
of the living being as in 4; awy py instead of xv7. These linguistic
differences are sufficient to prove literary discontinuity of some kind.
They have been pointed out by Kraetschmar (Bundesvorstg. 103 f.), who
adds the doubtful material argument that the prohibition of animal food
to man nullifies the dominion promised to him in vv. 38, But his infer-
ence (partly endorsed by Ho.) that the vv. are a later addition to P
does not commend itself; they are vitally connected with 9*, and must
have formed part of the theory of the Priestly writer. The facts point
rather to a distinction in the sources with which P worked,—perhaps
(as Gu. 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.
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? (Gu.). 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.
36 THE SABBATH
I. And all their host] The ‘host of heaven’ (0%297 §2¥)
is frequently mentioned in the OT, and denotes sometimes
the heavenly bodies, especially as objects of worship
(Dt. 4% etc.), sometimes the angels considered as an
organised army (1 Ki. 2219 etc.). The expression ‘host of
the earth’ nowhere occurs; and it is a question whether
the pl. suff. here is not to be explained as a denominatio a
potiori (Ho.), or as a species of attraction (Dri.). If it has
any special meaning as applied to the earth, it would be
equivalent to what is elsewhere called 787 Non (Es: 6? τῆν
Dt. 4316 etc.)—the contents of the earth, and is most
naturally limited to those things whose creation has just
been described.* In any case the verse yields little support
to the view of Smend and We., that in the name ‘ Yahwe
of Hosts’ the word denotes the complex of cosmical forces
(Smend, AT Rel.-gesch. 201 ff.), or the demons in which
these forces were personified (We. AZ. Proph. 77).—2. And
God finished, etc.| The duplication of ν. is harsh, and
I. nas] Lit. ‘host’ or ‘army’; then ‘period of service’ (chiefly
military). (ἃ κόσμος and BD ornatus look like a confusion with *3y. Used
of the host of heaven, Dt. 415 17, Is. 24?! 40%, where D has in the first
case astra, in the others militia; Gr κόσμος in all.—2. $34] For the
alleged negative sense of Piel (see above), examine Nu. 17”, or (with
13) 1 Sa. 108, Ex. 4438 etc.—a2xbp] the word ‘‘used regularly of the
work or business forbidden on the Sabbath (Ex. 20% 1° 357, Jer. 172% *4
al.)”’ (Dri.); or on holy convocations (Ex. 12!6, Lv. 167 2378, Nu. 29’).
It has the prevailing sense of regular occupation or business, as Gen,
394, Jon. 8.— yawn! ] wk S Jub, Ber. R. wen, given as (π᾿5 read-
ing in JZechilta (cf. p.14 above).—naw |] The omission of continued
subj. (275s) might strengthen We.’s contention that the clause is a
gloss (see p. 10 above): it occurs nowhere else in the passage except
possibly 1". The verb naw (possibly connected with Ar. sabata = ‘cut
off,’ or Ass. Sabatu=‘cease,’ ‘be completed’: but see KAT, 593f.)
appears in OT in three quite distinct senses: (a) ‘cease to be,’ ‘come
to an end’; (8) ‘ desist’ (from work, etc.); (c) ‘keep Sabbath’ (denom.).
Of the last there are four undoubted cases, all very late: Lv. 257 2353
26%, 2 Ch. 367. But there are five others where this meaning is at
least possible: Gn. 253, Ex. 16% 23! 347! 3117; and of these Ex. 23!
3471 are pre-exilic. Apart from these doubtful passages, the sense
* Cf. Neh. 9° ‘‘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.”
Il. 1-3 37
strongly suggests a composition of sources.—on the seventh
day| x read sixth day (so also Jubilees, ii. 16, and Jerome,
Quest.), which is accepted as the original text by many
comm. (Ilg. Ols. Bu. al.).* But s¢xth is so much the easier
reading that one must hesitate to give it the preference.
To take the vb. as plup. (Calv. al.) is grammatically impos-
sible. On We.’s explanation, see above, p. gf. The only.
remaining course is to give a purely negative sense to the
vb. finish: t.e. ‘desisted from,’ ‘did not continue’ (IEz.
De. Di. Dri. al.). The last view may be accepted, in spite
of the absence of convincing parallels.—and he rested] The
idea of NW is essentially negative: cessation of work, not
relaxation (Dri.): see below. Even so, the expression is
strongly anthropomorphic, and warns us against exaggerat-
ing P’s aversion to such representations.;—3. blessed. . .
‘desist’ (δ) is found only in Ho. 74, Jb. 32! (Qal); Ex. 5°, Jos. 22%,
Ezk. 16* 34” (Hiph.) ; of which Ho. 74 (a corrupt context) and Ex. 5°,
alone are ossibly pre-exilic. In all other occurrences (about 46 in all;
9 Qal, 4 Niph., 33 Hiph.) the sense (a) ‘come to an end’ obtains; and
this usage prevails in all stages of the literature from Am, to Dn. ; the
pre-exilic examples being Gn. 8”, Jos. 5! (Ὁ) (Qal); Is. 17° (Niph.);
aeekto, τὸ 2%, Is, 16%(?) 30% Dt. 32%, 2 Ki. 23°41, Jer. 7% 16°
36” (Hiph.). These statistics seem decisive against Hehn’s view (de.
93 ff.) that πϑϑ is originally a denom. from nav, If all the uses are to
be traced to a single root-idea, there can be no doubt that (6) is primary.
But while a dependence of (a) on (8) is intelligible (cf. the analogous
case of 51), ‘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 Heb. vb. 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 Ex. 23” 347! might be early
examples, [A somewhat similar view is now expressed by Meinhold
(ZATW, 1909, 100f.), except that he ignores the distinction between
‘desist’ and ‘come to an end,’ which seems to me important. ]—3. x71
nwy> . . .] The awkward construction is perhaps adopted because x13
could not directly govern the subst. πον. (ἃ has ἤρξατο. . . ποιῆσαι.
* Expressly mentioned as &’s reading in Mechilta: see above, p. 14,
and Geiger, Z.c. 439.
+ In another passage of P, Ex. 311’, the anthropomorphism is greatly
intensified: ‘‘ God rested and refreshed Himself” (lit. ‘took breath’),—
See Jast. (A/7h. ii. 343 ff.), who thinks that God’s ‘resting’ meant
originally ‘‘ His purification after His conquest of the forces hostile to
38 THE SABBATH
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 (Dri.), does not quite bring
out the sense. Both verbs contain the idea of selection and
distinction (cf. Sir. 36 [33] 7®), but they are not synonymous
(Gu.). A blessing is the effective utterance of a good wish ;
applied to things, it means their endowment with per-
manently beneficial qualities (Gn. 2777, Ex. 23%, Dt. 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.
The origin of the Hebrew Sabbath, and its relation to Babylonian
usages, raise questions too intricate to be fully discussed here (see Lotz,
Quest. de hist. Sabbati [1883]; Jastrow, A/Th. ii. [1808], 312 ff. ; KAT,
592 ff.; Dri. DB, s.v., and Gen. 34; Sta. 871. ὃ 88, 2). The main
facts, however, are these: (1) The name Sad[f]attu occurs some five or
six times in cuneiform records; but of these only two are of material
importance for the Sabbath problem. (a) Ina syllabary (II R. 32, 16a, b)
Sabattu is equated with 2m nt 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 (Jen. ZA,
iv. 274ff.; Jast. 2.6. 316f.). (4) In a tablet discovered by Pinches in
1904, the name Sapaztu is applied to the fifteenth day of the month (as
full-moon-day ?) (Pin. PSBA, xxvi. 51 ff. ; Zimmern, ZDMG, lviii. 199 ff.,
458ff.). (2) The only trace of a Babylonian zmstitution at all resembling
the Heb. Sabbath is the fact that in certain months of the year (Elul,
Marche&van, but possibly the rest as well) the 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th
days, and also the 19th (probably as the 7x 7th from the beginning of
the previous month), had the character of dies nefastt (‘lucky day, un-
the order of the world,” and was a survival of the mythological idea of
the appeasement of Marduk’s anger against Ti’dmat. The vb, there
used is n@@u, the equivalent of Heb. m3, used in Ex. 201,
II. 3, 4A 39
lucky 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 Sabattu ;
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 (Sabbath u. Woche
im AT [1905], and more recently [1909], ZA TW, xxix. 81 ff.), developing
a hint of Zim., has constructed an ingenious hypothesis on the assump-
tion that in Bab. Sabattu 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 (Am. 8°, Hos. 21%, Is. 138, 2 Ki. 4%); and concludes
that in early Israel, as in Bab., the Sabbath was the full-moon festival
and nothing else. The institution of the weekly Sabbath he traces toa
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 Dt. 16°;
cf. Ex. 34”), and in the establishment of the sabbatical year (Lv. 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
Bab. institutions. It is hard to suppose that there is no historical con-
nexion between the Heb. Sabbath and the dies nefasti of the Bab.
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 (8) in the transformation of a day of superstitious re-
strictions into a day of joy and rest. Of these changes, it must be
confessed, no convincing explanation has yet been found. The estab-
lished 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 τι.
Sabbat, 91 ff., esp. 114 ff. ; cf. Gordon, ZTG, 216 ff.
4a. These are the generations, etc.| The best sense that
can be given to the expression is to refer the pronoun to
4a. min] only in pl. const. or with suff.; and confined to P, Ch.
and Ru. 418, Formed from Hiph. of 1, it means properly ‘begettings' ;
not, however, as noun of action, but concretely (=‘ progeny’); and this
is certainly the prevalent sense. The phrase ‘n’sx (only P [all in Gn.
except Nu. 3'], 1 Ch. 1%, Ru. 418) means primarily ‘“‘ These are the
descendants”; but since a dist of descendants is a genealogy, it is
practically the same thing if we render, ‘‘This is the genealogica]
register.” In the great majority of instances (Gn. [5}] τοὶ 117° 117 25"
40 THE SABBATH
what precedes, and render the noun by ‘origin’: ‘This is
the origin of,’ etc. But it is doubtful if mtn 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
P; and in that document it invariably stands as introduction to the
section following. But in this case the next section (2*-4%) belongs
to J; and if we pass over the J passages to the next portion of P (ch. 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 P’s narrative has been dropped, the attempt to
treat 2“ 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 P’s account
361 9, τ Ch. 1%, Ru. 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: Gn. 6° 25!% 37°.
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 37? may not have
been originally followed by a genealogy (such as 3572>-*6 or 46°?” [see
Hupfeld, Quellen, 102-109, 213-216]) which was afterwards displaced
in the course of redaction (see p. 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” (G-B.
s.U.), or ‘an account of a man and his descendants’’(BDB). The natural
hypothesis would then be that a series of nin formed one of the sources
employed by P in compiling his work: the introduction of this genea-
logical document is preserved in 5! (so Ho.); the recurrent formula
represents successive sections of it, and 2“ 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 7 δ δαδέλ, sometimes under those of
his father; and it is difficult otherwise to account for the omission
of the formula before 12! or for its insertion in 36%. On the whole, this
theory seems to explain the facts better than the ordinary view that
the formula was devised by P to mark the divisions of the principal
work. —ox11'13] ‘in their creation’ or ‘when they were created.’ If the
lit. minusc. has critical significance (Tu. Di.) the primary reading was
inf. Qal (ox733); and this requires to be supplemented by o75x as subj.
It is in this form that Di, thinks the clause originally stood at the begin-
ning of Gen. (see on 11). But the omission of ox and the insertion
of the 7 mznusc. are no necessary consequences of the transposition of
the sentence ; and the small 7 may be merely an error in the archetypal
MS, which has been mechanically repeated in all copies.
II. 4a 41
of the creation.* But this theory also is open to serious objection. It
involves a meaning of nbn which is contrary both to its etymology and
the usage of P (see footnote). Whatever latitude of meaning be as-
signed to the word, it is the fact that in this formula it is always followed
by gen. 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, Or. ii, 38 ff., and Ho.). And even if that difficulty could be
overcome (see Lagarde), generation is a most unsuitable description of
the process of creation as conceived by ἢ. In short, neither as super-
scription 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 Ho. that the formula in this place owes
its origin to a mechanical imitation of the manner of P by a later
hand. The insertion would be suggested by the observation that the
formula divides the book of Gen. into definite sections ; while the advan-
tage 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 ’n in the sense of ‘history’
and referred πὸν to what follows. The analogy of 51, Nu. 3! would
suffice to justify the use of the formula before the ov of *°.—It has
been thought that @& has preserved the original form of the text: viz.
‘yn 18d πὶ (cf. 5'); the redactor having, ‘‘ before inserting a section from
the other document, accidentally copied in the opening words of 5},
which were afterwards adapted to their present position” (Ben.). That
is improbable. It is more likely that Q& deliberately altered the text to
correspond with 51. See Field, Hex., ad loc. ; Nestle, MM, 4.
Babylonian and other Cosmogonies.
1. The outlines of Bab. cosmogony have long been known from two
brief notices in Greek writers: (1) an extract from Berossus (3rd cent.
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 cent. 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 ‘ Chal-
dzean 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 ΚΑΤ, 488 ff.):
(1) Berossus: Γενέσθαι φησὶ χρόνον ἐν ᾧ τὸ πᾶν σκότος Kal ὕδωρ εἶναι,
καὶ ἐν τούτοις ζῶα τερατώδη, καὶ ἰδιοφυεῖς [em. Richt., cod. εἰδιφυεῖς] τὰς
ἰδέας ἔχοντα ζωογονεῖσθαι" ἀνθρώπους γὰρ διπτέρους γεννηθῆναι, ἐνίους δὲ
* On Dillmann’s modification of this theory, see above on 1,
42 BABYLONIAN
kal τετραπτέρους καὶ διπροσώπους" καὶ σῶμα μὲν ἔχοντας ἕν, κεφαλὰς δὲ δύο,
ἀνδρείαν τε καὶ γυναικείαν, καὶ αἰδοῖα 6¢[corr. v. Gutschm., cod. τε] δισσὰ,
ἄῤῥεν καὶ θῆλυ" καὶ ἑτέρους ἀνθρώπους τοὺς μὲν αἰγῶν σκέλη καὶ κέρατα ἔχον-
τας, τοὺς δὲ ἵππου πόδας [corr. v. Gutschm., cod. ἱππόποδας), τοὺς δὲ τὰ
ὀπίσω μὲν μέρη ἵππων, τὰ δὲ ἔμπροσθεν ἀνθρώπων, ods [ὡς ἢ v. Gutschm.]
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 [em. ν. Gutschm., cod. παρηλλαγ-
μένα] τὰς ὄψεις ἀλλήλων ἔχοντα " ὧν καὶ τὰς εἰκόνας ἐν τῷ τοῦ Βηλου ναῷ
ἀνακεῖσθαι, ἄρχειν δὲ τούτων πάντων γυναῖκα 7 ὄνομα ᾽Ὅμορκα [corr. Scaliger,
cod. ὋὉμορωκα] εἶναι" τοῦτο δὲ Χαλδαϊστὶ μὲν Θαμτε [corr. W. R. Smith,
ZA, vi. 339, cod. 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 Ὁ v. Gutschm.] αὐτῇ ζῶα ἀφανίσαι, ἀλληγορικῶς
δέ φησι τοῦτο πεφυσιολογῆσθαι" ὑγροῦ yap ὄντος τοῦ παντὸς καὶ ζώων ἐν αὐτῷ
γεγεννημένων [A]* τοιῶνδε [em. v. Gutschm., cod. τὸν δὲ] Βηλον, ὃν Δία
μεθερμηνεύουσι, μέσον τεμόντα τὸ σκότος χωρίσαι γῆν καὶ οὐρανὸν ἀπ᾽ ἀλλήλων,
καὶ διατάξαι τὸν κόσμον. Ta δὲ ζῶα οὐκ ἐνεγκόντα τὴν τοῦ φωτὸς δύναμιν φθαρ-
var, ἰδόντα δὲ τὸν Βηλον χώραν ἔρημον καὶ ἀκαρποφόρον [em. Gunkel, cod.
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. ᾿Αποτελέσαι δὲ τὸν Βηλον καὶ ἄστρα καὶ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην καὶ
τοὺς πέντε πλανήτας. Ταῦτά φησιν ὁ πολυΐστωρ ᾿Αλέξανδρος τὸν Βηρωσσὸν ἐν
τῇ πρώτῃ φάσκειν [B]* 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.
(2) Damascius: Τῶν δὲ βαρβάρων ἐοίκασι Βαβυλώνιοι μὲν τὴν μίαν τῶν
ὅλων ἀρχὴν σιγῇ παριέναι, δύο δὲ ποιεῖν Ταυθε καὶ ᾽Απασων, τὸν μὲν ᾿Απασων
ἄνδρα τῆς Ταυθε ποιοῦντες, ταύτην δὲ μητέρα θεῶν ὀνομάζοντες, ἐξ ὧν μονογενῆ
παῖδα γεννηθῆναι τὸν ωυμιν, αὐτὸν οἶμαι τὸν νοητὸν κόσμον ἐκ τῶν δυοῖν
ἀρχῶν παραγόμενον. Ἔκ δὲ τῶν αὐτῶν ἄλλην γενεὰν προελθεῖν, Λαχην [cod.
Δαχην] καὶ Λαχον [cod, Δαχον]. Εἶτα αὖ τρίτην ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν, Κισσαρη καὶ
᾽᾿Ἄσσωρον, ἐξ ὧν γενέσθαι τρεῖς, "Avov καὶ Ἴλλινον καὶ Aov* τοῦ δὲ ’Aov καὶ
Δαυκὴς υἱὸν γενέσθαι τὸν Βηλον, ὃν δημιουργὸν εἶναί φασιν. ἢ
* The sections commencing with [A] and [Β] 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. Je. A7ZO*, 134,
plausibly assigns the section from ἀλληγορικῶς to φθαρῆναι to another
recension (restoring [B] to its place in the text).
+ The Greek text of Berossus will be found in Miiller, Fragm. Hist.
Grec. ii. 497 f.; that of Damascius in Damascii philos. de prim. prince.
(ed. Kopp, 1826), cap. 125. For translations of both fragments, see
COSMOGONTES 43
2. The only cuneiform document which admits of close and con-
tinuous comparison with Gn. 1 is the great Creation Epos just referred
to. Since the publication, in 1876, of the first fragments, many lacunz
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, Znuma eli$ (=‘ When
above’).* The actual tablets discovered are not of earlier date than
the 7th cent. 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 out-
line of the contents of the tablets is based on King’s analysis of the
epic into five originally distinct parts (C7, p. Ixvii).
i. The Theogony.—The first twenty-one lines of Tab, I. contain a
description of the primzval 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 primzval Apsu,! who begat them,
And chaos, Ti’damat,? the mother of them both,—
Their waters were mingled together,
Then were created the gods in the midst of (heaven), etc.
First Lahmu and Lahamu,’ then Ansar and Kisar,‘ 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 Bab. pantheon, Anu, Bel, and Ea.°®
1 Damascius, ’ATacwr. 2 Dam. Tavée, Ber. Θαμτε (em., see above).
8. Dam. Λαχη and Aaxos (em.). 4”’Acowpos and Κισσαρη. 5’ Avos,
Ἴλλινος (In-lil= Bel), and ’Aos.
KAT*, 488 ff. ; G. Smith, Chaldean Genesis (ed. Sayce), pp. 34 ff., 43 f.
(from Cory, Ancient Fragments); Gu. Schopf. 17 ff.; Nikel, Gen. τι.
Keilschr, 24 f., 28.
* The best collection and translation of the relevant texts in English
is given in L. W. King’s Seven Tablets of Creation, vol. i. (1902); with
which should be compared Jen. Mythen und Epen, in KTB, vi. 1 (1900),
and now (1909) Gressmann, Altorient. Texte und Bilder z. AT,, i. 4 ff.
See also Jen. Kosmologie (1890), 268-301 ; Gu. Schépf. (1894) 401-420, and
the summaries in KAT7*, 492 ff.; Lukas, Grundbegriffe in d. Kosm. d.
alt. Volker (1893), 2 ff. ; Jast. Rel. of Bab. and Ass. (1898) 410 ff. ; Jer.
ATLO?®, 132 ff.; ZB, art. CREATION.
44 BABYLONIAN
ii. The Subjugation of Apsu by Ea.—The powers of chaos, Apsu,
Tiamat, and a third being called Mummu (Dam. Μωυμις), take counsel
together to ‘destroy the way’ of the heavenly deities. An illegible
portion of Tab. 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. Zhe conflict between Marduk and Tiamat.—Tabs. 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 Tab. 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 con-
fronts 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. Zhe account of creation commences near the end of Tab. 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.?
And the lord measured the structure of the Deep
And he founded E-Sara, a mansion like unto it.
The mansion E-Sara which he created as heaven,
He caused Anu, Bel, and Ea in their districts to inhabit.
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-Sara, or is to be looked for in a lost part of Tab. V., is a point in
dispute (see Jen. Kosm, 185 ff., 195 ff.; and A/B, vi. 1, 344f.). Tab.
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;
1 Ea.
COSMOGONIES 45
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 Tab, V., where legible, contains nothing bearing on the
present subject ; but in Tab. 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.—F rom 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 Tabs.
IV.-VI.
How far, now, does this conception of creation correspond with the
cosmogony of Gn. 1? (1) In both we find the general notion of a watery
chaos, and an etymological equivalence in the names (77'amat, Téhém)
by which it is called. It is true that the Bab. chaos is the subject of a
double personification, Apsu representing the male, and Tiamat the
female principle by whose union the gods are generated. Accord-
ing to Jen. (118, 559f.), 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 (Tab.
I. 5), and by the mixture the gods were produced. But in the sub-
sequent narrative the rdle of Apsu is insignificant ; and in the central
episode, the conflict with Marduk, Tiamat alone represents the power
of chaos, as in Heb. 7éhdm.—(2) In Enuma eli§ the description of
chaos is followed by a theogony, of which there is no trace in Gen.
The Bab. theory is essentially monistic, the gods being conceived as
emanating from a material chaos. Lukas, indeed (/.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 Tab. 1., 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, pp. 7, 15), and at all events
the supremacy of the spiritual principle (Z/ohim) is absolute. Thata
46 BABYLONIAN
theogony must have originally stood between vv.? and 3 of Gn. 1 (Gu.)
is more than can be safely affirmed. Gu. thinks it is the necessary
sequel to the idea of the world-egg in the end of v.%. 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 Phoenician 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 Bab. 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 primeval chaos. In Lnwma elis the septum is formed from the
body of Tiamat; in Gen. it is simply a 7va&?'a—a solid structure
fashioned tor the purpose. But the common idea is one that could
hardly have been suggested except by the climatic conditions under
which the Bab. myth is thought to have originated. Jen. has shown,
to the satisfaction of a great many writers, how the imagery of the
Bab. 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 Kosm. 307 ff. ; cf. Gu. Schopf. 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 p. 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 (p. 30f.). Here, however, the resemblance is
slight, though the deliberative 1st pers. pl. in Gn. 1% is probably a
reminiscence of a dialogue like that between Marduk and Ea in the
Enuma elig 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
COSMOGONIES 47
naturally by that of the stars. The arrangement of the remaining
works, which must have been mentioned in lost parts of Tabs. 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, C7, lix,
Ixxxvi). Gordon (Zarly Traditions of Gen.) holds that the differences
of arrangement can be reduced to the single transposition of heavenly
bodies and plants (see his table, p. 51).
In view of these parallels, it seems impossible to doubt that the
cosmogony of Gn. 1 rests on a conception of the process of creation
fundamentally identical with that of the Znwma elzs 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.* 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 (¢amtu),
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 reed} 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
ἢ the seed of mankind.
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.
* JRAS, 1891, 393 ff.; translated in King, CZ, 131ff.; KZB, 39 ff.;
ATLO?’, 129 ff.; Texte u. Bilder, i. 27f.; Sayce, Early Israel, 336f.
Cf. the summary in KAT%, 498.
tSo King; but Je. ‘a reed-hurdle’ (Rohrgeflecht); while Jen.
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 447%),
48 PHENICIAN
The main interest of the fragment lies in its non-legendary, matter-of-
fact representation of the primzval condition of things, and of the
process of world-building. Of special correspondences with Gn. 1 there
are perhaps but two: (a) the impersonal conception of chaos implied
in the appellative sense of Zamtu (Téhém) for the sea; (6) 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 Gn, 2; but from that account it is sharply distinguished
by its assumption of a watery chaos in contrast to the arid waste of
Gn. 2°, It is therefore inadmissible to regard this text as a more illumi-
nating parallel to Gn. 1 than the Enwma elis 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 Gn. 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 OT.—
Gu. in his Schépfung 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 7éhdm) ;
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.*
4. The Phoenician cosmogony, of which the three extant recensions
are given below,t hardly presents any instructive points of comparison
* The chief texts are Is. 51%, Ps. So, Jb. 26) (Rahab)icuess
7418 Is. 271 (Leviathan); Jb. γ᾽" (the Dragon), etc. See the discussion
in Schépf. 30-111; and the criticisms of Che. ZB, i. g50f., and Nikel,
PP- 90-99.
+ Eus. Prep. Evang. i. 10 (ed. Heinichen, p. 37 ff.; cf. Orelli, Sanch.
Berytii Fragm. [1826]}, gives the following account of the cosmogony
of Sanchuniathon (a Phoenician writer of unknown date, and even of
uncertain historicity) taken from Philo Byblius:
“ἐπὴν τῶν ὅλων ἀρχὴν ὑποτίθεται ἀέρα ζοφώδη καὶ πνευματώδη, ἢ πνοὴν
ἀέρος ζοφώδους, καὶ χάος θολερὸν, ἐρεβῶδες. Taira 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 I1d00s. Αὕτη δὲ ἀρχὴ κτίσεως
ἁπάντων" αὐτὸ δὲ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκε τὴν αὐτοῦ κτίσιν, καὶ ἐκ τῆς αὐτοῦ συμπλοκῆς
τοῦ πνεύματος, ἐγένετο Mur. Τοῦτό τινές φασιν ἰλύν, οἱ δὲ, ὑδατώδους μίξεως
COSMOGONY 49
with Gn. 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 Gn. 1%. In Sanchuniathon, the union of
‘gloomy, breath-like Air’ with ‘turbid dark Chaos’ produces a miry
watery mixture called Mwr, in which all things originate, and first of all
certain living beings named ‘watchers of heaven’ (o:Dy *98). These
appear to be the constellations, and it is said that they are ‘shaped Jike
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 ᾿Ομίχλη : the two
latter give birth to ’Ajp and Αὔρα, and from the union of these again
σῆψιν. Kal ἐκ ταύτης ἐγένετο πᾶσα σποῤὰ 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
Or.] σχήματι" καὶ ἐξέλαμψε Mar 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 yn καὶ θαλάσσῃ ἄῤῥεν καὶ Ondv.” . . . Ἑξῆς τούτοις ὀνόματα
τῶν ἀνέμων εἰπὼν, Νότου καὶ Βορέου, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν, ἐπιλέγει" ““᾿Αλλ᾽ 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." Kai ἐπιλέγει" ““ Αὗται δ᾽ ἦσαν αἱ ἐπίνοιαι τῆς
προσκυνήσεως, ὅμοιαι τῇ αὐτῶν ἀσθενείᾳ, καί ψυχῆς drodula. Hird φησι
γεγενῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ Κολπία ἀνέμου, καὶ γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ Βάαυ, τοῦτο δὲ νύκτα
ἑρμηνεύειν, Αἰῶνα καὶ IIpwréyovoy θνητοὺς ἄνδρας, οὕτω καλουμένους." . . .
[the sequel on p.124 below].
The other versions are from Eudemos (a pupil of Aristotle) and a
native writer Mochos: they are preserved in the following passage of
Damascius (cap. 125; ed. Kopp, p. 385):
Σιδώνιοι δὲ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν συγγραφέα (i.e. Eudemos) πρὸ πάντων Χρόνον
ὑποτίθενται καὶ ἸΙΠόθον καὶ ᾿Ομίχλην. Πόθου δὲ καὶ ᾿᾽Ομίχλης μιγέντων ὡς δυοῖν
ἀρχῶν ᾿Αέρα γενέσθαι καὶ Αὔραν, ᾿Αέρα μὲν ἄκρατον τοῦ νοητοῦ παραδηλοῦντες,
Αὔραν δὲ τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ κινούμενον τοῦ νοητοῦ ζωτικὸν προτύπωμα. ἸΠάλιν δὲ
ἐκ τούτων ἀμφοῖν ὦτον [rd. ὠὸν] γεννηθῆναι κατὰ τὸν νοῦν οἶμαι τὸν νοητόν.
Ὡς δὲ ἔξωθεν Εὐδήμου τὴν Φοινίκων εὑρίσκομεν κατὰ Μῶχον μυθολογίαν, Αἰθὴρ
ἣν τὸ πρῶτον καὶ ᾿Αὴρ 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 Aly 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.
4
50 COSMOGONIES
proceeds ‘an egg.’ More striking is the expression of the idea in
Mochos. Here the union of Αἰθήρ and ᾿Αήρ produces OdAwpos (odiy), from
which proceed Xovowpos, ‘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 (Ὁ by Xougwpos) 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 primzval 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 Gn. 12,—Another
supposed point of contact is the resemblance between the name Baav
and the Heb. 375, In Sanchuniathon Baav is explained as night, and
is said to be the wife of the Kolpia-wind, and mother of Αἰών and
IIpwréyovos, the first pair of mortals. It is evident that there is much
confusion in this part of the extract; and it is not unreasonably con-
jectured that Alwy and IIpwréyovos 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 Tohfi and Bohfi
in Gn. There is a strong probability that the name Baav is connected
with Bau, a Babylonian mother-goddess (see 47.105, 161); but the
evidence is too slight to enable us to say that specifically Phoenician
influences are traceable in Gn. 1%.
5. A division of creation into six stages, in an order similar to that of
Gn. 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 Gn. 1.
The order is: 1. Heaven; 2. Water; 3. Earth; 4. Plants; 5. Animals;
6. Men. We miss from the enumeration: Light, which in Zoroastrian-
ism is an uncreated element; and the Heavenly bodies, which are said
to belong to an earlier creation (Tiele, Gesch. d. Rel. im Altert. 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, 2.6., and ARW, vi. 244 ff. ; Caland,
TAT, xxiii. 179 ff.).—The most remarkable of all known parallels to the
six days’ scheme of Gn. is found in a cosmogony attributed to the
ancient Etruscans by Suidas (Lexicon, s.v. Tuppnvia). 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. Miller,
Die Etrusker, ii. 38; ATLO?, 154f.). Suidas, however, lived not earlier
than the roth cent. 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,
148-11. .24 51
II. 4b-III. 24.—TZhe Creation and Fall of Man (J).
The passage forms a complete and closely articulated
narrative,* 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 2¢>f had primarily, perhaps, an
independent interest; yet it contains little that is not
directly subservient to the main theme developed in ch. 3.
It is scarcely to be called a cosmogony, for the making of
‘earth and heaven’ (23) 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 (cf. Frankenberg in Gu.? 24). From ch. 1 it
differs fundamentally both in its conception of the primal
condition of the world as an arid, waterless waste (2°: ct.
12), and in the order of creative works: viz. Man ("), Trees
(°), Animals (182°), Woman (773), Alike in this arrange-
ment and in the supplementary features—the garden (δ: !°f.),
the miraculous trees (30), the appointments regarding man’s
position in the world (1-7), and the remarkable omissions
(plants, fishes, etc.)—it is governed by the main episode to
which it leads up (ch. 3), with its account of the temptation
by the serpent (1°), the transgression (* 1), the inquest (8:8),
the sentences (1, 19), and the expulsion from Eden (33:34),
The story thus summarised is one of the most charming idylls in
literature: ch, 3 is justly described by Gu. as the ‘ pearl of Genesis.’
Its literary and esthetic character is best appreciated by comparison
with ch. τ. Instead of the formal precision, the schematic disposition,
the stereotyped diction, the aim at scientific classification, which distin-
guish the great cosmogony, we have here a narrative marked by child-
like 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 (3°), or making experiments for the welfare of His first
creature (2158:), or arriving at a knowledge of man’s sin by a searching
= Cf. especially 28 with (3% 5 2% 2% with 315; 1.17 33. 28b- 15 with
3% ; 219 with 3! 4; 21-28 with 32; (2% with 3%); 2° with 37 1,
52 PARADISE AND THE FALL (J)
examination (3°), 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 OT. 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 Gn. 1-11. Cf. the characterisation in We. Prol.® 302 ff. ; Gu.
Ρ. 22 ff.
Source.—The features just noted, together with the use of the divine
name 77’, show beyond doubt that the passage belongs to the Yahwistic
cycle of narratives (J). Expressions characteristic of this document are
found in nop 214, oyan 23, nxivap 4.8. aw 314-17, payy 316-17, maya 317; and
(in contrast to P) “ν᾽, ‘create,’ instead of 803, 4qw7 n’n instead of prxn‘n,
on now) instead of-’n nn (see on 722); and the constant use of acc. suff.
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 2!"4 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 2!°!4 could not have belonged to it.
At all events the objections urged would apply only to "4; and there
is much to be said, on this assumption, for retaining 10 (or at least 1)
as a parallel to ν.ὅ (Ho.).—(z) 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 Bu. According to 2° 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 ch. 3 (down to v.”!) 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 3°: *4, and its sudden introduction there only creates fresh embarrass-
ment ; for if this tree also was forbidden, the writer’s silence about it in
27 38 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 accumu-
late.—(3) The clearest indication of a double recension is found in the
twofold account of the expulsion from Eden: 4353, Here * and *4
clearly hang together; and 7! are as clearly out of their proper
II. 4B—III. 24 53
position; hence * 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: 2°|| 21° (1-14)
(see above), 8395 (the planting of the garden) ; and ® 1 (the placing
of man in it) ; 2533} 3° (the naming of the woman).—(5) Bu. (Uzg. 232 ff.)
was the first to suggest that the double name onde ma (which is all but
peculiar to this section) has arisen through amalgamation of sources,
His theory in its broader aspects has been stated on p. 3, above; it is
enough here to point out its bearing on the compound name in Gn. 2f.
It is assumed that two closely parallel accounts existed, one of which
(09) employed only ovndx, the other (Ji) only mm. When these were
combined the editor harmonised them by adding ὈΠῸΝ to mm everywhere
in Ji, and prefixing m7 to πον everywhere in J® except in the colloquy
between the serpent and the woman (3'°), where the general name was
felt to be more appropriate.* The reasoning is precarious ; but if it be
sound, it follows that 3° must be assigned to J®; and since these vv.
are part of the main narrative (that which speaks only of the tree
of knowledge), there remain for J) only 3” “4, 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 recen-
sions existed ; in one, the only tree mentioned was the tree of the know-
ledge of good and evil, while the other certainly contained the tree of life
(so v. Doorninck, 7/7, xxxix. 225f.) and possibly both trees ;+ the
former supplied the basis of our present narrative, and is practically
complete, while the second is so fragmentary that all attempt to recon-
struct even its main outlines must be abandoned as hopeless.
*So Gu. A still more complete explanation of this particular point
would be afforded by the somewhat intricate original hypothesis of Bu.
He suggested that the primary narrative (J') in which 77 was regularly
used, except in 431, was re-written and supplemented by J? who sub-
stituted ons for 77; the two narratives were subsequently amalgamated
in rather mechanical fashion by 135, with the result that wherever the
divine names differed both were retained, and where the documents
agreed onbx alone appears (Urg. 233f.). Later in the volume (471 ff.)
the hypothesis is withdrawn in favour of the view that J? contained no
Paradise story at all.—A similar explanation is given by v. Doorninck
(1.6. 239), who thinks the retention of "πον in 3!~° was due to the redactor’s
desire to avoid the imputation of falsehood to Yahwe!
+ The point here depends on the degree of similarity assumed to
have obtained between the two recensions. Gu., who assumes that the
resemblance was very close, holds that in Ji probably both trees were
concerned in the fallof man. But the text gives no indication that in
Ji 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, AR W, x. 355 f.).
54 PARADISE AND THE FALL (J)
4b-7.—The creation of man.—On the somewhat in-
volved construction of the section, see the footnote.—4b.
At the time when Vahwe Elohim made, etc.| The double
name DON M1, which is all but peculiar to Gn. 2f., is
probably to be explained as a result of redactional operations
(v.z.), 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 «αὐ 3) appears again only in Ps. 1485. —
5. there was as yet no bush, etc.) Or (on Di.’s construction)
while as yet there was no, etc. The rare word ΠΝ denotes
elsewhere (21 [E], Jb. 30% 7) a desert shrub (so Syr.,
Arab.); but a wider sense is attested by Ass. and Pheen.
It is difficult to say whether here it means wild as opposed
4b-7. The sudden change of style and language shows that the
transition to the Yahwistic document takes place at the middle of v.14.
The construction presents the same syntactic ambiguity as 11-8 (see the
note there) ; except, of course, that there can be no question of taking Ὁ
as an independent sentence. We may also set aside the conjecture
(We. Prol.® 297 f.; KS, al.) that the clause is the conclusion of a lost
sentence of J, as inconsistent with the natural position of the time
determination in Heb. *> must therefore be joined as prot. to what
follows ; and the question is whether the apod. commences at ὅ (Tu.
Str. Dri. al.), or (with * as a parenthesis) at 7 (Di. Gu. al.). In
syntax either view is admissible ; but the first yields the better sense.
The state of things described in δὲ: 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? directly with 4» is ‘‘to identify a period
(v.°) with a poznt (v.7) of time” (Spurrell).—On the form of apod., see
again Dri. 7. ὃ 78.—4. O02 always emphasises contemporaneousness of
two events (cf. 2!” 3°); the indefiniteness lies in the subst., which often
covers a space of time (=‘ when’: Ex. 6” 324, Jer. 114 etc.).—o’n5x ma]
in Hex. only Ex. 9”; elsewhere 2) Sa." 722") Jon.) 4° sEsi ΘΠ
1 Ch. 1716, 2 Ch. 64. (ἃ uses the expression frequently up to 91", but its
usage is not uniform even in chs. 2. 3. The double name has sometimes
been explained by the supposition that an editor added onbx to the
original 77’ in order to smooth the transition from P to J, or as a hint
to the Synagogue reader to substitute o7>x for mm; but that is scarcely
satisfactory. A more adequate solution is afforded by the theory
of Bu. and Gu., on which see p. 53. Barton and Che. (7BAZ, 99 f.)
take it as a compound of the same type as Melek-AStart, etc., an
utterly improbable suggestion.—5. mw is probably the same as Ass.
Sigtu, from ,/ = ‘grow high’ (Del. Hdwd.), and hence might include
trees, as rendered by $@.—On vy, see on 1}. The gen, πιϑπ, common
1; 4-6 55
to cultivated plants (Hupf. Gu.), or perennials as opposed
to annuals (Ho.).—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 corre-
spond broadly to the Arabian (and Talmudic) contrast
between land watered by the Baal and that watered by
human labour (Rob. Sm. &S?, 96 ff.).—¢o {411 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, 278, both here and v.®, has
probably the restricted sense of ‘ soil,’ ‘arable land’ (cf. 415).
—6. but a flood (or mist, v.2.) 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. (Ra. al., cf. Gu. Che. ZBAJ, 87). But this
appears to neutralise ὅρα, since rain is no longer an indispensable condi-
tion of vegetation. Ho., accordingly, proposes to remove ὃ and to treat
it as a variant of "4, The meaning might be, however, that the flood,
when supplemented by human labour, was sufficient to fertilise the
*idamah, but had, of course, no effect on the steppes, which were de-
pendent onrain. 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.
to both, denotes open country, as opposed sometimes to cities or houses,
sometimes to enclosed cultivated land (De. 96).—On ov with impf. see
G-K. § 107¢; Dri. 7. § 278. The rendering ‘before’ (€ [one of the
deviations mentioned in Mechilta—see on 11] ἘΠ) would imply 073, and
is wrong.—6. 18] Ge πηγή, Ag. ἐπιβλυσμός, B fons, $ |raato, T° κων.
Che. conj. 7k); others ἢν (after Vns.). The word has no etymol. in
Heb., and the only other occurrence (Jb. 367’) is even more obscure than
this. ‘Cloud’ (@) or ‘mist’ is a natural guess, and it is doubtful if it
be anything better. The meaning ‘ flood’ comes from Ass. σα, applied
to the annual overflow of a river (Del. Hdwé.),—note the freq. impf. Gu.
thinks it a technical semi-mythological term of the same order as 7ehdm,
with which Ra. seems to connect it; while IEz. interprets ‘cloud,’ but
confounds the word with 1x, ‘calamity’ (Zeph. 1°); so Aq., who renders
the latter by ἐπιβλυσμός in Pr. 178, Jb. 30!? (see Ber. R. § 13).—On the tenses,
56 PARADISE AND THE FALL (J)
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’ (Che. ZB, 949).
7. Yahwe Elohim moulded man] The verb ἽΝ᾽ (avoided by
P) is used, in the ptcp., of the potter; and that figure under-
lies the representation. An Egyptian picture shows the
god Chnum forming human beings on the potter’s disc
(4120, 146).—The idea of man as made of clay or earth
appears in Babylonian ; but is indeed universal, and pervades
the whole OT.—éreath of life] Omit the art. The phrase
recurs only 7% (J), where it denotes the animal life, and
there is no reason for supposing another meaning here.
‘‘ Subscribere eorum sententiz non dubito qui de animali
hominis vita locum hunc exponunt”’ (Calvin).—man became
a living being| 8) here is not a constituent of human
nature, but denotes the personality as a whole.
The v. has commonly been treated as a locus classicus of OT
anthropology, and as determining the relations of the three elements of
human nature—flesh, soul, spirit—to one another. It is supposed to
see G-K. § 112¢; Dri. 7. § 113, 4(8).—7. ΠΡῚΝ ... 05x] Both words are
of uncertain etymology. The old derivation from the vb. ‘be red’(...
πυῤῥόν: ἐπειδήπερ ἀπὸ τῆς πυῤῥᾶς γῆς φυραθείσης ἐγεγόνει : Jos. Ant. i. 34) is
generally abandoned, but none better has been found to replace it (recent
theories in Di. 53f.). According to Néldeke (ZDMG, xl. 722), ox
appears in Arab. as ‘dnam (cf. Haupt, 7d. Ixi. 194). Frd. Del.’s view,
that both words embody the idea of tillage, seems (as Di. says) to rest
on the ambiguity of the German bawen ; 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.—n5y] Acc. of material, G-K. §117 2k. Gu. regards
it as a variant to πον Π from J/.—in wa] This appears to be the only
place where the phrase is applied to man; elsewhere to animals (130: 39
etc.). ‘3, 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,
Il. 7, 8 57
teach that the soul (v3) arises through the union of the universal life-
principle (737) with the material frame (1w3): cf. e.g. Griineisen, Ahnen-
kultus, 34 f. No such ideas are expressed: neither w2 nor m is men-
tioned, while v5) 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, O77h. 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 J’s equivalent for the ‘image of God.’
8-17. The garden of Eden.—That the planting of the
garden was subsequent to the creation of man is the un-
doubted meaning of the writer; the rendering p/antaverat
($): so IEz.) is grammatically impossible, and is connected
with a misconception of DIP) below.—a garden in Eden]
This is perhaps the only place where Eden (as a geo-
graphical designation) is distinguished from the garden
(cf. 210-15 323-24 416, Is, 513, Ezk. 2813 31% 1618 3635, JI, 23,
Sir. 407”). The common phrase [7¥ }} would suggest to a
Hebrew the idea ‘ garden of delight,’ as it is rendered by &
(often) and ἘΠ (v.z.). There is no probability that the
proper name was actually coined in this sense. It is derived
by the younger Del. and Schrader from Bab. edinw, “ plain,’
‘steppe,’ or ‘desert’ (Del. Par. 80; KAT, 26f.; KAT, 539);
but it is a somewhat precarious inference that the garden
was conceived as an oasis in the midst of a desert (Ho.).—
Dp] ‘2 the (far) Hast’; 1.6. from the Palestinian standpoint
of the author; not, of course, to be identified with any other
MY within the geographical horizon of the Israelites (see
ΡΞ 1s. 37"), Ezk. 27>, Am, 1°).
Besides the passages cited above, the idea of a divine garden
appears also in Gn. 13), Ezk. 418, Usually it is a mere symbol of
8. }3] Gr παράδεισος (cf. pp, Ca. 4,3, Ec. 25, Neh. 28: probably from
Pers.), and so )3.—j1y] is regularly treated as nom. prop. by T° S, by
DP only 416 (everywhere else as appellative: voluptas, delicie), @& has
Ἔδεμ only in 28:10 416; elsewhere τρυφή[5], except Is. 51° (παράδεισος).
—o7pn} Lit. ‘in front’ (on the jD see K6n. Zgé. ii. p. 318; BDB, 578°):
in the hist. books it always means ‘ east’ or ‘eastward’; but in prophs.
and Pss, it usually has temporal sense (‘of old’); and so it is misunder-
58 PARADISE AND THE FALL (J)
luxuriant fertility, especially in respect of its lordly trees (Ezk.
gr®t- 16 18) ; but in Ezk. 2818 it is mentioned as the residence of a semi-
divine being. Most of the allusions are explicable as based on Gn. 2 f. ;
but the imagery of Ezk. 28 reveals a highly mythological conception of
which few traces remain in the present narrative. If the idea be primitive
Semitic (and 18} 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 faboo, and the wild animals are ’anis,
z.e. on good terms with man, because they may not be frightened
away” (We. Prol.® 3037; cf. Heid. 141; Barton, SO!, 96). In early times
such spots of natural fertility were the haunts of the gods or super-
natural beings (4.532, 102 ff.). But from the wide diffusion of the myth,
and the facts pointed out on p. 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 ATLO?, 195 ff.).
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 (3!!).—and the tree of
life (was) in the midst] On Bu.’s strictures on the form of the
sentence, v.z. The intricate question of the two trees must
be reserved for separate discussion (pp. 52f., 94); for the
present form of the story both are indispensable. The tree
stood here by all Vns. except (HW in principio, etc.).—g. yy-2] G-K.
8 127 6,—nyi7] The use of art. with inf. const. is very rare (Dav. § 19), but
is explained by the frequent use of ΠΡῚ as abstr. noun. Otherwise the
construction is regular, yn a being acc., not gen. of obj.—Budde
(Urg. 51f.) objects to the splitting up of the compound obj. by the
secondary pred. j37 na, and thinks the original text must have been
2) ΠΡῚΠ py 1.7 pna); thus finding a confirmation of the theory that the
primary narrative knew of only one tree, and that the tree of knowledge
(p. 52; so Ba. Ho. Gu.al.). In view of the instances examined by Dri.
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 (Kuen. ZA7, 1884,
136; v. Doorninck, 2b., 1905, 225 f.; Eerdmans, 7d. 494 ff.). A more im-
portant point is the absence of nx before the def. obj. The writer’s use
of this part. is very discriminating ; and its omission suggests that ® is
really a nominal clause, as rendered above. If we were to indulge in
analysis of sources, we might put ὅν (in whole or in part) after 85, and
assign it to that secondary stratum of narrative which undoubtedly
spoke of a tree of life (32).
II. 9-11 59
of life, whose fruit confers immortality (3%; cf. Pr. 418 11%
132 15*; further, Ezk. 47, Rev. 225), is a widely diffused
idea (see Di. 49; Wiinsche, Die Sagen vom Lebensbaum τε.
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, O7. i. 85 f.;
Baudissin, Stud. ii. 227) is not so probable. As to what is
meant by ‘ knowing good and evil,’ see p. 95 ff.
The primitive Semitic tree of life is plausibly supposed by Barton
(50, g2f.) 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. Cf.
also the sacred cedar in the cedar forest of Gilg., Tabs. 1V. V. For
these and other Bab. parallels, see 4720, 195 ff.
10. ὦ river issued (or issues) from Eden| The language
does not necessarily imply that the fountain-head was outside
the garden (Dri. Ben.); the vb. S83! is used of the rise of a
stream at its source (Ex. 178, Nu. 20", Ju. 1519, Ezk. 47},
Zec. 148, Jl. 418). Whether the ptcp. expresses past or
present time cannot be determined.—/rom 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 (pp. 62-66 below).
That is the plain meaning of the verse, however inconsistent
it may be with physical geography.—II. Piidn] The name
occurs (along with Tigris, Euphrates, Jordan, and Gihon)
Io. 17] Freq. impf.? So Dri. 7. §§ 30a, 113, 48; G-K. § το ὦ
(‘always taking place afresh’), Dav. § 54 (ὁ. That seems hardly
natural. Is it possible that for once ov could have the effect of 1% in
transporting the mind to a point whence a new development takes
place? (Dav. § 45, &. 2).—n'¥xq] Not ‘sources’ but ‘branches’; as
Arab. 7a’s en-nahr (as distinct from ra’s e/-ain) means the point of
divergence of two streams (Wetzstein, quoted by De., p. 82). So Ass.
γῆς n@ri or ris nar, of the point of divergence (Ausgangsort) of a canal
(Del. Par. 98, 191).—1I. ἼπνΠ] See on 15,—a32307 ΝΠ] On the determina-
tion of pred., Dav. § 19, R. 3; cf. G-K. § 1262 (so v.™),—abyna] If
the art. be genuine, it shows that the name was significant (‘ sandland,’
60 PARADISE AND THE FALL (J)
in Sir. 24, but nowhere else in OT. That it was not a
familiar name to the Hebrews is shown by the topo-
graphical description which follows. On the various
speculative identifications, see De. and Di., and p. 64 ἢ.
below.—the whole land of Hdavilah| The phraseology
indicates that the name is used with some vagueness,
and considerable latitude. In 107% 2518 etc., Havilah
seems to be a district of Arabia (see p. 202); but we cannot
be sure that it bears the same meaning in the mythically
coloured geography of this passage.—I2. Two other pro-
ducts of the region are specified; but neither helps to an
identification of the locality.—déddlah| a substance well
known to the Israelites (Nu. 117), is undoubtedly the
fragrant but bitter gum called by the Greeks βδέλλιον or
βδέλλα. Pliny (VA, xii. 35 f.) says the best kind grew in
Bactriana, but adds that it was found also in Arabia, India,
Media, and Babylonia.—the soham stone] A highly esteemed
from $in ?); but everywhere else it is wanting, and 2 omits it here.—12.
379] On metheg and hat.-pathach, see G-K. §§ 10g, 16 e, 2; K6n. i. § 10,
6e6 (cf. ι18).--- ΝΠ] The first instance of this Qré perpetuum of the
Pent., where the regular ΝΠ is found only Gn. 14? 20° 3875, Ly. 2! 11%
132% 2! 763 219, Nu. 5!f. Kon. (Zgéd. i. p. 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 Hex.
criticism seems decisive against that view. It must be a graphic error
of some scribe or school of scribes : whether proceeding from the original
scrip. def. 81 or not does not much matter (see Dri. and White’s note
on Lv. 1 in SBOT, p. 25 f.).—2] 2% + tkp.—nd735] Of the ancient Vns.
(ἃ alone has misunderstood the word, rendering here ὁ ἄνθραξ (red
garnet), and in Nu. 117 (the only other occurrence) κρύσταλλος. &
Xo; can only be a clerical error. That it is mot a gem is
proved by the absence of j2x.—nnwn jax] Gr ὁ λίθος ὁ πράσινος (leek-
green stone); other Gk. Vns. ὄνυξ, and so PB (onychinus); 35 Llo;5,
T° xbna. Philology has as yet thrown no light on the word, though
a connexion with Bab. sdmtu is probable. Myres (28, 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 (DB, iv. 620), thinks that in early
times it was green felspar, afterwards confused with the beryl. It is
at least noteworthy that Jen. (AJB, vi. 1, 405) is led on independent
grounds to identify s@m¢u with malachite. But is malachite found in any
II. 12—14 61
gem (Jb. 2816), suitable for engraving (Ex. 28° etc.), one
of the precious stones of Eden (Ezk. 2818), and apparently
used in architecture (1 Ch. 29”). From the Greek equiva-
lents it is generally supposed to be either the onyx or the
beryl (v.z.). According to Pliny, the latter was obtained
from India, the former from India and Arabia (Δ, xxxvii.
76, 86).—13. Gihdn] The name of a well on the E of
Jerusalem (the Virgin’s spring: 1 Ki. 188. etc.), which IEz.
strangely takes to be meant here. In Jewish and Christian
tradition it was persistently identified with the Nile (Si. 2427;
(ἃ of Jer. 218 [where TINY is translated Τηών]; Jos. Anz. i. 30,
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.—/and of Kus| Usually Ethiopia; but see on 10%—
14. Hiddekel] is certainly the Tigris, though the name
occurs only once again (Dn. 10*).—zn front of Aisi] Either
between it and the spectator, or to the east of it: the
latter view is adopted by nearly all comm. ; 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 E of the Tigris.
The second view can be maintained only if "WS be the city
region that could be plausibly identified with Havilah ?—13. pn] Prob-
ably from ,/ m3 (Jb. 38° 40) =‘ bursting forth.’ — 14. 0%] G& om. — Spin]
Υ n
Bab. Jdigla, Diglat, Aram. nbm and ΔΩ», Arab. Diglat; then Old
Pers. Tigra, Pehlevi Digrat, Gr. Τίγρις and Τίγρης. The Pers. Tigra
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 11, ‘sharp,’ and 5p, ‘swift,’-—a view given by Ra., and mentioned
with some scorn by JEz. Hommel’s derivation (AAT, 315) from gadd,
‘wadi,’ and 7373 (=‘ wadi of Diklah,’ Gn. 10”), is of interest only in
connexion with his peculiar theory of the site of Paradise.—n7p]
Rendered ‘in front’ by @& (κατέναντι), 35 (Nace) and BD (contra) ;
as ‘eastward’ by Aq. >. (ἐξ ἀνατολῆς) and [70 (xn3105). This last is also
the view of Ra. IEz. and of most moderns, But see Nb. ZDMG,
XxXxili. 532, where the sense ‘eastward’ is decisively rejected. The
other examples are 415, 1 Sa. 13°, Ezk. 39!t.—m] Bab. Purdtu, Old
Pers. Ufratu, whence Gr. Εὐφράτης.
62 THE SITE OF PARADISE
which was the ancient capital of the Empire, now Kalat
Serkat on the W bank of the river. But that city was
replaced as capital by Kalhi as early as 1300 B.c., and is
never ‘mentioned in OT. 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. (Gress-
mann, ARW, x. 347).—Zuphrates| The name (N78) needed
no explanation to a Hebrew reader: it is the 3) par excel-
lence of the OT (Is. 87 and often).
The site of Eden.—lIf the explanation given above of v.! 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 114, 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 "4, 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 14, at the cost of a somewhat un-
natural exegesis of v.!°. That of Frd. Del. (Wo lag das Paradies ἢ,
1881) is based partly on the fact that N 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 Zand of Eden is the plain (edinu) between the two
rivers from Tekrit (on the Tigris: nearly a hundred miles N 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 S of
Babylon. The river of ν.}Ὁ 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; Gihon
is the Shatt en-Nil, another canal running E of the Euphrates from
near Babylon and rejoining the parent river opposite Ur; Hiddekel
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. Havilah is part of the great Syrian
11. 11-14 63
desert lying W and S of the Euphrates; and Kush is a name for
northern and middle Babylonia, derived from the Kassite 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 v.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 Bab. equivalent of 773 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 Havilah’ 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
Shatt en-Nil is an abuse of language.—According to Sayce (ΠΟ,
95 ff.; DB, i. 643f.), 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 (Her. i. 188). Besides the difficulty of supposing
that the writer of v.!° 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 W of Euphrates,
while the Choaspes is E of the Tigris.* Further, although the de-
scription of the Persian Gulf as a ‘river’ is fully justified by its Bab.
designation as Nér 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’ (z.e. salt) water.—These objections apply
with equal force to the theory of Hommel (A4, iii. 1, p. 281 ff., etc.,
AHT, 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, Gihon, and
Hiddekel, he identifies with three N Arabian wadis,—W. Dawasir,
W. Rummi, and W. Sirhan (the last the ‘wadi of Diklah’=fad-dekel
[see on v.'4 above], the name having been afterwards transferred to the
Tigris).
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
* This objection is avoided by the modified theory of Dawson, who
identifies Pishon with the Karun, still further E than the Kerkha. But
that removes it from all connexion with Havilah, which is one of the
r*commendations of Sayce’s view.
64 THE SITE OF PARADISE
interpretation of v.°, 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 Gihon. 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 know-
ledge of the country, which must have dispelled the notion of a common
source. Van Doorninck has suggested the Leontes and Orontes
(ThT, 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.* 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.
De. and Di. identify the Pishon with the Indus, but follow the tradi-
tional identification of Gihon with the Nile (see p. 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; and we might then
fall back on the old identification of Pishon with the Ganges.{ But it
must be admitted that the names Havilah and Kush are a serious
* Strabo reports the belief of the ancients that all Indian rivers
rise in the Caucasus (xv. 1. 13). The fact that in medizval Arabian
geographers Geijun 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.
+ From the presence in both of crocodiles: Arrian, Anaé. vi. 1, 2f. ;
cf. Strabo, xv. 1. 25, and the similar notion about the Nile and
Euphrates in Pausanias, il. 5. 2.
+ Josephus and most of the Fathers. Strangely enough, there
seems to be no suggestion of the Indus earlier than Kosmas Indico-
pleustes (ii. 131). Is this because the identity of Nile and Indus was
a fixed idea ?
II, 11-14 65
difficulty to this class of theories. The latter, indeed, may retain its
usual OT meaning if Gihon be the upper Nile, either as a continu-
ation of the Indus or a separate river ; but if it be the Indus alone, Kush
must be the country of the KaSSites, conceived as extending indefinitely
E of Babylonia. WHavilah has to be taken as a name for India con-
sidered as an extension of NE Arabia, an interpretation which finds
no support inthe OT. At the same time, as Di. observes, the language
employed (‘ the whole land of H.’) 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 Havilah
of Gn. 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 N Mesopotamia: the Euphrates
and Tigris lose themselves in marshes; the Pishon (suggested by the
Kerkha) is conceived as continued in the Nar Marratum (Persian Gulf)
and the Red Sea, and so ‘encompasses’ the whole of Havilah (Arabia) ;
beyond this there was supposed to be land, through which the Gihon
(suggested by the Karun) was supposed to reach Kush (Ethiopia),
whence it flowed northwards as the Nile. The theory perhaps com-
bines more of the biblical data in an intelligible way than any other
that has been proposed; and it seems to agree with those just con-
sidered in placing the site of Eden at the common source of the rivers,
to the N of Mesopotamia. ἢ
4. 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
Ranha be the Oxus or the Yaxartes or the Indus; the truth being that
Ranha is a mythical celestial stream, for which various earthly
equivalents might be named (see Tiele, Gesch. d. Rel. 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 Gn. 2!°!4 is but one of many attempts to localise on earth a
representation which is essentially mythical. Gu. (1 33, 731), 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: cf. Ezk. 28"), 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
KAT*, 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 oviginated in
mythological speculation of this kind. If this be the case, we need not
* The summary is taken from Dri. p. 59f.; the original article, in
Ueber Land und Meer, 1894-95, I have not been able to consult.
5
66 PARADISE AND THE FALL (J)
be surprised if it should prove impossible to identify Pishon and Gihon
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 Gn. 21°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, AR W, x.
346 f.).
15. ¢o tll tt and to guard it| To reject this clause (Bu.),
or the second member (Di.), as inconsistent with 4178:
are arbitrary expedients. The ideal existence for man is
not idle enjoyment, but easy and pleasant work; ‘‘the
highest aspiration of the Eastern peasant” (Gu.) being to
keep a garden. The question from what the garden had
to be protected is one that should not be pressed.—16f, The
belief that man lived originally on the natural fruit of trees
(observe the difference from 12°) was widespread in antiquity,
and appears in Pheenician mythology.* Here, however, the
point lies rather in the restriction than the permission,—in
the imposition of a ¢aboo 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 3°),
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 (3°) (Bu. Ho. Gu. al.). But the
narrative ought not to be subjected to such rigorous logical
15. The v. is either a resumption of ® 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
8>, the excision of 1016 seems to lead necessarily to the conclusion
that two sources have been combined.—oi7vnx] (ἃ + dv ἔπλασεν (as
v.8).—Am3n] On the two Hiphils of m3 and their distinction in meaning,
see G-K. § 72 ee, and the Lexx.—j1y] Gi and most cursives render τῆς
τρυφῆς : GA and uncials omit the word.—%n 772y>] Since 11 is nowhere
fem., it is better to point ποὺ παν (see Albrecht, ΖΑ ΤΊ, xvi. 53).—
16. o7N7] Gr ’Adauw, BD ez. Except in v.'8, the word is regularly, but
wrongly, treated as nom. pr. by these two Vns. from this point
onwards.—17. mon md] =. θνητὸς ἔσῃ. In (ἃ the vbs. of this v. are all
ple(as 3* 4):
* Eus. Prep. Ev. i. 10 (from Philo Byblius): εὑρεῖν δὲ τὸν Αἰῶνα τὴν"
ἀπὸ τῶν δενδρῶν τροφήν.
WW. 15-19 67
tests; and, after all, there still remained something for the
serpent to disclose, viz. that such knowledge put man on
an equality with God.—zn 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
(Jer. al.), or that he entered on the experience of miseries
and hardships which are the prelude of dissolution (Calv.
al.). The simple explanation is that God, having regard to
the circumstances of the temptation, changed His purpose
and modified the penalty.
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 naiveté of the con-
ception 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 inter-
course with the beasts (see p. g1), there is not a trace.—
18. a helper| The writer seems to be thinking (as in 2°),
not of the original, but of the present familiar conditions of
human life.—17333] (only here) lit. ‘as in front of him,’ ze.
corresponding to him.—19. The meaning cannot be that the
animals had already been created, and are now brought to
be named (Calv. al. and recently De. Str.): such a sense
is excluded by grammar (see Dri. 7. ὃ 76, Ods.), and misses
the point of the passage.—/¢o see what he would call 11] To
watch its effect on him, and (eventually) to see if he would
recognise in it the associate he needed,—as one watches
18. sw~yx] May be cohort. (G-K. § 757); GD render as rst p. pl. (as
1°6), 1p] (usually ‘succour’)= ‘helper’ (abstr. pro concr.) is used else-
where chiefly of God (Dt. 337 35, Ps. 337° 115° etc.) ; possible exceptions
are Ezk. 12'4 (if text right), Ho. 13° (if em. with We.): see BDB.—1213]
(ἃ κατ᾽ αὐτόν (but v.79 ὅμοιος αὐτῷ) ; Ag. ὡς κατέναντι αὐτοῦ ; Σ. ἀντικρὺς
αὐτοῦ ; BD similis sibi (ejus, ν.39) ; 3O1 an} ; © wdbaps.—rz9. ani ins.
τὴν after ondx.—Omission of -nx before n’n-$2 is remarkable in this ch.
(see on v.°), and is rectified by ax.—mn w5)] The only construction
possible would be to take 1 as dat. eth., and 'n'} as direct obj. to xp’;
but that is contrary to the writer’s usage, and yields a jejune sense.
Even if (with Ra.) we transpose and read ‘ every living thing which the
man called [by a name], that was its name,’ the discord of gender would
68 PARADISE AND THE FALL (J)
the effect of a new experience on a little child.— whatever
the man should call it, that (was to be) zts name| The spon-
taneous ejaculation of the first man becomes to his posterity
a name: such is the origin of (Hebrew) names.—The words
70 wD) are incapable of construction, and are to be omitted
as an explanatory gloss (Ew. al.).—20. The classification
of animals is carried a step further than in (domestic and
wild animals being distinguished), but is still simpler than
inch. 1. Fishes and ‘creeping things’ are frankly omitted
as inappropriate to the situation.—2I. It has appeared that
no fresh creation ‘from the ground’ can provide a fit com-
panion for man: from his own body, therefore, must his
future associate be taken.—271A] is a hypnotic trance,
induced by supernatural agency (cf. Duhm on Is. 29%).
The purpose here is to produce anesthesia, with perhaps
the additional idea that the divine working cannot take
place under human observation (Di. Gu.).—one of his rids]
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” (Dri.). The Arabs use
similarly a word for ‘rib,’ saying hia lizki or hua bilizki 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 Schw. ARV, ix. 172 ff.),
finds no countenance in the passage.—22. buzlt up the rib
be fatal, to say nothing of the addition of ng.—2o. yh] Rd. with MSS
HST mry-baby (Ba. ).—pisb3] Here the Mass. takes Adam as a proper
name. De. al. explain it as generic=‘ for a human being’ (Gu.); Ols.
emends 07x77). The truth is that the Mass. loses no opportunity pre-
sented by the Keth#) of treating owas σι. pr. Point 0145), —xxp xd] Tu.
al. take God as subj. ; but it may be pass. expressed by indef. subj.
(G-K. 8 144 d, e)=‘there was not found.’—21. aDin] Qk ἔκστασιν ; Aq.
καταφοράν ; Σ. κάρον ; “ὦ (RAS (‘tranquillity’); Ἔ sopor; T° and some
Gr. Vns. (Field) have ‘sleep’ simply. The examples of its use (15",
1 Sa. 26%, Is. 29:9, Jb. 415 331, Pr. 10}, all except the last, confirm
11. 20-23 69
. . . tnto 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, D&S, Sup. 180).—23. By a flash of intu-
ition 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.—TZzhzs at last] Lit. ‘This, this time’ (v.z.): note
the thrice repeated nNt.—done of my bones, etc.| The expres-
sions originate in the primitive notion of kinship as resting
on ‘‘participation in a common mass of flesh, blood, and
bones” (Rob. Sm. AS*, 273 f.: cf. KiM*, 175f.), 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 (cf. 29!4 372’, Ju. 97, 2 Sa. 5}
1013). 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 (’/%, ’/ssz) without straining
language: other translations are driven to ‘ours de force
Duhm’s view that hypnotic sleep is indicated. It is true that in the
vb. (Niph.) that sense is less marked. — 23. oysa nxt] The construction
rendered above takes ni as subj. of the sent. and oys7=‘ this time,’ the
art. having full demonstrative force, as in 29%4* 30°° 46°, Ex. 957 (so (ἃ
20H; De. Di. Gu. al.). The accents, however, unite the words
in one phrase ‘this time,’ after the rather important analogy of D'DyD ΠῚ
(27° 43"), leaving the subj. unexpressed. This sense is followed by
ST°, and advocated by Sta. (ZATW, xvii. 210ff.); but it seems less
acceptable than the other.—vwx, πον] The old derivation of these words
from a common ,/ 3x is generally abandoned, ws being assigned to a
hypothetical ,/ wsx=‘be strong’ (Ges. Ζ1.). Ar. and Aram., indeed,
show quite clearly that the ,/ seen in the pl. οὐ (and in ws) and
that of πον (7¥38) are only apparently identical, the one having s where
the other has ὁ The masc. and fem. are therefore etymologically
distinct, and nothing remains but a very strong assonance. The
question whether we are to postulate a third ,/ for the sing. wx does
not greatly concern us here ; the arguments will be found in BDB, s.v.
See N6. ZDMG, xl. 740 (‘ Aber es méchte ich doch bei w3x lassen”).
In imitation of the assonance, Σ. has ἄνδρις, Ἔ Virago. ©. λῆψις, re-
presents xy, ‘I will take’: a curious blunder which is fully elucidated by
70 PARADISE AND THE FALL (J)
(e.g. Jer. Virago; Luther, Mdannin). Whether even in Heb.
it is more than an assonance is doubtful (v.z.).—24. An
ztiological observation of the narrator: This zs 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
Mt. τον, Mk. 10%-, 1 Co. 616, Eph. τ} 16 tsvangansmes
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 attach-
ment to the woman is explained here, and the woman’s to
the man only in 410,
It has been imagined that the v. presupposes the primitive custom
called deena 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 Gu. : cf. AM*, 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 3!® is inconsistent with the conditions of
beena marriage. Cf. Benz. HB, 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, AR W, x. 353'; van Doorninck, 7/7, xxxix.
238 (who assigns 253 and 3!° to different recensions).
one flesh| If the view just mentioned could be maintained,
this phrase might be equivalent to ‘one clan’ (Lv. 25%);
for ‘*both in Hebrew and Arabic ‘flesh’ is synonymous
with ‘clan’ or kindred group” (1.55, 274). More probably
it refers simply to the connubium.—25. naked . . . not
ashamed] The remark is not merely an anticipation of the
the quotation from Origen given in Field, p. 15°*.—For wn, α θα 0 read
Ay’xDd, which is by no means an improvement.—nxranp>] See G-K. §$ 10%,
20 c.—24. rm] Add om with GHSTI and NT citations. x... has
ΠΣ am, referring to the offspring.—25. ony] ony ‘naked,’ to be care-
fully distinguished from oxy (,/ oY) ‘crafty,’ in 31, is either a by-form
of ον (,/ wy=‘be bare’) in 3%, or (more probably) a different forma-
tion from ,/ my (‘be bare’). See BDB, s.vv.—wwanm] The Hithpal.
(only here) probably expresses reciprocity (‘ashamed before one
another’); the impf. is frequentative.
Il. 24—IIl. 1 71
account given later of the origin of clothing (37, cf. 3). 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, AD, ii. 475).
V.% 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 toinform us. This indiffer-
ence 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 ;
Jub. iii. 15 fixes the period at seven years, while R. Eliezer (Ber. 2.)
finds that it did not last six hours.
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 (Mt. 1016:
see Bochart, zeros. ili. 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: πνευματι-
κώτατον yap τὸ ζῶον πάντων τῶν ἑρπετῶν (Sanchuniathon, in Eus.
Prep. Ev. i. 10). Hence the epithet DY 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 (v.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, Di. 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,
72 PARADISE AND THE FALL (J)
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 move-
ments, 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.*
Accordingly, among the Arabs every snake is the abode of a spirit,
sometimes bad and sometimes good, so that San and gu#l and even
Shaitan are given as designations of the sérpent (We. Hezd. 152f.; cf.
Rob. Sm. 4.55, 1201, 129 f., 442). 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 posses-
sion 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 Gres. /.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 elimina-
tion of the mythological element, under the influence of a monotheistic
and ethical religion, which makes the function of the serpent in Gn. 3
so difficult to understand. In later Jewish theology the difficulty was
* Comp. the interesting sequel to the sentence from Sanchuniathon
quoted above: ... καὶ πυρῶδες ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ παρεδόθη παρ᾽ ὃ καὶ τάχος ἀνυπέρ-
βλητον διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος παρίστησι, χωρὶς ποδῶν τε καὶ χειρῶν, ἢ ἄλλου τινὸς
τῶν ἔξωθεν, ἐξ ὧν τὰ λοιπὰ Fa 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, p. 44).
+ Cf. N6. ZVP, i. 413: “)ὰ5 geheimnissvolle, dimonische Wesen
der Schlange, das sie vor allen grésseren Thieren auszeichnet, die
tiickische, verderbenbringende Natur vieler Arten, konnte in dem
einfachen semitischen Hirten leicht den Glauben erzeugen, in ihr wohne
etwas Géttliches, 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 schadliche
Thiere) sei kein gew6hnliches GeschGpf, sondern ein Dschinn, ein Geist.
Schon die Sprache driickt dies dadurch aus, dass sie mit Dzaénm, einem
Worte welches mit DZinn eng verwandt ist, eine Schlangenart bezeich-
net, etc.”
ὙΠ 73
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 Wisd. 2% (‘by the envy of the devil, death
entered into the world’): possibly earlier is the allusion in £7. lxix. 6,
where the seduction of Eve is ascribed to a Satan called Gadreel. Cf.
Secrets of En. xxxi. 3ff., Ps. Sol. 4°; also Ber. R. 29, the name wn}
ΡΠ (5778 138b), and in the NT Jn. 8%, 2 Co. χα. Ro. 16”, Ap, 12°
20? (see Whitehouse, DB, iv. 408 Π.). Similarly in Persian mythology
the serpent Dahdka, 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; Yagna ix. 27; cf. Di. 70). The Jewish and
Christian doctrine is a natural and legitimate extension of the teaching
of Gn. 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 ex/ernal 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 temp-
tation 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 OT till after the Exile
(Zec. Jb. Ch.).
The serpent shows his subtlety by addressing his first
temptation to the more mobile temperament of the woman
(Ra. al.), and by the skilful z%«endo 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 "3 ἢν. (v.z.). 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.— Ve 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 Dds is
I. 7 wn3m] The usual order of words when a new subject is intro-
duced, G-K. § 142d; Dav. § 105.—ony] (τ φρονιμώτατος, Aq. Θ. πανοῦργος,
>. πανουργότερος, HW callidior. The good sense (which appears to be
secondary, cf. Ar. ‘avama=‘be ill-natured’) is confined to Prov.; else-
where (Jb. 5)? 155) it means ‘crafty,’ ‘wily.’ The same distinction is
observed in all forms of the ,/ except that in Jb. 515 δ» has the good
sense. The resemblance to Ὁ ὩΥΨ in 255 is perhaps accidental.—7ox»
GS+wni.—'2 4x] as a compound part. generally means ‘much more
74 PARADISE AND THE FALL (J)
commonly explained by the analogy of other passages of
J, where the name ΠῚΠ᾽ is avoided in conversation with
heathen (39° etc.), or when the contrast between the divine
and the human is reflected upon (323). But J’s usage in
such cases is not uniform, and it is doubtful what is the true
explanation here (see p. 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 (Ber. R., Ra.). Equally futile inferences have been
drawn by modern comm., and the surmise that the clause
is redactional (Bu. Urg. 241) is hypercritical.—the tree...
midst] See p. 66 f.—4. Ve shall assuredly not die] On the
syntax, wv.z. The serpent thus advances to an open
challenge of the divine veracity, and thence to the imputa-
tion of an unworthy motive for the command, viz. a jealous
fear on God’s part lest they should become His equals.—
(or less),’ ‘not to mention,’ etc., as in 1 Sa. 14%, 1 Ki. 8%, Pr. 11%! ete.
In some cases the simple ἢν has this sense, and the "3 (=‘ when,’ ‘if’)
introduces the following clause (1 Sa. 23%, 2 Sa. 4! etc.). It would be
easy to retain this sense in v.1(‘ How much more when God has said,’
etc.), if we might assume with many comm. that some previous conver-
sation had taken place ; but that is an unwarrantable assumption. The
rendering on which Dri. (BDB) bases the ordinary meaning of "3 7x—
‘'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 Vns. all express a question: (ἃ τί ὅτι, Aq. μὴ ὅτι, Σ. πρὸς
τί, BD cur, S ha|a~-9, © xvwpa (=‘really’?).—>ap . . . xb]=‘not of
any’: G-K. § 152 ὅ.---2. 5p] (ὦ $29, S 03 "ἼΒΌ. ---3. 5m] Not ‘concerning
the tree.’ There is an anakolouthon at πον 7x, and the emphatically
placed "15D is resumed by 1302.—yyn] «2+737.—pnon] On the ending, see
G-K. §§ 47 m, 72 u.—4. pnonm>xd] On the unusual order, see Dav. § 86 (8);
G-K. § 113 v. It is often explained as a negation of the threat in 27,
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 neg. part. rather than on
III. 2-6 — 75
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 super-
natural influence (21%, Nu. 2251, 2 Ki. 6!”).—as gods] or
‘divine beings,’ rather than ‘as God’: the rendering ‘as
angels’ (IEz.) expresses the idea with substantial accuracy.
The likeness to divinity actually acquired is not equality
with Yahwe (see Gu. on v.™).—knowing good and evil] See
p. 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 (32); 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:—d@ovepdy τὸ θεῖον, an antique sentiment
familiar to us from the Greeks” (Gu.).—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
(GPS; so Tu. Ges. De. Gu. al.). The second trans-
lation is the more suitable—for how could she tell by sight
that the fruit would impart wisdom ?—although the vb. is
not elsewhere used in Heb. for mere looking (v.z.).—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” (Ben.). That Adam sinned with
his eyes open in order not to be separated from his wife has
the verbal idea (cf. Am. 98, Ps. 49%).—5. 8"πῦ 3] ( ὡς θεοί, {70 praray.—
6. pyr] G&D οπι. --- 3. 0} Gk κατανοῆσαι, D adspectu, and $ ΟΦ ;
all take the vb. as vb. of sight ; [70 wa xbanoxd is indeterminate (see Levy,
Chald. Wo. 163a). In OT the word is used of mental v7szon (insight, or
attentive consideration: Dt. 32%, Ps. 417, Pr. 2112 etc.); in NH and
76 PARADISE AND THE FALL (J)
been a common idea both among Jews and Christians (Ber.
k., Ra. ΕΖ. 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 Werthur-
theil passed by the awakened intelligence on the empirical
fact of being unclothed. A connexion between sexual
shame and sin (Di.) 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, SO', 93 ff.; Gressmann, p. 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” (Dri.).—/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
(Di. Dri. Ben. 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” (Bu.). For allegorical interpretations of the fig-
leaves, see Lagarde, Mitth. i. 73ff., who adds a very
original and fantastic one of his own.
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
Aram. it means ‘to look at,’ but only in Hithp. (Ithp.). On the other
view the Hiph. is intrans. (=‘for acquiring wisdom’: Ps. 948) rather
than caus. (=‘to impart wisdom’: Ps. 428 etc.).—Gu. considers the
clause ‘79 yyn ton» a variant from another source.—npm] (Χ1- + avixa.—
bax] 2k 193N.—7. Dy] See on 2%.—nby] coll.; but some MSS and
su have vy.
Ill. 7-12 } 77
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] Sip used of
᾿Ξ ΕΠ τ as.2 oa. 5%, 1 Ki. 14°, 2 Ki. 6: cf. Ezk, 3%,
Jl. 25.—of Vahwe God as He walked| The verb is used
(Lv. 26%, Dt. 23%, 2 Sa. 7°) of Yahwe’s majestic marching
in the midst of Israel; but it mars the simplicity of the
representation if (with De.) we introduce that idea here.—zn
the cool (lit. ‘at the breeze’) of the day] 1.6. towards evening,
when in Eastern lands a refreshing wind springs up (ef.
Ca. 217 4°: but v.z.), and the master, who has kept his
house or tent during the ‘heat of the day’ (181), can walk
abroad with comfort (2455). 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 zd themselves, etc.—
9. Where art thou?| (cf. 4°). The question expresses
ignorance; it is not omniscience that the writer wishes to
illustrate, but the more impressive attribute of sagacity.—
10. J 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 (Ho.).—I1I. 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.—I2. 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
8. qband] acc. of condition: Dav. § 70 (a).—nova mb] G& τὸ δειλινόν,
DP ad auram post meridiem, $ koa , ©° xov mos. On
this use of 5 (=‘towards’), see BDB, s.v. 6a; and cf. 8" 17%), Is,
5, Jb. 244. With mcf. Ar. rawah = tempus vespertinum. Jewish
exegesis (Ber. &.) and Calv. suppose the morning (sea) breeze to be
meant, as is probably the case in Ca. 2!” 45, and would seem more in
accordance with Palestinian conditions. But it is manifestly improbable
here.—yy] coll., as often. @&> om,—g. 72x] G-K. § 1000. @& supplies
‘Adam’ before, and $ after, the interrog.—1o. *nyny’] Cr+ περιπατοῦντος
(as v.8),—1z. °nb25] See G-K. § 114 s.—Before μή φαγεῖν Ge has τούτου
78 PARADISE AND THE FALL (J)
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.
Calv. says, ‘‘ the deast had no sense of sin, and the devzl no
hope of pardon.”
14-19. 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 8218. g%f. 1612 2727ff.
Sof χ 8195... ch. 49; cf. Nu. 23 f., Dt. 33. “Here certatmaxea
adverse conditions of the universal human lot are traced
back to a primzeval curse uttered by Yahwe in consequence
of man’s first transgression. See, further, p. 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 (4), and partly in the
deadly feud between it and the human race (*).—1I4. 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, ete.
Rabb.). Asa matter of fact most snakes have the power of
erecting a considerable part of their bodies; and in mytho-
μόνου.---13. nximmp] So commonly with avy; with other vbs. arad (G-K.
§ 136c¢; Dav. § 7 (c)).
14. 532] On this use of }D (=e numero), see G-K. § 119 w, and cf.
Ex. τοῦ, Dt. 14? 33%, Ju. 533 etc. Sta.’s argument (ZA TW, xvii. 209) for
deleting Ὁ 79727 53n, on the ground that the serpent belongs to the cate-
gory of πηϑπ nn but not to 772, is logical, but hardly convincing.—pn3]
Probably from ,/ jni (Aram.)=‘ curve’ or ‘bend’ (De., BDB), occurs
again only Lv. 11%, of reptiles. Ἔ renders pectus, Ge combines στῆθος
III. 13-15 79
logical representations the serpent often appears in the
upright position (Ben.). The idea probably is that this was
its original posture: how it was maintained was perhaps
not reflected upon.—dust shalt thou eat| Cf. Mic. 7", Is. 65%.
It is a prosaic explanation to say that the serpent, crawl-
ing on the ground, inadvertently swallows a good deal of
dust (Boch. Heros. iii. 245; Di. al.); and a mere metaphor
for humiliation (like Ass. ¢-ka-lu tp-ra; KIB, v. 232f.) is
too weak a sense for this passage. Probably it is a piece
of ancient superstition, like the Arabian notion that the
Sinn eat dirt (We. Hezd. 150).—all the days of thy life]
i.e. each serpent as long as it lives, and the vace of
serpents as long as it lasts. It is not so certain as most
comm. 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 (9°, Ex. 2133", Ly. 20%). But it
is quite possible that here (as in ν. 15) the archetypal serpent
is conceived as re-embodied in all his progeny, as acting
and suffering in each member of the species.—I5. The
serpent’s attempt to establish unholy fellowship with the
woman is punished by implacable and undying enmity
between them.*—/hy seed and her seed| The whole brood of
and xowla.—15. 2] in the sense of ‘offspring,’ is nearly always col-
lective. Ina few cases where it is used of an individual child (4557 2118,
1 Sa. 121) it denotes the immediate offspring as the pledge of posterity,
never a remote descendant (see N6. AR W, viii. 164 ff.). The Messianic
application therefore is not justified in grammar.—nv7] the rendering
ipsa (ἘΠ is said not to be found in the Fathers before Ambrose and
Augustine (Zapletal, A7Z7Viches, 19). Jer. at all events knew that 2254
should be read.—unwn... 75%] The form ἢ recurs only Jb. 9)’,
Ps. 139", and, in both, text and meaning are doubtful. In Aram, and
NH the ,/ (\’y or y’y) has the primary sense of ‘rub,’ hence ‘wear
down by rubbing’=‘ crush’; in Syr. it also means to crawl. There are
a few exx. of a tendency of 1’y vbs. to strengthen themselves by
insertion of ἐξ (KGn. i. 439), and it is often supposed that in certain pass.
* «Fit enim arcano nature sensu ut ab ipsis abhorreat homo” (Calv.).
Cf. (with Boch. Hzevoz. iii. 250) ‘‘quam dudum dixeras te odisse zque
atque angues” (Plaut. Merc. 4); and ἐκ παιδὸς τὸν ψυχρὸν ὄφιν τὰ μάλιστα
δέδοικα (Theoc. /d. 15).
80 PARADISE AND THE FALL (1)
serpents, and the whole race of men.—He shall bruzse thee
on the head, etc.| In the first clause the subj. (x37) is the
‘seed’ of the woman individualised (or collectively), in the
second (FAN) it is the serpent himself, acting through his
‘seed.’ The current reading of }) (2254) 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 vb. AY,
which in the sense ‘ bruise’ is inappropriate to the serpent’s
mode of attack. We may speak of a serpent s/vzking a
man (as in Lat. ferirt a serpente), but hardly of bruzsing.
Hence many comm. (following (& al.) take the vb. as a
by-form of 48’ (strictly ‘pant’), in the sense of ‘be eager
for,’ ‘aim at’ (Ges. Ew. Di. al.); while others (Gu. 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 (Dri.). A perfectly satisfactory interpretation
cannot be given (v.2.).
The Messianic interpretation of the ‘seed of the woman’ appears
in €J and Targ. Jer., where the v. is explained of the Jewish com-
(Ezk. 36°, Am. 27 84, Ps. 565: 8 574) si is disguised under the by-form ἢν,
But the only places where the assumption is at all necessary are
Am. 27 84, where the δὲ may be simply mater lectionis for the ἃ of the
ptcp. (cf. oxp1, Ho. 1ro'4); in the other cases the proper sense of yxy
(‘pant’ or metaph. ‘long for’) suffices. The reverse process (substitu-
tion of sw for 4xwv) is much less likely ; and the only possible instance
would be Jb. 9'’, which is too uncertain to count for anything. There
is thus not much ground for supposing a confusion in this v. ; and De.
points out that vbs. of hostile endeavour, as distinct from hostile achieve-
ment (737, msn, etc.), are never construed with double acc. The gain
in sense is so doubtful that it is better to adhere to the meaning ‘crush.’
The old Vns. felt the difficulty and ambiguity. The idea of crushing
is represented by Aq. προστρίψει, Σ. θλίψει, Gr Cos me. τρίψει (see
Field) and Jer. (Quest.) conterere; ‘pant after’ by G4 τηρήσει[9] (if
not a mistake for τρήσει[9] or τειρήσει[5]}. A double sense is given by
Ἢ conteret ... insidiaberis, and perhaps $v#0,3... Ww 01da Sol;
while €° paraphrases: 9 13 van ΠΝῚ porpoo ΠΡ ΠΊΣΡῚ AD ὙΞῚ RA NIA
NDID,
111. 15 81
munity and its victory over the devil ‘‘in the days of King Messiah.”
The reference to the person of Christ was taught by Irenzeus, but was
never so generally accepted in the Church as the kindred idea that the
serpent is the instrument of Satan. Medizval exegetes, relying on the
ipsa of the Vulg., 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 v. 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. Di. (with whom Dri. 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 interpreta-
tion, 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 chs. 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 in-
carnation 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 οἵ. 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 stipposé that the victory of man was contemplated. Di. 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 mani-
festation 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 psychologi-
cally 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 trans-
formation of a once sacred animal into an object of aversion is a not
infrequent phenomenon in the history of religion (see Gres. J.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
6
82 PARADISE AND THE FALL (J)
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 OT.—The conjecture of Gu., that originally the
‘seed of the woman’ and the ‘seed of the serpent’ may have been
mythological personages (cf. ATZLO*, 217f.), even if confirmed by
Assyriology, would have little bearing on the thought of the biblical
narrator,
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.—JZ w7ll multiply, etc.| More strictly, ‘I will
cause thee to have much suffering and pregnancy’ (see
Dav. § 3, &. (2)). It is, of course, not an intensification of
pain to which she is already subject that is meant.—For
4259, @ read some word meaning ‘groaning’ (v.z.); but to
prefer this reading on the ground that Hebrew women
esteemed frequent pregnancy a blessing (Gu.) makes a too
general statement. It is better (with Ho.) to assume a
hendiadys: ‘the pain of thy conception’ (as in the ex-
planatory clause which follows).—zx pain . . . children|
The pangs of childbirth are proverbial in OT for the
extremity of human anguish (Is. 21° 138, Mic. 4°, Ps. 48%,
and oft.: Ex. 119 cannot be cited to the contrary).—/o thy
16. bx] Read -x, with s@%.—na0x nan] So 16” 221, On the
irreg. form of inf. abs., see G-K. § 75 #-—pasy] (317 5+ [J]). Gk λύπας
(=aniayy ?).— IM] (/ 777): az qnnm (Ru. 4%, Ho. g!!). Ols. (BA,
1870, 380) conj. 7273, to avoid the harsh use of }. Q& τὸν στεναγμόν
gov probably = 73137 ; 322) (‘sorrow’) has also been suggested (Gu.) ;
and 4n7¥ (Di. Ho. al.). The other Vns. follow MT. — asya] a pasya;
Gr likewise repeats ἐν N’rais.—npwn] Probably connected with Ar.
Sauk, ‘ardent desire’ (Rahlfs “κἢν und wy,” p. 71); cf. ppy, Is. 295,
Ps, 107°. Aq. συνάφεια, Σ. ὁρμή. Although it recurs only 47 and Ca, 74,
it is found in NH and should not be suspected. (ἃ ἡ ἀποστροφή σου
and $ aie point to the reading yn2wn, preferred by many, and
defended by Nestle (47M, 6) as a technical expression for the relation
here indicated, on the basis of €&’s text of 2 Sa. 17°. His parallel between
the return of the woman to her source (the man) and the return of the
man to Azs source (the ground, ν. 13) is perhaps fanciful.
III. 16, 17 83
husband . . desire] It is quite unnecessary to give up the
rare but expressive ΠΡ ΤΠ of the Heb. for the weaker O2730'N.
of (ζ, etc. (v.z.). It is not, however, implied that the
woman’s sexual desire is stronger than the man’s (Kn.
Gu.); 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
vb.; 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
(cf. 218-25), There is here certainly no trace of the matri-
archate or of polyandry (see on 252).
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 spontane-
ously 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 isa /ellah. 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 (Gu.).—
17. And to the man] v.z. The sentence is introduced by a
formal recital of the offence.—Cursed is the ground] As
17. Point oh ; there is no conceivable reason why 078 should be
a proper name here (cf. 2% 37!).—unp . . . 10N5] (ἃ reads τούτου μόνου
(see v.") μὴ φαγεῖν, am’ αὐτοῦ ἔφαγες. ---Ὑ3}3] Cr (ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις cov), Σ.
Ἔ read 4133, Θ. ἐν τῇ παραβάσει σου (73:3). The phrase is characteristic
of J; out of 22 instances in the Hex., only about 3 can be assigned
84 PARADISE AND THE FALL (J)
exceptional fertility was ascribed to a divine blessing (27%
etc.), and exceptional barrenness to a curse (Is. 248,
Jex. 231°), 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.—zn suffer-
ing (bodily fatigue and mental anxiety) shalt thou eat [of] zt]
See 572. The ‘laborious work’ of the husbandman is re-
ferred to in Sir. 7; but this is not the prevailing feeling
of the OT; and the remark of Kno., that ‘‘agriculture was
to the Hebrew a divine institution, but at the same time a
heavy burden,” needs qualification. It is well to be re-
minded that ‘‘ancient Israel did not live constantly in the
joy of the harvest festival” (Gu.); 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 1". The
creation of this order of vegetation has not been recorded by
J. 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 2°).—19, zz the sweat of thy brow, etc.| A
more expressive repetition of the thought of 8, The
phrase eat bread may mean ‘earn a livelihood’ (Am. 7”),
but here it must be understood literally as the immediate
reward of man’s toil.—77zl/ thou return, etc.] hardly means
more than ‘all the days of thy life’ (in v.!”). It is not a
threat of death as the punishment of sin, and we have no
right to say (with Di.) that νν. 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
v.~ belongs to another recension, there is no evidence that
the main narrative regarded even endless life as within man’s
to E (none to P),—a35axn] The government of direct acc. seems harsh,
but is not unexampled: see Jer. 36'°.—18. G@& omits initial 1: so BD
Jub.—170 pyp| Hos. 108; 1799 occurs nowhere else in OT. It is still
used in Syria (dardar} as a general name for thistles.—-19, 71] (./ 3”,
wada' a) is ἅπ. dey. ; cf. yn, Ezk. 4438,.—nn>] Ge Jud. yond,
III. 18-20 85
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.| Cf. Jb.
τοῦ 34”, Ps. οο 1464, Ec. 379 127 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 /wd. iii. 25 the passage is
quoted in an abridged form, the line ‘Cursed . . . sake’ being immedi-
ately followed by ‘Thorns . . . to thee,’ and 180 being omitted. This
is, of course, a much smoother reading, and leaves out nothing essential ;
but ΤΡ is guaranteed by 5%. Ho. rejects 18», and to avoid the repetition
of 528 proposes 7372yn instead of mbaxn in 17, Gu. is satisfied with v.17
as they stand, but assigns 4 (to ond) and 90 to another source (Ji), as
doublets respectively of 18 and ™8, This is perhaps on the whole
the most satisfactory analysis.—The poetic structure of the vv., which
might be expected to clear up a question of this kind, is too obscure
to afford any guidance. Sievers, e.g. (II. 1of.) finds nothing, except
in v.'*, to distinguish the rhythm from that of the narrative in which
it is embedded, and all attempts at strophic arrangement are only
tentative.
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. (De. al.), or
20. mn) (ἃ Eva [Eva] (in 41), Aq. Ada, Ἔ Heva, Jer. Eva (Eng. Eve);
in this v. @& translates Ζωή, 2. Zwoyévos. The similarity of the name
ρ n
to the Aram. word for ‘serpent’ (3π, sn, Syr. has, Syro-Pal. las
[Mt. 7'°]); cf. Ar. ayyat from hauyat [N6.]) has always been noticed,
and is accepted by several modern scholars as a real etymological
equivalence (N6. ZDMG, xlii. 487; Sta. GVJ, i. 633; We. Heid. 154).
The ancient idea was that Eve was so named because she had done
the serpent’s work in tempting Adam (Ber. R.; Philo, De agr. Noe,
21; Clem, Alex. Protreft. ii. 12. 1). Quite recently the philological
equation has acquired fresh significance from the discovery of the name
mn ona leaden Punic ¢abella devotionis (described by Lidz. Ephemeris,
i, 26 ff. ; see Cooke, MSZ, 135), of which the first line reads: “Ὁ Lady
HVT, goddess, queen... 1" Lidz. sees in this mythological per-
sonage a goddess of the under-world, and as such a serpent-deity ;
and identifies her with the biblical Havvah. Havvah would thus be
a ‘depotentiated’ deity, whose prototype was a Phoenician goddess of
the Under-world, worshipped in the form of a serpent, and bearing the
86 PARADISE AND THE FALL (J)
with the thought of mortality in 15 (Kn.), are forced. The
most suitable position in the present text would be before
(so Jud. 111. 33) or after 4'; and accordingly some regard
it as a misplaced gloss in explanation of that v. But when
we consider (a) that the name Havvah must in any case be
traditional, (6) that it is a proper name, whereas ΝΠ
remains appellative throughout, and (c) that in the follow-
ing vv. there are unambiguous traces of a second recension
of the Paradise story, it is reasonable to suppose that v.2°
comes from that recension, and is a parallel to the naming
of the woman in 255, whether it stands here in the original
order or not. The fact that the name Eve has been pre-
served, while there is no distinctive name for the man,
suggests that ΠῚΠ 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| Accord-
ing to this derivation, 119 would seem to denote first the
idea of life, and then the source of life—the mother.* But
title of ‘Mother of all living’ (see Gres. Zc. 359f.). Precarious as
such combinations may seem, there is no objection in principle to an
explanation of the name Havvah on these lines. Besides the Hivvites
of the OT (who were probably a serpent-tribe), We. 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.—52 ox] Rob. Sm. renders ‘ mother of
every hayy,’—hayy being the Arab. 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,’ z.e. the personification of mankind” (JZ, 208). The
interpretation has found no support.
*So Baethgen, Beztr. 148, who appends the note: ‘Im holstein-
ischen Plattdeutsch ist ‘Dat Leben’ euphemistischer Ausdruck fiir das
pudendum muliebre”—a meaning by the way which also attaches to
Ar. hayy (Lane, Lex. 681 b).
III. 20—22 87
the form ΠῚΠ is not Heb., and the real meaning of the word
is not settled by the etymology here given (v.2.).— 93
commonly includes all animals (851: etc.), but is here
restricted to mankind (as Ps. 1437, Jb. 307°). Cf. however,
πότνια θηρῶν, ‘ Lady of wild things,’ a Greek epithet of the
Earth- mother (Miss Harrison, Pro/. 264).— 21. Another
detached notice describing the origin of clothing. It is,
of course, not inconsistent with v.’, but neither can it be
said to be the necessary sequel to that v.; most probably
it is a parallel from another source.—coats of skin] ‘‘ The
simplest and most primitive kind of clothing in practical
use” (Dri.).
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 (Di. al.) may be true
as regards the present form of the legend; but that is hardly the
original conception. In the Phoen. legend of Usdos, 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 (Prep. Ev. i. 10; Orelli, p. 17f.). 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,
Rob. Sm. (#S*, 306 ff.) found in the v. 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.
22-24. The actual expulsion.—22. Behold .. . one of
us| This is no ‘ironica exprobatio’ (Calv. al.), but a serious
admission that man has snatched a divine prerogative not
meant for him. The feeling expressed (cf. 11°) is akin to
what the Greeks called the ‘envy of the gods,’ and more
remotely to the OT attribute of the zeal or jealousy of Yahwe,
—His resentment of all action that encroaches on His
21. Point 07x, as in v.!7.—22. 1nx2] Constr. before prep.; G-K.
§ 130 a.— 32>] The so-called oriental punctuation (which distinguishes
1st pl. from grd sg. masc. suffix) has 3399, ‘from us’ (B-D. p. 81). €°
(πὴ ΝΟΌΣ rn) and Σ (ὁμοῦ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ) treat the form as 3rd sing. :
cf. Ra.’s paraphrase: ‘alone below, as Iam alone above.”—ny7)] ‘in
[respect of] knowing’: gerundial inf.; Dav. §93; G-K. § 1140; Dri.
88 PARADISE AND THE FALL (j)
divinity (see p. 97). In v.° 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 v. would have justified the serpent’s insinuation, even
in form, by a divine utterance. There are several indica-
tions (e.g. the phrase ‘like one of us’) that the secondary
recension to which v.” 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
teeling of the envy of the gods.—zn respect of knowing, etc.|
Man has not attained complete equality with God, but
only God-likeness in this one respect. Gres.’s contention
that the v. 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. immor-
tality: 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
(Bu. Urg. 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 (De.), 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 ¢he) 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 afosio-
pesis at the end of the v., v.z.—23 is clearly a doublet of
24. and the latter is the natural continuation of 7%. V.* is
T. § 205.—The pregnant use of 5 (=‘I fear lest’) is common (Gn. 19”
269 38" 44%4, Ex. 13! etc.). Here it is more natural to assume an
anakolouthon, the clause depending on a cohortative, converted in ν. 33
III. 23, 24 89
a fitting conclusion to the main narrative, in which it
probably followed immediately on v.!*.—24. He drove out
the man and made |him| dwell on the east of . . . [and
stationed] the Cherubim, etc.| This is the reading of G& (v.z.),
and it gives a more natural construction than MT, 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 v. represents a
different tradition as to the site of Eden from 28 or 2198,
It is not said in 28 that it was in the extreme east, or in
219 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 11? 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| Lit. ‘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 1. (128, i. 36f.), where the king says that when he
destroyed the fortress of Hunusa 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 Di. Gu. Dri. ; KAT’, 529f., 631 ff. ;
Che. in ZB, 741 ff.; Je. ATLO, 218; Haupt, SBAT, Numbers, 46;
Polychrome Bible, 181 f.; Furtwangler, in Roscher’s Zex. art. GRYPsS.
—The derivation of the word is uncertain. The old theory of a con-
nexion with γρύψ (Grez/, griffin, etc.) is not devoid of plausibility, but
lacks proof. The often quoted statement of Lenormant (Orig. i. 118),
that £irwbu occurs on an amulet in the de Clercq collection as a name
into a historic tense.—n1] G&S om.—24. QG καὶ ἐξέβαλεν τὸν "Addu καὶ
κατῴκισεν αὐτὸν ἀπέναντι τοῦ παραδείσου τῆς τρυφῆς, καὶ ἔταξεν τὰ χερουβὶν
KTA. = Ὁ 3ΥἼ2Π ΠΝ DY) yy po ὈΠΡῸ 139} OWNTAX Ὁ = Ball rightly adopts
this text, inserting ink after j2v , against J’s usage. There is no need
to supply any pron. obj. whatever: see 2! 187 3818, 1 Sa. 19% εἰς,
For the first three words $ has simply o1aa|o, and for 139 yralo
(with the cherubim, etc., as obj.).—nzp7non] Hithpa. in the sense of
‘revolve,’ Ju. γ18, Jb. 3712; in Jb. 384 it means ‘be transformed.’
90 THE PARADISE
of the winged bulls of Assyrian palaces, seems to be definitely disproved
(see Je. 218).—A great part of the OT symbolism could be explained
from the hypothesis that the Cherubim were originally wind-demons,
like the Harpies of Greek mythology (Harrison, Prol. 178ff.). 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 occasion-
ally 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, PSBA, 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 Ps. 18"
(2 Sa. 2211), It is a personification of the storm-wind on which Yahwe
rides, just as the Babylonian storm-god Zfi was figured as a bird-deity.
The theory that it was a personification of the thunder-cloud is a mere
conjecture based on Ps, 18!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 (Ezk. 2815 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 Ki.
6538. 864), and the miniatures on the lid of the ark in the Tabernacle
(Ex. 25!8* etc.); but a trace of the primary conception appears in the
alternation of cherubim and falm-trees in the temple decoration (1 Ki.
6%, Ezk. 418; see, further, 1 Ki. 7%", Ex. 26%), (G@)iiheemos:
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 (Ezk. 1° το"), These may represent
primarily the ‘four winds of heaven’; but the complex symbolism of
the Merkabah shows that they have some deeper cosmic significance.
Gu. (p. 20) thinks that an older form of the representation is preserved
in Apoc. 45", 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 KAT, 631f.
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
LEGEND ΟἹ
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.*
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 Gn. 3.—The most that can be
claimed is that there are certain remote parallels to particular features
or ideas of Gn. 24-3*4, 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 :—
(a) The account of Creation in 2** has undoubted resemblances
to the Babylonian document described on p. 47f., 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 Gn. 2° is based rather on the idea of a waterless desert (see
p- 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 2’ (pp. 42, 45).
(4) The legend of Eabani, embedded in the GilgameS-Epic (Tab. I.
Col. ii. 1. 33 ff. : AZB, vi. 1, p. 120ff.), seems to present us (it has been
thought) with a ‘type of primitive man.’ Eabani, created as a rival
to GilgameS 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, GilgameS 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 Gn. 218-4, 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, A/SZ, xv. 1098 ff. ; Stade, ZATW,
xxiii. 174 f.).
(c) Far more instructive affinities with the inner motive of the story
* Reproduced in Smith’s Chaldean Genesis, 88; Del. Babel und Bibel
(M‘Cormack’s trans. p. 48); A7ZO?, 203, etc. Je. has satisfied himself
that the zigzag line zs a snake, but is equally convinced that the snake
cannot be tempting a man and a woman to eat the fruit.
92 THE PARADISE
of the Fall are found in the myth of Adapa and the South-wind, dis-
covered amongst the Tel-Amarna Tablets, and therefore known in
Palestine in the 15th cent. B.c. (Α 18, 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 Gn. 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, p. 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 Gn. 2.3. The Graeco-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, Op. ef Dies, go-g2, 109-120; Ovid, 7762. 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
LEGEND 93
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 Di. p. 47ff.). But these echoes are too faint and distant
to enable us to determine the quarter whence the original impulse pro-
ceeded, 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 Havvah [p. 85f.], and elements of ch. 4) seem to point to
Phoenicia 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 Phoenicians or the Canaan-
ites (We. Prol.® 307 ; Gres. ARW, x. 345 ff. ; cf. Bevan, /7S, iv. 500f.).
A similar conclusion might be drawn from the contradiction in the idea
of chaos, if the explanation given above of 2° be correct: it looks as if
the cosmogony of an alluvial region had been modified through trans-
ference to a dry climate (see p. 56). The fig-leaves of 47 are certainly
not Babflonian; 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 Dri. says, ‘‘con-
tains 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’ (Gem. 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 p. 57 f.),
the trees of life and of knowledge (p. 59), the serpent (p. 72f.), Eve (p. 85f.),
and the Cherubim (p. 89f.). 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 (AS*, 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
94 THE PARADISE
Babylonian and Phoenician 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 (cf. Lenormant, Ovigines, i. 93 f.: see the illustrations in Roscher,
Lex. 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. Ob-
viously 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 Gu. 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 melan-
choly, 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. Gres.
(1 6. 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 child-
like innocence (37); (3) the tree of life, whose fruit confers immortality
(32). The question is immensely complicated by the existence of two
recensions, which do not seem so hopelessly inseparable as Gres. 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
Di in 3%, which is wanting in @, 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 doubt-
ful 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 (7/7, 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 seem-
ingly 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
LEGEND 95
which it originally conveyed from those which it suggested to more
advanced theological speculation.
(1) We observe, in the first place, that the ztiological motive is
strongly marked throughout. The story gives an explanation of many
of the facts of universal experience,—the bond between man and wife
(24), the sense of shame which accompanies adolescence (37), the use of
clothing (3”), the instinctive antipathy to serpents (3:5. 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 tothe 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 v.?9 it is
spoken of as the natural fate of a being made from the earth; in v.™ 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 2}7 is immediate
death ; and to assume that the death which actually ensues is the ex-
action 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 describes 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?* Keeping in mind the possibility that
the two recensions may represent different conceptions, our data are
these: In 3% knowledge of good and evil is an attainment which (a)
*In OT usage, knowledge of good and evil marks the difference
between adulthood and childhood (Dt. 1°, Is. 71°"), or second childhood
(2 Sa. 19%); it also denotes (with different verbs) judicial discernment of
right and wrong (2 Sa. 14}7, 1 Ki. 3°), which is an intellectual function,
quite distinct from the working of the conscience. The antithesis of
good and evil may, of course, be ethical (Am. 54", Is. 5” etc.) ; but it
may also be merely the contrast of pleasant and painful, or wholesome
and hurtful (2 Sa. 1938). 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” : cf. 2Sa. 14 with * ‘all things that are in earth’ (Gn, 24° 31%),
We. 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.
96 THE PARADISE
implies equality with God, (4) was forbidden to man, (c) is actually secured
by man. In the leading narrative (4) 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 3” 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 god-
like 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 Bu. (U7rg. 69 ff.), and is not to be lightly dis-
missed, 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, We. (Prol.® 299 ff.) holds that the
knowledge in question is insight into the secrets of nature, and intel-
ligence 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 (3?! 9), in the founding of cities (417), in the
discovery of the arts and crafts (4!%), and in the building of the tower
(i). The undertone of condemnation of the cultural achievements of
humanity which runs through the Yahwistic sections of chs. 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 Gu. (11 f., 25 f.) urges some-
what 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.
We.’'s seems to me the only view that does justice to the thought of 3”;
and if 41% and 1115 be the continuation of this version of the Fall, the
theory has much torecommend it. On the other hand, Gu.’s acceptation
may be truer to the teaching of 415, 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 distin-
guishes the grown man from the child. If it be objected that such
LEGEND 97
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 child-
hood: ‘‘ Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no
wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
(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 presump-
tion,—an overstepping of the limits of creaturehood, and an encroach-
ment onthe 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 totheir 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 3% borders hard on the pagan notion
of the ‘envy’ of the godhead, a notion difficult to reconcile with the
conceptions of OT 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 deter-
mined 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 Is.
2135. 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 uni-
verse. The God of Gn. 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 in-
nocence and happiness, is not cut off from fellowship with his Creator.
7
98
Cu. 1V.— Beginnings of History and Civilisation.
Critical Analysis.—Ch. 4 consists of three easily separable sections :
(a) the story of Cain and Abel (116), (6) a Cainite genealogy (17-%),*
and (c) a fragment of a Sethite genealogy (35 38), 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.| Closer examination seems to show that the chapter is com-
posite, and that the superficial continuity conceals a series of critical
problems of great intricacy.
1. We have first to determine the character and extent of the
Cainite genealogy. It is probable that the first link occurs in v.!*, and
has to be disentangled from the Cain legend (so We. Bu.); whether
it can have included the whole of that legend is a point to be considered
later (p. 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 J has hardly been
questioned except by Di., who argues with some hesitation for assigning
it to E, chiefly on the ground of its discordance with vv. 8 Bu,
(p. 220 ff.) has shown that the stylistic criteria point decidedly (if not
quite unequivocally) to J; and in the absence of any certain trace of E
in chs. 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 ch. 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 37° is an integral part of one recension of
the Paradise story, it might reasonably be concluded that that recension
was continued in 4’, and then in 411-23, 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 ch. 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 We.).
* We. unites ν, 160 with 17-24, te.g. Hupfeld, Quelien, 126ff.
t= ‘beget,’ 18; ma ὍΣ, * (in genealogies, confined to J, 107 το
22%. % 426) > ynx ov, 7! (cf. 10%); cf. 19 with 10% etc. (Bu. /.¢.).
IV. 99
2. The fragmentary genealogy of vv.* 36 corresponds, so far as it
goes, with the Sethite genealogy of Pinch. 5. It will be shown later
(p. 138f.) that the lists of 417 and 5 go back to a common original ;
and if the discrepancy had been merely between J and P, 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 P’s list occur also in
the connexionof J? Thereare four possible solutions. (1) It is conceiv-
able that J, not perceiving the ultimate identity of the two genealogies,
incorporated both in his document (cf. Ew. /B&BW, vi. p. 4); and that
the final redactor (RP) then curtailed the second list in view of ch. 5.
This hypothesis is on various grounds improbable. It assumes (see 350)
the murder of Abel by Cain as an original constituent of J’s narrative ;
now that story takes for granted that the worship of Yahwe was
practised from the beginning, whereas * explicitly states that it was
only introduced in the third generation. (2) It has not unnaturally
been conjectured that v.** are entirely redactional (Ew. Schr. al.); z.e.,
that they were inserted by an editor (R?) to establish a connexion
between the genealogy of J and that of P. In favour of this view the
use of ΠΝ (as a proper name) and of o'n>x has been cited ; but again the
statement of % presents an insurmountable difficulty. P has his own
definite theory of the introduction of the name m7 (see Ex. 67"), 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 νν. 35: * stood originally before v.! (or before ν. 1),
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 v.” to adapt it to its new setting (so Sta.)
(see on the v.). That is, no doubt, a plausible solution (admitted as
possible by Di.), 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 trans-
position. 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 (RJ) prior to the
incorporation of P; and that the second list was curtailed by R? because
of its substantial identity with that of the Priestly Code in ch. 5.
The harmonistic glossing of v.* 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 RJ. In other respects the solution is free from
difficulty. The recognition of the complex character of the source called
J 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
100 CAIN AND ABEL (J)
of the non-Priestly sections of chs. 2-11 (see pp. 3, 134). One important
consequence may here be noted. Eve’s use of the name 75x, and the
subsequent notice of the introduction of the name 4m", suggest that this
writer had previously avoided the latter title of God (as E and P pre-
viously to Ex. 34" and Ex. 67). Hence, if it be the case that one
recension of the Paradise story was characterised by the exclusive use
of on>N (see p. 53), 435: 385 will naturally be regarded as the sequel to
that recension.
3. There remains the Cain and Abel narrative of vv.116 That it
belongs to J in the wider sense is undisputed,* 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 77°} would show that it was unknown to the author of
vv. 56 and of that form of the Paradise story presupposed by these vv.
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 (v.!”), whoas
the first city-builder inaugurates the highest type of stable civilised life.t
Still more complicated are the relations of the passage to the history of
the Fall in ch. 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 ch. 3; the free choice of occupation by the two
brothers, and Yahwe’s preference for the shepherd's sacrifice, ignore
the representation (315) that husbandry is the destined lot of the race;
and the curse on Cain is recorded in terms which betray no conscious-
ness of a primal curse resting on the ground. It is true, on the other
hand, that the literary form of 4116 contains striking reminiscences of
that of ch. 3. The most surprising of these (47 || 3160) may be set down
to textual corruption (see the note on the v.); but there are several other
turns of expression which recall the language of the earlier narrative:
cf. 4910-1 with 3% 1317, 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 indistinct-
* Cf, mm, 1 3-4 6. 9 13. 15. 16 5 Ἴγην, 11; sndab, 5; and obs. the resemblances
to ch. 3 noted below: the naming of the child by the mother.
+ This uniformity of usage is not, however, observed in G. In (χὰ
Κύριος occurs twice (5: 15), ὁ θεός 5 times (1+* % 10. 16) and Κύριος ὁ θεός 3
times (6: 15: 156) (for variants, see Cambridge LXX).
+ Even if we adopt Bu.’s emendation of ν. 7, and make Enoch the
city-founder (see on the v.), it still remains improbable that that rdle
should be assigned to the son of a wandering nomad.
IV. 1 IOI
ness of conception in 4116 which contrasts unfavourably with the con-
vincing lucidity of ch. 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 ch. 3 and 4" 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 Yah-
wistic 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 v.! (birth of Cain) may with reasonable probability be
assigned to it (so Bu.), possibly also **8 (Cain’s occupation), and 3
(Cain’s sacrifice).—Other important questions will be best considered
in connexion with the original significance of the legend (p. 111 ff.).
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 (: 2. Each offers to Yahwe the sacrifice ap-
propriate to his calling; but only the shepherd’s offering
is accepted, and Cain is filled with morose jealousy and
hatred of Abel (5-5). Though warned by Yahwe (65), he yields
to his evil passion and slays his brother (8. Yahwe pro-
nounces 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 (1912). As a mitigation of
his lot, Yahwe appoints him a sign which protects him from
indiscriminate vengeance (135); and he departs into the land
of Nod, east of Eden ([6).
I-5. Birth of Cain and Abel: their occupation,
and sacrifice.—z. On the naming of the child by the
I. yv om] A plup. sense (Ra.) being unsuitable, the peculiar order
of words is difficult to explain; see on 4}, and cf. 21. Sta. (Ak. Red.
239) regards it asa proof of editorial manipulation.—The euphemistic
use of y? is peculiar to J in the Hex. (7 times): Nu. 3117-1885 (P: cf. Ju.
2141-12) are somewhat different. Elsewhere Ju. 1139 1975, 1 Sa. 119,
1 Ki. 14,—all in the older historiography, and some perhaps from the
102 CAIN AND ABEL (1)
mother, see Benzinger, Arch@ol.2 116. It is peculiar to the
oldest strata (J and E) of the Hex., and is not quite con-
sistently observed even there (476 579 25%!, Ex. 27): it may
therefore be a relic of the matriarchate which was giving
place to the later custom of naming by the father (P) at the
time when these traditions were taking shape.—The difficult
sentence TINNN US NP connects the name ἢ with the
verb ΠΡ, But 73p has two meanings in Heb.: (a) to (create,
or) produce, and (4) 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 nx ‘with the help of’ (Di. and most) is against all
analogy. It is admitted that nx itself nowhere has this sense (in 49%
the true reading is 5), and Mic 38 is at least doubtful); and the few
cases in which the synonym oy can be so translated are not really
parallel. Both in 1 Sa. 14 and Dn. 11°, the oy denotes association
in the same act, and therefore does not go beyond the sense ‘along
with.’ The analogy does not hold in this v. if the vb. means ‘acquire’ ;
Eve could not say that she had acguired a man along with Yahwe.
(ὁ) We may, of course, assume an error in the text and read ΠΝ Ξξ " from’
(Bu. al. after ©°). (¢) The idea that nx is the sign of acc. (WG), al.), and
that Eve imagined she had given birth to the divine ‘seed’ promised in
3 (Luther, al.) may be disregarded as a piece of antiquated dogmatic
exegesis.—If we adopt the other meaning of 3p, the construction is
perfectly natural: 7 have created (or produced) a man with (the co-
operation of) Yahwe (cf. Ra.: ‘‘ 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, p. 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”: Avruru 2t-tr a-mt-lu-ti it-ti-Su ib-ta-nu (KIB, vi. τ, 40f. ;
King, Cr. Tad, i. 134 f.). Aruru, a form of IStar, is a mother-goddess
of the Babylonians (see KATZ*, 430), z.e., a deified ancestress, and
therefore so far the counterpart of the Heb. 737 (see on 3”). The
exclamation certainly gains in significance if we suppose it to have
survived from a more mythological phase of tradition, in which
literary school of J.—j‘p],/ 7 (Ar. Adana). In Ar. ξαΐγι means ‘smith’ ;
= Sie , ‘worker in metal’ (see 4” 5%). Ndldeke’s remark, that
in Ar. kain several words are combined, is perhaps equally true of Heb.
12 (ZB, 130). Many critics (We. Bu. Sta. Ho. al.) take the name as
eponym of the Kenites (7, 3) : see p. 113 below.— 1773p] All Vns. express
the idea of ‘acquiring’ (ἐκτησάμην, possedz, etc.). The sense ‘create’
or ‘originate,’ though apparently confined to Heb. and subordinate
IV. 2, 3 103
Hawwah was not a mortal wife and mother, but a creative deity taking
part with the supreme god in the production of man. See Cheyne,
TBI, 104, who thinks it ‘‘ psychologically probable that Eve congratu-
lated herself on having ‘created’ a man.”—That wx is not elsewhere
used of a man-child is not a serious objection to any interpretation (cf.
Ὁ in Jb. 3°); though the thought readily occurs that the etymology
would be more appropriate to the name ον (435) than to pip.
2. And again she bare, etc.| The omission of the verb
7 is not to be pressed as implying that the brothers were
twins, although that may very well be the meaning. The
OT 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 (Gu.).
The absence of an etymology of $37 is remarkable (but cf. ν.17),
and hardly to be accounted for by the supposition that the name was
only coined afterwards in token of his brief, fleeting existence (Di.).
The word (=‘breath’) might suggest that to a Heb. reader, but the
original sense is unknown. Gu. regards it as the proper name of an
extinct tribe or people; Ew. We. al. take it to be a variant of 53,
the father of nomadic shepherds (4°); and Cheyne has ingeniously
combined both names with a group of Semitic words denoting domestic
ΘΟ
animals and those who take charge of them (e.g. Syr. Daon= onerd) =
Ar. ’abbal=‘ camel-herd,’ etc.): the meaning would then be ‘herds-
man’ (ZB, i. 6). The conjecture is retracted in 787, in the interests
of Yerahme el.
3. An offering] NM, lit. a present or tribute (32!4# 3310
43%, 1 Sa. 1077 etc.): see below. The use of this word
even there, is established by Dt. 32°, Pr. 8, Ps. 139,5, Gn. 1419. 22,—nx]
Of the Vns. €° alone can be thought to have read nxp (ΟἼΡ 7D); one
anonymous Gr. tr. (see Field) took the word as not. acc. (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: Gr διὰ τοῦ θ., Σ. σὺν x.,‘O ‘EBp. καὶ ὁ Σύρ.: ἐν θ., Ἔ per
Deum, 3 L;So\. Conjectures: Marti (Zzt. Centralbl., 1897, xx. 641)
and Zeydner (ZATW, xviii. 120): mm nk x=‘ the man of the Jahwe
sign’ (v.°); Gu. ΠΊΝΩΝ ΟΝ τε ἃ man whom I desire.’
3. Ὁ ΥΡῸ] After some time, which may be longer (1 Sa. 29%) or
shorter (24°). To take Ὁ)" in the definite sense of ‘year’ (1 Sa. 17! 219
104 CAIN AND ABEL (J)
shows that the ‘ gift-theory’ of sacrifice (1.55, 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”
(RS, 221 and 7. 3). Cain’s offering is thus analogous to
the first-fruits (O°N52: Ex. 2316 1 34% 26) Nu. 13?° etc.) of
Heb. 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 jirstlings of his flock, namely
(see G-K. §154 a, WM. 1 (6)) of their fat-pieces] cf. Nu. 18".
Certain fat portions of the victim were in ancient ritual
reserved for the deity, and might not be eaten (1 Sa. 2! εἰς. :
for Levitical details, see Dri.-White, Zev., Polychr. Bible,
pp. 4, 65).—4b, 5a. How did Yahwe signify His acceptance
of the one offering and rejection of the other? It is
20° etc.) is unnecessary, though not altogether unnatural (IEz. al.).—
8°29] the ritual use is well established: Lv. 2%, Is. 118, Jer. 17% ete.
—nnj}o: Ar. minhat = ‘gift,’ ‘loan’: ,/manaha.* On the uses of the
word, see Dri. DB, iii. 587b. In sacrificial terminology there are
perhaps three senses to be distinguished : (1) Sacrifice in general, con-
ceived as a tribute or propitiatory present to the deity, Nu. 16%, Ju. 618,
1 Sa. 217 29 2619 Is, 113, Zeph. 3, Ps. 968 etc. (2) The conjunction of ama
and mat (1 Sa. 2539 314, Is. 197, Am. 5” etc.) may show that it denotes
vegetable as distinct from animal oblations (see RS*, 217, 236). (3) In
P and late writings generally it is restricted to cereal offerings: Ex. 30%,
Nu. 18° etc. Whether the wider or the more restricted meaning be the
older it is difficult to say.—4. adap] On Meth., see G-K. § 16d. We
might point as sing. of the noun (jaan, Lv. 816 25; G-K. § 91 δ; but ax
has scriptio plena of the pl. jadno.—ywn] G καὶ ἔπιδεν (in v.5 προσέσχεν) ;
Aq. ἐπεκλίθη ; 2. ἐτέρφθη ; Θ. ἐνεπύρισεν (see above); ὁ Lup. εὐδόκησεν ;
D respexit; S art,|o ; Tov opxyimm. There is no exact parallel
to the meaning here; the nearest is Ex. 59 (‘ look away [from their tasks]
to’ idle words).—5. a7n] in Heb. always of mental heat (anger); &
* Some, however, derive it from 4n1=‘ direct’; and Hommel (4.77,
322) cites a Sabzean inscr. where ¢anahhayat (V conj.) is used of offering
a sacrifice (see Lagrange, Etudes, 250). If this be correct, what was
said above about the ‘ gift theory’ would fall to the ground.
IV. 4, 5 105
commonly answered (in accordance with Lv. 9”, 1 Ki. 18%
etc.), that fire descended from heaven and consumed Abel’s
offering (®. Ra. IEz. De. al.). Others (Di. Gu.) think
more vaguely of some technical sign, e.g. the manner in
which the smoke ascended (Ew. Str.); while Calv. 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 (332).
Perhaps the likeliest analogy is the acceptance of Gideon’s
sacrifice by the Angel of Yahwe (Ju. 67!).—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 comm.), or (2) in the material of the sacrifice (Tu.).
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 them-
selves ; 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
RS*, Lect. 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 (Sta. 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.* If that impression be sound, it follows also that the narrative
proceeds on a ¢heory of sacrifice: the idea, viz., that animal sacrifice
alone is acceptable to Yahwe. It is true that we cannot go back to
wrongly ἐλύπησεν ; so S. On impers. const., see G-K. 8 1448 ; cf.
18% 82 3195 347, Nu. 16% etc. The word is not used by P.—For 551, $
has ;800Z| (lit. ‘became black’),
* It may be a mere coincidence that in Philo Byblius the institution
of animal sacrifice occurs in a legend of two brothers who quarrelled
(Pr. Ev. i. 10). Kittel (Studien zur hebr. Archdol. 103') suggests that
our narrative may go back to a time prior to the introduction of the
fire-offering and the altar.
106 CAIN AND ABEL (1)
a stage of Heb. ritual when vegetable offerings were excluded; but
such sacrifices must have been introduced after the adoption of agri-
cultural 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 Gu. thinks) the idea that pastoral life as a whole is more pleasing
to Yahwe than husbandry.
5b. Cain’s feeling is a mixture of anger (z¢ became very
hot to him) and dejection (zs face fell: cf. Jb. 2974, Jer. 412).
This does not imply that his previous state of mind had
been bad (Di. 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
7. The difficulties of the present text are ‘‘the curt and ambiguous
expression nxw; further, the use of nx» as masc., then the whole tenor
of the sentence, Jf thou doest not well... ; finally, the exact and yet
incongruous parallelism of the second half-verse with 3°” (Ols. WBBA,
1870, 380).—As regards ™, the main lines of interpretation are these:
(1) The inf. nxy may be complementary to 3 ἢ as a relative vb. (G-K.
§ 120, 1), in which case ‘¥ must have the sense of ‘offer’ sacrifice
(cf. 43°4, Ezk. 20%). So (a) Gk οὐκ ἐὰν ὀρθῶς προσενέγκῃς, ὀρθῶς δὲ μὴ
διέλῃς, ἥμαρτες ; ἡσύχασον (reading περ for nnsb, and pointing the next
two words p37 ΝΠ) ‘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
nai (cf. Ex. 2917, Lv. 1%, 1 Ki, 18%-%3 etc.)—for which he needlessly
substitutes Ἴη3 (15!°)—has no sense as applied to a fruit-offering. —(d)
Somewhat similar is a view approved by Bu. as “‘ vollig befriedigend ”
(Urg. 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].—(z) The inf. may be taken as compressed apod.,
and ‘nm as an independent vb.=‘do well’ (as often). ‘” might then
express the idea of (a) elevation of countenance (=015'w: cf. Jb. 1135
225): ‘If thou doest well, shall there not be lifting up?’ etc. (so Tu.
Ew. De. Di. Dri. al.); or (0) acceptance (Ὁ “ἢ as Gn. 19”, 2 Ki. 414,
Mal. 1®°): so Aq. (ἀρέσεις), 8. (Sexrdv), S (ANas), D (recipies); or
(c) forgiveness (as Gn. 50'’, Ex. 32°"): so 2. (ἀφήσω), T° Jer. and
recently Ho. Of these renderings 2 (4) or τ (ὁ) are perhaps the most
IV. 5-8 | 107
out. Every attempt to extract a meaning from the v. is
more or less of a four de force, and it is nearly certain that
the obscurity is due to deep-seated textual corruption (v.z.).
—8. And Cain said] 28 never being quite synonymous
with 134, the sentence is incomplete: the missing words,
Let us go to the field, must be supplied from Vns.; see below
(so Ew. Di. Dri. al.). That Cain, as a first step towards
reconciliation, communicated to Abel the warning he had
just received (Tu. al.), is perhaps possible grammatically, but
psychologically is altogether improbable.—‘he field] the open
country (see on 2°), where they were safe from observation
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
720 as a noun (‘sin is at the door, a lurker’: Ew. al.), though no doubt
it might be removed by a change of text. Of the image itself the best
explanation would be that of Ho., who regards p37 as a technical
expression for unforgiven sin (cf. Dt. 2919). Jewish interpreters explain
it of the evil impulse in man (y77 7y:), and most Christians similarly of
the overmastering or seductive power of sin; ™ 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 ante-
cedent to the pron. suff. is usually taken to be Sin personified as a wild
beast, or less commonly (Calv. al.) Abel, the object of Cain’s envy.
The word Awa 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 nzwn of G& and S$ (see on 415)
is no better. The verbal resemblance to 3! 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 eye of a copyist had
wandered to 416 in the adjacent column, and that the erroneous words
were afterwards adjusted to their present context: in $ the suff. are
actually reversed (4 ANA ecto olaX tra2Z A3}).—The
paraphrase of €° affords no help, and the textual confusion is probably
irremediable ; tentative emendations like those of Gu. (p. 38) are of no
avail. Che. 7817, 105, would remove v.7 as a gloss, and make 85
(reading ‘nx) Cain’s answer to ν.ὅ,
8. 1>x, in the sense of ‘speak,’ * converse’ (2 Ch. 32%), is excessively
rare and late: the only instance in early Heb. is apparently Ex. 19%,
where the context has been broken by a change of document. It might
mean ‘mention’ (as 43” etc.), but in that case the obj. must be indi-
cated. Usually it is followed, like Eng. ‘say,’ by the actual words
spoken. Hence m7 ποῦ is to be supplied with 2:0 SP, but not Aq.
(Tu. De. : see the scholia in Field): a Pisga in some Heb. MSS, though
108 CAIN AND ABEL (J)
(x Ki. 11°°).—9. Yahwe opens the inquisition, as in 3°, 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 brothers blood ts crying to
me, etc.| PY¥ denotes strictly the cry for help, and specially
for redress or vengeance (Ex: 222776 πὰ 49) ΒΘ τθ τς
etc.). The idea that blood exposed on the ground thus
clamours for vengeance is persistently vivid in the OT
(Jb. 263, [50.265], . Ezk.; 24% ®, 2 Ki-g?8) > ΞΘ ΘΟ ΤΥ ΠῚ
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.—I1I. And now cursed art
thou from (off) the ground] 1.6., not the earth’s surface, but
the cultivated ground (cf. v.44, and see on 2°). To restrict
it to the soil of Palestine (We. Sta. Ho.) goes beyond the
“necessities of the case.—which has opened her mouth, etc.|
a personification of the ground similar to that of Sheol in
Is. 514 (cf. Nu. 16%). 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, 219 ff.). The
ordinary OT conception is that the blood remains wa-
covered (cf. Eurip. £lectra, 318f.). The relation of the
two notions is obscure.—12. The curse ‘from off the
ground’ has two sides: (1) The ground will xo longer yield
its strength (Jb. 31°°) to the murderer, so that even if he
wished he will be unable to resume his husbandry; and
not recognised by the Mass., supports this view of the text. To emend
roy) (Ols. al.) or 192, 191 (Gk.) is less satisfactory.—g. *x] 22 28.—10.
On the interjectional use of Sip, see G-K. § 1468; N&. Mand. Gr. p. 482.
—o'pys] ax pys, agreeing with dip (?).—11. JD... WN] pregnant constr.,
G-K. § 119 x,y, f. This sense of }> is more accurately expressed by
byp in v.4, but is quite common (cf. esp. 2739). Other renderings, as
from (indicating the direction from which the curse comes) or éy, are
less appropriate; and the compar. more than is impossible.—12. 9Dn]
juss. form with ἐν (G-K. § 109d,h; Dav. §§ 63, R. 3, 66, R. 6); fol-
IV. 9-14 109
(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.
13-16. Mitigation of Cain’s punishment.—13. My
punishment ts too great to be borne] So the plea of Cain is
understood by all modern authorities. The older rendering :
my guilt ts 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.—1I4. from Thy face 7 shall be hidden| This
anguished cry of Cain has received scant sympathy at the
hands of comm. (except Gu.). Like that of Esau in 27%,
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 comm.); but rather the lawless state of things
in the desert, where any one’s life may be taken with
impunity (Gu.). 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
lowed by inf. without > (G-K. § 114 m).—ry y3] an alliteration, as in 12.
Best rendered in anon. Gr. Vns. (Field): σαλευόμενος καὶ ἀκαταστατῶν ;
D vagus et profugus; (τ (incorrectly) στένων καὶ τρέμων.
13. On jy (y gaway = ‘go astray’: Dri. Sam. 134f.) in the sense of
punishment of sin, see the passages cited in ΒΒ, s.v. 3. ‘y ΝΣ, in
the sense of ‘bear guilt,’ seems peculiar to P and Ezk. ; elsewhere it
means to ‘pardon iniquity’ (Ex. 347, Nu. 1418, Ho. 14%, Mic. 718, Ps. 32°).
This consideration is not decisive; but there is something to be said
for the consensus of anc. Vns. (Gk ἀφεθῆναι ; DB 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. *nk] instead of suff. is unlike J, In the next v. ink after inf. was
110 CAIN AND ABEL (J)
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 (cf. 1 Sa. 261°), 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.
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 Kayin (or
‘whenever any one kills Κι ἢ), z¢ (the murder) shall be avenged
sevenfold| by the slaughter of seven members of the
murderer’s clan. See below.—appointed a sign for Kayin|
or set a mark on K. 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 nix, is certainly
consistent with the phrase >... ny: cf. eg. Ex. 15”, Jos. 24% with
Ex. τοῦ etc. So some authorities in Ber. &., IEz. Tu. al. But Ex. 4115
proves that it may also be something attached to the person of Cain
(Calv. Ber. R., De. and most); and that nix may denote a mark appears
from Ex. 13°18 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 some-
thing 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
Kayin is no longer a personal but a collective name. The clause
‘p rin-dp (not 357: Ὁ, or ”* Wx) has frequentative force (exx. below), imply-
ing that the act might be repeated many times on members of the tribe
Kayin: similarly the sevenfold vengeance assumes a kin-circle to
which the murderer belongs. See, further, p. 112.
necessary to avoid confusion between subj. and obj.—15. 325] οὐχ οὕτως
(15) implies }2 X9: so SH; but this would require to be followed
by °3.—'p 2.193] see G-K. § 116m; cf. Ex. 12%, Nu. 35%, 1 Sa, 213 311
etc.—o7] The subj. might be 1} (as v.*4) or (more probably) impers.
(Ex. 2171), certainly not the murderer of Cain.—o;nyiv] = ‘7 times’:
G-K. § 1347 Vns.: (ἃ ἑπτὰ ἐκδικούμενα παραλύσει; Ag. ἑπταπλασίως
IV. 15, 16 ria
16. and dwelt in the land of Néd| The vb. 2% is not
necessarily inconsistent with nomadic life, as Sta. alleges
(see Gn. 13%, 1 Ch. 51° etc.). It is uncertain whether the
name Ἢ) is traditional (We. Gu.), or was coined from the
participle 12 = ‘land of wandering’ (so most); at all events
it cannot be geographically identified. If the last words
my nop belong to the original narrative, it would be
natural to regard Kayin as representative of the nomads
of Central Asia (Knob. al.); but the phrase may have been
added by a redactor to bring the episode into connexion
with the account of the Fall.
The Origin of the Cain Legend.—The exposition of 4116 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.” *
A subordinate point, on which undue stress is commonly laid, is the
identity of Cain with the nomadic tribe of the Kenites. These ideas,
first propounded by Ew.,t adopted by We.,} and (in part) by Rob.
Sm.,§ have been worked up by Sia., in his instructive essay on ‘The
sign of Cain,’|| 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 νν. 116,
1. That the figure of Cain represents some phase of nomadic life
may be regarded as certain. We have seen (p. 110) that in ν. 1538: the
name Cain has a collective sense ; and every descriptive touch in these
closing vv. is characteristic of desert life. His expulsion from the no1x
and the phrase 10 y3, express (though not by any means necessarily, —
ἐκδικηθήσεται; Σ. ἑβδόμως ἐκδίκησιν δώσει; O. δι’ ἑβδομάδος ἐκδικήσει ;
BP septuplum punietur; 5. S,;Qhs [Keowee rv; Tynan p77 xyaw>
ΠΥ (hence the idea that Cain was killed by Lamech the 7th from
Adam [see on v.™]).—16. 3] 2. 73, @ Naid (13?) with variants (see
Nestle, WM, p. 9). — ZOD (habitavit profugus in terra) [{ 9] take
the word as a participle; but the order of words forbids this.—no7p}
see on 24, ‘In front of E.’ and ‘East of E.’ would here be the same
thing (374).
* Smith, ΑἸ, 251. + JBBW, vi. 5 ff. t Comp.? tof.
§ Lc. Ak, Reden, 229-73.
ΠΟ ORIGIN OF THE
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.* The sign which Yahwe puts on him is most naturally
explained as the ‘‘ shart 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.” + 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.
2. While this is true, the narrative cannot be regarded as expressing
reprobation of every form of nomadism known to the Hebrews. A dis-
paraging estimate of Bedouin life as a whole is, no doubt, conceivable
on the part of the settled Israelites (cf. Gn. 1613); 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.t (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, ZS, 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; z.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 OT 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
* 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.
+ Smith, Z.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’; z.e. they retaliate upon any member of the
murderer's tribe whether innocent or guilty. See Burck. 149ff., 320f.
+ No. ZB, 130.
CAIN LEGEND ΤΣ
given by Burck. 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.* The name 7}, signifying ‘smith’ (p. 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 ν.}5.---
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 @étre of Sta.’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.t
3. The kernel of Sta.’s argument is the attractive combination of
Cain the fratricide with the eponymous ancestor of the Kenites.t In
historical times the Kenites appear to have been pastoral nomads (Ex.
2158... 21) frequenting the deserts south of Judah (1 Sa. 27'° 30%), and (in
some of their branches) clinging tenaciously to their ancestral manner
of life (Ju. 41-27 5%, Jer. 357 cpd. with 1 Ch. 2°), From the fact that
they are found associated now with Israel (Ju. 116 etc.), now with
Amalek (Nu. 247, 1 Sa. 15°), and now with Midian (Nu. 10”), Sta.
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 Kenites exercised a
more rigorous blood-feud than other Semites: indeed, it seems an
inconsistency in Sta.’s position that he regards the Kenites 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
Kenites were anything but typical Bedouin; and all the objections to
* Burck. 14f.; Doughty, Avabia Deserta, i. 280 ff.
+ An interesting parallel might be found in the account given by
Merker (Die Masai, p. 306ff.) of the smiths (οἱ konont) 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, Ethnogr. Parall. τι. Vergl. (1878), 156 ff.
+ The tribe is called j:2 in Nu, 24”, Ju. 4"; elsewhere the gentilic ‘sp
is used (in 1 Ch. 2° 5}.
8
ΤΙ, THE CAIN LEGEND
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 Kenites 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.
4. It is very doubtful if any form of the nomadic or Kenite theory
can account for the rise of the legend as a whole. The evidence
on which it rests is drawn almost exclusively from vv.?*?8 Sta.
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 (cf. 1 Sa. 25"). 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 con-
vincing. 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.—Gu., with more consist-
ency, finds in the narrative a vague reminiscence of an actual (prehis-
toric) 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 ;* and Gu.’s view has the advantage
over Sta.’s that it makes a difference of sacrificial ritual an intelligible
factor in the quarrel (see p. 105f.). But the process of extracting history
from legend is always precarious ; and in this case the motive of zmdiz-
vidual blood-guilt appears too prominent to be regarded as a secondary
interest of the narrative.
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 (v.?). (2) He is the founder of sacrifice, and
(as the foil to his brother Abel) exhibits the idea that vegetable offer-
ings alone are not acceptable to Yahwe (see on ν.ὅ). (3) He is the
individual murderer (or rather shedder of kindred blood) pursued by the
curse, like the Orestes, Alemzon, Bellerophon, etc., of Greek legend
(v.88-), Up to v. that motive not only is sufficient, but is the only
one naturally suggested to the mind: the expression 73) "5 being merely
the negative aspect of the curse which drives him from the ground.t
* Instances in Merker, Die Masai, pp. 3, 7, 8, 14, 328, etc.
+ For a Semitic parallel to this conception of Cain, comp. Doughty’s
description of the wretched Harb Bedouin who had accidentally slain
his antagonist in a wrestling match: ‘* None accused Aly ; nevertheless
the mesguin fled for his life; and he has gone ever since thus armed,
lest the kindred of the deceased finding him should kill him” (Az. Des.
ii. 293, cited by Stade).
IV. 17-24 115
(4) Lastly, in νν. 1516 he is the representative of the nomad tribes of
the desert, as viewed from the standpoint of settled and orderly civilisa-
tion. 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 (v.), 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.
IV. 17-24.—The line of Cain.
This genealogy, unlike that of P in ch. 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.* These are: Husbandry (v.?; see above), city-life (17),
[polygamy (!)?], pastoral nomadism, music and metal-
working (7°). The Song of Lamech (233) 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 vv. 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; poly-
gamy (though a declension from the ideal of 274) is not
generally condemned in the OT (Dt. 211); 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
* Gu., however (p. 47), considers the archzological notices to be
insertions in the genealogy, and treats them as of a piece with the
similar notices in 2! 377. 23,
116 CAINITE GENEALOGY (J)
those existing in the writer’s own day; hence the passage
does not contemplate a rupture of the continuity of develop-
ment by a cataclysm like the Flood. That the representa-
tion involves a series of anachronisms, and is not historical,
requires no proof (see Dri. Gen. 68).—On the relation of the
section to other parts of the ch., see p. 98 above: on some
further critical questions, see the concluding Note (p. 122 ff.).
17. Enoch and the building of the first city.—The
question where Cain got his wife is duly answered in
Jub. iv. 1, 9: she was his sister, and her name was ‘Awén.
For other traditions, see Marmorstein, ‘ Die Namen der
Schwestern Kains τι. Abels,’ εἴο., ΖΑ͂ ΤΉΝ, xxv. 141 ff.—and
he became a city-builder| So the clause is rightly rendered
by De. Bu. Ho. Gu. al. (cf. 21°?) ju το ΣΙ
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 jp is the subj. of 7) only appears from the phrase 1:3 083 towards
the end. Bu. (120 ff.) conjectures that the original text was \ov3, making
Enoch himself the builder of the city called after him (so Ho.). The
emendation is plausible: it avoids the ascription to Cain of ¢wo 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 subj. of the immediately preceding vbs. is Cain’s wife. But the
difficulty of accounting for the present text is a serious objection, the
motive suggested by Bu. (123) being far-fetched and improbable.—The
incongruity between this notice and vv.1!"!6 has already been mentioned
(p. 100). Lenormant’s examples of the mythical connexion of city-building
with fratricide (Origines?, i. 141 ff.) are not to the point ; the difficulty is
not that the first city was founded bya murderer, but bya nomad. More
relevant would be the instances of cities originating in hordes of out-
laws, collected by Frazer, as parallels to the peopling of Rome (Fort.
Rev. 1899, Apr., 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 (Ho. Gu.) to remove ΤΡ as an addition
to the genealogy, on the ground that no intelligent writer would put
17. On "τὴ, see on v.1,—The vb. 339 appears from Ar. hanaka to be a
denom. from kanak (Heb. π), and means to rub the palate of a new-born
child with chewed dates: hence trop. ‘to initiate’ (Lane, 5.0. ; We.
Heid. 173). In Heb. it means to ‘dedicate’ or ‘inaugurate’ a house,
etc. (Dt. 20°, 1 Ki. 8%: cf. agin, Nu. 74, Neh. 127 ete); andgalsomte
‘teach’ (Pr. 22°), See, further, on 518,
IV. 17, 18 117
city-building before cattle-rearing ; but the Phoenician tradition is full
of such anachronisms, and shows how little they influenced the reasoning
of ancient genealogists.—The name 339 occurs (besides 5!8", 1 Ch. 1°)
as that of a Midianite tribe in 25*(1 Ch. 188), and of a Reubenite clan
in 46° (Ex. 614, Nu. 26°, 1 Ch. 5%). It is also said that yn is a Sabezean
tribal name (6--Β.}3 s.v.),* which has some importance in view of the
fact that 32 (5°%) is the name of a Sabzean deity. As the name of a
city, the word would suggest to the Heb. mind the thought of ‘ initia-
tion’ (v.z.). The city 73m cannot be identified. The older conjectures
are given by Di. (p. 99); Sayce (ZAPF, ii. 404; Hb. Lect. 185) and
Cheyne (ZB, 624; but see now 7.87, 106) connect it with Unwk, the
ideographic name of the ancient Babylonian city of Erech.
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
ch. 5.
On the first three names, see esp. Lagarde, Orvientalia, ii. 33-38 ;
Bu. Urg. 123-9. —17y] (ἃ Tardad (=77y), S ary (the latter supported
by Philo), corresponds to 17) in 5°", The initial guttural, and the want
of a Heb. etymology, would seem to indicate ΤῊΝ as the older form which
has been Hebraized in 1; but the conclusion is not certain. If the
root be connected with Ar. ‘avada (which is doubtful in view of &’sT),
the idea might be either ‘fugitive’ (Di. al.), or ‘strength, hardness,
courage’ (Bu.). Sayce (ZF, ii. 404) suggests an identification with
the Chaldean city Zridu; Ho. with 1qy, in the Negeb (Ju. 17° etc.).—The
next two names are probably (but not oertainly: see Gray, HPN, 164 f.)
compounds with by. The first is given by MT in two forms, Syxm> and
by[}ne. The variants of G are reducible to three types, Maid (bx»nn),
Μαουιηλ (Sx»nn), Μαλελεὴλ (=dxddan, 5%"). Lag. considers the last
original, though the first is the best attested. Adopting this form, we
may (with Bu.) point the Heb. $y ὑπο or 5x Ἐπ =‘God makes me live’:
so virtually Philo ἀπὸ fwijs θεοῦ, and Jer. ex vita Deus (cited by Lag.).
Both Mass. forms undoubtedly imply a bad sense: ‘destroyed (or
smitten) of God’ (though the form is absolutely un-Hebraic, see Dri. Sam.
14).—>xyin> is now commonly explained by Ass. mutu-Sa-ili, ‘Man of
God,’+ though the relative Sa presents a difficulty (Gray, /.c.). The
true @ reading is Μαθουσαλα (=nbvinz, 5"); Μαθουσαηλ occurs as a
correction in some MSS—yp5] again inexplicable from Heb. or even
Arabic. Sayce (Hb. Lect, 186) and Hommel connect it with Lamga, a
Babylonian name of the moon-god, naturalised in S. Arabia.t
18. On acc. nx with pass. see G-K. § 116 a, b.— > in the sense of
‘beget’ is a sure mark of the style of J (see Ho. Zin/. 99).—3nd] archaic
* Omitted in 13th edition.
t+ Lenorm. Orig.” i. 262f., Di. Bu. al. Che. ZB, 625. It does not
appear that mwtu-Sa-ili occurs as an actual name.
~ Hommel, Ad¢israel. Uberl. 117 n.: ‘‘ Lamga ist ein babylonischer
118 CAINITE GENEALOGY (1)
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 Ew. (J/BBW, vi. 17), that πὴ means Dawn (Ar. gad", but &
has ’Aéa), and a>y (fem. of 9x) Shadow,—a relic of some nature-myth (cf.
Lenorm. Orvig.* 183 f.). Others (Ho.) take them as actual proper names
of inferior stocks incorporated in the tribe Lamech; pointing out that
my recurs in 36% as a Canaanite clan amalgamated with Esau. This
ethnographic theory, however, has very little foothold in the passage.
For other explanations, see Di. p. Ioo.
20-22. The sons of Lamech and their occupations.—
At this point the genealogy breaks up into three branches,
introducing (as Ew. 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. Yadal, son of ‘Adah,
became the father (z.e. originator: {1 3) of tent- and cattle-
dwellers (v.t.); 1.6. of nomadic shepherds. ΠΡ, however,
is a wider term than }jxy¥ (v.”), including all kinds of cattle,
and even camels and asses (Ex. οὗ). The whole Bedouin life
is thus assigned to Jabal as its progenitor.—2I. Yzbal, alsoa
nom. case (G-K. 8 go 0) of an old Sem. word (also Egypt. according
to Erman) n)=‘man’ (male, husband, etc.): cf. G—-B. s.v.
20. 73p23 ak av] Ck οἰκούντων ἐν σκηναῖς κτηνοτρόφων, perhaps reading
ΤΩΡ *>x as in 2 Ch. 14% (so Ball). Ἔ (atgue pastorum) takes ΠΡ asa
ptcp.; S inserts AEN Halop and @° 1m, before ‘cattle’; similarly
Kuenen proposed pp πρὶ, The zeugma is somewhat hard, but is
retained by most comm. for the sake of conformity with v.74*; G-K.
§ 117 6d, 118 g.—2I. vox ov] cf. 10% (J) (1 Ch. 716),—‘n vax] Ge ὁ κατα-
δείξας ψαλτήριον καὶ κιθάραν. --- 39} 32] D cithara et organo; 3% A Lo
|;-2100 ; [79 xray x9 (|| xba3). See Benzinger, Archeol.?, 237-246 ; We.
Psalms (Polychr. Bible), 219f., 222f.; Riehm, Hdwéd. 1043 ff. The 132 is
Beiname des Sin; daraus machten die Sabier, mit volksetymologischer
Anlehnung an ihr Verbum lamaka (wahrsch. glanzen), einen Plural
Almaku.”’
IV. 19-22 119
son of ‘Adah, is the father of a// who handle lyre and pipe; the
oldest and simplest musical instruments. These two occupa-
tions, representing the bright side of human existence, have
‘Adah (the Dawn?) as their mother; recalling the classical
association of shepherds with music (see Lenorm. i. 207).—
22. Equally suggestive is the combination of 7#bal-kayin, the
smith, and Wa‘dmah (‘pleasant’), as children of the dark
Zillah; cf. the union of Hephzstos and Aphrodite in Greek
mythology (Di. al.).—The opening words of ** are corrupt.
We should expect: he became the father of every artificer in
brass and tron (see footnote). The persistent idea that
Tubal-cain was the inventor of weapons, Ber. R., Ra. and
most, which has led to a questionable interpretation of the
Song, has no foundation. He is simply the metal-worker,
certainly a stringed instrument, played with the hand (1 Sa. 16” etc.),
probably the lyre (Greek xwipa). The any (associated with the 732
in Jb. 21)? 3051 : elsewhere only Ps. 1504) is some kind of wind instrument
(HT°),—a flute or reed-pipe, perhaps the Pan’s pipe (σύριγξ).---22. 17 D3]
in genealogies (as here, 455 107! 19% 22% 94 [Jy, 831]) is characteristic of J.
—yp bain] Gr GoBed- καὶ ἦν. Other Vns. have the compound name, and
on the whole it is probable that καὶ ἣν is a corruption of Kaw, although
the next cl. has Θοβεὰλ alone.—'n wud] ( καὶ ἣν σφυροκόπος, χαλκεὺς χαλκοῦ
καὶ σιδήρου, Ἔ gui fuit malleator et faber in cuncta opera aer. et Hitec:
Lh-220 Les) pos Yano 2001; TO ’a " ΠῪΞ» yp 91 pan.
To get any kind of sense from MT, it is necessary either (a) to take vs
(‘sharpener’ or ‘hammerer’) in the sense of ‘instructor’; or (4) take
wh as neut. (‘a hammerer of every cutting implement of,’ etc.); or (c)
adopt the quaint construction (mentioned by Bu. 138): ‘a hammerer of
all (sorts of things),—a (successful) artificer in bronze,’ etc! All these
are unsatisfactory ; and neither the omission of 53 with @& (Di.), nor the
insertion of 3 ν before it yields a tolerable text. Bu.’s emendation (139 ff.)
‘ny wth ἼΟ "πὴ [for pp! is much too drastic, and stands or falls with his
utterly improbable theory that Lamech and not Tubal-cain was origin-
ally designated as the inventor of weapons. The error must lie in the
words w»> pp, for which we should expect, ‘28 77 Nn (Ols. Ball). The
difficulty is to account for the present text: it is easy to say that wud
and ἢ» are glosses, but there is nothing in the v. to require a gloss, and
neither of these words would naturally have been used by a Heb. writer
for that purpose.—$n3] The Semitic words for ‘iron’ (Ass. parzillu,
Aram. $ns, th:2, Ar. farzil) have no Semitic etymology, and are
ρ
probably borrowed from a foreign tongue. On the antiquity of iron in
W. Asia, see Ridgeway, Early Age of Gr. i. 616 ff.
120 CAINITE GENEALOGY (J)
an occupation regarded by primitive peoples as a species of
black-art,* and by Semitic nomads held in contempt.
On the names inthese vv. see the interesting discussion of Lenorm.
Orig.” i. 192 ff.—The alliterations, Yabal— Yabal—T bal, are a feature
of legendary genealogies: cf. Arab. Habil and Kabil, Shiddid and
Shaddad, MAlik and Milk4n, etc. (Lenorm. 192). 52° (Gr "IwBed -ηλ) and
Sav (Τουβαλ) both suggest $a’ (Heb. and Phoen.), which means primarily
‘ram,’ then ‘ram’s horn’ as a musical instrument (Ex. 19}%), and finally
‘joyous music’ (in the designation of the year of Jubilee), On a sup-
posed connexion of 52° with 5a7q in the sense of ‘herdsman,’ see above,
p- 103.—>z" is a Japhetic people famous in antiquity for metal-working
(see on 10”); and it is generally held that their eros eponymus sup-
plies the name of the founder of metallurgy here; but the equation is
doubtful. A still more precarious combination with a word for smith
(tumal, dubalanza, etc.) in Somali and other East African dialects,
has been propounded by Merker (Die Masai, 306). The compound 52n
PP (written in Oriental MSS as one word) may mean either ‘ Tubal [the]
smith’ (in which case }’p [we should expect ]!p7] is probably a gloss), or
‘Tubal of (the family of) Cain.’+ @& has simply Θοβελ ; but see the
footnote. Tuch and others adduce the analogy of the Tedxives, 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 Phoenician legend,
were σιδήρου εὑρεταὶ καὶ τῆς τούτου épyaclas.—npyi (Cx Noeua) seems to
have been a mythological personage of some importance. A goddess
of that name is known to have been worshipped by the Pheenicians.t
In Jewish tradition she figures as the wife of Noah (Ber R.), asa
demon, and also as a sort of St. Cecilia, a patroness of vocal music
(GJ: cf. Lag. OS, 180, 56: Noeuly ψάλλουσα φωνῇ οὐκ ἐν ὀργάνῳ [Nestle,
MM, το]).
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 com-
memorates the invention of weapons by Tubal-cain, and is
accordingly spoken of as Lamech’s ‘Sword Song.’ But the
23. The Introd. of the song is imitated in Is. 28° 32°; cf. also Dt. 321.
The words 1x7 and 7798 are almost exclusively poetical.—On the form
jyov, see G-K. 8 46f—'n107 is perf. of experience (Dav. § 40 (ε) ; Dri. Z.
§ 12), rather than of single completed action, or of certainty (I[Ez. De.
Bu. al.).—23is not recitative, but gives the reason for the call to attention.
—ys5b, pan] On this use of 5, see BDB, s.v. 5, fi: Gr εἰς τραῦμα [μώλωπα]
* See Andree, Ethnogr. Parall. τε. Vergleiche (1878), 157.
+ So Ew., who thinks the 0} belongs to each of the three names,
t Lenorm. 2o00f.; Tiele, Gesch. i. 265; Baethgen, Beztr. 150.
ΤΥ} 23; 24 121
contents of the song furnish no hint of such an occasion
(We.); and the position in which it stands makes its con-
nexion 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 vv. may be rendered:
3 Adah 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.
39 For Cain takes vengeance seven times,
But Lamech seventy times and seven!
23a. Ho. raises the question whether the words ‘ Adah and
Zillah’ belong to the song or the prose introduction; and
decides (with ἘΠῚ for the latter view, on the ground that in
the remaining vv. 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 ?.—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, US and 10 (‘. is not a fighting ‘ youth,’—a sense it
rarely bears: 1 Ki, 125. Dn. 14%,—but an innocent man-
child [Bu. Ho.]) are not the actual perpetrators of the
outrage, but any members of the same clan. The parallel-
ism 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
ἐμοί ; DP in vulnus [livorem] meum.—24. 12] again introducing the reason,
which, however, ‘‘lies not in the words immediately after °3, but in the
122 CAINITE GENEALOGY (J)
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 Ηο. 5 division of 338 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, Gu. 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 Sta. thinks)
to a connection between the song and the legendary cycle from which
the Cain story of 138: 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. (Lenorm.) ; its real
character was first divined by We., who, after pointing out the base-
lessness of the notion that it has to do with the invention of weapons,
describes it as ‘‘eine gar keiner besonderen Veranlassung bediirftige
Prahlerei eines Stammes (Stammvaters) gegen den anderen. Und wie
die Araber sich besonders gern ihren Weibern gegeniiber als grosse
Eisenfresser riihmen, so macht es hier auch Lamech” (Com.? 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
GP), who regarded it as an utterance of remorse for an isolated murder
committed by Lamech. The rendering of ©° 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 (Ra. al.; cf. Jer. Ep. ad
Damasum, 125).*—The metrical structure of the poem is investigated
by Sievers in Metrische Studien, i. 404f., and ii, 12f., 247f. 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 ΠΟΣῚ my as a gloss.
Apart from ν. 35, the most remarkable feature of the genealogy is
second part of the sentence” (ΒΒ, s.v. 3, c): cf. Dt. 18", Jer. 301.—om
on acc., see G-K. § 29 g. The Niph. 03: would yield a better sense :
‘avenges himself’ (Bu. Di. Ho.).
* See, further, Lenorm. Orig. i. 186 ff.
IV. 24 123
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 develop-
ment. Several recent scholars have sought a clue in the social con-
ditions 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,*—the
élite of all nomadic-living men, and the ‘flower of human culture’
(Bu. 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 (Sta. 232). The
obvious inference is that the genealogy originated among a nomadic
people, presumably the Hebrews before the settlement in Canaan (Bu.);
though Ho. considers that it embodies a specifically Kenite tradition in
which the eponymous hero Cain appears as the ancestor of the race (so
Gordon, Z7G, 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.t Moreover, the circumstances of the Arabian peninsula present a
very incomplete parallel to the classes of vv.2**. 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 vv., which certainly
imply no disparaging estimate of Jubal’s art. And once more, as Sta.
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 Bu.) we include
vv.2 and 1, 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 Phoenician 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 Heb. tradition; but
the general idea is the same: in each case we have a genealogical list
* But against this view, see p. 112 above, and Meyer, ZNS, 303 ff.
+ Ho. evades this objection by deleting v.!¥, and reducing the
genealogy to a bare list of names; but why should the Kenites have
interposed a whole series of generations between their eponymous
ancestor and the origin of their own nomadic life ?
124 SETHITE GENEALOGY (J)
of the legendary heroes to whom the discovery of the various arts and
occupations is attributed. Whether the biblical or the Phoenician
tradition is the more original may be doubtful; in any case ‘‘it is
difficult,” as Dri. says, ‘‘not to think that the Heb. and Phecen.
representations spring from a common Canaanite cycle of tradition,
which in its turn may have derived at least some of its elements from
Babylonia” (Ge. p. 74).*
IV. 25, 26.—Fragmentary Sethite Genealogy.
The vv. are the beginning of a Yahwistic genealogy
(see above, p. 99), of which another fragment has fortunately
been preserved in 57° (Noah). Since it is thus seen to have
* Cf. Eus. Prep. Ev. i. 10 (ed. Heinichen, p. 39 ff.). The Greek text
is printed in Miiller’s Fragm. Hist. Grec. iii. 566f. French transla-
tions are given by Lenorm. Orig. i. 536ff., and Lagrange, Etudes sur
les Religions Semitiques', 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 Gen.: Of the two proto-
plasts Αἰών and IIpwréyovos, it is recorded εὑρεῖν δὲ τὸν Αἰῶνα τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν
δένδρων tpopjv.—The second pair, Γένος and Γενεά, dwelt in Phoenicia,
and inaugurated the worship of the sun.—Of the race of Alwy and
IIpwréyovos were born three mortal children, Φῶς, Πῦρ, and Φλόξ : οὗτοι
ἐκ παρατριβῆς ξύλων εὗρον πῦρ, καὶ τὴν χρῆσιν édtdatav.—Then followed
a race of giants, of whom was born [Σα]μημροῦμος (ΞΕ ΕΛ 5:0) ὁ καὶ
«“Ὑψουράνιος, who founded Tyre. Of him we read: καλύβας τε ἐπινοῆσαι
ἀπὸ καλάμων, καὶ θρύων, kal 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 ἐμβηναι" ἀνιερῶσαι δὲ δύο στήλας... αἷμά τε σπένδειν αὐταῖς ἐξ ὧν
ἤγρευε Onplwy.—The further history of invention names (a) ᾿Αγρεύς and
᾿Αλιεύς, τοὺς ἁλείας καὶ ἄγρας evperds; (6)... δύο ἀδελφοὺς σιδήρου εὑρετὰς,
καὶ τῆς τούτου ἐργασίας" ὧν θάτερον τὸν Χρυσὼρ λόγους ἀσκῆσαι, καὶ ἐπῳδὰς
καὶ μαντείας ; (c) Τεχνίτης and Τήϊνος Αὐτόχθων : οὗτοι ἐπενόησαν τῷ πηλῷ
τῆς πλίνθου συμμιγνύειν φορυτὸν, καὶ τῷ ἡλίῳ αὐτὰς τερσαίνειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ στέγας
ἐξεῦρον ; (α) ᾿ΑὙρός and ᾿Αγρούηρος (or ᾿Αγρότης) : ἐπενόησαν δὲ οὗτοι αὐλὰς
προστιθέναι τοῖς οἴκοις σαί περιβόλαια καὶ σπήλαια" ἐκ τούτων ἀγρόται καὶ
κυνηγοί ; (6) ΓΔΑ μυνος and Μάγος : of κατέδειξαν κῶμας καὶ ποίμνας ; (7) Μισώρ
(2wD) and Συδύκ (pry): οὗτοι τὴν τοῦ ἁλὸς χρῆσιν εὗρον. (g) Of Μισώρ was
born Τάαυτ, ὃς εὗρε τὴν τῶν πρώτων στοιχείων γραφήν ; and (A) of Συδύκ, the
Διόσκουροι : οὗτοι, φησὶ, πρῶτοι πλοῖον etpov.—After them came others of
καὶ βοτάνας εὗρον, καὶ τὴν τῶν δακετῶν ἴασιν, καὶ érwdds.—It is impossible
to doubt that some traditional elements have been preserved in this
extraordinary medley of euhemerism and archzology, however unfavour-
ably it may contrast with the simplicity of the biblical record.
IV. 25 125
contained the three names (Seth, Enos, Noah) peculiar to
the genealogy of P, it may be assumed that the two lists
were in substantial agreement, each consisting of ten
generations. That that of J was not a dry list of names
and numbers appears, however, from every item of it that
has survived. The preservation of 47°! is no doubt due to
the important notice of the introduction of Yahwe-worship
(78>), the redactor having judged it more expedient in this
instance to retain J’s statement intact. The circumstance
shows on how slight a matter far-reaching critical specula-
tions may hang. But for this apparently arbitrary decision
of the redactor, the existence of a Sethite genealogy in J
would hardly have been suspected ; and the whole analysis
of the J document into its component strata might have run
a different course.
25. And Adam knew, etc.| see on v.1_ That 7° denotes
properly the zwz¢zatzon of the conjugal relation (Bu.) is very
doubtful: see 3876, 1 Sa. 11°.—And she called] see again on v.1.
—God has appointed me seed] (the remainder of the v. is
probably an interpolation). Cf. 3% Eve’s use of obs is
not ‘surprising’ (Di.); it only proves that the section is not
from the same source as v.!. On the other hand, it harmon-
ises with the fact that in 31 ony is used in dialogue. It
is at least a plausible inference that both passages come
from one narrator, who systematically avoided the name n\n"
up to 43 (see p. 100).
The v. in its present form undoubtedly presupposes a knowledge of
the Cain and Abel narrative of 4116; but it is doubtful if the allusions
to the two older brothers can be accepted as original (see Bu. 154-159).
Some of Bu.’s arguments are strained; but it is important to observe
that the word ny is wanting in @&, and that the addition of bam nnn ἼΠΝ
destroys the sense of the preceding utterance, the idea of substitution
being quite foreign to the connotation of the vb. nw. The following
clause ἢ 1395 3 reads awkwardly in the mouth of Eve (who would
naturally have said ‘p ‘n wx), and is entirely superfluous on the part of
25. 07] here for the first time unambiguously a prop. name. There
is no reason to suspect the text: the transition from the generic to the
individual sense is made by P only in 5‘, and is just as likely to have
been made by J.—G& reads Εὔαν in place of ty; S$ has both words.—
Before 15m GS insert 79m.—x pm] 22 ΝΡ, τῷ] Ge λέγουσα ; so Ἔ and
126 SETHITE GENEALOGY (J)
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 v.): yn onde Ὁ nv, ‘God has appointed me seed’
(1.6. posterity). There is an obvious reference to 3%, where both the
significant words nw and yn 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 Heb. word
(with equivalents in Phoen. Arab. Syr. Jew.-Aram.: cf. N6. Mand. Gr.
Ρ- 98) n¥ would mean ‘ foundation’ (not Se¢z/ing, stillless Ersatz) ; but its
real etymology is, of course, unknown. Hommel’s attempt(AOD, p. 26 ff.)
to establish a connexion with the second name in the list of Berossus
(below, p. 137) involves too many doubtful equations, and even if
successful would throw no light on the name. In Nu. 2477 nv appears
to be a synonym for Moab ; but the text is doubtful (Meyer, ZS, 219).
The late Gnostic identification of Seth with the Messiah may be based
on the Messianic interpretation of 3%, and does not necessarily imply
a Babylonian parallel.
26. On the name 38 ( = Man, and therefore in all prob-
ability the first member of an older genealogy), see below.
—Then men began to call, etc.| Better (with &, etc., v.z.):
He was the first to call on the name of Yahwe (cf. 9”° 10%),
z.e. he was the founder of the worship of Yahwe; cf. 128
13* 2153 26% (all J). What historic reminiscence (if any)
lies behind this remarkable statement we cannot conjec-
ture; but its significance is not correctly expressed when
even ©°—26. xin 03] (G-K. § 135%) G om.—viay] like 05x, properly a
coll.: End8 is a personification of mankind. The word is rare and
mostly poetic in Heb. (esp. Jb. Ps.); but is common in other Sem.
dialects (Ar. Aram. Nab. Palm. Sab. Ass.). Nestle’s opinion (2727,
6f.), that it is in Heb. an artificial formation from ΟΝ, and that the
genealogy is consequently late, has no sort of probability ; the only
‘ artificiality’ in Heb. is the occasional individual use. There is a pre-
sumption, however, that the genealogy originated among a people to
whom ΦῸΝ or its equivalent was the ordinary name for mankind
(Aramzan or Arabian).—5ma 1x] so Aq. =. ; χὰ Snax; Gk οὗτος ἤλπισεν
(from ,/ $n’) implies either 5nna ΠῚ or ‘3 ΝΠ; so Ἔ (éste coepit) and Jub.
iv. 12; S has oa} e201. The true text is that read by Gr, etc. ;
and if the alteration of MT was intentional (which is possible), we may
safely restore $n7 in after τοῦ, The Jewish exegesis takes )m7 in the
sense ‘ was profaned,’ and finds in the v. a notice of the introduction of
idolatry (Jer. Qu., T°, Ra. al.),—although the construction is absolutely
ungrammatical (IEz.).—After m7 G adds carelessly τοῦ θεοῦ.
Ty," 25—V 127
it is limited to the institution of formal public worship on
the part of a religious community (De.); and the idea that
it is connected with a growing sense of the distinction
between the human and the divine (Ew. De. al.) is a baseless
fancy. It means that "Ends was the first to invoke the
Deity under this name; and it is interesting chiefly as a
reflexion, emanating from the school of J, on the origin of
the specifically Israelite name of God. The conception is
more ingenuous than that of E (Ex. 3!*) or P (6°), who
base the name on express revelation, and connect it with
the foundation of the Hebrew nationality.
The expression ‘* ov1 xp (lit. ‘call by [means of] the name of Y.’)
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 wide-
spread 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.* The best illustration is 1 Ki. 18%, 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
mm, from the Babylonian or Egyptian pantheon, though often asserted, +
and in itself not incredible, has not been proved. The association with
the name of Enos might be explained by the supposition that the old
genealogy of which Eno§S was the first link had been preserved in some
ancient centre of Yahwe-worship (Sinai? or Kadesh ?).
Cu. V.—The Ante-Diluvian Patriarchs (P).
In the Priestly Code the interval between the Creation
(11-24) and the Flood (6°-) is bridged by this list of ten
patriarchs, with its chronological scheme fixing the duration
of the period (in MT) at 1656 years. The mames are
traditional, as is shown by a comparison of the first three
with 455, and of Nos. 4-9 with 41", It has, indeed, been
held that the names of the Cainite genealogy were intention-
ally modified by the author of P, in order to suggest certain
* See Giesebrecht, Die A Tliche Schitzung des Gottesnamens, esp. Ὁ.
25 ff., 98 ff.
t+ W. M. Miiller, AZ, pp. 239, 312; Del. Babel [tr. M‘Cormack] p.
61f.; Bezold, Die Bab.-Ass. Keilinschr. etc. p. 31 ff; Oppert, ZA, xvii.
291 ff.; Daiches, 16. xxii. (1908), 125 ff. ; Algyogyi-Hirsch, ΖΑ ΤΊ, xxiii.
355 ff. ; Sta. BTh. i. 29; Me. GA?, i. (2te Halfte), 545f. Cf., further,
Rogers, Rel. of Bab. and Ass. (1908), p. 80 ff.
or
128 ANTE-DILUVIAN PATRIARCHS (P)
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 J’s Sethite genealogy, its names would be
found to correspond closely with those of ch. 5.—The
chronology, on the other hand, is based on an artificial
system, the invention of which may be assigned either to P
or to some later chronologist (see p. 136 below).—What is
thoroughly characteristic of P 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, (4) the length of his
remaining life (with the statement that he begat other chil-
dren), and (c) his age at death.* The stiff precision and
severity of the style, the strict adherence to set formule,
and the monotonous iteration of them, constitute a some-
what pronounced example of the literary tendencies of the
Priestly school of writers.
The distinctive phraseology of P (o°7>x, x72, mp3, 7229 793) is seen
most clearly in vv.!* 2, which, however, may be partly composed of
glosses based on 1% (see on the vv.). Note also nabin (13), oby, mina
(5), Win (throughout), ow >NA-ny a>on7 (25: 35, cf. 6°); the syntax of the
numerals (which, though not peculiar to P, is a mark of late style: see
G-K. § 134 2; Dav. § 37, &. 3); the naming of the child by the father (°).—
The one verse which stands out in marked contrast to its environment
_ is 395, which is shown by the occurrence of the name m7’ and the allusion
to 37 to be an extract from J, and in all probability a fragment of the
- genealogy whose first links are preserved in 455: *8,
“‘ 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 Heb. conception of primitive times” (Dri.
Gen. p. 75). With regard to the extreme longevity attri-
buted 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
* Only in the cases of Adam (ν.5), Enoch (33: 3) and Lamech (38: 39)
are slight and easily explicable deviations from the stereotyped form
admitted. The section on Noah is, of course, incomplete.
Δ...
CH. V. 129
attempts to save the historicity of the record by supposing
(a) that the names are those of peoples or dynasties, or
(6) that many links of the genealogy have been omitted, or
(c) that the word ΠῚ denotes a space of time much shorter
than twelve months (see Di. 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 com-
parative study of literature leads us to expect exaggerated
statements in any work incorporating the primitive traditions
of a people” (Ryle, quoted by Dri. p. 75).
The author of P 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 (61:3),
It is doubtful whether he assumes a progressive deteriora-
tion 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 OT times. The Priestly writers may have
been repelled by the anthropomorphism, and indifferent to
the human pathos and profound moral psychology, of
Gen. 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 (Urgesch. 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
P in the interest of such a theory, and (0) that the Samaritan chronology
(which Bu. takes to be the original: see below, p. 135 f.) admits of the
conclusion that Jered, Methuselah, and Lamech perished in the Flood.*
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 concealit. At all events it remains true that no explanation is
given of the introduction of evil into the world.
* The more rapid decrease of life (in 2) after Mahalalel ought not
to be counted as an additional argument; because it is a necessary
corollary from the date fixed for the Flood.
9
130 ANTE-DILUVIAN PATRIARCHS (P)
I, 2.—Introduction: consisting of a superscription (15),
followed by an account of the creation and naming of Adam
(> *)_ta. This zs the book of the generations of Adam)
See the crit. note below; and on the meaning of navin,
see on 2**.—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
(v.3). On this and the following clauses see, further, 1764,
—2. And called their name Adam| v.2.
The vv. show signs of editorial manipulation. In ™ o7x is pre-
sumably a proper name (as in *), in ? it is certainly generic (note the
pl. suff.), while in !” 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 1°, where 07x 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 nx, from being a
generic term, came to be a proper name. But he has no clear per-
ception 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 v.*. An
original author would hardly have expressed himself so clumsily. Ho.
observes that the heading 01x nab 150 ΠῚ reads like the title of a book,
suggesting that the chapter is the opening section of an older genea-
logical work used by P as the skeleton of his history; and the fuller
formula, as compared with the usual ΠῚ ποῦν, at least justifies the
assumption that this is the first occurrence of the heading. Di.’s
opinion, that it is a combination of the superscription of J’s Sethite
genealogy with that of P, is utterly improbable. On the whole, the facts
point to an amalgamation of two sources, the first using D8 as a
designation of the race, and the other as the name of the first man.
3-5. Adam.—Zegat [a son] in his likeness, etc.| (see on
176): implying, no doubt, a transmission of the divine image
(v.') from Adam to all his posterity.—6-20. The sections
_on Seth, EnoS, Kenan, Mahalalel, and Yered rigidly
1. For ox G@& has 1° ἀνθρώπων, 2° Addu; Ἔ conversely 1° Adam, 2°
hominem.—2. 02%] GL iny.—3. 15/1] ins. 13 as obj. (Ols. al.). vin con-
fined to P in Pent.; J, and older writers generally, using 1b: both for
‘beget’ and ‘bear.’—tnby3 impia] Gk κατὰ τὴν εἰδέαν αὐτοῦ καὶ κ. τ. εἰκόνα a.
—avoiding ὁμοίωσις (see the note on 1530). -- 4. ἽΝ 2) Vay] GE ins. ἃς
ἔζησε, as in v.5, S&S reads 01x "πὸ (but see Ball’s note) as in vv.” 19 etc.
But vv.*® contain several deviations from the regular formula: note
‘1 ΟΝ in v.°, and the order of numerals (hundreds before tens). The
reverse order is observed elsewhere in the chapter.
V. 1-24 131
observe the prescribed form, and call for no detailed com-
ment, except as regards the names.
6-8. Seth: cf. 4%. For the Jewish, Gnostic, and Mohammedan
legends about this patriarch, see Lenorm. Orig.? 217-220, and Charles,
Book of Jubilees, 33 ff. — 9-11. ’En6és: see on 4%, —12-14. Kénan is
obviously a fuller form of Kdyin in the parallel genealogy of 4178: ; and
4 ὁ y
possibly, like it, means ‘smith’ or ‘artificer’ (cf. Syr- : see on
4). Whether the longer or the shorter form is the more ancient, we
have no means of judging. It is important to note that j3’p or 3p is the
name of a Sabzean deity, occurring several times in inscriptions: see
Mordtmann, ZDMG, xxxi. 86; Baethgen, Beitr. 127f., 152.—15-17.
MahilaPél (=‘Praise of God’) is a compound with the am. dey. Soap
(Pr. 27). But there the Vns. read the participle ; and so & must have
done here: Μαλελεηλ = ὑπ τα, 2.6. ‘Praising God.’ Proper names com-
pounded with a ptcp. are rare and late in OT (see Dri. Sam. 147;
Gray, HPN, 201), but are common in Assyrian. Nestle’s inference that
the genealogy must be late (47M, 7f.)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 Amii-
Artru in the list of Berossus (see AOD, 29). "Ὁ is found as a personal
or family name in Neh. 114.—18-20. Yéred (1 Ch. 418) would signify in
Heb. ‘ Descent’; hence the Jewish legend that in his days the angels
descended to the earth (Gen. 6°): cf. Jub. iv. 15; En. vi. 6, cvi. 13. On
Bu.’s interpretation, see p. 129 above. The question whether Ty or 7
be the older form must be left open. Hommel (30) traces both to an
original Babylonian ‘/-yarad= ‘descent of fire.’
21-24. The account of Enoch contains three extraordinary
features: (a) The twice repeated DYTONTNN PAN. In the
OT such an expression (used also of Noah, 6°) signifies
intimate companionship (1 Sa. 255), and here denotes a
fellowship with God morally and religiously perfect (cf.
Mic. 68, Mal. 2° [Π5Π]}, hardly differing from the commoner
‘walk before God’ (171 24*°) or ‘after God’ (Dt. 13°, 1 Ki.
148). We shall see, however, that originally it included
the idea of initiation into divine mysteries. (6) Instead of
the usual ΠῚ we read DDN ink npo a ἌΝ, ze. he was
22. ondxnnx—dann] Ok εὐηρέστησεν τῷ θεῷ (GL adds καὶ ἔζησεν "Evwy),
Σ ἀνεστρέφετο, S Int -De, T° "1 κπῦπια pon: Ag. and BH render
literally. The art. before ’x is unusual in P (see 6"). The phrase must
have been taken from a traditional source, and may retain an unobserved
trace of the original polytheism (‘with the gods’).—23. ‘an] Rd yan
(MSS, «αὐ, etc.).—24. 95] indicating mysterious disappearance
(372% 4233-8 86 [E] 1 Ki. 20); see G-K. 8 152 m.—np?] Ge μετέθηκεν,
132 ANTE-DILUVIAN PATRIARCHS (Pr)
mysteriously translated ‘so as not to see death’ (He. 115).
Though the influence of this narrative on the idea of immor-
tality in later ages is not to be denied (cf. Ps. 4015 734), 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 (Gu.). (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 re-
markably 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 KA 75, 532),—a
corruption (it seems certain) of Enmeduranki, who is mentioned in a
ritual tablet from the library of Asshurbanipal (K 2486+ K 4364: trans-
lated in KAZ, 533f.) as king of Sippar (city of Sama, the sun-god),
and founder of a hereditary guild of priestly diviners. This mythical
personage is described as a ‘favourite of Anu, ΒΕ] [ἀπά Ea],’ and is said
to have been received into the fellowship of SamaS and Ramman, to
have been initiated into the mysteries of heaven and earth, and in-
structed in certain arts of divination which he handed down to his son.
The points of contact with the notice in Gen. are (1) the special relation
of Enmeduranki to the sun-god (cf. the 365 of v.*°); and(z) 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 Sir. 446 he is
already spoken of as 11199 nya mx. Comp. 7μὖ. iv. 17 ff. (with Charles’s
note ad loc.); and see Lenorm. Ovig.? 223; Charles, Book of Enoch
(1893), pass.
25-27. Methuselah.—nbvinp commonly explained as ‘man of the
dart (or weapon),’ hence tropically ‘man of violence,’ which Budde (99)
Ῥ ἐμέ, but T° mx. The vb. became, as Duhm (on Ps. 49") thinks, a
technical expression for translation to a higher existence; cf. 2 Ki. 2”,
Ps. 49!° 73%. The Rabbinical exegesis (9%, Ber. R., Ra.) 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.
V. 25-31 133
regards as a deliberate variation of Sxe nn (418) intended to suggest the
wickedness of the later generations before the Flood (see above, p. 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.* If the 8th name
in the list of Berossus be rightly rendered ‘man of Sin (the moon-god),’ +
a more probable view would be that πὸ is a divine proper name.
Hommel, indeed, at one time regarded it as a corruption of Sarrahu,
said to be an ancient name of the moon-god } (cf. Cheyne, ZB, 625,
4412).—28-31. Lamech.—The scheme is here interrupted by the inser-
tion of v.
29. An extract from J, preserving an oracle uttered by
Lamech on the birth of Noah.—7hzs (ΠῚ ; cf. nxtin 273) 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 Di.
rightly calls attention to the contrast in character between
the Lamech of this v. and the truculent bravo of 47°".
There is an obvious reference backwards to 3" (cf. jiayy, ATW8—7DIN).
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: 9% (Bu. 306ff. al.). This is true even if
the hero of the Flood and the discoverer of wine were traditionally
27. After nbenno (τ ins. ἃς ἔζησεν (cf. v.5).—29. vanr] (ἃ διαναπαύσει
ἡμᾶς: hence Ball, Ki. xm». The emendation is attractive on two
grounds: (a) it yields an easier construction with the following jo; and
(6) a more correct etymology of the name ni. The harshness of the
etymology was felt by Jewish authorities (Ber. 20. § 25; cf. Ra.); and
We. (De gent. 38°) boldly suggested that niin this v. isa contracted writing
of oni3=‘comforter..—Whether πὶ (always written defectively) be really
connected with m=‘rest’ is very uncertain. If a Heb. name, it will
naturally signify ‘rest,’ but we cannot assume that a name presumably
so ancient is to be explained from the Heb. lexicon. The views mentioned
by Di. (p. 116) are very questionable. Goldziher (ZDMG, xxiv. 207 ff.)
shows that in medizval times it was explained by Arab writers from
Ar. naha, ‘to wail’; but that is utterly improbable.—:¥yp] Some MSS
and ax have wwyp (pl.); so G, etc.
* AOD [1902], 29. Here Amemphsinus is resolved into Ame/-Nisin :
formerly (PSBA, xv. [1892-3] 245) Hommel propounded the view now
advocated by Zimmern (see next note).
+ Zimmern, KA7*, 532.
t Awfs. u. Abh. ii. [1900] 222. Cheyne (/.c.) relies on the fact that
$arGu (‘all-powerful ’) is an epithet of various gods (De. Hdwé. 690 a).
134 CHRONOLOGY OF
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 J document. Di.’s objection, that a biblical writer would
not speak of wine as a comfort under the divine curse, has little force :
see Ju. οἷ", Ps. 104! —In virtue of its threefold connexion with the
story of the Fall, the Sethite genealogy of J, and the incident of 9", the
v. has considerable critical importance. It furnishes a clue to the dis-
entanglement 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).
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 (7° 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, ov to the birth of Shem’s
first-born.
I. The Chronology of Ch. 5.—In this chapter we have the first instance
of systematic divergence between the three chief recensions, the Heb., the
Samaritan, and the LXX. The differences are best exhibited in tabular
form as follows (after Holzinger) :
Year (A.M.)
MT. Sam. (Jub.). LXX. of Death.
. tu . τ - -
a | o Ξ [ὦ Ξ
[8 ro} i ro} 3 ro}
[9] Ξ [9] Ξ ο Ξ
Flee fa PS 1.5 2 ΠῚ Se Se ee
e108 12 (2) eo) Sipe sede
Bl/el/ete ΙΕ ele
τ. 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 δ “ 90) 815] 905 go! 815 905 190 [715 | 905 Π11401140] 1340
eqs ἸΚΘΏΣΙΝ ς . γο 840 910} 70) 840 910170 |740 [910 1235]1235] 1535
| 5. Mahalalel 2 | ὅς 820 895] 65! 830} 895 }165 |730 | 895 [12901290] 1690
| 6. Jered. - | 162 800 | 962 62! 785 847 [162 |800 | 962 ||1422/1307| 1922
7. Enoch -| 65] 300} 365} 65] 300] 3654165 |200 | 365 || 987) 887) 1487
8. Methuselah .| 187| 782/969] 67/ 653 | 720}167*|802*| 969 ||1656/1307| 2256
| 9. Lamech . «| 182 595] 777} 53, 600] 6534188 |565 | 753 ||1651|1307| 2207
τὸ; Noah _ . a) ΒΘΌ Meech |! eset ἢ 500] πσεοο } πὸ PSOOM Et Ἔν bo0 || Soc eee
Tillthe Flood’, ᾿..] 100)+..56 || ses.) TOO] y 2. || «6: ILOO?| τ τ eee een ee
Year of the Flood |1656) --- <2. [1501] .-- |) ... [2242 τ \|ccami|| Menem eee ate
*So GL. GA and other MSS have 187:782; but this is a later correction,
CH. V. 135
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 MT, we may notice (a) the remarkable
relation discovered by Oppert* between the figures of the biblicaj
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 MT 1656 years. These are in the ratio (as nearly as possible)
of 5 solar years (of 3653 days) to1 week. We might, therefore, suppose
the Heb. chronologist to have started from the Babylonian system, and
to have reduced it by treating each Zustrum (5 years) as the equivalent
ofa Heb. week. Whether this result be more than a very striking coinci-
dence it is perhaps impossible to say. (6) A widely accepted hypothesis
is that of von Gutschmid,+ who pointed out that, according to the
Massoretic chronology, the period from the Creation to the Exodus is
2666 years:} z.e. 26% generations of 100 years, or 3 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 tradi-
tional; 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 (ΖΑ ΤῊ,
xx. 136-147). Working on lines marked out by Kuenen (Adhandlungen,
tr. by Budde, 108 ff.), he shows, from a comparison of 4 Esd. 9%" 10%,
Jos. Ant. viii. 61f., x. 147f., and Ass. Mosis, 1° 10", that a chrono-
logical 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 MT only in the following particulars :
For the birth year of Terah (Gn. 11%) it substituted (with @& and s)
79 for 29; with the same authorities it assumed 215 (instead of 430)
years as the duration of the Egyptian sojourn (Ex. 12); and, finally,
it dated the dedication of the Temple 20 years after its foundation (as
1 Ki. 61 &). For the details of the scheme, see the art. cited above.
* GGN, 1877, 201-223; also his art. in Jewish Enc. iv. 66f.
+ See N6. Unters. 111 ff. ; We. Prol.® 308.
1 Made up as follows :—1656 + 290 (Flood to birth of Abraham: see
the Table on p. 233)+ 100 (birth of Isaac: Gn. 215)+60 (birth of Jacob:
25.) +130 (age of Jacob at Descent to Egypt: 47% %8)+430 (sojourn in
Egypt: Ex. 12“)=2666.—The number of generations from Adam to
Aaron is actually 26, the odd 8 stands for Eleazar, who was of mature
age at the time of the Exodus.
136 CHRONOLOGY OF CH. V.
These results, impressive as they are, really settle nothing as to the
priority of the MT. It would obviously be illegitimate to conclude that
of ὁ and ¢ one must be right and the other wrong, or that that which is
preferred must be the original system of P. The natural inference is
that both were actually in use in the first cent. A.D., and that conse-
quently the text was in a fluid condition at that time. A presumption
in favour of MT would be established only if it could be shown that the
numbers of κα and ¢& are either dependent on MT, or involve no chrono-
logical scheme at all.
2. The Sam. Vn. has 1307 years from the Creation to the Flood.
It has been pointed out that if we add the 2 years of Gn. 11”, we obtain
from the Creation to the birth of Arpachshad 187 Χ7 years; and it is
pretty obvious that this reckoning by year-weeks was in the mind
of the writer of Jub. (see p. 233f.). It is worth noting also that if we
assume MT of Ex. 12 to be the original reading (as the form of the
sentence renders almost certain), we find that x» counts from the Creation
to the entrance into Canaan 3007 years.* 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 (2x 180=)
360. Shem was born in 1200 A.M., and Jacob in 2400. Since the work
of P closed with the settlement in Canaan, is it not possible that this
was his original chronological period; and that the systems of MT
(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 a is, however,
the disparity between ch. 5 and 111° with regard to the ages at the
birth of the first-born.
3. A connexion between @ and x is suggested by the fact that the
first period of @& (2242) is practically equivalent to the first two of ax
(1300 + 940= 2240), though it does not appear on which side the depend-
ence is. Most critics have been content to say that the (ἃ figures are
enhancements of those of MT in order to bring the biblical chronology
somewhat nearer the stupendous systems of Egypt or Chaldza. That
is not probable; though it does not seem possible to discover any dis-
tinctive principle of calculation in @. Klostermann (NZ, v. 208-247
[=Pent. (1907) 1-41]), who defends the priority of @, 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 Gn. 6?! This reduces the
reckoning of @& to 1762 years, and, adding 2 years for the Flood, we
obtain 1764=3 xX 12x 49.
See, further, on 111° (p. 234 f.).
*
1307 + 940 (see p. 233) + 290 (as before) + 430+ 40= 3007.
THE LIST OF BEROSSUS 237
Il. The Zen Ante-diluvian Kings of Berossus.—The number Zen
occurs with singular persistency in the traditions of many peoples* 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 ;+ although there are allusions to it in
the inscriptions which encourage the hope that the cuneiform original
may yet be discovered.t Meanwhile, the general reliability of Berossus
is such, that scholars are naturally disposed to attach considerable im-
portance to any correspondence that can be made out between his list
and the names in Gn. 5. A detailed analysis was first published by
Hommel in 1893,§ another was given by Sayce in 1899.|| The first-
named writer has subsequently abandoned some of his earlier proposals, 7
substituting others which are equally tentative ; and while some of his
combinations are regarded as highly problematical, others have been
widely approved.**
The names of the Kings before the Flood in Berossus are: 1.”AXwpos,
2. ᾿Αλάπαρος, 3. ᾿Αμήλων [᾿Αμίλλαρος], 4. ᾿Αμμένων, 5. Meyddapos [Meyd-
havos], 6. Adwvos [Adws], 7. Evedwpaxos, 8. ᾿Αμέμψινος, 9. Ὥτιάρτης [Rd.
ὩπάρτηΞ], 10. Ξίσουθρος. Of the suggested Bab. equivalents put forward
by Hommel, the following are accepted as fairly well established by
Je. and (with the exception of No. 1) by Zimmern: 1. Avuru (see p. 102),
2. Adapa (p. 126), 3. Amelu (=Man), 4. Ummanu (=‘ workman’), 7.
Enmeduranki (p. 132), 8. Amel-Sin (p. 133), 9. Ubar-Tutu (named as
father of Ut-NapiStim), and 10. Haszsatra, or Atrafasis (=‘ the super-
latively Wise,’—a title applied to Ut-NapiStim, the hero of the Deluge).
On comparing this selected list with the Heb. genealogy, it is evident
that, as Zimmern remarks, the Heb. name is in no case borrowed
directly from the Bab. In two cases, however, there seems to be a
connexion which might be explained by a ¢ranslation from the one
language into the other: viz. 3. v3x(=Man), and 4. 1» (=‘ workman’);
while 8 is in both series a compound of which the first element means
‘Man.’ The parallel between 7. 3)10|| Znmeduranki, has already been
noted (p. 132); and the roth 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 grd 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
* Babylonians, Persians, Indians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Chinese,
etc. See Liiken, Zvaditionen, 146 ff.; Lenorm. Orig. i. 224 ff.
+ Preserved by Eus. Chron. [ed. Schoene) i. 7ff., 31 f. See Miiller,
Frag. Hist. Grec. ii. 499 f.
+ See Je. ATLO”, 2arf. § PSBA, xv. 243-246.
|| Exp. Times, 1899, 352. I AOD [1902], 23 ff.
** See Zimmern, KAT7*, 531ff.; Dri. Gen. sof.; Nikel, Gen. u.
Kschrfrsch. 164 ff.
138 RELATION OF SETHITE
obscure, and is complicated.by the double genealogy of ch. 4; but that
a connexion exists it seems unreasonable to deny.
Ill. Relation of the Sethite and Cainite Genealogies.—The substantial
identity of the names in Gn. 4 17:18 with Nos. 3-9 of ch. 5 seems to have
been first pointed out by Buttmann (J/ythologus, 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 mean-
ing, or varies but slightly in form:
SETHITE, CAINITE,
1, “Adam
2, Seth
3. "Ends (Man) "Adam (Man)
4. Kénan Kayin
5. Mahdlal’él Hanédkh
6. Yéred ie
4. Handkh Meh tyaval
8. Méthfi-Selah Méthf-s4-él
9. Lémekh Lémekh
10, aes |
| | | | | |
Sem Ham Yépheth Yabal Yfbal Tfbal-Kdyin.
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 ;* 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 ¢hird place. It is extremely unlikely
* Hommel’s view (AOD, 29f.) 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 Phcenicia (see the notes on Jabal, Tubal, and Na‘amah), and
the Sethite from Arabia (Enos, Kenan, Hanokh [?], Methuselah).
AND CAINITE GENEALOGIES 139
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 (AOD, 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 inter-
pretation of the Bab. 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 zr amzluti (‘seed of mankind’)
but is not himself a man.* And the same thing must, he considers, hold
good of Adam and Seth: Adam should be read 04x, 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 Bab. original of Berossus, and the Cainite can be nothing but
a mutilated version of it. It is just conceivable, however, that the Bab,
list is itself a secondary modification of a more primitive genealogy,
which passed independently into Heb. tradition.t
VI. 1-4.—The Origin of the Néphilim.
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 (vv.'?); and how from these unnatural
unions there arose a race of heroes or demi-gods (v.*), 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
* But against this interpretation of the phrase, see Jen. AZB, vi.
262.
+ Thus, it might be conjectured that the original equivalent of Aruru
was not Adam but Havvah, as earth and mother-goddess (see pp. 85 f.,
102), and that this name stood at the head of the list. That in the process
of eliminating the mythological element Havvah should in one version
become the wife, in another remain the mother, of the first man (Adam
or Eno8), is perfectly intelligible ; and an amalgamation of these views
would account for the duplication of Adam-Enos in 4*" 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 con-
ception of mother and son as associated deities (Rob. Sm. K¥?, 208 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,
140 THE NEPHILIM (J)
an element of disorder into the Creation which had to be
checked by the special interposition of Yahwe (v.?).
The fragment belongs to the class of ztiological myths. The belief
in Né&philim is proved only by Nu. 13% (E?); 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 (Dt. 1% 29-11-2192, Jos. 1514, Am. 2° Εἴ Uhe
question was naturally asked how such beings came to exist, and the
passage before us supplied the answer. But while the ztiological
motive may explain the retention of the fragment in Gn., 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;* and (2) that marriages of the gods with
mortals were not only possible but common in the heroic age.t Similar
ideas were current among other peoples. The Koran has frequent
references to the peoples of ‘Ad and Thamiid, primzeval 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.f
The legend appears also in the Phoenician traditions of Sanchuniathon,
where it is followed by an obscure allusion to promiscuous sexual inter-
course which appears to have some remote connexion with Gn. 67.§
That the source is J is not disputed.|| Di., indeed, following Schrader
(Zinl. 276), thinks it an extract from E which had passed through the
hands of J; but borrowing by the original J from the other source is
impossible, and the only positive trace of E would be the word oo»,
which in Nu. 13° is by some critics assigned to E. 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
“Hom. 77. v. 302f.; Herod. 1. 68; Paus. i. 35: 5:5) ὙΠπ|ι. 20 ἢν
32. 4; Lucret. ii. 1151; Virg. Aen. xii. goo; Pliny, AA, vii. 73 ff. etc.
Cf. Lenorm. O7ig.? i. 350 ff.
+ Hom. 71. 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.
+ Sur. vii, xv, xxvi, xli, xlvi, Ixxxix: see Sale, Prelim. Disc. § 1.
§ Euseb. Prep. Ev. i. 10 (see p. 124 above): ἀπὸ γένους Aldvos καὶ
IIpwroydvou 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 ‘YWoupdvios* ἀπὸ μητέρων
δὲ, φησὶν, ἐχρημάτιζον τῶν τότε γυναικῶν ἀνέδην μισγομένων οἷς ἂν ἐ[ν]τύχοιεν.
|| The literary indications are not absolutely decisive (except m7, ν. 5);
but the following expressions, as well as the structure of the sentences
(in ν.15), are, on the whole, characteristic of J: Spa, meqN7 sy (1), az
γ ΝΞ, 133 (4): see Bu. Urgesch. 6 ff., 39 A.
VI. 1,2 141
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 4!-*4 or 455. (against Ho.),
though certainly not that of P in ch. 5. The idea that it is a parallel
to the story of the Fall in ch. 3 (Schr. Di. We. 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.
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 v.° 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 6'4 belongs to a
stratum of J which knows nothing of a flood (p. 2 ff.). The Babylonian
Flood-legend also is free from any allusion to giants, or mingling of
gods and men. O. Gruppe, however (Phzlologus, Neue Folge, i. 93 ff. ;
ZATW, ix. 134ff.), claims to have recovered from Greek sources a
Phoenician legend of intermarriages between deities and mortals, which
presents some striking affinities with Gn. 6'4, and which leads up to
an account of the Flood. Of the soundness of Gruppe’s combinations
Iam 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 Phcenician
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 givenin Gn. That this is not incon-
ceivable is shown by the fact that on late Phrygian coins the biblical
name ΝῺ appears as that of the hero of the Deluge (see p. 180 below),
I, 2. The sense of these vv. is perfectly clear. The sons
of God (ondsn 22) are everywhere in OT members (but
probably inferior members) of the divine order, or (using
the word with some freedom) angels (v.z.).
I. 3 "Π}} peculiar to J in Hex.; 26° 27! 437 44% Ex, τ 1315,
Jos. 17%. See Bu. 6. The apodosis commences with v.2,—bna] see
142 THE NEPHILIM (J)
‘*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 Zlohim or sons (1.6, 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, Camb. Bible, p. 6).
In an earlier polytheistic recension of the myth, they
were perhaps called ony 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 (1.6. 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
Ho. Einl. g7.—no1wn %15-by] see Oxf. Hex. i. 187.—2. o'ndx[n] 53] Jb. 18
21 387, [Dn. 3%]; cf. o>x ‘2, Ps. 29! 897. In all these places the super-
human character of the beings denoted is evident,—‘ belonging to the
category of the gods.’ On this Semitic use of j2, see Rob. Sm. 1.223,
17; Pr.” 85, 389f. (1) The phrase is so understood by Q& (οἱ ἄγγελοι
[also viol] τοῦ θεοῦ), Θ, Jud. v. τ, En. vi. 2 ff. (Jude δ, 2 Pe. 24), Jos. Anz.
i. 73; Fathers down to Cyprian and Lactantius, and nearly all moderns.
[35 transliterates Sa.oTA SN, 215 as in Jb. 18 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 distinc-
tion from women of humble rank: 09] (x29 53), Σ (τ. δυναστευόντων),
Ber. R., Ra. ΕΖ. [Aq. (viol τ. θεῶν) is explained by Jer. as ‘deos in-
telligens sanctos sive angelos’|. So Spinoza, Herder, al. (3) The
prevalent Christian interpretation (on the rise of which see Charles’s
valuable Note, B. of Jud. 33 ff.) has been to take the phrase in an
ethical sense as denoting pious men of the line of Seth: Jul. Afr., most
Fathers, Luth., Calv. al.: still maintained by Strack. Against both
these last explanations it is decisive that ΟἽΝΠ ΠΣ cannot have a
narrower reference in v.? than in v.1; and that consequently ‘a 23 cannot
denote a section of mankind. For other arguments, see Lenormant,
Orig.” 291 ff.; the Comm. of De. (146ff.), Di. (119f.), or Dri. (82f.).
On the eccentric theory of Stuart Poole, that the sons of God were a
wicked pre-Adamite race, see Lenorm. 304 ff.—no'w3.. . inp»]=‘ marry’:
415 1129 25! 36? etc.—wx 52D] ‘consisting of all whom,’—the rare jb of
explication; BDB, s.v. 3b (e); cf. G-K. § 119 w?: Gn. 777 9,
MINS 2,°3 143
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
3. mm] (ἃ Κύριος ὁ θεός. ---Ἴ 1} There are two traditional interpreta-
tions: (a) ‘abide’: so (ἃ (καταμείνγ), PST; (4) ‘judge’ (2. κρινεῖ:
so @). The former is perhaps nothing more than a plausible guess
at the meaning, though a variant text has been suspected (p>, 7,
jim, etc.). The latter traces the form to the ,/]1; but the etymology
is doubtful, since that ,/ shows no trace of med. ἡ in Heb. (N6.
ZDMG, xxxvii. 533 f.) ; and to call it a juss. or intrans. form is an abuse
of grammatical language (see G-K. ὃ 717). A Jewish derivation,
mentioned by IEz. and Calv., connects the vb. with 71), ‘sheath’
(1 Ch. 21*7),—the body being compared to the sheath of the spirit. The
Ar. dana (med. w)=‘ be humbled’ or ‘degraded,’ yields but a tolerable
sense (Tu. Ew. al.); the Egypt. Ar. dana, which means ‘to do a
thing continually ’ (Socin ; see G—B. s.v.), would suit the context well, but
can hardly be the same word. Vollers (ZA, xiv. 349 ff.) derives it from
/ 151, Ass. dandnu=‘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 vb. could be taken as a denominative from Ass. dindnu,
‘bodily appearance,’ with the sense ‘‘shall not be embodied in man for
ever.”"—0733] (ἃ ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις, whence Klostermann restores
ma 01x2,*=‘this humanity,’ as distinguished from that originally
created,—an impossible exegesis, whose sole advantage is that it gives
a meaning to the 03 in 33 (v.2.).—pbiyb—xd (thus separated)] here=
‘not .. . for ever,’ as Jer. 3/7, La. 3%; elsewhere (Ps. 155 etc.) the
phrase means ‘never.’—03¥3] so pointed in the majority of MSS, is
inf. const. of 12%, ‘err,’ with suff. This sense is adopted by many (Tu.
Ew. Bu. Ho. al.), but it can hardly be right. If we refer the suff.
- to 01x9, the enallage numeri (‘through ¢heir 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 part. Moreover, it is questionable if
the idea of 12% (inadvertent transgression) is appropriate in the con-
nexion. Margoliouth (Zxfositor, 1898, ii. 33 ff.) explains the obscure
* Already proposed by Egli (cited by Bu.).
yP Was y Bu.)
144 THE NEPHILIM (J)
[ .. - 2?] man for ever; [ ... ?] he ts 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 specula-
tion ;*—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 v., assuming the text to be fairly complete,
and a real connexion to exist with vv.) *.—(i.) Everything turns on the
meaning of the word 4%, of which four interpretations have been given:
(1) That -m is the Spirit of Yahwe as an efhical principle, striving
against and ‘judging’ the prevalent corruption of men (as in Is. 63)%);
so ΣΙ], Luther, al. There is nothing to suggest that view except
the particular acceptation of the vb. 771 associated with it, and it is
now practically abandoned. (2) Even less admissible is the conception
of Klostermann, who understands ‘Mn subjectively of the divine feeling
(Gemiit) excited by human sin} (similarly Ra.). (3) The commonest
view in modern times (see Di.) has been that 7 is the divine principle
word by Aeth. shega=‘body’; but the proposed rendering, ‘inasmuch
as their body (or substance) is flesh,’ is not grammatically admissible.
The correct Mass. reading is 03a (2.6. D1+¥+4+3)=inasmuch as he too.
The objections to this are (a) that the rel. ¥ is never found in Pent., and
is very rare in the older literature (Ju. 57 6!” 7! 8°), while compounds
like ’a2 do not appear before Eccl. (e.g. 216) ; and (6) that the 03 has no
force, there being nothing which serves as a contrast to sin. We.
observes that ‘2 must represent a causal particle and possibly nothing
more. The old translators, (ἃ (διὰ τὸ εἶναι airo’s) SHE? seem to
have been of the same opinion; and it is noticeable that none of them
attempt to reproduce the 03, The conjectures of Ols. ((03 wa), Cheyne
(ny ni2D¥02), and others are all beside the mark.—n yo" ym] The only
natural reference is to the (maximum) term of human life (so Jos. Tu.
Ew. and most since), a man’s 0) being a standing expression for his
lifetime, reckoning from his birth (see ch. 5. 35%, Is. 657° etc.). The
older view (©, Jer. Ra. IEz. Calv. al.: so De. Klost.), 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 P,
and decide nothing as to the meaning of the words in J.
* Comp. Cheyne’s imaginary restoration in ZB, 3391, with the
reconstructed Phoenician myth of Gruppe in Phz/ologus, 1889, i. 100 ff.
+ Reading ‘m1 0% 89, ‘shall not restrain itself’ (lit. ‘be silent’), See
NEZ, 1894, 234 ff. (= Pent. [1907] 28 ff.).
VI. 4 145
of /ife implanted in man at creation, the tenor of the decree being that
this shall not ‘abide’ * 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 v. contains would be quite as intelligible
apart from the marriages with the angels as in relation to them.}
(6) The following words v1 17 have no meaning: as a reason for the
withdrawal of the animating spirit they involve a hysteron froteron;
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 We. (Com#.* 305 ff.), viz.
that nn is the divine substance common to Yahwe and the angels, in
contrast to v3, which is the element proper to human nature (cf. Is. 31°):
so Ho. Gu. The idea will then be that the mingling of the divine and
human substances brought about by illicit sexual unions has intro-
duced 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.z.), be consistent with
the conclusion just reached. We. himself thinks that it is not: the
fusion of the divine and human elements would be propagated in the
vace, and could not be checked by a shortening of the lives of indi-
viduals. The context requires an announcement of the annihilation of
the race, and the last clause of the v. must be a mistaken gloss on the
first. If this argument were sound it would certainly supply a strong
reason either for revising We.’s acceptation of **, ov for understanding
80 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 extinc-
tion 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.t 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.
4. The Néphilim were (or arose) in the earth tn those days|
Who were the 0°95]? The name recurs only in Nu. 13°,
4. ὑ}535] Gk οἱ γίγαντες ; Aq. of ἐπιπίπτοντες ; Σ. οἱ βίαιοι ; S te
3
Φ9 x23. The etymology is uncertain (see Di. 123). There is no
* On this traditional rendering of 7, see the footnote, p. 143.
+ Bu.’s argument that the v. is detachable from its present context
is, therefore, perfectly sound; although his attempt to find a place for
it after 37 is not so successful (see p. 3 above).
t Just as in 355 4 man is allowed to retain the gift of illicitly obtained
knowledge, but is foiled by being denied the boon of immortality. The
Io
146 THE NEPHILIM (J)
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 (cf. 12° 13”) is misleading, for the writer can-
not have meant that the ’) existed in those days apart from
the alliances with the angels, and that the result of the latter
were the 0133 (Lenormant, al.). The idea undoubtedly is
that this race avose at that time in consequence of the union
of the divine ‘spirit’ with human ‘flesh.’—and also after-
allusion to a ‘fall’ (./ 553) of angels from heaven (@J, Jer.* Ra.), or to
a ‘fall’ of the world through their action (Ber. R. Ra.). A connexion
with 523, ‘abortive birth’ (from 553, ‘fall dead’), is not improbable
(Schwally, ZATW, xviii. 144ff.). An attractive emendation of Co.
(adiya od»53) in Ezk. 3227 not only yields a striking resemblance to this
v., but supports the idea that the’3 (like the 057) were associated with
the notion of Sheol. —-wx 13. nx] cannot mean ‘after’ (as conj.), which
would require a perf. to follow, but only ‘afterwards, when.’ On any
view, 383! and by are frequent. tenses.—$x m2] (as euphemism) is
characteristic of JE (esp. J) in Hex. (Bu. 39, Amm.). Cf. Rob. Sm. AW,
198 ff.—or}225] lit. ‘mighty ones’ (Aq. δυνατοί; D potentes; (ΟἿΣ 6
T° do not distinguish from o°5'53). The word is thoroughly naturalised
in Heb. speech, and nearly always in a good sense. But pass. like
Ezk. 32!°% show that it had another aspect, akin to Ar. gabdar (proud,
audacious, tyrannical). The Ar. and Syr. equivalents are used as
names of the constellation Orion (Lane, Zex. i. 375a; P. Sm. 7h. 646).—
odo swe] cf. obiy oy, Ezk. 26”, probably an allusion to a wicked ancient
race thrust down to Sheol.—The whole v. 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 Nephilim with
the incident recorded in v.1*. At the same time we may reasonably
hold that the kernel of the v. reproduces in a hesitating and broken
fashion the essential thought of the original myth. The writer
apparently shrinks from the direct statement that the Nephilim were
the offspring of the marriages of vv. 23, 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.—Bu., who omits ν. 3, restores the original connexion with v.!*
as follows: 097 3 ΓἽΝΞ ODI VA [DD]... ode 32 war [WwRI aD].
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.
same point of view appears in 111%: 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.
* “Et angelis et sanctorum liberis, convenit nomen cadentium.”
VI. 4 147
wards whenever (Gx ὡς ἂν) the sons of the gods camein...
and they (the women) bore unto them] That is to say, the
production of Nephilim was not confined to the remote
period indicated by v.'*, 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 j2°")0N Dj) as an interpolation,
and connect the WS with 097 D2; though even then the
phrasing is odd (v.z.).—Those are the heroes (03339) that
were of old, the men of fame] (DWT WIN, cf. Nu. 162). 77 has
for its antecedent not WW as obj. to ἊΝ (We.), but DPE.
There is a touch of euhemerism in the notice (We.), the
archaic and mythological ps being identified with the
more human 033 who were renowned in Hebrew story.
It is probable that the legend of the Nephilim had a wider circula-
tion in Heb. tradition than could be gathered from its curt handling by
the editors of the Hex. In Ezk. 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 v.?? (ado ovdp; 033) be sound, these are to be
identified with the Nephilim of our passage; and the picture throws
light on two points left obscure in Gen.: viz., the character of the
primeval 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 Rob. Sm. in Dri. Deut.
40 f.).
VI. 5-IX. 29.—Noah and the Flood.
Analysis of the Flood-Narrative.—The section on the Flood (6°-g!’)
is, as has often been observed, the first example in Gen. of a truly
composite narrative; 7z.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 J and P, preserving in the process
many duplicates, as well as leaving unaltered many striking differences
of representation and phraseology” (Dri. 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
148 THE FLOOD (1 AND P)
documentary analysis (comp. the interesting exposition by Gu.? 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:
i) 65-8 cpa 7 (8. 9). 10 12 16b 170 22. 28
Ρ 9-22 6 ll 13-16a 178, 18-21
J 2b. 88 6-12 180 20-22
24 1. 2a 3b-5 13a 14-19 1-17
PES ; On:
The minutiz of glosses, transpositions, etc., are left to be dealt with
in the Notes. Neglecting these, the scheme as given above represents
the results of Bu. (to whom the finishing touches are due: Urgesch.
248 ff.) Gu. and Ho. Dillmann agrees absolutely, except that he
assigns 7.7 wholly to J, and 7%» to P; and We., except with regard to
77 (J) 85: 18, which are both assigned entirely to P. The divergences of
Kue. and Co. are almost equally slight ; and indeed the main outlines of
the analysis were fixed by the researches of Hupfeld, Ndldeke, 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
min (65 6 78 71-5. 18 $2 21) and oraby (69% M+ 12 18. 22 716a Bl. 15 gl. 6 8 12 16, 17),
Besides this, a number of characteristic expressions differentiate the
two sources. Thus J’s 1nwy) wx (7?) answers to P’s m3pn 121* (619 7(°)- 16) ;
nano (67 748) to now and mnen (617 911- 15); mp (7%) to y3* (67 72);
mp9 (7* 35) to wwa-ba* (613: 18. 17. 421 and oft.) ; dp (88: ") and sw (75) to
non (8°) ; 29m (8%) to wa (81:2) [but see on 88>]; on nows (832) to orn ΠῚῚ
(61%); nvnd (7?) to nvnad (619. 2°) ; 4n»a-ba (71) to the specific enumerations of
61:8 γί). 15 B16. 18, (Comp. the list in Ho. Gen. p. 68).—(2) Diversity of
representation. In J clean and unclean animals are distinguished, the
former entering the ark by sevens and the latter in pairs (77, cf. 839); in
P one pair of every kind without distinction is admitted (61% 715),
According to J, the cause of the Flood is a forty-days’ rain which is to
commence seven days after the command to enter the ark (7* 1% 15 82. 6)
—the latter passage showing that the waters began to subside after the
40 days. In P we have (7! 8”) a different conception of the cause
of the Flood; and, in 7% 11: 18. 24 880. 4.5. 166. 14. 4 chronological scheme
according to which the waters increase for 150 days, and the entire
duration of the Flood is one year (see p. 167 ff.).—(3) Duplicates. The
following are obviously parallels from the two documents: 6°° || 61-38
(occasion of the Flood); γ᾽ }} 6'”*2 (command to enter the ark, and
announcement of the Flood); 77|| 71% (entering of the ark); 7!°|j 71
(coming of the Flood) ; 71">|| 718 (increase of the waters : floating of the
ark) ; 7° || 7?! (destruction of terrestrial life) ; 8? *|| 815 (abatement of the
Flood) ; 8130} 8-14 (drying of the earth); 87-2 || 9% (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
* Phrases characteristic of the style of P generally.
VI. 5-IX. 29 149
exhibit the distinctive features of the two great sources of the primitive
history, Jand P. The J sectionsare 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 8°)
reveals the touch of descriptive genius which so often breaks forth
from this document. The boldest anthropomorphisms are freely intro-
duced into the conception of God (6% 76> 871); and the religious institu-
tions of the author's time are unhesitatingly assumed for the age of
Noah.—Still more pronounced are the characteristics of P 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 (9!*"!”) is
retained, its esthetic 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 determina-
tions 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, 9'-’, and the establishment of the first of the
three great covenants, 9*!7, The connexion of the former passage with
Gn, 1 is unmistakably evident. Very significant are the omission of
Noah's sacrifice, and the ignoring of the laws of cleanness and unclean-
ness amongst animals. *
The success of the critical process is due to the care and skill with
which the Redactor (RJ?) 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 P he appears to have preserved intact,
allowing neither omissions nor transpositions. Of J 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 lacunz
except (a) the account of the building of the ark (between 68 and 71), and
(δ) the notice of the exit from it (between 8! and»). The middle part
of the document, however, has been broken up into minute fragments,
* Traces of P’s general vocabulary are very numerous. Besides
some of those (marked by *) already enumerated in contrast to J, we
have nvbin (6°); nda (69 915); Phin (6); maa opr (6!8 9% 2-17) and 73 yn3
(9.53); .AX in enumerations (618 718 816 etc.); 7 (6% 714); won, δ (6%
γ18). 14. 21 817. 19 O23) pay, pry (721 817 97) ; nbaxd (67! 9) ; mma ova osya (713);
wD TKD (715); 3 of specification (772 817 910. 15-16); aan mp (817 οἹ- 7) ;
pannswn> (819) ; ody n3 (9!).—Of the style of J the positive indications
are fewer: jn xsd (6°); 4D in the sense ‘destroy’ (67 745) [see Ho. Hex.
Tor]; 2sy (6°); πριν E-dy (74 38 88 018 LXX)) ; yaya (821), See the comm.
of Di. Ho. Gu. etc.
[50 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO J
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 J’s 4o
days count twice, once as a stage of the increase of the Flood (7¥) and
once as a phase of its decrease (8°).* 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.
The Flood according to J.
VI. 5-8. The occasion of the Flood :—Yahwe’s experi-
ence 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 6'* (Ho.). The ground of the pessimistic estimate of
human nature so forcibly expressed in v.° 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 character-
ises the Yahwistic tradition.—5. the whole bent (lit. ‘ forma-
tion’) of the thoughts of his heart| It is difficult to say
whether 73° is more properly the ‘form’ impressed on the
mind (the disposition or character), or ‘that which is formed’
by the mind (imagination and purpose—S$znnen und Trachten) :
5. m0] (ἃ Κύριος ὁ θεός (so v.8),—'n adn] Gk loosely: καὶ πᾶς τις
διανοεῖται (χ᾽ Ὁ) ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ ἐπιμελώς ἐπὶ τὰ πονηρά; Ἔ cuncta
cogitatio. Another Gr. rendering (ὁ ‘Efp., see Field, ad doc.) is φυσικὸν
τοῦ ἀνθ. ; but in 851 the same translator has τὸ πλάσμα τῆς Kap. ἀνθ. On
the later Jewish theologoumenon of the y17 7s (the evil impulse in man,
also called 1s’ simply) which is based on this passage, and by Jewish
comm. (Ra. on 851) is found here; see Taylor, Sayings of Jew. Fathers*,
37, 148 ff.; Porter, Bzbl. and Sem. Studies by members... of Yale
* The supposition of Hupfeld and Lenormant (Orig. i. 415), that the
double period occurred in the original J, has no foundation.
VI. 5-8 VII. 1 151
ere", Dt. 317, Is. 26° (Ps. 1031*?), 1 Ch. 28° 29%; v.2.—6,
The anthropopathy which attributes to Yahwe regret (073°)
and vexation (23¥N")) because He had created man is unusually
strong. Although in the sense of mere change of purpose,
the former is often ascribed to God (Ex 4213, Jer. 1817: 8
263: 13, Jl. 218, Jon. 37° etc.), the cases are few where divine
regret for accomplished action is expressed (1 Sa. 15"). The
whole representation was felt to be inadequate (Nu. 23),
1 Sa. 1514); 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 d/ot out (AND) 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 γ᾽. The Yahwistic narrative must
have contained some previous notice of Noah, probably at
the end of a genealogy.
VII. 1-5. Announcement of the Flood.—The section
is an almost exact parallel to 611-23 (P). V.! presupposes
in J a description of the building of the ark, which the
redactor has omitted in favour of the elaborate account of
P. Not till the work is finished does Yahwe reveal to Noah
the purpose it is to serve: v.* is obviously the first intima-
tion 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; cf.
Heb. 117.—1. Thou and all thy house] J’s brevity is here far
Univ. (1901), 93 ff.—on-b3] ‘continually’; see BDB, 400b.—6. m7]
(ἃ ὁ θεός (so v.7).—asyn] Gn. 347; cf. Is. 63! (Pi.). Ra. softens the
anthrop. by making the impending destruction of the creatures the
immediate object of the divine grief.—7. mnox] cf. 74%. In the full
sense of ‘exterminate’ (as distinct from ‘obliterate’ [mame, memory,
etc.]) the vb. is peculiar to J’s account of the Flood; ct. Nu. 5% 34
(P).—The v. is strongly interpolated. The clauses ‘nx72 we and ΠΝ
pow... are in the style of P (cf. 6% 71421 817-19 2 etc.); and the
latter is, besides, an illogical specification of o1x7, They are redac-
tional glosses, the original text being 3 ‘nom3 2 ADINA 12D Sy OINATAR ΠΠῸΝ
onwy (Bu. 249 ff. ; Di. 125).—8. ‘sya jn xsd] characteristic of, though not
absolutely confined to, J: 19! 425 33835 34" 394 47% etc. (Ho. Einl.
97 f.).
I, mA] 2S oR; Ce Κύριος ὁ θεός. -- ps] pred. accus. ; Dav. § 76.—
152 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO J
more expressive than the formal enumerations of Ῥ (618
718 816 18), The principle involved is the religious solidarity
of the family ; its members are saved for the righteousness of
its head (cf. 19!).—thee have 7 seen (to be) righteous (PTS, see
on 6°)]} Bu. 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 xyp but ΠΝ, which has pre-
cisely the same force as the xn of 6°. Comp. also 68.—2,
clean (iN) means, practically, fit for sacrifice and human
food; the technical antithesis is 820, which, however, is
here avoided, whether purposely (De. 174) or not it is
impossible to say. The distinction is not, as was once
supposed (see Tu.), a proof of J’s interest in Levitical
matters, but, on the contrary, of the naiveté of his religious
conceptions. Heregards 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 P,
who traces the distinction to the positive enactments of
the Sinaitic legislation (Lv. 11, Dt. 14), and consequently
ignores it here. The same difference of standpoint appears
with regard to sacrifice, altars, etc.: see 43 820 127 etc.—
nyav nvIw] by sevens (G-K. ὃ 1349); ze. ‘7 (individuals)
of each kind’ (De. Str. al.), rather than ‘7 pairs’ (Ber. R.
IEz. Di. Gu. al.),—in spite of the following inwe ws. It
is a plausible conjecture (Ra. De. Str.) that the odd
individual was a male destined for sacrifice (8”°).—3a presents
an impure text (v.z.), and must either be removed as a gloss
(Kue. Bu. Ho. Gu. al.) or supplemented with @| (Ba. Ben.).—
3b. to keep seed alive, etc.| reads better as the continuation of
2. For ow, «GSP read ow o3v,—probably correctly.—inws) wx (4zs)]
wx 7p) 731, assimilating J to P.—3a. The distinction te be expected
between clean and unclean birds is made imperfectly by 2 and S, which
insert 7n7 after DDwn; and fully by G, which goes further and adds
the words καὶ ἀπὸ παντῶν τῶν πετεινῶν τ. μὴ καθαρῶν δύο δύο ἄρσεν κ. θῆλυ.
Ball accepts this, thinking the omission in MT due to homoioteleuton.
But the phrase 72) 721 shows that ** has been manipulated ; and it is
on the whole more likely that it is entirely redactional. Birds may be
included in the ap737 of v.?; though Bu.’s parallels (Ex. 8% 9% 2%,
Jer. 3243 331 2 36%, Ps. 36’) are not quite convincing.—3b. nin>] P uses
VII. 2—7 153
2 than of **.—4. With great rhetorical effect, the reason for
all these preparations—the coming of the Flood—is reserved
to the end. J knows no other physical cause of the Deluge
than the 40 days’ rain (cf. v.”).—5. Comp. 6” (P).
7-10, 12, 16b, 17b, 22, 23.—Entrance into the ark
and description of the Flood. —J’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 J and P. 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 (v."); Noah enters the ark (7) and
Yahwe shuts him in (160). Forty days’ rain ensues (12), and
the waters rise and float the ark (170), All life on the earth’s
surface is extinguished; only Noah and those in the ark
survive (23).
The rearrangement here adopted (1% 7 16> 12 17b. 22.23) is que mainly
to the acute criticism of Bu. (Uzg. 258 ff.), who has probably added the
last refinements to a protracted process of literary investigation. Some
points (e.g. the transposition of vv.” and 10) are, of course, more or less
doubtful ; others (e.g. 150) are seen to be necessary as soon as the com-
ponents of J 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 comm. The most extensive
interpolations are part of v.’, the whole of vv.8 and °, and part of 33,
For details see the footnote.
10. 42 the end of the 7 days (cf. v.*)] The interval (we
may suppose) was occupied in assembling the animals and
provisioning the ark.—+the waters of the Flood| Ssann, a tech-
nical name for the Deluge, common to both sources (v.z.).
—7. Noah enters the ark on account of the... Flood:
Hiph. (6).—yy]] as Jer. 3127.—4. Ὁ] On 5 as denoting the close of a
term (cf. v.!°), see BDB, s.v. 6b.—n3p;7] a rare word (only 7%, Dt. 118),
meaning ‘that which subsists’ (,/mp). (ἃ ἀνάστεμα (other exx. in Field,
ἐξανάστασιν), D substantia, S$ Solo> \o. On the form see Barth, Vom.-
διϊά. 181 ; Kon. ii. 146; G-K. 8 85d.
7. \WX—137:] The enumeration is in the manner of P (obs. also Snax) ;
154 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO J
hence v.? presupposes v.!9, The same order of events is
found in P (+418) 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 v.’) contains a fine anthro-
pomorphism, which (in spite of the Bab. parallel just cited)
it is a pity to spoil by deleting myn’ and making Noah the
implicit subject (Klost. VAZ, i. 717).—12. forty days and
forty nights| This determination, which in J expresses the
entire duration of the Flood, seems to have been treated by
R as merely a stage in the increase of the waters (cf. 8°).
It obviously breaks the connexion of P. The Babylonian
deluge lasted only six days and nights (1. 128).—17b. Parallel
to 18 (P).—22, 23. A singularly effective description of the
the words either replace m2 (as v.1), or are a pure insertion ;—in
either case redactional.—1D7 5] so 7! (J), 911 (P) (ct. ox ‘a7, 617 76),—
jap] Gr κατακλυσμός ; Ἔ diluvium; Sand ©° sipw (TJ xsyaw). The word
has usually been derived from 51", ‘streaming’ (see Ges. 7h., Di.) ; but
is more probably a foreign word without Heb. etymology (see N6.
ZDMG, x\. 732). Del. (Parad. 156) proposed the derivation from Ass.
nabdlu, ‘destroy,’ which is accepted by KGnig (ii. 153), Ball (p. 53), and
others. The Bab. technical equivalent is a6#6u, which denotes both a
‘light-flood’ and a ‘water-flood’: the double sense has been thought
to explain P’s addition of ox to the word (see on 617). A transformation
of the one name into the other is, however, difficult to understand (see
KAT, 4951, 5462). In Ps. 29! ban 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 un-
clean points to J; but all other features (o'"5x [though a reading m7
seems attested by axTJ, and MSS of @&]; 7apn 121; the undiscrimin-
ated nw ow; the categorical enumeration [to which @& adds the birds
at the beginning of v.°]) to P. In P the vv. are not wanted, because
they are a duplicate of 116; they must therefore be assigned to an
interpolator (Bu. al.).—10. On the construction of the sentence, see
G-K. § 164 a, and on v.® below.—12. OW] (,/ gasuma=‘be massive’)
commonly used of the heavy winter rain (Ezr. 10°, Ca. 2"): see GASm.
HG, 64.—16b. m7] (ἃ Κύριος ὁ θεός -- τὴν κιβωτόν ---τ)ῦ. Since 18 belongs
to P (32, 1x9), its duplicate ΤΡ must be from J, where it forms a natural
continuation of 12, 174, on the other hand (in spite of the 40 days), must be
assigned to P (see p. 164),—22. on ny nDw3] is an unexampled combina-
tion, arising from confusion of a phrase of J (ON now, 27) with one of P
(avn ms, 617715), The v. being from J (cf. 7379 instead of Aya); 1nd instead
of yy, 74), nn is naturally the word to be deleted.—23a as a whole is J
(ann, Dp’, sown ΕΓ»); but the clause ἰοῦσι. . . DIND seems again (cf. 67)
VII. 8-VIII. 3A 155
effect of the Flood, which is evidently conceived as uni-
versal.
VIII. (02), 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 J’s narrative has again been disturbed by the
redaction. V.®, which in its present position has no point of attach-
ment in J, probably stood originally before **, where it refers to the
40 days’ duration of the Flood (We. Comp.? 5). It was removed by R 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) 1" (the wind causing the abatement
of the waters) is, on account of onde, assigned to P. But the order
1b 2a is unnatural, and transpositions in P do not seem to have been
admitted. The idea is more in accord with J’s conception of the Flood
than with P’s; and but for the name ods the half-verse might very
well be assigned to J, and inserted between * and **, (2) V.4 is also
almost universally regarded as P’s (see Bu. 269f.). But this leaves a
lacuna in J between *“ and ®, where a notice of the landing of the ark
must have stood: on the other hand, ὅν makes it extremely doubtful if
P thought of the ark as stranded on a mountain at all. The only ob-
jection to assigning ὁ to J is the chronology: if we may suppose the
chronological scheme to have been added or retouched by a later hand
(see p. 168), there is a great deal to be said for the view of Hupfeld and
Reuss that the remainder of the v. belongs to J.*—The opening passage
would then read as follows:
6a. AZ the end of 40 days, 2b. the rain from heaven was
restrained; Ib. and Yahwe (Ὁ) caused a wind to pass over
the earth, and the waters abated. 3a, And the waters went
to be redactional, and the three words following must disappear with
it. *> might be assigned with almost equal propriety to J or to P.—
nd] (apoc. impf. Qal) is a better attested Massor. reading than ΠῚ
(Niph.). It is easier, however, to change the pointing (to Niph.) than
to supply mm as subj., and the sense is at least as good.—Gu.’s re-
arrangement (*4. 33, 28>) is a distinct improvement: of the two homo-
logous sentences, that without } naturally stands second.
ga. 2% Pon] G-K. § 113%. @& has misunderstood the idiom both
* It may be noted that in "εὖ. v. 28 no date is given for the landing
of the ark.
156 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO J
on decreasing from off the earth, 4. and the ark rested on the
mountains of Ararat.—On the landing-place of the ark, see
p. 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 (Gu.). Tuch quotes from Pliny, vi. 83 (on
the Indians): ‘‘siderum in navigando nulla observatio;
septentrio non cernitur; sed volucres secum vehunt, emit-
tentes sezepius, meatumque earum terram petentium comi-
tantur.”—7. He sent out a raven| The purpose of the action
is not stated till v.3; partly for this reason, partly because
the threefold experiment with the dove is complete and more
natural, the genuineness of the v. has been questioned (We.
Ho. Gu. al.). Dahse, ZATW, xxviii. 5f., calls attention to
the fact that in @” the v. is marked with the obelus. The
Bab. account has three experiments, but with different birds
(dove, swallow, raven).—8. And he sent out a dove| perhaps
immediately; see (ἴ below. But if v.7 be a later insertion,
we must supply and he waited 7 days (see v.!°).—9. The de-
scription of the return and admission of the dove is unsur-
passed even in the Yahwistic document for tenderness and
beauty of imagination.—10. Seven other days| implying a
similar statement before either ν. or v.8.—1I. a freshly
plucked olive leaf| The olive does not grow at great alti-
tudes, and was said to flourish even under water (Tu.).
But it is probable that some forgotten mythological signi-
ficance attaches to the symbol in the Flood-legend (see Gu.
p. 60). Cf. the classical notices of the olive branch as an
emblem of peace: Virg. Aen. viii. 116 (Pactferaeque manu
ramum pretendit olive); Livy, xxiv. 30, xxix. 16.—12. The
third time the dove returns no more; and then at last—
here and in v.7.—7. aqyn] on the art. see G-K. § 1267; but cf. Smith’s
note, AS*, 126.—@k here supplies τοῦ ἰδεῖν εἰ κεκόπακεν τὸ ὕδωρ, as in v.°.
—Iw ss Ny] Gr καὶ ἐξελθὼν οὐχ ὑπέστρεψεν ; so HS (accepted by Ball):
see on *.—8. ἸΏΝ] Gr ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ (=1798); assuming that both birds
were sent forth on the same day.—10. $n] cf. $o™, v.22 (ax has $n» both
times). Both forms are incorrect : read in each case $m) (Bu. Di. al.).
VIII. 4—21 157
13b. Noah ventures to remove the covering of the ark, and
sees that the earth is dry.
20-22. Noah’s sacrifice.—J’s account of the leaving of
the ark has been suppressed. Noah’s first act is to offera
sacrifice, not of thanksgiving but (as v.*! shows) of pro-
pitiation: its effect is to move the Deity to gracious
thoughts towards the new humanity. The resemblance
to the Babylonian parallel is here particularly close and
instructive (see p. 177): the incident appears also in the
Greek and Indian legends.—20. an altar] Lit. ‘ slaughtering-
place.’ The sacrificial institution is carried back by J to
the remotest antiquity (see on 45: 77), but this is the first
mention of the altar, and also of sacrifice by fire: see p. 105
above.—ndy] holocausts,—that form of sacrifice which was
wholly consumed on the altar, and which was naturally
resorted to on occasions of peculiar solemnity (e.g. 2 Sa. 24”).
—2I1. smelled the soothing odour| nm nm (xvion, mzdor) ὃ
becomes a technical term of the Levitical ritual, and is
never mentioned elsewhere except in P and Ezk. This,
Gu. points out, is the only place where Yahwe is actually
described as smelling the sacrifice; but cf. 1 Sa. 2619, It is
probably a refinement of the crude eudemonism of the
Bab. story (see p. 177 below); and it is doubtful how far it
elucidates primitive Heb. ideas of the effect of sacrifice.
That ‘‘the pleasing odour is not the motive but merely
the occasion of this gracious purpose” (Knobel), may be
—13b. 7225] possibly described in J’s account of the building of the ark.
Elsewhere only of the covering of the Tabernacle (P); but cf. mp2,
Ezk. 277.190] G& ins. τὸ ὕδωρ ἀπό.
20. m9] Ck τῷ OeG.—21. mm] O& K. ὁ θεός (615). --Ππ} ΠῚ] S 1.5
Low hss 35 {Zam —conflate ?—$p)] a different vb. from that used
in 317 411 529 (mx). Ho. points out that Pi. of $$p is never used with God
as subj. (cf. Gn. 12°); and for this and other reasons regards 318 as an
unskilful attempt to link the Noah of the Flood with the prophecy of
5°. But ** can only refer to the Flood, while the curse of 5*° belongs
to the past: moreover, an interpolator would have been careful to use
the same verb. The sense given to Ὁ} is fully justified by the usage
* 71. i. 317: κνίση δ᾽ οὐρανὸν Tkev ἑλισσομένη περὶ καπνῷ ; cf. Ov. Met.
ΧΙΪ. 153.
158 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
sound theology, but it hardly expresses the idea of the
passage.—2Ib is a monologue (ia5->x8),— ‘0 ὍΝ 5 (see on 6°)
may be understood either as epexegetical of DINT Haya (a
reason why Yahwe mzght be moved to curse the ground,
though he will not [Ho.]), 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 3, 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 (cf. Is. 54°9).—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 (Mt. 55). A division of the year into six
seasons (Ra.), or even into two halves (De.), is not in-
tended; the order of nature is simply indicated by a series
of contrasts, whose alternation is never more to be inter-
rupted by a catastrophe like the Flood. This assurance
closes J’s account of the Deluge. It rests on an interior
resolve of Yahwe; whereas in P it assumes the form of
a ‘covenant’ (g!4),—a striking instance of the development
of religious ideas in the direction of legalism: cf. Jer. 31%!
33208 25,
The Flood according to P.
VI. 9-12. Noah’s piety; The corruption of the
earth.—9. This ts the genealogy of Noah| The formula is
usually taken as the heading of the section of P dealing
with the Flood; but see on 9*f.—Noah is characterised as
of Pual (Ps. 37%, Jb. 2418, Is. 65?°).—wsya] Qk διὰ τὰ ἔργα, as 3!7.—13
Ἢ) “Ὁ Or ὅτι ἔγκειται ἡ διάνοια τ. ἀνθ. ἐπιμελῶς κτὰ. See on 6°.—2z2. 1p]
(i om. ; Ball, 1y.—naw*] ‘come to an end’: see on 22.
9. oon ps] (so Jb. 124). The asyndeton is harsh; but it is hardly
safe to remedy it on the authority of σὰ (o°=m) and ἘΠ, against G&. To
remove ps as a gloss from J (7!) (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 py given above may not be the original: see 5. A.
Cook, /7S, ix. 6321, who adduces some evidence that it meant what
was ‘due’ among a definite social group, and between it and its gods.
VI. 9-12 159
righteous (P*IS) and faultless (Ὁ 25): on the construction
v.t. There is perhaps a correspondence between these two
epithets and the description of the state of the world which
follows; py being opposed to the ‘violence,’ and pn to
the ‘corruption’ of v.™%. py, a forensic term, denotes
one whose conduct is unimpeachable before a judge; ὉΠ
is sacerdotal in its associations (Ex. 12°, Lv. 1° etc.),
meaning ‘free from defect,’ zzteger (cf. 17!).—in his genera-
tions (υ.1.}} 1.6. alone among his contemporaries (cf. 71).
That Noah’s righteousness was only relative to the standard
of his age is not implied.*—walked with God] see on 5”.
The expression receives a fuller significance from the Baby-
lonian legend, where Ut-napiStim, like the Biblical Enoch,
is translated to the society of the gods (p. 177 below).—
I1f, ANN 737] is the intentional antithesis to the 21» 73m)
I of 1! (De.).— Al flesh had corrupted its way] had
violated the divinely-appointed order of creation. The
result is wolence (DON, GF adixia)—ruthless outrage per-
petrated 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 (p. 129), the narrative of P contains no explana-
tion of the change which had thus passed over the face of
the world.
The fundamental idea of v."* is the disappearance οὐ the Golden
Age, or the rupture of the concord of the animal world established by
the decree of 1%, The lower animals contribute their share to the
general ‘corruption’ by transgressing the regulation of 189, and com-
mencing to prey upon each other and to attack man (see 9°): so Ra,
To restrict wab> to mankind (©°, Tu. Str. Dri. Ben. al.) is therefore
—rnna] Ge ἐν τῇ γενέσει air, The f. pl. is highly characteristic of P
(Ho. Zin/, 341); but apparently always as a real pl. (series of genera-
tions): ct. the solitary use of sg. in P, Ex. 18 Here, accordingly, it
seems fair to understand it, not of the individual contemporaries of
Noah (Tu. We. Ho. al.), but of the successive generations covered by
his lifetime. The resemblance to mn W712 py (71) is adduced by We.
(Prol.® 390) as a proof of P’s dependence on J.—11. Ὁ πῦνῃ] One of
the few instances of P’s use of the art. with ‘x.—12. ondx) (ἃ Κύριος ὁ 0.
* So Jerome: ‘ut ostenderet non juxta justitiam consummatam, sed
juxta generationis suze eum justum fuisse justitiam.”
160 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
unnecessary and unwarranted. The phrase properly denotes ‘all living
beings,’ and is so used in 8 out of the 13 occurrences in P’s account of
the Flood (Dri. ad Joc.). In 619 71518 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 P and J (6°) on
this matter is characteristic.
13-16. Directions for building the ark.—13. An-
nouncement in general terms of some vast impending
catastrophe, involving the end of all flesh (all living beings,
as v.!*).—14-16. Description of the Ark.—An Ark (chest)
of gopher wood| probably some resinous wood. In Heb.
nan is used only of Noah’s ark and the vessel in which
Moses was saved (Ex. 2-5); the name ark comes to us
through ἘΠ (azvca), where, however, it is also applied to the
ark of the testimony (Ex. 251° etc.). The Bab. Flood-
narrative has the ordinary word for ship (e/ippw).—The
vessel is to consist internally of ced/s (lit. ‘nests’), and is
to be coated inside and out with Jdztwmen (cf. Ex. 2°).
13. "32> x3] not (as Est. 94) ‘has come to my knowledge,’ but ‘has
entered into my purpose.’ This is better than (with Di.) to take xa pp
absolutely (as Am. 8”), and 1355 as ‘according to my purpose.’—o7"359]
through them; Ex. 8:9. 911, Ju. 66 etc.—prxrne [on nen] Gr καὶ τὴν γῆν ;
P cum terra; 50 5. T%. As Ols. says, we should expect ‘nm Syp (nxp
[Graetz] is unsuitable). But the error probably lies deeper. Ball
emends ‘7 ny) Opk nw; Bu. ‘one on ny [ὉΠ] 3. anny; Gu. oni O37)
wnx. Eerdmans (447 Studien, i. 29) finds a proof of original poly-
theism. He reads ‘in ὉΠ ΠΟ 31337: “να [the gods] are about to destroy
the earth.” —14. 932] G&S κιβωτὸς ; TO xman. The word is the Egyptian
teb(z) = ‘chest,’ ‘sarcophagus’ (θίβις, 0/87, in Gr of Ex. 2*°): see Ges.
Th. ; Erman, ZDMG, x\vi. 123. Jensen (ZA, iv. 272f.), while admitting
the Egypt. etymology, suggests a connexion with the Ass. 2Ζζῤῥι ¢t-b7-
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 e/iffu. He thinks it possible that it
covers the word ¢abé, found in the phrase fa-bi-e Bél ilani Marduk
(Del. Hwb. 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 Bab. original of Heb. 437. See Camb. Bibl. Essays (1909),
p. 37 ff.—15i-'sy,] The old trans. were evidently at a loss: (ἃ (ἐκ) ξύλων
τετραγώνων ; ἜΪ (de) lignis levigatis; Jer. ligna bituminata: the word
being dm. Ney. Lagarde (Sem. i. 64f.; Symm. ii. 93 f.) considered it a
mistaken contraction from ΠΡ (brimstone), or rather a foreign word
of the same form which meant originally ‘ pine-wood.’ Others (Bochart,
VI. 13-16 161
Somewhat similar details are given of the ship of Ut-
napistim (p. 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 cubzt
is the ordinary Heb. cubit of six handbreadths (about 18 in. :
see Kennedy, DB, iv. 909), the dimensions of the ark are
such as modern shipbuilding has only recently exceeded
(see Ben. 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, Ovzental. und Exeget. Bibliot. xviii.
27 f.).—16. The details here are very confused and mostly
obscure. The word ¥ (dz. Aey.) is generally rendered
‘light’ or ‘opening for light,’—either a single (square)
aperture (Tu.), or ‘‘a kind of casement running round the
al.) suppose it to contain the root of κυπάρισσος, ‘cypress,’ a wood
used by the Phoen. in shipbuilding, and by the Egypt. for sarcophagi
(De.).—o'3p] Lagarde’s conjecture, o3p o3p (OS, ii. 95), has been
happily confirmed from Philo, Quest. in Gen. ii. 3 (loculos loculos: see
Bu. 255), and from a Palest. Syr. Lectionary (Nestle, cited by Ho.).
On the idiom, see G-K. § 123¢.—155] also da. λεγ., = ‘bitumen’
(GPST), Ar. kufr, Aram. w153, Ass. kupru (used in the Bab. Flood-
story). The native Heb. word for ‘bitumen’ is 199 (11° 142°, Ex. 2°),—
15. ank) G& aznany.—16. 19s] (ἃ ἐπισυνάγων (rdg. 128 Ὁ); all other Vns.
express the idea of light (Aq. μεσημβρινόν, 2. διαφανές, D fenestram,
S b,01, ‘windows,’ ©° n73), They connected it (as Aq. shows) with
Dns, ‘noon-day’; but zf onns means properly ‘summit’ (see G-B.;
BDB, s.v.), there seems nothing in Heb. to connect the root with
the idea of light. The meaning ‘back’ is supported by Ar. zahr.—
abyodp azban ΠΌΝΟΝ] The suff. may refer either to the 17s (whose gender
is unknown: cf. K6n. S. p. 163) or to the 43m: the latter is certainly
most natural after 75>, The prevalent explanation—that the cubit
indicates either the breadth of the light-opening, or its distance below
the roof (see Di.)—is mere guess-work. Bu. (following We.) removes
the first three words to the end of the v., rendering: ‘‘and according
to the cubit thou shalt finish it (the ark)’: Di. objects that this would
require 7ox7. Ball reads “Ὁ ayo2n ΠΞΊΝ ΟΝ), “and for its (the ark’s)
whole length thou shalt cover it above”; Gu.: 7333:n ‘som, ‘and on
a pivot (see Is. 6*) thou shalt make it (the roof) revolve,’—a doubtful
suggestion,
ἘΞ
162 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
sides of the ark (except where interrupted by the beams
supporting the roof) a little below the roof” (Dri., so De.
Di. al.). Exegetical tradition is in favour of this view; but
the material arguments for it (see Di. 141) are weak, and
its etymological basis is doubtful (v.z.). Others (Ew. Gu.
G-B. al.) take it to mean the 7voof (lit. ‘back’: Ar. sahr).*
The clause and to a cubit thou shalt finish it above is unin-
telligible as it stands: some suggestions are given in the
footnote.—The door of the ark is to be zm zts (longer?)
side; and the cells inside are to be arranged in three stories.
The ship of Ut-napistim appears to have had six decks,
divided into nine compartments (Il. 61-63).
17-22. The purpose of the ark.—Gunkel thinks that
v.17 commences a second communication to Noah; and
that in the source from which P drew, the construction of
the ark was recorded before its purpose was revealed (as in
the parallel account of J: see on 7'). That, of course, is
possible; but that P 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 1" are
not the continuation of 15:10. τὴ΄ῷῦο Behold I am about to bring
the Flood| S321: see above on 77 (J), and in the Note below.
—18. 7 will establish my covenant, etc.| anticipating 9%. De.
and Gu. 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 P,
17. 317 ὍΝ] cf. Dri. JPh. xi. 226.—nx hapa (cf. 75] The orp is
certainly superfluous grammatically, but pax7>y is necessary to the
completeness of the sentence. @ omits Ὁ in 7%, and inserts it in 9!” (P).
Whether it be an explanatory gloss of the unfamiliar 9139 (so most), or a
peculiar case of nominal apposition (see Dri. 7. § 188), it is difficult to
decide: on the idea that it is meant to distinguish the water-flood from
the light-flood, see above, p. 154. The pointing 0:2 (JDMich. al.) is
objectionable on various grounds: for one thing, P never speaks of the
Flood as coming ‘from thesea.’ J’s phrase is 207": 7719; cf. 9115 (Ρ).
—nnv>] ax, nnw>; but elision of 7 in Hiph. is unusual : some Sam. MSS
have nnwnd (Ball).—3ix] ‘expire,’—peculiar to P in Hex. (cf. 772 25% 7
* According to Jensen (1778, vi. τ, 487), the Bab. ark had a dome-
shaped roof (mufhu).
VI. 17—-VII. 11 163
to whom the M3 is always a solemn and permanent embodi-
ment of the divine will, and never a mere occasional provision
(Kraetzschmar, Bundesvorstg. 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 (Ho.).— Thou
and thy sons, etc.| The enumeration is never omitted by P
except in 81; cf. 713 816 18: ct. J in 71.—19f. 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 P to a later dispensation —
—20. The classification (which is repeated with slight
variations in 7'* “1 819 of 1°) here omits wild beasts (7°) :
v.z. on v.!9,—AN2) does not necessarily imply that the animals
came of themselves (Ra. ΓΕΖ. al.), any more than 82M (v.19)
necessarily means that Noah had to catch them.—2rI. all
food which ἐς (or may be) eaten] according to the prescrip-
tions of 1°%,—22. so did he| the pleonastic sentence is
peculiar to P; cf. esp. Ex. 4016 (also Ex. 7% 1233. 50 3082. 421.
Nu. 1°, and often).
VII. 6, 11, 13-17a. Commencement of the Flood.—
These vv. (omitting 160 [J]) appear to form an uninterrupted
section of the Priestly narrative, following immediately on
62,6. Date of the Flood by the year of Noah’s life. The
number 600 is a Babylonian er; and it has been thought
that the statement rests ultimately on a Bab. tradition.—
II. This remarkably precise date introduces a sort of diary
35” 49%,—12 t. in all); elsewhere only in poetry (Holz. Zinl. 341).—
19. 07] (on anomalous pointing of art. see G-K. § 35 (1)). 2 reads
mnn as in 87; and so @%, which takes the word in the limited sense of
wild animals, reading [καὶ ἀπὸ παντῶν τῶν κτηνῶν καὶ ἀ. π. τ. ἑρπετών
k. ἀ. π. τ. θηρίων (see 714. 21 8}9),—ow] G&S ow ow as in γ9ι15, So also
v.%,—20. wordop] Ins. } with anGSPT°; the 1 is necessary to the
sense.—@k has $3 before each class, but MT rightly confines it to the
heterogeneous wo (Ho.). For ΠΡῚΝ wor, a Gi have ‘xn Sy wor ἼσΝ.---
21. 792x] see on 1,—22, onde] Gi Κύριος ὁ 0.
6. On the syntax of the time-relation, see G-K. § 164.a@.—n1p] see 617,
—II. v—niwa] ‘in the year of 600 years’; cf. G-K. § 1340.—For
“17th day’ G& has ‘27th’; see p. 167 below.—vnwn n57x] 82, Mal. 32, =
prow "ἘΝ, 2 Ki. 7% =ninep ’x, Is. 2418, Apart from these phrases the
164 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
of the Flood, which is carried through to the end: see
below, p. 167f. V.®, 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 (p. 168).—the fountains of the Great Deep|
(727 OM: see on 13). 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 p. 17).
At the same time ¢he 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 Heb. writer looked
on it from that point of view. Contrast this grandiose
cosmological conception with the simple representation of
J, 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 >; note the phrase 729 on (Am. 7%, Is. 511°, Ps. 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 8?.
13. On that very day] continuing v.14, The idea that all
the animals entered the ark on one day (J allows a week)
has been instanced as an example of P’s love of the
marvellous (Ho. Gu.).—14-16. See on 6!.—17a. the Flood
word ‘x is rare, and denotes a latticed opening, Hos. 13%, Is. 608,
Ec. 12°, Here it can only mean ‘sluices’; the καταράκται of (ἃ ‘‘ unites
the senses of waterfalls, trap-doors, and sluices’’ (De.).—13. DA oxya
ma] 172326, Ex, rai 41. 51, Ly, 2315 31. 282% 80. Dt, 3048 Jos, 51 (all P);
Ho. Eini. 346.—nvv] irregular gender: G-K. § 97¢.—onx] Better as
GrS inx (816. 18). τ4. a9] distinguishing wild beasts from domestic
(cf. v.21); see on 6!,—n nes 53] Grom. Cf. Ezk. 173 394,—1r7a. mya
ov] Bu. (264) ingeniously suggests that the last three consonants of
the gloss (ox[yax]) represent the genuine oD of P (617 7°), @ adds
πο nya. The half-verse cannot be assigned to J, because it would
be a mere repetition of v.%
VII. 12—-VIII. 1B 165
came upon the earth] as a result of the upheaval, v.4.—The
words forty days are a gloss based on 7* © (v.2.); the
Redactor treating J’s forty days as an episode in the longer
chronology: see on v.” (J).
18-21, 24. Magnitude and effect of the Flood.—
While J confines himself to what is essential—the extinction
of life—and leaves the universality of the Flood to be
inferred, P 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] 133, lit. ‘be
strong’ (@& ἐπεκράτει, Aq. ἐνεδυναμώθη). The Flood is con-
ceived 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 8*: 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 explana-
tion is plausible enough (on the assumption that 8+ belongs
to P); 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 (v."): see p. 168.
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 (30), and the successive stages of the
subsidence are chronicled with the precision of a calendar.
—I. remembered] in mercy, as 19” 30% etc. The inclusion
of the animals in the kindly thought of the Almighty is a
touch of nature in P which should not be overlooked.—1rb.
The mention of the wind ought certainly to follow the arrest
of the cause of the Deluge (74). It is said in defence of the
present order that the sending of the wind and the stopping
10. 1029] Ge 3027, with oy as subj. (better), So v.%.— 20. 123] &
3723 (ὑψώθη), is preferable to MT (cf. Ps. 103!).—n-77] G (and S) add
τὰ ὑψηλά as in 19.---21. oN 53] here distinguished from was.
1. The addition of G καὶ παντῶν τῶν πετεινῶν x. π. τ. ἑρπετῶν is here
very much in place. —33%] The ,/ is rare and late: Nu. 1739 (P),
166 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
of the elemental waters are regarded as simultaneous (Di.);
but that does not quite meet the difficulty. See, further, p.
155 above.—3b. at the end of the 150 days] (74). See the foot-
note.—4. The resting of the ark.—on (one of) the mountains
of ’ Ararat] 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. Ararat (Ass. Uvartu) is the NE part of
Armenia; cf. 2 Ki. τοῦ =Is. 7.788. Jer: εἰ ) fibeaname
Mount Ararat, traditionally applied to the highest peak
(Massis, Agridagh: ὁ. 17,000 ft.) of the Armenian moun-
tains, rests on a misunderstanding of this passage.
The traditions regarding the landing-place of the ark are fully
discussed by Lenorm, O7.? ii. 1 ff. : cf. Tu. 133-136; Νᾶ. Unters. 145 ff.—
The district called Ararat or Urartu is properly that named in Armenian
Ayrarat, and is probably identical with the country of the Alarodians
of Herod. iii. 94, vii. 79. It is the province of Armenia lying NE of
Lake Van, including the fertile plain watered by the Araxes, on the
right (SW) side of which river Mt. Massis rises.* Another tradition,
represented by Berossus (p. 177 below) and {70 $ (37p)t, locates the
mountain in Kurdistan, viz. at Gebel Gadi, which is a striking
mountain SW of Lake Van, commanding a wide view over the Meso-
potamian plain. This view is adopted in the Koran (Sur. xi. 46),
and has become traditional among the Moslems.—The ‘ mountain
of Nisir’ of the cuneiform legend lies still further south, probably
in one of the ranges between the Lower Zab and the next tributary
to the 5, the Adhem (Raddnu) (Streck, ZA, xv. 272). Tiele and
Kosters, however (ZB, 289), identify it with Elburz, the sacred
mountain of the Iranians (S of the Caspian Sea); and find a trace of
this name in the μέγα ὄρος κατὰ τὴν ᾿Αρμενίαν Bdpis λεγόμενον indicated as
the mountain of the ark by Nicolaus Damascenus (Jos. Anz#. i. 95).—
What the original Heb, tradition was, it is impossible to say. The
writers just named conjecture that it was identical with the Bab.,
Ararat being here a corruption of Hava haratti (the ancient Iranian
name of Elburz), which was afterwards confused with the land of
Urartu. N6. and Ho. think it probable that ©° and & preserve the
oldest name (Kardu), and that Ararat is a correction made when it was
Jer. 5°5, Est. 2! 7! — 3b. owon aspp] Rd. ownnn ppp (Str. Ho. Gk.).
wx. nN ypd.—4. For 17th (ἃ has 27th (7).
*« Ararat regio in Armenia campestris est, per quam Araxes
fluit, incredibilis ubertatis, ad radices Tauri montis, qui usque illuc
extenditur.” Jerome on Is. 37°.
+ @ has both x277p and x 3078, as has Berossus.
VIII. 3B—19 167
discovered that the northern mountains are in reality higher than those
of Kurdistan.
5. the tops of the mountains] 1.6. (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 v.* (cf. Hupf. Qu. 16f.).—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: cf. Jer. 50°).
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 9'#-.—19. The
animals leave the ark according to their families,—an example
of P’s love of order.
The Chronology of the Flood presents a number of intricate though
unimportant problems.—The Dates, according to MT and @&,* are as
follows :
1. Commencement of Flood . 600th year, 2nd mo., 17th day (( 27th)
2. Climax (resting of ark) . » ἢ 55 17th ,, (Q& 27th)
3. Mountain tops visible Ξ ἘΣ 1oth(@r11th), rst ,,
4. Waters dried up 2 . 6o1st year, 1st mo., ESLitgs
5. Earth dry. 5 . : aA 2nd ,, ZANE Be
The chief points are these: (a) In (ἃ the duration of the Flood is
exactly 12 months; and since the 5 months between (1) and (2) amount
to 150 days (7 8°), the basis of reckoning is presumably the Egyptian
solar year (12 mo. of 30 days+5 intercalated days). The 2 months’
interval between (3) and (4) also agrees, toa day, with the 40- 21 days
5. om pba ya] ‘went on decreasing’ (G-K. § 113 x); less idiomatic
than * (J).—TZenth] & eleventh.—13a. After wv G& adds m "πὸ (71),
15. O79] Gr Κύριος ὁ 6.—17. s20kS read mn; so ν.}. — xa]
Why Οτᾷ substitutes in this solitary instance x¥17 is not clear: see K6n.
i. p. 641.—327) 93] G13 1953 (Impv.), omitting the previous prx3 www.
This is perhaps the better text: see on 917: Y reads the whole as Impv.
—19. voi—vniros] & (better) wRIN w_IA On ἢ)» 73) ADAITdy,—onnDwod]
(Jer. 15°); the pl. οὔ} (P’s word in ch. 1) is not in use (Ho.).
* Jub. v. 23-32 (cf. vi. 25 f.) adds several dates, but otherwise agrees
with MT, 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 znd month.
168 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
of 8512 (J). In MT the total duration is 12 mo.+10 days; hence the
reckoning appears to be by /umar months of c. 294 days, making up a
solar year of 364 days.*—(b) The Massoretic scheme, however, pro-
duces 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 @), or (what is more probable) the 150
days belong to an older computation independent of the Calendar.t
It has been surmised that this points to a τὸ months’ duration of
the Flood (150 days’ increase+150 days’ subsidence); and (Ew. Di.)
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 sub-
sidence.—(c) Of the separate data of the Calendar no satisfactory
explanation has yet been given. The only date that bears its signifi-
cance 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 distinc-
tion 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.{ (d) The ques-
tion whether the months are counted from the old Heb. 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 (/ud., Jos. Ant. i. 80, TJ, Ra. and
most).§ The arguments on one side or the other have little weight. If
the second autumn month (MarcheSwan) 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 unsuit-
able for its close. P elsewhere follows the Babylonian calendar, and
there is no reason to suppose he departs from his usual procedure here
(so Tu. Gu. 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 P, and the Calendar a later adjustment (Di.) ; or, again, the
150 days might be traditional, and the Calendar the work of P himself
(Gu.). On the former (the more probable) assumption the further
question arises whether the additions were made before or after the
amalgamation of J and P. The evidence is not decisive; but the diver-
gences of & from MT seem to prove that the chronology was still in
process of development after the formation of the Canon.—See Dahse,
ZATW, xxviii. 7 ff., where it is shewn that a group of Greek MSS
* So Jub. vi. 32. Cf. Charles’s Notes, pp. 54f. and 56f.
+ That it is a later redactional addition (Ho.) is much less likely.
t King (JTS, 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 (€), which, however, would itself require explanation.
§ See De. 175f., 183, 184; Di. 129f.
xr 169
agree closely with /ud., and argued (but unconvincingly) that the
original reckoning was a solar year, beginning and ending with the
27th of the 2nd month.
IX. 1-7. The new world-order.—The religious sig-
nificance 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), 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 Schiirer, iii. 128 f.
Vv.!-7, both in substance and expression (cf. nbax$ ava oS, 025 on
bonx, and esp. avy py), form a pendant to 1 We have seen (p. 35)
that these vv. 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 vv.*"§ have) in J or the Bab. narrative (Gu.). But that
neither this nor 1% is a secondary addition to P is clear from the
phraseology here, which is moulded as obviously on 1% 77% as on 1%,
To treat 9° as a later insertion (Ho.) is arbitrary. On the contrary,
the two passages represent the characteristic contribution of P to the
ancient traditions.
I. An almost verbal repetition of 1%. The wives of
Noah and his sons are not mentioned, women having no
religious standing in the OT (so v.§). It is perhaps also
significant that here (in contrast to 17%) the animals are
excluded from the blessing (though not from the covenant—
1. (ἃ adds at end καὶ κατακυριεύσατε αὐτῆς, as 1%,—2, bsn—ra] GS
ban (dis). The 3 cannot be that of specification (72! 817 iG. 15 βίο);
since no comprehensive category precedes; yet it is harsh to take it
as continuing the sense of by (G&), and not altogether natural to render
170 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
vy. 10. 12. 15.) 2. Man’s ‘dominion’ over the animals is re-
established, but now in the form of fear and dread (cf. Dt. 11”)
towards him on their part.—7znto your hand they are given]
conveying the power of life and death (Lev. 26%, Dt. 19!
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 P’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 (Lev.
7*7 1710.14); and though to our minds a purely ceremonial
precept, is constantly classed with moral laws (Ezk. 33%!
etc.), The theory on which the prohibition rests is re-
peatedly stated (Lev. 1711-14, Dt. 1278): 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.* All the
same it is unnecessary to go deeper in search of a reason for
the ancient Heb. horror of eating with the blood (1 Sa.
14°°.+),—5, 6. The second restriction: sanctity of human
life. ‘Life’ is expressed alternately by ὉΠ and vB).—On
ponwan, v.2.—Z will require] exact an account of, or
equivalent for (42%, Ezk. 33°, Ps. 9/8 etc.). That God is
‘along with’ (Di.).—3"3] 2 @& van} :—3. done 025 ΠΠ)] seems a slavish
repetition from 1%. We should at least expect the art., which a (537)
supplies.—4. 127 is an explanatory apposition (if not a gloss) to wa»;
but (ἃ renders ἐν αἵματι ψυχῆς, and 3 (στ 0) OLaAt»>), Σ. (οὗ σὺν
ψυχῇ αἷμα αὐτοῦ) as a rel. cl.—5. 8) is suspicious after the preceding
πὶ ax. (ὈΞΎ ΤΙΝῚ) omits. —o2nw5I>] usually taken as circumscription of
gen., emphasising the suff. : ‘your blood, your own’—in contrast with
the animals. It is better to render ‘according to your persons,’ z.e.
individually ;—‘‘dem eloh. Sprachgebrauch entspricht distributive
Fassung des 5 doch am besten” (De.),—rnx wx ΤῺ] ‘from the hand of
* See RS, 234f.; Frazer, GB’, i. 133 f., 352f.; Kennedy, ZB, 1544.
+ It has been thought that the offence warned against is the bar-
barous African custom of eating portions of animals still alive (@J, Ra.
De. al.); but that is a mistake.
ΙΧ, 2-11 171
the avenger of blood is to J (ch. 4) a truth of nature; to P
it rests on a positive enactment.—/rom the hand of every
beast] see Ex. 21*',.—6a is remarkable for its assonances
and the perfect symmetry of the two members: 07 ἢ}
yw ior OIA | DIT. It is possibly an ancient judicial
formula which had become proverbial (Gu.). The (@ (v.z.)
read into the text the idea of judicial procedure; others
(Tu. 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 zmage of God see on 1*6,—7, The section closes, as
it began, with the note of benediction.
8-17. The Covenant and its Sign.—In P as in J
(8°°-2) 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 P 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 con-
cluding note, p. 173 f.—9. establish my covenant] in fulfilment
of 618, P’s formula for the inauguration of the covenant
is always N73 ΡΠ or 3 1M) (172, Nu. 25!) instead of the
more ancient and technical ‘2 N13.—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
one man that of another.’ The full expression would be warnx wx vp
ynx (Ols.); but all languages use breviloquence in the expression of
reciprocity. The construction is hardly more difficult than in 15}
42%; and an exact parallel occurs in Zec. 7% See G-K. 8 1396;
Bu. 283 ff. The vn» of ax SP makes nonsense; & omits the previous
pixa 1p). It would be better to move the Athnach so as to commence
a new clause with wx 1.—6, 01x21] D om. ; 779 v3 App pa: T) is
still more explicit.—7. 11210] D et implete eam (as v.'). Read 73 170
after 1°8 (Nestle in Ball).
10. $22] ‘as many as’; see on 62,—y1x7 n’n 525] G& om.—25] perhaps
= ‘in short’: cf. 23°, see G-K. § 143 e. The sense of "ἢ ’n = ‘animals’
in general, immediately after the same expression in the sense of
‘wild animals,’ makes the phrase suspicious (Ho.).—11. 39] ax hapa;
172 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
is a difficult question, on which see p. 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., Exx. in common. life: Gn. 21°) ὉΠ 39 ΡΣ
(Gu.).* Here the sign is a natural phenomenon—the rain-
bow; and the question is naturally asked whether the
rainbow is conceived as not having existed before (so IEz.
Tu.). 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
P, 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. —14> continues 1%: and
(when) the bow appears in the cloud; the apodosis com-
mencing with (against De.).—The bow seems conceived
as lodged once for all in the cloud (so IEz.), to appear at
@ adds pp, —nnw>] aux mnvad; so v.15,—12, obs] ok Κύριος ὁ 6. + (with
32) mx>x.—13. 72] hardly historic pf. (‘I have set’), but either pf. of
instant action (‘I do set’), or pf. of certainty (‘I will set’); see G-K.
§ 1062, m, 2.—14. 2} ‘392] lit. ‘when I cloud with cloud’; see G-K.
88 s2d and 1177. — nvpn] GP cnvp; so G& in v.!%=—15. mn) mS
Donk wes wna (cf. v.22),
* Hence both of P’s covenants are confirmed by a sign: the
Abrahamic covenant by circumcision, and this by the rainbow.
IX. 12-17 173
the right moment for recalling the covenant to the mind of
God.—16. an everlasting covenant] so 1773319, Ex, 3118,
Ly. 248, Nu. 1819 25:3 (all P).
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” (We. Pvol.6 311); by Homer
it was personified as Ἶρις, the radiant messenger of the Olympians
(ZZ. ii. 786, iii. 121; cf. Ov. Met. i. 270f.), but also regarded as a portent
of war and storm (xi. 27f., 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 Bab. Creation-myth, where Marduk’s bow,
which he had used against Tiamat, is set in the heavens as a con-
stellation. (See Je. A7ZO*, 248; Di. 155f.; Gu. 138f.; Dri. 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
(cf. Hab. 3°", Ps. 71") 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, adapta-
tion. The rainbow is only once again mentioned in OT (Ezk. 133 nwpa
owin ova 93 Ay” ws: but see Sir. 43"* 507), and it is pointed out (by
We. al.) that elsewhere Πρ 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 vv.'§, or is con-
fined 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,
ZATW, xii. 3f.). Vv.t? and 5:17 are certainly distinct addresses, and
possibly of different origin (p. 169); and while the first says nothing
of a covenant, the second makes no reference to the preceding stipula-
tions. 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 17 be observed or not.
On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that P, to whom the ΠΡ
means so much, should have dignified by that name the negative
assurance of v.". In the case of the Abrahamic covenant, the ΠΥΡῚ
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 οἵ 1 in the terms of the covenant (so Is. 2455), Kraetzschmar
(Bundesvorstg. 192 ff.) solves the difficulty by the supposition that the
idea of vv.°"7 is borrowed by P from J, 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 ;
τό. 7375] ST° 1nd, —orndsx 13] Ge "3.
174 FLOOD
and we have seen that there are independent reasons for regarding
νν.} 7 as supplementary to the Deluge tradition followed by P. If that
be the case, it is probable that these vv. were inserted by the priestly
author with the intention of bringing under the Noachic ΠῚ those
elementary religious obligations which he regarded as universally
binding on mankind.—On the conception of the ΠῚ in J and P, see
chs. 15 and 17.
28, 29. The death of Noah.
The form of these vv. is exactly that of the genealogy, ch. 5; while
they are at the same time the conclusion of the m3 nn (69). How much
was included under that rubric? Does it cover the whole of P’s
narrative of the Flood (so that niin is practically equivalent to ‘bio-
graphy’), or does it refer merely to the account of his immediate
descendants in 61°? The conjecture may be hazarded that 6% 1° 76
938: 39. formed a section of the original book of nadin, and that into this
skeleton the full narrative of the Flood was inserted by one of the
priestly writers (see the notes on 2), The relation of the assumed
genealogy to that of ch. 5 would be precisely that of the πη of Terah
(117%) to the nin of Shem (111%%6), In each case the second gene-
alogy is extremely short; further, it opens by repeating the last link
of the previous genealogy (in each case the birth of three sons, 5%? 6!) ;
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 min of Terah; that is the accepted view, and the reasons
for disputing it are those mentioned on p. gof. Fortunately the question
is of no great importance.
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.*
29. 1, Heb. MSS (London Polyglott) and a 17,
* 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
Bab.) 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 (p. 125 f.). The enumera-
tion, however, must not be considered as closed: Naville (PSBA, 1904,
251-257, 287-294) claims to have found fresh proof of an Egyptian
LEGENDS 175
On the question of the universality of the Deluge* 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 insuper-
able. 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 Baby-
lonian culture or to the direct influence of the Bible through Christian
missionaries.t In this note we shall confine our attention to the group
of legends most closely affiliated to the Babylonian tradition.
2. Of the Babylonian story the most complete version is contained
in the eleventh Tablet of the GilgameS Epic. GilgameS has arrived at
the Isles of the Blessed to inquire of his ancestor Utnapistim 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 Surippak on
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” (/.c. p. 289).
* On the overwhelming geological and other difficulties of such a
hypothesis, see Dri. 99 f.
+ See Andree, /.c. 143 ff. ; Suess, The Face of the Earth, i. 18-72 pass.
Cf. the discussion by Woods in DB, ii. 17 ff. ; and Dri. Gen. to1 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 (Orig.? i. 471 f., 488 ff.).
t Discovered by G. Smith, in 1872, among the ruins of Asshur-
banipal’s library ; published 1873-4; and often translated since. See
KAT", 55 ff. ; Jen. Kosmologie, 368 ff. ; Zimmern in Gu.’s Schépf. u. Chaos,
423 ff.; Jen. AJB, vi. 1, 116 ff. (the translation followed below) ; Ba.
Light from the East, 35 ff.; Je. ATLO*, 228 ff.; and the abridgments
in Jast. RBA}, 493 ff. ; KAT, 545 ff. ; Texte u. Bilder, i. 50 ff.
176 FLOOD
the Euphrates, it was resolved by the gods in council to send the Flood
(ab2bu) on the earth. Ea, who had been present at the council, resolved
to save his favourite Utnapistim ; and contrived without overt breach of
confidence to convey to him a warning of the impending danger, com-
manding him to build a ship (e/éf/pu) of definite dimensions for the
saving of his life. The ‘superlatively clever one’ (Atra-hasis, a name of
Utnapistim) 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
(1. 48 ff.) is even more obscure than Gn. 61416; 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 depend-
ants of UtnapiStim (including artizans), with domestic and wild
animals, are then described (I. 81 ff.) ; and last of all, in the evening, on
the appearance of a sign predicted by Samas the sun-god, Utnapistim
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 ll. 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.”
‘*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 Nisir* the ship had arrived.
The mountain of Nisir stayed the ship...” (Il. 130-142).
This brings us to the incident of the birds (146-155):
““When the seventh day t 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.”
* See p. 166, + From the landing.
LEGENDS χὴν
On this UtnapisStim 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, IStar and Ea reproaching Bel for
his thoughtlessness in destroying mankind indiscriminately, and Bel
accusing Ea of having connived at the escape of Utnapistim. Finally,
Bel is appeased ; and entering the ship blesses the hero and his wife :
“Formerly Utnapistim was a man;
But now shall Utnapistim and his wife be like to us the gods:
UtnapiStim 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.).*
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 Heb. tradition
as a whole was derived from Babylonia. Thus both J and Pagree with
the Bab. story in the general conception of the Flood as a divine visita-
tion, 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. J agrees with Bab. 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. P has also its peculiar correspondences (though
some of these may have been in J originally): e.g. the precise instruc-
tions for building the ark ; the mention of bitumen (a distinctively Bab.
touch); the grounding of the ark on a mountain; the blessing on the
survivors.| By the side of this close and marked parallelism, the
material differences on which Nickel (p. 185) lays stress—viz. as to (a)
the chronology, (4) the landing-place of the ark, (c) the de/azls of the
* Two fragments of another recension of the Flood-legend, in which
the hero is regularly named Atra-hasis, have also been deciphered.
One of them, being dated in the reign of Ammizaduga (c. 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 A/B, 288-291).
The other is a mere scrap of twelve lines, containing Ea’s instructions
to Atra-hasis regarding the building and entering of the ark, and the
latter's promise to comply (Δ 18, 256-259). See KAT*, 551 f.—The
extracts from Berossus preserved by Eus. present the Babylonian story
in a form substantially agreeing with that of the Gilgames Tablets,
though with some important variations in detail. See Euseb. Chron, i.
(ed. Schoene, cols. 19-24, 32-34: cf. Miiller, Fr. Hist. Gr. ii. 501 ff.).
+ See more fully Driver, p. 106,
12
17 FLOOD
sending out of the birds, (d) the sign of the rainbow (absent in Bab.),
and (6) the name of the hero—sink into insignificance. They are,
indeed, sufficient to disprove immediate literary contact between the
Heb. writers and the Gilgame$ Tablets; but they do not weaken the
presumption that the story had taken the shape known to us in Baby-
lonia before it passed into the possession of the Israelites. And since
we have seen (p. 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 Heb. 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 (8” in J, 74
8 in P), 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 J, and none at all in P. The difference here is not wholly
due to the elimination of the mythological element by the biblical
writers : it is characteristic of the Heb. 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
P it has been elaborated under the influence of the religious theory of
history peculiar to that document (p. Ixf.). The most important
divergences are naturally those which spring from the religion of the
OT—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 Heb. 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 Baby-
lonian 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 Bab.
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 J
it becomes a test of the obedience of Noah (Gu. p. 66). Which re-
presentation is older can scarcely be doubted. It is true, at all events,
that the Bab. parallel serves as a ‘‘measure of the unique grandeur
of the idea of God in Israel, which was powerful enough to purify
LEGENDS 179
and transform in such a manner the most uncongenial and repugnant
features” of the pagan myth (7zd.); 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 pedagogic
and ethical purpose” (A 7203, p. 252).
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 Jndian story, to which there is a single allusion in the Vedas, is
first fully recorded in the Catapatha Brahmaya, i. 8. 1-10.* 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. Ina later form of the tradition
(Mahabharata, iii. 187. 2ff.),+ 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
Mahabharata is an incarnation of Brahma) was the symbol of the
god Ea.t— 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. 2ff.).§ 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
—
* Translated by Eggeling, Sacred Books of the East, xii. 216 ff. See
y &ggeing
Usener, Die Sintfluthsagen (Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen,
iii.), 25 ff.
+ Translated by Protap Chandra Roy (Calcutta, 1884), iii. 552 ff. See
Usener, 29 ff.
1 Usener, however (240 ff.), maintains the entire independence of the
Indian and Semitic legends.
§ The earliest allusion is Pindar, Οἱ. 9. 41 ff. Cf. Ovid, Met. i. 244-
415; Paus. i. 40. 1, x. 6. 2, etc. The incident of the dove (in a peculiar
modification) appears only in Plut, De sollert. an. 13.—Usener, 31 ff.,
244 ff.
180 FLOOD
indication of the amalgamation of a foreign element with local Deluge
traditions.—A Syrian tradition, with some surprising resemblances to P
in Gen., 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-Sisuthros * was saved with
his family in a great chest, into which as he entered all sorts of animals
crowded. Whenthe 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 forthe 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 NQE, 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 inthe attitude of prayer.t The late date of these coins
makes the hypothesis of direct Jewish, or even Christian, influence
extremely probable.—The existence of a Phenician 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 cent. B.c. There is no extant
written record of the Phoenician legend: on Gruppe’s reconstruction
from the statements of Greek mythographers see above, p. 141.
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 tobe 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 (ZB, 1063f.) and Zimmern (23. 1058f.; 14 75,
555). Of asomewhat different order is the astrological theory advocated
by Jeremias (249ff.). The Babylonian astronomers were aware that
* Text Δευκαλίωνα τὸν Σκύθεα, which Buttmann (AZythologus, i. 192)
ingeniously emended to Δ. τ. Zicvééa—a modification of the Σίσιθρος of
Abydenus.
+ See the reproductions in Usener, 45, and Je. 4720), 131, 7235.
LEGENDS 181
in the course of ages the spring equinox must traverse the watery
(southern) region of the Zodiac: this, on their system, signified a sub-
mergence of the whole universe in water ; and the Deluge-myth symbo-
lises 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, Hasis-adra, ζ, 6.
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, Zhe
Age of the Earth, 316.
IX. 18—27.—WVoah as Vine-grower: His Curse
and Blessing (J).
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 vv.?°-7
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-
182 NOAH’S DRUNKENNESS (J)
narrative at all. In the latter, Noah’s sons are married men
who take their wives into the ark (so expressly in P, but
the same must be presumed for J); 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 Di. Bu.
al.). The presumption, therefore, is that νν. 29.317 belong to
a stratum of J 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 v.* the offender is the youngest son
of Noah, and in v.* is named Canaan; while Shem and Japheth are
referred to as his brothers. True, in v.2 the misdeed is attributed to
‘Ham the father of Canaan’; but the words *3x of have all the appear-
ance of a gloss intended to cover the transition from 151. to 308... and
the clause ]y32 °28 817 ἘΠῚ in 18> can have no other purpose. Now 188 is
the close of J’s* account of the Flood; and 13 points forward either to
J's list of Nations (ch. 10), or to the dispersion of the Tower of Babel.
Vv.*-*7 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 (mm, v.”6 [in spite of omy in v.27]; and Sm, v.%);
and more especially by the connexion with 58 (see pp. 3, 133f.). It is
clear, therefore, that a redactor (RJ) has here combined two Yahwistic
documents, and sought to reduce the contradiction by the glosses in
18b and 22,
18, 19. Connecting verses (see above).—Noah’s sons are
here for the first time named in J, in harmony, however,
with the repeated notices of P (5°? 610 713), On the names
see on ch. 10 (p. 195 f.).—20. Woah the husbandman was the
jirst who planted a vineyard|—a fresh advance in human
civilisation. The allusion to Noah as ¢he husbandman is
1g. ΚΝ Π 3 ax53] ‘the whole (population of the) earth was scattered.’
For the construction cf. 10°,—A¥53] hardly contracted Niph. from ,/ 75
[=y»] (G-K. § 67dd); but from ,/ 753, whether this be a secondary
formation from ,/ yp) (G-B. 465f.), or an independent word (BDB,
659). Cf. 1 Sa. 134, Is. 11! 33%.—20. ‘in Sn] cf. 42 6! τοῦ 11® 4413 (J)
41°4 (E). The rendering ‘Noah commenced as a husbandman’ (Dav.
§ 83, &. 2) is impossible on account of the art. (ct. 1 Sa. 3): to insert
nvad (Ball) does not get rid of the difficulty. The construction with 1
cons., instead of inf., is very unusual (Ezr. 3°); hence Che. (ZB, 34267),
* Comp. 7¥53 with 10'8 114%; and y2y7-52 (=the population of the
earth) with 11) 3 (Bu.); 3-3 πὸν ayde with 10% 2233 254 (Ho.).
IX. 18-24 183
perplexing. If the text be right (v.7.), 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 p. 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 d. Ebriiischen Zeitalters, 36ff.). 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 civilisa-
tion.—Since the vine is said to be indigenous to Armenia and Pontus
(see De. Di.), 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 sur-
roundings.
21. uncovered himself] the same result of drunkenness in
Hab. 215, La. 4531.-. 22. There is no reason to think (with
Ho. and Gu.) that Canaan was guilty of any worse sin than
the Schadenfreude implied in the words. Heb. morality
called for the utmost delicacy in such matters, like that
evinced by Shem and Japheth in ν.38- 24. }Op7 122 cannot
mean ‘his younger son’ ((ΧῈ}) (1.6. as compared with
following Kue. (727, xviii. 147), proposes van for wx: ‘Noah was the
first to plough the ground.’ That reading would be fatal to any
connexion of the section with Gn. 3, unless we suppose a distinction
between 73y (manual tillage) and wan. Strangely enough, Ra. (on 539)
repeats the Haggadic tradition that Noah invented the ploughshare ;
but this is probably a conjecture based on a comparison of 3" with 5°%.*
—22. 139] G& pref. καὶ ἐξελθών .---23. nbn] On the art., see G-K. § 1267.
That it was ¢he 'w which Canaan had previously taken away, and that
this notice was deliberately omitted by J (Gu.), is certainly not to be
inferred. The “Ὁ is the upper garment, which was also used for
sleeping in (Ex. 2258 etc.).—24. yam] on the irreg. seghol, see α-Κ,
* So Mr. Abrahams, in a private communication,
184 NOAH’S DRUNKENNESS (J)
Shem); still less ‘his contemptible son ’ (Ra.); or Ham’s
youngest (IEz.). 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 (cf. 2775! 3% 49) (on the fulfilment see the
concluding note, p. 186f.). 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’ (G-K. § 133 2).—to his brethren]
not the other members of the Hamitic race, but (as is clear
from the following vv.) 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. Bu. (294 f.) proposed to omit TON and
read OY MN 332: Blessed of Vahwe be Shem (cf. 2431 2679
[both J]). Di.’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 Dv’ OTN " 13 (72 would be still more acceptable) :
[May] Vahwe bless the tents of Shem; see the next v.—27.
May God expand (13) Vepheth: a play on the name (Π5)).
The use of the generic osx implies that the proper name
§ yo n.—26. ‘o> may stand either for 075 (coll.) or ᾽ν: see Note 3 in
G-K. § 103, The latter is the more natural here. Ols. (BBA, June
1870, 382) proposed to omit **, substituting °8 (o~—j2¥™), and retain
“7h with ref. of pl. suff. to rmx. @& has αὐτοῦ in 380 and αὐτῶν in 570 ---
27. nd:] Ox πλατύναι, Ἢ dilatet, etc. The ,/ ππϑ in the sense ‘be spacious’
is extremely rare in Heb. (Pr. 20! [?248]), and the accepted rendering
not beyond challenge. ΝΟ. (BZ, 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.).
IX. 25-27 185
mm was the peculiar property of the Shemites.—and may
he dwell| or that he may dwell. The subject can hardly
be God (Jud. 47, Ber. R. Ra. IEz. No. 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 (Gu.).
For the latter sense cf. Ps 78°, 1 Ch. 5!°.—A Messianic
reference to the ingathering of the Gentiles into the Jewish
or Christian fold ((, Fathers, De. 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 dis-
covery 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 frag-
ment of tradition, the incident signalises the transition from nomadic to
agricultural life. Noah, the first husbandman and vine-grower, is a
tent-dweller (v.71); and this mode of life is continued by his oldest and
favoured son Shem (57). Further, the identification of husbandry and
vine culture points to a situation in which the simpler forms of agri-
culture had been supplemented by the cultivation of the grape. Sucha
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 5”, which brings it into close connexion with the account
of the Fallin ch. 3 (p. 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 OT: on the
other hand, it is impossible to doubt that the light in which Noah is
186 NOAH'’S DRUNKENNESS (J)
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 zmcludes 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 (ch. 10),—7z.e. as corresponding roughly to what
we call the Semitic and Aryan races,—has always had difficulty in dis-
covering a historic situation combining Japhetic dominion over the
Canaanites with a dwelling of Japheth in the tents of Shem.* 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 pass-
age as a prophecy of the diffusion of Christianity; and even then it
fails to satisfy the expressions of the text (Di., who explains the figure
as expressing the more kindly feeling of the Heb. 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 (We. Mey.) or the Phcenicians (Bu. Sta. Ho.). But that
the Hebrews should have wished for an enlargement of the Philis-
tines at their own expense is incredible; and as for the Phoenicians,
though their colonial expansion might have been viewed with compla-
cency 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 Ki. 911.13) (Bu.) is an event little
likely to have been idealised in Heb. 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
* As regards the former, the expulsion of Phoenician colonists from
the Mediterranean coasts and Asia Minor by the Greeks (Di.) could
never have been described as enslavement (see Mey. GA}, i. 311f.); and
the capture of Tyre by Alexander, the Roman conquest of Carthage,
etc. (De.), are events certainly beyond the horizon of the writer,—unless,
indeed, we adopt Berth.’s suggestion (see above), that ν. 7 is very late.
For the latter, Di. 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.
ΙΧ. 27—X. 187
afier the time of Alexander the Great, as an expression of the friendly
feeling of the Jews for their Hellenic conquerors.*—Gu.’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 (c. 2250 B.C.), leaving its traces in
Babylonia, in Phoenicia, perhaps even in Asia Minor,} and of which the
later Canaanites of Palestine were the sediment. Shem is the Hebrzo-
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 105 (which Gu. assigns to the same source
as 9”) Heth is the son of Canaan. A better defined background would
be the struggle for the mastery of Syria in the 14th cent. B.c.t If, as
many Assyriologists think probable, the Habiri of the Tel-Amarna
Letters be the o2y of the OT,—z.e. the original Hebrew stock to
which Israel belonged,— it would be natural to find in Shem the repre-
sentative of these invaders; for in 107! (J) 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 Habiri, were then seeking a foot-
hold 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 conjec-
tures can never effect a solution of the problem.
Cu. X.—The Table of Peoples (P and J).
In its present form, the chapter is a redactional composi-
tion, in which are interwoven two (if not three) successive
attempts to classify the known peoples of the world, and to
“See We. Comp. 14f.; Bu. Urg. 325 ff.; Sta. GVJ, i. 109; Mey.
GA’, i. p. 214; Bertholet, Stellung d. Isr. zu. d. Fremden, 76f. Meyer's
later theory (ZS, 220f.), that Japheth (=Eg. Ke/ti?) stands for the whole
body of northern invaders in the 12th cent., to whom the Philistines be-
longed, does not diminish the improbability that such a prophecy should
have originated under the monarchy.
t See Mey. GA}, i. p. 212 ff.; Wi. GJ, i. 37, 130, 134; Peiser, XZB,
iV. p. Vill.
t Already suggested by Ben. (p. 158), who, however, is inclined to
identify the Habiri with Japheth.
188 THE TABLE OF PEOPLES (P AND J)
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 We. (Comp.? 6ff.). The hand of P is
easily recognised in the superscription (15 nadia bx), and the methodical
uniformity of the tripartite scheme, with its recurrent opening and
closing formula. The headings of the three sections are: np: 23 (2),
of 33) (6), and ov 23 (33; the respective conclusions are found in *
(mutilated) *° *!, v.82 being a final summary. This framework, how-
ever, contains several continuous sections which obviously belong to J.
(a) 5:13; the account of Nimrod (who is not even mentioned by P among
the sons of Kush) stands out both in character and style in strong con-
trast to P: note also 14: instead of in (8), mar (9). (6) &: the sons of
Mizraim (v. 15:). () 59; the Canaanites (15). (d) 31: 5-30; the Shemites
(ay 21-25 ; a °6), Duplication of sources is further proved by the twofold
introduction to Shem (74!”), and the discrepancy between 7 and 38: re-
garding ayn and x2¥. The documents, therefore, assort themselves as
follows :
P; 1s, 25. 6f 20, 29f. 31. 82
’ ᾽ ᾽ ᾽
J : 1b (?) ; 8-12 . 13f. ; 15-19 « 21. 25-30,
Vv.% 16-18 and *4 are regarded by We. and most subsequent writers
as interpolations: see the notes. The framework of P is made the
basis of the Table; and so far as appears that document has been pre-
served in its original order. In J the genealogy of Shem (7! 35:80) is
probably complete; that of Ham (}* 158.) is certainly curtailed ; while
every trace of Japheth has been obliterated (see, however, p. 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 Gu. (74f.), who
first raised the question of the unity of the Yahwistic Table, and its
connexion with the two recensions of J which appear in ch. 9. He
agrees with We. Di. al. that οὐδ forms the transition from the story
of the Flood to a list of nations which is partly represented in ch. 10;
10!» being the immediate continuation of 99 in that recension of J (Ji).
But he tries to show that οὐ ΣΤ was also followed by a Table of Nations,
and that to it most of the Yahwistic fragments in ch. 10 belong (8: 109-15.
15, 21, 25-29— Je), This conclusion is reached by a somewhat subtle
examination of v.*! and vv.!51% In v.21 Shem is the ‘elder brother of
Japheth,’ which seems to imply that Japheth was the second son of Noah
as in 9° ; hence we may surmise that the third son was not Ham but
Canaan. This is confirmed by the apparent contradiction between
16 and 18-18, Τ 19 the northern limit of the Canaanites is Zidon, whereas
in Canaan includes the Hittites, and has therefore the wider geo-
graphical sense which Gu. postulates for οὐ" (see p. 186 above). He
also calls attention to the difference in language between the eponymous
jv32 in 15 and the gentilic 37337 in 181%, and considers that this was a
characteristic distinction of the two documents. From these premises
the further dissection of the Table follows easily enough. Vv.*!" may be
ΘΕ ΕΚ: 189
assigned to Je because of the peculiar use of 5nq in 8 (cf. 9” 436), V1
must in any case be J), because it is inconceivable that Egypt should
ever have been thought of as a son of Canaan; 3539 follow74(J¢), V.%
is assigned to Ji solely on account of its resemblance to. 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 9*™ or
10%; 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 docu-
ment; 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 con-
crete 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 Rob. Sm. KAZ’,
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 (Mizraim, Havilah, etc.—in most cases it is impossible to
say whether land or people is meant) or cities (Zidon); some are
gentilicia (Jebusite, Hivvite, etc.); and some are actually retained in
190 THE TABLE OF PEOPLES (P AND J)
the pl. (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;* 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’ (035), or the Amorites from
one called ‘the Amorite’ (587); 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.t| That, however, would be
a hasty and probably mistaken inference. The instances cited are
exceptional,—they occur mostly in two groups, of which one (!®-)
is interpolated, and the other (135) 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 (Gu.).
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.
The geographical horizon of the Table is very restricted ;
but is considerably wider in P than in J.{ J’s survey ex-
tends from the Hittites and Phcenicians in the N to Egypt
and southern Arabia in the S; on the E he knows Baby-
lonia and Assyria and perhaps the KaSsi, and on the W
the Libyans and the south coast of Asia Minor.§ P includes
in addition Asia Minor, Armenia, and Media on the N and
NE, Elam on the E, Nubia in the S, and the whole
* “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 A£olians, the Ionians, and the
Achzans; 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 ®£olians, and
Xuthus, from whose two sons, Ion and Achzus, the Ionians and
Achzeans were respectively supposed to be descended” (Dri. 112).
+ See Guthe, GJ, 1 ff.
t+ Judging, that is, from the extracts of J that are preserved.
§ Kaphtorim (v.14): according to others the island of Crete.
CH. X. 19!
Mediterranean coast on the W. 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.
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 P,—a fact which has perhaps never been thoroughly
explained (see p. 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 P
the zerminus a quo is the 8th cent., when the Cimmerian and Scythian
hordes (35) first make their appearance south of the Caucasus: the
absence of the Minzeans among the Arabian peoples, if it has any
significance, would point to the same period (see p. 203). A lower
limit may with less certainty be found in the circumstance that the
names 025 and 23, ‘2, (Persians and Arabs, first mentioned in Jer.
and Ezk.) do not occur. It would follow that the Priestly List is
pre-exilic, and represents, not the viewpoint of the PC (5th cent.), but
one perhaps two centuries earlier (so Gu.). Hommel's opinion
(Aufs. u. Abh. 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 left* (see Je. ATZO*, 252). — The
lists of J, on the other hand, yield no definite indications of date.
The S Arabian tribes (3539) might have been known as early as the
age of Solomon (Brown, LB, ii. 1699),—they might even have been
* It has often been pointed out that there is a remarkable agreement
between the geographical horizon of P in Gn. 10 and that of Jer.
and Ezk. Of the 34 names of nations in P’s Table, 22 occur in
Ezk. and 14 in the d004 of Jer. ; it has to be remembered, however,
that a large part of the book of Jer. is later than that prophet. Ezk.
has perhaps 6 names which might have been expected in P if they
had been known (27y, o7¥2, wip, vei, 025, Ips), and Jer. (book) has 5
([]aw, o7v2, 015, 1p, 3p). The statistics certainly do not bear out the
assertion that P compiled his list from these two books between 538
and 526 B.C. (see Di. p. 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 Ezk, than in the Table.
192 THE TABLE OF PEOPLES (P AND J)
known earlier,—but that does not tell us when they were systematically
tabulated. The (interpolated) list of Canaanites (1618) is assigned by
Jeremias (1.6. 256) to the age of Tiglath-pileser 111. ; but since a con-
siderable percentage of the names occurs in the Tel-Amarna letters
(v.7.), the grounds of that determination are not apparent. With
regard to the section on Nimrod (8:13), all that can fairly be said is
that it is probably later than the KaSSite conquest of Babylonia: how
anuch later, we cannot tell. On the attempt to deduce a date from the
description of the Assyrian cities, see p. 212.—There are, besides, two
special sources of error which import an element of uncertainty into
all these investigations. (a) Since only two names (x2¥ and obyn) are
really duplicated in P and J,* 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 P or in J. (8) 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.
The threefold division of mankind is a feature common
to P and J, and to both recensions of J if there were two
(above, p. 188f.). 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 v.”4), 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 (4158: 5%2
1176 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, ZAZ, 32); but in any case the survey of Gn. τὸ
excludes the true negroes, and differeuces 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, Kos, Punt, and Phoenicians
* aw, wid, DYIyD and jy32 do not count, because they are so introduced
that the two documents supplement one another.
+ For the official enumeration see Zunz, GdV?, 207; Steinschneider,
ZDMG, iv. 150f. ; Krauss, ZATW, 1899, 6 (1900, 38 ff.) ; cf. Poznanski,
16. 1904, 302.
CH. X 193
(P’s Hamites) as dark brown (Di. 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 apprehen-
sion of an antique people, to whom as a rule all foreign tongues were
alike ‘barbarous.’ So we find that the most of P’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 corre-
spondence 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 J assigns Phoenicians and Hittites (perhaps also
Egyptians) to one ethnic group, it is plain that he is not guided bya
sound ethnological tradition. His Shemites are, indeed, all of Semitic
speech ; what his Japhetic peoples may have been we cannot conjecture
(see p. 188).
So far as P is concerned, the main principle is un-
doubtedly geographical: Japheth representing the North and
West, Ham the South, and Shem the East. Canaan is the
solitary exception, which proves the rule (see p. 2o1f.). 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 con-
siderations 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. Lfid would be a glaring
exception if the Lydians of Asia Minor were meant, but that is probably
not the case (p. 206). The Mediterranean coasts and islands are ap-
13
194 THE TABLE OF PEOPLES (P AND J)
propriately 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 N and S that makes the position of Kittim appear anoma-
lous to Di. Even if the island of Cyprus be meant (which, however, is
doubtful ; p. 199), it must, on the view here taken, be assigned to Japheth.
It is true that in J traces of politico-historical grouping do appear
(wx and 533 in 8:15; ohm, onde in 1%), — As to the order within the
principal groups (of P), it is impossible to lay down any strict rule. Jen.
(ZA, 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 dis-
qualified 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 ele-
ments 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 con-
sciousness of the unity of mankind, and the religious
primacy of Israel, by which the OT writers were animated.
Its insertion at this point, where it forms the transition from
primitive tradition to the history of the chosen people, has
X. 1A 195
a significance, as well as a literary propriety, which cannot
be mistaken (Di. 164; Gu. 77; Dri. 114).
The Table is repeated in 1 Ch. 14%? with various omissions and
textual variations. The list is still further abridged in (ἃ of 1 Chr.,
which omits 1 and all names after Arpachshad in %.—On the ex-
tensive literature on the chapter, see especially the commentaries of
Tu. (159 f.) and Di. (170f.). See also the map at the end of 4720.
The Table of P.
Superscription. — Shkém, Ham, and Vepheth] cf.
* (P), 9° (J).
On the original sense of the names only vague conjectures can be
reported. ov is supposed by some to be the Heb. word for ‘name,’
applied by the Israelites to themselves in the first instance as DY 323: -Ξ
‘men of name’ or ‘distinction ’—the titled or noble race (cf. ὀνομαστός) :
“perhaps poses. more than the ruling caste in opposition to the
aborigines.” So We. (Comp.? 14), who compares the name ‘ Aryan,’
and contrasts ov "2 3 (Jb. 30%); cf. Bu. Urg. 328f.; al. Gu. (73)
mentions a speculation of Jen. that τὺ is the Babylonian Sumu, in the
sense of ‘eldest son,’ who perpetuates the father’s name.
df must, at a certain stage of tradition, have supplanted the earlier
j¥32 as the name of Noah’s third son (p. 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 Heb. word it might mean ‘hot?’
(Jos. 913, Jb. 371”): hence it has been taken to denote the hot lands of
the south (Lepsius, al.; cf. /wd. viii. 30: ‘the land of Ham is hot”).
Again, since in some late Pss. (78°! 105** 37 106”) on is a poetic desig-
nation of Egypt, it has been plausibly connected with the native heme
or chemi=‘ black,’ with reference to the black soil of the Nile valley
(Bochart, Ebers, Bu. 323 ff.).* A less probable theory is that of Glaser,
cited by Hommel (AAT, 48), who identifies it with Eg. ‘amu, a collective
name for the neighbouring Semitic nomads, derived by Miiller (AZ,
123 ff.) from their distinctive primitive weapon, the boomerang.
ΠΕΣ is connected in 9” with ,/ an», and no better etymology has been
proposed. Che. (ZB, ii. 2330) compares the theophorous personal name
Yapti- Addu in TA Tab., and thinks it a modification of Symp), ‘God
opens.’ But the form Ana (2272) with the probable sense of ‘open’ also
occurs in the Tab. (A7ZB, v. 290 [last line]). The derivation from ,/ 7»
(beautiful), favoured by Bu. (358 ff.), in allusion to the beauty of the
Phoenician cities, is very improbable. The resemblance to the Greek
Japetos was pointed out by Buttmann, and is undoubtedly striking.
‘Idweros was the father of Prometheus, and therefore (through Deu-
* Cf. the rare word on, ‘ black,’ 30%
196 TABLE OF PEOPLES (P)
kalion) of post-diluvian mankind. The identification is approved by
Weizsacker (Roscher’s Lex. ii. 55 ff.), who holds that ’Idmeros, having
no Greek etymology, may be borrowed from the Semites (cf. Lenorm.
ii. 173-193). See, further, Mey. ZS, 221.
A curiously complicated astro-mythical solution is advanced by Wi.
in IZ VAG, 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 enumera-
tion is not ethnological in principle, yet most of the peoples
named do belong to the same great Indo-Germanic family.
Japheth.
|
| | | | | | |
1. Gomer. 5. Magog. 6. Madai. 7. Javan. 12. Tubal. 13. Meshech. 14. Tiras.
| |
| |
2. Ashkenaz. 3. Riphath. 4, Togarmah.
| | | |
8. Elishah. 9. Tarshish. το. Kittim. τι. Rodanim.
(1) 193 ((ἃ Tapep): named along with Togarmah as a confederate of
Gog in Ezk. 38°, is identified with the Galatians by Jos., but is really the
Gamir of the Ass. inscr., the Cimmerians of the Greeks. The earliest
reference to the Κιμμέριοι (Od. 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 Ass. monuments. There the Gimzrrai first appear
towards the end of the reign of Sargon, attacking the old kingdom of
Urartu (see Johns, PSBA, 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,
c. 657) the Lydian Empire of Gyges (118, ii. 173-7). This last effort
seems to have exhausted their strength, and soon afterwards they
vanish from history.* A trace of their shortlived ascendancy remained
in Gamir, the Armenian name for Cappadocia ; 7 but the probability is
that the land was named after the people, and not vice versd; and it is
not safe to assume that by 1D3 P 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.
* Cf. Wi. AOF, i. 484-496; KAT*, 76f., 101 ff.; Je. ATZO?, 253.
+ Cf. Eus. Chron. Arm. (ed. Aucher) i. p. 95? (Gzmmeri=Cappa-
docians), and ii. p. 12 (Γόμερ, ἐξ οὗ Καππάδοκε:).
ΟΣ ἢ 197
(2) vx (Acyavat): Jer. 517, after Ararat and Minni.* It has been
usual (Bochart, al.) to connect the name with the Ascania of 71. 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.+
Recent Assyriologists, however, find in it the ASguzat of the monn.,—
a branch of the Indo-Germanic invaders who settled in the vicinity of
lake Urumia, and are probably identical with the Scythians of Herod. i.
103, 106. Since they are first mentioned by Esarhaddon, they might
readily appear to a Heb. writer to be a younger people than the Cim-
merians. See Wi. /l.cc.; ATLO*, 259f.
(3) nd (ἱΡιῴφαθ, Ἔριφαθ: but 1 Ch. 18 nd"): otherwise unknown.
According to Josephus, it denotes the Paphlagonians. Bochart and
Lagarde (Ges. Adh. 255) put it further west, near the Bosphorus, on the
ground of a remote resemblance in name to the river ‘P78af and the
district ‘PnBayria. Che. (8, 4114) favours the transposition of Halevy
(nv), and compares Bit Burutas, mentioned by Sargon along with the
Mu&Ski and Tabali (Schr. KGF, 176).
(4) π΄ (Θεργαμα, Sopyaya)=AD INN nva, Ezk. 38° 2714: in the latter
passage as a region exporting horses and mules. Jos. 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 @& of this passage (Lag.
Ges. Abh. 255 ff. ; Symm. i. 105). The suggested Assyriological equi-
valent 7i/-Garimmu (Del. Par. 246; ATLO*, 260; al.), a city on the
frontier of the Tabali mentioned by Sargon and Sennacherib, is not
convincing ; even though the 77/- should be a fictitious Ass. etymology
(Lenorm. Orig.? ii. 410).
(5) 2} (Maywy): Ezk. 38? 39%. The generally accepted identifica-
tion with the Scythians dates from Jos. and Jer., 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 (118, v. 5), a land
Ga-ga is alluded to in a similar manner. But how the author differenti-
ated Magog from the Cimmerians and Medes, etc., does not appear.
The name 3D is altogether obscure. That itis derived from 13 = Gyges,
king of Lydia (Mey. GA}, i. p. 558), is most improbable; and the
suggestion that it is a corruption of Ass. 224ὲ Gdg (Mat Gagaia),§ must
also be received with some caution.
(6) "1: (Maéac): the common Heb. name for Media and the Medes;
τὰ bs, 1g) 217, Jer, 25% 51%, Est. 11+ 18 τοῦ Dn. 8” οἱ [111]
* Ass. Mannai, between lakes Van and Urumia, mentioned along
with ASguza in AJB, ii. 129, 147.
+ Lag. (Ges. Adbh. 254) instances Ashken as an Armenian proper
name ; and the inscription μὴν ΓΑσκηνος on Greeco-Phrygian coins.
τ Whether the Heb. word is a clerical error for navx (Wi. Jer.), or
the Ass. a modification of ASgunza, the Assyriologists may decide (see
Schmidt, ZB, iv. 4330 f.).
8 Del. Par. 2461. ; Streck, ZA, 321; Sayce, HCM, 125,
198 TABLE OF PEOPLES (P)
{Ass. Madai). The formation of the Median Empire must have taken
place about the middle of the 7th cent., but the existence of the people in
their later seats (E of the Zagros mountains and S of the Caspian Sea)
appears to be traceable in the monuments back to the 9th cent. They
are thus the earliest branch of the Aryan family to make their mark
in Asiatic history. See Mey. GA!,i. 8 422ff.; ΚΑΤΆ, 1ooff.; ATZO?,
254.
(7) nN (Ἰωναν) is the Greek ᾿Ιάξων-ονες, and denotes primarily the
Greek settlements in Asia Minor, which were mainly Ionian: Ezk. 2715,
Is. 661% After Alexander the Great it was extended to the Hellenes
generally: Jl. 4°, Zech. 9%, Dn. 8” 10% 112. In Ass. Yamanai is said
to be used but once (by Sargon, AJB, ii. 43); but the Persian Yauna
occurs, with the same double reference, from the time of Darius (ef.
fésch. Pers. 176, 562). Whether the word here includes the European
Greeks cannot. be positively determined.*—The ‘sons’ of Javan are
(v.4) to be sought along the Mediterranean, and probably at spots
known to the Heb. as commercial colonies of the Phoenicians (on which
see Mey. ZB, 3736f.). Very few of them, however, can be confidently
identified.
(8) ayrdy (Ἔλισα, Ἔλισσα) is mentioned only in Ezk. 277 (‘x 2x) as a
place supplying Tyre with purple. The older verbal identifications
with the Αἰολεῖς (Jos. Jer.; so De.), ‘E\Ads (@)), "HXis, etc., are value-
less ; and modern opinion is greatly divided. Some favour Carthage,
because of “/issa, the name of the legendary foundress of the city
(Sta. Wi. Je. al.); others (Di. al.) southern Italy with Sicily.t The
most attractive solution is that first proposed by Conder (PEFS, 1892,
45; cf. 1904, 170), and widely accepted, that the A/lasia of the TA
Tablets is meant (see A7B, v. 80-92). Thisis now generally recognised
as the name of Cyprus, of which the Tyrian purple was a product: f see
below on o’n2, Jensen now (AZB, vi. 1, 507) places 7w>x beyond the
Pillars of Hercules on the African coast, and connects it with the
Elysium of the Greeks.
(9) wn (Θαρσις) is identified (since Bochart) with Tapryoods
(Tartesos), the Phoenician mining and trading station in the S of Spain ; 8
and no other theory is nearly so plausible. The OT Tarshish was rich
in minerals (Jer. 10°, Ezk. 27°), was a Tyrian colony (Is. 231" δ 1°), and
a remote coast-land reached by sea (Is. 661%, Jn. 1° 45, Ps. 72); and
to distinguish the Tarshish of these pass. from that of Gn. 10 (De.
Jast. al.), or to consider the latter a doublet of ovn (Che. Mii.), are but
counsels of despair. The chief rival theory is Tarsus in Cilicia (Jos.
* Against the theory of a second }}} in Arabia (which in any case
would not affect the interpretation of this pass.), see Sta. Akad.
Red. 125-142. Cf., further, A7LO?, 255.
+ Cf. T° on Ezk. 277 when ΠΡΟ; and Eus. Chr. Arm. ii. p. 13:
’EXiood, ἐξ οὗ Σικελοί +et Athenienses [Arm.].
+ See Miiller, ZA, x. 257ff.; OZz. iii. 288 ff. ; Jen. ZA, 379f. ; Jast.
DB, v. 8o0b.
§ Her. i. 163, iv. 1523 Strabo, 111. 1513" ΡΊη. ΚΛ τὰ τ
120.) δῖοι
X. 2, 4 199
Jer. al.); but this in Semitic is mn (Zarzz). Cf. Wi. AOF, i. 445 f.;
Miiller, OZz. iii. 291.
(10) 8.83 (Κητιοι, Kerior)] cf. Jer. 2, Ezk. 278, Is. 23'32, Dn. 1139,
1 Mac. 1 8°, Nu. 24%. Against the prevalent view that it denotes
primarily the island of Cyprus, so called from its chief city Κίτιον
(Larnaka), Wi. (AOF, ii. 4221; cf. KAT, 128) argues that neither the
island nor its capital* is so named in any ancient document, and that
the older biblical references demand a site further W. The application
to the Macedonians (1 Mac.) he describes as one of those false identifica-
tions common in the Egypt of the Ptolemaic period. His argument is
endorsed by Miiller (OZz. iii. 288) and Je. (A 7ZO*, 261): they suggest
S Italy, mainly on the authority of Dn. ταῦ, The question is obviously
bound up with the identity of awdx—AlaSia (v.s.).
(11) DIF or OF (τύ ["Podioc] and 1 Ch. 17)] a name omitted by
Jos. If G& be right, the Rhodians are doubtless meant (cf. 77. ii. 654 f.) :
the sing. is perhaps disguised in the corrupt 1 of Ezk. 27 (cf. (8).
The MT has been explained of the Dardanians (J, De. al.), ‘‘ properly
a people of Asia Minor, not far from the Lycians”’ (Che. ZB, 1123). Wi.
(Z.c.) proposes oy, the Dorians; and Miiller 033(1)1, Eg. Da-n6-na=
TA, Da-nu-na (KIB, v. 277), on the W coast of Asia Minor.
(12) San (Θοβελ)] and
(13) 3¥2 (Mogox)] are mentioned together in Ezk. 27" (as exporting
slaves and copper), 32% (a warlike people of antiquity), 38% 39! (in the
army of Gog), Is. 6619 (@); wr alone in Ps. 120% Jos. arbitrarily
identifies them with the Iberians and Cappadocians respectively ; but
since Bochart no one has questioned their identity with the TiSapnvot
and Mécxo, first mentioned in Her. iii. 94 as belonging to the 19th
satrapy of Darius, and again (vii. 78) as furnishing a contingent to the
host of Xerxes (cf. Strabo, ΧΙ. ii. 14, 16). Equally obvious is their
identity with the Zabali and Muski of the Ass. Monn., where the latter
appear as early as Tiglath-pileser I. (c. 1100), and the former under
Shalmaneser 11. (c. 838),—both as formidable military states. In Sargon’s
inscrs. they appear together;}+ and during this whole period their
territory evidently extended much further S and W than in Grzco-
Roman times, These stubborn little nationalities, which so tenaciously
maintained their identity, are regarded by Wi. and Je. as remnants of
the old Hittite population which were gradually driven (probably by
the Cimmerian invasion) to the mountainous district SE of the Black
Sea.
(14) DyR (Gerpas)] not mentioned elsewhere, was almost unanimously
taken by the ancients (Jos. @J, Jer. etc.; and so Boch. al.) to be
the Thracians ( Opak-es) ; but the superficial resemblance vanishes when
the nominative ending s is removed. Tu. 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 4=gean, and who were
* The city, however, is called 3 in Phoen. inscrs. and coins from
the 4th cent. B.c. downwards ; see Cooke, WSJ, pp. 56, 66?, 78, 352.
+ See ATB, i. 18f., 64 f., 142f., ii, gof., 56f.; and Del. Par. 2:0 ἢ,
200 TABLE OF PEOPLES (P)
doubtless identical with the E-tvws-cans of Italy.* This brilliant con-
jecture has since been confirmed by the discovery of the name Turusa
amongst the seafaring peoples who invaded Egypt in the reign of
Merneptah (Mey. GA}, i. § 260; W. M. Miiller, AZ, 356 ff.).
6, 7, 20. The Hamitic or Southern Group: in Africa
and S Arabia, but including the Canaanites of Palestine.
Ham.
|
|
1. Kush. 2. Mizraim. 3. Put. 4. Canaan.
|
| | | |
5. Seba. 6. Havilah. 7. Sabtah. 8. Ramah. 9. Sabtekah.
|
ese |
to. Sheba. 11. Dedan.
(1) waa (Ge Xovs, but elsewhere Αἰθίοπ-ες, -ia)] the land and people
S of Egypt (Nubia),—the Ethiopians of the Greeks, the Ads of the Eg.
monuments: + cf. Is. 18!, Jer. 1375, Ezk. 2910, Zeph. 3! etc. Ass. Kusu
occurs repeatedly in the same sense on inscrs. of Esarhaddon and
Asshurbanipal; and only four passages of Esarhaddon are claimed by
Wi. for the hypothesis of a south Arabian Kusu (KAT*, 144). There is
no reason to doubt that in this v. the African Kush is meant. That the
5. The subscription to the first division of the Table is not quite in
order. We miss the formula na’ 3 75x (cf. vv.2 31), which is here
necessary to. the sense, and must be inserted, not (with We.) at the
beginning of the v., but immediately before onsix2. The clause
pin—ronn is then seen to belong to v.4, and to mean that the Mediter-
ranean coasts were peopled from the four centres just named as occupied
by sons of Javan. Although these places were probably all at one
time Phoenician colonies, it is not to be inferred that the writer confused
the Ionians with Phoenicians. He may be thinking of the native popula-
tion of regions known to Israel through the Phoenicians, or of the
Mycenean Greeks, whose colonising enterprise is now believed to be
of earlier date than the Phoenician (Mey. £2, 3736 f.).—11753] construed
like ax53 in 9}9 (J); ct. 10%.—n 37 5 Ν7] only again Zeph. 2%. Should we
read on "ἈΝ (Is. 111! 2415, Est. 10!)? ‘x (for ἽΝ, perhaps from ,/ ’awa’,
‘“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 Phoen.). In Heb. the pl. came to be used of distant
lands in general (Is. 411 ® 424 51° etc., Jer. 317° etc.)
* Thuc. iv. 109; Her. i. 57, 94; Strabo, V. ii. 2, iii. 5: other reff. in
Tu. ad loc.
+ See Steindorff, BA, i. 593 f.
Ἀπ Ὁ 201
‘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, Ο 5],
6 ff., 24).—See, further, on v.° (p. 207 f.).
(2) nm (Mecpay)] the Heb. form of the common Semitic name of
Egypt (TA, MWissari, Misri, Masri, Mizirri; Ass. [from 8th and 7th
cent.] Musur ; Bab. Misir ; Syr. —3 «Ὁ; Ar. Misr). Etymology and
meaning are uncertain: Hommel’s suggestion (Gesch. 530; cf. Wi. AOF,
i, 25) that it is an Ass. appellative = ‘frontier,’ is little probable. The
dual form of Heb. is usually explained by the constant distinction in
the native inscrs. between Upper and Lower Egypt, though os» is
found in connexions (Is. 11", Jer. 44'°) which limit it to Lower Eg. ; and
many scholars now deny that the termination is a real dual (Mey.
GA, i. ὃ 42, An.; Jen. ZDMG, xlviii. 439).—On the vexed question of a
N Arabian Musri, it is unnecessary to enter here. There may be
passages of OT where that view is plausible, but this is not one of
them; and the idea of a wholesale confusion between Eg. and Arabia
on the part of OT writers is a nightmare which it is high time to be
quit of.
(3) 8159 (Φουδ, but elsewhere AcSves)] mentioned 6 times (incl. (ἃ of
Is. 66:9) in OT, as a warlike people furnishing auxiliaries to Egypt
(Nah. 3°, Jer. 46°, Ezk. 30°) or Tyre (Ezk. 271°) or the host of Gog (38°),
and frequently associated with wa and. The prevalent view has been
that the Lybians, on the N coast of Africa W of Egypt, are meant (G&,
Jos. al.), although Nah. 3° and probably Ezk. 30° (€) show that the
two peoples were distinguished. Another identification, first proposed
by Ebers, has recently been strongly advocated: viz. with the Pwnt of
Eg. monuments, comprising ‘the whole African coast of the Red Sea’
(W. M. Miiller, AZ, 114 ff., and DB, iv. 176f. ; Je. 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 (Jen. ZA, x. 325 ff.).
(4) j¥32 (Xavaav)] 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, PAOS, 1890, lxviiff.). In Eg. monuments the
name, in the form pa-Ka-n-'-na (fa is the art.), is applied to the strip
of coast from Phoenicia to the neighbourhood of Gaza; but the ethno-
graphic derivative extends to the inhabitants of all Western Syria
(Miller, AZ, 205ff.). Similarly in TA Tablets Kinahhi, Kinahna, etc.,
stand for Palestine proper (KA7T*, 181), or (according to Jast. ZB, 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 Heb.,
is reckoned to the Hamites is not to be explained by the tradition (Her. i.
I, vii. 89, etc.) that the Phoenicians came originally from the Red Sea;
for that probably implies no more than that they were connected with
202 TABLE OF PEOPLES (P)
the Babylonians (‘Epv@p) Odd\acoa=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 Eg. : in that case, as
Di. 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 ch. 9. When, with
the extension of geographical knowledge, it became necessary to
assign the Canaanites to a larger group (p. 187 above), it was inevitable
that they should find their place as remote from the Hebrews as
possible.
Of the descendants of Kush (v.”) 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 (KA 75, 137, 144), it is perhaps impossible to decide.
(5) 822 (ZaBa)] Is. 43° 4514, Ps. 7219; usually taken to be Merde *
(between Berber and Khartoum), The tall stature attributed to the
people in Is. 451} (but cf. 185: 7) is in favour of this view; but it has
nothing else to recommend it. Di. al. prefer the Saba referred to by
Strabo (xvI. iv. 8, 10; cf. Ptolemy, iv. 7. 7f.) on the African side of
the Red Sea (5 of Suakim). Je. (4 7105, 265) considers the word as
the more correct variant to xaw (see below).
(6) abyn (Ev[e]}Aa[r])] often (since Bochart) explained as ‘sand-land’
(fr. Sin); named in ν.39 (J) as a Joktanite people, and in 258 (also J) 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 N Arabia, not too far to the E. We may
conjecture that the name is derived from the large tract of loose red
sand (nefad) which stretches N of Teima and S of el-Gdf. This is
precisely where we should look for the XavAorato. 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 (= Dimah=el-G6f: see p. 353) as a town of the Avalite.
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 v.”
(see Mey. ZNS, 325f.). To distinguish further the Cushite from the
Joktanite ‘n, and to identify the former with the ᾿Αβαλῖται, 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 N as the head of the
Persian Gulf (Glaser) or the ENE part of the Syrian desert (Frd. Del.).
Nothing can be made of Gn. 2"; and in 1 Sa. 157 (the only other occur-
rence) the text is probably corrupt.
(7) np2D (SaBaba)] not identified. Possibly Σάβατα, Sabota, the
capital of Hadramaut (see on v.”*) (Strabo, XvI. iv. 2; Pliny, WA, vi. 155,
xii. 63),—though in Sabzan this is written maw (see Osiander, ZDMG,
* Jos. Ant. ii. 249. Ini. 134 f. he seems to confuse 8120 and xiv.
Ἐς ἢ 203
xix. 253; Homm. SA Chrest. 119); or the Σάφθα of Ptol. vi. 7. 30,
an inland town lying (according to Glaser, 252) W of El-Katif.
(8) apy? (‘Peyua or ‘Peyxua)] coupled with xaw (? and a5»n) in Ezk.
27” as a tribe trading in spices, precious stones, and gold. It is doubt-
less the πρὸ (Ragmat) of a Minzan inscr.,* which speaks of an attack
by the hosts of Saba and Haulan on a Minzean caravan en route between
Ma‘an and Ramat. This again may be connected with the ἱῬαμμανῖται
of Strabo (xvi. iv. 24) N of Hadramaut. The identification with the
Péy[a]ua πόλις (a seaport on the Persian Gulf) of Ptol. vi. 7. 14 (Boch.
al. ; so Glaser) is difficult because of its remoteness from Sheba and
Dedan (v.7.), and also because this appears on the inscr. as Rgmt
(Glaser, 252).
(9) 8pRIp (Σαβακαθα)] unknown. Σαμυδάκη in Carmaniat (Ptol. vi.
8. 7f., 11) is unsuitable both geographically and phonetically. Je. sug-
gests that the word is a duplicate of πῃ.
(10) &32¥ (Σαβα)] (properly, as inscrs. show, x20: see No. 5 above) is
assigned in ν. 9 to the Joktanites, and in 25° to the Ketureans. It is
the OT name of the people known to the classical geographers as
Sabzans, the founders of a great commercial state in SW Arabia, with
its metropolis at Marié (Mariaba), some 45 miles due E of San’a, the
present capital of Yemen (Strabo, xvi. iv. 2, 19; Pliny, WN, vi. 154f.,
etc.). ‘* They were the centre of an old 5 Arabian civilisation, regarding
the former existence of which the Sabzean inscriptions and architectural
monuments supply ample evidence” (Di. 182). Their history is still
obscure. The native inscrs. commence about 700 B.C, ; and, a little
earlier, Sabzean princes (not kings){ appear on Ass. monuments as
paying tribute to Tiglath-pileser Iv. (B.c. 738) and Sargon (B.c. 715).§
It would seem that about that time (probably with the help of the
Assyrians) they overthrew the older Minzean Empire, and established
themselves on its ruins. Unlike their precursors, however, they do
not appear to have consolidated their power in N Arabia, though their
inscrs. have been found as far N as el-Gof. To the Hebrews, Sheba
was a ‘far country’ (Jer. 6”, Jl. 4), famous for gold, frankincense, and
precious stones (1 Ki. τοῦ», Is. 60°, Jer. 6%, Ezk. 27%, Ps. 7215): in all
these passages, as well as Ps. 72)", Jb. 6!%, the reference to the southern
Sabzeans is clear. On the other hand, the association with Dedan (25°,
Ezk, 38% and here) favours a more northern locality; in Jb. 1° they
appear as Bedouin of the northern desert; and the Ass. 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
pass. last quoted preserve the tradition of an earlier time, before the
* Halevy, 535, 2 (given in Homm. SA Chrest. 103) = Glaser, 1155:
translated by Miiller, ZDMG, xxx. 121f., and Homm. 444, 322, AAT,
249 f.
+ Boch. : so Glaser, ii. 252; but see his virtual withdrawal on p. 404.
t It is important that neither in their own nor in the Ass, inscrs,
are the earliest rulers spoken of as kings.
§ Cf. AZB, ii. 21, 55.
204 TABLE OF PEOPLES (P)
conquest of the Minzeans had led to a settlement in Yemen. V.% (J),
however, presupposes the southern settlement. ἢ
(11) 717] (Aaday, Acday; but elsewhere Δαιδαν, etc.)] a merchant tribe
mentioned along with Sheba in 253 (=1 Ch. 1%) and Ezk. 381%; with
Tema (the modern Zezma, c. 230 miles N of Medina) in Is. 211%, Jer. 25%,
and (ἃ of Gn. 25°; and in Jer. 49°, Ezk. 25'% as a neighbour of Edom.
All this points to a region in the N of Arabia; and as the only other
reference (Ezk. 27?°)—in 27 the text is corrupt—is consistent with this,
there is no need to postulate another Dedan on the Persian Gulf (Boch.
al.) or anywhere else. Glaser (397) very suitably locates the Dedanites
“ἴῃ the neighbourhood of Khaibar, el-Ola, El-Higr, extending perhaps
beyond Teima,’’—a region intersected by the trade-routes from all parts
of Arabia (see the map in ZB, iv. 5160); and where the name is probably
perpetuated in the ruins of Daidan, W of Teima (Di.). The name
occurs both in Minzan and Sabzean inscrs. (Glaser, 397 ff. ; Miiller,
ZDMG, xxx. 122), but not in the Greek or Roman geographers.—The
older tradition of J (25°) recognises a closer kinship of the Israelites
with Sheba and Dedan, by making them sons of Jokshan and descendants
of Abraham through Keturah (v. ad Joc.). (An intermediate stage seems
represented by 10%, where 5 Arabia is assigned to the descendants of
‘Eber). P follows the steps of 25° by bracketing the two tribes as sons
of Ramah: 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 335 (see below) the nations here
mentioned all lie on the E. of Palestine, and are probably
arranged in geographical order from SE to NW, till they
join hands with the Japhethites.
Shem.
|
| | |
1, Elam. 2. Asshur. 3. Arpachshad. 4. Lud. 5. Aram.
|
| | | |
6. Uz. 7. Hul. 8. Gether. 9. Mash.
(1) ody (Αἰλαμ)ὴ] Ass. Elamtu,} the name of ‘‘the great plain E of
the lower Tigris and N of the Persian Gulf, together with the mountain-
ous region enclosing it on the N and E” (Del. Par. 320), corresponding
to the later Elymdis or Susiana. The district round Susa was in very
* See Mey. GA}, i. § 403; Glaser, ii. 399ff.; Sprenger, ZDMG,
xliv. 501 ff. ; Margoliouth, DB, i. 133, ἵν. 479ff.; Hom. AH7, 77ff.,
and in EBL, 728.3 KAT®, 148iff.; ALLO, 265:
+ Commonly explained as ‘highland’ (Schr. Del. Hwé. etc.), but
according to Jen. (ZA, vi. 1707, xi. 351) = ‘ front-land,’ 2:6. ‘ East land.’
X. 7, 22 205
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.* The reason for including this non-Semitic race
among the sons of Shem is no doubt geographical or political. The
other OT reff. are Gn. 141°, Is. 11" 21? 228, Jer. 255 49°, Ezk. 3274,
Dn. 8°.
(2) wx] Assyria. See below on v.!! (p. 211).
(3) WEW (Apgdaéad)] identified by Boch. with the ᾿Αῤῥαπαχῖτις which
Ptol. (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 Ald@é%. This name
appears in Ass. as Arapha (Arbaha, etc.),t and on Eg. monuments of
the 18th dynasty as ‘'Avarpafa (Miiller, AZ, 278f.). Geographically
nothing could be more suitable than this identification: the difficulty is
that the last syllable ww is left unaccounted for. Jos. recognised in the
last three letters the name of the Chaldeans (13), and several attempts
have been made to explain the first element of the word in accordance
with this hint. (α) The best is perhaps that of Cheyne (ZB, 318),§
resolving the word into two proper names: 7578 or ΠΡῚΝ (= Ass. Arbaha)
and 1¥3,—the latter here introducing a second trio of sons of Shem.
On this view the ArpakSad of ν." ταῦ: must be an error (for 1¥3 ?) caused
by the textual corruption here. (6) An older conjecture, approved by Ges.
(7h.), Knobel, al., compares the 508 with Ar. ’uzfat (= ‘boundary’),||
Eth. azfat (= ‘ wall’); 12 778 would thus be the ‘wall (or boundary)
of Kesed.’ (c) Hommel (AT, 212, 294-8) takes the middle syllable pa
to be the Egyptian art., reading ’Ur-pa-Kesed = Ur of the Chaldees
(11°8),—an improbable suggestion. (d) Del. (Par. 255f.) and Jen. (ZA,
xv. 256) interpret the word as arba-kigadu = ‘(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 P,—a surprising
omission, no doubt, but perhaps susceptible of other explanations. The
question is complicated by the mention of an Aramean Kesed in 2233,
The difficulty of identifying that tribe with the Chaldeans in the S of
Babylonia is admitted by Dri. (p. 223); and if there was another Kesed
near Harran, the fact must be taken account of in speculating about
the meaning of ArpakSad.
* See the interesting historical sketch by Scheil, Zextes elamites-
semitiques (1900), pp. ix-xv [= vol. ii. of de Morgan, Delegation en Perse :
Memoires}. Cf. Sayce, ET, xiii. 65.
ΠΡ τ᾿ 17. 213, 1.013; 80.» cl. Del, Par. 1.24.5.
Δ᾿Αρφαξάδης δὲ τοὺς νῦν Χαλδαίους καλουμένους ᾿Αρφαξαδαίους ὠνόμασεν
ἄρξας αὐτῶν : Ant. i. 144.
§ A different conjecture in ZB, 3644; TBI, 178.
|| Note Tu.’s objections, p. 205.
206 TABLE OF PEOPLES (P)
(4) 15 (a 15, Ge Aovd)] usually understood of the Lydians (Jos. Boch.
al.), but it has never been satisfactorily explained how a people in the
extreme W of Asia Minor comes to be numbered among the Shemites.
An African people, such as appears to be contemplated in v.', would
be equally out of place here. A suggestion of Jen.’s deserves con-
sideration: that nb is the Lubdu,—a province lying ‘‘ between the upper
Tigris and the Euphrates, N of Mt. Masius and its western extension,”
—mentioned in A7ZB, i. 4 (1. 9 fr. below, rd. Lu-up-d7), 177 (along with
Arrapha), 199. See Wi. AOF, ii. 47; Streck, ZA, xiv. 168; Je. 276.
In the remaining refs. (Is, 661%, Jer. 46°, Ezk. 27! 305), the Lydians of
Asia Minor might be meant,—in the last three as mercenaries in the
service of Eg. or Tyre.
(5) os (Αραμ, ᾿Αραμων)ὴ] a collective designation of the Semitic
peoples speaking ‘ Aramaic’ dialects,* so far as known to the Hebrews
(N6. ZB, 276ff.). The actual diffusion of that family of Semites was
wider than appears from OT, which uses the name only of the districts
to the NE of Palestine (Damascus especially) and Mesopotamia (Aram-
Naharaim, Paddan-Aram): these, however, were really the chief centres
of Aramzan culture and influence. In Ass. the Avmaiu(Aramu, Arimu,
Arumu) are first named by Tiglath-pileser 1. (c. 1100) as dwelling in
the steppes of Mesopotamia (1.78, i. 33); and Shalmaneser 11. (c. 857)
encountered them in the same region (73. 165). But if Wi. be right
(KAT, 28f., 36), they are referred to under the name “φᾶνε from a
much earlier date (TA Tab.; Ramman-nirari 1. [c. 1325]; ASur-riS-
Xi [c. 1150]: see AZB, v. 387, i. 5, 13). Hence Wi. regards the second
half of the 2nd millennium B.C. as the period during which the Aramzean
nomads became settled and civilised peoples in Mesopotamia and Syria.
In 1 Ch. 17 the words ἽΝ ‘30 (v.”’) are omitted, the four following
names being treated as sons of Shem:
(6) py (Qs, Οὐξ)] is doubtless the same tribe which in 22 (NE, Ὧζ) is
classed as the firstborn of Nahor: therefore presumably somewhere NE
of Palestine in the direction of Harran. The conjectural identifications
are hardly worth repeating. The other Biblical occurrences of the
name are difficult to harmonise. The Uz of Jb. 11 (Avovris), and the
Horite tribe mentioned in Gn. 36”, point toa SE situation, bordering
on or comprised in Edom; and this would also suit La. 47, Je. 257°
(y3y7!), though in both these passages the reading is doubtful. It is
suggested by Rob. Sm. (1173, 61) and We. (Hezd. 146) that the name
is identical with that of the Arabian god ‘Aud; and by the former
scholar that the OT γὴν denotes a number of scattered tribes worship-
ping that deity (similarly Bu. 470d. ix.—xi,; but, on the other side, see
N6. ZDMG, xl. 183 f.).
(7) Sin (OUX)] Del. (Par. 259) identifies with a district in the neigh-
bourhood of Mt. Masius mentioned by Asshur-nasir-pal. The word
(hu-li-ia), however, is there read by Peiser as an appellative =‘ desert’
(118, i. 86f., 110f.); and no other conjecture is even plausible.
(8) 173 is quite unknown.
* ods “Ἕλληνες Σύρους προσαγορεύουσιν---ἃ.5 Jos. correctly explains.
M924 24." 45; 32, 8 207
(9) Mp (an προ, Gr Mosox, in accord with 1 Ch. 117 MT 3yp)] perhaps
connected with Mons Masius,—rd Μάσιον ὄρος of Ptol. (v. 18. 2) and Strabo
(XI. xiv. 2),—a mountain range N of Nisibis now called Tfir-Abdin or
Keraga Dagh (Bo. Del. Par. 259, Di. al.). The uncertainty of the
text and the fact that the Ass. monuments use a different name render
the identification precarious. Jen. (1Χ 18, vi. 1, 567) suggests the moun-
tain Masu of GilgameS Ix. ii. τ ἢν, which he supposes to be Lebanon
and Anti-Libanus. The J/@t Mas of KZB, ii. 221, which has been
adduced as a parallel, ought, it now appears, to be read mad-bar
(KAT*, 1917; cf. Jen. ZA, x. 364).
31, 32. P’s closing formula for the Shemites (*1) ; and his
subscription to the whole Table (53).
The Table of 7.
IX. 18a, X. rb. Introduction. See pp. 182, 188.
A slight discontinuity in v.! makes it probable that !” is inserted from
J. If so, it would stand most naturally after οὐδὲ (Di.), not after 19,
It seems to me that is rather the Yahwistic parallel to 10% (P),
and formed originally the conclusion of J’s Table (cf. the closing
formulz, 10% 2255 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 Gzbdér 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 Gibbér on the earth implies a dif-
ferent conception from 6%. There, the Gibbérim are identi-
fied with the semi-divine Nephilim: here, the Gibbér 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 Ar. Sabbar,
If the w:3 of v.* be Ethiopia (see p. 200f.), 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 Baby-
8. 1503 (Ne8pwd)] The Heb. naturally connects the name with the
J ΤῸ = ‘rebel’ (TJ, Ra. al.): see below, p. 209.—"5 ὅπ si7] ‘he was the
208 TABLE OF PEOPLES (J)
lonia, and it is extremely improbable that it represents a Heb. tradition.
The assumption of a S Arabian Kfish 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 J, who
peoples S Arabia with descendants of Shem (7! *#), It is therefore
not unlikely that, as many Assyriologists think,* J’s wid is quite inde-
pendent of the Hamitic Kfish of P, and denotes the Kas or KasSu, a
people who conquered Babylonia in the 18th cent., and set up a dynasty
(the 3rd) which reigned there for 600 years | (Δ 4 75, 21). It is conceiv-
able that in consequence of so prolonged a supremacy, Κα might have
become a name for Babylonia, and that J’s knowledge of its history
did not extend farther back than the KaSSite dynasty. Since there is no
reason to suppose that J regarded KaS as Hamitic, it is quite possible
that the name belonged to his list of Japhetic peoples.
g. Nimrod was not onlya great tyrant and ruler of men, but
a hero of the chase (W¥ 33). The v. breaks the connexion
between ὃ and 10, and is probably an interpolation (Di. al.) ;
although, as De. remarks, the union of a passion for the
chase with warlike prowess makes Nimrod a true prototype
of the Assyrian monarchs,—an observation amply illus-
trated by the many hunting scenes sculptured on the monu-
ments.— Therefore tt ἐς satd| introducing a current proverb ;
cf. 1 Sa. τοῦ with 10; Gn. 22 etc. ‘* When the Hebrews
first to become’; see on 458 9*.—g. While Di. regards the v. as an
interpolation from oral tradition, Bu. (U7g. 390 ff.) assigns it to his J},
and finds a place for it between 64 and 11!,—a precarious sugges-
tion. —m7!] (ἃ + τοῦ deo. —’? 359] ‘before Yahwe.’ The phrase is
variously explained: (1) ‘unique,’ like o7dxd in Jn 33 (Di. al.); (2) ‘in
the estimation of Y.’ (cf. 2 Ki. 5! etc.); (3) ‘in despite of Y.’ (Bu.);
(4) ‘with the assistance of Y.’—the name of some god of the chase
having stood in the original myth (Gu.); (5) ‘in the constant presence
of Y.’—an allusion to the constellation Orion (Ho.). The last view is
possible in ὃν, but hardly in *, because of the m7. A sober exegesis
will prefer (1) or (2).
* See Del. Par. 51-55; Schr. KAT?, 87f.; Wi. ATU, 146ff. ; Jen.
ZA, vi. 340-2; Sayce, CM”, 148 ff., etc.
+ Remnants of this conquering race are mentioned by Sennacherib
(118, ii. 87). They are thought to be identical with the Κοσσαῖοι of the
Greeks (Strabo, XI. xiii. 6, XVI. i. 17f.; Arrian, Azad. vii. 153 Dio-
dorus, xvii. 1117) xix. 19, etc.) ; and probably also with the Κίσσιοι of Her.
vii. 62, 86, etc. (cf. v. 49, 52, vi. 119). Cf. Del. Par 31, 124,127 tere
Mey. GA}, § 129; Wi. GBA, 78ff.; Schr. KGF, 176f.; Oppert, ZA,
iii. 421 ff. ; Jen. ZDMG, 1. 244f., etc.
x. 9 209
wished to describe a man as being a great hunter, they
spoke of him as ‘like Nimrod’” (Dri.).—The expression
mm Py) doubtless belongs to the proverb: the precise
meaning is obscure (v.z.).
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 We.,* still commends
itself to some Assyriologists (Pinches, DB, iii. 552f.; cf. KATZ*, 581);
but the material points of contact between the two personages seem too
vague to establish an instructive parallel. The identification with Nazi-
Marutta§, a late (c. 1350) and apparently not very successful king of the
KasSite 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 GilgameS,+
the legendary tyrant of Erech (see ν. 0), whose adventures are recorded
in the famous series of Tablets of which the Deluge story occupies
the eleventh (see p. 175 above, and KA7*, 566ff.). GilgameS is a true
Gibbér—‘‘ 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 (A/Z, 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 repre-
sented on seals and palace-reliefs in victorious combat with a lion (see
ATLO®, 266f.). 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 G/S. TU. BAR
might prove to be the Bab. equivalent of the Heb. Nimrod, would seem
to have been finally dispelled by the discovery (in 1890) of the correct
pronunciation as GilgameS (but see Je. 14). 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 GilgameS to his father Ut-napiStim
occurs in a late Nimrod legend, preserved in the Syrian Schatzhéhle
(see Gu. Schépf. 1467; Lidz. ZA, vii. 15). On the theory which con-
nects Nimrod with the constellation Orion, see Tu. ad loc. ; Bu. Ure.
395f. ; ΚΑΤ᾽, 581°; and on the late Jewish and Mohammedan legends
generally, Seligsohn, /Z, ix. 309 ff.
*Sayce (7584, ii. 243 ff.) derived it from the Akkadian equiva-
lent of Marduk, Amar-ud, from which he thought Mimrudu would be
a regular (Ass.) Niphal form. We. (Comp.? 309f.) explains the 3 as an
Aram. impf. preformative tothe ,/ 9, a corruption from Mard-uk which
took place among the Syrians of Mesopotamia, through whom the myth
reached the Hebrews.
+ So Smith-Sayce, Chald. Gen. 176 ff. ; Je. Zsdubar-Nimrod.
14
210 TABLE OF PEOPLES (J)
10. The nucleus of his empire was Babylon... in the
land of Shin‘ar] It is not said that Nimrod founded these
four cities (ct. v."). The rise of the great cities of Baby-
lonia was not only much older than the KaSSite dynasty, but
probably preceded the establishment of any central govern-
ment; 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.
532 (BaBvddv)] the Heb. form of the native Bab-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 Hammurabi, the sixth king of its first
dynasty (c. 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 S. of Baghdad.
τῆν (Opex)] the Bab. Uruk or Arku, now Warka, also on the
Euphrates, about 100 miles SE of Babylon. It was the city of Gilgame$
(v.s.).
πν (ἈΑρχαδ: cf. ps1 and pynq1)] The name (Akad) frequently
occurs in the inscriptions, especially in the phrase ‘Sumer and Akkad,’
=South and North Babylonia. Buta city of Akkad is also mentioned
by Nebuchadnezzar 1. (A/A, iii. 170ff.), though its site is uncertain.
Its identity with the Agadé of Sargon I. (6. 3800 B.C.), which was
formerly suspected, is said to be confirmed by a recent decipherment.
Del. and Zim. suppose that it was close to Sippar on the Euphrates, in
the latitude of Baghdad (see Par. 209 ff. ; ΚΑ 75, 4225, 423°; A 710, 270).
m352 (Χαλαννη)] Not to be confused with the 7352 of Am. 6? (=1353,
Is. 10°), which was in N Syria. The Bab. Kalne has not yet been
discovered. Del. (Par. 225) takes it to be the ideogram Aul-unu (pro-
nounced Zzrlahu), of a city in the vicinity of Babylon. But Jen. (7AZz.
1895, 510) asserts that the real pronunciation was Azw/lab(a), and pro-
poses to read so here (7353).
3y3¥ (Zev[v]aap)] apparently the old Heb. name for Babylonia proper
(11? 142-9, Jos. 77, Is. 114, Zee. 5", Dn. 1°), afterwards Bus pax or
simply 531 ['x]. That it is the same as Sumer (south Babylonia: v.s.) is
improbable. More plausible is the identification with the Sankar of TA
Tab. (118, v. 83)=Eg. Sangara (Miller, AZ, 279); though Wi. (AOF,
i. 240, 399; KAZ®*, 31) puts it N of the Taurus. Gebel Singar (ὁ Σιγ-
γαρος pos: Ptol. v. 18. 2), W of Nineveh, is much too far north for the
biblical Shin‘ar, unless the name had wandered.
II, 12. The colonisation of Assyria from Babylonia.—
II. 78 ΝᾺ] ‘he went out to Asshur’ (so @J, Cal. and all moderns).
The rendering ‘Asshur went out’ (G@PST®, Jer. al.) is grammatically
X. 110-12 Ziel
From that land he (Nimrod, v.72.) 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 organ-
isation of Assyria were derived from the southern state. It
is also noteworthy that the rise oe the Assyrian ee ELE
(KAT, 21). In Mic. 5° Assyria is is described as the ‘land oF
Nimrod.’
That ΩΝ is here the name of the land (along the Tigris, N of the
Lower Zab), and not the ancient capital (now Aal'at Serkat, about half-
way between the mouths of the two Zabs), is plain from the context,
and the contrast to 1y3v in v.1,
my3] (Ass. Ninua, Nind, G& Νινευη [-c]) the foremost city of Assyria,
was a royal residence from at latest the time of ASSur-bel-kalu, son of
Tiglath-pileser 1. (11th cent.); but did not apparently become the
political capital till the reign of Sennacherib (Wi. GBA, 146). Its site
is now marked by the ruined mounds of Nedz Yunus (with a village
named NVunia) and Kuyunjik, both on the E side of the Tigris opposite
Mosul (see Hilp. EBZ, 11, 88-138).
vy nan (‘PowBws πόλιν)] has in Heb. appellative significance = ‘ broad
places of a city’ (D flateas civitatis). A similar phrase on Ass
monuments, 7ébit Nind, is understood to mean ‘suburb of Nineveh’;
and it has been supposed that ‘y “Ἢ is a translation of this designation into
Heb. As to the position of this ‘suburb’ authorities differ. Del. (Par.
260f.) thinks it certain that it was on the N or NE side of Nineveh,
towards Dfir-Sargon (the modern Khorsabad); and Johns (ZB, iv.
4029) even identifies it with the latter (cf. A/B, ii. 47). Billerbeck, on
the other hand, places it at Mosul on the opposite side of the Tigris, as
a sort of téte du pont (see ATLO*, 273). No proper name at all
resembling this is known in the neighbourhood of Nineveh.
nba (Xadax, Kadax) is the Ass. Kalu or Kala, which excavations
have proved to be the modern Mimrfd, at the mouth of the Upper Zab,
20 miles S of Nineveh (Hilp. Zc. ται ἢ). Built by Shalmaneser 1.
(ς. 1300), it replaced ASSur as the capital, but afterwards fell into decay,
and was restored by ASSur-nasir-pal (883-59) (A/A, i. 117). From that
time till Sargon, it seems to have continued the royal residence.
122 (Δασεμ, Δαση, etc.)] Perhaps = Rz3-2nz (‘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 Ras ’ul- Ain is said still to be found
correct, and gives a good sense (cf. Is. 231%). But (1) m’wxn (v.!) re-
quires an antithesis (see on 11); and (2) in Mic. 5° Nimrod is the hero
of Assyria.
212 TABLE OF PEOPLES (J)
(G. Hoffmann in Nestle, ZDMG, Iviii. 158 ff.). This is doubtless the
RiS-ini of Sennacherib (A/A, ii. 117); but its identity with jp" is
phonetically questionable, and topographically impossible, on account
of the definition ‘between Nineveh and Kelah.’
The clause 75739 ΡΠ sn is almost universally, but very improbably,
taken to imply that the four places just enumerated had come to be
regarded as a single city. Schr. (KATZ™?, 99f.) 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 (KAT*, 754; Gu.? 78; cf. Johns, ZB,
3420). The fabulous dimensions given by Diodorus (ii. 3; cf. Jon. 455)
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 abiaa ya
of Jn. 1°, which was put in the margin opposite 73, and crept into the
text in the wrong place (A 7105, 273).*
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 O%¥9 = Egypt, see v.®.—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 g!**- belong (see p. 188 f.).
(1) od (Λουδιειμ: 1 Ch. 111 ovmd)] Not the Lydians of Asia Minor
(4 7105, 274), who can hardly be thought of in this connexion; but (if
the text be correct) some unknown people of NE Africa (see on v.”,
p- 206). The prevalent view of recent scholars is that the word is a
mistake for 0.239, the Lybians. See Sta. Ak. Red. 141; Miiller, AZ,
TUS ks AOS. VoAgs > al.
(2) ony, (aa ory; (ἃ Alv-[’Ev-Jewercewu[y])] Miiller reads o D232 or
(after @&) Ὁ Π223 ; 2.6. the inhabitants of the Great Oasis of Anmd in the
Libyan desert (Wahat el-Kharigah).+ For older conjectures see Di.
* With the above hypothesis, Schr.’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 ASSur, the ancient capital, it may safely be inferred that he
lived after 1300; and from the omission of Sargon’s new residence Dfir-
Sargon, it is probable that he wrote before 722. But the latter argument
is not decisive, since Kelah and Nineveh (the only names that can be
positively identified) were both flourishing cities down to the fall of the
Empire.
+ OLz. 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 (p73, 14) is an interpolation.
X. 13, 14 213
(3) pag (Λαβιειμ)] commonly supposed to be the Lybians, the (1235)
o> of Nah. 3°, Dn. 11%, 2 Ch. 123 168, [Ezk. 30°?]. Miiller thinks it a
variant of 0°39 (1).
(4) ona] (Νεφθαλιειμ)ὴ] Miiller proposes o'nins = P-o-n-he, ‘cow-
land,’—the name of the Oasis of Farafra. But there is a strong pre-
sumption that, as the next name stands for Upper Egypt, this will be a
designation of Lower Egypt. So Erman (ZAT7W, x. 118f.), who reads
nnond = p-t-mahi, ‘the north-land,’—at all periods the native name of
Lower Egypt. More recently Spiegelberg (OZz. ix. 276 ff.) recognises
in it an old name of the Delta, and reads without textual change
Na-patih = ‘the people of the Delta.’
(5) mrp (Πατροσωνιειμ)] the inhabitants of dina (Is. 11", Jer. 44}. 15,
Ezk. 30"), 1.6. Upper Egypt: P-to-reSi = ‘south-land’ (Ass. paturisz) :
see Erman, /.c.
(6) andes (Χασμωνιείμ)] Doubtful conjectures in Di. Miiller restores
with help of (ἃ 03203, which he identifies with the Νασαμῶνες of Her. ii.
32, iv. 172, 182, 190,—a powerful tribe of nomad Lybians, near the
Oasis of Amon. Sayce has read the name Aas/uhat on the inscr. of
Ombos (see on Kaphtorim, below); Man, 1903, No. 77.
(7) ovAv>s (Φυλιστίειμ)] The Philistines are here spoken of as an
offshoot of the Kaslfihim,—a statement scarcely intelligible in the
light of other passages (Jer. 474, Am. 9’; cf. Dt. 2%), according to which
the Ph. came from Kafhéor. The clause '5 ov wy} Wy is therefore in
all probability a marginal gloss meant to come after o%n52.—The Ph.
are mentioned in the Eg. monuments, under the name Purasati, as the
leading people in a great invasion of Syria in the reign of Ramses II.
(c. 1175 B.C.). The invaders came both by land and sea from the coasts
of Asia Minor and the islands of the A.gean; and the Philistines
established themselves on the S 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 Miiller, AZ, 387-
go, and MVAG, v. 2ff.; Moore, ZB, iii. 3713 ff.
(8) nADD (Χαφθοριειμ)] Kaphior (Dt. 2%, Am. 9’, Jer. 474) has usually
been taken for the island of Crete (see Di.), mainly because of the
repeated association of 073 (Cretans?) with the Philistines and the
Philistine territory (1 Sa. 30!* 16, Ezk. 2516, Zeph. 2°). There are con-
vincing reasons for connecting it with Ke/tiu (properly ‘the country
behind’), an old Eg. name for the ‘lands of the Great Ring’ (the
Eastern Mediterranean), or the ‘isles of the Great Green,’ 2.6. SW Asia
Minor, Rhodes, Crete, and the Mycenian lands beyond, to the NW of
Egypt (see Miiller, AZ, 337, 344-53, 387 ff. ; and more fully H. R. Hall
in Annual of the British School at Athens, 1901-2, pp. 162-6). The pre-
cise phonetic equivalent Affar has been found on a late mural decora-
tion at Ombos (Sayce, HCM®, 173; HHH, 291; Miiller, VAG, 1900,
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.
214 TABLE OF PEOPLES (1)
58). ‘‘ Keftiu is the old Eg. name of Caphtor (Crete), Keptar a Ptole-
maic doublet of it, taken over when the original meaning of Keftiu had
been forgotten, and the name had been erroneously applied to Pheenicia ”’
(Hall, Man, Nov. 1903, No. 92, p. 162 ff.). In OZz., M. questions the
originality of the name in this passage: so also Je. A 7205, 275."
15-19. The Canaanites.—The peoples assigned to the
Canaanitish group are (1) the Phcenicians (77) 3), (2) the Hittites
(nn), and (3) a number of petty communities perhaps summed
up in the phrase *2Y230 nine in 18>, It is surprising to
find the great northern nation of the Hittites 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 Heth
over the little Canaanite kingships. On the other hand,
one hesitates to adopt Gu.’s theory that }yo3 is here used ina
wide geographical sense as embracing the main seats of the
Hittite empire (p. 187). There is evidence, however, of a
strong settlement of Hittites near Hermon (see below), and
it is conceivable that these were classed as Canaanites and
so inserted here.
Critically, the vv. are difficult. We. (Comp.? 15) and others remove
16-188 as a gloss: because (a) the boundaries laid down in 13 are exceeded
in 17-188 and (6) the mention of a subsequent dispersion of Canaanites
(8) has no meaning after 1°18, That is perhaps the most reasonable
view to take ; but even so 18 does not read quite naturally after ©; and
what could have induced a glossator to insert four of the most northerly
Phoenician cities, passing by those best known to the Hebrews? Is it
15. 1133} cf. 2274 (J).—18. 10x] adv. of time, as 18° 24°° 307 etc. =
ἸΞ ΠΝ : see BDB, 29 f.—13553] Niph. fr. ./ p»; see on g®: cf. 11% & %—
*1y327 nsw] can hardly, even if the clause be a gloss, denote the Pheen.
colonies on the Mediterranean (Brown, /B, ii. 1698 f.).—19. 3x3] ‘as
one comes’ (see G-K. § 1441) might be taken as ‘in the direction of’
(so Di. Dri. al.); but there does not appear to be any clear case in
which the expression differs from 7iz7y=‘as far as’ (cf. 10% 13! 25)8
[all J], 1 Sa. 157 with Ju. 64 118, 1 Sa. 17°, 2 Sa. 5, τ Ki. 186),—my-y]
(ἃ καὶ Γάζαν.
* V.13t present so many peculiar features—the regular use of the
pl., 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.
ΣΧ ρα δ, 016 215
possible that the last five names were originally given as sons of
Heth, and the previous four as sons of Zidon? δὴ might mean that the
Canaanite clans emanated from Phoenicia, and were afterwards ‘dis-
persed’ over the region defined by .—The change from jy33 in ¥ to
3325 in 18> 19 is hardly sufficient to prove diversity of authorship (Gu.)
jy] The oldest of the Phoenician cities ; now Saida, nearly 30 miles
S of the promontory of Beirit. Here, however, the name is the eponym
of the Zidonians (o's1¥), as the Phoenicians were frequently called, not
only in OT (Ju. 187 33, 1 Ki. 539 16°" etc.) and Homer (71. vi. 2gof., etc.),
but on the Ass. monuments, and even by the Phcenicians themselves
(Mey. ZB, iv. 4504).
np (τὸν Xerraiov)] elsewhere only in the phrases ’n ‘33, ’n niaz (ch. 23
pass. 25) 274 4935 [all P]); other writers speak of [Ὁ]}Ἐ7π. The Hittites
(Eg. Heta, Ass. Zatti) 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 (c. 1930
B.C.) (King, Chronicles conc. early Bab. Kings, p. 72f.). Not long after
the time of Thothmes ul. (1501-1447), they are found in N Syria. With
the weakening of the Eg. supremacy in the Tel-Amarna period, they
pressed further S, occupying the Orontes valley, and threatening the
Phoenician coast- cities. The indecisive campaigns of Ramses 11. seem to
have checked their southward movement. In Ass. records they do not
appear till the reign of Tiglath-pileser 1. (c. 1100), when they seem to have
held the country from the Taurus and Orontes to the Euphrates, with Car-
chemish as one of their chief strongholds. After centuries of intermittent
warfare, they were finally incorporated in the Ass. Empire by Sargon 11.
(c. 717). See Paton, Syr. and Pal. 104 ff. The OT allusions to the
Hittites are extremely confusing, and cannot be fully discussed here:
see on 15)?! 233, Besides the Palestinian Hittites (whose connexion
with the people just spoken of may be doubtful), there is mention of an
extensive Hittite country to the N of Palestine (2 Sa. 248 [Gl], 1 Ki.
10”, 2 Ki. 7° al.). The most important fact for the present purpose is
the definite location of Hittites in the Lebanon region, or at the foot of
Hermon (Jos. 11° [@®#-] and Ju. 3° [as amended by Mey. al.]), cf.
Ju. 17°?), It does not appear what grounds Moore (/u. 82) has for
the statement that these Hittites were Semitic. There is certainly no
justification for treating (with Jast. HB, 2094) nn in this v. 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) °p:a%3] The clan settled in and around Jerusalem: Jos. 158 18%, Ju.
19, 2 Sa. 5° etc.
(2) xn] An important politico-geographical name in the Egyptian
and cuneiform documents (Eg. Amor, etc., Ass. Amurru). Inthe TA
Tablets the ‘land of Amurru’ denotes the Lebanon region behind the
Phoenician coast-territory. Its princes Abd-ASirta and Aziru were
then the most active enemies of the Egyptian authority in the north,
conducting successful operations against several of the Phcenician
cities. It has been supposed that subsequently to these events the
216 TABLE OF PEOPLES (J)
Amorites pressed southwards, and founded kingdoms in Palestine both
E and W of the Jordan (Nu. 218%, Jos. 248 etc.) ; though Miiller has
pointed out some difficulties in the way of that hypothesis (AZ, 230 1.).
—In the OT there appears an occasional tendency to restrict the name
to ‘highlanders’ (Nu. 13”, Dt. 17), but this is more than neutralised by
other passages (Ju. 1°4). The most significant fact is that E (followed
by D) employs the term to designate the pre-Israelite inhabitants of
Palestine generally (cf. Am. 255), whom J describes as Canaanites.
Apart from the assumption of an actual Amorite domination, it is
difficult to suggest an explanation of E’s usage, unless we can take it
as a survival of the old Bab. name Amurru (or at least its ideographic
equivalent ZAR. TU) for Palestine, Phoenicia and Ccoele-Syria.—See,
further, Miiller, AZ, 218 ff., 229 ff.; Wi. GJ, i. 51-54, KAT®, 178 ff.; Mey.
ZATW, i. 122 ff. ; We. Comp.” 341; Bu. Urg. 344 ff. ; Dri. Deut. 11f.,
Gen. 125f.; Sayce, DB, i. 84f.; Paton, Syr. and Pal. 25-46, 115 ff.,
147f.; Mey. GA?, 1: ii. § 396.
(3) (#2730) only mentioned in enumerations (157, Dt. 7}, Jos. 310 2411,
Neh. 9%) without indication of locality. wa373, 0'w373, ‘202 occur as prop.
names on Punic inscrs. (Lidzbarski, Nord-sem. Epigr. 4054, 6224, 67333
Ephem. i. 36, 308). Ewald conjectured a connexion with NT Γέργεσα.
(4) “πα (τ. Evatov)] a tribe of central Palestine, in the neighbourhood
of Shechem (3452) and Gibeon (Jos. 9’); in Ju. 3°, where they are spoken
of in the N, ‘nna should be read, and in Jos. 11° Hittites and Hivvites
should be transposed in accordance with @®. The name has been
explained by Ges. (7%.) and others as meaning ‘ dwellers in nin’ (Bedouin
encampments: cf. Nu. 324); but that is improbable in the case of a
people long settled in Palestine(Moore). We. (Hezd. 154) more plausibly
connects it with m}7=‘ serpent’ (see on 3°), surmising that the Hivvites
were a snake-clan. Cf. Lagarde, OS, 187, 174, 1. 97 (Hvatoe σκολιοὶ ὡς
ἐπὶ pers).
The 5 remaining names are formed from names of cities, 4 in the
extreme N of Phoenicia, and the last in Coele-Syria.
(5) ‘Pqwa (aw ‘priya, Gk τ. ᾿Αρουκαῖον)] is from the city "ΑΆρκη ἐν τῷ Λιβάνῳ
(Jos. And. i. 138), the ruins of which, still bearing the name Jed/ ‘Arka, are
found on the coast about 12 miles NE of Tripolis. It is mentioned by
Thothmes 1Π. (in the form ‘7-a-n-tu: see AX, 247f.), and in TA letters
(Irkata: KIB, v. 171, etc.); also by Shalmaneser ul. (AZB, i. 173; along
with Arvad and Sianu, Je/ow), and Tiglath-pileser Iv. (16. ii. 29; along
with Simirra and Sianu).
(6) ‘yon (τ. ‘Acevvaiov)] inhabitants of pp, Ass. Szanuw (KZB, Zl.cc.).
Jer. (Quest.) says it was not far from‘ Arka, but adds that only the name
remained in his day. The site is unknown: see Cooke, ZB, iv. 4644 f.
(7) ‘NT (τ. ᾿Αράδιον)] “Arwad (Ezk. 27*) was the most northerly
of the Phoenician cities, built on a small island (Strabo, XVI. ii. 13;
KIB, i. 109) about 35 miles N of Tripolis (now Rudd). It is named
frequently, in connexions which show its great importance in ancient
times, in Eg. inscrs. (AZ, 186f.), on TA Tab., and by Ass. kings from
Tiglath-pileser 1. to Asshurbanipal (14 72, 104f. ; Del. Par. 281); see
also Her. vii. 98.
X. 17-19, 21 217
(8) “ext (τ. Σαμαραῖον)] Six miles 5 of Rudd, the modern village of
Sumra preserves the name of this city: Eg. Samar; TA, Sumur; Ass.
Simirra; Gr. Σιμυρα. See Strabo, xvi. ii. 12; AZ, 187; KAT?, 105;
Del. Par. 281 f.
(9) ‘nnn (τ. ‘Auaél)] from the well-known Hamath on the Orontes ;
now Hama.
The delimitation of the Canaanite boundary in v.!9 is very obscure.
It describes two sides of a triangle, from Zidon on the N to Gaza or
Gerar in the SW; and from thence to a point near the S end of the
Dead Sea. The terminus yd (@ Aaca) is, however, unknown. The
traditional identification (GJ, Jer.) with Καλλιῤῥόη, near the N end of
the Dead Sea, is obviously unsuitable. Kittel, BH (very improbably),
suggests νὺξ (142). We. (Comp.? 15) reads 7y or oy (Jos. 1947 05) =‘ to
Dan’ (5), the conventional xorthern limit of Canaan,—thus completing
the E side of the triangle.—Gerar were certainly further S. than Gaza
(see on 201); hence we cannot read ‘as far as (v.z.) Gerar, up to Gaza,’
while the rendering ‘zz the direction of Gerar, as far as Gaza,’ would
only be intelligible if Gerar were a better known locality than Gaza.
Most probably πὴ ἽΝ is a gloss (Gu. al.).—On the situation of Sodom, etc.,
see on ch. 19.—On any construction of the v. the northern cities of 17 18
are excluded.—.x has an entirely different text: an ἽΠΣΠ ay oMsD IMD
prnNT oF Yr Mp W73,—an amalgam of 158 and Dt. 11%.
21, 24, 25-30. The Shemites.—The genealogy of
Shem in J 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 Yoktanites or S 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 P, who assigns the S Arabians to
Ham,—the family with which Israel had least desire to be
associated.
ἫΝ is the eponym of δ.» (Hebrews), the name by which the Israel-
ites are often designated in distinction from other peoples, down to
the time of Saul* (see G-K. § 24: the pass. are cited in BDB, s.v.). 1
is strange at first sight that while the 12y 53 of v.” include all Shemites
known to J, the gentilic word is historically restricted to Israelites.
The difficulty is perhaps removed by the still disputed, but now widely
* After 1 Sa. it occurs only Dt. 1512, Jer. 34%14, Jon. 1%, But see
the cogent criticisms of Weinheimer in ZA TW, 1909, 275 ff., who pro-
pounds the view that Hebrews and Israelites were distinct strata of the
population.
218 TABLE OF PEOPLES (J)
accepted, theory that Hadz7z in the TA letters is the cuneiform equiva-
lent of the OT παν. The equation presents no philological difficulty :
Ass. @ often represents a foreign y; and Eerdmans’ statement (AT
Studien, ii. 64), that the sign Za never stands for y (if true) is worthless,
for Ha-za-ki-ya-u= pin shows that Ass. a may become in OT ὦ, and
this is all that it is necessary to prove. The historical objections
vanish if the Habiri 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 Ha-bz-7z
occurs only in a limited group of letters,—those of ‘Abd-hiba 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 "Φ
absolutely demonstrated. Assuming that Wi. and others are right in
equating the two, the Habiri 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 Aramzean invasion which was then
overflowing Mesopotamia and Syria (see above, p. 206; cf. Wi. AOF,
ili. go ff., KATZ, 196ff.; Paton, Syr. and Pal. 111 ff.). There is thusa
strong probability that o2y was originally the name of a group of
tribes which invaded Palestine in the 15th cent. 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 (cf. 7737 72y, Jos. 247% 14+); and
on that assumption, the river is certainly not the Tigris (De.), and
almost certainly not the Jordan (We. Kau. Sta.), but (in accordance
with prevailing tradition) ‘he 173 of the OT, the Euphrates, ‘beyond’
which lay Harran, the city whence Abraham set out. Hommel’s view
(AHT, 252 ff.) has no probability (cf. Dri. 139%). The vb. 139, however,
does not necessarily mean to ‘cross’ (a stream) ; it sometimes means
simply to ‘traverse’ a region (Jer. 2°); and in this sense Spiegelberg
has recently (1907) revived an attractive conjecture of Goldziher (IZythos,
p. 66), that δ᾽: signifies ‘wanderers’—nomads (OZz. x. 618 ff.).*
21. The father of all the sons of ‘Eber| The writer has
apparently borrowed a genealogical list of the descendants
21. It is doubtful if the text isin order. First, it is extremely likely
that the introduction to the section on Shem in J would require modifica-
tion to prevent contradiction with v.“* (P). Then, the omission of the
logical subj. to 1} is suspicious. The Pu. of this vb. never dispenses
*In Egyptian texts from Thothmes 1. 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 OT. The
identification has been generally discarded, on grounds which seemed
cogent; but has recently been revived by Hommel (4477, 259), and
X. 21, 24 219
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 abstrac-
tion.—the elder brother of Yepheth| The Heb. can mean
nothing else (v.z.). 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 J
the sequence of age was broken (Bu. 305 f.), or because
Japheth was really counted the second son of Noah (Di.).
The most satisfactory solution is undoubtedly that of Gu.,
who finds in the remark an indication that this Table
followed the order: Canaan—Japheth—Shem (see p. 188).—
24 is an interpolation (based on 11!"!*) intended to harmonise
J with P. It cannot be the continuation of 7! as it stands
(since we have not been informed who ArpakSad was), and
still less in the form suggested below. It is also obviously
inconsistent with the plan of P’s Table, which deals with
with the subj. nor does the Hoph. ; the Niph. does so once (Gn. 17!7[P)]) ;
but there the ellipsis is explained by the emphasis which lies on the fact
of birth. Further, a sim is required as subj. of the cl. 10 °1x. The
impression is produced that originally 12y was expressly named as the
son of Shem, and that the words “2) ‘ax ΝΠ referred to him (perhaps
4°28 NIT TayTNX I>. Ow), Considering the importance of the name, the
tautology is not too harsh. It would then be hardly possible to retain
the clause 1» ‘n&; and to delete it as a gloss (although it has been pro-
posed by others: see O#) I admit to be difficult, just because of the
obscurity of the expression.—x7 03] cf. 4?6.—)ran n> ‘nx] B correctly
Jratre J. majore. The Mass. accentuation perhaps favours the gram-
matically impossible rendering of (τ (ἀδελφῷ "I. rod μείζονος), Σ, al. ;
which implies that Japheth was the oldest of Noah’s sons,—a notion
extorted from the chronology of 117 cpd. with 5° 7% (see Ra. IEz.).
It is equally inadmissible (with IEz.) to take $17 absolutely (=Japheth
the great). See Bu. 304 ff.—24. now-nx] ὁπ pref. 1% pp) prp-n.
(with arguments which seem very convincing) by Heyes (Bid. τι. Aeg.,
1904, 146 ff.). In view of the striking resemblance to Hadiri, and the
new facts brought to light by the TA Tablets, the hypothesis certainly
deserves to be reconsidered (cf. Eerdmans, /.c. 52 ff., or Expos., 1909,
ii. 197 ff.).
220 TABLE OF PEOPLES (1)
nations and not with individual genealogies (note also 19)
instead of ΡΠ),
25. The two sons of Eber represent the Northern and
Southern Semites respectively, corresponding roughly to
Aramezans and Arabs: we may compare with Jast. (DB, v.
82 a) the customary division of Arabia into Sam (Syria) and
Yemen. The older branch, to which the Israelites belonged,
is not traced in detail: we may assume that a Yahwistic
genealogy (|| to τα: [P]) existed, showing the descent of
Abraham from Peleg; and from scattered notices (19°
22°08. 2518 etc.) we can form an idea of the way in which
the northern and central districts were peopled by that
family of ‘ Hebrews.’—On 2a, see below.—VFor in his days
the earth was divided (n3bps)] a popular etymology naturally
suggested by the root, which in Heb. (as in Aram. Arab.
etc.) expresses the idea of ‘ division’ (cf. the vb. in Ps. 551°, Jb.
38%). There is no very strong reason to suppose that the
dispersion (xnubp, 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. /wb. viii. 8 ff.), or
that the allusion is merely to the separation of the Yoktanites
from their northern kinsmen.
abs (Φαλεκ, badey, Padex)] as a common noun means ‘ watercourse’
or artificial canal (Ass. fa/gu): Is. 30%, Ps. 1° 65:0, Jb. 295 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: Pkalga in Mesopotamia, at the junction of the Chaboras and
the Euphrates (Knob.) ; ’e/-Falg, a district in NE Arabia near the head
of the Persian Gulf (Lag. Ov. 11. 50); el-Aflag, S of Gebel Tuwaik in
central Arabia (Homm. AA, 222”).
jop: (lexray)] otherwise unknown, is derived by Fleischer (Goldz.
Mythos, p. 67) from ,/ katana =‘be settled.’ The Arab genealogists
identified him with Aah¢an, the legendary ancestor of a real tribe, who
Was (or came to be) ἘΞ εἶτα as the founder of the Yemenite Arabs
(Margoliouth, DB, ii. 743). On the modern stock of ’el-Kahtan, and its
sinister reputation in the more northerly parts of the Peninsula, see
Doughty, Arab. Des. i. 129, 229, 282, 343, 389, 418, ii. 39 ff., 437.
26-30. The sons of Yoktan number 13, but in && (see on
25. 19] sdk vio; but 032 3 is possibly acc. after pass. as 4}8
etc. (G—-K. § 121a, 6)—vnx—nrnsv] similarly 2274 (J).—26. Some MSS
have mo-7sn, as if= ‘court of death.’
X. 25-28 Z2i
Say below) only 12, which may be the original number.
The few names that can be satisfactorily identified (Sheleph,
Hazarmaweth, Sheba, FHlavilah) point to S Arabia as the
home of these tribes.
(1) toby (᾿Βλμωδαδ)] unknown. The 5x is variously explained as
the Ar. art. (but this is not Sabzan), as ’£l=‘God,’ and as ’a/=
‘family’ ; and Ὑ as a derivative of the vb. for ‘love’ (wadda), equivalent
to Heb. 1} (Wi. 7VAG, vi. 169); cf. Glaser, Skizze, ii. 425; DB, i. 67.
(2) dvi (Zadep)] A Yemenite tribe or district named on Sabzean inscrs.,
and also by Arab. geographers: see Homm. SA Chrest. 70 ; Osiander in
ZDMG, xi. 153 ff., perhaps identical with the Salapeni of Roman writers.
Cognate place-names are said to be still common in S Arabia (Glaser).
(3) mupqsn (Acapuw8)] The modern province of Hadramaut, on the S
coast, Eof Yemen. The name appears in Sabzean inscrs. of 5th and 6th
cent. A.D., and is slightly disguised in the Χατραμωτῖται of Strabo (xv.
iv. 2), the Chatramotite of Pliny, vi. 154 (Atramite, vi. 155, xii. 52?).
(4) πα; (‘Iapad)] uncertain. The attempts at identification proceed on
the appellative sense of the word (=‘moon’), but are devoid of plausi-
bility (see Di.).
(5) oa (au OK, Gr “Odoppa)] likewise unknown. A place called
Dauram close to San‘a has been suggested: the name is found in
Sabzean (Glaser, 426, 435).
(6) Spx (2x Six, Gr Αἰζηλ)}] mentioned by Ezk. (2719: rd. Spxp) as a
place whence iron and spices were procured. It is commonly taken to
be the same as ’Azda@/, which Arab. tradition declares to be the old name
of San‘a, now the capital of Yemen. Glaser (310, 427, 434, etc.) disputes
the tradition, and locates ’Uzal in the neighbourhood of Medina.*
(7) b92 (AexAa)] Probably the Ar. and Aram. word (dagai, xp, ΟΣ
for ‘date-palm,’ and therefore the name of some noted palm-bearing
oasis of Arabia. Glaser (17VAG, 1897, 438) and Hommel (4A, 282 f.)
identify it with the Φοινίκων of Procopius, and the modern Gdf es-Sirhan,
30° NL (as far N as the head of the Red Sea).
(8) Saiy (a and 1 Ch. 1” Say, (11 Ταιβαλ)] supposed to be the word
‘Abil, a frequent geographical name in Yemen (Glaser, 427). The name
is omitted by many MSS of G&, also by Gin 1 Ch. 1” (see Nestle,
MM, το), where some Heb. MSS and $ have bay.
(9) Sxpvas (Αβιμεηλ)}] apparently a tribal name (=‘ father is God’), of
genuine Sabzean formation (cf. 1nfypax, ZDMG, xxxvii. 18), not hitherto
identified.
* In view of the uncertainty of the last three names, it is worthy of
attention that the account of Asshurbanipal’s expedition against the
Nabatzeans (1.18, ii. 221) mentions, in close conjunction, three places,
Hurarina, Yarki, and Azalla, which could not, of course, be as far S as
Yemen, but might be as far as the region of Medina. In spite of the
phonetic differences, the resemblance to Hadoram, Yerah, and ’Ozal is
noteworthy. See, however, Glaser, 273 ff., 309 ff.
222 TABLE OF PEOPLES (J)
(10) 82%] see on v.7(p. 203). The general connexion suggests that
the Sabzans are already established in Yemen ; although, if’ Uzal be as
far N as Medina, the inference is perhaps not quite certain.
(11) “θῖν (Οὐφειρ)) known to the Israelites as a gold-producing
country (Is. 13!2, Ps. 451°, Jb. 224 2816, 1 Ch. 294 [Sir. 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 Ki. 9% 101+*?; cf. 22%). 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, ii. 357-83). Of other identifications
the most important are: Adbfzra in India, E 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 cent. A.D. (see D.
Randall-Maciver, Medieval Rhodesia [1906)}) ; (3) 4217 (originally Hapir),
an old name for the ruling race in Elam, and for the coast of the
Persian Gulf around Bushire (see Homm. AA7, 2364; Hiising, OZz, vi.
367 ff. ; Jen. ZDMG, 1. 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 Che. in £2, iii. 3513 f£ ; Price,
DB, iii. 626 ff. ; and Dri. Gen.? xxv. f., 131.
(12) 7210] see p. 202.
(13) 22” (Ἰωβαβ}] unknown. Halevy and Glaser (ii. 303) compare
the Sabeean name Yuhazbab.
The limits (probably from N to S) of the Yoktanite territory are
specified in v.*°; but a satisfactory explanation is impossible owing to
the uncertainty of the three names mentioned in it (Di.).—xyp (Maco7e)
has been supposed to be Mesene (mato, Matsan), within the Delta of
the Euphrates-Tigris (Ges. 7h. 823; Tu.); but the antiquity of this
name is not established. Di., following @, reads xD (see on 25}4) in
N Arabia. This as northern limit would just include Diklah, if
Glaser’s identification, given above, be correct.—n190 (Zw@npa) is
generally acknowledged to be Zafar in the S of Arabia. There were
two places of the name: one in the interior of Yemen, N of Aden; the
other (now pronounced '/syar or ’Jsfar) on the coast of Mahra, near
Mirbat. The latter was the capital of the Himyarite kings (Ges. Zh.
968; DB, iv. 437; ΕΔ, iv. 4370). Which of the two is here meant is
a matter of little consequence.—o7p79 77] It is difficult to say whether
this is an apposition to 03:0 (Tu. al.), or a definition of 150, or is a
continuation of the line beyond 155. On the first view the ‘ mountain’
might be the highlands of central Arabia (Vegd) ; the second is recom-
mended by the fact that the eastern Zafar lies at the foot of a high
mountain, well adapted to serve as a landmark. The third view is not
X. 28-30, XI. 1-9 223
assisted by rendering 7>x5 ‘in the direction of’ (see on ν. 15) ; for in any
case Zafar must have been the terminus in a southern direction. The
commonly received opinion is that 07p7 17 is the name of the Frank-
incense Mountain between Hadramaut and Mahra (see Di.).
XI. 1-9.—The Tower of Babel (J).
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 mani-
festations of human genius and enterprise.
Gu. has apparently succeeded in disentangling two distinct but
kindred legends, which are both Yahwistic (cf. mm, vv.° ®& & % 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. Gu.’s division will be
best exhibited by the following continuous translations :
A. The Babel-Recension : (1) And
it was, when all the earth had one
B. The Tower-Recension: .. .
( And when they broke up from
speech and one vocabulary, (**) that
they said to one another, Come! Let
us make bricks and burn them
thoroughly. (#0, 7) And they said,
Come! Let us build us a city, and
make ourselves a name. (2) And
Yahwe said, Behold it is one people,
and all of one language. (") Come!
Let us go down and confound there
their language, so that they may
not understand one another's speech,
(50) and that they may cease to build
the city. (8) Therefore is its name
called ‘Babel’ (Confusion), for
there Yahwe confused the speech
of the whole earth
the East, they found a plain in the
land of Shin'ar, and settled there.
[And they said, Let us build] (5:80)
a tower, with its top reaching to
heaven, lest we disperse over the
Jace of the whole earth. (80) And
they had brick for stone and asphalt
for mortar. (°) And Yahwe came
down to see the tower which the
sons of men had built. [And He
said . . .] (88°) and this is but the
beginning of thetr enterprise ; and
now nothing will be impracticable
to them which they purpose to do,
(8) So Yahwe scattered them over
the face of the whole earth. [?There-
fore the name of the tower was
called ‘Piz’ (Dispersion), for] (9)
Jrom thence YVahwe dispersed them
over the face of the whole earth.
224 THE TOWER OF BABEL (J)
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 (δα || 95) with which
B closes. Gu.’s bold conjecture that between the two there was an
etymological play on the name of the tower (7B or 715) certainly
removes the objection ; but the omission of so important an item of the
tradition is itself a thing not easily accounted for.* Against this,
however, we have to set the following considerations: the absence of
demonstrable lacunz in A, and their infrequency even in B; the facts
that only a single phrase (} vynx in v.5) requires to be deleted as
redactional, and there is only one transposition (*”); and the facility
with which nearly all the numerous doublets (85 1} 3; 4711 4>; 4:1 (6) |j
7773 (7) ; 4, B || 6Y> ; %@ || 88+9) 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 ὅ 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.
The section, whether simple or composite, is independent of the
Ethnographic Table of ch. 10, and is indeed fundamentally irreconcil-
able 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 (cf. on, etc., in P, 10% 30. 81), 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 J (if there
be one) which has neither a Flood-tradition nor a Table of Nations (so
We. Bu. Sta. al.); although it must be said that the idea here is little
less at variance with the classification by professions of 47°"? than with
ch. 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.) I, 2. The expres-
I. ‘1 is not verbal pred. to ywwiro2, but merely introduces the
circumstantial sent., as in 15!” 42° etc. (Dav. 8 141 and R.1). Such
a sent. is usually followed by 73m, but see 1 Ki. 13%. It may certainly
be doubted if it could be followed by another "ΠῚ with inf. cl. (v.”) ; and
this may be reckoned a point in favour of Gu.’s analysis.—If there be
any distinction between πρὸ and 033, the former may refer to the
* In Jub. x. 26, the name of the tower, as distinct from the city, is
‘* Overthrow ” (καταστροφή).
iii Σ τ
XI, 1-3 225
sion suggests that in A mankind is already spread far and
wide over the earth, though forming one great nation (OY,
v.°), 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 (v.?; cf. TINT ‘23, v.°).—droke up from
the East] v.1.—a plain] the Euphrates-Tigris valley ; where
Babylon κέεται ἐν πεδίῳ μεγάλῳ (Her. i. 178).—the land of
Shin‘ar] see on 10!.—3a. With great naiveté, the (city-)
legend describes first the invention of bricks, and then (v.*)
as an afterthought the project of building with them. The
bilingual Babylonian account of creation (see p. 47 above)
speaks of a time when ‘‘ no brick was laid, no brick-mould
(nalbantu) formed”: see K/B, vi. 1, 38f., 360.—3b shows
that the legend has taken shape amongst a people familiar
with stone-masonry. Comp. the construction of the walls
of Babylon as described by Her. (i. 179).* The accuracy
pronunciation and the latter to the vocabulary (Di.), or (Gu.) “Κ᾽ to
language as a whole, and “1 to its individual elements.—o9x 037]
‘a single set of vocables’; G& φωνὴ μία (πᾶσιν =nbs), as v.®). Else-
where (27 2930 [with o’D)]) ounX means ‘single’ in the sense of ‘few’;
in Ezk. 37" the text is uncertain (see Co.).—On the juxtaposition of
subj. and pred. in the nom. sent., see Dav. ὃ 29 (e).—2. 0799 oyo33]
rendered as above by G&HS@J. Nearly all moderns prefer ‘as they
wandered in the east’ or ‘eastward’; justifying the translation by
134, which is the only place where 07p> means ‘ eastward’ with a vb. of
motion. That ’pD mever means ‘from the east’ is at least a hazardous
assertion in view of Is. 26 94. yo3 (cf. Ass. mis#, ‘remove,’ ‘depart,’
etc.) is a nomadic term, meaning ‘pluck up [tent-pegs]’ (Is. 337°);
hence ‘break up the camp’ or ‘start on a journey’ (Gn. 33! 35° 16. 21
47} etc.); and, with the fossible exception of Jer. 4133 (but mot
Gn. 12°), there is no case where this primary idea is lost sight of.
Being essentially a vb. 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 E than Babylonia (see 28 ; and
ρ y
cf. Sta. 41. Red. 246, and τι. 43).—ayp2] (Syr. Δ ΩΦ, Ar. δαξ' αἢ
in usage, a wide, open valley, or plain (Dt. 34°, Zech. 12", Is. 404,
etc.). The derivation from ,/ ypa, ‘split,’ is questioned by Barth
(ZS, 2), but is probable nevertheless.—3. 727] impve. of ,/ 17, used
interjectionally (G-K. § 690), as in vv.*% 3818, Ex. 11° (all J), is given
by Gu. as a stylistic mark of the recension A (152). Contr. the
* Cf. Jos. c. Ap. i. 139, 149; Diod. ii. 9; Pliny, HN, xxxv. 51.
15
226 THE TOWER OF BABEL (J)
of the notice is confirmed by the excavated remains of Bab.
houses and temples (4 7ZO?, 279)—4. With its top reaching
to heaven| The expression is not hyperbolical (as Dt. 1°),
but represents the serious purpose of the builders to raise
their work to the height of the dwelling-place of the gods
(δε π᾿ τὸ ete:):
The most conspicuous feature of a Bab. sanctuary was its φτέξζιγαΐ,
—a huge pyramidal tower rising, often in 7 terraces, from the centre
of the temple-area, and crowned with a shrine at the top (Her. i.
181 f.: see Jast. RBA, 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
(KAT, 616f.; 4710), 52f., 281 f.). Hence it is probably something more
than mere hyperbole when it is said of these zzkkurats that the top was
made to reach heaven (see p. 228 f. below); and, on the other hand, the
resemblance between the language of the inscrs. and that of Genesis
is too striking to be dismissed as accidental. That the tower of
Gn. 11 is a Bab. 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 (cf. Hom. Od. xi. 313 ff.), is no doubt
foreign to the passage.
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 (IEz.). The idea is missed
by GP and @, which render ‘eve we be dispersed.’
verbal use 297! 30! (both E), 475, and pl. (327) 47.» Dt. 138 323,
Jos. 18%. On the whole, the two uses are characteristic of J and E
respectively ; see Holz. Zin/. 98 ᾿Ξ περ mgab3] Ex:65 oe SOs AGGE
labanu libittu (KIB, ii. 48, etc.), although /ibzttu is used only of the
unburned, sun-dried brick. See N6. ZDMG, xxxvi. 181; Hoffmann,
ZATW, ii. 70.—7575] dat. of product (Di.); “Ὁ =‘ burnt mass’ (cf. Dt. 29”,
Jer. 51%).—79n (1410, Ex. 2°)] the native Heb. name for bitumen (see on
6'4),—-pn] (note the play on words) is strictly ‘clay,’ used in Palestine as
mortar.—4. 022 WN] 2 of contact, as in 2 y33 (De. ).—_ny¥—avyy) ‘acquire
lasting renown’ ; cf. 2 Sa. 815, Jer. 32”, Neh. g!® The suggestion that
nw here has the sense of ‘monument,’ though defended by De. Bud.
(Urg. 375°), al. (cf. Sieg.-St. s.v.), has no sufficient justification in usage.
In Is. 55! 56° (cf. 2 Sa. 188), as well as the amended text of 2 Sa 8”
XI. 4-9 227
5-9. Yahwe’s Interposition.—The turning-point in the
development of the story occurs at vv.> §, where the descent
of Yahwe is /wice mentioned, in a way which shows some
discontinuity of narration.—On heaven as the dwelling-
Sueewer vahwe, cf. 28'*, Ex. 191 345 24, 1 Ki. 22%,
2 Ki. 2; and with v.° cf. 1871, Ex. 3°.
On the assumption of the unity of the passage, the conclusion of
Sta. (Az. Red. 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 v.5 the name Yahwe
has been substituted for that of some envoy of the gods sent down to
inspect the latest human enterprise ; v.° is his report to the heavenly
council on his return; and ν. 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 Heb. writer is likely to have bestowed on a
document so saturated with pagan theology as the supposed Bab.
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 Gu.’s theory the difficulty disappears.
6. This ἐς but the beginning, etc.] The reference is not
merely to the completion of the tower, but to other enter-
prises which might be undertaken in the future.—9, Bade/]
(ἃ rightly Σύγχυσις ; v.72.
(see Dri. Sam. 217 f.), the ordinary sense suffices. —p153] the word, acc.
to Gu., is distinctive of the recension B: cf. vv.5 %,—6, ‘tn 7px oY 77]
incomplete interjectional sent. (G-K. § 147 4).—nivy$ obna ay] lit. ‘this
is their beginning to act.’ On the pointing ‘np, see G-K. 8 67 w.—
wY— yz? XY] imitated in Jb. 422.13] lit. ‘be inaccessible’ (cf. Is. 22”,
Jer. 51°); hence ‘impracticable.’—%)3] contr. for si} (G-K. § 67 dd).—
7. 0 a1] G retains the pl. in spite of the alleged reading in
Mechilta nbax aK (see p. 14 above).—m)a] (see last note): fr. ,/ 553
=‘mix’ (not ‘divide, as ὦ [4g S23). nw] G-K. § 165 4.—yrei]
=‘understand’: 42%, Dt. 28%, Is. 33", Jer. 55 etc.—8. It is perhaps
better, if a distinction of sources is recognised, to point 351m” (juss. of
purpose: G-K. § 109 /), continuing the direct address of 7>,— yn]
au. pr. nx, and (with G&) adds Suprney.—g. x IR] ‘ one called’ (G-K. 8 144d).
—33] ‘mixture’ or ‘confusion.’ The name is obviously treated as a
contraction from baba, a form not found in Heb., but occurring in
Aram. (cf. % v.9, and @° v.7) and Arab. On the Bab. etymology of
the name, see 10'°.—gb.—7"] Gr + ὁ θεός.
228 THE TOWER OF BABEL (1)
Origin and Diffusion of the Legends.
1. The double legend is a product of naive 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 dis-
comfiture, 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 cosmo-
politan 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 un-
finished Temple-tower (zzkkuraz), built by a vast expenditure of human
toil, and reported to symbolise the ascent to heaven (p. 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 unsophisti-
cated 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 (=Ba/éé) suggests an
Aramzan origin (Ch. Gu.). 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 zkkurats gave rise to the legend of the Dispersion. The
most famous of these edifices were those of E-sagil, the temple of Mar-
duk in Babylon,* and of E-zida, the temple of Nebo at Borsippa on the
opposite bank of the river (see Tiele, ZA, ii. 179-190). The former
bore the (Sumerian) name £-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” (KIB, iii. 2. 5). The
* On its recently discovered site, see Langdon, Zxfos., 1909, ii.
Ρ- 91 ff.
XI, 1-9 229
latter expression recurs in an inscr. of Nebuchadnezzar (BA, iii. 548)
with reference to the same zikkurat, and is thought by Gu. (? 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 (1.18, i. 43). The zikkurat
of E-zida was called Z-ur-imin-an-hi (‘house of the seven stages (?) of
heaven and earth’); its restorer Nebuchadnezzar tells us, in an inscr.
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 (AZZ, iii. 2. 53, 55). The temple of
Borsippa is entombed in Birs Nimrid—a huge ruined mound still rising
153 feet above the plain (see Hil. EBL, 13, 30f.)—which local (and
Jewish) tradition identifies with the tower of Gn. 11. This view has
been accepted by many modern scholars (see ZB, 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 pos-
sible that neither was meant. At Uru (Ur of the Chaldees) there was
a smaller z7kkurat (about 70 feet high) of the moon-god Sin, dating
from the time of Ur-bau (c. 2700 B.C.) and his son Dungi, which Nabu-
na id tells us he rebuilt on the old foundation ‘‘ with asphalt and bricks "
(KTZB, iii. 2. 95; ZBL, 173ff.). 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, p. 239). If it was believed that the ancestors of
the Hebrews came from Ur, it may very well have been the z2zkkurat
of that place which figured in their tradition as the Tower of the
Dispersion.
2. In regard to its religious content, the narrative occupies the same
standpoint as 3%. * and 61°, 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” (Dri.). The pagan notion of the envy of the gods,—their
fear lest human greatness should subvert the order of the world,—no
doubt emerges ina 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 15. 2!2-!7,
To say that the narrative is totally devoid of religious significance for
us is therefore to depreciate the value for modern life of the OT thought
of God, as well as to evince a lack of sympathy with one of the pro-
foundest 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:
230 THE TOWER OF BABEL (7)
hze perpetua mundi dementia est, neglecto ccelo immortalitatem
queerere in terra, ubi nihil est non caducum et evanidum (Calv.).
3. Parallels:—No Babylonian version of the story has been dis-
covered ; and for the reason given above (p. 226) it is extremely unlikely
that anything resembling the biblical form of it will ever be found
there.* In Greek mythology there are dim traces of a legend ascribing
the diversities of language to an act of the gods, whether as a punish-
ment on the creatures for demanding the gift of immortality (Philo,
De Conf. ling.), or without ethical motive, as in the 1q3rd fable of
Hyginus.t 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.{ The difference to
which most importance is attached is naturally the polytheistic phrase-
ology (‘the gods’) employed by some of the writers named (Polyhistor,
Abyd.); 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 Nephilim of 64?), and the destruc-
tion of the tower by a storm—are easily explicable as accretions to the
legend of Genesis.§ The remarkable Mexican legend of the pyramid
of Cholula, cited by Jeremias from von Humboldt,|| has a special in-
terest on account of the unmistakable resemblance between the Mexican
pyramids and the Babylonian zzkkurats. If this fact could be accepted
* The fragment (K 3657) translated in Smith-Sayce, Chald. Gen.
163 ff. (cf. HCM?, 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. 219f.; Je. ATLO*, 286.
+ ‘Sed postquam Mercurius sermones hominum interpretatus est
. id est nationes distribuit, tum discordia inter mortales esse ccepit,
quod Jovi placitum non est.”
+ Cf. Orac. Sibyll. iii. 98 ff. (Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen, 187); Alex-
ander Polyhistor (Eus. Chron. i. 23 [ed. Schoene]); Abydenus (28. 1. 33) ;
Jos. Ant. i. 118; Eupolemos (Eus. Prep. Ev. ix. 17); and Book of
Jub. x. 18-27. The lines of the Sibyl (iii. 99f.) 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 Spoav'
τοὔνεκά τοι Βαβυλῶνα βροτοὶ πόλει οὔνομ᾽ ἔθεντο.
8 So Gu.? 88, On the other side, cf. Gruppe, Griechische Culte und
Mythen, i. 677 ff. ; Sta. Ak. Red. 277f.; Je. ATLO?, 383 ff.
|| Vues des Cordilleres (Paris, 1810), 24, 32 ff.
XI. 10 231
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.
XI. 10-26.—The Genealogy of Shem (P).
Another section of the 7é/édéth, spanning the interval
between the Flood and the birth of Abraham. It is the
most carefully planned of P’s genealogies next to ch. 5;
with which it agrees in form, except that in MT the frame-
work is lightened by omitting the total duration of each
patriarch’s life. In s« this is consistently supplied; while
(ἃ merely adds to MT the statement καὶ ἀπέθανεν. The
number of generations in MT is 9g, but in && 10, corre-
sponding with ch. 5. Few of the names can be plausibly
identified; these few are mostly geographical, and point
on the whole to NW Mesopotamia as the original home of
the Hebrew race.
In @& the number τὸ is made up by the addition of Kénan between
ArpakSad and Shelah (so 10%). That this is a secondary alteration
is almost certain, because (a) it is wanting in 1 Ch. 118: *4 @ ; (6) Kénan
already occurs in the former genealogy (5°); and (c) the figures
simply duplicate those of Shelah. It has been proposed to count Noah
as the first name (Bu. 412f.), or Abraham as the 10th (Tu. De.); but
neither expedient brings about the desired formal correspondence be-
tween thel ists of ch. 5 and 112% An indication of the artificial character
of these genealogies is found in the repetition of the name Nahdér, once
as the father, and again as the son, of Terah (see Bosse, Chron.
Systeme, 7 ff.). It is not improbable that here, as in ch. 5 (correspond-
ing with 4), P has worked up an earlier Yahwistic genealogy, of
which a fragment may have been preserved in νν. 38:9 We. (Comp.? 9,
Prol.® 313) has conjectured that it consisted of the 7 names left of P’s
list when ArpakSad and Shelah (see on 10***4) and the first Nahér are
omitted (Abraham counting as the 7th). But there is no proof that the
Yahwistic genealogy lying behind ch. 5 was 7-membered; and J’s
parallel to 111° could not in any case be the continuation of 41°”,
I0. 12578] see on 10%. He is here obviously the oldest son of Shem;
which does not necessarily involve a contradiction with ch. το, the
arrangement there being dictated by geographical considerations.
Hommel (AA, 222!), maintaining his theory that Arp. =Ur-Kasdim,
comes to the absurd conclusion that in the original list it was not the
name of Shem’s son, but of his birthplace: ‘Shem /vom Arpakshad’!—
Sinn ION ony] The discrepancy between this statement and the chron-
232 GENEALOGY OF SHEM (P)
ology of 5°? 711 of is not to be got rid of either by wire-drawn arith-
metical calculations (Ra. al.), or by the assumption that in the other
passages round numbers are used (Tu. De.). The clause is evidently
a gloss, introduced apparently for the purpose of making the birth of
ArpakSad, rather than the Flood, the commencement of a new era.
It fits in admirably with the scheme of the B. of Jub., which gives an
integral number of year-weeks from the Creation to the birth of Arp.,
and from the latter event to the birth of Abraham (see p. 234 below).—
12. nby (Zada)] probably the same word which forms a component of
nbvinp (522), and therefore originally a divine name. This need not
exclude a tribal or geographical sense, the name of a deity being fre-
quently transferred to his worshippers or their territory. A place Salah
or Salah in Mesopotamia is instanced by Knobel (Di.). Others regard
it as a descriptive name=‘ offshoot’ or ‘dismissal’; but very improb-
ably.—14. 72] see on 107.—16,. 105] 10%. Hommel (2. 6.) combines the
two names and takes the compound as a notice of Shelah’s birthplace :
‘Shelah from Eber-peleg’=Eber-hannahar, the region W of the lower
Euphrates (see pp. 218, 220 above).—18. 337 (‘Payav)] unknown ; certainly
ρ a»
not 0150| (Edessa). It is possibly abbreviated from δεν (364, Ex. 218
etc. : so Homm.); and Mez considers it a divine name. An Aramzan
tribe Ri wa is frequently mentioned in Assyr. inscrs. as dwellers on the
banks of the Euphrates and Tigris, in or near Babylonia (Del. Par.
238 ff.).—20. 37¥ (Zepovx)] a well-known city and district about half-way
between Carchemish and Harran, mentioned by Syr. and Arab. writers
under the name Sarug. The name (Sarugi) also occurs several times
in the census of the district round Harran (7th cent. B.C.), published by
Johns under the title of An Assyrian Domesday Book: see pp. 29, 30,
43, 48, 68.—22. rin} (Naxwp)] is in J the brother of Abraham (223 ; cf.
Jos. 24°); in P he is both the grandfather and the brother (11%). The
name must have been that of an important Aramzan tribe settled in or
around Harran (27% 28! 294). Johns compares the place-name 77/-
Nahiri in the neighbourhood of Sarui; also the personal names Nakiri
and Naharé@u found in Assyrian Deeds (/.c. 71; Ass. Deeds, iii. 127; cf.
KAT, 477f.). Asa divine name Naxap is mentioned along with other
Aramzan deities on a Greek inscription from Carthage (KAT*%, 477);
and Jen. (ZA, xi. 300) has called attention to the theophorous name
part -O, in the ‘Doctrine of Addai,’ as possibly a corruption of
prt -OS.—24. mp (Θαῤῥα)] is instanced by Rob. Sm.* as a totem
clan-name ; 152 () being the Syr. and furv@ha the Ass. word for ‘wild
goat.’ Similarly Del. (Prol. 80), who also refers tentatively to 77/-Sa-
tur@hi, the name of a Mesopotamian town in the neighbourhood of
Harran. Knobel compares a place 7harrana, S of Edessa (Di.); Jen.
(ZA, vi. 70; Hittiter und Armenier, 150 ff. [esp. 154]) is inclined to
identify Terah with the Hittite and N Syrian god (or goddess) Ζαγᾷτε,
Tapko, etc. (cf. KAT*, 484).—26. % reads 75 instead of 70.
* KM}, 220 (afterwards abandoned). Cf. Ndldeke, ZDMG, xl.
167f.: ‘‘sicher unméglich.”
XI. 12-26 233
The Chronology.—The following Table shows the variations of the
three chief recensions (MT, σὰ and @), together with the chronology of
the Book of Jubilees, which for this period parts company with the
Sam., and follows a system peculiar to itself (see p. 134 ff. above) :
Sam. LXX. Jub.
ee
|” | § | S list Son.| After. || 1st Son.
2 1e|o
we ila]|e&
1. Shem 100} 500 | 600 100 500 102?
2. ArpakSad 135, 303 | 438 135 430 66?
Kaway 130 330 57
3. Shelah 130} 303 | 433 130 330 71
4. Eber 134 270 | 404 134 370 64
Be reles: « 130 109 | 239 130 209 61
[L. 134]
6. Reu : ‘ 132] 107 | 239 132 207 59
4. Serug 130] 100 | 230 130 200 57
8. Nahoér 79) 69) 148 79 129 62
[L. 125]
g. Terah 70) 75) 145 70 135 Ἴο
--.- .-.------- Zz
BOON τ ΣΟ ΤῸ] cost | eve 1170 669
From Flood (or [L. 1174]
birth of Arp.)
to Ὁ. 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 p. 135f. it is unnecessary to add much. Klostermann maintains his
scheme of Jubilee-periods on the basis of G&, (a) by allowing a year
for the Flood; (4) by adopting the reading of S, 75 instead of 70, in
the case of Terah ; and (c) by following certain MSS which give 179 for
479 as the age of Nahor at the birth of Terah. This makes from the
Flood to the birth of Abraham 1176 years=2x12x49. By an equally
arbitrary combination of data of MT and G, 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 /ud. shows clear in-
dications of a reckoning by year-weeks. Since the birth of ArpakSad
is said (vii. 18) to have occurred two years after the Flood, we may con-
clude that it was assigned to A.M. 1309, the Ioznd year of Shem. This
234 GENEALOGY OF SHEM (P)
gives a period of 187 year-weeks from the Creation to the birth of
Arp., 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: z.e.,as nearly as possible one-half: the author ac-
cordingly 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 paper * became known to me only while these sheets
were passing through the press. His main results are as follows:
(1) In MT he finds two distinct chronological systems. (a) One reckons
by generations of 4o years, its ¢erymini being the birth of Shem and
the end of the Exile. In the Shemite table, Terah is excluded entirely,
and the two years between the Flood and the birth of Arp. are ignored.
This gives: from the birth of Shem to that of Abraham 320 (8x 40)
years ; thence to Ὁ. of Jacob 160 (4x40); to Exodus 560 (14x 40); to
founding of Temple 480 (12x 40); to end of Exile 480: in all 2000
(50x40). This system is, of course, later than the Exile; but Bo. con-
cedes the probability that its middle section, with 1200 (30x 40) years
from the b. of Abr. to the founding of the Temple, may be of earlier
origin.—(6) 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’ /ustrum). Its period is a Great Year from the
Creation to the dedication of the Temple, and its reckoning includes
Terah in the Shemite table, but excludes the 2 years of ArpakSad.
This gives 1556 years to b. of Shem + 390 (b. of Abr.) + 75 (migration
of Abr.) + 215 (descent to Egypt) + 430 (Exodus) + 480 (founding of
Temple) + 20 (dedication of do.) = 3166. Now 3166 = 12 x 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 2655 days, requiring the interposition of 54 days each
year; and the 46 years are the equivalent of these 54 days in
the system here followed. (For, if 30 days = 260 years, then 54 days
54x 260 21x26 7X13
SMeAGiN a AL Xie =454 [say 46] years.) The first third of this
Great Year ends with the Ὁ. of Noah 1056=4 x 260+ 16 (§ of 46). The
second third nearly coincides with the b. of Jacob; but here there
is a discrepancy of 5 years, which Bo. 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) @& reckons with a Great
Month of 355 years (the number of days in the Zunar year), and a Great
Year of 12 x 355 = 4260 years from the Creation to the founding of the
Temple, made up as follows: 2142+1173++75+215+ 215 +440} =4260.
* Die Chronologischen Systeme im AT und bei Josephus (MVAG,
1908, 2).
+ Allowing a year for the Flood, and two years between it and the
b. of ArpakSad.
ὦ See 1 Ki. 6! (G).
XI, 27—32 235
Significant subdivisions cannot be traced.—(3) 1 returns to the earlier
Heb. reckoning by generations, its serminus ad guem being the measur-
ing out of Gerizim, which, according to the Sam. Chronicle published
by Neubauer, took place 13 years after the Conquest of Canaan. Thus
we obtain 1207 + 1040 + 75+215 + 215 + 42 (desert wandering) * +13
(measurement of Gerizim) = 2807 = 70 x 40 + 7.t—(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 = 50x 49.]
XI. 27-32.—The Genealogy of Terah (P and J).
The vv. are of mixed authorship; and form, both in
P and J, an introduction to the Patriarchal History. In P
(77 31. 82), the genealogical framework encloses a notice of the
migration of the Terahites from Ur-Kasdim to Harran, to
which 12*?-5 may be the immediate sequel. The insertion
from J (33:39) finds an equally suitable continuation in 12),
and is very probably the conclusion of J’s lost Shemite
genealogy. The suppression of the preceding context of
J is peculiarly tantalising because of the uncertainty of the
tradition which makes Ur-Kasdim the home of the ancestors
of the Hebrews (see concluding note, p. 239)
On the analysis, cf. esp. Bu. Urg. 414 ff.—Vv.” and ® belong quite
obviously to P; and 81, from its diffuse style and close resemblance
to P’s regular manner in recording the patriarchal migrations (125 3118
36° 46°: see Hupf. Qu. 19f.), may be confidently assigned to the same
source. ** presents nothing distinctive of either document ; but in 28>
nid pax is peculiar to JE (see the footnote on the ν.). ™% is J because
presupposed in 225: ; and its continuation (30) brings as an additional
criterion the word Mpy (cf. 2574 29%"), which is never used by P.—The
extract from J is supplementary to P, and it might be argued that at
least ** was necessary in the latter source to explain why Lot and not
Haran went with Terah. Bu. points out in answer (p. 420) that with
still greater urgency we desiderate an explanation of the fact that
Nahor was left behind: if the one fact is left unexplained, so a fortiori
might the other.
The formula nitba aby) does not occur again till 251°; and it is very
widely held that in v.*’ it stands as the heading of the section of P
* After Jos. 5° (&).
+ The odd 7 years still remain perplexing (see p. 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,
236 GENEALOGY OF TERAH (P, J)
dealing with the life of Abraham. That is wholly improbable. It is
likely enough that a heading (o7728 ’n ’x) has been somewhere omitted
(so We. Bu. Ho. 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 Tdledéth has been
broken up and dislocated by the redaction, is as plausible a solution as
any that can be thought of. See, further, on 25).
27. On the name Adrvam, see on 175; on Nahér, v.*
above.—Haran begat Lot] A statement to the same effect
must have been found in J (see 12**). Haran has no signifi-
cance in the tradition except as expressing the relationship
of Lét, Milkah, and Yiskah within the Hebraic group.
That j19 is formed from jn (v.z.) by a softening of the initial guttural
(We. Pr.® 313) is an improbable conjecture (see Bu. 4437). The name
occurs elsewhere only in ’mn2 (Nu. 4258: cf. ΠΤ, Jos. 137”)* in the
tribe of Gad: this has suggested the view that 77 was the name of a
deity worshipped among the peoples represented by Lot (Mez: cf. Wi.
40, ii. 499).—The name »\> is also etymologically obscure (? Ar. dat
= ‘cleave to’). A connexion with the Horite clan "οὶ in Gn. 36% 38. 59
is probable.
28. The premature death of Haran (which became the
nucleus of some fantastic Jewish legends) took place zm the
land of his nativity; t.e., according to the present text,
Ur of the Chaldees, where his grave was shown down to
the time of Josephus (Azz. i. 151; Eus. OS, 285, 50 ff.).
ova ὋΝ (v.21 157, Neh. οἵ: Gr χώρα τῶν Χαλδαίων) is now almost
universally identified with the ancient S Babylonian city of Uru, whose
remains have been discovered in the mounds of ’e/-Mukayyar, on the
right bank of the Euphrates, about 25 miles SE from Erech and 125
from Babylon (see Hilp. EBL, 172ff.). The evidence for this view is
28. 55.0}} is coram (Cr ἐνώπιον), rather than ante (ἘΠ : so Tu.), or ‘in
the lifetime of’ (S wx»5.9); cf. Nu. 34: see BDB and G-B. s.v.
oe.—inrdin pax] so 247 (J), 313 (E); cf. Jer. 2219 4615, Ezk. 23%, Ru. 21}.
A commoner phrase in Pent. is ‘12) ‘ax, 121} 244 313 3219, Nu 10* (all J).
From the way in which the two expressions alternate, it is probable
that they are equivalent ; and since ‘D alone certainly means ‘kindred’
(437 [J], cf. Est. 210. °° 88), it is better to render ‘land ofone’s parentage’
than ‘land in which one was born’ [S$ here and 12!] (cf. Bu. 4197). P
has the word, but only in the sense of ‘ progeny’ (48°, Lv. 18° [H)).
* Though Wi. (AOF, ii. 499) contends that both names are corrup-
tions of Dp’.
XI. 27—30 237
very strong. Uru is the only city of the name known from Assyri-
ology (although the addition of the gen, Ow suggests that others were
known to the Israelites: G-K. § 125 4): it was situated in the properly
Chaldzan territory, was a city of great importance and vast antiquity,
and (like Harran, with which it is here connected) was a chief centre of
the worship of the moon-god Sin (14 7.3 129 ff.). The only circumstance
that creates serious misgiving is that the prevalent tradition of Gen.
points to the NE 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 Chaldzans of 22” (see
Kittel, Gesch. i. 163 ff.). Syrian tradition identifies it with Edessa
(Urhai, Urfa). Itis generally recognised, however, that these considera-
tions are insufficient to invalidate the arguments in favour of Uru.—
ow2]= Bab. Kaidu, Ass. Kaldu (Χαλδ-αίοι), is the name of a group of
Semitic tribes, distinguished from the Arabs and Aramzans, who are
found settled to the SE of Babylonia, round the shore of the Persian Gulf.
In the 11th cent. or earlier they are believed to have penetrated Babylonia,
at first as roving, pastoral nomads (KA7*, 22 ff.), but ultimately giving
their name to the country, and founding the dynasty of Nabopolassar.
—By the ancients ov was rightly understood of Babylonia (Nikolaos
Damasce. in Jos. Azz. i. 152; Eupolemos in Eus. Prep. Ev. ix. 17;
Jer. al.); but amongst the Jews ὋΝ came to be regarded as an appella-
tive = ‘fire’ (iz igne Chaldeorum, which Jer. 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 (/wé. xii. 12-14; Jer. Quest., ad loc.; TJ, Ber. R. § 38, Ra.).
29. While we are told that Nahor’s wife was his brother’s
daughter, it is surprising that nothing is said of the
parentage of Sarai. According to E (2015), 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 J (Ewald). It would seem, however, that
tradition represented marriage between near relations as
the rule among the Terahites (20! 24° 2015).
With regard to the names, “Ww seems to be an archaic form of
my = ‘princess’ (see on 1715), while 13}p means ‘queen.’ In Bab. the
relations are reversed, Sarratu being the queenand ma/katu the princess.
It cannot be a mere coincidence that these two names correspond
to two personages belonging to the pantheon of Harran, where Sarratu
was a title of the moon-goddess, the consort of Sin, and Malkatu a title
29. npr] sing., according to G-K. 8 146/—30. 7py] as 257! 29%! (J) ;
not in P (see 16!4),—15)] ax 15%. Only again as Kethib of Or. MSS in
2 Sa. 6. It is possibly here a scribal error, which eventually influenced
the other pass.
238 GENEALOGY OF TERAH (P, J)
of IStar, also worshipped there (Jen. ZA, xi. 299f.; KAT?, 364f.).
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, v.** express (1) the dissolution of an older
tribal group, Haran; (2) the survival of one of its subdivisions (Lot)
through the protection of a stronger tribe; and (3) the absorption of
another (Milkah) in a kindred stock.—Of 425: nothing is known. The
Rabbinical fiction that she is Sarah under another name (implied in
Jos. Anz. i. 151; J, Jer. Ra. IEz. al.) is worthless. Ewald’s conjecture
that she was the wife of Lot is plausible, but baseless.
31, 32. The migration from Ur-Kasdim to Canaan is
accomplished in two stages. Terah, as patriarchal head of
the family, conducts the expedition as far as Harran, where
he dies. The obvious implication is that after his death
the journey is resumed by Abram (12°); although 2 alone
gives a chronology consistent with this view (v. supra).
Nahér, we are left to infer, remained behind in Ur-Kasdim ;
and in the subsequent narratives P (in opposition to J) seems
carefully to avoid any suggestion of a connexion between
Nahér and the city of Harran.
127 (with virtually doubled 1: cf. Gr Xappav; Gr. Κάῤῥαι ; Lat. Carre,
Charra; Ass. Harrdnu; Syr. and Arab. Harran) was an important
centre of the caravan trade in NW Mesopotamia, 60 miles E of
Carchemish, situated near the Balih, 70 miles due N from its confluence
with the Euphrates. Though seldom mentioned in OT (12 [P],
27% 28 294 [J], 2 Ki. 19”, Ezk. 27+), and now ruined, it was a city of
great antiquity, and retained its commercial importance in classical
and medizval times. The name in Ass. appears to be susceptible of
several interpretations — ‘way,’ ‘caravan’ (TA Tab.), ‘joint-stock
enterprise’ (Del. Hdwé. s.v., KA Το, 29*)—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.
Harran was also (along with Ur) a chief seat of the worship of Sin, who
had there a temple, £-ful-Rul, described by Nabuna’id as ‘from
remote days” a ‘‘dwelling of the joy of his (Sin’s) heart” (A7ZB, iii. 2.
97), and who was known in NW Asia as the ‘‘Lord of Harran”
(Zinjirli inscr. : cf. Lidzbarski, Hb. 444, An.). See, further, Mez, Gesch.
d. St. Harran; Tomkins, Times of Abraham, 55ff. etc. This double
connexion of Abraham with centres of lunar religion is the most
3x. indo] adp (Syr. {AXo9, Ar. kannat) means both ‘spouse’ and
‘daughter-in-law’: in Syr. and Ar. also ‘sister-in-law,’—a fact adduced
by Rob. Sm. as a relic of Baal polyandry (1723, 161, 209').—on® sy]
gives no sense. Read with anh (καὶ ἐξήγαγεν αὐτούς) BD, onk xxv, or
S, OPN N¥71.— 32. MIND] Gr + ἐν Χαῤῥάν.
ἈΠ ΞΙ. 32 230
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 P and J (in the present text)
make Ur-Kasdim the starting-point of the Abrahamic migration, J has
no allusion to a journey from Ur to Harran. His language is perfectly
consistent either (a2) with a march directly from Ur to Canaan, or (6)
with the view that the real starting-point was Harran, and that 1x2
ow is here a gloss intended to harmonise J and P. Now, there is a
group of passages in J which, taken together, unmistakably imply
that Abraham was a native of Harran, and therefore started from
thence to seek the promised land. In 245 1. 10. the place of A.’s nativity
is Aram-Naharaim, and specially the ‘city of Nahér’; while a com-
parison with 27 2810 294 leaves no doubt that the ‘city of Nahér’ was
Harran. P, on the other hand, nowhere deviates from his theory of a
double migration with a halt at Harran; and the persistency with
which he dissociates Laban and Rebecca from Nahér (25% 2875) is a
proof that the omission of Nahér from the party that left Ur was
intentional (Bu. 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 P,
though consistently maintained, is not natural ; for (1) all the antecedents
(117°*8) point to Mesopotamia as the home of the patriarchs; and (2)
the twofold migration, first from Ur and then from Harran, has itself
the appearance of a compromise between two conflicting traditions.
The simplest solution would be to suppose that both the references to
Ur-Kasdim in J (11% 15’) are interpolations, and that P had another
tradition which he harmonised with that of J by the expedient just
mentioned (so We. Di. Gu. Dri. al.). Bu. holds that both traditions
were represented in different strata of J (J! Harran, J? 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 P could never have thought of the circuitous
route from Ur to Canaan by way of Harran. That argument has little
weight with those who are prepared to believe that P had other
traditions at his disposal than those we happen to know from J and E.*
In itself, the hypothesis of a dual tradition within the school of J is
perfectly reasonable ; but in this case, in spite of Bu.’s close reasoning,
it appears insufficiently supported by other indications. The view of
We. is on the whole the more acceptable.
* The suggestion has, of course, been made (Wi. AOF. i. 08 ff. ;
Paton, Syr. and Pal. 42) that E is the source of the Ur-Kasdim tradition ;
but in view of Jos. 245 that is not probable,
THE PATRIARCHAL HISTORY.
ABRAHAM.
σῆς. XIEXSXéV,, 183
Critical Note.—In this section of Genesis the broad lines of demarca-
tion between J, E, and P 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 E and P respectively. These questions have
been brought to the front by the commentary of Gu., who has made it
probable that the Yahwistic document contains two main strata, one
(J*) fixing Abraham's residence at Hebron, and the other (J) regarding
him as a denizen of the Negeb.
1. The kernel of J® is a cycle of legends in which the fortunes of
Abraham and Lot are interlinked : viz. 1218; 132518; 18; 19°78; τοῦ δι
If these passages are read continuously, they form an orderly narrative,
tracing the march of Abraham and Lot from Harran 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 125-13] 15 (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
12°T at a subsequent stage of J’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 12%" is distinguished from J®, 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 ch. 16, which, as breaking the con-
nexion of ch. 18 with 13, is plausibly assigned to 10, (To this source
Gu. also assigns the Yahwistic component of ch. 15; but that chapter
shows so many signs of later elaboration that it can hardly have
belonged to either of the primary sources. )—After ch. 19, the hand of J
appears in the accounts of Isaac’s birth (2117 5) and Abraham’s treaty
with Abimelech (217*4*): the latter is probably 1" (on account of the
Negeb), while the former shows slight discrepancies with the pre-
diction of ch, 18, which lead us (though with less confidence) to assign
240
XII—XXV. 18 © 241
it also to 10. With regard to ch. 24, it is impossible to say whether it
belongs to J® or J”: we assign it provisionally to the latter.* The bulk
of the Yahwistic material may therefore be disposed in two parallel
series as follows :
JB 12k8*; 14} 18 Ἀν, 181.16. 20-22 880, 701-28. 1980-38;
Pere! 138: 161. 271-7 ™ «) 2ι535 85... ont +;
The Yahwistic sections not yet dealt with are ch. 15* (see above);
and the two genealogies, 227°4 and 25), both inserted by a Yahwistic
editor from unknown sources. Other passages (1315 17 1817-19. 22b-38a
225-18) which appear to have been added during the redaction (RJ or RJE)
will be examined in special notes ad Jocc.
2. The hand of E is recognised in the following sections: 15*; 20;
21} 7. 21821; 212-34* 5 221-19 (2452). Gu. has pointed out that where
J and E run parallel to one another, E’s affinites are always with
J® and never with 18 (cf. the variants 12° || 20; 16 || 21°*!; and the
compositions in 21} and 217°), This, of course, might be merely a
consequence of the fact that E, like J®, makes the Negeb (Beersheba)
the scene of Abraham's history. But it is remarkable that in ch. 26 we
find unquestionable Yahwistic parallels to E and J», with Isaac as hero
instead of Abraham. These are probably to be attributed to the writer
whom we have called J", 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.
Putting all the indications together, we are led to a tentative hypo-
thesis 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
* Gu. analyses 24 into two narratives, assigning one to each source.
The question is discussed in the Note, pp. 340f., where the opinion is
hazarded that the subordinate source may be E, in which case the other
would naturally be J.
+ It is interesting to compare this result with the analysis of the
Yahwistic portions of chs. 1-11 (pp. 2-4). In each case J appears asa
complex document, formed by the amalgamation of prior collections of
traditions ; and the question naturally arises whether any of the com-
ponent 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 J® in the biography of Abraham
may be the continuation of J® in the primitive history. Both use the
phrase ‘call by the name of Yahwe’ (455 128 [13%], [but cf. 2188 (70}}} ;
and the optimistic religious outlook expressed in the blessing of Noah
(9*5*-) is shared in a marked degree by the writer of 1". 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), 13'8 (Hebron), 26% (Beersheba).
16
242 MIGRATIONS OF ABRAM (J, P)
added) the second is ethically and religiously on a higher level than the
first. These were partly amalgamated, probably before the union of J®
and J® (see on ch. 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 J", 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 P (124-5 13 Wb aba 5 161% 19; p75 τοῦθ; gylb.2b-5,
23; 25728; 2517-17) consists mostly of a skeleton biography based on the
older documents, and presupposing a knowledge of them. The sole
raison αἱ étre 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. P’s affinities are chiefly with J", with whom he shares the
idea that Hebron was the permanent residence of Abraham. Of the
sections peculiar to P, ch. 17 is parallel to 15, and 2512 has probably
replaced a lost Yahwistic genealogy of Ishmael. Ch. 23 stands alone
as presumably an instance where P has preserved an altogether in-
dependent tradition.
Ch. 14 cannot with any show of reason be assigned to any of the
recognised sources of the Pent., and has accordingly been omitted from
the above survey. The question of its origin is discussed on pp. 271 ff.
below,
Cus. XII. XIII.— Zhe migrations of Abram (J and P).
Leaving his home at the command of Yahwe, Abram
enters Canaan and erects altars at Shechem and Bethel
(1218). From Bethel he migrates to the Negeb, and thence,
under stress of famine, to Egypt; where by a false repre-
sentation he enriches himself, but imperils his wife’s honour
(125-131). 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 (13?7!”). Abram
journeys southward and settles in Hebron (7%).
Analysis.—The slender thread of P’s narrative is represented by 124” ©
13% 1b aba: note the date in 12*°; the form of 12°; 251, win, 12° 138;
vp}, ‘person,’ 12°; 1}}} PW, 120 1412; xv}, 13°; 12202, 1312; and see onthe
vv. below. These fragments form a continuous epitome of the events
between the exodus from Harran and the parting of Abram and Lot.
With a slight and inherently plausible transposition (12° 4”; Bu. p. 432)
they might pass for the immediate continuation of 11°, if we can
suppose that the call of Abram was entirely omitted by P (see Gu. 231).
—The rest of the passage is Yahwistic throughout: obs. the consistent
use of mn’; the reference to Paradise, 13!°; the anticipation of ch. 19 in
131: 13; and the following expressions: ΠΡ, 12]; 3 7733, 128; nhpyip 3
XII. 1-3 243
MING, 1235 Rp TIT, Ry, 121 13 138914; aya, 1218 16; ’y meen, 1278; 1} 173,
13!*1, It falls naturally into three sections: (a) 12! 68; (4) 12!-13';
(c) 132 © 1.116. 12>B-18 | 128 and 13* 4 being redactional links (RJ) uniting ὁ
to aon the one side and ¢ onthe other. The purely mechanical con-
nexion of 6 with a and c was first shown by We. (Comp.? 24f.).* The
removal of 4 restores the direct and natural sequence of ¢ upon a, and
gets rid of the redactor’s artificial theory of a double visit to Bethel with
aseries 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 (ὁ), Abram simply moves down to
Egypt from his home in the Negeb and back again.—As to the origin
of 12!°-°0, see p. 251 below.
XII. 1-8. The journey to Canaan and the promise
of the Land.—1. The opening v. 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
fathers house; and a corresponding significance in the
vagueness with which the goal is indicated: 20 a land
which I will show thee. Obedience under such conditions
marks Abram as the hero of faith, and the ideal of Hebrew
piety (Heb. 11*!).—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 zatzonal legends, as contrasted
with the primitive and cosmopolitan mythology of chs. 2-11,
whose sombre tone is only once (936) 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
Ezk. 3325. The inference has been drawn that the figure of
1. Ἴγ» (223 [E]; cf. Ca. 29. 13] see G-K. § 119s.—On πιρο (&
συγγενεία) see 11°°,—2, 4373 mM] Impve. expressing consequence (G-K.
§ 110 2) is here questionable, because the preceding vbs. are simple
futures. The pointing as consec. pf. (7;m) was suggested by Giesebrecht
* So Di. Ho. Gu.
244 MIGRATIONS OF ABRAM (J, P)
Abraham represents a late development of the patriarchal
legends (cf. We. Prol.® 317f.). 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 Ki. 18° has also to be considered).
—The antiquity of the name is now placed beyond doubt
by an archeological discovery made by Erman in 1888, but
first published by Breasted in 1904. In the Karnak list
of places conquered by Sheshonk 1., the contemporary of
Rehoboam, there is mentioned pa-hu-g-ru-'a ’a-ba-ra-m=
orax Son, ‘Field of Abram.’ It has not been identified ;
but from its place in the list it must have been in the S of
Palestine (see Breasted, A/SZ, xxi. 35f.; and cf. Meyer,
INS, 266).*—and be thou a blessing (cf. Zec. 8'3)] Rather:
and tt (the name) shall be a blessing (point ΠΡ ΠῚ, v.2.) 2.6. fa
name to bless by,’ in the sense explained by *>,—3b has
generally been rendered through thee shall all the families
of the earth be blessed] 1.6. the blessings of true religion
shall be mediated to the world through Abram and his
descendants (so all Vns.; cf. Sir. 4474, Ac, 3”, Gal. 38).
The better translation, however, is that of Ra., adopted by
most modern comm. : ὄν 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 48, Is. 6516, Ps. 721”; and the opposite,
(A Tliche Schatzung α΄. Gottesnamens, 15); see Gu. ad v.—3. abbpan] sing. ;
but the pl. of some MSS, sx@&S (73), is more probable; cf. 2729, Nu.
249,—42 312720] G καὶ εὐλογηθήσονται ἐν gol, and so all Vns._ The rendering
depends on the grammatical question whether the Niph. has pass. or
refl. sense. This form of the vb. does not occur except in the parallels
1818 (with 3) and 2814 (ay713;3—43). In 2218 264 it is replaced by Hithp.,
which is, of course, refl., and must be translated ‘bless themselves’ ;
the renderings ‘feel themselves blessed’ (Tu. KS. Str.), or ‘wish them-
selves blessed’ (De.) are doubtful compromises. These passages,
however, belong to secondary strata of J (as does also 1818, and perhaps
284), and are not necessarily decisive of the sense of 12%. But it is
significant that the Pu., which is the proper pass. of 913, is consistently
avoided; and the presumption appears to be distinctly in favour of the
* See, further, pp. 292f. below.
XII. 3-6 245
Jer. 29”). ‘So the ancient mind expressed its admiration
of a man’s prosperity’ (Gu.). The clause is thus an expan-
sion of 28: 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 1177)
establishes a literary connexion with the Lot narratives of
chs. 13. 19.—5 is P’s parallel to * (v.z.); the last sentence
supplying an obvious gap in J’s narrative.—and they came,
etc.]. This time (ct. 11°") the goal is actually reached. On
the probable route from Harran to Canaan, see Dri. 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
sense given in the text above. The idea is well expressed by Ra. :
72 72 WI. AN ΝἼΡΟΞΙ 73 Ἰ2ἼΣ2) 3 13) OMAN NAN Id OW OW ws IAN
mw2p2 Ox. ob ἽΝ» πον Sew (Gn. 48”).—4. 05} S rOSO (-- ὅν"),
adopted by Ba.—5. The parallel to “ in the distinctive form (see on 11°)
and phraseology of P. The vb. w27 is peculiar to P (318 36° 46°);
vi27 is a word of the later language, found in P (7t.), in Gn. 14 (5 1.) and
as a gloss in 1514; in Ch. Ezr. Dn. (15t.): see Ho. ini. 347. It is
supposed to denote primarily ‘riding beasts,’ like Heb, v3), Aram.
0 y
14", xy, Ass. rukuSu (Haupt, Hebraica, iii. 110); then property in
general,—v53] in the sense of ‘person’ is also practically confined to P
in Hex. (Ho. 345).—i”y]=‘ acquired,’ as 311, Dt. 8”, Jer. 17" ete.
The idea of ‘ proselytising’ (€°J) is rightly characterised by Ra. as
Haggada.—jy32 ΚΝ] ‘ein fast sicheres Kennzeichen fiir P” (Ho. 340).
In JE jy32 appears never to be used in its geographical sense except in
the story of Joseph (42. 44-47. 50°) and Jos. 24°.—]y37—3x3n] Ge’ om.,
probably from homoioteleuton. —6. 7321] so Gk, but G4: 2:, read
azyyd (13!7).—For min, Σ and S$ read xqpp. The convallem illustrem of
Ἔ is an amalgamation of Q& (τὴν δρῦν τὴν ὑψηλήν [OND?]) and T? (mw
mmp=‘ plains of M.’); the latter is probably accounted for by aversion
to the idolatrous associations of the sacred tree. @J has Ἢ Ὁ na7 Ww);
on which see Levy, Chald. Wo. 33. The absence of the art. (ct. πῃ
π δα, Ju. 7!) seems to show that the word is used as nom. pr.—}\x] unlike
0, x,
its Aram. equivalents Goat , }'s), which mean tree in general, is never
used generically, but always of particular (probably sacred) trees. In
the Vns. ‘oak’ and ‘terebinth’ are used somewhat indiscriminately
(see v. Gall, CS¢. 24 ff.) for four Heb. words: pbx, jidx, adx, abs (only
Jos. 247). The theory has been advanced that the forms with é are
alone correct; that they are derivatives from by, ‘god,’ and denote
246 MIGRATIONS OF ABRAM (J, P)
the land in the name of Yahwe by erecting altars for His
worship. It is, however, a singular fact, that in J there is
no record of actual sacrifice by the patriarchs on such altars:
see p. I.
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 (Ex. 20% [E]). 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 v.® in the use of the
word o}p>, which has there the technical sense of ‘sacred place,’ as in
224 2811 351 (Gr), Ex. 3°, 1Sa. 7'§ (Gr ἡγιασμένοις), Jer. 713 (cf. Ar. makam).—
Shechem is the first and most northerly of four sanctuaries—the others
being Bethel, Hebron (J"), and Beersheba (E, J®)—connected with the
name of Abraham. The name (Skmm, with pl. termination)* occurs in
an Eg. inscr. as early as the 12th dynasty. It was an important place in
the Tel-Amarna period (see Steuernagel, Kinwanderung, 120 f.; Knudtzon,
BA, iv. 127), and figures prominently in OT legendand history. On its
situation (the modern Mabulis) between Mts. Ebal and Gerizim, see
EB, iv. 4437 f.—The 70 j\x (=‘ oracle-giving terebinth’) was evidently
an ancient sacred tree from which oracles were obtained, and therefore
a survival of primitive tree-worship.t Besides Dt. 11° (a difficult pass.,
originally the ‘sacred tree’ without distinction of species.t The }idx of
Gn. 35° is called a palm in Ju. 45, and ody (pl. of dx?) (Ex. 15%7 etc.)
derived its name from 70 palm-trees. But though the Mass. tradition
may not be uniformly reliable, bx and ΠΝ appear to be distinguished in
Hos. 43, Is. 613 (Di.); and the existence of a form }\>x is confirmed by
all€nu, which is said to be an Ass. tree-name (G-B. 36b). It is
probable from Zec. 11%, Ezk. 27° etc., that fid¥ is the oak. With regard
to the other names no convincing theory can be formed, but a connexion
with 5x (2) is at best precarious.—6b is probably a gloss: cf. 137.
—7. 77k] “αὐ Ὲ ὁ add %b.—vdx aytaa] so 35! (E).
* It is possible that this (0230) is the oldest form in Heb. also ; since
(ἃ often has the pl. Σίκιμα (331° 35* ὅ etc.).
+ ‘“Where a tree is connected with a welz it was probably the
original object of honour” (Curtiss, Prim. Sem. Rel.) gt). On the
obtaining of oracles from trees, see Rob. Sm. 4.52, 195. Comp. Ju. 4°,
2 Sa. 54; and the oak of Zeus at Dodona.—Duhm’s brilliant generali-
sation (Jsaiah', 13f.), 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.
t We. Pr.§ 234; Sta. GVZ, i. 455; v- Gall, Zc. ; cf. Schwally, 7iZLeg.,
1899, 356.
XII. 6-8 247
see Dri. ad Joc., and v. Gall, Cu/t-St. 107 ff.), it seems to be mentioned
as one of the sacra of Shechem under other names: σῦν τ, abxn (a mere
difference of pointing, v.7.), Gn. 35%, Jos. 2458; oy pdx (‘terebinth of
soothsayers’), Ju. 9°7; and syd ‘x (‘t. of the pillar’ [n3y20]) Ju. o% The
tree is not said to have been planted by Abram (like the tamarisk of
Beersheba, 21*°),—an additional indication that Abram was not origin-
ally the patron or we/z of the shrine. The sacred stone under the tree (the
a¥ of Ju. 9°?) was believed to have been set up by Joshua (Jos. 24”).
The sanctuary of Shechem was also associated with Jacob (33!8 354), and
especially with Joseph, who was buried there (Jos. 24%), and whose
grave is still shown near the village of Balata (dal/2{=‘ oak’): see v.
Gall, 117.
8. Abram moved on, nomadic fashion, and spread his
tent (26” 331° 357!) near Bethel, about 20 m. from Shechem ;
there he built a second altar, and called by the name of
Yahwe; see on 47°, 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 (Je. 4 7ZO?, 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 (ch. 28).—Here the parting from Lot took place
(ch. 13).
On Bethel (Beztin), see on 28!" 357; cf. Jos. 7%. Di. distinguishes
the site of Abram’s altar (E of Bethel and W 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 E of the city (so Gu.), perhaps at
Burg Beitin, the traditional scene of Abram’s encampment (GASm.
EB, i. 552).—On the somewhat uncertain situation of ‘y7 (always with
art. Ξε πὴ, Neh. 11°!, 1 Ch. 7%; and ney, Is. 10%), see Buhl, GP, 177.
XII. 9-XIII. 1.—Abram in Egypt.—The first of three
variants of what must have been a very popular story in
ancient Israel (cf. 20. 26°), 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
8. pay] intr. Hiph. as 26” (J).
248 MIGRATIONS OF ABRAM (J, P)
seems to take us down to the bed-rock of Hebrew folklore.
— 9. to the Negeb| The ‘dry’ region between the Judean
highland and the wilderness of e¢-7zh, extending from 10 or
12 m. N of Beersheba to the neighbourhood of Kadesh
(v.z.). It is still a suitable pasture ground for camel-
breeding Bedouin, and the remains of buildings and irriga-
tion works prove that it was once much more extensively
cultivated than at present.—I0. the famine was severe (lit.
‘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, G/, 16).* The purchase of corn for home
consumption (421%) was possible as a temporary expedient
at a somewhat more advanced stage of culture.—II-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
9. vion 397] Dav. § 86, R. 4; G-K. § 113%. The idea of continuous
journeying lies not in 303 (see on 11”), but in Pa (cf. Ju. 14°).—aaun] Of
ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ : Aq. vérovde: Σ. els νότον. The word, froma ,/ meaning
‘dry,’ occurs as a proper name of S Palestine (ΛΟ) in a document of
the reign of Thothmes 11. (Miiller, AZ, 148; Mey. ZATW, vi. 1). Its
use to denote the S direction is rare in JE, and apparently confined to
later additions (134 28:5, Jos. 185). The geographical limits of the
region can, of course, only be roughly determined, chiefly from the list
of its cities in Jos. 152 182; on this, and its physical characteristics, see
Che. ZB, 3374 ff.; Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, ii. 351 f. (1871).—
10. oY 73 (Jer. 42)] properly ‘dwell as a client or protected guest’
(1=Ar. Sar: cf. OT/C*, 3421). The words, however, are often used in
the wider sense of temporary sojourn (15, Jer. 148), and this may be
the case here.—1II. 837727] 16? 18°7-*1 197819 272 (all J). The free use
of &3 (c. 40 t. in Gen.) is very characteristic of J (Ho. Zin/. 110).—13.
Ax ‘nn oratio obligua without 3, G-K. 8 157 a. Gk, on the contrary, ὅτι
* Cf. Authority and Archeology, p. 59; DB, ii. 531% (note 2),
714".
XII. 9-16 249
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 (Aeg. τε. d. B. Mosts, 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.| cf. v.™.
This feature of the reward is a standing element of the
tradition; but in ch. 20 it is only bestowed after the
misunderstanding has been cleared up, and in 26! its
connexion with the incident is loosened.
The gifts enumerated constituted the riches of the patriarchs: 20!
24% 30% 32)! (cf. Jb. 1° 4212), and were perhaps regarded by this nar-
rator as the foundation of Abram’s subsequent wealth. The animals
mentioned were all known in ancient Egypt (Ebers, 265 ff.), except the
48. αὐτοῦ ejul.—bia] In Hex. only 30% 395 (J) and 3t. in Dt.: elsewhere
4 t.—I5. 7378] The title of all Egyptian kings mentioned in OT except
Shishak (1 Ki. 14%) and Sevé (2 Ki. 174). It corresponds exactly to
Eg. 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, ZAZ£, 58; Griffith, DB, iii. 819; Mii. ZB, iii. 3687). It is needless
to go further in search of an etymology, though Renouf, PSBA, xv. 421,
may be consulted. A confusion of the name here with the “‘ Pir'u king of
Musuri” mentioned by Sargon (A7ZB, ii. 55, etc.), is too readily suspected
by Cheyne (ZB, 3164, and 7847, 223; cf. Wi. MVAG, iii. 2 ff.). Even
supposing it proved that this is the proper name of a N Arabian prince,
the narrative here must be much older than the time of Sargon; and it
is inconceivable that the Heb. designation for the kings of Egypt should
have been determined by an isolated and accidental resemblance to a
native word.—16. After 1}}) 2 inserts IND 733 43pd, and puts nhpys o73y)
250 MIGRATIONS OF ABRAM (1, P)
camel, which is neither represented nor named in the monuments before
the Greek period.* This, Miiller 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 (Ho. Gu.) that
the slaves were intermediate in value between these animals is jejune,
and is, besides, contradicted by 2455 30%. It is possible that ovbp2 ning
has been added at the end by a glossator; but see 2435 304, and cf.
x below.
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 inter-
vention is here purely providential : in 20% it takes the form
of a personal communication, while in the attenuated version
of 26%. it has become superfluous and is omitted.—smote with
great plagues| severe bodily maladies ; cf. 20!”, Ex. 111, Ps.
3911 etc. How Pharaoh discovered the cause of his sickness
we are left to conjecture; Jos. (Amz. i. 164 f.) pretty nearly
exhausts the possibilities of the case when he mentions
sacrifice, inquiry at the priests, and interrogation of Sarai.
Gu. is probably right in suggesting that something has been
omitted between 17 and 18,—18, 19. To the vigorous expos-
tulation 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 Gu. (151)
would have us believe. The idea of God, however, is im-
perfectly 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 (Am. 3”).—20. Pharaoh gave men charge concerning
before 0% 0n).—17. yi] The Pi. only of smiting with disease: 2 Ki. 155,
2 Ch. 26% (Pu. Ps. 73°). —od43] κα - καὶ aovnpots. —in‘a-ny)] possibly a
gloss from 20'! (KS. al.); see on 2°.—rg. npxi] ‘so that I took’; Dri.
T. § 74.0, § 116, Obs. 2.—aRYN] Ce +7325.—20. ααὐὰ add at the end iy oth,
as in MT of 13!: the phrase is interpolated in both places.
* Cf. Ex. 9° (J); and see Sayce, HHH, 169 (the notice unhistorical) ;
Erman, ZAZ, 493. Ebers’ statement as to the name is corrected by
Miiller, AZ, 142, ZB, i. 634.
XII. 17—XIII. 6 251
Abram] 2.6. provided him with an escort (ndvi as\ 18! 3177),
The thought of ignominious expulsion is far from the writer’s
mind; the purpose of the escort is to see that no further
.sinjury is done to the patriarch or his wife (IEz.), bringing
fresh judgements on the realm.—XIII. 1. The narrative
closes with the return of Abram to his home in the Negeb
(ef. 12°).
Source of 12”, —It has already been pointed out (p. 242f.)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 J by a later hand (We.); (2) a
misplaced chapter of J’s main narrative belonging properly to a subse-
quent stage of the history ; or (3) an excerpt from a separate Yahwistic
collection (Gu. [J°]). 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; (6) the
absence from the character of Abram of those ideal features which are
prominent in the main narrative, and which later ages tended to ex-
aggerate (e.g. ch. 14); especially (c) the fact that the home of Abram
is not at Hebron but in the Negeb. Gu.’s theory, which is not open to
these objections, seems, therefore, to mark an advance in the analysis of J.
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. οἵ separation: cf. 217° 26298 .—2, Sylver and
gold| 2435 2018 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’; cf. Ar.
‘ahl, Sab. 58 (Miller, ZDMG, xxxvii. 341; Homm. SA
Chrest. 121).—3, 4. Aredactional addition (p. 243), bringing
the narrative back to Bethel, the traditional scene of the
separation.—6, P’s account of the parting: cf. 367. It has
often been noticed that he makes no mention of a quarrel;
just as J says nothing of the straitness of the land (v.z.).—
3. ΝΟ] simply ‘by stages’; not by the same stages by which he
had come (GP Ra.): cf. Ex. 17! 40% 88. etce.—5. odqky (G-K. 8§ 93 7,
23 h)] (πὰ κτήνη, prob. Gr. corruption of σκηναί (so many MSS).—6. ΚΡ]
au mxwi—better. Cf. 367 (P).—6bf is by some (KS. Ho.) assigned to J,
252 MIGRATIONS OF ABRAM (J, P)
8, 9. The thought of strife between relatives (ΟΠ D'V3N) is in-
tolerable 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 narra-
tives, Jacob substitutes guile for force, but Abraham and
Isaac conquer by sheer reasonableness and conciliation.—
10, Ila, 120. Lot’s choice.—Jifted up his eyes and saw, etc.|
The Burg Bertin (p. 247), a few minutes SE from the village,
is described as ‘‘one of the great view-points of Palestine”
(GASm. ZB, 552), from which the Jordan valley and the N
end of the Dead Sea are clearly visible.—the whole Oval of
the Jordan] cf. Dri. Deut. 421 f.
ya 122 (only here and 1 Ki. 74=2 Ch. 4"), or 1350 simply (ν.}3
1917. 35. 286. Dt. 34%, 2 Sa. 18%), is not (as Di. 230) the whole of the ‘Arabah
from the Lake of Galilee to the Dead Sea, but the expansion of the
Jordan valley towards its S end, defined in Dt. 34° as ‘the plain of
Jericho’ (see HG, 505 ff.; Buhl, GP, 112). The northern limit is in-
determinate ; the southern depends on the site of Zoar (v.}°), whether
N or 5 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 import-
ant 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 v.! Apart from the assumption of a
radical transformation of the physical features of the region, the words
before Yahwe destroyed S. and G. have no significance. As a mere note
of time they would merely show the connexion of the story with ch. 19,
and might very well be a gloss (Ols. Di.). See below, pp. 273 f.—Zé‘ar
is the S limit of the Azhar, and, if situated at the S end of the Lake
(as is most probable), would not be seen from Bethel.
but on insufficient grounds (cf. Hupf. Qu. 21 f.)—7b. av») 22 Daw. 7750]
The name is coupled with ‘3y339 in 4459, Ju. 1*° (J), and often appears
in enumerations of the pre-Israelite inhabitants (157° etc.). If, as is
probable, it be connected with 115 (Dt. 3°, 1 Sa. 61%, Est. 9!%), nip
(Ezk. 384, Zec. 28, Est. 9%), it would mean ‘hamlet-dwellers’ as dis-
tinguished from Canaanites, occupying fortified cities (see on 37, 101”),
That the P. were remnants of a fre-Canaanite population is hardly to
be inferred from the omission of the name in ro, or from its
association with the Rephaim in Jos. 17/5: this last notice is wanting
in G@4® and is perhaps a gloss (Moore, Jud. 17).—9. 892) GS 737).—
bkoya—pon] Ball suggests the pointing 5ysyn, pod (infs. abs.). x
reads nbeovn arom on arom abxown ὮΝ, το, aba) ax b3; G&L om.—
7p¥2] in the sense of ‘watered region’ only again Ezk. 45}5 (where
XIII. 7-17 253
like the land of Egypt| coming after like the garden of
Yahwe (2.5 15. cf. Is. 51°) it is an anti-climax, which might
be excused (as Di. thinks) because the first comparison was
pitched too high. But the last half of the v. seems greatly
overloaded, and it is not improbable that both mMmipy—305 and
Ὁ ᾿ΝΞ are to be removed as glosses.—On the luxuriant fertility
and abundant water-supply of the district, see HG, 483 f.;
Buhl, 39; Seetzen, Rezsen, i. 417.—I1a. Lot departed east-
ward| see on 117 and the footnote zmfra.—12bB. The im-
mediate continuation (in J) of 115; and moved his tent up to
Sodom] the intervening words being from P (cf. 1327 “yp
instead of [17°9 'D),.—13,. This notice of the sinfulness of Sodom
is another anticipation of ch. 19; but it is introduced here
with great effect as showing how Lot had over-reached him-
self by his selfish conduct.—I4-17. The promise of the land
is now confirmed to Abram.—I4. Lift up thine eyes, etc.]
the contrast to Lot’s self-interested glance (v.!), while
Abram, by his magnanimous surrender of his claims, had
unconsciously chosen the good part.—15. It is very doubtful
if the Doiy IY can be considered (with Di.) a new element of
the promise as compared with 127.—16. the dust of the
earth| 2814,
This solemn assurance of the possession of the land (15:17) is some-
what of a contrast to the simple promises of 1277; and has affinities
with a series of passages which appear to represent a later phase of
religious reflexion (see on ch. 15, p. 284). Other reasons are adduced
for thinking that 151 are the work of a younger hand than the original
J. (a) Itis not the habit of J to cite divine oracles without a specifica-
tion of the circumstances under which the theophany takes place (but
see 127), (6) The conception of Abram as wandering over the land
is not that of J®, who fixes his permanent dwelling-place at Hebron.
(c) While Bethel commands a view of the Jordan valley, it affords no
the text is PruBt) and Sir. 39%. Should we read aApyip?—n>xd] see
10,—>ys] S τὸς =Tanis (jus) in Egypt (Nu, 13%, Is. 101. 158 efc.);
which is preferred by Ball, but is rather an error caused by the pre-
ceding oO:2s>.—11. 0792 (cf. 11°)] Gk ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν, Ἔ ab oriente. But
the only possible sense here is ‘eastward’; hence Sta. (Ak. Reden,
292) and Gu. emend to 7372.—11b, in spite of its resemblance to %8,
must be assigned to P, being necessary to the completeness of that
account, and because it disturbs the connexion of ™ with 12bg,—
16. wx]=‘so that’ (G-K. § 166 6).—17. (ἃ adds at end καὶ τῷ σπέρματί
254 MIGRATIONS OF ABRAM (J, P)
wide prospect of the land as a whole. We. (Comp.* 25 f.) admits that
these ‘ general impressions’ are not such as to procure universal assent.
In point of fact they are rather overstated; and Di.’s answers may
satisfy those who refuse to carry critical operations further than is
absolutely necessary. Nevertheless, We.’s impression is probably
correct, and has commended itself to KS. Ho. Gu. al.* The vv.
may be omitted not only without injury to the context, but with the
obvious advantage of bringing out the reference of 18 to %, 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.
18. Abram moves his tent to the ¢eredinth(s) of Mamre,
in Hebron, and inaugurates the local sanctuary there. In
the main narrative of J» the statement was immediately
followed by ch. 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.z.) 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, HZ, ii. 4). Josephus (B/, 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
Haram Ramet el-Halil, 2m. N of Hebron. The difficulty in accepting
this, the oldest accessible, tradition is that the distance is inconsistent
with the statement that the sanctuary was zz Hebron. And if we
suppose the ancient Hebron to have been at ev-Rame in the vicinity
of the Haram, this conflicts with the tradition as to the cave of
σου els τὸν aléva,—approved by Ball.—18. x22 ἦν (1418. 18})] see on
12°, (ἃ τὴν δρῦν τὴν Μαμβρήν. SZ also reads the sing., which may be
right, though 18* cannot be cited in support of it. In J, Mamre is said
to be zz Hebron, in P (where the tree is never mentioned) it is a
name of Hebron, and in 14174 it becomes the name of an Amorite
chief, the owner of the trees. So S$ here, as shown by the addition of
L5ako}.
* The only point on which it is impossible to follow We. is his
assumption that Hebron is the fixed residence of Abram in ad/ strata
of J, and that the notion of his migratory life arose from the amalgama-
tion of E (which puts Beersheba in the place of Hebron) with J. There
was probably a whole cycle of Yahwistic legends, in which he is
represented as living in the Negeb (see already on 12°), So far as
mere literary criticism goes, there is no reason why the addition should
not be prior to RJE,
XIII. 18—XIV. 255
Machpelah, which has as good claims to be considered authentic.
The present ‘Oak of Abraham,’ about 2 m. NW, is as old as the
16th cent. See Robinson, BR, i. 216; Buhl, GP, 160, 162; Baedeker,
Pal. and Syr.* 138, 142; Dri. DB, iii. 224 f.; v. Gall, CS¢. 52.
Cu. 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 (112. Abram,
with a handful of slaves, pursues the victorious allies to
Dan, routs them in a night attack, and rescues the captives,
including Lot (!*1*). 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
(8°); and by the king of Sodom, whose offer of the spoil
Abram rejects with proud and almost disdainful magnanimity
(27. 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 con-
ception; 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
256 ABRAM’S VICTORY
impression that Abram forfeits the character of ‘Muslim and
prophet’ (We.) even when he assumes the réle 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 P (way, 11" 13. 16-21; m3 qx: 14; wns [= ‘person’], 3)
or E (px, 7-33; sya, 4), contains several expressions which are either
unique or rare (see the footnotes): 7°33, 15 (da. dey.) ; pra, 4; wvden, 15
73D, Irby Gy, 18-20. 22 5 tan, 20; a9, 4.*(4) The numerous antiquarian glosses
and archaic names, suggesting the use of an ancient document, have no
parallel except in Dt. 210-1% 20-23 29. 11. 180, 14... and even these are not quite
of the same character. (c) The anmnalistic 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 Gen. 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 J or E,t or (2) have passed through their hands.{ In neither
form can the theory be made at all plausible. The treatment of docu-
mentary material supposed by (1) is unexampled in Gen. ; and those who
suggest it have to produce some sufficient reason why a narrative of
(say) E required to be so heavily glossed. As for (2), we have, to be
sure, no experience of how E or J 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 objec-
tions to P’s authorship are equally strong, the style and subject being
alike foreign to the well-marked character of the Priestly narration.
Ch. xiv. is therefore an isolated boulder in the stratification of the
Pent., a fact which certainly invites examination of its origin, but is
not in itself an evidence of high antiquity.
1-4. The revolt of the five kings.—1z. The four names
I. (D2) (τ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ ; PD zn zllo tempore, reading all the names in
the nom. (ἃ has the first in gen. and the rest nom. ; (τὰ further inserts
* The singularity of the passage appears to be reflected even in the
translation of @, which has some unusual renderings: ἵππος for wi,
11. 16. 21 (nowhere else in OT); φάραγξ for ppy, 3 (not again in Pent. : twice
in Jos. and 4 t. in Book of Isa.) ; περάτης (ἅπαξ dey.) for 2y, ,—though
this might be explained by the unexpected occurrence of the gentilic in
this connexion (Aq. srepairns).
+ So Di. Kittel (GH, i. 124, 158 ff.), and (with reserve) Ho., all of
whom think of E as the most likely source.
+ So Wi. GJ, ii. 26-48, who holds that the original was a cuneiform
document of legendary and mythical character, which was worked over
first by E and then by J (see below, p. 272).
XIV. 1, 2 257
(see below) do double duty,—as gen. after 2.3 and as
subj. to Ὁ %’Y—a faulty syntax which a good writer would
have avoided (v.z.). The suggestion that the first two names
are gen. and the last two subj.,* has the advantage of
putting Kédorla‘omer, the head of the expedition (*°% 17),
in the place of honour; but it is without warrant in the Heb.
text; and besides, by excluding the first two kings from
participation in the campaign (against °* 1"), it necessitates
a series of changes too radical to be safely undertaken.—
2. The group of five cities (Pentapolzs, Wis. 10°) is thought
to be the result of an amalgamation of originally independent
traditions.
In ch. 19, only Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned as destroyed
(19% 38 [1830]; so 13, Is. 1%, Jer. 231} etc.) and Zoar (19'") as spared.
\ Admah and Zeboim are named alone in Hos. 118, in a manner hardly\\. e240
ἫΝ \consistent with the idea that they were involved in the same catastrophe Jie ~aom
as S. and G. The only passages besides this where the four are 3"
associated are το and Dt. 29”, although ‘neighbour cities’ of 5. and
G. are referred to in Jer. 49!8 50%, Ezk. 164%. If, as seems probable,
there were two distinct legends, we cannot assume that in the original
tradition Admah and Zeboim were connected with the Dead Sea (see
Che. EB, 66f.).—The old name of Zoar, ybz (Destruction ?), appears
nowhere else.
The four names in v.! are undoubtedly historical, although the monu-
mental evidence is less conclusive than is often represented. (1) 5708
( Αμαρφαλ) is thought to be a faulty transcription of Hammurabi
(Ammural[p]i), the name of the 6th king of the first Bab. dynasty,
who put an end to the Elamite domination and united the whole country
under his own sway (c. 2100 B.c.).+ The final 5 presents a difficulty |
which has never been satisfactorily explained ; but the equivalence is
καί between the second and third. The reading of the Sixtine ed.
(first ¢wo names in gen. coupled by καί), which is appealed to in support
of Wi.’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.” t—2. yba] Gr Βαλλα, etc. — aw] Gr Levvaap. —rzNrv] Gr Συμοβορ,
πῦρ
Συμορ, sx ἼΣΝΟΦ (‘name has perished’), 3 εαἤλο 9.-- ἢ] the first
of the 11 instances of this Xeth7b in Pent. (see on 2”).
* Wi. ΟἿ, ii. 27, 30; Peiser, MVAG, 1897, 308 ff. ; approved by Gu.
+ See Introd. pp. xivf.
+ Private communication from Mr. M‘Lean.
17
258 ABRAM’S VICTORY
widely recognised by Assyriologists.* It is, however, questioned by
Jen.t, absolutely rejected by Bezold,t and pronounced ‘ problematical’
by Mey. GA?, τ. ii. 551.—(On “μιν, see ro!°.) Ww (cf. Dn. 24, Jth.
1°), it seems, is now satisfactorily identified with Z7i-agu, the Sumerian
equivalent of Arad-Sin, a king of Larsa, who was succeeded by his
more famous brother, Rim-Sin, the ruler who was conquered by
Hammurabi in the 31st year of the latter's reign (14. 73, τό, 19). The
two brothers, sons of the Elamite Kudurmabug, were first distinguished
by Thureau-Dangin in 1907 (Sumer. und Akkad. Kénigsinschr. 210f. ;
cf. King, Chronicles concerning early Bab. Kings, vol. i. 68°; Mey. GA?,
I. ii, p. 550f.). Formerly the two names and persons were confused ;
and Schrader’s attempt to identify Rim-Sin with Arioch,§ though
accepted by many, was reasonably contested by the more cautious
Assyriologists, e.g. Jen. (ZDMG, 1896, 247 ff.), Bezold (of. cit. 27, 56),
and Zimmern (KAT7*%, 367). The objections do not hold against the
equation Avioch = Eriagu=Arad-Sin, provided Arad-Sin be kept distinct
from Rim-Sin. The discovery by Pinches|| 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 cent. B.c.); the identity of the names with Eri-Aku is called in
question by King; Ἵ 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 Hammurabi. 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 v. are supposed to occur.—4(3)) 7282773 (Χοδολλογομορ)ὴ unquestion-
ably stands for Awdur-lagamar, a genuine Elamite proper name, con-
taining the name of a known Elamite divinity Lagamar (ΚΑ 75, 485),
preceded by a word which appears as a component of theophorous
Elamite names (Audur-mabug, Kudur-Nanhundi, 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-ub-ga-mar) in a letter of Hammurabi to Sinid-
innam, king of Larsa, has been disposed of by the brilliant refutation
of King (of. cit, xxv-xxxix. Cf. also Del. BA, iv. 90). There remains
the prior discovery of the Pinches fragments, on which there is men-
tioned thrice a king of Elam whose name, it was thought, might be
read Kudur-lah-mal or Kudur-lah-gu-mal,** The first element (Kudur)
* See Schr. SBBA, 1887, xxxi. 600 ff. + ZDMG, 1896, 252.
+ Die bab.-ass. Keilinschriften, etc., 1904, pp. 26, 54.
§ SBBA, 1894, xv. 279 ff.
|| See his OT in the light, etc., 223 ff.; cf. Homm. AAT, 181 ff. ;
and Sayce’s amended trans. in PSBA, 1906, 193 ff., 241 ff.; 1907, 7 ff.
4“ Letters and Inscrs. of Hammuradt, i. p. liii. Jen., Peiser, and
Bezold also pronounce against the identification.
** This reading is questioned by King; see liv—lvi, or the extract in
Dri. Gen., Addenda on p. 157”. Sayce now (7.6. p. 194 ff.) proposes to
XIV. 1, 2 259
is no doubt right, but the second is very widely questioned by Assyri-
ologists.* There is, moreover, nothing to show that the king in
question, whatever his name, belonged to the age of HYammurabi.f
Oorve (GEL Θαργαλ, S Δ) was identified by Pinches with a
“ Tu-ud-ful-a, son of Gaz... .," who is named once on the tablets
already spoken of (see Schr. SBBA, 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 Tudfula was a king, or that he was contemporary with
Hammurabi and Rim-Sin (King, of. czt.).—o"3 can hardly be the usual
word for ‘nations’ (GPT), either as an indefinite expression (Tu.) or
as a ‘‘verschimtes ef cetera’”’ (Ho.). We seem to require a proper
00.5 7
name (% has bag: and many accept the suggestion of Rawlinson,
that Guti (a people N of the Upper Zab) should be read. Peiser (309)
thinks that 0.3 77> is an attempt to render the common Babylonian title
sar kissati.
The royal names in v.? are of a different character from those of v.’.
Several circumstances suggest that they are fictitious. Jewish exegesis
gives a sinister interpretation to all four (CJ, Ber. R. ὃ 42, Ra.); and
even modern scholars like Tu. and N6. recognise in the first two a play
on the words y1 (evil) and νυ (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 ἡ On the other side,
it may be urged (a) that the textual tradition is too uncertain to justify
any conclusions based on the Heb. (see the footnote); (4) the nameless-
ness of the fifth king shows that the writer must have had traditional
authority for the other four; and (c) Sanzbw occurs as the name of an
Ammonite king in an inscr. of Tiglath-pileser Iv. (Del. Par. 294, KZB,
ii. 21). These considerations do not remove the impression of artifici-
ality which the list produces. Since the names are not repeated in v.*,
it is quite possible they are late insertions in the text, and, of course (on
that view), unhistorical.—yba is elsewhere a royal name (36%).
read Kudur-lakhkha-mal; but the reading appears to be purely con-
jectural; and, unless it should be corroborated, nothing can be built
upon it.
* e.g. by King, Zimmern (KAT*, 4861), Peiser (who reads it Kudur-
tur-bit, l.c. 310), Jen., Bezold, al.
+ 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 Rim-Sin) in the
time of Hammurabi ; but in our ignorance of the situation that difficulty
must not be pressed. It has, however, induced Langdon (Dri., Gen’,
Add. 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.
“ioe
ee
260 ABRAM’S VICTORY
3. all these| not the kings from the East (Di. Dri.), but
(see v.*) 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 v. 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 pre-
mature mention of the preparations for battle in v.§.—zhe
Vale of Siddim| The name is peculiar to this narrative, and
its meaning is unknown (v.z.). ‘1. writer manifestly shares
the belief (131°) that what is now the Dead Sea was once
dry land (see p. 273 f. below).—Zhe Sea of Salt] one of the
OT names for the Dead Sea (Nu. 34°, Dt. 31, 705. 35 τοῦ
etc.): see PEHFS, 1904, 64. Wi.’s attempt to identify it
with Lake Huleh is something of a tour de force (GJ, ii. 56;
cf. 108 f.).—4. they rebelled] by refusal of tribute (2 Ki. 187
24!:*9 etc.). An Elamite dominion over Palestine in the
earlier part of Hammurabi’s reign is perfectly credible in
the light of the monumental evidence (p. 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 influ-
ences than authentic historical information.
5-7. The preliminary campaign.—One of the sur-
3. τῦν an] apparently a pregnant constr. (G-K. § 119 ee)=‘came
as confederates to’; but this is rather harsh. x after 73n naturally
refers to that to which one is joined (Ex. 26°; of a person, Sir. 12"):
that being impossible here, 12" must be understood absolutely as Ju.
201} (v. Moore or Bu. ad Joc.) and the 5x may have some vague local
reference: ‘all these had formed a confederacy at (?) the V. of S.’—
ow poy] dk τὴν φάραγγα τὴν ἁλυκήν, apparently a conjecture from the
context, Ἢ vallem silvestrem. T° has spn (from πη), 7] won;
S “ν. of the Sodomites’: on the renderings of Aq. and Θ. see Field’s
Note, p. 3of. It is evident the Vns. did not understand the word.
Néldeke (Unters. 160%), Renan (Hist. i. 116), We. (Gesch.® 105), Je.
(ATLO*, 351), al. think the true form is ow: ‘valley of demons.’—4.
wou] Acc. of time (G—K. § 118 2); but 22 w5w2 is better.—779] rare in
Hex. (Nu 14°, Jos. 2216- 18.19.29 [Ρ]); and mostly late.—5. o'xeyny] The
art. should be supplied, with ax. (ἃ τοὺς γίγαντας ; so ST°.—p moayy3]
XIV. 3-7 261
prising 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 south-
wards on the E of the Jordan; but then, instead of attack-
ing the Pentapolis, they pass it on their right, proceeding
southward to the head of the Gulf of Akaba. Then they
turn NW to Kadesh, thence NE tothe 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 expe-
dition was to secure conrmand of the caravan routes in W Arabia,
especially that leading through the Arabah from Syria to the Red Sea
(see Tu. 257ff.). lt 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 Heb. 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 E of the Jordan and the land of Edom (4 17, 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 Néldeke, 163 f.)
The general course of the campaign can be traced with sufficient
The reading of the Sixtine and Aldine edd. of G&, ᾿Ασταρωθ καὶ
Καρναιν, which even Di. 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 ed. It is doubtless a conflation of Καρναιν
and the και Naw (? Καιναιν) of Gl. (Nestle, ZDPV, xv. 256; cf. Moore,
JBL, xvi. 155 f.).—o119) Gk ἔθνη loxvpd=orny: so STU. Σ, has Ζοιζομ-
μειν Ξε Ὁ 15]. ---ὉΠ|3] GPS read 073 (ἅμα αὐτοῖς, etc.). Some MSS of ax
have oni, which Jerome expressly says is the real reading of the Heb.
text.—6. 07773) «GSP πὰ. Duplication of 1 is rare and doubtful
(Ps. 30°, Jer. 17%) in sing. of this word, but common in const. pl. Buhl
strikes out 1yy as an explanatory gloss, retaining oy72.—;1NB bx] G&S
render ‘terebinth of Paran,’ and so virtually DO, which have ‘plain’
(see on 12°). If the ordinary theory, as given above, be correct, ΟΝ
is used collectively in the sense of ‘great tree’ (here ‘palms’).—7. For
τ, ST (also Saadya) have 091, apparently identifying it with Petra:
see Tuch’s Note, p. 271 f.—m¥v] GS "y, ‘princes.’
262 ABRAM’S VICTORY
certainty from the geographical names of *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.—
op niinvy (‘ Astarte of the two horns’: * Eus. Prep. Ev. i. 10; or ‘A. of
the two-peaked mountain’ +) occurs as a compound name only here. A
city ‘As¢aréth in Bashan, the capital of Og’s kingdom, is mentioned in
Dt. 14, Jos. 9! 124 13)" “1, 1 Ch. 6°° [=m Avy3, Jos. 2157]. Karnaim is named
(according to a probable emendation) in Am. 61%, and in 1 Mac. 57% 43%,
2 Mac. 12%. It is uncertain whether these are two names for one
place, or two adjacent places of which one was named after the other
(‘Astaréth of [z.e. near] Karnaim); and the confusing statements of
the OS (845% 86%? 108!7 209% 268%) throw little light on the question.
The various sites that have been suggested—Sheikh Sa'd, Tell’ AStarah,
Tell el- AS‘ari, and El-Muzérib—lie near the great road from Damascus
to Mecca, about 20 m. E of the Lake of Tiberias (see Buhl, GAP, 248 ff.;
Dri. DB, i. 166f.; GASm. in ZB, 335f.). Wetzstein’s identification
with Bozrah (regarded as a corruption of Bostra, and this of aqnwvya,
Jos. 21°”), the capital of the Hauran, has been shown by N6. (ZDMG,
xxix. 4311) to be philologically untenable.—Of a place o7 nothing is
known. It is a natural conjecture (Tu. al.) that it is the archaic name
of Rabbath, the capital of “Ammon; and Sayce (HCW, 160f.) thinks
it must be explained as a retranscription from a cuneiform source
of the word }\ny. On the text v.z.—on7p mY is doubtless the
Moabite or Reubenite city /1p, mentioned in Jer. 48%, Ezk. 25°, Nu.
3257, Jos. 13 (OS, Καριαθαειμ, Kapiada), the modern Kuratyat, E
of the Dead Sea, a little S of the Wadi Zerka Main. my (only
04 0
here and v.!") is supposed to mean ‘plain’ (Syr. Ἶ2α 9); but that
is somewhat problematical.—On the phrase 1yy 0777, see the foot-
note. While vyw alone may include the plateau to the W of the
Arabah, the commoner yy 19 appears to be restricted to the
mountainous region E of that gorge, now called es-Sera' (see Buhl,
Gesch. d. Edomiter, 28 ff.).—j1NB Sx (v.z.) is usually identified with nbyx
(Dt. 28, 2 Ki. 14? 16°) or mx (1 Ki. οἵδ, 2 Ki. 16°), at the head of the E 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 esp. Tu. 264f.). The
grounds of the identification seem slender ; and the evidence does not
carry us further than Tu.’s earlier view (251), that some oasis in the N
of the desert is meant (see Che. 4B, 3584). The ‘ wilderness’ is the
often mentioned ‘ Wilderness of Paran’ (217!, Nu. 10! etc.), 2.6. the
desolate plateau of e¢-77h, stretching from the Arabah to the isthmus
of Suez. There is obviously nothing in that definition to support the
theory that ’£/-Péran is the original name of the later Zlath.—wp (16
20! etc.), or y373 “Ρ (Nu. 344, Dt. 12% 214, The controversy as to the
* See Miiller, AZ, 313; Macalister, PEFS, 1904, 15.
+ Moore, 782, xvi. 156 f.
1 Trumbull places it at the oasis of Kala‘at Nahi, in the middle of
et-Tth, on the Hagg route halfway between ‘Akaba and Suez (Aadesh-
Barnea, p. 37).
XIV. 5-7 263
situation of this important place has been practically settled since the
appearance of Trumbull’s Kadesh-Barnea in 1884 (see Guthe, ZDPY, viii.
183 ff.). It is the spring now known as ‘Ain Kadis, at the head of the
Wadi of the same name, ‘‘northward of the desert proper,” and about
50 m. S of Beersheba (see the description by Trumbull, of. cit.
272-275). The distance in a straight line from Elath would be about
80 m., with a difficult ascent of 1500 ft. The alternative name ppyn py
(‘Well of Judgement’) is found only here. Since #37 means ‘holy’ and
wey ‘judicial decision,’ it is a plausible conjecture of Rob. Sm. that the
name refers to an ordeal involving the use of ‘holy water’ (Nu. 517) from
the sacred well (1.52, 181). The sanctuary at Kadesh seems to have
occupied a prominent place in the earliest Exodus tradition (We.
Proil.® 341 ff.) ; but there is no reason why the institution just alluded
to should not be of much greater antiquity than the Mosaic age. —>n jin
is, according to 2 Ch. 20%, ‘En-gédi (‘Ain Gidi), about the middle of
the W 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, BR, 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 m. WSW of the S end of the Dead Sea. The
identification, however, requires three steps, all of which involve
uncertainties : (1) that Ἴδῃ ‘n = the Ἴδῃ of Ezk. 4715 48"; (2) that this is
the Zhamara of OS (85°, 210%), the Θαμαρω of Ptol. xvi. 8; and (3) that
the ruins of this are found at Kurnub. Cf. ZB, 4890; Buhl, GP, 184.
The six peoples named in vv.>? are the primitive races which,
according to Heb. tradition, formerly occupied the regions traversed
by Chedorlaomer. (1) The o'x29 are spoken of as a giant race dwelling
partly on the W (15”, Jos. 175, 2 Sa. 2116, Is. 175), partly on the E,
of the Jordan, especially in Bashan, where Og reigned as the last of
the Rephaim (Dt. 3", Jos. 12‘ etc.).—(z) The 01, only mentioned here,
are probably the same as the Zamzummim of Dt. 2”, the aborigines of
the Ammonite country. The equivalence of the two forms is considered
by Sayce (ZA, iv. 393) and others to be explicable only by the Baby-
lonian confusion of m and w, and thus a proof that the narrative came
ultimately from a cuneiform source.—(3) O° x7] a kind of Rephaim,
aborigines of Moab (Dt. 2™),—(4) ha] the race extirpated by the
Edomites (36%, Dt. 215-33. The name has usually been understood to
mean ‘troglodytes’ (see Dri. Deut. 38); but this is questioncd by Jen.
(ZA, x. 332f., 346 f.)and Homm. (44 7, 2643), who identify the word with
Haru, the Eg. name for SW Palestine.*—(5) ‘popy7] the Amalekite
territory (7]), was in the Negeb, extending towards Egypt (Nu. 13”
148-4, + Sa. 278). In ancient tradition, Amalek was ‘the firstling of
peoples’ (Nu. 24”), although, according to Gn. 36! its ancestor was
a grandson of Esau.—(6) 283] see on 10; and cf. Dt. 144, Ju. 196,—
* Cf. Miiller, AZ, 136f., 148 ff.
264 ABRAMS VICTORY
While there can be no question of the absolute historicity of the last
three names, the first three undoubtedly provoke speculation. Rephaim
is the name for shades or ghosts ; ’Emim probably means ‘ terridle ones’ ;
and Zamzummim (if this be the same word as Zfizim), ‘murmurers.’
Schwally (Leben nach d. Tode, 64f., and more fully ZA TW, 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 Rob. Sm. in Dri. Dezt. 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 Gn. 14 the evidence is not more decisive.
8-12. The final battle, and capture of Lot.—g9.
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.
—I0. The vale of Siddim was at that time wells upon wells of
bitumen| The notice is a proof of intelligent popular reason-
ing rather than of authentic information regarding actual
facts. The Dead Sea was noted in antiquity for the pro-
duction of bitumen, masses of which were found floating on
the surface (Strabo, xvi. ii. 42; Diod. 11. 48, xix. 98;
Pliny, vii. 65), as, indeed, they still are after earthquakes,
but ‘‘only in the southern part of the sea” (Robinson,
BR, i. 518, 11. 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
swar) 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.—II, 12. Sodom
and Gomorrah are sacked, and Lot is taken captive. The
TO. ΓΝΞ nha] On the nominal appos. and duplication, see Dav. ὃ 29,
R. 8; G-K. 8 123 e(cf. 8130 6). (ἅτ has the word but once.—7}6y)] better
as αὐ 'y 59). 797] On the peculiar - see G-K. 88 27¢, 907.—1II.
820] (ἃ ἵππον (2.6. 237); the confusion appears in 16: *1, but nowhere else
in OT.—12. 07328 ‘nx7]32] G inserts the words immediately after »i>,—an
indication that they have been introduced from the margin. It is to be
XIV. 8-13 265
account leaves much to be supplied by the imagination.
The repetition of 39?" and 927) in two consecutive sentences
is a mark of inferior style; but the phrase D038 ‘N/a, which
anticipates the introduction of Abram in v.!, is probably a
gloss (v.z.).
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 m. 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 ecessarily an anachronism, if
we accept the view that the Habiri of the Tel Amarna period
were the nomadic ancestors of the Israelites (see on 107);
though it is difficult to believe that there were Habiri in
Palestine more than 600 years earlier, in the time of Ham-
murabi (against Sellin, VAZ, xvi. 936; cf. Paton, Syria and
Pal. 39ff.). 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.—Mam~re’ the
Amorite| see on 1318. In J (whose phraseology is here
followed) 81!) is the name of the sacred tree or grove; in
P it is a synonym of Hebron; here it is the personal name
of the owner of the grove. In like manner ’£%kd/ is a
personal name derived from the valley of Eshcol (‘ grape-
cluster,’ Nu. 1376); and “Azér may have a similar origin.
The first two, at all events, are ‘‘ heroes eponymi of the most
unequivocal character” (N6. Unters. 166),—a misconcep-
tion of which no contemporary would have been capable. *—
noted also that Lot is elsewhere called simply the ‘ brother’ of Abram
(74 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. Ὁ75Π] Ezk. 247° 337 (cf. wang, 2 Sa. 1513). For the idiom, see
G-K. § 126 7.—"297] Gi τῷ περάτῃ (only here), Aq. τῷ περαΐτῃ.----Ὁ}}] an
* Di.’s remark (p. 235), that ‘fit makes no difference whether Mamre
or the (lord) of Mamre helped Abram,” is hard to understand. If
266 ABRAMS VICTORY
the confederates of Abram (@& συνωμόται)] The expression syn
12 does not recur; cf. nya ya, Neh. 618. Kraetzschmar’s
view (Bundesvorstg. 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 v.24,—another example of the writer’s laxity in narration.
—I4. As soon as Abram learns the fate of his brother (1.6.
‘relative ’), he called up his trained men (?: on PV) and YIN,
v.t.) and gave chase.—three hundred and eighteen| The num-
ber 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
aide (152) (Ber. R. § 43: see Nestle, EZ, xvii. 44f. [cf.
139f.]). A modern Gematria finds in it the number of the
days of the moon’s visibility during the lunar year (Wi. GJ,
li. 27).—to Dan] Now Tell el-Kadi, at the foot of Hermon.
ony, Ur Αὐναν.---14. py] Lit. ‘emptied out,’ used of the unsheathing
of a sword (Ex. 15°, Lv. 26°, Ezk. 52: 13 etc.), but never with pers. obj. as
here. Tu. cites the Ar. garrada, which neans both ‘unsheath a sword’
and ‘detach a company from an army’ (see Lane); but this is no real
analogy. ss has py1=‘scrutinize’(Aram.). (ζ ἠρίθμησεν (so Ἔ) and {9
ru (fequip’: so $ and @)) settle nothing, as they may be conjectural. _
Wi. (AOF, i. 102”) derives from Ass. diku=‘call up troops’; so Sellin,
937. Ball changes to 7p£.—1p'1n] da. λεγ., Cr τοὺς ἰδίους, Ἔ expeditos,
ST€° *‘ young men.’ The ,/ Π suggests the meaning ‘initiated’ (see
on 417, hence ‘trained,’ ‘experienced,’ etc. Sellin (937) compares
the word Zanakuka=‘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 p. 116), it may have nothing to do with war, but denote
simply those belonging to the household, the precise equivalent of
mz >. The latter phrase is found only in P (1712: 227, Ly, 221)
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 after-
wards 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 aman. And does any one suppose that J would have re-
corded Abram’s settlement at Hebron in the terms of 13}, 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 ch. 14.
XIV. 14-18 267
This name originated in the period of the Judges (Jos. τοῦ,
Ju. 1839); 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 | 1.6. (as usually under-
stood) into three bands,—the favourite tactical manoeuvre
in Hebrew warfare (Ju. 7%, 1 Sa. 1114 13", Jb. 17, 1 Mac.
588); but see the footnote.—smote them, and pursued them as
far as Hobah| Hobah (cf. Jth. 15°) has been identified by
Wetzstein with Hoda, c. 20 hours’ journey N of Damascus.
Sellin (934) takes it to be the Udz of the TA Tablets, the
district in which Damascus was situated (1718, 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.
17, 18-20. Abram and Melkizedek.—‘“‘ The scene be-
tween Abram and Melkizedek is not without poetic charm:
the two ideals (Gvdsse) 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” (Gu. 253).
17. The scene of the meeting is 7% Pd¥, interpreted as the
king’s vale. A place of this name is mentioned in 2 Sa. 1818
as the site of Absalom’s pillar, which, according to Josephus
(Ant. vii. 243), was two stadia from Jerusalem. The situa-
tion harmonises with the common view that Salem is
Jerusalem (see below); and other information does not
exist.—18, Melkigedek, king of Salem, etc.| The primitive
and Jer. 2.—r5. pon] (cf. 1 Ki. 162). The sense given above is not
altogether natural. Ballemends p37n. Wi. (ΟΖ, ii. 275) suggests a pre-
carious Ass. etymology, pointing as Piel, and rendering ‘and he fell
upon them by night’: so Sellin.—sxbyp] Lit. ‘on the left.’ The sense
Baorth iS rare: Jos. το (P), Ezk. 16%, Jb. 23°.
17. mY (without art.) must apparently be a different word from
that in v.°. Hommel and Wi. emend “WZ (Sarré, the Ass. word for
‘king ’).—18. piy725p] usually explained as ‘King of Righteousness ’
(Heb. 7”), with 2 as old gen. ending retained by the annexion; but
more probably=‘My king is Zidk,’ Zidk being the name of a S
268 ABRAMS VICTORY
combination of the kingly and priestly offices has been
abundantly illustrated by Frazer from many quarters.*
The existence of such priest-kings in Canaan in very early
times is perfectly credible, though not historically attested
(comp. the pazesis of Babylonia). Sa/ém is usually under-
stood to be an archaic name for Jerusalem (Jos. Am/. 1. 180;
4, Jer. [Qu.], 1ΕΖ. al.), as in Ps. 76%, the only other place
where it occurs. The chief argument in favour of this view
is the typical significance attached to Melkizedek in
Ps. 110‘, which is hardly intelligible except on the supposi-
tion that he was in a sense the ideal ancestor of the dynasty
or hierarchy of Jerusalem.
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 (Ju. 19, 1 Ch. 114); but the shortened
form Salem is as yet unattested. It has been suggested that the cunei-
form urwu 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 R. m. from Scythopolis (where, according
to Je. [Zp. ad Evagr.], the ruins of Melkizedek’s palace were to be
seen)—have no claim to acceptance.
On the name iby aN (God Most High), see below, p. 270f.
—bread and wine| comp. ‘food and drink’ (akal? Skari)
provided for an army, etc., in the TA Tablets: A/B, 50%
20716 2091! 24216 (Sellin, 938).—19, 20. The blessing of
Arabian and Phoenician deity (Baudissin, Stud. i. 15; Baethgen,
Beitr. 128). That Zedek was an ancient name for Jerusalem (see
Is. 171-°6, Jer. 31° 50’, Ps. 1181) there is no reason to believe.—1g. 73)
has two senses in the OT (if, indeed, there be not two distinct roots:
see G-B." s.v.): (a) ‘create’ or ‘produce’ (Ps. 139%, Pr. 872, Dt. 328
[ῷ Gn. 417); (ὁ) ‘purchase’ or ‘acquire by purchase’ (frequent). The
idea of bare possession apart from purchase is hardly represented
(Ὁ Is. 1°); 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 4!.—20. After 733, Gl ins.
* 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” (p. 31).
XIV. 18, 20 269
Melkizedek 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 inter-
pretation of concrete experiences which is the note of the
antique blessing and curse (cf. 3'4# 411. of. 2 ΣῈ. sot.) __
Creator of heaven and earth] so &}). There is no reason
to tone down the idea to that of mere fossession ({°, al.) ;
v. infra.—By payment of the tithe, Abram acknowledges
the legitimacy of Melkizedek’s priesthood (Heb. 7‘), 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 γε. xiii.
25-27: comp. Gn. 28%).
The excision of the Melkizedek episode (see Wi. GJ, ii. 29), which
seems to break the connexion of ν." with v.!’, 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 (v.**) is unintellig-
ible apart from δ, 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 (Melkizedek) and the secular
(king of Sodom) authority.—Hommel’s ingenious and confident solution
(AAT, 158 ff.), which gets rid of the king of Sodom altogether and
resolves !7-*4 wholly into an interview between Abram and Melkizedek,
is an extremely arbitrary piece of criticism. Sellin’s view (p. 939 f.),
that νν. 15.329 are original and 17 ?!-*4 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 Melkizedek has given rise
to a great deal of speculation both in ancient and modern times. The
Jewish idea that he was the patriarch Shem (@, Talm. 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 Heb. 71%, exercised a certain influence on Christian
theology (see Jerome, Zp. ad Evagrium; cf. 78, viii. 450). From a
critical point of view the question of interest is whether M. belongs
to the sphere of ancient tradition or is a fictitious personage, created
to represent the claims of the post-Exilic priesthood in Jerusalem
(Well. Comp.” 312). In opposition to the latter view, Gu. rightly
points out that Judaism is not likely to have invented as the prototype
mn.—j32] only Hos. 118, Is. 64° (Gr, etc.), Pr. 4%. The etymology is
uncertain, but the view that it is a denom. fr. 121, ‘shield’ (,/ }13, ΒΒ)
is hardly correct (see Barth. ZS, 4).
270 ABRAMS VICTORY
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 M. 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.*
To the writer of Ps. 110, M. was ‘‘a type, consecrated by antiquity, to
which the ideal king of Israel, ruling on the same spot, must conform”
(Dri. 167); and even if that Ps. be not pre-Exilic (as Gu. supposes),
but as late as the Maccabzan 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 Melkizedek
in a supposed parallel between the ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητος of
Heb. 7’ and a formula several times repeated in letters (Tel Amarna)
of Abdhiba of Jerusalem to Amenophis Iv.: ‘‘ Neither my father nor
my mother set me in this place; the mighty arm of the king estab-
lished me in my father’s house.” + Abdhiba might have been a
successor of Melkizedek; 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 Abdhiba a political
turn, and is made use of to express his absolute dependence on the
Egyptian king. But it must be observed that Abdhiba’s language is
perfectly intelligible in its diplomatic sense; its agreement with the
words of the NT 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 vv. in Gen.
"El ‘Elyén.—FEl, 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 "wv by (173), pbiy Sy (2133), Serer τὸς by
(33%), Sxma Sx (357), and jrdy 5x (here and Ps. 78%).+ δον (=‘ upper,’
‘highest’) is not uncommonly used of God in OT, either alone
(Nu. 24'%, Dt. 328, Ps. 18 etc.) or in combinations with m7 or ὈΠῸΝ
(Ps. 738 (?), 473 573 etc.). That it was in actual use among the
Canaanites is by no means incredible: the Phoenicians had a god
᾿Ελιοῦν καλούμενος Ὕψιστος (Eus. Prep. Ev. 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
* Gu. instances as a historical parallel the legal fiction by which
the imperial prestige of the Caesars was transferred to Charlemagne
and his successors.—Josephus had the same view when he spoke of M.
as Χαναναίων δυνάστης, and the first founder of Jerusalem (B/, vi. 438).
+Homm. AAT, 155 ff.; Sayce, Monn. 175; EHH, 28 f.; Exp.
Times, vii. 340ff., 478 ff, 565f., viii. 43f, 94 ff, 142ff. (arts. and
letters by Sayce, Driver, and Hommel).
+See Baethgen, Beztr. 291 f.—Comp., in classical religion, Zeus
Meilichios, -Xenios, Jupiter Terminus, -Latiaris, etc.
XIV. 17; 21-24 271
that the Maccabees were called ἀρχιερεῖς θεοῦ ὑψίστου (Jos. Ant. xvi.
163; Ass. Mosis, 6').* This title, the frequent recurrence of voy as a
divine name in late Pss., the name Salem in one such Ps., and Melkizedek
in (probably) another, make a group of coincidences which go to show
that the Melkizedek legend was much in vogue about the time of the |
Maccabees.
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. 7 lift up my hand] the gesture
accompanying an oath (Ex. 68, Nu. 14°, Dt. 32%, Ezk. 207%,
Dn. 127 etc.).—to Yahwe, ’El ‘Elyén| A recognition of
religious affinity with Melkizedek, as a fellow-worshipper
of the one true God. The min, however, is probably an
addition to the text, wanting in @] and §&, while » has
onbxn.—23. lest thou shouldst say, etc.| An earlier writer
(cf. 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 con-
descending allowance for the weakness of inferior natures
is mentioned to enhance the impression of Abram’s
generosity (Gu.).
The Historic Value of Ch. 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 OT criticism (Homm.
AHT, 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 archzological 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
22. *nD77] On the pf., G-K. 8 106 z.—23. On the on of negative
asseveration, ὃ 149 a, c. The second ox}, which adds force to the
negation, is not rendered by (ἃ or H.—24. 1203] lit. ‘not unto me!’
(in Hex. only 416 44 [E], Jos. 22” [late]). (1 Ὲ ST° seem to have read
p2 wba as a compound prepositional phrase (=‘ except’).
* Siegfried, ZALz., 1895, 304. On the late prevalence of the title, see
also DB, iii. 450, ZB, i. 70 (in and near Byblus), and Schiirer, SBBA,
1897, p. 200 ff.
272 HISTORICITY OF
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 v.44). The presence of archzological
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.*—(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 considera-
tion most relied upon by apologetic writers is the proof obtained from
Assyriology that the names in ν. are historical. The evidence on this
question has been given on p. 257 ff., and need not be here recapitulated.
* It is to be observed that in no single case is the correctness of the
gloss attested by independent evidence (see νν." 5: 67817), Those who
maintain the existence of a cuneiform original have still to reckon with
the theory of Wi., 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 GJ, ii, 28ff. The question cannot be
further discussed here.
CH. XIV 273
We have seen that every one of the identifications is disputed by
more than one competent Assyriologist (see, further, Mey. 6.45, I. ii.
p. 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 confirma-
tion as assured. Atthe 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 informa-
tion 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 v.) being thus admitted, we have to
inquire how far this enters into the substance of the narrative.
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 Néldeke in 1869 (Untersuchungen, 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 p. 261). (6) It is
difficult to resist the impression that some of the personal names—
especially Béra’ and Birsha' (see on v.*), and Mamre and Eshcol (v."*)
—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 p. 267). (d) It
appears to be assumed in v.* that the Dead Sea was formed subsequently
to the events narrated. This idea seems to have been traditional in
Israel (cf. 131), 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’
18
274 HISTORICITY OF
(S of el-Lisain), which by a partial subsidence of the ground might have
been formed within historic times.* 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.—(z) 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 Ὁ
critics is that it belongs to the later Judaism, and has its affinities ‘‘ with
P and the midrashic elements in Chronicles rather than with the older
Israelite historians’’ (Moore, £8, 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 consolida-
tion 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 Jack 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”’ (Gu. 255).
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
* Cf. Dri.’s elaborate Note, p. 168 ff. ; also Robinson, BR, ii. 187 f. ;
Gautier, EB, 1043f., 1046; Hull, DB, i. 576°.
ὲ
CH. XIV 275
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.* 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 (NZ, 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 vv." (py, Ἴ5π,
pon) 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 docu-
ment 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.
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 v.! are supposed to have been discovered is as
late as the 4th or 3rd cent. 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 Gn. 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-Fxilic 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 v.! 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 Melkizedek, the importance, the revolt,
and even the existence, of the Cities of the Avkidr, 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 archzology and literary criticism in this matter. They deal
* P. 256 above,
276 THE COVENANT WITH ABRAM (JE)
with quite distinct aspects of the problem; and the fallacy lies in treat-
ing the chapter as a homogeneous and indivisible unity: it is like dis-
cussing 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 archzeologist 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. N6., who has stated the case
against the authenticity of the chapter as strongly as any man, ex-
pressly 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 (of. czt. 159 f.).* 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 hefore they took rank as
actual discoveries.
Cu. XV.—God’s Covenant with Abram (JE).
In a prolonged interview with Yahwe, Abram’s mis-
givings 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 dev7th.t Inthe present form of the chapter
there is a clear division between the promise of a son and heir
(1°) and the promise of the land (7'), the latter alone being
strictly embraced in the scope of the covenant.
Analysis.—See, besides the comm., We. Comp.” 23 f.; Bu. Urg. 4161;
Bacon, Hebraica, vii. 75 ff. ; Kraetzschmar, of. czt. 58 ff.—The chapter
shows unmistakable signs of composition, but the analysis is beset with
peculiar, and perhaps insurmountable, difficulties. We may begin by
* The same admission was made by We. as long ago as 1889
(Comp.? 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 v.! has not been denied by any leading critic (e.g. Ew.
No. Di. We.), even before the discoveries of later years.—For an
exposure of Sayce’s extraordinary travesty of Ndldeke’s arguments,
the reader should consult Dri. Gen.’, Addenda to p. 173.
+ ‘Die Berith ist diejenige kultische Handlung, durch die in feierlicher
Weise Verpflichtungen oder Abmachungen irgend welcher Art absolut
bindend und unverbriichlich gemacht wurden” (Kraetzschmar, Bundes-
vorstellung, 40 f.).
XV. I 277
examining the solution proposed by Gu. He assigns 15 ἢ by % 8b. 4. 6, 9.
10, 12aq. Ὁ, 17. 184. ba to J; Wap: 85. [201] δ. 11. 120g. 18a. 14 (to 1Νν}}" 16 to E; and Τ- 8:
180. 14bg. 15. 1808, 19-21 to a redactor. On this analysis the J fragments
form a consecutive and nearly complete narrative, the break at ν.
being caused by R's insertion of Ὁ But (1) it is not so easy to get
rid of ™ V.8 is, and ® is not, a suitable point of contact for %; and
the omission of ™ 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 J contain no marks of the
Yahwistic style except the name 7’; they present features not else-
where observed in that document, and are coloured by ideas character-
istic of the Deuteronomicage. The following points may be here noted :
(a) the prophetic character of the divine communication to Abram ("" 3) ;
(ὁ) the address mm ‘378 (** [cf.8]); (c) the theological reflexion on the
nature of Abram’s righteousness (°: cf. Dt. 6% 241%); (4) the idea of the
Abrahamic covenant (found only in redactional expansions of JE, and
common in Dt.); to which may be added (e) the ideal boundaries of the
land and the enumeration of its inhabitants (!8°-*!), both of which are
Deuteronomistic (see on the vv. below). The ceremonial of 9" 17 is no
proof of antiquity (cf. Jer. 34!), and the symbolic representation of
Yahwe’s presence in 17 is certainly not decisive against the late author-
ship of the piece (against Gu.). It is difficult to escape the impression
that the whole of this J narrative (including 15) is the composition of an
editor who used the name 77’, but whose affinities otherwise are with
the school of Deuteronomy rather than with the early Yahwistic writers.
—tThis result, however, still leaves unsolved problems. (1) It fails to
account for the obvious doublets in 53, *> and * are generally recog-
nised as the first traces in the Hex. of the document E, and ὅ (a night
scene in contrast to 15 17) is naturally assigned to the same source. (2)
With regard to [127] 18-16 which most critics consider to be a redactional
expansion of J, I incline to the opinion of Gu., that 1}: 1%!6 form part of
the sequel to the E narrative recognised in 38:30. 5 (note “xn, ν. 18). (3)
The renewed introduction of Yahwe in v.7 forms a hiatus barely con-
sistent with unity of authorship. The difficulty would be partly met by
Bacon’s suggestion that the proper position of the J material in 18 is
intermediate between 15'8 and 164. 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 1τὸ and 7*1,—The phenomena might be most fully explained by the
assumption of an Elohistic basis, recast by a Jehovistic or Deuteronomic
editor (probably RJF), 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 (J), and a numerous
posterity (E).—1. The v. presupposes a situation of
1. πον πὶ ovat [ΠΝ] frequent in E (22! 4o! 481, Jos. 24%), but also
used by J (227 397). --- ΠῚ 8 a3 (cf. v.4)] not elsewhere in the Hex. ;
278 THE COVENANT WITH ABRAM (JE)
anxiety on the part of Abram, following on some meri-
torious 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 im-
mediately after his heroic obedience to the divine call (Gu.).
The attempts to establish a connexion with the events of
ch. 14 (Jewish Comm. and a few moderns) are far-fetched
and misleading.—the word of Yahwe came| On the formula
v.z. The conception of Abram as a prophet has no parallel
in J; and even E, though he speaks vaguely of Abram as a
81) (20’, g.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 v.°), in which case
the expression must be attributed to E. The mediate
character of revelation, as contrasted with the directness of
the older theophanies (e.g. ch. 18), is at all events character-
istic of E.—thy shield] a figure for protection commen in
later writings: Dt. 337; Ps. 3% 71 oft., Pr i2% ποὺ een
reward [will be] very great] a new sentence ((ἴ 35), not (as ἘΠ,
EV) a second predicate to '238.—2. seeing I go hence childless]
found occasionally in the older writings (1 Sa. 15, 2 Sa. 24"), but
chiefly in later prophets and superscriptions : specially common in Jer.
and Ezk.—ajn2] Only Nu. 245 16, Ezk. 13’. The word is thus not at
all characteristic of E, though the zdea of revelation through dreams
and visions (ax72, Nu. 128; 95:$n ns, Gn. 462) undoubtedly is. Consider-
ing the many traces of late editing in the chapter, it is highly
precarious to divide the phrases of v.’ between J and E.—aanq (inf.
abs.) as pred. is unusual and late (Ps. 130’, Ec. 118). 2 ΠΕῚΊΝ, ‘1 will
multiply,’ is perhaps preferable.—2. m7 571] (cf. 8) is common in the
elevated style of prophecy (esp. Ezk.), but rare in the Pss. In the
historical books it occurs only as a vocative (exc. 1 Ki. 27): Jos. 77, Ju.
6” 16%, — Dt. 3% 9%, 2 Sa. 7.5 1% 2. 2 2. 7 Ki. 853) Of these the farce
three are possibly J ; the rest are Deuteronomic. —1yx—jy)] (τ has ὁ δὲ
vids Μάσεκ τῆς οἰκογενοῦς μου, οὗτος Δαμασκὸς ᾿Ελιέζερ,---ἃ meaningless sen-
tence in the connexion, unless supplemented by κληρονομήσει με, as in some
MSS of Philo (before ofros). 85 paraphrases: |a@gnaso}) 348a\]o
EN JSS 001 wahaD 72D. prin isa dz. dey., which appears not to
have been understood by any of the Vns. (ἃ treats it as the name of
Eliezer’s mother, Aq. (ποτίξοντος) as=npvin; OPT give it the sense
XV. 2-5 279
So all Vns., taking yon in the sense of ‘die’ (Ps. 39!*:
ef. Ar. halaka), though the other sense (‘ walk’ = ‘live ’)
would be quite admissible. To die childless and leave no
name on earth (Nu. 27*) is a fate so melancholy that even
the assurance of present fellowship with God brings no hope
or joy.—2b is absolutely unintelligible (v.z.). The Vns.
agree in reading the names Zizeser and Damascus, and
also (with the partial exception of (ἴ1) in the general under-
standing 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 **.—3, In the
absence of children or near relatives, the slave, as a member
of the family, might inherit (Sta. GVZ, i. 391; Benzinger,
Arch.? 113). ΤΝΞΓΞ is a member of the household, but not
necessarily a home-born slave ("3 1, 141*).—5. The promise
of a numerous ‘ seed’ (cf. 38: 1°) is E’s parallel to the announce-
ment of the birth of a bodily heir in J (v.*).—7¢he stars] a
favourite image of the later editors and Deuteronomy (22:7
of ‘steward,’ which may be a mere conjecture like the συγγενὴς of 2.
Modern comm. generally regard the word as a modification of ἢ
(Jb. 28!8?) with the sense of ‘ possession’—j¥D7j2=‘ son of possession '
=‘ possessor’ or ‘inheritor’ (so Ges. Tu. KS. Str. al.); but this has
neither philological justification nor traditional support. A ,/ pwn (in
spite of pynp, Zeph. 2°) is extremely dubious. The last clause cannot be
rendered either ‘This is Eliezer of Damascus,’ or ‘ This is Damascus,
namely Eliezer’ (De.). 3% and @° adopt the summary expedient of
turning the subst. into an adj., and reading ‘Eliezer the Damascene’
(similarly Ὁ ‘Ep. 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 Hitz. Tu.
KS. al.) to strike out p27 [sin] as a stupid gloss on pyp. Ball’s emenda-
tion, 75x pysT]Z2 NT wz peo, ‘and he who will possess my house is a
Damascene—Eliezer,’ is plausible, but the sing. 3 with the name ofa
city is contrary to Heb. idiom. Bewer (/BZ, 1908, pt. 2, 160 ff.) has
proposed the reading—ingenious but not convincing—yy Ὁ px ‘nypa Ὁ),
2a and 85. are parallels (note the double ’x 158»), of which the former
obviously belongs to J, the latter consequently to E. Since *” is J rather
than E (cf. wv with v.4), it follows that ** > must be transposed if the
latter be E’s parallel to °°.—3. wv] in the sense of ‘be heir to’: cf. 211
(E), 2 Sa. 147, Jer. 491, Pr. 30%.—4. ayno (Ur 790 ?)] of the father, 2 Sa.
42 1611, Is. 489; of the mother, 25% (J), Is. 491, Ru. 1, Ps. 71%.—5.
asnn] in J, τοῦ 24° 39! 15. 1° 38 (Jos. 219?) ; but also Dt. 24" 25° etc.—
280 THE COVENANT WITH ABRAM (JE)
264, Ex. 3218, Dt. 11° 10% 28%).—6, counted it (his implicit
trust in the character of Yahwe) as r:ghteousness| 1 Mac. 2”.
NPI 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 We. Pss., SBOT, 174).
This remarkable anticipation of the Pauline doctrine of justification
by faith (Ro. 4% 9.323, Gal. 3°; cf. Ja. 27°) must, of course, be understood
in the light of OT conceptions. The idea of righteousness as de-
pendent on a divine judgment (vm) 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 Dt. 6% 2418, and has its nearest
analogies in Ps. 106%! 24°. 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. Gu.
(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.
7-21. The covenant.—7, 8. The promise of the Zand,
Abram’s request for a pledge (ct. v.®°), and the self-introduc-
tion of Yahwe (which would be natural only at the com-
mencement 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 vv. as an interpolation.
So Di. KS. Kraetzschmar, Gu. al. Their genuineness is maintained
by Bu. De. Bacon, Ho.; We. thinks they have been at least worked
over. The language certainly is hardly Yahwistic. The ἢν (*) is not
a sufficient ground for rejection (see Bu. 439); and although ow ἫΝ in
a J-context may be suspicious, we have no right to assume that it did
not occur in a stratum of Yahwistic tradition (see p. 239 above). But
nnwib—nnb is a decidedly Deuteronomic phrase (see OH, i. 205) : on ‘378
mm, see on v.22. 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 © to ¥ is
very abrupt. Bacon’s transposition of the two sections of J is also
unsatisfactory.
6. yoxm] (on the tense, see Dri. 7. § 133; G-K. § 1125s): GPS add
o72x. The construction with 2 is usual when the obj. of faith is God
(Ex. 1451, Nu. 14"! 20%, Dt. 1%, 2 Ki. 1714, 2 Ch. 20”; Ps. 78°) Joneses
δ only Dt. 9%, Is. 43!.—aR7y] second obj. acc. The change to “τῷ (Ps.
106°!) is unnecessary.
XV. 6-12 281
9, 10. The preparations for the covenant ceremony; on
which see below, p. 283. Although not strictly sacrificial,*
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 (Lv. 1!’).—of three years old| This
is obviously the meaning of ΠΈΣΩ here (cf. 1 Sa. 1% [GJ]:
elsewhere = ‘threefold,’ Ezk. 42°, Ec. 4%). @°, which renders
‘three’ (calves, etc.), is curiously enough the only Vn. that
misses the sense; and it is followed by Ber. R., Ra. al. On
the number /hvee in the OT, see Stade, ΖΑ͂ ΤῊ, xxvi.
124 ff. [esp. 127 f.].—1I. The descent of the unclean birds of
prey (D'Y), and Abram’s driving them away, is a sacrificial
omen of the kind familiar to antiquity.j The interpreta-
tion seems to follow in 15:16 (Di. Gu.).—12. 197A (( ἔκστασις)
is the condition most favourable for the reception of visions
(see on 2?!).—a great horror| caused by the approach of the
deity (omit 72M as a gloss). The text is mixed (see below),
and the two representations belong, the one to J, and the
otherto E (Gu.). The scene isa 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 in-
9. dna] Dt. 32"+=young of the vulture ; but here=‘young dove’;
0 Υ͂
Ar. Zauzal; Syr. ere. 1727] a technical term ; the vb. only here ;
cf. 103, Jer. 4418: 19. 3] χὰ nn (inf. abs.).—1n ina wR] cf. οὗ; G-K.
§ 1396. ---ΙἸ. 07250] GA τὰ σώματα τὰ διχοτομήματα ; a conflation of
men and an (v.!").—avin] Hiph. of 3.0.) only here in the sense of ‘scare
away’: so Aq. (ἀπεσόβησεν) SP. T° read 303), which is less expressive ;
and (ἃ oOpxX Iv: is quite inadmissible.—12. ΝῚ3"--- ny] G-K. § 1147; cf.
* Soin the covenant between ASur-nirdri and Mati’ilu (AZ7VAG, iii.
228 ff.), the victim is expressly said mo? to be a sacrifice.
+ Comp. Virg. Aen. iii. 225 ff.
282 THE COVENANT WITH ABRAM (JE)
direct and incidental. The passage may therefore be the
continuation of the E-sections of }*, on the understanding
that in E the covenant had to do with the promise of a seed,
and not with the possession of the land.—13. a@ sojourner|
(coll.): see on 12'.— zoo years| agreeing approximately
with the 430 years of Ex. 124° (P).—I5 is a parenthesis, if
not an interpolation, reassuring Abram as to his own
personal lot (see on 25°).—16. the fourth generation] e.g.
Levi, Kohath, Amram, Aaron (or Moses) (Ex. 6195). To
the reckoning of a generation as 100 years (cf. ν. 15) doubtful
classical parallels are cited by Knobel (Varro, Zing. lat. 6,
11; Ovid, 2762. xii. 188, etc.).*—the guilt of the Amorites]
(the inhabitants of Palestine) is frequently dwelt upon in
later writings (Dt. 9°, 1 Ki. 1474, Lv. 1874! etc. etc.) ; but the
parallels from JE cited by Knobel (Gn. 187° 19!f- 20") are
of quite a different character.
Vv.13-16 are obviously out of place in J, 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. Di.’s
suggestion, that they were written to supply the interpretation of the
omen of ν.}}, goes a certain distance ; but fails to explain why the inter-
pretation ever came to be omitted. Since is intimately connected
with 3-16, and at the same time has no influence on the account of J, the
natural conclusion is that both 1 and 16 are documentary, but that the
document is not J but E (so Gu.). It will be necessary, however, to
delete the phrases 573 2313 in 4 and 43'v ΠΡ ῬΞ ἼΞΙ in 15 as characteristic
of the style of P; perhaps also 73% nixd y328 in 13, The whole of 15 may
be removed with advantage to the sense.—The text of is not homo-
geneous, so that as a whole it cannot be linked either with Π or with ®™,
Nn ΠΌΤ] and 22) Ax 737) are doublets (note the repetition of by bps) ;
and the poetic 43vn (only here in Pent.) is doubtless a gloss to 7x.
The opening clause xja5 /vin 77 is presumably J (in E it is already night
in v.5). E’s partiality for the visionary mode of revelation may be
sufficient justification for assigning the 7571n to him and the 7x to J ;
but the choice is immaterial.
Jos. 2° (J).—13. on] Gr pr. καὶ κακώσουσιν αὖτ. ; and apparently read
D2 3723), avoiding the awkward interchange of subj. and obj.—16. 7
‘syan] acc. of condition, ‘as a fourth generation’ (cf. Jer. 31°); G—K.
8 118¢.
* Cf. We. Prol.® 308 (Eng. tr. p. 308), who cites these vv. as positive
proof that the generation was reckoned as 100 years (see p. 135 above),
—a view which, of course, cannot be held unless νν. 15.156 are a unity.
XV. 13-18 283
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 (cf. Ex. 3”
19° 13”! etc.). The oven is therefore not a symbol of
Gehenna reserved for the nations (Ra.).—On the appearance
of the 3A, see the descriptions and illustrations in Riehm,
HW. 178; Benzinger, Avch.? 65.— passed between these
pieces] cf. Jer. 341%" (the only other allusion).
On this rite see Kraetzschmar, of. cit. 44 ff. Although attested by
only one other OT 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.* This leaves unexplained the most characteristic feature, —
the passing between the pieces. Rob. Sm. 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” (1.55, 480 f.).
18. This ceremony constitutes a Berith, of which the one
provision is the possession of ‘the land.’ A Berith neces-
sarily 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 /and is described according to its ideal limits; it is
generally thought, however, that the closing words, along
with 121, were added by a Deuteronomic editor, and that in
the original J the promise was restricted to Canaan proper.
The op 303 (not, as elsewhere "Ὁ bn3 = Wadi el-Arish) must be the
Nile (cf. Jos. 138, 1 Ch. 13°). Onan old belief that the W. el-Arish was
anarm of the Nile, see Tuch.—‘1n $139 1939) cf. Dt. 171174, Jos. τ΄. The
boundary was never actually reached in the history of Israel (the notice
17. 7x1—'n] pf. with sense of plup. (G-K. ὃ 111g).—7»?y] only
here and Ezk. 128: 1: 15. (ἃ φλὸξ is certainly wrong (7375? od ?). wy]
GPS read the ptcp., hence Ball emends j¥y.—o™)23] the noun recurs
only Ps. 136'%; but cf. the analogous use of the vb. 1 Ki. 3% 36,
* «| | . tum illo die, Juppiter, populum Romanum sic ferito, ut ego
hunc porcum hic hodie feriam, tantoque magis ferito quanto magis potes
pollesque.” Cf. 11. iii. 298ff. Precisely the same idea is expressed
with great circumstantiality in an Assyrian covenant between ASur-
nirdri and the Syrian prince Mati'ilu: see Peiser, VAG, iii. 228 ff.
284 HAGAR’S FLIGHT (J)
in 1 Ki, 5) 4 is late and unhistorical).—19-21. Such lists of pre-Israelite
inhabitants are characteristic of Dt. and Dtnic. expansions of JE. They
usually contain 5 or 6 or at most 7 names: here there are τὸ (see Bu.
344 ff., and Dri.’s analysis, Deut. 97). The first three names appear in
none of the other lists; and the same is true of the Réphazm in 20.
The Kenites (see p. 113) and Kenizzites (3611) are tribes of the Negeb,
both partly incorporated in Judah: the Kadmonztes (only here) are
possibly identical with the 072 23 (29'), the inhabitants of the eastern
desert.—The Hivvites, who regularly appear, are supplied here by x
(after Girgashites) and (ἃ (after Canaanites).—On the HMzttites, see
p. 215; and, further, on ch. 23 below.
The idea of a covenant (or oath) of Yahwe to the patriarchs does not
appear in the literature till the time of Jer. (11°) and Deut. (451 7” 838,
2 Ki. 13% etc.): see Kraetzschmar, 61ff. Of 31 passages in JE where
Kr. finds the conception (the list might be reduced), all but three (15!8 127
24’) are assigned to the Deuteronomic (Jehovistic) redaction (see Staerk,
Studien, i. 37 ff.); and of these three 127 is a mere promise without an
oath, while in 247 the words "Ὁ yawi ws) have all the appearance of a
gloss. It is, of course, quite possible that 15!“ may be very ancient,
and have formed the nucleus of the theological development of the
covenant-idea in the age of Deut. 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 cent. (Staerk, 47).
Cu. XVI.—The Flight of Hagar and Birth of
Ishmael (J and P).
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, be-
comes 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 dis-
closure 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 (J) or 17(P). 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
XV. 19-XVI. 2 285
_ 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
ch. 16 (J) and 22°?! (E) 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 (We. Comp.* 22).—The chapter belongs to the
oldest stratum of the Abrahamic legends (1), and is plausibly assigned
by Gu. to the same source as 12!°°°, From the main narrative of J
(J*) 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 p. 324).
Analysis.—Vv.'™ * 16. 16 belong to P: note the chronological data
in * 16; the naming of the child by the father 15 (ct. 4); jy3p γῆν, 8; and
the stiff and formal precision of the style.—The rest is J: cf. mm, ® 5 7
9. 10. 11, 18; appy, 1 25-68 (also 8 [P]); m3, ΝΠ, %2—The redactional
addition in % (v.s.) betrays its origin by the threefold repetition of 19%)
ma axdp vb, 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 (Di., but see on v.?).
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 (cf. 2459
2955. 9: see Benzinger, Arch.” 104 f., 126 f.).*—an Egyptian]
so v.3(P), 219 (E); cf. 2131, This consistent tradition points
to an admixture of Egyptian blood among the Ishmaelites,
the reputed descendants of Hagar.tj—2. pe*adventure I may
Ia is assigned to P partly because of 0738 πῶν (cf. v.°), and partly
because the statement as to Sarai’s barrenness supplies a gap in that
document, whereas in J it is anticipated by 11°°.—1b. ney] (from the
same ,/ as 705) is originally the slave-concubine ; and it is a question
* “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, Mod. Egypt. i. 233 [from Dri.]).—
On the resemblance to Cod. Hamm. § 146, see Introduction, p. xvii.
+ The instance is one of the most favourable in Gen. to Winckler’s
theory that under 0s we are frequently to understand the N Arabian
land of Musri (Gu. ; cf. Che. EB, 3164 ; KAT*, 146f.). 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.
(Dri. DB, ii. 504%).
286 HAGAR'S FLIGHT (J)
be built up—or obtain children (v.t.)—from her| by adopting
Hagar’s son as her own; cf. 30%.—3 is P’s parallel to 2» 44,
—4. and went in, etc. (see on 6*)] the immediate continuation
of 2> in J.—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] 1.6. ‘May my grievance
be avenged on thee!’—her injured self-respect finding vent
in a passionate and most unjust imprecation.—6. Thy maid
ἧς in thy hand] 15. this a statement of fact, or does it mean
that Abram zow hands Hagar back to her mistress’s
authority? The latter is Gu.’s view, who thinks that asa
concubine Hagar was no longer under the complete control
of Sarai.—treated her harshly| The word (3Y) suggests
excessive severity; Hagar’s flight is justified by the indignities
to which she was subjected (v.").
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: v.'*) zm the desert . . . on the way
to Shir. Shir is an unknown locality on the NE frontier
of Egypt (see Dri. DB, iv. 510°), which gave its name to
the adjacent des@rt: 20! 2518, Ex. 15%, τ Sa. 157 278 (v.2.).
The m7 ἘΠῊΝ (or ody ’p) 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; cp.
e.g. vv.1 13 with 4. The ultimate explanation of the ambiguity is no
doubt to be sought in the advance of religious thought to a more
whether the purpose of presenting a newly-married woman with a ππεν
may not have been to provide for the event of the marriage proving
childless. In usage it is largely coextensive with "Dx, and is character-
istic of J against E, though not against P.—115] The motive of Hagar’s
‘flight’ may have been suggested by a supposed connexion with Ar.
hagara, ‘flee.’ For another etymology, see N6. ZB, 19337.—2. 732%] (so
only 30°) may be either a denom. from j3 (so apparently @iD2), or a
metaphor from the family as a house (Ex. 17, 1 Sa. 2°, Ru. 4" etc.).—
5. oon] gen. of obj., G-K, § 1284 (cf. Ob. 10). Gk ἀδικοῦμαι ἐκ cod.—
yr] The point over " indicates a clerical error: rd. (with x) 3).
7b seems a duplicate of 14°, and one or other may be a gloss. The
words 1w—727D2 are omitted by G! entirely, and partly in several
XVI. 4-12 287
spiritual apprehension of the divine nature. The oldest conception of
the theophany is a visible personal appearance of the deity (ch. 2f.,
Ex. 242°, Nu. 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 (Gu. 164f.). That
the idea underwent a remarkable development within the OT religion
must, of course, be recognised (see esp. Ex. 23”); but the subject cannot
be further investigated here. See Oehler, A77h.$ 203-211; Schultz,
OTTA,. ii. 218-223 [Eng. tr.]; Davidson, DB, i. 94; De. Gen. 282 ff.
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 (cf. 187#-).—9, 10 are interpolated
(v.z.). II, 12. The prophecy regarding Ishmael (not 13
alone: Gu.) is in metrical form: two triplets with lines of
4 or 3 measures.—Behold, etc.| The form of announcement
seems consecrated by usage; cf. Ju. 13°”, Is. 714.— Vishma‘el]
properly, ‘ May God hear,’ is rendered ‘ God hears,’ in token
of Yahwe’s regard for the mother’s distress (7.2; cf. 13m, °),
—I2. a wild ass of a man] or perhaps the wild ass of
humanity (3517, 1Ez. De. al.)—Ishmael being among the
families of mankind what the wild ass is amongst animals
(Jb. 39°, Jer. 274), 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 (cf. 25'5)]
hardly ‘to the east of,’ which is too weak a sense. ον
seems to express the idea of defiance (as Jb. 11), though it
is not easy to connect this with the vb. Possibly the
cursives: 85 omits pymrby.—r1w] (‘ wall’ ?) has been supposed (doubtfully)
to be a line of fortifications guarding the NE frontier of Egypt. The
xn of 579] (if an Arabism) may express WwW in the sense of ‘wall’:
90
& has Ing ΞΕ Ὑ3, 20').—9, 10 are a double interpolation. The command
to return to Sarai was a necessary consequence of the amalgamation of
J and E (228); and ὃ was added to soften the return to slavery (Gu.).
10 is impossible before ", and is besides made up of phrases character-
istic of redactional additions to JE (cf. 22! 32!%),—aain] Inf. abs. ; G-K.
§ 75 f.—11. at) for nz] so Ju. 13°7 (G-K. ὃ 80d).—12. DIN N71] see
G-K. § 1284, 2. 3% has 1159. Tops, and ζ xvi "232 my> pw.—
288 HAGAR’S FLIGHT (J)
meaning is that Ishmael will be an inconvenient neighbour
(12%) 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] 1.6. (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 7
even here (? υ.1.) seen after him who sees me ?] This is the only
sense that can be extracted from the MT, which, however, is
strongly suspected of being corrupt.—14. Bé’ér Lahay Roi]
apparently means either ‘ Well of the Living One who sees
me,’ or ‘Well of ‘‘ He that sees me lives”’. The name
occurs again 24% 25''.—between Kadesh and Bered| On
Kadesh, see on 14’. Bered is unknown. In Arab tradition
the well of Hagar is plausibly enough identified with “Azn-
Muwetlih, a caravan station about 12 miles to the W of
Kadesh (Palmer, Des. of Exod. 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 P.
The general scope of 18" 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, x} bx and ‘wn πὸ 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 ‘x7 πὸ the Mass.
punctuation recognises the roots ‘n, ‘live,’ and 7x9, ‘see,’ taking > as
circumscribed gen. ; but that can hardly be correct. We. (Prol.® 323f.),
following Mich. and Ges. (7%. 175), conjectures that in the first element
13. (x7 5x ΠΠΝ] Gr Σὺ ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐφιδών με, Ἔ Tu Deus qui vidisti me: both
reading ’x(ptcp. with suff.).—For omy, Ba. would substitute apy, deleting
mx.—The "ἈΝ of 8-44 is not the pausal form of the preceding Ἀπ (which
would be "ἈΝ: 1 Sa. 161%, Nah. 3°, Jb. 3374), but Qal ptcp. with suff. The
authority of the accentuation may, of course, be questioned.—14. 8 }]
0°
indef. subj., for which 2 substitutes ax7p.—1a] S$ fees xn (see on
v.7). @ has xmbn (Elusa), probably e/-Halasa, about 12 miles SW of
Beersheba. It has been supposed that 1723 may be identical with a
place Βηρδάν in the Gerar district, mentioned by Eus. (OS, 1457 [Lag.
299"°]), who explains the name as Φρέαρ κρίσεως (= 71 NZ): see v. Gall,
CSt. 43.
XVI. 13—XVII. 289
we have the word nd, ‘jaw-bone’ (Ju. 1517, and in the second an
obsolete animal name: hence ‘Well of the antelope’s (?) jaw-bone.’
V. Gall (CS¢. 40 ff.) goes a step further and distinguishes two wells,
ἋΣ (82) ἢν, and ὑπὸ 13, the former peculiar to J and the latter to E (cf.
(ἃ of 24% 251).—(2) ‘x7 5x, whatever its primary significance, is of a
type common in the patriarchal narratives (see p. 291). Of the sug-
gested restorations of 135, by far the most attractive is that of We.
(Z.c.), who changes on to ovndx, reads 'x as 87, inserts ‘ns between
‘mx and ‘nx, 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 (Ex. 33”, Ju. 6533 13% etc.). The emendation has
at least the advantage of giving a meaning to doth elements in the
name of the well. Gu.’s objection that the emphatic ‘here’ is indis-
pensable, is of doubtful validity, for unfortunately ob, does not mean
‘here’ but ‘ hither.’
Cu. XVII.—The Covenant of Circumcision (P).
To Abram, who is henceforth to be called Abraham (5),
God reveals Himself under a new name (}), entering into a
covenant with him (7%), of which the sign is the rite of
circumcision (*1*), The heir of this covenant is to be a
son born to Sarai (whose name is changed to Sarah) in the
following year (15 23). Abraham immediately circumcises all
the males of his household (?**’).—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, Gu.’s
note (p. 233 ff.) may be consulted.
Source.—The marks of P’s authorship appear in every line of the
thapter. Besides the general qualities of style, which need not again
be particularised, we may note the following expressions: ὈΠῸΝ
(throughout, except v.!, where mq’ is either a redactional change or a
scribal error) ; Ww 9x, 2; na opr, ‘2 yma, 3: 71% 21; ay apa, 3: 8. 30... ἸΡῊ) AMR
ὙἼΠΝ, 7. 8. 9. 10. 19, pnd, 7.9 12, oD, 8, 1999 PR, 8; minx, 8, orbs, 10. 12, 23 ,
MapO, 1% 18. 298.27 5 5713, 1% 275 ay wean anon, 14; mana, 2; ows, 2; vin, 2;
ma ova osya, 26; see Di. Ho. Gu. References to the passage in other
parts of P are 21% 4 284 35, Ex. 274 6% (Lv. 123).
19
290 THE COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION (P)
The close parallelism with ch. 15 makes it probable that that
chapter, in its present composite form, is the literary basis of P’s account
of the covenant. Common to the two narratives are (a) the self-intro-
duction of the Deity (17! || 157) ; (4) the covenant (17 pass. || 15°) ; (6) the
promise of a numerous seed (17% fass. || 15°) ; (4) of the land (178 | 1538) ;
(6) of a son (17! 2! || 154) ; (f) Abraham’s incredulity (17" || 15% 8). The
features peculiar to P, such as the sign of circumcision, the etymology
of py: in v.27, the changes of names, etc., are obviously not of a kind
to suggest the existence of a separate tradition independent of J and E.
1-8. The Covenant-promises.— These are three in
number: (4) Abraham will be the father of a numerous pos-
terity (7 4°); (4) God will be a God to him and to his seed
(7. 8b); (c) his seed shall inherit the land of Canaan (88).
We recognise here a trace of the ancient religious concep-
tion 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 RS", g2f.).—I. appeared to Abram] 1.6., in a theo-
phany, as is clear from v.. It is the only direct communi-
cation of God to Abram recorded in P. Ρ is indeed very
sparing in his use of the theophany, though Ex. 6? 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 (35° 48°).—J am
’El Shaddaz| The origin, etymology, and significance of this
1. πῷ 5x] For a summary of the views held regarding this divine
name, the reader may be referred to Baethgen, Beztr. 293ff., or
Kautzsch in ZB, iii. 3326f. (cf. Che. 26. iv. 4419f.); on the render-
ings of the ancient Vns., see the synopses of Di. (259), Dri. (404 f.),
and Valeton (ΖΑ ΤΊ, xii. 111). —It is unfortunately impossible to
ascertain whether “WW was originally an independent noun, or an
attribute of bx: NGdldeke and Baethgen decide for the latter view. The
traditional Jewish etymology resolves the word into ¥=1x and 1,—
‘the all-sufficient’ or ‘self-sufficient’ (Ber. R. § 46: cf. Ra. ww κὴπ ΣΝ
ava $25 mabxa 1). Though this theory can be traced as far back as
the rendering of Aq. =. and Θ. (ἱκανός), it is an utterly groundless
conjecture that P used the name in this sense (Valeton). On the other
hand, it seems rash to conclude (with ΝΟ. al.) that the Mass. punctua-
tion 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 ,/ ττῷ Ξξ
‘destroy,’ is still the best: it is grammatically unobjectionable, has at
XVII. 1-4 201
title are alike obscure: see the footnote. In P it is the
signature of the patriarchal age (Ex. 6°); 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 P (288 35" 48%). That it
marks an advance in the revelation of the divine character
can hardly be shown, though the words immediately follow-
ing 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 (cf. 2449
481)] z.e., ‘Live consciously in My presence,’ 1 Sa. 122,
Is. 38°; cf. τ Jn. 1’.—perfect] or ‘blameless’; see on 69.—
2. On the idea and scope of the covenant (M3), see p.
297 f. below.—4. father of a multitude (lit. tumult) of nations]
In substance the promise is repeated in 28° 484 (O’3Y 20)
and 351} (Ὁ) 'P); the peculiar expression here anticipates
the etymology of v.°. While J (12? 1818 46%) restricts the
promise to Israel (7173 “3), P speaks of ‘nations’ in the
plural, including the Ishmaelites and Edomites amongst the
least some support in Is. 13°, Jl. 1, and is free from difficulty if we
accept it as an ancient title appropriated by P without regard to its
real significance. The assumption of a by-form mw (Ew. Tu. al.) is
gratuitous, and would yield a form ‘Ww, not "Ww. Other proposed
etymologies are: from Ἵν originally = ‘lord’ (Ar. sayyid), afterwards
= ‘demon’ (pointing "1 or " [pl. maj.]: N6. ZDMG, xl. 735 f., xlii.
480f.); from ,/ mw (Ar. Zada) = ‘be wet’ (‘the raingiver’: OZ7/C?,
424); from Syr. 13 ‘hurl’ (Schwally, ZDMG, lii. 136: ‘‘a dialectic
equivalent of m7 in the sense of lightning-thrower” ['3]). Vollers
(ZA, xvii. 310) argues for an original 1 (,/ 1), afterwards, through
popular etymology and change of religious meaning, fathered on ,/ τη,
Several Assyriologists connect the word with Sad@ rabf, ‘great
mountain,’ a title of ΒΕ] and other Bab. deities (Homm. 4.417, toof. ;
Zimmern, KA 7*, 358) : a view which would be more plausible if, as Frd.
Del. (Pro/. 95 f.) has maintained, the Ass. ,/ meant ‘lofty’; but this is
denied by other authorities (Halevy, ZKF, ii. 405 ff. ; Jen. ZA, i. 251).
As to the origin of the name, there is a probability that "Ww bx was an old
(cf. Gn. 49”) Canaanite deity, of the same class as 'E/ 'Elyén (see on
1418), whom the Israelites identified with Yahwe (so Gu. 235).—4. ἘΝ is
casus pendens (Dri. 7. § 197 (4)), not emphatic anticipation of following
suff. (as G-K. § 135/).
292 THE COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION (P)
descendants of Abraham. See, however, on 28°.—5. Abram’s
name is changed to Adraham, interpreted as ‘Father of
multitude.’ Cf. Neh. οἵ.
The equation ὈΠῚΞΝ Ξε [Ὠ}}} ὉΠ 3N is so forced that Di. 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 07728 is no artificial
formation, but a genuine element of tradition. (1) The form 073% is an
abbreviation of ΟΞ (Nu. 16! etc.: cf. "ay, 1 Sa. 145! etc., with 73°3x,
1 Sa. 1459; ovoyax, 2 Ch. 112 21, with oidyeax, 1 Ki. 152 10), which occurs as
a personal name not only in Heb. but also as that of an Ass. official
(Abi-r@mu) under Esarhaddon, B.c. 677 (see KAT*, 482)". (2) Of
ὈΠΊΣΝ, on the other hand, no scientific etymology can be given. The
nearest approach to P’s explanation would be found in the Ar. ruham
= ‘copious number’ (from a ,/ descriptive of a fine drizzling rain:
Lane, s.v.).+ De. thinks this the best explanation; but the etymology
is far-fetched, and apart from the probably accidental correspondence
with P’s interpretation the sense has no claim to be correct.—With
regard to the relation of the two forms, various theories are propounded.
Hommel (A/7, 275 ff. ; 17VAG, ii. 271) regards the difference as merely
orthographic, the 1 being inserted, after the analogy of Minzan, to
mark the long @ (07724), while a later misunderstanding is responsible
for the pronunciation o77. Strack and Stade (ZATW,, i. 349) suppose
a dialectic distinction: according to the latter, O772x is the original
(Edomite) form, of which 0538 is the Hebraized equivalent.t Wi. (GJ,
ii. 26) finds in them two distinct epithets of the moon-god Sin, one
describing him as father of the gods (Sin abu il@nz), and the other
(‘father of the strife of peoples’) as god of war (Sin karib ildni). The
possibility must also be considered that the difference is due to the
fusion in tradition of two originally distinct figures (see Paton, Sy. and
5. Tou-nx] G-K. § 121a, ὃ; but nx is omitted in some MSS and in a.
* Hommel’s reading of Adt-7@mu on a contract tablet of Abil-Sin,
the grandfather of Hammurabi (see AH7, 96), has proved to be in-
correct, the true reading being Adb?-Erah (see Ranke, Personennamen
in d. Urk. der Ham.-dynastie, 1902, p. 48). The name has, however,
recently been discovered in several documents of the time of Ammi-
zaduga, the roth king of the same dynasty. See BA, vi. (1909), Heft 5,
p. 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’ (r@€ma=nn), the unnamed subject being probably a god. Comp.
ET, xxi. (1909), 88 ff.
+ The Ar. kunyd, ’Abu-ruhm is only an accidental coincidence : No.
ZDMG, xiii. 4843.
ὦ Similarly v. Gall (CS¢. 53), who compares Aram. σις, Ar. bht,
appearing in Heb. as wia,
XVII. 5-9 293
Pal. 41). It is quite a plausible supposition, though the thoroughness
of the redaction has effaced the proof of it, that 0128 was peculiar to J
and omax to E.—Outside of Gen. (with the exception of the citations
1 Ch. 1”, Neh. 97) the form Abraham alone is found in OT.
6. The promise of &imgs among Abraham’s descendants
is again peculiar to P (35). The reference is to the
Hebrew monarchy: the rulers of Ishmael are only ‘ princes’
(ΟΝ), v.2°), and those of Edom (36%) are styled maDN,— 7,
to be to thee a God| The essence of the covenant relation is
expressed by this frequently recurring formula.* It is
important for P’s notion of the covenant that the correlative
‘they (ye) shall be to mea people,’ which is always added
in other writings (ex. Ezk. 3422), is usually omitted by P
(ex. Ex. 6’, Lv. 265). The bdéith 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| 28* 36" 37° 47°, Ex. 6¢ (all P).
9-14. The sign of the Covenant.—To the promises of
vv.” there is attached a single command, with regard to
which it is difficult to say whether it belongs to the content
of the covenant (v.!°), or is merely an adjunct,—an external
mark of the invisible bond which united every Jew to
Yahwe (14): see p. 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 p. pl. from 19 onwards).
—Q. And God said| marks a new section (cf. 15), NAN) being
the antithesis to ‘38 in 4.—keep my covenant] "δ is opposed
to 157, ‘break,’ in *; 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
6. 700] “ὅ y se = ἢ ; see on 154,—8. π)ΠῈ} a common word
in P; elsewhere only Ps. 2°, Ezk. 44%, 1 Ch. 7%,
* The list of passages as given by Dri. (p. 186) is as follows: In P,
ix. 6 29%, Lv. 11% ; in P*, Ly. 22% 25% 2615: ©, Nu. 15; elsewhere, Dt.
2913 (cf. 26%), Jer. 7% 114 247 30% 4311. 38, Ezk. 1129 142 34% 4638 37% 2,
mea. 7 (= 1 Ch. 17%), Zec. 8°.
294 THE COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION (P)
never have been raised but for a disinclination to admit
anything of the nature of a stipulation into P’s idea of the
covenant.—I0. This 7s 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 Ols. and
Ball) to read sn 3 nk nat (see v.!*).—II. for a covenant-sign]
z.e., after the analogy of 9%, 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.—1I2a. at the age
of eight days| connected with the period of the mother’s
uncleanness: Lv. 12} ὃ; cf. Gn. 214, [51 τῦϑ 2 eee
Jos. Ant. i. 214.—12b, 13 go together (De.), extending the
obligation to slaves, who as members of the household
follow the religion of their master.—The penalty of dis-
obedience is death or excommunication, according as one or
the other is meant by the obscure formula: be cut off from
its kindred (v.1.).
10. PANN Wut pr] (ἃ - εἰς τὰς γενεὰς αὐτῶν. The whole is possibly a
gloss (KS. Ba. Gu.), due to confusion between the legislative stand-
point of 108: with its plural address, and the special communication to
Abraham ; see, however, vv.!2f—p] inf. abs. used as juss.; G-—K.
§ 113 cc, gg: cf. Ex. 128, Lev. 67, Nu. 65.—11. ondop] treated by TU as
active, from ,/ 593, but really abbreviated Niph. of ,/ δ (cf. G-K. § 67 dd),
a rare by-form (Jos. 5%) of 5:5.—7"m] a an, adopted by Ba.—12. m3 10}
see 14)4,—AD2 Π)ΡῸ] only vv.}%- 27 and Ex. 1244.—7y1 is the individual-
ising use of 2nd p. sing., frequently alternating with 2nd pl. in legal
enactments. So v.3,—14. nday] wx@r+ 7107 ova (Ba.).—mDyo—ani3n]
So Ex. 30% 3714) Ly. 70t 25.27 749 1τὸ8 23%) Nu. 09. —all ΠΡ wie
employs a number of similar phrases—‘ his people,’ ‘Israel,’ ‘the con-
gregation of Israel,’ ‘the assembly,’ etc.—to express the same idea (see
Dri. 1877). oy is here used in the sense of ‘kin,’ as occasionally in OT
(see 19% 258). It is the Ar.‘ammnz, which combines the two senses of
‘people,’ and ‘relative on the father’s side’: see We. GGA, 1893, 480,
and cf. Dri. on Dt. 32 (p. 384); Krenkel, ZA ΤῊ, viii. 280 ff. ; Nestle,
7b, xvi. 322f.; KAT*, 480f. 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 (6) whether the punishment is to be inflicted by the com-
XVII. το τι 295
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 (19: 2!) 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 etymo-
logical motive is remarkable (v.z.).—16b. In (|, /ub., ἘΠ and
S, the blessing on Sarah is by slight changes of text turned
into a blessing on the son whose birth has just been foretold
(v.z.). The MT, however, is more likely to be correct.—
17. Abraham's demeanour is a strange mixture of reverence
and incredulity: ‘‘partim gaudio exultans, partim admir-
atione extra se raptus, in risum prorumpit” is Calvin’s
comment. It is P’s somewhat unnatural clothing of the
traditional etymology of Isaac (PN¥?, v.!*) ; cf. 18! (J), 21° (E).
—18. The prayer, O that Ishmael might live before thee/—
under Thy protection and with Thy blessing (Hos. 6?)—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
munity, or by God in His providence. The interpretation seems to have
varied in different ages. Ex. 4115: clearly contemplates the death
penalty at the hands of the community; while Lv. 17% 20% 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” (Dri.). See Sta. ΟἿ,
i. 421 f.; Ho. p. 127 f.—197] pausal form for 197 (G-K. 8 29 g).
15. “Wy (Gr Σάρα) and my (Gr Σάῤῥα)] According to Né. (ZDMG, xl.
183, ΧΙ]. 484), — is an an old fem. termin. surviving in Syr. Arab. and
Eth. On this view ἊΨ may be either the same word as ¥, ‘princess’
( τ), or (as the differentiation of & suggests) from ,/ mw, ‘strive,’
with which the name Israel was connected (Gn. 32%, Ho. 123: see
Rob. Sm. KM”, 34f. [N6. dissents]). On Lagarde’s (Mitth. ii. 185)
attempt to connect the name with Ar. Sava¥ =‘ wild fertile spot,’ and so
to identify Abraham (as ‘husband of Sarai’) with the Nabatean god
Dusares (d#-SSara’), see Mey. JNS, 269f., who thinks the conjecture
raised beyond doubt by the discovery of the name Savayat as consort of
Dusares on an inscr. at Bosra in the Haurdn. The identification re-
mains highly problematical.—16. mn20n] 2x γΠ3Ἴ2), So G& Jub. BS,
which consistently maintain the masc. to the end of the v.—r7. ‘n—non)]
a combination of the disjunctive question with casus pendens; see G-K.
§ 1502.
296 THE COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION (P)
of Israel (1°).—19a. Comp. the language with 16", and observe
that the naming of the child is assigned to the father.—20,
ΠΤ} a remote allusion to the popular explanation of
ORYOL, ‘May God hear’ (cf. 164 2117). Ishmael is to be
endowed for Abraham’s sake with every kind of blessing,
except the religious privileges of the covenant.—zwelve
princes] (cf. 2516) as contrasted with the ‘kings’ of © 16,—
22. The close of the theophany.—932—_9v") as 35°%
23-27. Circumcision of Abraham’s household. — 23.
on that very day (cf. 71)| repeated in v.7°. Throughout the
section, P excels himself in pedantic and redundant circum-
stantiality of narration. The circumcision of Ishmael, how-
ever, is inconsistent with the theory that the rite is a sign
of the covenant, from which Ishmael is excluded (Ho. Gu.).
—25. thirteen years old| This was the age of circumcision
among the ancient Arabs, according to Jos. Amt. i. 214.
Origen (Eus. Prep. Ev. vi. 11:* cf. We. Hezd.* 175%); and
Ambrose (de Abrah. 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 Di. 264; Dri. in DB, ii. 504°.
Circumcision is a widely diffused rite of primitive religion, of whose
introduction among the Hebrews there is no authentic tradition. One
account (Ex. 4235) suggests a Midianite origin, another (Jos. 57) an
Egyptian: the mention of flint knives in both these passages is a proof
of the extreme antiquity of the custom (the Stone Age).t The anthro-
19. bax] ‘May, but,’—a rare asseverative (4271, 2 Sa. 145, 2 Ki. 4%,
1 Ki. 14%) and adversative (Dn. 10771, Ezr. 10'%, 2 Ch. 14 19% 331”) par-
ticle. See the interesting note in Burney, Motes on Kings, p. 11; and
cf. Konig, ii. 265.—1nx wud] (ἃ 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. ox'w3] Gr ἔθνη. ---
24. mw] a 0°2~.—1>n72] The Niph. is here either refl. or pass. ; in * it
is pass.—26. bin] irreg. pf. Niph.; G-K.§72 ee. & takes it as act.
(,/ 503?) with Ishmael as obj. ; and so G& in ν.ἕ 7 (περιέτεμεν αὐτούς).
* Ed. Heinichen, p. 310 f.
+ 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 u. Bilder, ii. Ὁ. 126.
XVII. 19-26 297
pological 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. Passsages like Dt. 10'® 30°, Ezk.
447: °, 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 de-
velopment 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 distin-
guish him from his heathen neighbours. In this way we can understand
how, while the earlier legal codes have no law of circumcision, in P 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 Volker (1894), i. 342-372; We. Hezd.? 174f., Prol.® 338 ff.; Sta.
ZATW, vi. 132-143; the arts. in DB (Macalister) and ZB (Benzinger) ;
and the notes in Di. 258; Ho. 129; Gu. 237; Dri. 189 ff.; Strack?,
67; Matthes, ZATW, xxix. 70 ff.
The Covenant-idea in P (see also p. 290f. above). In P’s scheme
of four world-ages, the word ΠΡῚΞ is used only of the revelations associ-
ated with Noah and Abraham. In the Creation-narrative the term is
avoided because the constitution of nature then appointed was after-
wards annulled, whereas the Bérith is a permanent and irreversible
determination of the divine will. The conception of the Mosaic revela-
tion as a covenant is Jehovistic (Ex. 24°§ 34!" etc.) and Deuteronomic
(Dt. 43° 57% 99% etc.); and there are traces of it in secondary strata
of P (Lv. 267 [P*], Ex. 4115: [P*]); but it is not found in the historical
work which is the kernel of the Code (ΡῈ). Hence in trying to under-
stand the religious significance of the Bérith in P®, 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,
ZATW, xii. 1 ff.), or a bilateral engagement involving reciprocal obliga-
tions between God and men (so in the main Kraetzschmar, Bundes-
vorst. 183 ff.). The answer depends on the view taken of circumcision
in this chapter. According to Valeton, it is merely a sign and nothing
* Could this, however, be taken to mean that the Sabbath was a
‘sign’ of the Adamic dispensation conceived as a covenant ἢ
298 ABRAHAM ENTERTAINS ANGELS (J)
more; Ζ.6.,) a means whereby God is reminded of the covenant. Ac-
cording 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 Bérith 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 determina-
tion 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 Kraetz-
schmar (/.c. 201) infers from the expressions 0°77 and jn} that for P there
is only ove eternal divine Bérith, immutably established by God and
progressively revealed to man.
Cu. XVIII. Zhe Theophany at Hebron: Abraham's
Intercession for Sodom (J).
Under the terebinths of Mamre, Abraham hospitably
entertains three mysterious visitors (18), 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 (171-21), inter-
cedes eloquently on its behalf (23:38),
The first half of the chapter (116) shows at its best the picturesque,
lucid, and flexible narrative style of J, and contains many expressions
characteristic of that document: m7, 1: 314; nxt) pr, 2 (only in J 2417
29'3 334); 10 ΝΥ, ὃ; x}, 4; aay (for rst per.), &5; [3 5}. 3, δ; πὶ mpd, 8;
mpwn, 16, The latter part (17-8) is also Yahwistic (mi, 20 33. 26. 88... xs[ aan],
27. 808... nbn, δ. pyen, 33), but contains two expansions of later date than
the primary narrative. We. (Comp.* 27 f.) appears to have proved that the
original connexion between 18” and 19! consists of 16: 20-224. 33b ; and that
17-19, 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 ZA TW, xvii. 81 ff., prompted
by the perplexing alternation of the sing. ([m‘] 1. % 10. 18, 14. 15. 17-21, 220-88)
and pl. (74: 5-8 9 16. 228)* 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 Gu. in thinking that the texture of 118 is too
homogeneous to admit of decomposition, and that some other explana-
* It is important, however, to observe that in a (if we except the
introductory 13) the sing. does not appear till 10, but after that regularly
up to}
XVIII. 1-3 299
tion of the phenomenon in question must be sought than the assumption
of an interweaving of a sing. and a pl. recension of the legend (see on
v.. and p. 303 below).* With Gu. also, we may regard the chapter as
the immediate sequel to 13'8 in the legendary cycle which fixes the
residence of Abraham at Hebron (J). The conception of Abraham’s
character is closely akin to what we meet throughout that section of J,
and differs appreciably from the representation of him in 1210. and 16,
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, Mod. Eg.° i. 364: from Dri.).—1. Vahwe
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 (De.)—we can
hardly tell. The common view that the visitors were Yahwe
accompanied by two of His angels does not meet the diffi-
culties of the exegesis; and it is more probable that to the
original Yahwist the ‘men’ were emissaries and representa-
tives of Yahwe, who was not visibly present (see p. 304f.).
—n}1 D2] at the hottest (and drowsiest) time of the day
(2 Sa. 4°).—2. and behold] The mysteriously sudden advent
of the strangers marks them as superhuman beings (Jos. 515),
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 Mass. pointing
218 implies that Abraham recognised Yahwe as one of
the three (Tu. De. al.); but this we have just seen to be
1. mm] G& ὁ Geds.—In wx the suff. may refer back directly to 1318 (see
on the v.).—x70D 50Ν3] (ἃ πρὸς τῇ Sput τῇ Μ. ; see on 13'8.—3. Read with
* The same solution had occurred to Ball (SBOT, 1896), but was
rightly set aside by him as unproved.
300 ABRAHAM ENTERTAINS ANGELS (J)
a mistake. The correct form is either ‘278 (as 23°", etc. :
so Di. Dri.), or (better, as 19?) ΣΝ: Szrs/—restoring (with
sz) the pl. throughout the v.—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| Cf. 197 245 43%, Ju. τοῦ 2esaeee
Lk. 7*4, 1 Ti. 51°.—vrecline yourselves] not at meat (Gu.), but
during the preparation of the meal. Even in the time of
Amos (65) reclining at table seems to have been a new-
fangled and luxurious habit introduced from abroad: ct.
the ancient custom! 27%, Ju. ‘19%, 1 Sa! 20° "49 hie
5. support your heart| with the food, Ju. 19% 8, 1 Ki. 137,
Ps. τοῦ; ‘cf. bread: the ‘staff’ jof Tite, εν 20 0. 1
—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 mz/k in two forms. On the items,
v.t.—8. and they ate] So 19%—the only cases in OT where
the Deity is represented as eating (ct. Ju. 6% 1316). The
anthropomorphism is evaded by Jos. (Ané. i. 197: ot δὲ δόξαν
αὐτῷ παρέσχον ἐσθιόντων ; cf. Tob. 121°), (7, Ra. al.
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
λα ΖΞ, AYN, OI73y.—5, Iyn ans} (α 7 9]} is the better reading, to
which (ἃ adds els τὴν ὁδὸν ὑμῶν (cf. 193}.-- 2 Ὅν 3 is not to be resolved
into ‘>? and jx Ὅν, denn eben desshalb (G-B.™%, 308a; De. al.); but is a
compound conjunction=quandoguidem, ‘inasmuch as’ (Tu. Di. Dri.),
as usage clearly shows; cf. 19% 33! 38% Nu. 10% 14% (all J), Ju. 6%,
2 Sa. 18%, Jer. 29% 384+; see G-K. § 158 5%; BDB, 475 b.—dy omay] G&
ἐξεκλίνατε mods=5x ὈΠῚ (19%), which is too rashly accepted by Ba.
—3108)] Gr has the sing. wrongly.—6. 7hree seahs would be (according
to Kennedy’s computation, D4, iv. 912) approximately equal to 44
pecks.—nbo nop] G& σεμιδάλεως, [PB simile], which might stand either
for mop (1 Sa. 1%) or πῦρ (as in every other instance). The latter (the
finer variety) is here probably a gloss on nop.—muiy] (Gk ἐγκρυφίας, D
subcinericios panes) are thin round cakes baked on hot stones or in the
ashes (Benz. Arch.” 64).—8. mNOn is the Ar. /aban, milk slightly soured
by fermentation, which is greatly esteemed by the nomads of Syria and
Arabia as a refreshing and nourishing beverage (see ZB, iii. 3089 f.).
XVIII. 4-12 301
superhuman knowledge of the great blank in Abraham’s
life, and conveys a first intimation of the real nature of the
visitors. See Gu.’s fine exposition, 172f.; and contrast the
far less delicate handling of an identical situation in
2 Ki. 4!*16,—9, The question shows that Sarah had not
been introduced to the strangers, in accordance probably
with Hebrew custom (Gu.).—10. / w7// return] The definite
transition to the sing. takes place here (see on v.*). In the
original legend the pl. 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 727 Nya, v.2.—Sarah
was listening| with true feminine curiosity; cf. 27°. The
last two words should probably be rendered: she being
behind it (the tent or the door); cf. the footnote.—II. A
circumstantial sentence explaining Sarah’s incredulity (v.”).
—after the manner of women (cf. 31*)] ‘*quo genere
loquendi verecunde menses notat qui mulieribus fluunt”
(Calv.); @& τὰ γυναίκια; ἜΠ muliebria.—i12, Sarah laughed
(PO¥M) wzthin herself | obviously a proleptic explanation of
9. MOK] Er DN (wrongly).—i>k] The superlinear points (cf. 165) are
thought to indicate a reading 15.—10. 9:0 ny2] This peculiar phrase (re-
curring only v.!4, 2 Ki. 4156) is now almost invariably rendered ‘at the
(this) time, when it revives,’ z.e., next year, or spring (so Ra. IEz. ;
cf. Ges. Th. 470; G-B.'*, 202a; BDB, 312a; Ew. Gr. ὃ 337a; G-K.
§ 118; K6. S. § 387 6); but the sense is extremely forced. It is sur-
prising that no one seems to suspect a reference to the period of preg-
nancy. In NH 7:5 means a woman in child-birth (so perhaps 734 in Ex.
19 [Ho. ad v.]); and here we might point mn nyp or 43 “3, rendering
‘according to the time of a pregnant woman,’ or 9 months hence. sya
in v.!4is no obstacle, for 1yiD is simply the time determined by the pre-
vious promise, and there is no need to add 717 (G& after 17”). 2 Ki. 4}
(ma ‘2d) 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 Vns.: e.g. (ἃ κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον els ὥρας ; T° ‘at a time
when you are living’; 96 ‘at this time, she being alive’ ; ἘΠ tempore isto,
vita comite. Ba. also points as constr., but thinks 77 an old name for
spring.—7m] G&S read 7377.—11n¥ NIM) aw ΓΝ NM; 50 (ἃ οὖσα ὄπισθεν
αὐτοῦ. MT is perhaps a neglect of the Qéré perpet (’\).—II. 0°22 ON]
cf. 24', Jos. 13! 237, 1 Ki. 14.—n'w32 mx] Ba. Kit. more smoothly, mp
ΟὟ}. ---12. Ay— ἼΠῈ} Ee Οὔπω μέν μοι γέγονεν ἕως τοῦ viv presupposes an
impossible text πεν Ὁ amg ‘ba. The change is perhaps alluded to in
Mos (
302 ABRAHAM ENTERTAINS ANGELS (J)
the name POS. (see on 171”), although the sequel in this docu-
ment has not been preserved.—waxed old] lit. ‘worn away,’
a strong word used, e.g., of worn out garments (Dt. 8+ 294
etc.).—]1Y (only here), ‘ sensuous enjoyment’ (Zzebeswonne).
—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 (12773, v.12). The inser-
tion of Yahwe here was probably caused by the occurrence
of the name in the next v.—I4. /s 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 con-
sidered, with its sequel in ch. 19, is one of the most obscure in Genesis.
According to Gu. (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 (Od. xvii. 485 ff.) :
Kal τε θεοὶ ξείνοισιν ἐοικότες ἀλλοδαποῖσιν,
παντοῖοι τελέθοντες, ἐπιστρωφῶσι πόληας,
ἀνθρώπων ὕβριν τε καὶ εὐνομίην ἐφορῶντες."
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, 37ff.). Of the
numerous parallels that are adduced, by far the most striking is the
account of the birth of Orion in Ovid, Fas¢i, 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
Mechilta on Ex. 12” (see p. 14 above; Geiger, Urschr. 439, 442).—208
ὙὉ3] Aq. μετὰ τὸ κατατριβῆναί we; Σ. (less accurately) μ. τ. παλαιωθῆναί
με. τή. jo x>D a] Jers 32" 77) Dt. 17° 40".
* 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, 234f., and especially 237 ;
Adonis Attis Osiris, 21 ff.).
XVIII. 13-16 303
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 Gn. 18 is manifest ; and since
direct borrowing of the Boeotian legend from Jewish sources is improb-
able, 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
ch. 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 sing. and plu. 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 Hebraizing of the conception, but
never consistently carried through. An opposite view is taken by
Fripp (ZATW, xii. 23 ff.), who restores the sing. throughout, and by
Kraetzschmar, who, as we have seen, distinguishes between a sing. and
a pl. recension, but regards the former as the older. The substitution
of angels for Yahwe might seem a later refinement on the anthro-
pomorphic representation of a bodily appearance of Yahwe; but the
resolution of the one Yahwe into ¢hree angels would be unaccountable,
especially in J, who appears never to speak of angels in the plural (see
on 19'). See Gu. 171, and Che. ZB, iv. 4667 f.
16-22a. The judgement of Sodom revealed.
The soliloquy of Yahwe in 11:19 breaks the connexion between 16 and
, and is to all appearance a later addition (see p. 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 pl. (4). (ὁ) In 1 Yahwe has resolved on the
destruction of Sodom, whereas in ** He proposes to abide by the result
of a personalinvestigation. (c) Both thought and language in !7-¥ show
signs of Deuteronomic influence (see Ho. and Gu.). Di.’s assertion
(265), that *t- have no motive apart from 117-19 and ¥*., is incomprehensible ;
the difficulty rather is to assign a reason for the addition of 11, The
idea seems to be that Abraham (as a prophet: cf. Am. 37) must be
initiated into the divine purpose, that he may instruct his descendants in
the ways of Yahwe.
20
16. and looked out in view of Sodom (cf. 19%)] The Dead
Sea not being visible from Hebron, we must understand
that a part of the journey has beenaccomplished. Tradition
fixed the spot at a village over 3 m. E of Hebron, called by
Jerome Caphar Barucha, now known as Beni Na‘im, but
16. 070] Gr + καὶ Γομόρρας.
304 ABRAHAM'S PRAYER FOR SODOM (1)
formerly Ke/r Barik, from which the Sea is seen through
gaps in the mountains (see Robinson, BR, i. 4oof.; Buhl,
GP, 158f.).—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 12%. ἿΞ possibly refers not to
Abraham but to ‘3; cf. 2218 (We.). ae
—For 7 have known (1,6. ‘entered into personal , relations
with’: as Am. 3%, Hos. 13°) Azm in order that, etc.| There
is a certain incongruity between the two parts of the v.:
here the establishment of the true religion is the purpose of
Abraham’s election; in !> the end of the religion is the
fulfilment of the promises made to Abraham.—20. Re-
suming v.!®6 An earlier form of the story no doubt read
MN instead of M7 WN%.—On the peculiar construction,
v.2.—2I. Restoring the pl. as before, the v. reads as a dis-
junctive question: We will go down that we may see
whether .. . or not: we would know.
22b-33. Abraham’s intercession.
The secondary character of 7*>-% (see p. 298) appears from the
following considerations: (a) In ™ ‘the men’ (z.e. all three) have moved
away to Sodom; in # Yahwe remains behind with Abraham. That
17. After o77ax G&S read “ay.—19. vnyt’] “αὐ omit the suffix,
while GPS treat what follows as an obj. cl. (quod, etc.), through a
misunderstanding of the sense of y1’.—20. npyi] xx npys as v.?!,—9 (dzs)]
@° x. The particle is ignored by cH; also by S, which supplies
«το, ANS and omits πΞῚ 3. If the text be retained the 33 is
either corroborative (G-K. §§ 148 d, 159 ee), or causal (BDB, 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 (v.”1), This material diffi-
culty is not removed by the addition of ‘nyoy (Ols.) or ‘Sx πὲ (Kit.).
Its removal is the sole recommendation of We.’s proposal to omit } before
onxen and render, ‘There is a rumour about 5, and G. that their sin
is great, that it is very grievous.’—21. Read with @° onpys27.—On
myan for mNaz, see G-K. 8 138 &.—nb> is difficult: cf. Ex. 111, another
doubtful pass. We. here suggests nbs, Ols. 053.
22b contains one of the 18 050 ‘37m (corrections of the scribes).
The original reading ‘ax *35) Dy ny MA is said to have been changed
XVIII. 17-27 305
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. (4) In * we have seen that the
fate of Sodom still hangs in the balance, while in ** 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 deliver-
ance 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 Jer. 15!, Ezk. 14"; and in
general it was not till near the Exile that the allied problems of indi-
vidual responsibility and vicarious righteousness began to press heavily
on the religious conscience in Israel.
23. Wilt thou even sweep away, etc.| The question strikes
the keynote of the section,—-a protest against the thought
of an indiscriminate judgement (cf. Jb. y”).—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 OT, 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: cf. Ro. 3°.—27. 7 have
ventured] cf. Jer. 12}. Sin expresses the overcoming of a
certain inward reluctance (Jos. 7’). — dust and ashes| an
alliterative combination (Jb. 30° 42°, Sir. 405). As a descrip-
out of a feeling of reverence (Ginsburg, Zntrod. 352f.). The worth of
the tradition is disputed, the present text being supported by all Vns.
as well as by 1957; and the sense certainly does not demand the sug-
gested restoration (Tu. Di. against KS. Ba. Gu. al.).—23, 24. xn]
€° i327, mistaking for ἣν = ‘anger’: so $TJ.—23 end] G& + καὶ ἔσται
ὁ δίκαιος ws ὁ ἀσεβής (**).—24. RwN] sc. jiy=‘ forgive’: Nu. 14)%, 15. 29,
Hos. 1° etc.—25. modn] lit. ‘profanum (sit),’ construed with jp, as 44717,
oft. The full formula is mp ‘S’n(1 Sa. 247 264 etc.).—nawp awy xb] ἘΠ
(nequaquam facies gudicium hoc) and 3% (which takes van as vocative)
20
306 DESTRUCTION OF SODOM (J)
tion of human nature, the phrase recurs only Sir. 109 1732,—
28. ΠΟΠΞ] lit. ‘on account of the 5’; a somewhat para-
doxical form of expression.—30-32. Emboldened by success,
Abraham now ventures on a reduction by to instead of 5
(De.); this is continued till the limit of human charity is
reached, and Abraham ceases to plead.—33. wen¢] not to
Sodom, but simply ‘ departed.’—33b would be equally appro-
priate after *4 or 228,
XIX. 1-29.—The Destruction of Sodom and Deliverance
of Lot (J and P).
The three men (see on v.') who have just left Abraham
reach Sodom in the evening, are received as guests by Lot
(73), but are threatened with outrage by the Sodomites (#14).
Thus convinced of the depravity of the inhabitants, they
secure the safety of Lot’s household (15:33), after which the
city is destroyed by fire and brimstone (7° 8),
Thus far J: cf. mm, 13+ 14- 16. 24. 27 « yy [-Π)Π], 2 7 8: 18. 19. 20. oy. 4, joy, ὃ,
mNip?, 2; vB, 5.9, AYpwn, 38, -- -ἘΓἘΓ ΒΕ summary in 39 is from P: cf. onde,
7237 Ψ, nnw (cf. ΟἹ gl! 5),—The passage continues 18? 380. (Jl), and
forms an effective contrast to the scene in Abraham's tent (181-18), The
alternation of sing. and pl. is less confusing than in 18; and Kraetzsch-
mar's theory (see p. 298 f.) does less violence to the structure of the pass-
age. Indeed, Gu. himself admits that the sing. section 17:25 (with °°) is
an ‘intermezzo’ from another Yahwistic author (Gu. 181).
1-3. Lot’s hospitality. — Comp. Ju. 19!°%!.—1a. the
two angels| Read ‘the men,’ as 1816 [195-8] 10-12-16; see the
footnote.—zn the gate] the place of rendezvous in Eastern
cities for business or social intercourse; Ru. 45. 4,
Jb. 297 etc.—rb, 2a. Cf. 182— 28] Sirs/ See on 18%.
mistake the sense.—28. jon’] The regular use of the ending }}) (α-Κ.
§ 47 m) from this point onwards is remarkable (Di.). The form, though
etymologically archaic, is by no means a mark of antiquity in OT, and
is peculiarly frequent in Deut. style (Dri. on Dt. 127). — 32. ὈΨ5Π] see
on 273,
1. o'oxbon wv] This word has not been used before, and recurs only
in ν. 15 (in a also v.27, and in (ἃ ν.}). The phrase is, no doubt, a cor-
rection for o'W3xq, caused by the introduction of *-*%, and the con-
sequent identification of Yahwe with one of the original three, and
the other two with His angels (We. Cop.” 27 f.).—2. 8} 7:0] so pointed
XVIII. 28—XIX. 11 307
De.’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 (187). 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.
4-11. The assault of the Sodomites.— 4. Zhey had
not yet retired to rest when, etc.| That al/ the men of the
city were involved in the attack is affirmed with emphasis
(AXP: v.z.): an instance of the ‘shamelessness’ of Sodom
(Is. 3°).—5. The unnatural vice which derives its name
from the incident was viewed in Israel as the lowest depth
ΠΝ ποτ cotruption: cf. Ly. 18%#- 205. 5. Ezk, 16°,
Ju. 19”.—6-8. Lot’s readiness to sacrifice the honour of
his daughters, though abhorrent to Hebrew morality
(cf. Ju. 197: 80), shows him as a courageous champion of
the obligations of hospitality in a situation of extreme
embarrassment, and is recorded to his credit. Cf. 12!
- 8, inasmuch as they have come under the shadow (t.e.
‘protection’) of my roof-tree| MP, ‘beam’ (like μέλαθρα), for
‘house.’—9, Lot is reminded of his solitary (198, der Eine
da) and defenceless position as a gér (see on 121°),—1I, The
divine beings smite the rabble with demonic blindness
(OM12D: v.z.).
only here: G-K. 8 20d, 100 0.—3. 1%5] Only again 19° 33" (J), Ju. 197,
macs, 2) 536,
4. 010 w3x] probably a gloss (Ols.).—*xspp] (Ur ἅμα) an abbreviation
of ayprayy περ] (Gn. 477!, Ex. 26%, Dt. 13° etc.)= ‘exhaustively’:
so Is. 56", Jer. 5131, Ezk. 25°.—6. annan] om. by GH.—8. oxm]=ndx7
(only again 19” 26%, Lv. 182”, Dt. 4 7” 194, 1 Ch. 208) is an ortho-
graphic variant (not in sa), meant originally to be pronounced px.
See Dri. on Dt. 44.—;>5y-3] as 185.---ο. axda [ax ΠΡ} 08] Ge ἀπόστα
ἐκεῖ : ‘stand back there’; cf. "σφ, Is. 499. ---ιβ ppv] Consec. impf.
expressing ‘paradoxical consequence’ (De.); cf. 32%! 40%, Jb. 2°: see
G-K. §111/7,m. The inf. abs. after its vb. properly denotes continuance
of the action; here its position seems due to the consec. 1, and its
force as if it had stood first (G—-K. § 113 7, f).—1I. 5130] (2 Ki. 6187)
is related to ordinary blindness (jy, Dt. 2855, Zec. 127), somewhat as
mre (27) is to ordinary sleep, If from ,/ ὋΣ (‘shine’), it is either a
308 DESTRUCTION OF SODOM (J)
12-16. The deliverance of Lot.—12. On the construc-
tion, v.2.—13. Vahwe has sent us| 1.6. the ‘three’ are agents
of Yahwe, who is therefore zo¢ present in person.—14. Lot
warns his (prospective) soms-in-law, who were to marry his
daughters: so Jos. Ant. i. 202, JJ, Tu. Di. Dri. al. Others
(G0, IEz. De. al.) take ‘p> as referring to the past,
which is possible (cf. 27*°).—as one that jested| see on 21°,
—I5. as the dawn appeared| The judgement must be ac-
complished by sunrise (3356); hence the urgency of the
summons.—the angels] ‘the men,’ as v.!.—n&323n] who
are at hand (1 Sa. 21*). — 16. he hesitated] reluctant, and
only half-convinced.—through Vahwe's compassion on him).
—left him without the city| rather suggests, as Gu. (186)
holds, that there he is in safety.
17-22. The sparing of Zoar.—17. the mountain] the
elevated Moabite plateau, which rises steeply to heights
of 2500-3000 ft. from the E side of the Sea.—look not
behind thee| Such prohibitions are frequent in legends and
incantations; comp. the story of Orpheus and Eurydice
(Ovid, Met. x. 51; Virg. Ge. iv. 491); cf. also Virg. Zed.
viii. 102; Ov. Fasti, v. 439.—20. zs near enough to fiee to|.
— ys] a trifle: repeated with a view to the etymology of 330,
common oriental euphemism (K6n. ii. p. 404), or dazzling from excess
of light (Ac. 9%): cf. Hoffmann, ZATW, ii. 681. @9° x2aw means both
‘brightness’ and ‘blindness’ ; and in the Talmud Shadrviri is a demon of
blindness (JZ, iv. 517 a). S&S Lda ‘hallucinations.’
12. ‘10 7$-D 3y] The stiff construction has led to various operations
on the text. @ seem to have read niz: 033: ounn; S has Wann.
Di. suggests that the letters 13) have been accidentally thrust into the
word 73nn; Ho. and Gu. omit 1 in 7°32) (so x2) and commence a new
sentence there; Ba. Kit. delete 1 jnn. The text may be retained if
we take the first cl. as indirect qn.: ‘Whomsoever thou hast here as
a son-in-law, and thy sons... bring forth,’ etc. —At end add πὶ
with sa2@%.—15. 102] ‘‘rare and poetic” (Di.). Here used as conj.
(=7wx2).—nesnin] Gr ἃς ἔχεις καὶ ἔξελθε; DP quas habes.—16. noon] f. inf.
const.—16b is omitted by Gi“: 2!, but is found in many cursives.
17. 708] GPX have pl., which is supported by the previous oOxs17
and the following o7°x, though the sing. is maintained in the rest of the
section.—’3n] for zn; G-K. § 107/.—vbp7] five times repeated in
the six vv. is thought by Ba. to be a play on the name »i}.—20.
wi "ΠΠῚ] Gk + ἕνεκεν σοῦ, a slavish imitation of 1233,
XIX. 12-26 309
The city of Zo'ar ((τ Znywp) was well known, not only in OT times
(13! 1428, Dt. 445, Is. 15°, Jer. 48%), but also in the time of the
Crusades, and to the Ar. geographers, who call the Dead Sea the Sea
of Zugar. That this medizval Zoar was at the S end of the lake is
undisputed ; and there is no good reason to question its identity with
the biblical city (see Jos. B/, iv. 482; OS', 261%”). Since Wetzstein, it
is usually located at Ghdr es-Safiyeh, about 5 m. SE from the present
shore of the Sea (cf. Di. 273; Buhl, GP, 271; Smith, WG, 505 ff. ; and
esp. Dri. DB, 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 Heb. readily suggested the etymology of ”.
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 pre-
sentation of human character and action. — 23, 24. The
clause when Lot entered Zoar, presupposes 1", and, if
the latter be from a separate source, must be deleted as
an interpolation (Gu.). The connexion is improved by the
excision: just as the sun rose the catastrophe took place
(G-K. ὃ 164 b).—sulphur and fire (Ezk. 38”, Ps. 11°)] a
feature suggested by permanent physical phenomena of
the region (see below).—Vahwe rained . . . from Yahwe]
A distinction between Yahwe as present in the angels and
Yahwe as seated in heaven (Di.) is improbable. We must
either suppose that the original subject was ‘the men’
(so Gu.: cf. v.38), or that ΠῚΠ NMS) is a doublet to
pw: the latter phrase, however, is generally considered
to be a gloss (Ols. KS. Ho. Gu. Kit.).—25. 32721] see on
9. 26, Lot’s wife transgresses the prohibition of ™”, and
is turned into a pzllar of salt.
The literal interpretation of this notice, though still maintained by
Strack, is clearly inadmissible. The pillar is mentioned as still exist-
ing in WS to’, Jos. Ant. i. 203; the reference obviously being to some
curious resemblance to a female figure, round which the popular
21. V5 ‘nxw3] ‘have accepted thee’ (lit. ‘lifted up thy face’: opp.
pp 2wn)—here in a good sense (as 322), 2 Ki. 3/4, Mal. 155), more fre-
quent in the bad sense of partiality in judgement (Lv. 19%, Dt. 10",
Mal. 2°, Jb. 13 etc.).
23. ἈΦ] we RS’; cf. 15'7.—25. bur (v.8)] Gr+eid pap aw: We, as v.2%,—
26. The v. stands out of its proper position (note the Ὁ consec., and the
suffs.), and belongs to 17 rather than to the main narrative (Gu. ).—
310 DESTRUCTION OF SODOM (J, P)
imagination had woven a legend connecting it with the story of Lot.
Whether it be identical with the huge cylindrical column, 4o ft. high,
on the E side of Gebel Usdum, described by Lynch, is, of course,
doubtful.* The fact that G. Usdum is on the SW side of the lake,
while Zoar was on the SE, 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 remark-
able 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 Dri. DB, iii. 152.
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 18!°,—<the smoke of the land was afterwards
believed to ascend permanently from the site of the guilty
cities (Wisd. 10’).—The idea may have been suggested by
the cloud of vapour which generally hangs over the surface
of the Dead Sea (see Di.).
29. (From P: see p. 306.) Gu. conjectures that the v.
formed the introduction to a lost genealogy of Lot; and
that its original position in P was after 13”. The
dependence of P on J is very manifest.—¢he cities in [one of|
which Lot dwelt] as 83, Ju. 12".
The destruction of the Cities of the Plain.—The narrative of ch. 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 inter-
27. ~->x—n2w] preg. constr.—27b. must have been interpolated after
the expansion of ch. 18 by vv.7>-84,__28. 3225 ΓΝ does not occur else-
where. The variations of αὐτό warrant the emendation 1327753 (Kit.).
—]w127 Ἴ8)Ρ3] the same simile in Ex. 19'8 (also J).—7’p] Ps. 119®* 148°+.—
2g. 12577] ‘the overthrow,’ dz. Ney. The usual verbal noun is 42570
(Dt. 29%, Is. 17 [rd. ΕἸ for ay], 131%, Jer. 4018 50%, Am. 4"), which is
never used except in connexion with this particular judgement. The
unhebraic form of inf., with the fact that where subj. is expressed it is
always (even in Am.) o°n5x and not m7, justify the conclusion that the
phraseology was stereotyped in a heathen version of the story
(Kraetzschmar, ΖΑ ΤΊ, xvii. 87f.). Comp. the use of the vb. τοῦ" 35...
Dt. 29”, Jer. 20', La. 45. ---Ἴ972] 2. 1353 is easier. @% ma’ ‘a3.
*T cannot find the proof of Gu.’s assertion that ¢Azs pillar is now
called ‘the daughter of Lot.’
}
;
|
|
XIX. 27-29 311
position 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 Exp. 1886, i. p. 74; Modern Science in Bible Lands, 486 ff.).
A similar theory has been worked out in elaborate and picturesque
detail by Blanckenhorn in ZDPV, xix. 1-64, xxi. 65-83 (see Dri. p.
202f.).* 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 OT
representation (131° 14° 1°) 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.’ (4) It
is remarkable that the legend contains no mention of the Dead Sea,
either as the cause of the catastrophe, or as originating contemporane-
ously with it (Gu.). 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 Harras of Arabia’ [Meyer]), and been transferred to the region
of the Dead Sea valley. (c) The stereotyped term 73273 (see on v.*),
which seems to have been imported with the legend, points clearly to an
earthquake 45 the main cause of the overthrow ; and there is no mention
of an earthquake in any Hebrew version of the story (see Che. 258,
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,
* Physical explanations of the catastrophe were also current in ancient
times. Strabo (XVI. ii. 44) says that it took place ὑπὸ σεισμῶν καὶ ἀναφυ-
σημάτων πὺρὸς καὶ θερμῶν ὑδάτων ἀσφαλτωδῶν Te καὶ θειωδών, in consequence
of which the lake burst its bounds, the rocks took fire, and soon. Cf.
Jos. B/, iv. 484f., Anz. i. 203; Tacitus, Hist, v. 7.
812 LOT AND HIS DAUGHTERS (J)
many interesting examples of which have been published by Cheyne in
The New World, 1892, 239 ff. It is indeed obvious that no physical ex-
planation 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, 7762.
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 (/.c. 240) pronounces the tale a secondary
version of Gn. 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 Gu. 188f.). Dr. Rendel Harris
(Heavenly Twins, 39 ff.) takes it to be a form of the Dioscuric myth, and
thus a natural sequel to 181-18 (see p. 302 above). Assyriologists have
found in it a peculiar modification of the Deluge-legend (Jast. ZA, xiii.
291, 297 ; RBA}, 507), or of the World-conflagration which is the astro-
nomical counterpart of that conception (4.173, 360 ff.) : both forms of the
theory are mentioned by Zimmern with reserve (KA 75, 559 f.).—What-
ever 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.
XIX. 30-38.—Lot and his Daughters (J).
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 (9”°*-) is an appendix to the Deluge
narrative. Although it has points of contact with 1.38, it is
really an independent myth, as to the origin and motives of
which see the concluding Note (p. 314).
Source.—Though the criteria of authorship are slight, there is no
reason to doubt that the section belongs to J: note the two daughters,
σὰν
XIX. 30--38 213
and the mention of Zoar in ®; and cf. yy mn, 85. 8. with γὃ; and 77'3,
mY YS, 31. 33-35. 37. 38, with 29°,
30a is a transition clause, connecting what follows with
1-8 esp. with !7-2,—in the mountain] of Moab; cf. v.17.—
he was afraid to dwell in Z.| lest it should be consumed,
though the motive involves a slight discrepancy with 51.---
30b. ix the cave] probably a particular cave which was
named after Lot (cf. 1 Ki. 19°). It is pointed out that wid, a
possible variant of pi, is named as ἃ Horite (Troglodyte ?)
in 36% 2.29. The habit is said to have persisted till modern
times in that region (Di. Dri. after Buckingham, Zvavels in
Syria [1825]).—31. there is noman in the earth| ‘We are the
survivors of a universal catastrophe.’ So Gu., following
Pietschmann, Gesch. der Phinister, 115; Jastrow, ZA, xiii.
298 (see below). The usual explanations: ‘no man in
the vicinity’ (Di. al.), or ‘all men will shrink from us’
(Dri.), hardly do justice to the language.—}"IN7"3 7212] So
in the Jewish marriage formula xyr~ 53 N82 amd Syw sas
(De.).—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” (Gu. 192).—
3"3ND] repeated in ** %6, anticipating the etymology of *”.—
33, 35. re Anew not, etc.| still minimising Lot’s culpability
(cf. 4816... 1.7, ἈΝ] as if= IN, ‘from a (my?) father’
(v.z.).—38. “DY7j2] not ‘son of my people,’ which would be
30 end] su0kP + wy.—3r. ‘Sy xa] in this sense only Dt. 25°.—32. 225]
as. 109, — 33. ppem] (so 36); GK. § 472.—xi7 Π2503] (ax em). = On
omission of art. with demonstr., see G—-K. § 126; cf. 301% 3275 3871,
1 Sa. 19!°.— axe] Gk + τὴν νύκτα éxelvny.—arspr] ‘ Appungunt desuper,
quasi incredibile’! (Je.). In reality the point probably marks a super-
fluous letter (cf. v.*°).—34. .2Ν] Gi 3°28.—37. 32] Gr + λέγουσα, ᾿Εκ τοῦ
πατρός μου ([\]axp). For the equivalence of 1p and ἢ, cf. Nu. 117% (app
= az 1D, (ἃ Mwiad), Jer. 48?! (nyp, Or. = nynw, Kt.), etc. : see ZATW,
xvi. 322f. The real etymology is, of course, uncertain. Homm. ingeni-
ously and plausibly explains the name as a contraction of yipx, ‘his
mother is the father,’ after the analogy of a few Assyrian proper names
(Verhand. d. XIII. Orient.-Kong. 261). The view of Kn. and De. that
jp is Aram. 1) (= Ὁ), ‘water,’ and that the word meant ‘water (z.e.
semen) of a father,’ hardly deserves consideration.—38. ‘>y7j3] Gr’ Auudy,
ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ γένους μου, missing the significance of the 13 (v.s.).
314 LOT AND HIS DAUGHTERS (J)
nothing distinctive of any child, but ‘son of my (paternal)
kinsman’ (see 1713). Note the formal correspondence with
Hay 23, which (and not NY simply) is the invariable designa-
tion of the people in OT (exc. Ps. 838, and MT of 1 Sa. τα}
[Gq 'Y 23]). Both etymologies are obviously pointless except
as expressing the thought of the mothers, who, as is usual
in J, 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)* that incestuous marriages, such as
are here spoken of, were customary in these lands, and gave an edge
to this Hebrew taunt (so Di.). 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 ch. 38, where the ancestry
of the noble tribe of Judah (held in special honour by J) 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 We.
GGN, 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, Gu.
(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 v.*. V.%1, 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 ὅδ, If Gu.’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 τοῦδ...
Lot is the counterpart of the Hebrew Noah; and just as the Noah of
9”. steps into the place of the Babylonian Deluge-hero, so the Lot of
19°" was identified with the entertainer of deity in the heathen myth
which probably lies at the basis of τοῦ
* Cf. the similar conjecture with regard to Reuben (p. 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 dint (daughter): Desert
of the Exodus, ii. 478; see Dri. 205.
+ The connexion with the Deluge-legend was anticipated by Jast. in
the art. already cited, ZA, xiii. 197 f.—It is a flood of water which
destroys the inhospitable people in the parallel from Ovid cited above
(p. 312).
in eG
XX. 1 315
Cu. XX.—Abraham and Sarah at the Court of Gerar (E).
The chapter deals with an incident closely similar to that
recorded in 129°, It is indeed impossible to doubt that the
two are variants of the same tradition; a view which is con-
firmed rather than shaken by Strack’s enumeration of petty
differences. A close comparison (see p. 364 f. below) appears
to show that the passage before us is written from a more
advanced ethical standpoint than that represented by ch. 12:
note the tendency to soften the harsher features of the in-
cident (*+® 16), and to minimise the extent of Abraham’s
departure from strict veracity.
Source.—The narrative is the first continuous excerpt from E; and
contains several stylistic and other peculiarities of that document: esp.
DNL T], ὃ & 118 17 (18 ma is a gloss); mY (J ANEW), 7; 232 (J 39), δ; see
also the notes on }\"73, 5; “Sx 7px, = 18; b inj, δ; appx, 13 (cf. Di. 279; Ho.
159; Gu. 193).—The appearing of God in a dream is characteristic of
E; and the conception of Abraham as a prophet (7) is at least foreign
to the original J (but see on 151). Another circumstance proving the
use of a source distinct from J* or P is that Sarah is here conceived as
a young woman capable of inspiring passion in the king (ct. 1813 17"),
Lastly, it is to be observed that ch. 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.
I, 2. Introductory notice.—The method of the narrator,
Gu. points out, is to let the story unfold itself in the col-
loquies which follow, vv.* containing just enough to make
these intelligible.—1. the land of the Negeb| see on 12°.—
between Kadésh (14") and Shir (16") would be in the extreme
S of the Negeb, if not beyond its natural limits. The words
7732 13°} (note the paronomasia) are not a nearer specifica-
tion of the previous clause, but introduce a new fact,—a
further stage of the patriarch’s wanderings. There is there-
fore no reason to suppose that Gérar lay as far S as Kadesh
I. yo] see 112X233 ΠΥῚΝ] /37 PI only 24%, Jos. 151, Ju. 1° (J), Nu.
13% (E?). - Ὑ] (10 26): 8. 17 [18 Soa], 20.26 2 Ch. 1413: +) (ἃ Tepapa,
S ἐκ commonly identified, on the authority of OS, 240% (ἀπέχουσα
᾿Ελευθεροπόλεως σημείοις xe πρὸς νότον), with the modern Umm γᾶν (‘ place
of water-pots’), 6 miles SSE of Gaza (so Rowlands, Holy City, i. 464 ;
Robinson [who did not find the name], BR, ii. 43 f. [οἷν i. 189], Ho. Gu.
316 ABRAHAM AT GERAR (E)
(v.z.).—2. The bareness of the narration is remarkable, and
was felt by the Greek translators to be wanting in lucidity
(v.2.).—Abimelech, king of Gérar] ὭΡΩΝ = ‘Milk is [my]
father,’ is a genuine Canaanite name, compounded with the
name of the god ΜΖ (see Baeth. Beztr. 37 ff.). It occurs
as the name of the governor of Tyre (Adz-mz/kz) in the TA
Tablets (149-156). There is no trace here of the anach-
ronism which makes him a Philistine prince (ch. 26); Gerar
is an independent Canaanite kingdom.—took Sarah] sc. as
wife; the same ellipsis as 19'*.
3-7. Abimelech’s dream.—This mode of revelation is
peculiar to Εὶ (21 4 2215. 282 2511 24 455) 62. Nusa eeu
and probably indicates a more spiritual idea of God than the
theophanies of J. It must be remembered, however, that
according to primitive ideas the ‘coming’ of God (so 31%,
Nu. 2259) would be as real an event in a dream as in waking
experience.—4a. had not drawn near her| Not an explana-
al.). This suits 26! (according to which it was in Philistine territory),
1o!? and 2 Ch. 14%; but hardly 26!"*-, and it is certainly inconsistent
with the notice ‘Ww 73} w12 73. There happens to be a Wadi Geriir, c.
13 miles SW of Kadesh, which exactly agrees with this description ;
and so Trumbull (ad.-Bar. 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 (Che. ZB, ii. 1705 f.). The question really turns on
2617: 2If- ; 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 KS.) that 15 is a redactional clause, or (with Ho. Gu.) that
part of E’s narrative has been suppressed between ™ and 1). It is true
that ov» has no antecedent in Εἰ, and it is, of course, conceivable that it
was written by RE to connect the following with a previous section of
E (Gu.), or by RJE to mark the transition from Hebron (18!) to the
Negeb. A redactor, however, would not have been likely to insert the
notice ‘between Kadesh and Shur’ unless he had meant it as a definition
of the site of Gerar.—2. -Sx 72x] = ‘said regarding’ is rare: 2 Ki. 19%,
Jer. 2218 27; cf. 5’x, v.18, Ju. g®!, Ps. 3% 711°.—After Athnach, @ inserts
ἐφοβήθη yap εἰπεῖν ὅτι Τυνή μού ἐστιν, μή ποτε ἀποκτείνωσιν αὐτὸν οἱ ἄνδρες
τῆς πόλεως δι’ αὐτήν (from 2675).
4. Sy] ax πτν dy: cf. 21", Ex. 188, Nu. 12! 1423 (Ε), Gn. 21% 2653 (J),
Jos. 148 (R), Ju. 67.—bya nby2] a married woman, Dt. 22”.—4. To ‘ain
the indefinite sense of ‘people’ (Zewte) we may compare Ps. 43}, Dn.
113; but the sense is doubtful, and the idea may be that the whole
nation is involved in the punishment of the king (Str.). Eerdmans
(Komp. der Genesis, 41) offers the incredible suggestion that 2 here has
—
!
XX. 2-9 317
tion of Abimelech’s good conscience (which depended solely
on the purity of his motives), but of Yahwe’s words in ®.
Why he had not come near her, we gather fully from ”.—
4b, 5. Abimelech protests his innocence.—innocent folk|—
‘such as I am’ (v.z.).—5. vanb-ona] ‘unsuspectingly’; cf.
2 Sa. 15, 1 Ki. 22%*; in the wider sense of moral integrity
the phrase occurs 1 Ki. οὗ, Ps. 78” 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
(Di.), but the moral offence of violating the marriage bond.
—suffered thee not] by sickness (v.'").—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.—/e zs a prophet] in a secondary sense, as a
‘man of God,’ whose person and property are inviolable:
cf. Ps. 105!°.—On zntercession as a function of the prophet,
Bing, s Sa. 7° 12"-*, Jer. 7% etc.; but cf. Jb: 42°.—that
thou mayest live| or ‘ recover.’
The section (*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
(cf. the matricide of Orestes, etc. ; and see Smend, ἌΤΑΣ, 108 f.). At
the same time God Himself recognises the relative validity of Abimelech’s
plea of ignorance (°). 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.
8-13. Abimelech and Abraham.—9. a great sin] 1.6.,
a state of things which, though unwittingly brought about,
involves heavy judgement from God (see on *7 above).—deeds
its late Jewish sense of an individual ‘heathen.’ Geiger, Graetz, al.
regard the word as a gloss or a corrupt dittography. (ἃ has ἔθνος
ἀγνοοῦν καὶ Sixacov.—5. |\73] only here in Hex. ; E is addicted to rare
expressions. For ἘΞ, cf. Ps. 26° 731°.—6. ionp] for Xenp ; G-K. § 75 gg.
—'} η}} = ‘permit,’ 317, Nu. 207! 21% 2218 (E), Ex. 12% (J), 3°(R), Dt. 18",
Jos. 10! (D): see OH, i. 192.
8. owIKA] WGP pr. $2.9. wo nwy ΠῸ] δῷ wa == 1110 -- snvy an,
318 ABRAHAM AT GERAR (E)
that are not done| are not sanctioned by the conventional
code of morals: cf. 247, 2 Sa. 13!2 etc.—To this rebuke
Abraham (as in 1218) has no reply, and Abimelech proceeds
in—IO to inquire into his motive for so acting. — ΠΩ
MS] ‘ What possessed thee ?’ (v.t.).—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 (Gu.), we cannot now determine.—
II. There 15 no prety (DTN OXY) zx this place] Religion was
the only sanction of international morality, the gér having
no civil rights; cf. 4218: see Bertholet, Stellung d. Fremden,
15. Cf. 12"%,—12, Besides, she really ts my sister] Marriage
with a half-sister on the father’s side was frequent among
the Semites (Smith, A//’, 191 f.), and was allowed in ancient
Israel (2 Sa. 1318), though prohibited by later legislation
(Dt. 27%, Lv. 18% 4 201’). —13. When God caused me to
stray| The expression is peculiar, as if God had driven him
rashly adopted by Ba. Ho. Kit.—‘nxon] Gk ἡμάρτομεν.---ΤΟ. τ ΝῚ 7D] Gi τί
ἐνιδών ; so ἘΠ΄. Ba. conj. px}; Gu. my. The translation given above is
taken from Bacher, ZA7TW, xix. 345 ff., who cites many examples from
NH of the idiom (lit. ‘What hast thou experienced ?’).—11. 33] a2 ‘NNT 3
*3.—pi]=‘[I should act otherwise] on/y,' etc. : a purely asseverative force
(BDB) seems to me insufficiently established by Dt. 45, 1 Ki. 21%, 2 Ch.
28, Ps. 425.-- 12. myo] ax ΠΟΝΓΠ Ὁ], as 1813, Nu. 2257; but cf. Jos. 7”.
These are all the occurrences in Hex.—13. 3yn7] τὰ mynn. The constr. of
ὈΠῸΝ (pl. emin.) with pl. pred. is exceptional, though not uncommon (318
35", Jos. 245), and does not appear to be regulated in our present text
by any principle. A tendency to substitute sing. for pl. is shown by
1 Ch. 177 cpd. with 2 Sa. 777; and it is probable that the change has
taken place in many cases where we have no means of tracing it: see
Str.277; G-K. § 1452. A kindred and equally inexplicable anomaly is
the sporadic use of the art. with this word (so vv.® 17), Both phenomena
are probably survivals from a polytheistic form of the legend.— ax] s+
‘nade paxo (as 12!),—mpon$3] determined by following relative clause ;
so Ex. 20“, Dt. 117%.
Ε΄ ςς-
XX. 10-16 319
forth an aimless wanderer (Di.). It proves that in E, as in
J and P, Abraham was an immigrant in Canaan.
14-18. Abimelech makes reparation to Abraham.—
14. The present to Abraham in 121° was of the nature of
mohar 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.—I5, The invitation to
dwell in the land is a contrast to the honourable but
peremptory dismissal of 12!.—16. see, 7 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 (Ex. 2215", Dt. 2277): Abimelech, with a touch
of sarcasm, puts Sarah in the former category.—zooo
(shekels) of st/ver] not the money value of the gifts in v."*
(Str.), 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, Ζ.6.», is
condoned. The fig. is applied in various ways in OT; cf.
Jb. o%, Gn. 3231, Ex. 238, 1 Sa. 128.—The cl. N02) ὉΞ ΤΙΝῚ is
obscure, and the text hardly correct (v.z.). The general
sense is that Sarah’s honour is completely rehabilitated.—
14. }8s] χα pr. Ὁ 03 dx ({τ.16) wrongly.—nnse O73] probably a gl.
fr. 1216, this being the only instance of 175% in an E context.—16. Aan
TER—w] Ck ταῦτα ἔσται σοι els τιμὴν τοῦ προσώπου σου καὶ πάσαις ταῖς μετὰ
σοῦ; Ἔ hoc erit tibi in velamen oculorum ad omnes qui tecum sunt [et
quocunque perrexeris|; % ANG πὶ ἘΠ Cot 2} Ἰσιο
«τον Xo» boos .. Δ. σν.0». The difficulties of the v. com-
mence here. The suggestion that xin refers to Abraham (IEz.) 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 (24%)! The first qn. is, Whose eyes
are to be covered ?—Sarah’s own (29), or those of the people about her
(n 535), or both (Sab: [with 2n@i])? Di. adopts the second view, taking
q> as dat. comm. To this De. forcibly replies that dat. comm. before
dat. of reference is unnatural: hence he takes the first view (a), dat. of
ref., and bab = 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”
(Ba.). A better sense would be obtained if Wx 35 could be taken as
neuter: ‘all that has befallen thee’ (Tu. Ho. al.) That is perhaps
320 BIRTH OF ISAAC (J, E, P)
17. God healed Ab.] The first explicit intimation (see * 6)
that Abimelech had been smitten with a bodily malady,
whose nature is indicated by the last word 1721.18, A
superfluous and inadequate explanation of 17, universally
recognised as a gloss; note also m7. 3¥] see on 162.
ΧΧΙ, 1-21.—Birth of Isaac and Expulsion of Ishmael
(1, ἘΣ and Pe):
The birth, circumcision, and naming of Isaac are briefly
recorded in a section pieced together from the three sources
(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 (192). A
comparison with the Yahwistic parallel (ch. 16) will be found
below (p. 324).
Analysis.—** are from P (who by the way ignores altogether the
expulsion of Ishmael [see on 25°]): obs. the naming by the father and
the exact correspondence with 16'° in %, circumcision (4), the chronology
(5); and the words πῶς, 2 4; sayin, 2 (cf. 1721); may nn, 5 is to be
assigned to J (13715 13, v.z.); and also, for the same reason, 7. There
remain the doublets Il ΠΡ and ® 1 Ὁ, Since the continuity of P is sel-
dom sacrificed, Ὁ is usually assigned to that source (m7, a scribal error),
leaving * to J (mm, 7728). ὅν goes with? (therefore J: v.z.); and there
remains for E the solitary half-verse ® (a°n>x), which cannot belong to
P because of the different etymology implied for pms. So Ho. Gu.; Di.
Str. differ only in assigning the whole of ® to E.—The J fragments
la. 2a 7. 6 form a completely consecutive account of the birth of Isaac;
which, however, is not the sequel to ch. 18 (see on ®), and therefore
impossible with the present text; hence Gu.’s emendation 4px (pf.
/ apy w. acc. : Jb. 3%) is not unattractive.—nn3) 5. ΠΝ] Untranslatable.
Gi καὶ πάντα ἀλήθευσον ; YP quocungue perrexeris: mementogue te depre-
hensam; 3 atimo| $0,So Xo Aso (‘about all wherewith thou
hast reproached me’); @° nnanx ΠΝ xD 93 Oy. ~The change to ana}
(2 5. pf.) is of no avail, the difficulty being mostly in Sin», which
cannot be continuation of 77x (Tu. al.), or of oy mop a, but must with
MT accents be taken with’». The rendering ‘and before all men thou
shalt be righted’ (Di. De. Dri.) is the best that can be made of the text.
The easiest emendation is that of Gu. : no23 ‘$2 Ay)}=‘ and thou in all this
(affair) art justified,’ though the sense given to 153 has no clear example
in OT. The more drastic remedies of Ba. do not commend themselves,
—18. 7°] we OTR.
XXI. 1-8 321
belongs to J rather than J® (Gu.).—**! is wholly Elohistic : n’nbx, 1 1%
19. 30... apy, 10 1218, 20 ow, 1% 18 (7 “Ὁ πον, 122; Ρ “Ὁ 7π2, 17%); and rare
expressions like non, '* 15. 19; nwp “nen, 16; nwp aan, % Further character-
istics are the revelation of God by night (036), and in a voice from
heaven (27).
1-7. The birth of Isaac.—2. a son to his old age] sov."
2438 373 4429 (all J). All the sources emphasise the fact that
Isaac was a late-born child; but this section contains
nothing implying a miracle (ct. chs. 17, 18).—3-5. The
naming and circumcision of Isaac, in accordance with 1779: 15
(P).—6a. God has made laughter for me| Both here and in
60 laughter is an expression of joy, whereas in 1815: 1717 it
expresses incredulity.—6b, 7 is the Yahwistic parallel. It
has been pointed out by Bu. (Uzg. 224: so Kit. KS. Ho.)
that the transposition of ® to the end of’ greatly improves
the sense, and brings out the metrical form of the original
(in Heb. 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!
8 τὸ. Sarah demands the ejection of Ishmael.—8.
The occasion was the customary family feast of the weaning
of Isaac (Benz. Arch.” 131). The age of weaning in modern
Palestine is said to be 2 or 3 years (zd. 116); in ancient
Israel also it must often have been late (1 Sa. 17%, 2 Mac.
Ia. 1p5] never used by P sensu bono (Str.). —2. pbx] @& ma. — 3,
$37] pointed as pf. with art. (18!).—6a. pns] The ,/ pns never occurs
outside of Pent., except Ju. 16° (where pny: should probably be read) and
Ezk. 23% (but see Corn. and Toy), the Qal being used only in connexion
with Isaac (17!7 18! 1315 216), while Pi. has a stronger sense (19'4 219 268
4015. 7, Ex. 32°). The other form pny (not in Pent.) is mostly later than
Jer. (except Ju 167, 1 Sa. 187, 2 Sa. 24 6ὅ: 31}: in four cases (Am. 7% 16,
Jer. 337, Ps. 105°) even the name pny! appears as poy. It will be seen
that in Gn. we have no fewer than 4 (17!7 18! 21 60) or 5 (21°?) different
suggestions of a connexion of pps! with ,/ pny. Analogy would lead us to
suppose that in reality it is a contraction of Sxpqs?, in all probability the
name of an extinct tribe (cf. Sxypv:, xm, etc.).—6b. pny:] see G-K.
§ τὸ g.—7. >>>] Aram.; in Heb. rare and poetic.—On the modal use of
pf. (‘ would have said’), cf. G-K. § 106 f ; Dri. 7. § 19.—0"33] pl. of species ;
of. Ex. 21%, 1 Sa. 17%, Ca. 29(Di.). (ἃ has sing.—13p1>] Gk ἐν τῷ γήρει μου.
21
322 EXPULSION OF HAGAR (E)
77"-).—9. playing with Isaac her son| The last words are
essential to the sense, and must be restored with (ἴ Ὲ} (see
Jub. 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 P, 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.*—1o0.
with my son| If this presupposes an equal right of inheritance
as between the sons of the wife and the concubine (Gu.), it
also shows a certain opposition to that custom: cf. the
case of Jephthah, Ju. τι: (see Benz. Arch. 296).—this
slave girl (V28)| In E, Hagar is not Sarah’s maid, but simply
a household slave, who has become her master’s concubine.
11-13. Abraham’s misgivings removed.—II. oz
account of his son] whom he loves as his own flesh and
blood; for the mother, as a slave, he has no particular
affection.—I2. It is revealed to him (by night: ef. 1) that
Sarah’s maternal instincts are in accord with the divine
purpose.—shall a seed be called to thee] 1.6... ‘in the line of
Isaac shall thy name be perpetuated’ (Is. 418, cf. Ro. οἵ,
Heb. 1118). The same idea otherwise expressed in P
(1719 21).—13. Hagar’s child (still unnamed) is alsoAbraham’s
seed, though his descendants are not to be known as such.
—a great nation (xf S)| cf. 177.
9. paso] Gk παίζοντα μετὰ "Ioaax τοῦ υἱοῦ ἑαυτῆς ; so Ἔ (cf. Zec. 85).
The sense ‘mock’ (‘play with’ in a bad sense) would require a following
3, but it is doubtful if it actually occurs. 39!* 17 may be explained after
26° ; in τοῦ" it means simply ‘ play’ as opposed to serious behaviour (cf.
Pr. 26,9). See above on v.®°.—On the pausal ---, see G-K. ὃ 52 7.—11
end] (ἃ + Ἴσμαηλ (wrongly).—12. yy] Ge + τὸ ῥῆμα.---13. 22k read
baa nad nara mont: ΟἿ} also in HS.—[‘3] 125—nrv] so v.18 468 (E).
* St. Paul’s allusion to Ishmael as persecuting Isaac (Gal. 4”,
ἐδίωκεν) is based on this poyp. For other Haggadic interpretations, see
Ber. R. § liii; Dri. DB, ii. 503b, and Gen. 210. Unchastity (cf. 39™ 17),
idolatry (Ex. 32°, TJ Ra), attempted murder (2 Sa. 21}, Pr. 261), etc., are
among the crimes inferred from this unfortunate word.
—
XXI. 9-19 323
14-16. Mother and child in the desert.—The suffer-
ings and despair of the helpless outcasts are depicted with
fine feeling and insight.—14. ὦ skin of water| MDM (v.z.), the
usual Eastern water-bag, answering to the szrby of the
modern Bedouin (Doughty, Av. Des. 1. 227, ii. 585).—and the
boy he placed on her shoulder (υ.1.}} cf. ¥: 1°.—the wilderness
of Beersheba (see on *')] implying that Abraham dwelt
near, but not necessarily at, Beersheba.—I5. she cast the
boy (whom, therefore, she must have been carrying) under
one of the bushes| for protection from the sun (1 Ki. 19*),
To save P’s chronology, De. and Str. 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 cl. should be read with (ζ;
and the boy lifted up his voice and wept (v.""): 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 MT.
17-19. The Divine succour comes in two forms: a
voice from heaven (175), and an opening of Hagar’s eyes (1°).
—17. God heard (twice) preparing for an explanation of
DNyOv.— While God Himself hears, the medium of His
revelation is the Angel of God (as 28% 311 327, Ex. 1419),
who by a refinement peculiar to E (22!) speaks from heaven.
This goes beyond the primary conception of the Angel : see
on 16’.—18. Hagar is encouraged by a disclosure of the
future greatness of her son.—IQ. opened her eyes] cf. 3°7.
14. non) Only here (15. 19) = Ar. hamit (,/hamita, ‘rancid’?) On
the forms nbn, n>n, or npg, npn, see G-K. § 95 Δ--ἰ τὸν ow] The trans-
position m22u-5y oy abirny) was suggested by Ols., and is by far the best
remedy for an awkward constr. In MT it would be necessary to take
‘3nx} as second obj. to jm), and ποθι» ow as a parenthetic circumst. cl.
(so Di. De. Str.). It is an effort to evade the absurdity of a youth of
17 being carried on his mother’s back.—15. on'wa] ‘desert shrubs’; see
on 2°.—16. pnt] G-K. ὃ 113 4.—nwp “nwn2] lit. ‘as (far as) bowmen
do’; (ἃ ὡσεὶ τόξου βολήν, S .Δδα Ἰμαο yo, hardly imply a different
text. On Ἵπρρ (ptc. Pal. ,/n»,—only here), see G-K. §75 24.—1n xem]
G 3} abpny [5] xp.—rzb. dpe] MSS and ws ‘pnx.—19. Ὁ 783]
(ἃ + o”n,—attractive! (cf. 26%).
324 EXPULSION OF HAGAR (E)
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.
20, 21. Ishmael’s career.—Here we expect the naming
of the child, based on v.!7: this has been omitted by R in
favour of J (16!!).—20. The boy grew up, amidst the perils
and hardships of the desert, —a proof that God was with him.
—he became a bowman] (pt. NYP 125: v.2.), the bow being
the weapon of his descendants (Is. 21!”).—21. The wzlderness
of Paran is et-Tih, bounding the Negeb on the S.—His
mother took him a wife from the land of Egypt] her own
country (v.°): see p. 285 above.
Comparison of ch. 16 with 21'*1.—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 (16" 2117); the mode of life characteristic of his descendants
(16 21°) ; their relation to Israel ; and the sacredness ofa certain well,
consecrated by a theophany (167 “4 21'%).* Each tale is an exhaustive
expression of these motives, and does not tolerate a supplementary
anecdote alongside of it. Ch. 21, however, represents a conception of
the incident further removed from primitive conditions than 16: contrast
the sympathetic picture of nomadic life in 16!” with the colourless notice
of 21%; 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 wilder-
ness. In E 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 J; it is marked by a greater
refinement of moral feeling, and by a less anthropomorphic idea of God.
—See the admirable characterisation of Gu. p. 203 f.
20. nvp ΠῚ ‘nm ] ‘and he became, growing up, an archer’; BD
quvenis sagittarius (so €°). But ngp is dr. εἰρήμ., the syntax is pecu-
liar, and, besides, the growing up has been already mentioned. The
true text is doubtless that given above and implied by (ἃ ἐγένετο δὲ
τοξότης. & [we lon aX.0 also implies nv? ; but there are further
divergences in that Vn. 127 = ‘shoot’ (not so elsewhere), might be a
by-form of 215 (see on 493; and cf. 31-- " shooter,’ in Jer. 50%, Jb. 161%) ;
but it may be a question whether in these three cases we should not
substitute 429 for 235, or whether in this pass. we should not read 735
nvp with Ba. (see esp. Jer. 435, Ps. 78°). The rendering ‘a shooter, an
archer’ (De.), is clumsy ; and the idea that ng is an explanatory gloss
on 725 (KS.) is not probable.
* The well is not identified in E. Gu.’s view, that it was Beersheba,
has little to commend it.
XXI. 20-26 325
XXI. 22-34.—Abraham’s Covenant with Abimelech
(E and J).
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’ (23.235. 27. 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 (25 36. 28-80. 32. 33),
Sources.—The passage, except some redactional touches in *-*, has
usually been assigned to E (We. Kue. Di. Ho. Str.). Its disjointed
character has, however, been felt, and tentative solutions have been
proposed by several critics (cf. KS. Anm. 92, 93; Kraetz. Bundvorsig.
14, 313; v. Gall, CSt. 468. ; OH. ii. 30f.). The most successful is that of
Gu., who assigns 20: 26. 28-30. 32-34 to J, the rest to E: the reasons will
appear in the notes. The analysis rests on the duplicates (77*!%,
27 | 828) and material discrepancies of the section; the linguistic criteria
being indecisive as between J and E, though quite decisive against P
(rp, 737, 2 ; ΠΡῚΞ ΠῚΞ, 7; naya, 39), But the connexion with ch. 20, and o°7>x
in % 23, prove that the main account is from E ; while m7, 35, and waya, *,
show the other to be J. Since the scene is Beersheba, the Yahwistic
component must be J®.—***4 have been considerably modified by R.
Procksch (το ff.) holds that in the original E v.* preceded 1°; his
detailed analysis being almost identical with Gu.’s.
22-24. Abimelech proposes an oath of perpetual amity
between his people and Abraham’s, and the latter consents
(E).—22. Pikol (v.z.), his commander-in-chief, seems here
merely a symbol of the military importance of Gerar: other-
wise 267%, where P. is a party to the covenant.—23. Swear
to me here] in the place afterwards known as Beersheba (**).
Abraham’s departure from Gerar, and Abimelech’s visit to
him in Beersheba, must have stood in E between 20" and
2155 (cf. 2615. 36), 24, This unreserved consent is incon-
sistent with the expostulation of —25, 26 (J), which pre-
22. ban] Gk pr. καὶ ᾿Οχοζὰθ ὁ νυμφαγωγὸς αὐτοῦ (fr. 26%). Spiegelberg
(OZz, ix. 109) considers this one of the few Egyptian names in OT
=p~<*H-r(7), ‘ the Syrian.” —23. ox] G-K. § 149 c.—12 2] (proles et soboles)
an alliterative phrase found in Is. 14”, Jb. 181%, Sir. 41° 47+. —25.
n2m] ‘‘ must be corrected to Π5}}᾿ (Ba., cf. G-K. § 112 74): ax ma. But
326 THE COVENANT WITH ABIMELECH (Ε, J)
supposes strained relations between the parties, and repeated
disputes about the ownership of wells. Note (1) the fre-
quentative 0217), (2) the pl. ‘ wells’ (retained by @), (3) the
fuller parallel of 265. 158. 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 Gu.).—
27. Continuing *4 (E). Giving (or exchange?) of presents
seems to have been customary when a covenant was made
(1 Ki. 1519, Is. 308, Ho. 127). The action would be no suit-
able answer to v.76, 28-30 (J). the seven ewe lambs are set
apart for the purpose explained in 33; but the art. shows
that they must have been mentioned in the previous context.
It is clear from *° that the lacuna is in J, not in E; while
Abimelech’s question 35 proves that the lambs were not an
understood part of the ceremony (Di.).—30. that zt (the
acceptance of the present) may be a witness, etc.| so that in
future there may be no quarrel about Beersheba.—3I be-
longs to E: 3Yav3, cf. 2; ἘΠ. cf. 27, — yay 182 = ‘seven
wells,’ is here explained as ‘ Well of the Oath,’ the oath being
the central feature of the Jerith. The etymology is not
altogether at fault, since Yat’? may mean lit. to ‘ put oneself
under the influence of seven,’ the sacred number (Her. iii. 8;
Hom. 127. xix. 243 ff.; Paus. ili. 20. 9).—32a. J’s parallel to
δῦ *__33, The inauguration of the cult of Beersheba (J: cf.
MT is probably right, with freqve. sense of pf. given above. For the
following 728» (instead of 7os)), see Dri. Z. § 114 8.—783] Gr φρεάτων, ut
sup.—28. [xsn] a2 (which also omits “ns) jxs. De. thinks this one of the
few cases (G-K. § 127 e) where art. determines only its own word, and
- not the whole expression.—2g. Rd. nva27 with 2s (3°),—ryaa> (axe y7725)].
On suff. cf. G-K. $91 The form is chiefly pausal ; and though the only
other ex. in Pent. (Gn. 42°) is E, 30% (93>) is J, and the form cannot be
considered distinctive of E.—31. yaw ἼΝ3] Gr Φρέαρ ὁρκισμοῦ, but in 33 &, τοῦ
ὅρκου. The constr. (num. in gen. after sing. noun) has been supposed by
Sta. to be Canaanite idiom (cf. ΚΞΝ np, 23).—33. vx] Ar. ’af/, Aram.
* 820 would be a natural conclusion to E’s narrative (cf. 332, but for
the fact that that source never speaks of a Philistine occupation of Gerar.
The last three vv., however, seem to have been altered by a compiler.—
It is probable that J gave an explanation of the name of the well, con-
necting it with the seven lambs ; so (J (jpn yae7 xv).
)
)
)
;
:
|
:
|
|
:
XXI. 27-34 327
26”). Among the sacra of that famous shrine there must
have been a sacred tamarisk believed to have been planted
by Abraham (see on 12°). The planting of a sacred tree
is no more a contradictio in adjecto (Sta. in v. Gall, 47) than
the erecting of a sacred stone, or the digging of a sacred
well. The opinion (KS. Ho.) that the subj. is Isaac, and
that the v. should stand after 26”, rests on the incorrect as-
sumption that no stratum of J puts Abraham in connexion
with Beersheba.—’Z/ ‘Olaém] presumably the pre-Israelite
name of the local amen, here identified with Yahwe (Gu. :
see 16:8). Canaanite analogies are Ἦλος ὃ καὶ Κρόνος (Eus.
Prep. Ev. i. το, 13 ff.), and Χρόνος ἀγήρατος (Damasc. Princ.
123).—34. The assumption that Beersheba was in Philistine
territory being incompatible with 530. the v. must be an in-
terpolation.—On the historical background of these legends,
see after 26°,
Beersheba is the modern &77-es-Seba’, in the heart of the Negeb,
some 28 miles SW from Hebron, and 25 SE from Umm el-Gerar. Its
importance as a religious centre in OT appears not only from its fre-
quent mention in the patriarchal history (225 2675 518. 2810 46/f), but still
more from the fact that in the 8th cent. its oracle (cf. 257") was resorted
to by pilgrims from the northern kingdom (Am. 5° 813). V. 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 (2S, 181 f.: cf. N6. ARW, vii. 340 ff.) ; and
the existence of a plurality of wells at Bi’r es-Seba’ has never been dis-
puted. See Rob. BR, i. 204 ff. ; Smith, WG, 284 f. ; Robinson, 8767. World,
XVii. (1901), 247 ff. ; Gautier, 2b. xviii. 49 ff. ; Dri. E7, vii. (1896), 567 f. ;
Joel and Amos? (1901), p. 239f.; Trumbull, 27, viii. 89.
Cu. XXII. Zhe Sacrifice of Isaac (E and Ε΄ ἢ).
The only incident in Abraham’s life expressly character-
ised as a ‘trial’ of his faith is the one here narrated, where
the patriarch proves his readiness to offer up his only son
xbnx, Ass. aSlu; 1 Sa. 225 4118 [in 1 Ch. 10” dx] +, in both cases prob-
ably denoting a sacred tree. The word seems to have been strange to
Vns. : Gk ἄρουραν, Aq. devipwva, Σ. φυτείαν, DB nemus, etc. The substitution
of 7x proposed by Sta. (v.s.) is uncalled for, though see ZB, 4892 f.—
phy] ax oy7.—34 is wanting in J (ed. Ginsburger).
328 THE SACRIFICE OF ISAAC (E)
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 re-
strained emotion, which shows how fully the author realises
the tragic horror of the situation.
Source.—The original narrative consists of νν. 16 1, In spite of ma
in 4-14, this belongs to E: cf. om by[q], 1 3: 8. 9.12... nbay 5; the revelation
by night, ™; the Angel calling from heaven, ¥.—On 1518. see below.
Comp. Di. Ho. Gu.
1-8. Abraham’s willing preparation for the sacri-
fice.—1. God tempted Abraham] 1.6., tested him, to ‘‘ know
what was in his heart” (Dt. 8?),—an anthropomorphic re-
presentation: cf. Ex. 16* 20%, Dt.’ 816 11. 33° etc amas
sentence governs the narrative and prepares the reader for
a good ending.—2. thy son—thine only one—whom thou lovest
—Tsaac| emphasising the greatness of the sacrifice, as if to
say that God knows right well how much He asks.—‘¢he land
of Moriyyah (7'99)| All attempts to explain the name and
identify the place have been futile.
The prevalent Jewish and Christian tradition puts the scene on the
Temple mount at Jerusalem (77)97 17, 2 Ch. 4}; τὸ Μώριον ὄρος, Jos. Ant.
i. 224, cf. 226). But (a) the attestation of the name is so late and unre-
liable 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. (4) Even if a:75[7] were a genuine
ancient name for the Temple hill, it is not credible that it was extended
to the Zand 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 modi-
fied (either in accordance with a fanciful etymology [v."], or on the
authority of 2 Ch. 3!) in order that the chief sanctuary of later times
I. ‘xa “πὶ ὙΠ] τ5}.---πὸ2 ovndxm] The reluctance of grammarians to
admit that this can be the main sent., and apod. after time determina-
tion, is intelligible (De. Di. Gu.), the order being that of the circumst.
cl.; but it is difficult, without sophistical distinctions, to take it any
other way. As cir. cl. it could only mean ‘when God had tempted A.,’
which is nonsense; and to speak of it as a Verumstdindung of the fol.
3px (De.) is to deceive oneself with a word. The right explanation in
Dri. 7. § 78 (3).—O7A8] repeated in GD ; cf. '.—2, a2] The word was
no doubt popularly connected with ,/ 737 as used in 15 (cf. am AXNDA, Aq.
τὴν καταφανῆ, Σ. τῆς ὀπτασίας, Ἔ visionis), though a real derivation from
that ,/ is impossible. (ἃ τὴν ὑψηλήν (cf. 125). & has Liako}s, ζ9:
οἱ τ. -
XXII. 1-8 329
might not be altogether ignored in the patriarchal history. The
Samaritan tradition identified Moriah with Shechem.* This view
has been revived in two forms: (1) that the name is a corruption or
variant of 7D in 12° etc. (Bleek, SA, 1831, 520 ff. ; Tu., v. Gall [see &
inf.]); and (2) that it is a corruption of 059 (‘land of the Hamorites’
[33!°]) (We.). 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 2x7 ‘x, which would be a
natural designation of Palestine in E:+ see on 10", 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 condi-
tions. Hence, Che.’s suggestion that the land of ‘ Musri’ is to be read
(ZB, 3200; Wi. 67, ii. 44), is not devoid of plausibility. On Gu.’s
solution, see below.
which I will name to thee] When this more precise direction
was imparted, does not appear.—3. While the outward pre-
parations 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 (v.”). Weare 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’”’
(Gu.). It is curious that OT 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
sands (‘worship’). —3. ‘3 ‘37-nx] So Nu. 22%. The determination is
peculiar. That it means ¢he two slaves with whom a person of import-
ance usually travelled (Gu.) 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. Aa7y] On 73 as demonst. of
place, see BDB, s.v. (‘rare, chiefly in ΒΕ}; cf. 31°7.—7. 132 )Π] ‘Yes,
my son’; the ‘Here am I’ of EV is much too pompous. @&H excel-
lently : τί ἐστιν, τέκνον; Quid vis, fili ?—8. πο π] χὰ (ἃ om. art. (Ba.).
* See ZDPYV, vi. 198, vii. 133.—V. Gall (ΩΣ 112) seems in error
when he says this was a /ewzsh tradition.
+ But it is doubtful if the restoration can claim the authority of &%,
for that Vn. reads 1.5.0]; sag in 2 Ch. 3} also.
330 THE SACRIFICE OF ISAAC (E)
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 (° *).—God
will provide] 18%, lit. ‘look out’; as 4133 [Dt. 1218 331],
1 Sa. 16}: 1, The word points forward to v.14.
9-14. The sacrifice averted.—9, 10. The vv. describe
with great minuteness the preliminary ritual of the nei in
highly technical language (ΠΡ, ἼΡΝ, ONW); v2. —11, 12. At
the extreme moment Abraham’s hand is stayed by a voice
from heaven.—II is certainly from E; yn’ must therefore
be a redactional accommodation to v.% (cf. & zuf.).—The
repetition of Abraham expresses urgency; as 46’, Ex. 34 (E),
1 Sa. 3!°.—12. The Angel speaks in the name of God, as
16%, 218—now J know, etc.] Thus early was the truth
taught that the essence of sacrifice is the moral disposition
(Ps. 51/8':).—13. The substitution of the ram for the human
victim takes place without express command, Abraham re-
cognising by its mysterious presence that it was ‘ provided’
by God for this purpose.—I4a, The naming of the place is
an essential feature of the legend, and must therefore be
assigned to E.— ‘N71 17 alludes to v.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 (Sta. GVJ, τ. 450), which
can hardly be the original intention (see below).—14b. The
words AN}! mM Wa yield no sense appropriate to the
context.
MT might be rendered: (a) ‘In the mount of Yahwe he (it) is
seen’ (Str.), or (4) ‘In the mount of Y. men appear’ [for worship] (Dri.
220, cf. ©° inf), or (disregarding acc.) (c) ‘In the mount where Y. is
9. 1y] of the arranging of the wood on the altar, 1 Ki. 18%, Nu. 23%,
Is 30°, —"py] (amr. Aey.) in NH means to ‘bind the bent fore- and hind-
legs of an animal for sacrifice’ (Dri.): @ cupodicas.—10. »nv is techni-
cally to cut the throat of a sacrificial victim (Jacob, ZA 7W, xvii. 51).—
Ι1. m7] Sods; so v.%—13. 1x ox] ‘a ram behind’; so Tu. Di. De.
Str. (]%, =. intemp. sense). s2x@itSTJ, Jub. and Heb. MSS have 17x "ἘΝ,
‘a [certain] ram’; which may be xch¢ssagend, but is preferable to MT
(Ho. Gu.).—Rd. also (with GS) πὰ (ptep.) for pf.—y3203] Gk ἐν φυτῷ
σαβέκ, Σ. ἐν δικτύῳ (A22va), Aq. ἐν συχνεῶνι, D inter vepres.—14. The
paraphrase of €° is interesting: ‘And A. worshipped and prayed there
XXII. 9-19 331
seen’: in this case the saying would be ayy mn’ (*), and 14> would
merely mean that it was used in the Temple mount. All these are ob-
viously unsatisfactory. With a slight change (173 for ‘3) the cl. would
read ‘In the mount Y. appears’ (so @&), or (with myy: for 7873) ‘In...
Y. sees’ (HS).—The text has probably been altered under the same
tendency which gave rise to 7) in v.?; and the recovery of the
original is impossible. Gu., with brilliant ingenuity, conjectures that
the name of the sanctuary was 5x3; (2 Ch. 208); this he inserts after
377; and restores the remainder of the v. as follows: 773 ΟΠ ἭΝ Wx
ὈΠῸΝ ΠΝ} =‘ for he said, ‘‘ To-day, in this mountain, God provideth.”
15-19. Renewal of the promises: Conclusion.—15.
The occasion seemed to a Jehovistic red. to demand an
ampler reward than the sparing of Isaac; hence a supple-
mentary revelation (M'2¥) is appended.—16. By myself 7
swear] cf. Ex. 3218 (also R’*), elsewhere Is. 4575, Jer. 22°
498F.— DN] lit. ‘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 P (Nu. 1478) is more discriminating in his use of the
phrase.—I7. occupy the gate of thetr enemies| 1.6., take
possession of their cities ((ἴζ πόλεις) ; cf. 24°°.—18. by thy
seed. . . bless themselves (Hithp.)] So 26*; cf. Dt. 2918, Is.
Ge, Jer. 4°, Ps. 72}... See on 12°.—19. The return to
Beersheba is the close of E’s narrative, continuing v."+,
The secondary character of 1518 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 m7 oN3, etc. Cf. We. Comp.” 20; Di.
291; Ho. 165.—The view of De. (324 f.) and Str. (82), that 1518 are from
a J parallel to 221:15, 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
(0% for ov), in that place, saying before the Lord, Here shall generations
worship. So it is said at this day, In this mountain A. worshipped
before the Lord.’—nyy. ma 173] Gr ἐν τῷ ὄρει Κύριος ὥφθη, ἜΪ im monte
Dominus videbit, 8 Too L;80 μσι Bas.
16 end] Add ‘329 as v.”: so GD.—18. we apy] elsewhere only 26°,
Basan 2°,
332 THE SACRIFICE OF ISAAC (E)
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 ¢rvu¢h in his previous
impression; but that the sacrifice of a human life is not in accord-
ance 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 any-
thing 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 remark-
able skill by Gu. (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. ΠΝ) omy, 8
(cf. 4); ods xv, 2; and Sx [mm] sn, % From these indications he
concludes that the original name in 1 was ΝΥ; and he is disposed to
identify the spot with a place of that name somewhere near Tekoa,
mentioned in 2 Ch. 2018 (5x: in 1 Ch. 7? 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 fora human being. The basis of Gn. 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
Gu.’s theory correctly expresses the character of the story; and that
it originally belonged to the class of ztiological legends which every-
where 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 Phoenician story in which Kronos actually sacrifices
his only son Ἰϊεούδ (m= Wn ?) or ᾿Ιεδούδ (12; ?) to his father Uranus
(Eus. Prep. Ev. i. το, 29). The sacrifice of Iphigeneia, and the later
modification in which a hind is substituted for the maiden, readily
suggests itself as a parallel (Eurip. ph. Au/l. 1540 ff.).
XXII. 20-24.—The Sons of Nahér (J,R).
In the singular form of a report brought to Abraham,
there is here introduced a list of 12 tribes tracing their
descent to Nahér. Very few of the names can be identified ;
but so far as the indications go, they point to the region
E and NE of Palestine as the area peopled by the Nahorite
family. The division into legitimate (7°) and illegitimate
— ὮΝ
XXII. 20-24 333
(24) sons expresses a distinction between the pure-blooded
stock and hybrid, or perhaps alien and subjugated, clans
(Guthe, GVZ, 5).
The vv. bear the unmistakable signature of a Yahwistic genealogy :
cf. πὶ D3 224, w, 42% 8 1971 1958; Jaw, 1015; 380 w. 913 (10% 254) ; ab 23
(see p. 98). Of P’s style and manner there is no trace; and with
regard to ‘Uz and ‘Aram, there is a material discrepancy between
the two documents (ν.3} cpd. with 10”), The introductory formula
‘xn ‘3m “nw is not exclusively Elohistic (see on 151), and in any case
would be an insufficient reason for ascribing (We. Com/.? 29 f.) the whole
section to E. See Bu. Urg. 220 ff.—The genealogy appears to have
been inserted with reference to ch. 24, from which it was afterwards
separated by the amalgamation of P (ch. 23) with the older documents.
Its adaptation to this context is, however, very imperfect. Here
Abraham is informed of the birth of Nahér’s children, whereas in the
present text of 24 the grandchildren (Laban and Rebekah) are grown
up. Moreover, with the excision of the gloss ™* (v.z.), the only point
of direct contact with ch. 24 disappears; and even the gloss does not
agree with the view of Rebekah’s parentage originally given by J
(see on 245). 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 Jater than the composition of ch. 24,
but ear/ier than the final redaction of the Pent.
20. ΠΡ] see on 112°,—ynx M39] 113.- 21. py] in 10% a subdivision
of Aram, is here the principal (1123) Nahorite tribe (cf. 3678).—13 (Bavé,
Bavf, etc.)] mentioned in Jer. 25% after Dédan and Téma, is probably
the Bézu of Esarhaddon’s inscr. (KZB, ii. 130 f.), an unidentified dis-
trict of N Arabia (so Jb. 327). — xp] unknown; see Praetorius,
ZDMG, 1903, 780.—O 78 °38 (πατέρα Σύρων) is possibly a gloss (Gu.),
but the classification of the powerful Aramzans (see on 10”) as a
minor branch of the Nahorites is none the less surprising: see p. 334
below.—22. 1¥3] The eponym of the o-w>. But whether by these the
well-known Chaldzans of S Babylonia are meant is a difficult question.
Probability seems in favour of the theory that here, as in 2 Ki. 247, Jb.
17, an Arabian (or rather Aramzean) nomadic tribe is to be understood,
from which the Bab. onv2 may have sprung (Wi. AOF, ii. 250ff. ;
Gu.). The result has a bearing on the meaning of ArpakSad in 10”
(see also on 11°8).—i1n ( Afaid)] probably the Haz? mentioned after Bézu
in Esarhaddon’s inscr. (above).—wa>a and 9p (Ἰελδάφ, ᾿Ιεδλάφ) are not
known. With the former have been compared Palm. wb» (Levy,
ZDMG, xiv. 440) and Sin. wisp (Cook, σ΄. 98; Lidz. Hdd. 352), both
personal names. —5xin3] as personal name 24! (J), 2529 28%5 (P),
—23a. is a gloss (Di. Gu.) excluded by the general scheme of the
genealogy and by the number 8 in *», The last consideration is
decisive against Di.’s view that the original text was 4)27-nx) 2 ΠΝ).
24. wisbrs] cas. pend. : G-K. §§ 111, 1476. θχρ8-:- παλλακίς (see Sta.
GVIJ, i. 380): a Hittite origin is suggested by Jensen (ZDMG, x\viii.
468 ff., developing a hint of Ew.).—7=x4] a 70m, Ge ‘Pevua, ‘Pepa, etc.
334 GENEALOGY OF NAHOR (3)
—n3y] rightly read by (τῷ in 2 Sa. 8° (MT πῸ3}} ππξϑ, 1 Ch. 188), a city
of ’Aram-Zébah, probably identical with the Zubihi of TA No. 127,
and Pap. Anast., near Kadesh on the Orontes (but see Miiller, 44,
173, 396).—ona (Taau, Taau, etc.)] unknown.—wnn (Toxos, Oaas, etc.)]
probably Eg. Zeisz, on the Orontes, N of Kadesh (AZ, 258; Wi.
MVAG, i. 207). —7pyR (Maaxa, Mwya, etc.)] Dt. 34, Jos. 125 131} 1
2 Sa. τοῦ 8, 1 Ch. τοῦ; an Aramzean tribe and state occupying the
modern Golan, S of Hermon, and E of the Upper Jordan.
To the discrepancies already noted (p. 333) between the genealogy
and ch. 24, Meyer (ZNVS, 239 ff.) adds the important observation that
the territorial distribution of the sons of Nahér fits in badly with the
theory of J, which connects Nahér and Laban with the city of Harran.
He points out that the full-blooded Nahorites, 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 OT the home of the Bué
Kedem ; and according to E (see on 29!) it was among the Bué Kedem
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 Aramzeans about Harran, but
to nomadic Aramzean tribes who had not crossed the Euphrates, but
still roamed the deserts where Aramzans first appear in history (see
Ρ- 206). J’s representation is partly due to a misunderstanding of the
name ‘ Aramzan,’ which led him to transfer the kinsfolk of Abraham to
the region round Harran, which was known as the chief seat of
Aramzan 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 Avam. It can hardly be denied that
Meyer's reasoning is sufficiently cogent to outweigh the traces of the
names Nahér and Milkah in the neighbourhood of Harran (pp. 232,
237f.). Meyer’s explanation of Nahér as a modification of Mahar (the
Euphrates) is, however, not likely to commend itself.
Cu. XXIII. Purchase of the Cave of Machpelah (P).
On the death of Sarah at the age of 127 years (" 2),
Abraham becomes, through formal purchase from the
Hittites, the owner of the field and cave of Machpelah (*-}8),
and there buries his dead (19: 2°).—This is the second occasion
(cf. ch. 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
XXIIL 1, 2 335
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 P is proved (a) by allusions in
later parts of the Code (25° 49% 50%) ; (ὁ) by the juristic formalism
and redundancy of the style; (c) by the names ΠΠ Ἴ3, adp2n, yaw np,
jv22 px; and the expressions Iw, ὁ ; mMnx,* * 30. News, δ; orp,!7 9; spn, 18 (see
the notes; and cf. Di. Ho. Gu.). Against this we have to set the '238 of
v.4, which is never elsewhere used by P.—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 P. The passage has far more the appearance of a trans-
cript from real life than any other section in the whole of P ; 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 (Komp. d. Gen. 88), who, however, assigns the chapter to the
oldest stratum of Gen., dating at latest from 700 B.c. Steuernagel (SK,
1908, 628) agrees that ch. 23 is not in P’s manner; but thinks it a
midrashic expansion of a brief notice in that document.*
I, 2. The death of Sarah.— 2. Kiryath-Arba‘| an old
name of Hebron, v.z.—N2:}] not ‘came,’ but went in—to
where the body lay.—/¢o wail . . . weep| with the customary
loud demonstrations of grief (Schwally, Leben γι. d. Tode,
Bo. DB, it. 453 ff.).
1. After yn" it is advisable to insert *37 (Ba. Kit. : cf. 47% 38, The
omission may have caused the addition of the gloss πὴ πὶ ‘WY at the
end (wanting in @&).—2. yawn np (G& ἐν πόλει ᾿Αρβόκ)] The old name of
Hebron (Jos. 14%, Ju. 17°), though seemingly in use after the Exile
* Sayce’s contention (HHH, 57 ff.), that the incident ‘ belongs essenti-
ally tothe 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 Ass. kings as
with those of the age of Hammurabi. Thus, the expression ‘ full silver’
(v.*) is frequent under Sargon and subsequently (AZZ, iv. 108 ff.) ; under
the first Babylonian dynasty the phrase is ‘silver to the full price’ (16.
7 ff.). The formula for ‘before’ (a witness) is, in the earlier tablets,
maar; in the later, f4n,—neither the precise equivalent of those here
used (‘1192 and ‘yy)). There remains only the expression ‘ weigh silver,’
which does appear to be characteristic of the older contracts ; but since
this phrase survived in Heb. till the latest times (Zec. 117, Est. 3%), it is
plain that nothing can be inferred from it. Sayce has not strengthened
his case by the arguments in Z7, 1907, 418ff.; see Dri. 230, and
Addenda’, xxxvii f.
336 THE CAVE OF MACHPELAH (Ρ)
3-7. The request for a burying-place.—The negotia-
tions 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 Hittites to give Abraham
a legal title to land by purchase (Gu.). 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 Sa. 1216 2°),_the sons of Héth| see on 10.
P is the only document in which Hittites are definitely located in the
S of Canaan (cf. 26*4 36?) ; and the historic accuracy of the statement is
widely questioned. It is conceivable that the Cappadocian Hittites
(p. 215) hadextended their empire over the whole country prior to the Heb,
invasion. But taking into account that P appears to use ‘ Héth’ inter-
changeably with ‘Canaan’ (cf. 26%4 27% 36> w. 28! 8 3674), it may be
more reasonable to hold that with him ‘ Hittite’ is a general designation
of the pre-Israelite inhabitants, as ‘Canaanite’ with J and ‘ Amorite’
with E (cf. Jos. 14, Ezk. 16°). It may, of course, be urged that such an
idea could not have arisen unless the Hittites 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 p. 284). At present, however, we have no proof that this was the
case; and a historic connexion between the northern Hittites and the
natives of Hebron remains problematical. Another solution is pro-
pounded by Jastrow (£2, 2094 ff.), viz., that P’s Hittites are an entirely
distinct stock, having nothing but the name in common with either the
‘conventional’ Hittites of the enumerations or the great empire of N
Syria. See Dri. 228 ff.
4. ὦ sojourner and dweller] so Lv. 25° #7, Nu. 4515, and
(in a religious sense) Ps. 201" (cf. 1 Pe. 24). The technical
(unless Neh. 11” be an artificial archaism [Mey. 27st. 106]). The name
means ‘Four cities’ (see on ya¥ Na, p. 326). The personification of
yaw as heros eponymus (Jos. 14% 1513. 211') has no better authority (as &
shows) than the mistake of a copyist (see Moore, /ud. 25). Jewish
Midrash gave several explanations of the numeral: amongst others
from the 4 patriarchs buried there—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Adam
(Ber. R.; P. R. Eliezer, 20, 36; Ra.)—the last being inferred from o1x7
1737 in Jos. 14) (Jer. OS, 8413). The addition of χὰ poy 5x (Gk 4 éorw ἐν
τῷ κοιλώματι) Seems a corruption of p3y ‘aN (Ba.) or (with Gr) ‘y ox in 705.
15/3 2111. π505] In Heb. usage, as in that of all the cognate languages,
72D means ‘to wail’; see Mic. 18.—4. avin] IEz. poxa ὉΠ tia mn, Ac-
cording to Bertholet (S¢e//. z. d. Fr. 156-166), the ‘nis simply a gér (see
on 12°) who resides fixedly in one place, without civil rights, and per-
haps incapable of holding land ; see EB, 4818.—5. 15 5x5 (so v.44) is an
abnormal combination, doubtfully supported by Lv. 111. The last word
XXIII. 3-15 395
distinction between 12 and IVA is obscure (v.7.).—6. O if
thou wouldst hear us (rd. YD 3%, v.7.)]. The formula always
introduces a suggestion preferable to that just advanced: cf.
ia AB 15,__DYTION Nt’) is more than ‘a mighty prince’ (as Ps.
36’ 6816 104)6 etc.); it means one deriving his patent of
nobility straight from Almighty God.—W/ot a man of us will
withhold, etc.| therefore there is no need tobuy. Behind their
generosity there lurks an aversion to the idea of purchase.—
7. The v. has almost the force of a refrain (cf. 12). The first
stage of the negotiations is concluded.
8-12. The appeal to ‘Ephrén.—In his second speech
Abraham shows his tact first by ignoring tacitly the sugges-
tion of a free gift, and then by bringing the favourable
public opinion just expressed to bear on the individual he
wishes to reach.—Q. On ‘the cave of Makpélah, see at the
close.—zn the end of his field) Abraham apparently does not
contemplate the purchase of the whole field: that was thrust
on him by ‘Ephrén’s offer.—/or full money] see p. 335 above
(footnote). The same expression occurs in 1 Ch. 2155 *4,—
10. entering the gate, etc,| z.e., his fellow-citizens, with the
right of sitting in public assembly at the gate (cf. ν᾿ Ὁ Ny",
34").
13-16. The purchase of the field. — With the same
tactful persistency, Abraham seizes on ‘Ephrén’s expression
of goodwill, while waving aside the idea of a gift.—13. /fonly
thou—pray hear me /| The anakolouthon expresses the polite
embarrassment of the speaker.—14, 15. ‘Ephrén’s resistance
being now broken down, he names his price with the affecta-
must be joined to v., and read either εν (as v.17: so sk), or 39 (as 15).
The last is the only form suitable in all four cases (& 11315), On x5
with impve., cf. G-K. §110e.—6. 7)>]=x)m, G-K. § 75 99.
8. ὈΞ 55). ΠΝ] ‘in accordance with your [inner] mind.’ Cf. 2 Ki. 9”,
1 Sa. 204: see BDB, 661a.—g. 752227] Elsewhere only 25% 4930 50" ;
always with art., showing that it retained an appellative sense. Gk (τὸ
σπήλαιον τὸ διπλοῦν), HST are probably right in deriving it from ,/ 923,
‘double’ (see p. 339).—I0. $35] 5=‘namely’ (see on 9}Ὁ : cf. BDB, 514b);
in 18 it is replaced by 3=‘among.’—11. For NS pt. xd : see on ὅ.--Ἴῦ ‘nn3]
@& om.—"An} is perf. of instant action: ‘I give it’; G—K. 8 106m.
13. For ᾽ν, GO (Ὁ 33) read 4, mistaking the idiom.—14. 35: 7x5] as 5,
—15. (ἃ (Οὐχί, κύριε, ἀκήκοα γάρ) does not render 7 x, but the γάρ is odd.
22
338 THE CAVE OF MACHPELAH (P)
tion of generosity still observed in the East.*—/and [worth]
400 Shekels. . . what ts that . . .?| The word for ‘land’ is
better omitted with (| ; it is not the land but the money that
‘Ephrén 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 trans-
actions (Benzinger, Arch.” 197; Kennedy, DB, iii. 420; ZA,
εἰ 5291 ts) .i1
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; cf. e.g. KIB, iv. 7, 17, 33 (1st Bab. dynasty),
ΙΟΙ, and 161 (8th cent. B.c.), 223-5 (6th cent.); the Assouan
Papyri (5th cent.); and especially the Petra Inscr. cited in
Authority and Archeology, p. 135.
The traditional site of the Cave of Makpélah is on the E side of the
narrow valley in which Hebron lies, and just within the modern city
(el-Haltl). The place is marked by a sacred enclosure (the Haram),
within which Christians have seldom been admitted. The SE 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 SE (within the
mosque), and of Jacob and Leah in the NW: that of Joseph is just
—nx}] better px) (€x).—16. ἀποὺ ray] The only other instance of this use of
nay (2 Κι. 12°) is corrupt (rd. πν, G).—17. 10} ΞΞ " pass into permanent
possession,’ as Ly. 25% 2714-17. 19 (P),—abpana ws] Ge ὃς ἣν ἐν τῷ διπλῷ
σπηλαίῳ is nonsense; but HD in quo erat spelunca duplex suggests a
reading ‘o7 12 Wx which (if it were better attested) would remove the
difficulty of supposing that the name ‘double cave’ was applied to
the district around.—1255] 2x 25 by as in ¥=‘in front of,’ perhaps ‘to
the E of.’
* «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,
Mod. Eg.’ ii. 13 f.
+ Cuneiform records recently discovered in Cappadocia seem to
prove that shekels ‘‘ stamped with a seal” were in use in the time of
Hammurabi. See Sayce, Confemp. Rev., Aug. 1907, p. 259.
XXIII. 16—XXIV. 339
outside the Haram on the NW. 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
Makpélah is derived from the feature just referred to. That the name
included the field attached to the cave (v." 49% 501%) is natural; and
even its extension to the adjacent district (see on”) is perhaps not a
decisive objection.—For further particulars, see Robinson, BR, ii.
75 ff. ; Baedeker, P. and 5.8 141 f. ; PEFS, 1882, 197-214; Warren, DB,
iii. 197 ff. ; Driver, Gen. 228.
Whatever assumption we make as to the origin of this narrative,
P’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 Gu. 241), but it is difficult to
imagine any other explanation. It is just conceivable that the elabora-
tion of the narrative was due to a dispute as to the possession of the
sacred place between Jews and Edomites in the age of P. It has been
held probable on independent grounds that the Edomites had advanced
as far north as Hebron during the Exile (see Mey. Zn¢st. 106, 114), and
from Neh. 11% 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 Gu.! 251 ; Students’ OT, 99: otherwise Gu.? 241 f.
Cu. XXIV.—Procuring a Wife for Isaac (J, [E?]).
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 (!*). The
servant is providentially guided to the house of Nahér, in
whose daughter (see on v.’°) Rebekah he is led to recognise
the divinely appointed bride for Isaac (14). Having
obtained the consent of the relatives, and of the maiden her-
self (°° *1), he brings her to Canaan, where Isaac marries
her (6-7),
The chapter is one of the most perfect specimens of descriptive
writing that the Book of Gen. 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 Dri. 230). These artistic elements so
predominate that the primary ethnographic motive is completely sub-
merged. It may be conjectured that the basis of the narrative was a
340 THE MARRIAGE OF ISAAC (JE)
reinforcement of the Aramzean element in the Hebrew stock, as in the
kindred story of Jacob and his wives (see Steuernagel, Zinw. 39f.).
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 (cf. Gu. 220).
Source and Unity of the Narrative.—From the general character of
the style, and the consistent use of the name m7, critical opinion has
been practically unanimous in assigning the whole chapter to J. 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 recen-
sions. Thus, the servant's objection that the maiden may not be willing
to follow him (* 39), is met by Abraham in two ways: on the one hand
by the confident assurance that this will not happen (7: 33), and on the
other by absolving him from his oath if his mission should miscarry
(δ 41). In %* Laban ¢wice goes out to the man at the well (7 # 3b) ; 28
speaks of the mother's house, *° of the father’s: in ὅθ the servant
negotiates with Laban and Bethuel, in ** °° with the brother and mother
of the bride ; in *! the request is at once agreed to by the relatives with-
out regard to Rebekah’s wish, whereas in *7f the decision is left to
herself ; in ® Rebekah is sent away with her nzrse, in ®!® she takes her
own maidens with her; her departure is ¢wzce recorded (615 |i >), These
doublets and variants are too numerous to be readily accounted for
either by transpositions of the text (Di. al.) or by divergences in the
oral tradition (SO7, 96); and although no complete analysis is here
attempted, the presence of two narratives must be recognised. That
one of these is J is quite certain; but it is to be observed that the
characteristically Yahwistic expressions are somewhat sparsely distri-
buted, and leave an ample margin of neutral ground for critical
ingenuity to sift out the variants between two recensions.* The
problem has been attacked with great acuteness and skill by Gu.
(215-221) and Procksch (14 f.), though with very discordant results. I
agree with Procksch that the second component is in all probability
E, mainly on the ground that a fusion of J® and J» (Gu.) is without
parallel, whereas 1" and E are combined in ch. 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 J; while, in the other,
* m7, 1. 8. 7. 12. 21. 26. 27. 31. 35. 40. 42. 44. 48. 50. 51. 52. 56° o773 DIN, 10 (against
P’s 058 715) ; ‘MID sn, 4 (12!) ; 5.23 Ra, 1 (see on 18!) ; ANID NID, 16 (267, cf.
1211); yp, 16 (see on 41); δ᾽ with suff. and ptcp. 4 4; orp, 1% 46. mydyn,
21, 40. 42. 56 (39% 3 23) 5 agp, 12 (272°) ; nanpd yy), 1 (see 182) ; Na, % 1% 14. 17. 28 42,
43. 45
XXIV, 1, 2 341
everything is consistent with the supposition that Abraham's residence
is Beersheba (see p. 241 above).
The Death of Abraham.—It is impossible to escape the impression
that in vv.'® Abraham is very near his end, and that in 55:67 his death is
presupposed. It follows that the account of the event in JE must have
occurred in this chap., and been suppressed by the Red. in favour of
that of P (257), according to which Abraham survived the marriage of
Isaac by some 35 years (cf. 25”). The only question is whether it
happened before or after the departure of the servant. Except in “a,
the servant invariably speaks as if his master were still alive (cf. 15: 1408.
37. 37. 42, 44b. 48. 51. 54.56), Tn δ᾽ on the 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. Gu. supposes that in the document to which /4¥a- 9b and 6
belong (J), the death was recorded after ® (and related by the servant
after “); while in the other (J") it was first noticed in connexion with
the servant's meeting with Isaac (before ®). Procksch thinks E’s notice
followed ν.3, but doubts whether Abraham’s death was presupposed by
J's account of the servant’s return.—V.*°” is thought to point back to 25°;
and hence some critics (Hup. We. Di. al.) suppose that 2516 (10)
originally preceded ch. 24; while others (KS. Ho. Gu.) find a more
suitable plice for 255 (with or without 110) between 24! and 24%. See,
further, on 25)-° below.
1-9. The servant’s commission—tI. had blessed, etc.]
His life as recorded is, indeed, one of unclouded prosperity.
—2. the oldest (1.6. senior in rank) servant, efc.| who, in
default of an heir, would have succeeded to the property
(1538), and still acts as the trusted guardian of the family
interests ; comp. the position of Ziba in 2 Sa. g!#- 161#-,—
put thy hand, etc.| Only again 47?°—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 (Gu.).
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 Ew. “γιέ. τοῦ
[Eng. tr.]; Di. 301 ; A 7ZO*, 395 ; and especially the striking Australian
parallel cited by Spurrell (5218) from Sir G. Grey.* By Jewish writers
* ‘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 laces his hands
under the thighs of his friend; . . . an inviolable pledge to avenge the
death has by this ceremony passed between the two.”
342 THE MARRIAGE OF ISAAC (JE)
it was considered an appeal to the covenant of circumcision (@J, Jer.
Qu., Ra.; so Tu. Del.). ΕΖ. explains it as a symbol of subjection,
(adding that it was still a custom in India); Ew. Di. Ho. al. as invoking
posterity (3: ‘xy’, 4676, Ex. 1°, Ju. 850) to maintain the sanctity of the
oath.
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 v.").—+hou shalt not take, etc. |
The motive is a natural concern for the purity of the stock:
see Bertholet, Ste//ung, 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
Harran? The suggestion elicits from the dying patriarch a
last utterance of his unclouded faith in God.—7. God of
heaven] v.t.—send his Angel] cf. Ex. 237 73 332, Nu. 2016,
The Angel is here an invisible presence, almost a personi-
fication of God’s providence; contr. the older conception
in 167.
10-14. The servant at the well.—On the fidelity of
the picture to Eastern life, see Thomson, ZB, i. 261.—I0. ten
camels| to bring home the bride and her attendants (61).
But ‘‘such an expedition would not now be undertaken .. .
3. 929] Ge +’ Ioadk (as v.4) ; so v.7.—4. *3] 22 ON *2.—At the end GH add
ὈΦ as v.7—5, 13x] always with neg., exc. Is. 11%, Jb. 39° (Sir. 6°%).—7.
o’owa *AdN] appears only in late books (Jon. 1°, 2Ch. 36%=Ezr. 1”, Neh. τ":
2420: spy maby is frequent in Aram. parts of Ezr. and Dn.). The words
are wanting in one Heb. MS (see Kit.), and may be deleted as a gloss.
Otherwise we must add with @& yrx7 ‘nds (cf. 3).— > yaa ws] probably
interpolated by a later hand (Di.); see p. 284 above.—8. J nx] r+ εἰς
τὴν γῆν Tabrnv.—avn xb (but a2 2wn)] juss. with Xb; G-K. § 109 d.
10. Unless we admit a duality of sources, it will be necessary to
omit the first 351 (with x).— 2] better -b>21 (G@HS).—o73 ow] Dt. 23°,
Ju. 38, Ps. 60?, 1 Ch. τοῦ +. @° ma ὃν ox. The identity of the second
element with Eg. Naharin, TA. Nakrima (79" [rev.], 18154, 119%) is be-
yond dispute ; but it is perhaps too readily assumed that geographically
the expressions correspond. The Eg. Naharin extended from E of the
Euphrates to the valley of the Orontes (AZ, 249 ff.); all that can be
certainly affirmed about the biblical term is that it embraced doth sides
of the Euphrates (Harran on the E; Pethor on the W [Dt. 23°]). Since
there is no trace of a dual in the Eg. and Can. forms, it is doubtful if
XXIV. 3-15 343
with any other animals, nor with a less number.”—goodly
things| for presents to the bride and her relations (25: °*),—
On ’Aram Naharaim, see the footnote.—the city of Nahér
in J would be Harran (cf. 2743 2819 29): but the phrase is
probably an Elohistic variant to ’Avam Naharaim, in which
case a much less distant locality may be referred to (see on
29').—12-14. The servant’s prayer. The request for a sign
is illustrated by Ju. 6°, 1 Sa. 148%: note [3728] ‘DN 737
in all three cases. A spontaneous offer to draw for the
camels would (if Thomson’s experience be typical) be un-
usual,—in any case the mark of a kind and obliging dis-
position.—13. the daughters .. . to draw water] cf. 1 Sa.
gt.
15-27. The servant and Rebekah.—15. who was born
to Bethuel, etc.] cf. * Εἴ,
The somewhat awkward phrasing has led Di. al. to surmise that
all these vv. have been glossed, and that here the original text ran wx
4 πὸ ath, Rebekah being the daughter of Milkah and Nahér. Comp.
29°, where Laban is described as the son of Nahdr. The redactional
insertion of Bethf’él would be explained by the divergent tradition of P
(25% 282°), in which Beth(V’élis simply an ‘ Aramzean,’ and not connected
with Nahér at all (see Bu. 421 ff.). The question can hardly be decided
(Ho. 168); but there is a considerable probability that the original J
made Laban and Rebekah the children of Nahér. In that case, however,
it will be necessary to assume that the tradition represented by P was
known to the Yahwistic school before the final redaction, and caused a
remodelling of the genealogy of 225: (see p. 333). Cf., however, Bosse,
MVAG, 1908, 2, p. 8f.
the Heb. ending be anything but a Mass. caprice (rd. 0%"3?), or a
locative term., to be read -am (We. Comp.” 451; Meyer, ΖΑ ΤῊ, iii.
307f.: cf. G-K. 8 88 2, and Str. p. 135f. with reff.). There would in
this last case be no need to find a second river (Tigris, Chaboras, Balih,
Orontes, etc.) to go with Euphrates. The old identification with the
Greek Mesopotamia must apparently be abandoned. See, further, Di.
302; Moore, Ju. 87, 89; KAT*, 28 f.—12. apa] ‘make it occur,’ 27” (J).
14. 35] Kré. mya; 50. νν.16.38, 5.57 34812, Dt, 2254. 20f 28-29, aayyn
is found as Ke. in Pent. only Dt. 2215, but κὰκ reads so throughout.
It is hazardous to postulate an archaic epicene use of 1y3 on such
restricted evidence: see BDB, 655 a; G-K. § 17 c.—npux] Gr +éws ἂν
παύσωνται πίνουσαι. -- ΠΠΞΠ] decide, adjudicate, here = ‘allot’; so only
ν. 3, Contr. 2015 21% 315% 427: (E), Lv. το 7 1 (P).—72] ‘and thereby’ ;
G-K. § 135 2.
15. After ow rd. mdz: (cf. ©); G-K. § 107c.—»u GB ins. isdby after
344 THE MARRIAGE OF ISAAC (JE)
16. Taking no notice of the stranger, the maiden went
down to the fountain (ἢ)... and came up] In Eastern wells
the water is frequently reached by steps: ct. Ex. 216 (Πῦρ ΠΝ),
Jn. 41.--.- -το, 20, The writer lingers over the scene, with
evident delight in the alert and gracious actions of the
damsel.—21I. The servant meanwhile has stood gazing at
her in stlence, watching the ample fulfilment of the sign.—
22. The nose-ring and bracelets are not the bridal gift (Gu.),
but a reward for the service rendered, intended to excite
interest in the stranger, and secure the goodwill of the
maiden. See Lane, Mod. Eg.* ii. 320, 323; cf. RS*, 4537.—
23-25. In the twofold question and answer, there is perhaps
a trace of the composition of narratives; v.z.—24. See on 15,
Read the daughter of Milkah whom she bore to Nahdr (as 343).
—26, 27. The servant’s act of worship marks the close of
the scene.
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 (Di.), for Laban belongss to it, and ὅ8: © imply that the
father (whether Bethuel or Nahdr) is not the head of the
house. Some find in the notice a relic of matriarchy (Ho.
Gu.) ; but the only necessary inference is that the father was
dead.—31. seeing I have cleared the house] turning part of
2% (#).—18 end] Gr+éws ἐπαύσατο πίνων, omitting the first two words
of v.1%.—20. npwn] the stone trough for watering animals, found at every
well (30°, cf. 3041, Ex. 216),—21. axnwn] not ‘ wondering’ (,/ πε ; so De.),
but ‘gazing’ (by-form of ,/7yw) as Is. 411° Constr. before prep. :
G-K. § 130 a.—22. 19pwn] ax+n5x Sy ow, a necessary addition (cf. 47).
013 accordingly is here a ‘nose-jewel’ (Is. 37, Pr. 117), in 354, Ex. 327
(E) an earring.—yp1]=4 shekel (Ex. 38°°).—23-25. The theory of two re-
censions derives some little support from the repeated 1x 7oNxm of 2% 35,
A mere rearrangement such as Ba. proposes (255: *4 330. 25) only cures one
anomaly by creating another; and is, besides, impossible if the amend-
ment given above for v.% be accepted.—25. p>] ax 7°55, as v.23; but inf.
elsewhere is always }1).—27. ‘238 emphasises the following acc. suff. (G-K.
88 1430,135d,e). ὦ 1 implies perhaps on 5 (Β8.) or ὃ (Kit.); if not
a mistake for 1]... πὴ] Point ‘78 (sing.) with Vns.
28. ADx] S cian} (wrongly).—30. 1n)873 (x) is better than MT πε 2.
—my mm] see G-K. § 116s; Dav. § 100 (a).—31. 35] ‘cleared away,’
XXIV. 16—48 345
it into a stable.—32. he (Laban) brought the man in (v.12.)
. . and ungirt the camels| without removing the pack-
saddles.*—7#o wash his feet, etc.| cf. 18*.
33-49. The servant’s narrative. —A recapitulation of
the story up to this point, with intentional variations of
language, and with some abridgment. (& frequently ac-
commodates the text to what has gone before, but its
readings need not be considered.—35. Cf. 1216 13%.—36b.
has given him all that he had| This is the only material
addition to the narrative. But the notice is identical with
25°, and probably points back to it in some earlier context
(see p. 341 above).—40. before whom I have walked Cf. 171.
Gu.’s suggested alteration: ‘who has gone before me,’ is an
unauthorised and unnecessary addition to the TZzkkiné
Sopherim (see 18”).—AI. nbs (cs) for ΠΙΆ), v.8. On the
connexion of oath and curse, see We. Herd.” 192 f.—45-47.
Greatly abbreviated from *.—the daughter of | Bethi’él the
son of | Nahér, etc.| see on - *4,—48, daughter of my master’s
brother] ‘ Brother,’ may, of course, stand for ‘relative’ or
‘nephew’ (2912 15); but if Bethuel be interpolated in 15: 34. 47,
Rebekah was actually first cousin to Isaac, and such mat-
as Lv. 14°, Is. 40% etc. ; cf. Ar. ./ fana’ IV. =effecit ut dispareret.—32.
xan] (73) avoids an awkward change of subj., and is to be preferred
(Ols. KS. Gu.). The objection (Di. al.) that this would require to be
followed by “ny is answered by the very next cl. Irregularity in the
use of “nx is a puzzling phenomenon in the chapter, which unfortunately
fits in with no workable scheme of documentary analysis.
33. by] Kré and ax ov (Hoph. ,/ mv), G&S oyn. But Keth. recurs
in MT of 50% (o%1), again with pass. significance. The anomalous
form may be pass. of Qal (G-K. § 73), or metaplastic Niph. from 0%”
or nin (N6. Beitr. 2. sem. Sprachw. 39 f.).—70N7] χα (α 35. 28, which
is perhaps better.—36. An3p1] 2G 1n371.—38. Xb ox never has the sense of
Aram. xx (sondern), and must be taken as the common form of adjura-
tion (De.). a (Lond. Pol.) has ox '2.—41. ‘ndxn] G-K. § 95 ”.—The v.
contains a slight redundancy (41>8), but nothing is gained by inter-
posing a cl. between "β and να (KS.).—46. myn] Ok ἐπὶ τὸν βραχίονα αὐτῆς
ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῆς (conflate 3); D de humero (cf. 18).
* ‘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, PE FS, 1904, 130).
346 THE MARRIAGE OF ISAAC (JE)
riages were considered the most eligible by the Nahorites
(29!).—49. that 7 may turn, etc.| not to seek a bride else-
where (Di.), but generally ‘that I may know how to act.’
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 317 39,
Nu. 2413 etc.
The v. as a whole yields a perfectly good sense: ‘we cannot speak,
because Vahwe has decided’ ; and *! is a natural sequel. It is a serious
flaw in Gu.’s analysis of *", that he has to break up ™, connecting mm
7330 xy) with ©, and the rest of the v. with ™* (‘we cannot speak: let
the maiden decide’).—On the other hand, >xinz) 735 in ὅθ is barely con-
sistent with mx) TN in 53-55, Since the mention of the father after the
brother would in any case be surprising, Di. al. suppose that here
again bxin2) is an interpolation; Kit. reads ‘nz, and Ho. substitutes
nzbp. Gu. (219) considers that in this recension Bethuel is a younger
brother of Laban.
51. Here, at all events, the matter is settled in accord-
ance 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 ὙΠῸ
(342, Ex. 2216, 1 Sa. 18%+) or purchase-price of a wife; but
Gu. 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
sadak (the gift to the wife) have come to be synonymous
terms for dowry (KZ, 93, 96): cf. Benzinger, Arch.” 106.—
55. The reluctance to part with Rebekah is another indica-
tion of refined feeling (Gu.). On WY iN DY, v.2z.—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,
53. Π7 0 (Ezr. 18, 2 Ch. 218 3275+)] ‘costly gifts,’ fr. ,/ 139, Ar. magada
= ‘be noble.’—55. 7nN)] GSP read 79s; and so SP and many Greek
curss. in ,—mwy 1x Ὁ} ‘a few days, say ten,’ is a fairly satisfying ren-
dering (Gk ἡμέρας ὡσεὶ δέκα) ; ‘a year or ten months’ (€° Ra.) is hardly ad-
missible. But the text seems uncertain: 2. winx oD’; S200, Bupa
(cf. 2913). In deference to 1x3 we may insert wh before 0°}: ‘a month
or at least ten days’ (Ols. Ba.).—a>n] probably 3rd fem. (so all Vns.).
XXIV. 49-62 347
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 δ᾽ cannot easily be got rid of.—59.
their sister] cf. ‘your daughter,’ 34°, the relation to the
family being determined by that to the head of the house.
But it is better to read 1.78 (pl.) in °° with PS and
MSS of &.—/er nurse] see on 358.—60. The blessing on
the marriage (cf. Ru. 4""-), rhythmic in form, is perhaps an
ancient fragment of tribal poetry associated with the name of
Rebekah.—fossess the gate] as 22\".—61a and 61b seem to be
variants. For another solution (KS.), see on ®.—her maidens]
parallel to ‘her nurse’ in ὅ9,
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-lahai-roi, and that near that well
the meeting took place.
The difficulty lies partly in the corrupt ΝΞΟ (v.z.), partly in the circum-
stantial form of the sent., and partly in the unexplained disappearance
of Abraham. Keeping these points in mind, the most conservative
exegesis is that of De.: Isaac (supposed to be living with his father at
Beersheba) ‘was coming from a walk in the direction of B.’, when he
met the camels; this, however, makes xy.) (68) plup., which is hardly
right. More recent writers proceed on the assumption that the death
of Abraham had been explicitly recorded. Ho. suggests that Isaac
had removed to Lahairoi during his father’s life (transposing 251» before
24”), and that now he comes from that place (reads 13199) on hearing of
Abraham’s death. Di. reads ®# ’3 7270 5x [pns*]x2, and finds in these
words the notice of Isaac’s migration fo B.—KS., reading as Di., but
making the servant implicit subj. of x2, puts the chief hiatus between
618 and ©; the servant on his return learned that Abraham was dead;
—59. mnpip) Gk τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτῆς = ANPo, a word of P.—6o. δὴ is apposi-
tional vocative, not subj. to 1nhx (sovor nostra es, D).— 0] with abnormal
= (G-K. § 63 g).—1R2v)] 22 VIX, as 2277.
62. ᾿Ξ] cannot be inf. const. with 79; the French 21 vint darriver
(Hupf. 29) has no analogy in Heb. idiom. Nor can it readily be sup-
posed equivalent to xia$p (1 Ki. 865, De. v.s.); for the direction in which
Isaac took his walk is an utterly irrelevant circumstance. +» and Q& (διὰ
τῆς ἐρήμου) read 12702, from which a fairly suitable text (1319 or ’»D) could
be obtained (cf. Di. and Ho. s,). Gu.’s sj29 (as acc. of direction) has
no parallel except the very remote one of Ὁ" nNv2p, Ezk. 27° (of the situa-
tion of Tyre). Other suggestions are to delete the word as an uncor-
rected lapse of the pen; to read ἼΝΞ with omission of the following 7x32
348 THE MARRIAGE OF ISAAC (JE)
then (610) took Rebekah and went further ; and (653) came to Lahairoi.—
Gu. (operating with two sources) considers ® the immediate sequel to
δια in the document where Abrahams death preceded the servant's
departure, so that nothing remained to be chronicled but Isaac’s removal
to Lahairoi (reads x\39, ‘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 ch. (after 3).
63. mid] a word of uncertain meaning, possibly fo roam
(v.2.).—toward the approach of evening| (Dt. 23”), when the
Oriental walks abroad (cf. 38).—camels were coming] In the
distance he cannot discern them as his own.—64. At the sight
of a stranger Rebekah dismounts (52 as 2 Ki. 574), a mark
of respect still observed in the East (ZB, i. 762; Seetzen,
Reisen, iii. 190); cf. Jos. 1518, 1 Sa. 257°.—65. 7 ἐξ my master]
Apparently the servant is aware, before meeting Isaac, that
Abraham is dead.—The putting on of the ved/ (cf. nubere
viro), the survival of a primitive marriage taboo, is part of
the wedding ceremony (see Lane, 775,1. 217 f.).—67. brought
her into the tent] The next phrase (188 ΠῚ) violates a funda-
mental 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 Benz. Arch.” 108 f.).—
comforted himself after [the death of] his mother] It is con-
jectured (We. al.) that the real reading was ‘his father,’
whose death had recently taken place. The change would
(Lag. Procksch) ; to substitute [yav]x29 (‘from Beersheba to’: Ba.).—
wind aKa] (ἃ (here and 25!') τὸ φρέαρ τῆς ὁράσεως, omitting πὸ; refer to
p- 289 above.—63. mv] dr. Xey. commonly identified with my = ‘muse,’
‘complain,’ ‘talk,’ etc. ; so G (ἀδολεσχῆσαι), Aq. (ὁμιλῆσαι), Σ. (λαλῆσαι),
Ἔ (ad meditandum: so Tu. De.), © (axdsd : Ra.); Di. KS. al. think
the sense of ‘mourning’ (for his father) most probable; but? IEz. (‘to
walk among the shrubs’) and Béttcher (‘to gather brushwood’) derive
from ny (21%). «ὃ eaX\oito\N is thought to rest on a reading nw
(adopted by Ges. al.), but is rather a conjecture. N6. (Beitr. 2. sem. Spr.
43f.) suggests a connexion with Ar. saa = ‘stroll’ (point m).—
m$nan of ax is wrong (v.s.).—65. M57] 3719} ; ax 159.7 ys] 4815 39} (J).
On the art. cf. G-K. § 126s. After Lagarde’s brilliant note (Sem. 23 ff.),
it can scarcely be doubted that the word denotes a large double square
wrapper or shawl, of any material.—67. 182] G& εἰσῆλθεν δέ.--- ΠῚ ΠΡ ΠΝ]
art. with const. is violently ungrammatical; α- Κ. 8 127 —For ‘ox?
read 13x nid (Kit.) vs.
XXIV. 63—-XXV. 349
naturally suggest itself after J’s account of the death of
Abraham had been suppressed in accordance with P’s chron-
ology. The death of Sarah is likewise unrecorded by J or E.
XXV. 1-6.—The Sons of Keturah (J? R?).
The Arabian tribes with whom the Israelites acknow-
ledged a looser kinship than with the Ishmaelites or Edom-
ites are here represented as the offspring of Abraham by a
second marriage (cf. 1 Ch. 1°),
The names Midian, Sheba, Dedan (see below) show that these
Keturean peoples must be sought in N Arabia, and in the tract of
country partly assigned to the Ishmaelites in ν. 8, The fact that in
Ju. 8% Midianites are classed as Ishmaelites (cf. Gn. 37%) 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.
We. (Comp.? 29!) has dropped a hint that Keturah may be but a tradi-
tional variant of Hagar;* Ho. conjectures that the names in ** are
taken from J’s lost Ishmaelite genealogy ; and Kent (SO7, i. τοι) thinks
it not improbable that Keturah was originally the wife of Ishmael.
Glaser (ii. 450) considers the Ketureans remains of the ancient Minzean
people, and not essentially different from the Ishmaelites and Edomites.
See, further, on ν. 8 below.
Source.—(a) The genealogy (!-4) contains slight traces of J in 1, 3;
25 abarba 4 (cf. 10% 913); P is excluded by 1, and the discrepancy with
10’ as to Sheba and Dedan; while E appears not to have contained any
genealogies at all. The vv. must therefore be assigned to some Yah-
wistic source, in spite of the different origin given for Sheba in 10°%.—
(6) The section as a whole cannot, however, belong to the primary
Yahwistic document; because there the death of Abraham had already
been recorded in ch. 24, and 245 refers back to 25°. We must conclude
that 25. is the work of a compiler, who has incorporated the genealogy,
and taken v.° from its original position (see on 2455) to bring it into con-
nexion with Abraham’s death. These changes may have been made in
a revised edition of J (so Gu.); but in this case we must suppose that
the account of Abraham's death was also transferred from ch. 24, to
be afterwards replaced by the notice of P. It seems to me easier
(in view of ΠΡ and 18) to hold that the adjustments were effected during
the final redaction of the Pent., in accordance with the chronological
scheme of P.
* So Jewish interpreters: @J, Ber. R., Jer. Qu., Ra. (but not IEz.).
+ The mere transposition of 25!* before ch. 24 (Hupf. We. al.) does
not fully meet the difficulty, there being, in fact, no suitable place for a
second marriage of Abraham anywhere in the original J (Ho.).
350 THE SONS OF KETURAH (1, R)
I. Kétérah, called a ‘concubine’ in 1 Chir? i(chaw
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 Kaféra in the
vicinity of Mecca (Kn.—-Di.). There is no ‘absurdity’ (De.)
in the suggestion that it may contain an allusion to the
traffic in incense (70?) which passed through these regions
(see Mey. ZS, 313).—2-4. The Keturean stock is divided
into 6 (€% 7) main branches, of which only one, Midian,
attained historic importance. The minor groups number 10
(@& 12), including the well-known names Sheba and Dedan.
2. ΥΡῚ (ZeBpdv, ZouBpdv, etc.) has been connected with the Ζαβράμ
[Ζαδραμ Ὁ] of Ptol. vi. 7. 5, W of Mecca (Kn.); and with the Zamareni
of Pliny, ZX, vi. 158, in the interior ; but these are probably too far 8.
The name is probably derived from 177=‘ wild goat,’ the ending ἄτι
(which is common in the Keturean and Horite lists and rare elsewhere)
being apparently gentilic: cf. 191, Nu. 2514, 1 Ch. 25 89% 9#. A connexion
with "791 (3 ySo}), Jer. 25% is very doubtful. On yp; (Ἰεξάν, ἽἹεκτάν,
etc.) see on v.2—j7) (Madaiu)] unknown. Wetzstein instances a Wadi
Medan near the ruins of Daidan.—jm > (Maéidu)] The name appears
as Μοδίανα-- Μαδιαμα in Ptol. vi. 7. 2, 27 (cf. Jos. Ant. ii. 257; Eus. OS,
p. 276), the Madyan of Ar. geogr., a town on the E side of the Gulf of
Akaba, opposite the S end of the Sinaitic peninsula (see N6. ZB, 3081).
The chief seat of this great tribe or nation must therefore have been in
the northern Higaz, whence roving bands ravaged the territory of Moab,
Edom (Gn. 5655), and Israel (Ju. 6-8). The mention of Midianites in the
neighbourhood of Horeb may be due toa confusion between J and E
(see Mey. ZS, 3f.); 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 [Gn.
37°: 6, Is. 60°], sometimes as roving warriors, delighting to raid the
more settled districts” (N6.).—p3¥: and nv have been identified by Frd.
Delitzsch (ZAF, ii. οἵ f., Par. 297f.) and Glaser (ii. 445 f.) with Vasbuk
and Sifu of Ass. monuments (178, i. 159, 33, 99, 101), both regions of
northern Syria. Del. has since abandoned the latter identification (W704,
139) for phonetic reasons.—3. 83¥ and 711] see on 10%. As they are there
bracketed under πον, so here under ]¥?}, a name otherwise unknown.
The equation with j»p; (10%), proposed by Tu. and accepted by Mey.
(318), is phonologically difficult. Since the Sabzeans arehere still in the
N, it would seem that this genealogy goes farther back than that of the
Yoktanite Arabs inch. το. Between Sheba and Dedan, @& ins. Θαιμάν
(=np"n, v.).—3b. The sons of Dedanare wanting in 1 Ch., and are prob-
ably interpolated here (note the pl.). (ἃ has in addition Payouyd (cf.
36") καὶ Ναβδεήλ (cf. v.!8),—o wy] certainly not the Assyrians (7x), but
some obscure N Arabian tribe,—fossibly the wwxx mentioned on two
XXV. 1-7 351
Minzan inscrs. along with ἀχὸ (Egypt), [093 72y, and Gaza (Homm.
AHT, 248f., 252f., AA, 297ff.; Glaser, ii. 455 ff. ; Winckler, AOF, i.
28f.; K6énig, FiinfLandschaften, 9: cf., on the other side, Mey. ZA, xi.
327 ff., ZVS, 320 ff. ).—ayind] The personal name wv (as also ws) has been
found in Nabat. inscrs. ; see Levy, ZDMG, xiv. 403 f., 447, 477 f., where
attention is called to the prevalence of craftsmen’s names in these inscrs.,
and a connexion of “Ὁ with wy) in 4” is suggested.—4. Five sons of
Midian.—a2'y is named along with Midian in Is. 608 as a trading tribe.
It has been identified with the Yayapa (=n51y,?) mentioned by Tiglath-
pileser Iv. and Sargon, along with some 6 other rebellious Arab tribes
(AZB, ii. 21, 43): see Del. Par. 304, KAT, 58.—With 15, Wetzst. com-
pares the modern ‘O/r (Di.); Glaser (449), Ass. Apparu (KIB, ii. 223).
--Π] Perhaps Hanakiya near ‘Ofr (Kn.-Di.).—It is noteworthy that
these three names—75'y, 1 Ch. 2 ; spy, 1 Ch. 417 5%; π, Gn. 46%, Ex.
64, Nu. 26°, 1 Ch. 5*—are found in the Heb. tribes most exposed to
contact with Midian (Judah, Manasseh, Reuben). Does this show an
incorporation of Midianite clans in Israel? (N6.).—y 12x ('Adi-yada‘a)
and πυτὸν ('Z/-yeda’ and Yeda-'il) are personal names in Sabzan, the
former being borne by several kings (ZDMG, xxvii. 648, xxxvii. 399 ;
Glas. ii. 449).
5. See on 24°6.—6. The exodus of the Bné Kedem (com-
posed by a redactor).—¢he concubines] apparently Hagar and
Keturah, though neither bears that opprobrious epithet in
Gen. : in 16° Hagar is even called WX. Moreover, Ishmael
and his mother, according to J and E, had long been
separated from Abraham.—sent them away from off Isaac]
so as not to be a burden upon him. Cf. Ju. 112.—eastward
to the land of Kedem] the Syro-Arabian desert.
So we must render, unless (with Gu.) we are to take the two phrases
πΡῚ and 077 γΝ ΟΝ as variants. But ΠῚ} in OT is often a definite geo-
graphical expression, denoting the region E and SE of the Dead Sea
ced. 2.7 ja. 6 © 723 Is. 114 Jer. 4935, Ezk, 25%, Jb. 15);
and although its appellative significance could, of course, not be for-
gotten, it has almost the force of a proper name. It is so used in the
Eg. romance of Sinuhe (c, 1900 B.C.): see Miiller, AZ, 46f.; Wi. GZ,
52 ff. ; Mey. ZS, 243f.
XXV. 7-11.—The Death and Burial of Abraham (P).
7-a are the continuation of 23” in P. Note the characteristic
phrases: Ἢ Ἢ ἢ "Dy, 75 913, TZ ADA, wey-dy ADM, 8; ods, M*; the chron-
ology 7, the reminiscences of ch. 23, and the backward reference in 4931,
—1» belongs to J.
5 end] «αὐ $+i132.—6. wide (see on 22%) is used of a adY in 3577.—
panand wx] Gk αὐτοῦ.
352 DEATH OF ABRAHAM (Ρ)
8. gathered to his kindred (see on 17'*)| Originally, this
and similar phrases (151° 47°°, Dt. 3118 etc.) denoted burial
in the family sepulchre; but the popular conception of Shedl
as avast aggregate of graves in the under world enabled the
language to be applied to men who (like Abraham) were
buried far from their ancestors.—/saac and Ishmael| The
expulsion of Ishmael is consistently ignored by P.—TIIa.
Transition to the history of Isaac (2519*-).
Ub (like v.5) has been torn from its context in J, where it may have
stood after 24! 25°, or (more probably) after the notice of Abraham’s
death (cf. 24°"). Meyer (ZS, 253, 323) makes the improbable conjecture
that the statement referred originally to Ishmael, and formed, along with
v.18 the conclusion of ch. 16.
ΧΧν. 12-18.—TZhe Genealogy and Death of Ishmael (P).
With the exception of v.}8, which is another isolated
fragment of J, the passage is an excerpt from the Zéledéth
of the Priestly Code.—The names of the genealogy (5:16)
represent at once ‘princes’ (O82: cf. the promise of 177°)
and ‘ peoples’ (nids, 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 P the Ishmaelites occupy a territory intermedi-
ate between the Arabian Cushites on the 8. (τοῦ), the Edomites, Moabites,
εἴς.» on the W, and the Aramzans on the N (το 33) ; z.e., roughly speak-
ing, the Syro-Arabian desert north of Gebel Shammar. In J they extend
W to the border of Egypt (v.'8).—The Ishmaelites have left very little
mark in history. From the fact that they are not mentioned in Eg. or
Ass. records, Meyer infers that their flourishing period was from the
12th to the oth cent. B.c. (ZIVS, 324). In OT the latest possible traces
of Ishmael as a people are in the time of David (cf. 2 Sa. 17”, 1 Ch. 217
27), though the name occurs sporadically as that of an individual or
clan in much later times (Jer. 40®*-, 2 Ki. 25”, 1 Ch. 838 o#, 2 Ch. 19! 23},
Ezr. 10%). In Gn. 37%, Ju. 8%, it is possible that ‘Ishmaelites’ is syno-
nymous with Bedouin in general (see Mey. 326).
13. 132) n'33] are the Nabayati and Aidri of Ass. monuments (Asshur-
banipal: AZB, ii. 215 ff. ; cf. Del. Par. 297, 299; KAT*9151),) and
possibly the NWabatei and Cedrei of Pliny, v. 65 (cf. vi. 157, etc.) The
references do not enable us to locate them with precision, but they must
8. nd» 3139] v.27 3529; see on 6!7,—yavn] ark better oD yaw, as 35°%.—
ΠΥ ADR] so 2517 35% 205. 83. Nu. 20% % 2713 312, Dt. 329 (alll ἘΞ τοὶ
mwa] (ἃ - καὶ τὸ σπήλαιον.--ΙἼΙ. Ν n>] see on 2452,
XXV. 8-18 353
be put somewhere in the desert E of Palestine or Edom. The Nabatzans
ofa later age (see Schiirer, G/V® 4, i. 728 ff.) were naturally identified with
π᾿} by Jos. (Anz i. 220f.), Jer. (Qu.), Ζ] [p33], as they still are by Schr.,
Schiirer, andsome others. But since the native name of the Nabatzans
was 103), the identification is doubtful, and is now mostly abandoned.
The two tribes are mentioned together in Is. 607: n‘3} alone only Gn.
28° 36°; but ΠΡ is alluded to from the time of Jeremiah downwards as
a typical nomadic tribe of the Eastern desert. In late Heb. the name
was extended to the Arabs as a whole (so 77] 37y).—)xaix (Ναβδεήλ : see
on v.°)] Perhaps an Arab tribe 7}α δι᾽ 11 which Tiglath-pileser 1v. (KZB,
ii. 21) appointed to watch the Egyptian frontier (not necessarily the
border of Egypt proper).—nv39] a Simeonite clan (1 Ch. 4%), otherwise
not known.—14. yovp follows ow2p in 1 Ch. 4%. Di. compares a Gebel
Misma’ SE of Καί, and another near Hayil E of Teima.—anx7] Several
places bearing this name are known (Di.); but the one that best suits
this passage is the Dimah which Arabic writers place 4 days’ journey
N of Teima ; viz. Dumat el-Gendel, now called el-Gaf, a great oasis in
the S of the Syrian desert and on the border of the Nefud (Doughty,
Ar, Des. ii. 607; cf. Burckhardt, Trav. in Syr. 602). It is probably
the Δούμαιθα of Ptol. v. 18 (19). 7, the Domata of Plin. vi. 157.—xyp] See
on 10”, and cf. Pr. 31%. A tribe Mas'a is named by Tiglath-pileser
Iv. along with Teima (v.'°), Saba’, Hayapa (2), Idibi’il (13), and may be
identical with the Macava of Ptol. v. 18 (19). 2, NE of Δούμαιθα.---τ5. 710]
unknown.—nx®'A (Is. 2174, Jer. 25%, Jb. 6.3) is the modern Zezma, on the
W border of the Negd,c. 250 miles SE of Akaba, still an important
caravan station on the route from Yemen to Syria, and (as local inscrs.
show) in ancient times the seat of a highly developed civilisation : see
the descriptions in Doughty, Az. Des. i. 285 ff., 549 ff.—w: and wp;
are named together in 1 Ch. 5!” among the East-Jordanic tribes defeated
by the Reubenites in the time of Saul. ‘ne’ is no doubt the same people
which emerges about 100 B.C. under the name ᾿Ιτουραῖοι, as a body of
fierce and predatory mountaineers settled in the Anti-Lebanon (see
Schiirer, G/V, i. 707 ff.).—Of πρὴρ nothing is known. Should we read
ὩΣ as 1 Ch. 5) (Ball, Kit.) ?—16. on sn3] ‘in their settlements’ or
‘villages’; cf. Is. 42! ‘ the villages that Kedar doth inhabit.’—opp23] aye
(Nu. 31°, Ezk. 254, Ps. 69%, 1 Ch. 633) is apparently a technical term
for the circular encampment of a nomadic tribe. According to Doughty
(i. 261), the Arab. divah denotes the Bedouin circuit, but also, in some
cases, their town settlements. —opix] ‘according to their peoples.’ TDR
is the Ar. ’ummat, rare in Heb. (Nu. 25", Ps. 117! +).—17. Cf. vv.7-8,
V.8 is a stray verse of J, whose original setting it is impossible to
determine. There is much plausibility in Ho.’s conjecture that it was
the conclusion of J’s lost genealogy of Ishmael (cf. 10! *). Gu. thinks
it was taken from the end of ch. 16: similarly Meyer, who makes ΠΡ
(p. 352 above) a connecting link. Di. suggests that the first half may
have followed 25°, the reference being not to the Ishmaelites but to the
Ketureans ; and that the second half is a gloss from 16'%, But even 18
is not consistent with 12°, for we have seen that the Ketureans are found
E and SE of Palestine, and Shfir is certainly not ‘eastward’ from where
23
354 GENEALOGY OF ISHMAEL (P)
Abraham dwelt.—If Havilah has been rightly located on p. 202 above,
J fixes the eastern limit of the Ishmaelites in the neighbourhood of the
Gof es-Sirhan, while the western limit is the frontier of Egypt (on Shar,
see on 16’). This description is, of course, inapplicable to P’s Ishmaelites ;
but it agrees sufficiently with the statement of E (21”) 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 πον 7282 must be either deleted as a gloss
(We. Di. Mey. al.), or else read AWW “Ξ ; Wx being the hypothetical N
Arabian tribe supposed to be mentioned in 25° (so Gu. ; cf. Homm.
AAT, 240f.; K6n. Fiinf Landsch. 11 ff.), a view for which there is
very little justification.—!®” is an adaptation of 16’, but throws no light
on that difficult sentence. Perhaps the best commentary is Ju. 7%,
where again the verb b>; has the sense of ‘settle’ (=]2¥ in 16!).
Hommel’s restoration nb2 θυ, ‘in front of Kelah’ (a secondary gloss
on Wx), is a brilliant example of misplaced ingenuity.
THE HISTORY OF JACOB.
Cas. XXV.. 19° XXXVI.
SETTING aside ch. 26(a misplaced appendix to the history of Abraham :
see p. 363), and ch. 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 Gu. 257 ff.).
A. Jacob and Esau:
1. The birth and youth of Esau and Jacob (255-33), 2. The trans-
ference of the birthright (2535. 5). 3. Jacob procures his father’s blessing
by a fraud (27).
B. Jacob and Laban:
1. Jacob's meeting with Rachel (29'"4). 2. His marriage to Leah
and Rachel (29°), 3. The births of Jacob’s children (29%!-30%). 4.
Jacob's bargain with Laban (307-4). 5. The flight from Laban and the
Treaty of Gilead (311-32).
C. Jacob's return to Canaan (loose and fragmentary) :
1. Jacob's measures for appeasing Esau (32).* 2. The meeting of
the. brothers (331... 3. The sack of Shechem (34). 4. The visit to
Bethel, etc. (35!). 5. The birth of Benjamin and death of Rachel
(351°). 6. Reuben’s incest (3574).
D. Interspersed amongst these are several cult-legends, connected
with sanctuaries of which Jacob was the reputed founder.
1. The dream at Bethel (810-33). 4. transition from A to B. 2. The
encounter with angels at Mahanaim—a fragment (327%). 3. The
wrestling at Peniel (32753), 4. The purchase of a lot at Shechem
(33.5.3). 5. The second visit to Bethel—partly biographical (see below)
(35).
The section on Jacob exhibits a much more intimate fusion of sources
than that on Abraham. The disyecta membra of P's epitome can, indeed,
be distinguished without much difficulty, viz. 2519 30.360 2684f- 281-9 2034.
28b. 29 30% 9b. 22a 418 βγδὺ 3318 Gye 9f. 11-13a. 15. 220-26. 27-29 46". Even here,
however, the redactor has allowed himself a freedom which he hardly
* Gu. 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 bio-
graphical interest, and without historical or ethnographic significance.
355
356 HISTORY OF JACOB
uses in the earlier portions of Gn. Not only are there omissions in
P’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 JE.—The rest of the material is taken from the composite JE,
with the exception of ch. 34, which seems to belong to an older stage of
tradition (see p. 418). But the component documents are no longer
represented by homogeneous sections (like chs. 16. 18f. [J], 20. 22 [E]);
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 toa deliberate change of method on the part of the redactors,
but rather to the material with which they had to deal. The J and E
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 P’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 frame-
work 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 J and E, 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 chs. 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 chs. 25, 27 reflect the relations between the
nations of Israel and Edom; and similarly at the end of ch. 31, Jacob
and Laban appear as representatives of Israelites and Aramzans. 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 &kob-él) was a Hebrew tribe
which, being overpowered by the Edomites, sought refuge among the
Aramzans, and afterwards, reinforced by the absorption of an Aramzan
clan (Rachel), returned and settled in Canaan: the events being placed
XXV. 19 357
between the Exodus from Egypt and the conquest of Palestine (Zinw.
38 ff., 56 ff. : cf. Ben. 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 Aramzans 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 (P, JE).
In answer to Isaac’s prayer, Rebekah conceives and
bears twin children, Esau and Jacob. In the circumstances
of their birth (21.326), and in their contrasted modes of life
(77 28), Hebrew legend saw prefigured the national charac-
teristics, the close affinity, and the mutual rivalry of the two
peoples, Edom and Israel; while the story of Esau selling
his birthright (239-38) explains how Israel, the younger nation,
obtained the ascendancy over the older, Edom.
Analysis.—Vv.":® are taken from P ; note nvbin mby), Pin, INT (dz5),
onyx 118. To P must also be referred the chronological notice **, which
shows that an account of the birth of the twins in that source has been
suppressed in favour of J. There is less reason to suspect a similar
omission of the marriage of Isaac before v.”.—The rest of the passage
belongs to the composite work JE. The stylistic criteria (mm, 31 δὲς,
2223; any, 21 os; my ποῦ, 22; yy, 33) and the resemblance of 3438 to 38°"
point to J as the leading source of *-*8; though Elohistic variants may
possibly be detected in 25:5 (Di. Gu. Pro. al.). Less certainty obtains
with regard to ***4, which most critics are content to assign to J (so Di.
358 BIRTH OF ESAU AND JACOB (P, JE)
We. Kue. Cor. KS. Ho. Dri. al.), while others (OH. Gu. SOT. Pro.)
assign it to E because of the allusion in 27°°. That reason is not de-
cisive, and the linguistic indications are rather in favour of J (s3, ὅ;
myriad, 32 [We. Comp.” 36]; wow ΝῚΡ j2°>y, 39),
19, 20. Isaac’s marriage.—P follows E (3124) in de-
scribing Rebekah’s Mesopotamian relatives as Aramcans
(cf. 28°), though perhaps in a different sense. Here it
naturally means descendants of Aram, the fifth son of Shem
(107). That this is a conscious divergence from the tradi-
tion of J is confirmed by 287: see Bu. Uxg. 420 ff.—On
Beth él, see p. 247 above.—Paddan * Aram] (28% 8:1 3118 3318
35° 26 46! [M5 alone 481]: (ἴ Μεσοποταμίας) is P’s equivalent
for ’Aram Naharaim in J (2419) ; and in all probability denotes
the region round Harran (v.z.).
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 (Ju. 137), Samuel
(1 Sa. 13), and John the Baptist (Lk. 1’).—J/saac prayed to
Yahwe] Cf. 1 Sa. 1, No miraculous intervention is
1g. pny’ ’n abs] commonly regarded as the heading of the section
(of Gen. or) of P ending with the death of Isaac (357°); but see the notes
on pp. 4of., 235f. The use of the formula is anomalous, inasmuch as
the birth of Isaac, already recorded in P, is included in his own gene-
alogy. It looks as if the editor had handled his document somewhat
freely, inserting the words 3 pny: in the original heading 0773x nabin
Oy
(cf. v.!*).—20. 715] Syr. L,2, Ar. faddin = ‘yoke of oxen’; hence (in
Ar.) a definite measure of land (jugerum: cf. Lane, 2353 Ὁ). A similar
sense has been claimed for Ass. padanuw on the authority of II R. 62,
33a, Ὁ (Del. Par. 135). On this view 078 “5 would be equivalent to πὶ
oww=‘ field of Aram’ in Ho. 121, Ordinarily, padanu means ‘ way’ (Del.
Hwb, 515 f.); hence it has been thought that the word is another desig-
nation of Harran (see 11°), in the neighbourhood of which a place
Paddana (vicus prope Harran: PSm. Thes. 3039) has been known from
early Christian times: N6ldeke, however, thinks this may be due to a
Christian localisation of the biblical story (ZB, i. 278). Others less
plausibly connect the name with the kingdom of Patin, with its centre
N of the Lake of Antioch (Wi. Δ 75, 38).
21. any] peculiar to J in Hex. : Ex, 84'S % 2.2 g%)7o'228) in ieee
and ‘afirat mean animals slain in sacrifice ; hence Heb. Yaya (Hiph. may
everywhere be read instead of Qal) probably referred originally to
sacrifice accompanied by prayer, though no trace of the former idea
survives in Heb.: ‘‘ Das Gebet ist der Zweck oder die Interpretation
XXV. 19-25 359
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.z.) in
a struggle for priority of birth.
Comp. the story of Akrisios and Proitus (Apol. B76/. ii. 2. 1 ff.), sons
of Abas, king of Argos, who κατὰ γαστρὸς μὲν ἔτι ὄντες ἐστασίαζον πρὸς
ἀλλήλους. The sequel presents a certainparallelism 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 pp. 455f.). Another parallel is the Polynesian
myth of the twins Tangaroa and Rongo (Che. 787, 356).
Rebekah, regarding this as a portent, expresses her
dismay in words not quite intelligible in the text: Jf z¢ [is
to] be so, why thenamT.. .?] v.t.—to inquire of Vahwe|
to seek an oracle at the sanctuary.—23. The oracle is
communicated through an inspired personality, like the Arab.
kahin (We. Heid.” 134 ff.), and is rhythmic in form (26. 135).
—iwo nations] whose future rivalries are prefigured in the
struggle of the infants.—The point of the prophecy is in the
last line: Zhe elder shall serve the younger (see on 2739: *),
24-26. Birth and naming of the twins. —24. Cf.
4851. 80 the only other description of a twin-birth in OT.—25.
‘OIN—either tawny or red-haired—is a play on the name
des Opfers, die Begriffe liegen nahe bei einander” (We. 142).—22. ssn]
(ἃ ἐσκίρτων (the same word as Lk. 1* 44), perhaps confusing pn, ‘run,’
with pss, ‘break.’ More correctly, Aq. συνεθλάσθησαν ; Σ. διεπάλαιον ---
2)Ν ΠῚ DD 13 ON] Gk εἰ οὕτως μοι μέλλει yéver Oat, ἵνα τί μοι τοῦτο; But the
ΠῚ merely emphasises the interr. (G-K. § 136), and the latter part of the
sentence seems incomplete: D guid necesse fuit concipere? 86
b] hia: Graetz supplies 797; Di. Ba. Kit. an (cf. 2725); Frankenberg
(GGA, 1901, 697) changes ‘238 to nx, while Gu. makes it Ὁ 73x (Ps. 9110),
with m as subj.—23. ox>] a poetic word; in Hex. only 27” (J).—vys]
‘the small[er],’ in the sense of ‘younger,’ is characteristic of J (19%) *
85. 38 2036 4353 4814, Jos. 6% [τ Ki. 16%] 1).
24. Ὀ 25] properly ΝΕ (so wu), as 3877.—25. Δ) )ἼΝ] used again only
of David, 1 Sa. 16" 174%, 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 ’ (Ck πυρράκης, DB rufus: so Ges. Tu. al.). The incongruity
of the word with the name Wy creates a suspicion that it may be either
a gloss or a variant from a parallel source (Di.): for various conjectures
see Bu. Urg. 2177; Che. ZB, 1333; Wi. AOF, i. 344 f.—iyvy has no Heb.
etymology. The nearest comparison is Ar. ’a'¢a» (so most)=‘ hirsute’
360 BIRTH OF ESAU AND JACOB (P, JE)
Edom (see on v.*°); similarly, αἰ over like a mantle of hair
(YY) is a play on Sé‘ir, the country of the Edomites (365).
It is singular that the name ‘Zsaw itself (on which v.72.)
finds no express etymology.—26a. with his hand holding
Esaws heel| (Ho. 12‘) a last effort (v.”) to secure the
advantage of being born first. There are no solid grounds
for thinking (with Gu. Luther [ZVS, 128], Nowack, al.) that
Hos. 12 (YANN APY 1233) presupposes a different version
of the legend, in which Jacob actually wrested the priority
from his brother (cf. 387). The clause is meant as an
explanation of the name ‘ Jacob.’
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
(also ‘stupid’), though that would require as strict Heb. equivalent wy
(Dri.). A connexion with the Phoen. Ovcwos, brother of Samémrim, and
a hero of the chase, is probable, though not certain. There is also a
goddess 'As?t, figured on Eg. monuments, who has been thought to be
a female form of Esau (Miiller, AZ, 316 f.).—x1p"] G&S xp, as v.*;
but χὰ has pl. both times. In any case the subj. is indef.—26. apy; is
a contraction of bxapy: (cf. np’, Jos. 15, Ju. 1118: with ΝΠ ΠΕΡ), Jos. το"
21. min, 2 Ch. 265 with 5x3m, Jos. 151) which occurs (a) as a place name
in central Palestine on the list of Thothmes 11. (No 102: Y‘&d’r);*
and (6) as a personal name ( Ya kub-ilu) + in a Bab. contract tablet of the
age of Hammurabi. The most obvious interpretation of names of this
type is to take themas verbal sentt., with El as subj. : ‘God overreaches,’
or ‘follows,’ or ‘rewards,’ according to the sense given to the ,/ ΞΡ} (see
Gray, HPN, 218).t They may, however, be nominal sentt. : ‘Yakob is
God’ (see Mey. 282); in which case the meaning of the name 37y: is
pushed a step farther back. The question whether Jacob was origin-
ally a tribe, a deity, or an individual man, thus remains unsettled by
etymology.—At end of v., (ἃ adds 'PeSéxxa,—an improvement in style.
* Mey. ZATW, vi. 8; INS, 251 f., 281f. ; Miiller, AZ, 162f.; Luther,
ZATW, xxi. 60 ff.—The name has since been read by Miiller in a list
of Ramses ., and (defectively written) in one of Ramses III. : see
MVAG, 1907, i. 27.—Questioned by Langdon, £7, xxi. (1909), p. go.
+Homm. AAT, 96, 112. According to H., the contracted form
Yakubu also occurs in the Tablets (76. 203!).
+ In Heb. the vb. (a denom. from 273, ‘ heel’) is only used with allusion
to the story or character of Jacob (27°, Ho. 124, Jer. οἵ : in Jb. 374 the
text is doubtful), and expresses the idea of insidiousness or treachery.
So spy (Ps. 4957), apy (Jer. 17°), πξρν (2 Ki. 10"). The meanings
‘follow’ and ‘reward’ are found in Arab. (BDB, 784 a).
XXV. 26—30 361
different documents. Though this conception of Esau’s
occupation is not consistently maintained (see 33°), it has
doubtless some ethnographic significance; and game is
said to be plentiful in the Edomite country (Buhl, Zdomzier,
43).—Jacob, on the other hand, chooses the half-nomadic
pastoral life which was the patriarchal ideal. ἘΠ W'S, else-
where ‘an ethically blameless man’ (Jb. 18 etc.), here
describes the orderly, well-disposed man (Scoticé, ‘douce’),
as contrasted with the undisciplined and irregular huntsman.
—28. A preparation for ch. 27, which perhaps followed im-
mediately on these two verses. V.*’, however, is also pre-
supposed by
29-34. Esau parts with the birthright.—The superi-
ority 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 inten-
tionally indefinite description, the nature of the dish being
reserved as a surprise for v.*4.—30. Let me gulp some of the
red—that red there !| With a slight vocalic change (v.z.), we
28. vez Ty 3] A curious phrase, meaning ‘venison was to his taste.’
It would be easier to read (with Ba. al.) 19>; oran adj. (3p?) may have
fallen out. (τῷ appear to have read ὑγν.
29. “1)---Ἴ}} WH only here in the lit. sense; elsewhere=‘act pre-
sumptuously.’ The derivative 1 (2 Ki. 4%, Hag. 2”) with rare prefix
na (common in Ass. ).—30. ‘xy bn (dar. Ney.)] a coarse expression suggest-
ing bestial voracity ; used in NH of the feeding of cattle.—oux7 o7Kx7]
The repetition of the same word is awkward, even in an expression of
impatient greed. The emendation referred to above consists in reading
362 ESAU SELLS HIS BIRTHRIGHT (JE)
may render: some of that red seasoning (strictly ‘obsonium’).
— Edom] a play on the word for ‘red’ (O78). The name is
ἐᾷ memento of the never-to-be-forgotten greed and stupidity
of the ancestor” (Gu.).—3I. Jacob seizes the opportunity
to secure the long-coveted ‘birthright,’ 26. the superior
status which properly belonged to the first-born son.
The rare term 7722 denotes the advantages and rights usually
enjoyed by the eldest son, including such things as (a) natural vigour
of body and character (Gn. 49%, Dt. 211": || jx παν νη), creating a pre-
sumption of success in life, (6) a position of honour as head of the
family (Gn. 27% 498), and (c) a double share of the inheritance (Dt.
215%), 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 Ch. 515). 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 Heb. 12!) between the birthright and the blessing of ch. 27, is
foreign to the spirit of the ancient legends, which owe their origin to
ztiological reflexion on the historic relations of Israel and Edom.
The passage furnishes no support to the ingenious theory of Jacob's
(Bibl. Arch. 46 ff.), that an older custom of ‘junior right” is presupposed
by the patriarchal tradition.
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.—Mn? qn does not mean ‘exposed to death
sooner or later’ (IEz. Di. 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 atrifle as a dish of lentil soup.—D'WTY (2 Sa. 1738,
2311, Ezk. 4°), still a common article of diet in Egypt and
Syria, under the name ‘adas: the colour is said to be ‘a
darkish brown’ (DB, 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.
the first ον πὶ after Ar. ’7dam=‘ seasoning or condiment for bread’ (cf.
v.*4) : so Boysen (cited in Schleusner’?, i. 969), T. D. Anderson (a. Di.).
This is better than (Dri. al.) to make the change in both places. (ἃ (τοῦ
ἑψέματος τοῦ πυρροῦ τούτου) and Ἐ (de coctione hac rufa) seem to differentiate
the words.—31. oY2]= ‘first of all,’ as *, 1 Sa. 2'6, 1 Ki. 1°! 22°(BDB, 400 b).
XXV. 31-XXVI. 1 363
Cu. XXVI.—Jsaac and the Philistines (J, R, P).
The chapter comprises the entire cycle of Isaac-legends
properly so called; consisting, as will be seen, almost ex-
clusively of incidents already related of Abraham (cf. esp.
ch. 20f.). The introductory notice of his arrival in Gerar
(1-8: cf. 2015) is followed by his denial of his marriage with
Rebekah (7-1! || 12! 20%), his success in agriculture (125-16
—the only circumstance without an Abrahamic parallel), his
quarrels with the Philistines about wells (1733 || 21%), and,
lastly, the Covenant of Beersheba, with an account of the
naming of the place (238-38 || 217°-%4),—The notice of Esau’s
wives (535) is an excerpt from P.
Source.—The style, except in ** and some easily recognised re-
dactional patches (}#8y: 3380. 3b-5- 15.18: see the notes), is unmistakably
Yahwistic: cf. ma (2: 12. 32.256 [even in the mouth of Abimelech, *
29}); ΠῚ naw, 7 (2416); ηρῶπ, 8; prnyn, 2 (128); mm Oa Np, %; Ady, 38
(24%) ; ma ana, 39 (2451). Some critics find traces of E in", but these
are dubious.—The relation of the passage to other strata of the J
document is very difficult to determine. On the one hand, the
extremely close parallelism to ch. 20 f. suggests that it is a secondary
compilation based on JE 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 ch. 26 is a continuation of the source distinguished as J" in
the history of Abraham. (1) The Abrahamic parallels all belong to
the Negeb tradition (J> and E); and it is natural to think that 1", re-
presenting 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 (cf. pwn, pnyn, ova sip, ” x, and
all the phrases of 358). (3) The ideal of the patriarchal character
agrees with that which we find in J" (magnanimity, peaceableness, etc. ).
—lIn any case, it is to be observed that the ch. stands out of its proper
order. The Rebekah of ™ is plainly not the mother of two grown-up
sons, as she is at the close of ch. 25; and 27! is the immediate con-
tinuation of 25*4 or 38 (see We. Comp.” 30).
1-6. Isaac migrates to Gerar.—Cleared of interpola-
tions, the section reads: (134) There was a famine in the
land; (Ὁ) and Isaac went to Abimelech, king of the Philistines,
to Gerar. (78*) And Yahwe appeared to him and said, (**)
Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee and bless thee.
(6) So Zsaac abode in Gerar.—1. Isaac comes probably from
364 ISAAC AT GERAR (J)
Beer Lahai-roi, 2511.—On Adbimelech and Gerar, see 20%.
The assumption that Gerar was a Philistine kingdom is an
anachronism (see on 1014), made also in J> (21%) but not in
E.—3a. and bless thee| a promise fulfilled in Isaac’s success-
ful husbandry (!#4-), and other tokens of the divine favour
(72. 24. 288), with no reference primarily to the blessing of
Abraham.
Ἰαβγ (omax—125n) is a redactional gloss (RJ or RJE), pointing back to
12!0,_2agb (‘377 ἼἼΠ Ὁ) is obviously inconsistent with *4, and is best ex-
plained as a gloss from the same hand as !8y(KS. Ho.) Di. Gu.
al. consider it a variant from a parallel narrative of E (cf. ὃν 70x wr
with 22”), to which Di. quite unnecessarily assigns also ¢ and ®; but the
evidence is too weak to warrant the improbable hypothesis of a second
E version of 20!,—%>-5 an expansion in the manner of 22)°-18, emphasis-
ing the immutability of the oath to Abraham (see on 1518), and showing
many traces of late composition.
7-11. Rebekah’s honour compromised.—7, 8. Isaac’s
lie (as 1215 207), and the king’s accidental discovery of it.—
looked out at a window| possibly into a court of the palace:
cf. 2 Sa. 117.—N® Pnyid] exchanging conjugal caresses (see
on 21°),—a play on the name Isaac. The vb. is nowhere
else construed with N8.—9g, 10. Abimelech’s rebuke of Isaac,
and the latter’s self-exculpation.—¢hou mightest have brought
guilt} Cf. 20% It is an instance of the writer’s timid
handling of the theme (see below) that no actual complica-
tion arises.—II. So stern an injunction would have been in
place in ch. 12 or ch. 20, but here it is unmotived.
That the three narratives 12!°* 20, 267-1! are variations of a common
theme, appears not only from their close material resemblance, but also
3. msann] so v.4; (ἃ Jub. read sing. The nearest analogies to this
use of pl. (which is rare and mostly late) are 1 Ch. 132, 2 Ch. 113=
‘districts’ (of Palestine).—>x7] see 198.—4a. The comparison with the
stars, as 15° 22!7.—4b, 5 almost verbally identical with 2218: note esp.
the uncommon wx 3py.—5b is made up of Priestly and Dtnic. expressions :
cf. Lv. 26%, Dt. 6? 284 3010 etc.—nrnwp nw denotes chiefly the service
of priests in the sanctuary, but is here used in a wider sense (cf. Lv. .
18° 22°, Dt. 111, Jos. 22°, 1 Ki. 2%, Mal. 41. The expression is highly
characteristic of P (Ho. Z7n/. 344).—oD7728) «αὐ + 72x.
7. Dipon wax) cf. 29% 38%, Ju. 1916&—7xb] a very rare and question-
able use of the word as a real inf. (dicere, not dicendo). Should ‘nwx be
deleted? sn@% read x7 ‘nyx.—10. 93] G—-K. § τοῦ £.—nxam] cons. pf. ;
‘thou wouldst (in that case) have brought.’—1I. oyn] axd& toy.
XXVI. 3-16 365
from particular phrases recurrent in each: e.g. sy ‘nNX, 397, 35 MWY ΠΑ ΓΠΌ,
73, ANID [nd*] naw, etc. (cf. Kuen. Ond. i. 228). Although many good
scholars (We. Kue. Ho. al.) are of a different opinion, the present passage
appears to be the most colourless and least original form of the tradition.
In 12! (J) 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 ch. 20 (E),
the connexion of ideas is in the main preserved; though a tendency to
soften the harsher aspects of the incident appears in God’s communica-
tion 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 (J") 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 (v.!), 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 2, which would have been appropriate enough in ch. 12 or ch. 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—J”, E, 1". 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 com-
parison in Gu. 197 ff.
12-16.—Isaac’s successful husbandry.—12. Cultiva-
tion on a small scale is still occasionally practised by the
Bedouin (see Palmer, Des. of Ex. 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. Gu. thinks the vv. are a pendant to the Rebekah incident, corre-
sponding to the gifts of the heathen king (1215 2015) and the expulsion of
Abraham (125). It is more natural to consider 128: the continuation of §;
indeed, it might fairly be questioned whether 7" is not a later insertion,
interrupting the continuity of the main narrative.—12. ony] (τῷ
wrongly ony, ‘barley.’ The word is .y¥, meaning ‘ measure’ or ‘ value’
(cf. av¥ =‘ reckon,’ in Pr. 23’, with allied words in J. Aram. and NH ; esp.
NH y=‘ measure’).—13. $99 pba 9] G-K. § 113 τὸ.
366 ISAAC AT GERAR (J)
17-22. Isaac’s wells.—See on 21”.—17. Isaac retires to
the Wadi of Gérar] probably the Gurf el-Gerar, above (SE)
Umm el-G.(20'), into which several wadis converge, including
W. er-Ruhaibeh (v.”*) and W. es-Seba‘.—19, 20. The first
well is named “Zse% (‘annoyance’); the name has not been
found.—21. Sz¢nah (‘hostility’) is possibly to be sought in
the W. Sutnet er-Ruhaibeh, close to Ruhaibeh, though v.22
seems to imply that the places were some distance apart.
—22. Réhdbéth (‘room’) 15 plausibly identified with ev
Riuhatbeh, in the wadi of the same name, about 20 m. SW
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 21™f-)
ascribed the discovery and naming of them to Abraham. ν. 15: 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 Ki. 3”).
23-25. The theophany at Beersheba.—23. went up]
though Bir es-Seba’ lies considerably lower than er-Ruhaibeh.
—24. That an zwaugural theophany (see on 127) is meant, is
clear from v.”. According to this narrative, no patriarch
had previously visited Beersheba (cf. 21°*).—my servant] (ἴτ
reads ‘thy father.’ Nowhere else in Gen. is Abraham
spoken of as the servant of Yahwe.—25a. Note the corre-
spondence of the phraseology with 127! 13* 18,—25b. See v.
17. jn] so (of an individual) 3318 (E).—18. 92] «GB, Jud. ay.—
ovono)] used in the same sense 2 Ki. 31% %, 2 Ch. 32?» +89, On the masc.
suf. (so v.!), see G-K. §§ 60 ἃ, 135 0.—19. 5Π)3] Gr + Τεράρων.---20. pwy]
di. Ney. pdy is common in NH, Tg. in the sense of ‘be busy, occupied’ ;
in Syr. it means durus, asper, molestus, fuit: hence in Ethpa. difficilem
se prebuit.—2i. (ἃ pr. pny op pay] (with following vb. in sing.), as
v.22; cf. 1283—22. wm) GPT ww, cf. 28%.
24, 25aa are regarded by Gu. as an interpolation of the same
character as *”®; but the linguistic marks of late authorship which
abound in >> 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 ν. 8 implies a different origin of the
sacredness of Beersheba from ™": the consecration of the sanctuary
and the naming of the place are separate things which were evidently
kept distinct in J> (21°%),—25. 929] synonymous with 197 in Nu. 218;
elsewhere only used of a grave (50°) or pit (Ex. 2188 etc.).
XXVI. 17-33 367
26-33. The treaty with Abimelech.—26. ’Ahuzszath
(v.z.) λὲς friend| his confidential adviser, or ‘ vizier,’—an
official title common in Egypt from an early period, and
amongst the Ptolemies and Seleucids (1 Mac. 2'° 10®; cf.
2 Sa. 161, 1 Ki. 45, 1 Ch. 2733).—Pikol] see on 217.—27.
See vv. !* 16. 28. The mb is properly the curse invoked on
the violation of the covenant; NS refers to the symbolic
ceremony (not here described) by which it was ratified (see
on 1517}.---20. Abimelech dictates the terms of the covenant :
cf. 2173,—30, 31. The common meal seems to be a feature of
. the covenant ceremony (cf. 315°), though here the essential
transaction takes place on the morning of the following day.
—32, 33. The naming of the well (235). The peculiar form
Sib'ah (υ.1.) is perhaps chosen as a compromise between
ΠΡ δ᾽, ‘oath’ (as Gu. points), and Y2¥, 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 (J®) 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 (2139), In the later variations this connexion is lost sight
26. ninx] (for the ending, see Dri. Sam. 107) has sometimes been
mistaken for the noun meaning ‘possession’ (17°), taken in the sense
of a body holding together (see Ra. ad loc.) ; so ©° 12am nyo, ‘ company
of his friends’; Jer. collegium amicorum ejus; Gr.-Ven. κατοχή τε τοῦ
φίλου (Field).—jnp] a rare word for ‘companion,’ sodalis (Ju. 141" 59 15% 8,
2 Sa. 38, Pr. 12% (Ὁ) 1977), whose use in the story of Samson suggested
the νυμφαγωγὸς of OG here.—28. 1)" }}}}}] need not be deleted (G&S, al.).
The form ΠῚ (42%, Jos. 22°4, Ju. 11°, 2 Sa. 217, Jer. 2515; Ezk. 10% 5.7)
is always two-sided, and is here resolved into the commoner ]’2:. . . j’3,
exactly as 2 Sa. 217. Hence in the first case ‘‘us’’ means all the parties
to the covenant, in the second only the Philistine representatives.—
29. nvyn] On the --, see G-K. 8 75 Ah.—any any] wu Ane any, G's ‘yn,
a more natural order.—32. 1%) (ἃ strangely reads Οὐχ [εὕρομεν ὕδωρΊ.---
33. Ank] GS better πρῳ, ---πυπν (dsr. λεγ.}] (ἀ Ὅρκος; but Aq. Σ. πλησμονή,
Ἔ Abundantiam, S lsac0 (nyay, Ezk. 16%). In spite of the interchange
of sibilants, one is tempted to agree with these authorities: Jerome
pertinently asks: ‘Que enim etymologia est, propterea vocari jura-
mentum, quod aquam von (cf. Gr) invenissent ?’—ow] GS pr. xp.
368 JACOB SECURES THE BLESSING (JE)
of, and the covenant becomes a general treaty of peace and amity, which
may also have had historic importance for a later period. In E there
is no mention of contested wells at all, nor even a hint that Abraham
had dug the well of Beersheba; while J" seems expressly to bar any
connexion between the covenant and the discovery of the well.
34, 35. Esau’s Hittite wives (P).—In P, Esau is
represented as still living with Isaac at Mamre (357%).—
fitttite for ‘ Canaanite’: see on 238. It is possible, however,
that in the case of Basemath the true text was ‘ Hivvite’ (so
(iS).—On the names, see on 36%.
XXVII. 1-45.—How Jacob secured his Father's
Blessing (JE).
This vivid and circumstantial narrative, which is to be
read immediately after 25°4 (or 258), 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 considera-
tions which has been thought surprising in a writer with the
fine ethical insight of J (Di.). It must be remembered,
however, that ‘‘J” is a collective symbol, and embraces
many tales which sink to the level of ordinary popular
morality. We may fairly conclude with Gu. (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 We. Comp.” 34-36): (a) 33.384} 86:88. In %
(0x) we are recalled to the same stage as the 79x» of *; and *4 (Esau’s
cry) carries us forward to the same point as %8,—(6) 21-3 || 4-274: here
again 79x.) commences two sections which must be alternative, since
both lead up to the blessing (17373»).—(c) A less obvious doublet may
be discovered in 11.18.16} 15; in the one case Jacob is disguised by the
skin of the kids, in the other by wearing Esau’s clothes.—(d) *#a || $b8,—
(e) “Ὁ | 4a (to 7D2).—The language is predominantly that of J, with occa-
sional traces of E; and that the incident was actually recorded in both
these documents appears from chs. 32, 357. In the parallels just en-
XXVII. 1-5 369
umerated, however, the stylistic criteria are hard to trace; and in the
attempt to disentangle them almost everything hangs on the word m™
in 77, As to (δ), 27 is certainly J, and 31.233 consequently E; it will
follow that in (c) belongs to J and 11.18.16 to E. With regard to (a), it
is almost impossible to decide which is J's variant and which E’s. Gu.
assigns 35:38 to E, on the somewhat subtle ground that in J (88: 57) Isaac
is ignorant who it is that has personated Esau, whereas in E (85:33) he
knows very well that it is Jacob (so OH, 5017). Most critics have
taken the opposite view, but without any decisive positive reason. See
Gu. p. 270f.; Pro. 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 naively) by his
fondness for venison (257%). 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 25%°.—1. Blindness is spoken of as a frequent concomitant
ΓΙ προ οὐ 48, 1 Sa. 37, 1 Ki. 144, Ec, 12°: οἱ. Dt. 34").
—3. thy quiver (v.2.) and thy bow] the latter, the hunter’s
weapon (Is. 774; cf. 2 Ki. 13'°).—4. that my soul may bless
thee] so 19: 35. 8. As if the expiring nephesh gathered up all
its force in a single potent and prophetic wish. The uni-
versal belief in the efficacy of a dying utterance appears
Seema, (45s) cot Dt..33, Jos. 23, 2. 58.. 22. Ὁ, 1 Ki.
215. 2 Ki. 13/4#-).—5. But Rebekah was listening] cf. 18".
The close connexion of the blessing and the eating, which is in-
sisted 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. Ho. compares the
physical stimuli by which prophetic inspiration was induced (cf. 1 Sa.
I. pn2mM] On vav cons. in the subord. cl., cf. G-K. § 111 g.—The last
cl. (12) 208) contains a characteristic formula of E (cf. 22**" 31: so
v.18), and is probably to be assigned to that source.—2. xn] J; see on
12,—3. ‘dp] (ax Jn): only here, from ,/n, ‘hang,’ is a more suitable
designation of the ‘quiver’ (GPC IEz.) than of the ‘sword’ (T° Ra.),
—nty Keth. may here be noun of unity (G-K. § 122 7)=‘ piece of game’
from sy (Qéré) (so Tu. De. Di, Gu.). Elsewhere (4255 457! 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 AS’, 222f.); but the identity of the ,/,/ is doubted
(BDB, 845 a).—5. x’and] Gr vax is better, unless both words should be
read.
24
370 JACOB SECURES THE BLESSING (JE)
τοῦ, 2 Ki. 415); Gu. surmises that a sacrificial meal, establishing com-
munion with the Deity, was originally intended (cf. "359, v.7: see Nu. 231).
6-17. Rebekah’s stratagem.—The mother’s jealousy
for her favourite son (255) is aroused by what she has over-
heard; 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 v.*,—II-I3
probably belong to E (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.—II. a@ hairy man] see 25%. 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] cf.
16°.—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 Ho. points out)
have been still an unmarried man (ct. P 2654:).- τό goes
with 1-18 (E), and may be removed without breach of con-
tinuity.k—17. Rebekah’s part being now ended, Jacob is left
to his own resources.
18-29. Jacob obtains the blessing.—20. How very
quickly thou hast found tt, my son /—] an exclamation rather
than a question: the answer being: Ves, for Yahwe, etc.—
"BD mp] caused the right thing to happen, as 24” (J).—
21-23 may be the direct continuation of 1 (E); the clause
6. 733] cf. $33, v.5 ; the addition of jpp7 (Gr) is unnecessary.—8. *p2 and
4y Wx may be variants: acc. to Di. 2 yoy is characteristic of E, and
5 γον of J.—12. ynynd(,/yyn)]), properly ‘a stammerer’ (cf. Ar. ¢a'fa‘a) then
‘a mocker’(2 Ch. 46:6); hence not a mere practical joker (Kn-Di.), buta
profaner of religious solemnities (Ho. Gu.).—'nxam] 3 tule (2 s.f.).
—1I3. ὯΝ is given by Di. as a mark of E, in distinction from J’s p2 (198 24°).
—1I5. 112 being masc. (exc. Lv. 6°), and 7720 in usage a subst., it is
best to suppose "32 repeated as nom. regens before the gen. (otherwise
Dav. § 27).
18. 1 79x! is probably to be assigned to E for the same reason as
1b, though something similar must have stood in the other source: Gu.,
however, makes ! the direct sequel of (798%) raa-$x in 184 (J), giving ™*
to E.—xa»] G@DS xa) (cf. 10. 1 81)... 23, waa] Another view of the con-
XXVII. 6-27 271
and so he blessed him must have been followed by the words of
blessing.—24-27 bring the parallel narrative (J) 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 v.1 would
have no meaning), on the other it supplies the sensuous im-
pression which suggests the words of the blessing “Ὁ
(so Gu.).
The section, we have seen, is composite (perhaps 15: 1% 21-23. 28 — F || 190.
20. 24-27 J); 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 J as it stands, it would seem
that Isaac’s suspicions are first aroused by the promptness of the sup-
posed hunter's return, and perhaps only finally allayed by the smell of
Esau’s garments. In E it is the voice which almost betrays Jacob,
and the feel of his arms which saves him from detection. For details,
see the footnotes.
27b-29. The blessing is partly natural (?”>- 8), partly politi-
cal (2°), 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, Gn. 49”%-, Dt. 331° ;
and it is not improbable that its Elohistic elements (v.z.)
originated in N. Israel.—27b (J). che smell of a rich field] cf.
struction, avoiding the division of documents, in Dri. 7. § 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” (1 cons.). Ew. and
Hitz. applied the same principle to several other passages (see 76.) ; but
the explanation seems to me not very natural.—2q4. AX] 2 ANKT.—25.
ὯΔ 18D] Gr 32 7AV¥D; but see v.%.
27b-29. The critical analysis of the blessing, precarious at the best,
depends on such considerations as these: m7’ 10 points decisively to J ;
onbxn %8, less certainly, to E, which is confirmed by wm 711 (cf. 87), a
(to nox) is J because of the last word (25%); and *> because of the
resemblance to 12°. 48 (from mn) is E (cf. 8”): (so Gu.). KS. and Ho.
differ first in treating 78> as wholly || a, thus assigning «to E and
88 to J (thus far Pro. agrees with them) ; then in the inference that *7 is J ;
and, lastly, in the reflex inference that 380 is E.—The metrical structure
is irregular. Parallelism appears in ** and in 39 throughout. *? falls
into three trimeters ; but 329 (also J) can only be scanned in tetrameters.
In E trimeters and tetrameters are combined. See Sievers, i. 405, 577,
ii. 79, 316.—27b. ΠῚ] «ὦ. (ungrammatically) xbo mun. The xb, how-
372 JACOB SECURES THE BLESSING (JE)
Dt. 3373 (v.z.).—28 (E). fat places of the earth] for the image
cf. Is. 51 281, Nu. 132°. ¢* Heaven and earth conspire to give
him of their best” (Gu.).—corn and must] often combined
with ‘oil’ in pictures of agricultural felicity (Dt. 7", Ho.
28-2 etc.).—29aa (J). Peoples. . . nations| cf. 25%. The
reference is to the neighbouring nations subdued by David
(2 Sa. 8).—29a8 (E) resembles a ¢ribal blessing (cf. 49°).
At all events the mention of brethren (pl.) shows that the im-
mediate situation is forgotten.—2gb (J). Cf. 12°.
30-40. Esau sues in vain for a blessing.—30. Both
J and E bring out how narrowly Jacob escaped being
detected (υ.1.). 310. Esau’s address (jussives) is if anything
a little more deferential than Jacob’s (v.1*).—33. Who, then,
certainty; 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 (Gu.: 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 J’s narrative breaks off, and 85 (E)
resumes from the standpoint of *8.—36. Js zt because he was
named Overreacher|—that he must always be overreaching
ever, is rendered in Or}, and should perhaps be retained.—28. ‘s0wD]
Sen, and therefore ="39% +2 (G-K. § 20m), from jy (*+).—2g. ynnw]
the final; should be supplied with Qré and su (see next cl.).—m37 =m]
ma (x07) is the common Aram. and NH form of m7 (cf. Ph. sn=my, &3n):
in OT Heb. only here, Is. 164, Neh. 6°, Jb. 375, Ec. 2% 11°}, and (ace.
to Ex. 34) in the name mm. Its occurrence in early Heb., as here, is
surprising.—7V23] v.e7+,—9nN] Ure Une wad, wrongly.— 0x 53] Gr 73x ‘3
after 49%.—On the distributive sing. (πὰ, 793), see G-K. § 1452.
30a contains two variants, of which the second is connected syntactic-
ally with %, Since the form of * resembles 18% 24” 43? (all J), we may
assign this to J, and the rest of the v. to E.—31. 07)] Pt. rather op;
(juss. ).—33. 935] KS. conj. $5 (emphatic inf. abs.).—7 W732 ΠΣ ’x] The
emendation of Hitz. (Ols. Ba.) πὶ: 2/92 03 ‘38 is hardly suitable: such a
sentence would require to be preceded by another action, of which it
was an aggravating or supplementary circumstance (ck 315 464
Nu. 1618), It is better (with κα) to read on, and (with Gr) to zmsert 7)
at the beginning of *4,—36. *27] cf. 29%, 2 Sa. ο᾽ (231° ἢ), Jb. 651. The
XXVII. 28-40 373
me ?—Note the word-play ‘N753: °N273.—37. Cf. 2%a#-28b (Ε).
All that makes a blessing—political supremacy, and material
wealth—has been given away; what remains for Esau ?—
38. 15 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.—difted up .. .
wept| corresponding to *4*. ‘*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 ν.39:
Away from the fat places of the earth shail thy dwelling be ;
And away from the dew of heaven above!
The double entendre in the use of }2 has misled ἘΠ and some
comm. into thinking this a replica of the blessing of Jacob
(cf. N6. ZB, 1184). Compare 4018 with 40!®.—40a. Live by
thy sword] by raids on neighbouring territory, plunder of
caravans, etc.*—serve thy brother] fulfilled in the long sub-
jection of Edom to Israel, from the time of David to that of
Joram (2 Ki. 8294.) or even Ahaz (16°).—40b. The prosaic
form suggests that this may be a later addition dating from
after the emancipation of Edom (Ho. Gu.).—dveak his yoke]
a common figure: Jer. 22° 5° 28? 411 308, Lv. 2618, Is. οὗ etc.
The territory of Edom is divided into two parts by the Arabah; that
to the E is described by Strabo (xvI. iv. 21) as χώρα ἔρημος ἡ πλείστη
kal μάλιστα ἡ πρὸς Ιουδαίᾳ. Modern travellers, however, speak of it as
rendering above, ‘is it that?’ etc., satisfies every case (see BDB, 4724),
and is simpler than that given in G-K. § 150e.—Ho. (so Gu.) thinks 388
a redactional expansion ; but it has to be considered whether ** (|| 4a)
is not rather a fragment of J. —38. 3} ὮΝ ἊΣ 13972]=*#(J), On the syntax
of ‘3x, see G-K. ὃ 135 e.—1n xg] (ὍΔ, al om., but MSS and daughter-Vns,
retain, some with the addition κατανυχθέντος δὲ Ἴσαακ (pny? 071).—4o.
by ay] cf. Dt. 8%, Ezk. 33!%.—1 8 (Jer. 251, Hos. 12! [?], Ps. 558, Ju. 1197
[em.]t) probably connected with Ar. vada, ‘go to and fro’ (Né. ZDMG,
Xxxvii. 539 f.): ‘when thou becomest restive.’ 2 19Nn, Gr xabéXys =A.
* Comp. Josephus on the Idumzans: θορυβῶδες καὶ ἄτακτον ἔθνος αἰεί τε
μετέωρον πρὸς τὰ κινήματα καὶ μεταβολαῖς χαῖρον κτλ. (7, iv. 231), and
φύσει τε ὠμότατοι φονεύειν ὄντες (16. 310). Cf. Diod. ii. 48.
374 ISAAC'S CHARGE TO JACOB (P)
extremely fertile (Robinson, BR, ii. 154; Palmer, Des. of Ex. ii. 430 ΕΞ
cf. Buhl, Zdomiter, 15f.). Buhl accordingly thinks the curse refers
only to the barren plateau W of the Arabah; and this is perhaps better
than (with N6. Dri.) to assimilate the terms of the blessing and the
curse.
It is probable that J's narrative contained a form of the curse on
Esau, but whether any part is preserved in %* is doubtful. * is certainly
from the same source as %(E); with regard to ** the question stands
open.—On the metre, see again Sievers, i. qoqf., il, 78f., 317. Ba.’s
denial of metrical form is based wholly on the doubtful τ,
41-45. Esau’s purpose of revenge.—4I. Esau
cherished enmity (5015) against Jacob.—the days of mourning
(50!)] a period of seven days, within which Esau hoped to
accomplish his revenge.—42. Thy brother 7s going to take
satisfaction of thee (Is. 14, Ezk. 515) 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.—beveaved of you both| The writer has in
view the custom of blood-revenge (cf. 2 Sa. 14’), though in
the case supposed there would be no one to execute it.
XXVII. 46-X XVIII. 9.—Jsaac’s Charge to Jacob (P).
This short section records the only action attributed to
Isaac in the Priestly Code. Two facts are taken over from
the earlier tradition (JE): 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 intro-
duced, 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 (ch. 29) is largely
Se ee
43. τ: π|3] (τ - els τὴν Μεσοποταμίαν.---44 f. ὈΣ1ΠΝ] as 29”, Dn. τι; οἷ
Gn. τ11.- 3’ wx wy and avy are obviously doublets, though there are
no data for assigning either to its proper source. @& runs both together :
ἕως τοῦ ἀποστρέψαι τὸν θυμὸν καὶ τὴν ὀργὴν τ. ἀδ. σου.
XXVII. 41—-XXVIIL. 9 275
discounted by this prosaic representation of the course of
events (cf. Gu. 341).
Marks of P’s style are abundant : "εν 5x, ὃ; ody, 4; ‘tg, ὅ ; ON 718, 2 >
5. 75 my mp, ὃ; ORD PW, ὁ; wap τ, 1 % 8 (J aygpn ‘a, 24% 5); ovpy dnp, ὃ.
46 is an amplification of 26% (M1 Mid), but attributes to
Rebekah an initiative more in the spirit of JE than of P. It
may have been supplied by R to facilitate the transition
from ch. 27 to 28 (v.z.)._ XXVIII. 1. The language seems
modelled on 245: 37.—2. thy mothers father| The earlier
affinity between the two families is again ignored by P: see on
2513: 4. the blessing (YS ‘blessings ’) of Abraham] Comp.
178, Whereas in JE, Isaac is the inspired author of an
original blessing, which fixes the destiny of his descendants,
in P he simply transmits the blessing attached to the cove-
nant with Abraham.—9Q. went to /shmael] Not to dwell with
him permanently, but to procure a wife (see 36%). It is
undoubtedly assumed that Ishmael was still alive (Di.), in
spite of the chronological difficulties raised by De.
XXVIII. 10-22.—/acob at Bethel (JE).
On his way to Harran, 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.
46. The objections to assigning the v. to P (Kue. KS. Di. Ho. Gu.
al.) are perhaps not decisive. If MT be right, nn mia agrees in
substance with 264, though in 28! P consistently uses ]y32 ‘3. &,
however, omits the words A>x2 no-niap.—z2, 7275] (so ® 7) cf. G-K. § οο ἡ.
—3, soy Sap] 35% 45. (P), Ezk. 23% 32°;=o71a ΡΠ, 17%. In spite of
Dt. 33% (Di.), the phrase cannot well denote the tribes of Israel, It
seems to correspond to J’s ‘In thee shall ad/ nations,’ etc. (12° etc.), and
probably expresses some sort of Messianic outlook.—7. 1ON-bN1] perhaps
a gloss suggested by 27% (Di. al.).—g9. Sxyowrdx] 22 om.—nbap] 3S
Moms (cf. TJ); see on 36%
376 JACOB AT BETHEL (JE)
Analysis.—The section consists of a complete Elohistic narrative ("*
17-22), with a Yahwistic insertion (328), For E, cf. ome, 12. 11. 20; aay,
18. 22. the dream, 12 ; the tithe, 32; and the retrospective references in 311°
35° 7. For J, mar} (δὲ). 16; by ay318, and the resemblances to 12% 7 1315+
1818 2215 2674 3213, To J belong, further, ! (7395), and (if genuine) 72,
though the latter is more probably interpolated. 1 breaks the con-
nexion of 18 and 39, and may be taken from J; "Ὁ is an explanatory
gloss. (Sonearly allrecent critics.) Kuenen(Ond. i. 145, 247) considers
18-16 4 redactional addition to E, similar to 221418, etc., on the ground
that J attributes the inauguration of the worship at Bethel to Abraham
(128), and nowhere alludes to the theophany here recorded (so Meyer,
INS, 236°). But (to say nothing of !) the parallelism of 15 and 17 appears
to prove a real amalgamation of primary sources (Di.). Gu. regards 15
as secondary, on account of its stereotyped phraseology.
10-12 (E). Jacob’s dream. — 11. he lighted upon the
place] z.e., the ‘holy place’ of Bethel (see 12°), whose
sanctity was revealed by what followed.—he took [at hap-
hazard] 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. ἃ ladder] or ‘ stair’ (the word only
here). The origin of the idea is difficult to account for (see
on v.!”)._ Its permanent religious significance is expressed
with profound insight and truth in Jn. 15'.—angels of God]
So (in pl.) onlyin E (cf. 327) in the Hex. As always in OT,
the angels are represented as wingless beings (cf. En. Ixi. 1).
In v.!! the rendering ‘a certain place’ would be grammatically
correct (G-K. § 1267); but it destroys the point of the sentence, which
is that night overtook the patriarch just at the sacred spot (see Ex. 3°).
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 Ho.
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 Sta. GVJ, i. 475f.).
13-16 (J). The promise.
In place of the vision of the ladder, which in E constitutes the whole
revelation, J records a personal appearance of Yahwe, and an articulate
communication to the patriarch. That it was a nocturnal theophany (as
in 2653) appears from 1a, as well as the word 22% in’, The promise
is partly addressed to Jacob's special circumstances (18 15), partly a re-
II. ὙΠ ΝΠ] Acc. of place (lit. ‘at his head-place’), as 1 Sa. τοῦδ 16
267 11. 16. y Ki, 19®,—12, 3m 0ony] The usual vivid formula in relating a
XXVIII. 10-17 377
newal of the blessing of Abraham (15). The latter is not improbably a
later amplification of the former (see above).
13. Vahwe stood by him (v.t.), and announced Himself as
one with the God of his fathers, This unity of Yahwe
amidst the multiplicity of His local manifestations is a stand-
ing paradox of the early religion of Israel: cf. v.'°.—the
land whereon thou liest| a description peculiarly appropriate
to the solitary and homeless fugitive who had not where to
lay his head.—14. Comp. 1314# 221"! 26% *4 321%.—On 4? see
the note on 12°.—16. Vahwe ἐς in this place, etc.| The under-
lying feeling is not joy (Di.), but fear, because in ignorance
he had treated the holy place as common ground ({). The
exclamation doubtless preserves an echo of the local tradi-
tion, more forcibly represented in E (v.!"). It is the only
case in Gen. where a theophany occasions surprise (cf.
Bx. 3).
17-19. Consecration and naming of the place.—17
follows v.” (E) without sensible breach of continuity; even
the mention of Jacob’s awaking (16) is not absolutely indis-
pensable (see 15). The impression of fear is far more power-
fully expressed than in J; the place is no ordinary haram,
but one superlatively holy, the most sacred spot on earth.
Only a N 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 Bé¢h-él, which
(as we see from v.”) was first applied to the sacred stone, but was after-
wards 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 com-
municated by means of a ladder. We may compare the Babylonian
theory of the temple-tower as the means of ascent to the dwelling-place
dream : 377 (01) 40° 41, Ju. 73, Is. 29%.—13. vy ass] 18? 241 45} (all J).
GPS take o5p as antecedent to the suff. ; but the idea would have been
expressed otherwise (Ὁ Sya), and the translation loses all its plausibility
when the composition of documents is recognised.—Before pKa, (ἃ ins.
μὴ φοβοῦ.---τ4. γκπ Yr] Ck ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, after 32" 41.—ns15)]
(τ pu: for the word—properly ‘break through’ [bounds],—cf. Bore.
Ex. 113, Is. 543 etc.—15. 922] (ἃ +3770.
378 JACOB AT BETHEL (JE)
of the gods in heaven (see p. 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, Adds. 96). Whether it has any
connexion with the si//u, or decorated arch over a palace gate, depicted
in ATLO*, 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 Beztzm (“ 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, Zarly Hebrew
Story, 110 ff.).
18. Jacob set up the stone, whose mystic properties he
had discovered, as a magzébah, or sacred pillar (v.z.), and
poured oil on the top of it (3513), in accordance with a custom
widely attested in ancient and modern times (see p. 380).—-
19a gives J’s account of the naming of the place. If a similar
notice occurred in E (as seems implied in 311% 35°), it would
naturally have stood later.—1Qb is usually considered a gloss.
From Jos. 16? (181%) it appears that Zéz was really distinct
from Bethel, but was overshadowed by the more famous
sanctuary in the neighbourhood.
20-22 (E). Jacob’s vow. — The vow in OT ‘‘consists
18. 72xD] (‘thing set up,’ Ar. nusb, Ph, nayd) is the technical name
of the sacred monolith which was apparently an adjunct of every fully
equipped Canaanite (or Phoenician) and early Hebrew sanctuary (see
Vincent, Canaan, 96, 102f., 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 E (311 4 δι 52 3520 fem.] 3544, Ex, 244);
but not by J, who never mentions the object except in connexion with
Canaanitish worship (Ex. 34%). But that the emblem retained its
idolatrous associations in the popular religion is shown by the strenuous
polemic of the prophets and the Dtnic. legislation against it (Hos. τοῦδ,
Mic. 515, Dt. 12° etc., esp. 16" [cf. Lv. 26']); and J's significant silence
is probably an earlier indication of the same tendency. It is only ata
very late period that we find the word used once more without offence
(Is. 19%). See Dri. on Dt. 167%; RS?, 204 ff., 456f.; Moore in EB,
2974 ff. ; Whitehouse in DB, iii. 879 ff.— ps1] On this, the usual form, see
G-K. § 71.—19. o>] A strong adversative, found in Pent. only 48",
XXXVI; 18—22 379
essentially of a solemn promise to render God some service,
in the event of some particular prayer or wish being granted”
(Dri.); * hence it falls into two parts: a condition ("), and
a promise (”2).—20, 21a. The conditions correspond with the
divine promise in 15 (J)—(a) the presence of God; (δ) protec-
tion; (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 2ΙΌ, v.2.—22. The promise.
this stone . . . shall be (G@ adds to me) a house of God] 1.6.
(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 mwmen, and afterwards became
a mazzébah.—22b. He will pay a tithe of all his possessions.
This and Am. 4‘ are the only pre-Deuteronomic references
to the tithe (cf. 147°).
In its present setting the above narrative forms the transition link
between the Jacob-Esau and the Jacob-Laban cycle of legends. In sub-
stance it is, we can hardly doubt, a modification of the cultus-legend of
Bethel (now Beztin, situated on an eminence about 10 miles N of Jeru-
salem, a little E of the road to Nabulus), the founding of which was
ascribed to the patriarch Jacob. The concrete features which point to
a local origin—the erection of the mazzebah, the ladder, the gate of
heaven, and the institution of the tithe—are all indeed peculiar to the
account of E, which obviously stands nearer to the sources of the native
tradition than the stereotyped form of the theophany given by J. From
E we learn that the immemorial sanctity of Bethel was concentrated in
the sacred stone which was itself the original Bérth- δ], i.e. the residence
of a god or spirit. This belief appears to go back to the primitive stone-
Ex. 915, Nu, 142. For nb x), @& has καὶ Οὐλαμμαύς ; cf. Ju. 18° (G).—n?]
35° 48°, Jos. 16? 18:8, Ju. 14+. The name Λουζὰ appears to have been
known in the time of Euseb. (OS, 135!); and Miiller (AZ, 165) thinks it
may be identical with Rusa on Eg. inscr.
21. ‘naw)] (ἃ καὶ ἀποστρέψῃ με, as v.%.—2rb can with difficulty be
assigned either to the protasis or to the apodosis of the sentence. The
word mn’ shows that it does not belong to E; and in all probability the
cl. is to be omitted as a gloss (Di. al.). The apod. then has the same
unusual form as in 22},
* But We. (Heid.? 190) remarks of the Arabian custom: “ Die Araber
geloben nicht im eventum : wenn der und der Fall eintritt, so will ich das
tun ; sondern sie iibernehmen durch das Geliibde eine absolut bindende
Pflicht.”
380 JACOB’S MARRIAGE (JE)
worship of which traces are very widely diffused over the surface of the
globe.* The characteristic rite of anointing the stone, originally perhaps
a sacrifice to the indwelling 2en, was familiar to classical writers.t
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 OT, we may assume
that, stripped of its pagan associations and reduced to the rank of a
mazzeébah, it was still recognised in historic times as the chief religious
symbol of that great centre of Hebrew worship.
XXIX. 1-30.—/Jacob’s Marriage with Laban’s Daughters
(JE, P).
Instead of spending a few days (27‘*) as Laban’s guest,
Jacob was destined to pass 20 years of his life with his
Aramean kinsman. The circumstances which led to this
prolonged exile are recorded in the two episedes contained
in this section; viz. Jacob’s meeting with Rachel at the well
(4), and the peculiar conditions of his marriage to Leah
* See Tylor, Prim. Cult.’ ii. 160 ff. ; Frazer, Pausan. iv. 154 f., Adonis,
21; RS’, 204 ff., 232f. The wide distribution of these sacred objects
seems fatal to the theory of Lagrange, that they were miniature repro-
ductions 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 (£tudes?, 192 ff.).
+ On anointed stones (λίθοι λιπαροί, ἀληλιμμένοι, lapides uncti, lubri-
cati, etc.), see Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 4, 26; and the remarkable state-
ments of Theophrastus, Char. 16; Lucian, Alexander, 30; and Arnobius,
Adv. Gentes, i. 39,—quoted by Frazer, Pawsan. v. 354.—For Assyrio-
logical parallels see AZB, i. 44f., ii. 113, 151, 261.—A curious develop-
ment 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 (Eus.
Prep. Ev. i. το, 18; Photius, 5161. [Migne, ciii. 1292 f.]; Pliny, HA,
XXXVii. 135, etc.). The existence of a Canaanitish deity Bazt-cli (who
can only be regarded as a personification of the temple or the sacred
stone) is proved by unimpeachable Assyriological evidence (AA 73, 437 f. ;
Lagrange, /.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 $y"n’a and the portable betyl of
the Grzco-Roman period, which was so named as the residence of a
spirit ; but see the important article of Moore, /owrnal of the Archeo-
logical Institute of America, vii. (1903), No. 2, p. 198 ff.
XRIXA Wy, 2 381
and Rachel (*-*°), The first, a purely idyllic scene reminding
us of 241-83 and Ex. 2%, 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.* In the second, the true character of Laban is ex-
posed 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.
Analysis.—Fragments of P’s narrative can be easily recognised in
vv. 29, and probably also in **. The separation of J and E 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 Di. that v.’ belongs to E
(see the notes), and 5213 to J: cf. ΠΡΟ pr, 13 (18? 2417) ; “wa ‘psy, 14 (233).
In 1 Rachel appears to be introduced for the first time; hence Di.
regards E as the main source of 15 (or 150) *, excluding, however, v.”,
where ΠῚ ys and 7723 reveal the hand of J: characteristic expressions of
E are ΠΊΞΨΡ, © (317 41); ποι and Amp, 1% 18; in ἽΝΠ na, 7%, So Gu. Pro.
nearly. Ball and Corn. assign all from 15 onwards to J.
I-14. Jacob’s meeting with Rachel.—t. che sons of the
East| Since the goal of Jacob’s journey is in J, Harran (28
292) and in P, Paddan Aram (287), it is to be presumed that
this third variation comes from E (Di.). Now the 07? 23 are
everywhere else the tribes of the Syro-Arabian desert, and
3121f. certainly suggests that Laban’s home was not so
distant from Canaan as Harran (see on 24" [city of Nahor]).
It is possible, therefore, that in the tradition followed by E,
Laban was the representative of the nomadic Aramzans
between Palestine and the Euphrates (see p. 334 above).—
2. The well zz the open country is evidently distinct, even in
J, from the town-well of Harran (cf. 24'%).—For . . . they
used to water, etc.| To the end of ν.3 is an explanatory par-
enthesis describing the ordinary procedure. The custom of
covering the well with a heavy stone is referred to by
I. The curious expression ‘lifted up his feet’ is found only here.—
GP om. 32; and & adds to the v. πρὸς Λαβὰν κτλ., as 28°.—2, mda jaxm
can only mean ‘and the stone was great’: it is perhaps better to omit
* @ thinks it necessary to introduce a hint of the coming rivalry into
the conversation between Jacob and Rachel (v."*).
382 JACOB'S MARRIAGE (JE)
Robinson, BR, i. 490; Thomson, ZB, 589; Palmer, Des. of
Ex. ii. 319 f.; cf. also Diod. ii. 48, xix. 94.—4. Jacob accosts
the shepherds, and learns that they come from Harran. There
is nothing else in the narrative to suggest the proximity of
a great city; Laban is no city-dweller as in ch. 24, but a
nomad sheikh; and the life depicted is everywhere that of
the desert. All this confirms the impression that the topo-
graphy of E (v.') has been modified by J in accordance with
the theory that Harran was the city of Nahor.—5. the son of
Nahér| see on 24.—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.—Q. a shepherdess]
cf. Ex. 26. The trait is in accordance with the freedom still
allowed to unmarried girls among the Bedouin. Burck. found
it an established rule among the Arabs of Sinai that only girls
should drive the cattle to pasture (Bedouzn, 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 (Di. Gu. al.): cf. 32°°.—11. wept aloud]
‘after the demonstrative fashion of the Oriental’ (Ben.),—
tears of joy at the happy termination of his journey.—12.
brother| as in ν. 138 1414 (244 ?).—13. kissed him repeatedly
(Piel)] The effusive display of affection, perhaps not wholly
disinterested, is characteristic of Laban (cf. 247t-).—14, my
bone and my flesh] as 377", Ju. 9%, 2 Sa. 5! τοῦ It is an
absurd suggestion that the exclamation is called forth by the
recital of Jacob’s dealings with Esau, in which Laban recog-
nised a spiritual affinity to himself! The phrase denotes
literal consanguinity and nothing more.
the art. (with »).—3. D177] 2 oI, needlessly substituted by Ba. So
also ν.ὅ, where 2% is supported by ¢4.—6. Before 73m, Of ins. ἔτι αὐτοῦ
λαλοῦντος (as v.°). An assimilating tendency reappears at the end of the
ν. ; and the variations have no critical value.—g. N35] perf.; ct. the
ptcp. n&2 in v.°5.—xi ayn] Gr + τὰ πρόβατα τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῆς.---το. 53] with
original z in impf. Qal (G-K. 8 67 #).—13. yow (Gx ow) = ‘the report con-
cerning,’ followed as always by gen. obj.—14. Ὁ win] ‘a whole month’ ;
see G-K. § 131d.
XXIX. 3-25 383
15-30. Jacob’s double marriage.—15. Laban’s char-
acter 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 vv.! 3). 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 (Di. al.).—On the
names Zéah and Rahél, v.t.—17. Leah’s eyes were weak
(MDI, ( ἀσθενεῖς, Aq. Σ. ἁπαλοί) : z.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 (mdhar) for so eligible a bride, offered seven years’
service instead. The custom was recognised by the ancient
Arabs, and is still met with (We. GGA, 1893, 433 f.; Burck.
Syria, 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 (Burck. Bedouwzn, i. 113, 272; Lane,
Mod. Eg.® i. 199).—22. Laban proceeds to the execution of
his long meditated coup. He himself arranges the marriage
feast (ct. Ju. 141°), inviting all the men of the place, with
a view doubtless to his self-exculpation (v.*°).—23. The sub-
stitution of Leah for Rachel was rendered possible by the
custom of bringing the bride to the bridegroom veiled (245).
To have thus got rid of the unprepossessing Leah for a hand-
some price, and to retain his nephew’s services for other
seven years (v.2’), was a master-stroke of policy in the eyes
of a man like Laban.—25. Jacob’s surprise and indignation
15. ᾽3Π] see on 27*.—n73y>] 31% (Ε), Ru. 2+; ὌΨ is common to J
(30% 8) and E (318, Ex. 2%).—16. ὅπ) and jp are in such connexions
characteristic of E (v.18 421% 15 20. $2.34); see Ho, Einl. 104.—n7 means
‘ewe’ (Ar. ragi/=she-lamb) ; hence by analogy axb has been explained
by Ar. 1α᾽ δέ, ‘bovine antelope’ (see Νὅ. ZDMG, xl. 167 ; Sta. ZATW, i.
112 ff.), and the names are cited as evidence of a primitive Heb. totemism
(KM?, 254f.). Others prefer the derivation from Ass. /i’a/, ‘lady’ (see
Haupt, GGN, 1883, 100).—18. 2Π13] 3 pretii (G-K. § 119 f); 50 "Ὁ: 55.. 20.
anx—vay] GA om.—2I. 73] Milra’ before x (G-K. §690).—24. 1n5w] better
384 JACOB'S MARRIAGE (JE)
are vividly depicted. —26. /¢ zs not so done] cf. 34", 2 Sa. 13”.
Laban no doubt correctly states the local usage: the objec-
tion to giving a younger daughter before an older is natural,
and prevails in certain countries (Lane, i. 201; cf. Jub. xxviii.,
Ju. 1548, 1 Sa. 18!”).—27, 28. Fulfil the week of this one]
z.e., the usual seven days (Ju. 1412, To. 111%) 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 (31148), he suffered a just retribution for the unscrupu-
lous assertion of his paternal rights.
In Jacob’s marriages it has been surmised that features survive of
that primitive type of marriage (called deena marriage) in which the
husband becomes a member of the wife’s kin (Rob. Sm. 1.232, 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 #dhar otherwise than in the way of
personal service. As soon as the contract expired he pleads his right
to ‘provide for his own house’ (30 J). On the other hand, Laban cer-
tainly claimed the right to detain his daughters, and treated them as
still members of his family (3176 45 E); and it might be imagined that the
Elohistic tradition recognised the existence of deena marriage, at least
among the Aramzans. 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.
XXIX. 31-XXX. 24.—T7he Birth of Jacob’s Children (JE).
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 remark-
ων (1x09); see v.2.—26. mrysn] distinctive of J; see v.!%—27. 7jyny is
rather 3rd f. 5. pf. Niph., than ist pl. cohort. Qal (as most) s2«#G&SP
read jAx).—28b. awxd 15] The double dative is characteristic of P, to
whom the whole clause may be assigned along with **.—30. The second
pi has no sense, and should probably be deleted (GD).
XXIX. 26-31 385
able 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 JE.) How far
genuine elements of tradition are embodied in such a narra-
tive 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, repre-
senting perhaps an older and a later settlement of Hebrews
in Palestine (Sta. ZATW, i. 112f.). 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,
meee, xxi. 26 ff.; cf. Mey. ZS, 291 f., 500 ff.)
The sources are J and E, with occasional clauses from P.—29%!*5 is
wholly from J (mi, 51. 83. 3-35; πῆρ, 31; nysn, $+ %), with the possible excep-
tion of 82>y.—30!8 is mainly E (onde, 2 & 8; πον, 38). but ὅ8β reminds us of
J (165), * is assigned to P (ππεῷ and cf. 16%), and in 7 nj5¥ must be either
from J (KS. Ba. Gu.) or P (Ho.). — 308 is again mostly from J (ney,
10. 12 ‘cf. ® with 29%! 30! 29%). 9 is P.—30!4*4 presents a very mixed text,
whose elements are difficult to disentangle ; note the double etymologies
in 18- (cf.16) 2 23 The hand of E clearly appears in 1% 18. %0aqg. 22bq, (22a
may be from P: cf. 81) 3, Hence the parallels 14-16 20.24 must be as-
signed to J, who is further characterised, according to Gu., by the
numeration of the sons (17> 1% 20ay), 51 is interpolated.
31-35. The sons of Leah.—31. hated] The rendering
is too strong. ‘8 is almost a technical term for the less
favoured of two wives (Dt. 2115"); where the two are sisters
the rivalry is naturally most acute, hence this practice is
forbidden by the later law (Lv. 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
25
386 JACOB'S CHILDREN (JE)
Israel (1 Sa. 12%). —32. Re dben] The only plausible ex-
lanation of the etymology is that it is based on the form
287 (v.2.) = VIAN, and that mya is substituted for the
divine name bya, Most comm. suppose that the writer
resolves 3} into ["]2[Y]2 [7]8; but that is too extrava-
gant for even a Heb. etymologist.—33. Sim‘én] derived from
yn’, ‘hear,’ expressing precisely the same idea as R& fbén.
—34. Zévi, as the third son, is explained by a verb for
‘adhere’ (Niph. ,/ m5), on the principle that a threefold
cord is not easily broken.—35. Yéhdédah| connected with a
word meaning ‘praise’ (ΠῚ Π: cf. impf. 717", Neh. 112%),
So in 498.
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 be-
haviour recalls that of Sarah (16°), but Jacob is less patient
than Abraham.—Am 7 in God’s stead 5] So 50", cf. 2 Ki. 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.
On the ceremony referred to, see Sta. ZA TW, vi. 143 ff. ; Ho. 196; Dri.
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
(cf. Jb. 31°; 11. ix. 455 f.; Od. xix. gor ff.); then it became a symbol of
32. ἸΞ31Ν1] Gr ‘PovByy, εἰς. ; S Qi 505 3 Jos. 'Ρουβηλος. The origin of
the name has given rise to an extraordinary number of conjectures (see
Hogg, £B, 4οοι ff.). We seem driven to the conclusion that the original
form (that on which the etymology is based: v.s.) was 5217. In that
form the name has been connected with Ar. γε dal, ‘lion,’ or ‘wolf,’ in
which case Reuben might have to be added to the possibly totemistic
names of OT, Another plausible suggestion is that the word is softened
from 5y37339 a theophorous compound after the analogy of 5x37 —33.
After 13, (ἃ ins. Ἢ, which may be correct (cf. 30% 12: 1% 19 24), ὐνὉ
Another supposed animal name, from Ar. sim', a cross between the wolf
and hyzena (see Rob. Sm. /PA. ix. 80). Ewald regarded it as a diminu-
tive of >xypy, and similarly recently Cheyne (787, 375).—34. ΝῊ]
wn GLS ayap; GA ἐκλήθη.---.}} We.’s conjecture that this is the gentilic
of nxb is widely accepted (Sta. Rob.-Sm. Νὅ. Mey. al.) Homm., on
the other hand, compares S Arab. /avi’u = ‘priest,’ Levi being the
priestly tribe (AAT, 278f.; cf. Benz. Arch.? 56).
3. 1952] (of unknown etymology) is probably to be connected with
XXIX. 32-XXX. 1 387
the legitimisation of a natural child, and finally a form of adoption
generally (50%). Gu., 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.
obtain children by her| see on 16.—6. The putative mother
names the adopted child.—Ddn] The etymology here given
(ν δ, ‘judge’) is very probably correct, the form being an
abbreviated theophorous name (cf. Adz-dan, Ass. Asshur-
dan, etc.).—8. wrestlings of God I have wrestled| The words
are very obscure (see Che. 376ff.). Either ‘I have had ‘‘a
veritable God’s bout” (Ba.) 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 (Gu.); and there is nothing to prevent the
supposition that the concubinage of Bilhah followed immedi-
ately on the birth of Reuben.
9-13. Leah’s adopted sons.—II. Gad is the name of an
Aramean and Pheenician god of Luck (Τύχη), mentioned in
Is. 65" (see Camb. Bible, ad loc.; cf. Baethgen, Beztr. 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 appella-
tively: With luck! (v.z.). It is probable, however, that at
an earlier time it was current in the sense ‘ With Gad’s help’
the Horite clan jada (36?”).—6. 5.1] On the form, see G-K. 8 26 g-—7aBb
must be assigned to J, on account of anv and ἢ j2 (note also the
expression of subj. after second vb.).—8. *Sinp3] ἅπ. Ney. The vb. has
nowhere else the sense of ‘wrestle,’ but means primarily to ‘twist’ (cf.
Pr. 88, Jb. 518, Ps. 18?"+) ; hence ὅπ; might be the ‘tortuous,’ ‘ cunning’
one (BDB). But a more plausible etymology derives it from a hypo-
thetical Maphtal (from np; [Jos. 17"+,—if correctly vocalised], usually
taken to mean ‘height’: cf. $272 fr. 073), denoting the northern high-
lands W of the Upper Jordan (Mey. ZS, 539).—The Vns. render the v.
more or less paraphrastically, and give no help to the elucidation of the
sense.
10. Both here and v.” (ἃ gives a much fuller text.—11. 133] So Kevh.,
Ok Ἔν τύχῃ, D Feliciter. But Qré 13 ἈΞ is ancient, being presupposed
by S (ory IAD and ©, These Vns. render ‘Good fortune comes’
(so Ra): another translation, suggested by 49”, is ‘A troop (1373) comes’
(IEz.).
388 JACOB’S CHILDREN (JE)
(Ba. Gu.).—13. The name ’43er naturally suggested to Heb.
writers a word for happiness; hence the two etymologies:
Wa, ‘Jn my happiness,’ and ‘37WX ‘(women) count me
happy. It is possible that the name is historically related to
the Canaanite goddess ‘Asérah (Ba. Ho.), as Gad is to the
Aramzan deity. Aser appears in Eg. monuments as the
name of a district in NW Palestine as early as Seti and
Ramses i. (Miller, AZ, 236 ff.).
14-24. The later children.—14-16. The incident of the
love-apples is a piece of folklore, adopted with reserve by
the writer (J), 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 We. Comp.” 38f.). How much
of this stood in J 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. D'N1 (v.z.) is the
round, greenish-yellow, plum-like fruit of »andragora vernalis,
which in Syria ripens in May—+¢he 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 (cf.
2 Ki. 448. The agricultural background shows that the
episode is out of place in its present nomadic setting.—I5.
he shall lie with thee to-night] Jacob, therefore, had wrongly
withheld from Leah her conjugal rights (ΠΝ, Ex. 21!°).—16.
I have hired thee (V3¥ 13¥%)] Obviously an anticipation of
13. Wk is dr. Aey.— Hw] pf. of confidence (G-K. § 1067”). It is
to be noted that pfs. greatly preponderate in E’s etymologies, and impfs.
in those of J ; the two exceptions (2955) may be only apparent, and due
to the absence of definite stylistic criteria.
14. oxaa (Ca. 74+)] Ge μῆλα μανδραγόρου, S 10;9,, 179] pm
(= Ar. yabrih, explained to be the voot of the plant). The sing. is
‘tn, from the same ,/ as τ, ‘lover,’ and Ὁ ἦτ, ‘love’ ; and very probably
associated with the love-god m7 (MeSa, 1. 12). Cheyne plausibly
suggests (379) that this deity was worshipped by the Reubenites ; hence
Reuben is the finder of the apples.—15. πὸ] (ἃ axd, S arxS ab.—nnpy
(inf.)] Dri. 7. § 204; but np) (pf. f.) would be easier.—16. Nip] alk
+ 79:57,—nia_n>-b2] see on 19%.—r7a is from E ; but 17b probably from
XXX. 13-24 389
J’s lost etymology of Issachar.—18. E’s interpretation of
12t'%”, which is, of course, independent of the story of the
mandrakes. The name is resolved either into 12 WS, ‘man
of hire,’ or into 72¥ &, ‘there is areward’ (Tu. Di.) ; or else
the ’and quiescent & are simply dropped (Gu.): v.z.—2o0.
Two etymologies of Zébiiliéin; the first from E (p’nby), and
the second, therefore, from J: both are somewhat obscure
(v.z.).—21. Dinah] The absence of an etymology, and the
fact that Dinah is excluded from the enumeration of 4255,
make it probable that the v. is interpolated with a view to
ch. 34.—22-24. At last Rachel bears a son, long hoped for
and therefore marked out for a brilliant destiny— Vdséph.—
23b, 24b. E derives the name from 408, ‘take away’; J
more naturally from 40’, ‘add’: May Yahwe add to me
another son !
XXX. 25-43.—/acob enriched at Laban’s Expense (JE).
Jacob, having accomplished his 14 years of service for
his wives, is now in a position to dictate terms to Laban,
J, on account of the numeral.—18af, while correctly expressing the
idea of E, contains the word ansv, which E avoids; and is therefore
probably redactional.—18b. 73v¥:] So Ben Asher regularly, with Ογᾶ
perp. 12¥): B. Naphtali has 13y¥:, or 13y%: (see Baer-Del. Gen. 84f. ;
Ginsburg, Introd. 250ff.). The duplication of the w cannot be dis-
posed of as a Massoretic caprice, and is most naturally explained by
the assumption that two components were recognised, of which the
first was wx (We. 7.8.5, p. v). For the second component We. refers
to the ὋΨ of 1 Ch. 11% 264; Ba. compares an Eg. deity Sokar; while
Mey. (ZNS, 536) is satisfied with the interpretation ‘man of hire,’
corresponding to the description of the tribe in Gn. 49'*.—20. 13}, *3131]
The ,/ (except in proper names) is not found in OT, but is explained by
ΠΣ n
Aram. (cf. 1-21, ‘dowry’), and is common in Palm. prop. names (BDB,
s.v.). The interchange of 5 and Ἵ is probably dialectic (cf. dacrima
=lacrima), and hardly justifies Cheyne’s view that the name in the
writer’s mind was }\73! (1.6. 380).— 521] Another ἅπ. Ney. apparently
connected with 521, poet. for ‘abode’: Vns. ‘dwell with’ (as EVV).
This gives a good enough sense here, and is perhaps supported by 49'$
(see on the v.); but 3,23] remains without any natural explanation. See
Hogg, in EB, 5385 ff. Mey. (538) derives it from the personal name 53}
(Ju. 9%8).—2r end] @& + mp nym (as 29%).—24. 401] Probably a con-
traction of δ την, though the γ᾽ 7 of the list of Thothmes 1, (No. 78)
390 JACOB OUTWITS LABAN (JE)
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 29% 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 (317) when he discovers how completely he has been
deceived by Jacob’s apparent moderation.—The story, as Gu.
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 some-
what unintelligible form in which the narrative stands.
Sources.—In the earlier vv. (35:81) several duplicates show the com-
position of J and Εὶ : 751 6a; 26b |] 29a; 28} 818. apy» in 27 and 38; nyt any, 26>
and **, Here %- 51: 39:81 are from J (mim, 7) sp aye, ΣΙ; bbaa, 31), and 26.28
from E,—each narrative being nearly complete (cf. Di. Gu. Pro.).—In
%2-36 it is quite possible, in spite of the scepticism of Di. and others, to
distinguish two conceptions of Jacob’s reward (We. Comp.? 4off.). (a)
In the first, Jacob is that very day to take out from Laban’s flock all
abnormally coloured animals: ¢hat is to be his hire (83. 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 (83).
This account belongs to E (cf. "py, *, with 38), though it is doubtful if to
the same stratum of E as 317), (6) 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 (98 [from 197] 355), Thus Jacob
receives for the present nothing at all (*!J). 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 (*) ;
Laban’s precautions aim at securing that these shall be few or none.
Hence we obtain for J °8-%-36 and for Εἰ 32aéb. 83, 34 __ 87-455 is the
natural continuation of J’s account, but with numerous insertions, which
may be either from variants or glosses.—The text here is very confused,
and @& has many variations.
is less confidently identified with Joseph than the companion Y‘%d'r
with Jacob (cf. p. 360 above; Mey. ZS, 262; Spiegelberg, Rand-
glossen, 13f.; Miiller, VAG, 1907, i. 23, and JBL, 1909, 31). But
YaSupili has been found in contract tablets of the Hammurabi period
along with Yagub-z/i (Homm. AH7, 96 [from Sayce]).
XXX. 25-32 391
25-31. Jacob proposes to provide for his own house.
—A preliminary parley, in which both parties feel their way
to an understanding.—26 (E). thou knowest with what kind
of service, etc.| E always lays stress on Jacob’s rectitude (cf.
38), 27 (J). If I have found favour, etc.| followed by aposio-
pesis, as 18° 23!%,—Laban continues: 7 have taken omens
(Ava; cf. 44°15, 1 Ki. 20%) and (found that) Vahwe has
blessed me, etc.|—an abject plea for Jacob’s remaining with
him.—28 (E). Laban surrenders at once (the answer is in
v.*2), whereas— 29, 30 in J, Jacob presses for a dis-
charge: his service has been of immense value to Laban,
but he has a family to consider.—31. anything at αἰ] See
introd. note above.—this thing] which I am about to men-
tion.—resume herding thy flock] G-K. ὃ 120 g.
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 (Ca. 4? 6°, Dn.
7°) and the goats black or brown (Ca. 410). in E, 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
26. bn] Not necessarily a gloss ; the children might fairly be con-
sidered included in Jacob’s wages.—27. On wm, v. 44°.—75533] Ge τῇ σῇ
εἰσόδῳ, Arm. in pede tuo= 9399 (30)... 28, GH om. 7x», smoothing over
the transition from J to E.—n2p3] ‘designate’ (lit. ‘ prick [off]’): cf. the
use of Niph. in Nu. 1”, 1 Ch. 164 etc.—29. wx nx] ‘the manner in
which’ (G-K. § 157 δ); but ὦ reads as in ν.ἕ 5, -- 30. *b305] contrasted
with 355 above. Prosperity has followed Jacob ‘wherever he went’
(cf. Is. 412, Jb. 18" etc.). It is unnecessary to emend ‘biz (S$T°,
Che. ).—31. ἽΝ] (GS pr. 1) must be deleted on account of its awkward
position.
32. 12yx, 107] To get rid of the change of person (and the division of
sources) many construe the latter as inf. abs. (‘removing’); but the only
natural rendering is impve. (οἴ. 5). @ has impve. both times.—o1y—nvw-3]
Gk πᾶν πρόβατον φαιὸν ἐν τοῖς ἀρνάσιν καὶ πᾶν διάραντον καὶ λευκὸν ἐν ταῖς
αἰξίν, a smoother and therefore less original text. The Heb. seems
overloaded ; Gu. strikes out 0°3¥33 DIM-AY->D, and the corresponding cll.
in 83-35, _ iby) Ἴ02] ‘speckled and spotted,’ ‘ parti-coloured.’ The words
are practically synonymous, both being distinct from 7py (235: 3% 4 378
10.12-+), which means ‘striped.’ If there be a difference, ’3 (55: 89.4.18. 10. 12+)
suggests smaller spots than ’» (cf. Ezk. 1616, Jos. οὗ, the only places
where the ,/ occurs outside this pass. ),—n%n] only in this chap. :=‘ black’
392 JACOB OUTWITS LABAN (JE)
the difference between J and E.—33. my righteousness shall
testify against me] t.e., the proposal is so transparently fair
that Jacob will be as it were automatically convicted of theft
if he violates the compact. ‘PTS, ‘ unimpeachable conduct,’
here means ‘ fair dealing,’ ‘honesty.’—z» ¢ime to come] when-
ever Laban chooses to make an investigation.—35, 36 (J).
And he (Laban, see 3358) 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 hence-
forth be born amongst those now entrusted to Jacob.—
white] Heb. laban, perhaps a play on Laban’s name.
37-43. Jacob’s stratagem.—The main account is from
J, 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, J’s ac-
or ‘dark-brown.’—33. 2 my] ‘testify against’ (see 1 Sa. 128, 2 Sa. 118, Is.
3°). An easier sense would be obtained if we could translate ‘ witness or,’
but there seem to be no examples of that usage. Dri.’s interpretation:
‘there will be nothing whatever to allege against my honesty,’ seems,
on the other hand, too subtle.— nd ova] ‘in time to come’ (Ex. 13%,
Dt. 6”). If we could insist on the literal rendering ‘on the morrow,’
the proof of divergence between J and E would be strengthened, but
the sense is less suitable.—ypin$—2] Gt ὅτι ἐστὶν ὁ μισθός μου ἐνώπιόν
gov.—36. 1}"3] 2x@F o72.—.n follows * with a long addition based on
3188,
37. 325 (Ho 43 +)] the ‘white’ tree ; according to some, populus alba
(Di. al.), but very probably styrax officinalis (Ar. lubna’, so called from its
exuding a milk-like gum), (Ges. De. Dri. al.).—135 1] =Aram. xp, ‘almond
tree.’—jinqy (Ezk. 31° +)] platanus orientalis (Ass. trmednu).—Instead of
the last three words (ἃ has ἐφαίνετο δὲ ἐπὶ ταῖς ῥάβδοις τὸ λευκὸν ὃ ἐλέπισεν
ποικίλον,--- very sensible comment, but hardly original. The whole
clause ‘(with) a laying bare (G-K. § 117 7) of the white on the rods,’ is
superfluous, and certainly looks like a variant.—jn3] pl. ; pp being coll.
—38 ff. The text of J, as sifted by We., commends itself by its lucidity
and continuity. It is impossible to tell whether the interpolated words
are variants from another source (E?) or explanatory glosses.—38.
om (v.41, Ex. 2!6+)] either ‘trough,’ fr. Ar. rahata, ‘be collected,’ or
‘runnel,’ from Aram. ΠῚ Ξε [31 (see Νῆ. ZA, xii. 187).—n\np¥] const. pl. of
np, 2429+. —The words mnv$—mnpwa divorce jxx7 1235 from its connexion,
and must be omitted from the text of J. @ appears to have changed
XXX. 33-42 393
count reads: And he placed the rods which he had peeled in
the runnels . . . tn 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 (Dri.),
and was acted on by ancient cattle breeders (see the list of authorities
in Bochart, Hieroz. ii. c. 49; and cf. Jer. Quest. adloc.). The full repre-
sentation 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 de-
ceived into thinking they were coupled with parti-coloured males (Jer.,
We. Comp.’ 41).
40. And (these) lambs Jacob set apart... and made
separate flocks for himself, and did not add them to Laban’s
stock (We.).—4I, 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.z.). The consequence is that
Jacob’s stock is hardy and Laban’s delicate.
XXXI. 1-X XXII. 1.—/Jacob’s Flight from Laban: their
friendly Parting (J, E).
Jacob perceives from the altered demeanour of Laban
and his sons that he has outstayed his welcome (1?) ; and,
after consultation with his wives, resolves on a secret flight
(*#1). Laban pursues, and overtakes him at Mt. Gilead (7),
where, after a fierce altercation (2648), they enter into a treaty
mipn jx¥7 to ndpor, rendering thus (830) ἕνα ὡς ἂν ἔλθωσιν τὰ πρόβατα πιεῖν,
ἐνώπιον τῶν ῥάβδων [καὶ] ἐλθόντων αὐτῶν εἰς τὸ πιεῖν, ἐνκισσήσωσιν (33) τὰ πρό-
βατα.----πλρ}} On the unusual pref. of 3 f. pl., see G-K. 8 47 4.—39a is a
doublet to the last three words of *,—1nn] 16. § 69 /; 2 730n".—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 J,
where Laban’s cattle are three days distant. @ vainly tries to make
sense by omitting 137, and rendering ‘38 = ἐναντίον, and 7py"ox = κριὸν
(d18!) διάλευκον.---4τ. -Ὁ33] GST supply ny.—42. onwpa, orsnya] Ok ἐπί-
σημα, ἄσημα; but 2. (paraphrasing) πρώϊμα ὄψιμα, and similarly Aq.
PST. 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, AA, viii. 187 (‘ postea concepti invalidi’),
394 JACOB’S FLIGHT (JE)
of peace (from which Gilead receives its name), and separate
with many demonstrations of goodwill (3144-32).
Sources.—'8 is an almost homogeneous (though perhaps not con-
tinuous) excerpt from E: ovndx, 7. 95.11.16. noayn, 7 (cf. 41 29!) ; ob, 7 (41);
72y2, 15; the revelation by dream, ™; the summons and answer, 1
(2217-1); and the explanation of Jacob’s wealth “; cf. also the refer-
ence to 287-22, 1 and Ὁ are from a J parallel: m7, 3; ἘΠΊ, 3; the
‘sons’ of Laban, ! (cf. 30%°).—In 17-4 E still preponderates, though J is
more largely represented than some critics (Di. Kue. KS. Dri. al.) allow.
The detailed analysis is here very intricate, and will be best dealt with
under the several sections.—'® (except the first four words) is the only
extract from P.
1-16. Preparations for flight.—1, 3 (J). The jealousy
of Laban’s sons corresponds to the dark looks of Laban him-
self in E (v.”); the divine communication is a feature of both
narratives (v.!°),—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 (Gu.); it is first of all an appeal to the wives
to accompany him: comp. the question to Rebekah in 2458,
—6. Ye yourselves know, etc.] Cf. 30769, 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 E 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 dis-
pleasure is altogether unreasonable.—10-12. Jacob receives
through a dream the explanation of the singular good fortune
that has attended him.
In the text vv.!°!? form part of the same revelation as that in which
Jacob is commanded to depart (1%). But, as We. (Com.? 39) asks, “ον
2. 123°] 222 03°" (so v.5).—6. 73nx] only here and thrice in Ezk. (cf. G-K.
§ 32 2).—7. Adnm] ax ἢ ΠῚ. το} nowy] Ge (‘nescio qua opinione ducti’
[Jer.]) τῶν δέκα ἀμνῶν (so —probably a transliteration, afterwards
made into a Gr. word). 055 (11) from ,/ 73D, ‘count,’ for the usual
ppys,—o7ox] a m7 (so * 16),—9, -nx] Ge ~dz-ny.—n2"aN] for jae (2x) ;
XXXI. 1-16 395
could two such dissimilar revelations be coupled together in this way ?”’
Ψ 10 recalls an incident of the past, while 18 is in the sphere of the
present : moreover, ‘I am the God of Bethel’ must surely open the com-
munication. We. solves the difficulty by removing 19 and 15 (assigning
them to an unknown source), and leaving ™ as the introduction to 18:
similarly Di. Ho. OH. al. Gu. supposes parts of Jacob's speech to
have been omitted between ® and 19 and between 13 and ¥.—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 (Str. Gu.) ; but
that is excluded by Ὁ; and, besides, in v.® 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.
13. 7 am the God of Bethel] links this theophany with
that of 28, and is (in ΕἾ the first assurance given to Jacob
that his vow (287°) 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. Comp. 2 Sa. 201, 1 Ki. 1216,—
15. has sold us] like slaves.—consumed our money] t.e., the
price paid for us (cf. Ex. 2135). The complaint implies that
it was considered a mark of meanness for a man to keep the
mohar for himself instead of giving it to his daughters. A
similar change in the destination of the mahr appears in
Arabia before Islam (We. GGA, 1893, 434 f.).—16. zs ours
G-K. § 135 0.—13. 5xn’a xa] The art. with constr. violates a well known
rule of syntax (G-K. § 127/); and it is doubtful if the anomaly be rightly
explained by supposing the ellipsis of $x or *m5x. The original text may
have been bxn°3 [oippa ay axa] bxz; (so [but without dxn‘3] (κα, adopted
by Ba.) ; or Sxna[a—Jbxn (©, Kit.).— mw pix] see on 11%, It is the
only occurrence of "Ὁ in E.—@i adds καὶ ἔσομαι μετὰ cov.—15. 1723]
wk SP ’37.—b 2x 03] see on 273°.—16. wy] Ck + καὶ τὴν δόξαν.
17-25. A complete analysis of the vv. cannot be effected. The hand
of E is recognised in 190 (op n, cf. 352+), 30 (Ὁ nana, as 2), and especi-
ally % (ands, obn ; cf. % 42). J betrays its presence chiefly by doublets:
21ag 117 (pp), and 258} 380 (ay, pat). The assignment of 3218β to J is
warranted by the mention of the Euphrates: hence 1 is E. Further
than this we cannot safely go. Gu.’s division (135. 321-28. 25b— J ; 17. 184q. 19b. 20,
24, 25a — ΕΝ) is open to the objection that it ignores the discrepancy between
the seven days of 335 and the crossing of the Euphrates in 315 (see on “8
above) ; but is otherwise attractive. Mey. (235 ff.) gets rid of the geo-
graphical difficulty by distinguishing two strata in E, of which the
later had been accommodated to the representation of J.—'® (from
396 JACOB'S FLIGHT (JE)
and our children’s] E never mentions sons of Laban;
and apparently looks on Leah and Rachel as the sole
heiresses.
17-25. The flight and pursuit.—18. and drove away
all his cattle| Hence the slowness of his march as compared
with Laban’s (33'°”).—The rest of the v. is from P (cf. 125
36° 46°).—7o Isaac his father] 357".—19. Now Laban had gone
to shear his flock] Sheep-shearing was the occasion of an im-
portant festival in ancient Israel (38'"., 1 Sa. 257%, 2 Sa. 1.338).
—With Rachel’s theft of the té*aphim (the household idol :
v.t.), cf. Virg. Aen. 11. 293 f., iii. 148f.—20. stole the heart]
(76, 2 Sa. 15°) ‘deceived’; the heart being the seat of intelli-
gence (Ho. 4"): cf. ἔκλεψε νόον, 71. xiv. 217.—the Aramaean
(only here and *4)] The emphasising of Laban’s nationality
at this point is hard to explain. That it is the correction
(by ΕΞ) of an older version (E1), in which Laban was not an
Aramezan (Mey. 7S, 236), is not probable. Bu. (Ug. 422!)
regards it as a gloss, inserted with a view to v.“"—21. crossed
the River (J)] the Euphrates (Ex. 2331, Jos. 24? etc.).—23.
his brethren| his fellow-clansmen. In the sequel Jacob also
is surrounded by his clansmen (51: 46 54),— a proof that tribal
relations are clothed in the guise of individual biography.—
seven days journey] The distance of Gilead from Harran
ἡ Ὑ 53 ΠΝ}) is obviously P.—17. sons and wives] 22% ‘wives and sons.’—
18. Gr om. the cl. 1337—1wWx (so $); and adds after ox, καὶ πάντα τὰ αὐτοῦ.
—1g. 555] A pl. of eminence, like ox, etc. ; hence it is doubtful
whether one image or several is here referred to. The teraphim was a
god (39), its form and size were those of a man (1 Sa. 1916), it was
used in private houses as well as in temples (Ju. 17° 18%, Ho. 34), and
was an implement of divination (Ezk. 2176, Zec, 10%). The indications
point to its being an emblem of ancestor-worship which survived in
Israel asa private superstition, condemned by the enlightened conscience
of the nation (352, 1 Sa. 1573, 2 Ki. 2374). It seems implied by the present
narrative that the cult was borrowed from the Aramzeans, or perhaps
rather that it had existed before the separation of Hebrews and
Aramzans. (See Moore, Jud. 379 ff.)—20. *ba-by] da. λεγ., is difficult.
by for wx Sy is rare and poet. (Ps. 119%: BDB, 758 a); 3 (poet. for
x) is also rare with fin. vb. (16. 115 b). Since the following clause is a
specification of the preceding, ‘wegen Mangels davon dass’ (Di.) is
not a suitable rendering. We should expect 137 sabad, ‘in not telling
him that,’ etc. : a has nba ty.—2z2, 1329] Ge+7@ Σύρῳ.
XXXI. 17-28 397
(c. 350 miles as the crow flies) is much too great to be
traversed in that time.
If the v. be from J (Gu. Pro.), 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 v. to E, that in that source
nothing is said of Harran or the Euphrates, and Laban’s home is
placed somewhere in the eastern desert (see 29").
24. God (not the Angel of God, as v."") warns Laban in
a dream to take heed to his words when he encounters
Jacob.—good or bad] ‘anything whatever’ (24°°, 2 Sa. 13”
etc.). Laban did not interpret the prohibition literally (?®).—
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 Mizpah (v.**) is strongly recommended by Ju.
107 (see Ball, 88).—On the situation of Mount Gilead,
see p. 402 f.
26-43. The altercation.
The subjects of recrimination are: on Laban’s part, (a) the secret
flight, (2) the carrying off of his daughters, and (c) the theft of his god ;
on Jacob's part, (α) the hardships of his 20 years’ service, and (6) the
attempts to defraud him of his hire. Of these, 6, c, and e certainly
belong to E; @ and d more probably to J.—In detail, the vv. that can
be confidently assigned to E are: * (ad 333, as 39), 38 (continuation of *),
39 (cf, 24), 90 32-35 (nr51n), 41 (‘ten times’), (cf. % 39) and * (because of
the connexion with 35:38); note also ovn>x, 39: 42. nar, 8. The sequence
of E is interrupted by “7 (1%) 31> (the natural answer to 77), 368. (" 36) ;
these clauses are accordingly assigned to J ; along with *“ (a parallel
to 415). The analysis (which is due to Gu.) yields for E a complete
narrative : 36: 28-31a. 32-35, 36b. 37. 41-48. The Yahwistic parallel is all but
complete (27 818. Ὁ. 36a. 38-40); but we miss something after * to account
for Jacob’s exasperation in, We may suppose (with Gu.) that Laban
had accused Jacob of stealing his flocks, and that *“ is a reply to
this charge.—Procksch’s division is slightly different.
26-28. Laban offers a sentimental pretext for his warlike
demonstration: in E his slighted affection for his offspring
(8); in J his desire to honour a parting guest (?”).—27. with
mirth and music| This manner of speeding the parting guest
25. vnx] Better ‘Sax (Ba.).—26, 27. @ om. "3 ΠΝ 332m, and transp.
wa. 360 __ 27, ΝΟ] Gr x, which is perhaps better than MT.—28. v)]
usually ‘reject’ or ‘abandon’ ; only here=‘allow.’—wy] for nivy (G-K.
398 JACOB'S FLIGHT (JE)
is not elsewhere mentioned in OT.—29. 72 ἐς in my power
(v.z.) to do you harm|—but for the interposition of God.—
30. Zhou hast gone off forsooth, because forsooth, etc.| The
infs. abs. express irony (Dav. ὃ 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 house-
hold that he offers to give up the culprit to death if the theft
can be proved: a similar enhancement of dramatic interest in
44°%-.—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 (Burck. Bed. ii. 85; Doughty, Av. Des. i. 437,
ii. 304; BDB, 1124), in which she was apparently resting
within the tent, on account of her condition. —35. 02 777 =
ovi3a MIN (18", J). Women in this condition were pro-
tected by a powerful taboo (cf. Lv. 1519 etc.).—36, 37. Jacob
now turns on Laban, treating the accusation about the
teraphim as mere pretext for searching his goods.—38-40 (J).
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. 7 brought not to
thee| as a witness (Ex. 2213). Jacob had thus gone far
beyond his legal obligation.—made it good] lit. ‘counted it
§ 75 2.—29. “1; Sxb-w:] Mic. 21, Pr. 3%7, Sir. 5! (Dt. 28%, Neh. 5°). The
meaning is certain (‘be within one’s power’), but the expression is very
obscure. The current explanations (both represented in the Vns.) are:
(1) That $y is an abstract noun=‘ power,’ and"; gen. (2) That ‘ is
subj. of the sent. and ὃν the word for God: ‘my hand is for a God.’
The first depends ona singular sense of bx; and for the second $x$ » Ὁ δ᾽
would have been more natural. A third view has recently been pro-
pounded by Brockelmann (ZA7W, 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 (cf. Tylor, Prim.
Cult.4 ii. 127),—Dany, 3.35] αὐ have sing. suff.—3o. 73x] Ck + ἀπελθεῖν"
καί. The } should probably be restored.—31. Gk om. ‘nev 12.—32. The
opening words in @& apy; i> 1px) may be original, introducing the dupli-
cate from E.—32b is preceded in (τ by the variant καὶ οὐκ ἐπέγνω παρ᾽
αὐτῷ οὐθέν.---33. 130] a.+wan (rd. wn); so G.—The cl. 98 disagrees
with what follows, and may bea gloss. @ reduces the discrepancy by
omissions, and a complete rearrangement of clauses.—-36. 127] Rd. 73
with Heb. MSS w20&3.—39. On any for Ajyyens, cf. G-K. § 74% or
XXXI. 29-43 399
missing.’—40. heat by day and frost by night] Jer. 36°.
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,
HG, 6g ff.).—41, 42 (E). the Fear of Isaac| The deity feared
and worshipped by Isaac (537). That PMS. IDB meant origin-
ally the terror inspired by Isaac, the local deity of Beersheba
(Meyer, 7S, 254f.), is a hazardous speculation. — 43.
Laban maintains his right, but speedily adopts a more
pathetic tone, leading on to the pacific proposal of *4.—The
question what shall 7 do to . . . 9] means ‘what last kind-
ness can I show them?’ (Gu. Dri.); not ‘how can I do
them harm?’ (Di. and most).
44-54. The treaty of Gilead.
Evidences of a double recension appear in every circumstance of the
narrative. (a) Zwo names are explained: Gilead (*>), and Mizpah (*) ;
(8) two sacred monuments are erected, a cairn (46: * δ᾽. δ), and a
monolith (# δι. 52); (c) the covenant feast is /wice recorded (*™ δι);
(d) the terms of the covenant are given in ¢wo forms: (1) Jacob will not
ill-treat Laban’s daughters (°°), and (2) the cairn is to mark the boundary
between two peoples (62); (e) God is twice called to witness (** ®), 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 J always avoids the word 739 (p. 378), we
assume first of all that the monolith (and consequently Mizpah) belongs
to E, and the cairn to J. Now the cairn goes with the frontier treaty
(5: 52 [removing glosses], J), and Mizpah with the family compact (*, E).
To J we must obviously assign “δ “, and also (if we may suppose that
only the 53 was spoken of as an ty) 44; while E as naturally claims *.
At the end, °° is E (pns’ 1, cf. 3), and likewise ™ (the feast, || “, J).
538 is probably J: note the difference of divine names. Thus: * ®
51-53a— J; 45. 49, 50. 53 54_K.—The analysis is due to Ho. and Gu. ;
Pro. practically agrees, with the important difference that the parts of
J and E are (quite wrongly, as it seems to me) interchanged. It is
superior to the schemes of We. Di. KS. al., which assign the cairn and
the mazzebah to the same sources.—The principal glosses (many of
which excite suspicion apart from the analysis) are 3py’ in ® and “ὃ;
7500. —7>> 7) DY ‘333 is probably an archaic technical phrase, pre-
serving an old case-ending (G-K. § 90/).—40. On the syntax, see G-K.
§ 143 a.—4I. These twenty years] The repetition (v.**) would, as Di.
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 re-
lieved of this slight touch of affectation.—n1] not here a pron. but used
adverbially, as 275 etc. (see BDB, 261 b).—42. o7738 ‘ax may be a gloss
(Gu.): (ἃ om. ‘79K.
400 TREATY OF GILEAD (JE)
νν. "7: 8a; aayon mm in 5); mason ayy and ΠΝῚΠ ΠΕΣ ΟΠ ΠΝῚ in 5: on these v.72.
Nearly all are retained by @, where, however, the confusion is increased
by a complete change in the order of clauses ; 4% 47. 61, 52a: 48b. 49. 50a, 2b,
—% being inserted] after 44,—The analysis works out in translation as
follows (glosses being enclosed in square brackets, and necessary
additions and corrections in! 1):
J: # And now (the speaker is
Laban), come, let us make a cove-
nant, Iandthou;... andit shall be
for a witness between me and thee.
46 And ‘he! (z.e. Laban) [Jacob],
said to his brethren, Gather
stones ; and they took stones, and
made a cairn, and they ate there
upon the cairn. [4 And Laban
called it Ygar Sahaditha, but Jacob
called it Gal‘éd.] 48 And Laban
said, This cairn is a witness be-
tween me and thee this day ; there-
fore he called its name ‘Gilad!
[#2 and Mizpah, for he said]. 5°!
And Laban said to Jacob, Behold
E: ® And Thel(z.e. Laban) [Jacob]
took a stone and set it up asa pillar.
ἀϑαβὺ Tand he said!, May 'God!
[Yahwe] watch between me and
thee, when we are hidden from one
another. °° If thou ill-treat my
daughters, or take other wives be-
sides my daughters, no man being
with us, see, God is witness be-
tween me and thee. ὅν And Jacob
swore by the Fear of his father
Isaac. ὅ' And Jacob offered a
sacrifice on the mountain and called
his brethren to eat bread ; and they
ate bread, and spent the night on
the mountain.
this cairn [and behold the pillar]
which I have thrown up between
me and thee—” 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. ** The God of Abraham
and the God of Nahor be Judge
between us! [the God of their
father].
44. Cf. 21258 26°54 — The subj. of 1 cannot be M3,
which is fem., and is rather the fact to be witnessed to than
a witness of something else. There must be a lacuna before
mm, where we must suppose that some material object
(probably the cairn: cf. 45, J) was mentioned.—45 (E). And
he took a stone| Since it is Laban who explains the meaning
of the stone (*), it must have been he who set it up; hence
apy) is to be deleted as a false explication of the implicit
44b. The omitted words (v.s.) might be 93 yy) or some such expres-
sion (Ols. Di. Ba. Gu. al.). To the end of the v. & appends: εἶπεν δὲ
αὐτῷ Ἴακ., ᾿Ιδοὺ οὐθεὶς μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ἐστίν" ἴδε ὁ θεὸς μάρτυς ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ
XXXI. 44-49 401
subj.—set it on high as a mazzebah] see 2818: 3, The mono-
lith may have stood on an eminence and formed a con-
spicuous feature of the landscape (Di.).—46 (J). And he
(Laban) said, etc.) Here 3? is certainly wrong, for Laban
expressly says that the cairn was raised by him (°').—a cairn|
ἢ means simply a heap of stones (v.z.), not a rampart (We.
Di.). The idea that the 23 was originally the mountain range
of Gilead itself, Laban and Jacob being conceived as giants
(We. Gu. Mey.), has certainly no support in the text.—¢hey
ate upon the cairn] The covenant feast, which may very well
have preceded the covenant ceremony; see 26°°.—47. In
spite of its interesting and philologically correct notice, the
ν. must unfortunately be assigned to a glossator, for the
reasons given below.—48 (J). Laban explains the purpose
of the cairn, and names it accordingly: cazrvn of witness. |
The stone heap is personified, and was no doubt in ancient
times regarded as animated by a deity (cf. Jos. 247’), yds
is, of course, an artificial formation, not the real or original
pronunciation of y3.—49 (E). And [the] Mizpah, for he
said| The text, if not absolutely ungrammatical, is a very
σοῦ (fr. v.™).—46. npy] & w>poy.—b3] From ,/ 9b: ‘roll’ (stones, 29%,
Jos. 1018, 1 Sa. 14%, Pr. 2657). On sacred stone-heaps among the Arabs,
see We. Heid.? 111f. (with which cf. Doughty, Av. Des. i. 26, 81, 431);
Curtiss, PSR, 80 (cairn as witness); on the eating upon the cairn,
Frazer, Folklore in OT, 131 ff. — 47. ΡΛ 12 1s the precise Aramaic
equivalent of Heb. τῷ 93, ‘heap of witness.’ The decisive reasons for
rejecting the v. are: (1) It stands out of its proper place, anticipating *” ;
(2) it contradicts **, where the Hed. name ayba is given by Laban;
(3) it assumes (contrary to the implication of all the patriarchal
narratives) that the Nahorites spoke a different dialect from the
ancestors of the Hebrews. It may be added that the Aram. phrase
shows the glossator to have taken syba as const. and gen., whereas the
latter in 330 is more probably a sent. ‘the heap is witness’ (see Nestle,
MM, 1of.). The actual name Ἵν 5 [6] is usually, but dubiously, explained
by Ar. gal'ad ‘hard,’ ‘firm.’—48. 12¥ Νὴρ ἸΞ 20]. so 11° 19% 29" (all J),
25 (J ?).—49. 1P¥27)] ax Aaspm, which We. thinks the original name of
the place, afterwards changed to 75307 because of the evil associations
of the word mazzebah. He instances the transcription of G& Μασσηφα,
as combining the consonants of the new name with the vowels of the old
(Comp.? 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 03] wx aaspm
26
402 TREATY OF GILEAD (JE)
uncouth continuation of 48, with which in the primary
documents it had nothing to do; see further z/—May God
(read so with (1) watch] Mizpah means ‘ watch-post.’ On
its situation, see p. 403.—-50. The purport of the covenant,
according to E. Jacob swears (530) 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 (AZB, iv. 187, No. XI.).—God ἐς witness]
The idea is less primitive than that of J, where the witness
is an inanimate object.—We observe how the religious
sanction is invoked where human protection fails (cf. 20"
4218, both E).—51-53a. The terms of the covenant in J:
neither party (people) is to pass the cairn with hostile intent.
All the reff. to the mazzebah (51. 5») are to be deleted as
glosses. — The God of Abraham . . . Nahér| Whether a
polytheistic differentiation of two gods is attributed to
Laban can hardly be determined. The pl. vb. would not
necessarily imply this in E (see 2018), though in J it
might.—53b, 54. The covenant oath and feast in E.—The
Fear of . . . Isaac] See on v.*.—54. his brethren] not
Laban and his companions, but his own fellow-clansmen
(v.87).—spent the night, etc.| Is this part of the religious
ceremony ἢ (Gu.).
The Scene of the Treaty.—The name Gil'ad (often with art.) in OT is
sometimes applied to the whole region E of the Jordan (Jos. 22° etc.),
but more properly denotes the mountain range (aybaa 17) extending from
spx [3 7x00 8p has met with the approval of several scholars (Ho. Str.) ;
but as the sequence to ® we should rather expect 7297 πιο RIP. (ἃ has
καὶ Ἢ ὅρασις, ἣν εἶπεν, following MT.—m7] Gr on>x must be adopted if
the v. is rightly ascribed to E.—5r1. naso7] Gr +nxim (so v.™).— ny WR]
‘which I have thrown up.’ a, ‘throw,’ is most commonly used of
shooting arrows, and only here of piling up stones. Once it means to
lay (yacere) a foundation (Jb. 38°), 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 mazzebah as obj. of ‘1 and
rejecting the cairn.—52. xb—nx (47s)] The double negative is contrary to
the usage of asseverative sentt. (cf. 50), but may be explained by an
anakolouthon (G-K. § 1674). — ma San-nx) G& om. — 53. ww] anGkPS
pbys,—omax cada] @ and Heb. MSS om., τὰ ΠΊΩΝ "ἣν 9. lao}.
Probably a marg. gloss to %*,—XXXII. 1. 2e 7b») ( abn ayn.
XXXI. 50-53 403
the Yarmuk to the Arnon (2 Ki. 10% etc.), divided by the Jabbok into
two parts (Jos. 12”), corresponding to the modern Gebel ‘Aglan and el-
Belka, N and S respectively of the Wadi ez-Zerka. The name Gebel
Gil’ ad still survives as that of a mountain, crowned by the lofty summit
of Gebel Osha‘, N of es-Salt, where are found the ruined cities Gi/'ad and
Gal aud (Burckh. Syria, 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 N, has not
yet crossed the Jabbok, which is identified with the Zerka ; and (2) that
the frontier between Israel and the Aramzans (of Damascus) could not
have been so far S. These reasons have prevailed with most modern
authorities, and led them to seek a site somewhere in the N or NE of
G.'Aglin. But the assumption that Laban represents the Aramzans of
Damascus is gratuitous, and has no foundation in either J or E (see the
next note). The argument from the direction of Jacob's march applies
only to J, and must not be too rigorously pressed ; because the treaty
of Gilead and the crossing of the Jabbok 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.*—The site of Mizpah
has to be investigated separately, since we cannot be certain that J
and E thought of the same locality. E of the Jordan there was a
Mizpah (Ju. τοῦ 111+ 34, Ho. 51) which is thought to be the same as
ἽΝ) ma¥D (Ju. 1139) and aS¥e7 ΠῚ (Jos. 1378); but whether it lay S or N
of the Jabbok cannot be determined. The identification with RAaméth-
Gilad, and of this with ev-Remte, SW of the ancient Edrei, is precarious.
The name (‘ watch-post’) was a common one, and may readily be sup-
posed to have occurred more than once E of the Jordan. See Smith,
HG, 586; Buhl, GP, 262; Driver in smaller DB, s.v. ; and on the whole
of this note, cf. Smend, ZATW, 1902, 149 ff.
Historical Background of 31****.— The treaty of Gilead in J evi-
dently embodies ethnographic reminiscences, in which Jacob and
Laban were not private individuals, but represented Hebrews and
Aramzans respectively. The theory mostly favoured by critical
historians is that the Aramzans are those of Damascus, and that the
* It seems to me very doubtful how far Jacob’s route, as described
in chs. 32, 33, can be safely used as a clue to the identification of the
localities mentioned (Gilead, Mizpah, Mahanaim, 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 p. 408).
The impossibility of the current identifications (e.g. those of Merrill and
Conder), as stages of an actual itinerary, is clearly shown by Dri. in
ET, xiii. (1902), 457 ff. It is only when that assumption is frankly
abandoned that the identification of Gilead with G7/'ad, of Mahanaim
with Makne (p. 405), of the Ford with Mufadat en-Nusrantyeh (p. 408),
becomes feasible.
404 JACOB PREPARES TO MEET ESAU (ΤΕ)
situation reflected is that of the Syrian wars which raged from c. 860 to
¢. 770 B.C. (see We. Prol.’ 320 f.). Gu. (p. 312) has, however, pointed out
objections to this assumption; and has given strong reasons for be-
lieving that the narratives refer to an earlier date than 860. The story
reads more like the record of a loose understanding between neighbour-
ing 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 p. 334), acquires a new interest. Considering the
tenacity with which such legends cling to a locality, there is no diffi-
culty in supposing that in this case the tradition goes back to some
prehistoric settlement of territorial claims between Hebrews and
migratory Aramzeans. It is true that Meyer’s theory is based on
notices peculiar to E, while the tribal compact belongs to J; and it
may appear hazardous to go behind the documents and build specula-
tions on a substratum of tradition common to both. But the only
material point in which J differs from E is his identification of Laban
with the Aramzans of Harran; 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.
XXXII. 2-33.—/acol’s Measures for propitiating Esau:
His Wrestling with the Deity at Pentel (J, E).
After a vision of angels at Mahanaim (2: 58), Jacob sends
a humble message announcing his arrival to Esau, but
learns to his consternation that his brother is advancing to
meet him with 4oo men (*”). He divides his company into
two bands, and invokes God’s help in prayer (8-148), 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
Jabbok, wrestling with a mysterious antagonist, who at
daybreak blesses him and changes his name to Israel
(23-33),
Sources.—Vv.** are an isolated fragment of E (πον ‘axbp, 3 yap
[28"}); #14 and 4>-?2 are parallels (cf. 145. with 330), the former from J
(mm, 1°; mnaw,®; modi, 9; 1π πε, δ; ct. the implied etymology of oD in
89.11 with E’s in ὅ): > must therefore be E, though positive marks
of that writer’s style cannot be detected.—On the complicated structure
of 3-83 (JE), see p. 407 below.
XXXII. 2-6 405
2, 3. The legend of Mahanaim.—2. angels . . . met
him] The verb for ‘meet,’ as here construed (v.z.), usually
means to ‘oppose.’—3. Zhzs zs God’s camp| or a camp of
gods. The idea of divine armies appears elsewhere in OT
(cf. Jos. 515), and perhaps underlies the expression ‘ Host
of heaven’ and the name Vahwe Zebda’dth.—Mahanaim is
here apparently not regarded as a dual (ct. ®%), On its
site, v.z.
The brief statement of the text seems to be a torso of a legend which
had gathered round the name Mahanaim, 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 vv.*4 (Gu. Ben.). The word ‘camp’ (cf. the fuller text of (ἃ inf),
and the verbal phrase 3 y35 both suggest a warlike encounter.
4-14a. Jacob’s precautionary measures (J).— 4.
Isaac’s death and Esau’s settlement in the country after-
wards occupied by his descendants are here assumed to
have already taken place: otherwise P (36°%).—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 (27*!). In substance the message is
2. After 12175 (ἃ ins. καὶ ἀναβλέψας τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἴδεν παρεμβολὴν θεοῦ
παρεμβεβληκυῖαν, enhancing the vividness of the ἀεβογὶρίϊοη.---ϑ yib]=
‘encounter with hostility,’ Ju. 8%! 151° 18%, 1 Sa. 2217... 2 Sa. 15,1 Ki.
25%, Ru. 2% ;=‘ intercede,’ Jb. 21%, Jer. 716 2718, Ru. 11% The neutral
sense ‘meet,’ with pers. obj., is doubtfully supported by Nu. 35)”,
Jos. 216, where hostile intention is evidently implied: elsewhere this is
expressed by acc. pers. (Ex. 57° 234, 1 Sa. τοῦ, Am. 51%). Gn. 28! is
somewhat different, the obj. being impers. (cf. the use in Jos. 167 17!
etc.).—3. 0nd] an important East Jordanic city and sanctuary, the
capital of Ish-bosheth (2 Sa. 28), and David's headquarters during
the revolt of Absalom (2 Sa. 17%: 37), the centre of a fiscal district under
Solomon (1 Ki. 415. The situation of Mahkne or Wihne on W. el-Himar,
some 14 m. N of the Jabbok (see Buhl, GP, 257), suits all the other
references (cf. Jos. 13° *—the boundary of Gad and Manasseh), but
is too far from the Jabbok for this narrative (v.%). On the ending,
which is probably no real dual, see on 24",
4. 1359] (ἃ om.—one mw] (cf. Ju. 54) is probably a gloss on Yyw Asner.
—5. porn] cf. 18586.. πΠΝ}} for ayy) (G-K. § 64 2).—6. andes] Cohort.
form with νὰν consec.—chiefly late; see Dri. 7. ὃ 69 Οὖς., ὃ 72; G-K.
406 = JACOB _PREPARES TO MEET ESAU (JE)
nothing but an announcement of his arrival and his great
wealth (cf. 33") The shepherd, with all his success, is
at the mercy of the fierce marauder who was to ‘live by
his sword’ (27).—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 p. 413).—8, 9. Jacob’s first
resource is to divide his company into ¢wo camps, in the
hope that one might escape while the other was being
captured. The arrangement is perhaps adverted to in 325:
—I0-13. Jacob’s prayer, consisting of an invocation (10),
thanksgiving (11), petition (12), and appeal to the divine
faithfulness (1%), is a classic model of OT devotion (Gu.);
though the element of confession, so prominent in later
supplications, is significantly absent. — 12. mother with
(or ox) children] Hos. τοῖς; cf. Dt. 22. A popular saying,
—the mother conceived as bending over the children to
protect them (Tu.).—I4a. spent that night there] 1.6., at
Mahanaim (v.”). We may suppose (with We. Gu.) that an
explicit etymology, based on the ‘two camps’ (vv.® 11), pre-
ceded or followed this clause.
Vv.1°""8 appear to be one of the later expansions of the Yahwistic
narrative, akin to 131. 17 2215-18 26>-5 2814. They can be removed with-
out loss of continuity, '* being a natural continuation of % The in-
sertion gives an interpretation to the ‘two camps’ at variance with
the primary motive of the division (v.%); and its spirit is different from
that of the narrative in which it is embedded. Comp. also on Sn with
2217, 3 15D’ XD with 16! 2217, See Gu. 316.
140-22. The present for Esau (E).—14. a present] Not
§ 49 e.—8. 1¥9] ./ Ὑς intrans.=‘be cramped’; on the form, cf. G-K.
§ 67 2.—n">nim] GA om. and transp. yxsanN) 3p3-nN.—mnD 2] That
this implies an etymology of Mahanaim, and that J located the incident
there, cannot reasonably be doubted (as by Ho.). The name is
obviously regarded as a dual (in contrast to v.’), showing that the
current pronunciation is very ancient (Di.).—g, ΠΠΝΠ] ax ἼΠΝΠ (masc.),
which is demanded by tl:e context, as well as by prevailing usage
(Albrecht, ZA TW, xvi. 52).—11. }D ΠΡ] ‘too insignificant for’; 6-Κ.
§ 133¢—mA 77] The writer apparently locates Mahanaim in the
vicinity of the Jordan; but the allusion, in an editorial passage, has
perhaps no great topographical importance.
14. Ἀ3ΠῚ2] Art. with ptcp. (not pf.); see G-K. § 1384; Dri. Sam.
XXXII. 7—24 407
‘tribute’ (as often) in acknowledgment of vassalage, but
(as 4344, 2 Ki. 88) a gift to win favour.—17-20. By arrang-
ing 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 v.*& in J.— 21a. A repetition of 1:
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.—2Ib. Let
me pacify him] lit. ‘cover’ (or ‘wipe clean’) his face,—the
same figure, though in different language, as 201%. On 83,
see OT/C, 381; DB, iv. 128f.—see his face] ‘ obtain access to
his presence’: cf. 43% 5 4475 26, Ex, 1078, 2Sa. 1424 38. 82, 2. Ki,
25, Est. 144. The phrase is thought to convey an allusion
to Péni’él (Gu.); see on 33!°.—22. spent . . . camp (Π)Π133)]
cf. 48, We. (Comp.? 46) renders ‘in Mahaneh’ (ze.
Mahanaim), but the change is hardly justified.
23-33. The wrestling at Peniel (JE).—23, 24. The
crossing of the Jabbok. The Yadddk is now almost univers-
57 f.—anip] see on 4°.—17. πὶ (Est. 44 +)] ./ mm, ‘be wide’ (1 Sa. 16%,
Jb. 32%°).—18. On the forms 735; (Ben Napht.), W352: (Ben Asher),
see G-K. §§ gv, 108 (c), 604, [and B.-D., Gen. p. 85]; and on 7bxwn,
§ 64 f—20. 13] G+79 πρώτῳ. .--ὈΞ 5] irreg. inf. for nax¥p (G-K. §§ 74 h,
93 g)-—2I. 309} «x GTI +82.
23-33. The analysis of the passage is beset by insurmountable diffi-
culties. While most recognise doublets in ** (v.s.), 25:38 have generally
been regarded as a unity, being assigned to J by We. Kue. Corn. KS.
Dri. al. ; but by Di. to E. In the view of more recent critics, both J and
E are represented, though there is the utmost variety of opinion in regard
to details. Inthe notes above, fossib/e variants have been pointed out
in 6 || 26> (the laming of the thigh) and * * ll ® (the name and the blessing) ;
to these may be added the still more doubtful case 51 I 33 (Peniel, Penuel).
As showing traces of more primitive conceptions, 2358 and 39 would natur-
ally go together, and also 537 for the same reason. Since J prefers the
name Israel in the subsequent history, there is a slight presumption that
%t- belong to him; and the πον of *! points (though not decisively) to E.
Thus we should obtain, for E : 368. 27. 80, 81; jeaving for J : 26> 28 29.32; y 85
may be a gloss. The result corresponds nearly, so far as it goes, with
Gu.’s (318 f.). The reader may compare the investigations of Ho. (209f.),
Procksch (32), Meyer (7S, 57 f.).—23. 87 75°93 (au 197)] as 19%? 3016, —
ΠΕ (ax pan) (Nu. 21%, Dt. 237 318, Jos. 125, Ju. 117% +) is naturally ex-
plained as the ‘gurgler,’ from ,/ pp2 (Ar. dakka), the resemblance to
pax (v.%) being, of course, a popular word-play.—24b. Insert -$> before
408 THE WRESTLING AT PENIEL (JE)
ally, and no doubt correctly, identified with the Vahr es-Zerka
(Blue River), whose middle course separates Gebel ‘Aslan
from el-Belka, and which flows into the Jordan about 25 m.
N of the Dead Sea. See Smend, ΖΑ͂ ΤῊ, 1902, 137 ff.; and
the descriptions in Riehm, Hwd.? 665; Smith, HG, 583-5.—-
The ford referred to cannot be determined; that of Wuhddat
en-Nusraniyeh, where the road from Gera to es-Salt
crosses the deep narrow gorge which cleaves the mountains
of Gilead, as described by Thomson (ZB, iii. 583 ff.) and
Tristram (Zand of Israel, 549), supplies a more fitting back-
ground for the weird struggle about to be narrated than the
one in the Jordan valley; but on the difficulties of this
identification, see Dri. HT, xiii. 459.
The passage of the river seems to be twice described, 335 and 3 being
apparently doublets. The former continues **, which belongs to J (ππεν).
Following this clue, we may divide thus; 338. 248- 1. 280. 24b—K (so Gu.).
While E implies that Jacob crossed with his company, the account of
J is consistent with the statement of **, that after sending the others
across he himself was ‘left alone.’ On any view the action is somewhat
perplexing. To crossa ford by night, with flocks, etc., was a dangerous
operation, only to be explained by apprehension of an attack from
Esau (We.). 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.
25. aman wrestled with him till the appearing of the dawn]
—Only later does Jacob discover that his unknown antagonist
is a god in human form (cf. 18? 19°).—The rare word (v.z.) for
‘wrestle’ (pax) is chosen because of the assonance with P3).
—26a. he saw that he prevailed not| The ambiguity of the
subject extends to the next clause, and leaves two inter-
pretations open (v.z.).—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 KS. An.
159), and it is highly probable that the two halves of the v. come from
ws (2.0cSP).—25. pax] A vb. used only here and v.*, distinct from
NH pasna, ‘make oneself dusty,’ and very probably a modification of
pan, ‘clasp’ (De. Di.).—26. ypm] ./ va’, lit. ‘be rent away’ (cf. Jer. 68):
XXXII. 24-29 409
different sources. In ™ it is a stratagem resorted to by a wrestler
unable to gain the advantage by ordinary means (like the trick of
Ulysses in 71. xxiii. 725 ff.); in 380 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 subj. of %* was Jacob—that it was he who dis-
abled his antagonist in the manner described (Ho. Gu. Che. : see Miiller,
AE, 163'!; Luther, ZATW, xxi. 65 ff. ; Meyer, 7S, 57). It is possible
(though certainly not probable) that this was the view of the document
(J or E) to which ** belongs, and that it underlies Hos. 12°.
27. Let me go, for the dawn ts breaking| Comp. Plautus,
Amphitr. 532f., 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. Sc. 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| Yisra’él, probably = ‘God strives’ (v.z.), is
interpreted as ‘Striver with God’; cf. a similar transforma-
tion of yay (‘Baal contends’) in Ju. 6. 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
Ok ἐνάρκησεν, S$ ΔΔ Φ, Ἔ emarcuit, T° yi (‘ gave way ’),—all conjectural.—
29. byte] A name of the same type as byynw, Sxom, 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,
Einw. 61). The vb. my, however, only occurs in connexion with this
incident (Ho. 12* 5, where read 1¥"}), and in the personal name anv ; and
its real meaning is uncertain. If it be the Heb. equivalent of Ar. Sariya,
Dri. argues that it must mean ‘persist’ or ‘persevere’ rather than
‘strive’ (DB, ii. 530), which hardly yields a suitable idea. Some take
it as a by-form of nw, either in a denominative sense (‘rule,’ from Ἢν,
prince), or in its assumed primary significance ‘shine forth’ (Ass. Savdru :
see Vollers, ARI, ix. 184). Some doubt has even been thrown on the
traditional Heb. pronunciation by the form Ysi7'7, found on an inscr. of
Merneptah (Steindorff, ZA TW, xvi. 330 ff.), with which we may compare
AIO THE WRESTLING AT PENIEL (JE)
in this successful struggle with deity. — 30. Jacob vainly
endeavours to extort a disclosure of the name of his anta-
gonist. This is possibly an older variant of %, 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
(Che. 787, 4011; DB, v. 640). For the concealment of the
name, cf. Ju. 13'8 (the same words). —Gu. thinks that
in the original narrative the name of the wrestler was
actually revealed.—31. Péni’él] ‘Face of God’ (v.z.). The
name is derived from an incidental feature of the experience :
that Jacob had seen ‘‘ God face to face” (Ex. 33", Dt. 34"),
and yet lived (see on 16!%).—The site of Peniel is unknown:
see Dri. £7, xiii. 457 ff., and Gen. 300 ff.—32. limping on
his thigh] in consequence of the injury he had received ae
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
OT; and the Mishnic prohibition (/Zllin, 7) is probably
dependent on this passage. Rob. Sm. explains it from the
sacredness of the thigh as a seat of life (RS?, 380!) ;* and
Ass. Sir--lai (Ξ- 5312) (see Kittel, SBOT Chronicles, p. 58). Comp. also
Che. TB/, 404.—nw] Gr ἐνίσχυσας, Aq. ἦρξας, Σ. ἤρξω, Ἔ fortis fuisti, %
ΨΥ Ὁ
2535Δ οἵ, T° py 27.—31. 5x35] Gr Εἶδος θεοῦ, "ΣῈ ὦ read dx» as v.32.
The formal difference arises from the old case-endings of gen. and nom.
(G-K. § 900). Strabo (xvi. 11. 16, 18) mentions a Phoenician pro-
montory 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- 7¥37 13] 7y} is to be explained by Ar. mas™ (for nasay**), which
means the ervus ischiadicus, or the thigh in which it is found (Ges.
Th. 921f.). The question remains whether 11 denotes here a nerve,
an artery, a sinew, or a muscle ; the first seems by far the most pro-
bable. So it seems to have been understood by D ( 2
=tetanus-nerve), and by @ and ἘΠ, which appear to have connected
mwi with the vb. for ‘forget’ (Gr.-Venet, τὸ νεῦρον τὸ ἐπιλελησμένον !).
The modern Jewish restriction applies, according to De., to the ‘‘Span-
nader, d. ἢ. die innere Ader des sogen. Hinterviertels mit Einschluss
der dusseren und der Verdstelungen beider.”
* «The nature of the lameness produced by injury to the sinew of the
thigh socket is explained by the Arabic lexx., s.v. harifat; 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.”
XXXII. 30-33 411
We. (Herd. 168°) calls attention to a trace of it in ancient
Arabia. For primitive parallels, see Frazer, Golden Bough,
ii. 419 ff., Folklore in OT, 142f. The precise meaning of
MW31 3 is uncertain (v.z.).
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 en-
counter 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 Ex. 4“, 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 (Fo/k/ore, 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 Jabbok ; in which case the word-play between pa: and
pax 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 Gu. and others, that the limping on the thigh
refers to a ritual dance regularly observed there (cf. 1 Ki. 18"5).* (3) By
J and E 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 un-
certain. 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 Ho. 12*-5: ‘In the womb he overreached his brother; and in his
prime he strove with God. He strove (1%1) with the Angel and pre-
vailed ; he wept and made supplication to him.’ The substitution of the
Angel of Yahwe for the divine Being Himself shows increasing sensitive-
ness to anthropomorphism ; and the last line appears to mark an advance
in the spiritualising of the incident, the subject being not the Angel (as
Gu. and others hold), but Jacob, whose ‘prevailing’ thus becomes that
of importunate prayer.—We may note in a word Steuernagel’s ethno-
* But see footnote on p. 410 above.
412 MEETING OF JACOB AND ESAU (JE)
logical interpretation. He considers the wrestling to symbolise a victory
of the invading Israelites over the inhabitants of N Gilead. The change
of name reflects the fact that a new nation (Israel) arose from the fusion
of the Jacob and Rachel tribes (Zinw. 61 f.).
Cu. XXXIII.—TZhe Meeting of the Brothers: Jacob's March
to Shechem (JE, P).
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 pur-
pose 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 honour-
able 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 reason-
ably 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.—Vv.'"" are rightly assigned in the main to J, in spite of the
fact that the only divine name which occurs is o’7dx, in 5 111, In these
vv. we must recognise the hand of E (cf. also 5» with 489, and 1° with
32") ; and, for all that appears, E’s influence may extend further. The
chief indications, however, both material and linguistic, point to J as the
leading source: the 400 men (327), the ‘camp’ in ν.8 (328), and the ex-
pressions : mnav, +263 nxnpd prn, 45 jm ἈΕΊ, 8. 10-155 po-by5, 10, The docu-
ments are so deftly interwoven that it is scarcely possible to detect a
flaw in the continuity of the narrative.—'* are probably from E, except
**8, which is taken from P (see on the vv. below).
1-7. The meeting.—1, 2. Jacob’s fears revive at sight
2. oINR. . . ON] (ἃ ὀπίσω... ἐσχάτους ; S (Zand eats Ons:
XXXII. 1-11 413
ot the 4oo men (327). He marshals his children (not the
whole company, as 323", 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. pass.). It does not follow, however, that Jacob
acknowledged himself Esau’s vassal (Nestle, 1/1, 12; Che.
TBI, 405); cf. 1 Sa. 204.—4. fell on his neck] 45\* 46” (J) ;
Lu. 152°.—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.
8-11. The present.—8. Esau remembers another great
cavalcade—camp—which he had met. The ‘present’ of
32!4f. (E) cannot be referred to, for Esau must have been
told repeatedly what z¢ was for (3213). The word 72M points
rather to the arrangement of 32% (7). Gu. somewhat in-
geniously 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, II, Jacob insists on his accepting the gift.—as one sees the
Read accordingly onns for the first ‘x. —4. ΠΡ] The puncta extra-
ordinaria mark some error in the text. Di. observes that elsewhere
(4514 4625) ‘fell on his neck’ is immediately followed by ‘wept.’ The
word should probably be inserted (with @) after wpan» (so 29}; cf.
48'°),—122"] The sing. would be better, unless we add with G@& ony.
pH pam || 7a ws Sy ὉΒῚ seem to be variants ; of which one or other
will be due to E.—5. }2n] with double acc., lit. ‘has been gracious to
me (with) them’ (G.-K. § 117 ff.)=‘has graciously given’ (so v."); cf.
Ju. 21%, Ps. 119%,—7. #33] Niph. for the previous Qal. Point #3;?—
ban 00} G& transp. as ν.3.
10. [29y72] see on 18°. This and the preceding jn ‘nxsD mark the v.
as J's, in spite of the appellative use of o’ndx.—11a is a doublet of 195, and
may be assigned to E.—7212] ‘blessing,’ hence the gift which is meant
to procure a blessing: 1 Sa. 25%” 30%, 2 Ki. 18°.—nx37] see G-K. § 74.2;
but »x.0kHS read better ‘nx37.
414 MEETING OF JACOB AND ESAU (JE)
Jace of God| with the feelings of joy and reverence with which
one engages in the worship of God. For the flattering com-
parison of a superior to the Deity, cf. 1 Sa. 29%, 2 Sa. 147
1958. It is possible that the phrase here contains a reminis-
cence of the meaning of Péni’él in 323! (We. Di. al.), the
common idea being that ‘‘at Peniel the unfriendly God is
found to be friendly” (Di.). The resemblance suggests a
different form of the legend, in which the deity who wrestled
with Jacob was Esau—the Usous of Pheenician mythology
(see on 25”; cf. ZVS, 278).
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.—Y niry]
lit. ave giving suck upon me: 2.6. their condition imposes
anxiety upon me.—I4. / will proceed by stages (? v.2.), gently,
according to the pace of the cattle before me].—till Icome...
to Séir| 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 (ZS, 275 f.) advances the
attractive theory that in J Jacob does not cross the Jordan at
all, but goes round by Seir and the S of the Dead Sea to
Hebron. The question has an important bearing on the
criticism of ch. 34.—15-17. The offer of an armed escort
having been courteously declined, Jacob proceeds but a short
13. my] 4/53, of which only the ptcp. is in use (1 Sa. 6719, Is, 4011,
Ps. 787! +).—np5n] better with »2.@rS opp. On the synt. see G-K.
§ 159 .---14. 0 ADTINN] Cr ἐνισχύσω ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ κατὰ σχολὴν THs πορεύσεως.
Why Cheyne (405 f.) finds it necessary to resolve the text into a series of
geographical glosses is not apparent. ὕπιππ, Hithp. is dm. λεγ., but is
a natural extension of the Pi. ‘guide [to a watering-place?],’ Is. 40}
49”. ἘΝ in the sense of ‘ gentleness’ (2 Sa. 18°, τ Ki. 2177, Is. 88, Jb. 1514),
and 537 inthe sense of ‘pace’ are unexceptionable ; the > of norm with
both words (BDB, 516b). For 72x5d in the sense of ‘property,’ we
have examples in Ex. 2271, 1 Sa. 159.—15. Π.ΧΝ] lit. ‘let me set.’ The
sense suggested by the context, ‘leave behind,’ is supported by Ex.
10% (Hoph.).—‘1n ποῦ] The Heb. is peculiar, The obvious rendering
would be, ‘Why should I find favour, etc.?’; but as that is hardly
possible, we must tr. ‘Why so? May I find, etc..—a very abrupt
transition. Weshouidat least expect Νὴ xyDx.—17. apyn] The precedence
of subj. indicates contrast, and shows that the v. continues 16 (J).—yos]
XXXIII, 12-18 415
distance, and takes up his quarters at Swkkdth (v.z.). The
name is derived from the Jo0ths, or temporary shelters for
cattle, which he erects there.—duz/¢t himself a house] showing
that he contemplated a lengthy sojourn.
Here Esau disappears from the histories of Jand E. We have already
remarked on the change of tone in this last episode, as compared with the
earlier Jacob-Esau stories of chs. 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 admira-
tion. Jacob, too, is presented ina 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 differ-
ence 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 Ho. 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 chs. 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 (Zimw. 105) suggests
as a parallel Nu. 204, where the Edomites resist the passage of Israel
through their territory. Meyer (387) is disposed to find a recollection
of a time when Edom had a powerful empire extending far north on
the E of the Jordan, where they may have rendered assistance to Israel
in the Midianite war (16. 382), though they were unable ultimately to
maintain their position. If there be any truth in either of these specula-
tions (which must remain extremely doubtful), it is evident that chrono-
logically 32f. precede 25, 27; and the attempt to interpret the series (as
a whole) ethnographically must be abandoned.
18-20. Jacob at Shechem.—18. The crossing of the
Jordan is not recorded; it is commonly supposed to have
see on 117,—n2p was E of the Jordan, but nearer to it than Peniel (Jos.
13", Ju. 8*°-8), The site is unknown (see Smith, HG, 585; Buhl, GP,
206, 260; Dri. E7, xiii. 458 a, 25. 1). The modern Ain es-Sakat (9 m.
S. of Beisan) is excluded on phonetic grounds, and is besides on the
wrong side of the Jordan.
18. o2y Wy [χὰ mv] οὐ] The rendering given above is pronounced by
We. to be impossible, no doubt on the ground that o5v, meaning pro-
perly ‘whole’ (Dt. 27°), is nowhere else used in the sense ‘safe and
sound’ of a person. Still, in view of mbw (cf. 287 43), and oe in Jb.
οὐ, it may be reasonably supposed that it had that sense. (ἃ Jud.
PS take οὖν as a nom. pr. ; a view which though it derives some plausi-
bility from the fact that there is still a village Salim about 4 m. E of
Nabulus (Robinson, BR, ii. 275, 279), implies a sense not consonant
416 JACOB AT SHECHEM (E, P)
taken place at the ford ed-Damiyeh, a little S of the Jabbok,
on the road from es-Salt to Shechem.—zz safety (85: after
his escape from Esau, E not having recorded the lengthened
stay at Succoth. On the rendering of pSy as a proper name,
v.t.—encamped tn front of the city| in the vale to the E of it,
where Jacob’s well is still shown (Jn. 4% 1*).—19. The pur-
chase of the ground is referred to in Jos. 24° 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 (ch. 23).—The Bné Hamér were the
dominant clan in Shechem (ch. 34, Ju. 97°).—a hundred
késitahs| an unknown sum (v.72.).—20. he set up there an altar]
or more probably (since 2°37 is never used of an altar) αὶ
maszzebah.—called it ‘El, God of Israel] the stone being
identified with the deity; cf. 28 357, Ex, 17%, Ju. 653. For
heathen parallels, see Mey. ZS, 295.
Israel is here the name of the nation: cf. Jos. 859, where Joshua
builds an altar on Ebal (E 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 (cf. 1 Ki. 121), We cannot therefore
conclude with Di. that the v. refers back to 32%, and comes from the
same document.
with usage; there being no case of a village described as a ‘city’
of the neighbouring town (De.). We. (Comp.” 316!) emends o2¥:
‘Shechem the city of (the man) Shechem.’ Procksch accepts the
emendation, but regards the words as a conflation of variants from two
sources (p. 34). (ἃ distinguishes the name of the city (Σικέμων, see on
12°) from that of the man (Συχεμ, v.19 347%-).—jn»] as 267.19. πο»
(Jos. ) 455, Jb. 42" +)] apparently a coin or weight ; but the etymology is
obscure. (ΤῈ 0 render ‘lamb’; and it was thought that light had been
thrown on this traditional explanation by the Aramaic Assuan papyri,
where w33 (lamb) is used of a coin (of the value of το shekels ?) (so Sayce-
Cowley, Aram. Pap. disc. at Assouan, p. 23). But Lidzbarski (Deutsche
Lzg., 1906, 3210 ff.) holds that the word there should be read wna (found
on a Persian weight: PSA, 1888, 464 ff.).—20. Read 7asp for nai,
and consequently πὸ for 19 (We. al.).—%0 ΝΡ] Gr καὶ ἐπεκαλέσατο τὸν
θεὸν ᾿Ἰσραήλ. --- Except the clause 018 j75D ἸΝ23 “3 ‘x2 Ἴων in v.18, which
is evidently from P, the whole section ** may safely be assigned
to E.
XXXIII. 19-XXXIV.
417
Cu. XXXIV.—The Outrage on Dinah.
Two narratives are here combined:
I. Shechem, son of Hamor, the
native princeling, falls in love with
Dinah, the daughter of Leah, ab-
ducts her, and keeps her in his
house (18 " ; cf. 6), Heasks her in
marriage from her father and
brothers, offering to accept any
conditions they may impose (11: 13).
They raise an objection on the
score of circumcision (15), but eventu-
ally consent on terms not expressed
in this recension. Shechem com-
plies with the condition, whatever
it was (?*), Simeon and Levi, how-
ever, decide that the insult can only
be wiped out by blood; they gain
access to Shechem’s house, slay
him, and depart with their sister
(55), Their father, fearing an up-
rising of the country against him,
reproves them for their rash act,
which they proudly justify (89. *1),—
The conclusion is lost.
II. Shechem dishonours Dinah,
but lets her return to her family
(85; cf. 17); but continuing to love
her, he appeals toHamor to arrange
a marriage (4). Hamor comes to
speak to Jacob (°), and finds him
and his sons together (7). He pro-
poses not only a marriage between
Shechem and Dinah, but a general
connubium which would legalise
all such unions in the future (8:10),
Jacob’s sons agree, on condition
that all the clan be circumcised (8:
15-18), Hamor proceeds to the gate
of the city, and persuades his people
to undergo the operation (70-4),
While the fever is on them, the sons
of Jacob rush the city, kill all the
males, capture the women and
children, and carry off the spoil
(77-*°),—The sequel is Jerhaps sum-
marised in 35°.
This rough analysis* 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, 35, (ὁ) The negotiations are conducted by Hamér
alone, ὅδ: §-!°(II.) ; but in 11: 13 (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, *-*4 (II.). (4) Simeon and
Levi alone avenge the outrage, and are alone held responsible for the
* The parts left unresolved are νν.1 5 and ®7,—In 1°, 88 looks like a
first mention of Dinah ; and in "Ὁ anx 12 is perhaps || 339) ΠΝ np; and
with a transposition we might read thus: II. 1.35 And Dinah . . . and
Shechem . . . saw her, "Ὁ and lay with her. **8 And he comforted the
girl. ..: I. * And the soul [of Shechem...] clave to Dinah... 3 and
he took her and violated her. **@ And he loved the girl . . .—®' and? seem
to me to belong to 11. rather than I. ; but the indications are conflicting,
and they are possibly redactional vv., inserted to explain the transition
from the sing. in δ to the pl. in *.—Naturally the redactor has been busy
smoothing over discrepancies ; and to him may be attributed } o2e-nx in
18a, the whole of 12> 18, y33 n>" in 395, ovy for my in > (cf.74), 192 o2e-by) in
245) Norn) and 133 in ; and the removal of *> from 37 (v.7.).
27
418 THE STORY OF DINAH
consequences, *5Ff 801. (I.); but all the sons of Jacob are implicated in the
sack of the city, 31:9 (II.).
Sources.—If style alone were decisive, I. might safely be identified
with J: note 3 p37, ®(2™); sway 242; “ya jnesp, Τὸ; ὙΠΕΞῚ ΠΕ. ee
Corn. has pointed out some linguistic affinities with E (see the notes on
ad Sy nas, 3; andy 4; ano, 19: etc.) ; but they are insignificant in comparison
with the strongly marked Priestly phraseology of this recension : δ Ὁ), ἢ;
sop, 5 1827 5 ines, 10; 491 $3 09$ Soa, 225 psp and Apna, %; 19193, 4; ows» do
vy yw 35 (dis): comp. the list in Καθ. Ges. Abh. 269f. These are so
striking that Di. and Dri. assign the narrative unhesitatingly to P, and
all admit that it has undergone a Priestly redaction (Corn. calls attention
to a very similar case in Nu. 31).
But there are grave material difficulties in assigning either recension
to JorE. (1) Inch. 34, Jacob’s children are grown up; and this implies
a considerable lapse of time since ch. 33. (2) A bloody encounter with
the natives of the land is contrary to the peaceful ideal of patriarchal
life consistently maintained by J and (hardly less consistently) by E.
(3) Against I. =J, in particular, (a) In J the patriarch is generally named
Israel after 32°; and here Jacob is used throughout. (4) We have seen
reason to believe that in J, Jacob was not W of the Jordan at all at this
time (p. 414). (c) The sons of Jacob would not be found quietly feeding
their flocks at Shechem (3712) if an incident like this had been of recent
occurrence. (4) As regards II.=E, there is less difficulty ; but on this
hypothesis the amalgamation with J must be due to RJE ; and how does
it happen that the assumed Priestly redaction is confined to the one com-
ponent? Moreover, the incident is irreconcilable with 48” (E). (5)
Finally, if Horite be the true reading in v.*, we have here a tradition
differing from any of the Pent. documents.
These objections are urged with great force by Meyer, who also
shows that in Gen. 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 (chs. 38. 48:5. To this (older)
tradition he assigns ch. 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 docu-
ment of the school to which it belonged, and its insertion here was an
afterthought suggested by a supposed connexion with 33! (E). 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 J* and E*, we divide as follows:
JE (Ξ:1.): 35. 305. Sas 11. 12. 14, 19, 25a. 26, 80. 81
ἘΞ (ΕΞ II.) : 1. 2a. 2b*. 80β. 4. 52. 6. 77. 8-10. 188. 15-18a. 20-24, 27. (250). 28. 29.
Comp. We. Comp.” 45f., 314ff.; Kue. 727, 1880, 257 ff. (=Ges.
Abhandl. 255 ff.), Ond. i. 315 f.; Corn. ΖΑ ΤΊ, xi. 1-15; Mey. ZNS, 412 ff.;
De. 413; Di. 368 ff. ; Ho. 213 ff. ; Gu. 326ff.; Stra. 126f.; Pro. 35f.
I-12. Dinah is seduced by Shechem, and afterwards
sought in marriage.—2. the Hivvite] see on τοῦ; (ἃ the
I. para mia] 27% (P or R).—2. »nn] G πα. Confusion of 1 and is
XXXIV. I-14 419
Horite (v.i.).—3. spoke to (lit. over) the heart] 5071 (E). The
phrase means ‘to comfort,’ not ‘to woo’; cf. Ho. 2%,
Is. 40%, Ru. 218 etc. —4. Comp. 217/74 388, Ju. 142, — 5.
kept silence] took no steps to redress the injury (2 Sa. 191).
7. wrought scandalous folly in Israel| a standing phrase for
crimes of the kind here indicated (Dt. 22%, Ju. 20819; cf.
Ju. 197", 2 Sa. 13%); though ‘in Israel’ is an anachronism.
ΠΡ) is never mere foolishness, but always disgraceful conduct
or language.—such things are not done| 20° 2038.---ὃ- ΤΟ.
Hamor, as prince, takes a broad view: not content with
arranging this particular marriage, he proposes an amalga-
mation of the two races; thinking apparently that the ad-
vantage to Jacob would be sufficient compensation for the
offence.—9. Almost verbally identical with Dt. 7° (cf. Jos.
23!).—II, 12. Shechem’s offer relates only to his own private
affair.—Ask me ever so much] lit. ‘Multiply upon me.’
The Hebrew law of compensation for seduction is given in
Ex. 2215:- nb, the price paid to the parents (Ex. 2215", 1 Sa.
18”), and {M2 (so only here), the gift to the bride, are virtually
distinguished in 2453.
13-17. The answer.—iI3a. wth duplicity] In this recen-
sion (E*) the requirement of circumcision is merely a pretext
to render the Shechemites incapable of self-defence.—14.
Here, on the contrary (J*), the family acts in good faith, and
common; but (ἃ deserves consideration as the harder reading; and
also because the only other place where && has “in for MT »n is Jos. οἵ,
a passage somewhat similar to this (see Mey. ZS, 331). It is a slight
confirmation of @& that animal names are frequent among the Horite
clans (36%), and Hamér means ‘he-ass.’—x'w3] a favourite word of P;
cf. 177° 238 2516. —nx 337 (v.7 3523 etc.)] The Mass. always point the nx in
this phrase as mot. acc.—3, 2] see 24'4.—5. ΝΘῸ] in the sexual sense
vv. 13 7, Ezk. 18% 11-15 221+; otherwise very frequent in P.—7. pynws]
occupies an unusual position ; and there are other small syntactic
anomalies in ©-7.—8. 3 pwn] Dt. 7’ 10% 211, Ps. 914+; ct. pan, v.2z—On
the casus pendens, G-K. § 143 6.—g. jnnn7] ‘enter into the relation of jnh
and jpn’ (1 Sa. 18%, 1 Ki. 41), and more generally ‘form marriage
alliance’ (Dt. 78, Jos. 23”, Ezr. 9!4).—10. 1nd] as 42% (E) ; but cf. 2316 (P).
—unxm] Niph. in this sense peculiar to P (4727, Nu. 32%, Jos. 22% 19),—
12. jn. 17D) Gk τὴν φερνήν.
13b occupies a syntactically impossible position, and must be deleted
as a redactional gloss. 27 joins on to %.—14. (ἃ καὶ εἶπαν αὐτοῖς
420 THE STORY OF DINAH
the compact is violated by Simeon and Levi alone.—‘¢hat were
a reproach to us| Jos. 5°. 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 (p. 296f.); but the fact that
both J (Ex. 4) and E (Jos. 5°*-) record its introduction in the
age of the Exodus is an additional proof that this chapter
follows an independent tradition.—15. Continuing 4,—QOnly
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.
18-24. The condition accepted.—19. the most honoured
member of his family| emphasising the greatness of his sacri-
fice, and the strength of his attachment to Dinah.—2I-23.
Hamor 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.
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 (De. Di.).—S. and L., the brothers of
Dinah| cf. 495. In ch. 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 Mey. ZS, 2861, 426 f.) ?—
26. ann ‘pb] according to the usage of war: without quarter
tion of critical results (cf. )?—Or is this the original text ?—abay 15 wwe ‘x
for ‘uncircumcised’ does not recur.—15. mx] Either (BDB) impf. Niph.,
or (G-K. 8 72 1) intrans. impf. Qal of ,/ nix, ‘consent’ (72%, 2 Ki. 12° +).
—n bend] as 177.
19. 10s] G—-K. § 64 d.—2rz. 09" π3πὴ (Gk πλατεῖα)] ‘ broad on both sides’ ;
Ju. 18, Is. 2218 (334, 1 Ch. 4”, Neh. 74, Ps. 10425]t.—24. Between 195}
and 121-93] Gi ins. τὴν σάρκα τῆς ἀκροβυστίας atrav.—n "Ἀπ" 53] cf. 231 18.
The repetition of the phrase is avoided by &.
27-29 are regarded by Di. as a late interpolation ; and this is per-
haps necessary if the second account is to be identified with P. The
XXXIV. 15—31 421
(cf. 2 Sa. 11%).—and went out] Evidently this is the close
of the exploit.—27. came upon the slain] Cf. ἘΠ Quibus
egressis, trruerunt super occtsos cateri Μήτ 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 (E*) must
have given an independent account of the attack on Shechem.
2b must be transferred to this v.; and another word must
be substituted for avon (v.7.).—28, 29. Cf. the similar phrase-
ology of Nu. 31% (P). — 30, 31 (continuing 358). 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——J/am few 771 number] it is the
tribal, not the individual, consciousness which finds expres-
sion here.
The legend at the basis of ch. 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 Hamér of the tribe dwelling there ;
Hamér 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 Dinah was a weak Hebrew clan
threatened with absorption by the Hamorites 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.*—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 Jos. 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 Ju. 9 appears to imply
possibility that the vv. have been glossed by some one who had Nu. 31 in
mind is not to be denied. —27. 5 5Π] lit. ‘ pierced,’ means either ‘slain’
(Nu. 1τ9}8 418: 19 etc.), or (rarely) ‘fatally wounded’ (La. 2” etc.); neither
sense being suitable here. Gu. suggests oh, ‘sick’ || 0°22, v.2°.—29.
#3°) 327] Remove athnach to 12” (,/ 72”) and omit } before nx (cf. s@ir3).
—n’11] coll. ; but $ |Lu;as (ἃ ἐν τῇ πόλει καὶ ὅσα ἣν ἐν ταῖς οἰκίαις. ----30.
Ἵ2»7-Ξ- Αγ. ‘akira, ‘be turbid, πη Heb. lit. ‘make turbid’=‘ undo,’ —a
strong word ; cf. Jos. 618 7%, 1 Ki, 18!f—n»pon ‘np] lit. ‘men of number,’
numerable, and therefore few; Dt. 457 33°, Jer. 4458 etc.
* A singularly apposite and interesting modern parallel is quoted by
Bennett (p. 318 f.) from Doughty, Arabia Deserta, ii. 114.
422 JACOB IN CANAAN (E, J, P)
that it had been continuously in the possession of the Bné Haimér down
to that time. On the other hand, the poetic fragment Gn. 48” attributes
the conquest to Jacob himself, but as an honourable feat of arms un-
stained by the treachery which is so prominent in ch. 34. How these
conflicting data are to be reconciled, we can hardly conjecture. The
differences are too great to justify the opinion that 48” and 34 are
merely legendary reflexions of the historic fact recorded in Ju. 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 Ju. 9 is the prominence of Simeon and Levi
in 15. 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 Mey.) assume that the
story of Dinah originated near the Simeonite territory in the S, and was
afterwards transferred to Shechem because of certain points of affinity
with the historic overthrow of that city under Abimelech.—(2) The dis-
persion of Simeon and Levi is referred to in the Blessing of Jacob (49% 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 (We. Sta.
Gu. Steuernagel, al.) that J* 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 5. and L. not
only survived, but went down into Egypt with the rest of the family.
And there is room for doubt whether the curse on S. and L. in ch. 49 is
the result of any particular action of these two tribes (see pp. 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.
Cu. XXXV.—/acob in Canaan (E, J, P).
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 frag-
mentary excerpts from his sources: a second visit to Bethel,
with the death and burial of Deborah, 17; the birth of
Benjamin and death of Rachel, 1639... Reuben’s incest,
21. 22a; a list of Jacob’s sons, 72-6; the death and burial of
Isaac, 2 9,
Sources.—The P sections are easily recognised by their phraseology,
viz, 64% 9-18. 15. 220-26, 27-29 The last continuous extract from P was 281 ;
and the connecting links are 292" 280. 29 304m 9b. 22a 3 1Ἰδαβγδὺ 4,δβ The
XXXV. 1-5 423
222
natural position of 35% is between 30” and 3178 (see v.*) ; and this
transposition is adopted by We. (Pro/.® 327); but perhaps a still better
position would be in 37? (see p. 443). A more thorough readjustment is
proposed by Gu, : 281-9 358% 1-188. 15, 2524. 280. 29 34s, 9b. 22 35220-2631 }8apyab
331888 35% 10. 27-29. This division of the Bethel-theophany into two, one on
the way to Mesopotamia and the other after the return (as in E), is very
attractive, and relieves some critical difficulties, as shown in the notes
on *,_To E belong !-® 8-814; cf. onba[a], +575 Sx, 375 aayp, 4; aaa abe,
3. 4 (cf. Jos. 245: 39. 38); and the reference in v.? to 28°". —!®™ are also from
E in the main, though perhaps with J variants (720, * ; cf. the retro-
spective reference in 48’).—The only purely Yahwistic section is aS ee
(ὑπ ιν" bis).
1-8 + 14. Bethel re-visited: the death of Deborah.
—1. Jacob is reminded of his vow at Bethel (28%), and
commanded to build an altar there.—go up] From Shechem
to Bethel there is a continuous ascent of over 1000 ft.—and
dwell there| Τὰ would almost seem that Bethel is to be
Jacob’s permanent residence ; and this (though contradicted
by v.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 [E]), point, it would appear, to the memory of a great
national renunciation of idolatry at Shechem in the early
history of Israel (see v.*). A reference to the Teraphim
stolen by Rachel (311°) does not exhaust the significance of
the notice.—3. The use of the old name bs here and v.!? (cf.
v.’) is noticeable.—4. the earrings (see on 24”)] Objects of
superstition, being used as amulets, and in false worship
(Ho. 2%, cf. Ju. 8?!*:).—the terebinth near Shechem] See on
128. The burial of idolatrous emblems under this sacred
tree has some traditional meaning which we cannot now
explain.—5. @ terror of God| a πανικὸν δεῖμα (De.); cf.
ix 237), F Sax 1A, 2 Ch. 14* etc.
V.5 presupposes an incident like that recorded in ch. 34. The inter-
vening vv.) are not in keeping with this view of the situation ; and the
1. xm] O& εἰς τὸν τόπον Βαιθὴλ is not unlikely to be original (cf. 28%
128),—3. ΠΟΡΝῚ] Ge Awyn.—4q end] Ck + καὶ ἀπώλεσεν αὐτὰ ἕως τῆς σήμερον
quépas.—5. wor] Qk καὶ ἐξῆρεν ᾿Ισραὴλ ἐκ Σικίμων .---3ρ»}} (ἃ ᾿Ισραήλ.
424 JACOB IN CANAAN (E, J, P)
change of subject from ‘ Jacob’ to ‘the sons of Jacob’ makes it highly
probable that v.° is either redactional (Kue.), or belongs to a different
stratum of E.
6a (P). See below.—7. The designation of che place (z.e.
the sanctuary: 12° 28") as ’£7 Béth’él is not confirmed by
any other OT allusion. Partial analogies may be found in
such place-names as ASteré6th-Karnaim, Nébé, Baal-Hazér,
Baal-Gad, etc., where the name of the deity is extended to
the sacred precincts (Gu. 248); but the text is not above
suspicion.—there the gods had revealed themselves to him|
The pl. vb. together with the use of the art. suggests that
the sentence preserves a more polytheistic version of the
Bethel-legend than 28",—one in which the ‘angels of God’
were spoken of as simply DON 8, 14. The death and
burial of Deborah.—delow Béth’él] means apparently ‘to the
S of Bethel.’—wnder the oak] or ‘sacred tree’ (see on 12°).
—tree of weeping| But v.z.—14. For the grounds on which
this v. is connected with 8, see the footnote ad loc.—set up
a mazzébah| So ν.39 at the grave of Rachel. These monu-
ments came to be regarded as simple grave-stones; but
were doubtless originally objects of worship, as the next
clause indicates.—foured 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, * and found
in Catholic countries at the present day.—foured oil] 288,
6a. n>] See on 28, The cl. isan amalgam of P and E.—7. np]
Ok τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ rérov.—dxnva bx] GDS ὉΝΠ)3. --- 8. r3pm] Cr om. — pdx]
see on 128,—m21] ‘weeping.’ The text is perhaps confirmed by o33
(weepers), Ju. 25, which may be the same place. But though 023 might
plausibly be regarded as a corruption of o's23 (2 Sa. 57%, Ps. 847), it is
difficult to think that m21 is so: ‘sacred tree of the baka-trees’ is an
improbable combination (see v. Gall, CS¢. 103).
9. Vy] Ge + ἐν Aovfa.—inx] αὐ + 0'n5x.—10. O& simplifies by omit-
ting 3py iow and dx row nx NIp.—12. ὙΠ] S nysw3 (soa schol. in Field).
—14. The v. cannot possibly be from P, who recognises no mazzebis,
* Egyptians (Erman, ZAZ, 307), Persians (Her. vii. 43), Greeks
(Hom. 71. xxiii. 196, Od. xi. 26 ff.), Arabs (We. Hezd.* 182f.). It is not
mentioned in OT, but food-offerings to the dead are referred to in Dt.
2614 (To. 418, Sir: 3018):
XXXV. 6-15 425
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 Ju. 4“.
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 m32 should be n233 and that this is an
alternative form of 4p37, 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: cf. the grave of the nurse of Dionysus at Scythopolis, in Pliny,
HN, v. 74 (De. Gu.).
9, 10. Jacob’s name changed (P).—Comp. 4233: (J).—
when he came from Paddan’ Aram] On Gu.’s rearrangement
(Ρ. 423 above), there is nothing to suggest Bethel as the
scene of the revelation. It is a faint echo of 32 from
which every element of local tradition, down to the name of
the sanctuary, has been eliminated.
6a, II1-13, 15. The blessing transmitted to Jacob:
P’s parallel to 28:98. τι, 12. ’£7 Shaddaz] see on 171.—For
other expressions in the wv., cf. 17% ® 16 283-4 466 484,13a.
God went up from him] as 17”.—13b is an awkward continu-
ation, and has probably arisen through dittography from ν. 15.
—1I5. The naming of the place, as 289,
That the section refers to Jacob’s outward journey, and that 9--
describe a different theophany on his return, is probable from the follow-
ing considerations : (1) The analogy of the older tradition (JE). (2) 1x21
and no ritual worship of any kind before the Sinaitic legislation. Asa
part of the Bethel-narrative, it is unintelligible in E, who has already
described the origin of the mazzebah there (2815), and still more in J,
who does not sanction mazzebas at all. The impression that the scene
is Bethel depends solely on the words ns—npd3, which can easily be
excised, as a gloss from. The suggestion that the v. continues 8 is due
to Cornill (ZATW, xi. 15 ff.), and seems the most satisfactory solution
of the problem.— 93] 2 Ki. 16}. 15. js the only other instance of the word
before Jeremiah, though the vb. appears in 2 Sa. 2315, Ho. 94. In Jer.,
Ezk. (2078), and II Isa. it isan accompaniment of heathenish worship ; its
legalisation for the worship of the temple appears in Ezk. 4517 and P.
Its mention here is a proof of the great antiquity of the notice (Corn. /.c.).
426 JACOB IN CANAAN (E, J, P)
Dox 7759 (°) is superfluous after we have read (**) that he had reached a
spot ]¥32 xa. (3) That two consecutive vv. (19. 1) should commence with
‘x 5 09x” is unnatural even in P (so KS.). (4) The self-disclosure of the
divine speaker (1!) must introduce the revelation (cf. 171). (5) The ny of
v.® (generally treated as redactional) presupposes a former revelation.
The one difficulty in this theory of Gu. is to imagine an adequate reason
for the dislocation of P.
16-20. Rachel dies in child-birth (E).—16. The event
took place on the journey from Bethel to ’Zphrath, an un-
known locality in the later territory of Benjamin (see after
v.°).—17. This also is a son for thee] So the nurse cheers the
dying woman by recalling her prayer at the birth of Joseph
(30"4).—18. With her last breath Rachel names her son
Ben-6nz; but the father, to avert the omen, calls him &zn-
yamin. 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 48’.—19. on the way to
‘Ephrath| The next clause, chat ἐς Bethlehem, is a gloss (see
Sta. ZATW, iii. 1 ff.).—20. See on v.44,
The site of Rachel’s grave is determined by 1 Sa. 10? (on the
border of Benjamin, between Ramah and Gibeah) and Jer. 31™ (cf. 40!).
Christian tradition places it about a mile N of Bethlehem, in accordance
with the gloss at the end of % This, however, rests on a confusion of
Ephrath and the better known clan-name 0 9 n75x, which is always
connected with Bethlehem. It is unnecessary to assume a divergence
of ancient tradition regarding the site. The beautiful verse of Jeremiah
314 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
16. bxman won] (Κα ᾿Απάρας δὲ ᾽Ἰ. -- ἔπηξεν τὴν σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ ἐπέκεινα τοῦ
πύργου Ταδερ (fr. 31), showing the influence of the theory that τῆν ὅπ
was at Jerusalem, which Jacob would naturally pass on the way to
Bethlehem.—j1x7 723] 48’, 2 Ki. 5! + (without art.). Apparently a
measure of distance (S a parasang); but nothing is certain. Acc.
to Hoffmann (GGA, 1890, 23 ff.), ‘as far as one can see.’—17. Anwpra
(Hi.) || wpm (Pi.) in 18,—possibly variants from E and J.—Another trace
of J is 1103, pointing back to 3074?.—18. "})ν3] ‘son of my sorrow,’ from
hx, ‘trouble.’ Not improbably it is an obsolete proper name, having
some connexion with ἦν, a city and valley in Benjamin (Ben. 325; Che.
420).—j]">"j3] 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’ (cf. 1 Sa. 23! *4, Ps. 8013 ete.),
Benjamin being the most southerly of the Rachel tribes.
XXXV. 16-26 427
the conquest of the’country (We. Sta. 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 (τ. ἡ, on 78),
21, 22a. Reuben’s incest (J).—21. Tower of the Flock]
Such towers would be numerous in any pastoral country ;
and the place here referred to is unknown. Mic. 48 proves
nothing; and the tradition which locates it near Bethlehem
rests on this passage. The order of J’s narrative (see p.
414) would lead us to seek it E cf 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 Gu. ; otherwise Di.). The
crime is referred to in 495. The original motive is perhaps suggested
by the striking parallel in 72. ix. 449 ff. (Gu.):
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 30 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 49%.
22b-26. A list of Jacob’s sons (P).—In two points
the list deviates from the tradition of JE (chs. 29. 30): The
children are arranged according to their mothers; and
the birth of Benjamin is placed in Mesopotamia. Other-
wise the order of JE is preserved: Leah precedes Rachel;
but Rachel’s maid precedes Leah’s.—On the position of the
section in the original Code, see pp. 423, 443.
22a. The double accentuation means that “* was treated by the
Mass. sometimes as a whole v., sometimes as a half; the former for
private, the latter for liturgical reading (Str. 129; Wickes, Prose
Accents, 130). Note the ‘gap in the middle of the verse,’ which @ fills
up with καὶ πονηρὸν ἐφάνη ἐναντίον avrov.—>xw] The name, instead of
Jacob, is from this point onwards a fairly reliable criterion of the
document J in Gen.—26. 1°] 2x and Heb. MSS 11>.
428 EDOMITE GENEALOGIES (P*)
27-29. The death of Isaac (P).—In JE Isaac was
at the point of death when Jacob fled from Esau; whereas,
according to the chronology of P, 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 32‘), and the unbroken friendship between him and
Jacob.—27. Mamré, Kiryath- Arba‘, Hebron. See 1338 232.—
29. Cf. 258. °.—Isaac is buried by φατε and Jacob his sons]
as Abraham by Isaac and Ishmael (25°). P always lays
stress on the harmony of the patriarchal family life.
Cu. XXXVI. Edomite Genealogies, etc. (partly P).
The chapter consists of seven (or eight) sections: I.
Esau’s wives and children, 1°; II. His migration to
Mount Seir, 68; III. A list of Esau’s descendants, 95:15;
IV. An enumeration of clans or clan-chiefs of Esau, 19;
V. Two Horite lists: a genealogy, 7°-*8, and a list of clans,
20.30: VI. The kings of Edom, 3); 1: Avsecond ΠΞΌ ΘΝ
clans of Esau, *°-4#*.—The lists are repeated with variations
τὰ ἡ (Cloke πὸ ἧς
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, ZVS, 329,
383 f.).
Analysis.—A section headed msn πον would, if homogeneous, be
unhesitatingly ascribed to P; but the repetition of the formula (v.%)
throws doubt on its unity, and betrays the hand of a redactor. The
phraseology of P is most apparent in II. and VII., but can be detected
occasionally elsewhere (74> 50: 106. 12b- 18b- 5800 5 τὸ δ, sin) ΤΟ ΠῚ and Ve) ἘΠΕ
crucial difficulty is the contradiction as to Esau’s wives between I. and
27. yawn np] Rd. perhaps ya snp (Kit.).—pran] GS +]y32 paxa.—
28. pms] Gr+'n wer (as 257). --- 29 end] S ΣΟσΊ;29] —)? jpaas
—010.5].—In P’s chronology, Jacob at his father’s death had reached
the age of 120 years (cf. 35 with 257°); 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.
XXXVI. 1-5 429
26% 28° (see on vv.'"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 P except II. and VII. (so We. Kue. Ho. Gu. al.).
The argument for reducing P’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 Téledéth incor-
porated in P, whose main narrative will have included 26% 28%, and in
which 35” 36°° 37! may have read continuously. VII. must then be
rejected as a late compilation in which the style of the Tdledéth is
successfully imitated (so Meyer).—As regards V. and VI. little can be
said. The former might well have been part of the Téledéth; the
latter is unique in Gen., and there are no positive reasons for assigning
it to J (so most) or any other source.
I-5. Esau’s wives and sons.—The scheme here pro-
jected supplies the common framework of the two Edomite
genealogies, 5:16 and 1%, except that in the following
sections the second and third wives exchange places, These
marriages and births are said to have taken place zz the
land of Canaan, before the migration to Séir; but the fact
that “Oholibamah is a Horite (see below), indicates an ab-
sorption of Horite 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 263: 28° (P), the three wives are (a) Yéhtdith bath-
Be’éri, the Hittite ; (6) Basémath bath-Elén, the Hittite (sn@i4S Hivwvite);
(c) Mahdlath bath-YiSma’él, sister of Nébayéth. Here they are (a)
‘Ada bath-Elén, the Hittite ; (6) ’OAdlibamah bath-Anah, the Horite ;
(c) Basémath bath-YiSma'él, sister of Nébaydth. 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 vv.?™
I. ON NIN] probably a gloss (cf. v.* 1%); but the persistency with
which the equivalence is asserted is itself instructive. Esau and Edom
are really distinct names (see p. 359f.), and P has no legendary identi-
fication of them, such as 25°°, Hence the connexion is established in
two ways: Esau=Edom (*:® 15); and Esau the father of Edom (* 4), —
2. np> wy] ‘had taken,’ as already recorded (26% 28°).—pyas Π3] wGiS
‘sin; deleted by Ho. and Gu. asa gloss. But in clan names gender is
not always carefully distinguished ; and the writer probably took my
as fem. Inv.” ’Oholibamah is herself one of the sons of ‘Anah.—»nn]
Rd. ‘ha, v.s.—5. &y"] Keth. as v.44, 1 Ch. 7; Oré vay, as v.38, 1 Ch.
430 EDOMITE GENEALOGIES (P*)
represent a different tradition from 26%4 28°; and that in 7% a clumsy
and half-hearted attempt has been made to establish some points
of contact between them. If we accept the »n7 of «κι, etc., in 26°4, the
two traditions agree in the main ethnological point, that the Edomite
people was composed of Hittite (? Canaanite), Hivvite (? Horite), and
Ishmaelite elements.
On the Names.—(a) ΠῚ is the name of one of Lamech’s wives: see
on 4'°,—(6) apabax (Ὀλιβεμά, ᾿Ελιβεμά, etc.). Somewhat similar com-
pounds with bmx are found in Phoenician (Sya5ax, 7$o>nx) and Sab.
(anyday, Sxdax) as well as in Heb. (asbax, Ex. 318; narbax, Ezk. 234%)
(see Gray, HPN, 2461). The first component is presumably Ar. and
Sab. ahi, ‘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 ‘nx is taken from the old
list of Horite clans (v.™, cf. ).—(c) now. (for which 2 always reads
nbn, 289), if from ,/ ova, ‘smell sweetly,’ is likely to have been a
favourite woman’s name, but recurs only 1 Ki. 4% of a daughter of
Solomon. On ™3y and pyas, see on v.”: the obvious connexion with
that v. makes it practically certain that 7 in v.2 is a mistake for 7h.—
On the sons, see below.—It is pointed out by Ho. (187) that both in
914 and 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 ‘s|/ess likely.
6-8. Esau’s migration to Se‘ir.—6. Cf. 12° (347%).—
and his daughters| None are mentioned in ?°.—to the land of
Séir] So we must read with &.—7. The motive for the
separation is the same as that which led to the parting of
Abraham and Lot (13%), implying that Esau had lived at
Hebron after Jacob’s return ; contrast J, 324 33!4:1®.—8. the
mountain of Séir| the mountainous country E of the Arabah,
the southern part of which is now called οἷ δογα and the
northern Gebal (Buhl, Zdom. 28 ff.). The dand Se‘ir includes
the whole Edomite territory as far W as Kadesh (Nu. 201).
See on 146 273%, and below on v.”.
9-14. The genealogy of Esau.—9, 10. For the double
heading nbn 'x) followed by now “Νὴ, cf. 2512.—Hsau the
father of Edom] see footnote on v.1. It is strange that
except in these glosses Zdom is never the eponymus of the
13 939 2310t 2 Ch. 11)9+.—6. pasos gives no sense, and to insert ΠῚΠΝ
(CUP) is inadmissible without a change of text. auf 7.523 γΝ is pos-
sible ; but it is simplest to follow S vyw prox. — 350] ‘on account of,’
as 68 274 etc.
XXXVI. 6-11 431
nation, although it appears to have been the name οὗ a god
(DIN Tay, 2 Sa. 6!°).—11 ff. The total number of the tribes,
excluding the bastard “Amalék, is 12, as in the cases of
Israel and Ishmael (25!21*). The sons of ’Oholibamah are,
however, put on a level with the grandsons of the other two
wives (so v.'8), The list may be tabulated thus:
(a) Adah. (4) Basemath. (c) ’Oholibamah.
Eliphaz [Timna']. Ré‘(’él.
|
| | | |
1. Téman. 2.’Omar. | 6. Nahath. 7. Zerah. το. Ὑδ᾽' δ. 11, Ya‘lam.
3. Zéphd. 4. Ga'tam. | 8. Sammah. 9. Mizzah. 12. Korah.
5. Kénaz.
ramslek}
The Names.—(a) 1»>x] Known otherwise only as the name of the
oldest and wisest of Job’s friends (Jb. 2" etc.), probably borrowed from
this list.—(1) jon (Θαιμάν)] Frequently mentioned as a district of Edom
(Jer. 497 ®, Ezk. 251%, Am. 1, Ob. 3, Hab. 3°), famous for its wisdom,
the home of Eliphaz (Jb. 2) and of the third king of Edom (v.¥). A
village bearing the Greek name, 15 Roman m. from Petra, is mentioned
in OS, 260; but the site is now lost.—(2) 18 ('‘Qudp, ’Qudv), (3) 6s
(Σωφαρ, τ Ch. 85), (4) oOnyi (Γοθομ, etc.) are quite unknown, unless
Σωφαρ be the original of Job's third friend.—(5) 137] the eponym of the
Kenizzites, the group to which Kaleb (the ‘ dog ’-tribe, settled in Hebron)
and Othniel belonged (Nu. 32", Jos. 145 14. 1517, Ju. 1 3%), 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 pony (see on 147) is here described as descended from
yoon, a Horite clan absorbed in Edom (vv.™: *°), of which nothing else
is known. The reference may be to an offshoot of the old Amalekites
who had found protection from the Edomites.—(4) Ss yn (Ραγουήλ)
‘Friend of God’ (?) is one of the names of Moses’ father-in-law (a
Midianite) (Ex. 218, Nu. 10”), also that of a Gadite (Nu. 113 214) and of
a Benjamite (1 Ch. 9*).—(6) nmi (Naxo00, Naxou)] cf. 2 Ch. 4113.--(7) mm
(Zape)] (cf. v.**). Also a clan of Judah (38%); cf. Nu. 2618 (Simeonite),
1 Ch. 6° 36 (Levite).—(8) mow (Zoue)] cf. 1 Sa. 16° (David's brother), 2 Sa.
231 (one of his heroes); also ἘΦ in Yerahmeel (1 Ch. 2-8) and Kaleb
(2f-).—(9) 1D (Mofe, ‘Opuoge, etc.)] only here. It is pointed out that the
four names form a doggerel sentence: ‘descent and rising, there and
here’ (KS. An. 178); but three of them are sufficiently authenticated ;
and the fact does not prove them to be inventions of an idle fancy.—
(10) wy" ("Ie[o]us, Ieovd, etc.)] v.z. on v.5. As an Israelite name, 1 Ch.
7° 839 (Benjamite), 23! (Levite), 2 Ch. 111° (son of Rehoboam). The
432 EDOMITE GENEALOGIES (p*)
name is thought by some to be identical with that of an Arabian lion.
god Yagi (though (ἃ must have pronounced £ not +), meaning
‘helper,’ whose antiquity is vouched for by inscrs. of Thamud (Rob. Sm.
KM", 254; We. Ποία." το, 146; N6. ZDMG, xl. 168; Fischer, 76.
Iviii. 869 ; Mey. ZS, 351 f. ; on the other side, N6. ZDMG, xlv. 595; Di.
384; Buhl, Adom. 48 f.).—(11) 053" (‘TeyAou, etc. )] possibly an animal name
fr. Sy:=‘ibex’; but see Gray, HPN, 90°; cf. Sy, Ju. gilt. (5 mt ἀΠῸ ΠἼΟΝΣ
Ezr, 2°°.—({12) mp (Kope)| a son of Hebron, and therefore a Kalebite clan
in 1 Ch, 2%. Meyer (3525) traces to this Edomite-Kalebite family the
origin of the Korahite singers and subordinate officials of the second
Temple, who were afterwards admitted to the ranks of the Levites, and
received an artificial genealogy (Ex. 67-*4, Nu. 2658, 1 Ch. 6- 33 etc.).
15-19. The clan-chiefs of Edom.—1r5. On the word
abs, v.z.—Since the list is all but identical with vv.9"4, we
have here a clear proof of the artificial character of the family
trees used in OT to set forth ethnological relations. It is
not improbable that this is the original census of Edomite
‘thousands’ from which the genealogy of 914 was con-
structed.—16. ‘Amalék is here placed on a level with the
other branches (ct. ν. 13).
20-30. Horite genealogies.—20. the inhabitants of the
land| (Ex. 23°1, Nu. 32", Ju. 1°); cf. 14°, Di 2 aaa ἀπ ἘΞ
autochthones are described geographically and ethnologic-
ally as sons of Sé@%r the Horite, i.e., a section of the Horite
population settled in Mt. Se‘ir, Se‘ir being personified as
the fictitious ancestor of the natives of the country.
15. Pox] Ok ἡγεμών, Ἔ dux, whence EV ‘duke.’ The word means
properly ‘chiliarch,’ the chief of an 4bx (=‘thousand’ or ‘clan’): so
Ex. 15°, Zec. 12°°§ 9’. 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 ch., "Sy as the
original text (Rob. Sm. /Ph. ix. 90; Mey. /S, 330). Practically it
makes no difference ; for in any case the ‘ chiefs’ are but personifications
of their clans.—16. mp dx] 22 om., probably a gloss from v.!8,—
18. wy—na] (τ om.—rg. ΟΥ̓͂Ν N17] Ek οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἡγεμόνες αὐτῶν, viol’ Eddy.
-20. 3} Gr sing.—24b. Ὁ] The word is utterly obscure. (ἴθ. τὸν
᾿Ιαμείν ; Aq. τοὺς ἡμίν [ἰμειμ] (see Field); 22 ΟΠ (Dt. 2: so T° x33) ;
@ ‘wild-asses’ and ‘mules’; $ - ὸ σι (asa ?); ἘΠ aque callide.
If ἘΠ be right (and it is certainly the most plausible conjecture for sense),
340 is a fragment of an old well-legend, claiming the proprietorship of
these hot springs for the tribe of ‘Anah (cf. Ju. 1143). See, further,
Haupt, in Ball, SOT, 118.—3ob is in the style of P.—vyw] Gr ᾿Εδώμ.
XXXVI. 15-30 433
The name “h is now generally regarded as a geographical designa-
tion, identical with the Garu of the Eg. monuments (Miiller, AZ, 137,
149 ff., 240; Jen. ZA, x. 332f., 346f. ; Schw. ZATW, xviii. 126; Mey.
INS, 330f.), The older theory that the name is derived from nm and
means ‘cave-dwellers,’ is not necessarily discredited by this identifica-
tion. Even if the Horites 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 *f 39. there were seven main
branches of the Horites in Seir, represented by Lotan, Sdbal, Zib‘dn,
‘Anah, Di¥6n, ’Ezer, and Rian (see below). Of these, however, ‘Anah
and Dion reappear as subdivisions of Zibon 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 (Di. Gu.
al.). It is more likely that ‘Anah and DiSon were at first subordinate
septs of Zibon (so Mey. 341); that they came into the list of 'al/aphim
(2935) as heads of clan groups; and, finally, obtained a primary position
amongst the ‘sons’ of Seir. The relationship as thus reconstructed
may be exhibited as follows:
(a) Lotan (Timna’). (2) Sdbal. — (c) Zib’6n. (d)’Ezer. (e) Ri¥an.
| | | |
Hori, Hémam. ‘Alwan, ’Ayyah, ‘Anah, Bilhan, ‘Oz,
Manahat, | Za Avan [Ζ( 4η], Aran.
‘Ebal, DiS6n [Ya] akan.
S&éph6, (Ohdlibamah),
*Onam, |
Hemdan, ’ESban,
Yithran, Kéran.
The Names.—(a) 1» is plausibly connected with sib (also a cave-
dweller, 19%), who may have been originally an ancestral deity wor-
shipped in these regions.—Philologically it is interesting to observe the
frequency of the endings -ἄφι, -d” in this list, pointing to a primitive
nunation, as constrasted with sporadic cases of mzmation in the
Edomite names.—n (v.*”)| The occurrence of the national name (v.”) as
a subdivision of itself is surprising. Mey. (339) suspects confusion with
another genealogy in which Létan figured as ancestor of the whole
Horite race.—nr'n (1 Ch. onin, Gr Αἱμάν)] cf. 75, 1 Ki. 54, 1 Ch. 28, Ps. 89).
—yion, strangely introduced as the ‘sister’ of Létan, is the same as the
concubine of Eliphaz (v.!*): probably interpolated in both places.—(4)
Saw (Σωβάλ)] also a Kalebite tribe settled in Kiryath-Ye'arim, incorpor-
ated in Judah (1 Ch. 2°°- 55.415). The name was connected by Rob. Sm.
with Ar. §1/, ‘young lion.’ Ar. ει» ought to be & in Heb. ; but the
objection is perhaps not final in a borrowed name (but see N6. ZDMG,
xl. 168; Gray, HPN, 109).—py (1 Ch. poy, Gr Τωλών, Twrdu, etc.)] cf.
mby, ν. Ὁ; otherwise unknown.—nnap] It cannot be accidental that in
28
434 EDOMITE GENEALOGIES
1 Ch. 2° the ‘half of Manahat’ is again represented as descended from
Sébal. These Manahathites are further connected with Hya¥ τ)» τ
notice which We. (Bleek, 197) has ingeniously combined with Ju. 1.53,
where 1130, the father of Samson, is a native of Zor'ah. It seems to
follow, not only that m3 is originally the eponymus of nmin, but that
this Horite clan lived in early times in Zor'ah and was included in the
mixed tribe of Dan (Mey. 340).—a°y (I'a8\)] Mey. identifies with the
well-known mountain E of Shechem, originally a Horite settlement (?).
—5v (1 Ch. ‘av, (ἃ Σωφάρ, Σωφάν, Dwg, etc.)| unknown.—aonx (Ὥμαν, Ὥνα»ν)]
A Yerahmeelite name, 1 Ch. 276 *8, The name of Judah’s son jx (Gn.
48.) may also be compared.—(c) pyas (ZeBeydv)] Possibly a hyzna-
0 v
tribe (dabu, {SQ}, NH, mas) (Smith, KI, 254; Gray, 95).—7s]
‘falcon’ (Lv. 1114, Dt. 141°, Jb. 28”); cf. the personal name, 2 Sa. 37 218%,
—my] unknown.—pw, 12 (Δησων, Aacowv)|=‘ mountain-goat’ (Dt. 14°).
—r0n (Ch. 7726) and j2vx are not known.—j1n’] Derived from a widely
diffused personal name (Heb. Bab. Sab. Nabat.), best known in OT
as that of Moses’s father-in-law (Ex. 3} etc.); also a son of Gideon
(Ju. 8°), and the Ishmaelite father of Amasa (2 Sa. 17° εἰς.). -- 3
(Χαρράν)] only here.—(d) sx] unknown.—j753] can scarcely be dissoci-
ated from Rachel's handmaid 1753, whose Horite origin would be some-
what more intelligible if Horite clans were amalgamated in one of her
subdivisions (Dan; see on Manahat above).— pyr (ax yn, Gr Ζουκάμ,
Zavav =]y3)| unknown.—ypy (better jpy’, as 1 Ch. 125] The tribe is doubt-
less to be identified with the j?y2 32 mentioned in Nu. 339%, Dt. τοῦ as
the owners of some wells S of Kadesh.—(e) jut (G& Ple]icwy)] Rd. jem
or ]¥", to avoid concurrence with the jw of v.”!.—py ("Qs)] see on 10%
227!, 1.x] Perhaps connected with the Yerahmeelite j28, 1 Ch. 2%. The
reading ow (Heb. MSS, G&HTI) is probably a mistake caused by the
proximity of py.
31-39. The kings of Edom.—31. before there reigned
a king of the Israelites (v.z.)| This may mean either before
the institution of the monarchy in Israel, or before any
Israelitish sovereign ruled over Edom. The natural ferminus
ad quem is, of course, the overthrow of Edomite independ-
ence by David (p. 437 below).—The document bears every
mark of authenticity, and may be presumed to give a
complete list of Edomite kings. Unfortunately the chrono-
logy is wanting. An average reign of 20 years for the eight
kings (Meyer) is perhaps a reasonable allowance in early un-
41. bxw 325] Expression of gen. by 5 to prevent determination of
the governing noun by the following determinate gen. (G-K. § 129¢),
‘a king belonging to the I.’ The second interpretation given above is
the only natural one. (τὰ ἐν ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ, (ἃ & ‘Iopayd,—the latter
too readily approved by Ball.
XXXVI. 31-36 435
settled 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 pre-
decessor; that it was elective (Tu. Kn. Di. De. Dri. al.)
is more than we have a right to assume. Frazer (AAO, 11°)
finds here an illustration of his theory of female succession,
the crown passing to men of other families who married the
hereditary princesses ; but ν.839 is fatal to this view. The
fact that the kings reigned in different cities supports an
opinion (Winckler, G/, i. 192; Che. 429) that they were
analogous to the Hebrew Judges, z.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 Ki. 11!-), who is regarded as heir-presumptive to
the throne (Meyer).
32. ys7]3 yb. (Gk Βάλακ vl. τοῦ Bewp)] The name of the first king
bears a striking resemblance to 933 oyba, the soothsayer whom the
king of Moab hired to curse Israel (Nu. 22 ff.), and who afterwards died
fighting for Midian (Nu. 31° [P]). The identity of the two personages
is recognised by (amongst others) Kn-Di. N6. (Unters. 87), Hommel
(AHT, 153, 2221), Sayce (EHH, 224, 229), Che. al., though the legend
which places his home at Pethor on the Euphrates (E) is hardly con-
sistent with this notice. —72737 (Δενναβα), his city, is not known; acc.
to Jerome, OS, p. 115,) it is Dannaia, between Ar Moab and the
Arnon, or Dannaba near Heshbon (cf. Eus. OS, 114°', [p. 2497); Hommel
and Sayce suggest Dunip, somewhere in N Syria.—33. 33} (Τω[αἹβάβ,
Ἰώβ, etc.)] identified by (ἃ (Jb. 42:8) with the patriarch Job.—msa] A
chief city of Edom (Is. 34° 63}, Jer. 485: 49'* 33, Am. 115), now e/-Busaireh,
20 m. SE of the Dead Sea.—34. avn (Ασόμ, S SOQ m1 =nivi7)].—the
land of the Temanite] see on v."'.—35. ὙΠ bears the well-known name
of an Aramzean deity, whose worship must have prevailed widely in
Edom (see v.®, 1 Ki. 11'4%).—who smote Midian, etc.) The solitary
historical notice in the list. It is a tempting suggestion of Ewald
(AZ, ii. 336), that the battle was an incident of the great Midianite raid
under which Israel suffered so severely, so that this king was con-
temporary with Gideon (cf. Meyer, 381 f.).—ny] G Γεθθαίμ -ε ον, on
which reading Marquart (Fundamente, 11) bases an ingenious explana-
tion of the mysterious name Ovnye 103 in Ju. 38" (o:Ay wx OYIN,—a con-
fusion of the third and fourth kings in our list).—36. ndbow] G& any,
perhaps the same name as Solomon.—pwn] A place of this name
(Macpixd) is mentioned in OS, 137" (p. 277), in Gebalene, the northern
436 EDOMITE GENEALOGIES
part of Mt. Seir.—37. bxv] The name of the first king of Israel.—mam
1737] so called to distinguish it from other places of the same name
(cf. 26%), is probably the ἱΡοωβώθ of OS, 145 (p. 286), a military post in
Gebalene. The river is, therefore, not the Euphrates (although a place
Rahaba has been discovered on its W side), but some perennial stream
in the N of Edom, defined by the city on its banks (cf. 2 Ki. 512).--
38. psn Sya] ‘ Baal is gracious.’ The name of the seventh king is the
only existing trace of Baal-worship in Edom.—v122y] ‘jerboa’ (Ar.
‘akbar): see Rob. Sm. A/Z*, 235'. Here it is probably a clan-name,
but appears as personal in OT (2 Ki. 2215, Jer. 26” 36!).—39. 197] To
be read 177 (Heb. MSS, 2x SG partly, and 1 Ch. 1°°).—For ws (1 Ch.
5), Gr has Φόγωρ, z.e. ys, the mountain in Moab (Nu. 23% etc.).—Why
the wife of Hadad 1. is named we cannot tell. $xaunn (‘God does
good’) is a man’s name in Neh. 6”.—For 371 ‘9 ΠΞ it would be better to
read "Ὁ 13 (€tS). But 3πὶ Ὃ (gold-water) is more likely to be the name
of a place than of a person; hence Marquart’s emendation ‘pb jd (1.6. 10)
is very plausible, as is his identification of 171 with the miswritten
am, ‘of Dt..17.
40-43. The chiefs of Esau.—This second list of
*Alliphim presents more features of P’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 (!°**) ; the new names, so far as they can be
explained, are geographical. It is possible that the docu-
ment preserves a Statistical survey of administrative districts
of Edom subsequent to the overthrow of its independence
(Ew. Di. Dri. al.); but there is no evidence that this is
the case.
40. mby=p>y, v.23,—nm (Ἰεθέρ, etc.)] probably 39:=]1n", v.2°.—41. ade
is supposed to be the seaport n>x; see on 145.---}}"5 (Φινες, Ple}wwv)=
yap, Nu. 33%, the Φαινών (Fenon) of OS, 1239 (Ρ. 299; cf. p. 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 Fenan, 6 or 7m. NNW of Sobek (Meyer, 353 f.).—42. 1832]
Acc. to OS, 137" (p. 277), Μαβσαρά was a very large village in Gebalene,
subject to Petra.—43. $x and ovy are unknown. For the latter, @&
has Zagwel[y]= ps, ν. ἢ, It is probable that in the original text both
names were contained, as in an anonymous chronicle edited by Lagarde
(Sept-St. ii. ; see Nestle, Marg. 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
40. onnpnd] & omdn>,—onewa] Gr onn32) ὈΠΥΊΝΕ (10 31),43. onawnd]
gu. oma? (v.4°),—wy mA] see on v.}.
XXXVI. 37-43 437
supposed aboriginal race called Horites. 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 co-
extensive with the wide region known to the Egyptians as Haru (p. 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 Horites and formed the nation of Edom.—(3) The date of this
invasion cannot be determined. Seirites 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 Wadi Tumilat within the
Egyptian frontier (Pap. Harris and Anastasi: see Miiller, AZ, 135 f. ;
cf. Mey. ZS, 337f.). Since both are described as Bedouin, it would
seem that the Edomites were still an unsettled people at the beginning
of the 12th cent. The land of Séri, however, is mentioned in the TA
Tablets (KA7*, 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 ΠΙ. 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 11. was the one
subdued by David, and that the Hadad who fled to Egypt and after-
wards returned to trouble Solomon (1 Ki. 11147) was of his family.—
(5) The genealogies furnish evidence of the consanguinity of Edomite and
Judzan 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 fass.). 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 Judzwan 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 Horite 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 Yerahmeelite families to Judaism had taken place (ZS,
300f.; Entst. d. Jud. 114 ff., 130 ff.), a comparison with Gn. 36 yields
a striking testimony to the persistency of the minor clan-groups of the
early Horites through all vicissitudes of political and religious condition.
JOSEPH AND HIS BRETHREN.
Cus. 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 OT biographies. Its connexion is twice interrupted : (a)
by the story of Judah and Tamar (ch. 38); and (4) by the so-called
Blessing of Jacob (49'*8): 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. Chs. 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. Chs. 42-45. The reunion of Joseph and his brethren :—s5. 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. Chs. 46-50. The settlement of the united family in Egypt :-—8,
Jacob’s journey to Egypt and settlement in Goshen (46. 472). 9.
Joseph’s agrarian policy (47!*-*8). το. Joseph at his father’s death-bed
(47°! 48). τι. Death and burial of Jacob, and death of Joseph (499-38 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 (37? 414% 425 6 468: [8-27] 475*. 6a. 7-11. 27b. 28
48*6 4915 28b-88aab 501%: 18) 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 JE
passages have been worked over by an editor of the school of P
(Giesebrecht, ΖΑ ΤΊ, i. 237, 2667; Ho. 234). The cases in point have
been examined by Kue. (Ond. i. p. 317f.), 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 J and E, 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 character-
438
XXXVII.—L 439
istic of J and E respectively (exceptions are 46? 485: 1 31 [507"]; 4650), ma
occurs only in ch. 39 (%times) ; elsewhere ὈΠῸΝ is invariably used, some-
times in contexts which would otherwise be naturally assigned to J,
though no reason appears why J should depart from his ordinary
usage (e.g. 42"). It may not always be safe to rely on this character-
istic when it is not supported by other indications. Eerdmans, who
rejects in principle the theory of a Yahwistic andan Elohistic document,
is obliged to admit the existence of an /svae/-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
37° (J +E), 38. (E), 9 (E), 8 (E+J), ®(E) 3 436); 44); 455 0), 46" 5
(JE), 5:9. (J) 47:5 (JLv.5, P*), 2 (J), 7 (P), 5 (J) 5 48! (E), 2” (J), 559
(J +E); 501} (J), 1.35 (E*). To the Jacob-recension (J-R) he assigns 37?
(P), 7 (J), =>(J), * (JE), (J) ; 405 413 42 (all E); 457 (E*), 46%(E*),
5. 1 (Ρ); 475-4 (P*), 15 (E), 38 (P); 4915 (P), 39:38 (P); 50! 18 (P) (Komp. d.
Gen. 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 P and the
other sources ; the fragments are mostly assigned to the 1- ἢ, but 48°
is rejected as an interpolation (p. 27). (2) Eerdmans regards ch. 39 (the
incident of Potiphar’s wife) as the addition of an unintelligent redactor ;
mainly on the ground that it contains the name 7 (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 ch. 37 his division agrees a fotiori with that of the majority of
critics ; z.e., the I-R corresponds in the main with J and the 1- with
E. (4) Inch. 37, on the contrary, the relation is reversed: I-R=E, and
J-R=J. But this divergence turns on a wholly arbitrary and indefens-
ible selection of data. Since the J—R in 45° speaks of a sale of Joseph
(to the Ishmaelites), it is inferred that 377°? > belonged to it. It is
conveniently overlooked that 40% (also J-R) refers back to 375* * (the
stealing of Joseph), that 42% (J-R) presupposes 37” (I-R); to say
᾿ nothing of the broad distinction that Judah’s leadership is as character-
istic 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 ch. 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.
440 THE STORY OF JOSEPH
The story of Joseph is the finest example in Genesis, or even in the
OT, 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 E, ‘‘ Ye
intended evil against me, but God intended it for good” (50%; cf. 455. 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 tradi-
tional 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 patri-
archal 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 J and E, 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 B.
Luther (7S, 141 ff.), that the original author was J, 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 E is depend-
ent on J; and it is certain that in some points (the leadership of Reuben,
e.g.) E 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 (7b. 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
XXXVII.—L 441
broadly the three kinds of material which have been laid under contribu-
tion. (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 p. 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 E
implies a hegemony of that tribe in very early times, just as the similar
position accorded to Judah in J 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 inter-
pretation.—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 re-
model 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 cent. B.c.
(p. 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
(p. 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
Yanhamu, the Semitic minister of Amenhotep Iv. (pp. 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 fea-
tures of the representation. Steuernagel’s suggestion (Zizmw. 67), that the
story is based on feuds between the ¢rvibe Joseph and the other tribes, in
the course of which zmdividual Josephides were sold as slaves to Egypt,
442 JOSEPH BROUGHT TO EGYPT (P, JE)
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 (ch. 39) appears to be founded on an Egyptian
popular tale (p. 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’ (Dri. DB, ii. 7716). 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 1. It is not difficult to
suppose that it was appropriated by the Hebrew rhapsodists, and
incorporated in the native Joseph-legend, and gradually moulded inte
the exquisite story which we now proceed to examine.
Cu. XXXVII.—How Joseph was lost to his Father through
his Brethren’s Hatred and Treachery (P, JE).
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 7"). A favourable oppor-
tunity 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
(7°), 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%), —
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
SEXVIT. 3,2 443
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.—Vv.1:? belong to P (v.z.).—The analysis of the rest of the
chapter may start from *-*’, where evidences of a double recension are
clearest. In one account, Joseph is so/d to Zshmaelites 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 J (cf. 45%"), the latter E (40").
Another safe clue is found in the double motive assigned for the envy
of the brethren: *4 (the sleeved tunic) ||" (the dreams): the dream-
motive is characteristic of E throughout the narrative, and ** are from
J because of Sx w” (cf. 13, and ct. apy’ in 3). Smaller doublets can be
detected in 22-14; in 18:20. in 51: and in *4f. The analysis has been worked
out with substantial agreement amongst critics ; and, with some finishing
touches from the hand of Gu. (353 ff.), the result is as follows: J = 5: 4 14
140. 180. 21, 28. 25-27. 28ay (442% to ADD), 31" S2eayb. Baqb. 840. Boa, ἘΣ — 6-11. 180. Ia. 15-17,
18a. 19, 20, 25. 24, 28aq8 (to 3) b- 39. 80. 82ag. Bag. 84. 850. 86 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 J.
I-Ir. The alienation between Joseph and his
brethren.—1, 2. Three disjointed fragments of P, of which
v.! is the original continuation of 5668 (see p. 429); and 385 15
a heading from the Book of Téledéth (see p. 40 f.), which ought
to be followed by a genealogy,—perhaps 3522 36. 5 which we
have seen to stand out of its proper connexion (p. 423):
2a8Yb then introduces P’s history of Joseph, which has been
mostly suppressed by the redactor.—The clause 1)) S17) is
difficult. As a parenthesis (Dri.) it is superfluous after the
I. own (178) and jy32 pox (but see p. 474) are characteristic of P.—
2. ‘a ny] ‘like verbs of governing’ (Str.); 501 Sa. 162% 17%4,—ry3 sym]
Gu. suggests >y 13 “π (Niph. ,/ 1y: cf. Jer. 6 etc., and the Hithpal.
in Jb. 178), or mys “πὶ (= ‘kept company with’),—neither proposal just
convincing, —a7yn ona1(so Nu. 14°7)] lit. ‘brought the report of them evil,’
‘1 being second acc., or tertiary pred. (Da. § 76). A bad sense is in-
herent in 433, which is a late word, in Hex. confined to P (Nu. 13% 14°F),
* Rather than 46°%-, as suggested by Kurtz (quoted by Hupf. Qu.
216). .
444 JOSEPH BROUGHT TO EGYPT (JE)
definite statement of Joseph’s age in 2°, and leaves us with
a wrong identification of the sons of the concubines with the
previous "8. If it be joined to what follows, Gu. 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 con-
cubines,
With this change, Di.’s objections to the unity of v.? fall to the ground,
and the whole may be safely ascribed to P (note the chronology, the
supplementary 118 ‘v3, and the phrase ΠΡῚ 727).—Short as the fragment
is, it shows that P’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 P is
no mere supplementer of the older history, but an independent author,
though his account has been sacrificed to the more graphic narratives
of J and E.
3,4 (J). Now Israel loved Joseph . . .| These are evidently
the opening words of J’s Joseph-story, in which the sole
motive of the brothers’ hatred is the father’s favouritism
towards the son of his old age (167 447°J). OBB [23] a
shirt or tunic reaching to the extremities (0°DS), z.e. the wrists
and ankles, whereas the ordinary under-garment was sleeve-
less, and reached only to the knees. That it was an unusual
habiliment appears also from 2 Sa. 1525 2 but speculations
as to its mythological significance (A7ZO?, 384) have no
support in either passage.—4. could not address him peace-
3. Twn] χὰ wyn. As the tense can hardly be freq., it is best to restore
πΌ ἢ (Ba. Kit.).—m0p nina] Cf. Jos. Ant. vii. 171: ἐφόρουν yap αἱ τῶν
ἀρχαίων παρθένοι χειριδωτοὺς ἄχρι τῶν σφυρῶν πρὸς τὸ μὴ βλέπεσθαι χιτώνας.
Except (ἃ (χιτώνα ποικίλον) and ἘΠ (tunicam polymitam [but cf. ν.38]),
all Vns. here support this sense: Aq. x. ἀστραγάλων, 2. x. χειριδωτόν,
% (Aus29 11.209 (‘with sleeves’), T° "5ΒῚ xnm3, ete. In 2 Sa. 13,
(ΔῈ and ὦ curiously change sides (x. καρπωτός, talaris tunica,
[Aaborto bu2a0 [= tunica striata]). The real meaning is deter-
mined by NH a Aram. 03 (Dn. 5ὅ- 3) τε θεν, Ezk. 473; see Bevan,
Dan. 100.—4. Yn8?] Heb. MSS χα y23; $ ods Base: —oby jaa]
On the suff., see G-K. § 115. But no nee case occurring of 737 with
acc. of pers. addressed (Nu. 26° is corrupt), Gu. points 133 (‘could not
take his matter peaceably’), Kit. em. "9 Ὁ rad (the 5 might be omitted:
XXXVII. 3-13 445
ably] or, ‘salute him.’ The text is doubtful (v.z.).—5-II.
Joseph’s dreams (E).—6, 7. The first dream—a harvest scene
—represents Jacob’s family as agriculturists (see on 261) ;
in vv. 138. 4631 they are shepherds. There may be some
hint of the immediate cause of its fulfilment, a failure of the
harvest (Gu.), 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 N Israel (Ju. 1).—9. The second dream pre-
sages Joseph’s elevation not only over his brothers, but over
his father (Ho.), z.e. Israel collectively.—eleven stars] Sup-
posed by some to be an allusion to the signs of the Zodiac
(De. Gu. al., cf. Je. ATZO*, 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 pp. 534f.) ;
the absence of the art. here makes it, however, at least im-
probable that the theory was in the mind of the writer.—
II. envied is the appropriate word for E’s account, as ‘hated’
(v.*) is for J’s (ὃ and ® are redactional).—hzs father kept the
matter (in mind) ] && διετήρησεν. Ch ΕΙΣ σοι
While significant dreams bulk largely in E’s Joseph-narrative
(ch. 40 f.), it is characteristic of this section of the work that the dreams
contain no oracular revelations (like 20% 311*4), but have a meaning
in themselves which is open to human interpretation. The religious
spirit of these chapters (as also of ch. 24), both in J and E, 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 OT religion
than the bulk of the patriarchal legends.
12-17. Jacob sends Joseph to inquire after his
brethren.—12, 13a, 14b J || 13b, 1464 E (see the analysis
see Ex. 2° etc.).—5b is out of place before the telling of the dream, and is
om. by @.—7. Ins. ‘non at the beginning, with Ox.—nbx] dar. dey. ; mpbe,
Ps. 126°}.—8b. Another redactional addition, though found in (τ ; note
the pl. ‘dreams’ when only one has been told.—1oa. "n’—"50" is an in-
terpolation intended to explain what immediately follows. (ἴα omits, and
seeks to gain the same end by inserting 1 72x> before nx) in 9,
12-14 is composite. 5x w shows that 12: 186. belong to J; and ‘7
shows that 130 is from E (cf. 22"7 4 27! 314). Hence 1 15 not a specifi-
446 JOSEPH BROUGHT TO EGYPT (JE)
below). In J, Jacob is dwelling in the vale of Hebron; the
sons have gone to Skechem. If the incident of ch. 34 belonged
to the same cycle of tradition, the brethren would perhaps
hardly have ventured into the neighbourhood of Shechem so
soon (see p. 418); though it has been argued that this very
circumstance accounts for Jacob’s solicitude. In E we find
no indication of either the starting-point or the goal of the
journey. I4a suggests that the flocks were at some distance
from Jacob’s home: possibly the narrative is based on a
stratum of E in which Jacob’s permanent residence was at
Bethel (see on 35').—15-17. The man who directs Joseph to
Dothan is not necessarily a neighbour of the family who knew
Joseph by sight (Gu.); nor is the incident a faded version of
a theophany (Ho. Ben.): it is simply a vivid description of
the uncertainty of Joseph’s persistent search for his brethren.
—D6éthan (2 Ki. 6%, Jth. 3° 4° 718) is the modern Tell
Dothan, near Genin, about 15 miles N of Shechem. Some
local legend may have connected it with the history of Joseph.
16:17 would be a sufficiently natural continuation of 14 (J), and Gu.’s
conjecture (above) establishes no presumption to the contrary. They
may, however, be from E: in this case it is probable that E did not
mention Shechem at all, nor J Dothan,
18-30. The plot to murder Joseph frustrated by
Reuben (E), or Judah (J).—18a, 19, 20 E || 18b J.
Common to both sources is the proposal to kill Joseph; E
develops it most fully, revealing the motive of the crime and
cation, but a variant, of 1533, continuing %%, 14> obviously follows 134,—12,
DX] with puncta extraordinaria, because for some reason the text was
suspected.—14. j)03n poyn (23% 15] The words might be a gloss based on
P (45. 49°" 50") ; but Steuernagel’s proposal to remove them (Zinw. 36)
takes too little account of the fragmentariness of J’s narrative in ch. 35 ;
and Gu.’s argument that the journey was too long for a young lad is
weak.—17. ‘nyow) αὐ onynw.—azn, 171] The form with " is the older
(cf. Eg. Tu-ti-y-na, Miiller, AZ, 88), the other an accommodation to a
common nominal termination. The ending }}— is not dual, but an old
(Aram..?) locative corresponding to Heb. 3"-- (see pp. 342f.; Barth,
NB, 319°; G-K. 8 88 ὁ).
18a and 18ba are obviously doublets; the analysis adopted above
gives the simplest arrangement.—1>23:n] ‘acted craftily,’ only found in
late writings (Nu. 2518, Mal. 114, Ps. 105+), but the ,/ occurs in Aram.
XXXVIL 14-250 447
the device by which it was to be concealed.—IQ. yon master-
dreamer] a mocking epithet ; cf. 390. 20. and throw him (his
dead body) zzto one of the 2115] The idea would suit either
narrative; and we cannot be sure that the indefinite ‘one
of the pits’ does not come from J (see ”).—2rI J ||22 E. In
21 we must read Judah for Reuben.—and delivered him out of
their hand| is premature (v.”°): the clause might stand
more naturally in J between * and 35, though the rest of the
v. must be left where it is (so Gu.).—we will not kill
him outright] Judah has as yet no counter-proposal.—2z2.
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 (4").—/¢hzs 212] a particular cistern
which Reuben knew to be empty of water (74>). It is prob-
able that one of the numerous pits round Dothan was tradi-
tionally associated with the fate of Joseph (Gu.): cf. the
Khan Gubb Visuf near Safed, incorrectly identified with the
Dothan cistern (BR, ii. 418 f.).—24 (E).—25-27, 2846 (J).
The fate of Joseph is apparently still undecided, when Judah
makes an appeal to the cupidity of his brothers (what profit,
etc. 5), by proposing to sell him to some passing Ishmaelites.
—25. acaravan .. . 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, GP,
127). Shechem also lies on several routes from the E of the
Jordan to the coast.—The natural products mentioned (v.z.)
were much in request in Egypt for embalming, as well as
and Ass.—On the accus., see G-K. § 117 w.—19. mbna bya] The render-
ing above is a little too strong ; for the use of y2 as ‘n. of relation,’ see
BDB, 127 b.—21. w5i 1323] Second acc. of respect, G-K. § 117 //.—22.
ma narbs] (ἴ els ἕνα τῶν λάκκων, a false assimilation to v.%.—23.
wanznx] Grom. It is impossible to say whether this and the following
appositional phrase are variants from E and J respectively, or whether
the second is a (correct) gloss on J. BD combines both in the rendering
tunica talari et polymita.—25. on>-baxd raw] Assigned by many critics
(Di. al.) to E, and certainly not necessary in J. But we still miss a
statement in E that the brothers had moved away from the pit.—nx23
(43! t)] supposed to be ‘gum-tragacanth’; Ar. xaka at.—3[3]="x] the
resinous gum for which Gilead was famous (43", Jer. 8° 46" 515,
Ezk. 2717+); possibly that exuded by the mastic-tree ; but see ZB, 465 f.
448 JOSEPH BROUGHT TO EGYPT (JE)
for medicinal and other purposes.—26. cover his blood] Ezk.
24", Is. 2671, Jb. 16'°.—28. ¢wenty (shekels) of silver] cf. Lv.
27° with Ex. 21°? (see Dri.).—28aab, 29, 30 (E). 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 interest-
ing to note his own later confusion of the intention with the
AGE, 1Π| 2 5:
That the last section is from another source than 55:27 appears from
(a) the different designation of the merchants, (ὁ) the absence of the art.
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 subj. of 1$yn Ἰ2 2), against the natural
construction of the sentence.
31-36. The deceiving of Jacob.—3I1, 32. Gu. remarks
that the sending of a bloody token is a favourite motive in
popular tales. Whether the incident is peculiar to J, or
common to J and E, can hardly be determined (v.z.)—33. an
evil beast has devoured him| Exactly as v.2° (E). A slight
change of text in * (v.z.) would enakle us to take the words
as spoken by the sons to Jacob (so Gu.). 34, 35. The grief
of Jacob is depicted in both sources, but with a difference.
E (42 35>) hardly goes beyond the conventional signs of
mourning—‘ the trappings and the suits of woe’; but J
(34>. 352) dwells on the inconsolable and life-long sorrow of
—v (43 +)] Gk. λήδανον, Lat. ladanum, the gum of a species of cistus-
rose (ZB, 2692 f.). Mentioned amongst objects of Syrian tribute (adunu)
by Tiglath-pileser 1v. (KAZ, 151).—27. ovoxynerS] Gr+abya. The word
is apparently used in the general sense of ‘ Bedouin,’ as Ju. 8™ (cf.
6! etc.): see on 16%,—7w13] s2x€rSP prefix 1.—28b is assigned to E
because of 18°32», J using 17 in this connexion (* 39! 43 etc.).—29. 7]
(ἃ οὐχ ὁρᾷ.
3k. The reason for assigning the v. to J (Gu.) is the precarious as-
sumption that Joseph’s coat plays no part at all in E. There is a good
deal to be said for the view that it belongs to E (Di. Ho. al.).—32. wa]
Gu. 3x)11, ‘and they came’ (see on * above), which would be an excellent
continuation of #1; in E they dip the coat in blood, come to their father,
and say ‘an evil beast,’ etc. ; in J they sexd the coat unstained, and let
Jacob form his own conclusion.—In any case 19 1N’2 is E’s parallel to J's
42 1ndwy,—Ns-720 (cf. 38”), and the disjunctive question (cf. 18?! 2421) point
distinctly to J (Di.).—nanaz] G-K. § roo 7.—33. After 23, χα θα δό ins. Ν᾽ Π, τς
XXXVII. 26-36 449
the bereaved father. This strain of pathos and subjectivity
is very marked in J in the Joseph narratives.—vent his
clothes . . . put on sackcloth| On these customs, the origin
of which is still obscure, see Schw. Leben 2. d. Tode, 11 ff. ;
Griineisen, Ahnencultus, 61 ff.; Engert, Zhe- τι. Familienrecht,
96 ff.—34b. PaNni, chiefly used in reference to the dead, in-
cludes the outward tokens of mourning: Ex. 33*, 2 Sa. 14?;
cf. Is. 61°, Ps. 35!*.—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 (v.*), and the assump-
tion that Rachel was still alive (10).--ρὸ down ...asa
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 (Gu.). The shade was believed to appear in
She’ol in the condition in which it left the world (Schw. 63 f.).
—36 (E) resuming *>. See, further, on 391.
Cu. XXXVIII.—/udah and Tamar (J).
Judah, separating himself from his brethren, marries a
Canaanitish wife, who bears to him three sons, ‘Er, Onan
and Shélah (1°). “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 (7°). With the birth of her twin sons, Perez and
Zerah, the narrative closes (231-30),
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 v.!); the mixed origin of its
leading families ; the extinction of the two oldest clans ‘Er and 'Onan;
the rivalry of the younger branches, Perez and Zerah, ending in the
Ab Aw] cf. 4438. On inf. abs. Qal used with Pu., see G-K. § 113 w.—
35. Dp] Ck συνήχθησαν δέ, adding καὶ ἦλθον before 19n19.—36. o's1Dm] Rd.
with all Vns. Ὁ)" 27) as ν. 33;
ΞΘ
450 JUDAH AND TAMAR (J)
supremacy of the former ; and (possibly) the superiority of these two (as
sons of Judah) to the more ancient Shelah (his grandson). See Steuer-
nagel, Einw. 79f.; 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 P, who had both before him,
represents Judah and his sons as afterwards accompanying Jacob to
Egypt (4613), 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 descend-
ants (see pp. 418, 507).—On some touches of mythological colouring in
the story of Tamar, see below, pp. 452, 454.
Source.—The chapter is a pure specimen of Yahwistic narration, free
from redactional manipulation. The following characteristics of J may
be noted: mm, 72; sya yr, 1 10; xxnan, 18; xan, 35 (3732); parbyna, 8;
yr, ©; further, the naming of the children by the mother, *°; and the
resemblance of *f to 254%. Since the sequence of 39! on 37°° would be
harsh, it is probable that ch. 38 was inserted here by RJE (Ho.).
1-5. Judah founds a separate family at Adullam.—1r.
went down from his brethren| Since the chapter has no con-
nexion with the history of Joseph, we cannot tell when or
where the separation is conceived to have taken place. From
the situation of ‘Adullam, it is clear that some place in the
central highlands is indicated. Adullam is fosszbly ‘/d el-
Miye (or “Aid el-Ma), on the border of the Shephelah, 12 m.
SW of Bethlehem and 7 NE of Eleutheropolis (Buhl, GP,
193; Smith, HG, 229). It is marked on the Pal. Surv. map
as 1150 ft. 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 Ju. 1°* ;
in the song of Deborah (Ju. 5) Judah is not mentioned either for praise
or blame; and his reunion with Israel is prayed for in Dt. 337. The
rupture of the Davidic kingdom, and the permanent cleavage between
south and north, are perhaps in part a consequence of the stronger
1. ©] Gr ἀφίκετο : the precise force here of 783, ‘turn aside,’ is doubt-
ful. The change of Ἵν to 9x (Ba.) is unnecessary (cf. 1 Sa. 93).
XXXVIII. 1-10 451
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 Hirah; but Mey. (ΓΛ,
435f.) 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 1 (ct. oy, Ju.
14); but were Judah’s brethren ever settled at Bethlehem? Gu.'s
emendation, 17, ‘freed himself’ (see on 27°; cf. Hos. 12"), would relieve
the difficulty, but is too bold for a plain prose narrative.
2. Amore permanent amalgamation with the Canaanites
is represented by Judah’s marriage with Bath-Shia‘ or Bath-
Sheva (See on v."). The freedom with which connubium
with the Canaanites is acknowledged (ct. 34. 24°) may be a
proof of the antiquity of the source (Ho. Gu.).—5b. 7 Késib,
etc.| It is plausibly inferred that Kézib (= ’Aésib, an un-
known locality in the Shephelah, Jos. 15**, Mic. 113) was the
centre of the clan of Shelah; though (| makes all three
births happen there.
6-11. Tamar’s wrong.—6. Tamar, the Heb. word for
date-palm, occurs twice as a female name in David’s family
(2 Sa. 13! 142”). There is therefore little probability that it
is here a personification of the city of the same name on the
S border of Palestine (Ezk. 471°) (so Steuernagel). A mytho-
logical origin is suggested on p. 452 below.—As head of the
family, Judah chooses a wife for his first-born (24° 34* 217"),
as he is also responsible for the carrying out of the levirate
obligation (8 1).—7. No crime is alleged against “Er, whose
untimely death was probably the only evidence of Yahwe’s
displeasure with him (Pr. 10%7).—8-10. ’Ondn, on the other
hand, is slain because of the revolting manner in which he
2. You] Oe πριν, See on v.!2.—3. ΚῚΡῚ] Better as v.45 xnpm (22D
Heb. MSS).—5. abv] (τ Σηλώμ ; comp. the gentilic bg, Nu. 26?,—rm]
is impossible, and 1» ‘7 little better. Rd. with @ xm,—2123] ax 72133,
cf. 8213, 1 Ch. 422,—1nx] @& onk.—Nothing can be made of the strange
renderings of ὅν in $ and BD: oN. 2 Lom Aamo; quo nato
parere ultra cessavit (cf. 2935 30°).—7. mn] Ok ὁ 6e6s.—8. 03%] Dt. 25° 7+;
denom. from 03}, the ferm. techn. for ‘husband's brother’ in relation to
the levirate institution.—g. ox 7m] ‘as often as’; G-K. § 159 0.—nn¥
(sc. semen)] in the sense of ‘spoil,’ ‘make ineffective’ (BDB).—jp3 for
na] only again Nu. 207; comp. 757, Ex. 3%, Nu. 221° 116,30, avy we]
Gi, pr. 1370.
452 JUDAH AND TAMAR (1)
persistently evaded the sacred duty of raising up seed to his
brother. It is not correct to say (with Gu.) that his only
offence was his selfish disregard of his deceased brother’s
interests.—II. 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.—zn thy Sather’s
house| according to the law for a childless widow (Lv. 2218,
Rui);
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 ot the union is counted
the son, and is the heir, to the deceased ; and although in Dt. 25°% 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, AZ*, 146 ff.}; and it naturally tended to be
relaxed with the advance of civilisation. Hence the law of Dt. 2 τ
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 Dri. Deut. 280 ff. (with the
authorities there cited); also Engert, Ehe- und Familienrecht, MG ΠῸ :
Barton, 50), 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 Je.
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
(3°). Tamar and Sara (Sarratu, a title of Star) were originally forms of
IStar (A 7105, 381 f.). The connexion is possible; and if there be any
truth in Barton's speculation that the date-palm was sacred to [Star (501,
92, 98, 102 ff.), it might furnish an explanation of the name Tamar.
12-19. Tamar’s daring stratagem.—12. Bath-Shia'
See the footnote.—was comforted] a conventional phrase for
11. °3¥, 2n}] Ba. al. propose ‘2¥, 3¥m, after Lv. 223; but see Is. 47°.
—12. yeni] Apparently a compound proper name, as in 1 Ch. 23 =
XXXVIII. 11-18 453
the effect of the mourning ceremonies; see Jer. 167.—The
death of Judah’s wife is mentioned as a palliation of his
subsequent behaviour: ‘‘even in early times it was con-
sidered not quite comme il faut for a married man to have
intercourse with harlots” (Gu.).—On the sheep-shearing, see
311°. Hirah his associate] (see v.') is mentioned here because
of the part he has to play in the story (vv.7°*).—went up...
to Timnah| This cannot be the Danite Timnah (Jos. 151° τοῦ,
Ju. 14125), which lies lower than ‘Adullam. Another Timnah
S of Hebron (Jos. 15°”), but unidentified, might be meant ;
or it may be the modern 7 Ζόγιο, W of Bethlehem, though
this is only 4 m. from ‘Adullam, and room has to be found
for ‘Enaim between them (but v.z. on v.!*).—14. her widow's
garments] Cf. Jth. 8° τοῦ 168.—She assumes the garb of a
common prostitute, and sits, covered by ¢he veil (see below
on v.*), by the wayside; cf. Jer. 37, Ezk. 16%, Ep. Jer. 43.
—I5. for she had covered her face| This explains, not Judah’s
failure to recognise her, but his mistaking her for a harlot
(see v.1°),—17. @ kid of the goats| Cf. Ju. 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 (Paus. vi. 25. 2 [with Frazer’s Note, vol. iv. 106]; cf.
Tac. Hist. 2, 3, and Lucian, Dial. meretr. 7. 1) (Kn-Di.).
—1I8. The master-stroke of Tamar’s plot is the securing of
a pledge which rendered the identification of the owner
yav-na (cf. 1 Ch. 35 with 2 Sa. 11% etc.), through an intermediate yw-na.
(hk, both here and v.? (but mot 1 Ch. 23), gives yw as the name of Judah’s
wifey] GP sys, ‘his shepherd,’ wrongly.—13. ΠῚ ‘husband's
father,’ 1 Sa. 4!%2!+. Smith (AJZ°, 161f.) finds in the Arabic usage a
distinct trace of baal-polyandry; the correlative is kanma, “‘ which
usually means the wife of a son or brother, but in the Ham§asa is used
. to designate one’s own wife.” —14. Ὁ351] so Dt. 2212, Jon. 3°. Read
either opm, Niph. (Gu.), or 0>pm, Hithp., with w. (as 24).—ory nnpa] 3
ἾΔ..»ο] Δα. \ao, Ἐ in bivio itineris, and TI take the meaning to
be ‘at the cross-roads’ (of which there are several on the short way
from ‘Aid el-Ma to Tibne). The sense is good, and it is tempting to
think that these Vns are on the right track, though their rendering has
no support in Heb. usage. If 0 sy be a proper name it may be identical
with the unknown o2y of Jos. 15°4, in the Shephelah.—\9 37; XD wm] G&
YD myn, ND RIM), better.—15 end] G& + καὶ οὐκ ἐπέγνω αὐτήν
454 JUDAH AND TAMAR (J)
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 (Herod. i. 195)* and
Egyptians (Erman, ZAZ, 228f.). The cord may have been
used to suspend the seal, as amongst modern town Arabs
(Robinson, BR, i. 36), or may have had magical properties
like those occasionally worn by Arab men (We. Heid. 166).
For illustrations of ancient Hebrew seals, see Benzinger,
Arch.” 82, 179 f., 228 ff.
20-23. Judah fails to recover his pledge.—2o. It is
significant that Judah employs his fidus Achates Hirah in
this discreditable affair, and will rather lose his seal, etc.,
than run the risk of publicity (ν.38).- 21. Where ἐς that
Kédéshah ?| strictly ‘ sacred prostitute,’—one ‘ dedicated’ for
this purpose to IStar-Astarte, or some other deity (Dt. 2338,
Hos.43*7).
This is the only place where mw7p appears to be used of an ordinary
harlot ; and Luther (ZS, 180) points out that it is confined to the con-
versation of Hirah with the natives, the writer using 1. The code of
Hammurabi (§ 110) seems to contemplate the case of a temple-votary
(kadistu, KAT*, 423 ; ATLO}, 380) separating herself for private prosti-
tution ; and it is possible that this custom was familiar to the Canaanites,
though not in Israel.—That the harlot’s veil (vv. 19) was a symbol of
dedication to [Star the veiled goddess (KA 75, 276, 432; 4710, 109) is
possible, though it is perhaps more natural to suppose that the veiling
of IStar is an idealisation of the veiling of her votaries, which rests on a
primitivé sexual taboo (cf. the bridal veil 24%).
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, Dt. 222! 24,—Jet her
be burnt] Death by burning is the punishment imposed in
Hammurabi, ὃ 157, for incest with a mother, and was doubt-
21. ADPD] anGkS opor (v.”). If this reading be accepted, there is no
reason to hold that oy (if a place-name at all) was Tamar’s native
village.—xi7] ax x77; but see 19% etc. —24. wbvp>] «2 more correctly
ny dvb,
* 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 oxnrtpov.—Similarly Strabo, XVI. i. 20.
XXXVIII. 19-28 455
less the common punishment for adultery on the part of a
woman in ancient Israel. In later times the milder penalty
of stoning was substituted (Lv. 20%, Dt. 22%, Ezk. 16%,
Jn. 8°), the more cruel death being reserved for the prostitu-
tion of a priest’s daughter (Lv. 21°; cf. Hamm. ὃ 11o0).—25.
By waiting till the last moment, Tamar makes her justifica-
tion as public and dramatically complete as possible. Ad-
dressing the crowd she says, Zo 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 (G-K. ὃ 133 6°; cf. Jb. 417 32%)] ze., her
conduct is justified by the graver wrong done to her by
Judah.
To suppose that incidents like that recorded in 15:36 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 Gu. 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 deter-
mination 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 (cf. Ru. 4°).
27-30. Birth of Perez and Zerah.—The story closely
resembles that of Rebekah in 252426 (2851 = 2574), and is
probably a variation of the same originally mythical theme
(see p. 359)-—28. The scarlet thread probably represents
some feature of the original myth (note that in 25” ‘ the first
25. On the syntax, see G-K. §§ 116 u, v, 1426; Dri. 7. § 166 ff.—
Ὁ} Ὁ] st. constr. with cl. as gen. ; Ho. al. point wxd.—nonna] fem. only
here.—D>nDa} σαὐ τ HST Sen (45 v.18).—26. 1: ».3] see on 18°.—28.
ayn] sc. jnia (G-K. § 144 6) ; Gr+o εἷς.
456 JOSEPH’S TEMPTATION (1)
came out ved’). The forced etymology of Zerah (v.89) could
not have suggested it.—29. What a breach hast thou made
for thyself!| The name Perez expresses the violence with
which he secured the priority.—30. Zerah] An Edomite
clan in 3615. 33, On the etymology, v.72.
To the name Perez, Cheyne (7B/, 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 Jsid. et Os. c. 12).—The ascendancy of
the Perez clan has been explained by the incorporation of the powerful
families of Caleb and Jerahmeel, 1 Ch. 25:9 (so Sta. GVY, i. 158 f.); but
a more obvious reason is the fact that David’s ancestry was traced to
this branch (Ru. 48:22).
Cu. XXXIX.
Joseph ts cast into Prison (J).
Joseph is sold by the Ishmaelites (377 86) to an Egyptian
householder, who finds him so capable and successful that ere
long he entrusts him with the whole administration of his
estate (15). 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°), Here again he wins the favour of his
superior, and is soon charged with the oversight of the
prison (7-23),
Source.—With the exception of a harmonising gloss in 1%, and a
sprinkling of E variants (discussed in the notes), the whole passage is
from J. It represents the chief divergence between the two recensions
of the history of Joseph. In J, Joseph is first sold to a private Egyptian
(70sD wx, v.’), 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
29. 1'¥2> 7] An ungrammatical use of the ptcp. Rd. with Ball
awit ipa "ΠῚ (cf. 19!).—p15—ns15] cogn. acc. The rendering as a question
(no=‘why’: De. Di. Dri.) is less natural than that given above; and
to detach pr 7» [su 1"9y] as a separate exclamation (‘A breach upon
thee !’) is worse. (ἃ (ri διεκόπη διὰ σὲ φραγμός ;) PS take the vb. in a
pass. sense,—n7p"] 2 STI xripm (so v.*").—30. 123] as a Heb. word would
mean ‘rising’ (of the sun, Is 60%) or ‘autochthonous’ (=n7x). A con-
nexion with the idea of ‘redness’ is difficult to establish. It is com-
monly supposed that there is a play on the Aram, xn‘m (which is used
here by S@°, and is the equivalent of Heb. 3%), and Bab. zaguritu (so
De. Dri. Gu. al.); but this is not convincing.
XXXVIII. 29-—XXXIX. 4 457
charge. In E, Joseph is sold at once to Potiphar (37°), the palace officer
in whose house the butler and baker are afterwards confined (40**) ; and
Joseph, without being himself a prisoner, is told off to wait on these
eminent persons (40'), The imprisonment, therefore, is indispensable in
J, and at least embarrassing in E.—This conclusion is partly confirmed
by the literary phenomena: m7, 2. 8. δ, the Ishmaelites, 1; wn7,1; msz,
8.23; in περ, 4; 25, 5. It is somewhat disconcerting to find that none
of these occur in the central section, **°; and (We. Com#.* 56) positively
assigns 519 to E, because of the phrases AND 75) Wn 75‘, 8 (cf. 2917); "ΠῚ
4a oan ’x, 7 (cf. 15! 221: 2 go! 48!) ; 17, 4; and onde, 9 These are not
decisive (see Di. 403; Ho. 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 1:10 to E and 11- to
J; 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 (37°14); the
notice resumes 377*.—a certain Egyptian] who is nameless
in J (v.z.).—2. The secret of Joseph’s success: a combination
of ability with personal charm which marked him out as a
favourite of Yahwe (cf. * δ 7!:28),—vemained in the house, etc.|
under his master’s observation, instead of being sent to
work in the field.—4a. served him] 1.6., ‘became his personal
I. The words Ὁ π38Π---θ᾽ 5 are a repetition by RJE from 37* (E), in
order to harmonise the two sources. But the contradiction appears
(1) in the meaningless “> wx 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]).—75'»5)] Gh Πετεῴρη[5], an exact transcription of
Eg. Pedephré=‘He whom the sun-god gives’ (see DB, i. 665b ; EB,
3814); but the long o of the Heb. has not been explained. Cf. Heyes,
105-112.---Ὁ. 7 means ‘eunuch’ in NH. Aram. Arab. (as is shown by the
denom. vbs.=‘be impotent’), and there is no case in OT where the
strict sense is inapplicable (Ges. Zh. 973 Ὁ). 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 Sa vé§7= ‘he who is the head’ (Zimmern,
ZDMG, liii. 116; KAT*, 649).—ona07 Ww] Cr ἀρχιμάγειρος, a title like w
popyon and omen ’v in ch. 40 (Ε). Cf. ‘na an, 2 Ki. 255%, Jer. 39° 4015:
etc., Dn. 24. The ona» were apparently the royal cooks or butchers
(1 Sa. 9”), who had come fo be the bodyguard (Smith, O7/C?, 2621),—
2. mbs> wx] The intrans. Hiph. is thought by Di. Gu. ak. to be incon-
sistent with J’s usage (vv.* * 2471); therefore E.—4. v2 y3] «αὐ ἘΠ xya
ΣΝ. -- τ 37] ax inserts wx as v.5%*8,—_4a is wholly assigned to E by
458 JOSEPH’S TEMPTATION (J)
attendant.’—The phrase is a variant from E (cf. 404).—ab.
In J, Joseph’s position is far higher, that, namely, of mer-per
(mer-pa, mer en peri-t, etc.), or superintendent of the house-
hold, frequently mentioned in the inscriptions (Ebers, Aeg.
303 ff.; Erman, ZAZ, 187 f.).—6a. knew not with him] (1.6.
with Joseph [ν.3]}: ‘held no reckoning with him’;—a
hyperbolical expression for absolute confidence.—6b is intro-
ductory to “*-,
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 Pr.
I-g.—Qa. 13)'8 does not mean ‘there is none’ (which would
require ?X), but ‘he is not.’—gb. siz 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.—II, 12. The final tempta-
tion.—On the freedom of social intercourse between the
sexes, see Ebers, 306f. But the difficulties raised about
Joseph’s access to the harem do not really arise, when we
remember that J is depicting the life of a simple Egyptian
family, and not that of a high palace official (see Tu.).—
13-20. The woman’s revenge.—1I4. 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
Gu. ; but jn xson pleads strongly for J.—8. 7D] xx πριν (v.%),—n33]
wx SH w23.—r10. mdse ποϑῦ and πὸ nvnd look like variants; but one
swallow does not make a summer, and it would be rash to infer an
Elohistic recension.—II. m5 073) A very obscure expression, see BDB,
4o0b, Of the other occurrences (Dt. 6%, Jer. 44”, Ezr. 9? , Neh. 919}} 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
op, and mm ΟἿ (cf. esp. 1 Sa. 22°: 13), had acquired some elusive idiomatic
meaning which we cannot recover. Neither ‘on a certain day’ (G-K.
§ 126 5) nor ‘on this particular day’ (BDB) can be easily justified. —13.
p31] MSS andi + xxv (1215), — 14, a pox>] see on 268.—15. sx] wSH
(pallium quod tenebam) read ‘'3,—wrongly, since to have said this
XXXIX. 4-21 459
Bedouin (A 7105, 387); but see on 40}5.-- το. 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 (De. Di.).—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 Hamm. § 129) is not
indicated (against Je. 47.103, 388). The term for prison
(v.z.) is peculiar, and recurs only 71: 25: 23 403. 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 re-
mainder being fairy lore of the most fantastic description, containing
at least a reminiscence of the Osiris myth. (See Ebers, 311 ff. ; Erman,
LAE, 378 ff. ; Petrie, Egypt. Tales, ii. 36 ff. ; Volter, deg. τι. 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.
21-23. Joseph in prison.—His good fortune and con-
would have been to betray herself (De. Di.).—17 end] Gi + καὶ εἶπέν μοι
Κοιμηθήσομαι μετά σου [τὰ Κοιμήθητι μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ].---18. "2.73 7] Ck ὡς δὲ
ἤκουσεν ὅτι ὕψωσα. ---Ὁ}}} GS+xs.—2o. wor m3] Only in 30:38. 403: ὅ (J),
The name may be Egyptian (see Ebers, 317 ff. ; Dri. DB, ii. γ68 4, τ:.),
but has not been satisfactorily explained.—ws mp2] G-K. § 130¢—
*708] so wx (and also in v.”) ; but rd. with Qré ‘Worx (**).—2z. un jn] (as
460 JOSEPH IN PRISON (E)
sequent promotion are described in terms nearly identical
with those of vv.'6.—In J, the governor of the prison is
anonymous, and Joseph is made superintendent of the
other prisoners.
Cu. XL.—/oseph proves his Gift of interpreting Dreams (E).
Joseph is appointed to wait on two officers of the court
who have been put under arrest in his master’s house (1 ἢ),
and finds them one morning troubled by dreams for which
they have no interpreter (°°). He interprets the dreams
(919), which are speedily verified by the event ?). But
his eager request that the chief butler would intercede for
him with Pharaoh (14) remains unheeded (”*).
Source.—The main narrative, as summarised above, obviously be-
longs to E (see p. 456f.). Joseph is not a prisoner (as in J 39°"), but
the servant of the captain of the guard (cf. 37°° 411"); the officers are
not strictly imprisoned, but merely placed ‘in ward’ (12v>D3) in Potiphar’s
house (* 4-7) ; and Joseph was ‘stolen’ from his native land (1** ; cf. 37784),
not sold by his brethren as 377” (J).—Fragments of a parallel narrative
in J can be detected in ™8" (a duplicate of 2), 988 (from “πὶ πον) ἢ
(Joseph a prisoner), ὅν (the officers imprisoned), and .—In the
phraseology note J’s spwna, 75xa, 1. ὅν || E’s oxpeon ww, open ‘vy, % 9. 16. 20. 51.
22.23; J anpn nva, 398: 50 || E apwn, 30-47; while onanm ww, * 4, and ono, “7,
connect the main narrative with 37°° (E).—That in J 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 (41148 J).
1-8. Pharaoh’s officers in disgrace: their dreams.
—I. the butler . . . the baker| J writes as if the king had
only one servant of each class: his notions of a royal
establishment are perhaps simpler than E’s. In Babylonia
the highest and oldest court offices are said to have been
those of the baker and the butler (A 7205, 54; cf. Zimmern,
ZDMG, liii. 119 f.).—2. chief of the butlers . . . bakers (E)|
Ex. 32 11° 12°*+) gen. of obj.=‘favour towards him.’—22. oy] On
omission of subj., see G-K. § 116 s.—avy ma syn] G4 om.—23. 113]
Ck πάντα γὰρ ἣν διὰ χειρὸς ᾽1.---π᾽ yn] (τ + ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ.
I, n5xm—x7pvp] On the synt., see G-K. §§ 128 a, 129; Dav. § 27 (8):
cf. v.5,—2. Asp is the regular continuation of the time-clause in (E).—
γ᾽ 2] with so-called gamez impurum ; so always except in const. st.
XXXIX. 22-XL. 11 461
The rise of household slaves to high civil dignity seems to
have been characteristic of the Egyptian government under
the 19th dynasty (Erman, ZA, 105). Titles corresponding
to those here used are ‘scribe of the sideboard,’ ‘ superin-
tendent of the bakehouse,’ etc. (Erman, 187).—3a. The
officers are not incarcerated, but merely detained in custody
pending investigation (Gu.).—3b (J). bound] t.e. ‘confined’ ;
cf. 39”!.—4. Joseph is charged with the duty of waiting on
them (NW as 39', 2 Sa. 131. 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 tdem per idem con-
struction, meaning that the dreams had each a peculiar
significance.—5b (J).—8. πο one to interpret it| No pro-
fessional interpreter, such as they would certainly have
consulted had they been at liberty.—znterpretations belong
to God| The maxim is quite in accord with Egyptian
sentiment (Herod. ii. 83), but in the mouth of Joseph it
expresses the Hebrew idea that inspiration comes directly
from God and is not a m9 OWIN MD (Is. 291°).
On the Egyptian belief in divinely inspired dreams, see Ebers, 321 f. ;
Wiedemann, Rel. of the Ancient Eg. 266 ff.; Heyes, 174ff.: on the
belief in classical antiquity, Hom. 21. ii. 5-34, Od. iv. 795 ff. ; Cicero,
De divin. i. ὃ 39 ff. etc. ; in modern Egypt, Lane, 275, i. 330. While
this idea was fully shared by the Israelites, the zxterpretation of dreams,
as a distinct art or gift, is rarely referred to in OT (only in the case of
Joseph, and that of Daniel, which is largely modelled on it). Elsewhere
the dream either con¢ains the revelation (20° etc.), or carries its sig-
nificance on its face (28 371), See Sta. B7h. § 63. 1.
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
(407 etc.).—3. 12v01] Better perhaps 7pwna (cf. v.4), with ma as acc. of
place. So v.7.—4. 0'»’=‘ for some time’; G-K. § 139 4.—6. 4y1] ‘be fret-
ful’ ; elsewhere late (Dn. 17°, Pr. 19%, 2 Ch. 26!*+).—8. }'x 1nd] On the
order, G-K. § 152 0.— 02795] G& oyine.
10. ΠΠῚΞ3 xm] Not ‘when it budded’ (T°), for such a use of 3 with
a ptcp. (G-K. § 164 9) is dubious even in the Mishnah (QR, 1908, 697 f.).
If the text be retained we must render ‘as if budding’ (Dri. 7. p. 172).
462 JOSEPH IN PRISON (ΕἸ
it to Pharaoh, —a mixture of the ‘realistic’ and the ‘ fantas-
tic’ which belongs to the psychology of the dream (Gu.).
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” (Ben. ; so Gu.).
On the other hand, Ebers (Durch Gosen 5. Sinaz*, 492) cites
two texts in which a beverage prepared by squeezing grapes
into water is mentioned.—I2, 13. The interpretation: the
butler will be restored to his office within three days.—/ift 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 Ki. 2577, Jer. 5231). —14, 15.
Joseph’s petition.—remember me] On the difficult construc-
tion, v.z.—from this house] Not the prison (as Vns., below),
but Potiphar’s house, where he was kept as a slave.—15a.
7 was stolen] cf. 37°°** (E).—the land of the Hebrews] The ex-
Ball emends (after G& καὶ αὐτὴ θάλλουσα) nD xm (cf. Jb. 14°, Ps. g214) ;
Kit. 47723.—7¥3] The masc. 73 does not occur (in this sense) in bib. Heb.,
and a contraction of Ap; to A+ is doubtful (G-K. § 91 e); hence it is
better to read Ay as acc.: ‘it (the vine) went up in blossom.’ It is pos-
sible that here and Is. 18° ny: means ‘berry-cluster’; see Derenbourg,
ZATW, v. 301 f.—1> wan] lit. ‘cooked’; Hiph. only here.—Note the
asyndetous construction, expressing the rapidity of the process.—13.
ἼΦΝΥΠΝ---Ν 85} (ἃ μνησθήσεται. . . τῆς ἀρχῆς cov; similarly Ἐ ΤΟ. - - 3] lit.
‘pedestal,’ used metaphorically as here in 41%, Dn. 117- 20-21. 384,_y4,
“IN737°ON 53] (ἃ ἀλλὰ μνήσθητί μου, D tantum memento mei; similarly $ and
f°. Something like this must be the meaning ; the difficulty is (since
a precative pf. is generally disallowed in Heb.) to fit the sense to any
known use of the bare pf. (qa) If it be pf. of certitude, the nearest analogy
seems to me to be Ju. 157, where 0x 3 has strong affirmative force, per-
haps with a suppressed adjuration, as 2 Ki. 57° (ΠΧ ox "3 man): ‘thou
wilt surely remember me.’ To supply a negative sent. like ‘I desire
nothing [except that thou remember me]’ (G-K. § 163d; De. Str.), destroys
the idea of pf. of certainty, and is a doubtful expedient for the additional
reason that OX 3 may mean ‘except,’ but hardly ‘except that.’ (8) It
may be fut. pf., in which case the 08 must have its separate conditional
sense ; and then it is better (with We.) to change ‘2 to 4x: ‘only, if thou
remember me.’ The objection (De. Di.) that the remembrance is too
XL. 12-19 463
pression is an anachronism in the patriarchal history. It is
barely possible that both here and in 3015 Ὁ (4112) there is a
faint reminiscence of the historical background of the legends,
the early occupation of Palestine by Hebrew tribes.—15b (J)
was probably followed in the original document by an ex-
planation of the circumstances which led to his imprison-
ment.—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 per-
formed the duties of his office, the baker only sought to do
so, and was prevented (Gu.).—16. three baskets of white
bread| The meaning of "In, however, is doubtful (υ.2.).--
upon my head] See the picture of the court-bakery of
Rameses ΠΙ. in Ebers, Aeg. 332; Erman, ZAZ, 191. Ac-
cording to Ebers, the custom of carrying on the head (Herod.
li. 35) was not usual in ancient Egypt excep¢ for bakers.—
17. in the uppermost basket] Were the other two empty (Ho.
Ben.) ? or were they filled with inferior bread for the court
(Gu.)?—all manner of bakemeats} The court-baker of
Rameses ΠΙ. ‘‘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 (cf. 1511); in the dream—and this is the ominous
circumstance—he cannot.—IQ. lift thy head from off thee]
In view of the fulfilment, it is perhaps better (with Ball) to
remove 7\5yn as a mistaken repetition of the last word of the
v., and to understand the phrase of the baker’s release from
prison (see on v.18), The verb hang may then refer to the
mode of execution, and not merely (as generally supposed)
essential an element of the request to be made a mere condition, has no
great weight ; and might be met by giving ox interrogative force (Ho.).
See, further, Dri. 7. § 119 (5).—xrnwy] The only case of consec. pf. fol-
lowed by xi (G-K. § 105 4).—amn marjp] G@HSTY seem to have read
ma WNaryD, or ΠῚΠ WOT map.—16. “h) dz. λεγ., commonly derived from
J, ‘be white’; so virtually G& Aq. PST) ; but T° ‘of nobility’ (77703).
Others (Ra. al.) understand it as a characteristic of the baskets: ‘ per-
forated’ (from in, ‘hole’). The Baiva (of palm-leaves) of >. seems to
464 JOSEPH’S ELEVATION (JE)
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 OT examples,
see Dt. 21".,| Jos, 10%, 2. Sai 4™, and esp. 95. ΣΤ
20-23. The dreams fulfilled.—20. That it was custom-
ary for the Pharaoh to celebrate his birthday by court
assemblies and granting of amnesties, is proved for the Ptole-
maic period by the tables of Rosetta and Canopus.—/zfted the
head] see on v.'®.—23. The notice of the butler’s ingratitude
forms an effective close, leaving the reader expectant of
further developments,
Cu. XLI. Joseph becomes Viceroy of Egypt (JE, P).
Two years after the events of ch. 40, the king of Egypt
has a wonderful double dream, which none of his magicians
is able to interpret (1). The chief butler is naturally re-
minded of his own experience, and mentions Joseph, who is
forthwith summoned into the royal presence (94). Having
interpreted the dreams as a prophecy of a great famine (15.533),
Joseph adds some sage advice on the right way to cope with
the emergency (35 56), 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 (?7-*). In
pursuance of the policy he had foreshadowed, Joseph stores
the surplus of seven years of plenty, and sells it during the
subsequent famine (57 51),
Analysis.—The connexion of this chapter with the preceding appears
from 15 and 9:18; note n\pwon Ww, DNA ‘vw, ὉΠ π ‘wv, ὙΦ, Asp (407); Joseph
rest on Aramaic (Field).—19. 1981] Om. by two MSS and Ἐ (Ba. Kit.).
—20. -nx nbn] as Ezk. 165; cf. G-K. § 69 w, 121 6.21. np¥D] is never
elsewhere used of the office of butler: perhaps ‘over his [Pharaoh’s]
drink’ (as we should say, ‘his cellar’), as Lv. 11%, 1 Ki. 10%, Is. 328
(so Ges. Zh., Di.).—23. 17n2v1] Expressing ‘‘a logical or necessary con-
sequence of that which immediately precedes” (G-K. § 111 2); cf. Dav.
ὃ 47:
XLI. 1-4 465
the servant of the ‘pn ‘yw; the officers confined in his ‘house’; Joseph
‘with them’ (°, cf. 40% 4); and comp. ™ with 405. In the first half of the
chapter there is no sufficient reason to suspect a second source except
in 4° (J); 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 (}*8) may therefore be safely assigned to E
(cf. omx ams y's), 8, ns ΓΝ nD, 15 with 4o%; 16 with qo*).—In the second
half, however, there are slight diversities of expression and representa-
tion which show that a parallel narrative (J) has been freely utilised.
Thus, in 33 Joseph recommends the appointment of a single dictator, in
84 the appointment of ‘overseers’; in * a fi/th part is to be stored, in
85. 48 11 the corn of the good years; in *a the collection is to be cen-
tralised under the royal authority, in °8 localised in the different cities ;
33 τῶν alternates with Sox pap (ὅρα: 491 8δα. 48) Further, * seems 15 ; 41144;
and 450 46> ; 458 (yqp mp = 15D) can hardly be from E, who has employed
the name for another person (37%). 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 Ho. 234; Gu.
380 f.; Pro. 43 f.—** is from P, and δὴ» is a gloss.
1-8. Pharaoh’s dreams.—2. from the Nile (v.z.)] the
source of Egypt’s fertility (Erman, ZAZ, 425 ff.), worshipped
as ‘the father of the gods,’ and at times identified with
Osiris or Amon-re (Erman, Handbook, 14 f., 80 ff.).—seven
cows, etc.|] ‘‘ According to Diod. Sic. i. 51, the male ox is the
symbol of the Nile, and sacred to Osiris, the inventor of
agriculture (2b. 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” (4 7ZO”, 389).—4. The devour-
ing of one set of cows by the other is a fantastic but suggestive
feature of the dream; the symbolism is almost transparent.
1. obn ayn] Participial cl. as apodosis ; see Dri. 7. 8 78 (3).—7"7] An
Eg. loan-word ('zo?r, ᾽10᾽7 = ‘stream’), used in OT of the Nile and its
canals (except Is. 33”, Jb. 28, Dn. 12°") ; found also in Ass. in the form
yaaru. See Ebers, 337f.; Steindorff, BA, i. 612 (cf. 171).—2. nN (4178,
Jb. 8"4)] ‘ Nile-grass’ = Eg. ahu, from aha, ‘be green’ (Ebers, 338). @&
ἄχει occurs also vv.* 13, Is. 19’, Sir. 4o!®.—3. mpn] 2 mpn (so v.4). It is
naturally difficult to decide which is right; but Ba. pertinently points to
the alliterations as determining the choice: read therefore “Ἢ in 9:5: 1%
2.27, but ‘3 in δ: 3,—in other words, “Ἢ always of the cows and "Ἢ always
of the ears.—)sx] (ἃ om., thus making all the 14 cows stand together.—
4. m9axm] G& + yay; so 1. 3.3, G has many similar variations (which
need not be noted), revealing a tendency to introduce uniformity into the
description.
30
466 JOSEPH’S ELEVATION (JE)
—5-7. The second dream is, if possible, more fantastic and
at the same time more explicit.—6. blasted with the east-wind
(Ck ἀνεμόφθοροι)] the dreaded sirocco or Hamsin, which blows
from the SE from February to June, destroying vegetation,
and even killing the seed-corn in the clods (Ebers, 340;
Erman, ZAZ, 9; Smith, HG, 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 p. 461);
comp. Tac. A/zst¢. iv. 83: ‘‘ Ptolemzus . . . sacerdotibus
/Egyptiorum, 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 (Ex. 7-9) and Daniel
(chs. 2: δὴ; οἱ. 15.2.7. εἴο:
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.
—I2. according to each man’s dream he interpreted| Note the
order of ideas as contrasted with v." (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. 7 was restored... he was hanged] Lit. ‘Me
one restored,’ etc., according to G-K. § 144d, e. To suppose
the omission of Pharaoh, or to make Joseph the subj., is
barely admissible.—14. and they brought him hastily from the
dungeon] is a clause inserted from J.—shaved himself] his
head and beard,—a custom which seems to have been
peculiar to the priests under the New Empire (Erman, ZAZ,
219; cf. Herod. ii. 37).
8. oypm] ‘was perturbed’; as Dn. 2° (2! Hithp.), Ps. γ7γῦ.--- 58 Π]
Only in this ch., in Ex. 7-9 (P), and (by imitation) in Dn. 2% The
word is thus practically confined to Egyptian magicians, though no
Eg. etymology has been found; and it may be plausibly derived from
Heb. win, stylus.—ons] Read with G& ink, after \obn; the dream is ‘one
(vv.75 26),—9, aynanx] a better 'Β 2x,— yon] Gr son (sing.). The resem-
blance of the cl. (99) to go! does not prove it to be from J (Gu.).—10. ΠΝ] an
onx, G& wnx.—r1. apdnn] G-K. § 49 e.—12. and—rnb»] Ck καὶ συνέκρινεν ἡμῖν.
XLI. 5—28 467
15-24. Pharaoh’s recital of his dreams.—15. chou
canst hear a dream to interpret it| t.e., ‘thou canst interpret
a dream when thou hearest it’: Heb. subordinates the em-
phatic clause where we would subordinate the condition.—
16. Comp. 408.—The answer (on the form, v.z.) 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 (ΝΠ for ΠΝ 2, riba, etc.) are due to
the literary instinct for variety.—22-24. The second dream.
25-32. The interpretation.—25-27a. The general out-
line 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: Zhere shall be seven years of famine (so
Pro. v.z.).—28. It is uncertain whether xin refers back to *>
(‘This is what [I meant when] I said to Pharaoh’), or to 27b
15. yown] Oratio obliqua after soxd (without °2), G-K. § 157 a; Dav.
8 146, R. 1.—16. "1. 03] lit. ‘Apart from me’ (€° ‘noan jo x5), used as
14%, audk read my: xd ὈΠῸΝ ΡΞ = ‘Apart from God, one will not be
answered,’ etc.; cf. S fsa jor\| Np Δι Frater) Wo) (‘Dost
thou expect that apart from God one will answer?’ etc.). DP Absque me
Deus respondebit, shifting the accent. There seems a double entendre in
the use of 739°: ‘answer’ and ‘correspond’: ‘God will give an answer
corresponding to the welfare,’ etc.—19. mo] ‘ flaccid’ ; (ἃ om.—2z1. 7339p]
On the suff. cf. G-K. § 91 A—j7'x] Sing. (16. § 93 ss).—23. mos] Aram.
= ‘dried,’ ‘hardened.’ The word is dz. Ney. in OT, and is omitted by
GP S.—orrnx] MSS and ax ja—. The irregular gender of MT only
here in this chapter.
26. n=] Om. of art. may be justified on the ground that the numeral
is equivalent to a determinant (G-K. § 126 x); but ax nnn is much to be
preferred.—27. nipin] ‘empty.’ The pointing is suggested partly by the
contrast to nkxbr (23 etc.), partly by the fact that (in MT) 7 has not been
used of the ears. We ought undoubtedly to read n\pi7 (2xn5).—'n v7]
The translation above is not free from difficulty ; it omits a prediction
of unusual plenty preceding the famine, which is, nevertheless, pre-
supposed by what follows. But the ordinary rendering is also weak :
why should the seven thin ears alone be fully interpreted? Besides,
p’dav is fem.—28-32. The critical difficulties of the ch. commence in
this section. Pro. assigns 39:51 to J (|i E), instancing 753 (cf. 18% 24) 9
468 JOSEPH’S ELEVATION (JE)
(‘ This is the announcement I [now] make to Pharaoh’). In
any case 29 looks like a new commencement, and may intro-
duce a variant from J (v.z.).—3I. YM xr goes back to the
ytia xb) 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 explana-
tion of the dreams.
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 states-
manship. —33-35. There is an apparent discrepancy between
the appointment of a single official (333) and that of a com-
mission of ‘overseers’ (333); and again between the fifth
part (3:0) and the whole (**); we note also the transition
from sing. (wm) to pl. (wap, 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 4774), whose origin the Hebrews traced to the
administration of Joseph.—35. under the hand (i.e. the
authority) of Pharaoh] cf. Ex. 18", 2 Ki. 135, Is. 3%.
37-46. Joseph’s elevation.—37, 39 (E) || 38 (J).—The
thing that was pleasing to Pharaoh, etc., is not the interpreta-
27 437 442), and 129 (121° 43! 47* 1%) as characteristic of J; but they are
not decisive. Gu. limits J to 39: 802. 52bg (1 314: 30b. 81, 32aba ἘΔ), This is on the
whole more satisfying, since navn and yy: xb appear to be doublets (Di.) ;
but a positive conclusion will hardly be reached.
33-36. The passage is certainly composite, and can be resolved into
two nearly complete sequences as follows: E=** 34>. 35ba (to mys) 36aBy ;
J =%42 35> (from 528) ὅὅδαῦ, Characteristic of E are wx, oD YX, 32s
12, against J’s ovps (with i772), prxn, bax pap; and the only necessary
change is 1128’ to 128°.. The result corresponds pretty closely with Gu.’s
analysis ; that of Procksch differs widely.—33. 81:] see Baer-Del. p. 78 ;
G-k. § 75%. Str., however, holds the true reading to be s¥.—34. Avy]
wx wy. To the peculiar idiom, De. compares the Latin fac scribas ;
mwy? may, however, mean ‘take action,’ as 1 Κι. 8%.—wom] @& pl.—
35. ἼΣΟΥ Oya Sox] Ball prefixes 3A (as v.48); some such expedient is
necessary to make sense of the last word.—For 110%, 22x have nw";
(ἃ συναχθήτω (138) ?).—36. ji178] Lv. 57% *+; obviously suggested here
by op) in v.34,
37-46. Analysis.—To E we may pretty confidently assign 57: 89 (713)
pam as 33 Ὁ, to J 88: 44 4. Whether J’s parallel to “9 commences with
“1 (Pro.), or is delayed to “ (Gu.), it is hard to decide. “> reads like a
ΧΙ]. 29-42 469
tion 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 E; in J, Pharaoh improves
upon it by entrusting the supervision -to Joseph himself in-
stead of to the ‘overseers’ he had proposed.—38. the spirit
of God] here first mentioned in Gen. 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 (cf. Ex. 31°, Nu. 273%; see Stade, B7h. § 43. 1).—40.
over my house] The dignity may be compared to that of
‘‘ Mayor of the palace” under the Merovingian kings; cf.
1 Ki. 46 16%, Is. 22 etc.—4qI. over all the land of Egypt]
The most coveted civic office in Egypt was that of the T’aze,
the chief of the whole administration, ‘‘the second after the
king in the court of the palace” (see Erman, ZLAZ, 87 ff.,
69). The elevation of Syrian slaves to such dignities
is likewise attested for the age of the New Empire (zd.
106, 517f.).— 42. The form of investiture is specifically
Egyptian.—zs signet-ring| used in sealing documents (Est.
3! 88), and given as a token of authority (Est. 310 85, 1 Mac.
615 etc.).—jine 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 con-
ferred in recognition of eminent service to the crown (Erman,
formula of investiture accompanying the action of “55, of which *” would
be the explication. 4°8 would be a natural sequel to ** (12y%). Hence,
if a division must be attempted, that of Procksch may be followed, viz.,
E=%- 42b. τς 46bg; J — 41. λιν tb. 44. 45 __38 xxpin] rst. pl. impf. Oal.—
40. px VEN) Ge ἐπὶ τῷ στόματί σου ὑπακούσεται. The meaning ‘kiss’
being obviously unsuitable, Tu. De. Di. render ‘arrange themselves’
(from Ar. nasaka); others point pw, ‘run’; but no explanation is quite
satisfactory. 50 may, of course, mean ‘at thy command’ (455), Ex.
17! etc.).—xod27 pt] ‘only as regards the throne’; G-K. § 1184.—
41. nx] Gr -- σήμερον.---42. ww] Apparently an Egyptian word (Copt.
Sens), replaced in post-Exilic Heb. by 733. It is disputed whether it
means cotton alone, or linen alone, or both; see Di.’s exhaustive note
470 JOSEPH’S ELEVATION (JE)
118 ff.: see the engraving, 208*).—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 ’Abrék| A very obscure
word ; for conjectures, v.z.—44. An almost exact parallel (J)
to ‘1 (E).—45a. Joseph’s marriage.—The conferring of a
new name naturally accompanied promotions like that of
Joseph (Erman, 144).—the high priest of’On] was an import-
ant personage in the religion and politics of the New Empire
(see Erman, ZAZ, 76, 83, 89, and fass.), and the priestly
college there was reputed the greatest in the country for
learning (Herod. ii. 3; Strabo, xvi. i. 29). *On (Eg. Anu)
is Heliopolis, 7 m. NE of Cairo, an ancient seat of the
on Ex. 254, and ZB, 2800 f.—a717] 2x2. 171.—43. Π3323] G-K. § 85 2.—
wapy] ax@S xp .— 12x] The word remains an enigma. The re-
semblance to Heb. 772 has misled no anc. Vn. except Aq. (γονατίζειν)
and Ἔ (ut genuflecterent). 86 renders tha Nec 151; T° wax 1
x2bo5 5 TJ xvwa pay xnoana 27 Νῦν wax 71; Cr has κήρυξ as subj. of vb.
(Ὁ also has clamante precone). The speculations of Egyptologists are
too numerous to mention: see BDB, s.v., or Heyes, 254 ff. The best
is that of Spiegelberg (OZz. vi. 317 ff.), who considers that it is a call
to ‘Attention!’ (Eg. ’6 ~&; lit. ‘Thy heart to thee!’). Frd. Del.
(Parad. 225) suggested a connexion with Ass. 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 (3 7»x[5]
yn3) and Che. (jnx32 ἼΞΝ Ξε " Mighty one of Chuenaten’ [Amenophis Iv.]:
OLz. iii. 151 f.); these are wholly unsatisfying, and the latter has not
survived the criticisms of Miiller (zd. 325f.): see 737, 467.—pnn] ‘thus
placing.’ As continuation of jn) in “, the inf. abs. is grammatically
correct (G-K. § 113 2); and though the idiom is infrequent, there is no
reason to suspect the text.—45. mys nos] Gr Ψονθομφανήχ (transposing
x and 5? [see Nestle, ZA7TW, xxv. 209 ff.]). The old interpretations
follow two lines: (1) ‘Revealer of secrets’ (Jos. An#. ii. 913; SM,
Patr.), connecting with Heb. j5s; and (2) ‘Saviour of the world’ (Copt.
p-sot-om-ph-eneh, De. Ho.); soD Jer. Quest. Of modern Egyptological
theories the one most in favour seems to be that propounded by
Steindorff in Zésch. f. Aeg. Spr. xxvii. 41f.: that it represents Eg.
De-pnute-ef- on, and means ‘The god speaks and he lives.’ It is said
(16. 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, of. czt. 258 ff., who prefers the interpretation
* Comp. Heyes, 3516. u. Aeg. 248 ff.
XLI. 43-55 471
worship of the sun-god Ra.—On the other names in the v.,
v.1.—45b and 46b are doublets.—46a (P). The chronology is
altogether inconsistent with the assumptions of JE regarding
the relative ages of Joseph and Benjamin (see Ben. 360).—
stood before Pharaoh] cf. 477 (P).
47-57.—Joseph’s: measures for relief of the famine.
—47, 49 (E) || 48 (J). He stores corn during the seven years of
plenty.—50-52 (E?). Joseph’s two sons,—Ménasseh] inter-
preted 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
(cf. Ps. 45!).—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 4” the Egyptians
of Lieblein (PSBA, 1898, 202 ff.): defenti [or defenta]-pa-an} = ‘‘ celui
qui donne la nourriture de la vie.”—npx] Explained, with some hesita-
tion, as ‘ belonging to (the goddess) Neith’ (Steindorff, Spiegelberg, al.).
—y1p 5] (Gr Πετρεφῆ, etc.) is a fuller form of 155; see on 39'.—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. & om.—46. Ayn
psp 75 is an amplification in the style of P (Ex. 6" 1% 27. % 148),
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 : E=‘7- 39. δία, 55. 5b ; J — 48. 58. 54. ὅδα. 87 (comp. Gu. and Pro.).
60-52 are universally assigned to E (on account of n’n>x) in spite of the
fact that the children are named by the father. P's authorship is
perhaps excluded by the explicit etymologies, to which there are no real
analogies in that document. The vv. in any case interrupt the context
of JE, and may be a supplementary notice inserted by a late hand at
what seemed the most suitable place.—g7. D'x0p5] The 4/ is elsewhere
peculiar to P (Lv. 2? 5” 68, Nu. 5+); and Ball assigns 4°48 to that
source. But the sense ‘by handfuls’ is doubtful, and is represented by
none of the old Vns. except the clumsy paraphrases of D and @; sothat
the text is probably at fault. (ἃ has δράγματα; Sand T° 13,012 and
γον (with Δ ΚΟ Οο and w33 for vym).—48. va we ow] Rd. with awd
yaya mn ws w7.—so. ny] Uk τὰ ἑπτὰ ἔτη.---51. *383] Pi. only here ; both
the form and the irregular vocalisation (G—K. 52 m) are chosen for the
sake of assonance with 7939.—54. 7] (ἃ οὐκ ἦσαν ; 50 S—a natural mis-
472 JOSEPH’S ELEVATION (JE)
had no lack of bread, and consequently no need to apply to
Joseph, though they were indebted to his forethought, In
ὅδ they are famishing, and have to buy their food from
Joseph: this view is connected with 47.56. opened all
that was in them] Read with & ‘all the granaries,’ though
the Hebrew text cannot be certainly restored (v.2.)—57
prepares for the next scene of the drama (ch, 42).
State granaries, for the sustenance of the army, the officials and the
serfs, were a standing feature of Egyptian administration (Erman, 2.46,
107 f. ; cf. 433f.), and were naturally drawn upon for the relief of the
populace in times of scarcity (7b. 126). The ‘superintendent of the
granaries’ was a high officer of state, distinct, as a rule, from the vizier
or Tate (p. 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 pro-
vision impressed the imagination of the Israelites, and was attributed by
them to a divine inspiration of which one of their ancestors was the
medium (cf. Gu. 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
nomarch 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 A 7ZO?,
390; Dri. 346f.). Forthe sale of grain to foreigners, we have the case
of Yanhamu, governor of Yarimutu, in the Amarna letters (see below on
47'°"-).—It is impossible to desire a fuller demonstration of the Egyptian
background of the Joseph-stories than ch. 41 affords. The attempt to
minimise the coincidences, and show that ‘‘in a more original and shorter
form the story of Joseph had a N Arabian and not a Palestinian and
Egyptian background, and consequently that ‘ Pharaoh, king of Egypt,’
should be ‘ Pir'u, king of Misrim’” (7BZ, 454-473), tends to discredit
rather than confirm the seductive Musri-theory, which is pushed to such
an extravagant length.
understanding.—56. 072 wx] 172 072 wx. The context imperatively
demands anoun (€& σιτοβολῶνας, 5 |¥,0}). Lagarde (Sym. i. 57) sug-
gested a Heb. equivalent of Talmud. δον ; We. some derivative of 2” ;
De. Ba. and Kit. (combining sx and 3) 122 no»x.—r2v] Pt. 13¥ (Hi.) ;
cf. 42°.—'in pinn] (ἃ om.—57. yox7') Better mywa as (ἃ (cf. 4),
XLI. 56, 57—XLII 473
Cu. XLII.—/oseph’s Brethren come to Egypt to buy
Food (E, J)
One thing is still wanting to the dramatic completeness
of the story of Joseph: the recognition of his greatness by
his family, or (in E) the fulfilment of his youthful dreams.
This is the theme of the second part of the history (chs. 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 ch. 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 (61) ; and how after three days’ confine-
ment they are sent home, leaving Simeon behind them as
a hostage (!®%8). 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 (239-88),
The incident of the money found in the sacks (35: 2/f 86)
increases the dread with which they contemplate a return to
Egypt.
Analysis.—Ch. 42 belongs a potiori to E, and 43. 44 to J (We. Comp.?
58ff.). A distinct difference of representation appears from a comparison
of 427-87 (which, face Procksch, is an undiluted excerpt from E) with
43°7 442° (J). ‘In ch. 42, Joseph secures, by the detention of Simeon,
that the brethren shall return under any circumstances, with Benjamin
or without ; inch. 43 f., on the contrary, he forbids them to return unless
Benjamin is with them” (We.). In J, 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 J and E are represented in 42); though
the former is so fragmentary that it is difficult to reconstruct a narrative
consistent with 4455: 44T. Apparently, the colloquy reproduced in 437
447° 43° must have followed the acknowledgment that they were all
one man’s sons (* || 54 E),—a view which seems to fit in with all the
literary indications. ἘΞ account can easily be traced with the help of
29-87: it includes the charge of espionage (% 1+ 14. 16. 3°), the imprisonment
(7- 3°), the detention of Simeon (1% *: 336), the command to bring down
Benjamin (7% 39. 8), and the putting of the money in the sacks (325: *),—In
474 VISIT OF THE BRETHREN TO EGYPT (E)
114, the more obvious doublets are 15 || %, 54 || 6, Τὰ | 8, 1a 183. Character-
istic phrases of J: 77", 2: ὃ; mp3 ΝΟΥ nn, 3. (438 4719); prox erp, ὃ (428 44%); barr,
5; 22k, 710 Possibly also pass ncn mynd, 30. 12, is J’s variant for E's
Ὁ 0, %- > etc. (cf. 3% 81. 34) (Gu). Hence we may assign to J ? 3a 4b.
57 (except mevp onx 1394, which should probably follow ® in Ε [Ὁ]. KS.
Gu.]), %8 1 116. 12; and to E all the rest (so Gu. nearly: Procksch,
however, very plausibly assigns δ" % to P).—After 123 there is no trace
of J till we come to 37: 4ba8, an obvious duplicate of *, containing J's
peculiar word nnnpx,—*-87 are from E: note the name Jacob, 39: %;
Reuben’s leadership, *”; and the words ἸΝ)3π, * ; rinon, δέ (4728 Ὁ 342t-]) ;
7352, 8, We also obtain some new expressions which may be employed
as criteria of Εἰ : mep, Ὁ (cf. 7) ; 0°33, 31: 93 34 (cf, 11: 19) 5. pana pag, 33 (cf. 15) ;
pe, ® (cf. 35)..- 85 belongs to J, but its proper place is after 43? (see on the
v.).—A peculiar feature of this and the following chs. is the name 77x
j¥32, which is elsewhere in Gen. characteristic of P (see p. 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 p. 438 above).
1-4. The journey to Egypt.—1z, 2. Another effective
change of scene (cf. 39! 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 (447%); Jacob’s
unwillingness to let him out of his sight is a leading motive
both in J and E.
5-17. The arrival in Egypt, and first interview with
Joseph.—On 5, 6a, v.z.—6b. As suspicious strangers the
brothers are brought before the viceroy.—bowed themselves,
etc.| Reminding Joseph of his dreams (v.®). The original
connexion in E is broken by the insertion of v.? from J.—
I. 13%] of uncertain etymology, is always used of grain as an article
of commerce (Am. 85, Neh. 10*).—apy"] Gr om.—iwrnn] Ok ῥᾳθυμεῖτε (Ὁ =
wmoxA, Kit.). Though the Hithpa. occurs elsewhere only in the sense of
‘face one another in battle’ (2 Ki. 14% 4=2 Ch. 2517 31), a change of
text is uncalled for.—2. ἽΝ Ἢ] G om.—nwn] Gr 52x yn (as 43?) ; rd. perhaps
box nwp.—3. ΠῚΦΨ] ‘ten in number,’ acc. of condition.—4. 3py"] (τ om.
5a reads like a new beginning, and 5b is superfluous after }-4. Pro.
is probably right in the opinion that * ® are the introduction to P’s lost
narrative of the visit, a view which is confirmed by the unnecessary
explanation of ®, and by the late word.—6. »*>w] only Ec. 7!® 88 τοῦ
[Ezk. 16] and Aram. portions of Ezr. and Dn. (Kue. Ond. i. p. 318).
The resemblance to Zddaris, the name of the first Hyksos king in Jos.
XLII. 1-13 475
7 (J) || 8 (E). 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 inall 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’(De.). On
the other hand, to say that his object was merely to punish
them (Gu.), 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. Ve are spies| A charge that travellers in the East often
encounter (see p. 484 below). The eastern frontier of Egypt
was fortified and closely watched (Erman, ZAZ, 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.—II (J) || 12 (E). 5ογις of one man, etc.| Their
eagerness to clear their character betrays them into a dis-
closure of their family circumstances, which in J is followed
up by direct interrogation and a warning that they need not
return without their youngest brother (p. 473 above); while
in E, 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 (*-).—one zs not] It is a fine instance of
cont. Ap. i. 77, can hardly be other than accidental.—n177] 22ST) mm.—
9. my] lit. pudenda, is only here used of defencelessness. Ar. ‘aurat
is similarly used of a ‘breach in the frontier of a hostile country’ (Lane,
2194 c); cf. Kor. 5. 33'* “four houses are ‘aurat,’"—a nakedness, i.e.
unoccupied and undefended. (has τὰ ἴχνη (reading perhaps napy [Ba. }) ;
Σ. τὰ κρυπτά.---το. P13] cf. G-K. § 163 α: »2GrS om. .—r1. 1303] So
Ex. 1678, Nu. 4232, La. 371 (G-K. § 32 d); 2 1m3x.—0739] lit. ‘right
men,’ is used of persons only in this ch.—13. 708 wx 31 G& om., perhaps
476 VISIT OF THE BRETHREN TO EGYPT (E)
literary tact that Joseph never presses the question as to the
fate of the missing brother.—14. This is what J said] ‘It is
as I have said’ (cf. 4138). Joseph maintains his opinion with
well-feigned official obstinacy (Di.).—15, τό. By this shall ye
be tested| The pretext covers a real desire to see Benjamin,
which is explicitly avowed in J (445 43°°).—By the life of
Pharaoh] In Egypt the king was honoured as a god (Diod. i.
90; Erman, Hand. 36f.); and the oath by his life is attested
by an inscription of the 20th dynasty. The OT analogies cited
by Kn. (τ Sa. 17°°, 2 Sa. 1114) are not in point, since they do
not differ from the same formula addressed to private persons
(1 Sa. 20° 25°°).—17. The three days’ imprisonment is rather
meaningless after v.16 (see p. 477). Gu. 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.
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. Z fear God] the
guardian of ‘international religious morality’ (Gu.), which
is presupposed throughout the patriarchal history; see on
20° 39°.—21. Nay, but we are guilty| The confession is
wrung from them by the distress (779%) which has overtaken
them, reminding them of Joseph’s distress of soul (8) N7¥)
when they left him to die,—when he pleaded with us| This
touch of pathos is not recorded in ch. 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
rightly; cf. the || v...—16. noxn] Impv. expressing a determination,
G-K. § 110 c.—a7y15 π] G-K. § 93 aa’. The distinction between ‘1 and Ἢ
is a Massoretic caprice (Di.).—At the end of the v. σὰ inserts a refusal
of the condition in the exact terms of 4446 (J), which undoubtedly
smooths the transition to ν. 7, but cannot be original.
18. ym wy nxt] See G-K. § 110 f—19. 1nN] without art. (at. ἼΠΝΠ) 26.
§ 1344; cf. 434; ct. 42°°.—20. j22wyn] The words are out of place (cf.
250), Did they stand originally after ν. 16 Ὁ. 21. bax] ‘Nay, but—,’ in-
dicating an affirmation of what one would gladly deny (see on 17'%).—
XLII. 14-27 477
man he claims credit for his good intention rather tnan
for the temporising advice he had actually given (377*).—/zs
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.—Szmeon 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 43°%.—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 E the sacks are not opened
till the journey’s end (*).
Vv.15-*4 show a disconnectedness which is unusual in the lucid and
orderly Joseph story, and which cannot be explained by discrepancies
between J and E. 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 (3175) 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 v.*° Gr); and the confession of guilt would stand in a suitable con-
nexion there. It is possible that } are a variant to 19, belonging to a
somewhat different recension. If Gu. (p. 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.
26-38. The return to Canaan.—27, 28. J’s parallel
to 35 (E).—To leave room for the latter, the account is cut
nos] ax ns2.—19R?] wx $2 weSy.—25. awah] Continuation of vb. fin. by
inf. (as here) is very unusual (G-K. § 120/).—wyy] wyn? cf. SP.
27. pv] Rd. wnnox with &.—wx50D] characteristic of J (247% 43%),
also Ju. 19! +.—2D] (,/ 1?) strictly ‘resting-place for the night’ (Ex. 4%)
or ‘night encampment’ (Jos. 4°),—perhaps a rude shelter of bushes or
canvas (cf. nando, ‘hut,’ Is. 18 2450) rather than a khan or caravanserai.
—15p3] E says 12D? 7s (* 2s); so @& here, wrongly.—nnapx] A word re-
curring 13 times in chs. 43 f. (J), and nowhere else in OT: & invariably
μάρσιππος. The ,/ nnd = ‘spread out’ (Is. 4032, found in NH. Aram.
478 SECOND VISIT TO EGYPT (J)
short with the opening of the first sack. In J, each man
found his money at the ‘inn’ (437).—28. thetr heart went
out] ‘their courage sank.’ Partly from the anticipated
accusation of theft (4318), but still more from the super-
stitious notion that God was bringing trouble upon them.—
NOMAD] J’s peculiar word for ‘corn-sack’ (v.z.).—The last
clause, however, What has God (obs) done to us? is
apparently taken from E, probably transposed from the end
of 85. (KS.).—29-34. They recount their experiences to
Jacob.—30. ¢reated us as spies] Better, as G& (v.2.), ‘put us in
ward as spies.’—35. See on 37", The incident explains
Jacob’s foreboding (ν. 5) that Simeon and Benjamin are as
good as lost.—36. MWe have ye bereaved... upon me all
this has come| The point of the complaint is that it is zs
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 E’s variant to 43°: here
Reuben, there Judah, becomes surety for Benjamin. In E
an immediate return to Egypt is contemplated, that Simeon
may be released; hence the discussion about sending
Benjamin takes place at once. In J 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 43) %.—dring
down. . . to She’dl| See on 37*.
Cus. XLIII. XLIV.—7Zhe second Visit to Egypt (J).
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
Ar.—28, 739] αὐ add x7 unnecessarily.—x tn] Pregn. const. ; G-K.
§ 119 gg.—30. ΠΝ [ny] Gk + ἐν φυλακῇ (= vN3).—32. ὉΠ ΠΝ} wOS
transp.—33. pay] Rd. with G@ST° “Ἢ 1aw, as v.19.—34. oonenx] GSP
pr. 1.—35. On the syntax, cf. G-K. § 111g.—36. 7392] for 173, as Pr
31” (G-K. 8 91f). On E’s preference for these lengthened suff., see
Di. on 417.
XLII, 28—XLIII. 1, 2 479
for Joseph and double money in their hand (118). To their
surprise they are received with every mark of honour as the
guests of the viceroy; and their fears give place to con-
vivial abandonment at his hospitable table (1%). 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 (4411). 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 (!7-*4).
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” (Di.), That
is true of the narrative as it stands; but since the first journey is taken
almost entirely from E and the second from J, 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 chs. are not the continuation of 42 (E) appears
(a) from the more reasonable attitude attributed to Joseph, (4) 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 (p. 473). Positive points of contact with
J are (a) the discovery of the money at the first halting-place (4331), (6)
Judah as spokesman and leader (4355 86: 4415. 18), (c) the name Israel
(43° 8: 1), and the expressions : S2x, 43% 4%: 2? 44% 35 wxa (of Joseph,
without qualification), 43°: 5 Gf. 11. 13f. 4426 ; nyD3 xb) nn, 438; ADADNA, 432°;
ay and wn, 4311: 15. 30. 35, πππον, 431": 18. 518. galt 8 ut nbp, 4321; spon,
4374; pox mp, 443. The only clear traces of E’s parallel narrative are the
allusions to Simeon in 434 3>, Pro. makes 155. (ll 1#ba) 18. 14. 15agb. 16aq. 330 4
continuous sequence from E; but the evidence is conflicting (note wxa,
14; 7, 15>): see, however, on 13,
1-14. The journey resolved on.—2. Jacob speaks in
evident ignorance of the stipulation regarding Benjamin;
hence 4238 (J) 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 4251,
The original order in J can be recovered by the help of 44%". After
v.2 there must have been an announcement, in terms similar to 4455, of
480 SECOND VISIT TO EGYPT (J)
the necessity for taking Benjamin with them, to which Jacob replies
with the resolute refusal of 43% (cf. 44°). Then follows (*"-) the more
emphatic declaration of Judah, and his explanation of the circumstances
out of which the inexorable demand had arisen (see We. Comp.? 59 f.).
3-5. Judah’s ultimatum. On the difference of representa-
tion from E, see p. 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 gover-
nor’s leading questions.—8-10. Judah becomes responsible
for Benjamin’s safety (as in E Reuben, 42°”).—9. 7 shall be a
sinner, etc.| For the idea, cf. 1 Ki. 174: guilt is measured
not by the moral intention, but by the external consequences,
of an action.—II-I4. Jacob yields to the inevitable; but
with characteristic shrewdness suggests measures that may
somewhat ease the situation.—II. the produce of the land| its
rarer products, as a token of homage. On 173}, v.z.—On “8,
ΤΙΝ), Οὗ, see 37.".---λοϑιθν} may here mean grape-syrup, the
dibs of modern Syria (see Robinson, BR, ii. 81, ili. 381);
but there seems no reason to depart from the usual OT
sense of the word, viz., the honey of the wild-bee (see
Kennedy’s careful art. in ZB, 2104 ff.).—pzstachio-nuts (υ.1.)
are highly esteemed as a delicacy in Egypt and Syria,
although the tree is said to be rarely found in Palestine
(according to Rosen, ZDMG, xii. 502, not at all).—1r2.
3. nba] followed by nom. sent., G-K. § 163 c.—Instead of o2nx, & has
ὁ νεώτερος καταβῃ πρὸς μέ].---5. πο] (ἃ -- τὸν dd. ἡμῶν μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν.---το. "3
nny] ‘in that case,’ as 31%; see G-K. § 159 ¢e.—II. A701] ἅπ. Ney. Ok
καρποί, Ἔ optimis fructibus, T° xywwa navni, S Ls3]> o1naf. The
meaning is obscure. The derivation from ,/ δ᾽, ‘praise’ [in song]
(PT, Tu. al.) is perhaps too poetic to be natural, though it yields a
good sense; that from ,/ 11, ‘prune,’ is hardly suitable (see Di.).
ny
DHMiller (in Ges. Hawé." p. 983) connects with Aram. ;809, ‘admire’:
‘admirable products,’—practically the same idea as Tu. (On Ar.
damara, dimar [agreeing phonetically with Aram. and Heb.], v. Lane,
977 f.)—1n3] dw. Ney. Almost certainly nuts of Pis/acia vera, belonging
to the terebinth family (hence (ἃ τερέμ[β]ινθον, so ἘΠ), for which the Syr.
name is [dsohs (Aram. δ 2813, Ar. but, Ass. butnu); see BDB, s.v.—
12. wid 03] cf. 03 Awn, v.1> ; and see G-K. § 131 e, g.—avon] See BA-Del.
XLIII. 3-23 481
double money ... and the money, etc.| can hardly mean
double money deszdes that which had been returned; unless
(Procksch) the first clause be a variant from E, we must
take Ὁ as = ‘namely.’—14. ’Z2 Shaddaz does not occur else-
where in J or E (see on 17'), and may be redactional. On
the composition of the v., v.z.—as 7 am bereaved, etc.| An
utterance of subdued resignation: cf. 4230, 2 Ki. γέ, Est. 415,
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, ZAZ£, 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.—s/ay and make ready| In
Egypt, accg. to Her. ii. 37, 77, Diod. i. 70, flesh was eaten
daily by priests and kings, although the former had to
abstain from certain kinds of animal food (Kn-Di.).—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.—IQ—22. To forestall the
suspicion of theft, they offer to return the money found in
their sacks.—z” its full weight] On the weighing of money,
see 235. — 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
Ρ- 79 (‘pathachatum uti expresse ait Masora’), G-K. §§ 72 58, 93 22. --
14. 3nx] αὐὰ Inx7A. The phrasing is peculiar, and suggests that RJE
may have added to J the words 73 ΠΝῚ Tnx, at the same time inserting
025 (which @& om.), to bring about the desired allusion to Simeon.—
snb2w] Pausal: G-K. § 29 τι.
16. 0px) «ΑὐΧΈῈ } onk.—p'02] Ge + ἸΌΝ 3 vox (v.%).—nay] The only case
of impve. in 6 with final gutt. (G-K. ὃ 65 4).—18. 1x7] G& ἘΝῚ. --- 3 Π] an
(τ aya (v.22),—dbannd] ἅπ. rey. ST read Srnnd (see Ba.) Gr τοῦ
συκοφαντῆσαι ἡμᾶς, Ἔ ut devolvat in nos calumniam. The text is not to
be questioned.—20. ᾽3] Always followed by ‘37x (4478, Ex. 47°78, Nu. 12,
Jos. 78, Ju. 65 138, 1 Sa. 1%, τ Ki. 31% 8+). It is commonly derived
from ,/ 7ya, ‘ask,’ or (BDB) Ar. dayya, ‘entreat’: might it not rather
be regarded as a shortening of ‘3x (2 Ki. 5%, Jb. 3435) from ,/ 72x, ‘be
willing ’?—23. 02°28) «αὐ o2°n3K,
31
482 SECOND VISIT TO EGYPT (J)
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 E.— 24. Cf. 24°. —25. shey
had heard, etc.| In conversation with the steward (cf. v."®).
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,—/zs (full) brother, the son of his
mother. The disparity in age must have been great (33):
one wonders whether the narrative does not presuppose
that Benjamin had been born since Joseph had been lost.—
30, 31. For the second time (4274) Joseph’s affection finds
relief in tears, and again he restrains himself, that he may
carry out his plan.—The interlude reveals, as Gu. 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 4274); 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
(414°), which kept itself apart from the laity (Kn-Di.). The
Egyptian exclusiveness in intercourse with foreigners, which
would have been perfectly intelligible to the later Jews,
evidently struck the ancient Israelites as peculiar (Gu.).
Cf. Her. ii. 41.—34. The custom of honouring a guest by
24. jnN—wwn] Gr om. -- 25. 192N*] Ck more easily 928° (of Joseph).
26. 1829] On Dagh. or Mappiq in x, see G-K. § 14 d.—ns7x] & pr.
Ὁ ἘΝ .---27. ndbwa] noun? or adj.? See G-K. § 141 c4,—28. After Athnach
wud& ins. o'toxd san ΝΠ PI2 ION, —a parallel to the benediction on Benj.
(9): clumsy in expression and hardly original.—2g. Dn7>x] Or + xvand,—
an interesting and perhaps correct addition.—y:ny] for 437) (as Is. 30%) ;
see G-K. § 67 7.—30. wp2) WD») ‘hastily sought,’ though an inter-
mediate clause between the complementary vbs. is very unusual.—>x]
ax. Sy. — 32. ors05] Better ony9): so Vns. Ba.—Gk adds πᾶς ποιμὴν
προβάτων, in mistaken accommodation to 46*4,—34. svn] GS we.—
mv]=‘shares’ or ‘times,’ 4774, 2 Ki. 117, 2 Sa. 19, Neh. 117, Dn.
129}+,—2w) hardly ‘got drunk’: 12v of convivial drinking, Hag. 1%,
5: 57
XLIII. 24—XLIV. 5 483
portions from the table is illustrated by 2 Sa. 11°; cf. Hom.
11. vii. 321 f., Od. iv. 65 f., xiv. 437.—jive times].
It is hardly accidental that the number five occurs so often in
reference to matters Egyptian (41% 45” 477%, Is. 19/8) Whether
there be an allusion to the five planets recognised by the Egyptians
(Kn.), or to their ten days’ week (Di.), it is impossible to say. Jeremias
(ATLO?, 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.
XLIV. 1-17. The cupin 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 ban-
quet, to be carried out at daybreak (v.*).—Ib. each man’s
money, etc.| Though this seems a useless repetition of 42”,
with no consequences in the sequel, the clause ought scarcely
to be omitted (with Gu.) before *.—2. che silver cup| Joseph’s
ordinary drinking-vessel, but at the same time an implement
of divination (v.°): 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?| &
adds, ‘ Why have ye stolen my silver cup?’ The addition
seems necessary in view of the following ".—5. and, more-
over, he divines with (or in) zt] See on v..
On the widely prevalent species of divination referred to (κυλικο-
μαντεία, λεκανομαντεία), cf. August. De civit. Dei, vii. 35; Strabo, XVI. ii.
39 ; lamblichus, De myst. iii. 14. Various methods seem to have been
1. Gr ins. Ἰωσήφ as subj.—nxw 0,03} Ba. plausibly, new γ030.---2.
33] Used of the golden cups of the candlestick (Ex. 25°!" 37!7*-); else-
where only Jer. 35°, along with the ordinary word for ‘cup’ (03), of the
‘bowls’ of wine set before the Rechabites.—3, 4. On the synt. of these
vv. see G-K. 88 142 e, 156 7; Dav. §§ 141, 41, &. 3. The addition in &
runs: ἵνα τί ἐκλέψατέ μου τὸ κόνδυ τὸ ἀργυροῦν ;.—5. 952] The derivation of
this vb. from w73, ‘serpent,’ first suggested by Boch. (zeroz. i. 3), is sup-
ported by (amongst others) N6. (ZVP, i. 413) and Baudissin (Stud. i.
287); on the other hand, see We. Skizzen, iii. 147 ; and Rob. Sm. /Ph.
484 SECOND VISIT TO EGYPT (J)
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 Semit. Stud., 1903, i. 1-80).—An interesting modern parallel
is quoted by Dri. (358'), and Hunger (4), from the Travels of Norden
(c. 1750), where a Nubian sheikh says: ‘ Z have consulted my cup, and I
find that you are Franks in disguise, who have come to spy out the land.’
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.—1I-13. To the dis-
may 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: cf. 1 Sa. 16°%,—z3,
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.—I4-17. The brethren before Joseph.—I4.
he was still there| had not gone out to his place of business
(see 43 11), but was waiting for them.—I5. chat 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 Gu. surmises, the motive comes
from an older story, in which the prototype of Joseph actually achieved
his ends by means of occult knowledge.
16. God has found out, etc.| The exclamation does not
xiv. 115.—8. η03 1] ax 4027.9. nx] Gr+7d κόνδυ. -- ΠῚ] 22 nD, equally
good.—1z2. ΟΞ bna] Infs. abs. ("?2... . baa) would be more idiom-
atic than the pf. (so Ball).—16. We. (Comf.? 60) would omit A." and
read 1798"; but the text is safeguarded by v.'4, and the change is un-
called for. Judah speaks here in the name of all, in 158. for himself.
XLIV. 6-28 485
necessarily imply consciousness of particular guilt (see on
43°), 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 (42?!"-).
—17. Judah’s proposal that a// 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 ?
18-34. Judah’s plea for Benjamin.—The speech, which
is the finest specimen of dignified and persuasive eloquence
in the OT, is perhaps modelled on the style of forensic
oratory to which the Hebrews were accustomed in public
assemblies at the city gates (ct. the stilted oration of Ter-
tullus in Ac. 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 (19.233); (2) a pathetic description of the father’s
reluctance to part with him, overcome only by the harsh
necessity of hunger (74%); (3) a suggestion of the death-
stroke which their return without Benjamin would inflict on
their aged parent (°°: 81); and, lastly, (4) the speaker’s personal
request to be allowed to redeem his honour by taking Ben-
jamin’s punishment on himself (55 8). - The Massoretes
commence a new Parashah with ν.}8, rightly perceiving that
Judah’s speech is the turning-point in the relations between
Joseph and his brethren.—19-23, On the divergent re-
presentations of J and E, see on p. 473 above.—20. Zo hes
mother] See p. 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| Comp. the
rugged pathos of Lowell’s
‘6 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,
18. “59 123] G-K. § 161 c.—20. ἸΌΝ Ὁ] G& vaxd.—24. ax] wGkBS wax
(so G&S in 37, and GSP in *).—28. row] (ἃ καὶ εἴπατε.
486 JOSEPH REVEALS HIMSELF (E, J)
have a meaning for the governor of which the speaker is all
unconscious.—29. in trouble to She’dl] Cf. 42°8 3735 4431,—
30. zs soul (not ‘life’) is bownd up, etc.] a figure for in-
alienable affection; as 1 Sa. 18),
Cu. XLV.—/Joseph reveals himself to his Brethren (E, J).
The crisis so slowly matured and so skilfully led up to is
at last reached, and in a scene of inimitable power and tender-
ness Joseph makes himself known to his brethren (18). 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 (515). The invitation is confirmed by the king (16°) ;
and the brethren depart laden with rich gifts and provision
for the journey (714). Jacob, after a momentary incredulity,
is cheered by the prospect of seeing Joseph before his death
(25-28),
The sources, E and J, are here so intimately blended that a complete
analysis is impossible. The main fact is the preponderance of E, which
appears both from language (Οὐ πον, ® 7 89; apy, 25 Ἢ} mn, 5[ 3135]; ay, 31
[42°]; 13, 8; perhaps also jun, 8; and o3vya-nx uyy, 17 [ct. J’s nerdy voy,
44"*]), and representation: ct. ν. 8 with 4327, 17-20 with 46°'-475 (J), where
Joseph’s kindred are apparently brought under Pharaoh's notice for the
first time. Indubitable traces of J are found in “Ὁ ὅα (the selling of Joseph),
10 (Goshen,—see the notes), *8 (Sx.w); these are supported by the ex-
pressions, ppxna, 15 (as 43°!) ; asy3, ὅδ, tn, 385 τηνῖντον Sp, 4) Thus far in
the main We. and Di. More subtle and less reliable criteria are ap-
plied by Gu. (402 f., 406), and (with very different results) by Pro. (52 fs)
Itis probable that §(E) is ||4(J), and (agt. Pro.)9(E)||3 7). Butitis 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 (!%").—Some minor questions, such as
the ‘waggons’ of 13:31. 7 (cf. 46°), and the authorship of νν. 19:31, 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
31. Win] anGrPS “ΣΝ (as v.%),—32. .3Ν] we vax, S wax.—3q4. ΠΝ]
(ἃ wary.
1. yuna] Nu. 12% (E?).—2. ΣΧ] @& omsomds, The pointing oso
without art. (Gu.) is no improvement.—yne] GS yoy, as in v.'®; so
XLIV. 29—-XLV. 9 487
to keep his relation to the strangers a secret from Pharaoh
(see on the sources above).—3. zs my father yet alive ?| The
question is slightly less natural in the context of J (see 437
442") than in E, 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]
Comp. 5015-2! (also E).—4. J’s parallel to v.3,—probably the
immediate continuation of v.! (cf. 44!8).—5-8. With singular
generosity Joseph reassures them by pointing out the provi-
dential purpose which had overruled their crime for good ;
cf. 50%. The profoundly religious conviction which recog-
nises 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 Gu.
404 (cf. ch. 24).—7. NN] ‘remnant,’ perhaps in the sense
of ‘descendants’ (2 Sa. 14", Jer. 44). But the use of nyros
(strictly ‘escaped remnant,’ cf. 32°) is difficult, seeing the
whole family was saved (v.z.).—8. ὦ father to Pharaoh| Prob-
ably an honorific title of the chief minister (cf. 1 Mac. 11%,
Add. Est. 3... 8"); see, further, 2227:
9-15. Joseph’s message to his father.—That both J
and E recorded the invitation may be regarded as certain,
apart from nice questions of literary analysis: Eerdmans’
suggestion that, in J, Jacob conceived the project of going
down to Egypt ‘‘auf eigene Faust” (Komp. 65, 70) being
Ho. Gu. The cl., however, is best regarded as a doublet of the preced-
ing, in which case MT is preferable. —3. 4D" 7] Gr + 6 ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν, ὃν
ἀπέδοσθε els Αἴγυπτον (as v.4).—1150] G om.—ga. Gr“ om. entirely.—5.
p>3'ya an~bxy] (cf. 3130) is E's variant to vasyn-bx (6° 347 J).—aynp] In Ju. 64
17° the word signifies ‘means of subsistence’; in 2 Ch. 14” perhaps
‘ preservation of life’ ; and so here if the pointing be right. Ba. plausibly
emends ™n», ‘ preserver of life’ (1 Sa. 2°).—6. sp) ein] Ex. 347! (J ?).—7.
mordad nnn] The want of an obj. after ‘nm is harsh (cf. 47% 50%). The
omission of the (20% Ols. Ba, al.) improves the grammar, but the sense
remains unsatisfying (v.s.).--8. 28 . . . }78] That the words are used in
their Heb. 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 Dri. DB, ii. 7745; Str. p. 157 f.).
488 JOSEPH REVEALS HIMSELF (E, J)
contrary to every natural view of the situation. We may
therefore be prepared to find traces of the dual narrative in
these vv.—10. On ¢he 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 E, continued in ™. It is only in J 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
(J) are respectively parallel to ® and 15 (E).
16-20. Pharaoh’s invitation.— This, as already ex-
plained, is peculiar to E. It is just possible (though hardly
probable) that in this source Joseph’s invitation (9!) extended
only to his father, while the idea of transplanting the whole
family emanated from the king.—16a. Cf. v.2.—18. the best
10. 122] Gr Τέσεμ᾽ Ἀραβίας (as 46%). The name is peculiar to J (46%
29. 34 471.4. 6.27 κοῦ, Ex. 818 ot); P has ‘land of Ramses’ (47", cf. Ex. 1
12°”, Nu. 33°); while E uses no geographical designation. That P and
J mean the same locality is intrinsically probable (though Naville con-
siders that the land of Ramses was a larger area than Goshen), and is
confirmed by recent excavations. The city of Pithom (see on 46%) has
been identified by Naville with the modern Tell el-Maskhuta, 12 τὰ. W
of Ismailia, in Wadi Tumilat, 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, ZAZ, 525f.). In the same region, though not quite so far E,
excavations at the village of Sa/¢ e/-Henneh have established its identity
with Pa-soft (also called on local inscrs. 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 jwa (Técex) ; and if so the situation of Goshen is
fixed as a part of W. Tumilat surrounding Saft el-Henneh. A confirma-
tion of this may be found in the’ ApaBia of (h, for this in Grazco-Roman
times (Ptol. iv. 5, 53) was the name of one of the 23 nomes of the Delta,
whose capital Φακοῦσσα (cf. Strabo, XVII. i. 26) has long been conjectured
to be the ancient Kes, preceded by the art. pa.—See Naville, Land of
Goshen, etc. (Fifth Memoir of EEF, 1887), 15 ff., 20; Store City of Pithom,
etc. (41903), 4 ff. ; Spiegelberg, Aufenth. etc. 52; Miiller in ZB, 1758 ff.;
and Griffith in BD, ii. 232 f.—11. 5252] cf. 50% (E).—v1n75] ‘lest thou
come to want’ (lit. ‘be dispossessed’) ; cf. Ju. 1415, Pr. 2ο δ 2372 30%,
17. 190] dw. Ney. (Aram.); ct. ody, 4415 (J).—1ya] Ex. 224, Nu. 20% 8:
N(E), Ps. 78%+.—18. a] = ‘best things,’ as vv." 33 2419 2 Ki, 89; Q&
XLV. 10-23 489
of the land (v.i.) . . . the fat of the land| The expressions
are not altogether inapplicable to Goshen (W. Tumilat),
which was rendered fertile by a canal, and is still spoken of
as the best pasture-land in Egypt (Robinson, BR, i. 53 f.).
But since E 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.7.).
- το. The opening words (v.z.) throw some doubt on the
originality of the v.; and there certainly seems no more
reason for ascribing it to J (Gu.) than to E.—The baggage-
wageon (723) is said to have been introduced into Egypt from
Canaan, with its Semitic name (Eg. ‘ago/t): Erman, 1.4.4,
491.*—20. Let not your eye pity] The phrase is Deuteronomic,
and seems a very strong one for concern about household
implements. According to J (> 461") they brought
‘all they possessed,’ which, if they were half-nomads, would
be possible without waggons.
21-28. The brethren return to Canaan.—2z2. Presents
of expensive clothes are a common mark of courtesy in the
East: cf. Ju. 14219, 2 Ki. 55: 2.—changes of raiment] such
as were substituted for ordinary clothing on festal occasions
(see on 27!).—Benjamin receives five such suits: see on
43°*.—23. of the best (produce) of Egypt] A munificent return
πάντων τῶν ἀγαθῶν.-- Ἔοτ ‘the best fart,’ P uses 39 (47% ").—19. anm
ny33s] The pass. is awkward in itself, and has no syntactic connexion
with the following wy nxi (hence S& inserts wit) :107}. Diet
emend oni Πὲς ΠΠΝῚ ; Ba. nxrnx my ane (after Gr Σὺ δὲ ἔντειλαι ταῦτα ; cf. DB);
Gu. ‘M3¥ πρδὺ: 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 v. (Di.), 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 v.71.
21. ‘xw’—.wy"] The statement is premature, and furnishes an addi-
tional indication that this part of the narrative has been worked over.
The repeated jn» also suggests a doublet or interpolation. In 15:31, Di.
leaves to E only 79 ms ond jn» mbay “5 oad jnn; KS. only the second of
these clauses, the rest being redactional.— 71> mys] as 42% (E).—23.
x12] (so pointed only here): ‘ in like manner’ (Ju. 8°).—19] (2 Ch. 11° +)
from an Aram. j/ ἢ = ‘feed.’—Of the three nouns, 73, on?, and jp, (ἃ
* Cf. Heyes, Bzb. uw, Aeg. i. 251.
490 THE SETTLEMENT IN EGYPT (J, E, P)
for Jacob’s modest complimentary present (43").—corn and
bread and sustenance for the journey] cf. v.2°.—24. Do not
get excited by the way] sc., with mutual recriminations,—a
caution suggested by 4235.- 25. 28. Jacob’s reception of the
tidings.—26. λὲς 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, hzs spirit
revived| he recovered his wonted energy of thought and
action.—28. From ].--- zs enough] The father’s heart is
indifferent to Joseph’s grandeur (* 1!) and princely gifts;
the fact that his son lives is sufficient consolation for all he
has endured (cf. 4659). The psychology of old age could not
be more sympathetically or convincingly treated.
XLVI. 1-XLVII. 12.—The Settlement of Jacob and his
Family in Egypt (J, E, P).
Jacob, encouraged by a night vision at Beersheba, takes
his departure for Egypt (+”): (here is inserted a list of the
persons who were supposed to accompany him, * 7). He
sends Judah to announce his arrival to Joseph, who proceeds
to Goshen and tenderly welcomes his father (233-80), 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°). Jacob’s interview with Pharaoh closes the account
of the migration (7:15).
Sources.—The narrative of JE is several times interrupted by excerpts
from P, whose peculiar style and viewpoint can be recognised in 4627
47°: 7-11 (but see the notes below, p. 439 ff.).—Disregarding these vv.,
expresses only ond. & has Ἵ;Χο.υ, ‘wine,’ for ond, but perhaps through
dittog. of [phan, ‘asses.’—24. win bx] Gk μὴ ὀργίζεσθε, B Ne trascamini,
ΕῚ Ne) 412 a; T° pssnn x (‘quarrel’). But the Heb. verb denotes simply
agitation, by whatever emotion produced.—26. »5] In Arab. and Syr.
the ,/ means to be or grow ‘cold,’ in Syr., also, and NH, fig. ‘grow
inactive,’ ‘fail,’ ‘vanish’; in OT the prevailing idea seems to be that
of numbness (BDB); cf. Hab. 14 (of Ζδγᾶλ), Ps. 38°.—28. 139] As an ex-
clamation=‘ enough !’; cf. Ex. 9%, Nu. 16*7, Dt. 18 28 etc.
XLV. 24—-XLVI. 3 491
we have a continuous J narrative from 46"-47°: note dxw, %%; Goshen,
28. 29. 34.1.4. 6; the leadership of Judah, *; the ignoring of Pharaoh's
invitation (45! E); ‘os by Spx, 39. oypm, 39... wy, nays, #4,—46! is
in the main from E, as appears from the night vision, the form of
address, 3; Jacob's implied hesitation, * (ct. 4538) ; the name /Jacod, 3: ™;
ormdx, 2; dx, 9.---ἶὸ (Sse) and possibly belong to J.—47"" is doubtful,—
probably E ($25, as 45"").—See We. Com.” Go f.; Di. Ho. Gu. Pro. 54 f.
(who assigns 477 to E instead of P and 47” to J).
1-7. Jacob bids farewell to Canaan.—1. came to Be'er-
sheba'| There is in E no clear indication of where Jacob lived
after his return from Laban (see on 35). If at Beersheba, the
above clause is redactional, written on the assumption that
he started from Hebron (37! J). The point would be deter-
mined if 5» were the original continuation of ὅδ, for it is
absurd to suppose that the waggons were first put to use
in the middle of the journey (We.). 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.—‘he God of .. . Isaac] Isaac is apparently
regarded as the founder of the sanctuary, as in ch. 26 (J");
an Elohistic parallel to that tradition may have existed
though in 213! (E with 19) its consecration is attributed to
Abraham.—2-4. The last of the patriarchal theophanies.
Comp. 12, where the theophany sanctions the occupation
of Canaan, as this sanctions the leaving of it (Di.); and 263,
where, under circumstances similar to Jacob’s, Isaac is for-
bidden to go down to Egypt.—3. the God of thy father| As
elsewhere in Genesis, δὲ denotes the local mwmen, who here
distinguishes himself from other divine beings,—a trace of
the primitive polytheistic representation (cf. 311° 35} 337° 21°8
161%).— Fear not, etc.] The purpose of the revelation is to
I. yaw 1X3] Gr here and v.5 τὸ φρέαρ τοῦ ὅρκου (see p. 326).—2. Sew]
The word has crept in from v.! 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” (We.).—On the form of
the v., see on 22}1.---3. ΠῚ 2] From 17, the rare form of inf. const. of *’5
492 LIST OF JACOB’S DESCENDANTS (Ρ)
remove the misgiving natural to an old man called to leave
his hearth and his altar. The thought is confined to E
(ct. 4578 J).—for. . . nation] The words, if genuine, should
follow the immediate grounds of comfort in v.4. They are
probably to be regarded (with KS. Gu. al.) as an expansion
of the same character as 13144 2215. 2814 etc.—4. J will g0
down with thee] So in 3113 the #7 of Bethel is with Jacob in
Mesopotamia.—bring thee up| The reference must be to the
Exodus (Ex. 3° 68 etc.), not to Jacob’s burial in Canaan
(477% 50°%-).—lay his hand upon thine eyes] t.e., close them
after death; for classical parallels, cf. Hom. 71. xi. 453, Od.
xi. 426, xxiv. 296; Eurip. Phan. 1451 f., Hec. 430; Virg. Aen.
ix. 487, etc. (Kn—Di.).—6, 7. P’s summary of the migration
(.2:}:
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 Nu. 26°,
These traditionally numbered sevendy (cf. the 7o elders,
Ex. 241-9, Nu. 1116). Closely connected with this was an-
other tradition, that the number of the Israelites at the
settlement in Egypt was 70 (Dt. 10”). In the more careful
statement of Ex. 1° (P), this means all the descendants of
Jacob at the time: Ζ.6., 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 356), When cleared of certain obvious
accretions (33) apy 8; 17; 5875 yn oa 15); wen owe “Ὁ and the
whole of ΣΙ except the last word p’yav’), we find as its nucleus
verbs, peculiar to E: see G-K. ὃ 69 m?; Ho. Hex. 190.—4. aby 03] See on
273 311%, ( els réXos.—5. apy’ 3] Ce om.—ayrs] Cr Iwond.—6, 7. Cf. 125
4118 368 (Ρ). Further marks of Py w35, 229, inv wht (177% 3512), and the
redundant phraseology.
XLVI. 4-10 493
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 Nu. 26°*:
That the section belong's in general to the Priestly strata of the Pent.
is seen from its incompatibility with the narrative (and particularly the
chronology) of JE ; from its correspondence with Nu. 26", Ex. 64" ; and
from literary indications (mnw mde, 8 [cf. 2518. 36]; ΠΝ 718, 5; ws, 15. 18, 22.
25-27 5 ἈΚ, 76). As regards its relation to the main document of P,
three views are possible : (1) That the list was originally drawn up by
P, and afterwards accommodated to the tradition of JE by a later editor
(N6. Di. al.). This implies the perfectly tenable assumption that P 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 P,
who thus turned an older list of Jacob’s children into an enumeration of
those who accompanied him to Egypt (Dri.). The only serious objec-
tion to this theory is that it makes P (in opposition to Ex. 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
P (We. Kue. Gu. 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 v.® 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 (1**), and reckons Jacob amongst the sons of Leah! An-
other sign of artificial manipulation of the figures appears in the pro-
portions between the number of chi/dren 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 &
presents some important variations (v.2.).
8a. The heading is identical with Ex. 11, except the
words $93) apy’, which are obviously interpolated (see intro-
ductory note).—8b-I5, The sons of Leah: viz. four sons of
Reuben (v.°), szx of Simeon (10), three of Levi (11), five sons
and zwo grandsons of Judah (13), four sons of Issachar (8),
and ¢hree of Zebulun (1*).—15. thirty-three is thus the correct
number of sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of Jacob by
Leah. To preserve this number intact with the omission of
Er and Onan, the interpolator was obliged to add Dinah,
and to include Jacob himself (see below).
9. Exactly as Ex. 6%, Nu. 26°.— in is also a Midianite tribe (255);
the Reubenites occupied Midianite territory (Jos. 137").—; sn] and "213]
also Judahite clans (see v. and Jos. 7').—10. (= Ex. 65). Nu. 2612
494 LIST OF JACOB’S DESCENDANTS (P)
omits 778 and reads 5x%1 for Sx, and ΠῚ for Ἴπε,- -ἼπΏ} The name of
Ephron’s father in 238.—7che son of the Canaanitess] representing a clan
of notoriously impure stock.—11. (= Ex. 61*).—12. As Nu. 26%%,—The
note on the death of Er and Onan is an interpolation (see above).—
js] (see on v.°) was a town in Judah (Jos. 15%5).—ion] ax Seon; 6
ἸΙεμουήλ.---13. (= Nu. 26f-),—ybyn] Cf. the judge of the same name, son
of nb, of the tribe of Issachar (Ju. 10').—}2] 21% m5, as 1 Ch. 7},
Ju. 1ol.—ar] χὰ and & (Ἰασουβ[ 4]) read 2% as Nu. 26: Wi. connects
with Yasub-clu under the rst Babylonian dynasty (G/, ii. 68°).—14. (Nu.
26%),—p>x a Zebulunite judge in Ju. 124%.—25. wna a3 nw and yan
are glosses.
16-18. The sons of Zilpah (Leah’s handmaid): seven
sons of Gad (1°), fowr sons, one daughter, and ¢wo grandsons
of Asher (17): szxteen in all (8).
16. (As Nu. 26°", with textual differences).—jr5s] χα pps, as Nu.
261, —]33N] au pyasx, Or Θασοβαν, stands for "δ in Nu. 26'%.—17. mw, a
variant of the following »w’(?), does not appear in Nu. 26“f--—The two
grandsons Ἴ:π and 5x-$p have been connected with the Gadbiri and the
(chief) 7715 11 of the Amarna Tablets (Jast. /BZ, xi. 120).
19-22. The sons of Rachel: ¢wo of Joseph (39) and zen of
Benjamin (74), in all fourteen.
20. 11] (τ + viol. But the rel. cl. ;jy—1wx was probably added by the
glossator, in which case the 013 of & is superfluous. —(& adds, in partial
agreement with Nu. 26%, five names as sons and grandsons of
Manasseh and Ephraim.—2z1. In @& 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 Nu. 26°5-4°,— 21] (€r Χόβωρ) : cf. Sheba’
the Bichrite in 2 Sa. 20': in Nu. 26 1232 is an Ephraimite.—x3] omitted
in Nu. 26, is the clan of Ehud (Ju. 3) and Shimei (2 Sa. 16°).—For the
two names wx ‘nN, Nu. 26% has ons, for ΟΞ, o>5Y” or Dw, and for
pan, Dain (see Gray, ZPN, 35).—jdv3 and τῆν are sons of yba in Nu. 26%,
—22. 19] MSS an@& 75».
23-25. The sons of Bilhah (Rachel’s maid): ome of Dan
(73, in spite of 122), and fowr of Naphtali (74): seven in all.
23. 3] So Nu. 26”, where for own we find onw.—24. (as Nu. 2643).
—obv] ax οὐ (as 1 Ch. 738), Gr Συλλήμ.
26, 27. The final summations.
The original computation (7o = 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.—@h, with its 5 additional
XLVI. 11-31 495
descendants of Joseph (see on v.*’), makes the total 75 (so Ac. 774), but
inadvertently substitutes ἐννέα, instead of ἑπτά, for the ow of MT ”,
overlooking the fact that both Jacob and Joseph have to be reckoned
in the 75.—26. 127 ‘xs'] 354, Ex. 15.—27. 15] ax >.
28-30. The meeting of Jacob and Joseph.—28. 20
direct before him to Goshen| The Heb. here gives no toler-
able 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 instruc-
tions for their reception in Goshen (Di.), 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 Vns. v.z.): 20 appear
before him in Goshen, which had already been indicated by
Joseph as the goal of the journey (451°).—29. went up|
Goshen lying somewhat higher than the Nile-valley.—30.
The v. prepares us for the death-bed scenes (477°"-), which
in JE must have taken place soon after, not as in P at an
interval of 17 years.
XLVI. 31-XLVII. 12—Joseph obtains Pharaoh’s
permission for his brethren to settle in Goshen.—
31-34 (J). 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 dis-
28. mnd] μα Ὁ S ninqad (We. n'q7), which is confirmed by x? in
the next v. There is no need to take the 25> 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. Ba. thinks that the συναντῆσαι of (ἃ implies a reading nixtpnd
(‘to meet’); but the Niph. of ™p would rather mean ‘to come upon un-
expectedly’ (Dt. 22°, 2 Sa. 18°).—jwi—aw3] Ge καθ᾽ Ἡρώων πόλιν els γῆν
ἹῬαμεσσή. Herodpolis has been shown by the excavations of Naville
(Store City of Pithom, etc.‘, 5 ff. ; cf. Gillett in /SBLZ, Dec. 1886, p. 69 ff.)
to be Pithom (Ex. 17), now 711 el-Maskhuta (see p. 488 above). The
Bohairic Vn. substitutes Pethom for the ᾿Ηρώων of G. (ἃ thus makes
the meeting take place at the frontier town in the W. Tumilat towards
the desert (so v.””), The reading is noteworthy textually as containing
P’s name for Goshen.—wx2] 2x1HS xa» (better).—29. ΜΝ ΟΡ] &
κλαυθμῷ πίονι (var. melovc).—The τὴν is strange; but cf. Ps. 84°(Ru. 114
is not in point).—30. 725] 3 + 3.
31. vax Π ΟΝ] G om., perhaps rightly.
496 THE SETTLEMENT IN EGYPT (J, P)
trict of Goshen assigned to them. It is evident that in J 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. Gu. thinks
that the representation made to Pharaoh cannot have been
strictly true, or Joseph would not have made such a point
of it; * 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 them-
selves as shepherds (475), and yet Pharaoh would make them
cattle-overseers (47°). 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 (47°). Moreover, while
there is evidence that swine-herds (Her. ii. 47) and cow-
herds (Erman, ZAZ, 439f.) were looked down on by the
Egyptians, the statement that shepherds were held in
special abhorrence has not been confirmed; and the clause
(4°) is probably an interpolation suggested by 43°%. See,
further, on 47°%.—XLVII. 1-5a, 6b (J). Pharaoh grants the
request.—I. and behold . . . Goshen| It is evident that in
this narrative Joseph relies on the fazt accompli to procure
a favourable response from Pharaoh. The idea that Pharaoh
decided such matters in person may be naive (Gu.); it is
certainly a curious restriction of the absolute authority else-
where assigned to Joseph.—2. he had taken five, etc.] On the
32. yn—'2] regarded as a gloss by Di. KS. Ho. Gu. al.—3q. wa] G&
Teceu ApaBla.—ayr] ax (BST°) 'y7.—2. axypo]=‘ from the totality of,’ as
* So Eerdmans ( Vorgeschichte Israels, 42; Exp., Aug. 1908, p. 124 f.),
who draws the conclusion that, as the Israelites here represent them-
selves as nomads, they cannot have really been so!
XLVI. 32—XLVII. 6 497
significance of the number, see on 43°4.—3, 4. The antici-
pated question (46°) is answered in accordance with Joseph’s
instructions, though the phraseology differs by the substitu-
tion of jX¥ ‘Y4 for 3p wIN.—It is possible that the repeated
WN”) is due to the omission between ὃ and ¢ of a further
question by Pharaoh as to the reasons for their coming to
Egypt (so Ba. Gu.). 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 ** in @& (v.z.), whose arrangement of
these vv. is obviously more original than that of MT.—As
an additional favour, Pharaoh offers to take any capable
members of the family into his service as cattle superintend-
ents (ΠΣ WY’), —an office frequently mentioned in the monu-
ments as one of high dignity (Erman, ZAZ, 94 f., 108, 143).
The breeding of cattle was carried to great perfection in
ancient Egypt (zd. 436 ff.).
The admission of pastoral tribes within the frontier of Egypt is an
incident twice represented in Eg. inscrs. of the period here supposed.
Under Hor-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 (p. 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 Wadi Tumilat
where Goshen was (see A 7ZO*, 393; Dri. 372).
5, 6a, 7-11. Jacob before Pharaoh (P).—5. The text of
¢& (v.z.) supplies the following opening to P’s account (con-
tinuing 46"): And Jacob and his sons came to Egypt to Joseph ;
and Pharaoh king of Egypt heard it (55), and Pharaoh said to
Joseph, etc.—It is plain that ὅν continues ¢hzs conversation
and not that between Pharaoh and the five brethren.—6a.
Here Pharaoh himself selects she best [part] of the land for
1 Ki. 1231, Ezk. 33? (otherwise Gn. 194).—np>] (plup.) 22+ i2y.—3. rmx]
32 STI Hov *nx.—ayr] ww )Ῥ»Ὲ (as 46*4).—5, 6. The overlapping of J and P
at this point can be proved and corrected from G&. After * (omitting
32
498 JOSEPH’S AGRARIAN POLICY
the Hebrew family to dwell in (see v.").—7. Joseph intro-
duces his father to Pharaoh,—an impressive and dignified
scene.—Olessed], 1.6. ‘saluted’ on entering (cf. 1 Sa. 13",
2 Ki. 47, 2 Sa. 1225 τοῦ), but recorded, no doubt, with a
sense that ‘‘the less is blessed of the better” (Heb. 77).—
9. few and evil| The expression shows that P 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 (& of 46% (see on 451°), so called
from the city built by Ramses π. (Ex. 1) and named
after him ‘the house of Ramses,’ in the E of the Delta
(Erman, ZAZ£, 48). The situation is still uncertain ; Naville
(Goshen, 20) was inclined to identify it with Saft el-Henneh
(see p. 488); but Petrie now claims to have discovered its
site at Tel er-Retabeh, in the middle of W. Tumilat, 8 m. W
of Pithom (Ayksos and Israelite Cities, 1906, p. 28 ff.)—12.
Probably from E || 318 (J).
XLVII. 13-27.—/oseph’s Agrarian Policy (J 3).
Joseph is here represented as taking advantage of the
great famine to revolutionize the system of land-tenure in
sons) Gi reads ©; then ἦλθον δὲ els Αἴγυπτον πρὸς ᾿Ιωσὴφ ᾿Ιακὼβ καὶ οἱ viol
αὐτοῦ" καὶ ἤκουσεν Φαραὼ βασιλεὺς Αἰγύπτου (-Ξ "31 APY FDV-ON ADS IN
psp Top aynp you); then > (repeated) ὅν: δ8. 7, It will hardly be disputed
that the text of (ἃ is here the original, and that P’s narrative com-
mences with the additional sentences quoted above. The editor of MT
felt the doublet to be too glaring ; he therefore omitted these two sen-
tences ; and then by transposition worked the two accounts into a single
scene. A further phase is represented by Hex. Syr., where ὅν and ® 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. τοῦ} nyv ΒΝ] See G-K. §120e. The en of
ax is certainly not preferable (Ba.).—11. 30] v.5, Ex. 224, 1 Sa. 15% 1.
The identification of pasa ‘D with the ‘land of Ramses’ probably rests
on a misunderstanding of E’s ‘x7 2 (see on 45'S), and a combination of
it with J's ]¥3.—12. 45] apparently including here the women: cf. Rose
XLVII. 7-17 499
Egypt for the benefit of the crown. In one year the famish-
ing 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 15:8. 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 con-
fidently assigned to either of the main documents (We. Comp.* 61). Lin-
guistic indications are on the whole in favour of J: 133, 13; mp3 xb) avn, 19
(42? 43°) 5 mv, 4 (4353); 3pan Aap pasa aap, 17 (2614); -rya jn πε, % (see Gu.
and Di.). But there are also traces of E’s diction: pin, 39; nan, ran, 1%
(295) 30',—diftering from 11% 4:7) (Di. Ho.); besides some peculiar ex-
pressions very unusual in Pent.: 775, 18; pbx, 15f ; now (Qal), 9; xn, 38
(Di.). It is possible that Ho. (251 f.) and Pro. (54f.) are right in think-
ing 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 chs. 41 and 42 (Di.
Gu. 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 J nor E.—V.” appears to be from P,
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 v.",
after which the situation is purely Egyptian. It is natural
to suppose that the references to Canaan are interpolated
(Ho. Gu.); but considering the close political relations of
the two countries, it would be rash to assume this too
easily.—I5-17. The live-stock is next exhausted.—/orses]
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 ;
13. ASM] ax xdm. The s/ and is Aram. di. Ney. =x, ‘languish.’ It
is one of several rare expressions which occur in this section.—14q4. Ὁ. 12}
Qi +. 05252» (v.!").—15. zx] The vb. only here (and v.16) in Pent. : else-
where poetic (Is. 16* 29”, Ps. 77°t).—"02] au 02", Gr 13802 (so v.}®).—
τό. 025] «αὐχῈ +075.—17. $m3] Only here in the sense of ‘sustain’ [with
food] ; elsewhere, if the ,/ be the same, it means ‘lead’ (to watering-
500 JOSEPH’S AGRARIAN POLICY
and it is noteworthy that (as if to relieve Joseph of the
odium) the proposal is represented as coming from the
people themselves.—I8, that vear . . . 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.—I9Q. 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.— gvve seed, etc.] A temporary provision
(see v.74) for the time of famine, or perhaps for the first
sowing after it was over (Ho.). 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 re-
duced to bondmen| Read so with Vns., v.z. (Kn. Di. De. al.).
The MT: ‘he brought them over to the cities’ appears to
mean that he brought the rural population to the cities
where the corn-magazines were (4135: 45), but the emphasis
on the obj. leads us to expect a parallelism to the appropria-
tion of the land in v.?° (Di.).. A universal redistribution of
the inhabitants ((°, Tu. 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 p. 501 below). Comp. Erman, ZAZ, 129,
where Ramses ul. is said to have given 185,000 sacks of
corn annually to the temples.—23-26. Institution of the
land-tax.—23. Here ἐς seed for you] The gift is not to be re-
peated; hence the incident naturally belongs to the end of
the famine.—24. a fifth part| According to Oriental ideas,
place, goal, etc.): see p. 414.—18. 08°32] may be rendered equally well
(with 01) ‘that, if’ (protasis to 1xw3 x5), or with 70 ‘ but’ [sondern] (De.
Ho.).—1g. ὈΠΙΘῚΝ D3 13738 O31] Gr avoids the bold zeugma, and substitutes
καὶ ἡ γῆ ἐρημωθῇ, as at the end of the v.—nn] O& ἵνα σπείρωμεν (yn) ?).—
21. onyb—vayn] MT is supported by ST, while αὐ read onay$—ayn,
as does the loose paraphrase of H.—23. xq] Only Ezk. 16% and Aram.
Dn. 2*.—24. nxiina] It seems necessary here to take ’n as a noun of
action: ‘at the bringings in’ ({° De. Di.), though elsewhere it always
XLVII. 18-27 501
and considering the fertility of Egypt, the impost is not
excessive; a much higher percentage being frequently
exacted under Eastern governments (cf. 1 Mac. 10%, and
the authorities cited by Di. p. 444). On the severities of
taxation under the New Empire, see LAZ, 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. (P, v.z.) is the conclusion of the settle-
ment of Israel in Egypt (v.14).
The system of land-tenure reflected in νν. 15.326 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 (ZAZ, 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” (7b. 129). The peculiar privileges of the priests (and soldiers)
are attested by Diod. i. 73 f.; Herod. ii. 168 (but cf. 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 inde-
pendent confirmation.—The interest of the biblical account is ztiologi-
cal. 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 Gu. 4το 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 Yanhamu is frequently mentioned as holding a position
somewhat corresponding to that of Joseph. Yanhamu, whose name
suggests Semitic extraction, was governor of an unknown province
means ‘increase’ or ‘produce.’ To omit 3 (with @) does not yield a
natural construction.—o02$2x5] Ba. happily emends 03> $25. —n250b boxy]
Better omitted with @&.—26. wond] G& vend. woh is not found, and the
expression is very awkward. A good sense might be obtained by
transposing πρ θυ wend (with 4-2!) ; but whether that is the original text
is very doubtful.—27. The v. is usually divided between J and P; but
Sew’ is no sure sign of J, since it denotes the nation. The only charac-
teristic of J is }w2 y982, which may be very well excised as a gloss: the
rest may then quite suitably be assigned to P (cf. nxa, 729 78).
502 JACOB ON HIS DEATH-BED (J, E, P)
called Yarimuta, which some have tried (but on the slenderest grounds)
to identify with the biblical Goshen (Wi. Forschungen, iii. 215; Je.
ATLO, 391°). 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, p. 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 Wi. Che. Je. al.)is conceivable enough ;
though definite points of contact are very restricted, and the historical
background of Yanhamu’s activity has completely faded from the bio-
graphy 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 (‘/-77-sw), a Syrian, ‘fin years of scarcity’’ which followed ‘‘ the
abundant years of the past,” ‘‘ made the whole land tributary to himself
alone” (see Petrie, 7152. 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.
XLVII. 28—XLVIII. 22.—/Jacob’s last Interview with
Joseph (J, E, P).
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 (35:91), (2) the blessing of Joseph
and his two sons (48); (3) Jacob’s oracles on the future
of all the tribes (49%); and (4) his instructions regard-
ing his burial in Machpelah (?°-*%).—The first two may be
conveniently treated together.
Sources. —The triple thread of narrative is shown by the three begin-
nings: 47° (P), 47” (J), and 48! (E). To P belong 47% 4858: note the
chronology and syntax of 4778, the connexion of 483: with 35%: 1-12;
sw bx, ὃ; naam mia, 45 ony dap, 4; ody nins, 4; 117, &—Equally decisive are
the indications of J in 477931; Sw», 39. 31; 2) ΝΥ oN, 295 021 ἼΤ᾽ 82 OW, 29 (242) ;
ΤΙΝῚ ton, * (2455 321!) ; ΣΝ ΡΨ ‘naay, *°.—The analysis of 48" 2: 822 is more
doubtful: formerly the passage was treated as a unity and assigned to
XLVII. 28—XLVIII. 2 503
E (Hupf., We. Comf.* 61 f., Dri. al.), but the evidences of double recension
are too numerous to be overlooked. (See Budde, ZATW, iii. 56 ff.)
Thus, while 3py", *, and ovndx, % 1-15. 301. and “pxn, 72, point to E, dx,
30. 8. 10f. 18{..2] and vysn, 4, point to J. A clue to the analysis is supplied
by (a) the double presentation of Manasseh and Ephraim, 1 ! 18 (v3) ;
and (4) the obvious intrusion of 15:16 between 15 δηά 17, 18. 14.17-19 hang
together and are from J; 15 links on to 125, and" presuppose. Taking
note of the finer criteria, the analysis works out somewhat as follows :
Ἑ -- 1- 2.8.9 100. 11, 12, 15. 16. 2agyb. 21.22 5 Τ — 30 (ἡ. 1a. 18, 14. 17-19. 28a (to yan) ;—
deleting Sxvw” in 39 (7. 81-21 as a redactional explication. So in general
Di. KS. Ho. Gu. ; also Pro., who, however, places *!-*? before 7 in E’s
narrative.—The source of ” is difficult to determine ; usually it has been
assigned to P or R, but by Gu. and Pro. to E (see the notes).
28-31. Joseph promises to bury Jacob in Canaan.—
28 (P). Jacob’s age at the time of his death; cf. 479.—29-31
(J). Comp. the parallel in P, 4939. 55.- 20. On the form of
oath, see on 24”.—30. lie with my fathers] z.e., in She’dl
(see on 258); cf. Dt. 3118, 1 Ki. 2! etc.—zx their burying-
place] But in 50° (also J) 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 P 49° (We.).—31. dowed
over the head of the bed| An act of worship, expressing
gratitude to God for the fulfilment of his last wish (cf. 1 Ki.
1). Ho.’s conjecture (based on 1 Sa. 191%), that there was
an image at the top of the bed, is a possible, though pre-
carious, explanation of the origin of the custom. The
mistaken rendering of (& (v.z.) may have arisen from the
fact that the oath over the staff was an Egyptian formality
(Spiegelberg, Recuezl des Travaux, xxv. 184 ff.; cf. EB,
47791; Sayce, Contemp. Rev., Aug. 1907, 260). .
XLVIII. Adoption and blessing of Joseph’s two
sons.—I, 2. The introduction to all that follows: from
20. mob—i27p»] Cf. Dt. 3174 (J), τ Ki. 21.—30. 232] must be taken as
protasis to ‘inxw» (Str. Ho. Gu. al.).—onv2p3] Kit. ™2p2, 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. nen] (ἢ
τῆς ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ, S σιμέα».. (ΞΞ 30D); cf. Heb. 117. Other Vns. follow
MT, which is undoubtedly right: see 48? 49%.
I. 708] So 1 Sa. 164 19%. The pl. 98 is more usual in such cases
(G-K. § 144 43): we might also point as Niph. 19x (Jos. 2?).—At end of
v. add with @ apyvdx xa.—2. 134] Better 13).—2b is usually assigned
504 JACOB ON HIS DEATH-BED (J, E, P)
E.—took his two sons.| It seems implied in v.8 that Jacob
had not yet seen the lads,—so soon did his last illness follow
his arrival in Egypt.—3-6. P’s brief account of the adoption
of Ephraim and Manasseh. Di. thinks the vv. have been
transferred from their original connexion with 4975", where
they were spoken in presence of all the brethren.—3, 4. The
reference is to the revelation at Luz (3514+), 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.—Zphraim and
Manasseh| The order is the only hint that Ephraim was the
leading tribe (cf. v.2° E); but it is not that usually observed
by P (see Nu. 267% 2455: Jos. 144 164 171; otherwise ΝΠ ἘΠ:
—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.| 1.6., 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 3510-20. νου] to my sorrow; lit. (‘as a
trouble) upon me’ (cf. 3315).
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 v. in the extant
portions of any of the three sources. In P (to which the word 715 at first
sight seems to point), De. Di. al. would put it immediately before [any]
FJDNI "IN in 4025; 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 49*! (v.** may be an interpolation); but the form of
the v. is not favourable to that assumption, and no good reason can be
to J because of 5x-w. But the cl. comes very naturally after 35; and as
there are three other cases of confusion between the two names in this
ch, (1-21), the name is not decisive.—4. ony dap] 28°; cf. 3511.---ν Ὁ]
Oe “τὸν 9S. —aby ning] 178.—7. 7785] 21.€-+07x, as in every other case where
the name occurs (see on 2529). That the difference is documentary, and
points to E rather than P, is a hazardous assumption (Gu.); and to
substitute ]7n, for the sake of accommodation to J (Bruston, Ba.), is quite
XLVIII. 3-14 505
imagined for the transposition. (See Bu. ZATW, iii. 67f.) Bruston
(in ZATW, vii. 208) puts forward the attractive suggestion (adopted by
KS. Ba. Gu. Pro. al.) that the v. introduced a request to be buried in
the same grave as Rachel. Such a wish is evidently impossible in P ;
and Bruston (followed with some hesitation by Ba. KS.) accordingly
found a place for it (with the necessary alterations of text) between 47”
and 89 (J): against this 50°! seem decisive. Gu. and Pro. assign it to
E, the latter placing it after v.”, which is certainly its most suitable
position in E. But is the idea after all any more conceivable in E than
in P? 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.
Hupf. and Schr. consider the v. redactional; so Bu., who thinks it was
inserted to correct P’s original statement that Rachel was buried in
Machpelah (see on 49%").
8, 9. E’s narrative is resumed.— Observe that Jacob
sees the boys (who are quite young children [41°°]), whereas
in 1 (J) he could not see.—Qb is usually assigned to J, but
for no very convincing reason.—Iob, I1(E). Zhad 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 (E). from between his (Jacob's) knees]
There must be a reference to some rite of adoption not de-
scribed, which being completed, Joseph removes the children
and prostrates himself to receive the blessing (continued in 15).
—I0a, 13, 14 (J). Whether this is asecond interview in J, or
a continuation of that in 4729-81, does not appear; in either
case something has been omitted.—10a. See on 27'.—13f.
The crossing (v.z.) 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
arbitrary.—om] G&+% μήτηρ cov (so ax).—8. mde Ὃ] wu. +7$.—9. 7ONn?]
0k +’Iaxé8.—p23»)] (B-D. p. 80). On the pausal seghol, see G-K. §§ 29 9,
60 d.—11. mk] G-K. § 75 2 (cf. 31%),—ndbp] Lit. ‘had not judged’; only
here = ‘ opine.’—12. 1nnw] 22S have the pl.—v5x>] hardly makes sense.
Rd. with G&S oy .—14. worn] ax ins. 1.—b2v] T° 7») 3πν, deriving
from ,/ 52, ‘be prudent’ (whose Piel does not occur); but (ἃ ἐναλλάξ, D
commutans, S , GJ wm», These Vns. may be guessing at the
sense ; but most moderns appeal to Ar. Sakala, a secondary meaning of
which is to ‘plait two locks of hair together and dind them to the other
506 JACOB ON HIS DEATH-BED (J, E, P)
the richer blessing.—15, 16. The Blessing (E).—The three-
fold invocation of the Deity reminds us of the Aaronic bene-
diction (Nu. 674%), which has some resemblance to a feature
of Babylonian liturgies (see Je. Holle 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” (Gu.).—efore whom . . . walked] cf. 171.—
who shepherded me| Cf. 49%, Ps. 23! 28°, Is. 401. The
image is appropriate in the mouth of the master-shepherd
Jacob (Di.).—16. the Angel . . . evil] The passages in Jacob’s
life where an angel or angels intervene (284 311! 322) all
belong to the source E; 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 tn them] ‘Let them be known as sons of Jacob,’ and
reckoned among the tribes of Israel.—17-I9. Continuing ™
(J).—Joseph thinks his father had counted on the elder being
on his left (Joseph’s right) hand, and will now correct his
mistake.—IQ. But Jacob, speaking under inspiration, de-
clares his action to be significant.—the fulness of the nations]
A peculiar expression for populousness. Cf. Dt. 43}
(‘myriads of Ephraim’; ‘thousands of Manasseh’).—20.
The clause And he blessed them that day| is (if not redac-
tional) the conclusion of J’s account: the words of blessing
are not given. The rest of the v. concludes the blessing of
E (%&).—By thee (G& vou) shall Israel bless] The formula
must have been in actual use, and is said to be still current
amongst Jews (Str.).—he put E. before M.| If the words are
original (E), they call attention to the fact that in the bene-
diction Ephraim had been named first, and find in that slight
locks.’ In spite of the philological equivalence, Dri. is justly sceptical
of so remote an analogy.— 2125 ΠΡ °2] (ἃ om.—I5. ἢδυ ΠΝ] Οἵ one]
wrongly, the original connexion being with >.— myn] (Nu. 22+) ‘ever
since I was.’ GSP ‘from my youth’ (y3 ?).—16. For 7xbon, ax reads
7bo2.—19. od] ‘but for all that’ (cf. 28!%).—2o0. 72] 023.—319)] GPS
322: (Niph.; see on 12%). The most natural form would be Hithpa.
an’. —22. Ins 02v] Gh Σικιμα ἐξαίρετον, Aq. ὦμον ἕνα. For 98 instead of
tox, see G-K. § 130g. On 4n> in the sense of ‘mountain-slope’ (v.s.),
see Nu. 344, Jos. 158 [Is. 1114?], etc.
XLVI. 15—XLIX 507
circumstance an augury of the future pre-eminence of Ephr.
(Gu.).—2I, 22. Closing words to Joseph (E).—2I. A pre-
diction of the return to Canaan, in terms very similar to
50% (also E). The explicit anticipations of the Exodus are
probably all from this document (1516 [?] 46* 50°').—22. one
shoulder] The word 03%’ may very well (like the synonymous
N32) have had in common speech the secondary sense of
‘ mountain-slope,’ though no instance occurs in OT. 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
p. 416), and consecrated by the possession of Joseph’s tomb
(Jos. 24°). 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 v.
(see below).—With my sword and with my bow] Contrast
Jos. 24”.
Vv.71:2 stand in no organic connexion with each other, or with what
precedes. V.”, in particular, not only presupposes a version of the
capture of Shechem different from any found elsewhere ἢ (see p. 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 repre-
sented 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 ch. 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, ZS, 227, 414f.
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
* Attempts to bring the notice into line with the recorded history, by
inserting x> before ‘29n3 and ‘nwpa (as Jos. 241%) (Kue.), or by taking
‘nnp> as a fut.-pf. (Tu. De. Str. al.), are obviously unsatisfactory.
508 THE BLESSING OF JACOB
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 com-
posed from the first in the name of Jacob appears clearly from
internal indications (vv.% % U8l. 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 (v.!%), or the ‘ royal
dainties’ produced by Asher (39), or even the loss of tribal
independence by Issachar (1°), 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 OT 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 com-
plete 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 7%"); 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 (asis clear from vv.® ΤΡ: 16)
XLIX. 128A 509
Jacob as representing the ideal unity of Israel (see Kohler,
Ρ. 8f.). 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 consoli-
dation 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 Judzan 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 sug-
gested 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 Parailels.—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 (Ju. 5), and (2) the Blessing of Moses (Dt. 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 Gen. 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
510 THE BLESSING OF JACOB
literary dependence on Gn. 49; it is therefore a later composition,
written very probably in North Israel after the division of the kingdom
(see Dri. Deut. 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 Gn. 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 vv.® * 1°), We find, further, that a double motive runs
through the series, viz., (1) etymological play on the name of the tribe
(Judah, Zebulun ἢ, Dan, Gad, Asher 9), 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 character-
istic 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 We. (Comp.® 320) to the blessing
on Joseph, which is generally considered to refer to the kingdom of
North Israel and to the Aramzean 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, Kue. 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
XLIX. 1-284 511
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 signifi-
cance 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, vv.® and ὃ,
written at the time of David's victories over the Philistines, and cele-
brating the passing of the hegemony from Reuben to Judah : to this v.4
was afterwards added as an appendix. (2) A second poem on Judah,
Dan, and Issachar (vv.% 17: 14f-: 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 v. on
Benjamin (37). (3) The Shiloh oracle (vv.'*!"), dating from the same
period. (4) The decastich on Simeon and Levi (νν. 5.7), from the time of
the later Judges. (5) The blessing of Joseph (35 35), a northern poem
from about the time of Deborah. (6) The five distichs on Zebulun,
Dan, Gad, Asher, and Naphtali (in that order: vv.1% 16 19 20. 21) ¢gm-
memorating 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 landed down from one generation
to another, while sufficiently elastic, seems the one that best satisfies all
the requirements of the problem (so Gu. 420f.).
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 chs. 29f., 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 (Zazly
Heb. Story, 61 ff.), that the ages of Jacob’s children represent approxi-
mately 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 Gn.
512 THE BLESSING OF JACOB
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
(chs. 29. 30).—On the question whether a sojourn in Egypt 1s pre-
supposed 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 48” (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 (vv.**’) 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 (vv.7 130. 18. and esp. *4>°6) 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 Gen. Of the primary sources, E and P are excluded;
the former because of the degradation of Reuben, which is nowhere
recognised by E; 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 repre-
sentation of J, and may without difficulty be assigned to that docu-
ment, 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 in-
sertion took place in the combined narrative JE, perhaps by the same
hand which inserted the Blessing of Moses in Deut. (see We. Comp.” 62).
That it was introduced during the final redaction of the Pent. is less
probable, especially if *°8 (772) was the original continuation of 1Ρ in P
(see on v.!).
Monographs on the Song: Diestel, Der Segen Jakob’s in Genes. xlix,
historisch erldutert (1853); Land, Disputatio de carmine Jacobi (1858) ;
Kohler, Der Segen jJakob's mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der alten
Versionen und des Midrasch historisch-kritisch untersucht und erklirt
(1867); cf. also Meier, Geschichte der poetischen National Literatur der
Hebriier (1856), pp. 109-113; Peters, /SBLZ, 1886, pp. 99-116; and see
the copious reff. in Tu. or Di.
I, 2. Introduction.—The poem begins with a preamble
(v.2) from the hand of the writer who composed or collected
the oracles and put them in the mouth of Jacob. 1! is a
prose introduction, supplied probably by the editor who
incorporated the Song in the narrative of J or JE; while 15
appears to be a fragment of P divorced from its original
XLIX. 1, 2 513
connexion with 288 by ΕΠ. τῷ. that 7 may make known,
etc.| The poem is expressly characterised as a prophecy (not,
however, as a Olessing [as *>]), which it obviously is as
ascribed to Jacob, though the singer’s real standpoint is
contemporary or retrospective (p. 508 above).—zn the after
days| The furthest horizon of the speaker’s vision (v.z.).—
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, cf. 47%, Dt. 321, Is. 11° 2814,
etc.— Whether in the mind of the poet Israel is the literal
or the ideal father of the nation may be doubtful: cf. v.’,
and p. 509 above.
3, 4. Reuben.
δ 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 'thel 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
1. oD" nnN3] The phrase occurs 13 times in Heb. OT (Nu. 24%,
Dt. 4 31, Is. 22, Jer. 23” 30% 48 49”, Ezk. 4815, Hos. 3°, Mic. 41, Dn.
104+), and its Aram. equivalent in Dn. 2%, In the prophets it is used
technically of the advent of the Messianic age; here and elsewhere
(Nu. 24" etc.) it has the general sense of the remote future (like Ass.
ahrat imi: KAT", 143). That the eschatological sense is primary, and
the other an imitation of prophetic style (Gu.), cannot be proved ; and
there is no justification for deleting either the phrase itself (Staerk,
ZATW, xi. 247 ff.), or the whole clause in which it occurs (Land).—2.
The repetition of \yox) is against the rules of parallelism. We may
either omit the word in * (Gu. Sie.), or vary the expression (12'”pm,
wx) in2’(C°, Ba.). Metrically, either expedient would be admissible,
but the former is much easier. In G® 3]. ἀκούσατε is used thrice,
33
sit! THE BLESSING OF JACOB
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 (v.*) 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 (Gu.).—3b, 4a.
exceeding . . . excel| No English word brings out the
precise force of the original, where the ,/ 1m 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,’ °° as well as + being understood sensu malo, as a
censure of Reuben.—4b. Zhen . . . went up| A corrupt text:
3a. ἽΝ mw (Dt. 2177, cf. Ps. 78°! 105°°)] Not ἀρχὴ τέκνων μου (G8),
still less principium doloris mei (DH from pix, ‘trouble’; so Aq. 2.) ; but
‘best part of my virility’ (0). On mwxr, see p. 12; peas Hos. 124,—
3b. Gk σκληρὸς φέρεσθαι καὶ σκληρὸς αὐθάδης ; Ἔ prior in donis, major in
imperio.—n; (abst. pro concer.) might mean ‘ excess’ (Aq. =.), or ‘ superi-
ority’ (ἘΠ), or ‘remnant’ (S$; so Peters, p. 100): whether it is here used in
a good sense or a bad (for the latter, cf. Pr. 177) depends on the meaning
assigned to the next two words.—nxw] Lit. ‘lifting’ (Cr Aq. Z0S),
several times means ‘exaltation’; but in Hab. τῇ it has distinctly the
sense of ‘arrogance,’ the idea preferred above. To read nx¥, ‘turbulence’
(Gu.), is unnecessary, and nxy, ‘destruction’ (Peters), gives a wrong
turn to the thought.—ty] Pausal for 1y, ‘ power,’ but the sense of ‘ fury’
is supported by v.7, Is. 25°. —4. amn—in5] Cr ἐξύβρισας ὡς ὕδωρ, μὴ ἐκζέσῃς ;
Aq. €0duBevoas . . . περισσεύσῃς ; Σ. ὑπερέζεσας. . . οὐκ ἔσῃ περισσότερος ;
D effusus es sicut aqua, non crescas ; % 2021 u {815 | Aassos,
The comparison to water is ambiguous; and it is doubtful if we may
introduce the simile of water ‘boiling over’ ({@ 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 ©°),—1m5) ax
ning, Though the other Vns. also have 2nd pers. we cannot assume that
they vead so; and the analogy of v.* leads us to expect another abst.
pro concr. The noun is ἅπ. Ney. ; the ptcp. occurs Ju. 94, Zeph. 34, with
the sense ‘reckless’ or ‘irresponsible’ (cf. mind, Jer. 23°"). In Arab. the
»/ means ‘be insolent,’ in Aram. ‘be lascivious’: the common idea is
SLIK: (544 515
for various suggestions, v.z. Gu.’s trans. ‘ Then I profaned
the couch which he ascended,’ at least softens the harsh
change from 2nd pers. 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 E of the Jordan (Nu. 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 tomake. In the Song of Deborah, Reuben
is still an important tribe, but one that had lost enthusiasm for the
national cause (Ju. 5155). In the Blessing of Moses it still survives, but
is apparently on the verge of extinction (Dt. 33°). It was doubtless
exhausted by struggles like those with the Hagarenes (1 Ch. 5) 186.)
but especially with the Moabites, who eventually occupied most of its
territory (cf. Nu 32”, Jos. 13°" with Is. 15, Jer. 48 pass., and Moabite
Stone).—The incident to which the downfall of Reuben is here traced
(#8) is connected with the fragmentary notice of 35”, and is variously
interpreted: (1) According to Rob. Sm. XZ’, 1097, Steuer. Zinw. 16,
Ho., 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 Rob. Sm. /.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 (Di., Sta. GVJZ, 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 35”, 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 Phoenix and Amyntor
(711. ix. 447 ff. : quoted above, p. 427).—Metrical Structure. The oracle is
better divided as above into three distichs, than (with MT) into two
tristichs (so Land, who assigns each to a separate author). The trimeter
measure is easily traced throughout (except 1. 3) by following the Heb.
accents, supplying Maqgeph after '3 and 1x in v.*. Line 3 may be
scanned uu’|u’|u’ (Siev.).
perhaps ‘uncontrollableness’ (ut s.).—n1rbx] For the pausal a, see
G-K. § 53%, and cf. Ru. 2'4.—4b. No very acceptable rendering of this
difficult clause has been proposed. If we follow the accentuation, ‘ys°
is obj. of πον, and aby ws" 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 $sn is never used intransitively.
To read τὸν with & is perhaps a too facile emendation ; and to omit aby
with D is forbidden by rhythm. On the whole it is best (with Gu.) to
point Adon, and take τὸν as a rel. cl. (v.s.). Other suggestions are:
aby ws’ πὶ (Land) ; ag>3 -yys' (Geig. Kit.) ; 79" (Ba.); but all these are,
for one reason or another, objectionable.
516 THE BLESSING OF JACOB
5-7- Simeon and Levi.
5 Simeon and Levi—brothers !
Weapons of ruth are their daggers {?).
5 Into their council my soul would not enter,
In their assembly my mind would not joins
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.
58. brothers| Hardly ὁμόγνωμοι (schol. in Field) = ‘true
brother-spirits’’ (Tu. al.), or ‘associates’ in a common enter-
prise. The epithet is probably a survival from an old
tradition in which S. and L. were the only sons of Leah
(see 344%; cf. Mey. JS, 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 particuiar action.—5b. The transl. is doubtful,
Bb. Gr συνετέλεσαν ἀδικίαν ἐξ αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν (OL. consummaverunt
iniquitatem adinventionis sue); Aq. σκεύη ἀδικίας ἀνασκαφαὶ [αὐτῶν];
D vasa iniquitatis bellantia [Je. arma eorum]; (ὦ Ihyos? Lilso
QOOLLaD ; ©° xnaa way pamamn ya; TI wa arena ΝΣ xi [ND]
pamynenex.— 3] So Aq. PST) ; but si x53: ‘they accomplished.
ὉΠ ΠἼ22] As to the cons. text, that of (ἃ cannot be certainly restored ;
Kethib is supported by Aq. $@° (πῆρ : cf. Ezk. 16° 21% 29/4), by TJ
(from ,/ 733, see IEz.), and probably B. The textual tradition must
therefore be accepted as fairly reliable. Of the many Heb. etymologies
proposed (see Di. 459), the most plausible are those which derive from
ν΄ 193, or (reading “53>) from ,/ 72, ‘to dig.’ No ,/ 193, ‘dig,’ is actually
found, though it might perhaps be assumed as a by-form of m3: this
would give the meaning ‘digging instrument’ (cf. gladio confodere),
which Vollers (ZA, xiv. 355) tries to support from Ass. The ,/ 13
means in Ar. ‘to turn’ or ‘wheel round’; hence Di. conj. that 1722 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 Gr. μάχαιρα (R. Johanan [d. 279
A.D.], cited in Ber. R. § 99; Ra.) we cannot tell. Ba. and Gu. take the
word to be 773, the former rendering ‘plots’ (fr. Ar. »zakara, ‘ to plot’)
XLIX. 5-7 517
owing partly to uncertainty of text, and partly to the
obscurity of the dz. Aey. ΠῚΞ) (v.z.). The rendering above
gives a good sense, and Ba.’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 gather-
ings.—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 (Jos. 11% 9,
2 Sa. 8*); to do it to a domestic animal was evidently con-
sidered inhuman. No such atrocity is recorded of the
assault on Shechem (see 34”°).*—7b. zm Jacob . . . in Israel]
The speaker is plainly not the individual patriarch, nor the
Almighty (Land), but the personified nation.
and the latter ‘pits’ (cf. 7722, Zeph. 2%); but neither ontz> vpn 353 (Ba.)
nor ὉΠ ΠΡΟ opm) °>> [‘knavery and violence are their pits’] (Gu.) is so
good as the ordinary interpretation. Ba., however, rightly observes that
oni) yields a better metre than o7'n— (so Siev.).—6a. 122] Read with
(ἃ "122, ‘my liver,’ the seat of mental affections in La. 2" (cf. Ps. 169
4013 57° 1087: MT 33): cf. kabittu, ‘Gemiith,’ in Ass.—inn] 2x 1.
Since 13) is masc., rd. 19}.—6b. })s7] ‘self-will,’ ‘ wantonness’ ; cf. Neh.
9%: 37, Est. 18 9° etc.—nrpy] On certain difficulties in the usage of the
word, see Batten, ZATW, xxviii. 189 ff., where it is argued that the
sense is general—‘ make useless.’—w] Aq. [PST read τοῦ, ‘ wall,’
perhaps to avoid the supposed contradiction with 34%". Hence the
correct ταῦρον of (ἃ is instanced in Mechilta as a change made by the
LXX translators (see p. 14).—7. WX, OnI3y1] 22 Wx, OnIn).—1y] Here
pausal form of ty (ct. v.°).
i
* Zimmern (ZA, vii. 162 f.) finds in δ a reminiscence of the mutilation
of the celestial Bull by GilgameS and Eabani in the Bab. GilgameS-Epic.
Simeon and Levi, like GilgameS and Eabani, represent the Gemini of
the Zodiac ; and it is pointed out that the Bull in the heavens is ἡμίτομος,
z.e. only its fore-half appears as a constellation. The wx then corre-
sponds to the tyrant Humbaba, who was slain by Gilgame$ and Eabani ;
and Jacob’s curse answers to the curse of [Star 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,
518 THE BLESSING OF JACOB
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. P is only able to
assign to it an inheritance scooped out of the territory of Judah (cf.
Jos. τοῦ ὃ with 1576-92. 42: see also 1 Ch. 438-33), and so-called Simeonite
cities are assigned to Judah as early as the time of David (1 Sa. 278
30”, 2 Sa. 247; cf. 1 Ki. 19%). In the Blessing of Moses it is passed
over in silence. Traces of its dispersion may be found in such Simeonite
names as Shimei, Shaftil, Yamin in other tribes (Rob. Sm. /Ph. ix. 96);
and we may assume that the tribe had disappeared before the establish-
ment of the monarchy (see Steuer. 70 ff.; Meyer, 7S, 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 (Dt. 33°"), in virtue of which it secured a privileged
position in the Israelite sanctuaries (Ju. 17 f.), and was eventually re-
constituted on a sacerdotal basis. The contrast between this passage,
where Levi is the subject of a curse, and Dt. 33, where its prerogatives
are celebrated with enthusiasm, depends on the distinction just indi-
cated: 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 Tolah of
the Yahwe-religion (We. Comzp.® 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
(Siev.).
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.
® 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,
10π||1| Ὁ | COme.et Ἐν»
And to him the peoples obey.
1 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!
2 With eyes made dull by wine,
And teeth whitened with milk!
XLIX. 8—10 519
8. Zhee] The emphasis on the pron. (see G-K. § 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, ὃ; (2) as the puissant and victorious lion-
tribe, ὃ; (3) as the bearer (in some sense) of the Messianic
hope, 2°; (4) as lavishly endowed with the blessings of
nature, !f,—ATM, WI] The same fanciful etymology as in
29”.—thy hand . . . 7065] The image seems to be that of
a defeated enemy, caught by the (back of the) neck in his
flight, and crushed (Ex. 237, Ps. 18*!, Jb. 16'%).—<¢hy breth-
ren... thy father’s sons] The other tribes, who acknowledge
the primacy of Judah.—g. A vivid picture of the growth of
Judah’s power; to be compared with the beautiful lyric,
Ezk. 19?°.—a lion’s whelp] So Dt. 33% (of Dan). The
image naturally suggests the ‘mighty youth’ of the tribe, as
its full development is represented by the Zzon, and old lion
of the following lines. Hence the cl. voy is rendered
by some (Gu. al.): On prey, my son, thou hast grown up
(been reared), which is perhaps justified by Ezk. τοῦ. 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 (®).—he crouches, etc.| So (of Israel as a whole)
Nu. 24°.—10a, Judah’s political pre-eminence.—scefire .. .
staff| The latter word (PPh) might be used personally =
8. 1.7 adi Ἴ.1..--τ-ῷ. FP] Gr ἐκ βλαστοῦ, taking the word as in 8",
Ezk. 179.—x'25] G& σκύμνος, “ὁ L3]> Bag The common rendering
‘lioness’ is based on Arab., but it is by no means certain that in Heb.
the word denotes specially the female. It is never construed as fem. ;
and in Ezk. 19? the pointing x29 shows that the Massoretes considered
wad as masc.—I0a. 8: Ὁ and ppnd are found together in Ju. 514, where
ppnn (|| ‘va Ww) has the personal sense of ‘commander.’ But in Nu. 2178,
Ps. 609 [=108°] it denotes the commander’s staff; and since »1v is
always the instrument, the impersonal sense is to be preferred here:
hence the ἄρχων of @& is wrong, and the personal renderings of ‘n> in
all Vns. at least doubtful. —r$: pap] an ΟΣ pan, ‘from between his
banners,’ gives no sense. (ΘῈ interpret after Dt. 2557 ‘from his
520 THE BLESSING OF JACOB
‘prescriber [of laws]’ (GPT al.); but 02Y is never so
used, and parallelism requires that PPM) should be under-
stood of the commander’s staff (Nu. 2118, Ps. 609 = 108°),—
Srom 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 (6) military leadership of the other tribes, or merely (c) tribal auto-
nomy. Dri. (/Ph. xiv. 26) decides for (a), because (1) »2v, without
qualification, suggests a royal sceptre ; (2) the last phrase presents the
picture of a king seated on a throne; (3) the word nnnw in 80 most
naturally expresses the homage due to a king (cf. 377). But in favour
of (c) it might be urged (1) that ppnd never has this meaning, and (2)
that paw is the word for ‘tribe’ (e.g. νν.}6: 38), and, if the passage be
early, is likely to be used as the symbol of tribal independence. The
idea of military hegemony (4) is in no way suggested, apart from the
connexion with v.*®, which is dubious. The point has an fimportant
bearing on the exegesis of the next cl. If (a) be right, the Davidic
monarchy is presupposed, and !> assigns a term to its continuance ;
whereas, if (c) be right, 1 is possibly (not necessarily) a prophecy
of David and his dynasty. See, further, the note at the end of this
verse.
ΙΟΌ. The logical relation of the two halves of the v. is
clear: the state of things described by 108 shall endure zz¢il
thighs ; and hence €° ‘from his sons’ sons,’ TJ ‘from his seed.’—1ob.
now—ay] GO. ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ [vars. ᾧ τὰ ἀποκείμενα... .,
ᾧ ἀπόκειται. .. εἰς.7; S won σιδ..»» «Ὁ 12}. [Sos ; D donec
veniat qui mittendus est (reading πὸ: cf. Σιλωάμ (6 ἑρμηνεύεται ᾿Απεσ-
ταλμένοΞ), Jn. 97); © xmado wen aos amen ΠῚ ay xody ay; Tony Ἵ jor wy
122 Tyr ΝΠ N292. This last curious rendering (‘the youngest of his
sons’) is followed by Kimchi and others; and apparently rests on a
misunderstanding of an:by (‘afterbirth’) in Dt. 2857 (]° xmaa ὙΨ1).----"3 7]
Only here with impf. With pf. (26% 41®, 2 Sa. 23") it always marks a
limit in the past (‘until’); but 1y alone sometimes means ‘ while,’ both
with pf. and impf. (1 Sa. 141%, Ps. 141°), and so y " (Ca. 113), xb ay (Pr.
85), and xb wx ty (Ec. 12! * 6): see BDB, p.725a. The transl. ‘as long
as’ is thus perhaps not altogether impossible, though very improbable.—
πο] MSS and ax πον, probably the original text. The scriptio plena may
have no better foundation than the common Jewish interpretation iby,
‘his son,’—an impossible etymology, since there is no such word as >w
in Heb., and the two forms which appear to have suggested it (viz., NH
by =‘ foetus’ and moy=‘afterbirth’ [Dt. 287+]) are obviously super-
ficial and fallacious analogies. The Mass. vocalisation is therefore
XLIX. 10B 521
—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 1°*.—obedience of peoples]
Universal dominion, which, however, need not be understood
absolutely.
The crux of the passage is thus %a; πον ma~a4y. For a fuller
statement of the various interpretations than is here possible, see
Werliin, De laudibus Jude, 1838 (not seen); Dri. /Ph. xiv. 1-28 (and
open to question, and we are free to try any pronunciation of the Kethib
abv which promises a solution of the exegetical riddle with which we
are confronted. In spite of the unanimity of the Vns., the pointing
πο is suspicious for the reasons given above,—the presence of —¥ in
an early document, and the want of a subj. in the relative sentence.
On the other hand, the attempts to connect the word with ,/ που, ‘be
quiet,’ are all more or less dubious. (a) There is no complete parallel
in Heb. toa noun like πον froma π΄ root. If it be of the type gitél,
the regular form would be ‘iow; although K6n. (ii. p. 147) argues that
as we find 723 alongside of 33, so we might have a πον alongside of
Sw. Again, if 6 be an apocopated form of the nominal termination
én, the ,/ would naturally be not ποῦ but Sw (in Arab. = ‘ flow,’
whence sez/, ‘a torrent’) or bw. It is true there are a few examples
of unapocopated nouns of this type from 7’ verbs (jis17, jinx [Ezk.
40% ?], ja (Gn. 3*t—prob. an error for the reg. }i93, Hos. g!, Ru.
4)3+]); and the possibility of deriving the form in 6 from a root of this
kind cannot be absolutely excluded (cf. 7438 with jiqax). (ὁ) But even
if these philological difficulties could be removed, there remains the
objection that ποῦ (as contrasted with oz’) is in OT 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 πὸ can be a
designation of the Messiah as the Peaceful or the Pacifier; while to
change the pointing and render till tranquillity (aby) ‘come,’ is exposed
to the additional objection that the ὃ) of the following line is left
without an antecedent.—nnp'] (Pr. 30!"+) Dag. forte dirimens. The ,/
appears in Ar. wakiha, ‘be obedient’; Sab. ap. That a vb. (sap, 77?)
would be more natural (Ba.) is not apparent; the vbs. in © para-
phrase the sense given above. The ,/ was evidently not understood
by 0 (προσδοκία), D (expectatio), Aq. (σύστημα), S ancos all of which
probably derived from αἱ πὴ (4. from ,/ mp, II.: BDB).
522 THE BLESSING OF JACOB
more briefly Gen. 410-415); Posnanski, Schilo Ein Beitrag zur Gesch-
ichte der Messiaslehre: 1 Theil: Ausleg. von Gn. 49 im Altert. bis zum
Ende des MA, 1904; Di. 462 ff.—The renderings grammatically admis-
sible fall into two groups. (i.) Those which adhere to the Zext. rec.,
taking a>w as nom. pr. (a) ‘ Until Shiloh come’ (Shiloh, a name of the
Messiah), the most obvious of all translations, first became current in
versions and comm. of the 16th cent., largely through the influence of
Seb. Miinster (1534). Although the Messianic acceptation of the passage
prevailed in Jewish circles from the earliest times, it attached itself
either to the reading mw (ii. below) or to the rendering ‘his son’ (Sw),
or (later and more rarely) to ἣν Ὁ (‘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 (Sanh. 984): xdx Νοῦν ae xd 35 ἼΩΝ
ay woraw row πον sox xdw 9 "3 ow ap mod ἼΩΝ pny "2 awd ἼΩΝ ὈΝΊΘΦῪ 9d
ποῦ xa’ 35 (the words are repeated in Echa Rabba, with the addition
ana πο) : “ Rab said, The world was created only for the sake of David;
but Samuel said, For the sake of Moses; but R. Yohanan 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,
Yinnén is his name, as it is said (Ps. 72!"), Let his name be for ever,
before the sun let his name be perpetuated (j)3:). Those of the school of
R. Haninah say, Haninah is his name, as it is said (Jer. 1613), For I
will give you no favour (73). And some say Menahem is his name, as
as it is said (La. 11°), For comforter (0932) 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 (Is. 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 3" in Ps. 7217 can have been a
Messianic title. Yet, as Dri. 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.” Sub-
sequently Shiloh as a personal name appears in lists of Messianic titles
of the 11th cent. (Posn. 40), and it is so used (alongside of the interpre-
tation ‘5v) 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.7.), this explanation is now
universally abandoned.—(é) ‘ Until he [Judah] come to Shiloh’ (Herder,
Ew. De. Di. [hesitatingly] al.). This is grammatically unexceptionable
(cf. 1 Sa. 4”), and has in its favour the fact that n>w (bw, tow [orig.
fi>w]) everywhere in OT is the name of the central Ephraimite sanctuary
in the age of the Judges (Jos. 18'%, 1 Sa. 1-4 etc.). At the great
gathering of the tribes at Shiloh, where the final partition of the land
took place (Jos. 18f.), 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 thisis unhistorical. The account in Jos. 18 belongs
XLIX. 10B 523
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’ ('°°8), until the time
of David, by which time Shiloh had ceased to be the central sanctuary.
Even if (with Di.) we abandon the reference to Jos. 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 Di. himself
acknowledges) how that consummation could be expressed by a coming
to Shiloh.—(c) The translation ‘ As long as one comes to Shiloh,’ z.e. for
ever (Hitz. Tu.), gives a sense to 3 1y which is barely defensible.—(ii.)
Those which follow the text underlying all ancient Vns. except D, viz.
mby=iS wx. (a) ‘Until he comes to that which is his’ (Orelli, Br.)
involves an improbable use of the acc. ; 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.—(4) ‘ 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 inter-
pretationsis: ‘ Until he come whose’ [it is], sc. the sceptre, the kingdom,
the right, etc.; z.e. the Messiah. This has the support not only of
nearly all Vns., but of Ezk. 2153 (where, however, the subj. pwn is ex-
pressed). The omission of the subj. is a serious syntactic difficulty ;
and this, added to the questionable use of τῷ in an early and Judean
passage, makes this widely accepted interpretation extremely pre-
carious. The first objection would be removed if (after a suggestion
of We. [see Comp.” 320]) we could delete the following 1 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
πῦ as a gloss on 1) (16. 321).—Of conjectural emendations the only
one that calls for notice is that of Ba. (followed by Gressmann), who
reads aovn; ‘ Until his ruler (ἡ. 6. the Messiah) come.’
With regard to the general scope of the v., the question recurs,
whether the term fixed by ρα 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 v.!° as Messianic,
but interpolated (We. Sta. Di. Ho. Dri. al.), on the double ground that
it breaks the connexion between 3 and 11, and that the idea of a personal
Messiah is not older than the 8th cent. But (apart from the question
whether the subj. in" be Judah or the Messiah) the connexion between
®and " is in any case not so obvious as to justify the removal of ; 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,
Gu. (followed by Gressmann, Ursprung d. Isr.-Jtid. 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
524 THE BLESSING OF JACOB
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 1) 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 πον, we may, of course, adopt the reading ‘$v, 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 av is a cryptic designation of the expected Ruler, which
was applied by the poet to the person of David. Bennett (p. 397) calls
attention to the resemblance with πον in ch. 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 75v of our passage with Judah’s
third son, of whose destiny the story leaves us in/ignorance. [5 it
possible that this connexion was in the minds of the Jewish authorities
(v.2.), who render a>w ‘his youngest son’? (see Posnanski, 36°).
II, 12. As usually understood, the vv. give a highly
coloured picture of Judzean 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. Asa description of the vine-culture for which Judah was
famous, the hyperbole is perhaps extreme; and Gressmann
(4.6. 287) takes the subject to be not the personified tribe,
but the Ruler of v.!°, the vv. 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 Gr. is doubtless right in thinking that it supplied the
imagery for the well-known picture of the Messianic king in
Zec. g°.—12. (Ὁ take the adjs. as comparatives: ‘brighter
than wine (v.z.) .. . whiter than milk’: but this is less
natural.
II. 08] with archaic case-ending: cf. 33 below, and perhaps ‘San
in v.!2,—napqw] ἅπ. Ney. =prv, Is. 5°, Jer. 27! [phy, Is. 168]; probably from
the ved colour of the best grapes.—7mpd] 2 ΠΠῚΌΞ, ‘covering’ (Ex. 211°
etc.). mo (,/ mp?) does not occur elsewhere.—12. "5 }3Π] In Pr. 2329 mbban
oy means ‘dulness of eyes,’ the effect of excessive drinking. This is
the only sense justified by etymology (Ass. akdlu, ‘be gloomy’; Ar.
hakala, IV, ‘be confused’: see BDB, s.v. $2n), and must be retained
here, although, of course, it does not imply reproach, any more than 128
in 4353, (ἃ χαροποί[οί], ‘ glad-eyed'; and similarly PS.
XLIX. 11-14 525
The section on Judah lacks the unity of the first two oracles, and is
very probably composed of strophes of diverse origin and date. V.°
opens with a play on the name, like νν. δ. 1°, while ν." starts afresh with
an animal comparison, like vv.!* 17: 7” (see Introd. Note, p. 510). The
impression of discontinuity is partly confirmed by the poetic form; v.®
being an irregular tristich, and the remainder a series of 7 perfect
trimeter distichs. The dekastich 1-!* seems distinct from what precedes
(note the repetition of the name in 7°), but is itself a unity. The proposal
to remove v.!" asa late Messianic interpolation, and to make v." the con-
tinuation of ν.3, does not commend itself; and the excision of the third
line in v.’° (Meier, Fripp) merely avoids an exegetical difficulty by
sacrificing the strophic arrangement.
13-15. Zebulun and Issachar.
18 Zebulun shall dwell by the shore of the sea,
And... shore of ships (?),
And his flank is on Zidon.
16 Issachar is a bony ass
Crouching between the panniers (?):
1 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 302°, It
is plausibly conjectured that }}%® has been substituted by
mistake for the original aan (Gu. al.).—The second and
third lines are unintelligible, and the text is probably corrupt.
The comparison of Zebulun to a recumbent animal, with
‘itself’ (S37!) towards the sea-coast, and its hind - parts
towards Zidon (Di. Gu. al.), is unsatisfying and almost
grotesque. Dt. 331% shows that it is the advantageousness
of Zebulun’s geographical position which is here celebrated.
—Zidén| may be a name for Pheenicia, in whose commercial
pursuits it has been surmised that Zebulun became more and
more involved (Sta. GVJ, i. 171).—1I4. bony] 1.6. strong-
13. oD’ Hn) Ju. 5)”; cf. on’n, Dt. 17, Jos. 9}, Jer. 47’, Ezk. 251° +: mn is
never found with any other gen. except in the next line.—‘n sm] One
is tempted to construe prosaically thus: ‘And ¢ha?¢ a shore for ships,
with its flank on Zidon’; but this would entail elision of ὃ, to the
detriment of the rhythm: besides, the repetition of ἢΠ and the unique
combination m3x ‘n are suspicious. Ba. reads 12’ for 4nd (after Ju. 517),
and deletes the last line.—by] σα ΤῈ STO sy.—14. oa won] ax ova ‘n, ‘ass
526 THE BLESSING OF JACOB
limbed. Issachar had strength enough, but preferred ease
to exertion,—O°N5v’27] The common interpretation ‘ sheep-
pens’ has no appropriateness here, and may be a conjecture
based on Ju. 5/6. Equally unsuitable are the renderings of
the old Vns. (‘ boundaries,’ etc.), and the ‘fire-places’ or
‘ash-heaps’ which the Heb. etymology would suggest.
The form is dual, and one naturally thinks of the ‘ panniers’
carried by the ass (v.z.).—15. 7739] A technical term for
the settled, as contrasted with the nomadic, life (Gu.).—a@
labouring drudge| Lit. ‘became a toiling labour-gang’; cf.
Jos. 16! DD is a levy raised under the system of forced
labour (corvée). That a Heb. tribe should submit to this
indignity was a shameful reversal of the/normal relations
between Israel and the Canaanites (Jos. 16 1713[ = Ju. 158],
Ju. 130. 33. 35),
The two northern Leah-tribes found a settlement in Lower Galilee,
where they mingled with the Canaanite inhabitants. According to Jos.
19/16, Zebulun occupied the hills north of the Great Plain, being cut off
from the sea both by Asher and by the strip of Phoenician 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 Ju. 5” is
considered by Gu. 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 Ju. 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 (Ju.
45: 10 514 18 685 51). 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.
of sojourners’ (unless 073 be an adj. fr. Ὁ). (ἃ τὸ καλὸν ἐπεθύμησεν
(=o 199: Ginsb. Jntrod. p. 254); % Tor, Loy Aq. and D
support on the whole MT.—ornavna ja] Ju. 5.61, but cf. Ps. 684, The
three pass. are somehow interrelated, although no sense will suit them
all. Wns. mostly render ‘territories,’ or something equivalent, both
here and in Ju. But the διγομίας of (ἴ in Ju. (see Schleusner) is note-
worthy, and shows that the rendering above has some show of authority.
So the late Gr.-Ven. ἡμιφόρτια. For the rest, see Moore on Ju. 5!°.—15.
ay] ax mw.—ay 0nd] Gr ἀνὴρ γεωργός (Ginsb. Z.c.).—On od, see DBD,
and Moore, /ud. p. 47.
XLIX. 15-18 5
to
NI
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. Dan. . . judge] See on 30°.—/zs people] Not Israel,
but his own tribesmen. The meaning is not that Dan will
produce a judge (Samson) as well as the other tribes ({~),
nor that he will champion the national cause (Ew. De. Di.
al.); but that he will successfully assert an equal status
with the other tribes. Note that in Ju. 187 51: 19 the Danites
are spoken of as a ‘clan’ ("M5vD).—17. The little snake,
concealed by the wayside, may unhorse the rider as effectu-
ally as a fully armed antagonist: by such insidious, but
not ignoble, warfare Dan in spite of his weakness may
succeed.—jB'2t’] ἅπ. λεγ. is probably the cerastes cornutus,
whose habits are here accurately described (see Dri., and
Tristram, VHB, 274).—18. An interpolation, marking (as
nearly as possible) the middle of the poem (so Ols. Ba.
Siev. 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 (Ju. 1%, Jos. 19%, Ju. 18). Its
migration northward, and conquest of Laish, must have
17. 1559] Ok ἐνκαθήμενος, taking the da. dey. 45 an adj.—5] Ba. den
(after 3 oso),
528 THE BLESSING) OF JACOB
taken place early in what is known as the Judges’ period;
and is apparently presupposed here and in Ju. 5!’.—109.
Strictly: ‘A marauding band shall attack him, but he shall
attack their heel’ (rdg. ΞΡ, v.z.); z.e., press upon them in
their flight. The marauders are the warlike peoples to the
E, specially the Ammonites (1 Ch. 5'°%-, Ju. rof.), who at a
later time dispossessed the tribe (Jer. 491). As yet, however,
Gad maintains its martial character (cf. 1 Ch. 128-15), and
more than holds its own.—20. Asher settled in the fertile
strip along the coast, N of Carmel. The name occurs as a
designation of Western Galilee in Eg. inscrs. of the time of
Seti and Ramses 1. (see Miller, AZ, 236 ff.).—/fa/] Probably
an allusion to the oil (Dt. 3374) for which the region was,
and still is, famous.—voyval daintzes| fit for the tables of
Pheenician kings (cf. Ezk. 27!").—21. The verse on Naphtali
is ambiguous. Instead of πος, ‘hind,’ many moderns read
nN (‘a spreading terebinth’). The following cl.: ‘giving
fair speeches,’ suits neither image; on the one view it is
proposed to read " yielding goodly lambs’ ("38), on the other
‘producing goodly shoots’ ("Y28). No certain conclusion
can be arrived at.
1g. 13] The name is here (otherwise than 30") connected with 73,
“band” (x Sa. 30% "3, 1 Ki. 11%, 2 Ki. 5? 6% εἴς.) andivwithemete
Sassail’ (Hab. 316, Ps. 947+).—apy] Rd. papy, taking the o from the
beginning of v.*°.— 20. wxd] Read with GSP wx.— anv] x. jow.—
21. andy ndx] So Aq. F (Jer. Qu.). S&S and T! probably had the same
text, but render ‘a swift messenger.’ On Jerome's ager irriguus (Qu.)
and its Rabbinical parallels, see Rahmer, Die hebr. Traditionen im den
Werken des Hier. p. 55. & στέλεχος seems to imply πον ἢ but Ba.
dissents.—jnn] After either aby or aby, msni would be better.— 7px]
‘words,’ is unsuitable, and caused 3 and @/ 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 ‘72x, ‘topmost boughs,’
has but doubtful support in Is. 17°(see the comm.). 98, ‘lamb,’ is
not Heb., but is found in Ass. Phcen. Aram. and Ar. (ἃ ἐν τῴ γενήματι
is traced by Ba. to 22; but?—r5v] dm. Ney.—Ba. argues ingeniously,
but unconvincingly, that πῦον belongs to v.*, and that the m5 of that v.
stood originally in 74. His amended text reads :
andy ne "ὉΠ Naphtali is a branching vine,
by 78 Ant That yieldeth comely fruit.
XLIX. 19-22 529
22-26. Joseph.
* A fruitful bough (?) is Joseph—
A fruitful bough by a well (?).
And... dealt bitterly with him,
And the archers harassed him sorely.
*% 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,
% Through thy father’s God—may he help thee!
And ΕἸ Shaddai—may he bless thee!
Blessings of heaven above,
Blessings of Téhém ° * beneath,
Blessings of breast and womb,
% 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 un-
translatable. Its integrity has naturally not passed unquestioned.
We may distinguish four stages in the unfolding of the theme: (1) The
opening tristich (*), celebrating (as far as can be made out) the populous-
ness and prosperity of the central double-tribe. (2) Joseph’s contest
with the ‘archers’ (****). (3) A fourfold invocation of the Deity (Ὁ
%®aaB), (4) The blessing proper (**y5»- **), which closely resembles the
corresponding part of the Blessing of Moses (Dt. 43.518), the two being
probably variants of a common original. Meyer (ZS, 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
(ΖΑ ΤῊΝ, xxi. 262 ff.) would remove (3) and (4) (2.35), which he holds to
have been inserted by an Ephraimite editor from Dt. 33: Ho. seems in
the main toagree. Sievers also (II. 362) questions the genuineness of
24b-26 on metrical grounds. But we may admit the northern origin of
some of the vv., and the resemblance to Dt. 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 Judzean 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,
22. ΓΒ 13] 1Ξ is const. st.: the rhythmic accent forbids the usual
shortening of the vowel with Maqqeph (7]3).—n 5] Contracted from ns,
34
530 THE BLESSING OF JACOB
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’: lit. ‘son of a fruitful [tree’ or ‘vine’]. There is
probably an etymological allusion to Ephraim (M2 = N78;
We.).—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 33% re-
quires some amendment of text (v.z.).—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 (Gu.). The expressions, however, are
peculiar, and a different reading of the second line given in
‘fruitful’ (Is. 17° 321, Ezk. 19!, Ps. 128%), or m8, with archaic fem.
termination. 793, ‘bough’ (Ezk. 17® 31°°°), might be thought of, but
would be hardly suitable as gen. after j2.—Down to ἢ» the Vns. have
substantially the same text.—nw ‘Sy mys mia] defies explanation. Lit.
jilie discurrerunt super murum (¥Y). But mii= ‘tendrils,’ has no analogy;
ays means ‘march’ or ‘stride,’ but not ‘extend’; and the discord of
number is harsh (notwithstanding G-K. § 1454). The Vns. reveal
early corruption of the text, without suggesting anything better. @ vids
μου νεώτατος (= ax "ys 53) πρὸς μὲ ἀνάστρεψον (= rw by). & boss
oa. adm» lo.tom (2? Ww abpa WD ]332).—Zimmern’s zodiacal
theory, which identifies Joseph with the sign Taurus, finds two tempting
points of contact in the consonantal text: reading ΠῚ = 775, ‘juvenca,’
at the beginning, and Ww, ‘ox,’ at the end. But the reconstruction of
the text on these lines, with the help of Dt. 33} (see ZA, vii. 164 ff.;
ATLO*, 399), has no title to respect: against it see Ba. p. 116.—23.
339] From ἡ 331, a by-form of 735,* ‘shoot,’ with intrans. pf. (G-K.
δ 67m). The simple pf. between two consec. impfs. being suspicious,
the least change demanded is 3357. anQk (ἐλοιδόρουν) and HB (jurgati
sunt) read 3727, ‘strove with him.’ Parallelism suggests a noun
as subj. to ’p1; we might read 037, ‘bowmen’ (Jer. 5053), or (since
the line is too short) nyj 3 (21°).—2q4a. Gr καὶ συνετρίβη μετὰ κρά-
τους τὰ τόξα αὐτῶν [=oORvA ΠΝ Ξ ἼΞ0᾽)}1.----3 9. }} S$ LQN|@n=s3%¥m. The
sense ‘abide’ for 30) is justified by Lv. 125. 1 Ki. 221, Ps. 125),
and nothing is gained by departing from MT.—yjmxa] Lit. ‘as a
permanent one’ (3 essentie).—wby] 2 Sa. 6+. (ἃ καὶ ἐξελύθη, S
03,220 may represent 115» (see Ba.).—[{@r ov) vv "»Υ}} is a hard
* But see above on 21.
XLIX. 23-26 531
some Vns. is approved by several scholars (v.7.).—S/rong
One of jacob] A poetic title of Yahwe, recurring Is. 49”°
6016, Ps. 1327°, and (with Israel for Jacob) Is. 1%. See,
further, the footnote below.—Zhrough the name] CBD, the
reading of $ and @°, though not entirely satisfactory, is at
least preferable to the meaningless nw of MT.—zhe 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 (Jos. 247), which was
the religious rendezvous of the tribes in early times (see
p. 416): so Luther, ZS, 284!. Both text and translation
are, however, uncertain (v.z.).—25, 26. The construction is
ambiguous: it is not clear whether the lines beginning with
Blessings are a series of accusatives depending on the 7372")
of 4 (‘may he bless thee wzti blessings,’ etc.), or subjects
to 7A in >, The second view is adopted above; but the
ambiguity may be an intentional refinement.—25aaB. ’Z/
Shaddai| For the reading, v.z.; and see on 17!.—25aysb,
combination, but perhaps not too bold.—24b. 12x] occurs only in the
pass. cited above. It is reasonably suspected that the Mass. changed
the punctuation to avoid association of ideas with Tay, ‘bull,’ the
idolatrous emblem of Yahwe in N Israel. Whether the name as
applied to Yahwe be really a survival of the bull-worship of Bethel and
Dan is another question; Vax (strong) is an epithet of men (Ju. 5”,
Jb. 2433 34%, Je. 46%, 1 Sa. 218 etc.), and horses (Jer. 8156 47° 50!) much
more often than of bulls (Ps. 2218 68% so!5, Is. 347), and might have
been transferred to Yahwe in its adj. 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 (cf. Mey. ZVS,
282 ff.; Luther, ΖΑ ΤῊ, xxi. 7off.). The further inference (N6. Lut.
Mey.) that Jacob was the deity originally worshipped in the bull is
perhaps too adventurous.—o¥2] So GP; but T° pgin,—nw? jax) Cf.
/y ys, 2 Sa. 23°, Is. 30” ; also ἬΝ, 1 Sa. 4q15!7!%, The translation above
agrees with 4; MT puts πρὴ in apposition with * ’x (so ἘΠ G κεῖθεν
ὁ κατισχύσας᾽ Iop. omits JAN, and may have read 1y(Ba.). The line is too
long for the metre, but j3x is the one word that should xo¢ be omitted.
—25. 7271". . . Ty] Cf. Ps. 69%, and see Ew. ὃ 347a.— ΠΝ] Read
with suk (ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐμός), S 5x}: though Ww alone (Nu. 24* 15) would be
suitable in an ancient poem.—nxs21] Metrically necessary in Dt. 331%, but
here redundant; probably, therefore, a gloss from the other recension
(Siev.).—26. “ay ‘a ΠΞΊΣΓΟΡ 132 73x] There are two stages of corruption,
532 THE BLESSING OF JACOB
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 Dt. 331% em.).
—Téhim .. . beneath| The subterranean flood, whence
springs and rivers are fed: see on 1%. Blessings of breasts
and womb| Contr. the terrible imprecation, Hos. 9!4.—26a.
Passing over the first four words as absolutely unintelligible
(v.z.), we come to the third pair of blessings: . . . of the
eternal mountains . . . of the everlasting hills (Dt. 33",
Hab. 3°)] In what sense the mountains were conceived as
a source of blessing is not clear,—perhaps as abodes of
deity; cf. the ‘dew of Hermon’ (Ps. 133%).—The word
rendered produce is uncertain; we should expect ‘blessings,’
as @] actually reads (v.z.).—26b. Be on the head] as in
benediction the hand is laid on the head (4814): cf. Pr. τοῦ
1176,_YN8 1] So Dt. 331% The WY) is either the Mazzrite
—one ‘consecrated’ to God by a vow involving unshorn
hair (Ju. 13°°7 etc.)—or the prznce (so only La. 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
one remediable, the other not. The last line is to be restored with
(ἃ τῷ 179 n293, ‘blessings of the eternal mountains’ (Dt. 33%, Hab. 3°).
But the first three words, though represented by all Vns., must be
wrong ; for to put n313 under the regimen of ὃν destroys the parallelism,
and the vb. 1922 cuts off }»7n from its subj. What is obviously required
is a line parallel to ony onw naa. Gu.’s suggested emendation, though
far from satisfying, is the best that can be proposed : 5y) 133 98 ay ΠΞ2 τε
‘Blessings of father, yea, man and child.’—71x] κα (αὶ + 70m, suggested
no doubt by the previous line. —17] HST render ‘my progenitors,’
by an impossible derivation from ,/ 47, ‘be pregnant.'—mxn] EV
‘utmost bound’ (so De., fr. ,/xn or mn; see BDB), has no real philo-
logical or traditional justification. If the text were reliable, it might be
the common word ‘desire,’ from ,/ x (Gs: EPTI), in the sense of
‘desirable things.’ With some hesitation I follow above Ols. Gu. al.,
reading nxvan after Dt. 33. But @® nana has great weight (all the
greater that the translator has lost the thread of the thought), and ought
perhaps to be preferred.—v13] is not necessarily a derivative from the
noun 73, ‘diadem,’=‘the crowned one’; more probably it comes from
the vb. directly,—11= ‘ dedicate’ (cf. 113)—which admits various shades
of meaning. Of the Vns. G&@J represent the idea of ‘prince’ or ‘ruler,
©° ‘the separated one,’ BD Saad. ‘the Nazirite,’ S ‘the crown’ (13).
XLIX. 26, 27 533
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 (Beztr. ii. 1, 132 ff.) and Gu., who conceive the ancient
Nazirite as a man like Samson, dedicated to single-handed
warfare against the foes of Israel (cf. Schw. Avéegsalter-
thiimer, 1o1 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 7) 7P (||W’87), which is never used in connexion
with the Nazirite, and is quite common in other connexions
(see Dt. 33”).
The opinion confidently entertained by many scholars (see We. Comp.?
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 “f, But it is clear that neither indication is at all decisive.
If 913 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 (Ju. 133), Similarly, the ‘archers’
of v.** might be the Aramzeans 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 (Ju. 6ff.) 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 Judzean 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 Dt. 33!’ is instructive in this regard (see Gu., and Sellin,
1.c. 134).
27. Benjamin.
77 Benjamin is a ravening wolf:
In the morning he devours the prey,
And at eve divides the spoil.
27. ἢ 2x1] Descriptive impf., see Dav. § 44, &. 3, § 142. On pausal
a, see G-K. § 29 u.—y]=‘ booty,’ Is. 33°, Zeph. 48 [? Is. 9°]; (ἃ ἔτι.
534 THE BLESSING OF JACOB
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 (Ju.
3.5), its share in the struggle with the Canaanites (Ju. 513),
its desperate stand against united Israel (Ju. 19 f.); it was
famous for its skill in slinging and archery (Ju. 201%, 1 Ch.
840 722, 2 Ch. 147 171. 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 Sa. 174).—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.
28aba (to on'ax) is the subscription to the poem; the re-
mainder of the v. belongs to P, and probably continued ' 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, ZATW, xxi. 33 ff.; Peters, Zazly
Heb. 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 Dt. 33, Simeon is omitted, and
Joseph divided into Ephraim and Manasseh; in P (Nu. 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 ZA, vii. (1892), 161 ff. ; viz., Simeon and Levi=Gemini
(see p. 517); Judah=Leo, with the king-star Regulus on its breast (13
van); and Joseph=Taurus. This last comparison, it is true, rests on
Dt. 33 rather than Gn. 49, and is only imported into this passage by a
violent reconstruction of v.” (p. 530). Other possible combinations
mentioned by Zimmern are Issachar=Aselli (in Cancer), Dan=Serpens
(N of Libra), Benjamin=Lupus (S of Scorpio), and Naphtali=Aries
28. Senw naw] Gr viol ᾿ΤΙακώβ. --- 39 we wx] Such a construction is
impossible. We must either omit the rel. (Vns.) or read τὸν ws (Ols,
De: KS. Gu. al:):
XLIX. 28-L. 26 535
(reading Sx for nbx). Stucken (A7VAG, 1902, 166ff.), 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 (A7ZO*, 395 ff.). A
somewhat different arrangement is given by Winckler in AO/F, 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 personi-
fication (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 ave the earthly counterparts
of the Zodiacal constellations, and nothing more. ΑἹ] 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.
XLIX. 28b-L. 26.—7he Death and Burial of Jacob ;
and the Death of Joseph (P, J, E).
Jacob charges his sons to bury him in the family sepulchre
at Machpelah, and expires (33.388), Joseph causes the body
to be embalmed; and, accompanied by his brethren and an
imposing corfége, conveys it to its last resting-place in
536 BURIAL OF JACOB (JE, P)
Canaan (50'"). He pacifies and reassures his brethren,
who fear his vengeance now that their father is gone (1-?!).
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 (25. 36).
Sources.—49**B-8 belongs to P, with the possible exceptions of 83 (a
gloss), and the clause **8 ; note the reference to ch. 23 and the identical
phraseology of the two passages; also the expressions 1, 71nX, 40x)
γοῦν (b2s).—In ch. 50, vv. 18 are from P (Machpelah, etc. : note also
that the suff. in 758 refers back to 49"). Ψν.1 11. 4 are mainly J (ox, 2;
‘ya jn xsd, 4; wa, 8; 2μ9)2π|, 1: note the reference [5] to Joseph's oath
[472°31]) ; ad 15-26 ἘΣ (ovndyy, 19. 20 34. 25 5 Gobo, 21 [4.511 4.712] ; ὯΝ orb ππππ, 19
[305]: the resemblance to 455 7; and the backward reference in Ex. ey
Jos. 24°). The analysis might stop here (Di. We. Dri. al.); but a
variant in 1° (1° || 8), and the double name of the place of burial suggest
that there may be two accounts of the funeral (see KS. An. 242). Ho.
Gu. Pro., however, seem to me to go too far in the attempt to establish
a material difference of representation (e.g., that in E’s account Joseph's
brethren did not go up with him to the burial), Traces of J in 15:38 are
equally insignificant (see the notes).
28b-33. Jacob’s charge to his sons.—28bB. The
sequel to '*in P. Note the close formal parallel to 28! (P):
And... called. ..andblessed. .. andcharged . . .and
said . . .—each with a special blessing] v.t.—29, 30. See on
ch. 23.—31. Abraham and Sarah his wife| 25° 23 The
burying-place of Isaac (3535) 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 p, 504 f.—32. Probably a gloss
(v.2.).—33. drew up his feet into the bed| The clause may
have been inserted from J; cf. 48?>.—As in the case of all
the patriarchs except Joseph, the actual account of the death
is lett tose:
L. 1-14. The burial of Jacob.—1z. The forms in which
29. ὈΠῚΝ 1s") Gr om.—sy7bx] Read μῦν (cf. 33): see on 25°.—30. For
‘on πιῶ, @& has simply 755202, and for the following mwa, myo7.—3r.
nap] Gr 372.—At the end of the v. Bu. would add Snvn as P's original
statement (ZA TW, iti. 82).—32. The v. has no syntactic connexion with
the preceding, the construction is cumbrous in the extreme, and the
notice superfluous after Ὅς. It should probably be deleted as a marginal
variant to > (so De. Gu.).—a3p2] Gr "23.
XLIX. 28—-L. 9 537
Joseph’s grief expressed itself were doubtless conventional,
though they are not elsewhere alluded to in OT.—2,. The
Egyptian practice of embalming originated in ideas with
which the Hebrew mind had no sympathy,—the belief that
the a or ghostly double of the man might at any time re-
turn to take possession of the body, which consequently had
at all costs to be preserved (Erman, ZAZ, 307). In the cases
of Jacob and Joseph (v.*), it is merely an expedient for pre-
serving the body till the burial could take place. On the
various methods employed, see Herod. ii. 86-88; Diod. i. 91;
and Budge, Zhe 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 Diod., over 30 days, according to Herod., 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 (Nu. 20%, Dt. 348); the Egyp-
tians (who are here expressly mentioned) are said to have
mourned for a king 72 days (Diod. 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. Cf. 477%-.—have digged| The
rendering ‘have purchased’ is possible, but much _ less
probable (cf. 2 Ch. 16'4). The confused notice Ac. 716 might
suggest a tradition that Jacob’s grave was in the plot of
ground he bought near Shechem (3313 E), which is the view
maintained by Bruston (ZATV,, vii. 202 ff.). On any view
the contradiction to 4739 remains.—7-9. The funeral pro-
cession is described with empressement as a mark of the
almost royal honours bestowed on the patriarch. Such pro- .
cessions are frequently depicted on Egyptian tombs: Erman,
2. vin] v.75, Ca. 247. Apparently a Semitic ,/, meaning in Arab. ‘ be-
come mature,’ applied in Heb. Aram. and Arab. to the process of em-
balming.—3. o'vin] dm. rey. ; abstr. pl. =‘ embalming.’—4. 1Π)33] The
fem. only here, for 33. The suff. prob. gen. obj. (weeping for Jacob).—
ἘΥΥΊΣῚ] Add with G& »$y.—5, ayraem7] χα ( 4: al. + sme 2nd. —np ‘Dan 737] Er om.
The phrase occurs in E 483), and (without 737) 50%4.—*n"2] GPT!) ‘have
digged’; S$ ‘have purchased,’ ©° n3pns=‘ have prepared.’ The first
sense preponderates in usage (the second, Dt. 2°, Hos. 3%, Jb. 657 4051),
538 BURIAL OF JACOB (JE, P)
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, ZAZ, 492 f.).—10, II.
The mourning at the grave.—Goren ha-Atad] ‘ the threshing-
floor of the bramble’; the locality is unknown (v.z.).—II.
Abél Mizraim] one of several place-names compounded with
5: Ν = ‘meadow’ (Nu. 33”, Ju. 15) 2 ‘Sa. 20, 2 (ΘΠ τ
here interpreted as DO”! 53x, ‘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 J and E has not been preserved.
It is difficult to say whether Géren ha-Atad and Abél Mizraim are
two different places, or two names for one place. Jerome (OS, 851°")
identifies the former with Bethagla (='Aim Hagla, or Kasr Hagia, S of
Jericho [Buhl, GP, 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 ν. 10 (19g 11), it is natural to suppose that one name belongs
to J and the other to E, and therefore there is no great presumption that
the localities are identical (ΝΠ ‘12 in ™ may be a gloss). According to
the present text, both were E of the Jordan (} 1»); but such a state-
ment if found in one document would readily be transferred by a re-
dactor 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
j7vn’ya’x should be an interpolation in doth cases. Since it is to be as-
sumed that in J and E the place of mourning was also the place of
burial, and since the theory of a détour round the Dead Sea and the E
of Jordan to arrive at any spot in W. 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 E of the Jordan (Meyer, 7S, 280 f.). Meyer's in-
ference 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.
and is here to be preferred. —1x-nx] a2 + ΡΣ Π WwRD.—I0. IDX] The word
for ‘bramble’ in Jotham’s parable from Gerizim, Ju. 9" (only Ps. 58!°
again). Can there be an allusion to the threshing-floor of this passage
at Shechem ἢ- 11. xa 423] Possibly a gloss from ν..0, If so, me (am
yow), referring to 7 (whose gender is uncertain), must have been substi-
ΓΙ. 10-22 539
12,13. The account of the actual burial (from P).—It is
significant that here the Egyptians take no part in the ob-
sequies: the final redactor may have assumed that they
were left behind at the mourning place E of the Jordan.—
See further on 497°%.—14 (J). The return to Egypt.
15-21. Joseph removes his brethren’s fears. — The
vv. contain a variation of the theme of 455% (Gu.), as if to
emphasize the lesson of the whole story, that out of a base
intent God brought good to His people.—15. saw] 2.6.
‘ realised,’—took in the full significance of the fact (cf. 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
(Gu.), but that E had not recorded it at all.—16, 17. They
send a message to Joseph, recalling a dying request of their
father (not elsewhere mentioned).—¢he servants of the
God of thy father| Religion is a stronger plea than even
kinship (Gu.).—18. Cf. 4416, The v. may have been inserted
from J (v.z.).—19. am 7 in God's stead 3] (307): to judge and
punish at my pleasure.—20, Cf. 45° 7-8.—21. The continu-
ance of the famine seems presupposed, in opposition to the
chronology of P (47”).
22-26. Joseph’s old age and death.—22. a hundred and
ten years| Cf. Jos. 24%. It is hardly a mere coincidence, but
tuted for mpon ow (so PA, Gu.).—12. 1b 12] The suff. find no suitable
antecedents nearer than 493", the last excerpt from P.—ovs 1wx2] (8, al.
καὶ ἔθαψαν αὐτὸν éxe?.—13. ΠῚ] Cr τὸ σπήλαιον, and so again for Mvanx.—
14. Yas—"nx] & om.
15. “2 30] Cond. sent. with suppressed apodosis, G-K. § 159 v.—16.
ns] Gr καὶ παρεγένοντο, and 3 QD;Oo, seem to have read 33", which if
correct would make the excision of ν. 18 from E almost imperative (see
on the v.). But the sense of myx, ‘to commission,’ is justified by Ex. 61%,
Jer. 274, Est. 413 etc. ; and #3) would not properly be followed by 70x).
—I7. ΜῈΝ] a strong particle of entreaty; in Pent. only Ex. 32°!.—18.
y3p5—n3] (αὶ om.—For 135», Ba. (after Vatke) reads 133", which would give
point to the following 02. But the change is not necessary: 125% would
mean ‘they went away’ only if they had previously been present. That
certainly seems implied in ΤΡ (apart from the reading of G&S in 16); and
hence there is much to be said for assigning v. to J (Di. Ho. Pro.).—
100. G& reads τοῦ yap θεοῦ ἐγὼ elul.—2o. orndx] χὰ “Ἐπὶ: GSP also have
the copula.—21. any] G& εἶπεν δὲ atrois.—22. mn] Gr καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ
540 DEATII OF JOSEPH (Ε)
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, Z. deg. Spr., 1873, 75 f.).
—23. Joseph lived to see his great-grandchildren by both
his sons,—another token of a life crowned with blessing (Ps.
1288, Pr. 1372 178 etc.). The expressions used of Ephraim’s
descendants are somewhat difficult (v.z.).—/akir] the most
powerful clan of Manasseh, in the Song of Deborah (Ju. 5")
numbered among the tribes of Israel, and possibly therefore
an older unit than Manasseh itself (see Meyer, ZS, 507,
516 f.).—The expression born on Joseph's knees implies the
adoption of Machir’s sons by Joseph (see on 30°), though the
action does not seem to have any tribal significance.—24,
25. Joseph predicts the Exodus (as did Jacob, 4871), and
directs his bones to be carried to Canaan. For the fulfil-
ment of the wish, see Ex. 13!¥, Jos. 24°*.—/zs brethren are
here the Israelites as a whole (v.°).—26. The death of
Joseph.—zn a coffin] or mummy-case, the wooden inner shell,
shaped like the mummy, which was placed in the stone
sarcophagus (see Erman, ZA, 315 f.; Ball, Light from the
East, 121). A mythological allusion to the ‘ coffin’ of Osiris
(V6lter, 55) is not to be thought of.
‘This ‘coffin in Egypt,’” remarks Delitzsch, ‘‘is the
coffin of all Israel’s spiritual satisfaction in Egypt.” Gu.
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.
kal πᾶσα ἡ mavoixta,—23. owdy 39] aw ‘vy O32: soG ST, ovsy means
‘ great-grandchildren’ (Ex. 34”); hence ‘w 12 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 ax, or
take ’y "3 as appositional gen. (see Di.).—’213-by] a ‘D2, ‘in the days of,’
—‘a bad correction’ (Ba.), supported by no other Vn.—2q4. yav3] G&+6
θεὸς τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν.---25 end. Add with Heb. MSS «αὐ Ὁ opr,
‘with you.’—26. nen] 2. ov. See on 2433.
INDEXES.
ΞΘ
I. ENGLISH.
ABEL, 103 ff.
’Abél Mizraim, 538.
’Abida’, 351.
*Abima él, 221.
Abimelech, 316 ff., 325 ff., 363 ff.
Abi-rdmu, 292.
Abraham, his religious signifi-
cance, xxvif.; his migration,
xxi, xxviif., 238, 242ff.; as
Mahdi, xxviii, 247; legend of,
xliv, 241f.; covenants with,
276 ff., 289 ff. ; name of, 244,
292f.; death of, 341, 351 f.
Abram, name, xxv, 292.
Field of, xxv, 244.
Accusative of condition, 77, 282,
474-
of definition, 29.
after passive, 220.
of place, 376.
_of time, 260.
‘Adah, 118, 429f.
Adapa and the South-wind, myth
of, 92.
’"Adbe él, 353-
‘Adullam, 450.
Aetiological motive in myth and
legend, xif., 70, 95, 140, 332,
362.
Agriculture, 84, 87, 106, 110, 185,
365.
’Ahuzzath, 367.
“Ai, 247.
‘Akan, 434.
‘AkbGr, 436.
*Akkad, 210.
*Almédad, 221.
‘Amalék, 263, 431.
Amorite, 215, 263, 265, 282, 503.
*Amraphel, 257.
Anachronisms, v, xviii, 116, 149,
265, 272, 316, 364, 419, 463.
‘Andamim, 212.
Angel of God, 323, 342, 376.
— of Yahwe, 286f.
Angels, 31, 36, 141 f.
Anthropomorphism, instances of,
7» 37, 51, 129, 149, 154, 172,
300, 328, 411.
‘Apriw, xvi, 218 f.
"Aram, 206, 333 f.
*Aram-naharaim, 342.
Aramezans, xxiii, 334, 356, 358,
403 f.
’Aran (Oren), 434.
Ararat, 166.
Archaisms, 29, 272, 306, 399.
*Aridk, 258.
“Arki, 216.
’Arpakshad, 205, 231.
Article, anomalous pointing of, 163 ;
with const., 348, 395.
*Arvad, 216.
’Asenath, 471.
Asher, xviii, 388, 528.
’Ashkenaz, 197.
‘Ashteréth-Karnaim, 260, 262.
’Ashiir, 351, 354.
’Asshfir, 211, 350.
’Asshfirim, 350.
541
542
‘Avith, 435.
Ayyah, 434.
Ba‘al Hanan, 436.
Babel, 210, 227.
Babel-legends, 228 ἔν
Basemath, 430.
Bdellium, 60.
‘‘Bear upon knees,” 386,
Beena marriage, 70, 384.
Bé’ér Lahay Εὐοὶ, 288, 347 f., 352.
Beersheba, 325 ff., 331, 366f., 491.
Beker, 494.
Bela’, 259, 435:
Benjamin, 426, 534.
Ben-6ni, 426.
Bered, 288.
Berossus (quoted), 41 f., 132, 137.
Bethel, 247, 377 ff., 423 ff., 446.
BethfVél, 333.
Betyl, 380.
Bilhah, 386.
Bilhan, 434.
Blessing, 38, 498.
Blessing of Jacob, 507 ff.; Mono-
graphs on, 512.
Blood, crying for vengeance, 170,
447) 477:
Blood-revenge, 110, 112 ff., 374.
Books, ‘‘traditional,’”’ xxx, 509,
511:
Bozrah, 435-
Biz, 333-
Cain, 100, 102, 121 f.
Cain-legend, origin of, 111 fh
Camel, 249 f., 345.
Canaan, 182 ff., 187, 201, 245.
Case-endings (old), 29, 117f., 267,
399; 524.
Chaldzans, 237, 332.
Chaos, 14, 16, 19, 43, 46.
Chedorla omer, 258.
Cherubim, 89 f.
Chronology, xivf., 134ff., 167f.,
2»
Circumcision, 296f., 420.
Cities of the Plain, destruction of
the, 310 ff.
INDEXES—I.
ENGLISH
Cohort. form with vay consec.,
405.
Concubine-slave, xvii, 285.
Cosmogonies, 6ff., 18; Babyl-
onian, ix, 20, 41 ff. ; Etruscan,
50; Indian, 46; Persian, 19,
50; Phcenician, 46, 48 ff.
Covenants, divine, 171 ff., 280ff.,
290 ff.; human, 325 ff., 367f.,
400 ff. ; -feast, 367, 401; idea
of, 283f., 297f.; sign of, 172,
294, 297-
““ Covering of the Eyes,” 319.
Cult-legends, xi f., Ix, 379, 411.
Cup (in divination), 483.
“Cut off” (from people, etc.), 294.
Damascius (quoted), 42.
Dan, 266, 387, 527.
Dead Sea, vii, 252, 264, 273f.
Deborah, 425.
Dedan, 204, 350.
Deluge traditions, 174 ff. ; origin
of, 180f. ; Babylonian, 175 ff. ;
Greek, 179f.; Indian, 179;
Phoenician, 180; Phrygian,
180; Syrian, 180.
Diklah, 221.
Dinah, 389, 421.
Dinhabah, 435.
Dioscuri, 302, 312.
Dish-an, -6n, 434.
Divine Names in Genesis, xxxv ff.,
xl viii f.
Dédanim, 199.
Dothan, 446f.
Dreams, 316, 376, 394, 397) 445»
460 ff., 465 ff.
interpretation of, 461, 466.
Dfimah, 4352.
Eabani (legend of), οἱ ff., 517.
Eden, 57.
—— site of, 62 ff.
Edom, Edomites, 356, 362, 373, 437-
Egypt, river of, 283.
Egyptian domination in Palestine,
XVi, XViii, 538.
—— influence on Joseph-story, 442.
INDEXES—I.
Elam, Elamites, 204 f., 257 ff., 272,
276.
"Plath (‘Eléth), 262, 436.
ΕἸ δ΄ Δ}, 351.
"Eliezer, 279.
*Eliphaz, 431.
’Elishah, 198.
Elohisticsource of Genesis, xxxvi ff.
characteristics of style, etc.,
xIvii ff. ; age of, li ff.
’El6n, 494.
El-Paran, 261.
Embalming, 537+
"Emim, 263.
Enoch-legend, 132.
’Endsh, 126.
Enuma ellis, 9, 43 ff.
Envy of the Gods, 75, 87, 94,
229.
‘Ephah, 351.
‘Epher, 351.
Ephraim, 471, 504, 530, 540.
*Ephrath, 426.
Eponyms, xxf., xxv, 189 f., 265.
Erech, 210.
Esau, 359 ff., 405 ff., 428 ff.
‘Esek, 366.
Ethnographic idea in legend, xii,
xix ff., 186, 356, 403, 41If.,
427, 450.
Etymological motive in legends,
Xili, 220.
Eudemos (quoted), 49.
Euhemerism, 147.
Eve, 86, 102;—and the Serpent,
85f. See ain.
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 no. in matters
Egyptian), 483.
Flood. See Deluge.
Flood-narrative analysed, 147 ff.
Fragmentary hypothesis, xxxii,
XXXVil.
ENGLISH 543
Gad, 387, 528.
Gaham, 334.
Gematria, 266.
Genealogies, artificial
Οὗ, 251:
Genealogy, Cainite, 98; Sethite,
99f.; relation of Cainite and
character
Sethite, 138 f. ; Edomite,
428ff.; Shemite, 231; of
Ishmael, 352f.; of Keturah,
350; of N&hoér, 332ff.; of
Terah, 235 ff.
Genesis, Book of. Title, iif,
canonical position of, i.
scope of, ii.
nature of tradition in, ili ff., xxxii.
structure and composition of,
xxxii ff.
ruling idea of, xxxiii.
sources of, xxxiv ff.
Gera, 494.
Gerar, 217, 315, 325, 364, 366.
Gihon, 61.
Gilead, 402 f.
GilgameS Epic, 91, 175 ff., 209, 517.
Girgashite, 216.
Golden age, 35, 73, 87, 92, 159.
Gomer, 196.
Good and evil, knowledge of, 95.
Goren ha- Atad, 538.
Goshen, 488, 495, 497f.
Granaries (State), 472.
Yabiri, xvi, xxii, 187, 218, 265.
Hadéram, 221.
Hadramaut, 221.
Hagar, 284 ff., 322 ff.
name, 286,
Haggada, 28, 33, 237, 245.
Ham, 262.
Ham, 182, 195.
Hamath, 217.
Hammurabi, xiv, xxii, xxvii, 257 f.,
335:
—— Code of, xvii, xviii, xix, 285,
454 455: 459.
Hamér, 416, 421.
Hanodk, 117, 351, 493-
Haran, 236.
544
Harran, 238.
Havilah, 59, 65, 202.
Hazezén-Tamar, 263.
126, 338.
ἐς Head,” to ‘‘ lift up,” 462 f.
Hebrews, 187, 217, 265, 458, 462 f.
Hesperides, 94.
Hezron, 494.
Hiddekel, 61.
Historicity of ch. 14, xviiif., 271 ff.
History and legend compared,
iii f.
Hittites, xvi, 214f., 336, 368.
Hivvite, 216.
Hobah, 267.
Horite, 263, 433, 437
Hill, 206.
Hisham, 435.
Image of God, 31 f.
Immortality, 88, 92, 95, 132.
Imperative, expressing
quence, 243.
conse-
” »» a determination,
476.
Imperfect consec.expressing ‘para-
doxical consequence,’ 307.
descriptive, 533.
Incubation, 376.
Infinitive absolute used as juss.,
2943 expressing irony, 398;
after its verb, 307.
Infinitive, gerundial, 87.
Intoxication, 183, 482.
‘Irad, 117.
Isaac, name, 321; birth of, 321;
sacrifice of, 327 ff. ; marriage
of, 339 ff., 358; death of, 428.
—— Fear of, 399, 402.
Ishmael, 287, 352.
Ishmaelites, 448.
Israel, name, 400 f.
Israel-Stone, Shepherd of, 531.
Issachar, 389, 525f.
Jabal, 115, 120.
Jabbok, 407.
Jacob, name, 360; history of, 355-
428; legends regarding, 356;
INDEXES—I. ENGLISH
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, 389f.; story
of, 438-528; elements ἴῃ
Joseph-legend, 441f.; as
diviner, 484; his agrarian
policy, 498 ff.; parallel fig-
ures. in history, s5orf.;
blessing on, 529ff.; death
of, 540.
Jabal, 120.
Jubilee- periods (Klostermann’s
theory of), 233 f.
Judah, name of, 386, 519; separa-
tion from his brethren, 450 f. ;
his leadership in J, lvi, 443;
495, etc.
blessing on, 518-525.
Jussive of purpose, 227.
unapocopated, 22.
Justification by faith, 280,
Kadésh, 262.
Kadmonites, 284.
Kalnéh, 210.
Kaphtorim, 213.
Kaslfihim, 213.
Kédar, 352.
Kedéshah, 454.
Kelah, 211, 354.
Kem(’él, 333.
Kénan, 131.
Kenaz, 431.
Kenites, 113, 284.
Kenizzites, 284.
Keturah, 349 f.
Kézib, 451.
Kid, as gift, 453.
Kiryath-’Arba’, 335.
Kittim, 199.
Korah, 432.
Koran, 140, 166.
Kudur-lagamar, 258 f.
Kfish, 61, 65, 200, 207.
INDEXES—I.
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.
Lehabim, 213.
Letfishim, 351.
Levi, 386, 420, 518.
Levirate marriage, 452.
Libation, 424.
Lit. minusc., 40.
Liver, as seat of mental affection,
517-
Lot, 236.
Létan, 313, 433:
Lfid, Lfidim, 206, 212.
Lfiz, 378 f.
Maakah, 334.
Madai, 197.
Magic, 96.
Magog, 197-
Mahdlal’él, 131.
Mahanaim, 405.
Makir, 540.
Makpélah, 337 f.
Mamre, 254, 265.
Manahath, 432 f.
Manasseh, 471, 504, 549.
Marduk, 209 f.
Mash, 207.
Masrékah, 435.
Massa, 353-
Matriarchate, 102, 344.
Mazzeébah, 1, 378f., 401, 416, 424.
Medan, 350.
Media, Medes, 197.
Mehétab’él, 436.
Melkizedek, 267 ff.
Meshech, 199.
Messianic applications, 79 ff., 185 f.,
521 ff.
Methuselah, 132 f.
Mibsam, 353-
Mibzar, 436.
Midian, Midianites, 350, 448.
35
ENGLISH 545
Mishma’, 353.
Mizpah, 401 ff.
Mizraim, 201, 285.
Mizzah, 431.
Mochos (quoted), 49.
Mohar, xviii, 319, 346, 383f., 395,
419.
Monotheism, ix, 6, 25, 48, 72, 178,
269, 301.
Moreh, 245 f.
Moriah, land of, 328 f.
Mourning rites, 335, 374, 449) 537-
Musri-theory, 201, 249, 285, 472.
Myth and legend distinguished,
viii f., xxv.
Na‘amah, 120.
Nahér, 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 n. compounded
participle, 131.
Naphish, 353.
Naphtali, 387, 527 f.
Naphtfihim, 213.
Nebayéth, 352.
Negeb, 248.
Nephilim, 140, 145 ὦ,
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.
with
Oath, 345.
—— by genital organs, 341.
—— by king’s life, 476.
‘Obail, 221.
*Oholibamah, 430,
Olive, 156.
On, 470.
Onam, 434.
546
Ophir, 222.
Oratio obliqua without '3, 248.
Paddan Aram, Ixiv, 358, 425.
Paradise. See Eden.
Paradise Legend, origin
significance of, go ff.
Paran, 324.
Parenthesis, 14, 34.
Passive of Qal, 345.
Pathrisim, 213.
Patriarchal tradition, background
of, xiv ff.
local centre of, iv.
Patriarchs as individuals, xxiii ff.
as deities, xxiv f.
as eponymous ancestors, xx f.
Peleg, 220,232.
Peniel, 410 ff.
P&'d, 436.
Peoples, Table of, 187 ff.
Perez, 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 plupf., 283.
Philistines, 213, 327, 363 ff.
Philo Byblius (quoted), 48, 66, 105,
123)
Pikol, 325.
Pildash, 333.
Pish6n, 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, 358f., 406.
Priestly code in Genesis, ἵν] ff.
chronology of, 135.
characteristics of, Ix ff.
literary style of, Ixiiff., 11, 149.
geographical horizon of, 191 ff.
Prophet, li, 317.
Prophetic guilds, xxxi.
Protevangelium, 81, 97.
and
INDEXES—I.
ENGLISH
Puncta extraordinaria, 413, 446.
Punic Zabella devotionis, 85.
Pfit, 201.
Rachel, 383, 386, 388 f., 426f., 504 f.
grave of, 426.
Rainbow in mythology, 172 f.
Ra'mah, 203.
Ramses, land of, 498.
Reclining at table, 300.
Reh6ébéth, 366, 436.
Resen, 211.
Reu, 232.
Re'(él, 431.
Reuben, 386, 388, 427, 515.
Re fimah, 333.
Riphath, 197.
Sabzeans, 203, 350.
Sabbath, 35f., 38 f.
Sabtah, 202.
Sabtekah, 203.
Sacrifice, 105, 157.
child and animal,
essence of, 330.
patriarchal, 1, lx, 491.
Salem, 268
Sanchuniathon (quoted), 48, 71f.,
123, 140.
Sanctuaries, origin of, xii, 246.
as repositories of tradition, xxxi,
8311.
415.
Sarah, 237, 248ff., 284ff., 295,
300 ff., 315 fF, 335.
Seba, 202.
‘Seed of woman,’ 80 ff.
Sé'ir, 262, 360, 412, 414, 430, 437-
Serpent, in Paradise, 72 f., 93 f.
-worship, 81.
Serfig, 232.
Séth, 125 f., 131, 139.
Shammah, 431.
Sheba, 202, 203, 222, 350.
Shechem, 246, 421, 507.
Shelah, 451, 524.
Sheleph, 221.
Shém, 195, 269.
Shemites, 217 ff., 231 ff
Shedl, 352, 449.
INDEXES—I.
Shepherd, ideal, 398.
Shiloh, xxxi, 522 f.
Shin'ar, 210, 225.
Shébal, 432.
*‘Short stories”
xxviii f,
Shflah, 350.
Shir, 286, 315f., 353 f.
Siddim, 260.
Signet-ring, 454, 469.
Simeon, 386, 420, 518,
Sin, 97, 129, 317-
Sinite, 216.
Sinuhe, Tale of, xvi, xvii.
Sitnah, 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.
Sukkéth, 415.
Supplementary Hypothesis, xxxii,
XXXVii.
of Genesis,
Taboos, 66, 398, 410, 454.
“Tale of the two brothers,” 69,
459-
Tamar, 451.
Tarshish, 198.
Tebah, 334-
Tel-Amarna Tablets, 92, 187, 201,
413, 501 f.
Téma, 353-
Téman, 431.
Terah, 232.
Teraphim, 396, 423.
Tidal, 259.
Tikkiiné Sépherim, 304, 345.
Timna’, 422.
Timnah, 453-
Tiras, 199.
Tithe, 379.
Togarmah, 197.
Tola’, 494.
Téledéth, xxxiiif., 39 ff., 174, 231,
358, 428.
Book of, 40, 130, 236, 428f.,
443:
Totem clan-names, 232, 383, 386.
ENGLISH 547
Tradition, historical value of, vii,
xiii ff.
Tree of Life, 88, 90, 94.
of Knowledge of Good and
Evil, 94 f.
Tfibal, 120, 199.
Tubal-Cain, 115, 119 f.
Twin-births, xvii, 103, 359.
Ur, 229, 236.
Usoos, xi, 124, 360.
‘Uz, 206, 333.
*Uzal, 221.
Vav cons. in subord. clause, 369.
Veil, 348, 454.
Volkssage, iv.
Vow, 378 f.
Women (no religious standing in
OT), 169.
Word of God, 7.
of Jahwe, 277f.
*‘World-egg,’ 18, 40,
Ya'akob-él, xvi, xviii, 360, 390.
Yahwistic source, xxxiv ff. ; a com-
posite work, xlivff., 1ff.,
240f.; characteristics of,
xvii ff. ; date of, lii ff. ; place
of origin, lv.
Ya'lam, 432.
Yanhamu, 441, 501 ἔν
Yeish, Ye'fish, 431.
Yerah, 221.
Yered, 131.
Yétfir, 353.
Yidlaph, 332.
Yishbak, 350.
Yiskah, 238.
Yithran, 434.
Y6b, 494.
Y6bab, 222, 435.
Yoktan, 220.
Yéseph-él, xvi, 389
Zebulun, 389, 525 f.
Zemari, 217.
Zerah, 431, 456.
548
Zib’6n, 434.
Zid6n, 215, 525.
Zikkurat, 226, 228f., 377, 380.
Zillah, 118.
Zimran, 350.
Zo ar, 252 f., 257, 309.
Il.
VIR, 531.
738, 296, 476.
3728, 470.
TR, 55+
DIX, 56, 66, 68, 83, 125, 130.
ADS, 56.
"POTN, 359.
nix (=‘ consent’), 420.
ὉΠ, 225.
nx, 465.
Don NINN, 513.
*X, 200.
bx, 398, 491; Ody bx, 3275 why bx,
270; °1 5x, 289; ‘Ww bx, 200f.,
481.
obs, xxxv ff. ; art. with, 131, 159;
mown bx, 342,
2¥(7) = 787, 307, 309, 364.
πρὶ, 367.
πον, TDN, 245.
Nx, TPN, 245, 424.
FPN, 432.
TEN, 353.
ὍΝ (=‘ speak’), 107.
“2N WRN, 316.
NOH, 477-
wis, 126.
3 ἢν, 78:
πῶν and wx, 69.
γῶν, 326.
“ny (=‘ with’), 102.
ὮΝ {ΞΞ᾿ ΞΡ)» 25» 10S) ΤΟ}. 112;
172.
3, various uses of, 30, 149, 169, 226,
333, 530-
MINA, 214.
INDEXES—II.
HEBREW
Zodiac, signs of, 22, 26, 44, 65,
90, 133, 146, 181.
Zodiacal theory of the tribes,
445, 517, 530, 534f.
Zohar, 494.
Zizim, 263.
HEBREW
35 x3, 160,
ΠΌΠΞ, 29.
ely 48ι.
mia, 367.
7732, 362.
"W?3, 271, 467.
YR2, 344.
MYPR, 225.
ΝῚΞ, 14f.
ΠῚ, 163, 276, 283 f., 367 ;’3(o%p7) jms,
171; ‘2 Ὅν, 266.
ana (pz.), 281.
23, 146, 207.
wa, 483.
Sia, 281.
NE 210:
ota, 259.
jing, 78.
53, 401.
753, 160.
34, 443.
ONT, 388.
NDI, 30.
pei, 278 f.
xvi, 23 f., 24.
TZ, 225.
927, 103.
v7 (ΝΠ), 60.
129 (=‘die’), 279.
AMPED, 310.
}=‘namely,’ 481.
1) 237:
j}_(termination), 306,
INDEXES—II. HEBREW 549
ΞΡ Wl, 33. [TUT ἼΞΞ, 252.
TRI 480. πῦϑ, 238.
12) 462 ; 032, 475.
“bx xan, 260. 33, 118,
Ὁ) wah, 382. 15, 161.
mn, 85, τ 2, 516, 527.
PW img, 2 DOS n3nd, 444.
ndbn, Be | ADP, 506.
pon, 267.
DO, 453. a various uses of, 153, 170, 226.
ARDN, 300. 337) 414, 434.
720, 73h, 226, 82, 383.
nO, 323. BRD, 359.
BIN, 5374 W'2>, 519.
130, 266. 325, 392.
yn, 116. m7, 499.
mn, r104f. εὖ, 448.
orop3n, 466. wn, 119, 351.
“n= white bread, 463. ny, 361.
jn, 419.
UND, 24.
DIZ, 457. 72D, 154.
MYO, 353- ΤΣ, 346.
jyp, 488. }22, 135, 269.
nom, 311.
Tk, 465. Πρ, 236,
451. wip, 26.
7, 143. AMD, 151.
ΠΥ" Ξε ἐβῆβαγεβ᾽ or ‘times’), | Sx nD, 117,
482. 702, 487.
yv (euphemistically), 101, 125. Ppnd, 519 f,
Es, 208: amp, 436.
nD, 432, ᾽ν 24, 167.
ND}, 195+ Ι WDP?, 157-
aa 50s M720, 516.
yan qs’, 150. nap, 36, 414.
Dip, 153. ἸΏ, 78, 108, 142,
yp’, 408. mp, 526.
m7, 402. M930, 104.
ow, 488. D2, 394.
WW, 514. DD, 526.
nip> (=‘sacred place’), 246, 376,
ΚΠ 732, 426, 423.
ma ova, 458. YD, 367.
ὮΝ 3, 500. Dns 79, 526.
ὭΓΣΙ ON 3, 462 ἔ, pyd, 278 f.
13: ν»3, 300. Sxyand, 117.
mny 3, 480. nbvan>, 132 f.
DVD, 302. yaynd, 370.
550 INDEXES—II. HEBREW
M7 ON}, 321. mp5, 487.
4723, 67. bb, 505.
273, 414, 499. mB, 344.
Wh, 532. TYP, 249.
ὉΠ), 391, 483. ns, 61.
330 ]"3, 325. nib, 529 f.
nN), 447. and, 184.
1D}, 425. DY MND, 453.
Yo, 225.
VE}, 34, 245, 369. Ras, 36.
mn wb}, 28f., 56, prs, 158 ἢ,
7y3, 462. πρτς, 280.
Ὁ55 XY}, 209. as, 161.
01927 XY}, 381. pny, 321, 364.
m3, 410. ATY, 369.
Dby, 30.
MD, 524. mayb ΩΣ» 470.
OPP, 377: Ἵ» 447.
D'NID, 307.
75D, 336. OW, 3513 7, 3535 ὈῚΡ[3], 381;
DD, 457. o7p[>], 57, 253
PR, 102, 113.
223) 217 mp, 102, 268.
38, O13, 187, 217, 265, 458 f. msp(D), 496 f.
mb3y, 480. ‘sow NIP, 127.
"3 WY, 520. mm wp, 416.
1s 57: MYR, 324.
Dvwiy, 362.
any, 118. DVN, 59.
Ty, 109. nvr, 12f., 514.
ay, 67. 335, 530.
(5), 247. nan (=‘ shoot’), 324.
729, 421. DT, 392.
στον, 306. Ὁ}; N37, 420.
ony (=‘tather’s kin’), 294. wy nan, 211.
2 7B, 392. 207, 383:
TRY, 330. 1». 373:
"DY, 517. nm3 0, 157-
MW, 475: pr, 266.
DIY, 70, 71, 73 WII, WII, 245.
TW, 330- DNA), 263 f.
pow, 392. P12, 318, 370.
mn Y(3), 301. WPY 21, 46.
any, 358.
nxy, 106f., 514.
2 35, 405. mi, 348.
335, 490. MY, 54, 323-
IND, 514. 22%, Hiph., 75
wide, 333- boy, 505.
ne, 183.
muy, 385.
npy, 224 f.
MV, 237-
"W, 295.
AW, 524.
INDEXES—II. HEBREW 551
nro Dw, 364.
mney, 285.
JDRY, 527.
npr’, 344.
yw, 27f.
ww, 469.
nv, 126.
ν᾽, asrel., 144, 521, 523.
Ὁ, 520.
Ὅν, 474:
nay, 326 f.
33%, 143.
on’, 60.
my, 262, 267.
Aw, 79.
on, 330.
bw, 520 ff
BPW, 474.
nby, 415.
owe, 540.
bY, 195, 226.
MeN, 532.
nan, 160f.
wna) An, 16, 50.
ninp, 17, 23, 44f., 48, 164, 532.
midin, xxxiiif., 39, 174, 235.
358.
ain, 336.
“DR, 369.
pon, 159.
uA, 283.
13}, 28.
mama, 68, 281.
apwn, 82, 107.
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. 5. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius
Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.
“Tt is a pleasure to see at last a really critical Old Testament com-
mentary 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. GrorcE Foot Moore, D.D., LL.D., Professor of
Theology in Harvard University.
“The work is done in an atmosphere of scholarly interest and in-
difference 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 Atheneum.
Crown 8yvo. $3.00 net.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
VOLUMES NOW READY
The Book of Psalms. By Cuartes Avcustus Briccs, D.D.,
D.Litt., Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolics,
Union Theological Seminary, New York, and EmILrz Grace Briccs, 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 met.
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 pains-
taking 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 8yo. $3.00 net.
Amos and Hosea. By Wituram Rainey ΗΆΒΡΕΕ, 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. xy 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 varia-
tions 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
Tue INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
VOLUMES NOW READY
Ecclesiastes. By Grorcz A. BARTON, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical
Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa.
“Tt is a relief to find a commentator on Ecclesiastes who is not en-
deavoring 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. WittoucHBy C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow
of Exeter College, Oxford.
“As a microscopic and practically exhaustive study and itemized state-
ment 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. Goutp, 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 ὅνο. $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. Wm11am SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret
Professor of Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev.
A. C. Heapiam, 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. $3.90 net.
Tue INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
VOLUMES NOW READY
Ephesians and Colossians. By the Rev. T. K. Aszorr, D.D.,
D.Litt., formerly Professor of Biblical Greek, now of Hebrew, Trinity Col-
lege, 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 ὅνο. $2.50 nei.
—
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. CHartEs Bicc, 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 in-
formation most helpful to him in his studies and researches. The inter-
national Critical Commentary, to which it belongs, will prove a great
boon to students and ministers.”—The Canadian Congregationalist.
Crown Ayo. $8.50 net.
Genesis. By the Rev. Joun Skinner, D.D., Principal and Professor of
Old Testament Language and Literature, College of Presbyterian Church
ef England, Cambridge, England.
Crown 8vo. $3.00 et (Postage additional).
The Books of Chronicles. By the Rev. Epwarp 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
HEOLOGY 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 se-
cure the services of specialists in the different depart-
ments of Theology, and to associate them in an enter-
prise 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 pre-
pare a volume of Theological Encyclopedia which will
give the history and literature of each department, as
well as of Theology as a whole.
THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY
The Library is intended to form a series of Text-
Books for Students of Theology.
The Authors, therefore, aim at conciseness and com-
pactness 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. Tech-
nical matters will therefore be thrown into the form of
notes, and the text will be made as readable and attract-
ive 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 ‘he
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 tothem. 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 investi-
gation, and indicate the way for further progress.
CHARLES A. BRIGGS
STEWART D. F. SALMOND
hy
i
id ΙΓ ty rn
᾿ ; 1? Man δί ἌΠΟ!
μὰ
va ΝΥ
ἢ
ee wt
ὴ AM
i) it ny)
i
A oh
᾿
ie Nf
Wit Vs
i id Γ
᾿ "
ἵ
νυ. ἢ" we ei
pooner)
yt en
)
+. »
wap d
fa
Ἰ
Ht ᾿
ah
iv
Pi
BINDING SECT. JUN 2 9 1962
ες:
Ara!
Orn nm :
aeu ee
geo University of Toronto
S50 Library
Ϊ Ξ Se
Ε DO NOT
Ο
Ξ REMOVE
σ' =
ia 3 THE
=
é CARD
Ξ FROM
Ο
5S
: THIS
ws ©
οὔ ὃ
“ui 2 POCKET
oyu 2
aH ὦ
5 ®
ns Ὁ
se 2
ΒΡ = Acme Library Card Pocket
ἐ- ; LOWE-MARTIN CO. LIMITED
Bo ES πεν γσοσεξοτοξοώκενς, Keheot ἤτω σὸς ---- αἰ σι ΡΟΣ τ δ δ»
= ae z 5
ACW a nn AD A BW Bs τα
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11