;eO
;ru
= _D
\3-
io
! m
Presented to the
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
LIBRARY
by the
ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE
LIBRARY
1980
** -
TRADITIONS & BELIEFS^
OF
ANCIENT ISRAEL
BY
T. K. CHEYNE, D.LITT., D.D.
ORIEL PROFESSOR OF THE INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE AT OXFORD
CANON OF ROCHESTER ; FELLOW OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
LONDON
CHARLES BLAC
1907
!& &
V?
5
in/
TO THE READER
THE genesis of this book may be interesting. Early in the
seventies I was impelled by zeal for progress to prepare the
first draft of a somewhat full commentary on Genesis for the
use of critically-minded students. The reason why the com
pletion of this work was postponed was my realisation of the
large part which Assyriological researches were destined to play
in the renaissance of Biblical studies. With fresh archaeological
and Assyriological evidence I hoped to return some day to
a problem which as yet " baffled " me (Origin of tlie Psalter,
1891, Introduction, p. xvii.). But the study was not given
up, and contributions were made from time to time to the
questions arising out of Genesis, e.g. (in 1877) to a very
important one, Can the Yahwistic narrative [in the early
chapters of Genesis] be safely broken up into several ?
None of these questions, however, could as yet be adequately
answered, and it was the planning (by different scholars) of
the International Critical Commentary and the Encyclopedia
Biblica which stimulated me to further study. The word
international (familiar to readers of the original Academy}
in connexion with scholarship expresses not only the ideal
of these two works (and of Dr. Appleton s Academy], but the
spirit in which I resumed the definite plan of a critical
commentary. For the editors of the International Com
mentary were good enough to entrust me with the preparation
of the volume on Genesis in their series.
No scholar, however, can be tied even to his own spoken
or written words. As time goes on, he must make progress,
and not merely by inches. It became at length clear to me
that the editors would have to show me some measure of
vi TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
indulgence. I wrote, therefore, to one of them, stating that
while the current critical views on Genesis would in my
proposed work have the lion s share of representation, yet I
could not keep out references to new solutions of problems
affected by my own new conclusions as to the Hebrew text
and its meaning. I added that I hoped two volumes would
not be deemed too much for such an important book as
Genesis. I was informed, however, by Dr. Driver in a
courteous letter that the American editor (Dr. Briggs) and
publishers considered two volumes too much, and that they
wished me (since I had offered to retire, if this seemed best)
to produce what I had to say on Genesis in an independent
work. Certainly my own plan (of giving the lion s share of
representation to views which I did not myself hold) appeared
to me extremely generous, and the limitation of the Inter
national Commentary on Genesis to one volume seemed
highly injurious to the interests of study. But the responsi
bility for the acceptance of my offer does not rest with my
friend and colleague Dr. Driver.
Anything like a recast, with supplementary additions, of
my former unpublished work seems to me to have become
unnecessary. Dr. Skinner, who has written so well on
Isaiah, will, I hope, do all that his narrow limits allow
for Genesis. But there is much, very much, to be done,
which I at least cannot, as a friend of progress, omit. In
spite of a sore trouble, which visited me as the present work
approached completion, I have finished and have now
printed the best upon Genesis and Exodus known to me. I
trust that something may have been gained both for textual
criticism and for the better comprehension of the early
traditions and beliefs of the Israelites. It is no mere com
mentary which is now presented to the friends of critical
progress.
OXFORD, April 23, 1907.
[The manuscript of this work, apart from the Index, was sent to the publishers
in November 1906.]
INTRODUCTION
THE persistent energy and resourceful ingenuity lavished
by so many modern critics on the Hexateuch has by no
means been unrewarded, but experienced scholars will admit
that many of the results are far from final, and that
numerous textual and historical difficulties await a more
satisfactory explanation. There is therefore ample room
for a fresh study of the early Hebrew traditions from a
point of view which may perhaps do more justice alike to
form and to contents. The problems of various kinds now
before us are partly new, partly old questions which have
lately become more complicated and difficult. The co
operation of critical scholars is therefore very much to be
desired, as well as a more general recognition of the necessity
of pioneering work. Unfortunately there is a tendency
among members of the older school to misunderstand critical
pioneers, and when they see new methods applied they are
too often offended. Hence a deadlock threatens us, which
I would fain contribute to avert. And as a preliminary to
this it is right to mention a piece of doubtless unconscious
unfairness which often meets my eye. It seems to be the
fashion among some scholars to represent Winckler and
Hommel as the only pioneers, the only original workers, in
a certain field of study. 1 It is time that a protest should
be raised against books and articles which convey such a
wrong impression to readers. To offer an opinion on the
North Arabian theory without having carefully studied
1 In refutation of this misrepresentation, see Hibbert Journal, July
1903, p. 755, note I : Cheyne, Book of Psalms (1904), introd. p. xiv
note i ; Crit. Bib. (1903-1904).
viii TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
the points of view, the facts, and the results of all the
investigators, is neither just in itself, nor conducive to the
attainment of the great object which we have at heart.
As things now are, it is, I fear, only the field of early
religious beliefs, of mythology and archaeology, in which
some amount of friendly co-operation among critics of all
schools is possible, and even here the undue predominance
of literary criticism hinders one from feeling that confidence
which would otherwise be natural. Besides this, the com
parative backwardness of textual criticism is unpropitious
to common study. The value of critical theories as to the
contents of an old Hebrew book depends on the soundness
of their textual basis, and I wonder how many scholars
have a clear conception of the textual work that lies before
them ! Of too many of our guild it may be truly said that
they do not probe the wounds of the text half deeply
enough, and lack that wide acquaintance with the textual
phenomena, with the habits of the scribes and editors, and
with recurring types of corruption, which has to be super-
added to the rules applied by earlier scholars. 5 1 I do not
myself know where to point for as great a monument ot
text-critical ability in 1906 as that which Wellhausen gave
us in his Der Text der Bucker Samuelis in 1871. But
ought we in 1906 to be no further advanced than we were
in 1871 ?
This neglect and this deficiency are avenged by the
tardy progress of the historical investigation of the O.T.
Our critics are too much afraid of innovations. This is
true even of Eduard Meyer, whose recent work, Die
Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstamme (1906), in spite of its
provocative character, it would ill become me to pass over. 2
The general moderation of the book will doubtless commend
it to not a few English scholars. And yet how peculiar
that moderation is ! It does not prevent the author from
rejecting with insistent dogmatism the fundamental elements
of the N. Arabian theory, in spite of the strong critical
evidence derived from the O.T. ; and it allows him to repeat
1 Crit. Bib. prologue, pp. 3, 4.
2 See Survey of Literature on the History of Israel, Review of
Philosophy and Theology, edited by Prof. Menzies, January 1907.
IN TROD UCTION \ x
what he said seventeen years ago, that Nimrod is a very
common Libyan name, and that this Libyan name was
brought by Egyptians to Palestine, and placed in a new
connexion ; l also that Shur means the frontier rampart of
Egypt, and that Mosheh (Moses), the greatest of Israel s
heroes, derived his name from the language of the
oppressors, a theory than which none can be more violently
improbable. 2 As a textual critic, Meyer is of the same
school as Stade. It grieves me much that neither of these
scholars should have as yet cut himself free from the
mechanical and superficial criticism which was perhaps
unavoidable in the last century. This is how, in 1906,
Meyer comments (p. 489, note 5) on the strange statement
of the traditional text of Judg. iii. 31: According to this
passage Shamgar smote the Philistines (!) 3 with an ox-goad.
So confined was the imagination of these miserable scribes
(Scribenten). Of the names Shamgar, Anath, Ya el, he can
only say (p. 489) that, while he will not guarantee their
genuineness, he does not see who could have invented the
two latter names. And on Winckler s proposal to explain
the corrupt word Dan ID (MT., their root ) in Judg. v. 14
by the Assyrian verb sharu ( senken, niederlassen, he
remarks (p. 492) that, though ingenious, it is still prob
lematical. No suggestion occurs to him as a textual
critic.
Meyer, then, can be a very disappointing critic of the
O.T., though, with his stores of varied learning, he cannot
help making sometimes direct or indirect contributions to
study from one or another point of view. I meet him with
the same frankness with which he has met me, and must
express the conviction that without a broader conception of
method he will not do his best work in the O.T. In
1 Die Isracliten, pp. 448/5 cp. ZATW viii. 47, and Gesch.
des alien Aegyptens (1887).
2 See E, Bib., Moses, 2, and below on Ex. ii. 10. I know that
Meyer regards the genealogies in Chronicles as werthloses Zeug.
Still I will point out here that in i Chr. xxiii. both Mosheh and Mushi
occur among names which are demonstrably N. Arabian. The
Chronicler knew things which came down from antiquity, though he
could not see their bearing.
3 The note of admiration is Meyer s.
x TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
criticising him thus, I criticise my former self; I take up no
arrogant attitude towards the many-sided author of the
Geschichte des Alterthums.
From Hugo Winckler, whose brilliant pioneering works
I have often commended to advanced students, 1 I am partly
separated, not only by my own deeper interest in religious
ideas, but also by my long -reached conviction of the
necessity of an improved textual criticism. As a textual
critic, Winckler is no doubt on the whole bolder than
Meyer, but he is deficient in method, and singularly incon
sistent. Sometimes one is struck with surprise at his
fertility in conjecture, and yet, on turning the page, one
finds him unsuspiciously conservative where there is a loud
call for methodical correction. The reason may perhaps
be that he has not realised the extent of the danger to
which all the Hebrew texts, narrative as well as poetical or
prophetic, were for centuries exposed. I am not surprised
that Baentsch has recently become a decided follower of
Winckler. 2 Not being himself an advanced textual critic,
there was little but educational prejudice to hinder him
from doing so, and any educational prejudices his fearless
love of truth has overcome.
It has been my unpleasant duty to lay repeated stress
on the imperfections of our textual criticism. Scholars
have hardly yet assimilated the idea that the letters of the
traditional text are no more infallible than the points, and
that the latest Jewish editors used a large amount of con
jectural emendation. Those editors, however, were as
conscientious as they were uncritical, and so, very often,
they have left indications of an older underlying text. * In
my own judgment the only way to escape from a deadlock
is to study the recurrent types of corruption in the received
Hebrew text, and in that presupposed by the LXX., and the
habits of the ancient editors in their manipulation of corrupt
words, and so to be guided quite simply and naturally to
new methods ; and (2) to allow ourselves to receive sug
gestions in the application of our new methods from the
1 See especially Babylon and the Bible, Hibbert Journal, Oct.
1903 ; Bible Problems, pp. 143-145, 255-260.
2 Altorientalischer und Israelitischer Monolheismus (1906).
INTRODUCTION xi
theory that the peoples by which the Israelites as known to
us [from the literature] were most directly influenced were
[together with the Canaanites] those of the N. Arabian
borderland. *
According to Ed. Meyer (p. 455) the theory of a
confusion between Misrim (the N. Arabian Musri) and
Misraim (Egypt) has met with very much acceptance, and in
many works, e.g. the E. Bib., and in Gunkel s commentary
on Genesis, is treated as completely proved and ascertained
fact. This is unfortunately far from correct, and is most
unfair to Gunkel, whom such an incorrect statement may
possibly provoke to take up an uncongenial attitude.
Ed. Meyer himself at any rate is provoked at an attack
upon the new critical orthodoxy. The line that he has
taken has been to deny the existence of O.T. evidence for
the new theory, and to reject the theory itself mainly on the
ground of geographical difficulties. Now, it so happens that
I have done more for the O.T. side of the question than
either Winckler or Hommel, and yet this scholar has not
vouchsafed a single line to my investigations. Of his
careless treatment of Winckler s evidence I might also
speak severely. It would seem that he has begun the
study of the question at the wrong end, and that (so far
as my own works are concerned) he has not taken account
of my express self-limitation. Provisional geographical
conjectures I have not indeed avoided, but my main
object has been to contribute as largely as possible to
the correction of the text. And to avoid that subjectivity
which is a critic s besetting danger, I have sought to
control my theories by taking hints from the N. Arabian
theory in a simple form. My geographical remarks have
been designedly vague and undogmatic. I have waited for
the help of those who may be willing and able to com
prehend a new and unfamiliar point of view, and for future
discoveries. Such hostile and superficial criticisms as those
of the orthodox scholar Noordtzij 2 in the Theologisch Tijd-
1 Hibbert Journal, July 1903, pp. 754/.
2 Note his remark on p. 400, Whatever the explanation of av ite
may be, at any rate we have here (Hos. v. 12) to do with Assyria.
But iitPN is the name both of a larger and of a smaller N. Arabian
xii TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
schrift (July and Sept. 1906) can be of little or no value
either to Winckler, or to Hommel, or to myself.
I may here perhaps state my own conclusion that a
large number of O.T. passages have no satisfactory meaning
in their contexts, unless we admit that they refer to Misrim,
Kush, Ashhur (Asshur), and Aram or Yerahme el. It also
appears to me undeniable that these references have been
discovered by a methodical textual criticism. I need hardly
repeat here the list of passages given in Bible Problems
(pp. 166-183, 262-270). No doubt what is there said
could now be advantageously expanded or corrected, but,
at any rate, neither Meyer nor Noordtzij has contributed
anything to its amendment.
To economise space, therefore, I will call attention to
some other passages which are certainly obscure and
doubtful, and are most easily explained on the N. Arabian
theory. It would not be difficult to add to their number,
but with the list already referred to these may perhaps
suffice, (a) Gen. xx. 1 1. DVrW n*rp-pN pi. The difficulty
here is in pi, which is by no means natural, and most
probably comes from Dpn = nrrp (Yarham = Yerahme el).
(&) Gen. xxv. 6. tnp pm That cnp here (and in mp ^l)
means neither * the east nor c the south * should be clear.
It is hardly doubtful that Dip is = Dpi. (c) Ex. x. 21.
TlDn ffift^l has probably come from -int&N DID* 1 *on, that is,
Ishmael-Ashhur, a gloss on D^SD p-^, the land of Misrim.
Geographical glosses like this occur frequently. The sense
commonly given is most improbable. (d) Judg. iii. 3 1
(v. 6). rosrp 13DID. Shamgar and * Anath 2 should be
* Gershom (see on Ex. ii. 22) and Ethan respectively.
(e) Judg. iv. 2. NID^D and ntznn have come from THDN
and mniDN respectively ; pT = pcr = \& = ^HOTT. Is there
any better explanation? (/) Judg. xv. 8. **nh = hn^ =
S^crrr. Similarly, in the much -tormented name trans
mitted as Beer-lahai-roi (Gen. xvi. 14). (#) The
and mo^N of I K. xi. 26 come respectively from
district, and an (see E. Bib., Jareb ; Crif. Bib, p. 123) is a corruption
of 3^.
1 Winckler, AOFxxi. 312, 404, 420.
- Despaired of by Ed. Meyer (see Die Isr. p. 489).
INTRODUCTION xiii
a Misrite, and ir^MOTTT 1 , * a Yerahme elite. See Crit.
Bib., p. 338. The discovery throws a fresh light on
Jeroboam, (h) Ps. iii. 8. There seem to be three read
ings, ^rh, DTiS, and nun, all pointing to SNOTT. (t) Ps.
ix. 2 1 a. cm? iTTID mm rrrm ^ reads the third
word rrfiD. Duhm and Briggs are content with Nile,
fear. But surely the whole line is most unsatisfactory.
Read ^Nonr mm rrnmn. (k) Ps. x. 8, 10, 14. It has
not been observed that f?Norrp underlies both HD^n and
D^O^n. How else can we explain ? (/) Ps. xxiv. 4.
The historical colouring is lost. For ncnoS read TNDTTpk
(cp. the proper names ncriQ and mcno). The cultus of
Yerahme el, as practised in N. Arabia, was repugnant to
the prophets and psalmists, (m) Ps. xliv. 12. h^XQ \tiS3
Impossible ! Read SNDHT^ IDNS, thy flock to Yerahme el
(the people, not the god). () Ps. Ixxxi. 17 b. The key
is furnished by *nsoi. Read DinttJN HQ!i^ n lapp {Psalms,
1904, ii, 38). (p] Ps. Ixxxiii. 9. The mention of Asshur
is difficult to explain (Bathgen, 3rd ed.), unless, indeed,
there be a N. Arabian Asshur! See on Gen. ii. 14, x. 22,
xxv. 1 8.
Most of these passages attest Yerahme el as a preva
lent N. Arabian ethnic name ; three refer to the Arabian
Musri. Ishmael is a synonym of Yerahme el ; * Asshur
of Ashhur and Ashtar. That Aram is = Yerahme el
will be amply proved in the course of our studies. See e.g.
on Gen. xvii. 3 : D-ON attests Ram ( = * Aram ) ; omiN,
Raham = Raham = Yarham (see above on a). Need I say
that the southern tribes, from which the Israelites proceeded,
were of different degrees of culture ? The Amalekites repre
sent the less-advanced section of the great Yerahme elite race ;
but there was another section far more cultivated, as indeed
we might expect, and as Winckler has to all intents and
purposes proved. 1
I shall have to return to this later. At present, it may
be enough to say that the Yerahme elites were not a mere
petty under-tribe, but a truly great race, which carried its
beliefs and sacred usages, its names and its conventional
1 See Winckler, Arabisch-seinitisch-orientalisch, and cp. Meyer, Die
Israeli fen, pp. 303^, who is by comparison vague.
xiv TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
phrases, far away to southern Syria, and its names even to
Babylonia. To it the Israelites also are demonstrably much
indebted ; their early traditions, which we shall presently
study in Genesis and Exodus, are largely due to the
Yerahme elites. Indeed, the very names of the patriarchs
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as of the sons;, of
Jacob, and of Moses and his family, forcibly suggest this
view.
I should, of course, not venture to say this if I had not
given considerable attention to the study of Hebrew names.
I will not repeat what I have said elsewhere (see pp. 32, 43)
on the names carried northward by Yerahme elites in their
migrations, but will ask attention to my treatment of
apparently totemistic names, such as Hamor at Shechem
(Gen. xxxiii. 19, xxxiv. 2), and those of the Horites
(Ashhurites ?) in Gen. xxxvi. 1 I hold that it is a mistake
to account for the real or apparent animal names in these
passages on the theory that the tribes named themselves
after those animals which they regarded as of kin to them,
as the seats of the spirits of their ancestors, and hence as
gods. That the original gods most probably developed out
of supposed supernatural animals, I willingly admit, but I
do not think that the names referred to can be quoted in
connexion either with such a theory or with that once
made so plausible by the late VV. Robertson Smith. 2 But
while agreeing very much with Ed. Meyer in opposition to
the friend who has gone to a higher school, I cannot think
with him that most of the apparent animal names of clans
(such as lion, hyena, antelope) are honorific, indicating that
the clans either wished or claimed to possess the leading
qualities of the particular animals, while others (such as
boar, flea) were originally given in derision on account of
some physical or moral defect, but in course of time came to
be used without any consciousness of their origin. The truth
seems to be that the names Shobal, Sibe on, Dishon, inter
preted as lion, hyena, antelope, and not less the names
Hezir, Par osh, explained as boar, flea, have quite another
1 See E. Bib., Shaphan.
2 Animal Worship, etc., Journ. of Philology, ix. 75^; cp. Kin-
ship (z \ pp. 253^, with references in footnote.
INTRODUCTION xv
origin from that ascribed to them by Robertson Smith or
Ed. Meyer. For the former, I may refer to the notes on
Gen. xxxvi. 20 f. ; for the latter, I may say here that while
Hezir is of somewhat obscure origin, Par osh appears to be
certainly from i^N~ni; (cp. on N*nD, Gen. xvi. I2). 1 It is
surely something to be able to answer Meyer s question,
How comes the principal gens of Judah by this designa
tion ? a question by which both Meyer and Wellhausen,
as the former confesses, 2 have been baffled. Hezir is, at
any rate, not boar, as we see from the company in which
this name, as well as Par osh, is placed in Neh. x. 14 ff.
Possibly enough, like Zerah, it comes from Ashhur. Those
who are accustomed to pursue analogies and parallels will
not, I believe, be shocked at this.
It will now also be plain what answer should be given
to Dr. Buchanan Gray s question, Do such words as rrnN,
miN, and, if compound, HNV, indicate a transition from the
totem conception of kindred with a divine or totem animal
to a conception of kinship with a personal God ? . . .
Whether this be so or not, must depend on the extent to
which the totem theory can be independently established ;
but, if it be so, it gives a satisfactory explanation of other
wise difficult names. Etymologically, names like JTQN are
comparatively straightforward ; theologically, they are most
difficult, and that whether we interpret them Father is Yah,
or My father is Yah, or Father of Yah. 3 The answer is
that the Hebrew names give no support to the theory of
early Israelitish totemism, and can only to a very moderate
extent be used as evidence for the inwardness of Israelitish
piety. A very large proportion of the O.T. names had
originally a geographical meaning. At an early date,
however, a number of them were modified so as to assume
a religious significance, but I am afraid that names like
Abijah, Ahijah, Hamutal, etc., will not bear the meanings
1 Cp. Lucian s (fraSaa-crovp for MT. s Pashhur, Ezra ii. 38. Pashhur,
which W. M. Miiller interprets portion of Horns, is probably from
Parashhur, i.e. Arab-ashhur, and is equivalent, as to its etymology, with
Par osh. Cp. E. Bib., Flea, Parosh, Pashhur.
2 Meyer, Jul. Wellhausen und meine Schrift, etc., 1897, p. 21 (it
is Meyer s reply to Wellh.).
3 Gray, Hebrew Proper Names, pp. 253^
xvi TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
which I myself formerly, like Dr. Buchanan Gray, put upon
them. This, however, will be referred to more at length in
the course of our investigations.
How far the outlines of early tribal movements can be
traced underneath the legends of Genesis and Exodus is
another point of equal difficulty and importance. Before
we can treat it satisfactorily, we must approach very much
nearer than we have hitherto done to the underlying Hebrew
text. It is, at any rate, somewhat easier to detect the
mythological elements, and here I hope that I may have
given some help to scholars such as Winckler, Gunkel, and
Ed. Meyer. I am, of course, aware that the Hebrew
narrators and editors have done their best to weaken the
mythological colouring. But here again their conscientious
ness has preserved material enough for some probable con
jectures. Underneath the ruah elohim of Gen. i. 2 b it is not
difficult to discover the original divine agent, and even in
the uncorrected Hebrew text a conscientious scholar like
Ed. Meyer can see (as I too, after Winckler, have seen)
elements of the Adonis-Tamuz myth in the Joseph-story.
Probably my chief difference from some of the searchers
after mythical elements may be that I have not thought
myself bound by method to confine my comparison of
myths to those which lie nearest at hand. Polynesian
myths, for instance, still (as in 1877) seem to me specially
remunerative, and to these I should now add the N. American.
I will not, however, anticipate.
With regard to my views on the history of Israelitish
religion, I am prepared for some reluctance on the part of
many scholars to accept them. It is, however, historically
very plausible that the Arabians, with whom early Israel
was connected, had as their objects of worship a divine
duad (or triad), and if the Kenites associated an Ashtart
with Yahweh, Moses and the Hebrews would inevitably
worship her too ; x i.e. the duad (or triad) must once
have included a goddess. 1 think that I have added
much to the textual basis for such a theory ; witness,
e.g. y the new explanation of the compound divine name
Yahweh- Seba oth. I have shown, too, that the Arabian
1 Barton, Semitic Origins (1902), p. 290.
INTRODUCTION xvii
deity who preceded Yahvveh is frequently mentioned in the
O.T., and that the Israelites frequently combined the name
Yahweh, not only with that of the goddess referred to, but
also with that of the great Arabian god ; witness the
phrase, now at length restored, Yerahme el-Yahweh. I have
not, however, been able to show who were those individuals
of more than average capacities who may have taken the
lead in the religious movements referred to. To assert that
they were called Abraham and Moses, I have never felt at
liberty to admit I can no more follow Winckler s appar
ently scientific attempt to prove Abraham to be a religious
missionary from the references to Ur and Harran l than
that of Hommel, who thinks that the traditions of the
Mosaic period are supported by the Arabian personal names
of the Babylonian dynasty of Hammurabi. 2 As to Moses,
I can sympathise with Giesebrecht s protest against a
meagre evolutionary view of Israel s religion. But I
cannot see what right we have to extract morsels of history
from the legendary and late narratives of the legislator
Moses. 3 That there was a Mosheh-clan is highly probable,
but the occasional efforts of narrators to endow a vague
representative of that clan with concrete features (Ex. ii. 1 1 -
iv. 23, xvii. 3/; Num. xx. 7-11) cannot be said to be
satisfactory as historical evidence.
One may venture to hope that able though somewhat
prejudiced critics like Giesebrecht will before long see this.
It is, at any rate, neither true religion nor sound criticism
which opposes the full and free discussion of the traditional
story of the Exodus. Nor can I see that the shock to
educational prejudice is mitigated by supposing that Misraim
had a wide range of meaning, and included some part of
N. Arabia, which was claimed by Egypt. The theory does
not seem to me to work easily ; I therefore pass it over as
an unsatisfactory makeshift. It may seem strange, but it is
most probably true, that S. Syria and Palestine were en
closed between two lands, both independent of Egypt, called
Musri. From the southern Mu.sri, according to the original
1 Abraham als Babylonier, JosepJt als Aegypter (1903).
- The Ancient Hebrew Tradition (1897).
Die Israeliten, p. 451, note i .
xviii TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
tradition, 1 came the Israelitish Exodus, or, perhaps one may
venture to call it, migration ; such, at least, is the view
anticipated, so far as was possible, in 1834 by our
countryman, Dr. C. T. Beke, which appears to me the
most probable. Perhaps I may, with all modesty, mention
the half-way house in which I rested for a time, viz. that
there were Israelitish tribes in the N. Arabian Musur who
were never in the Musur of Egypt, 2 and that those who
were in the Egyptian Musur effected a junction with those
who were in the Musur of N. Arabia. This, however,
appears to me now too hazardous. The scene of the
Joseph-story was not originally in Egypt but in N. Arabia,
in spite of the fresh plausibility conferred upon the old
theory by Marquart. 3
From a textual point of view, it seems to me difficult to
deny that the Exodus of which the original tradition spoke
was from a region in N. Arabia. It is a great mistake to
suppose that the O.T. in general favours the alternative
theory of the Exodus from Egypt. Let us consider this
matter awhile textually. (i) I have pointed out a number
of geographical glosses in Genesis and Exodus which point
distinctly to the new theory. (2) It is true that the Joseph-
story and the Exodus-story do in some places present a
markedly Egyptian colouring. But this may without violence
be ascribed to the activity of a redactor. The four or five
Egyptian words, not proper names, which have been thought
to exist in the Joseph-narratives (see Driver, Genesis, Introd.
p. li, note i) are, even on Driver s showing, some of them
doubtful. What I hold them to be myself I have suffi
ciently pointed out ; we have to look behind the traditional
text. He that seeketh (in the right way) findeth. (3)
Next, as to i K. xii. 28. The land of D*nso there spoken
of may just as well have been the N. Arabian Musri as
Egypt. (4) Am. ix. 7 is, to say the least, equally vague,
but if the other names are Arabian (which may plausibly be
argued), so also, presumably, is D HSD. (4) and (5) In Am.
ii. 10, iv. 25, we should most probably read in the wilderness
1 Winckler himself does not regard the tradition of the Exodus as
historical.
2 See E. Bib., col. 1434. 3 See E. Bib., Joseph.
INTRODUCTION xix
of the Arabians (crni? ; see on xv. 13, xxiii. 2), and in Mic.
vi. 4, out of the house ( = land) of the Arabians. The other
passages relative to the Exodus and the accompanying events
all of which are post-exilic may, for the most part, con
ceivably refer to Egypt They are Isa. x. 26, xi. 1 5 /!, xliii.
i6/, li. 10, Ixiii. 11-13 ; Ps. Ixvi. 6, Ixxviii. 12, 43-53, cv.
23-42, cvi. 7-23,cxiv. 1-8, cxxxvi. 10-16 ; Neh. ix. 9, 11,
Some of these, however, cannot, in my opinion, refer to
Egypt ; e.g. in Pss. Ixxviii., cv., cvi., I hold it to be certain
that Ham, which is parallel to Misrim, 1 is a shortened form
of Yarham ( = Yerahme el). See on Gen. ix. 18.
This may, I hope, be enough to show that the theory
of the N. Arabian sojourn and exodus of Israel is by no
means devoid of probability. Into the details of this sojourn
and exodus I need not now enter. Before we discuss the
amount of the historical element possibly present in the
traditions, we have to obtain a somewhat more original text.
If, to any one, the results obtained in this work are dis
appointingly negative, I may venture to remind him that
God is not banished from the history of Israel even if the
Exodus was attended by no physical signs and wonders,
no slaughter of the Egyptian first-born, no drowning of a
hostile king in the Red Sea. 2 I trust, however, that
negation has here gone hand in hand with affirmation,
and that our new examination of Genesis and Exodus
may reveal to us more than a few facts which may serve
as useful material for the reconstruction of the history of
Israel s religion.
The division of the following pages into four parts,
relating respectively to the first, the second, the third, and
the fourth age of the world, will be explained in full when
we come to the investigation of a turning-point in P s version
of the traditions Gen. xvii. The Priestly Writer, at any
rate, seems to have grasped with some firmness the theory
of the four ages of the world, a theory which is characteristic-
1 See Cheyne, Book of Psalms (1904), on the psalm -passages
referred to. Soan, too, points in the same direction. It most prob
ably comes from Sib on, one of the forms of Ishmael (see on Gen.
xxxvi. 20).
2 E. Bib., Plagues (the Ten), 5.
xx TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
ally old Oriental, 1 and may therefore suggest a convenient
arrangement of our survey of the traditions and beliefs of
ancient Israel. I may be allowed in conclusion to recom
mend the constant use of the Index, without which the full
range of this work can hardly be estimated.
1 Babylon probably, and Persia certainly, knew of four world-ages.
Cp. Enc. Brit, Cosmogony, 2.
NOTE. The abbreviations used in the present work are for the most
part those adopted in the Encyclopedia Biblica, The rest will, I hope,
quickly explain themselves to critical readers.
ADDENDA
Pp. 23, 146. Ashtar, as the name of a god and a locality. Compare
the Phoenician name VinwiK (Euting), commonly explained the
espoused of Baal, but really miswritten for SjmnsrN. Also Bn*my
(Cooke, p. 129), not servant of Ares, but from in^N :ny.
Pp. 34^ On the ark cp. Hommel, The Ark of Jahveh, Exp, Times,
Jan. 1907, who compares the ark with the parak simdti, i.e. the
shrine which contained the tablets of destiny (New Year s Festival).
P. 54. Sammael, according to Bousset (Rel. des Jud. ( ^ p. 291, note 2),
was originally a Syrian god Semal. But what, pray, is the origin
of Semal ? Surely some form of Ismael.
P. i$7/ Bousset (op. cit. pp. 251-253) remains under the delusion
that pas in Ezek. xxxviii. 6 and parallels means the north. He
sees the connexion of the king of the north (Dan. xi. 40-45) with
the prophecy of Gog, but gets no further. See my review of Cor-
nill s Introduction to the O.T. in The Nation, 27th April 1907.
P. 1 66. G. Hiising too is sceptical as to a Tarshish in S. Spain. The
true situation, he thinks, is doubtless in the direction of Opir, i.e.
Elam, which is reached from Ezion-geber. In Gen. and i Chr.
we should read, not Tarshish, but Turshim. OLZ, Jan. 1907,
cols. 26, 27 .
TRADITIONS OF THE FIRST AGE OF THE
WORLD, BEGINNING WITH THE COS
MOGONY (GEN. I.-II. 40)
THERE was a time when it was said that the Hebrew cosmo
gony was clearly based upon the Iranian. The view was
not implausible, assuming it to have been proved that the
historico-legislative work known to students as the Priestly
Code was of the * post-exilic age. And when we study the
Zoroastrian Scriptures, especially the Gathas, we are struck
by the parallelism between the Yahweh of the most advanced
Hebrew writers and the Ahura Mazda of the Zoroastrians.
Take the Avesta as a whole, and the spirituality of the most
high God His activity, intelligence, and holiness comes
out very plainly. Nor is the famous dualism of the
Vendidad any great objection. When dualism has found
its perfect expression, we find it to be neither better nor
worse than the dualism of the Apocalypse of John, which is
a sound development from earlier Judaism, and to be quite
reconcilable with the supremacy of the one true God. In
the Gathas, however the communings of the prophet
Zarathustra with his God in a metrical form, dualism is not
so prominent as in the Vendidad, while polytheism, of which
the rest of the Avesta contains so much, is almost or quite
absent. We are bound to form a very high estimate of the
theism of the Gathas, and it is an honour both to the worship
of Yahweh and to that of Ahura Mazda to compare them.
At the same time, we have no right to assume that the
Jewish circles from which the Priestly Code proceeded were
acquainted with the Zoroastrian beliefs in any literary form.
All that we can safely say is that * Zoroastrian ideas were in
2 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
the air in the Persian period of Jewish history, and must
have circulated freely throughout the empire. l More
especially those Jews who resided in Babylonia must have
been open to a breath from the advanced theism of Persia.
There is little probability, however, in Lagarde s view (see
his Purim, 1887) that the Zoroastrian cosmogony influenced
the Jewish. 2 In the former the works of the Creator are six
in number ; in the latter, eight, if not ten. In the former,
pre-existent matter is dispensed with ; in the latter it is pre
supposed. In the former, Angra Mainyu (the evil principle
personified) is for a time comparatively successful, not being
finally destroyed till the end of the world ; in the latter
there is no attempt at opposition to the Creator s will. If
the Jewish writers had the slightest degree of acquaintance
with the Zoroastrian cosmogony, it was most probably only
by report. And we may be sure that they were much more
interested in reports of Babylonian myths, which might serve
to revive the fading colours of older Israelitish myths, long
since largely indebted, directly or indirectly, to the mythic
traditions of Babylonia.
But can we venture to endorse the statement of some
popular writers that the cosmogony in Gen. i. is borrowed
from Babylonia ? Certainly not. It must have required the
labour of successive generations to bring the Babylonian
myth into the form in which the Priestly Writer and a later
redactor have transmitted their cosmogony to us. Nor is it
at all certain that we still possess the exact form of the
Babylonian myth, on the basis of which the early Israelitish
myth was most likely recast. What may be reasonably
stated is that it must in many points have resembled the
story in the Babylonian creation-epic. As for the older
Israelitish creation-story, it may have been derived either
from the Canaanites or from that N. Arabian people among
whom the Israelites probably sojourned. For obviously
many myths may have existed in Canaan and N. and E.
Arabia which have now hopelessly vanished. * These myths
doubtless had peculiarities of their own. From one of them
1 See Cheyne, The Book of Psalms, its Origin, and its Relation to
Zoroastrianism, Semitic Studies in Memory of A. A0/4* (1897), pp.
111-119. 2 See E. Bib., Creation, 9.
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. I.-IL 4 a) 3
may have come that remarkable statement in Gen. i. 2 b,
" and the spirit of God (Elohim) was hovering over the face
of the waters," which, until we find some similar myth
nearer home, is best illustrated and explained by a Poly
nesian myth (see below). It is also probably to a non-
Babylonian source that we owe the prescription of vegetarian
or herb diet in Gen. i. 29, 30, which has a Zoroastrian
parallel (Bundahish, xv. 2) and is evidently based on a
myth of the Golden Age, independent of the Babylonian
cosmogony. l
Of the relation between the Israelitish story, whether in
its older or in its more recent form, and Egyptian myths
not much need here be said. In very early and probably
pre - Israelitish times Egypt may have had considerable
religious influence on the land of Canaan or Palestine, and
it would be easy to indicate points of affinity between the
Egyptian cosmogony and that in Gen. i. The conception of
the primeval watery envelope of all things, also that of
creation by a word, also the story of the conflict between
Re or Ra the Sun-god and the gigantic dragon Apepi or
Apopi, remind us forcibly of the Babylonian and in a wide
sense of the Hebrew cosmogony. But while fully admitting
the combination of influences to which the Israelites were
exposed, I do not think that the influence of Egypt upon
the Israelites can be reckoned as at all comparable to that
of Babylonia. 2
Let us now look more closely at the cosmogony
compiled and adapted by the Priestly Writer (P). One of
the first things that strike us is the non-mention of the
contest between the Creator and the Dragon, which is so
prominent in the chief Babylonian story. P (or his prede
cessor) must have been well aware of the leading incidents
in such a widely spread myth ; why did he ignore this
special point ? 3 Probably he thought it unseemly to recog-
1 Enc. Brit\ Cosmogony.
2 Besides the usual books on Egyptian religion (Brugsch, Wiede-
mann, etc.), see A. Grenfell, Egyptian Mythology and the Bible,
The Monist (1906), pp. 169-200 ; G. St. Clair, Creation Records
(1898).
3 Contrast the author of Ps. viii., at least if Duhm and Cheyne, in
their commentaries, may be followed.
4 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
nise such a being as Tiamat, as having power to hinder
progress by contending with the God of light and order.
Certainly, too, he wished to mention the hovering or brood
ing of ruah eldhlm over the waters, a detail inconsistent with
the dragon-story. Had he mentioned the monster at all, he
would probably have called it by some appellation like
tannin, serpent (Isa. li. 10). We cannot, however, feel sure
that he would have represented the dragon as slain, for there
are passages in the O.T. and elsewhere (see below) in which
the monster is only imprisoned. This mode of representation
made it possible to speak metaphorically of the dragon (or
serpent) as working havoc in creation long after the primeval
contest, though, truth to say, the writer of Isa. li. 10 b
virtually makes the dead dragon come to life again in the
person of an oppressive king, to harass Yahweh s people.
One cannot, however, help regretting the complete omis
sion of the dragon. The primeval physical redemption from
the dragon had a typical and prospective significance. This
is recognised in Isa. lix. 9, and virtually in the Johannine
Apocalypse. For the picture in Rev. xii. of the heavenly
woman who bears the Messiah, and is persecuted by the
dragon till Michael and his angels overcome the monster, is
antitypical. This, however, would have been clearer if the
fight with the dragon had found a place at the head of the
O.T. One may also add that the picture in Rev. xii. might
well have closed the O.T. writings, for it is evidently of
Jewish origin, as indeed the whole book is Jewish-Christian.
At the same time we may frankly admit that a large part of
the Babylonian details respecting Tiamat can well be spared,
and among them the grotesque division of the dragon s car
case to produce heaven and earth. 1 This strange mythic
detail is indeed hardly original. The true original matrix
or envelope of the watery mass of primeval chaos was pre
sumably the cosmic egg. 2 It is N. America and Polynesia,
the classic lands of mythology, which most clearly show us
this (see below), and indeed even one of the poor, pale, com
posite Phoenician traditions expressly states it. 3
1 Jastrow, Rcl. Bab. Ass. p. 428.
2 Tiamat and the egg are connected by Robertson Smith (see E.
Bib., col. 493, top). 3 Damascius, De Primis Principiis, c. 125.
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-u. 4 a) 5
What, then, originally was the dragon, if not the watery
mass of chaotic matter personified ? He (for the male sex
is attested as well as the female) was a mighty preternatural
Being, incapable himself of progress, and hostile to all those
who might attempt it. The dark ocean was his abode, and
the Bundahish (the Parsee Genesis) appropriately says 1 that
when the fiend saw the glory of the light of the Most High,
he fled back to the gloomy darkness, and formed many
demons and fiends, able and eager to destroy. In short,
like the tanmnim ( serpents, dragons ) in Ps. Ixxiv. 13, he
was not the great water itself, but upon it. Indeed, the
dragon is once called the dragon in the sea/ at least if the
traditional text of Isa. xxvii. I may be trusted. We infer,
then, that in the original myth a company of sea-monsters,
with one at their head, were imagined to be on the great
waters. They were the helpers of Rahab (Job ix. 13),
the enemies of Yahweh (Ps. Ixxxix. 11) ; a late but well-
informed source even speaks of the dragon and his angels
(Rev. xii. 7). In the Babylonian myth they are the eleven
monsters formed by Tiamat, who with his consort Kingu
represent the animal forms of the zodiac. Most probably,
however, these monsters had a place in a myth of origins
which had no reference to the zodiac or to astral deities, and
we may compare the flood-myth (or second creation-myth)
of the Algonkins in N. America, in which a prominent part
is assigned to the water -serpents. These extraordinary
animals, in fact, produce the flood. 2
We have already seen that the fate of the dragon was
variously related. There is a sufficient reason for this
variety. Regarding him (or her) as a symbol of the watery
envelope of the earth, he might fitly be said to have been
destroyed when those waters dried up (cp. Isa. li. 10). The
original myth, however, cannot have said that the waters
enveloping the earth dried up. According to Ps. civ. 7 they
fled away, scared by Yahweh s battle-cry, and in the paler
language of Gen. i. they were gathered together into one
1 Bund. i. 10 (SEE v. 6). The Bundahish, though in its present
form not earlier than 651 A.D., contains very ancient traditions.
2 Schookraft, Myth of Hiawatha (1856), pp. 35-39 ; and cp.
Journ. of Amer. Folklore, iv. 210-213.
6 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
place at the divine command. Mythologically they must
have had in their midst a preternaturally gifted Being to
control them. The proofs of this are not far to seek. It
was a dragon who carved out the channel of the river
Orontes, and a dragon who hid within the Nile and
devoured its banks ; and it is still, as the people believe, a
dragon in St. Mary s well (near Jerusalem) during whose
sleep the water gushes forth. 1 No wonder, then, that in the
Johannine Apocalypse (Rev. xii. 3) the dragon of chaos
reappears alive, and perhaps we may add that on Babylonian
cylinders older than the time of Hammurabi the dragon is
represented as harnessed to a chariot and driven by Bel. 2
That a dragon hostile to Yahweh exists, appears from Isa.
xxvii. I, where the destruction of Leviathan/ or the dragon,
is a feature of the latter day. At present he is quiet,
paralysed by the onset and battle-cry of Yahweh. He is
in the depths of the ocean, over the fountains of the waters
(Enoch lx. 7 ; cp. Amos ix. 3), i.e. the subterranean ocean
spoken of in the Prayer of Manasseh (v. 3) as c sealed by
God s terrible and glorious name. Only specially gifted
men can stir him up, such as can be found in Arabia the
home of magic, for Job says, * Let the magicians of Yaman 3
curse it, those who have skill to stir up Leviathan (Job iii. 8).
We must not, however, quote Job vii. I 2 in proof of the
continued existence of the dragon. Am I a sea or a
dragon does not make a good sense. We should probably
read am I a wild-ox or a serpent, two dangerous but not
preternatural animals being put side by side. Nor Isa. xxx. 7
(Gunkel, the silenced Rahab ), where Rahab is not a
mythological term, but most probably a sarcastic modification
of Raham, the short for Yarham or Yerahme el. 4 It may be
objected that Rahab is elsewhere (Job ix. 13, xxvi. 12,
1 E. Bib., Dragon, 4 ; Maspero, Dawn of Civilisation^ p. 90.
2 E. Bib., Dragon, 7.
3 Reading p for C[T]\ A friend of Gunkel had already suggested
p\ jo* (written D ) may be short either for Yerahmeel or for Ishmael.
So too in Isa. xxvii. i, DM, in the sea, should perhaps be po, in
Yaman, and in Job ix. 8 we should read the high places of Yaman.
See on x. 2 (Yavan).
4 The reference in Isa. xxx. is to an embassy to Misrim (the N.
Arabian Musri) ; see Isaiah, SBOT (Hebrew edition).
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 4*) 7
Ps. Ixxxix. 11, Isa. li. 9) a mythological name for the
dragon of chaos. This, however, is an imperfect statement
of the truth. Rahab is only a name for the dragon
because the dragon is identified by Hebrew writers with
Israel s great foe, Misrim (not Misraim) or Yerahme el, an
equivalent for which is the much-tormented word Rahab.
And who was the Great One who could vanquish this
preternatural but unprogressive Being ? Or, in other words,
who was the Creator ? The text of the Hebrew cosmogony
suggests that it was a Man, the type and model of the
lordly men created on the sixth day (w. 26-28). Like
men he speaks ; like men he works ; like men he rests.
He loves order and peace (v. 29 implies that the lower
animals are not to be killed). He also, even when at work,
loves society (cp. ii. 1 8) * let us make man. He takes
pleasure in his creations (cp. Ps. civ. 31), more especially in
his men ( God blessed them everything was very good ).
Still he preserves a certain distance ; he does not seem to
contemplate dwelling on the earth himself; if he has a
Paradise, it must be in heaven.
So, then, he has a strong human personality. His
name, functions, and attributes we shall consider later. At
present let us be content with emphasising one great fact,
viz. that he is no personification of nature or of any part of
nature. He is indeed above nature, even more decidedly
than man (unless he be a magician) is above the lower
animals. But was he always so ? Was there not a time
when the ancestors of the Priestly Writer conceived of the
highest Being as a mixture of man and animal ? For not
man alone was wonderfully endowed ; the animals them
selves had gifts which compelled both admiration and awe.
A Babylonian legend said that the goddess Ishtar contracted
brief unions with a lion, a horse, and a bird. So great was
still the belief in the kinship between the gods and the
animals. Surely, then, the greatest Being of those far-off
people must have had an animal side, must at least have
had the power of changing at will into a preternaturally
gifted animal. If so, must there not, according to an early
form of the Canaanitish or N. Arabian creation-myth, have
been animals before the creation ? For this, the Algonkin
8 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
creation-story gives us a parallel. It tells us of the creator-
hero (Michabo, the Great Hare ) as being, with a number
of animals, on a raft on the shoreless waters. After succes
sive trials, he induces the musk-rat to dive for a morsel of
earth. Of this, Michabo makes an island ; perhaps there
is here a notion of America. 1 Such a limited creation the
early Canaanites too (or their predecessors) may conceivably
have imagined.
We can now account for the reference in v. 2 b to a
Being, evidently concerned in creation, and occupying no
merely ministering station, who * hovered (or brooded) over
the face of the waters. Must not this Being have had the
form of a great and mighty (female) bird ? 2 The fern,
part, forbids us indeed to suppose that the Supreme Being
himself was intended. But it is not superfluous to point
out that in three passages Yahweh, as the Creator and
Preserver of Israel, is compared to an eagle (strictly, vulture),
and that in a fourth his chariot or vehicle is a mighty bird.
The three passages are Ex. xix. 4, Dt. xxxii. 1 1 , and
Mai. iii. 20 (allusion to the winged sun-disk 3 ) ; the fourth is
Ps. xviii. 1 1 , where the description favours a conception of
the cherub as a bird, 4 and most plausibly as an eagle. But
have we a right to group Ps. xviii. 1 1 with the three former
passages ? It seems to me that we have, and I would
appeal to an eminent Vedic scholar (Oldenberg) in support
of this. His view and my own is that when a particular
animal is specially attached to a god, it points to an
original incarnation of that god in the animal. 5 There is
particularly strong evidence for this in the case of the god
Indra (originally, it is maintained, an eagle-god), and it
seems to me reasonable to suppose that Yahweh was com-
1 See Chamberlain, Journal of American Folklore^ iv. 208 /., and
cp. Brinton, Myths of the New World, pp. 176-179.
2 See the present writer s article Cosmogony, Enc. Brit\ 1876 ;
cp. Gunkel, Schopfung (1895), p. 8.
3 Cp. Miss S. Y. Stevenson, Papers of the Oriental Club (Philadelphia,
1894), pp. 232^ The winged disk was the symbol of the god Ashur.
4 It is true the conception of the form of the cherub varied. We
see this from Ezekiel. But note that in Ezek. i. 10 one of the faces of
the cherub is that of an eagle.
6 Oldenberg, Die Religion des Veda (1894), pp. 74, 75.
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 4 a) 9
pared to an eagle or vulture, because the god Yerahme el,
his predecessor, 1 was imagined to have sometimes taken the
form of that bird. That the Arabians worshipped vultures,
has been shown by Robertson Smith. 2 This implies
appearances of gods in vulture-form. Some old hymn to
the god Yarham or Yerahme el may have referred to him as
a vulture, and hence may have come the favourite O.T.
figure of Yahweh s eagle or vulture wings. Clearly, too, the
Creator s assistant might, from the primitive point of view,
be equally well imagined as a great bird. In the Kalevala*
it is a duck which lays six golden eggs and a seventh of
iron on the knees of Ether s daughter Ilmatar, in the vast
expanse of ocean. Ilmatar shakes her limbs, and the eggs
are dashed to pieces, but the pieces come together again
transformed. Other Finnish traditions, however, say that it
was the eagle that laid the world-egg. 4 In Polynesia it is as
an enormous bird who hovers over the waters, and there
deposits an egg, that the heaven-god and creator Tangaloa
is imagined, 5 while the Athapascans of North America say
that it was a mighty bird (a raven), whose eyes were fire,
whose glances were lightning, and the clapping of whose
wings was thunder, on whose descent to the ocean the earth
instantly rose. 6
It now becomes a question whether, instead of hovering,
the earlier myth must not rather have meant brooding as
the form of activity assigned to the Great Being spoken of.
The rendering hovered in v. 2. is no doubt supported by Dt.
xxxii. 1 1 (see Driver s note), but brooded is in accordance
with the Syriac, and fits the presumed original reference
to the cosmic egg. As von Bohlen remarks, to render
brooded in Gen. i. 2 is unfair to the compiler of Gen. i.,
who deliberately rejects the cosmic egg. But there can be
no doubt as to the sense intended in the earlier myth. The
1 To justify this, see below.
2 Kinship, p. 244. Nasr, a vulture-god, was worshipped by the
Himyarites (p. 243).
3 Crawford s transl., Rune i.
4 So Le Due s Kalcvala.
5 Waitz-Gerland, Anthropologie der Naturvolker, vi. 236 f.
6 Mackenzie, in Brinton s Myths, p. 21 1. On the place of birds in
the N. American creation and flood myths, see Brinton, pp. 204, 220.
io TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Bird-creator and the cosmic egg (a figure suggested by the
earth with the over-arching vault of heaven) go together.
Let us remark next that, as a consequence of the non-
mention of the egg, the result of the activity of the hovering
or brooding has also had to be omitted, for v. 3 clearly
begins afresh. Nor does the Priestly Writer state how
darkness was produced ; evidently, like chaos, it pre-existed.
We are told, however, that Elohim named the darkness
(light and darkness being material entities, cp. Job
xxxviii. 19 /), i.e. made it subservient to his purposes.
Another writer, however, in the course of a protest against
dualism, boldly makes Yahweh style himself the creator of
darkness (Isa. xlv. 7). Evidently he has a passion for God,
and cannot leave any part of the universe unaccounted for
on monotheistic principles.
Another question may be raised in this connexion. It
is this, Where was the Supreme Being when he began to
create the world ? The mythologies say that both heaven
and the gods were produced out of primeval darkness. In
a Maori legend, for instance, we find darkness (called Po ;
cp. "Epe/3o9) personified as the begetter both of Light and of
Nought. 1 In Babylonia, too, the light-gods necessarily arise
out of dark chaos. The Priestly Writer of Israel, however,
abstains reverently from any statement which might seem
derogatory to Elohim. One thinks, however, that he might
have said that before the hills Elohim was, and that his
dwelling-place was in those * uncreated lights which have
neither end nor beginning. The Parsee Genesis may here
supplement the Jewish. * One is he who is independent of
unlimited time, because Auharmazd and the region, religion,
and time of Auharmazd were and are and ever will be. 2
A Hebrew psalmist, however, also supplements Gen. i., when
he says of Yahweh, * Who wrappest thyself in light as in a
mantle (Ps. civ. 2) ; this may reasonably be taken to imply
all that the Bundahish says. 3
1 Shortland, in Waitz-Gerland, vi. 267.
2 Bundahish, i. 3.
3 See Cheyne, Psalms {<i] , ad loc. The Avesta (Vendidad, ii. 40)
says, There are uncreated lights and created lights. A Vedic hymn
represents the creation as a ray entering the realm of darkness from
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 40) n
We now turn to the creative works. 1 The first is light.
Elohim said, Let light be ; and light was. Did Elohim
speak light into being? That, however, would be incon
sistent with the rest of the narrative. All that appears in
nature would have come from something pre-existent except
light. Surely the writer presupposes that the light of day
comes ultimately from the light which surrounds Yahweh.
It is worth noticing that, according to the Bundaliish
(i. 23, 25), Ahura Mazda first of all produced Vohuman
( good thought ), and then the sky, after which Vohuman
produced the Might of the world (see p. 38, note i).
The next work is heaven, or, as it is more correctly
called, the firmament of the heaven. As Jeremias points
out, 2 it is the bar (parku) which, in the fourth tablet of the
epic, is placed in front of the half of Tiamat s carcase to
keep the upper waters in position ; also the highway of the
heaven (supuk same}, as the Babylonians called the firma
ment. In short, it is the zodiac on which, according to
vv. 14^, the sun, moon, and stars, i.e. planets, are placed as
signs. As signs of what ? Of the will of the gods (cp.
Jer. x. 3) a distinctly Babylonian doctrine, which appeared
to divest the power that stands overagainst man of its
capricious and unintelligible character. 3 The Priestly Writer
retains the conception of the heavenly bodies as * signs, but
does not explain how he differs from the Babylonians. He
also still permits the belief that the sun rules over the day,
and the moon over the night (cp. Tablet V. line I 2, probably),
but does not guard against polytheistic inferences. That
the permission was dangerous appears from Job xxxi. 26 f.
In Talmudic times some of th % Jews actually sacrificed to
the sun, the moon, and the plane ^ to which is added the
almost divinely sacred name of Michael. 4 Before passing
on, let us notice that the present unnatural position of the
heavenly bodies, in vv. 14-18, after the earth and the plants,
the realm of light (Max Miiller, Anc. Sanskr. Lit. p. 562). The
Babylonian Creator, Marduk, was a Light-god.
1 On P s characteristic word for create see E. Bib., col. 954.
* ATAO.pp. 55, 78.
3 So Winckler often ; see e.g. Die Weltanschauung des alien
Orients, Preuss. Jahrbuchcr, civ. 231 (1901).
4 Hullin, 40 a\ Abodah zarah, 426.
12 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
must be due to the necessity of bringing the creative works
into the scheme of six working days (so Gunkel). The
original order was probably what we find in the Babylonian
epic. On the distinction between Hebrew and Babylonian
cosmology at this point, see Jastrow, RBA, pp. 435 /.
Now, as to the other creative works. In v. 1 1 Elohim
directs that the earth (i.e. the dry land) should bring forth
plants, and in w. 20, 24 that the waters and the earth
should cause living beings to come forth, suitable for each.
In vv. 26, 27, however, Elohim himself both proposes to
create, and actually creates (or rather takes the leading part
in the work). Evidently a contrast is intended. As for the
plants and the varied animal forms of water and land, their
creation can be delegated to lesser beings closely connected
with the water or the land (as the case may be). I mean
that in the spirit of the earlier narrative, which was distinctly
animistic, we may assume that some inferior divine Beings
the future water-gods, plant-gods, and animal-gods were
appointed for this duty. 1 This, I take it, is why in w. 2 I
and 25 it is said that Elohim created great sea-monsters
(or serpents)/ and that Elohim made the beasts of the
earth, etc. Possibly in the original text the verbs here
were in the plural ; some change, at any rate, seems to have
taken place in the text. We may here recall that, accord
ing to Berossus, both men and animals were created at Bel s
command by one of the other gods. 2 The illustration, I
admit, is imperfect, still it is worth something, for it shows
that one deity was not supposed in Babylonia to have done
everything. One may also refer to the striking representa
tion of the Skidi Pawnees of N. America, which is quite as
much a fact as the statement of Berossus. Beyond the
clouds, say they, the creator of the universe, Tirawa, together
with his consort Atira (maize-maiden), reigns supreme. His
mandates, however, are transmitted to men by lesser deities,
1 Cp. the angels appointed over natural objects (Jubilees ii.,
Slavonic Enoch, xix. 4).
2 He is said to have mixed with clay the blood which flowed from
the severed head of Bel. The opening lines of Tablet VI. show that
the blood of Bel-Marduk himself is meant. See Lagrange, Religions
semitiqucs, ed. i. p. 341.
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 4 a} 13
and through some of these, once upon a time, he created
mankind. The first girl and boy were produced by the
Evening and Morning Stars, and by the Sun and Moon
respectively, while other human beings were created by the
gods of the four world-quarters, who, like the analogous
deities in Egyptian mythology, were the supports of the
sky. 1
And who were these men ? Were they a pair, or
several pairs ? If they were a single pair, how could it
be said, Let them rule over the fish of the sea, etc. ? But
if they were several pairs, why is it said, as the image of
Elohim created he him ? There seems here to be an incon
sistency, due perhaps to the redactor. That the first man
was androgynous is held among moderns, so far as I know,
by Schwally alone 2 (changing DHN into inw). It is, how
ever, more important to remark that these first men were no
ordinary men such as we are, but the (very) image of
Elohim, like unto Elohim (v. 26). For humanity no longer
answers completely to this description humanity has fallen.
So, at least, later students thought ; the first men must have
had endowments which later specimens of the race have lost.
Probably they imagined such a being as the Adapa or
Adamu (Fossey, Sayce) of Babylonian legend, 3 who is,
indeed, a man, but so near godship that some myth-makers
could ignore the distinction, and identify him with the god
Marduk. Indeed, in the O.T. itself we find distinct refer
ences to a first man who was virtually a god. Let us glance
at these. One is in Job xv. 7, 8, where Eliphaz sarcastically
asks Job if he is the first man, and has caught up the
plan of the world in the sessions of the divine council. 4
1 Dorsey, Traditions of the Skidi Pawnee (1904), Introd. pp.
xviii. j.
2 Archiv fur Retig.-wissenschaft, ix. (1906) 173.
3 Job may, in fact, have been one of the traditional first men, or one
of those primeval heroes who were made directly by God. The name
3VK (ja R ?) may suggest Ea-bani ( = Ea made ) as that of the original
hero. Ea was the god of wisdom. See E. Bib., Job. 5 In Ant. Tab.
237; 6, 13 we find Aiab as a pers. name in N. Palestine (Cheyne,
Expositor, 1897, b, p. 23).
4 On Adapa or Adamu, no first Adam, but a special creation, see
Lagrange, Rel. sem. p. 340. Babylon knows of no first man.
14 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Singularly enough, there is a close parallel to this in Rune
iii. of the Kalevala (Crawford), where the young singer
Youkahainen brags thus to the ancient minstrel Waina-
moinen
I was present as a hero,
Sixth of wise and ancient heroes,
Seventh of primeval heroes,
When the heavens were created,
When were formed the ether spaces, etc.
Clearly the first man, according to some primitive thinkers,
was not short of divine in his wisdom.
Another is in Ezek. xxviii. 12-17, where we have a
mythological picture of the first man in Paradise, which has
some degree of affinity (i) to the Babylonian story of
Gilgamesh, (2) to the picture in Gen. i. 26-28, and (3) to
the Paradise-story in Gen. ii.-iii. We shall have to return
to Ezekiel s picture later ; here I need only remark that
underneath the king of Missor (as we must doubtless read
instead of Sor) there is the grand form of the First Man,
who is full of wisdom and perfect in beauty, and has the
attire of a king or a demi-god. In fact, perfect wisdom
and beauty are among the signs of godship. Wisdom is
necessary alike for making a world, and for ruling over it
when it has been made ; beauty either for charming or for
awing its inhabitants into obedience. Not for charming
alone. For the divine beauty has a special awfulness ; the
unworthy may not see it unscathed. Naturally, then, the
two first men were both wise and beautiful : the first is
nameless in the Priestly Writing ; the second is Hanok (to
be restored, as the original reading, for Noah), whose wisdom
and beauty are guaranteed by his converse with Elohim.
To both, the royal hero of the Babylonian deluge-myth,
Xisuthros (Atra-hasls, the very wise ), and the equally
royal Yima, who once upon a time ruled over pious
men in the Zarathustrian Paradise, are in a high degree
parallel.
The First Man, therefore, may be called a God, just as
his maker may be called a Man. In Gen. i. 26 (cp. ix. 6)
we are told that he was to be the image and likeness of
Elohim, and in v. 3 the same phraseology is used of the first
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 4 a) 15
son in relation to the first father. 1 And if there is a sexual
distinction in the new-made human nature, was there not
also, mythologically, a similar distinction in the nature of
the Great Beings (cp. above, on i. 2 ft) ? Further, if it be
said that to correspond to the preternatural animal-man
who long, long ago preceded the glorious divine Man of
the Priestly Writer, and indeed of the Babylonian creation-
myths, there must afterwards have been animal-men, not in
the same degree preternatural, we need not contradict (see
on vi. 1-6). Such a phase of belief there was, and why
should not the ancestors of the later Canaanites have passed
through it ? Heaven and earth, god and man must corre
spond. So felt, till quite recently, the N. American Indians ;
so, too, the vastly more cultured Babylonian race. To what
marvels of constructive speculation the latter were guided by
this conception, no one has shown so clearly as Hugo
Winckler. 2
We now pass on to the question of the plurality of
the Elohim. That the Heavenly Man, called by the
Priestly Writer in a special sense Elohim, like the men of
earth, loved companionship, we have seen already. Elohim
said, Let us make man. Surely there is no figure of speech
here, as if Elohim were taking counsel with himself. When
such a case does arise, it does not appear that the plural is
used. 3 To understand the passage, we must take it with
parallel passages, such as (iii. 22,) xi. 7, Isa. vi. 8, to which
we may add the story of the visit of the three men to
Abraham in chap, xviii. I venture to think it practically
certain that in an earlier form of this story the three men
represented a divine triad or trinity, which acted after
deliberating in council, though one of its members was
superior in rank to the rest. The notion will perhaps strike
some as heathenish. It is, however, in harmony with the
1 The Egyptians elaborated the theory of the humanity of God in a
tasteless way (see Maspero, Dawn of Civ. p. 110). On Ezek. i. 27
see Gressmann, Esckatologie^ pp. 5 i f.
2 See the essay already mentioned, Preuss. Jahrbiicher, civ. (1901),
especially pp. 261 f.
3 Cp. Gen. viii. 21, Yahweh said to his heart. The reference is
at any rate valid against a textual conservative like Ed. Konig (Syntax,
207).
1 6 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
fundamental belief of the Semitic East that heaven and earth
are in the closest correspondence. An earthly king had his
wider and his narrower circle of councillors, in imitation, as
was supposed, of the heavenly pattern. The wider heavenly
council consisted of the bene Elohim, or inferior divinities
(l K. xxii. 19-22, Job i. 6, ii. I, xxxviii. 7 ; cp. Rev. iv. 4).
The narrower one was limited to the Divine Three, 1 the
chief of whom can be no other than the great Yahweh
himself, while the second and third are honourably subjected
divinities, whose worship the Israelites had learned from the
N. or E. Arabians. The names of the latter are Ashhur or
Ashtar and Yarham or Yerahme el (see below) divinities
already closely associated before they were subordinated to
Yahweh. In fact, divine duads rather than triads are
characteristic of Canaan. It is probable, too, that the inner
divine council was often, in the mind of the Hebrew
narrators, a duad. 2 rather than a triad (see below, on Mal ak
Yahweh ). But, whether triad or duad, the Divine Com
panions were doubtless imagined as living together in the
fullest harmony.
I have here assumed that a time came when progressive
Israelites were agreed that among the Divine Three there
was no goddess. This may be illustrated by the fact that
the Zenjirli (N. Syrian) inscriptions refer only to gods. It
is, however, extremely probable that one member of the
Divine Company of Gen. xviii. is the transformation of a
goddess. The primitive Semitic deity was certainly a
goddess the great mother-goddess Ashtart. It was this
deity who was worshipped at the very ancient Semitic
temple, the remains of which Petrie claims to have found at
Serabit-el-Khadem. 3 For we can hardly fail to agree with
1 Three, because of Gen. xviii. ; cp. also the triads of Egypt and
Babylonia. Anu, Bel, and Ea formed a triad as early as 3000 B.C.
Later Jewish speculation, however, recognised companies of four and of
seven Mighty Ones. Saturninus, the Gnostic, of Antioch, taught that
the world was produced by seven angels (Hippolyt. Refut. vii. 28).
The Ophites spoke of a holy hebdomad, whose chief was Yaldabaoth,
the God of the Jews (Iren. adv. haer. i. 30. 9, 10).
2 So the great unifier of Babylonia recognises specially Anu and
Bel (see J astro w, RBA, p. 147).
3 Researches in Sinai (1906), p. 192.
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 40) 17
this explorer that the Hat-hor ( Mistress of Turquoise )
here worshipped was really Ashtart. As Barton has shown ,
the Semitic father-god was but a transformation of the
mother-goddess, and the Kenites, whose disciples the tribes
led by Moses were, must have worshipped Ashtart beside
the great god commonly known as Yahweh. 1 So that
even in N. Arabia the Hebrews were the worshippers of
a goddess, and when they advanced into Canaan their
attachment to this cult would naturally grow and develop.
For the Canaanites, like the Phoenicians, were devoted to
Ashtart. This appears plainly enough from the results of
the excavations. It is true there are many O.T. texts which
describe the worship of the Baals and the Ashtarts as
apostasy, but such statements are admittedly due to illusion.
This is not the place to consider the Baalim. As to the
local Ashtarts, the traces of their worship in the O.T. would
no doubt be larger 2 but for the scribes and the redactors,
and some of the original evidence of its existence can still
(as we shall see) be recovered. From the phrase Ashtart,
the abomination (goddess) of the Sidonians (i K. xi. 5,
2 K. xxiii. I 3), one might be led to suppose that the cultus
was an importation from Phoenicia in the time of Solomon,
who, it is said, * went after Ashtart and Milkom. This,
however, would be an error. From Judg. ii. 13, x. 6, I S.
vii. 3, 4, xii. 10, however, as well as from the recent excava
tions, it appears that it is of earlier date than this. Judg.
x. 6 deserves special attention, because after the Baals and
the Ashtarts come the words the gods of Aram and the
gods of Sidon. Now, both Aram and Sidon have two
possible meanings. They may refer to regions or districts
either on the northern or on the southern border of the
Israelites. It is contended here that the most natural view
is that which makes them southern regions, and that the
settled parts of N. Arabia were the source and centre of the
cultus referred to. See, further, on * Ashteroth Karnaim,
xiv. 5.
But besides the passages in which mention is plainly made
1 Semitic Origins, p. 290.
2 Barton, too, remarks on the scantiness of the O.T. references to
Ashtoreth ( Ashtoreth, etc., JBL x., 1891, p. 73).
2
1 8 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
of Ashtart or the Ashtarts, as worshipped by the backsliding
Israelites, there are passages enough in which the goddess
Ashtart is referred to under one or another of her titles
incorrectly transmitted, (a] One is Malkah of Ishmael/ l
i.e. the heavenly queen worshipped in Ishmaelite or Yerah-
me elite Arabia (cp. * Ishtar of Nineveh/ Ishtar of Arbela ).
This title is traditionally misrepresented in Jer. vii. 18, xliv.
17-19, 25, as queen of heaven/ precisely as (if I may differ
from the prevalent theory) Baal of Ishmael has been
altered into Baal of heaven by Phoenician priests adopting
and sanctioning an error of the scribes or sculptors (cp.
p. 45), and precisely as the god of Ishmael has been
altered sometimes in the O.T. into * god of heaven (see on
Gen. xxiv. 7), and the idol of Ishmael into * the abomina
tion that makes desolate (Dan. xii. 11 ; cp. ix. 27, xi. 3).
Malkah is, of course, the feminine of Melek or Malk (see
p. 5 1 ). I may notice, however, that the various reading
rON^Q implied by the points, and by many MSS. as well as
Pesh., may perhaps represent irVwDTTP, in which case D^DID
must of course be rejected. Cp. below, on Mal ak.
(&) Other titles are the Ishmaelitess/ the Ashka-
litess/ * the Meshek goddess/ the Arabian/ which are
disguised in MT. as Bosheth, 2 Ashmath, 3 Sukkoth, 4
1 o Dty (DDK ) for otr, as e.g. in Gen xi. 4, xlix. 25. Cp. also 2o/M?/Ur
pov/xos in Philo of Byblus, a compound of two corrupt forms, one repre
senting DV\ the other onx = DITV.
2 HBO, as a designation of the consort of Baal, Jer. iii. 23, Hos.
ix. 10, is pointed by Jastrow (JBL, 1894, pp. 19^) n a ; he regards
it as the name of a Babylonian deity, and compares the personal name
Mutibashti, which, however, can be explained otherwise. The usual
view is that Bosheth (as tradition points) means shame a dis
paraging substitute for Ba al. 5 But how comes the Chronicler to give
Eshba al ( Ishba al ?) rather than Ishbosheth ? The truth probably
is that ntta = n jne = n*WjW. The same explanation may apply to the
Phcen. no3N (Cooke, pp. 69, 91), also to the Heb. nsjo|V] K. Cp. atr
and BO often from ^vycxr.
3 notJ N, Am. viii. 14, is another corruption of f ov\ The parallelism
shows this (see pp. 46/). Cp. KDTK, 2 K. xvii. 30.
4 HDD (MT. Sukkoth), in the title of the great autumn festival.
Booths is highly improbable, nor is anything said about dwelling in
booths in Dt. xvi. 13-15. Originally it was the festival of Ashtart, as
the goddess of fruit-producing trees, nao comes from nSspN, the fern,
of Sat^N ( = Asshur-yerahme el) ; see on Gen. xiv. 1 3. We also find
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 4 a) 19
Zenuth, 1 Mazzaloth, 2 Tammuz, 3 Maskith[o], 4 Shulammith,
Arbith, 6 and Seba oth. 7 I must here appeal to fair-
minded readers. The objections to the usual explana
tions of the passages referred to are exceedingly strong.
If any one can overcome them, I will return to con
servative textual views. But the variety of explanations
tried is already so great that I can hardly conceive of
new ones. Take for instance the phrase mNis r \ which
Gressmann has lately called * altogether unintelligible.
It seems indeed to mean * Yahweh of the hosts. But we
roa nan (i superfluous) in 2 K. xvii. 30, as the deity of the N. Arabian
Babel (see on Gen. x. 10). rua should no doubt be ruan, the first n
omitted, as if dittographed. n means the Temanite goddess (see
P- 45)-
1 nw, Hos. iv. 1 1 (a didactic maxim, clearly corrupt). The pre
ceding word IDs? 1 ? covers over nW ; so also does mar. The Ishmaelitess,
Yaman, and Ashtar steal the mind. Cp. mu rva, Jer. v. 7, where nan
comes from njyax (= Ishmaelitess). Cp. mir in Judg. xi. i, and perhaps
Josh. ii. i ; also Crit. Bib. on i K. xxii. 38.
2 mStD, 2 K. xxiii. 5. Neither signs of the zodiac, nor mansions
(mamalti) of the great gods will suit, a should really be combined
with Sya. Sun and moon is a gloss. Read n^vn = ntr. The well-
known title again. Cp. (7) and D SIQI = D <I ?NJ;OB" ; also "?ui and aiai = DV\
3 non, Ezek. viii. 1 4. Women weeping for the Tammuz cannot
be called probable. We rather expect (Jer. vii. 18, etc.) the worship
of the queen of Ishmael (tradition, of heaven ), and this is ratified
by textual criticism, non, like mSro, comes from cv\ Read manse, not
JTI33D.
4 [ijrrac D, Ezek. viii. \2. Unintelligible in MT. Read wsyc, i.e.
the Meshek-goddess. See on Meshek, Gen. x. 2.
5 Possibly iroSw (MT. Shulammith), in Cant. vi. 13, represents
n&WsirWtpDV*, on the supposition that Canticles is based on a cycle of
songs relative to the myth of Adonis and his sister-spouse. See p. 47.
6 rva-iy, in the phrase nna[n] jm, i S. iv. 4, etc., which, like nnyn N,
is suspicious. Sometimes the Deuteronomist is supposed to have
coined the phrase, and later writers are presumed to have interpolated
nna or rv-iun in earlier passages. This, however, is but a makeshift
hypothesis. We also find rra-iy, mis written (a) as T3 , given as a gloss
on rrjns (see 1 1), and (b} as niaan in Num. x. 35 f. It is probable, too,
that ma Vjn in Judg. viii. 33, ix. 4, and a Sx in Judg. ix. 46, are corrup
tions of rrany ^tonr, the two members of a divine duad being combined.
The difficulties of commentators are thus, I hope, removed. Cp. p. 35.
7 Independently Erbt (Die Hebrcier, p. 185) has advocated a
similar view. He would read nNak, the warrior-goddess, i.e. Asherah.
But the great goddess was not primarily a warrior. Josh. v. 13 throws
no real light on the name.
20 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
know from I S. iv. 4, 2 S. vi. 2, that it was the name of the
god of the ark (if piN, * ark, be correct), and any one can
see that such a name as this for such a god is, to say
the least, improbable. Analogy suggests that niM3S must
occupy the place of some proper name ; in short, that x s /-l
is the incorrect form of a compound divine name. What
we expect instead of rYWlS is the name of a goddess (p. 1 7),
and considering (a) the evidence of the Stone of Job/ 1
(&) that Nlft and aim are both derivatives of (3>N]i?D&r, and
(c) that S sometimes certainly takes the place of W (e.g. in
D^12 and D^NlS, pS12, p12, JWC&2, it is natural to read
msi2 ( = rpasis), ar| d to explain it Ishmaelitess. 2 It is
worth noticing again that, according to Num. x. 35, 36 (the
text is corrupt, but can be restored), the name Yahweh
might be combined equally well with mas and with mils.
That the higher teachers of Israel at an early period induced
their disciples to read the safer word (with 1 instead of ^)
can be easily understood. See on ^ TN^D, pp. 58^.
A third title most probably underlies the phrase rudh
clohlm in Gen. ii. 2 b. We have already seen that the clause
as a whole must refer to one of the co-workers in creation,
and that this mighty worker was represented in the form of
a (female) bird. From this it follows that riiah elohim
cannot be the original reading. What this phrase usually
means we know. It denotes a potent divine energy,
materialistically conceived, which stirs human nature to its
depths, and (in the later books) produces and sustains life
(see Driver s note). Here, however, it is an original cosmic
power that comes before us hypostasized, and for this there
is only one complete parallel, viz. the difficult passage,
Isa. xl. 13. Indeed, there is no secure evidence that the
ruah, whatever be its functions, was ever hypostasized, I K.
xxii. 19^., Isa. Ixiii. 10, II, 14, Ps. cvi. 33, as well as Isa.
xl. 13, being most probably corrupt. 3
1 The so-called Stone of Job, discovered beyond the Jordan,
seems to attest the worship of a Canaanitish goddess called Kana-
z(or s)apant. For the latter part of this compound name (sapant) is
surely russ, Sephonith = Sib onlth ( Ishmaelitess ).
2 See on Sibe on, xxxvi. 20.
3 In i K. nnn represents ^Nonv, as the God of prophecy (prophecy
most probably came from Arabia). In Isa., isnp nn and m.T nn have
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. L-II. 40) 21
There is but one adequate solution : riidh ZloJilm must
represent a compound divine name, one of the elements in
which must be the name of a goddess. Elohim may be
either a substitute for Yerahme el or (a later usage) an
equivalent for Yahweh ; the latter alternative is preferable.
Riiak therefore must have arisen out of the name of a
goddess, and we can now see who that goddess must have
been Ashtart (the Bab. Ishtar), 1 who, though not the
wife of Baal-ishmael (Baal-shamem) or Baal-hamman (Baal-
yerahme el), was at any rate his name, i.e. equivalent
(Eshmunazar s inscription, /. 18). Her sacred animal at
Sidon was the cow, in Cyprus the sheep, in Syria the dove.
But she could not be confined to these manifestations. As
a cosmogonic deity it was fit that she should assume the
shape of an eagle. Originally, perhaps (like Anu), a
chthonic deity, she rose to the rank of lady of heaven,
celestial virgin, and, as Ishtar is styled in a Babylonian
hymn, mother of the gods, fulfiller of the commands of Bel,
producer of verdure, lady of mankind, mother Ishtar. 2
But surely rudk cannot have arisen out of * Ashtart?
Of course not. But the goddess had various titles, and
one of them, we may infer from Gen. i. 2 critically regarded,
was Yarhith, the short for Yerahme elith. The latter word
was probably written Yerak , out of which, by an easy
modification, an early editor produced ru&h. Parallels
for this change lie close at hand. Besides the passages
mentioned above (i K. xxii. 19, etc.), I may refer to three
other passages in Genesis itself (iii. 6 a, vi. 3, vii. 22), another
passage in Kings (i K. xviii. 12, see p. 33), and another
in Isaiah (xlviii. 16). In Babylonia, too, the goddess
Ishtar had other names ; in fact, the various female
goddesses pass into each other so readily that we are led to
conclude with Hommel that there was but one Babylonian
goddess, viz. Ishtar. One of these apparently distinct
goddesses was Ba u, who is really a double of Ishtar, and
both sprung from m,v SKDHT (note inte, v. 9, and see on mrv IN^D, Gen.
xvi. 7). Similarly inn in Ps. cvi. is = nn, i.e. nirr m\
1 Note that the Mandaeans equated the Holy Spirit with Istra-Libat,
i.e. Ishtar-Dilbat (Brandt, Mand. Schriften, p. 45).
2 Quoted by Driver in Hast. DB, Ashtoreth/
22 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
whose name may have journeyed to N. Arabia and Canaan
for names journeyed to, as well as from, these countries.
Consequently the cosmogonic goddess may perhaps have
been known as Ba u-Yarhith. To justify this, let us look
somewhat closely at v. 2 a, imi inn nnvr pNiT), The
occurrence of the terms inn and inn is limited to later
writings (including Isa. xxix. 21 ; see my Intr. Is. p. 195).
inn may be correctly spelt, but hardly im. This word is
surely the Baav of Philo of Byblus, who is the mother of
Alcov and Tlpwroyovo?. These two are really but one, viz.
ohs, i.e. SNI?DBTS while Baav is the Bab. Ba u, 1 who is
virtually identified with Belit, 2 and is called daughter of
Anu (the heaven-god), a title also expressly given to Ishtar.
That a scribe should have assimilated IN! to inn, is only
natural.
Thus we get as a near approach to the original form of
Gen. i. 2 b, l and Yarhith-Yahweh was brooding over the
face of the waters. How the cosmic egg was brought in,
can be conjectured. Philo of Byblus says that the egg
split and the earth, the heaven, and the celestial bodies
emerged. A more first-hand authority for primitive
imaginations says
From one half the egg, the lowest,
Grows the nether vault of Terra ;
From the upper half remaining
Grows the upper vault of heaven. 3
Now, too, we can perhaps see how to read v. 2 a y viz. pwm
ill, * now the earth was chaos/ to which is added mil, or
rather INI Nin, that is, Bau, a misplaced gloss on nTTT.
Nor can we be surprised that mi should occur only twice
elsewhere, viz. Jer. iv. 23 (where, however, Duhm and Cornill
deny it) and Isa. xxxiv. 1 1.
We see, then, that a time came when it was instinctively
felt by the best Israelites that the mother-goddess, who
watched over the earth s fertility, belonged to an earlier
1 According to Zimmern and J astro w, there is no connexion between
Ba u and Bohu. But, then, these scholars think that Bohu, like
Tohu, means chaos, which is not here maintained.
2 See Hommel, Gr. p. 114, note 4.
3 The Kalevala, by Crawford, Rune i.
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 40) 23
stratum of thought, and that society now demanded a
father-god. Such a change, for which there are numerous
parallels, corresponds, as Barton has shown, to a new stage
of family development. The goddess had been called
(neglecting the distinction between N and I?) l Ashtart.
The name of the god was Ashtar (?), or Ashhur, or
Yeshurun, or perhaps Asher. Let me first speak of Ashhur.
The name is traceable not only in the O.T., but also in a
hitherto unexplained N. Syrian divine name, viz. Arku-
resheph, in the Hadad Zenjirli inscription, /. 1 1 (Cooke, p.
161). Arku is to be grouped with the Phoenician personal
name p-ii> (Cooke, p. 88), and with the ethnic ^pli?, Gen.
x. i 7 (see note). The feminine form Ashhoreth ( = Ashtart)
was also perhaps known in Phoenicia (see on Melkarth, p.
46). The name can readily be explained on the analogy
of compound names such as TTTt&N (Ashdod), t:jpt&N (Ash-
kenaz), ^DEN (Ashkal ; MT. Eshcol), pfppmw (Ashkelon),
Siatm* (Ashba al ; MT. Eshbaal), pa>N (Ashban ; MT.
Eshban) ; in all of which w& takes the place of "l$N. The
second element, Yin, often occurs in the O.T. as a proper
name, and in most of these cases it is evident that the name
is N. Arabian. There are also Aramaean names into which
the element i*in enters, as we learn partly from Aramaic,
partly from cuneiform documents. 2 It may be best explained
as a weakened form of "ion, which, like Yion (Gen. xxxiii.
19) and nm (i Chr. ii. 44), is certainly an offshoot of nnT
=OKDnT (see below). Ashhur will therefore mean Asshur-
yerahme el, 3 a name applied both to a district of the large
Yerahme elite region (see on ii. 14), and to the El or divinity
of the district. It was natural, therefore, that on the way to
Shur (i.e. Asshur) the forlorn Hagar should meet the friendly
divinity known as Asshur- Yerahme el. See on Gen. xvi. i$f.
1 The distinction referred to is not kept up in the writing of proper
names in the O.T. texts. See further, Zimmern, KAT^\ p. 420, with
note 5.
2 See S. A. Cook, Aram. Gloss. ; Johns, Ass. Deeds, iii. 537 ; and
PEF Quart. St., 1905, p. 240 (on Gezer Tablet). As-hor, however,
in the Aramaic papyri of Assuan is an Egyptian name ( belonging to
Horus ).
3 We need not therefore refer to the goddess Ishhara = Ishtar
(KAT, p. 432 ; Hommel, Gr. p. 41, note 2).
24 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Note also in the parallel passage, QB> win ItDNl, from
att)* 1 N1H 1i!^l, c in Asshur, that is, Ishmael (xxi. 1 7 b}.
Asshur as a divine name is more frequent than Ashhur,
and as a regional name is even common. As a divine name
it was first noticed by Hommel l in Dt. xxxiit. 29, where
we should read (after by Yahweh ), [Yahweh] is the shield
which is thy help, and Asshur the sword which is thy pride.
So in Gen. xvii. I, I am El Shaddai should be I am El
Asshur, and similarly wherever Shaddai occurs we should
read, not Shedi, my daemon (as Noldeke), but Asshur (see
on Gen. xlix. 25) ; Yeshurun, too, is probably a modification
of Asshur with a termination indicating attachment. And
lastly, in Ex. iii. 14 rpiTN both times has probably sprung
from Yint&N, so that Elohim says to Moses, Tell the bene
Israel, Ashhur has sent me unto you. 2 See also Gen. xxxi.
29,42, 53, where critical emendation is indispensable.
The question may perhaps be asked, Was the god
Asshur or Ashhur originally a tree-spirit? One thing at any
rate is clear. The tree-symbol of the original El-Asshur was
the asshur-tree, also known as teasshur (Isa. xli. 19, etc.) and
probably as f es raaman, the ra aman tree (see p. 33, note 2).
In Dt. xvi. 21, where the impossible pir^D miDN should be
"in0N p2~f?D, there is a confusion between the asshur-tree
planted near the altar of Baal (i.e. Asshur- Yerahme el) and
the symbol of Baal s divine companion, who is often called
Asherah. An equally unfortunate mistake occurs in Lev.
xvii. 7 and 2 Chr. xi. 15, where D^TSttf, satyrs, has sup
planted D*ni&M, 8 symbols of the god Asshur, and in 2 K. xxiii.
8, where Asshurim has become D" 1 "!^, gates, also in Dt.
xxxii. 17, Ps. cvi. 37, where Asshurim has become 0^*7^,
* demi-gods (?). We have also to consider our position with
regard to Asher, * Asherah, Asherim, and * Asheroth.
The most natural view is that Asher/ with a plural
* Asherim, is a collat. form of Asshur, and Asherah, with
a plural Asheroth, of Asshurith. 4 Possibly, however, the
1 Aufsatze und Abhandlungen, ii. 209 ; cp. Barton, Sem. Or. p. 249.
2 In Ex. iii. 14 no< nviN nsrN nviN is a later insertion, partly scribal,
partly redactional. See ad loc.
3 Cp. on Seir, Gen. xiv. 6.
4 Cp. Wellhausen, Comp. des Hex.* p. n.
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 40) 25
distinction between * Asherim and Asheroth may not have
been present to the editors of the texts. At any rate, we
find Asherim and Hammanim mentioned together (Isa.
xvii. 8, xxvii. 9), and the presumption is that the * Asherim
are symbols of Asher = Asshur, and the Hammanim
symbols of Rahman (Rimmon) = Yerahme el. 1
Thus between Asher, * Asshur, and Yerahme el (see
below) there was no real difference, and when in Ex. iii. 14
Asshur is said to be the sender of Moses it is as if the
divine name had been Yerahme el. It was therefore possible
for the Canaanitish goddess Ashratu or Ashirtu ( = Asherah)
to be represented as the consort of Ramman. 2 Probably the
people explained Ashratu or Asherah as the propitious
(V"ilDN = nar), just as they must have explained Rahman
( = Yerahme el) as the compassionate.
We now pass on to Ashtar (-iniDN) or Ashtar (in IDs).
The latter form (which Hoffmann explains as the luxuriant ) 3
occurs in Mesha s inscr. (1. 17) in combination with Kemosh,
and most scholars have supposed that Ashtar here is =
Ashtart. Surely this is an error. Lagrange s argument
that the Moabites, being so near the Canaanites, would
naturally regard Ashtar as a goddess, 4 will not stand, for the
Canaanites expressed the fern, gender by the form Ashtart.
It is true the Ishtar of Babylonia and Assyria was a goddess.
But why should we suppose that the tendency which led the
Canaanites to differentiate by appending the fern, ending did
not extend to Moab ? I hold, therefore, with Barton, 5 in
opposition to Bacthgen, Moore, and Lagrange, that the
Ashtar of King Mesha is a masculine form, like the Sabaean
inris ; and if so, it will be only natural to find traces of
the cultus of this Ashtar (or Ashtar) among the Israelites
and the Phoenicians.
1 It is a mistake to render Baal-hamman (the chief god of Punic
N. Africa) the glowing Baal. It is = Baal-Yarham.
2 See E, Bib., Rimmon ; Jensen, Hittitcr u. Armenier (1898),
pp. I72/. ; Zimmern, KAT, pp. 433/ Hommel (Exp. T. xi. 190;
cp. Gr. p. 85) thinks that Asherah = S. Arabian Athirat, the wife of the
moon-god.
3 From */~\vy = Aram, iny, to be rich (Ueb. ein. phon. Inschr. p. 22).
Similarly Hommel (Gr. p. 89, note i).
4 Religions semitiques (1903), p. 125. 5 Sem. Or. pp. 141 ff.
26 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Our expectation is not disappointed, though in Phoeni
cian we can only point to in IDS T3S? in an inscription from
Kition (Cooke, p. 72) ; there is surely no necessity to
identify this with the more common mnfittms. In the O.T.
we may refer to Dt. iii. 17, iv. 49, Josh. x. 40, xii. 3, 8,
xiii. 20, where we find a word nY~r&N of which no satisfac
tory explanation is forthcoming (see BDB, and Ges.-Buhl).
Its origin, however, ought to be clear ; it comes either from
or from rvnniDN. The former is preferable because of
in Num. xxi. I5, 1 which comes either from "IDN or from
As in the case of Ashhur, the name was applied
both to a district and to the divinity of the district. We
also find "int&N underlying tDTvn in Hos. iv. II (see p. 19,
note i), and the second part of the name ttnnui in an
Aramaic papyrus (Assuan, A 19), and also underlying
in an impossible phrase in Am. vi. i, where vjpj
rPlDhn should be &nsh& -mm** ^Spa. 2 And further
on we shall see that the traditional resting-place of the
ark was on the mountains (mountain ?) of Ashtar. We
can well believe that the city and district referred to were
devoted to the God Ashtar. Nor is it impossible that
our method may reveal to us unexpected traces of the
primitive importance of this deity, msn }YiN (Ex. xxv. 22)
and rrnsn SHN (Num. ix. 15, xvii. 23) may have come
from "inBto pIN and mi? hnn respectively, just as "lino ^rm
(Ex. xxvii. 21, etc.) and TifiB in (Isa. xiv. 13) may have
come from pin hn& and f i in (Ra aman = Yerahme el).
Indeed, p-|N itself may cover over a divine name (see p. 34).
Whether msn nnb (Ex. xxxi. 1 8) once meant tablets
inscribed by Ashtar, is uncertain.
I confess that this theory seems to me not unplausible,
though it may be doubted whether ms or rvni? has not
rather come from the fern, form mniDS. As we have seen,
the ark (if * ark be right) was specially connected with
Yahweh-Shema f ith (underlying Y.-Seba 6th), i.e. Yahweh-
Ashtart. mntDS may have been written m ; such abbre
viations were always natural. I willingly admit that the
1 For D*bna I^N read ^NQITV inK, dropping the final D in in as due to
a scribe s error.
2 See Hibbert Journal, iii. 831.
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 4*) 27
mistaken reading rns or rrnru for int&S or mntt> must be
ancient ; but how many other mistaken readings must be
comparatively ancient ! In Ex. xxv. 16, 21 /, xxx. 6, and
in the Psalms, rvns must be the original reading, and must
mean law. But there are certain phrases in which the
name of a deity seems called for. For instance, in Ex.
xvi. 34 before the Law is not a suitable parallel to before
Yahweh (v. 33). Nor is ark of the Law, tent of the
Law, dwelling-place (pttD) of the Law nearly as natural
as ark tent dwelling-place of Ashtar or (Ashtart). l
Nor is the phrase the tablets of Ashtar (or Ashtart) at all
unsuitable. There is sufficient evidence (see p. 38, note 2) that
Ashtart was sometimes regarded as the goddess of wisdom,
and we may assume that Ashtar (who grew out of Ashtart),
as well as his fellows, Yerahme el and Yahweh, was also
honoured as such.
That there should only be well -disguised traces of
Ashtar, need not surprise us. He was in fact overshadowed
by his divine companion Yerahme el. Let us now consider
the name Yerahme el. Its original meaning escapes us.
But the people no doubt explained it as God has com
passion ; there is an allusion to this certainly in Hos. i. 6
and ii. 3 (i), where the writer alludes to Yerahme el as an
element in the compound name of Israel s God, and probably
in Hos. i. 10, where (to harmonise with the context) hx ^1
TT should be corrected into SNDTTP " Dl. It is probable,
too, that the pD"i of Damascus and the Ramman of Babylonia
and Assyria both come from ^NonT through one of the two
possible linking forms pm (popularly, compassionate ) and
jDJn (popularly, thunderer ). But what was the original
meaning of the name ? May it mean moon . . . ?
Hommel (Gr. p. 95, note 3) suggests, the moon truly is
God, and explains Abimael similarly as my father truly is
God (so too Ulmer). These explanations, however, are
forced (see on Gen. x. 28). Truly for ma is suspicious, and,
though moon for rrp is plausible, the isolated appearance
of a moon-god TTV on a Phoenician seal 2 would be strange,
and it should be observed that the od ^IlITT on a
1 The same remark may be made on the phrase nnan p-uv (see p. 35).
2 Ed. Meyer, E. Bib., Phoenicia, n (TSBA v. 456).
28 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Palmyrene inscription is apparently a sun-god (Cooke, p. 280).
It is true, Sinai is commonly derived from the Babylonian
Sin, as if it meant the moon-mountain. But this theory,
though cleverly supported by Winckler (E. Bib., Sinai ), is
an unsound one. Both * Sinai and the ethnic Sini (Gen.
x. 17) have quite another origin (see on Ex. iii. i). Besides,
with all deference to Hommel, the m in Yerahme el has to
be plausibly accounted for. It might, indeed, be due to
mimation 1 (so Sayce). But when a letter holds out so
firmly in the various derived forms as the m (see e.g. Aram,
Ram, Raham, Hamuel, Kemuel, Melah, Lehem, Amalek,
Yeroham, Karmel), it is natural to regard it as radical. The
final -el (as in all similar cases) is purely formative. Some
times it is neglected ; we find the forms Yirham or Yarham.
Other forms are Raham, Rikbo and Rekeb, Melek, Yaman,
Yerah. 2 The last of these would account for a Phoenician
divine name Yerah ; the last but one for the Babylonian god-
name Yam ; 3 the last but two for the Phoenician god-names
usually read respectively Milk and Mukl (see pp. 5q/). Rikbo
(from Rakbul, see on Ex. xv. i) throws light on the difficult
SNIDI in the Hadad and Panammu inscriptions (see Cooke).
This deity was one of the great gods of Ya di in N. Syria ; his
name means neither chariot nor charioteer of El, but, like the
Palmyrene ^UTTP (Cooke, p. 278), is a corruption of f?NOJTP.
Cultus and name were transferred to N. Syria from Arabia.
Raham, too, which in the O.T. (i Chr. ii. 44) and in the
Assuan papyri (snom = 31$ Dm ?) is only a personal or
clan-name, occurs in a (late) Palmyrene inscription as the
name of one of the three * good gods.
But a longer pause is needful at the form Yarham.
Yarhamu occurs on contract-tablets dated under Shamshu-
iluna (Sayce). We also often find DTTP (MT. Yeroham) as
a personal name, and at least once as a part of the full
name of the God of Israel. This is in Ex. xxii. JE^ a
passage which rewards a careful study. Holzinger is right
in declining to cancel (after Sam.) the closing words Ti^l
1 Hommel accounts similarly for Milkom (Gr. p. 163, note 4).
2 Other modifications will be referred to later.
3 Hommel, Gr. p. 130, note i; p. 178, note 4. We find a personal
name Yama in Am. Tab. 238, 2.
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 40) 29
mrrf?, though they have no proper connexion with
what precedes. His reason is that mm is not a suitable
word ; in the earlier period it was bodies of men, not
individuals, who were devoted by the herem. What we
expect is nov nia. May not mm have come from D*nrw,
the verb at the end having fallen out ? This, however,
leaves in Ti^l unaccounted for. It has not been observed
that *>n^l may, as in Isa. x. 4, have come from ^nn or
SiariN, i.e. ^KSDBT, and that in the true text Ishmael some
times occurs as a gloss on ^HDITP, the two names being
equivalent. In the present case, Tif?l is preceded by Dim,
and it is a natural suggestion (transposing n and -|) that
this word is the shortened form of Yerahme el. To supply
DDV nio is needlessly violent. Prefix n to nil (the pre
ceding group of letters is closed by n), restore mrr for
DYT^N, and omit the two glosses (^r6l, i.e. SiariN, on nnT,
and niiT^ on DVT^N^), and you get this precept, TTfirh min
1~TlS Dmr, thou shalt sacrifice to Yahweh- Yarham alone.
Can our more conservative scholars suggest an equally
adequate remedy ? Where Holzinger has failed, it is not
likely that they will succeed.
That Yarham sometimes takes the form of Yam, has
been already shown (see p. 28). This enables us in
passing to suggest a better explanation for the form D?1N in
I K. xiv. 31, xv. I, 7 f. The m is not due to mimation
(Kittel). As in the case of the proper names in cuneiform
texts closing with yama or yami, or beginning with Yam, 1 it
seems best to explain D? as the short either for arm or for
p\ The name is really of geographical origin ; it means
Arabia of Yarham ; though of course a conventional
religious meaning may, even in Abijam s time, have been
attached to the name.
On the name which is equivalent to, and often a gloss on,
Yerahme el, viz. Yishmael, not much can be said. Its true
meaning appears to be unknown. From the Assyrian name
Ishmanni-Adadi " one may perhaps infer that there was a
god Ishman ; now Ishman certainly is = Ishmael. But this
throws no light on the origin of the name, and the theories
1 Including the Ahiyami ( = Ashhur-yaman) in an important letter
found by Sellin at Tell Ta annek. 2 Johns, Deeds, p. 398.
3 o TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
mentioned elsewhere (see on xvi. 11) are insecure. The
people, no doubt, explained it as = * God hears. Cp. the
Phoenician name f?212QC&, for which, however, AtoTret^T/? is the
Greek equivalent ; also the Assyrian name Ishme-iln, which
H. Ranke l proposes to interpret God heard or * God has
(this time) heard. Another form of Ishmael is probably
^lt, a Phoenician name (Cooke, pp. 347, 350), and also
underlying the lia ((& B fia\a) of I K. vii. 2i. 2 That tsi is
connected with bill is pointed out in E. Bib. col. 2304. Now
^Tir is = *JN3?DBF (Crit. Bib. p. 353). Another form is friN^,
Lev. xvi. 8 (see on ~?riN, Gen. x. 27). Yerahme el (or Ishmael)
having become a Pluto, it was natural that Ishmael, in one
of its forms, should become the name of a harmful demon in
the wilderness. See pp. 53/1
The functions and attributes of the divinity called
Yarham or Yerahme el were very various. It is necessary
to draw a distinction between the god of the nomadic and
the god of the agricultural stage. Some traces of the
former are still discernible, (a) It was from this god that
the later Yerahme el, and consequently also Yahweh, derived
the titles of * elohim of the mountains and * inhabitant of
Sinai, 3 probably also (see below) those of Baal of the
mountains (Zeu? opeios) and Ba al-Lebanon. (&) He was
also the god of the storms which rage in the southern
mountains (Isa. xxi. I, Zech. ix. 14), and which seemed to
ancient worshippers to declare the presence of their God
(Ezek. i. 4, Saphon- Ishmael, I K. xix. 11); also of the fire,
whether of lightning (Isa. xxx. 30, I K. xviii. 38) or of an
active volcano 4 (cp. Ex. iii. 2?, xix. 18, Dt. iv. II, ix. 15).
(c) He must also have been, before Yahweh, the god of the
1 Die Personennamen in den Urkunden der Hammurabidynastie
(1902), p. 33.
2 The companion-name p probably comes from p3B* om. Note
that two pillars were dedicated to Melkarth (on this name see p. 46) at
Tyre ; see Herod, ii. 44.
3 Dt. xxxiii. 1 6, reading TD for MT. s rwo.
4 See Dr. C. T. Beke, Sinai in Arabia (1878). Independently
Gunkel and others have taken the same view (see on Ex. iii. 2). The
references to volcanic eruptions have partly been retouched, so that
close inspection is needed. Cp. Gressmann s phrase stilisiert
(Eschat. p. 45).
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 4 ) 31
keriiblm, and, if the text-reading pit* is correct, of the ark.
When he led his host to battle he was represented by a
material object, probably a stone, if we should not say two
stones, not too massive to be carried (see below, p. 35), and
supposed to be tenanted by the divinity. This stone was
called by the name Aron ( ark ), or rather, in this early
period, by some other name, such as Armon or Ra aman,
which can still be detected underneath the corrupt Aron
(see p. 34). The stone was probably not carved at all. It
came down from a remote antiquity, when, not only between
human beings and animals, but between animals and plants,
and between plants and stones, the separation was not so
manifest as it afterwards became, and when the imperfect
Being who was older even than the primitive Yerahme el
and the primitive Ashtart could will to reside either in an
animal (cp. the kcrubim) or in a plant (cp. the sacred trees),
or in a stone (cp. Gen. xxviii. 22). Later on, a small rudely
carved kerub may have replaced the stone in which the
invisible God was supposed to be present (see below), (d]
He was also a god of few sacrifices and simple sanctuaries.
Amos (v. 25) may exaggerate when he looks back on the
wanderings of Israel as a time without sacrifices. But this
god was certainly distinguished by his not requiring the
lavish sacrifices which the prophet Amos saw offered at the
comparatively spacious temples (hekalim) of the settled
Yerahme elites.
Thus there are four titles, among others, which may be
given to the older Yerahme el (a) god of the mountains,
(b) god of storms and of fire, (c) god of the sacred stone or
stones, and (d} god of the few sacrifices and simple sanctuaries.
As to (a), this phrase occurs in I K. xx. 28. It is there
used of Yahweh, but he cannot have been the first god to
bear the title. Mount Sion would never have suggested it
(cp. Ps. Ixviii. i6/!, Ixxviii. 68 f.) ; the phrase must have
come from N. Arabia. Among the Phoenicians the Zei>?
opeto? or Baal of the mountains and the Baal of Lebanon
(Cooke, p. 54) both most probably have this origin, 1 though
1 For the second title, see Crit. Bib. on i K. v. 20, Jer. xxii. 20.
The name Lebanon also journeyed to Carthage (see Cooke, p. 127).
On the journeyings of Arabian names, see p. 43. As W. R. Smith
32 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
the inscriptions containing the latter were found in Cyprus.
Such transferences of cults were common. The mountain of
greatest sanctity was, of course, Horeb, with which Sinai
may rightly be identified. It was originally a mythic
mountain which rose into the heaven, but it came to be
placed by tradition in the recesses of Ishmael a distinc
tively mountainous region. This we gather from Isa. xiv. I 3/,
where saphon is a dialect form of Sibe on, i.e. Ishmael (cp.
p. 50, note 3; p. 80, note 5). The passage is late, but late
writers often preserve archaic phrases and conceptions.
Here, therefore, in this simple mountain sanctuary, was
the true centre of the Yerahme elite race, for all the tribes
originally worshipped the same god Yerahme el or Baal
the Labanites 1 no less than the Yakobites (see Gen. xxxi.
17-xxxii. i). And though the passage, Isa. xix. 23-25,15
probably very late, yet we can at least refer to it in proof
of the ancient tradition that Misrim 2 and Asshur as well
as Israel once worshipped the same God a tradition which
prompted the prophetic hope that in the latter day these
three peoples might find a reuniting principle in their
common purified religion.
(Kinship^, p. 224, note i) remarks, The "mountain Zeus" can hardly
be any other god than Eshmun. Now Eshmun is = Ishmael or
Yerahme el.
1 The Labanites (see on Nephilim, vi. 4) were more tenacious of
archaic usages than the Yakobites (note the teraphim, Gen. xxxi. 34,
and the foreign gods represented, perhaps, on Egyptian amulets,
Gen. xxxv. 2, 4).
2 In Exodus the oppressing king is pictured as not knowing
Yahweh (cp. Ex. v. 2, I know not Yahweh ; viii. 28, Yahweh
your God ; ix. 13, x. 3, Yahweh the God of the Hebrews ; ix. 14,
that thou mayest know, etc.). But it is plain that in Joseph s time
there was no complete religious severance between the Hebrews and the
Misrites, and under the new king who knew not Joseph (Ex. i. 8)
there were some Misrites even among the king s servants who feared
the word of Yahweh (ix. 20). Justice will be done to all the facts if
we suppose that the change from the earlier to the later Yerahme el was
completed in Misrim after the supposed period of Joseph s viziership.
The Hebrews adhered to the earlier Yerahme el, whom the narrator
unhistorically calls Yahweh. But the Misrites were certainly Yerah-
me elites. In Gen. x. 6 Misrim is the son of Ham, i.e. Yarham, and
in Ps. Ixxviii. 51 and elsewhere Misrim and Ham (Yarham) are
parallel. So in 2 S. xxiii. 21 a Misrite man is glossed a man of
Yerahme el (n*on is obviously corrupt).
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 4 <z) 33
(b] That Yahweh was the storm-god and the fire-god
could not have been held if Yerahme el had not been so
before him. This is confirmed by a passage in the Elijah-
story. In i K. xviii. 12 (see p. 21) the timid Obadiah
imagines that a Being called Ruah- Yahweh will carry
Elijah off to some unknown locality. The verb, unex
pectedly, is masculine. This suggests the probability that
Ruah- Yahweh represents the compound name of a divinity
Obadiah s God, viz. Yerahme el-Yahweh. 1 If this divinity
was sometimes traditionally imagined as a mighty eagle
(cp. p. 9), we can well understand Obadiah s fear. There
were probably Babylonian stories current in Canaan of
heroes (e.g. Etana) carried aloft by supernatural eagles.
The eagle might well represent a storm-god, such as
Yerahme el, like the Babylonian-Assyrian god Ramman
(from Rahman = Yerahme el), 2 certainly was. That Yahweh
was a fire- god, hardly needs proof. See, however, Judg.
xiii. 20, and note the phrase the fire of God, Job i. 16,
see also Isa. vi. 4.
As to (c\ the usual view of critics is that the ark
contained two stones, like the two sacred stones (a white
and a black) built into the wall of the Ka ba at Mecca, and
representing the deities Al- Ozza (a goddess) and Hobal
respectively. But a close study of the passages describing
the effect produced upon enemies by the ark throws con
siderable doubt on this theory. 3 When, e.g., the Philistines
understood that the ark of Yahweh had come into the
1 Crit. Bib. p. 397.
2 Prof. D. S. Margoliouth (Religions of Bible Lands, p. 20) connects
Rimmon with Rahman, compassionate. Rimmon, however, is the
same as Ramman ; compassionate is only a Volksetymologie (see
p. 37). Winckler holds that Yahweh is = Addu and Ramman, and that
Ramman and Hadad were both brought to Babylonia and Assyria by
the second or Canaanite migration (GI\. 37, ii. 78; KAT, pp. 33,
133). He is therefore more nearly on my side than Zimmern (KAT,
pp. 444 /). But he does not see that pm is but a slight modification
of Wonr, which is the name of the great N. Arabian god or Baal. A
collateral form of Ramman or Rahman is pjn (p. 24), underlying the
second word of the phrase [Jjn py (Dt. xii. 2, etc.), and the second word
of the phrases iyia Snx and iyiD "in, and perhaps also underlying the divine
name JIN (see p. 55). Arnon and Araunah have the same origin.
3 Cp. Harper, Amos and Hosea, Introduction, p. Ixxxix.
3
34 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
camp, they said, Elohim has come into the camp/ and
asked, Who can deliver us from these mighty Elohim
(i S. iv. 7 f.) ? It is not the mysterious contents of a
chest that they mean, but some divine image or images.
Take a parallel case from Phoenicia. The 6eol o-va-rparevo-
fjievoi fetishes carried along with the army to the field ]
were surely visible objects, not anything shut up in a box.
Certainly, if ardn could be interpreted as either throne
or ship/ we could understand the effect produced, for in
Assyria statues of the gods were carried about, seated on
thrones, and in Babylonia deities were carried in solemn
procession in ships, of course in such a way as to be seen.
But how can ardn bear either meaning ?
Or let us take another passage not relating to Israel s
enemies. When the Israelites had been defeated by the
men of Ai, Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth
on his face mm p*iN ^ffo (Josh. vii. 6). Surely the closing
words 2 are subversive of the idea that p*iN means a fetish
or fetishes shut up in a chest. According to Dibelius (Lade,
p. 32), before the ardn Yahweh means before the Yahweh
invisibly enthroned upon the ardn. Certainly, it must
somehow mean * before Yahweh ; but how shall we get
this sense ? Not by Dibelius expedient, but by recognising
that, like so many other religious terms, ardn has come into
existence either by corruption or by alteration, most prob
ably the latter. And just as we have the personal names
PEN (Amon) from pcriN ( = crrr), and in (i Chr. vii. 12)
from intDN, so most probably we should restore one letter
to piM, and read either poiN or p*ri ( = ^NDriT ; see p. 55).
In Josh. vii. 6, therefore, the original text was pQ-jN ^~>
mm, which may be illustrated by v. 7, where Joshua
addresses his God as mm "OTN, i.e. ^ poiN (see p. 55), and
by i K. ii. 26, where in the phrase mm ^HN pIN the two
first words are variants representing pent*.
That the religious authorities of a later age should first
of all do away with the stone symbols, and then convert
1 Ed. Meyer, E, Bib., col. 3749, referring to the treaty between
Hannibal and Philip of Macedon. Cp. W. R. Smith, Rel. Seni.
P- 37-
2 That disregards jm is unimportant.
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 40) 35
the word Armon or Ra aman into Aron, is intelligible
enough. It was one of the principles which guided them
in the practical adjustment of past history and literature to
present religious needs, gently to manipulate the inherited
forms of expression. This aron YahweJi took the place of
Armon-Yahweh, one of the old compound names of the
divine duad. Other such compound names are probably
Armon- Ashtar 1 and Armon- Ibrith (or Arbith), 2 under
lying Aron-ha eduth and Aron-habberith respectively. We
may venture to suppose that two sacred stones (perhaps
rudely carved) were originally carried in some kind of
open shrine on the shoulders (cp. Isa. xlv. 20) of priestly
guardians.
I have carefully read what Dibelius has to offer in
behalf of his own religions-gescJiichtlich view of the ark in
his Die Lade Jahves (1906), but there are manifest weak
nesses in it such as no archaeological learning and tact can
overcome. See Rev. of TheoL and Philos., edited by Prof.
Mcnzies, January 1907 (Cheyne) ; and TJieoL Stud. u. Krit.
Heft 4, 1906 (Budde).
As to the keritblm, it is very possible (see above) that in
course of time on the passage of the Israelites into a new
social stage the sacred stones were carved into some rude
resemblance to a lion with a human face (cp. on Gen. iii. 24).
For the references to the lion in connexion with Yahweh
(e.g. Hos. v. 14, xi. 10, xiii. 7 /.) and with Judah (Gen.
xlix. 9) justify the supposition that Yahweh, and therefore
also Yerahme el, was (like Nergal) in one of his aspects a
lion -god. In the agricultural stage he was naturally
represented as a steer-god. But the conceptions of the
lion-god and of the eagle-god (see p. 33) are probably
older. When I say lion -god I do not, of course, mean
that the god was, as it were, bound to the sacred animal,
but that in some sense which only a primitive worshipper
1 Passages like i S. iv. 4, 2 S. vi. 2, suggest a close connexion between
the aron (i.e. the stone symbolic of Armon) and the divine name
Yahweh -Seba oth (i.e. Yahweh- Shemaith = Yahweh - Ash tart). This
has long ago been observed, but its full significance has not been
recognised. For l eduth see pp. 26 f.
2 Cp. p. 19, note 6. It is possible that in I S. iv. 4 nnay pcn (under
neath ma pin) and T\*yc& mrv (underneath niNss ) are alternative readings.
3 6 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
could fully realise, he willed to deposit his divine essence
in it.
Passing on to (d), enough has been said elsewhere (see
p. 63) on the sacrifices. The sanctuaries of the nomadic
period must have been very simple. 1 Such temples as those
of Shiloh (i S. i., iii.) were, of course, unknown. The great
sanctuary was on Horeb or Sinai. But the whole mountain
was sacred ; to what purpose would a temple have been ?
We now pass on to the later Yerahme el, who cannot be
altogether distinguished from Yerahme el-Yahweh. I offer
my conclusions with the requisite reserves, but cannot evade
the obligation of forming and expressing them. Early in
the agricultural period Yerahme el may, like Marduk, 2 have
been a god of vegetation. It was he who opened the
springs in the mountains, who made the corn to thrive,
and filled the trees with sap (cp. Ps. civ. 10, 14, 16). Was
he also sometimes regarded as the corn-spirit ? Was there
a myth in some circles respecting his death and resurrection ?
It is very possible. The gods Marduk and Adonis would
offer a complete parallel. At any rate (as a member of
the divine triad), Yerahme el was sometimes pictured as a
beautiful young man. 3 I admit that this is inconsistent
with other representations. For the later like the earlier
Yerahme el was a warrior (cp. Ex. xv. 3, of Yahweh), and
may even in some circles have been recognised as the
slayer of the dragon. He was also, we need not doubt, the
wise Creator of heaven and earth, and speculative thinkers
may even have ventured to maintain that he would ulti
mately renew his creation (cp. the Iranian frashokereti],
This idea may, indeed, appear to some to be too advanced,
but in its simplest form it is common in the American
myths, and is therefore perfectly possible in early Palestine,
Nor was even the underworld considered to be exempt
from his far-reaching sway (cp. Isa. vii. 1 1, Am. ix. 2). See
further pp. $2f.
But his work is not only, nor even primarily, cosmic.
To the people at large he is a Na aman or pleasant one, a
1 See Marti, Die Religion des A.T. pp. 27, 28.
2 See Hehn, Hymnen und Gebete an Marduk, p. 8.
3 See on Gen. xviii.-xix.
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 40) 37
Rahman or compassionate one/ a Dod or beloved one.
To their foes, indeed, he sends sicknesses (as Yahweh did to
the Misrites and the Philistines), but the diseases of his
servants he heals (cp. Num. xii. 13, 2 K. xx. 5, Ex. xv. 26,
Hos. vi. I, xiv. 4, Jer. xxx. 17, of Yahweh). He makes
their husbandry to prosper ; he multiplies their silver and
their gold. In return for their lavish sacrifices he makes
them victorious in war. He raises up prophets and sooth
sayers to interpret his purposes, and sages, skilled alike in
sacred, speculative, and practical lore. The sacred lore con
sisted largely in magic, but also in legal traditions ; the
speculative, in a relatively rnodest astrology and (as we saw
above) eschatology ; the practical, in the rules belonging to
the arts and manifold appliances of civilisation. We cannot,
therefore, say that he is altogether an unprogressive deity.
The weakness of his religion lay simply in its incapacity
for throwing off archaic and practically harmful elements.
Some of these details will bear elaboration. On the
possibility of an Adonis myth I have spoken elsewhere (see
pp. 56/). The great gods had various aspects, and might
well be represented sometimes as in full youthful beauty. But
the Creator of the world is no Adonis figure, rather the
ancient of days. Fear and love may well have contended
in the minds of his worshippers, as, indeed, we see in
the parallel case of Yahweh. The first step towards crea
tion is the victory over the dragon of chaos, which belongs
by right to Yerahme el. The clearest proof of this is, no
doubt, a very late one, but late documents often preserve
archaic facts. It is in Rev. xii. (mainly Jewish in origin)
where we read (vv. 7, 8) that Michael and his angels
fought against the dragon, and the dragon fought and his
angels, and prevailed not ; now Michael is a popular or
perhaps priestly corruption of Yerahme el (see p. 59), and
the tradition is a necessary complement to a parallel tradi
tion of primeval events.
With regard to creatorship I shall refer to two passages.
One is Gen. xiv. 19, 22, where the God whom the king of
Shalem (i.e. Ishmael) and the patriarch Abram recognise as
the producer of heaven and earth is called El-Elyon, * the
Most High Deity. Now, in the original tradition this
38 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
supreme Deity must have been Yerahme el (cp. Gen. xxi. 33,
where Abraham calls on the name of Yahweh as El Yerah
me el ; see ad loc.). The other is Prov. viii. 22-31, which
deserves a close study, because it proves ( I ) that Yerahme el
was a Creator-God, and (2) that, according to his best wor
shippers, Creation was the supreme monument of his wisdom.
As to (i), it lifts the cultus of Yerahme el to a higher place
than we might otherwise give it. And as to (2), it enables
us to answer the question, How can it be that a non-ethical
deity like Baal or Yerahme el is honoured as the Creator ?
The non-ethical view of Baal or Yerahme el, so common
among the Yerahme elites and Israelites, cannot have been
the only one. The wise Creator -God cannot have been
tied down, as it were, physically, to a single people ; the
conditions of his favour must have been moral. It was the
inconsistency of * Baalism (as Harper calls it) which ruined
it for practical purposes.
Let us now turn to Prov. viii. 22-31. It is a mono
logue of divine Wisdom. Apparently this great attribute is
personified, in the style of the Amshaspands (counsellors
and assistants of the good God) of Zoroastrianism. Con
sidering, however, that these lofty beings have arisen out of
deposed deities, 1 it may be assumed that the Wisdom of
Prov. viii. (cp. the p^a of the Gnostics) has a similar
origin, and that the speaker is really a deity, once worshipped
side by side with Yahweh, and afterwards subordinated to
him, viz. Yerahme el. 2 The poet, who is himself one of
the * wise men, evidently has a great reverence for c Wisdom
(i.e. the God Yerahme el), and regards him as possessing a
derivative deity. He also considers the special attribute of
1 Among the Amshaspands there is one who stands supreme (next
to Ahura Mazda), viz. Vohiiman, who is represented as the first of
Ahura s creatures, and who himself produced the light of the world
(see p. 11). In this unique position he corresponds to Michael, or,
indeed, to Wisdom.
2 It is less plausible to identify Wisdom with the Zoroastrian
Armaiti (the earth-spirit), as proposed by N. Schmidt ( The Prophet of
Nazareth, 1905, p. 45), or with the heavenly Wisdom, Mazda-made
of the Yasna (so Cheyne, Semitic Studies in Memory of A. Kohitt,
1901, p. 112), or, virtually, with Ishtar (Zimmern), who is, indeed,
once called creator of wisdom and counsellor of the gods, and who,
as Siduri-Sibuti, is called goddess of wisdom (KAT, pp. 432, 439).
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 4rt ) 39
this secondary god to be wisdom, i.e. insight into the varied
works of creation. Yet he guards himself against being
thought a universalist or cosmopolitan ; like Ben Sira
(Ecclus. xxiv. 8-12) he makes Wisdom prefer one chosen
people as her (his) habitation, and if he places this people
in the N. Arabian borderland, it is because this region was
endeared by its associations with the patriarchs, and by its
reputation as the home of wisdom. Divine Wisdom, he
says, was the assessor of the Most High at creation, but in
spite of this, no sooner were the N. Arabian lands in exist
ence than Wisdom chose to concentrate her favour on the
N. Arabian peoples.
I base this statement on highly probable corrections of
the text. It is useless to attempt a mere superficial
criticism. The poet has told us that Wisdom is older than
the world, and virtually that creation could not have been
without her. She is older even than the earliest of the nations,
Amalek or Yerahme el, 1 for, as the original text of v. 26
says, Wisdom was begotten, or brought into being, when
He had not yet made the land of Hazeroth, and Asshur, and
the steppes of Ethbaal. ~ And now that creation is finished,
is Wisdom s occupation gone ? No, truly. Henceforth it
devolves upon the Creator s assessor, 3 standing before his
works, to interpret the creative words. But none of her
(his) delights can exceed that which she has in her chosen
land of Ishmael and her chosen people of Aram. 4 To sum
up. Though the Hebrew poet subordinates Yerahme el
(underlying Wisdom) to Yahweh, he nevertheless places him
quite apart from men. Yerahme el may, indeed, be repre
sented as only the son of the one independent Deity, but is
1 Cp. Num. xxiv. 20, and see Cheyne, Psalms (i \ ii. 75.
- msm PR ; read nnxn px. Haser, Hasor, Haseroth are common
N. Arabian names. r*n, as in Ezek. xxxviii. 2, xxxix. I, etc., should be
-)K ; R, the N. Arabian Asshur. San nnsy ; read SyanR many. Ethbaal =
Ishmael. Cp. San, Gen. x. 2. Note that rup in v. 22 may mean to
beget ; see Gen. iv. i, Dt. xxxii. 6. For naca, v. 23, see Ps.
cxxxix. 13; nSSin (v. 24), cp. Dt. xxxii. 18. In v. 25 c D naai should
be cr on? (Job xxxviii. 16).
3 Cp. Wisd. Sol. ix. 4 a, 9 a.
4 For the improbable pcx iSsR (cp. Toy), read, perhaps, VTCR f"Sp (cp.
Job xxxiii. 23). For nySaa nsS read IVOR"?? M?S (cp. Ps. Ixxiii. 28).
40 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
not Marduk represented as the son of Ea? The fact is,
that the Wisdom of Prov. viii. is precisely parallel to the
* Mal ak- Yahweh of prose narrators (see pp. 5 8 ff.); he is
an honourably deposed deity.
But did it require less wisdom to direct than to create
the world ? No. Nebuchadrezzar attributes his wisdom, as
a ruler, to observance of the way of Marduk and Nabu
(KB i\\. 2, p. 11, etc.), and similarly in 2 S. xiv. 17, 20 the
judicial insight of David is compared to that of Mal ak-
Haelohim, i.e. Yerahme el-Yahweh. So, too, the wisdom of
the Yerahme elite sages (i K. v. 10, 11 j 1 Baruch, iii. 23)-
comes from their God. Once more, then, we say that the
later Yerahme el was not an unprogressive deity ; only, the
theological progress of the few did not make up for the
stationariness of the many.
It is true we have no specimens of pure Yerahme elite
wisdom. The Book of Job, however, professes to represent
Arabian wisdom (see E. Bib., Job, Book of 1 ), and from the
headings in Prov. x. I, xxx. I, xxxi. I, and possibly from
the epilogue of Ecclesiastes, we gather that the Yerah-
me elites were the models of the Israelites in proverbial
composition. 3 It is possible, too, that wise priests of
1 Kedem and Mahol come respectively from Yarham and Yerah
me el.
2 Merran = Ra aman Yerahme el. Teman = Yithman = Yishmael.
8 Mishle Shelomoh (Prov. x. i) has probably come from Mishle
Yishmael, i.e. proverbs in the style of Ishmael (N. Arabia). In Prov.
xxx. i SDNI Vx n N 1 ? most probably = *nvx\ jjnnx 1 ? (Ethb. = Ishmael ; Ashkal
= Asshur- Yerahme el) ; VxiD 1 ? in xxxi. i = SKDHT. The most obscure part
of the epilogue of Koheleth may also perhaps convey a statement
respecting the Hebrew proverbs. Eccles. xii. n begins thus: The
sayings of the wise are as goads, as nails firmly driven in. Then
follow a number of words which strike one as suspicious. nisoN ; how
unnatural, without any further hint respecting collections ! Then
mtt njn ! And why this sudden reference to a disciple ( ) ? Read,
probably, nntrK ria nun:) onns ^jn, the citizens of Pathros have given
them the sons of Ashhur. One remembers that Balaam, a typical
wise man, came from Pethor, or, rather (probably), Pathros, which was
not in Egypt, but in N. Arabia (see on x. 14). imn, like m (xxxvi. 13)
and nrw (Ex. vi. 18), come from IWK. Then come the glosses, njn
irm probably = nn^N 33? (for nn see on xxii. 13), i.e. Ashhurite Arabia.
nono irvi = Dnv insy Nin, where intr = insfN ; cp. in , i Chr. ii. 17 (an Ish-
maelite), rur, Ex. iii. i, and -ncr, Gen. xxv. i 5 (a son of Ishmael).
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 4*) 41
N. Arabia led the way in the adaptation of the crude
mythological stories current among the people, and but for
Hos. viii. 12 (see p. 63) we might be inclined to suppose
that collections of non-ritual laws were also taken in hand
by these sages. Another kind of wisdom poor enough,
doubtless may be attributed to them. From the story of
Ahab and Elijah it appears that the Sidonian cult of Baal
[Yerahme el] and Asherah required a large number of
prophets. Isaiah (ii. 6, corrected text) tells us that the
Israelites practised divination in the temples of Rakman
(Yerahme el), 1 and the poet of Job (iii. 8) speaks of the
magicians (lit., cursers) of Yam (i.e. Yaman Yerahme el).
Nor must we forget Balaam, whose god Yahweh was doubt
less more fully called Yerahme el-Yahweh ; Balaam, as we
know, was considered both a poet and a diviner. It would
be easy to quote more passages, but I have at least shown
it to be highly probable that N. Arabia was the home and
centre of prophecy and soothsaying. 2
Of the medicine of this people we know nothing. Were
the ( mastic ("HS) of Gilead and the physicians (Jer.
viii. 22) really N. Arabian, as suggested elsewhere (Crit.
Bib. p. 57)? At any rate, the oil of mercy may have
been referred to in their myths (see on the * tree of life,
Gen. ii. 9), but Paradise, with its magic trees and its
streams of wine, milk, and honey (brought from above),
was invisible. Yet, still the great though unseen healer
was God ; honey and balm were always preparing in
heaven, 3 whence prayers and spells could bring it. Here,
too, of course, Marduk is parallel; 4 also Thrita, the first
healer, according to the Avesta (Vend. xx.). All these
divine healers are also dragon-slayers. It was Yerahme el
who slew the dragon, and he, too, who healed the Israelites
1 Read ^p: jcp-i Save*.
2 See E. Bib*., Prophetic Literature.
3 Cp. Kalevala, Rune xv., where the honey-bee flies to high Jumala,
and finds the precious remedies :
On one side, heart-easing honey,
On a second, balm of joyance,
On the third, life-giving balsam.
4 Marduk, as a healer, drew his wisdom from his father Ea, and
made it effectual for those who used the right incantations.
42 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
in the wilderness. True, the present text of Num. xxi. 8
refers the ordainment of the healing serpent of bronze to
Yahweh. But from the underlying text of 2 K. xviii. 4
we gather that it (or the supernatural serpent whom it
represented) had the synonymous designations, Yerahme el
and Ashhur-ethan ; 1 it was a magic symbol which brought
the divine Healer near his people.
The symbol was characteristically Arabian, but the con
ception was common to the Arabians and the Phoenicians.
The latter had a god of healing called Eshmun (originally
Ashman ?), who was identified by cultured scribes with
Asclepios or ^Esculapius. 2 Another name of this deity has
been Graecised as lolaus, one of the names of Punic gods
preserved in Polybius. 3 Lagarde, who saw that lolaus and
Eshmun were the same god, on the ground of a statement
in Athenaeus, proposed to connect the latter with the Arabic
sumdna, quail. 4 I venture, however, to hold that Eshmun
must represent htWftW, and lolaus (cp. Cooke, p. 106)
some form either of onT or of QU^ ; cp. h^ in O.T. The
ancients, no doubt, interpreted Eshmun as eighth, 5 there
being eight Kd/3ei,poi. But this is no better an explanation
than that of Kiryath-arba as city of four. In reality
Eshmun must have been the supreme head of the Seven
(spoken of by Philo of Byblus), and his name marks him
out as originally N. Arabian. 6
1 Correct the note in Crit. Bib. on 2 K. xviii. 4 accordingly.
2 See the trilingual inscription, CIS i. 143 (Cooke, p. 109), begin
ning rnND fOK N 1 ? pN 1 ?, ^Escolapio Merre, Ao-KA^Trt oi W^pp-rj. HIND is
enigmatical (Ed. Meyer, E. Bib., col. 3746). Noldeke explains
leader ; Lidzbarski, healer ; but these meanings are very question
able. For other theories, see Cooke, I.e. The name must be con
sidered with n -iD in CfS i. 93 (Cooke, pp. 27 /.). G. Hoffmann takes
na to be a diminutive of mpSo. It is, however, rather to be identified
with on, i.e. D, just as in in proper names often represents m, i.e. rn# ;
vr, like in in -^Dirr, represents irrv = ram\ Similarly rnxn has come, by
transposition, from ^NDHT.
3 In the Greek text of the treaty between Philip of Macedon
and the Carthaginians (Polyb., vii. 9, 2-3). Cp. Baethgen, Beitrdge,
p. 46.
4 Anmerkungen zur griech. Uebers. der Proverbien, p. 8 1 ; cp.
W. R. Smith, Rel. Sem.< p. 469.
5 Baudissin, Studien, i. 276.
6 Cp. the Yasumunu of a cuneiform inscription (KAT^\ p. 357),
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 40) 43
Few things are historically more interesting than the
journeyings of divine names and mythic stories. It is of
the former that I would speak especially just now. It is
strange how little attention has been given to this point by
students of the Phoenician inscriptions. The conclusion at
which I have myself arrived is this that Arabian immigrants
very early brought with them names of gods, places, etc.,
which their descendants in Phoenicia l faithfully preserved
and used (often in a conventionalised form), even when no
longer understood. It is only by acting on this theory that
we can give fairly clear and intelligible explanations of
many phrases in the inscriptions. This involves using
experience gained in the field of the O.T. in restoring the
original forms of god-names and place-names. Take, eg.,
the famous inscription of Eshmunazar, comparing with it
the recently discovered temple-inscription of Bod- f Ashtart.
The name Eshmunazar itself is a combination of Eshmun or
Ishmael with the clan-name Ezer (see proper names in
Ges.-Buhl at end of article ill?), 2 while Bod- Ashtart, one of
those old misunderstood names, is made up of Tl 3 = 11 Ti
(cp. 11 in ^mi) and mnms, which in the original name
designated a region. nDin, the name of Eshmunazar s
father, is the feminine form of pn = pn = SuiriN. It may
be either the name of a goddess = nun (Tanith) or of a
region. In either case a prefixed *ns has probably been
lost ; 4 IIS is a conventionalised form of ill? = TTI>. Esh
munazar goes on to state (/. 3 ; cp. /. 13), among other
things, that he was no^N p, and Lagrange makes the feeling
comment that * the deceased does not complain of his own
misfortune, it is the grief of the mother which is revealed ; 5
and Samunu-yatuni, a name on an Assyrian deed (Johns, Deeds, iii.
268), conventionalised from Eshmun-ethan. Also pn tr.
1 One might add Palestine, Syria, and (probably) Mesopotamia.
2 Note especially Ezer, a son of Hur, the first-born of Ephrathah,
I Chr. iv. 4, and Azrikam, a compound of iiy and cp- = cpT = cm, in
I Chr. iii. 23 (cp. .vnp).
3 ~3 has not always the same origin. In a Piraeus inscription
(Cooke, p. 94) it seems to be n = nnn, council.
4 Cp. iwma, CIS i. 165 (Cooke, p. 113). So we find iaSe beside
On Tanith, see p. 45.
5 Rel. sem. (l] p. 406.
44 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
i.e. this scholar takes nD>N to be = Ass. almattu, widow.
Surely it is neither self-pity nor filial sympathy that we
have a right to expect here. no^N is a feminine form of
, just as DVlS = ^NSDttP (Gen. xxi. 33), and nso^N =
(i K. vii. 14, xi. 26); cp. also D^N WM, on a
Phoenician seal (Cooke, p. 361), i.e. Yrp B^M, a Yerah-
me elite (a title of honour). And this gives us the key to
the preceding word am Just as jrVDEftN and jrpplS come,
respectively from jrPN- lDN and JITN- TS, so the original of
Drp is doubtless DJTN, where jrr and am both represent
^IDn 31S = ^NSDBP 311? (cp. the traditional Belitan = ^33
jrPN)- Similarly, ^DD p is probably to be grouped with
imn p, Gen. xv. 2 (see note), while D17N DO" 1 probably
comes from DTTN DE^, z>. 0*1$ ]p^, and the whole passage
(/. 3) runs, son (native) of Meshek, Yaman-Aram, Etham,
son of Me elah. Eshmunazar s scribe appears to have
copied unintelligently some older inscription which claimed
for the king that he had the bluest blood in Sidon, being
of a Yerahme elite stock. The passage is repeated in /. 1 2,
with the insertion of jm (Cooke, * to be pitied ), which
comes from JTON, * we a scribe s error.
But what of the introductory words ^ni? hi nStlD, I
have been torn away, not in my (due) time ? Can this be
right ? Surely the context, even as usually interpreted, does
not favour this pathetic utterance. Should we not read
f?3HM3 nS~m, I showed myself great in Ethbal (Ishmael) ?
How the king s greatness appeared is not problematical ;
he himself boasts (like Nebuchadrezzar) of his temples.
First of all, Ashtart s house is mentioned. His own mother
was a priestess of Ashtart (/. 15), and bore the name
Am- r Ashtart (/. 14), which most, since Gesenius, have ex
plained * handmaid of Ashtart (as if ^HDN). But DN
in compounds most probably comes from either Q-IN or
D7N, 1 just as IN in Hebrew compound names represents
3-117, while Ashtart originally stood for a region. And
where was f Ashtart s house built ? The answer apparently
is (/. 1 6), in Sidon, the land of the sea, 2 but the truth
1 The names mwynDK, ncxnoN (Cooke, pp. 61, 77) probably represent
VynD 1 , DNnD^N, where noto (a feminine form of SKD = Wecnr) is probably
a regional name. 2 So in Bod-Ashtart, cr psa, in Sidon of Yam[an].
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 40) 45
probably is that D" 1 , as several times in the O.T. (see
p. 6, note 3), represents ]cp ; we should render, therefore, in
Sidon of the land of Yaman (Yerahme el). The passage
continues, and we made Ashtart to dwell DTTNDQID, i.e.
according to Cooke (after CIS\ there, making (her)
glorious. Elsewhere, however (p. 402), this same scholar,
commenting on the DD"i DQ8? of Bod- f Ashtart s inscription,
remarks that although High-heavens, Glorious-heavens, do
not seem very obvious names for terrestrial localities, yet
such they probably were. Mr. Cooke by no means stands
alone, and yet such imperfect criticism does not redound to
the credit of our epigraphy. That DDE (D^DW) in the O.T.,
and also in the presumed Phoenician text of Philo of Byblus,
is one of the corruptions of DBF, has been seen already ;
DD1 and DTTN ought to have the same origin, or at least
the underlying words ought to be equivalent. The prob
ability is that both words come from D~m. Thus we get
DIN DBF, Arammite Ishmael, one of those phrases which,
as we have seen, were carried northward, miswritten, and
misunderstood. In Bod-* Ashtart s inscription it is a gloss
on the preceding words, n"> psi, i.e. Yam or Yaman is
explained as = Ishmael-Aram.
In /. 17 the building of a house of Eshmun is referred to.
The two letters preceding nnp are almost effaced. The
latter may be ~r or "i. Most probably we should read -it&
HFTp, c prince of Kadesh, l a phrase which occurs in Bod-
Ashtart (lines 5, 6), and which confirms the view that the
god Eshmun (Ashman?) came from N. Arabia. 2 In /. 18
we hear of temples for the gods of the Sidonians in Sidon,
including one for Ashtart, Wl DID. How is this phrase to
be read and rendered ? Surely the simplest way is the best
(see Cooke s note). Ashtart is the name or representa
tion of Baal, as Tanith (Tamnith) is * the face of Baal, and
Yerahme el (probably) at once the name and the face of
Yahweh (cp. p. 21).
1 Torrey (Journ. Am. Or. Soc. xxiv. 217), who admits as a general
principle that we (?) are all in the dark, and thinks prince of Kadesh
extremely far-fetched ; but names of both gods and peoples often are
far-fetched. Holy prince is indeed possible, but why this specialisa
tion ? Kadesh is the name of a district.
2 This will be so, even if there was a place in Phoenicia called Kadesh.
46 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Before proceeding, let me call attention to some obscure
names and phrases, of N. Arabian origin, relating to Tyre
and Sidon. (i) As to DTH, king of the Sidonians (CIS i. 5 ;
Cooke, p. 52), it represents DTTTN, i.e. DIN nnttfN, Ashhur-
aram. (2) As to EWa)/3a\os (Jos. c. Ap. i. 18) : this should
come from ^lirrTU? ; cp. ^ITM ( i K. xvi. 3 i ), from oar 112.
(3) As to mpf?D (MeXxrafyo?, Melkarth), the Ba al of Tyre :
this was not originally mp l^D, king of the city/ but most
probably = mniDN onT. Cp., in O.T., rmp, rmD, etc.,
and, in Phoenician, mp in nonrrmp (Carthage) all from
mnt&N, a feminine form of iniDN. (4) In the Amarna
letters, No. 152, Abirmlki of Tyre calls himself servant
of Shalmayati/ and Tyre * city of Shalmayati. As
Erbt (Die Hebrder, p. 152) has pointed out, 1 Shalmayati
is = rroblD, the feminine of nf?&. But they have not seen
that the divine name chw (e.g. in Yahweh-shalom/ Judg.
vi. 24) represents StfSDET, and that TTthw is most probably
a title of Ashtart or mniDN. The names of Tyre and
Sidon themselves come from TISD and p~r^ respectively.
See on x. 15.
I venture to hope that the use here made of Phoenician
inscriptions, and in particular the identification of the name
Eshmun with the name Ishmael, has now been to some
extent justified. No student of these inscriptions can
refuse fresh light on the poor ground that it issues from an
unexpected source.
One of the chief aspects of the God Yerahme el or
Ishmael finds expression in the title Dod, i.e. beloved/
with which we may compare Isaiah s title for Yahweh ""TT
(Isa. v. i). The feminine form of this is Dodah (cp. * Dido ),
which occurs in the inscription of Mesha, /. 22. Here the
king of Moab says that he took from the Gadite city of
Ataroth (the god) Ar al-dodah , i.e. the symbol of the com
pound deity Yerahme el-Dodah. By Dodah is most probably
meant Ashtart (note that Ataroth = c Ashtaroth). The God
Dod was specially worshipped in one of the places called
Beer-sheba. This appears from Am. viii. 14, where
should be ~n, 2 corresponding to the ^wonT underlying
1 Developing a hint of Winckler s (KATf ?>) pp. 195, 236).
2 G. Hoffmann and H. Winckler have proposed ?rn, but the suffix
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 4 a) 47
and the IT^HSDflT underneath notEN. It is probable, too (as
we shall see presently), that TIT (Dod, not David) was the
original popular name of the Messiah ; also that TIT should
be read for TTT in Zech. xii. 8, producing the sense and he
that is feeble shall be as Dod, i.e. as the great supernatural
Being called Dod, on which mm IN^DD ( = as Yerahme el
Yahweh ) may be a gloss. 1 Nor is it probable that these
are all the references to D6d in the O.T. May not own,
Gen. xxx. 14 (see note), be derived from TIT, and mean
Dod s fruits ? The frequent occurrence of TIT in Canticles
is remarkable ; according to Erbt, 2 it is Tamuz-D6d who is
meant. It would not be surprising if the book were based
on an earlier poem relative to a D6d- Ashtoreth myth.
Winckler (GI ii. 255) proposes to read TIT in another im
portant passage Isa. xxix. I, 2 where the points give TIT.
But I cannot think that Dod here is a divine name.
There is evidence 3 that TVT is sometimes a regional name,
the fuller form of which is TiTCEJN, i.e. Asshur-D6d (see
p. 23). This is most probably meant here, i.e. TiT stands
for THEN ; the allusion is to some siege of Jerusalem (here
called Ariel ) by the N. Arabian Ashhurites (perhaps that
of Shishak, king of Misrim, not Misraim).
The name ( = Ass. diidii} apparently means beloved.
It should probably be grouped with the reported N. Arabian
Wadd and Wudd and the S. Arabian Wadd (TTl = TT), i.e.
the god of love, the Bab. Tamuz. 4 I think, however, that
Dod was also a geographical name, and that as such it is
presupposed in the O.T. personal names Dodai, Dodo, Doda-
both here and in T^Vx just before is unnatural. First, the corrupt T.I^K
arose ; then, on this analogy, -pi was read, whence came TH.
1 Erbt (Die Hebraer, p. 190) has, independently, made a similar
suggestion so far as m is concerned.
2 Op. cit. pp. 196^
3 Thus (a) in Am. ix. 1 1, m should be in nan ( = i rtac N) ; the
context requires a place-name (see Hibbert Journal, July 1905, pp.
828 / (//) and (c) In Am. vi. 5 Tna, and in Isa. xxii. 18 ina, represent
nn-^, i.e. m^x-^. In both cases a gloss ; in (b] on m^N-^a (underneath
TE- ^D), and in (c) on D T m p. (tf) In Jer. iv. 30 the unexplained
RI& should be IWN, a marginal gloss on n^p nm, i.e. mnz N D?N, v. 29.
(e] In Josh. xi. 2, in m3 probably comes from in ninaj.
4 See Winckler, Ar.-scm.-or. pp. 176 f. ;cp. GI ii. 258, but also
Hommel, Gr. p. 136.
48 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
vahu, with which cp. Dudu l in the Amarna letters (44, 45,
52, 151). It is also probable that David, too, indicates
that the king of that name was connected with Dod or
Asshur-dod. One may suspect that Dod is a popular
creation out of Dadda ( = Hadad), a name which enters into
the compound names which now stand as Bedad, Eldad,
Medad, Almodad. For the Assyrian names connected with
Dadu, darling, see Johns, Assyrian Deeds, iii. 95.
The name Dod specially belongs to Yerahme el, and one
of the functions which is most closely connected with it is
that of restoring Israel s prosperity. As the shadows
deepened on its path the people gave this divine helper an
increasing share of its thoughts. Later Jewish writers speak
of Michael (a modification of Yerahme el see pp. 59/)
when a mighty champion is felt to be needed ; but when the
popular longing is for just government and an expanded
empire the expected hero is either Dod or some supernatural
representative of Dod, called ben-D6d. Yes, indeed ; the
hope of the Messiah as represented in the traditional text of
parts of the O.T. is very difficult to comprehend. Who is
this * son of David ? How could a supernatural man the
Messiah be born as the natural descendant of David?
And why need he be so ? My limits forbid me to discuss
this. For my own part, I hold that the earliest certain
literary expression of the Messianic hope is in Ezek.
xvii. 22-24, an d that before the Exile this hope was
cherished by the people, and used by prophets, if at all,
only in exceptional circumstances. 2 And I add to this
the theory (see p. 57) that what the people longed for
was a permanent theophany, i.e. the appearance of a God-
1 Zimmern s hesitation (KAT, p. 483) to quote Dudu seems needless.
Dudu and Yanhamu were both Egyptian officials, but both (as their
names suggest) of Semitic origin.
" 2 For a near approach to this theory see Cheyne, Jewish Religious
Life Before the Exile (1898), p. 94. Volz, however, had already
expressed this view (Die vorexil. Jahveprophetie und der Messias
(1897), pp. 81^. Gressmann s tempting hypothesis (Der Ursprung
der Israel.- Jud. Eschatologie, 1906, pp. 272-278) seems to me to
require some modification. Isa. vii. 14-16 is based on a Messianic
prophecy which may be pre- exilic, but the pre- exilic nucleus only
extends to *?3N .
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 40) 49
man, 1 perhaps of the divine Being called D6d himself, or
perhaps of a man produced by Dod, as Adapa was produced
by Ea. It is true our texts (Ezek. xxxiv. 2 3/i, xxxvii. 24, Jer.
xxx. 9, Hos. iii. 5) speak of * David, or (Jer. xxiii. 5, etc.)
of a descendant of David, or a son of David ; but, like other
similar changes, David instead of Dod may reasonably
be set down to the official guardians of Israelite orthodoxy.
It is unfortunate that we know so little of the earlier
stages of the popular eschatology. But there is a strong
probability that it had its roots in a mythology, the central
figure of which was Yerahme el. It is an attractive view
that one of Yerahme el s mythological titles was Dod, and
another the son of man (i.e. the Man ). It was his
delight, as we shall see presently, to take human form and
visit his people. In primeval times, perhaps, he even died
and rose again from death for whom but for Israel ? This r
I admit, is only a hypothesis, but it is a plausible one 2 (see
p. 57). At any rate, we may venture to assume that the
two favourite titles of the divine deliverer were the son of
Dod (i.e. of God) and the son of man.
It is not surprising that the latter phrase has had various
interpretations. One of the most remarkable is that in
Ethiopic Enoch Ixxi. 1 4, where Enoch is addressed as the
son of man who art born unto righteousness, and righteous
ness abides over thee, and the righteousness of the Head of
Days forsakes thee not. In the same composite work, Ixx. i r
it is said that Enoch, when translated, found the Son of Man
already abiding with the Lord of Spirits (cp. xlviii. 1-3).
The statements are formally inconsistent, but reconciliation
is possible. For Enoch s translation is a vista of the belief
that he came from heaven, and the earlier tradition doubtless
recognised him, and not Noah, as the first man of the
renewed human race after the flood. Worthily, therefore,
might he be called the Son of Man. Another such heavenly
man, or demi-god, in Babylonian mythology, is Adapa, the
1 The phrase God-man is not impossible. Winckler (AOF, 3rd
sen, ii. 299) quotes a cuneiform testimony to it as a title for Ea (iv. R.,
17^, 38-42, where iia amclu, the God-man, is parallel to belum, the
Lord, and bclu rabu, the great Lord ).
2 For another view see Zimmern, KAT^ pp. 631 ff.\ Cheyne,
Bible Problems, pp. 219-221.
4
50 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
son of the God-man Ea, who actually receives the title zir
ameluti, seed of mankind, 1 and whom an ingenious scholar 2
even calls the archetype of the Johannine Logos/
Hardly less interesting are the three next names, f?s3,
*]^D, and mtt. First, Si>l. Of the important and much
misunderstood title DDE hsi (from stD* 1 ^9R) I have spoken
already. Among the parallels to Baal of Ishmael are
po ^1, Mesha s inscr., //. 9, 30, Num. xxxii. 38 = D&r SiD ;
pcnn n, Judg. iii. 3= onT i ; ps i, 3 Ex. xiv. 2, 9 = n
ps32. The expressions may appear to indicate that the
god referred to (Yerahme el or Ashhur) is the proprietor
and inhabitant of a particular place or district. 4 This was
doubtless the popular view. Possibly, however, it is a
mistake or fiction, and Baal is really an outgrowth of
Yarba al (cp. Yerub-ba al), a shortened and corrupt form of
Yerahme el. In connexion with this it may be noticed (i)
that no images of Baal have as yet been found by excava
tion ; and (2) that Addu ( = Hadad, also = Ra aman, i.e.
Yerahme el) appears as an element in personal names where
we might have expected Ba al ; while (3) in the Phoenician
names we never find Hadad, but only Ba al. In the O.T.,
too, we constantly find the Baals spoken of, i.e. the local
varieties of Yerahme el. In Phoenicia DDtt) *?21 was,
apparently, not worshipped before the second century B.C.
Previously, the most favoured divine names compounded
with Ba al may have been "i^D^ttl, ]DH l, D^B> l. 5
Our next divine name is Melek, Malk, or Milk
1 See KB vi. p. 101, and cp. Jensen s note, ib. p. 362.
2 Hommel (Exp. T. xiv. 108), who explains Adapad (the fuller
form of Adapa) as Word of the Father. Elsewhere this scholar
boldly interprets Yampili as = the god Yam is the mouth of God.
3 Saphon often occurs in O.T. for the N. Arabian region (Saphon =
Sibe on = Ishmael), whence an invasion might be expected. For the
Phoenician personal names jssiny, |s^3, see Cooke, p. 115. For
cuneiform material (including the S. Palestinian place-name Sapuna in
Am. Tab.\ see KAT, p. 879. Of course, such a name might exist
wherever N. Arabians had settled (cp. Saphon, Josh. xiii. 27, Judg. xii. i).
4 See E. Bib., < Baal.
5 I^D and jon = WjnT. aSt? = tapce*. Note that in a Phoenician in
scription (Cooke, p. 103) Milk-Ba al and Ba al-Hamman are equivalent.
Similarly, in another text (Lagrange, p. 102, note 5) px 1^0 seems
parallel to jcn hy^ ]-inh.
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 40) 5 1
For brevity s sake I refer to Moore s comprehensive article
1 Molech in E. Bib. Its theoretical parts may need much
modification, but its store of facts is invaluable, and similar
praise is due to Lagrange s section on * Melek in Religions
shnitiques, pp. 99-109, and Baudissin s article Moloch in
PREP\ The name apparently means * king, just as
Malkah (see p. 1 8) appears to mean * queen. No doubt
the people, and not only the common people (see Isa. vi. 5),
so interpreted it. But here, as often, the popular is not the
original meaning. Such names as fpsi^o, JHO^D, mnttW^D,
D-oSa in the Phoenician inscriptions ought to show this. In
none of these cases is the name with which *J^D is compounded
originally and primarily an appellative. ~>1 comes from
^$1T ; JIT from ;TVN ; IDS is a regional as well as a divine
name ; Di comes from DIN. There is a strong probability
that -f^o both as a divine and as a local name * comes from
^NDnT ; cp. in Phcen. SDE *|an (see above) and in Heb.
nf?D (in nbo -u) and onf? (in nn^ rri), ^non, Wrap, all of
which have the same origin. 2 It is true, there is almost a
consensus of critics for explaining Abi-melek * Father (or
my Father) is (Divine) King, though Haupt prefers Father
of counsel (Abi-milki), and for interpreting parallel names
accordingly, but there is strong reason for holding that
IN and -ON in personal names represent ms, just as ntf and
TIN (cp. Ahimelech and Ahimilki) represent nniDN, while DS
may represent D*IN. An expanded form of ~pD is DD7>,
which in I K. xi. 5, 33, 2 K. xxiii. 15, is said to have been
the name of the god of the Ammonites ; 3 we also find it on
an Aramaean seal of the fifth century (Cooke, p 561), where,
however, it is a man s name. Melek, then, was the name
borne by the god Yerahme el, at any rate, in certain circles,
and in some of his aspects ; Milk-Ba al, or simply Milk,
could in Phoenician inscriptions be used alternatively with
Ba al-hamman. 4
And what did the people mean when they used the
1 A local name in compounds only (e.g. in cnsSc, and in the famous
p).
2 See below, on Mal ak Yahweh.
3 For references in versions see E. Bib., c Milcom (Moore).
4 See p. 50, note 5.
52 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
name "j^E ? Doubtless, king. According to Philo of Byblus
the Phoenician god Kronos ( = El) reigned veritably upon
earth. Later belief must have placed him either in heaven
or below the earth. When * Ba al-ishmael became Ba al-
shamayim (see p. 21), we might suppose that the meaning
of * Melek was similarly transformed. As a fact, however,
the sense in which this name was used in the regal period
of Israelite history seems to have been king of the lower
world. Melek was, in fact, a chthonian deity like Kronos
(El), to whom the Phoenicians offered human sacrifices, and
who as an earthly king, according to the old myth, sacrificed
his own son in time of calamity. That child-sacrifices were
common in pre-Israelitish Caanan we know from the recent
excavations at Gezer and Taanak, and the denunciations of
the prophets and prohibitions of the legislators prove the
prevalence of the horrible rite in Judah in the last half
century of the kingdom of Judah. A special place of
sacrifice close to Jerusalem is mentioned by Jeremiah the
valley of the son (or sons) of Dun (Jer. vii. 3 i ./, xix. 5 /.),
where D^n has arisen, like )on in Esth. iii. I, etc., and pen
in n h$1, out of prr, which we have already met with in
the divine name fcrr^si = Ba al Yerahme el. *
If we ask, whence came these child - sacrifices ? the
answer must be, from N. Arabia. 2 There the cultus of
Yerahme el went on without the adaptations and adjustments
required by the more enlightened portion of the Israelites.
The reactionary section of Israel, however, resorted to child-
sacrifices when the state seemed in danger, which was
repeatedly the case in the later period. But it was doubtless
always in the name of the divine duad, Yerahme el-Yahweh r
that the offerings were made (see on Gen. xxii.). Hence it
was possible for the legislator to say, Thou shalt not give
any of thy sons [gloss, offering them] to Melek, and shalt
not profane the name of thy God (Lev. xviii. 21). For
1 Duhm (on Jer. xxxii. 25) is not quite right, but at least approaches
the truth. He thinks that the local Baals were brought into a
mysterious connexion with Yahweh (as his D^S), and that Melek in
the valley of Ben-Hinnom was regarded as a special form of manifesta
tion of Yahweh.
2 See a hypothesis as to the cause assigned for the departure of the
Israelites from Misrim (Musri in N. Arabia), E. Bib., col. 3789.
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 4 a) 53
Melek, i.e. Yerahme el, is a part of the full name of Israel s
God.
Yerahme el, then, was king, not only of earth and
heaven, but of the underworld. Hence that dark side of his
worship to which the higher teachers of Israel refer. He
became a Semitic Pluto, because he was first of all the god
of vegetation. Like Dumuzi and Belili, he was transferred,
first of all for a time, and then for a permanence, to the
underworld, of which he naturally became the ruler. We
may perhaps consider ^irbl ( = the Bab. Belili, 1 the sister of
Dumuzi, and a goddess of the underworld) as Yerahme el s
viceroy ; W6l, which seems to mean no re-ascending, is
really, no doubt, a corruption of fpNonT, which very early
obtained an independent existence, and became a name for
She ol and its ruler. He could also be called "j^o, and his
consort JlD^D. In a Punic inscription we find the names of
Hawwath, Elath, and Milkath as a triad of infernal deities
(Cooke, p. 135), and in the Koran (Sur. xliii. 17) we find an
angelic keeper of hell called Malik.
A strange piece of evolution ! That Yarham (popularly
explained * the Compassionate ) should become the stern
king of She ol is as startling as the cruelty of a Zeus
Meilichios. 2 One may suspect that the Babylonian Nergal
passed through a similar evolution, for he too was sometimes
regarded as a god of the fields. 3 A singular fact about the
name needs to be again pointed out. 4 In 2 K. xvii. 30
Nergal is the name of the god of the men of Kuth. The
passage in its context referred originally to N. Arabian
places ; Kuth is a fragment of rVOD, which comes from
n^D^N (see on Gen. xxxiii. 17). Nergal, therefore, may be
a modification of Yerahme el ; one linking form would be
1 Karmel, and another Gomer (see on Gen. x. 2}. The
form may perhaps be very old, and have been carried, like
Belili, to Babylonia by Arabians. There a native etymology
was invented for it (Ne-uru-gal, lord of the great dwelling ). 5
1 See E. Bib., Belial, 3. The hypothesis has been borrowed
from me by Hommel. For Belili, see the Descent of Ishtar, rev. 51.
2 Miss Jane Harrison (Prol. Gk. Rcl.} denies the Semitic origin of
xios. 3 KAT ( *\ p. 413.
4 See Crit. Bib., ad loc. 5 Jensen, Kosmologic, p. 476.
54 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
At any rate, we know from cuneiform sources that Nergal,
under various names, was early worshipped in Canaan. 1
We also know that Nergal s sacred animal was the lion,
and it is probable (see p. 35) that Yerahme el too was a
lion-god.
To this I must add that there are distinct traces of this
deity as (like Nergal) a Pluto in the O.T. In Job xviii. 14
it is said of the wicked rich man that he will have to go
mn^l ^hzh, which is rendered to the king of terrors, i.e.
Death. Several critics have stumbled at this, and rightly.
But what underlies rnnSl ? Surely inSl (so it was probably
written) is one of the offshoots of ^NOnT, and similarly in
Job xxx. 23 TF ^D (a weak phrase) should be f?NErrp ; the
linking form is birrT. Death (i.e. Deathland) in a and the
horror of meeting of Yerahme el in b are perfect parallels. 2
Nor is this all. The chief names of the demons (except
Satan) come either from Yerahme el or from its equivalent
Ishmael. From the former comes Belial or Beliar; 3 from
the latter Sammael and [Beel-]zebub. 4 Most probably, too,
the much-tormented word She ol (Vw) comes from Ishmael
(^HSDBT 1 ), just as the Bab. arallu (cp. W-IN, WIN) most prob
ably comes from Yerahme el (^NOFTT 1 ). Also Azazel (p. 30).
Fresh problems for the critic are connected with QTtf,
Adonai. From the fact that the Septuagint gives KV/HO?
for mm, it is possible that Adonai originally meant * my
lord(s) or lord(s), as a reverential substitute for Yahweh.
In Phoenicia, as most believe, " in** ("ASom?) was a substitute
for the real name of the god, worshipped specially at Byblus,
who died and rose again. Since Philo Byblius calls the god
of Byblus {njao-ro?, JvSs, 5 which probably corresponds to
jOttfN ( = DQtt) SiQ), it is conceivable that the true name of
Adonis was Eshmun. We know as a fact that myths were
current respecting Eshmun and Melkarth (the Tyrian
Herakles) similar to that of Adonis.
1 Jensen, Kosmologie, p. 415; E. Bib., Nergal. Note too the
legend on a seal-cylinder found by Sellin at Ta annek, (so and so;,
servant of Nergal.
2 Cp. on Gen. xi. 9.
3 Cp. Bousset, Antichrist, pp. 99-101.
4 Cp. Crit. Bib. on 2 K. i. 3.
5 Cp. Baudissin, Studien zur semit. ReL-gesch. i. 299 (cp. 36).
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-u. 40) 55
Neither view, however, is perfectly natural. Such a
compound as " inNZiOl&N (CIS i. 44 ; Cooke, p. 60) certainly
suggests that, if not ^7N itself, yet some word out of which
O7N has grown is as much a divine name as Eshmun. We
have found that seeming appellatives like f?i?l and y^D
really cover over true proper names of gods. Must not this
be the case here ? And the same remark is suggested by
the Hebrew compound proper name imnN. It is usual, no
doubt, to explain this name as Yahweh is lord, on the
analogy of -|S>D^1N, Father (or, my Father) is king. Such
explanations, however, are artificial. If irr be a divine
name, so too is pN ; or if irp be a regional name (see p. 66),
so too pN must be. It should also be noted (i) that
"OTN occurs 310 times (227 of these in Ezek.) in MT. in
combination with rnrr, 1 (2) that 29 of the instances of ^1
in the Psalter occur in the Elohistic psalms, and (3) that
late religious syncretists include Adonai in their accumula
tions of divine names. We ask, therefore, is there any
divine name which may underlie the OTN both of the
Phoenicians and of the Israelites ? And we answer that we
cannot point to such a name among the Phoenicians, but
that we can among the Israelites. The name among the
latter must have been |D~i (Armon or Arman), that same
modification of S^EnT which we have already found under
lying ~nnD in two well-known O.T. phrases (see p. 26), and
which, shortened, became pen (Rimmon) and perhaps plN
( ark ). 2 An alternative for p-)N would be p-iN (see p. 33,
note 2) ; this, written XHN, would easily become ^HN, just as
1-12 in proper names has so often become "rii?. The change was
at first accidental, being due to errors of scribes or sculptors,
but was accepted by the priesthoods. A similar course
may have been taken in Phoenicia, but we cannot prove it.
We can now understand how it happens that Adonai
sometimes appears where we should expect Yahweh, and
how the two words or names are sometimes parallel. See
1 See Dalman, Der Gottesnamc Adonai u. seine Geschichte (1889) ;
Cheyne, Origin of Psalter, pp. 299-303.
2 The omission of a letter is common. Thus inx has often come
from iriK K, and, a still closer parallel, the royal name pctt, 2 K. xxi. 18,
has probably come from JIBIK ( = nv).
56 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
e.g. Isa. iii. 17, Am. vii. 7 f. y ix. I, Ezek. xviii. 28, 29, Ps.
xxxviii. 1 6, Ixxxvi. 12, Dan. ix. 3 f. and 7 f.\ also, for
mm ^TN, Gen. xv. 2, S, 1 Dt. iii. 24, ix. 26, Josh. vii. 7,
Judg. vi. 22, xvi. 28, 2 S. vii. 18, etc. (6 times), i K. ii. 26,
viii. 53, Isa. vii. 7, xxv. 8, xxviii. 16, xl. 10, 1. 4-9, etc.,
Jer. xxxii. 17, xliv. 26, etc., Am. iii. n, v. 3, and very
often in Ezekiel.
We may now return to the question (see pp. 36/1), Had
the Israelites and their nearest kinsmen any mythical story
of the Adonis type? In Isa. xvii. 10 the phrase Naaman-
plants 2 (R.V., pleasant plants, with mg. plantings of
Adonis ) may point to the symbolic tcfJTrot, ASom&o?,
4 gardens of Adonis/ and Erbt would even find a reference
to him in Cant. vi. 2 (Canticles being supposed to be based
on an Adonis song). Professor Baudissin, 3 too, with all his
caution, thinks that Zech. xii. 1 1 refers to a ceremonial
mourning for the death of the god Hadad, who was prob
ably combined in some way with Adonis. For my own
part, I take a different view of this passage. 4 But I still
hold that mm ^1N in Am. viii. 10, Jer. vi. 26, and ~h$ "TDDQ
mmn in Zech. xii. 10 may point to a ceremonial lamentation
for a dead god (or a dead son of God ?), though the true
meaning of the phrase may have been forgotten. Hommel s
view, 5 that the sacrifice of a lamb in spring-time among the
W. Semites is a memorial of the sacrificial death of a god,
is bold, but very possibly correct. Then we have the
recast story of Isaac in chap. xxii. (see introduction), and
I can grant so much as this to Winckler, that there are
some few Adonis-elements in the story of Joseph, among
which is the mourning so scrupulously related after Joseph s
death (cp. on Gen. xxxvii.). I also venture to conjecture
that the later Jewish belief in a Messiah ben-Joseph, who
was to die by the sword of Gog and Magog, may have
1 It is reverent to accumulate divine names in addressing the Divinity.
2 Na aman may have been, for the people, an epithet of the
dying god. But really it arose out of Ra aman, one of the many
independent forms of Yerahme el.
3 Prot. Real-enc. (z} vii. 295 ; cp. Zimmern, KAT (Z \ pp. 399, 450.
4 See Crit. Bib., ad loc.
5 Exp. Times, xiv. 109.
6 See Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, 1888.
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 4) 57
some connexion with an early popular Messianic belief
different from what we find in the canonical writings, 1 and
which was itself a development of a still earlier myth of the
death and resurrection of a divine Being (see p. 36). For
must not the Messiah of the people have been a divine
Being ? Rev. xii. is indeed of late origin, but these late
writings constantly preserve fragments of myths of much
earlier date. The Messiah, then, was certainly, according
to the early myth, the child of the mother -goddess, and
very possibly one of his titles was * son of D6d, which
translated becomes son of God. He may even have been
represented as Dod himself; cp. the Messianic title the
Beloved, Eph. i. 6, Ascens. Isaiae Hi. 1 7. Whether Isa. liii.
is written in the style of a song of the cult of the dying
god 2 seems to me more doubtful.
Another name which may have been compounded with
Yerahme el and with Ashhur is Resheph. A god of this
name was introduced (from Phoenicia ?) into Egypt during
the eighteenth dynasty, and, from the dress in which he is
represented, he appears to have been in one of his aspects
a war-god ; 3 his name (see the Heb. lex.) suggests that
he may have been also a god of pestilence. In a N.
Syrian inscription (Cooke, pp. i$9ff.) we find Resheph, or
Arku-Resheph (the fuller form, see p. 23), among the great
gods of Ya di, with Hadad, El, Rekubel ( = Yerahme el), and
Shamash. Whether these names correspond to as many
separate gods may indeed be questioned (see p. 68). One
of the qualifying words attached to Resheph in the Phoenician
inscriptions is ^DD, which, like the divine name "jVo, may most
easily be derived from ^MDITT ; certainly the Greek form
*A.7r6\\a)v Ayu-y/cXo? = ATT. Ayttu/cXato? is an assimilation,
not an explanation. Elsewhere we meet with pn *|Bn,
where pn denotes certainly not arrow ( = flash of lightning,
cp. Hab. iii. II, Ps. Ixxvii. 18, and ATT. e/eaTT/ySoXo?), but
the regional name TOn (cp. Ba al-Hasor, 2 S. xiii. 23). In
Egyptian we find attested Rshp Sharamana, in which
Resheph is equated with Shalman, i.e. Ishmael (cp. D^tt? in
1 Cp. N. Schmidt, The Prophet of Nazareth, p. 91.
2 Gressmann, Urspr. Esc/i. pp. 317-327.
3 For references, see E. Bib., Resheph.
58 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
the Phcen. pr. n. nS>2?-:j:r, and pStt), a divine name in a
Sidonian inscription, Cooke, p. 42). In a legend on a
Phoenician seal (Cooke, p. 361), we find * Melkarth-Reseph,
where Reseph, i.e. Resheph, is combined with Melkarth
(see p. 46). Once, too, in a Sidonian inscription of
Bod- f Ashtart occurs *]fin pN or DDttn IN, the land of
Resheph, or * of the Rishpites. We also find a personal
name jrPBHTi (Cooke, pp. 60, 74), i.e. originally Resheph-
Ethan (Ethan, another transferred N. Arabian name). It
only remains to be added that *)fln was perhaps used
as the name of an angel (or degraded deity) placed over
pestilence. 1
It would seem, then, that Resheph was originally a
N. Arabian deity, whose cultus was carried to Canaan and
Phoenicia, and thence to Egypt. He was closely akin to
Yerahme el, who was at once a war-god and a god of
pestilence equally with another and a greater kindred deity
Yahweh (see Ex. xv. 3, Dt. xxxii. 24, Hab. iii. 5). But,
so far as we know, the name Resheph did not take much
hold of the Israelites, except perhaps as a place-name or a
clan-name, 2 indicating that the place or clan was placed
under the protection of the god Resheph-Yerahme el, just
as a Sidonian king (see above) speaks of the * land of
Resheph, and as an Egyptian city was called * house of
Reshpu (W. M. M., As. u. Eur., p. 311).
Let us now pass on to another important divine name
which, though it will come before us again (on xvi. 7),
cannot be omitted here. I refer to the name Mal ak
Yahweh (or M.-HaelohTm). What we have to explain is
the fact that the personage so named is not a mere
1 Gressmann, op. cit. p. 85, finds Resheph as the name of a
Canaanite god in Ps. Ixxvi. 4, but Houtsma s emendation which he
adopts ( im ntrp) is a poor one (see Cheyne, Ps. t2} }.
2 Inferred from i Chr. vii. 25 (Resheph, brother of njna, i.e. any).
Cp. also v. 1 6, And Maakah, wife of Makir, bore a son, and she
called his name Peresh ; and his brother s name was Sheresh, and his
sons were Ulam and Rekem. Ulam and Rekem being popular cor
ruptions of Ishmael and Yerahme el respectively, we may presume that
Peresh and Sheresh also have a N. Arabian origin. Sheresh comes
from Asshur, like Shemesh from Ishmael. 7 Peresh, like
Shepher in Num. xxxiii. 23/, seems to have come from Resheph.
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 4 a) 59
messenger of Yahweh, but fully represents the Most High.
There is nothing in other Semitic religions exactly parallel,
at least if we insist on taking Mal ak to mean messenger.
The explanation of the Palmyrene divine name ^ID^D 1 as
^1 TWTO, the messenger or revealer of Bel (Cooke, p. 269,
from Lidzbarski), as if the sun-god (so the Latin of the
bilingual Rom. 2) were regarded as the highest aspect of
the supreme God Bel, will hardly stand examination. For
messenger and revealer are not synonymous. To get
the desired sense the name should be SlOtt) or ^33D. It is
almost equally useless to refer to Babylonian. It is true,
the principal Gods often have a divine messenger, who is
generally an inferior deity, but may be a son (e.g. Nabu) or
a daughter (e.g. Ishtar). 2 But the fact still remains that a
messenger cannot be a full representative, and that in any
case the name of the divine messenger would have to be
added, lest Mal ak Yahweh should be interpreted to mean
an angel (messenger) of Yahweh, which cannot be right. 3
The only possible solution is that underneath "f^bo there is
the name of one of the great gods worshipped by the
Israelites. Can we doubt what that name is ? We have
seen already that the oldest of Israel s gods was called
Yarham or Yerahme el, and a further study of the O.T.
names will reveal the fact that SD^D, btfiDp, DIp^N, DN^n,
are all corrupt forms of ^MDITP. So also is "[N^Q, and I
would add the conjecture that malahum, a Canaanitish
word for God known to the Babylonians, 4 has the same
origin. The name Mal ak Yahweh thus becomes a desig
nation of the divine duad (see p. 16), either member of
which can represent the other. It was natural that at a
later time, just as rPNis (a title of ( Ashtart, see p. 20) was
changed into mN}2, so the name ^on[T], when combined
1 Note that a Roman inscription on a Tripoli senam (Cowper, Hill
of the Graces, p. 155) gives the words RRIMO MALLBOLOS, where
RRIMO should be = Rimmon.
2 Zimmern (KAT & \ p. 454) also mentions a rare Babylonian word
maldku for messenger, servant. But this does not help us.
3 The personage referred to is not a mere angel, but a God, for he
is the repository of the name of Yahweh (Ex. xxiii. 21).
4 Zimmern, KAT ( *\ p. 354. Cp. Sayce, Exp. Times, August 1906,
p. 49 9^.
60 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
with mrp, became "JN^Q, 1 and when uncombined assumed the
edifying disguise of ^ND^D. 2 Into the subsequent history
of this honourably degraded deity I need not enter.
Evidently he is a parallel to the son of man 3 and the so-
called Messiah, partly also to the later Logos. 4 Evidently,
too, he absorbed fresh rays of light from Marduk and even
in later times from Mithra. 5
We must not therefore follow Gunkel, who regards the
phrase Mal ak Yahweh as due to a reverential scruple of a
later age, and thinks that the original legends spoke naively
of Yahweh himself as appearing, not * Yahweh s messenger.
It is rather a sign of the growing tendency towards mono
theism, and the increasing repugnance of devout Yahweh-
worshippers to elements derived from a lower stage of
religion. The higher prophets, as we have seen elsewhere
(P- 63), entertained the strongest objection to any display
of reverence for Yerahme el, or any borrowing from his
cultus. To them might conceivably be due the precepts,
Thou shalt have no other gods before me (Ex. xx. 3),
and According to the practice of the land of Misrim, 6
and according to the practice of the land of Canaan, shall
ye not do (Lev. xviii. 3).
Yahweh, then, was the God of the future. Individuals
already knew him, but the ideal thou shalt know
Yahweh (Hos. ii. 22 ; cp. vi. 6) was in the dim distance.
For the people of Israel thought to bind their God to them
by the tie of ritual, thus, according to Hosea, totally mis-
1 In Num. xx. 16, however, *?KDnT has become IN^D, and in Ex.
xxxii. 34 2*60.
" 2 The first evidence for the form WD is in Daniel (x. 13, 21 ; xii. i).
But there is no reason why some devout worshipper of Yahweh, some
head priest, should not have produced the name earlier. That Mika el
was well known by name when Dan. x. 13 was written is obvious.
3 It was N. Schmidt who first pointed out that the manlike Being
in Dan. vii. 13 was Mikael.
4 The Logos has partly grown out of VKDHT, one of the current
corruptions of which is man. Only so can we understand Rev. xix. 12
and the gloss in 13^, viz., And he had a name written that no one
knew but he himself. . . . And his name is called The Word of God.
5 See Cheyne, Expositor, April 1906, The Archangel Michael.
6 Of course, Misraim (Egypt) is wrong. Cp. Mic. vi. 16 (see
p. 63, note 4).
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. I.-IL 4^) 61
conceiving the nature of Yahweh, and by each fresh
sacrifice adding to their load of sins. Nor is Amos behind
his fellow-prophet. Come to Bethel, he cries, and trans
gress (iv. 4), And again, Did ye offer sacrifices to me
in the wilderness, 1 O house of Israel? (v. 25), and I hate,
I reject your feast-days (v. 21). Evidently these prophets
hold that the nomadic theory of God gave a less incorrect
view of religion than that of the far more refined agricultural
period. Rather would they see no sacrifices at all than
those offered to the God whom his Israelite worshippers
called indiscriminately Yerahme el (Baal) and Yahweh, and
to the goddess of the many titles (TroA-uoW/zo?) whom we
know best as Ashtart. Alas for Israel s fatal mistake !
For Yahweh, and he alone, gave her corn, and new
wine, and oil, and multiplied unto her silver and gold
(Hos. ii. 10).
Thus, according to these prophets, Yahweh does for his
people all that they suppose Yerahme el (Baal) to do, and
the return for which he looks is grateful obedience (Am.
ii. 9-12, Hos. xi. 1-4). It is quite possible that Yerahme el
too had made a similar claim, but if so, the prophets who
advanced the claim failed to impress, as Amos and Hosea,
Isaiah and Micah certainly did impress, at any rate the
next age. The probability, however, is that the most
progressive prophets of N. Arabia sought a more hopeful
field of activity among the Israelites. Circumstances of which
we are ignorant unless, indeed, we accept the traditional
account of the Exodus made the Israelites more susceptible
to the higher prophetic teaching than their Yerahme elite
kinsmen. The N. Arabian priests sought occupation among
1 The implied answer is, No, not sacrifices, but grateful obedience.
Forty years, as Marti sees, is superfluous, alike for the sense and for
the metre. What Marti fails to see is that o yaix, as often, represents
o aiy, and that rut? comes from JOB" = fojw. These words are two-
independent glosses on nain. nmoi (note sing.) is also an interpolation
(Marti). The next verse is an interpolated gloss, In fact, ye have
carried in procession Sakkith your queen, and Yakman (Ishmael) your
god, which ye made for yourselves. On Sakkith, see p. 18, note 4. joa
appears as jva, as Da (after oW), and as 3212. ^KJ,W, as elsewhere, has
become oSs. @ s pai<f>av may represent JST = JDT, i.e. SNDHV, of which
pa is also a corrupt form. Cp. on apy, Gen. xxv. 26.
62 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
the Israelites (Isa. ii. 6) j 1 why should we hesitate to believe
that some of the N. Arabian prophets did so too, especially
when we recognise (see below) the real historical relation of
Yerahme el to Yahweh ? Among these prophets were not
impossibly Elijah and Elisha. 2
The priests, however, were, for the moment, more
successful than the prophets. They contributed largely to
that distortion of religion of which Amos and Hosea com
plain. 3 The Yerahme el whom they served was not the god
of the nomadic period, nor even the not altogether unpro-
gressive god of the subsequent age, but the Baal of the
capital, the god of Ahab and Jezebel. And they found
among the Israelites only too much willingness to lend an
ear to their dangerous pleadings. Even without their help
it was only too easy for those who were disciples of
Canaanitish culture to confound Yerahme el or Baal
with Yahweh. Hence, on the * days or festivals of the
Baalim (the local Yerahme els), the Israelite worshippers
forgot Yahweh (Hos. ii. 15), i.e. forgot that the Yahweh-
side of their deity imposed a moral strictness in which the
Yerahme el cultus was greatly deficient forgot, too, that
Yahweh had become too great to be worshipped as a calf
(or bull), and could no longer worthily be associated with a
goddess.
1 Yahweh has (virtually) forsaken his people, because they are full
of kemarim? For mpo read DHDD (a technical term, from D joai).
2 See E. Bib., Prophecy, 7,9; also Crit. Bib. p. 397, where
it is pointed out that TnW, preceded by mrr, in I K. xvii. 12, xviii. 10,
covers over an original toonr. The biographer of Elijah seems to have
distinguished a certain Baal (Baal-shimron ?) from * Yerahme el, i.e.
Baal par excellence. The less harmful Baal of more conservative
worshippers Elijah does not attack. At Sarephath (which belonged to
the southern Sidon) Elijah found religious kinsmen, who revered his
own God Yahweh, i.e. Yahweh- Yerahme el. Let us also bear in mind
the traditions which underlie i K. xix. 15 and 2 K. viii. *J ff., and which
represent Elijah and Elisha as closely connected with the King of
Aram (the southern Yerahmeel).
3 Both Amos and Hosea attack image-worship. In Hos. viii. 5, 6,
the MT. misrepresents the prophet. Read in a, I abhor thy calf, O
Shimron ; | my anger is kindled against it ; | to Arabia of Ishmael shall
it be brought, | a present to the king of Ashhur. Gloss, for Ishmael
means Ashhur ; for Ishmael means (dittograpJi). Interpolation, A no-
God is the calf of Shimron. WIPTD and c^rns? both represent
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 4 a) 63
The reader will notice that I am anxious not to be
unjust to Baal. That the Yerahme el cultus had always
been morally so meagre is improbable. Hosea himself
says (iv. 6) that the priest (priesthood) has forgotten the
law of his God. Some unfavourable impulse a spirit of
harlotry (iv. 1 2) has led them astray, and through them
the Israelites also. The story of the sons of Eli (i S. ii.
12-17, 22 ) ma 7 illustrate this. Eli and his sons were
guardians of the so-called ark, the probable original
name l of which, and also its traditional connexion with
the compound name of the divine duad, 2 suggest that its
priestly guardians were ministers of the God Yerahme el.
But according to a tradition which may be not entirely
incorrect, the sons of Eli indulged in evil practices like
those which Hosea has in view in his controversy with the
priests. Eli himself was without reproach ; his sons there
fore, like Hosea s priests, had forgotten the law of their
God, except, indeed, in matters of sacrificial routine. Now
Hosea, like Amos and Isaiah, detests the sacrificial system ;
he even calls sacrifices the sin of Yahweh s people (iv. 8).
The priests, on their side, abhor what Hosea loves, viz. an
ethical, non-sacrificial view of religion. The antithesis,
therefore, is complete, irreconcilable. The true Yahweh
says (Hos. viii. 12):
I loathe the temples of Yerahme el, 3
(Where) my laws are accounted as (those of) a stranger.
And in the next verse the prophet continues :
They sacrifice the sacrifices of Ah ab, 4
Yahweh accepts them not ;
Now will he remember their guilt,
And punish them for their sin.
1 See p. 34. 2 See p. 35, note i.
3 Read Syav mSa n eipic, and, in , vnh.
4 amn probably comes from DNRN, a compound of two short geo
graphical designations, one of which (nx) represents TW, the other
(IN) any. The same word can be traced in Hos. iii. i, iv. 17, ix. 10, xi. 4,
and Mic. vi. 16. In Mic. I.e. we have to read, And the statutes of
the Arammite are observed, and all the cultus of the house ( = territory)
of Ah ab. Is this also the explanation of the royal name Ah ab ?
Certainly. The far-fetched explanations of this name (W. R. Smith,
Ulmer, etc.) are most improbable.
64 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Of the counter-discourses of the priests we have, unfortu
nately, no record.
I have postponed the consideration of the name mrr,
Yahweh, or (see Sayce and Cowley s edition of the Assuan
Aramaic papyri) irp, Yahu, in order not to hinder a compari
son of the partly similar, partly different conceptions of the
two related gods, Yerahme el and Yahweh. The compari
son having now been made, it is possible to take up the
important question of the origin of Yahweh. It seems
to me very hazardous to assume from Gen. xix. 24 that
mrr OH" 1 ) originally meant heaven ; and to hold that there
were two old monosyllabic divine names Ya and Ho, that
ha-Elohim is sometimes miswritten for Ho + the gloss
Elohim, and that in Gen. ii. and iii. Yahweh-Elohim has a
similar origin. This is Hommel s view (Gr. pp. 177-179).
Still, we can hardly now go back to the old conjectures
respecting the divine name Yahweh. So much must already
be clear, that the name must stand in some connexion
with Yerahme el. I suggest that it may have been origin
ally a dialect-variation of Yahameh, which is related to
Yarhamu, precisely as Ham (Gen. v. 32, etc.) is related to
Yarham, and Hamath to Rahamath. We may further
venture to compare the regional names Yaman and Yamin,
where not only the r but the h has disappeared, also the
personal name Yahmai (i Chr. vii. 2), for which Lucian
gives ia/jiiv, and the Sabaean name ^NEm Here, too, I must
mention the imagined moon- and sea-god Yam (see p. 28),
the ydmi in Ahiyami (Ta annek inscription, see p. 29, note i),
and the ydma which closes some proper names in cuneiform
texts of the Persian period 1 (cp. p. 29). It is true that
Zimmern and other Assyriologists trace this ydma to an
original yahwa, but obviously yahwa (yahu) may just as
well have come from Ydma (ydnt), which is the short either
for Yarham or for Yaman. 2 The evidence is certainly late,
but compound proper names, even when recorded late, often
1 Cp. Johns, article in Expositor, October 1 903. There are also
names beginning with I-am (Hommel, Gr, p. 179; cp. p. 130).
2 Johns (Deeds, iii. 414) has found Natanu-yama several times in
Assyrian deeds. Natanu is probably a modification of the N. Arabian
name Ethan ; yama ought to be parallel to it.
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 4*) 65
present very ancient elements. There is also early evidence
from proper names that the name Yau (Yahu), whether for
a region or for a god most probably for both was current
in Babylonia, both in the age of Hammurabi, and, later,
in the Kassite period, i.e. that it was by no means confined
to the land of the Israelites.
A fresh chapter in the history of Yahweh is opened by
the Assuan Aramaic papyri. We learn from these that the
Jews in Syene and Elephantine in the fifth century B.C.
habitually used the divine name Yahu in commercial; and
legal transactions. They swore by the name of Yahu,
and a chapel or altar of Yahu stood near the houses of
their settlement. The one God has displaced the divine
duad or triad, and the name Yahu holds its ground against
both Yahweh and Adonai. 1
What, then, is the relation of the form Yahweh to
Yau or Yahu ? Probably this. A more original form
than either is Yahwa or Yahu. In a famous Phoenician
inscription (v.-iv. cent. B.C.) we find a royal name "f^airr.
It is usual to explain this as "[^DITT ( let Milk give life ) ;
but should it not rather be l^rr? 2 Yahu or Yahwa
appears to be a very old shortened form of D1TP ; the
linking form is im\ Out of Yahwa (Yahu) came Yahwa
(Yahu). The settled Yerahme elites, or rather their priests,
probably made this modification, giving it the sense of he
who causes to be, the producer. 3 This step may have
coincided with a great reconstitution of myths. 4 Yarham
may, indeed, have been the Creator, but the old creation-
myth had probably begun to fade, and its revival called for a
virtually new name. From these Yerahme elites the younger
Israelite people, under the direction of the priestly tribe of
Levi and especially the clan of Mosheh, received the cultus
of Yahweh. Previously they had worshipped El Asshur
( El Shaddai ) or El Yerahme el ( El-olam ), but on
1 Aramaic Papyri discovered at Assuan. Edited by A. H. Sayce
with the assistance of A. E. Cowley (1906), p. 10.
2 Note that the father of this king is Symrr (so CIS and Lidzbarski ;
Cooke, *7y3i,T), i.e. Syanv = ^Nanv.
3 On the diffusion of the name Yahweh in the south, see Ed. Meyer,
Die Israeliten, p. 378.
4 Cp. Goldziher, Hebrew Mythology^ p. 272. &^ ^*
5
66 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
passing into a settled life they accepted a virtually new
God. Their traditions unhistorically throw back this
event into the nomadic stage.
The date of the original change of Yahu into Yahu must
have been very early, if Jensen l is right in making the Abd-
hiba of the Amarna letters equivalent to mrr "Tl^, " being
often replaced in Assyrian by /z, and 1 by b. Johns, 2 too,
compares Iba in the name Iba-kame, and a French critic
suggests that Yabi-sarru in a newly published Amarna
tablet may mean Yahweh is king. But I fear we cannot
safely lay any stress on such interpretations, and at any
rate behind the conventionalised Yabi-sarru a name of
different import exists, if we could find it. Among the
many similar cases of conventionalised Hebrew names it
is enough here to point out that irp in irr^HT and similar
forms is probably altered from "in" 1 , i.e. 1DTVP, which is a
shortened form of the geographical name f?NDnv. Cp. p. 43.
It will now be plain exactly how much truth lies in the
.statement of Winckler (GI ii. 78) that the divine name
Yahu, underlying Yahweh, is that of the storm -god
commonly called by the Canaanite peoples Ramman. It
requires to be added (i) that the intermediate divine name
is Yarhamu or Yahu, (2) that Ramman is probably a
modification of one of the collateral forms of Yerahme el
(Rahman or Ra aman), and (3) that all these related Gods are
more than mere storm-gods, more than the possessors or con
trollers of any single natural force, or even of all of them
put together : they are divine men they are personalities.
It is natural to conclude the series of divine names
with * Elohim. This word is generally rendered God or
* gods ; in the former sense we find ildni (ildniya, my
gods == my God ) in the Amarna letters. But Elohim is
admittedly often used in the Hebrew texts, both without
and with the article, as if it were a divine name. It is
also admitted that an apposition generally stands in the
singular, though sometimes in the plural ; and that the
predicate is generally in the singular, though exceptions
(Gen. xx. 13, xxxi. 53, xxxv. 7, Ex. xxxii. 4, 8, 2 S.
vii. 23) are not wanting. To illustrate these phenomena,
1 KB vi. 578. 2 Deeds, iii. p. xvi.
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 40) 67
it has been noticed that the Phoen. D^N may be used with
the singular (even feminine) to denote * god/ like the Heb.
DVT^>N ; one may mention (Cooke, p. 99) px^si D^N, D^N
Sana, vnpn D^N, DN mm chn (of the goddess Isis). It
is not so easy to account either for the Hebrew or for the
Phoenician phenomena. Let us begin with the latter,
having regard to typical passages in the Phoenician inscrip
tions in which D^N occurs. Prof. G. Hoffmann has already
examined these with his accustomed learning, 1 but without
fully satisfactory results, owing to his want of a key to the
problems. I venture now to build partly on his foundation,
hoping that some of my suggestions may be found useful.
And, first of all, let me caution the student against trusting
appearances. It is true that the names n^N^no (CIS
194, 363) and D^Ntns (7, 334) appear to mean gift of
God, servant of God. Experience, however, seems to me
to warn us to question these explanations, and to look
underneath these names for earlier forms with a non-religious
meaning. Then we have in the Ma sub inscription, /. 2, the
strange expression, * which the D^N, the envoys of Milk-
Ashtart . . . built. Prof. Hoffmann takes n^NH here to
be a title ( the divine ), and refers to CIS 260-262, 377,
where the father is called chn DpD mrr, and the son opo
D7N alone; also to 227, where the latter phrase occurs in
connexion with Suffetes. Hoffmann explains this loco
divino ; it was an official title doubtless, but suggests the
fact that its bearers were great nobles, and claimed descent
from the gods. Similarly cbn nriD ^D1 means, according
to him, every one of an honoured princely position. To
these may be added from Cooke (p. 361) the phrase D^N DM,
which Prof. Ed. Meyer explains divine servant/ but Mr.
Cooke, in my opinion more plausibly, the nobleman.
And what is the explanation which will link these
passages firmly and naturally together ? It is this. D^N
in Phoenician, like the same group of letters in Hab. ii. 18
(cp. also in the MT. D^*IS, hhftn, D^DN, and similar words),
is a derivative of ^WOTT ; and, in passing, the same origin
may be suggested for the Phoen. ]^>N, a god. Let us
apply this to each of the Phoenician passages referred to.
1 Ueber cinige phonikische Inschriftcn (1889), pp. 15-20.
68 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
For instance, a genealogy tracing a man s descent to Yerah-
me elite ancestors was, we may well suppose, a patent of
the highest nobility. Eshmunazar, as we know (p. 44),
prided himself on his blue blood, and it is highly probable
that a Suffete family would do the same. Eshmunazar calls
himself nfcS>N p, which is not to be read no n^>N ]Ta (so
Hoffm.), nor son of a widow, but (as the preceding descrip
tion shows) son, or native, of Almath (a regional name,
derived from ch& = SttDrrr). In short, the king claimed to
be a Yerahme elite, and so, of course, did other high-placed
Sidonians. Similarly all the passages can be explained,
provided we grant that chx may, by a natural licence, be
also taken as a plural. We may group the plural nS>N in
the Mas ub inscription with the D^N of Ex. xv. 15, Ezek.
xvii. 13, 2 K. xxiv. 15 Kr., and the D^M of Ezek. xxxii. 21.
The D^N in the seal-legend (Cooke, p. 361) is, of course,
not a plural, but means of high descent/ or, more strictly,
of Yerahme el.
Now we can also understand how Phcen. D^>N can have
come to mean god. The case is parallel to that of nergallu
for the colossal lions representing the god Nergal, and
ishtaru and ishtaritu for goddess. Strictly, c&N means
Yerahme el, but since Yerahme el was an unique Being, and
the one or two other Beings in his Company were sub
ordinate to him, his name, in a shortened form, naturally
became a term indicating the highest rank in the hierarchy
of Essences. 1 It should be noticed that in the Hadad
and Panammu inscriptions (Zenjirli), Hadad and El and
Rekubel and Shamash are mentioned together. It is
possible that El here is but a shortened form of Rekub-el
( = Yerahme el), which the stone-cutter a lover of grand
titles gave as a separate name. Indeed, the probability is
that by Hadad and Rekubel the same god is meant. There
is an alternative view, but it comes practically to the same
thing, viz. that h& has come from hw, a short symbol (cp.
lolaus ) for ^NDrrp, like W 1 for bNSDBT 1 . A similar explana
tion has already been given of ^i?l.
1 Philo of Byblus (Fragm., ii. 18) states that the allies of El or
Kronos bore the name EAoet//, as if Kpovtoi. n nW has not been found
in Phoenician.
THE COSMOGONY (GEN. i.-n. 4 a} 69
The problem of DYIN now becomes simple. Our ex
perience with the above ch& passages suggests that
must have been produced out of a shortened form o
viz. DnStt ; cp. omiN from omiN (xvii. 5), and DnVrri from
YrrTT}. We see, too, how DYrbtf comes to be constructed
with a singular verb and a singular adjective, and how the
phrase nvrSN mm was possible. Both in this compound
phrase and sometimes when it stands alone (e.g. iv. 25), DTT^N
represents the divine name ^NOnT. Ex. xxii. 19 supplies
important evidence of this. For here Din" 1 is impossible (see
p. 29), and plainly represents nnT ( = ^NDITP), an early
gloss on DVT^N. It may be added that W?N ( idol ) has
probably the same origin. See Crit. Bib. on Isa. ii. 6-22,
and cp. Hab. ii. 1 8, where a^chn ( = Dr^HDITP) may be a
gloss on orb-h**. As to Fnbn, I agree with Ewald and
Baethgen that it is probably an artificial coinage.
We now return to the Priestly Writer s cosmogony, in
which he seeks to glorify the weekly Sabbath by placing its
origin at the beginning of the world (ii. 2/i). He does not
indeed actually name the Sabbath, but it appears evident
that he alludes to it as the day of ceasing from work (nittf).
Meinhold has made it very probable that the weekly Sabbath
is not pre-exilic, that its author was Ezekiel, and that the
name Sabbath (which is, of course, pre-exilic) originally had
nothing to do with ceasing from work or resting. 1 This
scholar thinks that in pre-exilic times it meant full-moon
day (like Ass. sabattuni}. I venture, however, to suggest
a different view, which in the light of other results appears
to me highly plausible. This is, that it meant the feast of
Ashtart, who was symbolised as an ear of corn = Aram.
NnSllD (KA T, (3) p. 428). rfeim, in fact, became nitt), which
was originally (as it seems) one of the names of the great
Semitic goddess. It is, of course, possible that this name was
in course of time altered so as to suggest identification with
the Ass. sabattum, just as Sab ith was (probably) altered
into Seba oth. My own impression, however, is that there
was nothing in Babylonia corresponding to the Jewish
1 See Meinhold, Sabbat und Woche im A.T. (1905), and cp. Prof.
H. W. Hogg s review in the Review of Theology and Philosophy, \.
70 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Sabbath. Another suggestion is too obviously right to be
rejected. It was the Babylonian and old Oriental principle
that things on earth correspond to things in heaven. P
accepts this. If God rested on the seventh day, man
ought also to rest on that day. The anthropomorphism
(cp. Ex. xxxi. 17) harmonises with the view of the gods as
extraordinary men, which pervades this cosmogony.
The concluding words, FfttoJl tprhtt Nil -|tt)N (ii. 3), are
stylistically impossible. No good Hebrew writer could
have appended nil>, nor can N*il be combined with n^N^D.
M. Lambert l has already suspected corruption in Nil ; the
author of ^ also took offence at it, and gives r/pfaro (^nn) ;
cp. John v. 17, my Father worketh hitherto. But the
corruption is more deep-seated. 2 Probably the last editor of
the text had to deal with a title of the following narrative,
which he did not understand. The title was I ll? 1EJN, on
which there was a marg. gloss ^NOnT intt)N. 3 Both phrases
were already corrupt, and by inserting DTF^N the writer pro
duced what now stands before us. The text is not improved
by the appendix. The two phrases Asshur of Arabia and
Ashtar of Yerahme el are of course synonymous. They
both mean the region in which the gan-Eden was situated,
and in which the first men, including Noah, dwelt. Cp.
Prov. viii. 26 (pp. 38/1).
1 Revue des etudes juives, j an v. -mars 1900.
2 Schwally (Archiv f. Rel.-wiss., ix., 1906, p. 159) feels the
monstrosity of the phrase, but has no suggestion foi explaining it.
3 Probably the document used by P had ^tnry, which, like
, and nnnrx, came from ^wtrwK = cm
PARADISE (GEN. ii. 40-m. 24)
HERE we have before us the story of the first man and
the first woman, of their happy life in the sacred garden,
and of their miserable expulsion from it. The story also
includes a myth of the origin of the serpent as we see it
to-day, but on this we need not pause long. The early
Israelites naturally enough applied the key of the imagina
tion, just as the Finns did (see Kalevala, Rune xxvi.). It
is Adam and Eve who absorb our interest. The man is
produced out of moistened clay (as the myths of Babylon
and Egypt to mention no others also represent) ; the
woman in a singular fashion, which we will refer to later. We
need not suppose that this was the only account of the
formation of the human pair current among the Israelites.
One possible theory is suggested by the traditional phrase
Mother Earth ; * the resources of the imagination are not
easily exhausted. We notice too that the first woman re
ceives a name (ii. 23 b, iii. 20), while the first man has none.
The difficulty is met in iv. 25 and v. 3-5 by omitting the
article in hd-addm, so that ad dm appears as a proper name ;
and Vg. use Adam in this way more freely. A textual
critic, however, is bound to inquire whether an earlier and
still discoverable form of the text may not have given the
first man a true proper name.
For the present, however, we will acquiesce in the make
shift Adam, and proceed to ask, Have we the story of
Adam in its original form ? Surely not, is the answer. The
story has been altered in order to make it illustrate and
explain the facts of ordinary life. It has also received
additions, as Stade and Gunkel have partly seen. Elsewhere
1 Noldeke, Archiv f. Rel.-iviss. viii. 161.
72 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
the first man is described as a king and a demi-god. 1 This
was the older type of the tradition ; we find it in Ezek.
xxviii. 12-19 (xxvii. 3, xxviii. 2, 3, Isa. xiv. 13, 14) and
Job xv. 7, 8, and in a pale form in Gen. i. 26-28 (cp. Ps.
viii. 5). How natural that such a personage should dwell
among the magic trees on the mountain of Elohim, and that
his beauty and wisdom should be infinite ! Symbols of his
semi-divine character are the precious stones (see p. 83)
which form his vesture, 2 precisely as the Jewish high priest
had twelve, and the Babylonian king six precious stones on
the breast, indicating the astral connexion of these holy
personages. 3 This king, this demi-god, however, was deposed,
and not only deposed, but hurled (v. 16; see Isa. xiv. 15)
down to Sheol, because he said, I am Elohim, I am like
the Supreme, i.e. because he broke some divine precept, or
perhaps conspired against the Supreme. 4 The myth is
incomplete. There must once have been more light on the
sin of this great Being. That sin can hardly have been
partaking of the food of the gods, for how could one dwell
on the mountain of Elohim, be robed like Elohim, and be
perfect in wisdom and beauty, and not also eat of that food,
which, if taken constantly, warded off decay and death, and
imparted a happy sense of unlimited power? It is remark
able that in Enoch Ixix. 6 the story of the temptation is
read in the light of Gen. vi. 1,2. Of the tree nothing is said,
and the tempter is represented as one of the fallen angels.
Let us now turn to the story in Gen. ii. Here (vv. 8,
15) we are told that Yahweh- Elohim planted a garden for
1 We are reminded of the * fair shepherd Yima of the Avesta
( Vend. ii. ), the first king and the founder of civilisation, though not the
first man like the cognate Vedic hero Yama (see p. 83) ; also of
Maui, the Adam of New Zealand. Of the Bab. Adapa (or, as Fossey,
Adamu) I have spoken elsewhere.
2 See Ezek. xxviii. 13. Cp. the robe of ceremony offered to Adapa
by Anu in the Babylonian myth (KB vi. 99).
3 See Zimmern, KAT, pp. 624, note 3 ; 629, note 5 ; also Gress-
mann, Eschatologie, pp. 108-110.
4 The passage of Ezekiel closes with a reference appropriate to the
king of Missor in N. Arabia, to whom, by a poetical licence, the old
myth is applied. Sor, of course, is shortened from Missor (see p. 46 /).
In Ezek. xxviii. 2 D D a^n probably comes from D JD^ *?32, Babel of the
Yemanites, i.e. the Arabian Babel ; a gloss. See on x. i o.
PARADISE (GEN. ii. 4^-in. 24) 73
the sake of the man. This view is quite different from that
of Ezekiel. Thereupon Adam became his gardener. The
notion of an agricultural people. Precisely so the legend of
Sargon I. (Rogers, HBA i. 362) makes the king say, * My
service as a gardener was pleasing unto Ishtar, and I became
king. l But Adam s life was not perfect, for he was alone,
and Yahweh his Maker (see p. 15) loved society. So God
said (according to (> and Jubilees), Let us make him a help
meet for him, and then formed out of the ground all the
animals, and brought them to Adam to see what he would
call them. What is the object of this singular story ? Is it
merely to prepare the way for the formation of Eve, or to
answer some curious questions (such as, How came the
animals by their names, or, How came language to exist) ? 2
Rather, perhaps, to counteract the shameful vice referred to
in Lev. xviii. 23. There may have been stories in existence
like that of Ea-bani, 3 or like the tales of the Skidi Pawnee in
N. America, in which people are said to marry animals or
to become animals (Dorsey, Traditions of the S.P. pp. 2%off.\
At any rate, the writer declares that none of the animals was
fit to be the associate of man, because none was sufficiently
like him to be a true helper to him (m:O its, a helper
matching him, as one half of a piece of work matches
another).
Observe that some practical object, such as is here
suggested, must have been before the narrator s mind. It is
probable that vv. 19, 20 are a later insertion, suggested by
experience. For v. 2 I fits on to v. I 8 much better than to
v. 20, and it is not probable that the insight required for
naming the animals should have deserted the man when he
had to deal with the serpent, who is represented as one of
those very animals on whom the man, in virtue of his superior
1 Cp. the legend of Abdalonymus of Tyre (Winckler, AOF ii. 168).
2 The narrator assumes that Adam and Eve had an innate capacity
of speech.
3 See Jastrovv, RBA, pp. 474-480, and his article Adam and Eve
in Babylonian Literature, AJSL xv. 207-268. Jastrow s theory (that
the original form of the story in Gen. ii. represented Adam as having
originally had intercourse with the beasts) seems to me highly improb
able. The original story represented Adam as a demi-god, not as an
Ea-bani, but as an Adapa.
74 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
wisdom and his divinely given authority, had imposed names.
One thing, however, the interpolator forgot, viz. that to
obtain his object he had to lower the intelligence of the
divinity, whom he represents as having made countless
experiments all failures before he hit upon the right plan.
Strange, indeed, it would have been, if the formation of man
succeeded at once, but not that of woman. Observe, lastly,
that all trace of a theriomorphic Creator (see pp. 7, 9) has
vanished.
One may venture, therefore, to hold that the divinity
proceeded at once from thought to successful action. Gods,
however, do not like to be watched (xix. 26). Hence a
deep sleep falls upon Adam, like the sleep of one who is in
a trance (Job iv. 13, xxxiii. 15). The God takes one of his
ribs and builds it up into a woman. The man is enchanted
at the sight, and bursts into rhythmic speech, to which the
narrator appends a comment. Why is a woman so irresist
ibly drawn to a man ? It is because of this great event which
has permanently determined the relations of the sexes.
Observe, the spirit of this passage is in harmony with that of
i. 27, 28. It is implied that straightway the man and the
woman had a reciprocal longing. V. 25 is due to the later
editor or compiler, who connected sexual intercourse with a
transgression of a divine command.
The story in vv. 21,22 is surely not merely an allegory
(Driver). It is told as history, and mythic history it is. It
is true, the modern man makes a distinction between
mythology and genuine history, but primitive man feels no
difficulty in combining facts that are real with facts that are
merely divined in accordance with mythological theories.
Facts of the latter kind will of course differ in various
countries, but there will be an analogy between them, and
the fundamental ideas will agree. Thus, in the Tale of Two
Brothers, the nine gods, making a tour in Egypt, take com
passion on a man called Bitiu, because he is alone, and
Khnumu (the divine modeller) makes a companion for him
who is more perfect than any woman. 1 Here, however, there
is nothing like the detail of the rib. Somewhat nearer to
1 Maspero, Contes populaires de I Egypte ancienne, p. 1 9 ; cp. Good
win, RP ii. 145.
PARADISE (GEN. n. 4^-111. 24) 75
the Hebrew story is the mythic tradition of the island of
Mangaia, which states that the woman at the bottom of the
primeval cocoa-nut, being desirous of offspring, plucked a
piece of flesh out of her right side, which became Vatea, the
father of gods and men. 1 Or take the Malagasy myth that
the Creator drew seven women out of the body of the first
man, who are the mothers of the seven tribes. 2 The famous
Tahitian story, so suspiciously near the story in Gen. ii., has
been criticised by Max Miiller, 3 but not adequately explained.
It is not enough to remark that Ivi (the first woman s
name) means bone. The key to the story is probably the
fact that at Fakaafo the first man was said to have had his
origin in a rock. We must suppose that Ivi originally
meant rock, or something analogous. 4 A higher origin is
given to the first woman in Hindoo mythology. Dividing
his own body into two, Brahma is said to have become with
the half a man, and with the half a woman, and in her to
have created (the commentator says, begotten) Viraj. 5 The
Iranian story in the Bundahish (chap, xv.) is also remark
able. At first the human pair, Matro and Matroyaho, grew
up in conjunction with the shape of a plant ; afterwards they
changed into the shape of man, and, as we shall see, fell into
wickedness. They were produced by the seed of a still
earlier man, brilliant and white, the righteous man,
Gayomard.
Our narrator leaves unsaid that Adam s first care was to
tell his wife on what conditions they held their happiness.
But evidently she knew from him about the tree in the
middle of the garden (iii. 3, 6, I i), the fruit of which, though
fruit was their food, they were forbidden to taste. One tree,
not two trees ; ii. 9, which speaks of the tree of life in the
midst of the garden, but also of * the tree of knowledge of
good and evil, is certainly not in its correct form. What,
1 Lang, Myth, Ritual, and Religion, i. 187.
- Campbell, Travels in South Africa, 3rd ed., p. 384 (ap. Liiken,
Traditioncn, p. 61). The parallel will become closer if the first man of
Gen. ii. was really the supposed ancestor of a particular race of men.
8 Science of Religion, pp. 302-304.
4 Waitz-Gerland, Anthropologic der Naturvolker, vi. 326.
5 Muir, Old Sanscrit Texts, iv. 41.
6 Matthes (article in Theol. Tijdschr. xxiv. pp. 365^) and Winckler
76 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
then, is the name of the tree ? Kuenen l and Eerdmans 2
reply, The tree of life ; Budde, 3 Holzinger, Barton, 4 The tree
of the knowledge of good and evil. A better view seems to
be that the tree was indifferently called the tree of life and
the tree of knowledge ( = insight, wisdom). 5 This identifi
cation of life and insight is amply attested, and is in accord
ance with the best Israelite teaching. He who shares God s
wisdom must also share his infinite life. Of course, know
ledge/ to the writer who inserted the tree of knowledge,
consisted largely in ability to use magic arts ; it is in the
incantations that we find Marduk referred to as he that
loves to recall to life the dead. It is true, a later writer
took a very different view of the meaning of the tree of
knowledge. According to him, the knowledge which the
magic fruit conveyed to the human pair was that, in virtue
of the sexual relation, they had the godlike power (cp. iv. I )
of producing living beings like themselves. It is plain,
however, that this interpretation is not the original one ; it
is too special. To limit the divine wisdom to the mystery
of the reproduction of life is inadmissible ; it is also contrary
to the partly parallel Babylonian story of Adapa.
The story of Adapa s (or Adamu s) failure to obtain
complete divinity need not be retold at length here (see
Prof. Jastrow s well-known historical work). The main
point of it is that Adapa, the son of Ea (the culture-god of
Eridu), was endowed with divine wisdom, but, through a
deception practised upon him by his father, forewent immor
tality. This reminds us forcibly, not only of the infinite
wisdom possessed by Ezekiel s first man, but also of the
(/ ii. 1 08) retain the two trees. The latter gives both the same
name, viz. the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and compares
the two oracular trees in a TrapaSeicros resorted to by Alexander in the
legend. Certainly the Slav. Enoch (c. 8) speaks of two special trees
in the heavenly Paradise one the tree, sweet of smell, brilliant, and
covering everything (the heaven-tree), and the other an oil-distilling
olive-tree. The Zoroastrians, too, know the heaven-tree (see Bousset,
Rel. des Jttdenthums, p. 556).
1 Theol. Tijdschr. xviii. 136. 2 Ibid. pp. 494^-
3 Die Bibl. Urgeschichte, pp. 53^ 4 Semitic Origins, p. 95.
5 See E. Bib., col. 3579.
6 See Prov. ii. 2, 3, 6, xxiv. 3, 4, xxx. 3. In Eth. Enoch xxxii. 3, 6,
the tabooed tree is called the tree of wisdom.
PARADISE (GEN. ii. 4^-111. 24) 77
misrepresentation of the effect of eating the forbidden fruit
in the speech ascribed to Yahweh in Gen. ii. 17, iii. 3. For
Adapa was actually offered the food and drink of the gods
bread (food) of life, water of life/ they are called, but
declined them, in obedience to his father, on the false sup
position that they were food and drink of death. Similarly,
Yahweh-Elohim commanded the man not to eat of a special
fruit, because to do this would straightway cause his death
(ii. 17, iii. 3). If Adapa (Adamu) had disregarded his
father s command, he would have become immortal, i.e. he
would have experienced such an uplifting of his nature that
decay and death would have been for the time impossible,
and if he had gone on eating the food and drink of the
gods, decay and death would have been for ever averted.
Similarly, though in the reverse order, if Adam and Eve
had regarded the divine command and abstained from eating
the fruit of the magic tree, they would, at however distant a
date, have returned to the ground out of which they were
taken. The original story doubtless made Adam and Eve
take the first step towards an endless life but only the first
step ; and this they did at the cost of offending Yahweh.
Can we go behind the narrative and identify the tree of
life, or of wisdom ? The attempt was made in comparatively
early times. The Mandaeans said that it was the vine, and
Pinches, among modern students, holds the same opinion ;
in fact, wine/ ideographically, according to Pinches and
Haupt, means drink of life. It is probable, however, that
the vine was not the first fruit-bearing plant which yielded
an intoxicant to the Semitic races, and that Enoch xxiv. 4
(cp. xxv. 5) is correct when it says of the tree of life that
its fruit was like the dates of the palm. Date-wine was,
in fact, always the most used intoxicant in Arabia and in
early Babylonia and Assyria. 1 The palm-tree itself was
among the specially sacred trees. The conventionalised
sacred tree of the monuments is primarily a date-palm, the
artificial fecundation of which was a sacred ceremony. In
i K. vi. 29, Ezek. xli. 18, cherubs and palm-trees are put
together in the ornamentation of the temple ; and Winckler
and Barton plausibly suppose that the palm-tree, which is
1 See E. Bib., Wine, 25.
78 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
singularly prolific, symbolised Ishtar, one of whose names,
indeed, in Canaan, may have been Tamar. 1
The qualities of the fruit of the sacred tree remind us of
the qualities ascribed to the juice of the soma or haoma
plant. It was a magic fruit, and, like Paradise itself, came
down from heaven. Just so the Indians and Iranians affirm
that the precious healing plants came from the upper world
(Darmesteter, Zend-Avesta, i. 221). The Indians also relate
that an eagle, or the God Indra himself, in eagle form,
brought the intoxicating and healing drink from the place
where it is kept in heaven ; according to Oldenberg, how
ever, the drink was perhaps originally not soma-juice, but
honey-mead. 2 The Iranians have a similar tale ( Yasna,
x. n).
The fruit which Eve partook of, and then gave to Adam,
was therefore the equivalent of an intoxicating drink (lp),
which the early men, both Semitic and Aryan, 3 naively
supposed to exhilarate even the gods, and to confer immunity
from sickness. An analogous symbol or channel of immor
tality is the river of the water of life (as Rev. xxii. I well
expresses it) which watered the garden, and on whose banks
grew trees with unfading leaves and undecaying fruit (Ezek.
xlvii. 12). The Babylonian sages, too, spoke of a purifying
oil of the gods, 4 and later, Jewish and Christian writers of
a tree of mercy distilling the oil of life ; 5 but also of a
tree of life (2 Esd. ii. 12) and trees of life (Rev. xxii. 2,
virtually). So in the Slavonic Enoch (c. 8), we read of an
olive-tree always distilling oil. The belief is, of course,
connected with that of supernatural rivers of wine and of
oil in the heavenly Paradise. See, further, pp. 41, 84.
1 Having observed the great part played by transposition of letters
in Palestinian names, I would suggest that non as a name may have come
from iron. For names of Ashtart still traceable in O.T., see pp. 18-20.
2 Die Religion des Veda, pp. 175-176.
3 Judg. ix. 13 ; Rig Veda, ix. 90, 5 (Muir, Sansc. Texts, iv. 80).
4 Hehn, Hytnnen an Marduk, p. 29.
5 Vit. Ad. et Ev. 36 (cp. 40) ; Apoc. Mos. 9. Cp. the rite of
anointing the sick with oil (Mk. vi. 13, James v. 14). Indeed, all
forms of the anointing of persons as a religious rite may have a similar
origin. Neither Vollers {Arch. f. Rel.-iuiss. viii. 102) nor Spiegelberg
(ib. ix. 144) has pointed this out. Cp. Slavonic Enoch xxii. 8, 9.
PARADISE (GEN. ii. 40-111. 24) 79
That there is no exact Babylonian parallel to the
Paradise-story is well known. The park of magic trees
seen by Gilgamesh (KB vi. 209), and the kiskanu-tree
(palm-tree ? oracular tree ?) in the sanctuary at Eridu, 1 have
no myth attached to them like that of Adam and Eve.
And though the Gilgamesh-epic tells us of a magic plant
(not in that wondrous park) called In old age the man
becomes young (again), the plant is not very prominently
mentioned ; and though a serpent is introduced, taking the
plant away from the bitterly disappointed Gilgamesh, 2 this
is only an expression of the irony of fate ; there is no trace
of any special acuteness on the serpent s part. Quite other
wise runs the story in Gen. iii. A serpent there plays a
leading role, and his action is dictated by subtlety of intellect.
He is evidently no common serpent such as Adam had lately
named (ii. I9/), but either (in accordance with Arabian
folklore) 3 a manifestation of the tree-spirit (or tree-demon),
or a pale form of the serpent manifestation of a divine
culture -bringer like the Babylonian Oannes in Berossus.
He speaks, not, like Balaam s ass, because Yahweh * opened
his mouth, but because he is a supernatural Being.
The object of his conversation with the woman is not
altogether clear. He accuses Elohim first of cruelty, and
then of deception. Obviously he is not friendly to the
great Being. Has he some definite hostile project in view ?
We cannot tell for certain, because the true sequel of the
4 opening of the eyes in iii. 7 has perished ; possibly, too,
the first part of the serpent s speech in v. I is lost, for ^D *)N,
which is not an interrogative phrase, 4 comes in very abruptly.
It is possible, however, that the serpent was planning a
rebellion against the over-strict divinity. This story, the
evidence of which is now not existent, would, of course, be
independent of the story of the struggle between the Light-
god and the Dragon.
1 See Jeremias, ATAO, p. 99 ; Jensen, Kosmologie^ p. 249 ; R. C.
Thompson, The Dei/Us and Evil Spirits of Babylonia, i. pp. liii.^."
2 KB vi. 253; cp. Zim. KA T, pp. 524, 578. There is much
mystery about the plant ; see Jensen, KB vi. 5 1 6.
3 W. R. Smith, Re!. Sem. w pp. 133, 442 ; E. Bib., Serpent, 3, 4.
4 See Eerdmans, Theol. Tijdschr. xxxix. (1905), p. 482.
8o TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
I am aware that most scholars regard the story in
Gen. iii. as a compact whole, but I cannot share this view.
In vv. 1-7 (part), allowing for the later redaction, the original
idea was that for a man to eat of the magic fruit would
result (as the serpent rightly affirms) in such a heightening
of the vitality as would render him ageless and immortal.
The divine Soma of the Hindus, the Haoma of the Parsis,
and the wine of Bacchus had the same result. l We may
also fitly compare the apples in the garden of the Hesperides,
and those of Idhun in the Icelandic saga. 2 The passage
has, I think, been cut down by later editors, one of whom
inserted the description of the serpent as a beast of the
field (v. i), and is perhaps responsible for w. 7 (from and
they knew ) to 21, which imply a very different view of the
tree. In this passage the tree is no longer that of life, but
the producer of a special kind of knowledge that of the
difference of the sexes. They became sensible that they
were naked, and sewed fig-leaves together, and made them
selves aprons (girdles). The meaning is clear. The
girdle or apron (I cry a truce to archaeology) 3 is the
garment of shame/ treading on which (according to a non-
Biblical saying of Jesus) 4 will be a sign that there is neither
male nor female in the coming age.
It is therefore intelligible enough that so much stress is
laid in v. 16 on the pains of parturition (contrast i. 28).
And the question has excusably been raised whether vv. 1-7
do not give us a veiled description of the first human
physical union and its consequences. Among the advocates
of this view are Trumbull, 5 Crawley, 6 and Whatham, 7 who
seek to interpret the narrative anthropologically. Crawley,
1 Crawley, Tree of Life, p. 216.
2 A. Wiinsche, Die Sagen vom Lebensbaum, etc. (1905), pp. 9-12,
1057. ; Worcester, Genesis, etc. (1901), p. 208.
3 I may, however, notice here that in 1696 the men of the Pelew
Islands had a leaf-fibre garment round their loins, to which a piece of
stuff was attached in front (Foreman, The Philippine Islands, p. 39,
quoted by Foote, The Ephod, p. 43).
4 See Clem. Alex., Strom, iii. 6, 45, and the Oxyrynchus fragments.
5 The Threshold Covenant (1896), pp. 2387., 258/
6 MR (The Mystic Rose) and TL (The Tree of Life}.
7 The Outward Form of the Original Sin, Amer. J. of Relig.
Psychology, Aug. 1905.
PARADISE (GEN. n. 43-111. 24) 81
e.g., says (MR 382 f. t TL 64), There is an unmistak
able reference to sexual relations in the story, the serpent
being the zoomorphic presentment of virility, which, as has
been noticed, is a widely spread way of explaining certain
sexual phenomena. The common practice of giving and
sharing food as a love-charm may be analogous to the story
of Eve and the apple. The result, knowledge of good and
evil, receives here a psychological parallel in the primitive
theory of the union of the sexes.
Whatham (p. 273) adopts Crawley s phrase, the demon
lover, and holds that * the serpent s act was prompted, not
by ill-will either to Yahweh or to man, but in pursuance of
its own selfish lust it became indifferently the enemy of
both, and he quotes the statement of that great temple-
builder, Nebuchadrezzar, about the serpents that stood
erect, which he set up on the threshold of the gates. He
has also a new and somewhat strange interpretation of the
divine curse on the serpent and his seed. As for the trees,
they are, he thinks, symbolic of conditions or states, and the
fig-leaves are symbolic of sex.
To most of this the answer is simple, viz. that the frame
work of the story being mythical, it is unnatural to spoil the
myth by treating its details as symbolic or euphemistic.
That the last editor misunderstood the capacities of the
tree is willingly admitted. But that he extracted a new
meaning from the rest of the passage must be denied. The
serpent, to the editor, is as free from lustfulness as the erect
(because semi-divine) serpents represented in bronze by
Nebuchadrezzar. The fruit of the tree, according to him,
was a real fruit ; probably he thought of the dudtflm of
Gen. xxx. 14, which, as we know, were thought to have
aphrodisiac qualities. It is a mistake to trace in Eve s very
natural action (v. 6, end) a reference to the primitive custom
of offering food as a proposal of marriage ; it is, of course,
in such a case the suitor who offers the food. 1 Nor is it
plausible to suppose that knowing good and evil involves
an allusion to the dangers of sexual taboo, because this does
not suit the preceding words, ye shall be as gods. The
phrase is, no doubt, a hard one. Perhaps textual criticism
1 Crawley, RM, p. 378.
6
82 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
may presently assist us in dealing with it. As for the fig-
leaves, what evidence is there that the Semitic peoples regarded
them as symbols of sex ? Trumbull s reference to the two
sacred fig-trees of a strange Indian ceremony is useless.
Still it remains true that, according to the later editor,
it was not God s will that man and woman should beget
children. 1 How came this idea into his head ? The lore of
sexual taboo does not help us. The idea was produced by
the highly archaic notion that God was jealous of his
aspiring creature man (cp. iii. 22, vi. 3?, xi. 1-9). A poor
and unworthy conception of the Deity, we are tempted to
say. The Yahweh of the Paradise-story, and, not least, of
the later insertions, is but a somewhat idealised man. True ;
but let us not forget the development that lies behind. How
far removed Yahweh already is from the theriomorphic
creators of an earlier stage ! How well he understands
human nature ! An eagle-god, a raven-god, a lion-god
would not have been fitted to judge the delinquents as
Yahweh-Elohim judges them in iii. 9-19.
I have spoken of the delinquents as if they were all
human. I do not forget the serpent. But is not the serpent,
as here described, human in three respects (i) its ration
ality, (2) its capacity of speech, and (3) its moral responsi
bility? Even the divine judgment (vv. 14 f.) presupposes
in the serpent something akin to humanity. The serpent-
tribe and the man-tribe are indeed separate, but not wholly
different, and they have a common consciousness of a
primeval tragic event in which their ancestors had a share.
This share, it is true, is probably misunderstood by the
editor ; the original serpent had no enmity to the original
man. The phrase eating dust, too, could be used of men
as well as of serpents ; it is a figure for the deepest humilia
tion. 2 The woman and the man are also cursed, but the
1 In the Book of Adam and Eve (translated by Malan), p. 12, God
says, I made thee of the light, and I wished to bring out children of
light from thee, and like unto thee. The conception is that of luminous
matter. Cp. i Cor. xv. 40, celestial bodies.
- Am. Tablets, 122, 34-36, that our foes may see it, and eat dust ;
cp. Mic. vii. 17. Both quoted by Winckler, AOF i. 291. Cp. also
Descent of Ishtar, /. 8, where dust is their nourishment (said of
Hades).
PARADISE (GEN. n. 4^-111. 24) 83
curse is mitigated. Reason cannot now be withdrawn from
them, nor the solace of mutual help ; they will also have a
precious drink, which, though not quite ambrosial, neverthe
less supports man s heart (Ps. civ. 15). True, all high-flying
hopes are dispersed ; dust thou art, and unto dust shalt
thou return (v. 1 9 ) ; thou takest away their breath, they
die; they turn again to dust (Ps. civ. 29). Observe, no
reference is yet made to the vine (see v. 29, J). Observe,
too, that death is not here represented as something alien to
human nature. Gen. iii., therefore, is not a myth to account
for the presence of death. Other peoples have had such
myths, among which those of the Skidi Pawnee are con
spicuous for interest. 1 But if the Israelites had any such
story, it has not come down to us.
We now pass on to w. 20-24. The textual difficulties
require special treatment. Suffice it to note here that v. 20
and v. 2 1 seem to be no longer in their original context.
Vv. 22-24, however, connect fairly well with v. 7 a. Certainty
is unattainable, but it would be not unplausible to restore
the original text thus, And the eyes of them both were
opened, and they knew all hidden things, and rejoiced. And
Yahweh-Elohim said, Truly the man is become as one of
us, and now lest he put forth his hand continually, and take
of the tree, and live for ever, I will send him forth from the
garden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So
he drove out the man, etc. Here the story ends. As we
have seen (p. 79), it is very incomplete, and has been much
manipulated. Surely the original first man was hurled
down to Sheol, there perhaps to reign, like the Yama of
the Rig Veda, who, though originally the sun, became
the first of mortals, and ruled the underworld, and who
is identical with the royal hero of the golden age, the Yima
of the Avesta.
Let me now refer more particularly to the subject of
Paradise. The Book of Enoch, like Ezekiel, with sure
insight, places Paradise on a supernatural mountain. There
are, it says, seven mountains, each composed of some
beautiful stone, and on the seventh is the throne of God,
encircled with fragrant trees, and among them is the tree of
1 See Dorsey, Traditions of the Skidi Pawnee (1904).
84 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
life (xviii. 6-8, xxiv.). 1 The seven mountains are evidently
suggested by the seven planets, each of which was sym
bolised by a different metal or colour. 2 We see, therefore,
that the Paradise-mountain, like that great city, the holy
Jerusalem (Rev. xxi. io), 3 has come to earth from heaven.
It was imagined as of stupendous size (cp. Isa. ii. 2 = Mic.
iv. i, Ezek. xl. 2, Zech. xiv. io, Rev. xxi. io); originally,
indeed, it was no other than the earth itself. 4 The Iranian
belief was similar. 5
The same result follows from the traditions of the four
streams of Paradise in Gen. ii., taken together with the phrase,
applied again and again to Canaan, flowing with milk and
honey (Ex. iii. 8, Num. xiii. 27, etc.). For this description
of Canaan is evidently mythological, and refers to the belief
in fountains and streams in the heavenly Paradise which
flowed with honey and milk, oil and wine (see p. 41, and
cp. 2 Esd. ii. 19, Slav. Enoch viii. 5, Vision of Paul, c. 23).
In fact, the four streams originally flowed in heavenly earth, 6
and only when the mountain of the gods was transferred to
our earth, would mythological geographers think of deciding
what country, whether Havilah, or Cush, or Asshur, or
Canaan, was watered by the life-giving streams. See,
further, E. Bib., Honey, I , note 3 ; Charles, Secrets of
Enoch, p. 8 ; Usener, Milch und Honig, Rheinisches
Museum, N. F., Ivii. 177-195 ; Zimmern, KAT^, p. 526.
There are, of course, many geographies of Paradise.
Wonderland was well known to many peoples ; it is enough
to mention here the Iranians, the Polynesians, and the
Aztecs. The Iranian tree of immortality, called Gaokerena,
grew in the mythic sea Vuru-kasha. By drinking of its
1 Cp. 2 Esd. ii. 19, seven mighty mountains, whereupon there
grow roses and lilies.
2 See Zimmern, KAT*\ pp. 6i6/
3 The precious stones, of astral origin, are also mentioned in con
nexion with the new Jerusalem (Isa. liv. 1 1 f., Rev. xxi. 19 _/".).
4 It was the Babylonian mountain of the lands, which meant origin
ally the earth, and afterwards also the earth within the heavens. Cp.
Jastrow, RBA, p. 558 ; Jeremias, ATAO, pp. 1 1, 12, 28.
5 The Zoroastrian books speak of a heavenly as well as an earthly
mountain called Alburz (Bund. xx. i, with West s note).
6 See above. It was also an Egyptian conception.
PARADISE (GEN. ii. 46-111. 24) 85
juice on the resurrection-day men would become immortal.
The heavenly mountain bore the same name as the most
famous earthly one, viz. Alburz {Bund. xx. i); from it or
from the earthly mountain the rivers of the earth descended.
One of the Polynesian Paradises, invisible, but declared to
be on a mountain of Raiatea, was called the brilliant and
the fragrant ; only the highest chiefs could go there. 1 The
Aztecs placed their (earthly) Paradise on a spot called Tula,
about forty miles north of the present city of Mexico. Tula
is now but a mean hamlet at the foot of the Serpent Mount,
but once upon a time it was a splendid city, founded and
governed by the god Ouetzalcoatl ( the feathered serpent )
himself. The crops of maize near it never failed. The
people had perfect wisdom, and they were not subject to the
attacks of disease. The end of this glory came about by a
battle of the gods. J
The Wonderland of the Hebrews was placed by them
selves first in Arabia, and then in Canaan. It may seem
strange to ask where Canaan was. Certainly in Joel iv. 18
the mountains and hills which are to flow with milk and
sweet wine are presumably those of Palestine, and the
(living) waters/ the wine and milk, spoken of in Isa. Iv. I,
are destined for Zion s children. But it is, at any rate, a
possible view (see on x. 6) that Canaan, like Misrim, was
originally in N. Arabia ; and even if we suspend our
judgment, yet we may reasonably suppose that the S.
Palestinian Israelites derived their tales of the primeval
world directly or indirectly from Arabia a theory which
does not preclude us from holding that Babylonian in
fluence had made itself strongly felt in these tales. It
will be seen presently that Arabian origin is indelibly
stamped on the story before us. It is not so much the
description given of the serpent, as the account of the four
streams (ii. 11-14), which leaves no reasonable doubt on this
point. It is true, vv. 11-14 form no part of the original
story, but if the interpolator understood Paradise to be in
Arabia, we may be sure that the earlier writers concerned
took the same view. Nor is it superfluous to refer once
1 Waitz-Gerland, Anthropologie, vi. 299.
2 Brinton, Essays of an Americanist, pp. 85-98.
86 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
more to Isa. xiv. 12, 13, where Helal ben Shahar (a cor
ruption of Yerahme el ben Ashhur) is introduced aspiring to
sit on the sacred mountain in the recesses of Saphon. For
Saphon, like Siphion (Gen. xlvi. 16) is a dialectal form of
Sibe on (Gen. xxxvi. 2), i.e. Ishmael. As for the rivers and
the trees, we may easily grant that in the world s childhood
mountain-districts which are now comparatively bare may
have been covered with pleasant trees. What are now mere
wadys may then have been rivers. This is postulated by
Hommel for E. Arabia. For my own part, however, I
would refer to the mythic geography of the Zoroastrian
Bundahish, and lay no stress on such conjectures.
The river of Paradise is, in fact, the ocean-stream which
girdled the earth, and descended from the sky. 1 Cp. Vision
of Paul, c. 21, The beginning of its (i.e. heaven s) founda
tion was on the river which waters all the earth. And I
asked the angel and said, Lord ! what is this river of water ?
And he said to me, This is Oceanus. Also the Book of
Adam and Eve, translated from the Ethiopic by S. C.
Malan, bk. i. c. I, On the third day God planted the
garden in the east of the earth, on the border of the world
eastward, beyond which, towards the sunrising, one finds
nothing but water, that encompasses the whole world, and
reaches unto the border of heavens. That this stream
parted into four, corresponding to the four quarters of the
earth or heaven, may have been an early supposition. 2 Cp.
Hommel, Grundriss, p. 298, note I, and E. Bib., Paradise,
8-1 o; and see Peiser on an old Babylonian map of the
world, ZA iv. 361-370; Barton, in Worcester s Genesis,
App. i ; Sayce, Exp. Times, Nov. 1900, pp. 68 ff. The map
represents the world by means of a circle, with the Persian
Gulf (Ndr marrdti] surrounding it. This gulf was, in fact,
regarded as a river which flowed from south to north in two
different directions . . ., and as being the ocean-deep, was the
source from which all the rivers of the earth were derived.
Babylon, under its primitive name of Din-Tir, or rather
1 So, already, Sayce, Academy, Oct. 7, 1882, p. 263. Cp. Slav.
Enoch, c. 8 (Charles).
- Cp. the four angels of the Face in later Judaism ; also the four
Hades rivers of the Greeks.
PARADISE (GEN. ii. 4^-in. 24) 87
Tir-Din, occupies a position near the centre or ompJialos of
the world (Sayce). We cannot, however, safely assume
that Babylon was the omphalos of the world to the Israelites,
or dispense with the aid of a thorough textual criticism.
Let us now pass on to textual matters. There seem
to be many details in the narrative which have not yet been
adequately examined. Let us begin with IN (ed) in v. 6,
and ps ^eden) in v. 8. Friedr. Del. explains ~TN as a Baby
lonian loan-word (edu t flood). Now if, with Haupt, we may
read * upon the earth, and, with Del. 1 and others, take eden
(v. 8) as = Bab. edinu, field, plain, desert, and, with the
vast majority, take Perath and Hiddekel (v. 14) to be the
Euphrates and the Tigris, it becomes very plausible to think
of Mesopotamia as the home of the first narrators, and we
may illustrate 2 by the second Babylonian creation -story
(KB vi. i, pp. 38^".), where it is said that there were no
temples, no reeds, no trees, for the lands were altogether
sea, till Marduk came in his creative activity.
But can these views of the text be accepted ? First, as
to TN (only here, and in Job xxxvi. 27). Tradition is not
certain, and the rendering * mist (see BDB) is unsuitable.
In Job, I.e., we must read TwA (Houb., Haupt). Here,
however, stream is the best sense. Accept it, and v. 6
becomes parallel to v. io; 3 at first the earth was dry, but
afterwards a stream broke forth (in Eden) which watered the
whole neighbouring region, so that grass and trees could
grow. The stream is evidently required at this point, for
the production of man from moist earth, and for the planting
of the trees. But how shall we get this sense ? The true
reading seems to be n^r ; read nh s *\fr\ The reader must,
however, not mind the trouble of revising his opinion as to
l^, which probably nowhere means the Nile (see on xli. i).
Here (as in the original Joseph-story) it seems to mean one
of the chief N. Arabian streams. Observe that the stream
called in Dan. x. 4 Hiddekel not the Tigris (see on v. 14)
1 Parodies (1881), pp. 79 / ; cp. Hommel, Gr. p. 245, note 3.
2 See E. Bib., Creation, 20 ; Paradise, 5.
3 Holz. suggests that v. 6 may once have stood where iw. 10-14
now stand ; he would make two alterations in the text (see his note).
But see E. Bib., Paradise, 5.
SS TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
is called in xii. 5 -INYT (see on xli. i). For the breaking
forth of the stream from underground sources, cp. Job
xxxviii. 8, 1 6.
Next as to j-nft f|u According to Del. s theory (see
above), this will mean a garden (or, plantation of trees) in
the desert, i.e. an oasis. This scholar thinks 1 that by Eden
may be meant the part of Mesopotamia from Tekrit on the
Tigris and f Ana on the Euphrates in a southerly direction
to the Persian Gulf, and tells us that the nomad tribes which
wandered in the pasture-country of that region were called
by the Assyrians people of the edinu! This, however,
together with all similar views, needs reconsideration.
There are grounds for thinking that the bene eden in 2 K.
xix. 12 ( Isa. xxxviii. 12) are a N. Arabian people, and
that in Am. i. 5 Beth- eden is an N. Arabian locality.
Ezekiel s Eden too (xxxi. 9, 16, 18) may very possibly have
been in the N. Arabian land called Missor (see Crit. Bib. on
these passages, and for Ezekiel, cp. E. Bib., Paradise/ 3).
Note also that in Ezra ii. 15 (cp. Neh. vii. 20) we find the
bene Adin (p-u? ^l ; cp. on Dinah, xxx. 21) mentioned
among family names which suggest N. Arabian affinities. 2
This being the case, there is good reason for regarding
Eden here too as N. Arabian ; and all the more when
taking this view enables us to account for the DIpD
appended to the above phrase. As the text stands, the
word merely gives a vague geographical hint that Eden
was somewhere to the east of the country of the writer.
But is it credible that the writer could name the region of
Eden, but not indicate its position ? It so happens that
a*TpD occurs five times again in the early part of Genesis,
and that in three out of the five passages (see on iii. 24,
xi. 2, xiii. 11) it gives some trouble to the interpreter; also
that O"rp in the O.T. is frequently a corruption of Dp*!,
i.e. am* 1 , a shorter form of Yerahme el (see on xxv. 6).
Supposing that there are elsewhere strong indications of a
N. Arabian background of the narratives, we cannot avoid
tracing underneath the improbable DTpD the highly suitable
1 Paradies, p. 80.
2 Such as Pahath-moab = Nephtoah-moab, Elam = Yerahme el, Adoni-
kam = Adon-Yarham, Ater = Ashtar.
PARADISE (GEN. ii. 4^-in. 24) 89
word DnT. The statement, therefore, is that Yahvveh
Elohim planted a garden (or park) in Eden of Yerahme el.
To strengthen our position we must now look closely
into the text of vv. 10-14. Certainly Perath looks like
Euphrates, and the absence of any descriptive supplement
suggests that it was, at any rate, the best known of the four
streams. Hiddekel, as Sayce and Driver, Friedrich Delitzsch
and Dillmann assert, must be the Tigris. And this being
the case, i.e. the Perath and the Hiddekel being known, we
can (it is supposed) start from this fixed point in attempting
to localise the Hebrew Paradise. On the other hand, let it
be considered that while Perath may conceivably be the
Euphrates, Hiddekel cannot possibly be the Tigris, (i)
because it does not correspond sufficiently to the Bab. name
Idiklat, 1 and (2) because the descriptive supplement does not
suit the course of that river. 2 As to the other two names of
streams, no one can imagine for a moment that these names
have received an approximately certain explanation. To borrow
the words of Driver (Genesis, p. 58), they elude our grasp.
An account of the different forms of the Babylonian
theory will be found in E. Bib., * Paradise, 8. They all
seem to presuppose that the geography of the writer was of
the most childish description. To accept any of them
involves the assumption that, according to the narrator, the
Euphrates and the Tigris come from the same principal
stream, and that S. Arabia and Nubia are physically con
nected, the whole of the southern part of the earth being * a
continuous territory stretching from utmost Nubia (Ethiopia)
through S. Arabia to India. 3 Surely we ought to hesitate
before, without a sufficiently keen textual criticism, we impute
such wild imaginations to the sober-minded Hebrew narrator.
Textual criticism, then, must be called in. Only, it must
be a methodical criticism, one that takes account of recurrent
types of corruption, and in applying it we must not refuse
1 See E. Bib., Hiddekel (Johns). Hommel (AHT, p. 315 ; cp.
Aufsatze, iii. I, p. 281) thinks that the first element in Spin must be the
Ar. hadd, i.e. wady. Cannot something better be produced ?
- The theory of Sayce and Gunkel is referred to later.
3 So Winckler (E. Bib., Sinai, 7 ; KAT ( ^, p. 137), followed by
Gunkel (Genesis^, p. 7).
90 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
to be guided by the only geographical theory which remains
to be tried the N. Arabian. 1 Now it so happens that
again and again in the O.T. (still, of course, assuming this
theory to be in the main correct) we find SIIN four mis-
written for ITS Arabia (see on vii. 4, xv. 13, xxiii. 2), and
ENI for IEJN (see on xlvi. 21). Accepting the correction
suggested by these parallels, we get the statement that a
river proceeds from Eden to water the garden, and from
thence it parts itself and belongs to Arabia of the Asshurites.
If these two corrections (in v. 8 and v. i o) be accepted, we
no longer have to assume that the creation and the deluge
stories (for these certainly go together) have different
affinities from the rest of the early legends. Also we are
now relieved from the improbable and unintelligible phrase
* four heads. 2 But is Arabia of the Asshurites the only
correction needed ? Certainly not TiD* 1 DIDefl ( and from
thence it parted or spread ) is almost as improbable as
D^CONT nsTiN. Now it so happens that DO) and DttJD have
often come from ^NSOBT (see e.g. Hos. ii. 17, Isa. Hi. n),
and that iQi> and *pN sometimes (see on x. 22, and on
xvi. 12) represent an original mi? ; also that rrn some
times represents N*irr the hnn which introduces glosses. I
am, for my part, unaware of any explanation of this other
wise hopeless passage so defensible and therefore so probable
as this, viz. that only the first half of the verse is genuine,
the rest having been constructed by the redactor out of the
two glosses that is, Ishmael- arab, and that is, with
reference to Arab-ass urlm. These glosses should of course
go into the margin. They are not, however, to be despised,
for they state emphatically that the garden of Eden is
situated in Arabian Ishmael, otherwise called Arabia of the
Asshurites. Where this lay exactly, we are not called upon
to say ; ancient Arabian geography cannot be manufactured
to order. Note, however, that Asshurim occurs again
1 For the main facts which underlie this theory, see Winckler,
KA T (Z \ pp. 144 f., and Hibbert Journal, April 1904, pp. 571-590;
Cheyne, E. Bib., iii. (1902), cols. 3163 jf. ; Bible Problems (1904),
pp. 164^
2 It is not legitimate to render D E NT beginnings of streams or (as
Konig) masses, and to paraphrase < arms. The right meaning
sources being unsuitable here, the word must be corrupt.
PARADISE (GEN. n. 4^-111. 24) 91
in xxv. 3 and Asshur in v. 1 1 (see note) as the name of
a N. Arabian region. It should be the same district which
is referred to in xiii. 10 (see note).
Hommel s view (Aufsatze, p. 333) that the nahar, or
river, of v. I o is the Bab. Ndr marrdti^ goes together with
his location of the four streams of Eden in E. Arabia,
all of which, according to him, flowed into the (ancient)
Persian Gulf. 2 From our present point of view, however,
there were, according to the earlier story, not four streams,
but one, the exact position of which I will not attempt to
determine. At the same time, I do not deny that the
corruption D^NI TIN, four heads, may have been helped
by a floating belief that Paradise was watered by four
streams a belief which may indeed have been primitive. 3
It is a consequence of the foregoing conclusion that
w. 11-14 are an interpolation. This passage implies the
view that there were four streams of Paradise, which the
interpolator endeavours to name. It is, however, a crux
interpretum, and is manifestly corrupt. Can we, by a
methodical criticism, approximately restore the original text ?
With regard to the fourth name, it is not necessarily
Euphrates (Bab. Purattu). A study of Jer. xiii. 1-7
reveals the fact that there was a rnp much nearer to
Jerusalem than the Euphrates. A N. Arabian stream may
well have been called by this name, which can easily have
arisen out of mDN. 4 This view becomes more than a mere
fancy when we find that it is applicable on a large scale, 5
by no means to the disadvantage of exegesis. Another
name of the mo im (as it is generally called) seems to
have been ^TOTI ITOn, or, as the underlying text may
1 I.e. the modern Shaft el- Arab, which, anciently, was much
broader than it is now. Note that Schrader (KAT (<i \ p. 423) and
Sayce (Exp. Times, Nov. 1906, p. 72) venture to find ndr marniti
underlying the DTTO of the MT. of Jer. 1. 21.
2 See Vier neue arab. Landschaftsnamen im A. T. nebst einem
Nachtrag, etc., in Aufsdtze und Abhandl. pp. 273-343, and cp. AHT,
PP- 3H^
s See p. 86.
4 Ephrath or Ephrathah is the wife of Caleb and the mother of Hur
or Ashhur (i Chr. ii. 19, 50).
5 The single passage in which it is perhaps easiest to interpret ma
as Euphrates is Jer. li. 63.
92 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
perhaps have run, T|3 "in!) (see on xv. 18, Dt. i. 7). The
third river, Sp^n, is no doubt to be combined with H^pT
(x. 27), which name does not mean a palm-tree (so e.g.
Hommel), but is a popular corruption of a compound name,
viz. either VrT -in&?N or YTT Tin (cp. xxv. 15). So too is
Spin. A similar form is Tnn (Zech. ix. i). Hiddekel is
here said to flow YIBN ncnp, east of Asshur. But this
does not suit the Tigris. Winckler therefore (AOF, 3rd ser.,
ii. 314) boldly explains south/ while Gunkel thinks the
Hebrew writer may have known of the city called Ashur,
which was the earliest capital of Assyria, and lay west of
the Tigris. Attempts to get over ntnp having proved a
failure, 1 we must apply the Arabian key. If Asshur is
the name of an Arabian region not far from Misrim (see
on Josh. xiii. 3), the statement in ii. 14 a may possibly
enough be correct. On Hiddekel, see, further, on xli. I, and
on the Arabian Asshur, p. 23, and on x. 22.
The second river-name (pm) is not so easily explained.
The latest guess that it means the Leontes is a curiosity. 2
We know, however, of a son of Gad named ^an (xlvi. 16) ;
the name is coupled with fVBS, i.e. psl2, a form of SNSDttr.
Probably pmi should be p-an ; the stream may have
bounded the territory of Gad in the Sibe onite border-land.
Cp. also ^n, rnan, Iran. Remember that the writer had to
produce four names. A geographical gloss is appended
that is it which encircles the whole land of Kush again a
N. Arabian region 3 (see on Kush, x. 6). The first name
(pttTD) is to be similarly explained ; 4 transpose letters and
read paor^jaBT, the name of a son of Shashak, i.e. Ashhur
(i Chr. viii. 22). Like ^8)33 (Num. xxiii. 10, Judg. v. 21,
etc.), jQ&r 1 is a corruption of pBT (cp. mitt, Mltt>) = JDttP =
The gloss is, that is it which encircles the whole
1 See E. Bib., col. 3573, note i.
2 Van Doorninck (Th. T., May 1905, p. 236). The Pishon becomes
the Leontes. Havilah and Kush are substitutes for unknown or less
familiar names.
3 The Babylonian Kash (Schrader, Sayce, Ed. Meyer ?) is certainly
not intended. Cp. E. Bib., Gush.
4 The current explanations of Pishon, not excluding Paul Haupt s
(see E. Bib., Paradise, 8 ; Pishon ), are extremely improbable.
5 Cp. pss (Isa. xiv. 13, Jer. i. 14, etc) = ppax = Wjw.
PARADISE (GEN. n. 4^-111. 24) 93
land of ha-Havilah. Now Havilah (elsewhere without the
article, and so Sam. here) is certainly a popular corruption
of Hamilah, i.e. Yerahme el (see on x. 7).
Then follows in MT. and (i a notice of the presence in
that land of gold, and of bedolah and the s/td/iam-stone, and
between the references to gold and to the other two products
there is a naively enthusiastic statement that the gold of
that land is good. These notices are unique in this little
section ; the definition of a land by its natural products
rather than by its geographical position, or by the other
names given to it, or by places within it, is surprising.
Besides this, to refer, in illustration, to bedolak and the
shdham-stont is to carry darkness where once it was, com
paratively speaking, light. Havilah was apparently a
well-known region (see xxv. 18, I S. xv. 7, and cp. Gen.
x. 7, 29 ; there is no occasion to suppose two Havilahs to
be referred to here) ; the vague statement where there is
gold, etc., is, on this ground, too, highly improbable. Con
sequently there is the strongest reason for criticising the
text First as to the clause containing HTTD and DPTtt?
(Dn^rr pN)- 1 The former word occurs again only in Num.
xi. 7, where it is corrupt ; the latter occurs again and again
as the name of a much-esteemed precious stone. There is
no reason, however, why array, not less than rrrn, should
not be a corruption of an ethnic or place-name, for precious
stones were not unfrequently named with reference to the
country where they were abundant. 2 In I Chr. xxiv. 27 it
certainly is a corrupt ethnic, as the names close by Dn&
show; cp. D^on from aTKDin (see on Ex. xiii. 18). We
may assume that here too it is so, i.e. that &&gt; = ntDDI, i.e.
Aram-Ashhur. nSll now reveals its secret. It represents
^NQriT :ni;, and is || to hpin (see above) and to lp"rl (2 K.
ix. 25) = ap"i 11$, Rekemite (Yerahme elite) Arabia. pN
also needs correction. In xlix. 24 the word comes from
1 Cp. E. Bib., Onyx, Topaz, Gold, \ b. Peiser (ZATW,
1897, pp. 347/1) identifies nSnn with Bab. bid-li-i, in Babylonian contracts
for a minor product of Babylonian husbandry some kind of spice.
(nS in he takes to be a portion of Babylonia surrounded by the river ptrs).
G. B. Gray adopts this for Num. xi. 7, but unsuitably.
- Thus B"Bhn |3N = ini^x }3 ; cnx = DIM ; ibis = Dpi ( onr).
94 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
here, from 1*15. Thus we get for v. 12 b (reserving DO)),
DBF iny Dm" 1 111?, two readings combined. Next, as to the
two clauses respecting the gold, im is one of a group of
words (including Nlft, NTS, D^NIS, D^HS, fuas) which are
ultimately traceable to 7N2DBF ; see on xxxvi. 39, Dt. i. i.
Where there is gold, etc., being unsatisfactory, we must, it
would seem, take im as a corruption of rm ( = DBF) ;
im[l] represents a dittograph. Lastly, to complete a
successful restoration, DBJ "HEN must be corrected into *ie>N
, Dtt into DBF (cp. on v. 32), and lib into inn, i.e.
(see on Judg. xi. 3). The whole passage after
now becomes [^HSDBF] f?Tin N^nn pm [J~J12] f?NSDa
[fjHWDBT 1T$] f?NDrrP 1-117, Asshur-Ishmael [Sobah] ; now
that land is Tubal [Ishmael], Arabia of Ishmael. Glosses
and sub-glosses on the interesting name Havilah.
Now as to the trees in the garden. All the trees of
Eden were glorious (Ezek. xxxi. 8, 9, 16, 18), but the most
fragrant were those around the throne of Elohim (Enoch
xxiv. 2, 3), and of these the chief was the tree of life (Enoch
xxv. 3-5, Slav. Enoch viii. 3), or of wisdom (Enoch xxxii. 3).
That there were two magic trees, we have seen to be im
probable. The tree of life is also the tree of knowledge or
wisdom (p. 76) ; perfect knowledge would of course enable
a man to escape death. 1 Let us take the chief passages in
order.
(a) ii. 9. And Yahweh-Elohim made to spring out of
the ground every tree, etc., and the tree of life in the midst
of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil. The phrase mi Tib ninn p$ is extremely obscure ; ~ as
Kautzsch and Socin remark, the closing words of v. 9 drag.
The explanation seems to be that nirrnr j>s is a gloss on ps
D^nn, derived from a second form of the Paradise-story, while
2~n lib is probably corrupted from pun "niblS, on the
navel of the earth (cp. Ezek. xxxviii. 12, v. 5, Jubilees
viii. 12, 19, Eth. Enoch xxvi. i). The mountain of
Paradise (like Parnassus, Pind. PytJi. iv. 74) had for one of
1 Cp. the Hebrew story of Enoch ; Adapa (Adamu ?) is different.
2 One would gladly think (with Jastrow, RBA, p. 553, note) that
good and evil meant everything, or perhaps the secrets of heaven
and earth. But the phrases in xxiv. 50, xxxi. 24 are not parallel.
PARADISE (GEN. ii. 4^-ni. 24) 95
its names earth s navel. Probably the words
are the original reading, for which the plainer phrase -pni
pn was substituted when the myth was reconstructed
without reference to a mountain. In passing, let it be
noticed that the original myth which underlies Ezek.
xxxviii. / must have referred to an attack by some hostile
power (Tiamat ?) on the Divine Beings on the mountain of
Paradise ( earth s navel ). Ezekiel (if it be Ezekiel) altered
this. The sacred mountain became Mount Zion or Jeru
salem ; its inhabitants became the Jews ; its assailants the
typical foes of Israel the N. Arabian peoples. 1
(b) ii. 17. How strange that the hidden virtue of the
tree (as communicating a special kind of knowledge) should
be already mentioned ! Contrast iii. 3. Budde suggests
that when the second tree was introduced, the [supposed]
proper name of the tree had to be substituted for the
phrase " the tree in the midst of the garden." 2 Our
explanation (see above) is fuller. The original myth had,
but of the tree on the Navel of the Earth thou shalt not
eat. When the corruption had taken place, the redactor, to
make sense, inserted ninn.
(c) iii. 5, As soon as ye eat of it, your eyes will be
opened, and ye will be as Elohim, knowing good and evil.
im Tito ^TP is redactional. The godlikeness promised in
the original story was partly a strange heightening of the
vitality, partly a knowledge of secrets. Cp. Eth. Enoch
xxv. 5, 6, by its fruit life will be given to the elect . . . the
fragrance thereof will be in their limbs ; and xxxii. 3, the
tree of wisdom which imparts great wisdom to those who
eat of it.
(</) (e) iii. 7, iii. 22 a. It was not in knowing good
and evil, nor in knowing that they were naked (the
sexual distinction), that the first men became like Elohim.
im Tito runb is redactional. See above (<:).
(/) iii. 22 b, 2 3 a. The redactor is responsible for the
insertion of D3i. According to the original text the Deity
feared that man might go on constantly taking of the fruit
1 Following, with important modifications, Winckler, AOF\\. 163/5
Gressmann, Eschatol. pp. 183^
- Die Bibl Urgesch. p. 50. So Toy, JBL x. (1891), p. 12.
96 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
of the tree of life, and so live for ever. Read probably 1
pno irrn^ttN chsh TTI SDNI p^no np^n IT TO nhw\B
See p. 76 (foot).
Two more subjects, seldom treated, but surely not
unimportant, still remain the names of the first man and
his wife, and the name of God. What, then, is the name of
the first man ?
The Yahwist, as the text now stands, generally calls
him CTTn. In ii. 20, iii. 17, 21, however, we find D*TN^>,
and in iv. 25 D*TM, as if D~TN were a proper name. 2 In fact,
if the first woman had an individualising name, how can
the first man have been without one? It would seem to
follow that DTNn must have displaced some other word,
which stood in the original text as the name of the first
man, and many parallels suggest that by some slight
modification of DlNn we can recover that name. Now the
more we look into this and the accompanying narratives,
the more clearly we see their Yerahme elite or Arabian
origin. Can we hesitate any longer as to the first man s
name ? It was not Adapa (Zimmern, Winckler), or perhaps
(see Sayce, Exp. Times, June 1 906, p. 416) Adamu, though
this wise son of a wiser divine father (Ea) is certainly
analogous to the first man of the Hebrews, but a name
which indicated the race of which he was to be the pro
genitor. In short, it was probably either DY7N or DIN (cp.
on D"TN, Josh. iii. 16, Hos. vi. 7), which of course will imply
that the earliest race of men were either the Edomites or
the Aramites. 3 In illustration of this it may be mentioned
that in Ezek. xxviii. 3 hwi (like pritf and psi) most
probably comes from f?N?n, i.e. fpNDrrP, and in Isa. xiv. I 2
in&Tp y?*TT from inqJN-p ^NDJTP, both, as the contexts
show, names of the first man. We may also refer to what
has been said already on the wisdom of the Yerahme elites,
1 Such a word as ny might easily be inserted or omitted, according
to the redactor s convenience. Cp. iv. 25, where iiy (omitted by @) is
generally admitted to be redactional.
2 Cp. Schrader, Stud, zur Krit. u. Erkldr. der Bibl. Urgesch.
(1863), p. 124.
3 Cp. Num. xxiv. 20, Amalek ( = Yerahme el) was the first of the
nations. This is a common form of racial self-esteem. The Egyptians
called themselves rdmet, i.e. men.
PARADISE (GEN. n. 4^-111. 24) 97
and on the Yerahme elite elements in the earliest wisdom-
literature (Prov. x. I, xxx. I, xxxi. I, underlying text).
For a fuller form of the first man s name see perhaps
iii. 24 (note).
Now as to the name of the first woman. This one
this time is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh ; this
one shall be called Isshah, for from Ish l has she been taken/
So runs the text of ii. 23, but how improbably ! Take first
DSDn J"lNT. Surely n7 cannot be taken adverbially =
now. 2 Di?Qn ( this time ) is an interpolation consequent
on the insertion of vv. 19, 20, which interrupt the connexion. 3
Omit it, and nN7 can have its natural meaning c this one.
Then take the pronouncement that * this one shall be called
Isshah, etc. What an insipid remark ! 4 To deal with it
successfully we must first explain the apparently superfluous
word HN7 at the end. The word is plainly corrupt ; does
the doctrine of recurrent types of corruption help us ?
Surely it does. Why may not this troublesome n7, like
nBT in ix. 2 1 (see note), have come from -in&N ? Why,
too, may not BPN have come from "TIEN ? It will be
remembered that Asshur, Ashhur, and Ashtar are
different forms of the same Arabian name (see pp. 23, 70).
Thus the latter part of the pronouncement becomes, * for
out of Ashhur has she been taken, with a gloss Ashtar.
But before proceeding further, we must consider the text
of the parallel passage (for such it really is), iii. 20. The
text, rendered literally, runs thus, And the man called his
wife Hawwah, for she has become the mother of all living.
That rnn and TT^O are not right, should be clear, (a) Let
us begin with rnn. According to most, 5 this is an archaistic
survival of a formation from ^/mn (Phoen. N*in = Heb.
rrn). Scholars then proceed to compare the mn inferred
from the plural form rvin in Num. xxxii. 41, etc., tent-
1 (5, Sam., Onk. read PW KB, a poor makeshift.
~ Stade, ZATW, 1897, pp. 210-212.
3 Van Doorninck, Th. Tijdschr. 1905, pp. 231 f. Observe that
the close of v. 20 awkwardly brings us back to the point reached at
the end of v. 1 8
4 Van Doorninck, Th. Tijdschr. 1905, pp. 23 1/.
5 E.g. Schroder, Die Phon. Spr. p. 1 8 ; Cooke, North Sem. Inscr.
P- 135-
7
98 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
villages (?), or tents of a clan or kindred/ 1 and to explain
the name mn as kinship personified (see b}. Noldeke, Ed.
Meyer, and Wellh., however, have revived the old interpre
tation of Clem. Alex, (also OS 164, 64, and Ber. rabba,
par. xx.), o</>9 ; cp. Aram. N^in, Ar. hayyat, serpent. 2 If
tradition had given us a serpent-creator, this might be just
plausible ; but the greatest of the serpents is the enemy of
God and man.
(b) Next, as to TT^D. Robertson Smith, after Noldeke,
supposes that Hawwah was so called because she was the
mother of every hayy (female kinship group). The
objection is twofold, (i) In these primitive stories the first
man and woman are simply tribal ancestors. And (2) in
a passage (i Sam. xviii. 18) in which the same meaning
clan is given to *>n (in ^n [Wellh., Driv.]; MT., ^n), we can
hardly acquit Noldeke, Wellhausen, and Driver of hastiness.
For where is there any parallel for this sense in a plain
sentence ? Gen. iii. 20 cannot safely be adduced, for it has
suspicious features. The probability is that just as D^M
repeatedly represents Dms, so ^n in Gen. and ^n in i S.
are corrupt fragments of YintDN. Then, as to So DN ;
* mother of all Ashhur is possible, but not very probable.
In Ps. xliv. 12 ~>DNE> is a corruption of ^NDrTV : so too, in
2 S. xi. i, DOM^D has come from D^NDTTP. Now we
know that Ashhur- Yerahme el or Yerahme el-Ashhur often
occurs as the name of a region of N. Arabia with which the
Israelites had close relations. What reading, then, is so
natural as this, *nrrtt>N SNOTT DN nrrn Nin ^D, for she
has become the mother of Yerahme el-Ashhur ; i.e. EN
represents both DN, * mother, and the first two letters of
Thus it is probable that BTN in ii. 2 3 should be corrected
into -ntEN ( = inm), and equally so that not only mn in
iii. 20, but nN in ii. 23, should be rnno). The two
passages ii. 23 and iii. 20 will now run thus, And
1 See Moore, Judges^ p. 275.
2 Cooke, p. 135, compares Hawwath, the name of a Punic goddess
of the underworld. See above, p. 53. Ed. Meyer (Die Israelit. p. 427,
i ), following B. Luther, makes Leah the name of a serpent-demon (cp.
on xxix. 1 6).
PARADISE (GEN. n. 4^-111. 24) 99
Aram said, This one is bone of my bones, and flesh of my
flesh ; this one shall be called Ashhurah, for out of Ashhur T
has she been taken ; and, And Aram called his wife s
name Ashhurah, for she has become the mother of [the race
of] Yerahme el-Ashhur. The two notices appear to have
been taken from different versions of the old story.
Lastly, the important question arises, What was the
name of the divine Creator, according to the original form
of the Paradise-story ? As the text stands it was Yahweh
Elohim (DVifw mrr). We should rather have expected
Yahweh alone. The combination occurs throughout
the section ii. 4 b-\\\. (note, however, iii. i b, 3, 5 a, where
Elohim occurs alone), also in Ex. ix. 30, 2 S. vii. 22,
Ps. Ixxii. 1 8, Ixxxiv. 12, Jon. iv. 6, I Chr. xvii. 16, and
according to (> in passages in Gen. iv.-x. and especially in
Ezek. xl.-xlviii. 2 DVT^Nn ^ occurs in i S. vi. 20, I Chr.
xxii. i, 19, 2 Chr. xxvi. 18, xxxii. 16. Budde 3 has
endeavoured to show that the combination f?N ^ in the
Paradise-story is due to the redactor, who combined two
Yahwistic strata, in one of which the name of God was
Yahweh, in the other Elohim, a view which Gunkel (p. 4)
accepts, and Cornill, 4 who, in Ezek. xl. ff., follows ( in
reading h& \ regards this reading as a confirmation of
Budde s view. But may we not must we not demand
that a theory should be devised which will explain the
phrase everywhere, for instance in Ex. ix. 30 and Jon. iv. 6 ?
Must we not hold that Elohim when attached to Yahweh
is a corruption of, or a substitute for, some recognised divine
name ? Prof. Barton 5 comes very near this view when he
says that Yahweh and Elohim were different tribal names
1 I.e. out of Ashhur- Aram, or Ashhur-Yerahme el. This was the
fuller name of the first man (see on iii. 24).
2 Sievers (p. 171) holds, on metrical grounds, that in chap. i. the
name of God was originally, not Elohim, but a compound name,
analogous to the Yahweh-Elohim of chaps, ii. and iii.
3 Die Bibl. Urgesch. pp. 232-235.
4 Ezechiel, pp. 174 / According to Cornill, the prophet Ezekiel
wished to indicate by the adoption of the compound name of God that
his vision of the new Jerusalem was parallel to the story of the lost
Paradise.
5 JBL xx. (1901), p. 23.
loo TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
of the Deity, and compares Melek-Ashtart, a combination
of the names of two deities of kindred origin. Elohim,
however, is not a name of any special god, but a generic
term for god. And the new suggestion here made is this,
that DTI^N is, in many passages (e.g. iii. I b, etc., iv. 25), a sub
stitute for ^NnrTV, suggested in the first instance by corruptly
written forms of that name. Yahweh-Elohim therefore, it
may be held, has come from Yahweh- Yerahme el, a compound
name like Ashtar-Kemosh, Melek-Ashtart, etc. At some
undeterminable point of the pre-exilic period this compound
name gave offence, and the second element in it was changed
into Elohim. But for us the old phrase is more interest
ing than the new. It records the fact that, though the
Israelites retained Yerahme el as a divine name, they
subordinated this god to the greater god Yahweh. 1
We can now throw some light on a phrase (iii. 8) by
which one of the keenest of literary critics 2 confesses himself
baffled : And they heard the sound of Yahweh-Elohim
(-Yerahme el) walking in the garden ovrr Ttrh, at the wind
of the day, or (as Schultens) 3 at the breathing-time of the
day. But why not 2ns nh3D^> ? Indeed, why refer to the
evening at all (cp. 2 S. v. 24) ? Considering what has been
said on nvr^N rm in i. 2 b, may we not hold that DVH TTrh
has come from DTT^N ^DiTP (cp. on f hn IttSft, xxi. 17),
which is a possible variant to DTlf?N m/T ? They heard
the sound of Yahweh-Elohim (or, Yerahme el -Elohim)
taking his walk in the garden.
The last problems are those of iii. 24, which runs in
MT., and he stationed eastward of the garden of Eden the
cherubim, and the flame of the whirling sword, to guard
the way to the tree of life. From this we might infer that
one tradition placed Paradise in the far west (cp. iv. 16).
So, in fact, Gunkel thinks, adding that the MT. of ii. 8
places it in the east. If, however, we admit that tnpD in
ii. 8 has come from Dpi 4 ( Eden of Rekem ), we shall
1 Originally, as stated elsewhere, Yahu (whence Yahweh) was a
formation of Yahu, i.e. Yarhu (Yarham, Yerahme el).
2 Van Doorninck, Th. T., May 1905, p. 227.
3 Liber Jobi (1737), ii- 189, Nempe ad vesperam dies quasi
suspirat. 4 Dpi nnr SB ^KMT.
PARADISE (GEN. ii. 4^-111. 24) 101
see the choice before us. We may either (i) follow @
(see Ball, and Ges. (13) , p. 842 b\ making iriN (D-r^rr) the
object of pan, and inserting DiZTI ((*p teal erafe) before D"JTK,
or (2) pronounce (5 to be arbitrary, and read, for
DIpD, Dpi "intf ( Ashhur-Rekem), a correcting gloss on
giving the name of the first man as Ashhur-Rekem (Ashhur-
Yarham). In either case we should insert can as the verb
of which rjrrriN is the object. Thus we get, * And he drove
out the man [Ashhur-Rekem], and appointed for the garden
of Eden the cherubim, etc.
It is singular that the narrative should give us two
guardians of the sacred road the cherubim and the flame
of the whirling sword (so there were two traditions) and
that it should not be stated to whom the sword belongs.
The cherubim are at once the throne-bearers and the
guardians of the sanctuary in Hebrew mythology. The
sword is Yahweh-Yerahme el s sword, which, as Isa. xxxiv. 5
shows, has an inherent vitality, and can come down on the
people banned by the great God. It is not necessary,
therefore, to question nn (with Winckler, A OF, 3rd ser.
iii. 392). The sword corresponds to Marduk s weapon
called mulmul l (javelin). In Josh. v. 13^ it is in the
hand of the divine Captain, i.e. doubtless Yerahme el ( =
Mal ak Yahweh). It is, in fact, the lightning. As to the
cherubim a further statement seems necessary, though a
complete discussion here of the Biblical passages is impos
sible. 2 In Ps. xviii. 10 we find a cherub parallel to the
wings of the wind. Probably there was an early conception
of the cherub as a bird. It may well have been suggested
by a still more archaic view that the chief Divine Being,
from whom came creation and from whom come those
storms which seem like acted prophecies of a future new
creation, was himself a mighty bird. Mythological analogies
abound ; see p. 9, and note further that the Sioux Indians
suppose thunder to be the flapping of the cloud-bird s wings.
Ezekiel s cherubim are probably in part his own inven
tion. But we can well believe that the bird-cherubim were
followed or accompanied by more elaborate composite forms,
1 Jensen, Kosmologie, p. 332.
- See E. Bib., and E. Brit., Cherubim.
102 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
analogous to the winged figures of bulls and lions with
human faces which guarded Babylonian and Assyrian
temples and palaces. As to the name, it is remarkable
that one of the deities of the land of Ya di in N. Syria is
called ^NllTi, 1 i.e. possibly Rekubel, 2 which seems to be,
like other names, of Arabian origin. Comparing the THD
in Ezra ii. 59, the 1:0 in Ezek. i. I, and the nm in 2 K.
x. 15, etc., we may probably interpret hak-kerublm the
Yerahme els, i.e. the animals representing Yerahme el. It
is a slight confirmation of this that in Enoch xxiv. Michael
(the deputy of Yahweh, and the successor of the ancient
Yerahme el) is stated to be in charge of the tree of life ; 3
in Ps. civ. 3, however, the psalmist apparently interprets
THD as meaning * chariot (of God). For the application of
the divine name to the symbol of the god, we may compare
D^-I&N, underlying the D^rsto (see p. 24), and perhaps the
colossal lions called nergalli, representing some Babylonian
deity, perhaps Nergal. Such lion-forms might well be
imagined as guarding the sacred road. Cp. Ezek. xli. 1 8 f.
(l K. vi. 29), where it is said that every cherub had two
faces (of a man and of a lion), and that cherubs and palm-
trees were combined (the palm-tree may be the tree of life).
Strictly speaking, kerub (cherub) should be rekub^ which is
a shortened form of rekubel?
1 See Cooke, N. Sem. Inscr. No. 61, 2; 62, 22 ; 63, 5. Cp. the
Sab. name VNT-D, Kittel, Konige, p. 52.
2 Most explain chariot of God or charioteer of God ; but this
may be questioned.
3 It is true that in Enoch xx. 7 (and in the Gizeh Gk.) Gabriel is
spoken of as over Paradise and the serpents and the cherubim ; but
Gabriel is only a double of Michael (see Expositor, April 1906, pp.
295, 297). I see no reason to think (with Bousset, Rel. des Jud. (<i \
p. 378) that Gabriel was originally the highest angel, but had to yield
the first place to Michael. Michael and Gabriel are both names of the
degraded god Yerahme el, and the personage referred to, or his son,
was probably the Man of Jewish eschatology.
4 That nan is = Warn appears from the name of the son of Panammu,
viz. Bar-rekub, who speaks in his inscription of my lord Rekubel
(lines 5-7).
CAIN AND ABEL (GEN. iv. 1-16)
THE brothers Kain and Abel (Rebel) ; the latter slain.
As Stade (ZATW, 1894, p. 282) has pointed out, w. I, 2,
and 1 6 b are redactional, i.e. they were inserted to connect
the story of Kain and Rebel with that of Paradise. He also
thinks that the former story has no connexion with the
genealogy of the Kainites. This may be granted, though
the Kain of the story is just as much the eponym of the
Kenites as the Kain of vv. 17-24. It is plausible to explain
Kain artificer, and to regard it as the translation of a
title of the divine demiurge, derived ultimately from Baby
lonia (E. Bib., Cain, i ; Cainites, 5). Our principle
of grouping similar names leads us, however, to suppose
that pp (cp. Josh. xv. 57) and ]:rp (v. 9) must, equally with
TiDn, be connected with ps, pD2, and pDD, all of which
appear to be in their origin N. Arabian. That pp is
specially N. Arabian appears also from the compound
name Tubal-kain (v. 22), i.e. Ethbaal-kain (see on x. 2) ;
for Ethbaal is certainly a corrupt form of Ishmael.
Next, as to Abel (Rebel). The mother surely said
something at his birth which has been lost. It may be
presumed that she interpreted the name Rebel a breath,
vanity. But what, the critic asks, is the true meaning ?
Close to Tubal-kain (vv. 20-22) we find the names Yabal
and Yubal both cognates of Rebel. Evidently all these
names are N. Arabian. We must therefore reject Lenor-
mant s plausible connexion of f?irr with Ass. ablu, aplu,
son, as well as the other connexion proposed in E. Bib.,
Abel, supported though it is by Rommel (Ass. ibilu y * ram,
camel, ass ). The element hi in Hebrew names so often
represents SND, a fragment of SttDrrv or SNSD&T (e.g. in
103
104 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
, Slttftf), that we can hardly avoid tracing
(Sin), as well as hi? and SlT, to ^NDTTP. 1 It is a contest
between two Yerahme elite or Arabian tribes, one nomadic,
the other with a fixed abode, of which the legend in its
original form appears to have spoken. The Rebel tribe
had to pay tribute to the Kain tribe, 2 in order to be freed
from such raids as are described in Judg. vi. 3-5. The
tribute apparently was in arrears ; a struggle naturally
ensued, and Hebel perished. In the present form of the
legend, the statement respecting Kain s original mode of
life ( a tiller of the ground, v. 2), and all that hangs
together with it, is incorrect.
It now becomes possible to explain mm~riN BTN TPDp
in v. i. Not by reading nft^p for nw, though it is psycho
logically probable that Eve congratulated herself on
having created a man. So too Erbt, who inserts TiMpI,
and have stirred up to jealousy (Urgesch. pp. 9, 19).
mm n B^N (Marti, Zeydner) is surely impossible. The
probability is that here, as elsewhere, mm has sprung from
YrP (i.e. f?DITP). In v. 2 we find SirrnN ; TTPTIN may
be a marginal gloss upon this.
Why the offerings of the two brothers were regarded
differently by Yahweh does not appear. We should have
expected that Kain s would be accepted, and Abel s refused,
for surely in the olden times God had more pleasure in the
fruits of the field than in bloody sacrifices. 3 Has the
original legend been altered in deference to later beliefs ?
Probably, and in any case the text of w. 6-8 is open to
much suspicion. My friend Prof. Driver admits this for
v. 7, though he thinks that the text may be so interpreted
as to convey a profound psychological truth the danger,
viz., of harbouring a sullen and unreasoning discontent.
To avoid ascribing such psychological reasoning to an
early narrator, I have tried to feel my way towards an
1 Winckler (Ar.-sem.-or. pp. no/) suggests that Heb. hebel and
Ar. Hobal (divine name) may be identical. Does this give a clue to
the origin of Hobal ?
2 The Kain tribe is not a tribe of smiths as Eerdmans ( Th. Tijdschr.
xl. 231) supposes. Cp. on Tubal-kain, v. 22.
3 See ZDMG xxxi. 358.
CAIN AND ABEL (GEN. iv. 1-16) 105
earlier text 1 (see Exp. Times, vol. x., July 1899;
Cain, 2). Independently, Prof. Gunkel agrees with me
so far as to read N&n for nto and Son for [n]ns^. But
though the text is hardly quite original, it is not clear
that it need be altered, provided that v. 7 is regarded as a
late interpolation. It has been overlooked that tnhn is one
of the usual introductory formulae of glosses (Crit. Bib.,
p. 474). V. 6 and v. 8 then come to stand together,, and
of course the opening of v. 8 needs to be corrected. Prob
ably for vrw we should read ^nN, and make the clause run
thus, ( And Kain said, Because of my brother Abel/ Some
answer of Kain to the divine questioner is certainly needed.
The 1 now attached to T7N seems a dittograph.
The sign appointed to Kain seems clear enough ; we
can hardly, with Driver, call it c idle to speculate. 2 As
W. R. Smith says, * Can this be anything else than the
sart or tribal mark which every man bore on his person,
and without which the ancient form of blood-feud . . .
could hardly have been worked ? a This also illustrates
Isa. xliv. 5, Ezek. ix. 4, and Zech. xiii. 6, where tattooed
sacred marks of Yahweh-Yerahme el appear to be meant.
See Stade, Das Kainzeichen/ ZATW, 1894, pp. 250-318 ;
Bibl. Theol. i. 42, and cp. Jensen s note, KB vi. 377. As
the narrative stands, the sign is an evidence of Yahweh s
compassion, for Kain. Otherwise the sympathies of the
narrator are with Abel.
Where were the chief haunts of the Kain tribe when
the legend was redacted ? In the land of Nod (TlD), is
the answer. No good explanation of this name has been
offered. No doubt, like so many monosyllabic forms in
MT., it is a mutilation of some longer, well-known name.
Probably we should read TTD, i.e. Nadab or Nodab. This
was the name of a people of N. Arabian connexions (see
E. Bib., Nodab ). 4 Eastward of Eden is probably a
correct gloss ; Eden (see pp. 87/1) was a N. Arabian locality.
1 See also Box, Exp. Times, x. 425^, for an excellent suggestion
on the closing words of?/. 7 (cp. iii. 16).
2 Speculate, indeed, is an invidious expression.
3 Kinship, pp. 21 5 / ; ed. 2, p. 25 I ; cp. E. Bib., Cain.
4 For another view see E. Bib., col. 4413.
CAIN S GENEALOGY (GEN. iv. 17-24 [26])
KAIN S genealogy, which, with w. 25 / and a prefixed
passage now lost, forms the sequel of v. I. Besides
Dillmann, etc., see E. Bib., Cainites, and cp. Sethites.
It is hoped that some fresh light can be thrown
on these names. First comes the name of the son of
Kain (Kenites) Hanok. 1 It has been connected or mis-
connected with various ancient place-names, but really
belongs to the same group as Kain (see above). Note
that Anak also appears as Anok (Josh. xxi. n), and
Kena an as Kinahhi in Am. Tab. We find Hanok else
where as a Reubenite 2 and a Midianite place-name (xlvi. 9,
xxv. 4) ; it is also known as a S. Arabian tribe-name
(Hommel, Gr. p. 163, note 3). One may suppose that
Hanok is one of the cities of the Kenites (i S. xxx. 29).
Possibly, however, the TDn at the end of v. 17 is misplaced,
and should stand after YTV 3 If so, the name of the city
will be *TTI7 (if this form be correct). In fact, we know of
no city called Hanok, but we do know of one called *TO (Josh.
xii. 14; cp. Judg. i. 1 6). Very possibly ITS (the TV of
v. 15) should be TH$, another form of T1S. Cp. also TDN,
x. 1 8, Ezek. xxvii. 8 (with notes), TTN, Josh. xv. 3.
Hommel s derivation from ^, fire, and TV, to descend,
hardly commends itself.
1 There is no connexion with ^-pn, nor yet with Unuki, the ideo
graphic name of Erech. If Hanok were virtually the Babylonian city
Erech, we should have expected to find Gilgamesh referred to, Erech
being the city of Gilgamesh. See, further, on v. 23^, and on m, v. 29.
2 Reuben was originally a N. Arabian tribe, as we can still dis
cern underneath the present text of i Chr. v. 6, 9 / The king of
Asshur spoken of is an Arabian king ; the river Perath is an Arabian
stream (p. 91). Cp. Crit. Bib. pp. 37 if.
3 So in effect Winckler, AOF (3) , i. 95. For another view see
Budde, Urgesch. pp. 120 ff.
106
CAIN S GENEALOGY (GEN. iv. 17-24 [26]) 107
Mehujael and Methushael have both been terribly
misunderstood. Prof. H. P. Smith 1 even renders the
former wiped out by God, and the latter (after Redslob)
man of Sheol, and comments vanished tribes like Ad
and Thamud. Prof. D. H. Miiller, though more methodical,
is just as wrong, when he explains ^wino (the god) W
gives life. Surely S^nno and hxhhnft (v. 12, Neh. xi. 4)
have the same origin. The former comes from bwDITT
through WinD, the latter through SNHD ; cp. oSn, I Chr.
vii. 35, and h^hhrr (i Chr. iv. 16), also ^no, n^no, etc.
For the repetition of h cp. h^h, Num. iii. 24, and ShOoS,
Prov. xxxi. i, 4. It may be noticed that some cursives
(a, b, z) in iv. 1 8 give /-taXeAe^X, and that the Ethiopic has
Malaleel, and the Coptic Maleleel. 2 As for ^NttnnD, Lenor-
mant s explanation mutu-sa-ili* ( liegeman of God, E. Bib.,
Cainites/ 7) is at first sight plausible. But the retention
of sa is improbable, and it is very doubtful whether no or
1HD, man, can be supported lexicographically. Certainly
it is more in accordance with sound method to explain inD
both here and in nStEino (which $$ apparently reads in
iv. 1 8 in place of S^Eino) as a fragment of S*ino = Sion 4
(cp. ^NlDD, ^ian.s), i.e. ^MWSar, and to group h& either
with SlNtt) (xxxvi. 37, xlvi. 10, see notes), or with ^DtBN, i.e.
^Ncrm intt?N (see on xiv. 13). n^tDino (v. 21) probably
comes from nStt?D Sion (cp. on Casluhim, x. 1 4).
Lamech too has been a fertile theme of unfruitful
discussion. Explanations from the Sumerian (Lamga, a non-
Semitic title of the moon-god ; Sayce, Boscawen, Hommel)
are as forced and improbable as those from the Arabic
(juvenis robustus, Dillm.). Undoubtedly, "JD^, like ^o (as a
divine name), with its feminine nihte (xi. 29), and ^NlDp
(xxii. 21), has sprung from ^MDITP. The corruption may
have arisen very early. Cp. E. Bib., cols. 62 5 / Next, as
to Lamech s two wives. Evidently rro and nbs are cor
ruptions of well-known names. The latter is the feminine of
^2 = D^S, i.e. ^MWDBP (see on Num. xiv. 19, xxvi. 33).
1 Old Test. History (1903), p. 24.
2 Lagarde (Orientalia, ii. 35) prefers Mahalalel ; cp. Nestle,
Marginalien (1893), P- 7-
3 Origines de P histoire ( -\ i. 262 f. 4 See Crit. Bib. on i S. x. 1 1.
io8 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Sillah (cp. Sillethai, b. Shimei, I Chr. viii. 20) represents
an Ishmaelite tribe. The former should be synonymous
with nhx (cp. Yabal and Yubal ). Possibly rTO re
presents mcnN or rrrns.
And now as to the two sons of Adah and the son of
Sillah (w. 20-22). Their names respectively are hy* (Yabal)
hyp (Yubal), and pp-^nn (Tubal-kain), or, as in @, Iw/fyX,
Iou/3aX, and o/3eX. According to Ball, the first of these,
like WIN (l Chr. xxvii. 30), is connected with Ar. dbil u ",
one skilled in the tendance of camels, sheep, etc. ; the second
with hyp, hypn pp (so Dillm.); the third with Sumerian Balgin,
Bilgi, the fire-god (cp. E. Bib., Cainites ). Dillmann, on
the other hand, explains hy* * nomadic shepherd (cp. ^Tirr),
STP * musician (cp. Ball), while the pp appended to the
ethnic hy]f\ marks out the third hero as a smith, and
perhaps also as a true descendant of Kain. A more com
prehensive view of the relevant facts will show us that hy*
and SlV, like hyn (iv. 2), h^N (i Chr. /.<:.), and hyr in pp
hyrn (Josh. vi. 4), come from ^NDrrr, and hy\r\ from hsynx
(see on v. 2 and on x. 2).
At first sight it will appear from the contexts as if these
three personages were leaders of culture, and therefore, one
may conjecture, semi-divine beings. 1 The contexts, however,
on which this view depends are liable to grave suspicion.
On v. 20, Kautzsch and Socin remark, The text is doubt
less corrupt ; probably the Regens of mp has fallen out.
Also on v. 22, The context hardly permits a doubt that
QN has fallen out before hi ; tth is presumably only an early
gloss to ann (similarly Ball). Such superficial criticism is
useless. We must go down deeper, and examine the
suspicious words in the light of other passages in which
these words occur, but are certainly corrupt.
The most suspicious word of all is wtp f? (v. 22). Win
needs no gloss, and if a gloss were required, such an un
common word as &toh would not have been chosen. The
key to the word is supplied by xxv. 3, where DttntA, standing
between DmttfN and Q^DttS (from D^NDJTP), has, of course,
been produced, mainly by transposition of letters, from
1 One might conjecture that there were originally but two a pair
of Semitic Dioscuri.
CAIN S GENEALOGY (GEN. iv. 17-24 [26]) 109
With therefore = ^Nnm (z>. DITP ini&N, see on
v. 25). Considering that Tubal-kain is most naturally
explained as Kenite Ethbaal (Ishmael), we cannot be sur
prised at this result. And what function is discharged by
f tt& here ? It is a gloss on pp, z.. the eponym of the
Kenites. Grin (omit hi with (j) has, of course, a similar
origin. Like n&nn from rnntpN (Judg. iv. 2), NQhn (Ezra
ii. 52), and the name pnnn in the Assuan papyri 1 (B 22),
it comes from the regional name inftN (cp. Din and
^riTi nmm is also a pair of glosses on pp-fmn.
comes from ;nmn, z.e. Ashhur-ethan, while Sm, as
also probably in Dt. iii. 11, iv. 20, xxxiii. 25, comes from
SNl DtB" 1 l~!i>, 2 Ishmaelite Arabia (cp. Barzillai ). Thus
the passage becomes Tubal-kain [Ashtael, Ashhur, Hashtan,
Arab-Ishmael].
Let us now turn back to v. 20. HDpO IttT is obviously
impossible. Halevy and Ball would therefore read ^JiN 1W
r O, following (H and comparing 2 Chr. xiv. 14. But as
Hommel has seen, rnpQ in 2 Chr. I.e. has sprung from an
ethnic, and I think it is possible to restore the right ethnic.
nupD has arisen out of |Dp"i, a form of ^Nnrw (cp. on xlvi.
32, Judg. x. 5), and the 1 prefixed to 7 D in iv. 20 (MT.)
probably comes from s*in ( that is ). That hnt* may be a
corruption of DTTP (see on xxxvi. 2), IDT 1 of r D&r (see on Isa.
x. i 3), and r3N of ms (see on ix. 18, xxxiii. 19), cannot well
be denied. N*in introduces the gloss; nTT is either redactional
or from a dittographed NIPT. Thus we get, as the original
of v. 20, And Adah (?) brought forth Yabal [that is, Arab-
Ishmael ; SHN, that is, Yerahme el].
And what of Yubal (v. 21)? ^IN is now plain;
(as in Jer. xlvi. 9) probably comes from nc& (cp. on
i K. xix. 1 9), z>. nD2, nQlS. "HDD is also corrupt (cp. on
Josh. xix. 35, 28. vi. 5, Isa. xxx. 32) ; we may restore
either ppi (Josh. xix. 46), or, better, pips. There was a
Zarephathite Ekron, which the Danites may for a time have
conquered. 3 In fact, "ipi; probably represents "intEN (cp. on
1 I am sorry that the editor should be puzzled by this name.
2 Cp. Dip-a (Ezra ii. 53), i.e. ena-any, and the Palmyrene laana, i.e.
, parallel to nn[r].x 133, Neh. vii. 33 ; and B cn3, i.e.
3 Crit. Bib. (p. 433) on Josh. xix.
no TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
YIN, x. i o). ins may have the same origin as ns, UN, and
ra ; at any rate, like these, it represents some Arabian
name. Thus, omitting hi as in v. 22, we get, And his
brother s name was Yubal [that is, Arab-sephath, Ekron,
and Og].
It is with some surprise that in v. 22 b we find the name
of Tubal-kain s sister, viz. now (cp. Josh. xv. 41). Its origin
is not obscure. DW, like pi?n, should represent psom or ;DBT,
i.e. fjNSDBF. It only remains to add that the insertion of
Lamech s song shows that, as there were two Kains, so
there were also two Lamechs. 1 Also that the song referred
to can hardly be archaic. As Winckler remarks, 2 no people
on earth has poetical echoes of its nomad period. Vv. 2 5 f.
are a genealogical fragment (cp. v. 29) which Stade (Akad.
Reden, p. 247), after simplifying the form, would place before
v. 1 7. What it gives us is an independent record of the
birth of a son to the first man. is doubtless right in not
recognising TO. But to get further, textual criticism is
necessary, and we must assume that ntD and BT13N, not less than
OTNfn] and mn, pp and ^ITi, represent well-known ethnics,
ntt) is most probably a fragment of ini&N (cp. on ix. 21), as in
Num. xxiv. 17 (the par., Jer. xlviii. 45, has pNB), i.e. ^MttDttT 1 ).
This is favoured by the words with which the passage about
1 Sheth must originally have closed, viz. not nriN int, but
in&N t (cp. on xxii. 13). The whole passage should probably
run, And Aram knew his wife, and she conceived, and bore
a son, and called his name Ashtar. On this there was an
early gloss, for (he was) the seed (i.e. offspring) of Asshur/
alluding to the probable fact (see on v. 24) that the fuller
name of the first man was Asshur-Aram or A.-Yerahme el.
This involves omitting DTF^N ^TiDD and pp inn ^D ^irr nnn
as redactional insertions. The alternative is to read, for
^> niD, ^nttf, and for DYT^N (as often) ^NDTTT 1 , and to take
nfi? in v. 24.0, as a fragment of ^NntDN. This does not make
much difference, for bnm (Judg. xiii. 25) and pntDN (l
Chr. iv. 11) have probably come from ntt)N, a fragment of
^N and p are formative. 3 This gives us, And Aram
1 See E. Bib., < Sethites, 3, and cp. Gunkel, Genesis.
2 Religionsgeschichtler und geschichtlicher Orient, 1906, p. 27.
3 Similarly, Eshtemoh and Eshtemoa have nothing to do with
CAIN S GENEALOGY (GEN. iv. 17-24 [26]) in
knew his wife, etc., and she called his name Eshtaol
(Ashtael), for (he was) a shoot of Yerahme el, the seed of
Asshur. To connect f?Nnt&N with ^Tittf, * shoot, l would
not be worse than to connect the ethnic pp with nup, to
produce. Cp. E. Bib., Seth.
V. 26 is indeed a paradoxical passage. What ? did not
the father and mother of Enosh call with the name of
Yahweh ? And if they did not, how can any one have done
so before the time of Moses ? The only choice is between
the absolutely primitive origin of the solemn use of the divine
name Yahweh and the Mosaic. I am well aware of the
distinction that may be drawn between acquaintance with
the divine name and the organisation of worship. I may be
told that it is the latter which is assigned to Enosh as a
most important detail in the development of culture (see E.
Bib.) ( Cainites, Sethites ). But we cannot discuss such a
point until the text has been adequately treated, and then
perhaps the whole question will appear to us in a new light.
First of all, Nlp^ fpmrr IN is impossible (see E. Bib., Enos ).
We may, of course (with Wellh., CH^\ p. 309), alter this into
f h hrtTl m, following @, Vg., Jubilees. But how did m
become TN and ^nrr become Smrr ? And we shall find in
due time that fjrn in ix. 20 and hnn in x. 8 are both
corrupt ; also that formations from Nip are not seldom
corruptions of ^NQnT. Most probably Smn has come
from ^mn (i.e. ^NDrrp), and np^ from a dittographed
rnrr ami represents ^ DEI, 3 and this has come from
(i-e. ^N^QB^ $) ; the 12 fell out all the more easily
after *o. For other instances of a prefixed l representing ni?,
see on Ex. xxxi. 2 ; among them are noon and ;&&gt;}. BTPN,
as elsewhere (e.g. Jer. xvii. 16, Ps. ix. 20, Ivi. 2), = JD&P =
As for Nirr Dl, which reads strangely before T^, it
the 8th Arabic conjugation, but come from Ashtar- Yerahme el.
Eshtaol ( Ashtael ) too might have this origin.
1 In the Mandasan writings the three helpers of Adam are
Jttibil, Shitil (cp. Aram. N^VJ?, plant 3 ), and Anosh (Brandt, Die Mand.
*Rel. p. 122).
2 Nip often represents a fragment of "TNDnv. Cp. crN[i]np, 2 S. xv. 1 1,
Ezek. xxiii. 23.
3 (Si s Kvpiov rov Oeov is probably a mere expansion of mn\
4 Cp. {IKS?, Jer. xlviii. 45, Hos. x. 14, Am. ii. 2 ; jNr[-n 3], Josh.
U2 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
is most probably a fragment of a gloss, which in its entirety
ran, n Nin Dl (cp. on x. 21). Read, therefore,
ns] fnwoap iDornN Nip^i p~T^ [ITS
And to Ashtar [he too is Arab] a son was
born, whose name he called Ishmael [Arab-Yerahme el,
Arab-Ishmael].
THE DESCENDANTS OF ADAM (GEN. v.)
HERE we have the second of the two parallel early
Hebrew genealogies (J and P respectively), full of huge,
ill-explained difficulties. Fragments of the first are to be
found in iv. 25 f., v. 29, and we may reasonably con
jecture that the Yahwist s genealogy as well as that of
the Priestly Writer originally contained ten names. It is
also plausible to suppose that the ten heroes whom P
certainly, and possibly also J, placed at the head of early
history are ultimately connected with the ten antediluvian
kings whom Berossus places at the head of the history of
Babylonia, 1 and who correspond to the first ten months of a
cosmic year. The names of these kings are
Htcrovdpos. An im
mediate connexion of the names in the two lists (Babylonian
and Hebrew) cannot, however, be insisted upon, because of
the difference of the names. The Hebrew list has a develop
ment behind it.
xvii. 1 1 ; js?j;["Tn], i. S. xxx. 30. All these forms, as is shown elsewhere^
come from Sxyosr. Cp. p. 109 (on Num. xxiv. 17).
1 Miiller, Fragm. Hist. Gr. n. 499 /
THE DESCENDANTS OF ADAM (GEN. v.) 113
Assyriologists, it is true, 1 think that Amelon, i.e. certainly
Ass. amelu, man/ corresponds to the Hebrew enos, man ;
that Ammenon, i.e. probably Ass. ummdnu, ( work-master/
= the Heb. Kenan, smith (?) ; that Euedorachos, or more
correctly Evedoranchos, i.e. Enmeduranki 2 (the name of a
famous Babylonian hero, king of Sippara, the city of the
sun-god, meaning perhaps * high-priest of, or, one acquainted
with (?), the place of union of heaven and earth ), corresponds
to the Heb. Hanok, which, superficially regarded, might
mean initiation ; 3 and that Amernpsinos, i.e. Amel-Sin, =
the Heb. Methu-Selah, assuming sela/t to be a Hebraised
form of $ar/iu, ( brilliant, which is an epithet of various
Babylonian gods. 4
But none of these comparisons are very solid, (i)
Man, as the name of a primeval hero, is highly improbable;
man or liegeman of (some god) is but slightly more
probable. More plausibly, indeed, one might compare
Amelon (if it represents Amel + ^r) with Mahalalel (v. 12),
assuming -el (h&) to represent some more special divine
name. 6 In my judgment, however, even this comparison
is a misleading one, nor can I admit that either the Grecised
Amelon or the Bab. Amel in Amel-Sin originally meant
man, or that Enosh in iv. 26 is correct. (2) That Kain
means artificer, smith, and that this is the title of a divine
demiurge, possibly a translation of Ass. ummdnu, is no doubt
a plausible theory (see E. Bib., Cain, I ; Cainites, 5,
10). But it is hazardous to separate Kain and Kenan from
the group of related tribe- and place-names to which, as we
have seen above, they belong. As for the Ammenon of
1 See especially Hommel, PSBA xv. 243-246 ; Delitzsch, Par. p.
149; Zimmern, KAT, p. 531^, 539^-
2 This king is designated the favourite of Anu, Bel, and Ea, and
said to have been called (?) by the gods Samas and Adad into their
fellowship, also to have been initiated into the secrets of heaven and
earth. See Zimmern, Beitrdge zur Kenntniss der Bab. Religion, p,
1 1 6, note a.
3 Both names occupy the same place (No. 7) in the lists to which
they respectively belong. This, however, is not very important (see E.
Bib., col. 4412, foot).
4 The idea is Rommel s ; sarrahu, a Babylonian title of the moon-
god. Cp. Zimmern, Beitr. pp. 152^, note 3.
5 See E. Bib., Cainites, 7.
8
ii4 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Berossus, it may possibly represent Amnan ; Amnanu is the
name of an Arabian region, and probably represents Yam-
nanu, i.e. Yamanite (Yerahme elite). 1 (3) As for Enme-
duranki, we can hardly follow Barton and Peters 2 in
connecting the Heb. name Hanok with the last member of
the Bab. name, viz. anki (enkt], or Zimmern 3 in supposing
that Hanok means one initiated. I would also venture to
remark that the initiation of Enmeduranki into the secrets
of heaven and earth is by no means a distinctive feature.
Other mythic personages such as Adapa (Adamu) and
Xisuthros enjoyed this initiation, and became abkalle, sages,
and it is with Xisuthros that these inquiries lead me to
connect both Hanok and Noah. (4) That Methu-selah is =
man of the Brilliant is highly improbable, nor is it even
approximately certain (see above) that Amel-Sin means
* man of the moon -god.
We may, however, fully admit that Noah, who, as the
text stands (both in J and in P passages), is the hero of the
Hebrew deluge-story, is, in virtue of his connexion with that
story, parallel to the tenth Babylonian king, Xisuthros, and
also that the story of Hanok, as given by P, has well-
marked mythological, and indeed Babylonian affinities.
How comes it, then, that these two heroes bear names
which have no Babylonian connexion ? Why should they
have been treated with more respect than other N. Arabian
tribal heroes (in the two parallel genealogies), and raised to
the rank of individuals, whose wonderful fortunes gave them
a place by themselves, which only Elijah in a later age was
privileged to share with them ? 4
The question is greatly simplified if we identify Hanok and
the greater of the two Noahs (see below). We can then
1 See Hommel, Gr. p. 263, and cp. KAT (Z \ pp. 487, 532.
2 Barton, in Worcester s Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge
(1901), p. 557 ; Peters, Early Hebr. Story (1904), p. 224. We should
expect at least Duranki (the name of a mythic locality). Enki is the
name of the Sumerian earth-god. This view reminds us of Prof. Sayce s
derivation of Lamech (see p. 107).
3 KAT, p. 540. This meaning is just such as a late writer might
imagine. Tribal eponyms surely never had such names.
4 Is there an allusion to Enoch in Ps. Ixxiii. 24 ? Possibly. But
see my Psalms, ad loc.
THE DESCENDANTS OF ADAM (GEN. v.) 115
understand the striking parallelism between v. 22 and vi. 9 ;
it was not, in the original writing, Noah who walked with
God, but Hanok. The question therefore asked above has
only to be answered with reference to a single personage,
viz. Hanok.
At this point it is right to mention that in all prob
ability the Hebrew legend of primeval times, as told by one
of the writers known as J, had no deluge. 1 When, how
ever, the deluge-story was adopted from the Yerahme elites
and converted into the story of the universal deluge, it had
to be provided with a hero who was not a mere tribal
eponym, and (for a reason suggested below) " Enoch " was
selected to be converted into an individual, and even to
assume something of the appearance of a solar hero, as was
fitting for the hero of a story which, in its origin, was most
probably an ether-myth (see p. 142). But a misfortune
happened to him. At an early period (perhaps) after the
deluge-story had been committed to writing, *pn became
corrupted into Dn, which in turn was editorially altered
(under the influence of a desire ~ to work the story of Noah,
the vine-planter, into the legend) into m (Noah) or cm 3
(Naham ?). Thus Enoch lost his connexion with the
deluge, unless, indeed, we care to recognise the statement
of Jubilees iv. 23, that Enoch, in Paradise, "wrote down all
the wickedness of men, on account of which God brought
the waters of the flood upon all the land of Eden." But, at
any rate, he seems to have retained his superhuman wisdom, 4
and in later years attracted to himself more and more
mythical elements. 5 Nor were the earlier traditionists unfair
to him. When the list of ten heroes was constructed, he
was placed (probably) at the end of the first pentad, 6 while
1 See E. Bib., Deluge, 14.
2 See Budde, Urgesch. ; and cp. E. Bib., Noah.
3 Nahum probably belongs to the same group of names ; also
Yanhamu, the name of an Egyptian functionary (in Am. Tab. 61, 31, etc.),
who superintended the affairs of the Egyptian domination in Palestine.
4 To be taken to be with God implies initiation into the divine
secrets. See below.
5 See E. Bib., Enoch, 2.
6 See E. Bib., Sethites, 2, where the two genealogies (the first
conjecturally completed) are placed side by side.
ii6 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Noah or Naham, his supplanter in the deluge-story, was
placed at the end of the second.
The reason why Enoch, alone among the Hebrew
heroes, was raised to the rank of an individual whose
fortunes were such as to mark him off from all the rest of
mankind, is plain. It is not enough to point to the fact
that the (conjectured) Hebrew root of Enoch (*pn) means
" to train, instruct, initiate." The real reason probably is
that the Enoch tribe was a branch of the Yerahme elites,
and, like the Yerahme elites, had a high reputation for
wisdom. From Ezek. xxviii. (see Crit. Bib. [and cp. above,
p. 72]) we gather that " Yerahme el " was supposed to have
derived his wisdom from Elohim, in whose sacred garden he
had dwelt ; now from Ezek. xiv. 14, 20 we learn that Noah
(i.e. Enoch), Daniel (i.e. Yerahme el), and Job (i.e. Arab ?)
were classed together for their extraordinary righteousness.
This exceptional goodness implies exceptional wisdom (cp.
Enoch xlviii. i). The first Yerahme elite is commonly
known to us as Adam (see however, p. 96), but it is
very possible that this hero and demi-god was also in
some sanctuaries spoken of as Enoch (Hanok), and that
his wisdom (cp. Job xv. 7 f.) was specially eulogised in
the legend. l
It only remains to notice that the 365 years of the life
of Hanok correspond to the 365 days (a solar year) which,
according to (, 2 were the duration of the deluge. The
explanation has been suggested above. Hanok, as the hero
of the deluge, was necessarily a solar personage (see p. 115).
His translation corresponds to the disappearance (yeveaQcu,
d<l>avfi) of Xisuthros and his companions in the Berossian
tradition of the deluge, also to the poetic variant that the
Babylonian hero Ut-napishtim was taken by Bel and made
to dwell afar off, at the mouth of the streams 3 (see p. 133).
For the rest, see E. Bib., Enoch, and cp. Cheyne, Origin of
Psalter, pp. 383, 392, 432.
1 E. Bib., Sethites, 4.
2 See E. Bib., Deluge, 12.
3 See ibid. 2, 17. In Enoch Ixx., Enoch is said to have been
placed in the earthly Paradise, which he finds already peopled with the
first fathers and the righteous.
THE DESCENDANTS OF ADAM (GEN. v.) 117
Six textual corrections have now to be mentioned.
Putting aside the other names in the genealogy (already
dealt with on iv. 17-26), I call attention first to DTN, without
the article (vv. 1-5 ; cp. p. 95). According to Hommel
(Exp. Times, xiv. 107) the name must mean earth (ncrrN,
only without the feminine ending), because man comes
third, under the title ETON. He proposes to point, not D*TN,
but D TN, and suggests that the title, Bene Edom, or
Edomites, indicated that they originated in mother earth.
But a primeval hero called earth is as improbable as one
called man (see above, p. 96). The right reading is
surely D"1N, just as ro ON should be proN = 7N$DflP.
2. In v. 5 TnroN, which he lived, has no parallel here
or anywhere else, except in xxv. 7. In both passages it is
a corruption of YinroN (a gloss on Q-TN or DTN) ; cp. on
ii. 23, iii. 20.
3. In v. 29 m should be Ton (see above, p. 114).
Similarly in Eth. Enoch Ix. i, Enoch seems to be a mis
reading for Noah. This was in every way easy. The
description of the birth of Noah in Eth. Enoch cvi. sug
gests that in the Aggada of the time Noah was assimilated
to some extent to Enoch (Hanok).
4-6. It is not, however, textual corruption which has
brought about the much -worn forms, Shem, Ham, and
Yepheth (v. 32). Referring for other views to the relevant
articles in E. Bib., and to Hommel, Aufsdtze u. Abhandl.
p. 317; Grundriss, p. 119, note I, and (on Ham) to
Winckler, Arab -sew. -or. p. 21, I cannot think it rash to
hold that oro, like pro in pro ps, is a mutilated form of par
= ^MWDBT, 1 and on of DnT = 7NDiTP (cp. on Ps. Ixxviii. 51,
cv. 23), while nD^ probably comes from to^D^ (see on ix. 27).
Thus Noah-Hanok represents Canaan, and Shem, Ham, and
Yepheth two (for Shem and Ham are synonymous)
cognate tribes which belonged to the region of Canaan.
See, further, on vi. 10.
1 Cp. the Phoenician name Smcr, certainly not the name has
carried (Cooke, p. 71), but a combination of two forms of SNJ-CB" (see
on Zebulun, xxx. 20, and cp. mSjn, on xvii. 5).
MARRIAGES OF DIVINE BEINGS (GEN. vi. 1-4)
MARRIAGES of divine with human beings. Shortening of
human life. Meaning of Nephilim. We ask first, Who
are the bene hd-elohim (v. 2)? The phrase may merely
mean members of the company of Elohim. 1 It is, however,
an unique narrative that we have before us, and the phrase
may very possibly have an unique meaning. In the original
form of the myth, divinities who were but preternatural
animal-men, and whose home was in a very material heaven,
may have been represented as descending to the earth, and
begetting animal men like themselves. Precisely such
beings are described in the * legend of Kutha (KB vi. 293)
warriors with bodies of vultures, men with raven faces, the
great gods begot them, and Tiamat suckled them. This
may be taken to mean preternatural, magically gifted men,
who could assume at will the forms of certain animals.
Stories of sexual intercourse between gods and men in
classical mythology need not be specially referred to here
(cp. Plat. Crat. 33).
In a later stage of development the story presupposed
in w. 1-2 must have become a stumbling-block, and the
wonder is that any part of it survived. We can imagine
that people wondered greatly who these sons of the Elohim
could have been. And so arose the notion, attested only very
late, i.e. in the revival of mythology, of a fall of the angels, 1
and of the birth and misdeeds of the giants. The story of
the wicked giants, however, is not necessarily late. It is
widespread in America. The Skidi Pawnees say, The
men and the women were giants. They were wonderful ;
they were like gods ; they could perform miracles ; they
1 Cp. W. R. Smith, Prophets of Israel, p. 388 ; E. Bib., col. 46907
118
MARRIAGES OF DIVINE BEINGS (GEN. vi. 1-4) 119
felt that they were just as good as any of the gods in the
heavens. l At the time of the flood, it is held that they
were turned into stone. So the story in Eth. Enoch vi., xv.
may have an older basis. Dr. Charles s learned notes
require some supplementing. The rebel angels are called
watchers ; clearly this term connects them with the
planetary spirits, 2 who keep ceaseless * watch. Their chief
is * Azazel (SlNll?), a name also found in Lev. xvi. 8, 10, 26,
and certainly from ^NttDflP (see p. 30). They descend
upon Mount Hermon, i.e. not the northern but the southern
Hermon (Ps. Ixxxix. 13); the name comes not from A,/D"in,
but from ^NDTTP. How natural the story of the descent
now becomes ! Azazel is, of course, at home in the land
where c Yerahme el or Ishmael is the divinity ; he is, in
fact, himself a form of this long -since deposed deity.
Only, in this case development has taken the opposite
course to that which issues in * Michael (see p. 60).
Michael is the good Yerahme el ; Azazel the bad one, the
apostate.
Next, as to the shortening of human life. This is
referred to in v. 3, from which we shall presently learn that
Yahweh was averse from the production of a semi-divine
race upon earth. But how great the difficulties are, a glance
at the differences of the commentators will show. Take, for
instance, YTD. What does this word mean here ? Is it the
spirit of life given by God to men (Dillm.) ? Or does it
mean the air-like substance of which the beings called
Elohim consist, and of which (according to the story) human
beings for a time partook (Wellh., Stade, Gunkel) ? At any
rate, the expression is by no means clear, and we have
already found that rm is sometimes a corruption of iTP, i.e.
^MDnr (see on i. 2 b, iii. 8, Isa. xlviii. 16), and that the
original story of creation had reference to the first Yerah-
me elites. A more natural interpretation, as it seems to me,
is produced if we suppose the semi-divine origin of the
Yerahme elites to be here referred to, and render, Yerah-
1 Dorsey, Pawnee Traditions, pp. 333, 338.
2 Note especially the name Kokabiel, and cp. Epiphan. Haer. xvi. 2,
where the planet Jupiter is called the KWKC/? BaaA (Jensen, Kosmologie,
p. 34, note 2).
120 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
me el (i.e. the race so-called) shall not, etc. Thus the
subject of the verb in v. 3 a, and the implied subject in
v. 3 , are the same, which is, grammatically, a gain.
But what, more exactly, is the statement respecting
Yerahme el ? The text has -m ^rm p-p-flf?, but the note in
BDB (s.v. p"r) will probably convince most readers that pT
is incorrect. Winckler s comparison of Ass. dananu, to be
mighty/ is far-fetched, and hardly satisfactory. Perhaps,
however, (STs ov prj Kara^eivrj may help us. 1 The under
lying verb may be pD" 1 , or, more suitably, "piN^ (Num.
ix. 19, 22), or, better, T)DS\ D"7Nl, of course, goes with the
verb ; so also does TTH, rm being sometimes masculine.
But is Tin correct ? ntttl Nin in the next clause may seem
to favour it spirit and flesh fdrm a natural antithesis.
We have seen, however (on i. 2, iii. 8), that nYi may some
times have come from bHDlTP, and we know that Yerahme el
(the second member of the Israelite duad) was the god
closely concerned with earthly, and specially Arabian, affairs
Thus we get as the opening of v. 3, And Yahweh said, Not
for ever shall Yerahme el abide in man.
Now comes the greatest crux of all D|tp3, for which
BDB gives * by reason of their going astray. This, however,
carries respect for MT. too far ; the supposed sense would
not have been so expressed, and Geiger, Baer, and Ginsburg
prefer the reading Dafe which is also that of the Versions.
Shall we, then, adopt D-m?}? But what Hebrew writer
would have used this prosaic phrase ? 2 Hommel suggests
* nach Vielheiten, a gloss on ian, which is to mean nach
Saren. 3 This scholar rightly sees that a new path is
required, but misses the right one. BDB has already
compared the personal name iBraw. This name, however,
does not mean my father is a warrior (BDB, with ?), but
* Arabia of Ishmael ; Abishag should be Abishan ; ]ft,
like DDItt), 4 comes from par* = f?H&DBT. Similarly, mmi
should rather be ]D&n, i.e. DBTI (cp. on Judg. iii. 29, Isa.
x. 27). It is a gloss on DTNl. Not the whole human
1 The rest of @ agrees with MT.
2 See Wellh. CH, p. 307 ; Holz. ad loc.
3 See his own explanation, Gr. p. 183, note i.
4 Abishag is called a Shunammite (i K. i. 3).
MARRIAGES OF DIVINE BEINGS (GEN. vi. 1-4) 121
race is intended, but the Ishmaelite or Yerahme elite people
on the N. Arabian border of Palestine.
Next as to itol *on. It will now be plain that * he is
(only) flesh (i.e. a weak, earthly creature ) cannot be
right. N*in at once suggests that imi may be a gloss,
and if so, it is of course mispointed. In I S. xxx. 9, etc,,
we meet with 11 Bin, which most probably comes from
Tinttrns. So nan here probably comes from nor ing (cp.
on Ex. xxxi. 2); Shur and Shihor are shortened and
adapted forms of * Asshur or * Ashhur, one of the names
for the whole or a part of the Arabian border-land (cp. on
xvi. 7). Thus v. 2 becomes, And Yahweh said, Yerahme el
shall not abide for ever among men [in Ishmael, that is,
Arab- Asshur] ; his days shall be (only) one hundred and
twenty years.
Prof. Sievers makes the astonishing suggestion that
v. 3 c may be a gloss based on xxiii. I (Sarah died at 127),
as if the glossator thought that the age of the daughters
of men were referred to. Probably, 120 is given as the
ideal age for the close of a human life (like 1 10 in Egypt).
Lastly, we have to consider the Nephilim. A notice
in v. 4 states that the * Nephilim, who survived into the
Israelitish period, arose when the above strange marriages
took place. Thus the first Nephilim were the children of
bene ha-el5hlm by earthly mothers. The glosses show
that the statement was not felt to be perfectly clear. Let
us first of all consider D^san. The article, of course,
indicates that the term is a well-known one. In fact, from
Num. xiii. 33 we learn that when the Israelites entered
Canaan they found the Nephilim there, and a gloss says
that they were the * sons of f Anak ; now 739 is most prob
ably a corrupt form of p^DS, i.e. ^NDITT. The Niphlites,
as we may call them, were therefore, at any rate, a section
of the widely spread Yerahme elite race.
Further, in Ezek. xxxii. 27, in the phrase D^nirnN
D^DD, the two latter words obviously represent o^D3
, a double gloss on D^ni}. It is true, , with its
ttTTo atoii/05, presupposes the reading D^ISD. But nSls (see
on xxi. 33) as well as D ^TlS (see on Judg. xiv. 3) is a
current corruption of ^HDnT ; a reduplicated D is an
122 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
ordinary phenomenon. D^DD, then, is at any rate a
synonym of D^NDim
The same result follows from Judg. vii. 12, viii. 10,
where D^?D2[n] is plainly a gloss on Dpi VQ (so read), sons
of Rekem/ i.e. Yerahme elites, and from Gen. xxv. 18 (see
note), where it is said of the Ishmaelites that they dwelt
eastward of a region called by some name which underlies
^DD VHN. Now vnN, as experience enables us to decide,
is TintDN ; ^DD therefore must be the name of some district
closely connected with Ashhur.
Some critics have asserted the existence of a somewhat
too scrupulous glossator, who felt bound to remark that
Nephilim were in existence * afterwards also (cp. Num.
xiii. 33). The view is quite erroneous. First, as to the
reading *nnN. This word (or, what is practically the same
thing, in) is so often a corruption of -fint&N or "int&N that
when it occurs in a suspicious passage we may reasonably
correct it into one or the other of these words. Let us also
remember that Dldn has already turned out to be a cor
ruption of pori ( = in Ishmael ), and this if ^inN comes
from YiniDN at once suggests to us that on must have
come from p^ (see on ]V, x. 2). The compound name
p", i.e. Yaman- Ashhur, is a very suitable gloss on
p is probably a redactional expansion of D, which
should properly be taken with "I&N, i.e. we should read
1B>M3. Thus we get for the first part of v. 4, The Niphlites
were (or arose) in those days in the land [Yaman-Ashhur],
when the sons of Ha-elohim/ etc.
The closing words of v. 4 have also to be restored, if
possible, to their true form. Evidently they ought to be
explanatory. But what we now read, they are the
primeval heroes, the men of renown, is no explanation at
all. Dillmann indeed informs us that the writer substitutes
the ordinary and intelligible word CT-Q} for the antiquated
and unintelligible D^D3 ; but if the terms are synonymous,
why did he add anything ? And if he was bent on a
supplement, why did he make such a poor one ? Of course,
the D were primeval ; of course, they were * renowned
any one could guess that. Now it so happens that the
same qualification, D^ISD IBM, occurs in a geographical note
MARRIAGES OF DIVINE BEINGS (GEN. vi. 1-4) 123
in I S. xxvii. 8 (see note), where the words have arisen out
of ^NcrrTD TEN ; and a parallel case in Ezekiel has been
referred to above in another connexion. Read therefore,
they are the heroes who sprang from Yerahme el (TEN
VFTD), which is the first part of a gloss on the ethnic term
D^DSn. Two words only remain, which are co-ordinated
with D^ISO TEN ; these are DDil BDN. Clearly this is too
vague to be correct. The phrase occurs again (only without
the article) in the MT. of Num. xvi. 2, where it is used of
the partisans of Korah, and where the original text probably
had ^MWDBT ^ttnN. Here, too, we may safely correct ^ttnN
oar, men of Ishmael, which is a suitable alternative gloss
on the obscure D^DD.
We are now in a better position to consider the prob
able origin of D^DD. It is no doubt an ethnic, and it is
impossible that the traces of the existence of that ethnic
should be limited to Gen. vi. 4 and Num. xiii. 33. It is
true, there are other traces which are not clearly visible in the
MT. ; most of these have been mentioned above. From
the passages in which they occur we gather that Niphlite
and * Yerahme elite or Ishmaelite are synonymous, and
that SDD might be combined with Yin&N. Is there any
widely attested name of a tribe or district out of which Ssn
may have arisen ? There is ; Lapana in Am. Tab. (see on
xxv. 1 8), Laban, Libnah, Lebanon, all bear witness to the
existence of a widespread Laban or Laphan tribe, and we
even find in one of the traditional David -narratives a
personal name which we can hardly help grouping with
Nephilim and with Laban, viz. the name of Abigail s first
husband, Nabal (i S. xxv. 3). I take it, therefore, that the
name of the ancient warlike tribe, which traced its origin
to the inferior gods, or demi-gods, might equally well be
called Naphal and Laphan, Nabal and Laban, and that its
original seats were in the Arabian border-land. This is a
sufficiently illuminative result, even without our venturing
to say what Naphal or Laphan originally meant. See,
further, on x. 8, 9, also on xxxii. 3 1 (Penuel, a development
of
THE SECOND AGE OF THE WORLD, BEGINNING
WITH THE DELUGE (GEN. vi. s-xi. 27-32).
CHAP. vi. 5-ix. 17 (J, P). The Deluge. Although vi. 1-4
is given by J as the introduction to the deluge-story, yet the
tale of the marriages (vv. I, 2) is quite distinct in its origin.
The Babylonian deluge -story has no such introduction ;
the legend of Kutha (quoted above), though mythological,
has no cosmogonic connexion. At the same time, we must
remember that the Babylonian deluge-stories, however ancient,
are, upon the whole, not primitive. And it is permissible
to refer to a N. American (Skidi Pawnee) myth, which,
though it also is not quite primitive, yet contains some
archaic details. Among these is the statement that the
deluge was sent by the heaven-god to destroy the wicked
giants and the monstrous animals on the first earth. 1 It is
therefore a tenable view that Gen. vi. I, 2, in an expanded
form, was originally the introduction to a Hebrew deluge-
story, no longer extant.
The notion of a disharmony between the heavenly
Beings implied in vv. 1-3 is also very archaic. The
germs of dualism abound in the N. American creation and
flood stories, and in the Babylonian cosmogony they have
grown up into an elaborate dragon-myth. Not so, indeed, in
the deluge-story. But it may be questioned whether the
preternatural serpents who were connected with the sub
terranean waters did not play a most important part in the
primitive story out of which at length our present deluge-
story developed. One of those races which retained the
primitive spirit for ages after its departure or decay else
where the Algonkins of N. America represented the
1 Dorsey, Skidi Pawnee Traditions (1894), p. 23.
125
126 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
flood as produced, not by a creator, but by the serpents,
whose prince Michabazo (the theriomorphic creator of the
earth and of men) l had mortally wounded. Michabazo
was hotly pursued by his enemies (cp. the helpers of
Rahab, Job ix. 13), but got safely to the top of the highest
tree on the highest hill. There he saw that the subterranean
waters were also after him ; he only just escaped. After
the subsidence of the flood he proceeded to remake the
earth. Divers animals (including a raven) play the same
part of assistants as at the creation. Last of all, aided by
the badger, Michabazo obtained the mastery over the
serpents. 2
Let no one despise * the day of small things. The tale
has not indeed the epic grandeur of the Babylonian story,
or the sober simplicity of the Hebrew ; but it helps one
to realise how far the human spirit has had to travel from
its childish beginnings. Michabazo is in one aspect a
creator, in another a Herakles or a Gilgamesh, whose
business it is, not without risks, to clear the earth from
monsters. The earth-maker being theriomorphic, his op
ponents must be so too. In a late stage of this flood-story
a moral element appears ; the flood is caused by the
mighty snake the evil Manitu. 3 Dualism has developed.
It is possible, therefore, that the deluge was originally
thought to have been caused by the malice of the serpents,
who saw with displeasure the orderliness of the world.
Both in the Algonkin, and especially in the Skidi Pawnee
and Caingang (Brazilian) myth, 4 the part played by birds
reminds one of the Babylonian and Hebrew stories. This
1 I.e. of America and its tribes. Father Hennepin long ago re
marked that these tribes believe that the Europeans do inhabit another
world different from theirs (A New Discovery of a vast Country in
America, Lond. 1698, p. 49 (continuation)).
2 Brinton, Myths of the New World, pp. i?6_^
3 Brinton, The Lendpe and their Legends (the Walam Oluni),
1885.
4 The Skidi Pawnee have the three birds, including the raven
(Dorsey). The Caingang tribe finely describe the state of the survivors
on a mountain, expecting to die, when they heard the song of the
saracura birds, who came carrying earth in baskets, and threw it into
the waters, which slowly subsided (American Folklore, xviii. 223^).
Mud is the creator s usual material.
THE DELUGE (GEN. vi. 5-ix. 17) 127
highly primitive form of representation suggests two points
of capital importance : (i) that the chief actor in the scene
was originally a bird-man (for his assistants would be like
himself), and (2) that the deluge originally led on to a
second creation of the world (the olive-leaf, or the branch
of fir in the Tinne story, which the dove brings in its
beak, is a substitute for the morsel of moist clay out of
which the more primitive myths say that the earth was
created). 1
In these primitive stories the second creation implies
the imperfection of the first ; the creator could not at once
have declared that all that he had made was * very good
(Gen. i. 31), nor could his opponent Ahriman, in the Parsee
Genesis, have spontaneously * commended the creatures and
creation of the All-knowing Lord (Bund. i. 12). The
acquired imperfection of the first creation is indeed implied
in the pessimistic statement of Gen. iii. 1 7, cursed is the
ground for thy sake. But it was at least a tolerable
imperfection, and even J (to whose school Gen. iii. 17 is
due) did not venture to make the deluge in all respects a
turning-point in earthly destinies. In this connexion the
Guatemala myth is noteworthy. The divine creators of
men did not all at once succeed ; so the gods destroyed
these * mannikins by a flood. Afterwards they succeeded
too well, and had to abstract a few qualities from these
perfect creatures, so producing normal men, the ancestors
of the Quiches. 2 Here, as elsewhere, the Deity is unwilling
that earthly men should be too nearly divine. And yet,
for nothing less than this is the inward longing of normal
men, and later Jewish and Iranian speculation, adopting the
theory of world-ages, produced the grand idea of a future
restoration of Paradise, a frashokereti or renovation of the
world. 3
We have by no means exhausted the suggestions of the
American myths. According to one form of the Tlinkit
myth (N.W. America), their raven-hero, who is a half-
developed creator and the producer of the flood, recom
mended those who survived the flood to throw stones
1 So Stucken. - Popol Vuh, cap. iii. (Stucken and Andree).
3 De Harlez, Avesta, introd. p. clxxxv.
128 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
behind them, upon which a new human race would arise. 1
How, indeed, could the wonderful increase of mankind be
otherwise explained ? The Tamanaks on the Orinoco have
a similar flood-story ; here, however, the kernels of fruit-stones
stand instead of ordinary stones. The Deucalion flood-story
and the Lithuanian 2 agree with the Tlinkit. Surely this
notion is highly primitive ; it springs from a time when, not
only between gods, men, and animals, but between organised
and unorganised life, there was no sharp distinction, the
same breath of divinity pervading it all (cp. Dorsey, Pawnee
Traditions, pp. 105, 260, 346). Matt. iii. 9 is, of course,
not on the same plane of thought ; here it is only by God s
all-mightiness that children can be raised up to Abraham.
But the form of expression ( children out of stones ) may
have come down from the time when the world was young
and men still perfectly naive.
As a rule, the heroes of these flood-stories do not them
selves foresee the flood ; it is sometimes a friendly animal
who warns them. But in the flood-story of the Hare
Indians it is the hero himself who foresees the calamity ; his
name is fitly called Kunyan the intelligent. 3 We may
compare the Babylonian hero Atra-frasis and the Hebrew
Noah (Enoch ?) who walked with Elohim, though the parallel
is not quite complete, since both these had divine warnings.
As to the cause of the deluge, we have seen that it was
sometimes the discontent of the earth-producer with his
work, sometimes the enmity of the serpents. Another
cause, however, is mentioned in a Gippsland story. * Some
children of the Kurnai, in playing about, found a turndun
(bull-roarer), which they took home to the camp, and
showed the women. Immediately the earth crumbled away,
and it was all water, and the Kurnai were drowned.
Mungun left the earth, and ascended to the sky, where he
still remains. 4 The desecration of a holy mystery, i.e. the
1 Ratzel, Hist, of Mankind, ii. 148. Yelch s own father was a
pebble.
2 See Stucken, Astr.-mythen, pp. 282 /
3 Petitot, Traditions Indie nnes du Canada Nord-ouest, pp. 14? f. ; in
Stucken, p. 285.
4 Howitt, in Lang, Custom and Myth, p. 35; The Making of
Religion, p. 196.
THE DELUGE (GEN. vi. 5-ix. 17) 129
breaking of a taboo (as in Paradise), is one of the most
natural causes of such an event.
But Polynesian stories tell us much more than this.
When Ruahatu, the god of the sea, forgives the penitent
fisherman for an involuntary breach of taboo, he bids him
take wife and child, with a single friend, and domestic
animals, and flee to Toamarama. Now Toamarama, the
name of a neighbouring islet, means tree of the moon/
alluding to a mythic tree which grew up to the sky. But
the god would take his revenge. As the sun approached
the horizon, the flood rose, and destroyed all, except
these on Toamarama. The escaped fisherman became the
progenitor of a new race. 1 Three other clearly mythical
names may be mentioned besides Toamarama. One is
Pito-hiti ( the navel of . . . ), the name of a mountain
on Tahiti. The other two are flood of the moon/
and flood of the eye of light (i.e. the sun), names of
the deluge in Hawaii and in New Zealand respectively.
It appears as if to the happy Polynesians the sky
appeared like a great blue sea, and the sun, moon, and
stars (or constellations) like a man and his wife, with
their children, or sometimes like boats carrying living
beings (cp. Egypt). 2
The most famous of the Greek flood-stories is that of
Deucalion, son of Prometheus, and father of Hellen. 3 It is
represented as a local flood, but this is because to primitive
myth-makers their own land is virtually the earth. The
story appears late in literature, but must have come from a
primitive deluge-myth, as is shown by the mention of the
chest, the mountain of landing, the sacrifice, and, last not
least, the incident (see above) of the * getting themselves
without marriage-bed a race from stones (Pind. Ol. ix. 44).
Lucian s account, however, in De ded Syr. xii. xiii., is a
mere version of the Babylonian story. He mentions as the
reputed founder of the temple at Bambyke (Hierapolis)
Deucalion-Sisythes, 4 where Sisythes is of course the Xisuthros
1 Ellis, Polynesian Researches, ii. 58 f.
2 Waitz-Gerland, Anthropologie, vi. 270, 272.
3 Cp. Usener, op. cit. pp. 5 I ff.
4 Buttmann s correction, rbi/ 2icrv$ea for TOV S/a &a.
130 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
of Berossus. The water of the deluge flowed away through
a cleft in the earth under the temple.
Was there, we may ask, any deluge-story in Egypt ?
Most (e.g. Dillmann, Gunkel, Driver) answer in the negative.
Yet the Egyptian priests told Solon that there had been
not one but many floods, and the mythic basis of the
Egyptian cosmogony is equally valid for an Egyptian
deluge. If in far -distant ages the waters of the abyss
enveloped the germs of all things, how likely it was that at
a later period of mythic history the same waters should
have made an irruption into the ordered world ! The
serpent Apepi and the other monsters were always lying in
wait for the god Ra (Re) as he sailed in his solar bark on
the celestial ocean ; may not the waters of the abyss have
now and again aided the assailants, just as Sit, with whom
Apepi is virtually one, overcame Osiris ? And the Book
of the Dead actually contains such a flood-story. Here is
a passage from it : And further, I 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. No
mention is made of the destruction of men, but the text of
the chapter is not preserved in full. After the great flood
we are told that Osiris was established, not without a
struggle, as king in Heracleopolis. 1 We also hear of a
catastrophe called the destruction of mankind. Ra, the
divine king of the earth, being disgusted at human
insolence, resolved to exterminate men. A massacre
ensued, after which, to provide a secure abode for the
aged king, the work of creation was completed by the
separation of earth and sky (cp. the parallel New Zealand
myth). 2
The Phrygian myth is unimportant, because it has
been mixed up with the Jewish. For this the large
Jewish colonies in Asia Minor are responsible. Thus
Apamea (Kibotos) adopted the Noah-story ; Iconium that
of Enoch, whose name was connected with the Phrygian
name of Naz^a/eo? or Awa/co?. This king was said to
1 See Naville, PSBA, 1904, pp. 250^, 287^
2 See Maspero, Dawn of Civilisation, pp. 164-168 ; Stucken,
Astralmythen, pp. 119-123.
THE DELUGE (GEN. vi. 5-ix. 17) 131
have lived more than three hundred years, and to have
foretold the deluge. 1
Had the Iranians a deluge-myth ? We learn from the
Parsee Genesis (Bund. chap, vii.) that in the second conflict
between the good and evil creations the star Tistar (Sirius)
produced a mighty flood. Its object was to destroy the
noxious creatures on the as yet unpeopled earth, and it
lasted thirty days and thirty nights. The interesting story
of Yima s Paradise (cp. p. 14) has also been converted by
late systematisers into a deluge -story. The Vara, or
enclosure, constructed by Yima, was regarded by them as
designed to preserve specimens of living beings from a
deluge, after the subsidence of which the inhabitants of the
Vara would come forth, and arrange a better world. But in
the original, which is distinguished by its metrical character,
the calamity to be avoided is, not a flood, but a dire winter
at the end of the world. 2
The Indian story exists in several forms. The earliest
is that in the Satapatha Brahmana. It is stated here that
Manu, the first man, the son of the sun-god Vivasvant,
found one day, in bathing, a small fish, which asked for
tendance, and promised in return to deliver Manu in the
flood that should come. The fish grew to such a size that
it had to be carried to the sea, where it revealed to Manu
the time of the flood, and bade him make a ship. This was
done, and Manu (alone) embarked. His vessel was towed
by the supernatural fish (to whose horn it was fastened) to
the summit of the northern mountain, where, at the command
of the fish, Manu bound it to a tree. As the waters sank,
Manu came down ; he then sacrificed and prayed. At the
end of a year his prayer was granted : he saw before him a
woman, who called herself his daughter I^a (goddess of
fertility). No mention is here made of sin as the cause of
the flood. In the Mahabharata a fuller account is given.
1 See Pilcher, PSBA xxv. (1903), 225-233 ; Cheyne, E. Bib., col.
1066 ; and Usener, Die Sintfluthsagen, p. 48, note 3 ; the two latter for
references.
2 See Geldner, in Kuhn s Zcitschrift, xxv. 179 ff.; and cp.
Darmesteter s note, SEE iv. 16. Stucken (p. 95) has failed to observe
this.
132 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Here Manu is accompanied by the seven rishis, doubtless
in order that the religious tradition may be handed on.
Seeds are also taken in the ship. The mystery of the
horned fish, too, finds its explanation. He is the god
Brahma, and communicates to Manu the power of creating
both gods and men. This flood is said to have lasted
many years. A third account, that in the Bhagavata
Purana, is very late and of a composite character ; Jewish
influence can be detected.
The Babylonian story exists in two principal forms,
which are the local traditions of Sippar and Shurippak l
respectively. The hero of the former is called Xisuthros, a
Greek contraction of Hasis-atra = Atra-hasis, the very wise/
a title of the favoured man in the Gilgamesh epic (xi. 1 96).
Warned in a dream by Kronos (Bel), he built a ship and
embarked, accompanied by wife, daughter, friends, and
steersman. He also took with him quadrupeds and birds.
When asked whither he went, he was bidden to answer, To
the gods, to pray for good things for men. How long the
flood lasted, we are not told. On its cessation he sent out
some of the birds, three separate times. The first time they
returned ; also the second time, with muddied feet ; the
third time they failed to return. Seeing that the ship had
grounded on a certain mountain, Xisuthros now disembarked
with his wife and daughter, and the steersman, and sacrificed,
after which he and his companions disappeared. Those
who had remained on the ship now in their turn disembarked,
and called him by name. But a voice from heaven ad
monished them to fear God ; Xisuthros himself, because of
his piety, had gone to dwell with the gods, and this honour
was shared by his companions. They themselves were bidden
to return to Babylon, to take up the writings deposited by
Xisuthros at Sippar, and to distribute these among men.
The land in which they then were was Armenia.
I have given this at some length because the Berossian
account seems to have been somewhat neglected. Six
1 Prof. F. C. Burkitt identifies Shurippak (a place on the Euphrates)
with Sarbog, which occurs in a Syriac hymn (Journ. of Theol. Studies,
Oct. 1902); so also G. Hoffmann (according to Jensen, KB vi. 481,.
who opposes this view).
THE DELUGE (GEN. vi. s-ix. 17) 133
points of importance have to be noticed, (i) Bel, not Ea,
gives warning of the deluge. The other flood-story is * a
glorification of Ea at the expense of Bel (Jastrow). (2)
The whole of mankind (i.e. at any rate all Babylonia), not
merely a particular city, is to be overwhelmed. (3) The
hero of the deluge is the tenth of the Babylonian kings
who are mentioned by this writer. (4) The hero himself
anticipates his apotheosis. (5) The birds return the second
time with mud on their feet a faint trace of a detail found
in several archaic N. American stones, viz. that a morsel of
mud is brought back by a bird for the use of the earth-
former (see p. 126). (6) In the time of Berossus (c. 280 B.C.)
the mountain on which the ark grounded was supposed to
be in Armenia. (7) The authority for the fundamentals
of Babylonian hierology (set forth in the writings ) is
said to date back to the times before the deluge. Cp. the
seven * rishis who accompanied Manu. Possibly enough a
similar statement (now lost) was made respecting the sacred
lore of the Israelites. In Enoch Ixxii. I, Methu-selah is
commanded to preserve the books from his father s hands
and commit them to the generations of the world. In this
part of Genesis, however, the only revelation expressly
mentioned is that in chap. ix.
The setting given to the deluge-story in Berossos is
therefore of special interest. Xisuthros closes the age of
primitive revelations. He is one of those old sages to
whose utterances later hierologists appeal as their authorities. 1
He is also a king, for perfect wisdom is the characteristic
of kings (Prov. viii. 15). In fact, he and his predecessors
correspond to the king of the divine city, which we must, I
think, postulate on the summit of the mountain of Elohim
spoken of in Ezek. xxviii. 1 2 ff. Doubtless Xisuthros is
represented by Berossos as king of Babylon, but so too, we
may observe, the demi-god of Ezek. xxviii. must have been
represented by Yerahme elite writers as king of Missor, and
it may be of this hero that Jewish writers are thinking when
they describe the ideal king of the future. 2
1 Zimmern, KAT, p. 537.
2 See Isa. xi. 1-9, noting the reference to restored Paradise.
134 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
A very different setting is given to the deluge-story in
the Gilgamesh epic. The hero called Gilgamesh has taken
a long and difficult journey to find his ancestor Ut-napishtim,
and on his arrival asks this personage how he found
entrance into the assembly of the gods and sought life.
To which Ut-napishtim replies :
I will open to thee, O Gilgamesh ! a secret thing,
And the decision of the gods will I tell thee.
He then gives an elaborate, poetical description of the
deluge, which has been so often repeated that I may
assume it to be well known.
There are, however, several points of detail which
deserve attention. Thus, Ut-napishtim is evidently a plain
citizen of Shurippak ; how, indeed, should a king of Babylon
dwell at Shurippak ? But his personal importance is not
slight ; he is both rich and pious, and closely connected
with the god Ea, just as his father Ubar-tutu is with Ea s
son, Marduk (Tutu = Marduk). Ea, supported by Ishtar,
is the patron of humanity ; but other gods, notably Bel,
are hostile to mankind. It is Ea (not Bel, as in Berossus)
who warns Ut-napishtim in a dream, and tells him to build
a ship (elippu\ meaning perhaps a flat-bottomed skiff with
upturned edges, such as is still used on the Euphrates. Its
dimensions are to be carefully planned, and Ut-napishtim
is further directed to take seeds of a living being of all
kinds. The Very Wise interprets these commands
intelligently, not forgetting to take a store of bitumen
(kupru, iddu} in case of needful repairs. After a feast, he
puts on board all his silver and gold (going beyond his
orders), his whole household, cattle, and wild beasts (grass-
eaters, as an independent document states), also skilled
artificers, to restore the old civilisation. A sign is given
to him that he may embark and shut the door. A striking
polytheistic passage follows, describing the storm -flood
(abubu] ; the gods who took no part in it cowered like
dogs and went up to the heaven of Anu. Six days and
nights the storm-flood lasts ; then a calm sets in. Ut-
napishtim opens the air-hole (window), and sadly surveys
the scene. After twelve (double hours ?) the vessel grounds
THE DELUGE (GEN. vi. s-ix. 17) 135
on the mountain of Nisir. 1 There it remains six full days.
On the morning of the seventh day Ut-napishtim sends out
at intervals a dove, a swallow, and a raven. The first two
return, but not the third a signal for Ut-napishtim to
leave the ship. Then he offers a sacrificial victim and
incense, to the boundless delight of the minor gods.
The gods inhaled the odour,
The gods inhaled the sweet odour,
The gods gathered like flies about the sacrificer. 2
After a dispute with some of the other gods, Bel becomes
reconciled. This is how he blesses Ut-napishtim and his
wife :
Formerly Ut-napishtim was a man ;
Now shall Ut-napishtim and his wife be accounted like us, the gods.
Ut-napishtim shall dwell afar off, at the mouth of the streams.
* Then, the hero adds, they brought me afar off ; at the
mouth of the streams they caused me to dwell.
We now see the significance of the hero s name, Ut-
napishtim, i.e. he saw (or found) life. It was the mighty
word of Bel which changed him from human to divine.
True, this was supplemented by translation. He was
taken to a distant spot, where, as it seems, the gods some
times assembled ; it is obscurely described here as at the
mouth of the streams. Here there was water which could
make the sick whole, and a magic plant, difficult to get,
which could make the old young, but no park of wonderful
trees such as Gilgamesh found at an earlier point. Where,
the prosaic reader may ask, was this highly favoured place
situated ?
One may first of all think of the two cuneiform passages 3
in which the phrase the mouth of the streams means the
district where the Euphrates and the Tigris join the Persian
1 Jensen also suggests the reading Nimush or Nimus (Das Gilg.
Epos, p. 43, note 2). He thinks too (p. 45) that Berossus put the
mountain in the neighbourhood of the Jebel Judl. Sayce (Exp. Times,
Nov. 1906, p. 72, note i) seems to place Nisir here.
2 The minor gods seem not much respected by the poet. Contrast
Gen. viii. 21 (J), which is quite naively expressed.
3 Jensen, Kosmologie, p. 213.
136 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Gulf, and in one of which Eridu (the city sacred to Ea) is
also mentioned. But surely an island opposite Eridu can
hardly be intended here ; l the god Bel emphatically says
that the place is far away, and Gilgamesh (who goes to
visit Ut-napishtim) gives a thrilling account of the perils of
his journey. Let us take a hint from Enoch. When this
personage says (Eth. Enoch xvii. 10) that he saw the
mouths of all the rivers of the earth and the mouth of the
deep, he means the mythical ocean-stream which surrounds
the earth, and receives all its rivers and seas. So, too, Bel
must surely mean a spot at the * end of the earth/ on the
ocean-stream. Was it Socotra, an island on the coast of
S. Arabia, supposed to be that referred to in the Egyptian
tale of the shipwrecked mariner, translated by Maspero?
This view has been advanced by Hommel. 2 Jensen, how
ever, is of opinion 3 that even S. Arabia is not sufficiently
distant, and that some land or island in the far west is
meant. He thinks that the phrase * the mouth of the
streams was perhaps suggested by the Straits of Gibraltar,
and further reminds us of Elishah in Gen. x. 4, which is
mentioned together with Tarshish (S. Spain ?), and, accord
ing to him, means N.W. Africa, 4 and is connected with the
mythic name Elysium.
Certainly it is plausible enough to suppose that the
translated Ut-napishtim dwelt in an Elysium in the far
west like that of the Aryan peoples and like the Egyptian
Amenti. But Hommel s view is not in itself impossible.
The southern ocean may quite conceivably be intended.
Arabia was much more real to the early Babylonians than
the far west, and if Hommel is correct, 5 they sometimes
1 In KB vi. 481, Das Gilg. Epos, i. 40, note i, Jensen expresses
the opinion that Ut-napishtim, the favourite of Ea, must reside in Ea s
city, so that Shurippak would be a name either for Eridu, or at least for
a part of Eridu. If so, Jensen s older view, though widely held, is out
of the question.
2 AHT, pp. 35 / The waters of death in the epic may, he
thinks, be in the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb, where, in fact, there are
numerous islands. Against Hommel, see Bertholet, Die Gefilde der
Seligen (1903), pp. i?/
3 KB vi. 506/5 Das Gilg. Epos, p. 33.
4 Against this view, see on Gen. x.
5 Gr. pp. u, 256.
THE DELUGE (GEN. vi. 5 -ix. 17) 13?
(alluding to its frankincense) even called the whole of
Arabia the c land of God. A third view, however, deserves
careful consideration. It is clearly implied in the Gilgamesh
epic that Ut-napishtim was admitted to the assembly (puhru)
of the gods. Why may not heroes like this Babylonian
Enoch, who escaped death, have had (according to the
earlier view) a mansion on the mountain of the gods
(p. 72)? It is true the phrase at the mouth of the
streams points to a residence on some ocean-island. But
inconsistent statements, belonging to different ages and
writers, ought not to surprise us. Gilgamesh himself, as
the deputy of Shamash, 1 must also have joined the divine
assembly.
It is one of the most striking differences between the
story in Genesis and that in the Gilgamesh epic that
whereas, in the latter, the hero of the deluge passes away
alive from the world of toiling mortals, in the former he
becomes the head of the second human race. If, however,
my contention is justified, and Noah is really miswritten
for * Hanok, there must have been a time when the Canaanite
or Yerahme elite deluge-story closed with the statement that
the God Yerahme el took this wise and righteous man to
the mountain of the Divine Beings.
Do the two stories also differ as regards the mountain
where the ark or boat grounded ? The epic tells us that it
was the mountain of Nisir ; a land or mountain so called is,
in fact, referred to in the inscriptions. It appears that this
Nisir lay in Media, east of the Lower Zab. Berossus, how
ever, asserts that the unnamed mountain was in Armenia. 2
And what says the Priestly Writer (P) in Genesis ? He
tells us that the ark rested ... on the mountains of
Ararat (Gen. viii. 4). Does * Ararat here mean Armenia ?
We may, indeed, plausibly connect it with Urartu, a region
which forms part of the modern Armenia. Nisir, however,
is not in Urartu. Is it certain, then, that Ararat really
stood in the writing from which P draws ? We shall have
to return to this question a little later.
J and P also differ. Note, e.g., the non-mention in J
1 See the hymn in KB vi. 267.
~ For Jensen s and Sayce s views, see p. 135, note i.
138 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
of the rainbow (see ix. 12-16, P). This non-mention is
specially strange, because the words * I do set my bow in
the cloud (cp. Ezek. i. 28), from their mythical appearance,
would be expected in the older narrative. We must re
member, however, (i) that late writings often contain very
primitive details, and (2) that the origin of the rainbow
finds no place in the Babylonian creation-epic. In what
may possibly be a fragment of that epic (KB vi. 33) we do
indeed find the bow of Marduk referred to. Anu and the
other gods, we are told, admired this bow, and the former
appointed as its third name * Bow-(star). l One can under
stand that war-gods like Marduk in Babylonia, Kuzah in
Arabia, 2 Yahweh in Canaan (Ps. Ixxvii. 18, Heb. iii. 9),
and Indra in India should have bows, and that when the
battle was over, the bow should be hung up in the sky.
But it is surely Sirius, and not the rainbow, to which such
myths refer. 3 Nor is there any suggestion in P s deluge-
story that Yahweh has been shooting his arrows. Indeed,
the rainbow seems to be created at the end of the deluge
as a symbol of Yahweh s pledge that he will not cause
another similar catastrophe. The Greek Iris is really
nearer to the c bow in the cloud Iris, who is the in
terpreter of the divine counsels. The notion that the
rainbow is the bridge 4 (Edda) or path 5 (Tahitian myth) of
the gods lies further off. Nor is it important to quote the
Lithuanian deluge-story (see p. 127), in which the rainbow
appears as a comforter and counsellor of the survivors from
the deluge.
The accounts also differ as to the duration of the flood.
P makes it 365 days, i.e. a solar year (cp. Enoch s age,
v. 23), while J, if the text may be accepted, made it forty
days and nights the time of the Pleiades, after which he
1 It is true Ishtar (as the goddess of war) is, properly speaking, the
divinity of the Bow-star. See KAT (Z \ p. 426.
2 Passages from the Hamasa, etc., in Tuch, ZZW, 1849, pp.
200 f. ; cp. Hommel, Gr. p. 165.
3 Cp. Job xxxviii. 36, where for mno we should read nmn, or rather
nrnn, the lance-star, and, for nut?, n?p, the bow-(star). See Cheyne,
JBL, 1898, pp. io 4 /
4 Grimm, Deutsche Mythologie, pp. 694, 696.
5 Waitz-Gerland, Anthropologie, vi. 268.
THE DELUGE (GEN. vi. 5-ix. 17) 139
allows two periods of seven days before the patriarch leaves
the ark. The epic gives only seven days for the duration
of the flood, after which the ship remains six full days on
the mountain of Nisir (see above). It is possible that in an
older form of the Babylonian story the deluge may have
been made to last 365 days; P may represent a much
more archaic tradition than even the Babylonian epic.
Whether the Hebrew term nin, * chest ( = ark ), is, or is
not, more ancient than the Babylonian elippu, ship, is a
question which may be variously answered.
It is needless to compare the several accounts more
fully. The task has been accomplished by my predecessors. 1
Nor need I spend time on bringing out the wide difference
between the religious spirit of the Babylonian and that
of the Hebrew narratives. That the latter has been pro
foundly influenced in its details by the former is plain, but
Israelite piety has to a large extent purified the deluge-
tradition from its dross. It still remains, however, to state
what view I take of the history and significance of this
much-edited story, and to justify this, so far as is necessary,
by the solution of textual problems. On the relation of
the deluge-story to that of Sodom and Gomorrah, see on
chap. xix.
The history of the myth falls for us into three parts :
I. The development which issued in the various Babylonian
versions; II. The development of the Indian flood-story;
and III. The development of the Hebrew stories conven
tionally assigned to J and P.
I. The story in the epic is, no doubt, the fullest which
Babylonia has given us. But there are also two other
texts which apparently refer to the same version of the
deluge -tradition a version which is distinct from that
expressed in the Gilgamesh epic. All these versions (in
cluding the Berossian) must have developed out of a much
shorter and simpler myth. Some mythic details were
inserted in this older myth, others were omitted or modified,
and to the story thus produced there was applied what may
be called a mythic theory respecting events supposed to
1 See especially Gunkel. I would also refer to Deluge in Enc.
Bib. and Enc. Brit. (m
140 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
have occurred in the heavens. In sketching the older and
shorter myth, it is permissible to take suggestions from
those myths of N. America which open a door, as hardly any
others equally do, into the mind of primitive man. Accept
ing this licence, we may suppose that older myth to have run
somewhat as follows : * The earth (a small enough earth,
doubtless) and its inhabitants proved so imperfect that the
beneficent superhuman Being who had created it, or perhaps
another such Being, determined to remake it. He there
fore summoned the serpent or dragon who controlled the
cosmic ocean, and had been subjugated at creation, to
overwhelm the earth, after which the creator remade it
better, and the survivor and his family became the ancestors
of a new human race. l
Another representation, however, is not impossible.
Adopting a suggestion from one of the N. American sources,
we may suppose it to have been said that the serpent, of
his own accord, having escaped destruction, maliciously
(cp. Rev. xii. 15) flooded that poor little earth, but was
again overcome by the greater Being ; or again, that the
serpent, after filling the inhabited earth with deeds of
violence, was at length slain by his opponent, and that the
streaming out of his blood produced a deluge. 2 There is
nothing rash in either of these or in the preceding con
jectures. How can the first flood (issuing in creation) have
had its dragon or serpent, and the second (issuing in a
renovated world) have had none ? There is even an old
mythological text (recopied late) in which, probably at
least, the year of the deluge is called * the year of the raging
(or, red-shining) serpent. 3
Among the minor details of this older myth we may prob
ably include the following : (i) The warning of the wise and
practical hero of the flood by animals ; (2) the construction
of a raft or rude skiff to contain the hero and his family,
and also animals ; (3) the despatch of three birds, not
(originally) to see in which direction dry land lay, but to
bring either mud or some branch of a tree, for the creator,
1 Article * Deluge, Enc. Brit
2 See the mythological text described in KA T & \ pp. 498 /
3 Ibid. p. 554.
THE DELUGE (GEN. vi. 5-ix. 17) 141
in his skill, to convert into the land with all its variety of
furniture ; and (4) the landing on a mountain. Only a few
comments are necessary here. Thus, as to (i), in the
Indian myth it is the sacred fish which warns Manu of the
flood ; in the N. American myths it is an eagle or a coyote
(a kind of wolf). As to (2), Usener l has shown how
common the story is of a divine child cast into the sea in
a box. One is tempted to think originally the hero of the
Canaanite deluge-story may have been a divine child (cp.
Rev. xii. 4) ; the apotheosis of the hero of the Babylonian
story is clearly a modification of the original myth. As to
(3), compare the Caingang story, quoted above, and that of
the Tlatlasik Indians, where the diving-bird (one of three
sent out) returns with a branch of a fir-tree, out of which
O meatl makes mountains, earth, and heaven. 2 As to (4),
the mountain doubtless grew in wonderfulness as time went
on. Originally, no doubt, it was imagined as some very
high mountain in the known world. But afterwards, in
Babylonia, it was probably identified with the mountain
where the pufyur Hani, assembly of the gods, was held ;
* Nisir (p. 135) might mean * guard, watch. This throws a
light on the reward of the hero Ut-napishtim, which was
probably (in the original story) not Elysium, but Olympus.
We can also well believe that a simple didactic element
very soon found its way into the story. The necessity of
maintaining primitive customs and taboos would seem to the
priests to be a sufficient reason for modifying the story, so
that it might run somewhat as we find it in the Gippsland
myth already recorded. Possibly the sacrifices were in need
of encouragement ; hence the stress laid in the chief Baby
lonian story on the delight of the gods when the hero
Ut-napishtim offered his sacrifice.
More extensive alteration became necessary when the
agricultural stage of society was reached. It was natural
that men should now take a keener interest in celestial
phenomena. In some countries an astrological science, or
quasi-science, arose. Still more common was a thorough
going revision of the inherited myths of origins. According
1 Die Sintfluthsagen (1899), pp. 81-108, 115-127.
2 Stucken, Astralmtyhen, pp. 2
I 4 2 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
to Schirren, 1 the New Zealand cosmogonies are properly
myths of sunrise, and the deluge-stories myths of sunset.
It is at any rate a probable theory, long since accepted by
the present writer, and after him by Zimmern, 2 that the
deluge -stories of Polynesia, early Babylonia, and India
were accommodated, at a certain stage of culture, to an
imaginative conception of the sun and moon as voyagers
on the celestial ocean, and to a large extent recast. When
these stones in their new form had been for some time
in circulation, rationalistic thinkers obtained the recon
version of the sky-myths into earth-myths, and observa
tion of the damage wrought in winter by excessive rains
and inundations suggested the introduction of corresponding
details into the new earthly deluge-myth. But Ut-napishtim,
who corresponds to Marduk in the parallel story of the fight
with Tiamat, could not altogether put off his solar-mythical
character. There is also another vestige of the original
celestial myth in the statement (KB vi. 237) that the gods,
after cowering like dogs, ascended (by the steps of the
zodiac) to the highest (i.e. most northerly) 3 heaven, the
heaven of Anu (p. 134). Here alone could they feel
themselves secure.
II. As to the development of the Indian flood-story. It
is a great subject of debate whether this story is dependent
or not on the Babylonian. For my own part, I think it
unlikely that such a gifted race as the Aryans of India
should not have produced its own flood-story out of the
same primeval germs which grew up into the earliest
Babylonian flood-story, and almost inconceivable that in
its second form the Indian story should not have become
1 Wandersagen der Neuseeldnder (1856), p. 193.
2 See Deluge, Enc. BtitP\ 1877, and 18, Enc. Bib., 1899;
Waitz-Gerland, Anthropologie, vi. 270-273 (1872). After a long
interval, this has been sanctioned by Zimmern, KAT (3 \ p. 355, and
Winckler, A OF, 3rd ser. i. 96. For a more elaborate form of this
theory, involving the supposition that abubu means not only a storm-
flood (p. 134) but a light-flood, see Jensen, KB vi. 332 /, 563 / ; Das
Gilg. Epos, pp. 118^ Cp. also Jeremias, ATAO, pp. 134-136;
Usener, op. cit. p. 239.
3 Cp. the Hebrew phrase the heavens of heavens, Dt. x. 14, i K.
viii. 27, 2 Chr. ii. 5, Ps. cxlviii. 7, and see Jeremias, ATAO, pp. 10, 27.
THE DELUGE (GEN. vi. 5-ix. 17) 143
adapted to what may be called the celestial mythic theory.
The phrase " the northern mountain " for the place where the
ship grounded may quite well be the name of an earthly
substitute (the epic has, " the highest summit of the
Himalaya") for the mythic mountain of heaven. Nor is
it unimportant that Manu is the son of the sun-god, and
that the phrase " the seven rishis " in classical Sanskrit is
a designation of the seven stars of the Great Bear.
III. With regard to the Canaanite or N. Arabian flood-
story which we must suppose to have been adopted by the
Israelites, we may probably venture to hold that it had
previously passed through more than one stage. First of
all, it may have grown up independently from the same
simple germs which we have assumed for the primitive
Babylonian myth. Then this old story may have been
recast, in deference to a popular impulse, by the priests of
some leading Israelitish sanctuary. Of course, it was the
earth as known to the myth-framers that was represented
as having been overwhelmed, and the chief stress would be
laid on the effect of the flood on the country where the
myth-framers lived, i.e. in the one case Babylonia, and in
the other Arabia. I think that a keener textual criticism
shows that in the underlying, earlier text of the Hebrew
deluge-stories the land of * the Arabians and Yerahme elites
was distinctly spoken of, and that the ark was repre
sented as settling on the mountains of Ashtar. In this
view, though it may shock inherited prejudices, there is
nothing which can be called paradoxical. The Israelites
(if the phrase may be used) certainly sojourned in N. Arabia.
It is inevitable to suppose that they borrowed myths from
its inhabitants, and even if their chief debt was to the more
northern Canaanites, yet these Canaanites themselves, being
of the Yerahme elite stock, must have possessed, in some
form, the Yerahme elite myths.
That the god who sent the deluge was Yerahme el
would at once become highly probable if we might follow
^, and in certain passages restore * Yahweh-Elohim for a
simple Yahweh or Elohim. At any rate, we can hardly
doubt that 11^-^N in vi. 6 and viii. 21 ultimately comes
from f?NDnr htf (linking forms ^117, ^siv, and Palm.
144 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
, so that in vi. 6 we should read, * and El Yerahme el
was grieved/ and in viii. 2 1 (omitting the second mrr as
redactional) * and El Yerahme el said, unless, indeed,
El Yerahme el is to be taken here as a perfectly correct
gloss on Yahweh. For Yahweh and Yerahme el, the
early writers held, both in deliberation and in action were
one. Certainly "oS Stf is absurd. Yahweh in council
speaks not * to his heart (?) but to his fellow (or fellows).
We now turn to the hero of the deluge. As we have
seen (p. 115), his true name is, not Noah, but Hanok a
well-attested N. Arabian name. The parallelism between
v. 24 a and the closing words of vi. 9 is decisive. The
ideal righteous man, who alone deserved to be saved, was
Hanok. It was he who was l a righteous man and blameless
in his ways/ 1 not Noah. Shem, Ham, and Yepheth, how
ever, are not sons of Hanok, but of Noah or Naham (cp.
v. 29), the vine-dresser, of whom we read strange things in
ix. 20-27. As in the Babylonian deluge-story, the names
of the sons of the hero found no place in the original
Hebrew narrative. See on xix. i8/!, x. I.
We can now offer a better explanation of the obscure
word ^3p, 2 supposed to mean deluge. In vi. 17 the God
announces that he will bring upon the land crn frDorrriN.
According to most scholars, D""D (as also in vii. 6) is a gloss
on the archaic bllD, though in v. 17 Sievers takes the
reverse course, and Hommel points D^ T p. ^iin, however,
has not hitherto been satisfactorily explained. May it not
have come from ^IDD (cp. Syriac), which is a possible cor
ruption of ^NDim, D being duplicated as in NIDB? In an
earlier form of the Hebrew deluge-story VIDQ (xOD) was a
1 For vn-ro (hardly among his contemporaries ) in vi. 9 we may
perhaps read vama. This occurred to me before Winckler gave it, with
an astral interpretation, in AOF xxi. 396. Surely we must not (with
BDB} defend MT. s reading by Judg. iii. 2, where nm is not only itself
difficult to interpret, but occurs in a plainly disordered context (see Crit.
Bib. ad loc.). The alternative is to read iirra = mne-Na, in Ashtor.
2 See Cheyne, Psa/ms w , pp. 3?9/ ; E. Bib., col. 1061, note I, and
especially Zimmern, ZDMG Iviii. 953 f. For abubu = mabb&l the
latter compares aiai *?jn and ^SeeA^e/^ovA, a comparison which is all the
more appropriate if am and ^>ia7 come ultimately from W\ See Crit.
Bib.?. 353.
THE DELUGE (GEN. vi. 5-ix. 17) 145
gloss on piNrr. It was on the land of Yerahme el that the
deluge was sent. Read, therefore, in vi. 1 7 prr^S D WriN,
and in vii. 6 f n~h$ 1*77 o^DiTl, in each case with the marginal
note ^HDTTP. "?*OD has the same origin in x. I, 32, xi. 10,
Ps. xxix. IO. 1 In the other Genesis passages (vii. 7, 10,
ix. 11) it means deluge/ through a mistake of redactors,
who possibly derived SllD from Sll, supposed by them to
mean rain. Cp. also Isa. liv. 9, n") " C.
This result fits in with the probable results of criticism
in vii. 4, 12 (cp. v. 17). It is of course possible that the
seven days rain in the best-known Babylonian deluge-
story was magnified in the Hebrew story into a rain of
* forty days and forty nights. But considering how often
D^TiN and 0*0-1$ (or Ti ?) are confounded (see on ii. I o,
Judg. iii. 1 1, v. 3 i, viii. 28, etc.), 2 or and p* 1 (see p. 6, note 3),
nh b and borm (see on 2 K. viii. 21, Ps. Ixxiv. 16), we
may venture to read ^NDnT Tisn JCP 1-15, a combination of
two glosses on pNH. Note that in viii. 6 o*p "IN ppe> TT1
is due to the redactor, who had before him vii. 4 and 1 2 in
their corrupt form, and may also have inserted or IN in
vii. 17. See, further, on viii. 6.
Another curious word in the Hebrew story is Dip 1
(vii. 4, 23), which BDB explains substance, existence,
admitting, however, that the word seems to be used in a
more limited sense in Dt. xi. 6. But one may ask, Why
should the writer of Dt. xi. 6 have used a word meaning
existence when he only meant men ? Remembering
the names o^jT, pop, and Dpi, may we not plausibly suppose
that Dip* 1 has come from Dm* 1 ? The words which follow
Dljrfn] are, in v. 23, -inn ^Q-hx -itt>N, but in v. 4, TPB3 IBM
SN *OD b$D, and in v. 23 there is a warning Pasek both
before and after imN. Surely, as often, imN should be -IC?N,
and TP&S should be -inttfN (a variant to I&N). Probably
we should harmonise v. 4 and v. 23? i.e. read DnT~"?D~riN
*TNn OD ^SD, with a double gloss Asshur, Ashtar.
It is interesting to notice that probably there is a
correct marginal gloss on Dip* 1 . In the strange expression 4
1 Read Sen [ass-] 1 ?. 2 Cp. E. Bib., Moses, n.
3 The middle part of v. 23 is a redactional supplement (sep -u^ ^
Kautzsch-Socin). 4 Der wunderliche Ausdruck, says GunkeL*^
146 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
D^n mi nDBW (vii. 22), rm may be a corruption of n*P,
i.e. DHT (the original of Dip). Cp. on i. 2 .
A still more interesting confirmation of the view that
the deluge-story is Yerahme elite may now be produced.
It has been already remarked by Driver (Genesis, p. 106,
on viii. 4), ( Why in P the " mountains of Ararat " appear in
place of Nisir [see Asurbanipal s legend], must remain
matter of conjecture. And why the vague expression
* mountains ? Tiele l identifies Ararat with Nisir/ and
explains the former name as shortened from Hara-berezaiti
(the mountain Elburz). Most, however, identify it with
Urartu, which, sometimes at least, included most of the
later Armenia. Neither view is satisfactory. It is shown
on x. 3 that Ashkenaz/ which was certainly near * Ararat
(see Jer. li. 27), has come from Asshur-kenaz, and is the
name of a region of N. Arabia, and a careful study of 2 K.
xix. 37 in its context, and in the light of other discoveries,
shows that toYiN must also be a N. Arabian name, and
comparing itoN (see on Neh. vii. 45) and rmtos (see on
Num. xxxii. 3) we can hardly help tracing Ararat to
Ashtar 2 (int&N). That the mountain of the ark should
have been placed, in the Hebrew story, in Armenia is
certainly most improbable. Possibly c Lubar, the name of
the mountain in Jubilees, chaps, v. and x., comes from ^I-JN
= / DHT. At any rate, it is as good as certain that the
mountain on which the ark rested according to the Hebrew
story (P and probably J) 3 was Mount Ashtar, for the
situation of which, so far as it can be described from the
older text, see on Dt. iii. 17.
Let us now turn to some of the minor details. In
vi. 14, KS and Gunkel give us, Build thyself an ark (KS,
1 E. Bib., Ararat, 3. Sanda, however (Untersuch. p. 35, ap.
Doller), combines Ararat with the cuneiform Arardi, a mighty
mountain range in the Kardu region. For the ordinary view see
Friedr. Murad, Ararat u. Masts (1900).
2 The bene Ater in Neh. vii. 45 occur among the onjw, but the
original reading doubtless was nnf.x, Asshurites. This confirms the
view given above of IEN. Ater also occurs in the Assuan Jewish-
Aramaic inscriptions, E 3 (fifth century).
3 J too must have said that the ark rested on a mountain. Cp.
Wellh. CH, p. 6.
THE DELUGE (GEN. vi. s-ix. 17) 14?
" ship ") of pine-wood ; of nought but chambers shalt thou
make it. Of pine-wood is not at all adequate, nsn SS
must mean the timber of some special tree used in building
such large and important objects as the * ark, not of Moses,
but of Noah (Hanok). We cannot determine botanically
what the tree referred to was, unless indeed by some easy
text-emendation of the ordinary type we can turn IDI into
some word which represents or suggests some ascertained
tree, such as would be used for the specified purpose either
in Palestine or in N. Arabia. I do not, however, see how
this feat is to be performed. 1 We must therefore make use
of recent experience of the newer textual criticism. We
have found that tree-names in Hebrew are often in reality
applied names of people or regions. Thus DTilD ^2 (Ex.
xxv. IO etc.) ultimately comes to mean Sephathite timber ;
of this, according to P, the aron ( ark ) was made.
Similarly, tfttD^M ^ has been shown to mean Yerah-
me elite timber, great quantities of which were brought
by Hiram and Solomon, not from Ophir, but perhaps
from the N. Arabian mountains (see Crit. Bib. p. 331,
cp. 384). And we only really understand the familiar
phrase pjn p$ when we see it to have come from pin ps,
tree of Ra aman, i.e. of Yerahme el, with which compare
JOB Y$ (Neh. viii. 15), from JDBT p, tree of Yishman, i.e.
of Ishmael. ID} then is, at any rate, a corruption of some
well-known N. Arabian name, most probably of IDJ,- for
which cp. on D^UD, 2 K. xix. 35, and on D Hil, 2 K.
xxii. 14. -|D3 is one of those numerous corruptions of
^NQnrr which early obtained an independent existence (see
(on x. 2). Now as to another critical error. All that
the critics dispute about is whether D Qp should be read
only once (as Sievers) or twice (as Olsh., Lag., etc.). It is
apparently not questioned that ;p, nest, can also mean
cell or * chamber. The truth is, that D^Dp is wrong, and
1 The attempts to illustrate isa from Babylonian-Assyrian, referred
to in E. Bib., Gopher, are of no use unless it may be held that the
Hebrew deluge-story is directly dependent on a cuneiform record. The
probability of this attractive view must, however, I am afraid, now be
regarded as very small.
2 The presence of ns^ at the end of v. 14 may, in the present case,
have facilitated the corruption.
148 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
that most probably it represents a very early variant to the
word miswritten lai, viz. o[i?]Dp\ The existence of a
Yokneam (?) in the Arabian border-land is proved. It was
in * Carmel/ i.e. a Yerahme elite district (cp. on Josh. xii. 22),
and probably, we may say, on the border of the southern
Zebulun 1 (see Crit. Bib. on Josh. xix. 11). In Dt.
xxxiii. 19 (see note) we find Zebulun spoken of as acquir
ing the mountain -land of the Ishmaelites. Timber of
Yokneam, therefore, is a very possible phrase, nin should
probably be ron. The verse thus becomes, Make for
thyself an ark ; of timber of Gomer [Yokneam] shalt thou
make the ark, etc. ( s rendering is [e /c] %v\a)v TeTpaywvcov,
i.e. sna *&, which may represent D^ns XS, timber of the
Arabians, a variant to "UDl ^.
In vi. 1 6 a we meet with the hard word ins. Can it be
correct ? Surely the variety of critical theories, and the
warning Pasek after -irr!, may justly awaken suspicion. In
E. Bib., col. 2713, I suggested reading n^Hty i.e. window/
a sense which seemed to be required (cp. pWr, viii. 6, J).
The notion of an opening in the wall running all round
above (rfySfchd) was, in spite of Holz. s Egyptian parallel,
too difficult and improbable, and nSlJD^D itself was sus
picious (see below). (> renders eTria-vvdycov, but (i s apparent
renderings may so often be suspected of corruption that
we may doubt whether this is correct ; may it not have
arisen out of fragments of KaTrvoSo^v (iTTiN?)? It has
been found, however, that "ins* 1 and ins are frequent
corruptions of "inffitf, (e.g. Ex. vi. 18, 2 K. xviii. 32, Gen.
xlvi. 10, Ezek. xxvii. 1 8), and it is difficult, in a case where
a strong suspicion of corruptness exists, not to correct ins
into "inttJN. If so, a word is wanting before &N. Can we
recover it ? Surely we can. The next words, riEN ^NI
nu^Dn, are untranslatable, and must be corrupt.
and nhszhft are presumably corruptions of SnnT
(cp. on HDN, 2 S. viii. I, and on /J ?D, Josh. iii. 13, 16),
which is most probably a gloss on intt>N. n:fen is also
corrupt ; it covers over the missing word for window/ viz.
1 The theory is, that the Israelites, like the Arabian Yerahme elites
before them, carried local and ethnic names with them in their migra
tions. On the name Yokneam see Crit. Bib. p. 406.
THE DELUGE (GEN. vi. 5-ix. 17) 149
]hnn, a by-form to p^n ; cp. Ass. btt-hil(l)dni or bit-ktlanni
(adopted from western Semitic), z .. * window -house ; see
Muss-Arnolt, Ass. Diet. p. 315. Thus v. i6a becomes,
An Ashhurite [Yerahme elite] window shalt thou make for
the ark, and the door of the ark shalt thou put in the side
thereof.
Sievers (pp. 251 /) has proposed to bring vi. 16 b into
v. 14, omitting rnDsn ; they attach themselves well to the
preceding D^p. Other critics are content to understand p,
and explain that the ark was to be made in three stones.
But (i) D^p is too far off, and (2) D^p cannot mean
4 stories ; it is corrupt. V. 1 6 b is also corrupt, but experi
ence suggests a remedy. Numerals have often arisen out
of corruptions of ethnics ; D^tt and D^tD^tt) are both current
corruptions of ^HSOBT (see Crit. Bib. on Judg. x. 4). A
substantive is still wanting before OOP. Probably it is ;Snn
(see last note) ; h passed into n, and ] into D. We have
therefore a second (misplaced) statement respecting the
window An Ishmael-window shalt thou make. Ishmael
and Ashhur are of course synonyms.
Another point may be mentioned here, to confirm the
view (see above) that or HIM fpD in viii. 6 is due to the
redactor. It is that in Asurbanipal s legend the rescued
man sends forth the birds when the seventh day arrived.
From the DT^ nsniD TO we may infer that in v. 6 it was
originally mentioned that Noah (Hanok) waited seven days,
and then opened the window, etc. Thus the Hebrew and
the Babylonian narratives agree, and in j>po must be
redactional.
CONCERNING SHEM, HAM, AND YEPHETH
(GEN. ix. 1 8, 19)
A SHORT closing passage, derived from J, implying the
mistaken theory (see on v. 32, vi. 10) that Shem, Ham,
and Yepheth were the sons of the hero of the deluge-story.
The sons of Noah (Naham) mentioned in the following
section were obviously too young to have wives (see vi. 18,
vii. 7). The notice respecting Ham (v. 22) deserves close
attention. It is not an attempt to harmonise two different
traditions as to the relationship of Canaan. pD MN (so
too v. 22) is a corruption of D n_s (see on ^l, xxxiii. 19,
and cp. on xvii. 4 jff\). The note informs us that on is
here to be taken as = * Canaanite Arabia. In fact, on
(from fwDnT) has a somewhat wide application. In Ps.
Ixxviii. 52, etc., it is a synonym of Misrim a remarkable
phenomenon which can be paralleled in the story of Joseph.
See also on x. 6.
NOAH S CURSE AND BLESSING (GEN. ix. 20-27)
A STRANGE narrative derived from a special source, the
difficulties of which, both formal and material, are well
known to all scholars. Von Bohlen (Genesis, p. 20 1 )
long ago found in it an c evident suggestion of a myth of
a Semitic Dionysos. The ancient Greek representations of
the god holding in his hand a wondrous vine-plant, whose
150
NOAWS CURSE AND BLESSING (GEN. ix. 20-27) 151
branches wind round the ship in which he voyages, are
well known. We know too that the essence of the worship
of Dionysos was intoxication conceived of as God-posses
sion. 1 It is conceivable that a god or demi-god who brought
the vine might have been referred to in the original legends
of the Israelites ; but the reference would have been in a
very different tone from that which we find here. Winckler 2
declares that Dionysos is a sun-god, and consequently not
out of place in the deluge-story, which is a solar myth. But
there is no probability in this view. It was not the
portion of the royal hero of the flood -story to be a
cultivator of the soil and to be mastered by wine without
any religious compensation. He is the true Noah, or
perhaps Naham (cp. ^onm, v. 29, and see E. Bib., t Noah,
3). As to the three great textual difficulties, viz. (i) that
Canaan is cursed, while the true offender is Ham ; (2) that
v. 24 makes Canaan the youngest son ; and (3) that in the
blessing Canaan is called the brother of Shem and Yepheth,
they can now be seen in a new light.
These, however, are not the only difficulties. For
instance, is it legitimate to render v. 20 with Gunkel,
Noah, the husbandman, also began to plant vineyards ?
For my part, I doubt this ; no Hebrew narrator could have
written thus. Plainly v. 20 consists of two related but
independent statements. Plainly, too, TNII BTN TO Sm is
wrong. If Noah (Naham) was really the first husbandman,
why is nothing said about the planting of the corn-plant ?
The phrasing, too, is certainly unnatural. It is inadequate
to emend BTN into tinrf? (Kuenen) or Bh^f? (Ball), com
paring Ass. eresu, to plant, sow, cultivate, and eresi, tillage
(Am. Tab. 55, ig). 3 Experience shows that &TN has often
come from YlN, i.e. the N. Arabian Asshur, and rraiN
sometimes probably from JTONI, i.e. either DIN or VllOITT.
Asshur or Ashhur-Yerahme el 4 constantly occurs in these
1 Miss Jane Harrison, Proleg. to Gk. Religion, pp. 42$f.
2 Ar.-sem.-or. p. 128.
3 enn may perhaps mean to till in Job iv. 8, Hos. x. 13.
4 Asshur-Yerahme el means the Yerahme elite portion of the wide
region called Asshur. It was also apparently the name of the first
man (see p. 96) and of the God who befriended Hagar (see on xvi. 13).
152 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
early Genesis narratives, rn should apparently be
(for fpn^l), from the denominative verb Sn. Read, there
fore, in v. 20 a, and Noah (Naham) pitched his tent (cp.
v. 21 b) in Asshur-Yerahme el. That vines anciently grew
in this region, is not improbable ; see note on xl. 9, Ps.
civ. i 5 <z.
Then in v. 21, what can be made of told it to his two
brothers without ? What was there so much amiss in such
an act? The son here spoken of was at any rate not the
first-born, and might well consult his brethren. From the
sequel, indeed, we gather that Canaan had done something
worthy of a curse, but the words of v. 22 do not of
themselves imply this ; NT1 and TITI are, morally, quite
neutral words. Holzinger and Gunkel suppose that some
thing has fallen out or been omitted, e.g. the statement that
Canaan took away his father s garment. But how should
he have told this to his brothers, who could not but be
angry with him ? Surely something must be wrong in the
text ; and it is in accordance with parallels elsewhere to
emend vnN ^tih into TiniDN ^mh (see on YT7N, xvi. 12).
Thus we get, and he told it to the men of Ashhur, i.e. to
the men among whom his father had pitched his tent, with
the object (may we suppose ?) of attracting them into the
tent, and so bringing public contempt on his father? Cp.
Hab. ii. 15.
Ver. 24 brings us face to face with the question already
mentioned. Is Canaan, in the original text, represented as
Noah s youngest son ? This is no doubt more plausible
than the view that Ham appears here as the youngest son,
since Ham is elsewhere second in the list of sons. It is,
however, too bold to cut out nN on (Wellh., etc.), for
admittedly pas "ON is correct in v. \ 8. And why has the
text not been criticised with due reference to (top* 1 in x. 25,
and ;bp in Judg. i. 13, iii. 9? It is difficult not to connect
]top^ in x. 25 with ^NDp^ in 2 K. xiv. J , which has probably
come from ^wplDN, i.e. ^NDrrp -inttfN (cp. on hlVM, xiv. 13).
This gives the key to ]top both in our passage 1 and in
Judg. I.e. From v. \%b (see note) we learn that Ham is =
Arab-Kena an, and from our passage that it is interchange-
1 gives 6 vtoTe/)o, on which see Dillmann.
NOAWS CURSE AND BLESSING (GEN. ix. 20-27) 153
able with Katan, i.e. Ashhur- Yerahme el. Read, therefore,
for ]topn 131, 131 ^NpmN, and observe that Ham, with its two
synonyms or variants, has here a bad significance ; it refers
to the ancestors of Israel s bitter N. Arabian enemies.
In vv. 25-27 Noah bursts out into alternate curse and
blessing, but the curse is more prominent than the blessing.
The object of the curse (v. 25) is Canaan, i.e. Arab-Kena f an
= Ham (v. 1 8 b\ whose punishment is that he shall be a
servant to his brothers, or more probably (correcting yriM as
in v. 22) to Ashhur, a name which is often practically
equivalent to Ishmael or Yerahme el ; the first man, for
instance, was the ancestor of Asshur- Yerahme el. It is true
that Canaan (or Ham) and Shem have ultimately the same
origin ; they are sections of the same race. But in usage
Asshur- Yerahme el does not refer to the whole widespread
Yerahme elite race, but to a portion of it that portion which
is here called Shem (i.e. Ishmael ) and includes Israel.
The historical reference in v. 2 5 will be to early events of which
no clear tradition has reached us. The phrase D^IH? 11^ for
lowest servant is good Hebrew, but hardly in place here.
Possibly iu? (like 115? in Num. xxiv. 24 ?) has come from ns,
which should precede p?3D, while D^lli? ( 115?) may be an
expansion of 115?. Thus v. 2 5 should run ill? I p?3D 115? HIM
-nnftN^ mm.
In v. 26 there is another fragment of curse and let
Canaan be his servant, i.e. Shem s servant. Shem (in a)
is certainly not another name for Israel, though it includes
Israel. It means Ishmael, and is equivalent to Ashhur in
the preceding line. I agree with Holzinger that the
most rational reading is neither "sjvil (MT.) nor "-pi (Gratz,
Gunkel, Sievers), but ipni (Budde). But this scholar s ex
planation of TI^N is hardly adequate ; surely it has
come from DYlVn, which is an expansion of mm ; in
fact, Yahweh-Elohim (from Yah weh- Yerahme el) is the
full name of the God of Israel and of Shem. In b, tch
seems to be a corruption of a mutilated ^HOTTF, a gloss
on DDJ. Let us remember that the name of Israel s greatest
progenitor makes him out as originally the ancestor of
the Yerahme elites. For Tli? read 11117. Thus v. 26
becomes [^worm] iii5? ^ ^mi I DB [DTT^N] mm
154 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
In v. 27 the MT. has introduced a mistaken repetition ; so
at least, following de Goeje (Academy, 1871, p. 398), I
venture to think. The alternative is to suppose that the
necessary parallel line to ^n pro TP1 has fallen out. The
repetition in question is the only textual error in v. 27.
The dwelling in the tents of Shem refers to the occupation
of the tents of Shem (i.e. especially Israel) by the Pelistim
( = Pelethites ?) in the time of Saul. It may be noticed that
in x. 6 P makes both tolD (i.e. zof?D or r6s) and pro sons of
OH ; also that the blessing of Shem is in accordance with
the fact that in xiv. 22 (as originally read) Yahweh is called
the God of Yerahme el, and in xlix. 2 5 (revised text) the
Steer of Yerahme el and the God of Asshur. Cp. E. Bib. y
1 Shem, 2, and Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliten, pp. 219-222.
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x)
THE endless variety of opinions relative to the group
ing of the nations in the so-called Table of Peoples in
chap. x. might well discourage a critic from once more
trying his fortune on such a hard problem. The difficulty
largely arises from the uncertainty of the identifications of
the names. For though it is now commonly supposed that
a large number of the peoples referred to have been identi
fied, 1 it is only too possible that this may be an illusion.
We have, it is true, new critical material, derived from
Assyriology and Egyptology, but we can only apply this
material to the elucidation of particular names, if Babel
means Babylon, Asshur Assyria, Kush Ethiopia, and Misraim
or Misrim Egypt, and if there is reason to think that J, and
1 Friedr. Delitzsch starts from this (as he thinks) ascertained point
in the third of the Vortrdge called Babel und Bibel (1905).
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) 155
in a still higher degree P, were very specially interested in the
relations of peoples and tribes outside Canaan to Egypt,
Babylonia, and Assyria. It has, however, long been suspected
that in an earlier form of J s Table the sons of Noah Shem,
Yepheth, and Canaan (rather than Shem, Ham, and Yepheth)
represented, not, as in the later form, the world known to
the Israelites, but certain tribes or clans of the same com
paratively restricted region, presumably in Palestine. 1
We cannot doubt that Budde and Wellhausen were on
the right track in assuming an underlying text of J, which
had a different geographical and political horizon. Accept
ing this theory, Prof. Jastrow 2 has addressed himself to the
problem of interpretation, but, with all his ingenuity, can
hardly be said to have succeeded. The field is therefore
open for fresh investigations. Not without hesitation I take
up the work, assuming (i) that Shem, Ham, and Yepheth
had originally an Arabian significance; 3 and (2) that here,
as elsewhere, tribe-names or place-names, which came down
to the latest redactor in a corrupt form, were manipulated
by him in accordance with incorrect views of geography and
history.
The view here taken, and indeed already suggested in
the note on ix. 18, is this that the three sons of Noah are
as artificial a product as the three sons of Lamech (iv. 20-
22), and formed no part of the genuine popular tradition.
Shem ( = Ishmael) and Ham (Yerahme el) are really synony
mous ; Yepheth (Yaphlet) represents a population which in
J s list of peoples is called Pathrusim (Sarephathim ?) and
stands as a son of Misrim, with the gloss from whom have
proceeded the Pelistim (Pelethim ? Sarephathim ?). But
the Misrim are, according to an early tradition (see on
Abrech, xli. 43), a Yerahme elite race, and the redactor of
Gen. x. places the Misrim-section, as well as the Nimrod-
section and the Canaan-section, under the heading, derived
from P, and the sons of Ham were Kush, Misrim, Put, and
1 Wellhausen, CH, p. 14; Budde, Urgesch. p. 365.
2 The Hamites and Semites in the Tenth Chapter of Genesis,
Proceedings of the Arner. Philosophical Society, xliii. 173-207.
3 Note that to Ham, in ix. 1 8, is appended the gloss, he is
Arab-Kena e an, and to Shem, in x. 21, he too is Arab.
156 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Canaan. Whether, therefore, the Table of Nations be
regarded as a whole proceeding from the latest redactor, or
in its different parts, the value attached to it by critics is out
of all proportion to its real worth. Even Glaser s Arabian
researches do not, so far as I can at present see, serve to
rehabilitate it to any appreciable extent. 1
The Table, as it now stands, opens with words which
remind us of ix. i 8, the sons of Noah who went out of the
ark were Shem, Ham, Yepheth. This passage, however, is
redactional, and does not at all prove that SllOH "IT1N in
x. i b is correct. Why, indeed, should we be told that the
descendant s of Noah s three sons were born after the flood ?
This is surely a matter of course. There was no need to
assume such a very oblivious reader as the ordinary reading
of the text presupposes. What we expect is some guid
ance as to the geography of the Table. And we are not
doomed to disappointment, for fnno does not mean flood
this is a pure imagination of ancient redactors ; it is a
corruption of ^HOHT (see on vii. 6), just as nn is of "inffiN.
In short, the correction ( in Ashhur- Yerahme el is once
more in a high degree probable. See on ix. 28, x. 32, and
note that v. i b, with the reference to Ashhur- Yerahme el,
most probably comes from the fragment of the original Table
of the Yahwist.
Comparing the Yahwist (J) and the Priestly Writer (P)
in the present text, we are struck by the fact that both
writers give us some names which may plausibly be accounted
for by the help of Assyriology, while only J presents any
name like Pathrusim (v. 14) which can with a superficial
plausibility be explained by Egyptology. It should be
remarked, however, that even Pathrusim ( = Pathros) only
means Upper Egypt if we accept certain other identifica
tions which, both in Gen. x. and in Isa. xi. II, are highly
problematical (cp. E. Bib., Pathros ).
Our first object, then, must be to see whether the light
which is supposed to be derivable from Assyriology is
genuine. Is Asshur Assyria ? Is Babel Babylon ? Is
Gomer the Gimirrai of the inscriptions ? It so happens that
the last of these names (Gomer) is the first in the list of the
1 See his Skizze der Gesch. u. Geogr. Arabiens, chaps, xxvi. etc.
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) 157
sons of Yepheth in v. 2. It is convenient to take P s
portion of the Table of Nations first, and we naturally make
our first halt at this name.
If a relatively ancient tradition is to be heard, Gomer
(loa) is a term for certain tribes whose home was in Phrygia
(see Dillm.) Later writers, with much positiveness, identify
it with the Gimirrai of the Assyrian inscriptions. But is this
dogmatism justified ? It is true that Madai, Tubal, and
Meshek also occur in the inscriptions, but it would be rash
to assume that the identification of these names with names
in the inscriptions is necessarily correct. The fact that five
of the names of descendants of Yepheth (Gomer, Magog,
Tubal, Meshek, Togarmah) also occur in Ezek. xxxviii. ought
to give us pause. For whatever be the geographical horizon
of some other parts of the book ascribed to Ezekiel, there
is reason to hold that, at any rate, in chap, xxxviii. f.
the horizon is N. Arabian. I cannot turn aside from
Genesis to prove this. It has, in fact, already been shown to
be highly probable (see Crit. Bib., ( Ezekiel, and E. Bib.,
1 Prophecy/ 27), and I claim the right to build upon this
result. Gomer, then, and not less the other names
mentioned, viz. Magog, Tubal, Meshek, and Togarmah, are
presumably N. Arabian. The truth most probably is that
Gomer should be grouped with mdgor (Jer. vi. 25, etc.),
Migron (i S. xiv. 2), Mag in [A]rab-mag (Jer. xxxix. 3),
Regem in Regem-melech (Zech. vii. 2), Garmi (i Chr.
iv. 19), Gemariah (Jer. xxxvi. il), and Gammadim (Ezek.
xxvii. 11), which are all best explained (see detailed criti
cism elsewhere) as N. Arabian names. The common original
of the names of this group is raham l (om = DITT, the
shorter form of ^NO)TP). We can now understand the
significant title of the wife of Hosea, Gomer bath-Diblaim
(Hos. i. 3), where D^TT most probably comes from ^11, i.e.
^JQT = ^NDTTP. See Crit. Bib. ad loc.
We have now a starting-point for the investigation of
Magog, by which critics have hitherto been baffled. The
explanation " Scythians " is generally accepted, but no one
thus far can say what the real signification is, nor point to
this designation elsewhere (Dillm.). But the name is even
1 Cp. Su and Sm.
1 5 8 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
more insecure than Dillmann supposes. Holzinger sees this,
but his only suggestion is that rao should be ra, the Anti
christ of Ezekiel, and proceeds to reproach P with his want
of real knowledge. The proposed change, however, is most
arbitrary ; why should not ra be a fragment of ras ? And
what do the critics give as the origin of ra ? One connects
it with the gentilic Gagaya, of the land of Gag (Am. Tab.
i. 38 = barbarian ) ; others with Gugu, the Gyges of Lydia ;
and again, others with Ass. Gagu, ruler of the land of Sahi, N.
of Assyria, in the time of Ashur-bani-pal. 1 Ezekiel, however
(if it be this prophet), tells us plainly enough, Gog is a prince
of certain districts or regions in the farther parts of Saphon,
and in Joel ii. 20 he is referred to as * the Sephonite. Now
Saphon, in Jer. iii. 12, 18, iv. 6, vi. I, 22, x. 22, is the name
of the region whence Jeremiah expected an invasion. In
Ezek. i. 4 it designates the region whence an appearance
of Yahweh came to Ezekiel, and in Isa. xiv. 13 it is there
that the mountain of the gods was situated. The study of
these passages in their context shows that an Arabian region
must be referred to, and the discovery that psis (xxxvi. 2)
is a corruption of ^NSDBT leads to the natural hypothesis
that pD2 (like ]VDS) is a dialectal variation of pias, and
designates an extensive Ishmaelite region (extensive because
of the phrase ^ TOT). Gog/ then, as well as Togarmah,
which is also in the recesses of Saphon (Ezek. xxxviii. 6), is
an Ishmaelite or Yerahme elite name. It might of course be
equally well used for a country and for a royal personage 2
(cp. Asshur in Isa. x. 5 for the king of Asshur). And
what of the a in rao ? May we, with Halevy (REJ xiii.
10) and Sayce (If CM, p. 125) regard it as a fragment of the
Ass. mat, country ? Clearly not, if Gog is an Arabian
name ; and even if Gog is equal to Gugu (Gyges), to treat
Magog as if it were on an Assyrian tablet is arbitrary. 3 The
1 See, further, Johns, Ass. Deeds, iii. 1 6 1 /
2 Winckler sees under Gog the figure of Alexander the Great
(AOF ii. 160 Jft\ N. Schmidt, that of Mithridates VI. of Pontus
(E. Bib., col. 4332). Unsatisfactory speculations.
3 According to Sayce, Magog = mat-Gugu. Halevy, however,
makes it = mat-Gamgum in Armenia ; m and w being confounded, the
Israelites heard this pronounced \aune, which became UUD, just as in
Assyrian mat-Zamua became Mazamua (REJ xiii. 10).
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) 159
only satisfactory course is to find an Arabian name which will
account for the reading rao, and consequently also for ra.
For this we must go to Jer. vi. 25, xx. 3, etc., and Jer.
xxxix. 3, 13. The !T}DQ TttQ in the former passages is
plainly a poor conjecture to make sense of an unintelligible
and already corrupt phrase ; see Duhm s comment on xx. 3,
and his naive remark, Jeremiah s " terror all around " much
pleased the later writers (on xlix. 29). The fact is that
TQD and rriDQ often stand for D11% i.e. ^HBDfir (see on
x. 1 6) ; TUD is doubtless a parallel form to 101 ; i.e. both
forms have the same origin (see above). Similarly, in Jer.
xxxix. 3, 13, icrm comes from -Qcmi? (or 7Ol-l*t&) J see
above, on Gomer, and cp. D^lD ll, rrpBTm, i.e. Arab-
Asshur, Arab-Ashhur. The conclusion is that ra is a
fragment of Dim, or Dm, or or?}, or some similar form,
ultimately derived from ^>NDnT. For the duplication of a
radical letter, cp. WiD^ and h^b^TlS from ^NDim
and D*nD from YIIDN ; IttJttf from int&N ; D*ID, an 10, and
from ^NSDBT; "! from DIN; rriN (Ezek. iii. 15) from
IN = ns ; I^ID from DT. We may support this view of
the origin of Gog and Magog by the name UN, applied
to an Amalekite or Yerahme elite king (i S. xv. 8, 1 Num.
xxiv. 7). Another form of the same name is ni? ; we
may also, perhaps, compare -niN (Prov. xxx. i) and "an
(Gen. xvi. i).
As to Madai (no), our experience with Gomer and
Magog suggests caution. It is true that in Esth. i. 3,
Dan. v. 28, vi. 8, viii. 20, Madai is coupled with Paras. ~
But it is clear that there was a N. Arabian * Paras ; why
should there not have been a N. Arabian Madai ? In Jer.
xxv. 15-26 it is highly improbable that any of the names
of peoples refer to regions far away from Arabia. On ^.25
(the verse which contains * Madai ) Cornill gives away his
own case by remarking that here the catalogue melts quite
1 @ and Pesh. here presuppose :u.
2 That Esther and Daniel, like Tobit, have been worked over,
scarcely admits of a doubt, ons may come from onns (see on Pathrusim, 3
v. 14). Cp. also men, Ezra ii. 55 (with art.), Neh. vii. 57, where note
that noV nay should be Sxyc Ty?, Ishmaelite Arabia. See E. Bib.,
col. 4690.
160 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
away into unreality (ins Bodenlose} The truth is far from
this. Zimri (see on xxv. 2), Elam (see on v. 22), and
Saphon (see above) we know as Arabian names ; Sheshak
too is Ashhur (see above). * Madai/ then, is most probably
an Arabian name. Possibly, however, HO should be ^IQ,
and one may remember that Mari is the name of the king
of Mat-sa-imerisu (the most powerful state in Syria, whose
capital was Di-mas-ki), who paid tribute to the Assyrian
king Ramman-nerari (805-803 B.C.). For the names
Imerisu and Dimaski are surely of N. Arabian origin, the
former being related to IDN ( = DIN = D7TP), the latter to
TTN. Other names related to VID are ^DT, JTDT, mo,
, mo.
We now come to ]v a word much discussed, but
without any thoroughly satisfactory result. According to
Stade, 1 * the word ]vj designates, in exact accordance with its
origin, the people of the lonians, not only with the exilic
prophets Ezekiel and II. Isaiah, but also with the post-
exilic Joel. He thinks that the first attempt to use it in a
wider sense is in Gen. x. 4. Here different seafaring
Mediterranean peoples, certainly the inhabitants of Tartessus,
Rhodes, and Cyprus, but probably also the Carthaginians,
are subsumed under the conception lonians. A still further
development is supposed. In the sense " Hellenes " it is
first found in Zech. ix. 13, Dan. viii. 21, x. 20, i.e. in
writings of the Hellenistic period. 2 All this is thoroughly
worked out, but upon an unsound textual basis. There is
no single passage in which any one of these three meanings
is either required or even more than superficially plausible,
and sometimes (e.g. in Ezek. xxvii. 1 9) an Arabian reference
is irresistibly called for. For a discussion of the O.T.
passages see E. Bib., ( Javan, and note that in Dan.
viii. 20 / the king of Yavan is mentioned directly after the
kings of Madai and Paras (see above, on * Madai ), and in
x. 20 the prince of Yavan directly after the prince of Paras
1 Das Volk Javan (1880), reprinted in Akad. Reden u. Abhand-
lungen (1899), pp. 123-142.
2 According to Torrey, p in Dan. viii. 21, x. 20, xi. 2 (as in
i Mace, and in the Talm.) means the Greek kingdom of Syria (Jastrow,
p. 177, note i).
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) 161
(cp. xi. 2, and see E. Bib., t Paras ). As to Yavan in Gen.
x. 3, it is plain that if the other names in v. 2 are rightly
explained, it must refer to an Arabian region. An earlier
form of the name is ]ep, which has sometimes become pry
(see on pry^l, xxxv. 18). Most probably it is a shortened
form of par ( = ^NSnar) ; cp. -irm from -ina>N, and pTJN
from ^NWDBT "inttN, or ^NDHT **. With jv ^1 (v. 4) we
may compare DTDVrr "O1, Joel iv. 6, which, in spite of
Nowack s doubtless, cannot mean the Greeks, because
of the parallel D^Nim, the Sabaeans (cp. Jer. vi. 20), and
must mean the Arabian Yamanites. The adventurer
Yamani, who displaced the king of Ashdod appointed by
Sargon, and who was surrendered by the king of Meluhha
( Yerahme el = N.W. Arabia), may possibly have come,
not from Cyprus, but from Arabia.
Tubal and Meshek are often combined. It is plausible
to connect the names with the Ass. Tabali and Muski (the
Tibareni and Moschi of classical writers). 1 A close study,
however, of the O.T. passages in which they occur (especially
Ezek. xxxii. 26, xxxviii. 2 f.) shows that both Sin or Slin
(Ezek. once ; Isa. once) and "jtt?Q are N. Arabian names.
The former is a shortened and corrupt form of SNSQ&F, to
be grouped with Titt (from Tito = STin, Judg. xi. 3, 5), Slto
(Isa. vii. 6), irrSltt (i Chr. xxvi. 1 1), D^TDtt (Ezek. xxiii. I 5),
S^oni (Gen. xxii. 22) S^n^l (Gen. xxxv. 6), SsinN (i K.
xvi. 31), Ssi&N (i Chr. viii. 33), SlttJN (Gen. xlvi. 21), Slttf
(Gen. xxxvi. 20). In iv. 22 (see note) we meet with the
compound form pp blin, Tubal of Kain, and in 2 S. x. 6, 8,
Tito &TN, i.e. ^Tin TKDN, Asshur of Tubal (cp. on &TN, Gen.
ix. 20). It is evident that the Arabians took the form
Tabal or Tubal with them in their early northern migrations ;
since we find Tuba lu as the name of a king of the Phoenician
Sidon in the time of Sennacherib (KB ii. 90). It is also
well worth considering whether Sin (usually rendered
world ) in Prov. viii. 26 and some other passages, and
S*lDn and SlDnN often, must not be corruptions of hwbVP.
Whether Tibal, a Babylonian divine name (Hommel, Gr.
p. 164, note 4), has any connexion with f?l*in, I know not.
1 See E. Bib., Tubal and Meshech. Ps. cxx. 5 is a sore trial to
commentators who have no key.
ii
1 62 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
The companion-name l&D is also no longer obscure.
At first one might suppose it to have been produced by a
redactor out of Date. Most probably, however, it is a
development from inN D"]^, 1 Aram of Ashhur, just as
DDa> (see on xii. 6, xxxiii. 18) is probably a contraction of
D13B), i.e. on** ftN> Ashhur of Aram ( = Yerahme el). In
fact, *]a>cn is the linking form between a>N DIN and -ymo ; its
existence in the original text of several O.T. passages must
not be dogmatically denied ; and the question even arises
whether *]tt?cn does not underlie pa>C"T wherever this word
occurs in the traditional text. 2 And where was ^a>cn
( = pftcn) or TBD ? A study of the passages where it occurs
shows the high probability that it was somewhere in N.
Arabia ; possibly it was the region in which Shimron was
situated, for in Am. iii. 1 2 one of two glosses on in
Shimron appears to be in Ramshak of Asshur. 3 See,
further, on v. 1 1 ( Asshur ), and on ix. 20 (the words under
lying 111 nan).
The next name Tiras (DTn) was very likely appended
from a pure misunderstanding. The Priestly Writer, like
the Chronicler, was very apt to repeat the same name,
traditionally received, in different corrupt and independent
forms. One might therefore suppose that Dim was origin
ally DYin, i.e. the Tyrs-eni of classical writers, and that it
was a marginal correction of the arann in v. 4. The
truth, however, doubtless is that both DTn and arann are
corrupt variants, and that the common original of both is
"i[l]niDN. See on c Tarshish, v. 4, and E. Bib., Tiras.
Cp. also annDl, the name of a witness to a deed in an
Assuan Aramaic document (A. 19), where ann comes
from -ina?N.
V. 3 introduces us to the sons of Gomer. We have to
ask whether the names can be at least as well explained on
1 The vocalisation must have been altered. ~\v must originally have
been ^v or rather ni? ; cp. nnc*, one of the forms of int^N. For the
fragmentary D in IVQ cp. the equally fragmentary 2 (i.e. :ny) in MM,
JBO, oSea, etc. (see on Ex. xxxi. 2).
2 There can be no a priori objection to supposing that both forms
(with d and with r) are, in different places, to be read. Similar
problems are raised by oneo (see on xi. 28).
3 See Hibbert Journal, July 1905, p. 831.
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) 163
the Arabian theory as on that which is now prevalent, viz.
that the Priestly Writer, to whom vv. 2-5 are assigned, had
a geographical horizon as extensive as that of the writers of
the geographical lists in Asurbanipal s library. 1 And the
answer is that they can be explained best on the new
theory. Take Ashkenaz. Is this really from a hypothetical
Asgunza, whence the Asguza of Esar-haddon (see E. Bib.,
cols. 334, 4331; Winckler, KAT (3 \ p. 101)? If so,
Ashkenaz would mean the Scythians. But how much
more natural is it to take IDD as the well-known tribal name
TDp, in the list of the sons of Eliphaz the son of Esau
(xxxvi. 11)! 1DW;, as is shown elsewhere, is most probably
a mutilated form of YitBl? ( = YIQ?N), so that it is highly
plausible to account for the prefixed ttJN as a shortened form
of YIBJN (cp. ^DttN from ^HDITP "IDN, THEN from TH TEN,
and tDNl from 1&N21 in Jer. xxix. 21, reading also oStop for
D^p). In Jer. li. 27 we once more meet with Ashkenaz ;
the companion names are Ararat and * Minni. 2 Now we
have seen already (on viii. 4) that tm is probably a dis
tortion of ^tDN, and no great skill is required to recognise
p* 1 underlying "OD ; can we hesitate, then, to claim the
original writer of Jer. li. 27 as a supporter of the view
that * Ashkenaz is equivalent to Asshur-kenaz ?
The next name Riphath is an insoluble enigma
(Hale"vy). 3 But why ? Simply because the critics have
taken up a wrong point of view. nD"n may naturally come
from mDN (see on xxxv. 19), which, on referring to xv. i8/.
(see note), we shall admit to be rightly grouped with 13p.
Togannahf which follows, is mentioned again in Ezek.
xxvii. 14 between Yavan, Tubal, Meshek (v. 12) and
Dedan (v. 15), and in xxxviii. 6, in connexion with Gomer,
as a district of Saphon = Sibe on (i.e. Ishmael). In both
passages rri is prefixed without apparent reason. Con
sidering that mn (or IIZD) and rri are liable to confusion
1 Cp. Jastrow, pp. 184^ 2 @ does not recognise JE.
3 REJ xiii. 13. In xvii. 164, however, Halevy connects nan (nva)
with a region called Bit Purutash, mentioned by Sargon, between
Moschene, Tabalene, and Cilicia ; j//, he says, is an adventitious
suffix.
4 gives Torgama.
1 64 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
(cp. on ^rri, Gen. xxxv. 6), we may reasonably hold that
mi here comes from lin, i.e. 7Tin ; in this case the initial
n in rrKTan probably comes from n, i.e. ^mn, on which
would be a marginal correction. HD"]} is of course =
i.e. a feminine form of IE}, which, in Gen. x. 3 and Ezek.
xxxviii. 6, precedes. The place-name Tilgarimmu (on the
border of the northern Tabal), compared with Togarmah by
Friedr. Del. (Par. p. 246), may have a similar origin (cp.
Crit. Bib. on Ezek. iii. 15). Winckler identifies it erroneously
with the northern Musri (AOF \\. 2, p. 131).
It is therefore decidedly the most probable view that
Gomer and the connected names refer to people established,
not * in the north-eastern or eastern section of Asia Minor, l
but in N. or E. Arabia. To say that they were only of interest
to Hebrews in relation to the threatening advance move
ment of northern hordes during the seventh century B.C. is
to assert more than can be rendered probable, and is con
nected with the very questionable theory that Jeremiah and
Zephaniah anticipated a Scythian invasion. We now pass
on to the sons of Yavan, and ask whether the list of names
in v. 4 is consistent with the view that the Yavan of v. 2,
as well as of the other O.T. passages, has an Arabian, and
more particularly N. Arabian, reference, or whether it rather
suggests groups to the west and north-west, more par
ticularly the inhabitants of the Grecian islands, and those
settled along the coast of Asia Minor. 2
The Yavanites (v. 4) fall into two groups (a) Elishah
and Tarshish, () Kittim and Dodanim. The sound of the
name Elishah (rMrbtt) has suggested a possible connexion
with Elissa, the name of the legendary founder of Carthage ;
Elishah might, as Winckler (A OF i. 449) thinks, be the
old name of Carthage, and be extended so as to take in
the N. African coasts. Jensen (see p. 134) even connects
Elishah with the Greek Elysium. Prof. F. Brown
(E. Bib., * Elishah ) hesitates between Carthage and S. Italy
and Sicily, where were Greek colonies. Still following the
sound, Conder 3 and W. Max Muller 4 think of the Alashia
of the Amarna Tablets, which Muller, after Winckler, now
1 Jastrow, op. tit. p. 176. 2 Ibid. p. 188.
3 PEF Qu. 1892, p. 45. 4 OLZ, Aug. 1900, 289/1
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) 165
identifies with Cyprus. 1 It is true, nothing is said in the
Tablets of purple-blue and purple-red stuffs as the produce
of Alashia, and these are just what are mentioned in Ezek.
xxvii. 7 as coming from the sea-coasts of Elishah. But
copper is mentioned (in v. 13) as supplied by Yavan, Tubal,
and Meshek, and Lucian 2 places Elishah, not only in v. 4,
but also in v. 2 (not, however, in Chron.), between Yavan and
Tubal. This involves denying that Kittim is = Cyprus, and
reading > for ** in Ezek. xxvii. 7 (so, in fact, Miiller). It
may seem strange that such an archaic name should appear
as late as Ezekiel, but it seems to have been resuscitated in
Egypt in the Greek period. As to the purple spoken of,
we find purple mentioned as a product of Cyprus in the
Greek period. 3 Much of this is plausible, provided that we
do not question the prevalent theory of Yavan, and abstain
from a comprehensive study of Ezek. xxvii. Yavan,
however, need not anywhere in O.T. mean the Greek
peoples, and the central figure of the poem in Ezek. xxvii.
is, not Sor (Tyre), but Missor, the capital of Missor or Misrim
(the N. Arabian Musri). The latter point is of much
importance. It is doubtful whether any of the places spoken
of as trafficking with this city are outside S. Palestine and
Arabia. It follows, then, that riBP^N is to be grouped with
on^N (Num. xxxiii. 13 /), S*INB> (Gen. xxxvi. 37), W~h
(i S. xviii. 17), nwrb (Isa. x. 30), nubw (i S. ix. 4), all
Ishmaelite or N. Arabian names. It means some region of
Arabia, inhabited, now or formerly, by an Ishmaelite or
Yerahme elite people. The word prefixed to it (^N ; cp.
D^ro N, Ezek. xxvii. 6, Jer. ii. 10; DYT N, Isa. xi. 11,
xxiv. 15, Esth. x. i ; D^arr N, v. 5, Zeph. ii. 11, and
D^N, Isa. xl. 15, xli. i, 5, and often) is probably a re-
dactional alteration of m_5, 4 and is therefore not to be
compared with Ass. nage, plur. of nagu, district, land,
circuit, island.
Very naturally the next name is Tarshish. Can this
1 Sayce, however, prefers Lycia, or the neighbouring coast of Asia
Minor (E.rp. Times, Oct. 1900, p. 87).
2 Cp. Nestle, ZATW, 1904, pp. 135^
3 M tiller, OLZ, as above.
4 See e.g. Isa. xi. 1 1 b. where as a final summing-up is added
the phrase JD anjrai (underlying DTI "NDI). See, further, on v. 5.
1 66 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
name be methodically explained so as to harmonise with the
other names in the list? It is still almost universally held
that Tarshish means the mining region in S. Spain. Prof.
Haupt has repeatedly defended this view. 1 According to
him, ttrann is an infinitive of the intensive stem of m&n, * to
strike with a pick, to pound, crush, stamp (ores, etc.).
More plausibly Knobel and Frz. Del. hold that * Tarshish
is connected with Tyrseni (cp. on Tiras ). It is plain,
however, that this is inconsistent with the view here taken
of Yavan and Elishah, and some better solution ought
to be obtainable by comparing Tarshish with analogous
corrupt forms, and by noticing the names near which it
is placed elsewhere in the O.T. So then let us compare
ttTttnn with (a) pttTE and () NTtTD. (a) can be shown to
have come from intBN, and (ft) from Ti$N. 2 Then, turning
to Esth. i. 14 and I Chr. vii. 10, we find Tarshish placed
near Shethar (nnft) and * Ahishahar (inftTTN) ; the
former is clearly shortened from -ini&N, 3 and the latter is
but slightly modified from TintDN. The original of 8Ttt>"in
is now seen to be -int&N (here a regional name). On the
famous phrase ships of Tarshish see E. Bib. y Tarshish,
closing section.
Kittim (DTO), as the older critics (e.g. Dillm.) think,
is Cyprus. Certainly TO and rO in Phoenician mean the
city of Kition ; but is it likely that the city gave its name to
the island ? Gunkel thinks that Cyprus, at any rate, is too
narrow a meaning ; Winckler 4 supposes DTO to be the
farthest point at which Phoenician colonies were founded ;
Jeremias 5 thinks of S. Italy, especially Sicily, but, like
Winckler, supposes Kittim in Dan. xi. 30 to mean Rome.
W. M. Muller 6 holds with Winckler, and advises waiting
for fresh material.
1 Book of Canticles (Chicago, 1902), p. 40 ; Johns Hopkins Univ.
Circulars, No. 163, June 1903.
2 See Crit. Bib. on i K. xi. 40 (where, however, ana should be in^<).
Sisera, it is too often forgotten, occurs not only in Judg. iv. 2 but also
in Ezra ii. 5 3, where it is preceded by Kenn = intfN and Dip-in = BOD any.
3 -WON, the name of the heroine of the Book of Esther, has the same
origin (cp. OTn beside srenn). noin, Esther s other name, doubtless
derives from nnt?[j<]. Esther, like Judith and Tobit, was recast.
4 AOF\\. 422, note i. 5 ATAO, p. 154. 6 OLZ, as above.
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) 167
But can we not even now throw some fresh light on the
name ? Let us turn to 2 K. xvii. 24. Here we meet with
a place called nrVD, and close by we find names which
admit of being explained as N. Arabian. Kuthah would
seem to have been at some distance from Shimron. The
weight of this argument, of course, depends on a wide
induction of passages. We may also compare the obscure
D^Dn in i K. x. 22 b, which, at any rate, does not mean
peacocks, and (see Crit. Bib. ad loc.) may have come from
some N. Arabian ethnic ; also the phrase rrro plD, which
probably means oil of * ; rrro appears to represent some
corrupt place-name, and the duplicated n may probably be
explained like the duplicated 1 in ran (see above, v. 2).
What, then, is the ro which enters into DTD, D^Dn, and
nTO ? 1 It is a N. Arabian place-name, probably rOSD
(which appears in 2 Chr. ii. 9 as rVDD). That Maacah or
Maacath designates a region in the N. Arabian border-land
is hardly desirable (see on 2 S. iii. 3, and cp. xiii. 37).
Ethnics and place-names are often mutilated (cp. Hur from
Ashhur) as, according to this view, * Maacath was mutilated
into * Cath. Very possibly the TO which we find in Phoeni
cian inscriptions as a designation of the place or district
called in Greek Kition, on the S. coast of Cyprus, was
brought, like other names, by early immigrants from their
Arabian home.
That Doddnim should be read Roddnlm " (Sam., and
Chr. in MT.) and explained Rhodians ( PoSioi) is a
widespread but questionable theory (see E. Bib.> Dodanim ).
The Hebrews must, indeed, have been acquainted with both
Cyprus and Rhodes, but we cannot suppose that these
islands would be referred to in a book of Israelitish legends.
The right reading is either D^TT (Isa. xxi. I 3, and cp. Crit.
Bib. ad loc.} or, perhaps better, CTirpT. The form ]~PT would
be related to -R, as \^h is related to joif? ; Dod is not
only the name of a god, but the designation of an Arabian
district (cp. THEN, i.e. TTT 1GJM). Cp. on Dedan, v. 7.
The four words which open v. 5 are thus rendered by
1 Tn in Ps. Ixxii. 14 also probably comes from royo (see Cheyne,
. ad loc.) ; cp. no.
2 It is equally wrong to read ]~n for ;-n in Ezek. xxvii. I 5 a.
i68 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Kautzsch-Socin, From them branched off the population
on the islands and coasts of the Goylm. Evidently the
translators feel a difficulty here. To render ^ the popu
lation on the islands and coasts (of), and to treat D^un as
an ethnographical term, is a bold act. It is true, the phrase
Q^in ^N may be paralleled by the phrase DTT ^ (Isa.
xi. 11, xxiv. 15, Esth. x. i). But is such a phrase as the
islands and coasts of the sea (as Kautzsch presumably
would render DYT V N) tolerable ? If D^N, as is commonly
supposed, means islands or sea-coasts, can we believe
that a Hebrew writer would put it in construction with DVT ?
And is it probable that the countries mentioned as the lands
of exile in Isa. xi. 1 1 would be described summarily l as
4 the islands and coasts of the sea ? Or that in Isa.
xxiv. 1 5 DY7 "!, if it means in the coasts of the sea,
should be parallel to cn^l, where it is clear enough that
CTHN should be D*IN ? Or that in the original form of
Esth. x. i , King Ahasuerus was really said to have laid
a tribute upon the land and the [western] coasts of the
sea ? 2 Into the passages which contain the word D^N
alone (i.e. not D^n ^), we cannot here enter. But even
from the three passages containing the phrase n*TT " " N we
may plausibly infer that the MT. is not correct, and in the
light of the results won elsewhere, it is probable that ^N
DTT is the designation of a region in Arabia ; indeed, as
stated already, n^rr ^N has most likely sprung from JEP rni>,
Arabia of Yaman/ while O^N, placed alone, appears to
have come from D OIS, and " from l"ii?. 3 Cp. the name
SlTN, where ^ = a N = ms, and *m
The result is that the four opening words should be
read thus, D^an 112 VnD3 il^ND. It is true, this cannot be
translated as it stands. It is nevertheless correct ; only
IIS should be relegated to the margin, as a gloss on D^irr
or some following word. Is this an arbitrary conjecture ?
Surely not. See ^.32 (P), D^an YT1S3 n^NCn (without ^N
1 Cp. Isa. Ixvi. 19, where (in MT.) Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, Tubal
and Javan are described as the far-off iyylm ( islands, coasts ?).
2 In Esth. i. i nn cannot safely be rendered India. Read Tine.
In x. i, lp;-3i^i -inipK pN* 1 ?^.
3 See Crit. Bib. on Isa. xx. 6, xli. i, Ezek. xxvi. 18, xxvii. 15 (oar
represents ouij, , the original reading of which CTN is the alteration).
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) 169
before an). In that passage nND refers to the sons of
Noah, including their clan-forming descendants, whereas
here (v. 5) it refers specially to the sons of Yepheth. 1 It
is possible that v. 5 originally agreed very nearly in form
with v. 32, i.e. that it ran, These are the sons of
Yepheth, according to their clans, and from these the
nations parted themselves . . . ; but also that ITIDD rhwb
D^lin in v. 5 has been inserted in error, and has displaced
no* 1 "Ql rh& ( these are the sons of Yepheth ), which must,
at any rate, be restored either at the beginning of v. 5 or
else after D^lil. The absence of any reference to the
parting of the nations in vv. 20 and 31 favours the
former suggestion.
The remainder of v. 5 suggests problems which have
been too slightly examined. Kautzsch-Socin render,
(These are the sons of Yepheth) according to their lands,
their different languages, their tribes and populations.
No note is attached to this. Yet whh ttm and OPTO!
are strange, and corruption is strongly indicated. It is
probable that OTM comes from TI^N (cp. on ix. 20) and
TyxPih from ^KWDOT (cp. on Josh. vii. 2i(?), xv. 2, xviii. 19,
Isa. xi. 15, Ixvi. 1 8, Ps. Ixiv. 9, cxx. 3, cxl. 12), while
DrTOl may represent DHT ^1, a gloss on on ""Dl (v. 6).
There still remains onsiNl. This has probably come from
S1N1, which was misread ViNl, i.e. (as was thought) nmiNl.
A marginal gloss (now corrupted into ^N, see above) ex
plained that in the land of Asshur-Yerahme el meant (in)
Arabia. The same or similar problems meet us in vv.
20, 31, 32. Note the importance attached to the fact
that here, as elsewhere (see on v. i), the Urgeschichte of the
Hebrews had for its scene the land of the Yerahme elite or
Arabian Asshur.
This, then, is our result thus far. All the names in vv.
2-4 have an Arabian, indeed most probably a N. Arabian
reference. This is directly confirmed by the statement in
v. 5, which should probably run thus These are the sons
of Yepheth (Yaphlet ?) in the land of Asshur-Yerahme el,
according to their clans {Gloss on Ass/i. Yer.f Arab ; on
bene Ham (v. 6), bene Yarham).
We now come to the sons, grandsons, and great-
170 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
grandsons of Ham (vv. 6, 7, 20). The first two on the list
are Kftsh (BTO) and Misraim or Misrim (v. 6). Although
it would be plain, even without extant evidence, that the
Hebrews must have been acquainted with Ethiopia and
Egypt, yet the context (of J and P combined) forbids us to
identify TO and D^SD with these regions. In fact, Gen.
x. 6 is one of a number of passages in which (as a careful
examination shows) these names must refer to countries in
N. Arabia. 1 Let me venture to speak first of Kush. I can
see no occasion to suppose with Jastrow (who develops an
idea of Winckler) that the name is indefinitely used for
the extreme south without a sharp differentiation between
S. Arabia and the corresponding district on the African
coast. 2 Surely the existence of a Kus or Kush in N. Arabia
is sufficiently proved by the use of Ku-u-si and Melubba
(from Yerahme el ?) together as a designation of N. Arabia.
There may, indeed, have been a S. Arabian Kush, but
why need we introduce it here ? [On the subject of an
Arabian Kush see, further, Winckler, Hibbert Journal,
" 577 /, and especially his Musri, ii. (1898), and KAT (3 \
p. 144/1 also E. Bib., Gush ; Bible Problems, pp. 167,
178-182 ; Ed. Meyer, Die Israelite^ pp. 315-317, 463/1]
Can we throw any fresh light on the name Kush ? I
venture to think that we can. Our study of names such as
DDtt), iffio, protn, npm m, D^TBJD, DTI^DD, DITTD leads to the
conclusion that fDD, plD, tt)D, DD, when they occur as elements
in proper names, are really corrupt fragments of intDN, a
name which, though the MT. acknowledges it only in
I Chr. ii. 24, iv. 5 (in Calebite genealogies), is still recog
nisable in many passages underneath the corrupt, traditional
text, and which, in the MT. itself (see on v. ii, ii. 14),
has often been modified into YUEN, sometimes also into
Yiffi}, TinMa), "filD, and mi. As we have already seen (on
ii. 14), the name Ashhur is the designation of a part or
parts of Arabia sometimes of a district bordering on
Palestine, sometimes of a more distant region. This sug-
1 See e.g. on ii. 13. It should be mentioned that in Am. ix. 7
D"BO has most probably come from onra = D-ntr, Ashhur-aram
2 Article in Proc. of Amer. P kilos. Soc., 1903, p. 187, note 2. Cp.
Winckler, KAT^\ pp. 137, 144.
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) 171
gests the inquiry whether UPD, though complete in itself,
and not merely an element in a compound name, may not,
like the names in and Yin, be a corrupt fragment of YinC&N.
It does not follow that Kush and Ashhur have the same
geographical significance ; only that Kush was an Ashhurite
region, a fact which is in itself highly probable. The
intermediate forms between tt)lD and YintDN would be BTDN
and annN ; in i S. xxi. 10, etc., we actually find ttTDN as the
name of a * Philistine king. Cp. also ttTp, iTBTO (from
irrp-onD), anpf?** (from nn3 J Drrn ?), ptm>, HODS, parm. it
now becomes clear how the wife of Moses can be at once
a Kushite (E) and a daughter of Yithro (J), for Tim prob
ably comes from in^N, a synonym of in^N. Nor need we
wonder that a N. Arabian Ashhur or Asshur is not men
tioned in the Assyrian inscriptions ; for Kus is mentioned
there, and Kus, according to our theory, comes from Ahrash
= Ashhur. (It is worth noticing that in Isa. xi. lib Kush
occurs, not directly after Misrim, but between Sarephath
(Pathros) and Yerahme el (Elam) ; see above, p. 165, note 4.)
Next to Kush comes D"n2D, not as if the latter were
inferior to its companion, but probably for euphony. How
is it to be pronounced ? Misraim ? But we shall find in
studying vv. 13-14 that J, at any rate, did not think of
Misraim (i.e. Egypt), but of Misrim, i.e. the N. Arabian
Musri, the existence of which was made out by Glaser and
Winckler together with that of the Arabian Kush. As Prof.
Kittel well says, 1 the existence of Musri cannot be con
tested. Doubtless a larger bulk of external evidence would
be more satisfactory, but the internal evidence is abundant.
And what is Musri ? According to Winckler, 2 Musri is the
name of the land which, on the south, adjoins Judaea and
Edom, and stretches towards the Sinaitic peninsula and
Arabia, and whose northern boundary is the nabal Musri
(Assyrian) or D*nsp Sn? (xv. 1 8). The exact position of
the D 7 a is disputable. Suffice it to say that the realm of
the king of Misrim must apparently have been extensive, 3
1 KAT (Z \ p. 143. Hommel, however, makes Mosar (Musur or
Musri) synonymous with Midian ( Vier neue Landschaftsnamen, p. 277).
2 Neue kirchliche Zeitschr. xiv. (1903), p. 574.
3 See Crit. Bib. p. 336.
172 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
and that he was most probably a vassal of the king of
Ashhur (in the larger sense of the word), 1 which does not,
however, prevent him from joining the king of Kush (i.e. of
Ashhur in a narrower sense) in a struggle with the great
king of Asshur or Ashhur. 2 The view that D HSD is
equivalent to the N. Arabian Musri, or, at any rate, includes
this Musri, is the key to a large number of O.T. passages. 3
I say includes, because of Winckler s and Hommel s
suggestion that Misraim, if we accept this vocalisation, may
include both Egypt and N.W. Arabia, in fact all the
country over which the so-called Pharaoh claimed the
suzerainty. That I myself am convinced of the correctness
of this view would be too much to say. 4 There are, at any
rate, many more cases in which D HSD, in the mind of the
original writer, stood for the N. Arabian Musri than for Egypt.
One of the chief difficulties felt by students in accepting
this theory is the unproductive character of the soil in the
N. Arabian border-land at present. We have no reason,
however, in spite of Prof. Ed. Meyer, to believe that it was
equally unproductive in a remote antiquity. The wadys
were not always dry, nor was irrigation deficient, and the
culture, both moral and physical, of the land and its
inhabitants was very different from what it is to-day. The
commentator is not to be blamed for the inevitable lacuna
in his information. The Hebrew texts (see e.g. the occur
rences of D^ISD in Gen.-Ex.) compel him to assume much
that needs confirmation from other sources, unless, indeed, we
prefer to cover over exegetical problems of the first magnitude.
Another form of Misrim is the singular form "hsp ; u
see 2 K. xix. 24 (Isa. xxxvii. 25), Isa. xix. 6, Mic. vii. 12.
A shortened form of this is TO ; see Am. i. 9, Ezek. xxvi. 2,
etc., xxvii. 2, etc., xxviii. 2, etc., Ps. Ix. 9. See, further,
1 See Crit. Bib. p. 382. - Ibid. p. 384.
3 Ed. Meyer actually says (p. 457) that Winckler has not pointed
out a single O.T. passage in which the equation Dnso = the asserted
N. Arabian Musri (except those referring to o Vru) can even be discussed.
My own Bible Problems gives a sufficient answer to such a strange mis-
statement. See reference further on.
4 D -ISD may have developed out of DTSD. A locative form, not a dual.
5 The pointing iiso is due to a faulty conjectural interpretation of the
word as fortification or the like (cp. Mic. vii. 12, @ and A.V.).
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) 173
E. Bib., * Mizraim ; Cheyne, Bible Problems \ pp. 161-178;
Winckler, KA T^\ pp. 146/5 Musri, Meluhha, Main;
North Arabia and the Bible, Hibbert Journal, April 1904 ;
Hommel, Aufscitze, pp. 302-312; Ed. Konig, Ftinf neue
arabische Landschaftsnamen, etc., pp. 19-38 ; A. Noordtzij,
Musri/ Theol. Tijdschr. 1906, pp. 379, 454 (like Konig,
highly controversial and unprogressive) ; Ed. Meyer, Die
Israeliten, pp. 45 $ ff. (chiefly on cuneiform texts; weak on
the O.T. side). To what is said in E. Bib., Mizraim/ i,
on the forms and meaning of D HSQ, I would now add a
reference (from Johns, Ass. Deeds, iii. 473) to the Assyrian
name Musurai and to the Moabite royal name Musuri (temp.
Esarhaddon). I am not convinced, says Mr. Johns, that
it necessarily means " Egyptian." Truly, it is not less
unnatural to explain it Egyptian than to give this meaning
to -nso in 2 S. xxiii. 21 (see Crit. Bib.} and i Chr. ii. 34.
Put and Canaan form a couple, like Kush and Mi.srim.
The view of Jastrow (pp. 188, igof.) that Canaan is a
later addition, due to the hostility existing between Hebrews
and Canaanites, has no other basis but the erroneous theory
that the Hamites represent accursed nations. Of course,
if Put means the land called Punt (i.e. the Abyssinian and
Somali coast) * in the Egyptian inscriptions, * Canaan *
cannot rightly be coupled with it. But is this identification
defensible? According to Ezek. xxx. 5, Put was among
the supporters of D HSD ; now it cannot be asserted that
Punt ever supplied Egypt with warriors. It is more plaus
ible to compare Putu-yaman, a city whose prince was an
ally of Amaris, king of Egypt. It is true, we require not a
city, but a region. But may not a city and a region bear
the same name ? Yaman is, to us, a well-known name (see
on Yavan/ v. 2); it means Yerahme el. 2 So too in Ex.
vi. 25 (see note) Putiel is most probably a Yerahme elite or
N. Arabian name. The context certainly favours this view,
for DniTD, or rather DTOQ, most probably represents DTrnriDD,
i.e. Nephtoah of Has ( = Ashhur). Put is therefore to be
regarded as a N. Arabian name. And the same result
follows if we look at the names compounded with Put in
1 So W. M. Muller, E. Bib., Egypt, 48.
2 Otherwise Winckler, AOF\. 512 / See, further, E. Bib., Put.
174 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Assyrian deeds, 1 and at those with which Put is grouped in
various O.T. passages. 2 Among the former let us notice
Puti-Huru and Puti-Mani, where Huru is probably from
Ashhur, and Mani from Yamani (Yerahme elite), and among
the latter, Kush, Lud, and l*u? (pronounce Arab) in Ezek.
xxx. 5, and Paras and Lud in Ezek. xxvii. 10. We have
therefore to find some well-known (N. Arabian) name out
of which Put may have been corrupted. Such a name
would be ma ( = mBN, see on ii. i^b, xv. 18), also E>Q
(i Chr. ii. 47, Calebite) = n^D (see on Num. xvi. i).
If Put is really N. Arabian, the presumption is that
Canaan (Kena an) is so too, i.e. that originally the latter
name did not mean Palestine, or any part of Palestine.
But let us put this aside for the moment, and ask ourselves
how it has come about that * Canaan (understood in the
traditional sense) is represented as a son of Ham, and a
younger brother of Kush and Misr(a)im. Various answers
have been given (see e.g. Driver, Genesis, p. 1 1 8 ; Jastrow,
Hamites and Semites, p. 188) ; but who would say that any
one of them is more than provisional ?
It is only a deeper study of the names in the O.T. itself
which will enable us to give a more satisfactory answer. It
may be true that the Kinaljhi of the Tell el-Amarna Tablets
corresponds to the Rutenu of the Egyptian inscriptions. 3
But this does not permit the conjecture that Canaan origin
ally meant Syria, and that the combination of Canaan with
Misr(a)im is to be explained by the political subordination
of Syria and Palestine to Egypt. For the name Canaan is
most probably much earlier than the Amarna Tablets, and
is one of the names of districts and tribes or clans which the
Arabians took with them in their northern migrations (cp.
Enc. Brit, Canaan ).
The identification of Canaan with the Kinahhi or (the
fuller form) Kinahni 4 may be safely accepted. Kinahni
1 See Johns, Ass. Deeds, iii. i65/
2 See Nah. iii. 9, Jer. xlvi. 9, Ezek. xxvii. 10, xxx. 5, xxxviii. 5.
On the names with which Put is here grouped see Crit. Bib. and
E. Bib.
3 E. Meyer, Glossen (on the Am. Tablets), pp. 67, 68 note i
(1897); cp. Prasek, Exp. Times, xi. 207.
4 Halevy, REJ, avril-juin 1890, p. 207.
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) 175
evidently corresponds to p33, and Kinahhi to Xva, i.e. 535,
the name under which Phoenicia is personified by Philo of
Byblus. To explain i?DD and p3D as lowland 1 is out of the
question. But we can most certainly venture to say that,
on grounds of analogy, p3D is to be grouped with ps, ]ps,
]p2*S p3S, DWp"*, pp, p^p, all of which, as a strict textual
criticism shows, are to be regarded as of N. Arabian origin.
Such an origin for p3D is further suggested by Num.
xiii. 29 b y where underneath the present text we may
recognise a statement that the Canaanites dwell by Yaman
and beside the Yarhon ; by Ezek. xvii. 4, where the land
of Can. is || to Arab- Yerahme el (MT. is wrong) ; and
by Zeph. ii. 5, where Canaan is |] to the land of the
Pelistim (cp. on v. 14). Note also that in ix. 18 (re
vised text) Ham (i.e. Yerahme el ) is defined as * Arab-
Canaan.
It is still the Priestly Writer who gives us the names of
five sons of Kush (v. 7). The first is Seba (N!D), who is
mentioned in Isa. xliii. 3 with Misr(a)im and Kush), and in
Ps. Ixii. 10 with Sheba (see on v. 28). See below, on
Sabta. Then comes Havilah (nS^in), which we have
already met with in the Paradise-story (see on ii. i I ), and
shall find again in J s list of the Yoktanites (v. 29), very
near Sheba, also in an account of the territory of the
Ishmaelites (xxv. 18, J). It has, of course, been noticed
with surprise that v. 29 makes Havilah a Shemite, whereas
in v. 7 he appears as a Hamite. According to Jastrow
(p. 1 80) this inconsistency is to be illustrated by the habits
of the later Arabic historians, who are accustomed to put
different traditions side by side, the second tradition being
introduced by the word ktla, * others say. The explanation,
however, is incomplete. Shem and Ham are, as we
have seen, different names for the same imaginary personage ;
Ishmael (Shem) and Yerahme el (Ham) are synonymous.
Havilah itself is a pure Yerahme elite name ; just as p->
comes from JD* 1 (see on v. 2), so nf?^n comes from n^on
1 So still Hommel, Gr. p. 242. But see G. F. Moore, Proc. Amer.
Or. Soc., 1890, pp. Ixvii.^: Winckler (KAT ( *\ p. 181) remarks, At
present there is no prospect of explaining the name etymologically.
But it is something to be able to group it rightly.
i;6 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
(cp. Sion, xlvi. 12), i.e. ~>NDnv with the feminine ending. 1
Sabta and Sabteka may be shortened forms of the same
name, a compound of ID ( = Nlo) and NrO, perhaps = ro$D
(cp. on Kittim, v. 4).
Ramah (mpi^) and his sons. Can we illustrate this
name ? The reference is admittedly Arabian (see E. Bib.,
s.v.\ but the origin is still obscure. The essential is to place
the name in the right group. The nearest parallel is ncfrO
(Dt. iv. 43). We may also compare the personal name
JTDin (Neh. vii. 7), which corresponds to mbin 2 in Ezra ii. 2.
All these are derivatives of DIM ; the appendix IT in Trhsn
has come from irp = in[l]^. Ra mah s two sons are Sheba
(NIO>) and Dedan. The critics have, naturally enough, been
puzzled at the repetition of Sheba in v. 28 (Yoktanites) ;
cp. Jastrow, p. 1 80. Shall we say that there were two
Shebas, a northern (see on I K. x. i) and a southern, and
that the N. Arabian Sheba was a colony from the south ?
But why only two Shebas ? and why a colony from the
south. 3 Surely Nltt? is a derivative of SDQ), and simply indi
cates an Ishmaelite or Yerahme elite settlement. Observe
that * Sheba and * Dedan occur again in xxv. 3 (note),
and that in Ezek. xxxviii. 13 these names occur together
with Tarshish, i.e. Ashtar ( = Ashhur) ; see on v. 4. Dedan
(pn), or perhaps ppr (see on Dodanim, v. 4), is a region
in N. Arabia. Cp. on xvi. 14, on Isa. xxi. 13, and on
Ezek. xxvii. I 5 a. Glaser (Skizze, ii. 393) thinks that the
neighbourhood of Medina is meant.
So far as we know, P had no more to say about the
Hamites. The epilogue forms v. 20, the text of which has
been harmonised with v. 5, and should be similarly restored.
For ViNl f vhh we should read SttSBBT pMl (transposing),
and for Dmin, DTVP ^1 (gloss on on ^Jl).
1 This gives us the key to Sin, v. 23. No connexion with Vin, sand.
This spoils Glaser s explanation (Skzzze, ii. 324).
2 That Vjn in .rVjn represents Sij; = Six = ^NDnv can hardly be
doubted. Cp. on Sxnx, 2 S. xxiii. 20 ; Siy, I S. xvii. 36. -v is explained
above.
3 According to Hommel (Gr. p. 142) the Sabasans penetrated as
far as S. Arabia in the eighth century B.C. from the N. Arabian Djof (the
Aribi of the cuneiform inscriptions, and the Yareb of Hosea). I agree
with him that the queen of Sheba was a N. Arabian princess.
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) 177
It has been thought strange that P s list of the sons of
Shem (v. 22) should begin with Elam (tfrsi). To explain
this, some refer to the existence of a Semitic population
in Elam (the famous Elam) in very early times, dependent
on Babylonia, while others suggest that Elam may have
been regarded as including Babylonia, which country was
conquered by the Anzanite lords of Susa and Elam ; and,
again, others (preferring more recent history) remind us that
parts of Elam were annexed to Assyria by Sargon, or refer
to the prominence of Elam in the Persian empire. It is,
however, incorrect to suppose that there was only one Elam,
and that P must have referred to the Elam with which we
are familiar. A study of the other passages in which oW
occurs, notably Isa. xi. 1 1 (already referred to), Ezek.
xxxii. 24, and Ezra ii. 7, 31, makes it evident that there
was a ofrs in the Ashhurite portion of N. Arabia, 1 and that
it is referred to here. As to the origin of the name, we
may following many parallels trace it either to S>Ni?DQT or
to SNQnv (the names are equivalent) ; cp. on N~>D, xxiii. 9 ;
on ofyw, xxi. 33 ; and on SDS, Judg. v. 26. Of course, the
origin of popular corruptions like DTS was early forgotten ;
the name quickly obtained independent rights.
On Asshur (TIDN) not much more need be said here.
The name (also Ashhur) 2 meets us again and again, both in
a narrower and in a wider sense. The first to indicate a
southern Asshur (Ashur) was the learned traveller Glaser,
who was followed by Hommel. 3 Apart from the leading
idea, I am myself independent of Hommel (see Bible
Problems, pp. 182 /, 262-270), and need not therefore
consider Prof. Konig s far too confident criticisms (pp. cit.
pp. 1-19). Among the Asshur passages, note ii. 14, x. 11,
xxi. 17 , xxv. 3, 18, Isa. xix. 23-25, Ezek. xxiii. 5, 7, 9,
etc., xxvii. 23, Zeph. ii. 13, Ezra ii. 31. In Zeph. I.e. note
that Saphon (a region in N. Arabia; see pp. 30, 32) and
1 The confidence of Cornill that Elam in Jer. xlix. 34 is Elymais is
astonishing. Hommel (Gr. p. 248) suspects an E. Arabian Elam to
be referred to in Gen. x. 22.
2 Shur and Hur are shortened forms of Asshur and Ashhur
respectively. Ashhur has probably come from Asshur-yerah (cp.
Ashdod).
3 ANT, pp. 239-246.
12
1 78 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Asshur are parallel, and in Ezra that the other Elam
should be Elam of Asshur (a phrase which speaks
volumes), also that the next names in the list are D^in =
DTTV and *ih = "Tlfex (the southern Gilead).
Arpakshad ("TtppB-jN). A controversy between Hommel
and myself 1 left the former as strongly convinced as before
that the name meant * (Ur-the-) of Chaldeans. To me it
seemed more likely that DETIN was the Hebraised name of
the Assyrian province Arbaha or (KB ii. 88_/i) Arabha. In
this case *rttj would be a fragment of "TtDD, i.e., as most think,
Chaldaea (see on xxii. 22). V. 22 would then run thus,
The sons of Shem ; Elam and Asshur and Arpak-kesed
and Lud and Aram. V. 24 is admittedly a redactor s
insertion, and the form Arpakshad might also come from
the redactor, who misunderstood Arpak-kesed in v. 22.
The true reading in xi. 10 ff. would, in this case, be *rmD, 2
which the redactor (who had already miswritten the com
pound name in x. 22) turned into "TtDDQ-iN. The textual
phenomena, however, which have come to light since 1897
suggest a different explanation. It is clear that ITS,
* Arabia, may be miswritten ma (xvi. 1 2, Hos. viii. 9),
iriD (Gen. xli. 50), and IDS 3 (Prov. viii. 26), and that
has often come from DlttfD, a popular distortion of
(see on xi. 31). If consistency is any virtue, we cannot
help explaining imDETiN as a corruption of imD lli?, where
is a short way of writing DlftD. 4 Thus ilWEnN and
TIN are different corruptions of the same original.
Cp. on xi. 31 (Ur-kasdim) and xxii. 22 (Kesed), and E. Bib.,
cols. 5231-5234. The next name is Lud (T& ; Sam. T^).
Does P here make a sudden spring to Asia Minor? Or
1 Academy, 17th Oct. 1896; AHT, pp. 212, 297; Expositor,
Feb. 1897, pp. 145-148 (against Hommel). Prof. Hommel now
explains, boundary of the Chaldseans (Gr. p. 184, note i).
2 Gunkel, who finds this theory attractive, remarks that the reading
Kesed would harmonise well with the statement in xi. 3 1 that Terah
migrated from Ur-Kasdim. This is true, but the reading which under
lies Arpakshad harmonises perfectly with that form which the corrupt
reading Ur-Kasdim has most probably developed.
3 See pp. 38, 70.
4 For other views see Del. Paradies, p. 256; Hommel, AHT,
pp. 212, 294-298; Exp. Times, xiii. 285, and Gr. pp. 184, 244;
Cheyne, Expositor, Feb. 1897, pp. 145^, and E. Bib., cols. 3i8/.
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) 179
was he really ignorant of the situation of Lydia (Ass.
Luddu} ? Or can Jensen and Jeremias be right in tracing
Lud to Lubdu, the name of a region between the Upper
Tigris and the Euphrates ? No ; neither Luddu or Lubdu
is the original of Lud. Analogy (cp. Hur, Mash, Hul,
Ram) indicates that Lud is most probably a fragment of
some longer name. Not, however, of Rutenu, a well-known
early Egyptian designation of Palestine and Syria (Wiede-
mann), but, as the context suggests, and as is confirmed by
Ezra ii. 33 (Neh. vii. 37), Neh. xi. 35, I Chr. viii. I2, 1 of
some Arabian border-name, and most probably of T^Sl, i.e.
that southern Gilead which gives us so much to do in
explaining some parts of the O.T. (see on Ludim, v. 13,
and on xxxi. 21). For ~wh = T)S compare bvu = "TjAa,
V. 21, XV. I 8.
Aram (DT#). Is this the great Aramaean people which
spread over the N.E. region as far as Mesopotamia ? It is
no doubt plausible. But the context, strictly examined,
is adverse to this view. Observe (i) that in Num. xxiii. 7
CTIN is 1| to D~Tp "mil ; now Q~rp in such passages cannot,
so far as I can see, mean the east. 2 Balaam, whose home
was in Pethor, could not, if Pethor is really = Ass. Pitru, be
said to have come from the east. In all such passages a
N. Arabian region is referred to ; cnp has arisen out of
Dpi = DJTP (see on xxix. i). Observe also (2) that in xxii. 2
it is strange (as Driver, p. 223, remarks) to find him
(Aram) subordinated to the unknown Kemuel, or rather,
from our point of view, it is very naturally said that Aram
had the closest possible connexion with Kemuel, i.e. Yerah-
me el. 3 And (3) that in xxv. 20 Bethuel and Laban are
both called EHM. Now 7Nini is certainly to be grouped with
SsinN and bmn, both of which come from ^NSBBT. The
truth is that DIN is one of the old names adopted by P, and
1 In all these passages nS (presumably = -uS) is mentioned with ij we
or UK, a name which is certainly N. Arabian (see on xli. 50, Ezra, I.e.,
Neh. vi. 2).
2 Ed. Meyer, who knows of only one Aram, and is not as clear as
could be wished about Kedem, naturally prefers to read D IK for on (so
Hommel).
3 As we shall see (on xxii. 21) DIM *IK comes from CIN -ny, i.e.
N 3iy, Aramaean Arabia, a gloss on SxiDp.
i So TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
means a large part of the N. Arabian border-land. For the
formation of the name, cp. QB> from ^KSOfiF (note on ix. 18).
V. 23. The sons of Aram. Uz (})S). A number of
identifications have been offered. Gunkel, for instance,
offers cuneiform authority for locating Uz (Us) near
Palmyra. The Biblical data are hopelessly conflicting,
which ought to incite us to examine the text more closely
(see E. Bib. Uz ). We know that Job, a typical wise man,
was of the land of Uz (Job i. i) ; also that he was one of
the sons of Kedem (v. 3), a name which is plainly a corrup
tion of Rekem, i.e. Yarham (cp. on * Aram ). Uz is also
mentioned as the eldest son of Nahor, Abraham s brother
(xxii. 2 i), and as the grandson of Seir the Horite (xxxvi. 28).
Evidently Uz is a corruption of some N. Arabian name,
but of which ? h^n, a Yerahme elite clan (see on n^n,
v. 7; WriN, Num. iii. 35). ini. According to Marquart
(ZATW, 1885, p. 155), from Aramaic im, i.e. Tim3u
mo. A connexion with the name of a mountain,
whether the * mons Masius or the Masu (see Jensen, KB
vi. i, p. 576; Zimmern, KA 7^ 3) , p. 573; Jastrow, RBA,
p. 489) is most improbable. Either a mutilated form of
"[&, <f P* oao X ( so l Chr. i. 1 7), for which see on v. 2 ; or to
be explained as mo, v. 30. The Sam. here reads NED.
V. 31. Epilogue. These are the sons of Shem ac
cording to their clans. Then continue in the land of
Ishmael oar pNl ; and at the end correct cmil as in
v. 5, etc., a mistaken interpolation from v. 32.
V. 32. Final epilogue, omul, i.e. DJTP ^D, Yarhamites
or Yerahme elites, a gloss on m "01. In a wide but strictly
correct sense all the sons of Noah were Yerahme elites
of N. Arabia. This must be taken in connexion with the
closing words in their true form, viz. c in Ashhur-Yerahme el
(see on v. I #).
We now pass to the Yahwistic Table (J), putting aside
all questions as to its original form and subsequent develop
ment. The first problem which concerns us is that of
Nimrod. How strange it is that so much should be said
about one of the genealogical figures, and one only ! How
strange, too, that Nimrod, the real or supposed repre
sentative of Babylonia and Assyria, should be made a
TABLE OF PEOPLES .(GEN x.) 181
Kushite, i.e. a Hamite ! Surely, if the references to Egypt
usually supposed to exist in the earlier historical narratives
are correct, the Yahwist had quite as much opportunity of
learning about Egyptain as about Babylonian and Assyrian
cities. And if we further hold with Jastrow (p. 205) that
the Babylonians and Assyrians were made Hamites,
because Ham, according to J, takes the place of the
1 accursed Canaan, we cannot but find this very perplexing,
considering the direct or indirect indebtedness of the culture
of Israel to that of Babylonia. It has therefore been
suggested that the redactor may have confused Kush =
Ethiopia (in P) and Kush = the Kassites who early con
quered Babylonia (see E. Bib., Cush, i ; Nimrod, 2). 1
If, however, we look closely at the account of Nimrod/
we shall see that he is not represented solely as a conqueror,
but also and indeed especially as a great founder of
cities. Moreover, the difficulties connected with the names
of the cities and with the phrase *p li-13. remain, and as a
point of method we ought first of all to seek to clear up
these names in the light of probable conclusions attained
elsewhere in the criticism of traditional names. -
Let us take this phrase (in v. 9) first. Assuming it to
mean a mighty hunter, some have supposed that v. 9 has
been brought from some other context. 3 But surely the
redactor would not have accepted a parenthesis (Driver s
word) in which ill was used in a new sense (expressing
relation), while in v. 8 im clearly means a hero. If, then,
111 in v. 9 can only mean a hero, TS which follows must
be corrupt ; it is most plausible to regard it as a corruption
of pro. 4 It is true, this undermines the conjecture of the
connexion of Nimrod with Gilgamesh, the legendary hunter-
king of Uruk, 5 perhaps of solar-mythical origin, which has
1 This view is now held by Holzinger (p. 101), Ed. Meyer (p. 208,
note i), and doubtfully by Gunkel (pp. 78/.).
2 E. Bib., Nimrod, 3 3.
3 See e.g. Oxf. Hex. ii. 16 ; Gunkel, p. 75 ; Driver (ad loc.), a
parenthesis.
4 The alternative is to read psp, judge, general, prince.
5 Uruk generally taken to be the Erech of v. 10 (but see below).
The four legendary achievements of Gilgamesh are his conquest of Uruk,
his victory over Humbaba, king of Elam, his killing of the divine bull,
1 82 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
attracted several scholars (including Gunkel, Jensen, and to
some extent Zimmern). But if this connexion were real,
we should expect the name Nimrod to have a plausible
explanation from Babylonian, and such an explanation
adapted to the Hebrew context I cannot find. 1
Next, let us attack the problem of Nimrod. The
name, to a Hebrew ear, may have suggested rebellion, but
this does not help the critic, for all these early names
have been worn down and assumed new forms. Nor does
Mic. v. 5 suggest any promising solution. To the later age,
remarks Gunkel, Nimrod was the hero of Asshur (Assyria) ;
Asshur is called " Nimrod s land," Mic. v. 5. But I am
afraid that Gunkel is not exacting enough as a textual critic.
It is true that the special commentators on Micah are equally
disappointing on Mic. v. 4, 5 ; it has not been observed that
ni^m m is a gloss, and that D*frtD has come from ^NSDHT 1
(see on D^tt?, xxxiii. 18). The gloss therefore means, this
is Ishmael, and refers to YiftN which follows. Now Asshur
and Ishmael are synonymous terms for the same region in
N. Arabia, and T1D3, as v. 5 shows, is parallel to it. Two
possibilities are open to us, for I cannot see a connexion
with Marduk (Sayce, Wellh.) to be at all indicated,
Nimrod not being a solar hero, (i) If we hold that @ s
form Ne/3/jwS (1113) is likely to be nearer to the original form,
we may plausibly trace it to ~rm, a modification of TTQ,
well known as a N. Arabian name (KB ii. 222 f.\ cp.
Winckler, KAT, pp. I33/, note i. 2 Or (2), perhaps more
and his strangling of the lion. Nimrod s warlike achievements, how
ever, far exceed those of Gilgamesh. See, further, E. Bib., Nimrod,
2 ; Cainites, 6 ; A. Jeremias, Izdiibar-Nimrod (1891), and ATAO
(1904), pp. 158/5 G. Smith, the Assyriologist, TSBA i. 205, etc.;
Driver, Genesis ; Gunkel, Schopfimg, p. 146.
1 I cannot recognise as such A. Jeremias s explanation, babylonisiert
ndmir-uddu, d.h. glanzendes Licht (ATAO, I.e.). Nor can I possibly
approve Jensen s suggestion (Das Gilgamesch-Epos,\. 87, note i) that
Nimrod may come from Namurd, underlying a name given to the
god of light and of the chase (provisionally called Ninib) in the later
Babylonian period (Babylonian Expedition, Hilprecht, x., pp. xviii./,
8 /), -n-tv-sch-t. How unnatural !
2 The form may have come from Tvaiy, Arabia of Dad (see on
xxxvi. 35), Hadad, son of Bedad. Cp. "^na from cs^-my, a solution of
an old problem which needs a thoroughly candid consideration.
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. X.) 183
probably, TiD3 may have come from TIED, miswritten for
;DD1, i.e. pm, a popular modification of ^NOHT (;o frequently
represents SND) ; cp. on Nisrok, 2 K. xix. 37. Nimrod
is therefore neither a Libyan-Egyptian l nor a Babylonian,
but a Yerahme elite, i.e. N. Arabian hero. 2 That he is
fundamentally no mythical personage, whether Orion or
the sun, I have shown elsewhere (see E. Bib., Nimrod, 4).
Then follows, as most hold, a historical notice, to the
effect that Nimrod was the first of the great empire-builders
known to the Hebrews. But is this correct ? Is he began
to be a hero in the earth (or, land) a natural Hebrew
idiom ? The nearest parallel is ix. 20, but that has already
proved a stumbling-block, and, like iv. 26, must be corrupt.
Note also that immediately after in ^nn N*in comes another
clause (v. 9 a) which is also introduced by Nirr, and remember
that we have already found that for T2 i}} we have to read
pis "m. Should we not also read pis } in v. 8, instead of
pNl 11}? It is now fair to suppose that the first pis im
is an interpolation from v. 9, and that f?nn (cp. on iv. 26,
ix. 20) should be ^NOnT. rvrrrS may be either a redac-
tional insertion, or a corruption of ~5NQnT, originally, perhaps,
a correction of hnn. Thus w. 8 and ga become, And Kush
begot Rahman. [That is, Yerahme el. He was an awe-
inspiring hero mm ^fhy
And what can mm ^sS mean ? It is indeed an
exegetical puzzle. Assuming that Nimrod was really repre
sented as a hunter, critics have supposed that the phrase is
purely ornamental, a great hunter even for God (Del.,
Dillm., etc.), or, to give it more force, have paraphrased in
defiance of God (Budde), while Gunkel (Gen. p. 79) supposes
that there may have been a narrative of Nimrod hunting while
a god (not originally Yahweh) looked on, and perhaps even
helped him. Evidently fresh light is needed ; the greatest
admirer of Dillmann must grant this. Now, there is a weird
section of Ezekiel (already referred to for Asshur, Elam,
1 So Ed. Meyer, after seventeen years, still holds with regard to
Nimrod the hunter {Die Israel, pp. 448 /.).
2 Cp. Jeremias, ATAO, p. 158, er ist ein Araber. But see the
context. He supposes that the conquests of this Arabian hero lay in
the region of the Euphrates and the Tigris.
1 84 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Meshek, and Tubal) in the course of which (xxxii. 27) we
find this singular phrase tpSlSD D^DD D HiniTiN. Most
explain this, with the heroes, the giants of old time
(reading DTIJHD), but a more penetrating criticism seems to
have shown that the second and third words represent
glosses on the first. D^DD is the word we find in vi. 4,
Num. xiii. 33 ; it can be shown to be applied to a much-
dreaded race of Yerahme elite origin (see notes on those
passages) ; most probably it has arisen out of D n 3D^ = BKoh
(Lapanites = Labanites). At any rate, it gave the necessary
definiteness to D HIll, and it was itself explained (as if by
an excess of zeal) by a further gloss D TOtDHT (misvvritten
D^nSD). Now have we not the key to *xb ? ^xh should
be pointed ^p*p ; it means * Labanite ; and mrr which
follows has come from YTP, i.e. WtonTj as in Judg. xix. I
(see Crit. Bib.} and many other passages, or rather > ~>HDnV,
a gloss. The statement respecting Nimrod (Rahman)
therefore is simply that he was a formidable warrior, of the
class referred to as Labanite or (par excellence] Yerahme elite.
The idea that * when the Hebrews wished to describe a man
as being a great hunter they spoke of him as " like
Nimrod " (Driver) would therefore seem to be mistaken.
The popular saying was, Like Rahman, a formidable hero
[a Lapanite, Yerahme el]. See further, on vi. 4.
But who, more particularly, was Rahman ? Is he an
individual whose true name has disappeared, but who was
remembered as the founder of Yerahme elite greatness ? Or
is he not rather the heros eponymus of the migratory
Yerahme elite race ? The latter view is preferable. Each
migration, each conquering band of N. Arabians, had a
leader ; these leaders were rolled by tradition into one, and
became a single * formidable hero, who received, under one
of its forms, the common name of his race, Yerahme el.
And what direction did those conquering expeditions take ?
There is evidence that the Arabian migrations spread very
widely indeed. The founders of the Hammurabi dynasty
in Babylonia were Arabians, and, as the names Hammu
rabi and Sumu-abi themselves suggest, Yerahme elite
( = Ishmaelite) Arabians, 1 while the Arabian origin of the
1 See on v. 32, and cp. on Shemeber, xiv. 2.
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) 185
Phoenicians is plain from many of their names. 1 Still it
may, in the first instance, be presumed that the districts
referred to as conquered by the Yerahme elites were near
the southern border of Palestine. It is to this region
that the early legends of Genesis thus far relate, and we
may expect the statements of w. 10-12 to refer to it also.
Let us therefore now examine the ten names mentioned
in the traditional text. These are Babel, Erech, Akkad,
Kalneh, the land of Shinar, Asshur, Nineveh, Rehoboth- ir,
Kelah, Resen. Of these, 1-3, 6, 7, and 9 are supposed to
have been identified, while the remaining four are admitted
to be still obscure, even with the help of Assyriology. Let
us take these four first, and see whether they show signs of
belonging to any of those types of corruption which recur
so frequently in the text of other O.T. writings.
Let us (a) begin with the riddle of Shinar , "IJWID, in the
traditional text the name of the region in which the four
cities first mentioned were situated. It is, from every point
of view, bold to trace its origin to Sumer (S. Babylonia).
But it seems still bolder to connect it with the Sanhar of
the Amarna letters and the Sangara of the Egyptian inscrip
tions, and to suppose both these forms to be = Karduniash,
the Kassite name for Babylonia. 2 Those who have noted
down a few of the recurrent types of corruption pointed out
in Crit. Bib. (see especially pp. 210, 243, 407 /) will
recognise the true solution at once. Just as J&l comes from
JOHN = jDD 111? = ^NSDar $, so 133 ID comes from ms JDID
= r ofiT, Arabian Ishmael. This will suit all the
passages in which the name occurs (viz. x. 10, xi. 2,
xiv. I, 9, Josh. vii. 2i, 3 Isa. xi. 11, Zech. v. II, Dan. i. 2),
if a keen and consistent criticism be applied also to the
contexts. Note especially that in xiv. I the king of 1231D is
called by the compound name Ss iEN, where -ION has come
from DIN (i.e. the southern Aram = Yerahme el), and that
1 See p. 43, and elsewhere in Cosmogony.
2 Ed. Meyer (Glossen, see E. Bib., Shinar ) ; so Hommel, Gr. p. 6 ;
cp. pp. 257, note 2, 300. On the other side, see Winckler, KAT (Z) ,
p. 238. Cp. Pinches, in Hast. DB iv. 503 b, whose view is, I fear, no
better than those which he rejects.
3 Both nn.x and inx come from
1 86 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
the names IND& and *ilott) (v. 2) are, from the same point
of view, no doubt corruptions of the same original as isaiD.
() Kalneh, mf?D (Am. vi. 2 ; life, Isa. x. 9), is also
difficult ; * Jensen would emend it into m^O = Kullaba, an old
Babylonian city. 2 But in Amos and Isaiah it is the conquest
of city after city by the Asshurites in one of their invasions
that is referred to. Similarly in Nah. iii. 8 we should
perhaps read pDN 13^5[o] (Calno of Amon, i.e. of Armon or
Yerahme el). The origin, however, of Kalneh or Kalno is
not clear. Should we not read, for both forms, miS ?
Nimrod, as we have seen, is called a Labanite.
(c] Rehoboth- ir (TS nim) should mean broad places of
a city ; but how can this be right ? Assyriologists gener
ally equate the name with the rebit Nina of the inscriptions.
The uncertainty of this, however, has been candidly set
forth by Mr. Johns (E. Bib., col. 4029), and on this and
other grounds we are amply justified in seeking light
elsewhere. Now experience shows that TI? not unfrequently
comes from T3* = ^NDnT (see on xxiii. 10, xxxvi. 43),
while Rehob and Rehoboth are familiar to us as names of
places. One of the Rehoboths (perhaps that in xxxvi. 37)
seems to have been called c Rehoboth of Arabia.
(cT] Resen (p*i). A difficult name. Assyriology does
not help us (DB iv. 229 ; E. Bib., Resen/ i ; cp. Nestle,
Exp. Times, July 1904, p. 476). It is, however, plausible to
suppose that it is miswritten for "ISDD, i.e. ns~f?N$DBP ; cp.
on ISDID, v. 10, and on TDto (Dt. iii. 9), also po, ^D, HUDUD
(Josh. xv. 31), all from JDD = ^NSDBP. This is confirmed by
the gloss which follows. For underneath the improbable
n min Tsn N*in 3 it is not hard to recognise iia T2P win,
which the redactor doubtless had before him, but failed to
understand (TJP = ^NDTTP). Possibly, then, pi (l^DD) is
rather a regional than a place name, at least if we are right
in questioning p^ in v. 1 1 b (see below).
1 See E. Bib., Calneh, Calno ; Harper, Amos and Hosea, p. 144.
2 TLZ, 1895, col. 510 (ap. Jeremias, ATAO, p. 164).
3 This passage seems to have affected the form of Jonah iii. 3, 4.
See Crit. Bib. p. 151, the statements of which, however, are not
entirely correct. It would seem that in the original text (altered by the
redactor) the phrase in Gen. x. 12, ny 1 ?^ my win, was taken to refer to
Nineveh.
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) 187
Let us now turn to the place-names, which, according
to a delightful opinion, have been successfully explained.
(a) ^13. Few scholars doubt that, except in Ezra v. I 3 and
Neh. xiii. 6 (where it is supposed to mean the Persian
kingdom), this very familiar name means Babylon. But
it is not less positively asserted that TitDN always (except
where the name is applied to the Babylonian, or the Persian,
or the Graeco-Syrian kingdom), means * Assyria. When,
however, we consider the large number of double or even
triple applications of the same name (e.g. Rehoboth, Kush,
Musri), we cannot assure ourselves that this is not a mere
prejudice. The view here put forward again is that Sm
was the name, or one of the names, of the chief city of the
great Yerahme elite empire called Asshur or Ashhur, which
included the smaller kingdoms on the S. Palestinian border ;
hence Sll and YilDN can be used as equivalents. 1 An early
legend connected with this Sil (certainly not with Babylon )
is to be found in xi. 1-9, from which narrative it appears
that another form of the name for the capital was either
nnbl or xbl (see on xi. 8). In fact, internal evidence
throws much more light on this subject than might be
supposed. In Ezek. xxvii. 4, xxviii. 2, 8, the improbable
reading n^o* 1 l^l should probably be emended into D^Q" 1 Sll
Babel of the Yamanites. From Ezek. xxi. 24 (19), we,
further learn that Sll was in the land of Asshur, for the
impossible "inN pND should of course be in&N o. 2 This
is confirmed by Jer. li. I, where T>p iS comes from DpT Sll
Babel of Yarkam ( = Yarham), a gloss on Sin, 3 and by v. 41,
where ~|tt>m (see p. 47) comes from -DEN = -inttfN (or orrp ),
which is parallel to Sll ; also by Jer. 1. I, 8, where Sni is
parallel to DHHD pN, i.e. D~iDD = nn inN ; by Isa. xlvii. I,
where Sni m is parallel to ontBD ni, i.e. D11D3 ni ; and by
Ps. cxxxvii. 7, 8, where D1*TN " Dl (D*T.M n ?) is parallel to
Sll ni. Note also that in Jer. xxv. 9 Sll is presented as
the centre of the clans of pss. Here, as often (see p. 50),
1 See Crit. Bib. pp. 8 1 /
2 Cornill, following two MSS. of Kenn., alters into nnx. Cp. Konig,
Synt. 318.
3 *3B" (parallel to Sun) is a corruption of ^ycsr. ntr and pa often
represent D\
1 88 l^RADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
does not mean north, but is a dialectal form of
= ottT. Babel, then, is an Asshurite or Ishmaelite city,
i.e. somewhere in N. Arabia, the ancient geography of which
region is very little known.
(ti) and (c] Erech (Erek, TIN) an d Akkad (TD). ( Erech
is generally identified with the Bab. Uruk (modern Warka] ;
* Akkad, with the Agade of the inscriptions, where the
more ancient Sargon dwelt. 1 It is quite possible, however,
that "|l and TON are merely different ways of writing the
same name. The gentilic mN in 2 S. xv. 32 points at any
rate to a S. Palestinian connexion (cp. Crit. Bib. p. 289).
[ n ]"ON in Am. v. 16 may come from "OiN, in the sense of
sacred chanter. 2 The origin may be nD&N (see above).
(d] Asshur, see p. 177.
(e) mr 1 }.. It is highly plausible to think of the Assyrian
Nineveh (Ninua, Nina) ; the redactor himself may indeed
have done so. We are compelled, however, to question this
view. Since Nimrod must be a N. Arabian, we cannot
well assign to him the foundation or even the conquest of
Nineveh. Both here, and possibly in all the other passages
in which the name occurs, rn^D (or rather some underlying
name) must be the designation of a N. Arabian city. To
prove this at length would require a critical study which
would take us too far from Genesis (see, however, provision
ally Crit. Bib. on the passages). What, then, is mr3 ?
How shall the name be accounted for ? One explanation is
given in Crit. Bib. pp. 151, 164, but a better one is forth
coming. rrp^ has almost certainly been produced here
and elsewhere by the dittographing of 3 ; the true form is
mr, from jv, another form of ;p^ ( = ^onr) ; see on v. 2.
We shall find that the O.T., rightly read, continually joins
Asshur and Yerahme el, and the first in the list of the sons
of Asher (whose name is a by-form of Asshur) happens to
be mo (xlvi. 1 7).
(/) Kalah (nfpD), according to most, represents the
Ass. Kalhu (see Johns, E. Bib., Calah ). Most probably,
however, restoring one letter, we should read nboD, which
seems to be the fuller form of the place-name
1 See Hommel, Gr. p. 400.
2 Cp. cnoa, priests, probably from ovsn (see p. 62, note I).
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) 189
* Salecah was a great commercial centre. See on xx. 16,
and cp. on D^n^DD, v. 14.
Only one more problem remains that connected with
)T*l. It is true, the building of cities might be expected in
old traditions. 1 But why is nothing said of the building of
cities in the land of Shinar ? And if Asshur was not
originally a part of the kingdom of Nimrod, why is no
mention made of his conquest of this region, especially as
he was an awe-inspiring warrior (see on v. 9) ? Should
we not, therefore, for JTI read ip (E. Bib., col. 3418)? Cp.
xiv. 7.
Another nest of unsolved problems comes before us in
w. 13 f. If D^-iSO means Egypt, what can Ludim,
1 Anamim, etc., mean ? Pathrusim (D^nns) has certainly
been explained, with some degree of plausibility, 2 as those
of Upper Egypt. It must, however, be admitted to be
strange (i) that Pathros should have a plural termination
attached to it, (2] that Pathrusim, thus explained, should
rank as only fifth among the sons of Misraim, and (3) that
Pathrusim should be reckoned as a son of Misraim at all.
A full study of the passages referring to Pathros (Isa.
xi. 11, Jer. xliv. I, 15, Ezek. xxix. 14, xxx. 14) leads to
the conclusion that it was only by an ingenious redactor *
that the connexion between the group of letters represented
in MT. by DVinD and a designation of a portion of Egypt
was produced 4 (see further E. Bib., Pathros ). The true
reading in our passage is almost certainly DTiaiS ; the
linking form is DTnao (cp. on man, Neh. vii. 57). Note
that in the (as I hope) recovered original text of Jer. xlvi. 9
1 Cp. the second of the Babylonian creation-stories (KB vi. 41-43).
2 The difficulty in connecting Pathros with Coptic pto-res, land
of the south, is that the only evidence for the name Pathros is derived
from the MT. of the O.T., and from an inscription of Esar-haddon
(KAT, pp. 335 /), where that king is described as king of the kings
of Mu-sur, Pa-tu-ri[?]-si and Ku-si. Why should not all these names
refer to N. Arabian regions? Ezek. xxix. 14 tells against the common
theory, not in its favour (see Crit. Bib.}.
3 Certainly onns and HaOovp^ remind us forcibly of the Phaturites
in the western part of the Thebaid mentioned by Pliny.
4 This must be qualified by the observation that in of Isa. xi. 1 1
the word corresponding to onna is neither HaOovpys nor TLafafnfa but
i go TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
1 follows immediately on D^ii (MT. inaccurately
DT&). This result throws a fresh light on Balaam s
Pethor, and on the obscure mSDN of Eccles. xii. 1 1
(see p. 40, note 3).
Prof. W. Max Miiller, however (OLZ, 1902, p. 471),
gives up Pathrusim. He does not indeed abandon the
long current explanation of ( Pathros as Upper Egypt,
but he wishes to omit Pathrusim as an inaccurate gloss,
and to look for the sons of Misraim, not in the Nile valley,
but beside it, like the Libyans. Thus the Kasluhim (cp.
Luc. s ^acrXwi/tet/x) become the D^3DD3 (cp. Herod, iv. 172),
and so on. Ingenious.
If, however, D^ISQ is to be read Misrim, and the Misrites
to be located in N. Arabia, the list of names becomes much
clearer. Take the first name, Ludim (onA). It is com
monly assumed that Ludim, being a son of D nxo, must be
different from the * Lud of v. 22. Gunkel s comment on
the name is, Named beside Egypt and Ethiopia in Ezek.
xxx. 5 and Jer. xlvi. 9, otherwise unknown. In Ezek.
xxx. 5, however, it is not D^TlS but TiS. 2 Stade (Akad.
Reden, pp. 140 f.} and W. M. Miiller would change DT&
into D^llS. Against this, however, it may be urged that
D^Tib and the parallel misunderstood form D^irrS are
most probably (like D^Ti^) corruptions of a longer ethnic.
The N. Arabian theory gives us a clue to the problem.
See on v. 22. Anamim (D^DDU) which follows is a not well-
known people (Ges.-Buhl). Yet no great experience is
required to produce the correction D^SD, a name equivalent
to Me unlm in Ezra ii. 50 (mentioned beside Nephisim in
the list of Nethinite or Ethanite families), and to Me onenim
in Judg. ix. 37 ; the common original of all these names is
We next meet with the LeJtabim (D Oil), referred to
above. No doubt, ir6, like Sin (iv. 2) and rfa in nn^l
(xxix. 29), comes from ^NDim ; cp. on D^in, Ezek.
xlvii. 13, Ps. xvi. 9. Naphtuhim (QTrnD:)), according to
1 na* is an abridged form of nsns (see E. Bib., Zephath, Zare-
phath ).
2 Stade thinks that mS was only inserted to produce an assonance
with BIS.
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) 191
Erman (ZATW, 1890, pp. ii8/i) is an old corruption of
DTTDnB, those of the north-land. But the parallel form
(as Erman regards it), DTnno, has been shown to have no
reference to any part of Egypt. Let us then apply the
N. Arabian key. (J| gives Ne</>#aXety6. May not the
common original both of DTrnDD and of D^briSD be mriED
(cp. on Nephtoah, Josh. xv. 9) ? This may have been
shortened into nD3 (see on 1*1*7 mD3, Josh. xi. 2), to which
a formative h was attached (^HDD) ; see on xxx. 8.
Kasluhim (DT&DD), says Prof. Francis Brown, 1 is just
as obscure as Anamim. But Anamim has revealed its
secret. There is therefore good hope for Kasluhim. It
is a compound name like D[-|]D&&gt;. Both names (Kasl.
and Shakram) are, in fact, etymologically equivalent, which
of course would not justify us in saying that they were also
equivalent geographically. DD is a fragment of IDDN (cp.
above, on 711, end) = "inON ; cp. perhaps noDl?, Josh. xv. 1 6.
has the same origin as T?7 in Judg. xv. 9, i.e. is = ^NDITP.
should probably be restored for n^D in v. II, also
perhaps in Judg. v. 15 (for n?ttp), in Isa. xxxiii. 18 (for
;ptt>), and in Am. vii. 4 (for p~>nn). The place-names niD7D
and DTlSlD, too, are to be grouped with n^DD.
As to Kaphtorim, D HnsD, there is a tendency to identify
Kaphtor with Crete. 2 A thorough textual criticism, how
ever, seems to me strongly adverse to this view. See Am.
ix. 7, where the parallel names are D HSD (i.e. the N. Arabian
Musri) and Tp (i.e. Ashhur); Jer. xlvii. 4, where the Pelishtim
are said to be the remnant of I-kaphtor* (read, agreeably
to parallels, Arab-kaphtor) ; also Dt. ii. 23, where the
Kaphtorim who came out of Kaphtor (but see ad loc.) are
parallel to the bene Esau who dwelt in Seir (Ashhur ?) in
v. 23 ; and lastly Isa. xi. 14, where kaphtor-pelishtim (so
read, not katkeph) is parallel to bene Rekem, i.e. the
Yerahme elites). 3 Further light is thrown on Kaphtor if we
may combine Kaphtorim with Kerethim. The Kereth-
1 E. Bib., Geography, 15.
2 Cp. Sayce, HCM^\ p. 173; Exp. Times, Oct. 1900, p. 28;
Noordtzij, De Filistijnen, 1905, pp. 29, 39 ; Francis Brown, E. Bib.,
Geography, 12 b.
3 TO should be nao , towards Yaman ; (see on v. 2).
192 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
ites were certainly of N. Arabia (i S. xxx. 14), whence
David naturally drew his bodyguard (see on 2 S. viii. 18).
Kerethites and Pelethites are mentioned together ; Peleth
too (see E. Bib., s.v., and introd. to chap, xxvi.) is certainly
a N. Arabian name, and best identified with Peleseth
(Pelistim). Not impossibly both D nnQD and OTTO come
from DTiim. This is forcibly suggested by Ezek. xxv. 16,
where, parallel to trn&^D and D^mD, we find QVT *pn mNB?,
or rather ]tr Tirn f (cp. on xlix. 13) ; also by Zeph. ii. 5,
where a similar parallelism occurs. Kaphtor, then, should
probably be Rehoboth, and Kaphtorim should be Reho-
bothim ; there has, in short, been redactional harmonising on
a large scale. A still more worn-down form of Rehoboth
is possibly miD (see on xxxv. 16). For rnD (l K. xvii. 3),
nvnp, and rmp in place-names, another explanation is to
be preferred (see on xxiii. 2).
Now as to the gloss, * whence came out Pelishtim, which,
in the traditional text, is appended to Kasluhim. Probably
this is a mistake. The scribe omitted D nnDDTW, and
supplied it afterwards. It should, however, have preceded
the notice respecting the Pelishtim (so Olsh., Budde). The
Pelishtim, then, came from Kaphtor (cp. Jer. xlvii. 4) ; i.e.
probably from the N. Arabian Rehoboth. Long ago, inde
pendently of Hommel, and going further than he does, 1 I
came to the conclusion that the Philistines meant in the
original texts of the O.T. were not the Philistines of the sea-
coast, and suggested that a N. Arabian ethnic from which
might, after several corruptions, have come was
On this I do not now lay any considerable stress.
, when it refers (as I think that it always does), not
to the well-known historical Philistines of the sea-coast, but
to a N. Arabian people, is due, most probably, to a confusion
between Philistines and Pelethites, i.e. n^nw^D should be
D^nSa (whence came David s Pelethites), cp. to^D (with
gentilic ^a) and n^D. At any rate, the Pelishtim
(Pelethim?) were Arelites, i.e. Yerahme elites (see on i S.
xiv. 6, xvii. 26, 36, Ezek. xxxii. 19 ff.}. For other views
of the Philistines, see the learned articles of Moore
1 Cp. Gnmdriss, pp. 59, 93 (note 3), 158 ; Aufsatze, p. 285, note i.
According to Hommel, they were the population of S. Palestine.
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) 193
(E. Bib.} and Guthe (PR&\ also Noordtzij, De Filis-
tijnen, 1905.
Next come the sons of Canaan (vv. 15-19), who are
supposed to represent mostly northern populations. Thus
* Sidon is taken to mean Phoenicia. Arkite, Sinite,
Arvadite, Semarite, Hamathite are all supposed to point
northward ; certainly the familiar Hamath is north even of
Phoenicia. It remains to be seen whether a more self-
consistent interpretation may not be given, assuming the N.
Arabian theory. Here, then, as often, let us venture to
suppose that the p-pS intended is a place in N. Arabia,
called more fully yrs s (MT. H3T s) ; see Crit. Bib. on
Josh. xi. 8, xix. 28, 1 and cp. 2 S. xxiv. 6, (g A . But, it will
be asked, is it not implied in Isa. xxiii. and in Ezek. xxvii. 8
that the Sidon referred to was a maritime city ? One may
at first think so. But if Jerusalem can be figuratively repre
sented as a ship (Isa. xxxiii. 23), why should not Sor
( = Missor) be represented as a ship, and her cities (exclud
ing Sidon) and allies as her builders and rowers? And
as for Isa. xxiii., I think it will be found that a consistent
interpretation is quite possible on the assumption that is
is a popular form of ISD ( = the N. Arabian Musri
see on v. 6), that BTttnn nV3N comes from -inmN ma DIN-
( n too will be a popular form), and that D-, as often,
represents p-, and that p-p* too is a N. Arabian place
(the name was carried northwards in Arabian migrations).
Let us then consider this last name. The theory that there
was a Phoenician god of hunting or fishing called -rs 2 is a
poor makeshift. It is far better, on the analogy of DID from
9M9DOP, Dn from onr, IDM from TiffiN, etc., to take T2 in p-ps
and 12 in the Phoenician names Tm, mpScm, etc. (see
Cooke, p. 91), to represent pis. We find this word in the
1 In Josh. xi. 8 Sidon is mentioned with Misrephoth-maim, i.e.
Sarephath-yaman. Supplement this by I K. xvii. 8, where, from rvn
(t.e. mne-x), which fronts pvn (i.e. prrvn, the stream Yarhon, see on xv. 18),
and whose inhabitants are o ^ny, Arabians ), Elijah proceeds to>
Sarephath which is Sidon s. In Josh. xix. 28 the (southern) territory
of Asher is bordered by Arabian Sidon (see above) ; cp. Judg.
i- 31-
2 See Cooke, p. 91 ; Ed. Meyer, E. Bib., col. 4504. I think Torrey
first suggested that is is = pns.
13
194 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
names Adoni-sedek, and many other parallels (see Zimmern,
KAT^ pp. 473/). The Sidkites in N. Arabia may have
derived their name from a title of the god of the clan
perhaps it was a title of the god Yerahme el (cp. o-vSvtc in the
Phoenician cosmogony; Winckler, KAT, p. 224, note I ;
Crit. Bib. pp. 4io/ ; E. Bib., col. 5374, note i).
But why is Sidon called (in MT.) TOl-i ? Is it not a
sufficient honour to be named first ? The problem has not
been fully recognised. Evidently Gen. x. I 5 must be taken
with xxii. 21 and I Chr. ii. 42. In all these places the
first problem is text-critical. The probability is that
YO1 has come from 11D1, i.e. SllDl = SttDrrr (cp. on
Ex. xv. i). Thus the name before us becomes Sidon-
Yerahme el.
The companion of Sidon is Heth (nn). It has been
asked whether this means the northern Hittites (i K. x. 29,
2 K. vii. 6 ; cp. Judg. i. 26) or the southern (xxiii. 3 f.,
xxvii. 46, cp. xxviii. I, 8). According to Driver, Heth
may be a designation of the N. Canaanitish offshoots of the
great Hittite nation. It is not certain, however, that
northern (Syrian) Hittites are ever referred to in the O.T.
Wherever Hittites are mentioned, the surrounding contexts
favour the view that a N. Arabian people is intended ; it is
not possible to draw any distinction between two classes of
passages. The presumption is that nn has nothing to do
with Heta or Hatti (as if we had here a reminiscence of
* Hittite conquests), but is a fragment of some longer name
(cp. the case of DTT, DID, 11 ID). Doubtless some very im
portant regional or ethnic name is required, and one thinks
naturally either of Rehoboth or of * Ashhoreth. The
latter is to be preferred. Cp. on xxiii. 3. It is a hazardous
theory of Jastrow (E. Bib., col. 2097) that there were two
races or peoples both called Hittites, in N.E. Syria and in
S. Palestine respectively, which had nothing in common but
the name. But the old view that * Hittites is used vaguely
for the pre-Israelitish population of Palestine generally is not
less unsatisfactory. 1 Into the questions connected with the
1 For other views see Sayce, Exp. Times, March 1904, pp. 280-
285; Breasted, AJSL, April 1905, pp. 157/5 Jastrow, E. Bib.,
* Hittites ; Jeremias, ATAO, pp. 203-205.
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) 195
great Hittite empire there is no call upon one to enter
here. It is to be hoped that the O.T. passages may in
future be critically treated from an O.T. point of view.
Vv. 1 6- 1 8 a are, of course, a later insertion. All the
names are plainly ethnics with the article prefixed. ^Dll" 1 can
not be a mere local tribe that inhabiting Jerusalem. It is
proved that DT, tt)!* 1 , and lttT all occur as corruptions of ^NSQBP
(see esp. on Josh. xv. 8, Judg. xix. 10 ff.). That Yebus in
Judg. xix. 10 is a pseudo-archaism, is a widespread error.
Between -HON (Amorite), the Egyptian Amar, 1 and the Ass.
Amurri (Amurre) there is evidently a close connexion. The
two latter designations were in early times attached to N.
Palestine, 2 and only afterwards do we find the Assyrians
applying mat Amurri to the whole of Palestine and
Phoenicia, together with a part of Ccele-Syria. Scarcely,
however, can we deny that the O.T. name "HON specially
belongs to a N. Arabian people, otherwise called *>CTIN and
^WDrrr, and the probability is that ""ION has come by a
popular transposition of letters from ^DIN ; cp. the clan-name
and place-name *IDN ; also the pers. name irnciN (where irr,
as usual, comes from "inf/i]* 1 ), the Sab. iDNSrr, and the Palm.
NOTION. That Arabians in very early times spread into
Palestine, Phoenicia, and Syria may be only a hypothesis,
but it is absolutely required to explain a large number of
facts. That "HDN means highlanders, from *ibN = TON, Isa.
xvii. 9, 3 is a pure imagination. Next, ^ITU. To be grouped
with ^Ylttn (cp. (@ s yapyao-ei = ^tol, Dt. iii. 14), TQ, I S.
xxvii. 8. Note that the trra "in was probably originally
located in Arab-Yerahme el (see on Dt. xi. 29), and that
according to 2 S. xv. 8 there was a Geshur in Aram, i.e.
in Yerahme el (see Crit. Bib. p. 284). The original of these
names was probably TiniDN. More than one of the
Ashhurite tribes doubtless bore a name derived from
Ashhur. ^n (v. 17) probably = *nn or ^in (from < nn&&gt;N) ;
cp. Isa. xvii. 9, where ttnnn = ol Euatot ((). Then follow,
it is said, five names of city-populations, all pointing to the
1 See W. M. M. As. u. Eur. p. 177.
2 In the Amarna tablets Amurru stands for the Lebanon region and
N. Phoenicia. But cp. Hommel, Gr. p. 242.
3 The corruptness of this passage is known from @.
196 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
far north, outside of Palestine. But the truth is that
the names are primarily southern, i.e. N. Arabian. ^pis
has probably the same origin as T3N and YIN, v. IO, 1 viz.
"DEN. There is a Phcen. pers. name pis (Cooke, p. 89).
TD. That there were northern Sinites or Siyyanites (see
E. Bib., Sinite ), need not be disputed. The only question
is whether a reference to southern Sinites is not most
probable. The name means * Ishmaelite (see on Ex. xvi. I,
Ezek. xxx. i 5), just as ^D "in means Ishmaelite mountain.
THN (v. 1 8). Probably to be grouped either with TVS
(iv. 1 8) and TV (v. 16), or with -iins (see on Num. xxxii. 34).
There is no need to think of the northern Arvad ; see on
Ezek. xxvii. 8 (Sidon and Arvad mentioned close to
Elishah or * Ishmael ). -nos. Again a southern tribe (see
E. Bib., Zemaraim ). Has the name come from *>ISD ?
TiDn. There may well have been several Hamaths. That
there was one in the south appears from Num. xiii. 21, and
probably from 2 K. xxiii. 33 (see notes). It is plausible to
identify the southern Hamath with Maacah.
Next, a territorial definition, which, however, is painfully
obscure (cp. E. Bib., col. 4672). Apparently the first seats
of the Canaanites were the Arabian Sidon and Rehoboth
(v. 15). Afterwards (v. 19) they extended their range, in
one direction towards Gerar (see on xx. i), in another to
wards * Sodom and Gomorrah ; Admah and Seboim (see
on xiv. 2) seem inserted later. Two more precise state
ments are added mirTi? and Sfi&-"TS. ms may be a
second name of some strongly fortified city such as
Sarephath. smb, like wh and DB&, is a mutilated form of
fjNSOdP. That * Sodom and Gomorrah were originally
located in N. Arabia appears from the true text of
xiii. 10.
V. 21 introduces us to the sons of Shem (J). For the
difficulties of the traditional text see Dillmann (ad loc.} and
especially Budde (Urgesch. pp. 304 ff.}. It is very strange
(1) that T9? should not be followed either by ]3. or by trga,
(2) that c Shem should have two explanatory appositional
clauses, (3) that the first of these clauses should be so circum
locutory, and (4) that the second should be so ambiguous
1 We must remember that yij; and TIN come from different sources.
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) 197
that <*|, followed among moderns by Noldeke, should take
an entirely different view of the meaning from Dillmann,
Budde, and the great majority of recent critics. It has not,
however, been noticed that every one of the words in v. 2 1 fr,
except ">:)} SD, is very likely, as experience has shown, to be
corrupt. The combination of such words should at any rate
give us pause, and if the corrections which experience
suggests as possible, and which accord with our results
elsewhere, should at once throw a bright light on the
passage, we shall be entitled to regard them as practically
certain, (i) "QN (see on iv. 20, ix. 18, xxxiii. 19) and
IIS (see on -HIS, xiv. 13, Num. xxiv. 24, I K. v. I, I Chr.
viii. 22) often come from ITS. (2) TFN, like vnN (xvi. 12,
etc.) and *nn (Ex. iii. I, etc.), and as often in compound
proper names, may represent int&N. Cp. on xiv. 13. (3)
nET, though elsewhere from to^D* 1 , may here represent mnDD,
whence DTinDD (see on v. 13). (4) *rrtt[n], as in xv. 18,
Dt. i. 7, etc., may come from Wn, t.e. ~ntt (cp. on v. 12).
We can now explain v. 21. Note that "^IN should be
ITS ; it should go with N*in Dl, so forming a gloss (see
on iv. 26). The verse now runs thus, N^irr Da] T?^ 7H&DBF1
fnfen mnDn THEN] 3-jjpai-^D [ITS, And Ishmael begot
[he, too, is Arabia] all the sons of Arabia [Ashhur and
Naphtoah of Gilead]. This is J s account expanded by
two glosses. P also recognises Asshur ( = Ashhur) and
Gilead (under the form Lud ) as sons of Shem, agreeing
in this with the glossator. J has mentioned Naptuhim
among the sons of Misrim (v. 1 3). It has been observed
by others that Aram is not mentioned. True, but Yoktan
is mentioned in v. 25 (see below).
We now expect to hear about the sons of Arab ; nor
are we disappointed. V. 2 5 gives the names of the two sons
of -11$, or rather ms (see on v. 2 1 ), viz. Peleg and Yoktan.
l^D surely has no connexion with the region el-aflag in
Central Arabia (Hommel), nor with the canals (D^D M^D) of
the energetic Babylonian king Hammurabi (Sayce). It may
be a shortened form of a compound, D representing ID in
po (see on xxv. 20), and lh the hi in isbl and the fri in
/TIN (cp. on xxxi. 47). The explanation which follows
may be a late gloss, ftojy has been explained already (see
198 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
on ix. 24, p. 152) as coming from ;pm = Spm, i.e. Yrv
Cp. on * Yokshan, xxv. 2.
Yoktan s sons follow. Observe that Havilali and Sheba
here appear among the Yoktanites, z>. as Shemites, whereas
in v. 7 Havilah is a son of Kush, and Sheba a son of
Raamah and a grandson of Kush, i.e. both are Hamites.
But the distinction between Shem and Ham is purely
artificial. Now, as to Almodad. Most regard this as the
name of a S. Arabian tribe, and the only question is,
whether h& in TflD^M is the Arabic article (so still Kon.
Lehrgeb. ii. 417) or hn, God. Glaser (Skizze, ii. 280)
remarks, Evidently compounded of El or II (God) and
maudad, mawddtd, muwaddad, which occurs sometimes in
the inscriptions. Thus we get God is beloved, a meaning
as improbable as God pities for Yerahme el. But,
remembering such a name as Abimael (v. 28), i.e. Arab-
Yerahme el, it is much more probable that we should group
the letters a very little differently, and read TVTTHD, i.e.
Yerahme el of Dod. Dod (see pp. 46-49) is the name both
of a region and of a god. As to Sheleph (*|^#) ^ Hazar-
maveth were really = Hadramaut, Sheleph might be one
of the many places in S. Arabia called Salf (Glaser, ii. 425).
Most probably, however, *)f?ttf, like p]Ss (Neh. iii. 30), repre
sents ^NSOBF. The intermediate form is Sift (cp. Slim).
Cp. on nc^T, xxix. 24. As to the form niDi^n, there is no
doubt that it occurs in Sabaean inscriptions ; and most critics
confidently trace the Hebrew name to S. Arabia, and identify
it with mod. Hadramaut, on which see Bent, South Arabia
(1900) p. 71. We must not, however, infer that when some
name in the Hebrew records is identical with a Sabaean
name, it has, therefore, the same local reference. Nothing
is more common or more perplexing than the reappear
ance of names in widely separated localities. We have
first of all to ascertain where the scene of the narrative is
laid, or to what region a list of names belongs. On this
point of method many critics are too careless. Hence, re
gardless of inconsistencies, they identify cfrs with Elymais,
l^Q with Phalga in the Euphrates region, and now nionsn
with a district a little to the east of Aden. But surely
textual criticism has its rights. A wide survey of the texts
TABLE OF PEOPLES (GEN. x.) 199
will show that i^n may represent *int&[N], and that mo may
be a corruption either of ^non = SNSDBT or of mo^T = ^NOrm
(as in Isa. xxv. 8, xxviii. 15, and perhaps Ps. xviii. 5). 1
We now approach a result which is consistent with our
view of all the rest of this composite Table, rficnsn repre
sents ^NDnT "in&N, i.e. some part of the region in the N.
Arabian border-land called Ashhur-Yerahme el. Probably
the name suffered at an early date from popular and scribal
corruption. Cp. on the one hand WllB "VXn (Josh. xv. 28),
i.e. DOT "inttfN, and on the other mott (2 S. xxiii. 31, Neh.
vii. 28), where n> probably comes from htx, a worn-down and
corrupt form of SNSG&T (see on Uzal, z;. 27). rrT is a
shorter form of nnT^^NQnT (see pp. 2//). The writer
seems to have put down all the names he could ; their origin
has long since been forgotten. Not impossibly rrp in the
Phcen. name rrr Til? (TSBA v. 456) has the same
origin, which, presumably, at an early date passed out of
remembrance. 2
Hadoram (D"mn ; cp. Sab. DYnrr) is also the name of a
son of a king of Hamath (i Chr. xviii. 10; 2 S. viii. 10?).
Its meaning is not religious ( beloved of the High One,
Baethgen), but geographical. Ol, as in mis, etc., is =
D-IN CDJTP) ; in, like Tin (xxv. 15), is a tribal name. Cp.
on Tin, xxxvi. 35. SnN ; Sam. hrn, at,&\. From
SNSDBT. So hr ( presupposes ^7^), Num. xxiv. 7 ; ^Nt*,
Lev. xvi. 8. nSpT Probably from nbp*rn (see on Spin,
ii. 14). Palm-land is out of the question. STIS. Here,
as elsewhere, we are on Yerahme elite ground. Sam.
STS, a name found in Dt. xi. 29, and probably = f?N$DBF.
Cp. STIN, Dan. viii. 2. Abimael (^ND^IN) may be traced to
SNDfrrv] n_. Father is God is untenable. 3 Sheba, see
1 Cheyne, Psalms^, p. Ixxvi.
2 -ay in such names may be an early corruption of any, Arabia.
Cp. on Eber, v. 2 1 ; Hebrew, xiv. 1 3.
3 Father is God implies that o is a trace of the ancient mimation ;
cp. the early Bab. name Abum-ilu, and the Sab. nnhysax (as if = Father
is Attar, Hal. 148, 4). But 3N so often represents TU , and SNO, like
K 1 ?.?, is so often a mutilation of SKDHT, that the theory referred to is not
only in itself improbable but superfluous. Such a name as that Sabaean
one has probably been conventionalised. The underlying name will
have had a quite different, non-religious meaning. Often the ancient
men may have had two forms of names.
200 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
on v. 7. Ophir (TD"IN) still awaits explanation (cp. E.
s.v.). Havilah, see on v. 7. Yobab (iTp). An Edomite
(or Arammite?) name, xxxvi. 33; Canaanite, Josh. xi. I ;
Ashhurite and Benjamite, I Chr. viii. 9 ; Benjamite, I Chr.
viii. 1 8. Later on, it was identified by the Greeks with Job
(Iyyob\ Job xlii. 18. Among < s readings are tcoafi and
itoftaS, and note that iwaft is also among (g s readings for
lin. In fact, ITT, 1NV, and lin should be grouped
together. All three not improbably come from nsrinT,
where inT (whence irr and in* 1 ) is = ^MOPPF. 11 represents
T1S ( = 11^) ; cp. TIN hn, for Til? hn = Tubal- arab. A
radical duplicated as in && = our, etc. Jeremias (A TA O,
p. 170) finds the prophet Hosea s IT underneath liv. But
IT, as I have elsewhere shown, must be 111?. Glaser, how
ever {Skizze, ii. 303), connects liv with the Sab. tribal
name Yuhaibab. Cp. on xxxvi. 33 f. In v. 30 the extent
of the Yoktanite country is described. Mesha (NBD) comes
from SNSQBT ; cp. on * Mash, ^.23, and on Massa, xxv. 14.
1DD, possibly from [njsis ; cp. on IDD mp, Josh. xv. 15,
and on TIDD, Obad. 20. There may well have been more
than one Sarephath in the Arabian border-land. Dlprr "in.
Meyer (p. 244), the desert mountainous region eastward of
Edom. F. Brown, however, thinks that the phrase the
mountain of the East is too general an expression to give
precision to the undefined geographical terms of this verse
(E. Bib.) Sephar ). In fact, the commentators differ as to
the reference ; Delitzsch and Driver think of the incense-
mountains between Hadramaut and Mahra. The truth
most probably is (see E. Bib. y Rekem, and on xxv. 6, I 3,
xxix. i, i K. v. 10), that Kedem (Dip) in a whole group of
names (Kadmoni, Kedemah, Kedemoth, bene Kedem) comes
from Rekem (Dpi). This modification may have been
effected very early, and may perhaps have been known in
Egypt as early as the twelfth dynasty. Read Dpi in (or
Tin), and for the phrase see on Num. xxiii. 7.
THE INTERRUPTED BUILDING (GEN. XL 1-9)
IT would not be strange in any folklore to find a myth
accounting for the dispersion of mankind and the variety
of languages as due to a divine curse. And if in some
country there happened to be some ancient and lofty tower
which had been shattered by a storm, we might expect to
find traces of a myth ascribing the erection of it to the first
human folk, and its shattered condition to the wrath of the
gods at the attempt of men to draw near to their own lofty
dwelling-place. Moreover, these two myths that of the
curse producing the many languages and that of the
divinely injured tower might conceivably be combined.
The question therefore arises : Did this combination take
place in Israelitish folklore, so far as can be seen from the
scanty fragments of it preserved in Genesis ?
An affirmative answer has sometimes been given. It
has been supposed that some of the Semitic peoples may
have ascribed the curse of many tongues to the bold attempt
of early men, not indeed to ascend into heaven (though,
besides the Babylonians, the Polynesians, and N. American
Indians could offer many parallels for such a tradition), but
to produce such a monument of their strength that humanity
might have something to boast of even before the gods.
As in the case of other myths, the original site of this tower
may have been in Wonderland. But when, through a
devastating storm, a temple -tower (ziggurrat) in or near
Babylon had fallen into disrepair, wandering Aramaean
tribes may have marked it, and connecting it with the
" babel " of foreign tongues in Babylon, may have localised
the myth at the ruined temple-tower. Balbel, they would
have exclaimed : it was here that God confounded men s
201
202 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
speech, and the proofs of it are the ruined tower and the
name of Babel. l
The theory here described has the merit of plausibility.
The ruined tower spoken of might be the ziggurrat of
Borsippa, of which Nebuchadnezzar tells us that it had
fallen into decay since remote days, though others have
thought of the ziggurrat of the great temple E-sagila in
Babylon itself, which was known to Greek writers as the
temple of Belos, and of which the same king tells us that he
restored and finished it. 2
Further consideration, however, will show that though
there are some points in its favour, it labours under great
difficulties. In its favour are the reference to building with
bricks and bitumen (y. 3), the mention of a tower whose
top is in heaven (a phrase which migJit be borrowed from
some Babylonian myth or myths), and the name ^11 (Babel) ;
but until textual criticism has had its say we cannot venture
to assert that these notable points are really decisive. And
against the theory are these three notable points, which are
independent of textual criticism : I. The unique position of
Babylon, and the vast indebtedness of the surrounding
peoples to this focus of culture, which make it inconceivable
that, to any of them, the name of Babylon should have
suggested the thought of a curse. The Babylonians them
selves explained the name of this chief city as meaning * the
gate of God (or * of the gods ). If the Hebrew story of
the tower of Babel has a Babylonian connexion, we may
certainly wonder that the idea conveyed in the phrase gate
of God (cp. xxviii. 17) does not find expression. 2. A
Babylonian ziggurrat possessed extreme sanctity. With its
seven stages or terraces it symbolised the heavenly zodiac,
which was imagined to consist of seven parallel zones, one
upon another, 3 or, more simply, the heavenly mountain on
whose summit the gods dwelt. 4 If the tower referred to in
1 E. Bib., Babel, Tower of, 3 4.
2 Ibid. 7, where add reference to Hommel, Gr. pp. 314^
3 See Winckler, GI ii. 108 /, note 6; Zimmern, KAT^ pp. 6i5/;
Jeremias, ATAO, pp. n/; Hommel, Gr. p. 363, note 4, cp. p. 126.
4 The seat of Anu (the divine Father) is to the north of the zodiac,
in fact the north pole of the heaven; see Jensen, KosmoL pp. 16 ff. ;
THE INTERRUPTED BUILDING (GEN. xi. 1-9) 203
v. 4 was such, the object of its builders must have been, not
to make themselves a name, but to please the gods. To
wish to approach the elohim was no impiety, but seemly in
the highest degree for devout worshippers. If the early
Babylonian king Gudea can speak of the ascending of the
temple of the seven tubukati or stages (?) as a work well-
pleasing to God, surely the act of these builders must have
been so too. And how could it be said that God came
down to see the tower, which, if a ziggurrat, was manifestly
a copy of the tower-like zodiac from which he himself had
come? That the Aramaean tribes would not have known
this, is a mere assumption. The influence of Babylonian
culture was far-reaching, and Aramaean tribes cannot have
been exempt from its operation. 3. The last, not least, of
these unfavourable points is the want of an adequate
philological basis (see p. 185) for the current identification of
the * land of Shinar with Babylonia.
The question of the origin of the Hebrew story is
complicated by the existence of phenomena which point to
a dual authorship, viz. (a) the want of connectedness in v. 4 ;
(b) the mention of Yahweh s going down (v. 5) before the
council of the elohim at which it was proposed that the
elohim, led by Yahweh, should * go down ; (c) the reference
to the confusion of the language without any mention of
the dispersion of the builders in v. 7 ; (d) the mention of
the city in v. 8 without the tower.
The problem thus produced was solved in his own way
by the author of the Book of Jubilees (x. 19-26), who
virtually places v. 5 after vv. 6 and 7. He also inserts
and the tower in v. 8, and gives a special account
of the destruction of the tower, which became necessary
because (like the author of the gloss in (g s version of
Isa. x. 9) he did not localise the tower within the city of
Babel.
The boldest and at first sight most thorough modern
Jeremias, ATAO, p. 27. A Hebrew poet has been thought to give a
similar representation. I will sit upon the har mo*ed in the recesses of
the north is supposed to be parallel to I will ascend into heaven, etc.,
and I will ascend above the heights of the clouds (Isa. xiv.
This view, however, needs rectification. See p. 85.
204 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
solution is that of Gunkel. 1 He distributes w. 1-9 among
two narrators, one of whom speaks of a tower, and repre
sents Yahweh as going down at once to see the tower,
and the other speaks of a city, and represents Yahweh as
proposing to his councillors that they should go down
and take action together against mankind. And yet even
this is not altogether satisfactory. The idea of dual
authorship I accept ; but the facts, as I view them, compel
me to give it a somewhat different form. The original
story, I should say, referred not only to the tower but to the
city. It did not specially mention the fate of the city (of
which the tower is a necessary appendage), only because this
event is sufficiently indicated by the mention of the cessation
of the building. Possibly the original story may have
referred to a mighty wind as frightening the builders and
overturning their work, but this supposition is not absolutely
necessary. Most probably the story did not give the name
of Babel to the city, though it is true that later scribes (cp.
on x. 10) knew of a Yamanite city so designated. It
contained no reference to bricks and bitumen, nor to the
height of the tower, nor to the confusion of the speech of the
builders. The text appears to have soon become corrupted,
and in this state to have reached the second writer, who was
also perhaps the redactor. To those who have had experi
ence in detecting recurrent types of corruption, plausible
corrections will not fail to occur. My own will be offered
presently. It may be helpful, first of all, to exhibit the
effect of my corrections on the narrative.
Now the whole population of the land (earth ?) was one
family. And it happened that when they journeyed from
Rekem, they found a wide valley in the land of Shinar
[Arab-Ashhur], and they dwelt there. And they said, Come,
let us build us a city and a tower [in Asshur-Ishmael], and
let us win for ourselves deliverance there, lest we become
dispersed thoughout the land (earth ?). And Yahweh said,
Behold, they are one people one family [Yerahme el] and
this is the beginning of their doings ; henceforth nothing
1 Cp. Stade s suggestions, Der Thurm zu Babel, in Akad. Redcn
(1899), p. 275 ; his view that the legend came directly in a literary form
from Babylonia seems very implausible.
THE INTERRUPTED BUILDING (GEN. xi. 1-9) 205
will be beyond their reach which they may plan to do.
Come, let us go down, and there strike them with sudden
terror (?), that they may give up building the city. And
Yahweh dispersed them from thence throughout all the
land (earth?). Therefore men call its name Bilhah (?),
for there Yahweh struck with sudden terror the whole
population of the land (earth ?), and from thence Yahweh
dispersed them throughout all the land (earth ?)
To understand the above it should be remembered that
xi. 1-9 belongs to a stratum of narrative which (as others
have shown) has no deluge-story, and in which Noah
(Naham) is the first vine-dresser, and his sons, Shem, Ham r
and Yepheth, are the ancestors of the people of N. Arabia.
When the first men left Paradise, they appear still to have
kept in its vicinity, t.e. in that part of Yerahme el (or Asshur-
Yerahme el) which was specially called Rekem. The notion
of the story of xi. 1-9 most probably was that, needing a
change of pastures, the first men sought out a wide valley,
or plain, in another part of the large region afterwards called
Yerahme elite, where for some time these nomads stayed.
But they could not forget the sad details of their expulsion
from Eden. Who could tell that superhuman beings might
not once more appear, and scatter them all over the land ?
Their sense of the family-tie was also necessarily very strong,
for the beginning of human society was not far off, and
men s wives had often to be their sisters. So, for mutual
support, and to guard against those visitors who, if human
in form, were more than human in power, the first human
folk devised the plan of living in houses defended by city
walls and a tower. Could this idea be realised, it would, as
they hoped, be a * winning of deliverance. But they were
reckoning without the host. Far away on the sacred
mountain the divine beings saw the builders, and suspected
danger to their supremacy from a strong and united human
folk. Therefore their leader and director proposed that
they should * go down and strike the men with a sudden
and unreasonable terror. The men would then flee in wild
confusion in different directions, and the city would never
be finished. Hence the name Bilhah (as if Ballahah,
sudden terror ), if this, or something like this, was the
2o6 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
name of the city and its tower. That the name is not
impossible, we know from I Chr. iv. 29, and in xxxvi. 27
we meet with the Horite (i.e. Ashhurite) clan-name Bilhan.
Further, in Job xviii. 14 we find it said of the wicked rich
man that he will have to go rnrrSl ihfth, or rather h
bwDnr, to king Yerahme el, the god Yerahme el having
become regarded as the king of the underworld. 1 This does
not exclude the admission that this important place may have
had other popular names, such as i>l (from fwDiTT, like
Si7"^>l in i S. x. 27, Nah. ii. i), and even Sll (see on x. 10).
I only mention nn^l as a very possible name, and the one
which best suits the legend. Supposing j>i (Bela ; cp.
xiv. 2) were the name originally used, we might suppose
that the earliest legend spoke of the destruction of the city
by fire from heaven (cp. Sodom), since the verb jfe may
perfectly well mean to lay waste in general (cp. 2 S. xx. 19^,
|| rvnmn).
It is only fair to add that we are not absolutely bound
to suppose that the original narrator had in his mind any
inhabited place in N. Arabia. A hint may here be taken
from Jubilees (x. 26), where it is said that the Lord sent a
mighty wind against the tower, and overthrew it upon the
earth, . . . and they called its name Overthrow (rrDDrr).
There is a class of ruined places in Arabia (called makl&b&t,
overturned ) which, according to legend, were destroyed by
a divine judgment such places, according to Delitzsch, are
referred to in a famous poetical indictment of the wicked
man in Job xv. 28. 2
That the passage before us has had textual vicissitudes,
should be obvious. Indeed, it must already have been
corrupt when the early redactor received it. This person
appears to have corrected it under the influence of a pre
conceived idea that no other city but Babylon could have
been represented in tradition as the city of all the earth/
Though it could not be realised at once, the dream of a
world-metropolis was, he may have thought, realised after-
1 Cp. Job xxx. 23, where n ^ may have come from nin^a, a corruption
(see above) of nr ; also aur ^jn, the name of an arch-demon in later
times, which comes from SN^DE" Sjn. See p. 54.
2 See E. Bib., col. 4670.
THE INTERRUPTED BUILDING (GEN. xi. 1-9) 207
wards. And the babel of languages to be heard in the
streets of the later city may have confirmed this writer in
his interpretation. Hence a plausible derivation occurred
to him for the name Babel. And with much skill he intro
duced a second speech of the builders, with true Babylonian
colouring (v. 3, bricks and bitumen). He also inserted a
statement on the descent of Yahweh (v. $), which may have
seemed to correct the religiously questionable phrase, Let
us go down (v. 7).
Let us now pass on to the text-critical details. Surely
the construction in v. I, for which I can find no complete
parallel, is very bold, and all the more improbable in view
of cf?:h in v. 6 (at least if that word is correct). An equally
bold phrase follows D^TnN D^llT. $& seeks to remove the
boldness by supplying zblh ((frcovr) pia iracrLv), but O*nTT is
not (f)a)v^ and the difficulty of ^etXo? ev remains. It is now
usual to render * einerlei Redensarten. But how can D^nN
mean einerlei, the same, in view of xxvii. 44, xxix. 20,
Dan. xi. 20 ? Early rabbis were conscious of the difficulty.
Some, .., virtually read D^n /% T, * sharp words (against
God) ; see Ber. rabba, Par. xxxviii. Clearly there is a call
for textual criticism. HDtt) cannot be right ; let us take a
hint from v. 6, where as and HDBJ (or some word underlying
it) are parallel, and read rrnDBJE ; O and n became illegible,
and so HDIE remained. D HnN, if incorrect, may with much
probability be corrected into Q^nmN ; "THN or nn has often
come from iniDN (e.g. Isa. xxvii. 12). D^IT may represent
E^ns (cp. on xv. I ) ; T or "i and s can be confounded ; cp.
MX. and (^ of Dt. xi. 22, xix. 9, xxviii. 58, xxxi. 12 (iQtt?
and SQB>). Probably, however, we should disregard the
plural endings and read iniDN-ns, Arab-Ashhur, which is
presumably a gloss on -isutD pN (v. 2).
In v. 2 the commentators usually render DTpD, * east
ward ; Kautzsch-Socin prefer in the east. Neither render
ing is natural in a passage where geographical distinctness
is of importance. We are told where the point was that the
first men reached, and we expect to be told where they
started from. As Stade has noticed (ZATW, 1894, p. 276),
it was from the region of Eden that they started on their
journey ; (^ is therefore correct in rendering airo
208 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
At the same time, Dillmann s remark that Dip by itself does
not mean eastern land is weighty as against Stade. Only,
Dillmann ought to have been led to examine critically into
the reading Q~rp. For it is contrary to all sound exegesis
to explain D"Tp "ai (Judg. vi. 3, etc.) as a collective term for
the eastern Arabs (Dillm., p. 315). The evidence suggests
that Dip has been persistently produced by a redactor or
redactors out of Dpi (see E. Bib., Rekem, Sela ). The
true reading, therefore, is Dp"iO- Cp. on xiii. 1 1. The early
nomads came to a halt in the land of "iMtt, i.e. Ishmael-
Arabia (for a gloss see above on v. i ), exactly where the
rule of Nimrod (Rahman ?) had its beginning, and there
they built a city with a tower. The text (which is sup
ported by () states that the tower which they planned was
to be so lofty that it would seem to touch the sky, a common
hyperbole in Assyrian and Babylonian as well as Egyptian
descriptions (see E. Bib., col. 411, note 3). But is "I&N-H
D tottn at all a likely reading ? A rhetorical hyperbole of
this kind is out of character with the simple builders (Dt.
i. 28 is quite a different case), and if it is not a hyperbole,
but meant in sober earnest, it is a boast like that of Isa.
xiv. 13, and much more would have been made of it. At
the very least, the destruction of the impiously meant tower
would have been mentioned, and not merely the breaking-
off of the building of the city. Is there no balm for
this grievous wound ? Certainly. m^T often (e.g. Ezek.
xxxviii. 2/.), and in 2 S. xiv. 26 itDhri, represent I$N, and
D^Qtt? often (e.g. xlix. 25) has come from 7NttT. Read
most probably ^N3?EBr> I^Nl, which seems to be a gloss on
Vnftl TS, stating where city and tower were situated.
Asshur-Ishmael was both a region (see on ix. 20, 28, x. i)
and a city (see on Dt. i. 4).
Not less improbable, as is shown by the variations of
the commentators, is Dt& niBsm. The MT. not being in
fallible, let us try the effect of a criticism based on parallel
instances. In Isa. xxxviii. I5,xliv. 23, Ixiv. 3, Ps. xxii. 32,
xxxvii. 5, Hi. II, one or another verbal form of nt& has
displaced a verbal form of iPt&rr. Beyond doubt this has
also been the case here. Read nm ^h nyahx
V. 6 has to be taken with v. i ; read nriN
THE INTERRUPTED BUILDING (GEN. XL 1-9) 209
[f?NDnr]. oW? has arisen quite naturally (cp. "[bo
often, and TD^D, Ezek. xxvii. 23, from orm) ; so in 2 K.
xix. 35. The duplication of a letter (here h) is common in
corruptions. Let us confound their speech/ etc., in v. 7,
betrays the hand of the second writer or redactor. The
easiest form of restoration is to read, for 111 51^131, simply
DiVpl^ (cp. Ps. ii. 5), and complete the speech by bringing
over the three last words of v. 8. To read nsSl3 (with &Sl
for the name of the city) would involve supposing that the
redactor dealt more violently with the original text V. 8 a
will then be quite in order. In v. 9 for ^n we may perhaps
read nrrSl, Bilhah, or Ballahah (see introd.), and restore the
rest of the verse in accordance with the translation given
above. Let us remember, however, that the later scribes
recognised a second city called f?il (see on x. 10).
SHEMITE GENEALOGY (GEN. XL 10-26)
THE scheme of this Shemite genealogy resembles that of
the early genealogy (also P s) in chap. v. Shem, Arpak-
shad, Shelah, Eber, and Peleg we know already. The
first-named is said to have begotten Arpakshad two years
after the mabbul ; mabbul is said to mean deluge. The
difficulties of this statement are fully set forth by Dill-
mann, Budde, and Holzinger. No satisfactory way of sur
mounting them has yet been devised, so that Budde has
been compelled to suppose that ^ilon "IHN DTntD is a gloss
by some one who aimed at a strict chronology, but left
ix. 28 / out of consideration. Very arbitrary, but it seemed
the last resource. And yet one more remedy remains to be
tried, viz. textual criticism, of the kind which has already
14
210 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
served us well in similar cases. Acting on this plan we
have already restored the reading which underlies nn
Sinon in ix. 28, x. i, 32, viz. ^NETTP "in^N. Next, DT13DD
has to be studied. Two years is not at all what we
expect. Clearly we require a place-name, and we may
presume that the true text had a compound name equivalent
to, and suitable as a gloss on, Ashhur-Yerahme el. Can we
be in doubt any longer ? I hope no reader will deny that
a popular form of Ashtar ( = Asshur and Ashhur) is nit)
(see on iv. 25), and that a similar shortened popular form
of DTTP or DBP is JD\ Next, it is not too much to expect
that a scribe will have transposed one or two letters. Thus
we get, for D^nrjtt), JD* 1 niD ( = Ashtar- Yaman), a gloss on ON
onv. The preposition 5 has dropped out. A parallel to
this corruption exists in Am. i. I, where the closing words
should be read -int&N ^zb JD**-niD [h$], against Sheth-Yaman,
eastward of Ashhur. The result in xi. 10 is that when
Arpakshad was born, his father (according to P) was still
living where Noah had lived (ix. 20, 28) in Ashhur-
Yerahme el the favourite land of primitive legendary
tradition.
The next names are (a) im, which is not a Meso-
potamian divine name (so Mez), but to be explained like
f?N*lin and plNI, i,e. is a relic of ~?NDnT (cp. on xxix. 32) ;
(b) mit), which is not the Mesopotamian district Sarug, but,
by transposition, from mm ( = Yitt>nN)> primarily a N. Arabian
name ; (c] Yinrj, which may indeed be connected with the
name of a (N.) Aramaean deity (Jensen), but is primarily an
Arabian district-name 1 (see on xxiv. 10); (d] mn, which is
not from Ass. turahu, wild goat (Del, Jensen), nor an
intentional distortion of nT, moon (Winckl.), but, like
, pmn, and mn (i S. xxii. 5), probably comes from
; cp. on xxv. i (Keturah) ; (e] D-QN, i.e. cn 11.^,
IN and "an often represent ill?, i.e. nni; ; see, further, on
xvii. 5 ; (f) pn, not mountaineer, but differentiated from
pn (Wellh.), the name of the place where the Terahites
halted in their migration, and which, as we shall see
1 Note that Nahor is both the father and the son of Terah.
Evidently an important name. Hence, xxxi. 53, the God of
Nahor.
SHEMITE GENEALOGY (GEN. XL 10-26) 211
presently, is an Asshurite name. That * Haran is the
god of the early light, and identical with Ninib-Tamuz
(Winckler, GI ii. 97), is a theory which cannot stand by
itself, and must share the fate of the mythological theory of
Abram and Sarai.
GENEALOGY OF TERAH (GEN. XL 27-32)
To the statement already made in v. 26 it is now added that
Haran begat Lot (to*iS). This was originally the name of a
Horite tribe ; cp. Lotan, Gen. xxxvi. 20, 29. To understand
this we must assume results arrived at elsewhere, viz. that Seir
and Hori are independent derivatives of Asshur or Ashhur ;
and we shall see presently that Haran (whence Haran) is
also an Ashhurite name. In fact, Seir ( = Hor) was a part
of that wide land of Ashhur, different parts of which were
occupied by Esau, Jacob, and Laban respectively (see on
xxxii. 4-20). And now as to the name Lot. Plausible as
Winckler s explanation, * one who is taken into the family, l
may be he thinks that a pre-Edomitish tribe was admitted
into union with the Edomites, it is too much out of accord
with the general theory of names to be accepted. We want
some N. Arabian district-name ; it should presumably be of
more than one syllable, and one of the syllables must be
either &h, or at least capable of being corrupted into tsrh.
The name required is probably "is^a. This word has become
irSl in i S. xvii. 4, and nTO in Am. i. 6, Ob. 20. rrh
from rvfa is like Yin from YinN ; n and to are often con-
1 AOF\\. 87 _/!, referring to Ar. lata in viii.
212 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
founded (cp. Nlto from sintf). It should also be noted
that in the place-name in nh or -f if? 1 (2 S. xvii. 27;
ix. 4) i^h or -ph probably represents "TsSl. The southern or
Arabian Gilead cannot have been very far from Haran (the
name is the original of Lot s father s name), as will be shown
on chap. xxxi. ; by Haran I mean here the southern Haran,
which was in the land of the bene Rekem (so read xxix.
I ), i.e. some part of the region called Asshur-Yerahme el.
Lot (i.e. ( Gilead ?) was the son of Haran, and Haran is
not really different from Haran. What, then, is the origin
of the latter name ? Analogy suggests that pn comes from
pTlN, i.e. pn&N (cp. on Dt. xi. 24). It is therefore an
Ashhurite name ; similarly in I Chr. ii. 46 Haran appears
as Yerahme elite, and in I Chr. xxiii. 9 Haran as a son of
Shimei ( = Ishmaelite). According to most, Haran is once
called * the city of Nahor. Most probably, however (see
on xxiv. 10), we should read, not to the city of Nahor/ but
to Arab-nahor. The historical conjectures of Winckler
(cp. Bible Problems, pp. 150-153) depend upon the view
that the Haran of Genesis is the Harran of the cuneiform
inscriptions, which was for many centuries a centre of moon-
worship. These conjectures have at last found acceptance
with a Saul among the prophets. According to Prof. B.
Baentsch, best known as an able commentator of the pre
dominant critical school, the mere mention of the names of
such sanctuaries as Ur-Kasdim, Harran, and On (Heliopolis),
could not but suggest to any cultivated Oriental of antiquity
a complete world of higher religious ideas. 2 From this he
infers that if Abram and Joseph were brought by tradition
into connexion with these sanctuaries, it was because there
was still a consciousness that the fathers (Ex. iii. 15)
represented by Abram and Joseph were both acquainted
with and influenced by the ideas of the priesthoods of
those famous places. A fatal concession, due in the first
instance to the prevalent excessive textual conservatism.
I fear I must add that the failure to recognise, as at
any rate highly probable, the existence of a southern
Haran or Haran has led Winckler equally with less ortho-
1 The whole name comes from any ny^.
2 Altorient. u. altisraelit. Monotheismus (1906), p. 50.
GENEALOGY OF TERAH (GEN. XL 27-32) 213
dox critics into faulty constructions both in early and in
later history. 1
We may now inquire, From what district or region did
Terah and his family migrate? We are told (v. 28) that
Haran died before his father Terah (coram eo) in his native
land, in Ur-Kasdim, also (y. 31) that Terah took his son
Abram . . . and brought them 2 (Sam., $, Vg.) from
Ur-Kasdim to go into the land of Canaan, and that they
came as far as Haran, and dwelt there, and (v. 32) that
Terah died in Haran. Terah, then, dwelt in Ur-Kasdim (?),
in which district (?) we may conjecture that there was a place
which bore the often mutilated name, Ashhoreth, because
Terah most probably records the name of a place where his
reputed descendants abode, and this not improbably was
Ashhoreth (see on * Kiryath-arba, xxiii. 2).
I am aware that there is a critical dogma which is
opposed to this view. It is very commonly supposed 3 that
Ur-Kasdim means, not a district, but a city, and no less a
city than the old Babylonian Uru, famous religiously by its
devotion to the moon-god, and raised by its fortunate situa
tion to a leading place among commercial cities. 4 I have
no doubt that priceless archaeological and literary treasures
will reward a thorough excavation of the mounds. I cannot,
however, retract what I have said elsewhere (Bible Problems,
p. 153): As yet no proof at all has been offered for the
assumption that Ur-Kasdim is represented by the ruins of
el-Mukayyar, six miles south of the Euphrates. Those ruins
do undoubtedly represent the ancient Uru, but between
Ur-Kasdim and Uru a great gulf is fixed. The difficulties
in the prevalent view have been stated in the article, Ur of
the Chaldees in the Encyclopedia Biblica (1903), to which,
for economy of space, I now refer. There, too, a new
solution of the problem of Ur-Kasdim was put forward. The
word D HtDD (not less than TIN) having met with no satis-
1 The familiar but incorrect Sanballat the Horonite most probably
represents Shementubal the Haranite (Shemen = Ishmael).
2 Unless we should read SynnKD ix:n, and they went out from Eth-
mael, taking GHK to be for nxn (SyonNo). Ethbaal or Ethmael = Ishmael.
3 See, however, Kittel (Hist. i. 18 ; but cp. note 4) and Gunkel
(Genesis^, p. 145 ; but cp. Gen. ( l) p. 139).
4 See Rogers, HBA ii. 371 /, quoted in E. Bib., col. 5232.
214 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
factory explanation, 1 an appeal was made to textual criticism.
We have seen (note on nro, x. 6) that ffiD and Dm, as well as
on, as elements of names, are fragments of intDN ; cp. 1&,
&ETr, etc., while D^T may be expected to represent
, as DT represents DIN, so that D^lttft may conceivably
have come from DTTN int&N. The parallel of pt&crr, however,
suggests a different theory. The place or district so called
is (at any rate in most passages) in Aram, i.e. Yerahme el.
The question therefore arises whether D HOD, like pmcn (or
rather see on xv. 2 pftcn), may not originally have signified
Ashhur-Yaman, and the answer must be in the affirmative.
Cp. Isa. iii. 3, reading mam DDn, 2 and I Chr. iv. 14, Neh.
xi. 35, reading onmn tra
As to TIN, it is clear that, like T2 (e.g. in x. 11, Judg.
i. 1 6, i S. xv. 5, Ezek. xvii. 4), it may very well represent
IIS ; 3 possibly, indeed, an earlier reading (cp. eV Ty %&pa
= lNl) was IN (from "is). In x. 22 we have already met
with DlttE lls under the thin disguise of TIDDSIN ; it is but a
short step further to recognise the same phrase under the
impossible reading D HttD YIN. The view to which this
leads is that, according to the original tradition, Abram (the
Yerahme elite patriarch) first dwelt in Arab-Kasram (cp. on
xv. 7), and thence journeyed to Haran in the (southern)
land of Canaan. Geographically, it may be well to remark
that Kasram (trad, text, D HIDD) cannot have been far from
Asshur on the one hand and Canaan on the other, for in
Ezek. xvi. 28 f. it is mentioned as in proximity to both
( unto the land of Canaan, unto Kasram ) ; also that
x Asshur can be used in a large sense, so as to include the
southern Canaan (see on xxxiii. 1 8). The passage has been
greatly misunderstood, and a precise geographical explana
tion is still in the distance.
1 The latest Assyriological explanation is perhaps that of Hommel
(Gr. p. 187, note 4), the old Kasdi, the inhabitants of Gu-Edin = Kisad-
Edini, the district about Ur and Eridu. He regards Ur-Kasdim, Kesed,
and Arpa-Kesad ( Chaldasans boundary = MT. s Arpaksad) as synonyms
for Chaldasa. But how does arpa mean boundary, and what has
become of edini ?
2 N. Arabia was famed for its wisdom. See pp. 40 f.
3 So probably IN in the Phoenician name iVoiN (Cooke, p. 18)
= Urumilki on the Taylor cylinder of Sennacherib.
GENEALOGY OF TERAH (GEN. xi. 27-32) 215
The names of the wives still remain (v. 29). Abram s
wife is called >nn>, which may correspond to the name
Sa-ra-a (Sarai ?) which is borne by a Mesopotamian woman
on a Babylonian tablet (K 1274) of the Sargonide period,
translated by Johnston, Ass. Epist. Lit., Baltimore, 1898,
p. 174. **: may be an archaic Arabising feminine ending. 1
The root letters may represent the -itu in "I$N. See on
xvii. 15 (Sarah), xxxii. 29 (Israel). For the views of
Jensen and Winckler see E. Bib., Sarah, 2 ; for those of
Meyer, Die Israeliten, pp. 568 f. Nahor s wife is called
noSo, i.e. T7D, a common transformation of 7DnT, with
the feminine ending. Cp. on xiv. 2, xx. 2.
To the statement of these names the traditional text
adds rtDD* 1 INI HD^D IN. The repetition of " IN is surprising,
in spite of the parallel in xiv. 1 3. What has caused it ?
May we regard iiDo^ as a variant to HD^D (cp. Ball) ? And
we must further ask, What can be the object of mentioning
a second Milcah ? The truth seems to be that here, as often
(see on iv. 20), "1N comes from lli? = lli?. What nihft
means, we have seen. As to nDD* 1 , it cannot possibly be
another name for * Sarai, as some of the ancients thought
(see Dillm.), nor a corruption of the Babylonian divine
name Nusku. It is rather a corruption, either of nS^D
(Dt. iii. 10), or of noD^ (Josh. xv. 16), both of which names
may represent SsmN, i.e. ^NonT "i$N. 2 So that the double
gloss on riD^D states that this name is equivalent both to
Arab-Yerahme el 3 and to Arab-Ashkal (Asshur-Yerahme el).
For a mythological explanation of Milcah see KAT, p. 364,
and E. Bib., s.v. I doubt whether this theory is tenable.
Indeed, at this point I may take leave to say that the names
in Gen. xi. appear to be all primarily N. Arabian. If any
of them are also N. Aramaean or Mesopotamian, it must be
because they were carried northward in migrations.
1 Cp. Nestle, ZATW, 1905, p. 363.
2 The only doubt is whether nosy may not represent IODK, and this
3 The name T Sy may underlie the mysterious pSny TJ; in i S. xv. 5.
THE THIRD AGE OF THE WORLD, BEGINNING
WITH THE CALL AND MIGRATION OF
ABRAM. {For another view, see on chap, xvii.)
CHAP. xii. 1-9. The call and migration of Abram. IO-2O.
His temporary sojourn in Misrim, his alarm on account of
the supposed danger of his wife, and the wonderful cir
cumstances arising out of his statement respecting Sarai
and her being taken into the king s house.
Both narratives (which have only an artificial connexion)
favour the view that their common hero is in the main an
ideal personification of the people of Israel (including the
as yet uncorrupted Yerahme el). The Israelites felt assured
of the greatness of their divinely appointed destiny that is
the formative idea of the first narrative. They remembered
that they had dwelt for a time in Misrim ; that memory
evidently underlies the second story. The great sojourn
connected with the name of Joseph and the little one con
nected with the name of Abram are fundamentally the same.
With regard to the former narrative, we may accept it
as a. symbolic expression of the belief that the migration of
the bene Israel from Misrim had a religious origin that it
was, in fact, a kind of hejra, 1 directed by a prophetic
personage, such as Moses or Abraham. It is more
hazardous (considering the state of the evidence) to affirm
that this religious movement of the bene Israel, believed in
at a date long after the real or supposed events, is a histori
cal fact, and even more so to say that it was connected
(or supposed to be connected) with a religious revolution
in Babylonia which placed Marduk at the head of the
1 Jeremias, A TA O, p. 1 8 r.
218 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
gods. 1 It is undeniable, however, that we have in xii. 1-3 a
religious justification of the occupation of the region called
Canaan by the bene Israel, and of their recognition of Yahweh
as the god of Canaan. Who Yahweh (historically speaking)
was, where the original Canaan was, and whence Abram was
supposed to have come, are questions which are not new to
us, and the solution of which will become clearer the further
we proceed.
Another of these questions is that which relates to
Ur-Kasdim. We may venture to hold that the solution at
which we have arrived clears away a very real difficulty,
pointed out by Steuernagel (Einwand. p. 67), viz. that
whereas elsewhere the figure of Abram is constantly local
ised (as it would seem) in the south of Palestine, he is here
1 transferred to the north. Our solution also throws a new
light on the text of the divine speech in v. i. The ac
cumulation of phrases, from thy land, and from thy kindred,
and from thy father s house is unparalleled, and the question
arises, both here and in xxiv. 7 (which, though not quite
parallel, makes an approach to being one), whether there is
an error in the text. Having before us the case of the error
in xi. 28, where a gloss is attached to the phrase in the
land of thy kindred, we cannot think it unlikely that in
xii. I the phrase from thy land and from thy kindred
should receive as an appendix almost the same gloss, viz.
rns ri^ip, from the Arabian country. The divine speech
certainly gains by the omission of the third expression.
(For the change, see on xxviii. 13, xlix. 4, 8).
There is yet another restoration which is brought close
to us by the solution of the Ur-Kasdim problem. The text
of the closing words of v. i suggests that Abram went
out into the world not knowing his bourn. Yet if we will
but reflect, such blind confidence in a director who withholds
necessary information is not natural. Nor, indeed, is the
phrase to the land which I will cause thee to see as plain
as we have a right to expect (contrast Ex. xxiii. 20, 23).
And if we look at the context, can we avoid seeing that the
person whom Yahweh addresses is aware of the name of the
1 See Winckler, Abraham als Babylonier, etc. (1903), and cp.
Cheyne, Babylon and the Bible, Hibbert Journal, Oct. 1903, pp. 65 j?.
THE CALL AND MIGRA TION OF ABRAM (GEN. xn. 1-9) 219
region referred to ? Doubtless we require a wide experience
of textual phenomena to venture to make a restoration ;
but those who have followed me elsewhere have such an
experience. We need not doubt that in the original text
was pronounced, not *itt)N, but "iGJN, and that IN~KS, like
in xxiii. 2 and elsewhere, and -piN in v. I, has come
from a badly written I m What the original text made
Yahweh say to his servant was this, * Take thy way from thy
land and from thy kindred to the land (read p v w) of Asshur-
arab (i.e. Arabian Asshur). 1
Before passing on to the narrative, a word may be in
place respecting the promise in v. 3#, which is commonly
supposed to mean that all races of the world shall recognise
the unique position of Abram and of his seed (cp. xviii. 18,
xxviii. 14). A study of the prophetic writings in the light
of a new textual criticism seems to me to suggest that the
families or tribes (mnDBD) meant in the original text
were those of the regions bordering on S. Palestine. Cp.
Am. iii. 2, which may probably be rendered, * You only have
I known of all the tribes of the land, and note that in the
original text of Ezek. xxxviii. f. t Isa. Ixvi., Joel iv., Zech.
xiv. the nations spoken of appear to be those round about
(Joel iv. 12), and that in Isa. xix. 24, Israel, Misrim, and
Asshur (the two latter, N. Arabian regions) are represented
as forming a triple alliance under the sanction of Israel s
God.
And what follows next in the narrative ? Abram sets
out on his journey to that N. Arabian land of Canaan,
which became afterwards the border-land of a greater Canaan.
Being, according to the original legend, a Yerahme elite
patriarch, he knows the way. It is indeed the road which
the merchants took, and one may remark in passing that it
must be considerably easier than the route from the con
ventional Haran to the conventional Canaan. 2 The land
through which he passed (v. 6) was that called, as we have
seen, Arabian Asshur. And it is remarkable that, by an
archaism such as late writers not unfrequently indulge in, it
1 Cp. Hos. v. 13, where Asshur and Arab (so read) are parallel ;
also rev. text of chap, xlix., and other passages.
2 For this, see Driver s note on xii. 4^.
220 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
is said of Abram, in Jubilees xiii. I, that he came into
Asshur, and proceeded to Shechem. l
The statement in Genesis (v. 6) is, according to KS,
that Abram passed through the land as far as to the place
where Shechem stood afterwards, as far as to the terebinth
of oracles. The name Shechem often occurs in the early
narratives (cp. xxxiii. 18^, xxxiv., xxxv. 4, xlviii. 22,
Josh. xxiv. 26). It is usually supposed to indicate the
place now called Nablus, eleven hours from Jerusalem on
the great north road. That a place called Shechem anciently
stood on the same site as Nablus, cannot be doubted ; indeed,
according to Knutzon s reading of Am. Tab. 185, 10, there
was a land of Sakm, which may have belonged to the
realm of Lapaya or Labaya, to the north of the kingdom of
Abd-hiba of Jerusalem. 2 There are, however, good reasons
derived from the contexts of the passages for suspecting
that the Shechem of the O.T. narratives referred to was not
here, but in the N. Arabian border-land. The singularity of
the phrase DDm D*ip ( the place, or, as Di., Gu., Dr. render,
the sanctuary of Shechem ) cannot escape any one. It is
only reasonable to criticise the text. The main difficulty
lies in DIpD. Now it so happens that DIpQ is several times
elsewhere a corruption of 7NDJTP ; see e.g. Isa. xxviii. 8,
xxxiii. 21, Ezek. xxxviii. II (followed by DID = DOT 1 ),
Hos. ii. I, and especially perhaps Ezra viii. 17. This
seems to be the case here. We have also (see on x. 2, 14)
found that DB>, tDD, and DD are often fragments of nnm (the
N. Arabian region so called), the tendency of the popular
speech being to cut short names which have to be often
pronounced, especially in compounds, and on the analogy of
names such as Yimi for TiBrns and cAmi for tttir ms (see
on Ex. xxxi. 2) it is very possible that D in DDE? may be the
remainder of DI = DIN. DlDtt? therefore, being necessarily a
N. Arabian name, most probably comes from D*OID, 8 and
1 Dr. Charles, whose translation I quote, obelizes Asshur, but this
simply indicates a too natural prejudice. It is, at any rate, possible that
the writer used a text of Genesis which was not in all points adjusted to
the geographical theories of later scribes and editors.
2 Cp. H. W. Hogg, E. Bib., Ephraim, 7-
3 Less probably aw is a redactor s substitute for DEO ; see E. Bib.,
Shechem, 2.
THE CALL A ND MIGRA TION OF ABRAM (GEN. xn. 1-9) 221
since the prefixed DlpD is a disguise of Yerahme el, we get
the compound name Yerahme el-Shakram, which is, perhaps,
not so much the name of a city as of a district (cp. the
field of Abram in Sheshonk s list ; note on Abram, xi. 27).
Shakram itself, as we have seen, is a shortened form of
Ashhur-Aram. See, further, on Kasdim, xi. 31.
The precise locality visited is called miD pStt (cp.
Dt. xi. 30). Did the writer really mean by this the
oracle -giver s terebinth (or sacred tree ), as if the priest
attached to this tree knew the way to get oracles from the
tree-deity ? I do not, for my own part, deny that mio may
mean * oracle-giver l (see Siegfried-Stade, Lex., under riT
and mio) ; Mic. iii. 1 1 seems conclusive on this point.
But I am not at all sure that we do well to trust the
traditional reading. To deny (with the Dutch critic Dozy)
that rmo can be a proper name, seems to me rash in the
extreme. If NIED in xiii. 18, xviii. I, is a proper name, it
is difficult not to regard miD too as such. Both these
words surely belong to one and the same group with miD "
(xxii. 2), mo (Neh. xii. 12), TTPID (Ezra vii. 3), D^IB (Ex.
ii. 4), m$D (Josh. xiii. 4); also with naviN (Judg. ix. 41),
noiNi (Gen. xxii. 24), nDNi (Josh. xix. 8), nan (Gen.
xxxiii. 19, etc.). The result is that both rmo here and
NIDD in xiii. 1 8 come from popular distortions of
It has been shown elsewhere (on Judg. ix. 37) that
(in ; o p^N) has a similar origin, i.e. the y elon of Yerahme el
corresponds to the elon of the Ishmaelites. On the situation
of the tree, or trees, see note on Dt. xi. 30. Cp. also on
Judg. vii. i.
But more sacred sites have still to be claimed for
Abram s God. So the patriarch moves camp, and journeys
to a spot in the mountain-land, east of SNTVI (v. 8).
Beyond doubt, there was anciently a northern Bethel
1 That it can mean instruction, i.e. knowledge (Winckler, AOF
xxi. 406), and that the cosmic tree of Shechem is referred to, is surely
too fanciful.
2 evidently connects the two names. In xii. 6 it gives r^v Spvv
TTJJ/ vif/rjXriv, in xxii. 2 eis rrjv yijv rrjv vif/. Apparently in both places
it read nxns (cp. noxi, from DIN or Wonr).
3 This gives the key to Ps. ix. 21, where on 1 ? mis represents doubly
; mrsr is a corruption of
222 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
(attested by the modern name Beitln). But is it this place
about ten miles N. of Jerusalem which is here meant ?
Indeed, we may go further and ask whether it is certain that
Bethel-Beitm is meant elsewhere, e.g. in xxviii. 19, xxxv.
6, 15, Josh. xvi. 2, Judg. i. 22, iv. 5, xxi. 19, I K. xii. 29,
Am. vii. 10, 13? Let the reader re-examine these passages
in their contexts from our present point of view, and judge.
The name itself indicates that a southern position is, in the
first instance, to be thought of. For such a name as
Beth-el can hardly be still in its original form. Beth-
Yerahme el might plausibly be suggested as the earlier
name, 1 but much more probably SNTVI should be grouped
with Wini (xxii. 22), S*ini (Josh. xix. 4), rb$1 (Josh.
xix. 44), mfl (Josh. xv. 24), and mNlS (Josh. xv. 32),
and all these names should be derived from SiQnN = ^NSQBT 1 . 2
A strong confirmation of this is furnished by the gloss in
Hos. xii. 4 (rev. text), where it is explained that in the
short reference to the contest between Jacob and Elohim
it is the Arabian or Ishmaelite Bethel that is meant.
Observe that according to xiii. 1 3 f. an extensive view over
the whole country can be had from Beth-el. This does
not accord with facts, if we insist on supposing the northern
Beth-el to be referred to. For the companion -name ^rr,
see Crit. Bib. on Josh. vii. 2.
The next statement that in v. 9 is due to the re
dactor, and with it goes xiii. I, 3 f. The redactor supposed
Abram to have journeyed southward.
We now come to the story of Abram and Sarai in D HSD
(w. 10-20), the difficulties of which have long been admitted,
though the most important one was first recognised by
Winckler (A OF i. 33). The reference to going down
into o (v. 10), and to mnB (vv. i 5 ff.} naturally suggests
that the scene of the story is in Egypt (D nsp), and yet it is
beyond doubt that in the other versions of the same original
it is laid in Gerar (chap, xx., Abraham ; chap, xxvi., Isaac).
How is this to be explained ? Winckler supposes that in
chap. xii. J 2 misunderstands, and confounds "i^D with
1 See Crit. Bib. on Am. vii. 9 /
2 Notice that Jubilees xiii. 10 states that Abram went into the land
of the south to Bealoth (i.e. Ethbaal).
THE CALL AND MIGRA TION OF ABRAM (GEN. xn. 1-9) 223
I could not deny that this is both possible and
plausible. But, on the other hand, it is strange that there
is so little genuine Egyptian colouring in the narrative. I
know, indeed, that ninB (fyapaw) is commonly explained as
a Hebraised form of the expression for king used by the
later Egyptians, the early form of which (Pero) meant * the
great house, the palace. l But there are several objections
to this view, (i) The Hebrew vocalisation is not quite
what one would expect (see W. M. Miiller). (2) Shishak,
So, Tirhakah are without the prefix runs ; only Necoh and
Hophra have it. If Pharaoh were the adopted Hebrew
expression for c king of Egypt, why is it omitted in those
cases ? To tell us that in Egypt, down to the twenty-second
dynasty, the Egyptian term always occurs without a proper
name, is not to the point. We are concerned with what is
supposed to be an adopted Hebrew term. (3) In numerous
passages, e.g. Ex. vi. 1 1, Dt. vii. 8, I K. ix. 16, Ezek.
xxix, 2 f., etc., we meet with the expression Pharaoh king
of D HSD, as if Pharaoh were a proper name. Cp. also
mnD, i Chr. iv. 1 8 b. (4) There are in the O.T. several
words resembling mnD, such as mine, pnino, DN1D, which
at any rate suggest the reasonableness of seeking first of all
to explain mno from Semitic. (5) The other Semitic
languages have not accepted Par oh (Pharaoh) in any form
as an expression for the king of Egypt.
From the N. Arabian point of view the origin of nmD
is not difficult to find. It comes most probably from Pir u,
the name (as we may suppose) of some Misrite king who
became famous. At any rate, it was the name of a king of
Musri in Sargon s time the phrase is Pir u sar Musri, which
corresponds exactly to D"H2D "f^D nine. Another form of
ninD is possibly DNID (Josh. x. 3), where the D may be due,
as Hommel suggests, to Arabic mimation. 2 These and
all the other parallel names quoted above may ultimately
have come from *ps = :ri$ (see on Arpakshad, x. 22) ; the
explanation of Pir u as shoot, offspring, is less probable.
Of course, the view that nino is not a Hebraised Egyptian
1 See W. M. Miiller, E. Bib., Pharaoh, i.
- DKTS may, however, have come from onsx (on which see note on
xli. 52).
224 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
title meaning king but a N. Arabian personal royal name
will only be certain (practically) when it has been shown
that Shishak, So, Tirhakah, Necoh, Hophra (whether ex
pressly called Pharaoh or not) were really kings of Musri. 1
Next, as to the danger encountered by Sarai in D HSD.
There is no temptation to deny that a king of Egypt might
have coveted the possession of a beautiful Asiatic woman ;
a conservative scholar 2 refers in this connexion to King
Abd-hiba s present of twenty -one female slaves to his
Egyptian suzerain. But can we suppose that there would
have been less danger for Sarai in an Arabian kingdom ?
Much more important is the expression Abram went
down into D"nSD (v. i o), and the implied statement that o
is a corn-land. This looks very much like a reference to
Egypt. Was it introduced by the redactor ? If so, he
left a good deal that is adverse to his theory. And if we
admit this, we must also admit that this and other redactors
made similar interferences with the text elsewhere (see
especially the Joseph-story). Certainly this appears to be
the fairest hypothesis that we can frame. It does not
require us to deny that there were fruitful parts of N. Arabia,
and that the ancestors of the Israelites sojourned there, and
it enables us to account for phrases and for elements in
the descriptions which can hardly otherwise be explained.
And yet even here a doubt forces itself upon us ; for in
Num. xi. 5, where the text is plainly wrong, must we not
read thus, 3 We remember the corn (jTrrr) which we ate
in Misrim (gloss, DZin, i.e. Yahman, Yerahme el), and in
2 K. xviii. 32 is it not the king of the N. Arabian Asshur
who declares that he will take the Jews away to a land of
corn and wine ? Even if the latter be due to a redactor
who knows only of a king of Assyria, yet the former
remains. Here is a real problem (see on chap. xl.).
At any rate, the claims of D"nsp are upset by the
1 See Crit. Bib. It may be noticed here that jnsn (Hophra) in
Jer. xliv. 30 is merely a corrupt dittograph of njna, and that HDJ ,-tjns
(Ph. Necoh) in 2 K. xxiii. 29 may have come from yyn ijos.
2 Heyes, Bib. u. Aeg. p. 18 (Am. Tab. 181, 20-22).
3 The second half of the verse consists apparently of miswritten
names of peoples. See on Ex. xii. 38.
THE CALL AND MIGRA TION OF ABRAM (GEN. xn. 1-9) 225
reference to camels in v. 16, at least if the text reading is
correct. For the assertion that the ancient Egyptians
knew the camel is unfounded. l Most probably, however,
D^Dl in v. 1 6 comes from D^NDTTP J cp. on xxxvii. 25,
Judg. vi. 5, viii. 21 ; also onm in Ezek. xxvii. 11. This
correction, however, is insufficient ; he-asses, and men-
servants, and maid-servants, and she-asses, and camels is
an impossible sequence. The difficulty was very early felt,
hence in Sam. D-non is transposed, so as to stand before
YINI. The truth is, however, that nun^ (as in Judg. v. 10)
represents either D-orrN or D QiriN, both of which ultimately
come from D^fjNSQBy. Thus the last two words in v. 16 are
glosses on D^Tl!?. The slaves given by the king to Abram
were, it is stated, Ishmaelites or Yerahme elites. Thus one
more textual difficulty which has long baffled us is explained.
Similar corrections are required in the parallel passages,
xxiv. 35, xxx. 43.
In conclusion, I do not see that this story favours the
view that Abram was a missionary or a representative of a
higher and purer religion. It is simply a glorification of
the great ancestor of Israel, with perhaps a glance (but
the parallelism is by no means close) at the plagues pre
ceding the Exodus. At the same time, the fact that
Abram and the Misrite king have the same religion (cp.
on chap, xx.), as well as apparently the same language,
reminds us of the lofty anticipation of a late Hebrew
prophet (Isa. xix. 24 /i) that Misrim, Asshur, and Israel
the three great Yerahme elite peoples should one day
become a blessing to all around them, and be blessed in
equal measure by Yahweh. I would also add the suggestion
that the statement that Sarai was at once Abram s sister
and his wife makes it not impossible that Abram was
originally represented as nearer than he now appears to
the origin of the human race.
1 W. M. Miiller, E. Bib., col. 634; cp. 1209. Heyes disputes
this assertion (Bib. u. Aeg. pp. 28^), which, however, is supported by
Maspero and Erman.
THE CHOICES OF ABRAM AND LOT
(GEN. xiii. 2, 5-18)
THE two righteous men Abram and Lot are compelled
to separate. One of them excels the other in generosity,
but this is necessary for the narrative, and we do not find
that the more selfish one is blamed. At any rate, when
it comes to the point, Lot, like Abram, proves himself a
man of faith. It is plausible (cp. on xiv. 12) to hold that
originally Abram and Lot were brothers. Pairs of brothers
abound in ancient legend ; hardly a people in nearer Asia
and in Europe is without its Dioscuri. Often they are
hostile (e.g. Romulus and Remus), but we cannot venture
to draw a hard and fast line between friendly and hostile
brothers. 1
Let us begin our closer investigation at two rather
important glosses, viz. v. 7 b and v. 10. The first, which
may perhaps be misplaced (Gunkel), reminds us that Abram
was only a sojourner among the Canaanites. And the
Perizzite is a gloss within the gloss ; TID (surely not
peasant-tribe) probably comes from -<B-IS = TiEn* (cp. D^ns,
Neh. iii. 32). Canaanites and Sarephathites, then, are
synonymous. The Canaanites were, in fact, a branch of
the Yerahme elites, with whom the Sarephathites may be
identified. Cp. xxxiv. 30, Judg. i. 4 f. ; in Judg. i. 3,
Canaanites occurs alone. Cp. E. Bib., Perizzites.
The second gloss (v. 10) is twofold ; it consists of two
of the four defining clauses, viz. (i) *in nntD ^nf?, and (2)
D HSD pfrO. (Note the warning Pasek after ^sS). Both
these are superfluous interruptions, and yet instructive. It
is true that Abram and Lot knew nothing of the impending
1 Stucken, Astralmythen^ p. 87.
226
THE CHOICES OF ABRAM AND LOT (GEN. xin. 2, 5-18) 227
catastrophe of the cities. For us, however, the insertion (for
such it must be) is of the greatest interest, for taken in
connexion with the second clause (mrr pD) it suggests that
Sodom and Gomorrah were in the vicinity of the region in
which early tradition located the lost Paradise (see on
ii. 4 b y etc.). The second clause itself is altogether in the
nai ve manner of the narrator, who thoroughly believes in
the garden of Yahweh, in accordance with the early
tradition. The third clause, DV-ISD p*O, though a gloss,
is not inane, for the land of Misrim, by its relative fertility,
probably gave the best idea of what the circle (district) of
the Yarhon might be supposed to have been in the days
of Abram and Lot And at any rate, according to the
authority used by P (x. 6), Misrim and Canaan (originally
a southern name) were both sons of Ham (Yerahme el).
Whether the following words, i^s JDNl, belong to D pND,
is uncertain. 1 An affirmative answer is possible, for issj (so
read, not ps) 2 has possibly come by popular corruption
from "nso (see on xix. 20), i.e. a place-name Missor. Dt.
xxxiv. 3, however, suggests a different connexion. That
passage, critically revised, closes with the words, Arab-
ramathim (virtually = Yerahme el) as far as Soar. Accord
ing to this, Soar was, in one direction, the limit of the
Yerahme elite region.
Can any one reasonably doubt that D^ISD here is the
land of Musri in N. Arabia? It may be only a gloss
which mentions the name, but the glossators in many parts
of the O.T. are aware of the N. Arabian connexion of the
Israelites. And the mention of Musri confirms the view
that other N. Arabian names occur in the preceding gloss.
And what, according to the narrator himself, were the
1 Winckler (KAT (Z \ p. 146) remarks, cnso by Zoar ; therefore
Musri. See also E. Bib., col. 4672, Mike the land of Misrim in the
direction of Missor.
2 jyi is read by Ebers, Geiger, and Ball (after Pesh.) ; like most
moderns they identify Zoan with Tanis in Egypt. It is not impossible
even for us to adopt this reading, for there was a Zoan in the
N. Arabian Musri (see on Num. xiii. 22). jyx is, in fact, one of the
early popular corruptions of WEST (like |NS in xxxvii. 2, I S. xvi. 11,
and PNS in Mic. i. 1 1 ). The intermediate form may be pyas ; see on
xxxvi. 2.
228 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
respective regions of Abram and Lot, or, more strictly, the
regions where they respectively sojourned (w. 10-12)?
Lot, deficient in generosity, chose all the kikkar of the
Jordan. pT (Jordan), however, must be due to a scribe
who lived when the scene of this and many other narratives
had become thoroughly misconceived. The original text
had jilT- It deserves the attention of critics that, in
certain passages, we still find the error and the correction
side by side, e.g. Num. xxii. i, Josh. xvi. i, i Ch. vi. 63.
Yarhon appears to have been the name of a border stream
(or was it merely a large torrent ?) in the N. Arabian border
land ; cp on xv. 7-18. This region is eulogised as well-
watered everywhere. Sodom, then, was in Yarhonite or
Yerahme elite territory. In v. 10 four defining clauses are
given ; these we need not consider over again. Geographi
cally, the important point is that the region called the
kikkar extended to Zoar (cp. on xix. 20-22). But what
does kikkar mean? As all agree, circle or district ((g
rj Trepi^mpo^. The question, however, is whether this was
the original meaning. In i K. vii. 46 (viewed in relation
to the whole story of the artificer Hiram) it appears that
1DD represents DTTP or jrrp (|Tvn, i.e. jrrrn, follows IDDl),
and elsewhere pi and pp-| are corruptions of arm ( =
^Nnrrr). The probability is that there was a once fertile
district in the border-land which bore a name corrupted at
an early date from Rakman, i.e. Yerahme el. This name
sometimes, and quite naturally, stood alone, i.e. as I33[n] ;
sometimes, however, prrvn, the Yarhon, was added, to
determine the reference more precisely.
One is surprised to hear (v. 12) that Lot, after his
separation from Abram, dwelt in the cities of the kikkar,
and equally so to be told next that Lot pitched his tents (?)
as far as Sodom. An explanation can, however, be given.
ni;, as in the same phrase elsewhere (xix. 29), comes from
ini?. 1 The original text had in Arabia of the kikkar
(or, perhaps, of Yerahme el). And in the phrase ^HN^I
l?, Sn, as elsewhere (e.g. i K. vii. 45), represents a
1 Note that in our passage presupposes Tjn, and that both
vy (cp. Dt. xxxiv. 2 and ny (cp. Judg. xii. 7) occur as corruptions
of any.
THE CHOICES OF ABRAM AND LOT (GEN. xm. 2, 5-18) 229
shortened form of ^Norm (there is no denominative verb), 1
and the prefixed *i represents *>nn, that is/ while 1$, as
e.g. in xix. 37/1, comes from is = 1"UJ. V. i 2 b therefore
runs, * and Lot dwelt in Arabia of the kikkar ; that is,
Yerahme el ; Arabia of Sodom.
One thing more is said about Lot, but the text is again
corrupt. DTTpD isr\? I?D^ (v. 11) is usually rendered and
Lot journeyed eastward, but DTpd can hardly mean east
ward. Stade (ZATW, 1894, p. 276, note 2) and Gunkel
would read ncfTp, but this is arbitrary, and, besides, such an
isolated correction is inadequate. Hfhyo*) seems to have
come from b^SOttf 1 Nin (^ = ton, see above), * that is,
Ishmael, which is a gloss on * all the kikkar of the Yarhon.
As in ii. 8, DTpD is an expansion of DTp^, i.e. arm, Yarham,
which is an alternative gloss on kikkar.
As for Abram, he certainly dwells in the land of Canaan
(see on x. 6). Before moving on, he enjoys a wide survey
of the promised land, probably from the mountain spoken
of in xii. 8. Then he is led on his way by his unseen
Guide to the sacred tree (read pStfl ; cp. xii. 6, and see on
xviii. i) of Mamre, which is by Hebron, and built an altar
to Yahweh (v. 1 8), i.e. the altar which existed there in the
time of the narrator (Gunkel). The sequel of v. 1 8 is the
famous narrative (chaps, xviii., xix.) which tells how Abram
was visited by the divine ones at Hebron, and Lot at Sodom.
And what does Mainre mean ? According to Ed.
Meyer, the name still mocks at every attempt at explana
tion (p. 267). Surely this is a mistake. The word NIDQ
is no harder to explain than rmo (see on xii. 6, and cp. on
man, xxiii. 9). Probably it is a transformation of JCNI,
which is a popular corruption of SNDTIT. It now becomes
easy to explain the troublesome ^rrhn (v. 18 ; cp. on v. 12).
It is, again, corrupt, and has come from orrp NVT, that is,
Yerahme el ; D-QN, which follows, may either have been
transferred redactionally from its original place after NI^I,
or represent a complementary n^rii?. That is, Yerahme el
1 BDB give this statement, S.IK, vb. denom., tent, move tent from
place to place, Gen. xiii. 12, 18 ; Pi., S-r, pitch one s tent, Isa. xiii. 20.
But all these passages are undoubtedly corrupt. In the third, S.T
comes from Vn = TiVn;; @ Si(\6wriv, cp. Lam. v. 18.
230 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
of Arabia is a gloss on HIED, a word which in xxxv. 27
is again furnished with an explanatory gloss. See also on
xiv. 13. For Hebron, see on xxiii. 2. If the name comes
ultimately from an ethnic or tribe-name, we may well
suppose that there were two Hebrons one the modern
el-Halil, the other in the N. Arabian border-land (cp. Josh.
xv. 44, i Chr. ii. 42), and that each of these had its own
sacred tree or trees.
A NEST OF NEW PROBLEMS (GEN. xiv.)
ABRAM as a great chief and warrior, a devout worshipper,
and a loyal friend and ally.
The peculiarities of this narrative, by which it contrasts
both with the preceding and with the following narratives
of J and E, have often been noted with surprise. No other
passage of Genesis, except, indeed, xxxvi. 31-39, has so
much the outward appearance of being derived from a
national chronicle as xiv. i-ii, so that Kittel 1 has not
unnaturally suggested that it may be an uralt Canaanite
record, and Ed. Meyer 2 that the historical facts of the
setting of the story must have been obtained by the late
Jewish author in Babylon. Sayce, 3 too, has long since
expressed the opinion that the whole narrative in Gen. xiv,
was extracted from the Babylonian archives, and has given
an approximate date for the rescue of Lot by Abraham,
and consequently for the age of Abraham himself. He
thus sanctions the opinion of Renan 4 that in Gen. xiv. we
1 Gesch. der Hebraer, i. 158 (ii
2 GA i. 166 (1884).
3 See Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, pp. 53-59.
4 Histoire d Israel, ii. 210.
A NEST OF NEW PROBLEMS (GEN. xiv.) 231
have sorte de fenetre ouverte sur la plus haute antiquite.
And not only is he still unmoved by adverse criticisms, but
he has quite lately developed his view further on the lines
of a more advanced cuneiform research. 1 The most
important of his theses are these : (i) The Hebrew text of
Gen. xiv. is a translation or paraphrase of a cuneiform
original. (2) The Babylonian proper names have been
handed down with remarkable correctness, indicating (a)
that the same care was taken in Canaan in copying older
documents as in Babylonia and Assyria, (b) that the Hebrew
translator was conscientious, and (c) that the Hebrew text
is on the whole to be trusted. (3) As the use of the
so-called Phoenician alphabet in Palestine and Phoenicia
cannot be traced archaeologically beyond the age of David
or Samuel, the Hebrew translation of the cuneiform original
may have been made then. The official records of Israel
may have perished in the destruction of Shiloh by the
Philistines. The new alphabet, and probably also the use
of the native language, may have been introduced among
the Israelites under Samuel, as they seem to have been at
Tyre under Abibal and Hiram I.
To prove (i), it will be necessary to show that through
out Genesis there are not only names, but expressions,
which cannot be adequately explained save by the hypothesis
that they have come from Babylonian sources, and in some
cases at any rate from cuneiform Babylonian tablets. To
prove (2), that the names, or most of them, can be explained,
without violence, from Babylonian. To prove (3), or at
least make it highly probable, we must find some Israelitish
cuneiform tablets prior to the presumed date of the
destruction of Shiloh.
A somewhat similar view has been put forward by
Winckler, 2 combined with a remarkable critical analysis of
the narrative. According to this scholar, Gen. xiv., in its
original form, is based upon a Babylonian historical legend
which had probably taken the form of a hymn dealing with
1 The Archaeology of Genesis xiv., Exp. Times, Aug. 1906,
pp. 498-503-
2 Gesch. Isr. ii. 26-42; AOF, 3rd sen, i. 165-174; Kritische
Schriften, Heft 2, p. 1 16.
232 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Kedorlaomer and Tid al, the two oppressors of Babylonia,
who, after having conquered the Amorites at a place
identified by the Hebrew writer as Hasason-Tamar, were
themselves defeated by a chief of the Habiri. 1 This hymn
or legend had some mythological elements, signs of which
are the number 318 (v. 1 4), and the names the valley of
spirits (vv. 3, 8, 10; Siddim corrupted from shedini), the
fountain of judgment (En-Mishpat, v. 7), and the king s
valley ( emek share, v. 17). These three mythical localities
were identified by the Israelitish author of Gen. xiv. in its
original form with places in his native land. Naturally
enough, Winckler finds traces of the Babylonian origin of
the story, not only in the proper names, but in the
vocabulary, e.g. TT*i (MT. TPl), v. 14, from Ass. zdki, he
mustered ; pf?m, v. 15, from Ass. haldku, to flee (Piel,
to fall upon ); mB (MT. ma>), v. 17, from Ass. sJiarru,
4 king.
As to the use of cuneiform among the Israelites, it
went on, according to Winckler, in the political sphere
most probably till the time of Hezekiah. In literature,
however, the use of alphabetic writing began somewhat
earlier, for the work of the Elohist, which is referred to the
reign of Ahaz, was the first connected specimen of alpha
betic writing of which we know. This, as Winckler
thinks, may illustrate the strange phrase in Isa. viii. I,
Take thee a great tablet, and write on it with an
ordinary stilus (nroN toini), i.e. in Phoenician or Aramaic
characters. The antithesis to ; N n (lit. stilus of men ) is
OYJ^N fcnn, i.e. hieratic writing (see Ex. xxxi. 18, xxxii. i6). 2
I must confess, however, that even Winckler, who else
where (e.g. on Judg. v.) appears so free from the Massoretic
superstition, shows a surprising unsuspiciousness in dealing
with the received text of Gen. xiv. Surely, before either
Sayce or Winckler had propounded his theories, he ought
to have given a keen criticism to the traditional text. I
have already referred to this subject not long since, 3 but
shall naturally treat it here in more detail.
1 Cp. v. 15, Abram the Hebrew. 3
2 For a rival view, see on Ex. xxxii. 16.
3 See Bible Problems (1904), pp. 146-150.
A NEST OF NEW PROBLEMS (GEN. xiv.) 233
The first question of importance relates to the names of
kings in v. i. Can any of them, when brought as near as
may be to their original form, be identified with the names
of historical kings revealed by exploration ? Even upon
the Assyriological side some hesitation has begun to be
visible. 1 To compare the names given by a Hebrew scribe,
not contemporary with the events which are supposed to be
referred to, with those of a learned Babylonian tablet-writer
does indeed appear a somewhat hazardous undertaking.
Let us begin with SD~IEN (@ Ayu,ap0aX), the bearer of
which name is still very commonly identified with Ham
murabi, the great unifier of Babylonia and conqueror of
Elam. The difficulty is that no such name has yet been
found in the inscriptions. The final h is especially puzzling.
Lindl has suggested that it may perhaps represent the
Babylonian ttu, god. This, however, would be too far
fetched, even if there were much stronger reason than there
is to expect a reference to Hammurabi. H using, there
fore, who is followed by Winckler and Erbt, proposed to
prefix the troublesome h to the following word, producing
^ppS, which, of course, involves some other alterations of
the text, and is not very plausible. It is necessary, there
fore, to consult a fairly wide experience of the habits of
Hebrew scribes. That D and l are often confounded,
especially in proper names, will be admitted. It follows
that So, SUED, may very easily have come from Si, Sl?l ; cp.
hTiD, xvi. 12, and nos, xxv. 4, from ins, and see on Rephaim,
v. 5. The same confusion of letters accounts for the
personal names SlD, N^D, JDOP. Nor are these the only
changes which these and similar forms have undergone.
jOtt)" 1 , for instance, is a corruption of SNI>D&^ (cp. p&N, pn),
and both Si and SiQ in proper names are not original, but
represent Sc and Sl?D (S^o). ION, it is true, may be sup-
1 Bezold, for instance, questions the identification of Amraphel
with Hammurabi. See also Johns, The Name Jehovah, etc., Expositor,
October 1903. This article is highly damaging to the popular views
which rest so largely on the authority of Sayce, a gifted scholar whose
hypotheses by no means always prove correct. Nevertheless, Sayce
reaffirms his position in his article The Chedorlaomer Tablets (based
on a new transliteration and translation of the texts), PSBA, Nov. 1906,
and following numbers.
234 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
posed to have the right letters, but here a popular meta
thesis is at least equally plausible, so that SDIDN (cp.
Hos. x. 14), through the linking forms ^nnN and
may have ultimately come from f?N0nr. I hold this to be
more than slightly plausible. For the repeated Q in SD"IDN,
cp. on TD^D, Judg. 3 i iii. (Crit. Bib.}.
"I2DB? too should now cease to vex the critic. Having
seen that Amraphel is not the name of a Babylonian
king, we no longer wonder why such an obscure name as
Shinar should be preferred to Babel. As has been shown
(on x. 10), "1S31D represents 1*15 DBF*, Arabian Ishmael.
Next as to "IVIN. Is this really correct ? Can we
venture to interpret it as servant of the moon-god P 1 Does
71 really come from the Sumerian Aku ? A thorough
textual criticism compels us to trace -pp-iN to niniDN (cp.
next footnote). The same explanation is required for the
Ariok of Dan. ii. I4/, 24 /, Judith i. 6 ; 2 also in Judith
v. 5, etc., for Achior, the leader of all the sons of Ammon,
and perhaps in Tobit i. 2 1 for Achiacharus, the cup-bearer
of Sarchedonus at Nineveh, for which name we should
doubtless read * Achicarus = "ip^nN. 3 All these parallels
are of interest, and if they suggest changes in the received
higher criticism, we ought not to mind this. Observe that
in Tobit xiv. i 5 * substitutes Achiacharus for Nabucho-
donosor (B) or Asuerus (A), and that 8)vnB>nN almost
certainly comes from TintDN (the underlying reading in
Esth. i. i, etc., Ezra iv. 6, Dan. ix. i). The only doubt is
whether npmN, like np^n (2 K. xxii. 12, etc.), has not
come from r DnT ffiN (Ashhur-Yerahme el). See note 3.
Probably, indeed, this is the origin of Ahikar, but even so
the name is partly parallel to "pp"iN. See next paragraph.
1 Whether Ariok goes back to a Sumerian pronunciation, Eri-Aku,
of the Semitic- Babylonian name of Rom-Sin, king of Larsa, is extremely
uncertain (Zimmern, KAT (Z \ p. 367). This is a very moderate state
ment (see Johns, op. cit. p. 285).
2 The underlying texts of Daniel and Judith presuppose a different
history and geography from that in the present texts. In Judith I.e.
6 /2acr. EXvpaiuv represents a^y l^o, i.e. a combination of two ordinary
popular corruptions of Sxanv. The real name of the plain (pop or me-)
was Ashhur-Yerahme el. Esther too has been much altered.
3 Cp! -ny ((g B , Pesh., Josh. vii. i, i Chr. ii. 7, 4 Esd. vii. 37),
probably from n3trN = Dnv VN. See also on TIN Gen. x. 10.
A NEST OF NEW PROBLEMS (GEN. XIV.) 235
We now come to "ID^N, where Ariok, or rather
Ashhur, ruled. It is said that this is rather like Larsa,
the name of the Babylonian city of the sun-god, one of
whose ancient kings was called Rim-sin, or, in Sumerian,
Eri-aku. For some reason Assyriological critics suppose
the old Hebrew writer used by preference the less natural
name Eri-aku, which has become Ariok, while dl Larsam
(Ball) has become Ellasar. Into what sore straits we may
be led by our inveterate textual conservatism ! The truth
surely is that ht* is a corruption of n^N^n, i.e. 1N Slin
(Tubal [i.e. Ethbaal] of Asshur). See on 2 K. xix. 1 2.
Of iD$fmD Strack (1905) says, All that is certain is
that K. is a good Elamitish name. Similarly most of the
scholars who are in touch with Assyriologists. It has not
yet been shown that it is a genuine historical name, 1 and,
singularly enough, the name of the Elamite goddess
Lagamar never occurs in Elamite proper names. 2 And to
an experienced eye it will be at once clear that losf? is
to be grouped with ^D-IEN and mos, i.e. represents ^KOITT ;
"i"TD, too, is not of Elamite origin, but comes from ~ni, which
in xxxvi. 3 5 is the name of the father of a king of Edom
(Aram?), probably = Bir-dadda = Arab-hadad. But if so,
what becomes of D7*9 ? The question is answered by
x. 22, where * Elam is one of the sons of Shem, i.e.
Ishmael, and is followed by Asshur. The name is, beyond
reasonable doubt, a popular modification of bNOITP, which
acquired an independent existence. Win (most pre
cariously explained by Assyriology) 3 is not so easy to
explain. Probably, however, it should be grouped with
iS^in (i Chr. iv. 29), T^inS** (Josh. xix. 4). This sug
gests a connexion with Si^n or StfTin, i.e. SsiHN = oar 1
(see on xxii. 22). What other explanation of Tolad and
4 Eltolad can be given is not apparent. It will be noticed
1 See Tiele in E. Bib., Chedorlaomer. Erbt (Die Hebr. p. 67)
makes Kedorla omer come from Kudurmabuk ; the Hebrew writer mis
read his (supposed) cuneiform authority. Truly necessity is the
mother of invention. Sayce, however, still reads Ku-dur-lakhkha-mar
(op. tit., 1906).
- Hommel, Gr. p. 361, note 7 (see his explanation of the cir
cumstance).
3 See King, Letters of Hammurabi, \. p. liii.
236 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
that in Josh. I.e. Eltolad is followed by Bethul, i.e.
Tubal. D^Q should be the name of the realm of Tid al
(Tubal ?). Does it come from Gutium = the land of the
Guti or Kuti, a nomadic people north of Elam, 1 whose
name has been traced by Delitzsch (but, as can be shown,
wrongly) in the mp of Ezek. xxiii. 23 ? 2 But the name of
a king of Gutium certainly contemporary with Hammurabi,
who is supposed to be = Imraphel, has yet to be found
(Johns). And how can we take this occurrence of D^l as
a district-name apart from those in Josh. xii. 23, Judg.
iv. 2, Isa. viii. 23? There is only one theory which is
consistent with a thoroughly critical view of all these
passages in their contexts. CT-Q must represent either
D^a (orhtt, D*TJ&a) or D^-im (cp. Dnm, Ezek. xxvii. I i ),
or perhaps -ID} (see on x. 2). The first of these corrections
has the support of Pesh., but the second or third best suits
the correction of Tid al (or Tir al) into Tubal.
One point still remains. The text of v. I as it stands
gives an anacoluthon. The correction suggested by H using
and Winckler (see above) not being satisfactory, it seems
best to follow Clericus and Ewald (Komp. der Gen. p. 221),
and insert D"ilN after ^CPl. 3 How easily this might drop
out before f?EnoN or ^CTIQN need hardly be said.
Thus v. i will run thus, It befell in the days of Abram
that Amarmel king of Shinar, Ashhur king of Tubal-Asshur,
Birdad- Amral king of Elam, Tubal king of Gomer . . .
The question is, however, whether the original story men
tioned more than one great king and one minor king, viz.
Birdad- Amral king of Elam and Tubal king of Gomer,
both being rulers of different portions of the wide Yerah-
me elite region. Observe that in v. 5 no king but Kedor-
laomer is mentioned). If so, the other names (except
Tubal king of Gomer, if this is the right reading) were
invented by a redactor 4 surely no hard task to make
1 See Rogers, Outlines of Babylonian History, p. 10.
2 See E. Bib., Koa, and cp. Tidal.
3 So E. Bib., Sodom, 6c (1903). So, in 1905, doubtfully
Sievers ( Abram the Hebrew not excluded).
4 Winckler also (GI ii. 30) assumes that the lists of names have
been amplified.
A NEST OF NEW PROBLEMS (GEN. xiv.) 237
the campaign a grander business. Hence his further inser
tion in v. 5, and the kings that were with him ; hence,
too, his misreading of an earlier gloss as * four kings against
the five.
Verse 2, as the text now stands, informs us that five
kings stood on the other side (cp. Josh. x. 5, the five kings
of the Amorites ). The original story, however, may have
mentioned only one great king (cp. v. i 7) and perhaps one
minor king. As in v. I, the names are both mutilated and
corrupted, except perhaps jni, which is best accounted
for by metathesis ; read ill?, and compare the Midianite
name i?li, Num. xxxi. 8, noting also among the accompany
ing names Dpi ( = DHT) and Tin ( = YiniDN). Next SBTQ.
This is analogous to TTQ, and = bNSDBP 11$ (cp. NB)$1 from
SB)1N, i.e. DBF 111?)- 1MB) (followed by a warning Pasek)
and ilNOtt) may, of course, have been inserted by the editor,
without his having known their origin. But they may also
(cp. on s^l, below) be two notes which have come from
the margin, variants to I$DB) (note that for 1MB) & gives
aevvaap, Sam. 1MB)). All these three forms really represent
11$ ^NSOBP (cp. on 1DB)N, Judg. v. 28). A parallel form to
UNDID is probably the name Sumu-abi, borne by the founder
of Hammurabi s dynasty, which has also come from us DBF ;
cp. also Urumilki, name of king of Gebal (temp. Sennacherib,
which is = DTTP lis. 1
We now turn to the place-names. First, DTD. An
obscure name, which has evidently been worn down from
some name both longer and more intelligible. Probably,
as in the case of -jB)D (see on x. 2), the initial letter has been
lost, and the original form was Dion, i.e. DIN inipN. There
is probable evidence that Sodom was sometimes actually
called Yerahme el-Ashhur, and, more shortly, Ashhur (see
on xix. 4, 9) ; also for the existence of a parallel form
Kasram. For the latter, see Isa. i. 7 b-g. Here several
corrections are forced upon us. The words DTDD &J7DD have
arisen out of D1DD rODnoD, and the same account must be
given of D^IT oHOD, which probably stood in the margin as
a correction of D1DD ; DnDD. The preceding word
1 Sayce has already explained laxst? as perhaps a corrupt reading
for Sumu-abi (Ex p. Times, x. 463).
238 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
probably comes from DCW N*in, which was a gloss upon
rpsrni (v. 8). 1 We have already seen (on xi. 31) that
D^Tt&D is another corruption of D~)tt>n, i.e. D"1N "in&N. moi?,
the companion-name, is, of course, not from Ar. gamara,
texit rem aqua/ but, like -nns ( i K. xvi. 1 6), mso (xxiii. 9,
etc.), and nDJn (x. 7), comes from DIN or f?NDm\ It is
therefore virtually = DTD, and may even be the legendary
double of that name. And what of nD"TN and D^IS
(Sam. D^Nls) ? Have they come in from Hos. xi. 8, where
it is not absolutely certain that the legend of Gen. xix. is
referred to (cp. E. Bib., l Admah and Zeboim ) ? Or may
they not be variants to mos and D~TD ? For rrcfTN is
clearly = nDlN, i.e. D*IN ( oiTP) with the feminine ending, and
tOS) belongs to a group of words representing
ee on I S. xiii. 18). sSl, like biO, probably comes
from a truncated DBF (see on xi. 9, xxxvi. 32, and on D$f?3,
Num. xxii. 5). The question is whether shi (perhaps the
original of f?13, when this name is applied to a N. Arabian
city or region, see on xi. 9) is not, like iMtt) and -QNDB7,
a gloss on isott) in v. I. Note the statement in the Book of
Jubilees (x. 25, Charles) that the name Babel was given to
* the whole land of Shinar. iss-NVT. The first of the
geographical glosses. It is possible, however, to read ps,
which is really an Ishmaelite name (see above, p. 227,
note 2). Similarly, in the gloss in xxviii. 19, rt, i.e. DBF
(cp. on ^TJM, x. 27), is virtually = S-n^l (from
As to v. 3, it is conceivable that it may be a redactional
insertion, consequent on the expansion of v. 2. But the
awkwardness of n*?N~^D (if referred only to the kings in v. 2)
and the unexpected pregnant construction h& YOn, besides
the premature reference to the DnBJn pDS, might well give
us pause. Is there * no balm in Gilead, no physician there ?
Surely there is. Many analogies suggest that h& Tiin
covers over an ethnic ending in ^M, and what should this
be but (in the plural, to suit nW) D^NDrTP? It is a
gloss that we have before us all these (viz. all the kings
mentioned in vv. I and 2) are Yerahme elites. D^TtBn pDS
was inserted from v. 8 after VwDITT had become corrupted
1 Cp. Crit. Eib. p. 7.
A NEST OF NEW PROBLEMS (GEN. xiv.) 239
into SN van. We will, however, consider it here because
of the note, n^on tr NVT, which is supposed to imply the
notion that the Salt Sea at a later time extended itself
over the vale of Siddim. There is, however, no parallel for
such an expression as sea of salt. The other names for
the Dead Sea are nmsn D*>, Dt. iii. 17, etc., and ->3*iD~Tpn DVF,
both of which describe the position of the Dead Sea, and it
is presumable that nSon D" 1 does so too. The name seems
already to have puzzled the early Israelites (was not the
Great Sea itself a sea of salt ?) ; hence we find nSon D* 1
three times (e.g. Dt. iii. 1 7) in combination with the more
intelligible phrase nnsn D\ That nSo in the former
expression does not mean salt is plain from the parallel
phrases nSnn "a (2 K. xiv. 7, etc.) and n^DH vs (Josh,
xv. 62). That on M is not the great marshy plain at the
south end of the Dead Sea is plain ; such ground can never
have been chosen for a battlefield. In both phrases, and
also in on D" 1 , nSo (like onb in DnVrPl, and -jf?o in
another place-name, v. I7) 1 is undoubtedly a popular trans
formation of ^NDTTP. D" 1 , too, is highly improbable as a
paraphrase of pni?. As probably elsewhere (e.g. Isa. xxi. i,
title, and Job iii. 8, where or comes from Q-), it has sprung
from o-, i.e. p-> (see on ]V, x. 2), the short either for arm
or for DBF. The name was apparently given to a special
district ; hence cm** is added, which means the large
Yerahme elite region to which Yaman belongs. 2
Now as to the D^rmn pos, for which (g gives here (eVl)
rrjv (frapayya rrjv a\VKtjv, and in w. 8, IO, 97 KoCkas f) dXv/crj,
i.e. nScjrr $. Theod., however (according to Jerome), gave rwv
ttXcrwi/, i.e. D"nt&Nn, and ^ may once have had the same
reading (the Asherahs gave offence ?). Renan, Wellh., and
Winckl. point D HC&rT, the demons. But D^TtD only occurs
twice in O.T. (Ps. cvi. 37, Dt. xxxii. 17), and both times it
1 Winckler (GI ii. 93, 108) retains Salt Sea, and connects the
phrase with the widespread Oriental myth of sweet and bitter waters
<cp. E. Bib., Marah ). But this can hardly be made to account for
on "i and en Ty, nor for the many names on the modern map of
Palestine compounded with malih, mcilik, and the like. And why does
Winckler, so fond of emending elsewhere, suddenly hold his hand here ?
2 It will be observed that not only the so-called Salt Sea but the
bitumen pits (y. 10) disappear when the text is closely examined.
240 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
is probably an error for D HffiN (point D HZ&N), i-e. either the
local manifestations of the god Asshur l (see p. 23) or, as
here, the Asshurites (cp. 2 S. ii. 9). This is the most
essential correction. Possibly, too, pos is miswritten for
rOSD (so perhaps in Josh. vii. 24, xiii. 18, xv. 8, Judg. vii. I,
Isa. xvii. 5, Ps. Ix. 8). There was a Maacath (see on 2 S.
x. 6) not far from one of the districts which bore a name
closely akin to -nn&JN, viz. Ti&n. Observe that in v. 17 (rev.
text) TintD pQ2 is identified with cm* 1 pos, just as here
D^rmn f s is glossed by QITP ]CP.
In w. 5 / we have a nest of problems which have hitherto
not been adequately solved. The problems have to do with
a series of ethnics and place-names. First comes D^NDI.
This people is said to dwell in Ashteroth-Karnaim a
name which does not occur again with the appended Kar-
naim, but which is doubtless the Ashtaroth of Og, king of
Bashan (Josh ix. 10, etc.), especially as we are told in Dt.
iii. 1 3 that Bashan 2 and the connected region were called
* the land of Rephaim. As to the Rephaim, we have no
good reason to suppose that they were a primitive race which
became extinct at the Israelitish conquest. Most probably
D^NDT should be grouped with ^Q)DQ"iN and D"HDN, at least so
far as the first three letters are concerned (see on xli. 52). If
so, it is really a modification of D ais, Arabians. 3 The
chief city of the Rephaim is called Ashteroth-Karnaim, i.e.
apparently Ashtaroth of the two horns, an enigmatical
expression variously explained. 4 But D^lp here, as well as
1 In Hos. xii. 12 onw doubtless represents this same word
not cn# Again and again (see on xvi. 7) nw represents ~nv*.
2 Bashan most probably comes from Abshan, i.e. Arab-Yishman,
Yishmanite (Ishmaelite) Arabia. See on Ex. xxxi. 2, 6.
3 May we identify these Rephaim with those of Sheol ? Cp.
Lagrange, Rel. sem. p. 273, On considere comme une punition de
n etre pas couche avec les Rephaim ; ce sont done les morts en quelque
sorte privilegies. . . . Ce n est qu avec le temps qu on a donne le nom
de manes a tous les morts. 3 This view accords with Ezek. xxxi. 18,
xxxii. igff., Ps. Ixxxix. 6 (rev. text), n, cxliii. 3 (rev. text). But cp.
E. Bib., Dead ; Rephaim.
4 See Lagrange, op. cit. p. 126 ; also Macalister, Fourth Report on
Gezer, PEFQ, July 1903, p. 227, and Ashtaroth in Bible Dictionaries.
On the reading of the MT. see Nestle, Marginalien, and G. F. Moore,
JBL, 1898, pp.
A NEST OF PROBLEMS (GEN. xiv.) 241
in Am. vi. i 3 (see Crit. Bib. ad loc^), is probably miswritten
for jopT, i.e. bNorrr ; cp. osp-p. As for nnnms, surely we
should read rnntpN. nnm occurs, though rarely, as equiva
lent to intpN and "i9N, as the name of a N. Arabian region.
The feminine ending is often favoured in place-names.
Ashtereth (Ashtart) of Yerahme el is closely parallel to
* Arab- f eshterah, disguised in Josh. xxi. 27 as mniDSl, 1
also to Ashtereth in Arab-Yerahme el, disguised as ( Asht.
in Edrei in Dt. i. 4 (see note). There were probably
several Ashtereths (Ashtarts).
* The Zuzim in Ham ! DTVT no doubt = D^oiDt i.e.
D^tWDBT (see on Dt. ii. 20). A branch of the Ishmaelites
is meant. DH, like pon 2 in xvii. 5 (see note), and on in
v. 32, i Chr. iv. 40, comes from some short popular form of
SNOTT. Some MSS. of Sam. read on. Tg. Onk. and
Jerus. read Nnoni ; Olshausen, nori3. The Emim in
Shaveh Kiryathaim ! D* I D* N, as in Dt. ii. i o /., represents
Cp. on xxxvi. 24 (DDVT). DTrnp mm comes from
TintDN, two rival readings combined. See on
v. 17, xxiii. 2, and note in xxv. 2 m&&gt; from Yint&N. Cor
ruptions of Ashhur, like those of Yerahme el, soon became
independent of their origin.
In v. 6 -nn is hardly to be connected with the Eg. Haru
(Hommel, Gunkel, Meyer ; see on xxxvi. 20, and E. Bib.,
Horite ), but comes most probably from "nn0N ; TSI&
from YIIDS = TitDM. Asshur and Ashhur are equivalent
names ; they sometimes have a broader, sometimes a
narrower reference, and are variously corrupted. Cp. on
xxxii. 4, xxxvi. 20, Dt. ii. I 2 (the statement in this passage
seems doubtful) ; and for Asshur, Ashhur, see on xvi. 7, i 3
xxv. 1 8, i Chr. ii. 24, iv. 5. The home of the Horites was
TSB? DTim. Buhl and Gunkel consider & to be a gloss.
But this is not enough. DT must represent either D*IM (see
Num. xxiii. 7) 3 or DIN. The "mm of Sam., 0., Pesh. is
1 Cp. on Ex. xxxi. 2.
2 Cp. also pn (of Amalekite origin), Esth. iii. i.
3 mp in Dt. I.e., as usual, has come from cpn = onT (|| DIN). Winckler
and Meyer (p. 243) have noticed that oip often has a limited geographical
reference, but do not explain how this came about (see E. Bib., East,
Sons of the ).
16
242 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
conjectural. pNQ ^tf is hardly correct. Probably ^&
comes from ^WiN or some similar form, and this from
*?NDnT ; cp. on rrofrM, Ex. xv. 27. On pNO, see E. Bib.,
1 Paran, but note that pD has probably the same origin as
D HQN (xli. 52), and so means the Arabian mountain-land.
Thus we get and the Horites in the mountains of Aram, as
far as Yerahme el-Paran ( Ebron).
Then they turned/ says the traditional text, and
came to En-mishpat ; that is, Kadesh (v. 7). But En-
mishpat, fountain of judgment, is not more probable (in
spite of the ingenious theorising of Meyer, p. 55) than Me-
meribah, waters of controversy. The similarity of meaning
between the two phrases is undeniable ; it even led Tg. ps.-
Jon. to substitute rtrnn "* here, as the better known name.
The Targumist was also aware that Meribah and Kadesh
were designations of the same place (cp. Num. xx. I, 13),
the full name of which (implying that there might be other
Meribahs) was Meribath-Kadesh (Num. xxvii. 14). Still
our experience with names like elon moreh (xii. 6), elon
meonenlm (Judg. ix. 37), should inspire us with caution.
As a thorough criticism shows, neither Meribah nor Mishpat
can be right. The former (see on Num. xx. 13) comes
from rrnnQ, cp. nnnE, which is a distortion of ^NDnT (with
fern, term.) ; the latter is a modification of nD! (cp. on ttDtt),
I K. xix. I6). 1 pi> should very possibly be T$. Thus we
get, for toDtDQ pr^N, riQ2 TS ^N, to the city of Sephath ;
Sephath is a shortened form of riDIS (see E. Bib., Zare-
phath ). But clearly Sephath and Merimah are not the
same place ; we may therefore suspect something wrong with
ttnp Nin, which is suitable for Merimah, but hardly for
Sephath, at least if ttTrp is here a place-name.
But was ttnp really intended as a place-name ? Is it not
rather a corruptly written form of a longer regional name ?
May it not have the same origin as that which we shall
have to assign to TD (xxii. 22), or rather imD, which has
come from mtDTT, i.e. D*IN "in0N (see on xi. 28). Perhaps,
indeed, we should do well, here at any rate, to notice Nin
as the original form of the gloss. The gloss was most
1 Initial D as in DYISB D, Gen. xlix. 14, Judg. v. 16 ; nisntre, Josh. xi. 8,
xiii. 6 (see Crit. Bib., and cp. E. Bib., col. 2650, note 5).
A NEST OF PROBLEMS (GEN. xiv.) 243
probably misplaced ; we shall see presently where it has most
claim to be. Thus, I do not here decide the important
question whether or no &np, wherever it occurs, is an early
corruption of Dttnn, i.e. DltDn ( = Ashhur-Aram). It is worth
noticing, however, that wa (MT. * Barnea ), which is some
times appended to anp, is really a corruption either of
pis (cp. above on pMD) or of ]om, i.e. ^MDITP, and that Dpi,
which is given in Tg. Onk. and Jon. for ttnp, is a well
attested form of DHT = ^NDITP; also that in xvi. 14 Kadesh
is mentioned with Bered, a name which may perhaps come
from Bedad, i.e. Arab-Dad or Arab-Dedan, again a
district name. See, further, on Ex. xvii. 7, Num. xx. 1 3 ;
also (for * Kadesh-Barnea ) on Num. xiii. 26 ( to the wilder
ness of Paran, to Kadesh ).
The Amalekites and the Amorites are closely akin.
At any rate p^ES, like [D^]3^D (2 S. xi. i), is a corruption
of ^MDrrr, and -nDM probably comes by metathesis from
TTIN (see on x. 16). Different branches of the same great
people are meant. The Amorites (or Arammites) dwelt, we
are told, in 1DD psn. In 2 Chr. xx. 2 this place is plausibly
identified with En-gedi (see E. Bib., s.v.\ which, indeed, the
Targums substitute for the text-reading. 1 The view, how
ever, is not without serious difficulty. It implies that ion
here means palm-tree. This is no doubt the general
opinion. But no one has succeeded in so explaining sn as
to suit ion, 2 and elsewhere (see on xxxviii. 6) we have found
that both as a place-name and as a personal name "ion is
probably due to a popular metathesis of noi, i.e. D"j (DIM)
with the feminine ending, also (in Dt. xxxiv. 3, Judg. i. 16,
iii. 13, 2 Chr. xxviii. 15) that D^on[n] T3 originally was
crncn i-is. 3
But we have still to find out the secret of ]^n. We
1 Whether nrpy is the original form may be doubted, nrpy might
be thought of; the Gadites seem originally to have been settled in the
south. Winckler (KAT y p. 225) takes n n as = i: pg, i.e. Paneas, but
see on Baal-gad, Josh. xi. 17. Or we might perhaps correct TU any.
2 Delitzsch unplausibly sees in n a reference to an artificial mode of
fertilising the female date-palms. The versions make no attempt at
translation.
3 Probably the ion (nan) of i K. ix. 18, Ezek. xlvii. 19, xlviii. 28 is
meant.
244 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
expect the name of a district, and the duplication of 2
justifies us in assuming that it is a compound name. ]2 is
not a difficult word. It is a well-known N. Arabian name,
and comes, through ps or JNS, from pias, i.e. ^NSDUT (see on
xxxvi. 20, Num. xiii. 21). The initial letters sn must re
present -isn, i.e. inuJN (see on Josh. xi. I, I K. ix. 15). We
can now see where, most probably, the gloss O"i2>n N*irr
belongs. It is a perfectly correct note on ion ssn, which is
not a place, but a district, and equivalent to Dlttfn.
Verse 8 was evidently expanded by the redactor, who
also appears to have inserted v. 9, except the closing
words, which have grown out of an earlier gloss, and will
reward a thorough criticism. The traditional text gives nsnN
nttfonrrriN D"9^D, four kings with the five. But surely the
traditional context requires, five kings with the four.
There is so much corruption in this narrative (see the
very next verse) that we cannot help criticising the text of
the gloss in the light of previous experience. We know
(see on v. 17, xxiii. 2) that IQ-IN often comes from ins and
that "f^Q may represent fpNDnT. We may conclude that
D^D ma-)N has arisen, under the hand of the redactor,
out of DTTP Ti$[l], (in) Arabia of Yerahme el, a suitable
gloss on Q^imrr pDS (mum rose). For the addition of
ntDDnriTW the redactor is responsible. It will be remem
bered that in v. 3 there is another gloss on D^T^n pQI?
which is nearly equivalent to the present one.
The gloss in Arabia of Yerahme el most probably
occurs again in v. 10. And amusing indeed is the disguise
which QTTV 11^5 has this time assumed, viz. IYINI [ UWI pDSlJ
"ion mNl * [and the plain (or vale) of Siddim] was pits, pits
of bitumen. How can any supposed grammatical parallel
justify such a strange reading ? If the plain of Siddim
were full of pits of bitumen, what general in his right mind
would draw up his army there ? It is clearly a very slight
palliation to omit one mNl as a dittograph (cp. Judg.
v. 22 b\ and simply arbitrary to omit ion x l as a gloss,
implying the later theory that the scene of the events was
the Dead Sea (Winckler). Beyond doubt, there is textual
corruption, and the clue to its origin is furnished by "ion,
which, like -non in xxxiii. 19, etc., Judg. xv. 16, comes
A NEST OF PROBLEMS (GEN. xiv.) 245
from DHT (Yarham = Yerahme el). If so, mNl has plainly
come from nsi ($ and N, 1 and n confounded.). Thus we
get onT msi, which should join on to Q-itt>n HDi Dl in v. 8 ;
in short, the gloss has been given twice over, ran pDSI
(v. 10), or rather DIBttl oi, resumes after the interruption in
v. 9. Afterwards read mos I^Dl (Sam., (, Pesh.), per
haps a later insertion. After HOtt) insert perhaps D^Ti, and
in v. II omit perhaps mos.
The way in which Abram is reintroduced is certainly
strange, but not stranger than the name Abram itself, 1 which
marks him out as a kinsman of the defeated chieftains, not
to say of the kings on both sides (see on v. 3). By the
novel appendage nnsn, which Sievers on supposed metrical
grounds omits, he is represented as a nomad who has
migrated into a land with a settled population, and who has
himself taken a step forward in civilisation. According to
Zimmern and Winckler, Hebrews are mentioned in the
Amarna letters as Habiri. Not that the Habiri, whose
incursions are dreaded by the Canaanite princes of the time,
are the tribes which afterwards appear as Israelites ; but
they are at least predecessors, and of the same race as
Israel (cp. the Goths and the Franks). The term, as
Winckler points out, indicates a distinction not only of
race, but of culture. 2 Whether this identification can be
sustained or not is still doubtful, 3 but the analogy between
the Habiri and the * Ibriyytm can hardly be denied. The
origin of the former is obscure, whereas ^ili? appears to be a
race-name produced by metathesis (see on ill?, x. 2 I ) from
"OIS (Arabian), but in later times not recognised as such,
and specially applied in the way mentioned above.
Assuming that the reader does not know it already, the
narrator now states where Abram the Hebrew dwelt. It
was by the sacred tree(s) of Mamre (xiii. 18), and to
Mamre is added the qualification the Amorite (or
Arammite ), which must be taken in connexion with v. 7,
1 Abram, as we have seen (on xi. 26), means Arabia of Aram
( = Yerahme el).
2 See Winckler, 67, i. 16; Kohut Memorial Volume^ p. 609;
\ p. 198 ; Abraham a Is Babylonier, p. 34.
3 See Stade, Akad. Reden (1899), PP- I2O/
246 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
where the Amorites (or Arammites ) are spoken of as
having suffered in the recent raid. A further appendage
mentions two persons of whom Mamre was the brother,
and adds (as is commonly supposed) that they were the
confederates, or perhaps patrons, 1 of Abram. In v. 24
these three are mentioned again as the men who went with
me (cp. on v. 1 4). We must, it would seem, suppose that
both Mamre and Eshkol, together with the otherwise un
known Aner, are heroes eponymi, the names being drawn
from places. But what a series of difficulties the common
view presents ! First, the heroes eponymi here and here
only. Next, the inconsistency between ^.14 and v. 24 as
to those who constituted Abram s warlike force. Next, the
strange repetition of TTN in v. 13. And lastly, the difficult
phrase IN JTT1 "bsi, in v. I 3. The textual difficulties must
be treated first, (a) There is a similar and equally strange
repetition of a word indicating relationship in xi. 29, and
both passages have to be explained on the same principle.
That is, just as ^IN in that passage represents ITS, so TIN
(see on x. 2 i ) in our passage represents -nntpitf. We can
now give Mamre, Eshkol, and Aner their proper significance
as place-names. Ashhur-eshkol and Ashhur-aner are alterna
tive geographical glosses on Mamre. Winckler s theory
that the three names are derived from the cultus of Baal-
berith at Shechem is forced. (<) Dogmatism on textual
criticism is justified when an extensive experience of corrupt
passages lies behind it. Let me, then, point out that it is
next door to certain that miN mi has come from imp
D"QTS, 2 by which phrase is meant the city called in xxiii. 2
S1TN rmp, or rather ITS r p (see note), which is equivalent, as
the same passage states, to Hebron.
Thus the closing words of v. 13 are a comparatively late
gloss (presupposing the conversion of Mamre, Eshkol, and
Aner into individuals), which states that the three persons
spoken of were lords or citizens of the city near which
Abram dwelt. NTDE, as we have seen (on xiii. 18), probably
comes from jDNT, one of the forms of ^Norrv. So also,
1 So Kraetzschmar, Bundesvorstellung, p. 24.
2 I need not here consider whether rrip may not have come from
num or rather
A NEST OF PROBLEMS (GEN. xiv.) 247
probably, does "IDS in the gloss which follows (Sam. actually
has D13$), ** having given place to s. 1 SDIDN, which Hommel
(Gr. pp. 101, 184) explains as Fire is the protective god,
most probably comes from ^So "i0N, i-e> Asshur-Yerah-
me el. 2 Cp. on Num. xiii. 23, and note that in Ezra viii. 18
SDEN is the name which underlies the mysterious ~>DQ? ttTN
(A.V. a man of understanding, but R.V. mg. Ish-sechel ).
And now Abram s prompt action (y. 14). We expect
a plain prose description, but instead we get the combination
of obscurities VTQrrnN pn, he emptied (or unsheathed)
his initiated ones. Sam. s p~p, he looked closely at/ and
Winckler s p-pl. (from an unknown verb np"T = Ass. diku}?
1 he set in motion, are neither of them satisfactory, (j s
rtplOfirjo-e is a mere paraphrase of p-rr The easiest and
most suitable correction is N^I. TD^n (air. \j.) is equally
suspicious. Initiated into what? 4 Into warlike exercises?
Into habits of obedience? Into the rites of the family
cultus (Holz.) ? Nor can one feel sure about imi T^S
apparently a gloss on VD OT. In xvii. 12, 23, Num. xiii. 22
(Josh. xv. 14), 2 S. xxi. 1 6, 18, Jer. ii. 14, T^ has probably
come from 7*T = ^NDr?T (see on Ex. xii. 42) ; cp. also on
D*lWr, xxxiii. 14. irP3 "^rh^ in xvii. 23 (see note) repre
sents YFT TO, and l ^ here appears to have the same origin.
And now, what as to VD^n ? Must it not have come from
D^pDltfT (Dt. ii. 10, etc.), to which *?NDnT TV1 was originally
appended as a gloss, just as in Josh. xv. 14, as a gloss on
the three sons of Anak, we find pDsn T^i i.e> p^^n THOm^.
The Anakim were, in fact, at once Yerahme elites and
Arabians. It was fitting, therefore, that they should be re
peatedly described as Yerahme elites 5 and their chief city as
Kiryath- (or Ashhoreth-) f arab. Abram s first step, therefore,
was to summon the Anakim who dwelt in the neighbouring
city to accompany him against the foe.
1 In i Chr. vi. 55 "uy stands, as a place-name, beside nySs (an ex
pansion of ySn ; see on v. 2). For less probable views see E. Bib.,
Aner.
- e-x for IS ; N as CB> for Wo , etc. Cp. inr* from nn erx (m = mn).
3 AOF i. 102, note 2 ; so Gunkel.
4 Winckler actually sees a play upon nsan and Tnn (AOF xxi. 407).
5 T 1 r = l ?NDnT. In chap, xxiii. (P) the Hebronites are designated n
nn. But there is no real inconsistency (see notes).
248 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
The number of the warriors amounted in all to exactly
318. It is surely too large to refer to home-born slaves ; it
is also too small to be that of a force brought against a
successful army of invaders. 1 Hitzig found an explanation
of it in Gematria (the value in cypher of TO^N), Winckler
(Gin. 26 f.) in astronomy (318, the number of the days during
which the moon is visible). 2 Experience of textual corrup
tions, however, suggests a better explanation. Often and
often numerals have sprung up out of corruptions of ethnics
(see on xxiii. 2). Such appears to be the case here.
Underneath m^O H&BTI *itt?i> mntt, in accordance with
parallels, we have to read [DIN ^NSdttT] "IIZJN ^NUDBT.
Evidently it is a twofold gloss, and most probably it refers
to pODT (see on v. 15) ; i.e. it is misplaced.
For a closely parallel case, one may perhaps venture to
refer to the famous passage about the * number of the beast
(Rev. xiii. 1 8). Here, too, the right key seems to have been
missed. We are told, indeed, that the number of the beast
is the number of a man. This, however, is doubtless due
to misunderstanding. Almost certainly the original text
had ttTiDN, and this (as frequently in O.T.) came from SNl?Q8T. 3
The truth seems to be that api6p,o<$ jap dv0p(*)7rov e<rriv is a
gloss on TOV ap. TOV Otjpiov. The number itself (666)
supplants Dm* 1 YI&N, Asshur-Ishmael, the fuller name (as
we have seen) of the region commonly called ^Nom* 1 or
SNQ&r. 4 That the later transmitters of the traditional
number understood the statement, is, of course, not to be
supposed.
And what success had the Hebrew general ? Two
1 Jeremias (ATAO, p. 215) finds no cause for doubt, and thinks
* the forces on both sides will not have been enormous. But the king
of Elam was surely much mightier than any Hebrew.
2 Gunkel and Baentsch incline to follow Winckler, but the former
remarks that there are no other possible traces of a moon-myth in the
chapter. Konig rejects Winckler s view, but speaks a word for the
Gematria theory, which, however, is not confirmed by Biblical evidence
elsewhere. See his Im Kampfe um das A.T. iv. 47 f.
3 Proved, I hope, for the o-werot, by xxi. 17, [Aerpov dvOpuirov, o
ta-Tiv ayyeAov, i.e. toonr Kin. B>UK comes from DLT through fNCty (cp. jurat?).
For iKl?D=: onT, see on xvi. 7.
4 e^a/cdo-ioi = mD ^& = ( n~\
an inverse dittograph
A NEST OF PROBLEMS (GEN. xiv.) 249
variants refer to this subject. First, he pursued (them) as
far as Dan (y. 14), and next, he pursued them as far as
Hobah, which is on the left of pDT (y. i 5). In Am. Tab.
139, 63, Damascus is described as in the land of Ubi. l
We have seen, however, that the scene of our story is in the
N. Arabian border-land. Probably, therefore, rrTin should
be nirn ; and since the narrative in Judg. xviii. also relates
to this region, it is in point to mention that, according to
w. 2& f., Dan and Beth-rehob were not far apart. May not
min be the same as Tinvrvi ? ptt?DT here, as often (cp. on
xv. 2, and on -jmD, x. 2), should be traced back to *]B>cn or
nt&Q"), i.e. inGJN DIN. Perhaps the reader should here be
warned that names which have the same origin are not
thereby shown to belong to the same place. DHBJD, for
instance, has the same origin as porn, but the two names do
not necessarily denote the same place (see on finp, v. 7).
Ramshak or Ramshah was evidently an important place and
region near the border of the territory in N. Arabia claimed
by the Israelites (cp. Crit. Bib. on I K. xi. 24) ; it belonged
to the king of the southern Aram. Until we see this the
much-disputed passage I K. xix. 1 5 is a hopeless riddle
(see Crit. Bib.\
We are also told but how can I possibly render
iT^$ pSrn? How can he divided himself against
them be right ? A manoeuvre like that of Gideon would
have been otherwise described (see Judg. vii. 1 6). Winckler
formerly (he now gives a new mythological theory) proposed
to point p?rri, explaining the verb as a denom. from
Ass. hulluku, fugitive. But surely the word is corrupt
(Gunkel), and we must read DH^I, and he attacked (them).
VT3S should probably be D^msm, c and the Arabians, i.e.
the men of Kiryath-arbim (y. \ 3 b}. Of course, the state
ment as to the pursuit of the foe is in its right place in
v. i$, not in v. 14.
In v. 17 we note the same redactional insertion about
the kings as in v. 5. The scene of the meeting of Abram
and the king of Sodom (see on v. 2) is called in the text
rna> pos, for which Hommel (AHT, p. 151, note i) and
Winckler (GI ii. 28) would read miD pD (?), explaining by
1 See E. Bib., < Hobah.
250 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Ass. sharru = Heb. melek. Thus the gloss, l^DH s, is
apparently accounted for. But with rntD in v. 5 before us,
which certainly comes from TiniDN, and with so many other
mutilated and corrupt names in this narrative, we may
prefer to read YiniDN rOSD (cp. on pos, v. 3). This seems
to be identified in a gloss with Maakath-Yerahme el (cp. on
* the king s vale, 2 S. xviii. 1 8). Most critics think that the
mention of the vale of Shaveh, that is, the king s vale in
v. 17 prepares the way for the meeting of the two high
powers in v. 1 8. But is Salem the short for Jerusalem,
and was there a pan pDS near that city ? See the next
note, and Crit. Bib. on 2 S. xviii. 1 8.
We are now coming to even greater problems. As the
passage, vv. 18-20, stands, it looks at first sight very much
like a later insertion. 1 And yet the form of Abram s oath
in v. 22 clearly presupposes the declaration (by whomsoever
made) in vv. 19 f. y to say nothing of the point of contact
which has been found between the close of v. 17 and the
beginning of v. 18. We are therefore specially entitled to
apply criticism to the text.
There is, of course, no doubt at all that some one is
referred to in vv. 18-20 who was a priest of El- r elyon (if
this reading is correct), but who was he ? He was not a
king of any of the three Salems (Shalems) which have been
suggested north of Jerusalem, for none of them had a special
reputation for sanctity. Jerusalem, however, would do
excellently for the city of this great priest, and in post-exilic
times it would be important to find such an early attestation
of its sacredness. But why should Jerusalem be called
here Salem ? the form Urusalim ( = Jerusalem) goes back
as far as to the Amarna tablets ; and though another Biblical
passage (Ps. Ixxvi. 3) is usually quoted in behalf of Salem
as = Jerusalem, the presence of textual corruption in that
passage (admittedly a late one) can hardly be denied.
Winckler therefore has a claim to be heard (1902) when he
proposes 2 to take D^tt) "f^D as a variant for
1 Whence the sudden appearance of Melchizedek ? and out of what
does Abram give tithes? Cp. Oxf. Hex. ii. 21.
2 KAT ] p. 224. In A OF, I.e., however, he makes Shalem the
earlier name of Shechem.
A NEST OF PROBLEMS (GEN. xiv.) 251
being (as he holds) a divine name synonymous with
But his presuppositions on the formation of names are
incorrect, and the old Babylonian name Sa-lim-ahu, which
he adduces, has most probably come from Ishmael-Ashhur.
By a curious coincidence this very same compound name
underlies one of the chief corrupt phrases in v. 18. The
reader will see what is meant presently. Just now the
point to emphasise is that the two elements in D^tt) l^D are
synonymous, D representing SNEHT (see on v. 1 7, end) and
chtt being a popular distortion of ^NSEttr 1 (see on xxxiii. I 8,
and on Dtt^, Josh. xix. 47). Ab-shalom is precisely analogous;
see 2 S. xvii. 26, where D^miNI comes from ^Nsoar Tun. 1
And now as to Malki-sedek. How strange this sudden
introduction of this priestly visitor is ! We have seen that
he was not * king of Salem/ but was he really named Malki-
sedek ? The name is a very possible one ; -fSop~n occurs
on a Phoenician coin (Cooke, p. 349), and we have
plS^inN in Josh. x. i, 3. 2 What it would mean is a matter
for discussion. The explanation the king (or, my king) is
righteousness is less in favour now than one suggested by
the discovery of many hitherto unknown deities, among
whom we may very possibly include Sedek. 3 The true
meaning of Malki-sedek would thus be (so it is held) Sidk
is king or Sidk is Milk. This, however, seems to be a
mistake. The Phoenician name Sidki-milk is probably
a N. Arabian name carried northwards by immigrants, pis
is an old clan -name, 4 and "f^D, as so often, represents
Yerahme el.
So much as to the meaning of Malki-sedek, if the name
is genuine. But is it genuine, either here or in Ps. ex. 4 b
1 It is true the personal name ciWax also comes ultimately from
aw rny. But the point here is that just as VnN in 2 S. I.e. seems to be
a personal name, but is not, and really designates an Ishmaelite region,
so VaSo in Genesis is not really a personal name, but designates a
Yerahme elite and Asshurite region.
2 See Crit. Bib., ad loc., and also on Judg. i. 5 ; the form Adoni-
bezek in Joshua is not impossible. Neither bezek nor sedek need be a
divine name. Sedek, at any rate, became a widely spread clan-name.
See E. Bib., Zadok, 5 Zedekiah.
3 Note (rvSvK in the Phoenician cosmogony (Philo Bybl.), and see
Zimmern, KAT*\ pp. 473 / ; cp. also on JTS, x. 15.
4 See Crit. Bib. on 2 S. viii. 17.
252 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
(see E. Bib., l Melchizedek ), the only other O.T. passage in
which the name is given in the traditional text ? The
question is a difficult one. But Gen. xiv. contains so many
glosses that we could not be surprised if this name were one,
and it certainly appears as if, to obtain an intelligible view
of the meaning of the episode in w. 1 7 ff. y we cannot help
assuming v. 18 a to be a collection of glosses. Hence
pTS-^DI probably represents either p~TZ httOTTP N1J1, or if
we consider pis to be quite out of place pn^T
where pTTT 1 may be taken as a popular distortion 1 of
This will be a second gloss on mifl pDS in v. 17, parallel to
l^orr pas. It should be added that ch l^D, i.e. DOT YrP
(see above), is probably a twofold gloss on pTST (i.e. pns" 1 ) ;
also that Sievers, too, holds Malki-sedek to be intrusive,
but supposes that a glossator, out of his own head, devised
this as a name for the king of Salem (Metr. Stud. p. 273).
Having mentioned Sievers, it is natural to remark here
that he omits not only * Malki-sedek, but also the statement
that he was a priest of El- elyon (as a gloss), with the
result that the offering of tithes is made by the king of
Salem to Abram, not by Abram to the priest-king of Salem.
He also inserts the words (in v. 20, end), and Abram said
to him, the true sequel of which is to be found in w. 22 f.,
while v. 24 is the sober, prosaic answer of Abram to the
equally sober, prosaic offer of the king of Sodom, contained
in v. 21. But surely the omission of in jrrD Nim as a gloss
is unreasonable ; the very solemn benediction in w. 1 9 f.
required some such explanation as the priestly character of
the speaker supplies. Nor is the idea that a Canaanitish
king gave tithes of all to Abram, thus acknowledging his
political supremacy, at all plausible. Sievers fresh investi
gation, however, brings into clearer light the difficulties and
improbabilities of the traditional text.
The highly improbable words pi DnS fcWin (for which
Dt. xxiii. 4 gives no parallel) are retained by Sievers, and
explained by Jeremias 2 as indicating a sacred meal. No
1 See on pns , xvii. 17 ; and note the use of the equivalent form
pnc" for Ashhur in Am. ix. 16 (|| Israel/ i.e. probably the territory of
Israel in the southern border-land).
2 Babylonisches tin N.T. p. 77.
A NEST OF PROBLEMS (GEN. xiv.) 253
good reason can be offered either from a metrical or from an
archaeological point of view. I venture to think that those
who have read the O.T. with our present presuppositions
must at once see, at any rate, how pi &rh is best accounted
for. They seem to represent an early gloss. For we cannot
deny that urb may be = SNDHT (cp. on nhft, v. 3), and
pi may be = jv or JCP (see on p, xlix. 12 ; pn, Hab. ii. 5).
This thoroughly suits the context. The scribe evidently
took Nin to be the short for N^nn. The sense of vv. 1 7 f.
now becomes clear (omitting the glosses, and reserving
El- elyon), And the king of Hasram went out to meet
him, after his return from defeating Birdad-armal, to
Maakath-Ashhur ; now he was a priest of El- f elyon. The
parallel of Yithro, another priest and prince of N. Arabia,
will occur to every one. That the letters of Abd-hiba,
prince of Urusalim (under Amenhotep IV. of Egypt), are
in any way illustrative of Malki-sedek does not appear to
have been made out. Nor does Urusalim mean city of
(the god) Salim, but city of Ishmael. l
The exact meaning of El- elyon remains to be decided.
That this divine name was specially common among the
Jews in post-exilic times, is admitted. 2 In the context of
our passage (vv. 19 f., 22) it is said to have been used both
by the great ancestor of Israel and by a neighbouring king
presumably of another race. In Num. xxiv. 16 it is put
into the mouth of a great non-Israelitish diviner called
Bil f am. The question arises whether it may not originally
have been a non-Israelitish name of God. This view is
confirmed by the fact that Philo of Byblus attests EXtoOi/ as
a Phoenician name for God, 3 and also fits in with results at
which we have arrived as to the type of religion prevalent
among the N. Arabian kinsmen of the Israelites, and adopted
from them with modifications by the Israelites. At the
same time, it is very possible that p*^s was not the original
1 That Ishmael took many forms, is certain. See, however,
A. Jeremias, ATAO, p. 217.
2 See further Kautzsch, E. Bib., Names, 118 ; Charles, Enoch,
p. 284; Cheyne, Origin of Psalter, pp. 26/, 51, 83/, 314.
3 Fragm. Historicorum Gracorum, iii. 567 ( EAiow
254 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
form of the name in our passage, (i) The parallel divine
names compounded with ~>N in the Pentateuch, such as
chw ^N, ^18) ^Mj f?NTPl hx, pior 1 ^M, when critically
examined, all turn out (see notes) to be names connecting
God with the N. Arabian people. And (2) in two passages
in the Psalter which appear to contain flfyaj as a divine name,
the reading is incorrect, 1 and should be D7TS (Ps. vii. 1 8,
ix. 3). It seems not improbable, therefore, that, whether
through the intermediate form DTIS or not, pT?S, as a name
of God, at any rate in our passage, has come from some
form of ^NDTTP or WsDBP. Parallels may be found in pf?s
(Chr. p^O in xxxvi. 23, and the very singular ^ZPSV^N
(i Chr. iii. 23, etc.) or TS l f? (i Chr. viii. 20), which (see
the occurrences, E. Bib.} evidently represent some N. Arabian
ethnic name. The chief divine name in N. Arabia was (to
judge from the O.T.) Yerahmeel or Ishmael, and the race
of his worshippers took his name for their own. That he
was honoured as the maker of heaven and earth, we have
seen already (see on chap. i.). The gloss Yahweh in v. 22
is not incorrect, for Yahweh grew out of Yerahme el in
the manner and in the sense already described.
It is impossible to solve with absolute certitude the
riddle of the words SDD imso lS ]rpl. The easiest supposi
tion is that the troublesome little clause is a late gloss
inserted by some one who took cAtt) to mean Jerusalem, and
wished to honour the holy city, but did not see what
exegetical difficulties he was creating. 2 Unfortunately con
jectures like these generally have to give way to more
solidly based theories, and this may be the case here.
Considering that in vv. 22, 23, there are probably two
glosses on the divine name El- elyon, one miT, the other (an
earlier one) Ashhur- Yerahme el (see below), we naturally
1 See Cheyne, Ps. {2} i. 22, Briggs s treatment (1906) of the two
psalm-passages ignores the difficulties ; consequently he makes no
attempt to recover the true text.
2 See Dillmann s note. Sievers (Metr. St. p. 273), who has
already expunged the name Melchizedek, and bidden us be content with
a nameless secular king of Shalem, makes Abram the subject of the
verb he gave. Erbt (Die Hebr. p. 66) only changes the name of
Melchizedek s residence. But he also makes the priest of El- c elyon give
the tenth of all (of all what ?) to Abram.
A NEST OF PROBLEMS (GEN. xiv.) 255
expect to find at any rate one gloss on the same name on
this its first appearance. To the question, Who is El- elyon ?
the words ill jm may be expected to give an answer.
What answer? A twofold one. ^DD iBtt represents "IZ&N
btforrP, i.e. Asshur-Yerahme el one of the fuller names of
the N. Arabian God ; Soft represents f?NftrrP, precisely as do
*]f?o and ^ftS, also htt (i S. xviii. 20) and *l*th& (xvi. 7).
There remains ft if? ;m. It is possible (and here probable)
that this was produced by the redactor out of f?Nftrp Nin ;
O1^, i.e. Sift, comes from S^ft or 7N9O (fragments of ftnT,
ftttT ; cp. on Sift, Dt. i. i, and on SlftHN, Dt. ii. 34, Isa.
xxx. 28). The prefixed 1, as often, represents Nin, that is.
Thus we get the gloss, that is, Ithmael (Ishmael) ; Asshur-
Yerahme el. Ishmael and Yerahmeel ( Asshur- Yerahmeel)
are, in fact, both names of the great compound N. Arabian
deity.
On v. 22, Gunkel remarks that Abram intentionally
repeats El-elyon, possessor (?) of heaven and earth, that
it may be clear that he and Malki-sedek have the same
God. It would be more accurate to say that Abram wishes
to profess solemnly his recognition of the God of Hashram
(Sodom) as his own God. Such was doubtless the view
originally presupposed in these narratives (see on chap. i.).
But for the purpose of such a profession it is enough that
Abram, in framing his oath, makes mention of El- f elyon
( = El-Yerahme el ; see above) ; piNi D^fttt) mp is probably
(as Sievers takes it) an interpolation from v. 19. Certainly
mm is intrusive (as Gunkel and Sievers also see) ; why
should Abram insist on a minor point of difference between
himself and the king ? For a minor difference it would
certainly be in those early times. One writes thus from the
point of view of later religion. When the narrative arose,
mm was really only an expansion of SttftTTP not the mm
of the greater prophets or of the later redactors. Note that
(H> and Pesh. do not recognise mm ; Sam. has crn^Nrr.
But nothing anywhere can beat the singularity of the
corruption in v. 23, from a thread even to a sandal-thong.
What a bathos ! Another almost equally impossible phrase
occurs in Am. ii. 6, because they sold . . . the poor for a
pair of shoes (nC^NO). Shall we ask Winckler for an
256 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
1 Oriental explanation ? He is quite ready, and will also
show us how *PDN (y. 24) can mean have stolen. Or shall
we apply a keener criticism, and recognise that "Tin ttino ON
should be "pSs NtonN~DN, surely I will not sin against thee.
The meaning is that if Abram had accepted the offer of the
property of Sodom/ and so left the inhabitants of the city
impoverished, it would be a sin against them and their king
which Abram refuses to commit 7WTnfi) can a l s be
accounted for. It is a misplaced gloss on ffhs h&, i.e. it
represents the fuller name of the N. Arabian God, like the
parallel gloss at the end of v. 20. THE is a corruption of
Tirn&N ; cp. pYiB, Judg. xvi. 4, and see on ^Dm, xv. i.
Similarly, hsi, like D"6^ in the Amos parallel quoted above,
comes from ^NEnT.
In v. 24 it is impossible to tolerate nsf?}, the only
legitimate meaning of which is without me, or apart from me/
As in the parallel case of xli. 1 6, it comes from some corrupt
form of ^NGm" 1 , probably ^IQT. Yerahme el was, of course,
a gloss on some preceding difficult word, perhaps on JV^S.
That Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre is an incorrect gloss (from
v. 1 3) is pointed out by Winckler and Sievers. Cp. on
v. 14.
Looking back on this narrative in its corrected form we
are still struck by its singularity. We have not, indeed, to
trouble ourselves about supposed points of contact with
Babylonian history, but we should like greater clearness than
seems to be attainable respecting the two branches of the
Yerahme elite race between which hostilities are said to have
broken out. That Abram should have joined the fray
would not be strange, but for the ideality with which the
other traditions of this patriarch are suffused. For how
could he, as a Yerahme elite, though of another clan, have
kept aloof altogether? What reason had he to fear, being
under the divine protection ? We know already that
Hebrew narrators of the type of J and E did not mind
sometimes leaving archaic elements which they could not
venture to excise or to transform. This seems to be the
case here. The narrator wished to glorify Abram and his
God ; he also wished to emphasise the essential religious
unity between Abram and the Yerahme elite kinsmen whom
A NEST OF NEW PROBLEMS (GEN. xiv.) 257
he befriended (cp. pp. $6ff.). His material he derived
from tradition ; the setting of it is all his own. That later
editors were not completely satisfied with his work, is not
surprising. And, of course, errors of the scribes, as well as a
growing haziness respecting the early races, contributed to
the sad results which have caused so much perplexity (note
e.g. the number 318 in v. 14) to modern critics.
DIVINE ENCOURAGEMENT TO ABRAM (GEN. xv.)
Two connected theophanies with promises attached, the
one of present deliverance, the other of future possession
of the land which Abram is entering (cp. xii. 7). Re
ligiously viewed, the narrative shows less na ivetf than those
in which God shows himself in a bodily form. From a
literary point of view, it is obscure, and suffers from some
striking inconsistencies. To these we must now direct our
attention. The events of the first part (for the principal
transition is from v. 6 to v. 7) are supposed to take place
by night ; those of the second, at first by day, and after
wards by night. And yet there is no notice of the dawning
of a second day. The two parts also appear to have no inner
connexion ; v. 6, as the narrative stands, is psychologically
improbable. From the same point of view the afflicting
statement of the long servitude of the Israelites (v. 13) is
incomprehensible ; would it not have robbed the concluding
promise of much of its value ? One may add that the
second part is greatly deficient in consecutiveness. Next,
as to the colouring of the narrative. The introduction, as
the text stands, is singularly pale. There is nothing at all
concrete about the opening theophany, nor is it mentioned
17
258 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
where it took place. Moreover, those who interpret the
phrase nehar Misr\a\im l in v. 1 8 as meaning the Nile must be
struck by the unusual south-west boundary given to Canaan.
Then as to the forms of representation. The description of
Abram as the recipient of a prophetic revelation, the pro
found conception of faith in v. 6, and the reference to a
covenant or guarantee (beritfi) of Yahweh, are not in accord
ance with the earlier tradition. 2 The difficulties of the name
Eliezer-Damascus 3 and of the four hundred years of
bondage are also severe trials to the interpreter.
Altogether, criticism has seldom had a harder task than
to account for the origin and growth of this strange narrative.
Like his predecessors, the present writer has in former days
confronted this problem. But one important preliminary
both he and his colleagues had pardonably neglected, viz.
that keener criticism which depends on the study of re
current types of corruption, and which is restrained from
undue subjectivity by the N. Arabian theory rendered
possible by Winckler. This omission the writer now desires
to repair.
The result to which his textual researches point is that
the narrative, even in its original form, is comparatively late.
The primitive elements which undoubtedly exist cannot
neutralise those which are quite as clearly non-primitive.
The current literary analysis, 4 in spite of its imperfectly
critical textual basis, sufficiently justifies us in assigning the
narrative to a member of the so-called Yahwistic school.
The original writing of the Yahwist (J) must have been
supplemented at an early date by a redactor, who apparently
viewed it as an appendix to chap. xiv. This view of the
redactor is of course psychologically impossible. The
1 If we point DHSD iru, we must agree with Driver that this can only
mean the Nile, or at least the easternmost (Pelusiac) arm of it. The
true pointing, however, seems to be onsp.
2 See Staerk, Studien zur Religions- und Sprachgeschichte, pp. 43^
3 Dillm. supposes that Eliezer had some connexion with Damascus,
so that if he became Abram s heir the property would ultimately go to
that city. Most improbable, as Driver also sees.
4 See especially B. W. Bacon, Hebraica, Oct. 1890, and cp. his
The Genesis of Genesis (1892), pp. 124-126, besides the more recent
works of Holzinger and Gunkel.
DIVINE ENCOURAGEMENTS TO ABRAM (GEN. xv.) 259
victory which, according to chap, xiv., Abram had gained
could not have put him in the state in which he appears
in chap, xv., a state, not of high self-consciousness, but of
depression and anxiety. This anxiety can be easily ac
counted for by referring to the parallel case of Isaac in
xxvi. 24. It is plain that the patriarch had just crossed the
border into a new country. Now, too, we can see the
significance of the divine title in v. 2, which, in the original
writing, was very possibly, not mm mN, but mm pDlN
(see p. 34). * Armon or Yerahme el was, in fact, that
member of the divine duad (or triad) who took the closest
interest in human affairs. It follows from this view that, as
Kraetzschmar has pointed out, the original position of the
narrative was most probably after xii. 7 a (J).
It appears that the text had already become somewhat
corrupt when the redactor received it. He was, however,
still able to recognise and to understand the references of
the original writing to the N. Arabians. That writing he
expanded, but did not, except in v. I, alter. The original
work seems to be comprised within vv. 1-3, 9-11, 17-18.
Textual criticism must be called in to restore it to its
original form, as well as to correct the textual errors which
have crept into the redactor s additions.
Let us now consider the textual difficulties of vv. 1-3.
(a) hn ^ 11~f rrn (v. i ; cp. v. 4), of prophetic revelation,
nowhere else in Genesis. ($) rnriQS. Not in J s manner.
Besides, if a vision were referred to, n1D would be the
natural word (xlvi. 2, E). mno only once again in Pent.,
viz. in Num. xxiv. 4, 16, where it is a corruption of fpNonv.
(f) The two parts of the divine speech do not cohere well.
That Abram should be exhorted not to be afraid, and
should be assured that his God would shield him, is con
ceivable, but it is not natural that the Speaker should at
once turn aside to tell Abram that his reward (for what ?)
should be very large, (d) What wilt thou give me, seeing
that I go (hence) childless (v. 2), would not be a natural
speech for Abram, even if the words objected to in v. \b
were correct. The common -sense view surely is that
whoever made Abram say what wilt thou give me? was
thinking of what is said in v. 18 (Bacon, Hebratca, 1890,
2 6o TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
p. 76). This may well make us suspect corruption of the
text of v. 2 a. (e) V. 2 b has been explained most variously ;
can we say that it has yet been explained at all ? (f)
The expression T^l p (v. 3) for the son of a Hebrew slave
by a foreign bondmaid (Bertholet, Stellung, pp. 5 5 f.) occurs
nowhere else, and the seemingly parallel phrase irri T^" 1
(xiv. 14) is corrupt (^) arp with the accusative, in the
sense of to be some one s heir (v. 4), is unusual ; Hos.
ix. 6 is a precarious parallel.
It is hoped that textual criticism has not, even here,
been altogether baffled. The key to the situation seems to
lie in TOtt) (v. I, end), the accuracy of which, in the interests
of a natural exegesis, we are bound to question. In I Chr.
xxvi. 4 the personal name "OB?, and in Ps. Ixxii. 10 "OlDN,
certainly represent an ancient district-name, on which see
the discussion of the tribe-name "iDBJBr 1 (xxx. 18).
and "THE have probably come from DnT (^MDJTT 1 ) and
respectively. We should therefore read, for TND nnn TO ID,
; DnT -DtDNl (DIN a variant). An alternative reading is
^NOnTl, underlying HinDl. The fuller phrase, however,
is to be preferred. I conjecture that from "irTN to mrp~in
(v. i) is a redactor s substitute for mrr NT*I (see xii. 7).
Having shifted the position of the passage, and introduced
prophetic announcements, he thought the substituted words
more suitable. He kept, however, DnT tt>Nl D llN^N. Of
course, the arbitrary transpositions made by the redactor
arose out of exegetical necessities.
The last clause of the divine speech still has to be
restored. It is represented in MT. () by TIS *pTJ
Now *ns is one of the corruptions of ns (xiii. 12), and
at any rate, may have come from ais = D^ril?. lf?V7, too,
is corrupt. It may be illustrated by ^n, Hab. iii. 19, which
clearly ought to be "^Nl. Read, therefore, D^!n$[D] ^f^i
(see on vv. 7-18). And this enables us to explain the
enigmatical words of v. 2 b. First, as to IHP^N pmcn Nin.-
Hitzig (on Ps. cxx. 6), Tuch, Olsh., and Kautzsch-Socin
take DT to be a marginal gloss. But what of "TOP7N ? It
is unusual to mention a slave s name. Indeed, if this slave s
name had been handed down, should we not have found it
mentioned in chap. xxiv. ? Clearly ItJT^N is corrupt. But
DIVINE ENCOURAGEMENTS TO ABRAM (GEN. xv.) 261
so too is err, which surely cannot be held to explain either
pfto or TP1. The truth is that both / ?N DT and the words
on which this is said to be a gloss (TP:I pt&E p) need cor
rection, pmo (like *]Bto, x. 2) is an abridged form, not of
jpttJD, client/ a supposed title of Eliezer, 1 but of a regional
name of which ptBQT, or rather pt&cn, 2 is a somewhat fuller
form (cp. on DnttfD, xi. 28 ; TED, xxii. 22 ; ptt)D, Zeph. ii. 9).
The name referred to is -intt>N-D*i^. Trin^N may be a variant
of this, "^N, like hw, may come from S>NDnT, while "ifi? is
a well-attested clan-name, perhaps derived from I^N or itis.
TV! may be an incorrect expansion of n, which really comes
from an indistinctly written "q:-i, a correction of p. Thus
we get (for v. 2 b} [ tDN- nr] EN-DIN Nirr ptt?O ^DTI, the sons
of Meshek, i.e. of Aram-Ashhur, which is a gloss on cms
( thy redeemer from the Arabians ). In v. 3$ we find the
same gloss transformed anew by the redactor, i.e. mm
TIN anv Tv}-p comes from ^N&DBT YIBN [^i] ]i Nim (TIN
may represent r n, 2.^. 7l?inN), while in z/. 2 all between "iD^T!
and ^, and the whole of ^. 3 a, is the work of the early
redactor. Hence the original passage underlying vv. 1-3
becomes, And Yahweh appeared to Abram in Ashhur-
Yerahme el, and said, Fear not, Abram ; I am a shield for
thee, I am thy deliverer from the Arabians. Thus the
second part of the speech interprets the first, and the whole
gives a much-needed explanation of * Fear not.
To the same redactor (who was familiar with the
abstract conception of * faith ) are also due w. 4 and 6 a
linking passage. Verse 5 apparently comes from a later
writer, who loved the Deuteronomic image of the stars
(cp. on xxii. 17). It is, however, obvious that something
must have followed the divine address to the patriarch.
We have therefore to ask whether there is any part of
w. 7-18 which would form a suitable sequel, and which,
of course, we have no reason for excluding? In reply,
1 Winckler, AOF xxi. 442. Johns (Bab. and Ass. Laws, p. 75)
explains mushkenu (with 3, not p) as a common man.
- Ramshak also underlies peo no in the earlier text of i K. x. 2 5
(see Crit. Bib. p. 333). Another form is probably ntrm, underlying the
corrupt HITD of Am. vi. 7. Possibly the form pram in Chron. preserves
a record of two readings, pc-m and pcm
262 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
vv. 7 f. being out of the question (see at a later point), I
would indicate vv. 9- 1 1 and 1 7 / I do not, however, mean
to assert that this is the whole of the sequel. It is probable
that what now stands as vv. 4-6 is a substitute for a passage
relative to the blessing promised to the seed of the patriarch.
The next textual errors in the passage which probably
represents the original narrative occur in 27. 18 (the limits of
the Promised Land). Similar accounts are given elsewhere ;
see especially Ex. xxiii. 3 i, Dt. i. 7, xi. 24, Josh. i. 4. In all
these passages except that in Exodus 1 the stream of Perath
is mentioned, and in Dt. i. 7 and Josh. i. 4 (as here) fmn "inurr
is prefixed to that phrase (mo 1113), which may possibly be
an early gloss. Most probably, as doubtless in Jer. xiii.
4-7, ma = mQN, and refers to a N. Arabian district called
Ephrath (see on xxxv. 16). For Sll[n] we may compare
the proper names irpVu, 2 K. xxv. 22, and fm, Neh.
vii. 49, 58, Ezra ii. 47, 56, and the D^rmrr of Neh. xi. 14.
In all these forms TD or Vnin represents "nfel, and in our
passage the original reading probably was ishz im. It is
noteworthy that the writer of Dan. x. 4 appears to have
identified Perath and Hiddekel, for he uses the latter name
(see on ii. 1 4) where we might have expected the former.
The writer of v. 1 8 also mentions a stream of D HSD
(read Misrim). More frequently this is called hm ; see
Num. xxxiv. 5, i K. viii. 65, etc., and cp. the nahal Musri
of Sargon and Esar-haddon (E. Bib., cols. 1249^ ; Winckl.,
KAT, pp. I47/). The use of "im for ^m is remarkable.
From xxxvi. 37, Num. xxii. 5, we may perhaps infer that
the Israelites in the N. Arabian border-land applied the term
to streams which were really no more than torrents
). Or was the Wt3 originally a irT3 ? Possibly the
ina, like the TSO3. r 3, had a second name ; i.e. it may
be the same as the stream called (as we seem obliged to
hold see on xiii. I o) pHT, a name (derived from nT =
which sometimes, or even often, underlies the familiar
1 There is, however, no strong reason to doubt that the stream
intended in Ex. xxiii. 31 is the stream of Ephrath. Cp. Ut. xi. 24
(rev. text), from the stream, the stream of Ephrath. Winckler, I am
aware, makes 2 -im in all such contexts a gloss, and supposes that the
real northern boundary was the river Litany (A OF, 3rd ser. ii. 25 8 _/".).
DIVINE ENCOURAGEMENTS TO ABRAM (GEN. xv.) 263
of the traditional text. There was also, as the MT.
itself shows, a stream called the YirPB) (i.e. YiniDN), described
in Josh. xiii. 3 as being in front of D HSD (Misrim), just as
Hiddekel is described fn Gen. ii. 1 4 as going c in front of
Was this another name for the D*n!E im ? Cp. on
10, and see Bible Problems, p. 269. Lastly, may not
DIN mean properly Aram (Yerahme el) of the
streams, or of the two streams (note on xxiv. 10)? See
further on Dt. xi. 24.
It is, of course, possible to omit from the stream of
Misrim, etc., as a later gloss ; but what should we gain
thereby ? As soon as the story took written form, it would
be natural enough to give this brief statement of the limits
of the land. The view which it embodied failed to satisfy
a later age. Not only had N. and S. Palestine to be
brought in, but the territory of Abraham s seed had to
be extended as far as to the Euphrates. An imperialistic
ideal was gratifying to the national pride which resisted the
depressing influences of the present. And no doubt it
seemed to readers of this passage to be specially warranted
by the name HID, which in a late and unhistorical age was
naturally understood as Euphrates. The case is just
parallel to that of the description of the territory of Solomon.
Whether the empire of this king actually reached to the
Euphrates, some critics of mark have already doubted. We
now seem to know how the misrepresentation arose. If one
cause of it was national pride, another was ignorance of any
other stream called par excellence "insn but that called by the
Greeks and Romans Euphrates (see on I K. v. i).
As to the ten names of peoples in the appended passage
(vv. 19-21, cp. Neh. ix. 8), they may have been already
corrupted when the late scribe collected and inserted them.
The mysterious "omp ( eastern ones !), which only occurs
here, has probably sprung from "som, which is a modifica
tion of ^NDnT (cp. on xvii. 5). On Hittites, Amorites,
Canaanites, Girgashites, Jebusites, see on x. 1 5 f. ; on
Perizzites, on xiii. 7 ; on Rephaim, on xiv. 5. The difficulty
as to the Hittites mentioned by Driver, ad loc. y has, I
hope I may say, disappeared.
Turning now to w. 7, 8, it may be stated first, without
264 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
hesitation, that they are a later insertion, and that their
probable object is to link together the two parts of chap. xv.
(vv. 1-6 and vv. 9-18) which the redactor may in some
sense be said to have brought into existence. In its original
form the passage gives another reference to N. Arabia, YIN
(see on xi. 28) being most probably a corruption of ins, and
D^TIW of D"in, i.e. DIJN in#N. We thus get, who brought
thee out of [Arabia] Ashhur of Aram ( = Ashhur-Yerah-
me el, see on ix. 20), which is exactly parallel to I am thy
redeemer from the Arabians.
The longest insertion (vv. 12-16) requires still closer
attention on the part of the student. In the text as it
stands there is a troublesome discrepancy between v. i 3 and
v. 1 6, i.e. the duration of the servitude (four hundred years)
specified in z/. 1 3 does not tally with the promise of return
in the fourth generation in v. 1 6. Either, therefore, four
hundred years or the whole of v. 16 must so critics say
be a late insertion, derived perhaps from another source.
The truth, however from the point of view which many
textual facts have forced upon us, seems to be that the
original text said nothing about four hundred years ; ]
m B) TYING S11N comes from "JNSDttF f?NE>nN D-Qfii?. The Dills
of MT. actually preserves the true reading, viz. crni;, on
which on** ( = DBT) and DOT are glosses. See, further, on
the parallel, Ex. xii. 40.
This is confirmed by (^ A in v. 13 b, KOI KaKtocrovcriv
aurofu?] KOI >ov\(i)crov(7iv avrovs real Taireivwcrova iv avrovs,
i.e. DHN wi DYTUfi urh linm, suggesting that in the
underlying text Dms followed onN 1331. The snh linn,
presupposed by (jj, and the ^rh ^h pwl of MT., which is
also presupposed by @ s ev <yfj OVK ISia, are equally corrupt
readings, nor is it (from our point of view) hard to recover
the true reading, through which both can be accounted for ;
1 On the confusion between numerals and ethnics, due to the
corruption of ethnics, or fragments of ethnics, into forms resembling
numerals, see Hibbert Journal, vol. i. p. 760 (1903). Note that ymx
represents rnj; (or perhaps trmy) ; see on Kiryath-arba, xxiii. 2. niNc
(cp. VIDDN = SNDHN) comes from ^tjw ; rut?, like ft? ( i S. xiv. 4), from
a fragment of D^DB" = D^Kjrair. Cp. on i K. xviii. 19, xxii. 6, Judg.
iii. 8, n, v. 31, etc. That Hebrew writers sometimes reckoned the
generation at a hundred years, can hardly be called very probable.
DIVINE ENCOURAGEMENTS TO ABRAM (GEN. xv.) 265
surely it is ^DrrT pNl. It is this which is represented
by urh **h pNl, and it is a dittographed ^NDnv which
accounts for the DH^ linn which we have been able to trace
in . Read therefore ^NEnrr pNl "pit miT "Q "O
[ oar DHN] Dms DHN 12in. It should be added that the
doubtfulness of the text is already indicated in MT. by
the Pasek after -Q ^3 (v. 13), and that Winckler s astro
nomical explanation of v. I 3 l is too ingenious by half.
V. 14 is a fit sequel to v. 13 in its revised form. It
alludes first to the plagues of Misrim (Ex. vii.^), then to
the departing of the Israelites with their property (Ex.
xii. 2$f., 38). V. 15, however, interrupts the connexion,
and must be a very late insertion indeed. V. 16 connects
with v. 14. It refers (as Gunkel remarks) to the genealogy
of Moses, who appears in the fourth generation from Levi
(Ex. vi. i6ff.).
I could wish that this examination might lead to the
rectification of much that has been unwisely said about
Abraham, the successful leader of a band of warriors, and
(as Nikolaus of Damascus, the court-historian of Herod the
Great, asserted) the conqueror of Damascus ; 2 also that it
might put an end to the worn-out problem of the four
hundred years of Israel s oppression in * Egypt. We need
not, as it seems to me, go on theorising as to the origin of
this so-called artificial calculation, simply because in the
original text no such chronological statement existed. Cp.
on Ex. xii. 41.
1 Arabisch-semitisch-orientalisch, p. 20, note 3 (the number 400,
ten times the period of Nergal-Pleiades).
- See Carl Niebuhr, Gesch. des Ebrdischen Zeitalters, i. 123, and
cp. Winckler s mysterious hint, KA T i3 \ p. 211.
THE FORTUNES OF HAGAR (GEN. xvi.)
THE hard fate of Hagar, the handmaid of Abram s wife,
and the handmaid s compensation. Such is the theme
of the story, of which another version occurs in xxi.
8-21. To understand it we must ask, first, Who is this
Hagar ? next, What is her fate ? and lastly, What is her
compensation ? Other questions will then suggest them
selves, such as the geography of the story, the meaning of
Ishmael and Mal ak-Yahweh, and the true form of the
utterance of the friendly divinity, (i) As to Hagar her
self, tradition informs us that she was a Misrite. The
commentators affirm that misri(tJi) both here and else
where means * Egyptian, but it has been amply shown
that this cannot any longer be taken for granted. It
is admitted, however, even by the less advanced school,
that Hagar reminds us forcibly of the ethnic Hagrim,
which belongs to a tribe of Arabian origin mentioned in
I Chr. v. 10, 19 f. (cp. I Chr. xxvii. 31, Ps. Ixxxiii. 7,
and, by emendation, Hos. ix. 13, Isa. x. 4).* The
case is exactly parallel to that of I Chr. ii. 34, where a
certain Yerahme elite is said to have had a Misrite slave
called Yarha. It is plain that Yarha is a corruption of
Yerahme el ; and yet the commentators go on saying that
the slave referred to was an Egyptian. So far as I can
see, it is absolutely certain that both Hagar and Yarha
were, according to the narrators, N. Arabians. Of course,
too, in xxi. 2 1 the narrator meant to say that Hagar
1 Ephraim is like an asshur-tree planted in a park, | But Yerah
me el (gloss, Missor) bringeth forth his (Ephraim s) sons to Hagar 7
(i.e. the Hagrite slave-dealers ; cp. Am. i. 6, 9 ; Joel iv. 6, 8). ^KDHT
is doubly represented by ^ vrjn and *? ir-i[VjN. See further, p. 268, note i.
266
THE FORTUNES OF HAGAR (GEN. xvi.) 267
fetched Ishmael a wife out of the land of Misrim (not
Misraim). There is no evidence whatever that Ishmaelites
were ever regarded as partly of Egyptian origin. 1 Hagar,
therefore, was regarded as a native of Misrim in N. Arabia ;
she need not therefore be supposed to have been wandering
aimlessly in the wilderness when Mal ak-Yahweh found her.
(2) Now as to the fate of Hagar. Doubtless it was
prepared by herself, but it was none the less hard. She
had become, by Sarai s own wish, in a qualified sense
Abram s concubine, and had borne him a son ; upon this
she erred by c placing herself on an equality with her
mistress/ 2 and Sarai appealed for justice to Abram. An
earlier form of the story may have described the subsequent
course of events more definitely. Hammurabi s Code says 3
that in such a case the mistress may resume her authority
over the maid, and reckon her with the slave-girls. Prob
ably a similar law was in force in the region where this
story arose. The writer whom we call the Yahwist does
not, however, recognise this. He vaguely states that,
unopposed by Abram, Sarai punished her maid so severely
that Hagar, who could not bear to be a slave again, and
apparently had no confidence in her son s future in the
family of Abram, fled.
(3) Now as to the third point : What was Hagar s
compensation ? It would have been a small thing if she
had only been able to flee to Shur which is in front of
Misrim. This was no doubt the limit of her hopes. She
forgot so the narrative leads us to suppose that her
child would be also the child of Abram, and could not
be destined to live in poverty and obscurity. One of the
heavenly beings opened her eyes, mrr *~\vbte found her by
the fountain on the way to Shur (the N. Arabian Asshur),
and named the expected child Ishmael. At the same
1 Bible Problems, pp.
- A phrase in Hammurabi.
8 Section 1 46. Mr. Johns translates, her mistress shall not sell her,
she shall place a slave-mark upon her, and reckon her with the slave-
girls/ But is this exegetically possible? Winckler renders zur
Sklavenschaft soil er sie thun. The arrogant maid, whose case is
supposed by the law, was a slave at the first ; she did not become a
slave.
268 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
time as the text stands the heavenly being predicted
the future of the child. He should be as free as the desert
ass, and in constant war with every one a worthy son of
his untameable mother. Hagar, for her part, if we are to
follow the text, gave mrr, who had spoken to her, the
additional name, Attah El-Roi.
The story before us, together with its parallel in
chap, xxi., cannot in its present form (see below) be very
old. It is reasonable, however, to admit that the name of
Hagar may well be primitive, and that the bene Hagar may
have been originally an important section of the Misrite
people, though they are not mentioned in the list of the
sons of Misrim in x. I 3 /, and the only writers (according
to the MT.) l who do mention the Hagrites are the
Chronicler and a single psalmist. Ishmael too is probably
a very old form, though not, as we shall see (p. 272), the
original one.
It is difficult, however, not to suppose that in the
earliest form of the narrative Ishmael s mother occupied a
higher position. Ishmael being Abram s eldest son, his
mother cannot always have been represented as a disgraced
slave. Once upon a time her flight must have been
differently accounted for. Not Abram, whose legitimate
wife she must have been, 2 nor yet Sarai, but some more
formidable being, must have forced her to become a fugitive.
Remembering the story of the flight of a still greater
mother into the wilderness 3 (Rev. xii. 6, 14), may we not
with some plausibility suppose the enemy of Hagar in the
original story to have been the mythic serpent of darkness
and disorder ?
We can therefore hardly think that the name Hagar
is derived either from an Arabic root meaning to flee, or
1 With much confidence, however, it may be added that Hagar
is also mentioned, under the thin disguise of riin, in Hos. ix. 13, where
(see p. 266, note i) it represents the Hagrites as a people of slave-
dealers, and also in Isa. x. 4, disguised as [c Jjnn.
2 The later Arabian legend (see Tabari, by Zotenberg, i. 163)
accidentally coincides. Hagar (Hajir) is there the legitimate wife of
Abraham, and the vast territory of Arabia is given to Ishmael as the
eldest son.
3 Cp. Bible Problems, pp. 77^
THE FORTUNES OF HAGAR (GEN. xvi.) 269
from a noun * hagar which in Ethiopia and in some dialects
of Arabic means * settlement, village, town (Noldeke,
E. Bib., col. 1933, note 2 ; cp. Hommel, Gr. p. 163,
note 3). Some grander origin is certainly to be presumed.
The original name must have undergone some modification.
Clan-names generally did get worn down in the popular
speech. It is possible that the name was originally com
posite, and that the first element was not Hag, but Hag,
which we find in several names which may at first have
been clan-names. But we are unable at present to explain
Hag. It should be noticed that no one claims Hagar as
an Egyptian name. All that traditionalists can say is that
the Egyptian woman who became Sarah s handmaid must
have taken a Semitic name when she passed into Asia.
But, as we have seen, the traditional theory of Hagar s
origin is improbable. See, further, E. Meyer, Die Israeliten,
pp. 326-328.
We now turn to geographical details. The view that
Shur (y. 7) is a * wall or line of fortresses in the N.E. of
Egypt is erroneous. 1 Nor is it at all probable that the
Egyptian name aneb ( wall ) or anebu ( walls ), borne by a
fortress and a tower and a desert-district on the E. border
of Egypt, 2 was translated into Hebrew as Shur. From
our present point of view we cannot doubt that Shur is a
Semitic name for a N. Arabian locality, and bearing in
mind the gloss in xxv. 1 8 (where Asshur takes the place
of * Shur ) and the reading acraovp in d B at I S. xv. 7, 3
where MT. has TitD, we may safely hold that Shur is the
short for Asshur, just as Hur is for Ashhur and * S6r
for Missor. Asshur or Ashhur was a region of uncertain
extent in N. Arabia, on which see further the note on ii. 14,
also E. Bib., Shur ; Bible Problems, pp. 264^; Hommel,
AHT, pp. 241, 244 ; Winckler, Musri, part ii. pp. 6 f.
It was therefore on the way to this region, which, as
1 All attempts to construct a gigantic line of fortification, shutting
off the whole or half of the isthmus of Suez, are baseless (W. M.
Muller, As. u. Eur. p. 45). For W. M. M. s own view, which has
phonetic difficulties, see As. n. Eur. pp. 102, 134.
2 Heyes, Bib. u. Aeg. p. 47.
3 Similarly it is most probable that TO in Job v. 2 1 is not mis-
written for it", but a corruption of IT = -UTN ( || Sxycsj", underlying p^ 1 ?).
270 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
xxv. 1 8 says, fronted Misrim, that Hagar the Misrite
rested, like Jesus in John iv. 6, at a well. It was a well
famous in legend a well at which probably various tribes
were wont anciently to hold periodical meetings, and it is
called in our texts Beer-lahai-roi (v. 14, xxiv. 62, xxv. n).
Of course, the name is impossible. No one, free from the
trammels of tradition, could believe in such a name as
well of the living one who sees me. And if we have
really worked at the text of the O.T. from the newer point
of view, chronicling recurrent types of textual corruption,
we shall recognise the true form of name at once. *>n^,
indeed, has already occupied our attention (see on Judg.
xv. 9, and cp. on nT?; 5 , 2 S. xxiii. 11). It comes by
transposition from brr, i.e. 7NDTTP ; intermediate forms are
Vino and hm. The last element in the name is ^-i, which
is another corrupt fragment of ^NDTTT, which in the original
text must have been dittographed (see on v. 13). Thus the
true name of the well is * Well of Yerahme el. l
Next, as to the situation of the well ; surely, says a
gloss, it is between Kadesh and Bercd. Kadesh we
probably know (see on xiv. 7) ; but what is fll ? Nestle
(ZATW, 1901, pp. 329^".) prefers p-ii, which is supported
both by ( L and by Philo (though not in the edited texts).
Barak seems to have been a southern clan (Crit. Bib. on
Judg. iv. 6). This reading, however, looks like a conjecture ;
Til may be hard, but will become less so if we compare
xx, i (xxi. 14), xxv. 1 8, and I S. xxvii. 8. From xx. I,
compared with xxi. 14, we learn that, according to E,
when Abram dismissed Hagar and her son, he was
dwelling between Kadesh and Shur ; from xxv. 18, that
the centre of the Ishmaelite country was between Havilah
and Shur ; and from I S. xxvii. 8 (assuming the results of
criticism), that Ishmael was * the land which extends from
Yerahme el, in the direction of Asshur, as far as the land of
Misrim. In the latter passage the expression is slightly
loose ; Misrim is used where xxv. 1 8 gives Shur, i.e.
Asshur. This, however, does not matter, for Shur, we
know, was in front of Misrim (xxv. 1 8). Taking all this
together, it is plain that Til must have been very close to,
1 For other views, see E. Bib., l Beer-lahai-roi. ;
THE FORTUNES OF HAGAR (GEN. xvi.) 271
or, more probably, a part of Shur or Asshur. The name
cannot, however, be quite correct ; it must be either corrupt
or imperfect. Eus. and Jer. (OS 299, 76 ; 145,2) mention
a village Berdan in the Gerarite country. This suggests as
the possible origin of Til, p-Q, or, better, ]T7~11. The initial
-Q, as often (e.g. Dlpni), probably comes from ir^. In
Ezek. xxvii. 20 Dedan is mentioned with i*is (Arabia) ; in
Gen. x. 7, as a son of Cush, for which xxv. 3 gives Jokshan
(both names probably come from Ashhur). Probably,
therefore, Bered is the name of the region called Arab-
dedan, or Dedanite Arabia. It may fittingly be added
here that the * Havilah of xxv. 18 (MT.) and the Yerah-
me el of I S. xxvii. 8 (revised text) probably mean the
immediate neighbourhood of Beer-Yerahme el. That
Yerahme el, often in a corrupted form, should be applied
to places and small districts, as well as to a large region, is
no strange phenomenon.
It must already be plain that the wilderness of Beer-
sheba in the || (xxi. 14) cannot be right. In x. 10 NUB
and p*r are brothers. Surely i?ltt> in xxi. 14 should be
N3B> ; or rather, the distinction between Nitt) and iat& is
arbitrary, and both forms are popular corruptions of ^M&Dflp.
Another doubtful word is INI, which in Num. xxi. 16 and
Judg. ix. 21 appears to be miswritten for ns. So probably
it is here. The wilderness referred to in xxi. 14 is that of
Arab-Ishmael, i.e. Ishmaelite Arabia. This will bring the
two accounts of the scene of Hagar s wanderings into
harmony. Cp. also introduction to chap. xx.
And now as to (a) the racial significance of * Ishmael,
and (b) the form of the name, (a) According to Gunkel,
Ishmael is the legendary impersonation of a nomad people,
famous for its bowmen (xxi. 20), of which no historical
record has come down to us. The name, he thinks, sur
vived in tradition, and was transferred to several N. Arabian
tribes of a later age. He refers to Judg. viii. 24 (cp. v. 12),
where Midian is reckoned as Ishmaelitish, and to the list of
the sons of Ishmael in xxv. 13-15. The last O.T. mention
of an Ishmaelite that he can find is in 2 S. xvii. 25, where
(cp. i Chr. ii. 17) he reads Ishmaelite for Israelite.
This view, however, depends on the theory of the general
272 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
correctness of the traditional text as regards tribal names.
It is highly probable that there are many more references
to the Ishmaelites than Gunkel supposes, though in the
later books the name Ishmael is doubtless an archaism.
A synonym for it is Yerahme el ( = Amalek ). Taking
it as a tribal or regional name, we may group it with Ishma
(i Chr. iv. 3), Shema, Sheba, Shemuel, Shebuel, Shunem,
Shean (in Beth-shean), also with Shem (see on v. 32), and
DDCD in the much-disputed phrase m pptt), i.e. beyond doubt
* the idol of Ishmael, Dan. xii. 1 1 (cp. p. 1 8). That the
Ishmaelites were merely a nomad people, is too much to
assert. The passage referred to by Gunkel (xxi. 20) is
corrupt, and there were two sections of Ishmaelites or
Yerahme elites, a more and a less advanced in civilisation.
That the race was one of great antiquity may, however, be
frankly admitted. Indeed, the superior antiquity of Ishmael
or Yerahme el ( = Amalek) appears to have been admitted
by Israelitish writers. Shem (i.e. Ishmael) and Ham (i.e.
Yerahme el) were reckoned as sons of Noah ; originally,
however, Shem and Ham were equivalent (cp. on v. 32, x. i).
See, further, on Num. xxiv. 20. (ft) As to the form of the
name * Ishmael. At first sight it appears to be a compound
of a verb in the imperfect and the most general Hebrew
word for * God, and means * God hears (v. 1 1) ; cp. irps&BT 1
(i Chr. xxvii. 19), and see Noldeke, E. Bib., Names, 33.
Names of this type, however, in the N. Semitic languages
are very deceptive. Often they have reached their present
form comparatively early by systematic manipulation, and
in their original forms were not, as they may appear to be
when transformed, expressions of religious faith. This is
the case with SNSDBT (and irrsottr 1 ), f?Nom% ^wiBrs fwptrr,
as well as with the shorter forms pn!T, Tipl^, *jDV. Is it
possible to trace the original form of Ishmael, and to explain
its meaning? If DID were really a name of the moon-god
(Winckler, Ar.-sem.-or. p. 112) we might perhaps base a
theory upon this, Vtf)D0 being certainly a by-form of ^NSDBT,
and orm possibly equivalent to rrr with * mimation (see
p. 28). More plausibly we might hold that Ishmael
originally had to do with the sun-god, or, more precisely,
that SNSEttF sprang from f?N8D&, just as afterwards, when
THE FORTUNES OF HAGAR (GEN. xvi.) 273
Ishmael as the name of a collection of tribes had gone
out of use, and when early N. Arabian history had been
forgotten, nBT sometimes became B>QB> the very same
confusion which certainly took place in very early times.
If so, the sun and the moon deities would both have been
worshipped by the tribes referred to the sun and the moon,
which are the original Gemini, whose cultus in Canaan and
Arabia may have begun very early.
The evidence of the confusion of mom and I?DB> in
Semitic languages may be here briefly appended. There
is first the place-name B>EB> m, commonly but wrongly
explained temple of the sun ; really it is = SEBT 1 l or
^H&DBP. Cp. Jer. xliii. 1 3, where Beth-shemesh in the
land of Egypt is surely impossible ; l interpret Beth-
Ishmael, and all is plain, for * Misrim (point D HSp) was
regarded as Yerahme elite (see on x. 6). We can now
understand why, in I S. vi. 1 2, the aron (ark ?) goes straight
to Beth-shemesh (Beth- Ishmael), for the god Ishmael was a
member of the divine duad represented by the ardn (see
p. 35); also why, in Judg. xiii. 24, Manoah s wife calls her
son Shimshon, i.e. one belonging to B7EB? = ^NWDBP, for it
was the god Ishmael or Yerahme el who had announced
the child s birth. Next, there is a Galilaean place-name in
the Thotmes-list, 2 corresponding to the Hebrew form
D~TN-mrDHJ, which has apparently come from Ishmael-Edom,
a transferred name. Nor must we omit the late personal
name ^l&EB? (Ezra iv. 8), corresponding to crayiieXXto? (or a-ep.
or <re/3.) in I Esd. ii. 1 7, i.e. ^HSDflP (cp. E. Bib., ( Shimshai ).
Nor must the probability be ignored that in Ps. Ixxii. 5,
cxxi. 6, Isa. xlix. 10, the traditional text gives BOB), where
the sense requires us to interpret ^NSQBT. In Ps. Ixxii. 5,
for instance, it is plain that the context requires us to take
B?QB>-Di? as the people of . . . , and rrr ^D (^l) as the
sons of . . .
N. Semitic inscriptions reveal similar phenomena.
Thus B>DB& (Lidzb., p. 304 ; Cooke, p. 275) must be a
popular distortion of ^HSDBP ; DlimDtD (L. 379; C. 298)
of 101 oar ; and moora (L. 246) of GOT 1*12 ; while moB) Dpo
1 See Cornill s note, with its eloquent varieties of type.
~ W. M. Muller, As. u. Eur. p. 316.
18
274 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
(L. 316) the name of a city means probably place of
Ishmael, i.e. Ishrnaelite settlement. Most probably, too,
we may add Shamshi-atom, a name on an Egyptian stele
of the New Kingdom ; l Samsi-iluna, the name of Hammu
rabi s son and heir ; 2 Samsi, the name of a queen of Aribu,
temp. Tiglath-Pileser, and in an Assyrian deed (Johns,
Deeds, iii. 275) ; also Samas-abua (Johns, ibid. 68o). 3
Still I hesitate to explain Ishma or Ishmael as
sun-god, just as I do not venture to interpret Yarham
or * Yerahme el as * moon-god. Of course, these explana
tions may conceivably have been given, but we cannot safely
affirm that they are correct. All that can safely be said
of this deity (Yerahme el-Ishmael) has been already collected
(see pp. 27 ff.). Let me only add that the Ishmaelites
or Yerahme elites were the people which worshipped and
perhaps claimed descent from the deity whose name we
have been considering. Their land, too, bore the same name.
In the narrator s explanation of the name Ishmael we
find the strange phrase * has heard thy affliction. Surely
this is wrong, and for 70$ we should read irPDN, thy sighing.
Greater difficulties meet us in v. 1 2. As so often, the skill
of the redactor in making a plausible sense out of miswritten
words may be admired, and yet we cannot profess to be
satisfied. The phrases which at once excite suspicion are
D~r hn.3 and qsrW What can the former phrase mean ?
* A wild ass of (among) men ? A wild-ass-man (cp.
akrabu amilu, * a scorpion-man, in the Gilgamesh epic) ?
The phrase might be accepted (cp. Konig, Synt. 337^) if
we are at liberty to regard v. 1 2 as a fragment of a tradi
tional song. But ( i ) can v. 1 2 be so regarded ? The last
clause in it is weak enough, for xxv. 18 does not permit us
to admit that "aD T^ is a vigorous idiom meaning * un
pleasantly close to (see Gunkel). And (2) does not the
1 W. M. Miiller, As. u. Eur. p. 316 ; Sayce, HCM, p. 331. The
name originally meant, not my sun-goddess is Edom (Hommel), but
1 Ishmael-Edom.
2 The name meant originally Ishmael-Yerahme el. So the name
Hammurabi is probably = Yerahme el- arab (cp. on Ham, v. 32).
3 Note also the Assyrian name Shashmai (Johns, p. 241), and ODD, a
Yerahme elite (i Chr. ii. 40) and also (Cooke, p. 80) a Pho3nician
name.
THE FORTUNES OF HAGAR (GEN. xvi.) 275
comparison of Ishmael to a wild ass give a one-sided view
of the Ishmaelitish character, and one which was most
unlikely to find mention in a consolatory address to
Ishmael s mother? For though one section of the Ishmael-
ites (or Yerahme elites) was unprogressive, the other was
by no means behindhand in culture. 1 Indeed, a people of
mere Bedawis would never have received such a blessing as
that in xvii. 20 (cp. xxi. 13, 18), which is as warmly
expressed as it could be, and must be to some extent our
guide here.
Turning now to v. I 2, we notice that mm, like mm, is a
possible corruption of YTT ( = ^NDTTr), that NID in Hos.
viii. 9 has sprung from Tis, 2 that DTN should often (e.g. in
Zech. ix. i) be CHN, that ^Dl IT and n hi T resemble a
number of certain corruptions (e.g. SsiT, and *b "PPD in
Hos. I.e.), and that YTFN, like intf, may (as in xxii. 21, 2 S.
vi. 3, etc.) have come from iin&N, and lastly that N*in is a
common introduction to glosses. If we give due weight to
these considerations, we must admit that we have good
ground for correcting v. 1 2 thus rrr] Dlj$ Ti.s [^NDnT] hOrr
pBF Tintm*-^ aS Wi [ rrp. The several fruitless attempts
to write ^Norrp ( = D*IN) correctly need not surprise us ;
parallels for this are not exactly rare. Passing over these
attempts, we get this statement, * that is, Arab-Aram ; he
dwells to the east of all Ashhur. To illustrate this see on
xxv. 1 8, and cp. I Chr. v. 10, where certain Reubenites are
said to have expelled the Hagrites, whose tents were situated
ishlh mtD ^D-^D Sl?. Verse 12, then, is no part of the
narrative ; it is a gloss which defines Ishmael s proper
territory as Arammite Arabia, and as eastward of all the
parts of the N. Arabian Ashhur. 3
We now address ourselves to the explanation of v. 13 a.
Gunkel has already inferred that the God of whom the
legend speaks was originally not Yahweh, but bore some
1 Cp. i S. xxx. 29, the cities of the Yerahme elites.
2 See also on *os, Jer. ii. 24 ; pjr, Hos. x. 2 ; nt?3nK, x. 22 ; n tn,
xiv. 5 ; jns, xli. 50; onsw, xli. 51.
3 It is no objection to the above correction of mx Nns that the text-
reading is apparently presupposed in Enoch Ixxxix. 1 1 (the wild ass =
Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arabs), for the date of the Dream-visions,
as Charles has shown, is the time of Judas Maccabseus.
276 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
other name, and that this name (El-ro i) was afterwards
regarded as a title of the local Yahweh. The first part of
this statement appears to be correct, but not the latter. It
is true that El-ro f i might be used as a title, but not Attah
el-ro i, which is the name given by Hagar according to the
traditional text. What we have to find out now is the text
which underlies w h& nnN ; that ought to give us the
name of the God of whom the legend originally spoke. At
once we see that nriN, * thou, and ^N"i, * seeing, cannot be
right. 1 The parallels of ~>NIJD, 7Tt^n (see on xxix. 32), and
SJ^"IN show that ^NT has come from w i.e. ^Norrp. 2 As
for h& nritf, it is probably a corruption of ^NinN = S>NSttF
(cp. on ^nnN, I K. xvi. 31). By a natural error the scribe
wrote Ethbaal (Ishmael) for Yerahme el, and left the
error side by side with the correction. That the true
reading is Yerahme el appears from the second half of
the verse.
For she said, Have I also seen after him that saw me ? r
Stucken uses this as material for the comparative study of
Eastern mythology, in connexion with the myth of Orpheus
and Eurydice. But where in the narrative itself are we told
that Hagar looked after the divinity as he left her ? and had
she done so, how could she have survived (cp. xix. 1 7, look
not behind thee ) ? The Biblical texts should not be used
uncriticised. Wellhausen s correction of the impossible D^rr
(which means, not * here, but * hither ) into DVJ^N is
plausible, but, as a whole, his correction just fails to be
satisfactory. 3 Experience of equally corrupt passages,
however, ought not to leave us baffled. ^in and in are
very often miswritten for "intpN, and w (see above) is a
fragment of ^onT. D^H comes from a dittographed
f?NOm\ 4 Ashhur- Yerahme el appears to be the full name
of the N. Arabian deity who was combined by the Israelites
with Yahweh (see p. 23). Thus we get the sense, And
1 It is arbitrary to regard nn (nntf) as a variant of n >! 7K (Ball), and
NT as an archaic name for a kind of antelope, so that xn n 1 ? (it. 14)
would mean the Jawbone of the Antelope (Wellh., Ball, Gunkel).
2 See E. Bib., Reuel ; Winckler, GI i. 21 o, note 4.
3 Prolegomena (1883), p. 344, note 2.
4 Cp. D^.V, the Yerahme elite precious stone.
THE FORTUNES OF HAGAR (GEN. xvi.) 277
she called the name of (the) Yahweh who spoke to her,
Yerahme el ; for she said, Have I even seen Ashhur-Yerah-
me ef? 1
Nor is this the only compound divine name which we
find in this chapter. We meet here for the first time with
the mysterious Being called mm 1So. The current
attempts to explain this expression not being very satisfac
tory, I may perhaps be excused for renewing the investiga
tion.
First, what is the problem before us ? It is to account
for the fact that the personage called "fN^D or DVT^N D is
not a mere messenger of Yahweh, but equivalent to Yahweh
or Elohim himself. See, in the present narrative, v. I 3 and
cp. v. 7 ; also xxii. I, cp. 1 1 ; Ex. iii. 4, cp. 2 ; xiii. 21, cp.
xiv. 19; Judg. vi. 14, cp. 12; Judg. xiii. 23, cp. 3, etc.
And this is complicated by the equally certain fact that in
some sense the ^ ; D is distinguishable from Yahweh himself
(see v. 11, and cp. xix. 13, 24, Num. xxii. 31).
Next, as to the solution. The ordinary view (see e.g.
Gray, E. Bib., col. 5035) that the angel of Yahweh is an
occasional manifestation of Yahweh in human form, possess
ing no distinct and permanent personality, could not be
satisfactory, being drawn entirely from exegetical data,
without a criticism of the text, and without reference to the
history of ancient cults. Taking the latter point first, one
must, from a historical point of view, suppose the personage
called in our texts mafak Yahweh to have been a divine
being with a distinct personality. Let us look round and
see if the religious inscriptions of neighbouring peoples
supply any confirmatory evidence. ( I ) There is a Palmyrene
inscription (see Cooke, pp. 268/1) where mention is made
of a deity called SlD^D. From the Greek and Latin trans
literations, Lidzbarski infers that this represents ^3. TSo,
messenger of Bel, which he supposes to be a title of
Shamash the sun-god. The objection is that Samas was
the chief god of the Palmyrenes, and that Bel and Samas
were the same ; SlD^O seems to await a better explana-
1 Cp. the combination Ashtar-Kemosh in the inscription of Mesha.
Note also that Ashur and Ramman made a divine duad in Assyria
(Hommel, Gr. p. 87, note 2).
278 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
tion. 1 (2) It is an undoubted fact that among the Babylonians
the different chief gods, and also the gods collectively, had
their respective messengers, who were themselves divine, and,
indeed, when the chief gods were concerned, were members
of their own families. Thus Marduk was the c exalted
messenger 2 (sukkallu siru] of his father Ea, and Nabu of
his father Marduk, and there was a god of a lower rank
called Papsukkal, who was the * messenger of the great
gods. Papsukkal, however, is not great enough to be
brought into comparison with the mafak Yahweh, and if
mafak YahweJi is really a title of a superior divine
messenger, the personal name of the messenger would
require to be prefixed, or at least given in the context. We
might, of course, suppose that the Hebrew writers omitted
this name out of reverence for the God of gods Yahweh.
But is there not a better theory, one which takes account
more completely both of Babylonian religious usage and of
the facts of the history of Jewish religion ? (3) Considering,
first, how often in the traditional texts old and no longer
understood names are disguised or transformed by scribes
and redactors, and next, that a great superhuman personage,
representing Yahweh, is referred to in the later literature,
whose name is composed of the same letters as 1N7D, with
the addition of another (which may conceivably point to the
true origin of the name), we may approach the problem
once more with a good hope of success.
Let us now turn again to Babylon. There we find the
great god Marduk, the son of Ea, placing himself at his
divine father s disposal, especially in matters which concern
mankind. Ea is rarely approached directly. At his side
stands his son Marduk, who acts as a mediator. Marduk
listens to the petition addressed to him by the exorcising
priest on behalf of the victim, and carries the word to
Father Ea. The latter, after first declaring Marduk to be
is most probably a compound of "]ta = ^NDHT and *?a = Vjn (a
divine title). Cp. Vanr, compounded of nv, moon, and Va = Vjn. For
the inscription see Cooke, p. 268, etc.
2 See the Assyrian lexicons of Del. and Muss-Arnolt, art. sukkallu,
and cp. Zimmern, KAT\ p. 454. On the S. Arabian divine messengers,
see Hommel, Gr. p. 86.
THE FORTUNES OF HAGAR (GEN. xvi.) 279
his equal in knowledge, proceeds to dictate the cure. l This
is specially illustrative of the statement of Mal ak-Yahweh in
Genesis (xvi. n) that Yahweh hath hearkened to thy
sighing. It is not, indeed, stated that Marduk appeared
upon earth in human form, but naive Israelitish narrators
may well have stated that the divine representative of
Yahweh, * in his love and in his pity (Isa. Ixiii. 9), did as
much. But who was Yahweh s divine representative ? Surely
in the original story he must have been mentioned by name ;
what, then, was his name ? It must, as we have seen,
underlie "IN^O and Wro. Now, it is certain that IN^D,
like I^D, 2 in the traditional text is sometimes (cp. on Lev.
xviii. 21, 2 S. xi. i) either a scribal or a popular distortion
of SNOTT, and in the highest degree plausible that ^tOTO,
the prince-angel in Daniel and later writings, is a degraded
(but not dishonoured) god, i.e. is a reflexion (and that a
bright one) of the N. Arabian deity known to the Israelites
as Yerahme el (^NDrrp). There is therefore a twofold
justification, text-critical and historical, for the view that
TN^D in the phrase > D (or DVT*?N[n] D) in xvi. 7, xxi. 17,
etc., and probably also "[N^orr in xlviii. 16, *fN^D in Ex.
xxiii. 20, " DNT Q in xxiii. 23, xxxii. 34, Mai. iii I, and "DN^Q
in Gen. xxiv. 7, 40, have been produced by late redactors
out of f?ND" D, a name which is an edifying transformation of
SDnT. The influence of the N. Arabian border-land (for
the possession of which Israel strove persistently) on the
people of Yahweh was so strong that Yahweh and Yerahme el
came to be popularly combined in a divine duad, or, with the
addition of Ashhur 3 (primitively Ashtart), in a triad, and
though Yahweh asserted his pre-eminence, yet Yerahme el was
honoured by the title of * Face of Yahweh (Ex. xxxiii. 14),
and regarded as the repository of the name of God (Ex.
xxiii. 21).
1 Jastrow, Rel. of Bab. and Ass. p. 276 ; cp. pp. 139, 279, and
Zimmern, KAT ( *\ p. 419 ; Jastrow,/. of Am. Theol. i. 474.
2 Cp. ID 1 ? (iv. 1 8) and Sxrap, xxii. 21. Note also that iSo in Phoenician
and malik in Babylonian and Assyrian proper names comes from
Yerahme el (carried from N. Arabia), and that malaka in the Edomite
king s name Kaus-malaka has the same origin.
3 See on v. 13, Dt. xxxiii. 29. Ashhur is equivalent to Ashtor,
and Ashtor was originally a goddess (Ashtart). See, further, on i. 26.
2 8o TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Thus mrr ft (the phrase now before us) represents
mrp 7NOnT. The more obvious order YTP mrp is here
inverted, perhaps because the deity was spoken of as inter
fering for Israel. It was natural, however, that those who
redacted the earlier narratives should seek to guard the
supremacy of Yahweh by modifying the word onT, and the
phrase ^ ~>D, once produced, would propagate itself further.
For the phrase D^nW *? see on xxi. 17, and for hx ^vhte
on xxxii. 2.
I may mention here that Nielsen (Die altar ab. Mond-
religion^ 1904, p. 148) seeks to show exegetically that f his
^>N in Ex. xiv. 1 9 really means the moon (TTP) ; also that
Renan (Hist, d* Israel, i. 287), after speaking of the " ; D as
a sort of double of Yahweh, remarks, Indeed, it is not
certain that the Moloch or Milk of the Canaanite religion
does not owe its origin to the same order of ideas/ Moloch
or Milk, however, is really Yerahme el (see p. 51).
THE THIRD AGE OF THE WORLD, BEGINNING
WITH THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT (GEN.
XVII. i-L. 26 ; but cp. on XII. I, etc.).
CHAP. xvii. The Abrahamic covenant. Its sign, the rite
of circumcision. Change of names of the favoured pair.
Promised birth of a son. Abraham s laugh. Promise for
Ishmael. The rite performed.
The Priestly Writer (P) divides the history of mankind,
and more especially of the Arabian peoples akin to the
Israelites, into four periods, each introduced by a divine
revelation. The first begins with Adam, and the name of
God employed in the narrative is Elohim. The second
begins with Noah ; the divine name is still Elohim. The
third with Abram ; here the divine name is El Shaddai (?).
The fourth with Moses ; here the divine name is Yahweh.
It is highly probable, though the proof falls short of demon
stration, that the theory is also Babylonian, 1 and considering
the commanding position of Babylon in the Priestly Writer s
time, it is just possible (see, however, below) that he derived
it from this great teacher of the nations. At the same time,
the division of the history of human affairs into periods is
very widely spread, and the sacredness of the number four
has sprung from cosmogonic notions familiar to many
primitive tribes. 2 The Iranians certainly had the theory of
1 See Zimmern, KAT^, pp. 542/5 Gunkel, Genesis^, p. 233.
Jeremias, however, makes seven periods (ATAO, p. 122).
2 The four corners of earth and heaven had an inherent sanctity.
The four specially holy angels of the later Israelites were originally the
four gods of the four ends of the earth and heaven, living pillars of
the celestial world. The idea is both Egyptian and N. American, to
say no more.
281
282 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
four periods, 1 and they, too, had an increasing influence
upon the Jews. Daniel s vision of the four beasts and the
Priestly Writer s four periods need not, therefore, be of
directly Babylonian origin.
On the whole, the most plausible view is that the
Israelites derived the four-ages theory from the Arabian
race, of which they are a junior offshoot, and that in its
pre- Israelite form each of the periods was distinguished by
the emergence of a fresh divine name or title. Similarly,
according to P, the name El-Shaddai (?) was first revealed
to Abram, and the name Yahweh to Moses (see Ex. vi. 3).
There is great difficulty, however, in the former statement.
Neither El-Shaddai nor Shaddai occurs anywhere else in
the narratives of the Hexateuch, except, indeed, in xliii. 14
(E), where most recent critics ascribe it, not to E, but to a
late redactor. Nor does P give any help in explaining the
name. Modern scholars have therefore either acquiesced in
nescience, or explained it, with superficial plausibility, from
Aramaic or Assyrian. Of these explanations two have
found special favour 2 * he who pours forth, i.e. the rain-
giver (Aram. N~rtp), and mountain (Ass. sadti) or my
mountain (Ass. sadua}. New varieties of the latter have
been produced by Radau (Creation-story of Gen. i. pp. 58/5,
viz. God of the two mountains, 3 and by Hommel (Gr.
p. 177, note 3), viz. sadii Ai, or *sadd At, i.e. mountain
-f moon, in accordance with his theory of primitive Semitic
moon-worship. It is hoped, however, that by applying a
key which has proved successful elsewhere, we may attain, if
not to certainty, yet to a more satisfactory result.
The revelation by which the third stage of human
1 Cp. Bahman Vast, i. 3 (SBE v. 192). That root of a tree
which thou sawest, and those four branches, are the four periods which
will come. They are (i) of gold; (2) of silver; (3) of steel; (4)
mingled with iron.
2 For notices of the conflicting views see E. Bib., Shaddai, and
Names, 117; Delitzsch, Hebrew Language, p. 48 ; Zimmern, KAT (S \
PP- 358, 460^; Jastrow, RBA, pp. 56, 278, 500; W. R. Smith,
OTJC (l \ p. 424 ; Cheyne, Prophecies of Isaiah, on Isa. xiii. 6, with
crit. note in vol. ii.
3 Identifying Yahweh with EN-LIL, the god of the upper and lower
mountain, i.e. heaven and earth (ai the old dual ending).
THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT (GEN. xvn.) 283
history is inaugurated is short and simple. The God who
reveals himself under the name El-Shaddai (?) demands a
life in accordance with his will, and on this condition makes
a berith or engagement with Abram, guaranteeing him
certain blessings, and distinguishing him and his posterity
from the worshippers of other gods by the sign of circum
cision. 1 The blessings referred to are (i) the supernatural
multiplication of his posterity, which shall develop into
great nations (Israel, Edom, Aram) governed by kings, and
(2) the possession by the most favoured race of the land of
Canaan. But how is this posterity to be obtained ? A
myth may perhaps have been current among the Canaanites
that a new race of men arose after the deluge out of stones
duly cast by the survivors (see p. 126). Such a myth
would have suggested a means of * raising up children unto
Abraham/ Later Jews had certainly been affected by this
idea, as Isa. li. i and Luke iii. 8 show. If the narrators
pass it over, this may be simply because they are con
sistently adverse to the mythological tendency in Israel.
What they tell us is that Yahweh or Elohim pledged his
word that Sarah should have a son, also that Sarah (so J) or
Abraham (so P) * laughed at the idea of a child under such
circumstances, and so find an explanation of the name
( Isaac. The divine communication does not touch this
point. And it is worthy of remark that the name is neither
modified nor changed by any subsequent revelation. Pre
sumably this would have appeared inappropriate. If
Abram and Sarai are changed, it is because these names
were not in the first instance divinely given.
The promises are closely connected with divinely
appointed changes in the names of the recipients. Abram,
(presumably understood by P as high father ) becomes
Abraham, i.e. ab hdmon gdyim, father of a swarm of
nations, as if rdhdvi and hclmdn had sufficient resemblance
to set simple religious minds thinking. 2 Such at least is the
1 Of the original meaning and early historical significance of
circumcision, the Priestly Writer shows no sense. Cp. E. Bib.,
* Covenant, 6.
2 For the disregard of i, it would be unwise to refer to v. 29, where,
according to MT., ro is explained by a reference to am, for (& implies
284 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
ordinary view, though some l have ventured on the supposi
tion that P had an intimate acquaintance with rare Arabic
words, and identified r-h-m with the word (found in the
Kamfis) ruhdm, which, for the sake of ordinary readers, he
translated into Hebrew as hamon. Evidently, neither
explanation is better than a makeshift. We shall presently
have to examine the text. First, however, we must see
what can be done with El-Shaddai.
As to the origin of this name, 2 if the popular religion of
the Israelites arose in N. Arabia, we are bound to assume
that the special names of the God of Israel had N. Arabian
affinities. That this is the case with the names Yahweh
and Elohim, with El- c elyon (xiv. 19, 22), El- f olam (xxi. 33),
and El-beth-el (xxxv. 7), is shown elsewhere ; there is also
a strong probability (as we shall in due time see) that SND
TIN in xlix. 2 5 is a corruption of ^NonT T3N, * the Steer-
god of Yerahme el. The latter restoration suggests, as a
correction of ntt) in the parallel line, TICJN hx, the God of
Asshur, 1 where Asshur, of course, is the N. Arabian region
of that name, and is virtually synonymous with Yerahme el.
Valuable evidence is also derivable from Dt. xxxiii. 26, 29.
In v. 26 we meet with the phrase JTIBT SN, where pifiT ls
probably an expansion of i2j ; in v. 29 with IBM, which
Hommel would point IHJN (as an alternative name for mrr),
but which should perhaps rather be pointed *i2J (see p. 24).
Surely it is now not difficult to explain "nttf f?N, or, as we
sometimes find, vym (Num. xxiv. 4, 16, and elsewhere).
^m has most probably arisen out of an early scribe s error,
and represents ^im, i.e. Shun = Asshuri. It is therefore
equivalent to p&&gt;, the Sidonian name for pcnn, which prob
ably comes from ito = -I$N, as ptnn comes from D7TV. Note
especially that in Jer. xviii. 14 "ntt? has evidently come from
We must also compare plBT, to which in Dt.
urn (see ad loc.). Note that Jerome was well aware that the n was
otiose if Abraham is = father of a multitude. In the Liber Interpreta-
tionis Hebr. Nominum he renders pater videns populum, taking as
a fragment of nn, but in the Quaestiones he gives pater viultarum
gentium.
1 Against this see Dillmann, Genesis.
2 See E. Bib., ( Shaddai ; Names, 117. Meyer, p. 283, note 6,
has no suggestion.
THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT (GEN. xvn.) 285
xxxiii. 26 *?N is prefixed. Cp. xlix. 25, Dt. xxxiii. 17, Ps.
cvi. 37, where D^llD represents D na&N, z>. the various local
forms of the god Asshur (see p. 24).
Next as to the name Abram. That it was originally a
divine name l cannot safely be inferred from the supposed
appropriateness of the meaning, for Abram does not properly
mean high father, and we find the name Abiram
(Bab. Abu-ramu) and other names of the same type borne
by individual men. Nor may we even assert with Winckler
that Abraham has two names in the tradition, unconnected,
though the case of Jacob and Israel may well at first
sight seem favourable to this view. Stucken, 2 followed by
Winckler, holds that Abraham corresponds to the mytho
logical Tamuz and Sarah to Ishtar, but this view has at any
rate no bearing on the name Abraham, and Sarai s (or
Sarah s) relationship to Abram was not necessarily suggested
by the Tamuz and Ishtar myth. Possibly Abraham was
originally a first man, in which case Sarah was at once his
sister and his wife, a detail which was too firmly fixed in
tradition to be displaced. At any rate, the identification of
Abraham with the Nabataean god Dusares 3 seems to me to
lack any great verisimilitude.
It is, of course, a plausible conjecture that in an earlier
form of the tradition Abraham had another totally different
name, but, if so, we have not the means of recovering it.
Ram and Raham both have the same meaning, for the one
comes from Aram and the other (through Raham 4 ) from
Yarham or Yerahme el, and Aram and Yarham or Yerah-
me el are virtually the same (see on x. 23). A few parallel
names help us greatly. In I Chr. ii. 9, Ram is a brother,
and in v. 2 5 a son, of Yerahme el. That Dm or Dm is also
1 On the whole question as to Abram and Abraham, see
Nb ldeke, E. Bib., col. 1182, and essay in Im neuen Reich, 1871, pp.
508 ff.\ Winckler, GI ii. 26 ; Baethgen, Beitrdge, pp. 154^
2 Asiraluiythen, p. 18.
3 In spite of Ed. Meyer s renewed able defence of this view, op. tit.
pp. 267 ff. ; cp. ZATW vi. 1 6. On Dusares, see further Cooke,
pp. 2i8/ ; Cheyne, Bible Problems, pp. 74 /
4 The weakening of am into nm need not surprise us (cp. on on in
xiv. 5). cm3K might have been mistranslated father of the womb.
Cp. TTOLTlJp oiKTlpfJiUV (OS I72) = D Dm 3N.
286 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
another form of Dim, appears from I Chr. ii. 44, where, in a
Calebite list, both cm and Dp~i are most easily explained as
popular corruptions of DHT ; also from Isa. xxix. 22, where
(Ts bv d^Mpiaev e% Aftpaa/jb represents a misunderstood
reading Dmi? iTTD "it&N, { whom he redeemed from Raham
(i.e. Yarham), and from Gen. xlix. 25, where Dm, as we shall
see, represents the divine name Raham or Yarham. 1
May we now proceed to explain Abram (and its
Bab. and Ass. parallel Abu-ramu = DTIN) and Abraham as
father of Aram and father of Yarham respectively ?
The interpretation of ab as father in such names may
indeed be an old one, but it is certainly incorrect. The
theory according to which ab or abi, ah or ahi^ and hamu or
Jiami in compound proper names refer to the divinity as the
close kinsman of his worshipper, plausible as it can in some
cases be made, will not cover nearly all the phenomena, and
is apparently doubted by such an able scholar as Ed. Meyer.
A new theory is therefore sadly wanted. It is in the
highest degree probable that IN and "ON, like >! by itself in
iv. 20 etc., and like the *>IM appended (without Makkef) to
DTTT in 2 Chr. ii. 12, iv. 16 (so read see on Ex. xxxi. 6),
are modified shorter forms of -QN = ITS, just as HN and TIN
more than probably are of int&N, and ion or ^on of onT. 2
Thus * Abram and Abraham * mean respectively
* Arammite Arabia and Yerahme elite Arabia. Cp. the
Hebrew names Ahiram = Ashhur- Aram, Ah ab = Ashhur-
Arab ; 3 also the Babylonian names 4 Abihar = Arab-ashhar
(ashhur), Abi-ikamu = Arab-yarhamu, Ahi-ikamu = Ashhur-
yarhamu ; also the Edomite royal name Malik-ramu, 5 temp.
Sennacherib ( = Heb. and Phcen. DTD^D), and Bilram
1 That om or orrr is not only the name of a people, but of that
people s God, is shown on chap. i.
2 Cp. Konig s remark as to the extraordinary contraction and
abbreviation, especially in frequently used expressions (Lehrgeb. ii. 448,
note i a}.
3 In spite of all that has been said, e.g. by Ulmer (Die semit. Eigen-
namen, Th. i, pp. 14^), and by BDB, to explain DNHN, few will admit
that they are fully satisfied. From our present point of view, however,
Ah ab ( = Ahi ab, the name of Herod s nephew) is Ashhur- Arab (p. 63,
note 4).
4 Peiser, KB iv. 15 ; Johns, Deeds, iii. 468, 473.
5 So Winckler, KAT (A \ p. 232 ; Zimmern, p. 467, Aja-rammu.
THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT (GEN. xvn.) 287
( = Phoen. D-iiO) on a cuneiform tablet found at Tell
Ta annek, where malik and bit represent Yerahme el and
ram or rammu comes from Aram. It should be added
that Breasted J has found in Sheshonk s list of names at
Karnak a phrase which may represent cniN ^pnD, * the
country of Abram, where Abram may, if I am right, be a
district name, meaning (like the personal name Abram)
Arammite Arabia. To suppose that it means the field
on which the sacred tree of Hebron (xiii. 18) stood, 2 seems
to me improbable.
Now as to P s explanation so puzzling to the critics
thy name shall be Abraham, for I appoint thee pon IN
D^il. Can this be right? Is it likely that the dignity to
which the patriarch, according to the original writing, was
appointed was so vaguely described ? It would seem that
P must have made use of an earlier writing which he
misread. Corruption there is in any case, and the centre of
it lies in pan. Now if h*\nn (xlvi. 1 2) and WTO (i K. v. 1 1)
come from ^NDTTP, why should not pon have the same
origin, for in the change of n into n and of the final ] into
h there is certainly nothing violent ? pDJT, then, is equivalent
to pom (pm), and this is a popular modification of the
great tribal name already mentioned ; for a parallel compare
Baal-hamon in Cant. viii. 1 1. This, then, -is the original
form of the twice-uttered divine promise, Thou shalt be
(or, I appoint thee) father of Rahman (Yerahme el)/ to which
as a gloss is added D* 1 ^ (see on a, xiv. 2). The meaning
is, that the people which was to spread so widely and
become so famous should own the patriarch as its ancestor,
and that the patriarch himself was to count his ancestorship
such an honour that he would resign his earlier name
(whatever it may have been) and adopt the name Ab-raham.
This suggests that in the earlier form of the narrative
Ishmael ( = Yerahme el), and not Isaac, was the child of
promise. Evidently P has dealt very freely with the
material before him. Of course, the parallels, xxviii. 3,
xxxv. 11, xlviii. 4 are based upon the passage as shaped
by P.
1 AJSL, Oct. 1904; cp. Spiegelberg, Aegypt. Randglossen, p. 14.
- Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliten, p. 266.
288 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
The change of Sarai s name to Sarah (v. 15) was of
course necessary to correspond to the change of the name
of her husband. To account for the phraseology, we must
suppose that what is now v. 6 lay before the writer already in
a corrupted form. As for the name *nt&, Ed. Meyer (p. 270)
confidently thinks that Sarai represents the divine name
Sharayat. A goddess so-called is mentioned in an inscrip
tion at Bosra in the Hauran beside Dushara or Dusares (cp.
ZATW vi. 1 6). This, however, is in itself difficult and
improbable, and it is better to see in Sarai an Arabising
form of the Hebrew name Sarah. From our present point
of view the root- letters "itt> would seem to belong to a
N. Arabian ethnic, and it is no mere * neckischer Zufall
(Meyer) that ^mtt? and *ntt> stand together in the list of those
who (temp. Ezra) put away their Arabian wives (Ezra
x. 40), for BHD (see on Num. xiii. 22) is not derived from
BJH), byssus, any more than jffilD ( I Chr. ii. 31) is derived
from >, but comes from one of the most widely current
of the popular corruptions of soBF =^M&DBF (see on xiii. 1 1).
How such a good scholar as Meyer can make such state
ments as occur in Die Israeliten, pp. 264, note 3, and 265, is
not easy to say. That nDB> and -n^ stand together is a
consequence of the close relations constantly maintained
between Judah and N. Arabia. Both are Asshurite or
Ishmaelite names.
In further support of this view I must not forget to
quote the name mfc, which Noldeke (E. Bib., Names,
35) P uts beside WiBT as meaning God contends/ but
which, like other names of that type, is compounded of two
much abbreviated names. Most probably i = Ti2?:=Yi ffiN ;
cp. on Israel, xxxii. 29, and note that David s scribe is
called both Seraiah and Shavsha (2 S. viii. 17; I Chr.
xviii. 1 6); Shavsha represents Shamsha ( = Ishmael),
and so throws a light on Seraiah. rr has a similar
meaning ; it comes from liT = 1TT = Dm* 1 .
The result is that Abraham as the Yarhamite patri
arch, and Sarai or Sarah as the Asshurite, correspond,
and it will be noticed that Asshur and Yerahme el
together make up Asshur- Yerahme el, the primitive home
of the early heroes. The same may be said of Jacob
THE ABRAHAM 1C COVENANT (GEN. xvn.) 289
and Israel, 1 the one name being Yerahme elite, the other
Asshurite (cp. on xxxii. 29).
Singularly enough, there is no crisis in the life of the
promised son which brings about a change of name. Was
he too unimportant for this in the legendary tradition ?
The view is not unplausible ; Isaac has not unfairly been
styled Abraham s double. More probably, however, the
name Isaac remained because, unlike the names Abram
and Sarai, it was given by a direct divine command.
And what does Isaac mean ? Apparently one who
laughs, alluding (it might be) to some birth-story resembling
that of Zoroaster that the child laughed aloud as he came
into the world. 2 Or we might consider that Isaac was
originally a thunder-god, and compare the grim laughter
spoken of in Ps. ii. 4. But surely it would be extremely
odd if the name of any of the patriarchs had come down to
us without corruption. 3 Must not pTTT, like the companion-
names, be a worn-down form of the original name, and we
may here derive a suggestion from Amos, in one of whose
prophecies the * high places of Isaac and the sanctuaries
of Israel are unexpectedly parallel. How can we account
for this ? Why Isaac rather than the seemingly more
natural Jacob ? Surely there must lurk underneath pnttT
a name of twofold significance a name which denoted, not
only a certain legendary personage, but also some part of
that N. Arabian border-land with which all the three great
patriarchs were traditionally connected. Now among the
place-names which have been found to contain fragments of
"int&N is pmoT 1 (xiv. 15, xv. 2), where ptt (like *]&&gt; in *]D,
x. 2) represents the n& in intDN ; see especially Am. iii. I 2,
where the unintelligible nris which follows pftCfr (mispointed
in MT.) is certainly a disguised nafrN, i.e. the district called
d-m-sh-k is, according to this gloss, synonymous with
Asshur ( = Ashhur). It is probable that prrttP (in Amos)
1 Rob. Smith (Kinship*, p. 34, note i) regards Abraham as =
Judah, and Sarah as = Israel.
2 De Harlez, Avesta, introd. p. xxv; A. V. Williams Jackson,
Zoroaster the Prophet of Ancient Iran (i 899), p. 27, where ample refer
ences are given, e.g. Dinkart, vii. 3, 2 and 25 ; Plin. HN \\\. 16, 15.
3 It is not enough to suppose with Ed. Meyer (ZATW \\. 7) that
the original form was Yishakel.
19
290 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
is a more correct form than prc$\ and that n&T 1 or pttr has
come from "int&N, 1 the remaining letter p or n being an
expansion such as we sometimes find in by-forms of proper
names. The same origin may be assigned to ptos, a place-
name in the Isaac-story (xxvi. 20), and to the Naphtalite
name ^NSTT (xlvi. 24).
There are still some textual corrections which call for
mention. That T^ is often a corruption of some shorter
form of S>NDrTV, has been pointed out already. See on
xiv. 14, and note that in Jer. ii. 16 sound method requires
us to read *on ^Nonv TO DM [^] fwior 1 rni>n, Is Israel (as)
Arabia unto me ? is he (as) the house of Yerahme el ? T^
(^n-p) and TO were transposed for an evident reason, and so
too in Gen. xvii. 12,13,23, TO T^* 1 , *irP3 T^, and [l]TO MT^
represent oTTV rpl. Observe, too, that there is a parallel
phrase indicating that by those who come of the house
of Yerahme el the narrator means us to understand pur
chased slaves (see on xii. 16, assuming that the country
where Abram sojourned was Misrim, not Misraim). One
of the two parallel phrases is probably a gloss.
With regard to other supposed circumcision -legends,
see on Ex. iv. 18-26, Josh. v. 2 ff. For ethnological illus
trations I see that Driver and H. P. Smith have already
referred to Spencer and Gillen s Native Tribes of Central
Australia (1899). See, further, on xxiv. 2, 9, and E. Bib.,
1 Circumcision.
1 Cp. n n -IBD (Josh. x. 13, etc.), and frm* (following napy) in
i Chr. iv. 36, where i and nw may both reasonably be traced to IB-N
or
ABRAHAM S HOSPITALITY (GEN. xvm. 1-15)
ABRAHAM gives hospitality to three wayfaring men.
Who they were he knew not They were, however,
messengers from the higher world ; or rather, if we rightly
interpret the meaning of the present narrator, two were
messengers, and the third was Yahweh himself. 1 Abraham
is here depicted as an ideal host (cp. xix. 2, 3). Ad
dressing himself to the chief of the three, he sues for the
privilege of entertaining them. There was much to give an
edge to his curiosity, for the * men had, as it were, dropped
upon him from the clouds. But neither at the opening of
the meal (which was worthy of so rich a host and such
distinguished guests) nor afterwards did he allow himself
to ask questions. It is rather the strangers who permit
themselves to do so. His wife Sarah was not in attendance ;
she was in her tent (cp. xxiv. 67). The reward of such
hospitality must therefore be notified to Abraham in her
absence. It is presumably the leader of the party who
does this, not, in the original story, in his own name alone.
To this Abraham listens in reverent silence. We may
compare the story of the announcement of the birth of
Samson, where Manoah s wife, who was its privileged hearer,
thus describes the event to her husband, A man of God
came to me ; his countenance was like that of Mal ak-
Elohim, very terrible ; but I asked him not whence he was,
nor told he me his name (Judg. xiii. 6). We may ask
therefore, Did Abraham, as the words fell from the Speaker s
lips, guess who he was, viz. at the least a man of God, but
1 Eusebius (Onom. Sacra, 210, 70-72) calls them angels, and says
that they were worshipped by the heathen. Cp. Meyer, Die Israel.
p. 263.
291
2Q2 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
not impossibly Mal ak-Elohim himself? 1 The point is left
undetermined. Sarah, at any rate, gives occasion to the
Speaker to show that he is a searcher of the heart. She
laughs incredulously within herself, and when reproved,
timidly denies the fact. But the great Being, who is so
thoroughly human (see pp. 7, 15), and yet so free from human
limitations, insists that she did laugh (vv. 12-15).
In the present form of the story the bright appearance
of the three men is so veiled that at first they are not
recognised as divine. In its earlier form the recognition
of their true character may have been more complete. The
number three would of itself suggest to Abraham the greatest
possibilities, and their majestic bearing must soon (cp. Judg.
xiii. 6) have produced certainty. Men they were indeed,
but god-men ; in short, the members of that supreme council
of Elohim of which Yahweh was the president and director. 2
For the divine viceroy of earth, best known as Mal ak-
Yahweh, was not always the sole revealer or performer of
the purpose of the Heavenly Ones concerning human beings.
The divine triad sometimes willed to make a tour of inspec
tion together (cp. Gen. xi. 7).
The same germs which produced the beautiful story of
the Divine Visit to Abraham developed in a similar way
elsewhere. We have already called to mind the journey
of the divine Ennead related by an Egyptian tale-writer,
which issued in a beneficent act to a lonely man (see p. 74).
Similar things are also said of divine triads. Thus, in the
Edda, Odinn, Hsenir, and Loki go about in company ; and
Ovid 3 has retold the myth of Hyrieus, a man of Tanagra
in Bceotia, who entertained Zeus, Poseidon, and Hermes,
/.., according to Jensen, 4 Bel, Ea, and two messengers,
and whose wish for a son in his old age was gratified by
the gods. The story of Philemon and Baucis 5 may also
be referred to, though it is, of course, most parallel to the
1 See on xvi. 7, where it is shown that Mal ak is an edifying trans
formation of Yerahme el.
2 Cp. Isa. vi. 8, and see p. 15.
3 Fasti, v. 495-540; cp. Stucken, Astralmythen, pp. 21 1 /
4 Das Gilg.-Epos, p. 307, note 2.
5 Ovid, Met. vii. 626-721.
ABRAHAM S HOSPITALITY (GEN. xvm. 1-15) 293
story of Lot. There may have been many such tales of
journeying deities in N. Arabia and Palestine, though the
only one that has come down to us in some fulness (xi. 1-9
having been cut down) is xviii. 1-15. The affinity of the
story to tales of the Dioscuri has been pointed out by
Stucken (Astralmythen, pp. 83, 211) and Rendel Harris
(Cult of the Heavenly Twins].
That in the original story three gods must have been
spoken of, is convincingly shown by Gunkel, but who the
three gods were, this able critic does not tell us. Pre
sumably, however, they were not Yahweh and the Kabiri
(as Dr. Rendel Harris supposes), 1 but Yahweh, Asshur
(or Ashtar), and Yerahme el 2 (see p. 1 6). The two latter
appear to have been often viewed as united (see on
xvi. 1 3 b\ just as Yahweh was popularly viewed as united
to Yerahme el. Later Jewish teachers, however, supposed
that the three men were three angels, Michael, Gabriel,
and Raphael. 3 This was in accordance with their funda
mental theory respecting Michael, who was the chief link
between a transcendent deity and the world of men. They
were really not so far wrong, if hn^ft is virtually a substitute
for [mrr] TN^D, and if both hn^ft and TN^D are trans
formations of the N. Arabian divine name ^MDTTT, and the
great Being whom they both represent is an honourably
degraded deity. When, however, this story was originally
written, Yerahme el was a true and full divinity, second
only to Yahweh. It was one of the writers symbolised as
J who converted the three divinities of the original story
into three messengers, a step which was doubtless approved
1 See the above-mentioned works. Surely Yahweh and the Kabir
(in Phoenician mythology) would make a company of eight.
To suppose that in the earliest form of the story the company
consisted of the Babylonian gods Bel and Ea and two messengers
(Gilgamesh and the pilot of the ship of the deluge) is too hazardous
for me, but not for Jensen (Das Gilg.-Epos, p. 307, note 2).
3 Bcreshith rabba, par. 48 ; cp. Yoma, 37 a. The old mosaics in
Sta. Maria Maggiore at Rome, according to O. Richter, represented
Abraham as visited by the Logos and two attendant angels. The
historical connexion between the Logos and the divine Being Yerah
me el (John i. i, etc., Prov. viii. 22-31), and between the Logos and
the Messiah and Michael (Rev. xix. 13, I5/, xii. 7), is clear (see
p. 60, with note 4).
294 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
by the religious authorities, and is parallel to the conversion
of * Yerahme el-Yahweh into * Mal ak-Yahweh, i.e. Yahweh s
messenger. To a later writer, however, who must also be
symbolised as J, this did not appear the best mode of
representation. According to him, one of the three was
Yahweh ; the other two, who went on to Sodom, were
messengers. 1 This is the view expressed in xviii. 17-19,
22 $-33 a. Hence the men in v. 22 a came to mean the
two men, whereas originally it meant the three men. A
redactor made still further changes, turning the plural in
w. 3, 10, 13, 14, into the singular, and inserting mrr
(xviii. i, 13); (J| also reads KOI elirev in v. 5. For a
fuller sketch of the various literary phases, see Gunkel s
commentary, and for a different view Stade, Alttest. Theol.
i. 98. Neither Stade nor Gunkel, however, points out that
08) in xix. i (see below) records an earlier reading of the
highest importance.
Three or four points have yet to be mentioned. The
simplest is in v. 3, where read ^IHN with Dillmann. Simple,
too, is that in v. i, where the MT. states that the theophany
was by the terebinths (or sacred trees) of Mamre, but
where @ (777)0? rfj Bpvi) presupposes, not "Q^N, but p^M
(cp. xii. 6). As v. 4 shows, s reading is correct. 2 It
was the sacred, and perhaps originally oracular tree (cp.
Judg. iv. 4, 5), near which Abraham dwelt. The third
point is that the second visit to Abraham, announced in
xviii. 10, 14, is not recorded. And the fourth is that the
story of the promise of a son to Abraham and that of the
destruction of Sodom were originally independent. They
were brought together by J, who, with artistic economy,
made a single visit of the Heavenly Ones suffice for a
twofold object.
1 Sievers, who claims to have separated quite smoothly a Yahweh-
version of the story from a Three-men-version, seems to me to have
used a wrong clue.
2 Similarly in xiii. 18, xiv. 13, Dt. xi. 30. See Wellhausen in
Bleek s Einleitung^ p. 643.
ABRAHAM S INTERCESSION (GEN. xvm. 16-33)
A LINKING passage. Originally it consisted of vv. 16,
20-22. Later on, a deepening interest in the general
religious problem of the suffering righteous prompted
the inserted verses, the style and phraseology of which
remind us of Deuteronomy. The writer had the feeling
that Yahweh could not have withheld his intention from
his friend Abraham, to whom he had already promised
such a great future. So the patriarch drew near, and began
to plead for guilty Sodom. He would not palliate its
offences, but might there not be some righteous men even
in Sodom ? It would surely be unjust to destroy the
righteous with the wicked. Again and again he renewed
his pleading, and obtained a promise that even ten righteous
men should be enough to save the city. Jensen s view
that the intercession is really a reflexion of Ea s intercession
with Bel in the Babylonian deluge-story (Gilg-Epos, p. 300)
is far-fetched. As to textual errors, c I will go down, etc.
(y. 2 1 ), may be put down to the redactor ; the original text
may have had let us go down (cp. xi. 7). Also, with
Wellh., Ball, Holz., and Gunkel, we should probably adopt
the old Jewish reading, SlN "Oak *TQS TO mm (v. 22 b).
The words were probably altered out of reverence, because
1 standing before any one might be taken to mean serving
him.
295
LOT SAVED (GEN. xix. 1-28)
LOT, like Abraham, proves the reality of his religion
by his scrupulous regard to hospitality. (Abraham and
Lot were they not the Hebrew Dioscuri, who were
specially the guardians of hospitality ?) But Lot is
worse off than Abraham ; the common feeling of his
city is against him. Indeed, not only the inhabitants
of Sodom but all the Ashhurites (see below) give hateful
proof of their solidarity in wickedness. All that remains
is for the divine ones to save Lot and his relatives from
the impending catastrophe. At daybreak, then, Lot, being
warned, leaves the city, but only his two daughters can be
induced to follow him. The divine ones (who have been
converted into * messengers ) urge them to hurry, but Lot,
who is fearful of destruction, obtains permission to take
refuge in the city of Zoar (so called, from the terms in
which Lot framed his petition). After sunrise the blow
falls on the guilty city and its neighbourhood.
The text of this section is specially corrupt. Apart
from the ordinary sources of corruption, the deep interest
of the subject for later ages naturally led to alterations.
Not only have the original * three men become the (two)
messengers/ but it is probable that the references to Lot s
wife (xix. i 5 f. t 26; contrast v. 12) and the whole of the
Zoar-episode are subsequent insertions. The traditional
view of the text of these supposed references needs a close
examination. And as to the Zoar-episode, most probably
it is no part of the original story, but was inserted, not to
account for the escape of a single fruitful piece of land, but
to justify the popular etymology of the name * Zoar. To
these points, however, we shall return presently.
296
LOT SAVED (GEN. xix. 1-28) 297
The main body of narrative relates the awful judicial
catastrophe which befell Sodom (y. 13), or, as elsewhere
stated (vv, 24, 28 ; cp. xviii. 20, xiii. 10), Sodom and
Gomorrah. The description of the phenomena has given
rise to various scientific hypotheses, as, for instance, that the
calamity began with an earthquake, continued with furious
eruptions, and ended with the submerging of the destroyed
cities by the waters of the Dead Sea. 1 Against this, how
ever, we must urge, with Prof. Lucien Gautier, that the
text of Genesis speaks of a rain of fire and brimstone, and a
pillar of smoke rising to heaven, but neither of an earthquake,
nor of an igneous eruption, nor of an inundation. 2
But the particular details of the catastrophe are of
comparatively little importance. The essence of the story
does not even lie in the view that the calamity referred to
was a fire-deluge (or, as Stucken calls it, a dry deluge), as
opposed to the water-deluge that preceded it. What is
primarily meant is that another age of the earth s history
(i.e. strictly, of N. Arabian history) came to an end by a
supernatural agency, and that that history had to make a
fresh start. In Peruvian folklore, it is true, we find the
fire-deluge brought pretty close up to the water-deluge.
This, however, is not the most thoughtful view, considering
what we have found in the case of the deluge. It is, in fact,
a waste of catastrophic energy to bring the two great similar
events too near one another. Nothing but the experience
of the faultiness of the present human race could adequately
justify a fresh destruction such as that which has attached
itself to the names of Sodom and Gomorrah, and which
originally must have been localised in the region of the
myth-framers or myth-adapters, viz. the region of Yerahme el
or N. Arabia.
Local stories of this kind are extremely common. They
are probably weakened versions of stories of a larger scope.
They have, however, retained that didactic element which
must very early have infused itself into such stories. It
was held that in course of time the corruption of the race,
or of the population of some particular district, reached so
1 See Blanckenhorn, ZDPVxix. 1-59 (1896), xxi. 65-83 (1898).
2 E. Bib., Dead Sea, 5 7.
298 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
great a height that a portentous judgment had to take
place. 1 In Arabia the ruined cities or villages of such
impious populations are called maklubdt, overturned ones,
which is parallel to the technical term mahpekdh, over
turning, used of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
in the O.T. 2 E. H. Palmer 3 refers to the great stones at
the base and on the summit of Jebel Madara, which are
said to have been rained down from heaven to destroy an
inhospitable folk. The traces of a deluge-myth in Arabia
are, in fact, but few. And yet there is no reason which
absolutely prohibits the view that N. Arabia had a true
deluge-myth of its own, and that such a myth underlies the
present story of Sodom. Certainly the occurrence of "fDH
in xix. 25, 29, is not in this way prohibitive, for this verb
can be used with much laxity (see Job xii. 15).
Before proceeding further, let it be remarked that the
story of Sodom is plainly a N. Arabian one. We may
infer this, not only from its coming after stories already
proved to be Yerahme elite, but from the impossibility of
explaining certain doubtful names and phrases except upon
this hypothesis. Note especially the gloss on DTD ^DM in
xix. 4, and the most probable form of the account of the
judgment in v. 24. DTD has already been explained (see
on xiv. 2) ; most probably it comes from DIDn, i.e.
Similarly m&s, like rrDin in x. 7, comes from DIN ( =
with the feminine termination. It is just possible, indeed,
that the so-called Gomorrah (jo/ioppa) may be a legendary
double of Sodom. But, however this may be, it will be
seen from the criticism of an earlier passage (xiii. 10) that
the region supposed to be destroyed by the calamity was
located, not beside the Dead Sea, but in the southern
border-land, possibly not far from the region in which early
tradition placed the land of Eden. Moreover, in dealing
1 See Cheyne, New World, June 1892, pp. 236-245.
2 See E. Bib., Sodom, 4. On the phrase DTI^N nrsno, see
Wellh. on Am. iv. 1 1, who remarks that o*nS indicates a non-Israelitish
origin for the legend. This, however, is only half the truth. The
other half is that CM^N in this phrase has come from *?NDm (cp. p. 69) ;
that is, the original story of Sodom gave the divine Judge the name
Yerahme el.
3 Desert of the Exodus, p. 416.
LOT SAVED (GEN. xix. 1-28)
299
with the deluge-story in chaps, vi.-viii. we have found reason
to hold that an early form of that tradition represented the
deluge as overwhelming Yerahme elite Arabia, and the ark
as settling on the mountain of Ashtar (cp. on Dt. iii. 17).
It now becomes natural to conjecture that the original story
of the calamity of Sodom was one form of the Yerahme elite
deluge-story. And the conjecture is confirmed by the
discovery of a series of parallelisms between the Hebrew
and Babylonian deluge -stories on the one hand and the
narrative in Gen. xix. (revised text) on the other. Here is
the list; it should be added that Jastrow too (RBA 507)
has noticed the parallelism between the story of Sodom and
that of the deluge.
1. The righteous man Noah
(vi. 9), or rather Hanok, or, as
the great Babylonian story said,
Ut-napistim.
2. Vexation of Yahweh (vi. 6).
Anger of the divinity against the
Babylonian city of Surippak.
3. All flesh had become
corrupt (vi. 11-13). The city of
Surippak was tdlur, i.e. impure
(Babylonian story, Zimmern,
line 14, if the emendation is
correct).
4. The divine revelation to
Noah (vi. 1 3 ff.\ Ea s mes
sage to Ut-napis tim.
5. A long-continued, destruc
tive rain-storm (vii. 10-12, 17^)
on Yerahme elite Arabia (vii. 4).
A similar storm on the city of
Surippak. 1
B
i. The righteous man, Lot
(xix. i-8).
2 . Anger of the Elohim against
the city of Sodom, or Hasram
(xix.).
3. The culminating act of
wickedness (xix. 4-11).
4. The divine revelation to
Lot (xix. 13 ; cp. xviii. 2o/).
5. A long-continued, destruc
tive rain-storm (vii. 10-12, 17^),
on the cities of the whole of
Yerahme el (xix. 24/).
1 It is assumed here that a tradition of a storm which overwhelmed
Surippak has been fused with the tradition of a far larger flood in the
deluge-story of the Gilgames epic (see Jastrow, Re/, of Bab. and Ass.
p. 507, and cp. E. Bib., Deluge, 22). It is not asserted that even
the former tradition is historical, nor denied that the deluge-myth in
its earliest form earlier than the earliest known Babylonian or
Yerahme elite myth or legend related to the whole earth.
3 oo TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
6. Noah and his family 6. Lot and his family delivered -
delivered (vi. 13, 23^); also of (xix. 15 ff.).
Ut-napistim and his household.
7. The ark grounds on the 7. Lot warned to escape to
mountain of Ashtar (viii. 4). the mountains [of Yerahme el]
The ship grounds on the (xix. 17).
mountain of Nisir.
It will be noticed that under B 4 a reference has been
given to a passage in the account of the visit of the { three
men, i.e. the three Elohim, to Abraham (xviii. 2O/.). The
reason is that the statement relative to the investigation of
o
Sodom s crimes is practically equivalent to a revelation of
the judgment upon the city and neighbourhood. That the
matter should be disclosed to Abraham suggests a minor
question which for completeness sake I have to raise, viz.
whether there may not have been another version of the
deluge-story (I assume that the judgment on Sodom was
originally of water, and not of fire), according to which
Abraham, and not Hanok or Lot, was the name of the
righteous man whom the Elohim delivered. I may also
refer to the significant parallelism between Elohim remem
bered Noah (viii. 5) and Elohim remembered Abraham
(xix. 29). The theory here suggested is that when redactors
adapted or harmonised the story of Sodom, they left these
two indications that the story had once had a different form,
in which Abraham was the name of the representative of
the second human race. And since Abraham now becomes
identical with Noah or Hanok, we may perhaps consider
Abraham (Arab-Yerahme el) to have been originally a
cognomen or title of the man to whom deliverance was
vouchsafed. However this may be, the original story
simply related that a single righteous man, with his family,
received timely warning that those among whom he sojourned
had displeased Yahweh by a gross violation of his laws, 1 and
that Elohim saved him from destruction. For a violent
rain-storm arose, submerging the whole of the guilty land of
1 Cp. Ezek. xvi. 49 /. It is not improbable that Asmodasus
( Ashmedai), the lustful demon in Tobit, derives his name from Sedom
(Sodom); the corrupt reading Sedom 3 had no doubt already arisen.
Cp. Lilith, the name of the female counterpart of Ashmedai, which may
ultimately come from Yerahme elith.
LOT SA VED (GEN. xix. 1-28) 301
Yerahme elite Arabia. Such was probably the earliest form
of the Sodom -story.
The original story, however, underwent various modifica
tions. Lot, the son of Haran (i.e. Haran), otherwise called
Lotan, son of Seir the Horite in either case an Ashhurite
(see on xi. 31) was substituted for Abraham, and a floating
story of mythic origin, but in an altered form, was attached
to the story of Lot, to explain and justify the wrath of the
Elohim. After this a legend was inserted to account for
the name Zoar. Lot had taken refuge there, by permission
of the Elohim, because it was a little city. Lastly, cor
ruption in the text of xix. 24 suggested that the scene of
the traditional story must have been in that awful hollow/
that bit of the infernal regions come to the surface which
was at the southern end of the Dead Sea. And a fragment
of the formations of rock-salt at Jebel Usdum, to which a
myth like that of Niobe may already have become attached,
was, naturally enough, transferred to the altered legend, and
identified with Lot s wife ; the looking behind ascribed to
the latter was also in full accordance with mythology, and
fitted in with the strange -looking pillar of salt. 1 So
urgently necessary is it to examine the textual basis of
ingenious and attractive mythological theories.
Let us now turn to passages which in their corrected
form are important for the theory of the narrative which
appears to me the most probable. Much of the text is
sound, but there are some very suspicious words and groups
of words.
(a) First, as to the two messengers in xix. I. As
soon as we grant that v. I is the continuation of xviii. 22 a,
we see that the original subject of the verb (INTI) must
have been D^DNn. Dillmann thinks that a later writer
substituted D^N^on for clearness, but does not account for
the prefixed vjijj. Why should the narrator say either the
two men or the two angels ? His view evidently was
that one of the three men was Yahweh, and that the other
1 On the affinities of the story see Peters, Early Hebrew Story,
pp. 145/5 E. H. Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, ii. 478^; W. R.
Smith, Rel. Sem. p. 88, note 2 ; and especially Stucken, Astralmythen r
pp. 83, no, 231, 240, 388.
302 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
two were angels. To say that the two angels came to
Sodom is confusing ; it might conceivably suggest that
there had originally been more than two angels. Positive-
ness is in this case fully justified ; ^tt> is a piece of an
indistinct nr8ntt[n]. When in all good faith ^m had been
wrongly read, it became natural for clearness to read
(b) Next, as to mpQ D2H hi (v. 4). Is it likely that,
as BDB affirm, nsp is a condensed term for what is included
between extremities = the whole ? E.g., can VHN p,
xlvii. 2, mean * from the entirety of his brethren, even if we
venture further to say that the sense is suitable ? In Jer.
li. 31 can nspc VPS be rendered the city as a whole ? In
Isa. Ivi. 1 1 can in^pQ, literally * from its end, mean from
its whole, and can this be = in a body ? The same doubt
applies to DSH mspD, i K. xii. 31, xiii. 33, and to DrmpD,
Judg. xviii. 2, 2 K. xvii. 32, where BDB explain po from
the whole of. In accordance with corrections elsewhere,
it is best to read irrffiN Dir^D, all the people of Ashhur
(omitting the second D as dittographed). This may be a
gloss on DID BEN, for DID (see above) = Ashhur-Aram.
The place meant is the capital of a district in Ashhur-
Yerahme el. Cp. v. 24 (revised text), where the devastated
region is called Asshur or Ashhur.
(c) Of nsSn mi in v. 9 BDB say, literally, approach
thither, i.e. move away. This may be theoretically possible,
but is not probable. Now it so happens that nnhn in MT.
is often corrupt (see e.g. on xxxv. 21, I S. x. 3, Am.
v. 27) ; probably it is so here, as indeed the warning Pasek
before SrrtDl suggests, and comes from ^NDrrP. The second
ViD^I is equally suspicious. I have found cases in which
this word too must have come from TNOrTP. I can see no
difficulty in supposing that f w\ represents a Yrr which was
a correction of the impossible nSn. Not impossibly too,
"rn^n has been produced out of an ill-written in&N ; but
more probably the copy before the scribe had TnNmnN,
and the first three letters fell out through their close
resemblance to what followed. Lastly, as to B>J. Why
may it not, like ^ttf in v. I, come from ^tt?3N? The result is
that it is best to read ill -rnNii inttJN ^NnnT ^N VIDN V ),
LOT SAVED (GEN. xix. 1-28) 303
and the men of Yerahme el-Ashhur said, The single one
(there), etc. The phrase the men of Yer.-Ashhur is
synonymous with * the men of Sodom ; see on rrspE, v. 4.
(d) In v. 15 ET9M&Dn is really inconsistent with D^UNn
in v. 1 6. For the latter implies that the persons spoken of
were divine.
(e) In v. 1 6, why has no one pointed out the unsuitable-
ness of noncm after is W ? As the morning -grey
appeared, they pressed Lot, saying, Rise, take thy wife, and
thy two daughters who are here, lest thou perish by the
guilt of the city ; and the men seized him by the hand, etc.
After what is said in v* 14 how could Lot have dawdled ?
Note the warning Pasek after YPI, and read (following the
precedent of the correction of onil in Judg. iii. 26) D^NOITP,
a gloss on Tan (?- 15)- Is a confirmation of this wanted?
It is found in the parenthesis Y^S ^ nfpom. It is true,
these words are quite susceptible of exegesis. They may be
meant to convey the impression that the destroyers were
but messengers of Yahweh, and that the ministers had to be
urgent because Yahweh would be displeased if anything
happened to Lot. But is this satisfactory ? One would
gladly be without the interruption, and who needed to be
told that Yahweh showed clemency to Lot ? Experience
elsewhere suggests as the original D^NDITP written twice
over (in the first, T corresponds to MT. s 1 ; in the second,
to i). A gloss on Ta.
(/") How comes it that the city is called in v. 22, not
"1S2D, but isns? The fact is troublesome, especially when
we notice that both naso Nirr and Nin o tfSn (v. 20) have
the appearance of glosses. It would seem that the author
of these glosses read the name of Lot s city of refuge as
1SSD. But, if so, what geographical or ethnographical
connexion has this name ? And may we infer that where -
ever the name *ias or nais occurs, it is to be regarded as a
popular distortion of naSD ? The truth may be that the
only accurate form of the name of the city is T2ip, but that
(as in Ps. Ixxxiii. 8, Ixxxvii. 5) this was often shortened
into TiS, and that this again was popularly expanded into
1TO. An early scribe who knew this wrote twice over the
marginal corrections that is, ii?SD/ and is it not (rather)
304 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
It so happens that ISSQ in occurs in Ps. xlii. 7,
where (though another view may be possible) it is probably
a gloss on D">:ncnm ]TP PIN, or rather pcnn pnT p^N, where
the stream Yarhon and the mountain Hermon (from Dm =
DITT), are in the N. Arabian border-land.
(g) Our next question is difficult alike to ask and to
answer. Are the critics of to-day satisfied with the usual
interpretation of v. 24 ? Yahweh had caused to rain
. . . from Yahweh out of heaven. Can mm have two
meanings in the same sentence, (i) the God who avenges
his broken moral laws, and (2) heaven (see Hommel, Gr.
p. 177, note 4), as the source of meteorological phenomena?
Upon this theory we must at any rate delete DTOBDrrp, as a
prosaic, even if correct gloss. It is improbable, however,
that mm can mean heaven or even * the heaven-god.
Ewald (Gesch. ii. 223) compares for the latter meaning
Mic. v. 6, but there * dew from Yahweh does not mean * dew
from heaven/ but * dew which from its preciousness is to be
accounted a special gift from God. Consequently we are
led to doubt whether the reading mm riNG is correct. The
first mm may stand ; it is not likely that it has been sub
stituted by J for the men. * Yahweh may be mentioned
as the leader and director of the divine triad ( = the men ).
(/i) Caused to rain brimstone and fire. Is this right ?
In v. 25 it is said that Yahweh overturned all that
region. The word does not accord with brimstone and fire,
but does suit water as the destroying agent (cp. Job xii. 15,
and Duhm s note). May not one therefore apply methodical
criticism to the text? Taking this course, I have been led
to this result [icmi rnb^] mosrWi DTO ^s Ttoon mm*i
troorrp DV HNO, and Yahweh had caused it to rain on
Sodom and on Gomorrah [Gomorrah and Asshur] a hundred
days from heaven. rnsa may come from mns (cp. (Ts
so ID! from -im, vi. 1 4 (see note) ; DIM, as in
and like BTN in ix. 20, etc., from i^ ; mm (second
time) from m, and this from D" 1 ( = D*P, as in Phoenician).
The plausibility of the view that the Sodom-story is really
another version of the N. Arabian deluge-story has been
shown already (see introd.).
(z) V. 2 5 is but slightly more defensible. Those cities,
LOT SA VED (GEN. xix. 1-28) 305
and the whole kikkar, and all the inhabitants of the cities
can this be called good Hebrew style ? The gloss-theory
may, of course, be applied, but not to the text in its present
form. Experience, however, will at once suggest a remedy.
n (like n^N, see on Isa. x. 10) is a possible corruption of
, and OBF (see on iv. 20) of ^NSOttP. There remains
Not unfrequently mi? proves to be a corruption,
most commonly perhaps of D QIS. It is very possible,
however, that the final n has arisen through a wrongly
affixed sign of abbreviation ( "nsn), and that an earlier
reading was "nnN. Now -nnN and -inN often represent
and nn&N respectively. Thus we get
And he overturned Ashhur-Yerahme el and the whole
kikkar] to which is added, as a gloss on the whole kikkarj
1 all Ishmael-Ashhur. Ishmael- or Yerahme el-Ashhur was,
of course, the name both of a region and of a city, just as
Miss5r, though generally the name of a region, can also be
(see on v. 20) that of a city.
(/) And now as to the very brief record of the fate of
Lot s wife (v. 26). The Hebrew is unexceptionable. It
is certain, too, that Wisd. x. 7 speaks of a crrrj\r] aXo?
as, together with the smoking waste, etc., still existing in
the writer s day (cp. also Jos. Ant. i. 11, 4). Neither
argument, however, proves the correctness of the text. It
is no doubt conceivable that the insertion of this episode
was made subsequently to the alteration of torrential rain
into showers of sulphur and fire, but reason has to be
shown why we should not, as in the case of v. 25, seek for
an underlying text. A reference to local formations of
rock-salt is only plausible at a first glance. Nothing is said
about these elsewhere, and if such a phenomenon as a Lot s
wife in salt were mentioned, surely it would have been added,
behold, it is hard by the sea of salt (?) unto this day.
Lastly, both :ri^ and n^Q elsewhere are corruptions, the
one of pans (so Josh. xv. 43, I S. x. 5 [-QS3], xiii. 3 / ; cp.
on xxxvi. 24), the other of SNOTT (see on xiv. 3). Nor
is this all that is suspicious. YnnNQ is usually explained
1 from following him, but if the general view implied by the
text is correct, we ought rather to read rmnN (see v. 17);
20
3 o6 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
I do not say that this is correct, but that we ought to look
underneath the suspicious words, among which I fear I
must include intt)N, for it appears from w. 12 and 14 (cp.
v. 31, our father is old ) that Lot s wife was already dead ;
read probably, TintD:?. And now, since all the rest is fading
away, we must also look beneath tolm and vrm, which in
themselves are unsuspicious, but are not therefore correct.
The one may have come from rQi?rn, the other from
*in. Thus we get VTT psix ton n~p Tin IDS nism, and
the abomination of Ashtor - Yerahme el, that is, Sibe on-
Yerahme el. It would almost seem that Ashtor-Yerahme el
and Sibe on-Yerahme el were two names of the same place
(see on Dt. i. 4), where was a sanctuary with a noted
idolatrous symbol of the N. Arabian deity. The passage
thus read will probably be a later interpolation suggested
by the words and he overturned Ashhur - Yerahme el
(Ashhur and Ashtor, though different forms, have the
same meaning). The mistake iniDN, for iniDN or in IDS,
may have led to the interpolated references to Lot s wife in
vv. 1 5 and 16.
ORIGIN OF MOAB AND AMMON (GEN. xix. 36-38)
THE legend of the origin of the two kindred peoples,
Moab and Ammon, and of their respective names. It
traces their existence to the marriage connexion of Lot s
two daughters with their father, and it accounts for the
names Moab and * Ammon by an etymological play
suggested by the preceding story. It was formerly held
that the legend was the expression of Israel s hatred and
moral contempt for its troublesome neighbours ; that Israel,
ORIGIN OF MOAB AND AMMON (GEN. xix. 30-38) 307
while admitting its connexion with Lot and therefore with
Abraham, ascribed it to a grossly incestuous act, for which
Ed. Bohmer l found a parallel in the tracing of the line of
Judah s kings to a primitive incestuous connexion between
the patriarch Judah and Tamar his daughter-in-law (see
Gen. xxxviii.). The explanation, however, is in both cases
incorrect. Ancient legend-makers do not pronounce judg
ment upon acts which a later age called incestuous in the
pointed way supposed by the older commentaries (see on
xxxviii., xlix. 4). The story of the relations between Judah
and Tamar is probably a figurative recital of the growth of
clans, the form of which is partly suggested by a myth
analogous to that of Tamuz and Ishtar, 2 and the tale of the
connexion between Lot and his two daughters has arisen
out of the view that Lot was the second founder of the
human race (i.e. virtually, the Yerahme elite people), just
as the representation that Sarai was Abram s sister may
have sprung from the by no means absurd notion that
Abram was the first man of the Yerahme elites. In neither
narrative is any blame pronounced upon the actors in the
drama. Tamar is expressly credited with righteousness,
and one s natural impression on reading w. 31, 32, 36 is
that those who told the legend had a feeling of pride in
Lot s bold, resourceful daughters. 3 The view of Stucken 4
that the story immediately before us is a late transformation
of a highly archaic detail of a creation-myth is too difficult
to be considered here in passing.
The story fits in very well with the myth of the destruc
tion of Sodom. Like the survivors from the deluge in the
original story, 5 the survivors from the catastrophe of Sodom
had no sons. Lot must therefore have left Zoar, which
seemed too near the destroyed region to be quite safe. A
cave in the mountains had to be his home, and since there
were no men in the land (i.e. in the higher regions of that
part of the land of Yerahme el) as husbands for women who
1 Das erste Buck der Tor a, Halle, 1862.
2 Tamar, as we shall see, has been produced out of Ramith or
* Rammith, i.e. the great Yerahme elite goddess.
3 See Gunkel s exposition.
4 Astralmythen, p. 223, note. 5 Ibid.
308 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
had lost their bridegrooms, no other course was open to
Lot s daughters than that which they adopted.
It is very possible, however, that the Lot who was the
traditional father l of Moab and Ammon belonged to a
different cycle of legend from that which included the
Sodom-story. Elsewhere 2 I have ventured to call him the
primary Lot, who would be identical with Lotan, the eldest
of the sons of Seir the Horite (see on xxxvi. 20) ; possibly,
indeed, the phrase the Horite (misinterpreted the cave-
dweller ) may have helped to suggest the detail about the
cave. However this may be, a confusion between the two
Lots was as natural as that between the two Noahs, one of
whom, it is true, arose by a scribe s error out of Hanok.
One may add that the drunkenness of Lot is curiously
parallel to that of Noah (ix. 21), except that it is not made
clear how Lot obtained the wine.
Let us proceed to textual matters, (a) It can hardly
be doubted that z>. 30 has undergone redactorial manipula
tion. * Dwelt in the mountains and * dwelt in a (the) cave
can hardly both be correct. The latter may be a gloss.
And observe ($) that in v. 37 @ inserts \e<yovcra GK rov
Trarpos yuou, presupposing ING (as in Mesha s inscription).
So much is right here that the name really is compounded
of [*I]D and IN, and should be grouped with names in which
IN or IIN is an element. To explain with Hommel
(VerhandL des XII L Internat. Orient. Kongr esses, 1902 ;
Grundriss. p. 164), his mother is the father (i.e. that the
father is unknown or not to be mentioned), is as improbable
as explaining DNTTN mother s brother, cnriN my mother s
brother, INHN father s brother. 3 I have to the best of my
ability shown that IN or MN as an element in names repre
sents mi?, Arabia ; analogous to this is TIN or inN or TIN
from TinttJN Ashhur, and DN or DI? or ION from Q-IN or ini?
(cp. mes). The same key must be applied to get the
original meaning of not a few personal names preserved in
1 The phrase dene Lot only occurs in Dt. ii. 9, Ps. Ixxxiii. 9, and
perhaps in the true text of Isa. xxv. 7 (see Crit. Bib.}.
* See E. Bib., Lot.
3 For the underlying theory, see E. Bib., Abi, names with, and
cp. S. A. Cook, in W. R. Smith, Kinship, p. 185, note I.
ORIGIN OF MOAB AND AMMON (GEN. xix. 30-38) 309
N. Semitic inscriptions. Thus Ummu-abia and Abi-ummi
(Johns, Deeds, iii. pp. 528, 554) spring from corrupt forms
of the Canaanitish * Yerahme el and Arab. So, too, Istar-
ummi (Jastrow, Germ, ed., i. 160, note 2) and the Phoenician
mniDSQN l and ptDNDN come from forms of * Aram and
Ashtar, * Aram and Ishmael, respectively. How these
names were explained under the influence of a long-continued
religious conventionalising tendency can sometimes, not
always, be conjectured. See, further, on omiN, xvii. 5 ;
T^D^lM, xx. 2 ; TiiTDS, Num. i. i o. * Moab, therefore, as
one can now see, has come from INIDN or INIDS, i.e. yrs DIN,
4 Arabian Aram. Also observe (c) that there has been a
great misunderstanding of the clause introduced by Nin.
He is the father of Moab unto to-day is neither satisfactory
nor in accordance with the text-critical facts just now
referred to. N"irr, as so often, means * that is ; INID " IN
comes from Q ns, * Moabite Arabia. I shall perhaps be
attacked for saying that DVil 1$ is also corrupt. But the
bad sense produced ought to excite suspicion, and experi
ence shows us how to correct the words. Both here and in
xxxv. 20, where DVms occurs, as here, without mrr, 2 is
(as often) comes either from TIN = iin or (more simply)
from -13 = 1117, and Dm from on-p (^NDrrp). Thus the
gloss is twofold, and states that INIQ is a designation of
(i) Moabitish Arabia, and (2) Yerahme elite Arabia. The
two phrases mean the same thing.
Further (d), that in v. 38, where MT. has DS p, (> gives
A/^yuai/, o vto9 TOV yevovs /JLOV, which Ball follows, only
inserting nDN^ before ^D3 p. This is surely a mistake.
^D ]1 comes from /% )Ei> ^31 (pD3 r l), written too soon by
mistake. ^ combines two readings. The gloss in the
Hebrew text on pos, or rather JBS ((g), should be read,
following the || in v. 37 b, teTW 11? |Q3 ^1 113 Nin, * that is,
Arabia of the bene Amman, Yerahme elite Arabia. JDS
1 The form mntrynoN (Cooke, p. 62) is due to late modification under
the influence of the tendency referred to. For parallels cp. "Sc-ny from
"^ca-iy ( = cm any), and other names of this type. Note in this con
nexion -jtennK and naS onnK in Phoenicia. Who would call herself Sister
of a god or goddess ?
2 does not mark the difference. Translators tend to assimilate
phrases.
310 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
comes, presumably, from D2, a contraction of mi? ( =
the southern Aram), and parallel to IN for ns, with the
termination ]-, belonging to. 5 In Assyrian, Ammanu is =
Ammon, both as an ethnic and (see KB iv. 199) as a
personal name.
Other views may be recorded. According to Hommel,
Moab comes from Immo-ab, his mother is the father. As
for Ammon, he regards Amm, c uncle, as a name of the
moon-god, so that the bene Ammon are sons of the moon-
god ; cp. walad Amm (children of f Amm), a designation of
the Katabanians. 1 Juynboll, however (77*. TV., 1906, p. 166),
learnedly maintains that in this connexion ^s~\2. can only
mean the son of my father ; similarly vparfjij, to his fathers,
xxv. 8. Learning and sound judgment seem here to be
parted. Konig, controverting Hommel, asks how the
Ammonites came to forget the god f Amm (on Amm see
ZDMG xlix. 5 2 5 /.), after whom they were named (Hebrd-
isch und Semitisch, p. 90).
SARAH IN GERAR (GEN. xx.)
HERE we have the first continuous specimen of E s nar
ratives. It tells of Sarah s adventure in Gerar. Parallel
stories are xii. 10-20, xxvi. 6-12 (see notes). The passage
has several points of interest. (a) Geographically, the
question as to the existence of two Gerars (see discussion in
E. Bib., ( Gerar ) and whether Abimelech may be called a
N. Arabian. (&) Religiously, the prophetic position of
Abraham, and the God-fearing character of Abimelech. (c)
1 Verhandlungen des XIII. Internat. Or. Kongresses, Sekt. v. ; Gr.
pp. 140, note 2, 163.
SARAH IN GERAR (GEN. xx.) 311
Morally, Abraham s mental reservation. (cT) Legally, the
way in which a double compensation is made to Abraham
and to Sarah, (e) Commercially, the reference to standard-
shekels, disclosed by textual criticism.
With regard to (a), a conclusion is rendered difficult by
the frequency with which the same names of places or
districts are current in different parts l (e.g. Misrim and
Kush, Bethlehem, Shihor, Sarephath, etc.). Even now
we find this the case in Palestine, and it is much to the
point that there is, south-west of Ain Gadts, a wady called
Jeriir, in the direction of the Wady el-Arish, and that about
five miles south of Gaza, there are also ruins called Umm el-
Jerdr. Of the two claimants to be the true Gerar, the
latter is the more plausible, because (i) the legendary context
of the story, and (2) the fact that the parallel version of it
in xii. 10-20 places the adventure of Sarah in Misrim, com
pel us to locate Gerar in the N. Arabian border-land (see
E. Bib., Gerar ). Another passage which illustrates the
question is 2 Chr. xiv. 9 /., 1 3 / Zerah the Kushite is
there said to have encountered the Judahites under Asa in
the valley of Sephathah by Mareshah. Evidently there
was a Yerahme elite Mareshah (cp. Josh. xiv. 13, i Chr.
ii. 42) ; at least, we have no reason to suppose that
there was a place called Sephath or Sephathah near the
traditional Mareshah. Gerar, then, must have been to the
south of Mareshah and Sephath ( = Sarephath).
Three other geographical notes are given us, besides the
information that he sojourned in Gerar. In v. I Abraham
is said to have dwelt between Kadesh and Shur, and in
xxi. 34, in the land of the Pelishtim ; and also in xx. i, to
have journeyed towards the land of the Negeb. As to the
first statement, it favours the view that Abraham s place of
sojourn cannot have been far from the well corruptly called
Beer-lahai-roi, for between Kadesh and Bered (xvi. 14)
cannot mean anything very different from between Kadesh
and Shur (see on chap. xvi.). In a connected narrative
(xxi. 31) and in the context of the parallel story (xxvi. 33)
we meet with the well of Beer-sheba, where Sheba is a
1 It is also not impossible that vu should rather be *nj (GedorX
Cp. MT. and , i Chr. iv. 39.
312 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
corruption of Ishma or Ishmael. If so, Beer-sheba
(Well of Ishmael) and Beer-lahai-roi (Well of Yerahme el)
are equivalent, and this is confirmed by a result independ
ently attained elsewhere (on xxxi. 33), viz. that the name of
the god of Beer-sheba was El-Yerahme el. Of course, the
name Beer-sheba must have existed in pre-Israelitish days,
and the well which bore it (xxi. 31) cannot really have been
dug by Isaac, i.e. virtually by Israel. That Beer-sheba is
the place best known to us under that name, cannot be
affirmed. See, further, on chaps, xxi. xxvi.
As to the second point, it need hardly be said that the
true historical Philistines did not dwell in the region referred
to. Noordtzij s theory of a Philistine vanguard is unlucky.
It has long ago been shown l that DTiftSD, if the text be
thoroughly criticised, never means the Philistines of history,
but is due to a confusion between Philistines and
* Pelethites a thoroughly Yerahme elite name. 2 Consider
ing that in i S. xiv. 6 (cp. xvii. 26, 36) the Pelishtim are
called these Arelites (i.e. these Yerahme elites), we can
well understand that the phrase * the land of the Pelishtim
can be used in xxi. 32 in a narrower and in v. 34 in a
broader sense, especially (but this is by no means essential)
if we hold that n^D and ntt&D ultimately come from noiS,
for Sarephathites (see on x. 14) is certainly capable of a
broader and a narrower meaning. Now, too, it becomes clear
that fundamentally the same traditional events can, in chap,
xii., be placed in Misrim, and in chaps, xx. and xxvi. in
Gerar. For Gerar, as we have seen, was south of Sarephath,
which is sometimes apparently represented as the most
northerly city of Musri (Misrim) in N. Arabia.
On the third point it is enough to remark that a
traveller whose steps were bent to the land of Gerar would,
in the first instance, have to make for the land of the
Negeb, and that Kadesh, which, according to Num.
1 See E. Bib., Jerahmeel, 3, and especially Zarephath.
Hommel (Gr. p. 158), too, has long distinguished D n^s from DTH^B.
2 In i Chr. ii. 33 Peleth is one of the sons of Yerahme el ; in
Num. xvi. i he is the father of On, which (see on xli. 45) is a well-
attested southern name. Cp. also, with Winckler (GI ii. 184), the
gentilic Palti and the place-name Beth-pelet, a hypothesis which
Noordtzij (p. 26) is pleased to call untenable.
SARAH IN GERAR (GEN. xx.) 31 3
xxxiv. 4, was to the north of the southern boundary of the
Negeb, was certainly (xx. i) in the direction of Gerar.
Thus the Abimelech of this story (as also of xxi. 22 ff. t
xxvi. I ff.) was a N. Arabian. Ed. Meyer s supposition, that
the Philistines borrowed personal names from their neigh
bours, is needless. The name is N. Arabian, and its bearer
is so too. That it is borne by a prince of Arvad in the
Annals of Asurbanipal, and by a governor of Tyre in the
Amarna letters, is not surprising, because the N. Arabians
carried both personal and local names with them in their
migrations. Hence its most defensible meaning is not
Father is king (Gray, etc.), nor father of a king (Frazer,
Adonis, p. 1 2), nor father of counsel (Paul Haupt), but
Arabia of Yerahme el. l It is therefore synonymous with
Abram, Abraham, Malchiram (inverting), and with the
Phoenician names Milk-ram and Ar-milk. It could also be
borne by a woman (lS[D]l in Sabaean), 2 just as the Hebrew
names S^lN and hw& (similar popular corruptions) are
given to women. 3
This result enables us to explain a very troublesome
word in v. II. In the text of Abraham s defence of
himself we read, * Yea, I thought, Only there is no fear of
God in this place ; pi properly means only, but how can
that be right here ? Hence one scholar renders certainly ;
another, at least ; another, combining it with DVHN pw,
* nothing but fear of God there is not in this place. But
surely pi must have come from pi, i.e. Dpi, which (see on
Num. xxxi. 8) is a popular corruption of DTTP = 7MDTTP.
Rekem is a gloss on in this place, Gerar being a
Yerahme elite region.
Passing on to (b\ we notice that Abraham was not a
prophet (v. 7; cp. Ps. cv. 15, reading my prophet ) as
having been called to proclaim a higher view of God (see
1 See on Judg. viii. 31; and cp. on Abraham, Gen. xvii. 5;
Milcah, xi. 29.
2 H. Derenbourg, REJ i. 58.
3 Another ancient transformation (note Abd-milki in the Amarna
letters) of i*?cmy ( cm* y) is -Sb-uy. Of course, the origin of the name
must have been very early forgotten. Similarly, Sirrny (Palmyrene ;
Cooke, p. 274) may have come from Vyn :ny, and Syn, in all such names,
from Syo, i.e.
314 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Jos. Ant. i. 7, i), but as having a singular degree of intimacy
with Yahweh, including the privilege of intercession (v. 7 ;
cp. xviii. 22 -33). That Abimelech should at once
appreciate this, is not strange. Prophetism was specially
connected with N. Arabia. So also was the worship of
Yahweh. The suspicion expressed by Abraham (v. 11) is
dramatically improbable. What he says must really be
intended for the Elohist s contemporaries, who (it is implied)
ought not to condemn all their N. Arabian neighbours
indiscriminately. Just so Elijah finds an excellent wor
shipper of Yahweh at Sarephath (the Sidon of i K. xvii. 8,
if correctly read, is a southern Sidon), and the southern
Aramaean Balaam, according to the earlier tradition, was a
true prophet of Yahweh. Similarly, Abimelech was a
scrupulously religious man, who, though not a prophet, was
favoured with a vision of Elohim (vv. iff. ; cp. Num. xxii. 9,
Elohim came to Balaam ). The plural isnn in v. 1 3 is
not used out of regard to Abimelech as a heathen
(Dillm.) ; a plural verb with Elohim is again used by E in
xxxv. 7. In both cases there is a reference to the council
of the Elohim, whose leader and director was Yahweh, and
who may in primitive no less than in recent times have
been addressed as "GIN (see v. 4), unless indeed ^TM is
substituted for ]*IQ-IN = ^NDrrP (see pp. 54-56, and on xv. 2).
(c] The mental reservation ascribed to Abraham in v. 12
is an attempt to relieve the patriarch from the shame of a
flat falsehood (see xii. 13, xxvi. 7). Truthfulness in speech
is beginning to be more valued. It is, however, a post-
exilic psalmist who places truth-speaking on a level with
acting righteously (Ps. xv. 2).
(d) The legal interest of v. 1 6 has been pointed out by
Gunkel. 1 But he goes too far in assuming that the com
pensation for an offence to Sarah must have been paid to
Abraham, because a wife could not acquire property. It is
sounder doctrine that a wife s right of property was confined
to what she received as a gift (cp. E. Bib., Family, 5 (<:)).
In Babylonia, under gammurabi, a man could present his
wife with land or goods, and if he made a deed of gift, she
could enjoy it for her -lifetime (Code, 150, cp. 171). On
1 Cp., however, Winckler, AOF xxi. 41 4 f.
SARAH IN GERAR (GEN. xx.) 315
the same principle, surely, Sarah, with the permission of
Abraham, could receive a present of money from Abimelech.
The true text of v. 1 6 requires this ; THtA, to thy brother/
is in itself improbable, and on text-critical grounds should be
corrected into 7HD1TT 1 . (See below.)
(e) In v. 1 6 (as also in xxiii. 15/1) we find a reference
to the shekel, just as in xxxiii. 1 9 we may probably find
the mina of Salekath. Commercial standards of money
were common in the ancient East, not only in Semitic but
in Aryan regions (see, for the latter, Meyer, Gesch. Alt.
iii. 99). Where Salekath was, cannot be determined ; the
name ro^D, however (see on Dt. iii. 10), indicates that it
was in the region called Ashkal, i.e. Ashhur-Yerahme el.
It must have been a centre for the Ishmaelite, Yerahme elite,
or Midianite merchants, whose standard of money was most
probably accepted both in the N. Arabian border-land and
in the land of Judah. A parallel phrase to c the shekel of
Salekath is the shekel of Ashhur (Ex. xxx. 13, MT.
shekel kakkodes/i). I hesitate to add 2 S. xiv. 28, however
tempting the passage (see Crit. Bib. pp. 285^), but I may
point out that the cubit of Ishmael is most probably
mentioned in Dt. iii. 1 1. It is plausible to suppose that the
Ishmaelite, Yerahme elite, Ashhurite, or Salekathite standard
was, like the Phoenician, a derivative of the Babylonian. It
is also worth stating that several different standards were in
use in Assyria (see Johns, Ass. Deeds, iii. 542^). One of
these was possibly the Salekathite.
To justify our view we must now scrutinise the text of
v. 1 6. As a recent German critic 1 has remarked, that
difficult passage has called forth innumerable explanations.
The trouble begins with if? N^n, which the R.V. (with most)
renders, it is for thee, but with an alternative version, he is
for thee (so Ibn Ezra and Ewald). The latter rendering
is peremptorily rejected by Driver, but is really the most
obvious one, for -fTTN 1 ? comes just before. We then get
the unusual phrase errs moD ; how shall we explain it ?
BDB say, covering of the eyes, so that they cannot see
the wrong ; fig. of a present offered in compensation for
it. The phrase, however, so understood, is too poetical or
1 J. Wellecz, OLZ, Sept. 1904, col. 336.
316 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
rhetorical to be expected here. Veil (Onk., Ewald,
Winckler) would be much more plausible, if there were any
parallel for such a use. Still more improbable is what
follows hi rwi in* -iEN hlh, ( for all who are with thee,
and with all ? Grammatical subtlety fails us in such cases
altogether. The remedy, however, is not far to seek. We
have to recognise the twofold fact that certain groups of
letters recur in it in the most unlikely manner, and that
these groups resemble certain frequently recurring corrup
tions of SNOTT, W?DBF, and rof?D. The first part of this
has been noticed by Wellecz, 1 who gives a table of the
recurring groups of letters, but cannot control or connect his
results by the experience won from the application of the
N. Arabian key. And yet it is with this experience that
we must begin. It is usual, whenever emphasis has to be
laid on the full weight or value, to add to the specification
of the amount a reference to the commercial standard (see
above). It is therefore a priori likely that such a reference
should occur early in v. 16, and that tfin HDH, which has
the appearance of being a gloss, should supplement and
explain this reference. Now there is one word in v. 16
(just before the gloss) which is in itself so improbable 2 that
we must suspect it. It is TH*6, which, like Tn^i? in
xlviii. 22, has no doubt come from f?NGrrr (l and f con
founded) ; the phrase silver of Yerahme el occurs again in
xxiii. 9 (cp. v. 15). Thus the speech of Abimelech
becomes, Behold, I give a thousand [shekels] of silver of
Yerahme el ; the close of the speech, however, is cut off by
the gloss.
Passing on now to the gloss (v. 16), we must take *]h
and niDD (no3) together. When combined, they represent
the place-name Salekath (see above, d)\ TOD in xxxiii. 17
and nz^tDp in xxxiii. 19 have, beyond doubt, the same
origin. D-cni?, as in xxxviii. 14, 21, most probably comes
from pD" 1 , i.e. ^NSDBP (h, as often, passes into ]). hlh must
1 See article referred to.
2 We should have expected ISTN"?, to thy husband. It is a poor
answer that Abimelech wished to emphasise the fact that Abraham had
called himself Sarah s brother. Indeed, it is not at all clear that the
money would have been handed over to Abraham. See above (d).
SARAH IN GERAR (GEN. xx.) 317
be explained in accordance with the preceding ^D ; it is a
fragment of ro^D. ittJM, as often, should be IEN, and both
-jnN and SD riN have come from SiariN, i.e. ^N^DE" 1 . Thus
the gloss (which is twofold) becomes, * surely, that (viz.
Yerahme el) is Salekath of Ishmael, Salekath of Asshur-
Ishmael ; i.e. this is the commercial centre from which the
money-standard is derived. And last of all comes Abime-
lech s closing word, l-inpln, * and so thou art justified
(righted). The whole verse now runs thus, n^n "IDN
DOT I#N rof?D htwnw roSo win nan DHT PIDD *^>N Tina
BIRTH OF ISAAC; HAGAR DISMISSED
(GEN. xxi. 1-2 1)
THE promise is fulfilled, and a son the rather un
important Isaac l is born by Sarah to Abraham. But
maternal jealousy is aroused ; law is appealed to, and
Ishmael and Hagar are expelled. Doubtless a fascinating
narrative so graphically told, and psychologically so
true. The mother watches Ishmael at his play (vv. 8 /!),
and finds it intolerable that Ishmael should be joint-heir
with Isaac. Abraham, being Ishmael s as well as Isaac s
father, is pained at the demand which Sarah makes, but
is reconciled to it on receiving a divine oracle (vv. 1 2 /".).
Hagar and the child Ishmael are sent away into the wilder
ness (see on vv. 14, i6/., 20). The water is soon spent.
Hagar lays her child in the scanty shade of a desert-shrub,
1 Isaac is really a mere duplicate of Abraham. Note that the Beer-
sheba of which Isaac is the hero (xxvi. 32_/".) is also the dwelling-place
of Abraham (xxi. 33).
3i8 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
and sits down near him to watch. The child weeps, and
the divine director of human affairs is touched at the sound.
From heaven he calls to Hagar, and bids her take up and
hold her child, for he (as well as Isaac) is destined to become
a great people. So Elohim opened her eyes, and she saw a
well ; then she filled her water-skin, and quenched the thirst
of her child.
The narrative is as simple as it is beautiful when glosses
have been removed. But we must not be ungrateful for the
glosses ; they confirm the view already expressed (see on
xv. l), that Hagar was not an Egyptian but a N. Arabian.
In fact, the author of the glosses has done all that he could
to emphasise the fact that the scene of the legend is in
N. Arabia. In spite of this, we cannot say that it contains
anything subversive of a belief in its Israelitish origin.
As to the contents, much more cannot be said here.
The legal aspects of the treatment of Hagar are well treated
by S. A. Cook, The Laws of Moses and the Code of Ham
murabi, pp. 1 1 6- 1 1 8. The religious aspects are, for us,
more important. That a divine Being should have cared
for a bond-woman is a beautiful feature of the Hebrew
legend. And who was this divine Being ? He is called
both Elohim and Mal ak-Elohim. Elohim is probably a
substitute for Yahweh, which is the name of the leader and
director of the divine duad or triad. It is no objection to
this view that Elohim has probably originated in * Yerah-
me el, for the origin of the word was of course forgotten
when it came to be thus used. What a great position
Mal ak-Yahweh held, we have seen already (on xvi. 7).
But we cannot understand the contents aright without
further textual inquiry. On v. 16 a Gunkel remarks thus:
The mother s eye cannot bear to look upon the death-
agony of the child. So she goes a little way off but oh,
thou dear, inconsistent maternal heart ! not too far/ and,
like most other scholars, Gunkel translates ntt>j2 " I intop3 prnn
4 as far as about a bow-shot. The literal rendering, however,
is * distant like shooters with the bow. This does not make
sense. Hence & gives fAa/cpoTepov axrel TO^OV (3o\r)i>, chang
ing * shooters into * shot, and Konig paraphrases, according
to the usual distance of the mark from archers {Synt.
BIRTH OF IS A AC j HAGAR DISMISSED (GEN. XXL 1-21) 319
264 ). But let us look more closely at the text. A
Pilel form of a verb (rrn&) found nowhere else can hardly
pass unquestioned, and experience shows that nmp is not
seldom corrupt (see v. 20, Hos. vii. 16, Isa. Ixvi. 17, Jer.
iv. 29, Ps. Ix. 6, Ixxviii. 9, 57). What nttfp represents is
plain ; mp (pB>) is often a fragment of inBJN, and n&p in the
suspected passages probably represents mnt&N (the feminine
of in^rt). Turning to ^in^DD, we must, first of all, divide
it into two parts. ttED, like rvoo, 2 Chr. ii. 9 (see on I K.
v. 25), may well represent mi?n, while vin may represent
either Nin ( that is ), thus producing the sense, that is,
Ashhoreth, or else Tin, a fragment of TiniDN, an alternative
reading to mntDN. The sense of the whole passage becomes,
either at some distance from Maacath, that is, Ashhoreth, 1
or . . . from Maacath-Ashhur [Ashhoreth]. It is a gloss
defining the situation of the well. Cp. xvi. 7, where the
fountain is said to have been on the way to Shur (Asshur).
The coincidence is complete. The second "TIDE m is, of
course, redactional (Ball). The result of the insertion was
that the weeping of the next clause was transferred from
the child to his mother. But the mother s grief was surely
too deep for tears.
The speech of the kindly Mal ak-Yahweh is now plain
all except the closing words, DB Nin iBtol. Again Gunkel
disappoints us ; for how can the words mean ebenda wo er
liegt, and how could * ebenda wo er liegt involve a play on
the name ia&&gt; INI (see Gunkel s note) ? Experience clears
up the difficulty. IEN and Qttf often stand respectively for
iftN and inDft ( = ^NSDBF) ; Nin frequently introduces a gloss.
Thus we get the sense, in Asshur, that is, Ishmael, a gloss
most probably on the situation of the well (v. 1 9).
Lastly, as to the brief description of Ishmael s subse
quent fortunes. As Knobel and Dillmann have remarked,
TCFl and rrih together are too much, at least if nih means
becoming great (Job xxxix. 4). Hence it is proposed to
read either nQ)p HIT or r p rrcn. But observe (i) that nin,
to shoot (arrows) is a air. \ey., and that im, a supposed
cognate, cannot be proved to exist by xlix. 25 (see note),
and (2) that r p ncn ( DYi) in Jer. iv. 29, Ps. Ixxviii. 9, is
probably corrupt (cp. on v. 1 6). vn, as often elsewhere,
320 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
comes from Mini. Thus, for p -\ vn we should restore
rnhlpM yro : Nim, that is, Arabia of Ashhoreth, probably a
gloss on ITTDI. V. 21 a is, of course, an alternative read
ing. Need I add that Ishmael s wife was brought, not from
Misraim, but from Misrim ? What evidence or probability
is there that the Ishmaelites or Yerahme elites were mixed
with Egyptian elements ?
ABIMELECH S COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM
(GEN xxi. 22-34)
ONCE more Abraham is glorified ; with what respect
he is treated by the lord of Beersheba ! At the same
time, the later occupation of the place by the Israelites
is justified, the name * Beersheba (cp. on chap, xx.) is
explained, and the fundamental identity of the worship of
Yahweh with that of Yerahme el is affirmed (v. 33).
Abimelech we have met with before ; he dwells in the
land of the Pelishtim (v. 32 ; see introduction to chap. xx.).
Beside him stands the unexplained figure of Pikol (also
xxvi. 26). Was he once upon a time great in the legend
(see Gunkel) ? And what means the name ? Mouth (i.e.
spokesman) of all (Ges. HW^) is absurd. Stucken (AM,
p. 13, note) suggests as the origin Pap-sukal (Assyrian
name for a divine messenger). Spiegelberg (OLZ, Feb. 1906)
invokes Egyptian help, and explains as pa-Hori, the man
of Haru (Syria and Palestine) ; cp. Pi-nehas, the negro.
The comparison, however, is not helpful (see on Ex. vi. 25).
^rra, like ifwiN, comes from fworiT mi? ; l the link is ^S^l
(cp. fpnoi = orm IIS, I Chr. vii. 33). It is, therefore, really
1 Cp. also noa S (Ezek. xxx. 17) from nyoB-nx, and nTn.vs (Ex. xiv. 2)
from rmnt5 N" i 3N.
ABIMELECWS COVENANT (GEN. XXL 22-34) 321
a variant to TO^IM, 1N1S 1 must be explained as in Judg.
iv. 2, where Yabln, king of Canaan, is parallel to *iNl2~itt>
NID^D, or rather pim itD, i.e. oar n, * prince of Ishmael. 1
Probably there were two early recensions of the story, in
one of which the chieftain with whom Abraham had dealings
o
was called Abimelech, king of the Philistines (as in
xxvi. 8), and in the other, * Bimelech, a prince of Ishmael
(i.e. one of the princes of the Ishmaelite region).
We now come to the etymology of Beer-sheba. INI
SIB, according to J, means well of seven, i.e. of seven
lambs, thus pointing to a great sacrifice in the olden time.
Most moderns, however (see e.g. W. R. Smith, RS (2 \ p. 1 8 1 ;
Noldeke, Arch. Rel.-wiss. vii. 340 ff.\ explain it as seven
wells. Certainly seven is a sacred number, either from the
planets (including sun and moon), or more probably from the
Pleiades. But what right have we to assume the post
position of the numeral (Ewald, Dillmann, Stade) ? : We
must therefore venture to differ from the majority, even
after the collection of fresh parallels for seven wells in the
Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft, viii. 1 5 5 f. Boscawen
suggests well of the seven allied tribes ; Winckler, con
sistently enough, well of the Seven-god, i.e. of the moon-
god, one of whose numerical symbols was seven (Gl ii. 83,
cp. 48). The key, however, is supplied by Kiryath-arba r ,
where arba has come from f ardb (see on xxiii. 2). sift is a
corruption of som = [^N]SD&P (see on Sheba, x. 7), so that
Beer-sheba is properly well of Sheba or of Ishmael. 2
The writer of v. 31, however, interprets well of an oath
(cp. xxvi. 33).
At this venerated spot (Am. viii. 14, see p. 46) Abraham
the Yerahme elite planted a sacred tree (v. 33), and called
with the name Yahweh, citing him, as it were, to occupy
the spot. 3 But Yahweh was not the only divine name used
by the patriarch. He appended the title D^s SN, which is
neither the everlasting God (Isa. xl. 28), nor the ancient
1 The travellers dispute as to the number of wells at Bir es-Seba
(28 m. S.W from Hebron) does not concern us here.
2 The numerals play sad tricks with ancient texts and traditions.
Think of the Phoenician divine name Eshmun being explained as
eighth (see p. 42). 3 Gunkel, Genesis**, p. 48.
21
322 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
God, nor the God of the world (the Bab. * mummu ), 1
none of which are natural here, but a combination of ht* with
some popular abbreviation of bNorrP, 2 such as aW 1 (see on
xxxvi. 14). That Yahweh and Yerahme el together formed
a divine duad we have seen already ; also that Yahweh was
the supreme director. The latter point also comes out in
the title * El-Yerahme el. 3 Compare what has been said on
xiv. 1 8 ff. (pp. 37, 253/1), where inter alia some important
glosses on the divine name are indicated ; also on xvii. i.
Lastly, as to the sacred tree, which here, to our surprise,
is called ^EN (i S. xxii. 6, xxxi. 13; I Chr. x. 12 sub
stitutes H^N). Most compare the Ar. athl, which corre
sponds phonetically, and means * tamarisk. But was the
tamarisk specially sacred except in Egypt? 4 It would
seem that , which has efyvrevcrev apovpav, read Tns, i.e.
*ims or wrs (Jer. xvii. 6, xlviii. 6). This may come either
from rnm (E. Bib., Tamarisk ; Crit. Bib. pp. 238, 247), 5
or from -|D ( = *nEDNn), an Asshur-tree (cp. Hos. ix. 13,
p. 266). This gives us a hint for StDN, which (cp. SlNttf and
BT&N) may reasonably be traced to ^NSDBF. It is true, the
Ishmael-tree was more often called p&&gt; p (i K. vi. 23,
3i/!, Neh. viii. 15, Isa. xli. 19), but this does not exclude
another popular corruption of the same name. There are
also traces (see on Dt. xii. 2) of a tree or trees of Yerah
me el. Such was probably the rimmon-\.rez, i.e. the pome
granate, and perhaps the armon-tree, i.e. the plane. Possibly
one of these trees is meant.
1 Winckler, A OF. 3Q5/, 416.
2 Cp. vi. 4, Ps. xxiv. 7, 9 (Ps. (2} ), where in like manner nSiy repre
sents DHT ; also i Chr. vii. 16, where Ulam and Rekem are brothers.
3 A title, ND^J; Nno, occurs in a Palmyrene inscription of A.D.
114 (de Vogue). It is appended to pt? Sin, i.e. Baal Ishman
(Ishmael). The original meaning of the titles was, of course, forgotten.
The Xpovos and OijAw/xos of Phoenician mythology may also, perhaps, be
similarly explained.
4 Maspero, Dawn of Civ. p. 28, note 3.
5 Ed. Meyer, with his usual neglect of E. Bib., etc., refers to a
scanty communication of Stade s in a letter to von Gall (Die Israeliten,
p. 257 ; cp. v. Gall, Kultstatten, p. 47).
OFFERING OF ISAAC (GEN. xxn. 1-19)
As all will agree, a most interesting but not easily
intelligible narrative (see E. Bib., Isaac, Jehovah -jireh ).
How is it, we may ask, that Elohim issues a command, and
then takes it back ? We can understand how the vicarious
sacrifice of a ram for a child might be ascribed to an oracle
of Elohim, but not how the same Elohim can (according to
a widely spread interpretation of v. 2} have been represented
as the author of the practice of child-sacrifice. We should
have comprehended if Abraham, like Jephthah, had made a
vow which, as things turned out, required him to offer up
his own child, and if Elohim had, according to the legend,
interposed, ordaining the sacrifice of a ram ; but we are sur
prised when Elohim is stated to have first directed and
afterwards forbidden the sacrifice of Abraham s * only son.
When, however, we look more closely at the story of the
offering up of Isaac, we see that the first and principal part
.of it is bathed in the tender glow of a nascent spiritual faith. 1
Nothing is said (as by Philo of Byblus) of the peril of the
country requiring such a sacrifice. It is an episode in
Abraham s life of faith which is brought before us. Elohim,
we are told, tried Abraham. That is, God determined to
assure himself how far the loyalty of his servant would
reach. Would he remonstrate when so hard a thing was
asked as the sacrifice of his only son ?
The narrative appeals to us almost as much perhaps as
it can have done to its first readers and hearers. But is it
not clear that there must have been an earlier form indeed,
earlier forms of the story ? Among these we may include
1 Cp. Bishop Warburton, Divine Legation of Moses, Bk. vi. sect. 5
(Works, vi. 37).
323
324 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
the brief tale in Philo of Byblus ; l but I must add that,
though it may have come ultimately from N. Arabia, it is
too recent in its present form to be worth discussing here.
There is, I think, another form of the story, which, though
not preserved in any literary record, may, with some con
fidence, be assumed, and which is of N. Arabian origin, viz.
that once upon a time a Yerahme elite hero, known as
Abraham (his earlier name see on xvii. 5 not having
been preserved), actually offered up his only son, in obedience
to an oracle of the god of the land. And the course of the
evolution of religion elsewhere renders it certain that the
growth of the spirit of humanity at length led the Israelitish
as well as the Syrian priesthoods to ordain the vicarious
sacrifice of one of the lower animals. We may also probably
assume that this alteration of a sacred custom was justified
by the authority of another oracle, the reflexion of which we
have in xxii. 11-13.
A word or two more as to the substitution of an animal.
The idea was that the lower animals were closely akin to
man, and that therefore the offering of one of them was a
possible surrogate for human sacrifice. At the Syrian
Laodicea ( = Phcen. Ramitha) it was a stag which was
chosen. 2 With the Israelites or Yerahme elites it was a ram.
An ox would, of course, not have done ; this animal was
sacrosanct, as being a symbol of Yahweh-Yerahme el.
If we ask who the god of the land referred to above
probably was, the answer must be Yerahme el, the name
which at any rate the Israelites recognised as belonging to
this god, and which was often corrupted into Melek and
Mal ak. 3 And we can now give an answer to the question
1 For the Phoenician story see Miiller, Fragm. Hist. Grcec. iii. 57O/,
It runs thus : Kpoi/os . . . vlov 4 xtov fjiovoyevrj, ov Sia TOVTO leSovS
TOV [jiovoyevovs oimos ert KCU vvv KaXov^evov Trapa TOIS
KLv8vvtov eK TToXfjjiov /J.y tcrTcov KaTciAT^OTiov rrjv ^iopav
Kocr/z^cras cr^^arc TOV t>iov, f3(i)fjibv 8e KaracrKeuacra^iei os
Kare6Wev. Cp. Baudissin, Studien zur semit. Religionsgeschichte,
li. 154^
2 The yearly stag-sacrifice at Laodicea continued as late as the
second century A.D. Cp. W. R. Smith, ReL Sem. (Z} pp. 409, 466 ;
E. Bib., col. 2178.
3 This is the Milk which appears, in composition, both in Phoenician
personal names and in the names of deities. For Mal ak see on xvi. 7*
OFFERING OF ISAAC (GEN. xxn. 1-19) 325
asked (after Eerdmans, but more hesitatingly) by Kautzsch,
whether the melek to whom these sacrifices [in Topheth] were
offered is not meant to stand for a special form of Yahweh. *
Yahweh and Yerahme el were, in fact, united as the name of
the god of the Israelites, though the deity to whom the
child-sacrifices were originally offered was the N. Arabian
god Yerahme el, perhaps also to his fellow-deity Ashtart. 2
See, further, pp. 50-52 (on Melek).
If we further inquire how Isaac can be described as
Abraham s only son/ 3 with total disregard of Ishmael, a
satisfactory answer can now be given. It appears that
Isaac has drawn to himself some features of the mythic
Tammuz or Adonis. More precisely, he corresponds, at
least in part, to the Dusares who, both at Petra and at
Elusa, was worshipped as the only begotten of the Lord 4
(fjiovoyevrjs TOV Aeo-Trorou). Possibly, in another form of the
myth, Isaac like Adonis died and rose again (cp. pp. 56/.).
Our result is that the Hebrew writer whom we call the
Elohist took that older story of Abraham and his sacrifice
of his only son and recast it. Well did he perform his
task. The dry and repulsive ancient myth became the
beautiful story that we know so well, telling of the journey
of the loving father, whose lips are sealed by inward
knowledge, and the innocently questioning lad, to the sad
and solemn place of sacrifice, the place where Isaac, question
ing no more, suffers himself to be bound upon the wood (i.e.
on the altar), when suddenly the voice of Mal ak-Elohim is
heard, proclaiming the divine satisfaction at the moral result
of the trial, and the retractation of the command. With
this the Elohist connects the traditional story of the sub-
A title of this god was probably < El-Yerahme el, divinity of Yerah
me el ; see on xxi. 33. When Philo of Byblus identifies the Phoenician
El with Kronos, he, or rather his authority, means by El El- Yerah
me el, a title which the Arabians may have taken, with much besides,
to Phoenicia.
1 Kautzsch in Hastings DB, extra volume, p. 690 a.
- Cp. Isaac of Antioch, ed. Bickell, i. 221, boys and girls they
sacrificed to the star of Venus.
3 @ here gives ayaTrryro s, but in Judg. xi. 34 /zoi/oyenys (B), to
which A adds ai TO) dyaTrrjT rj.
4 Epiphanius, H<zr. 51 ; cp. Cheyne, Bible Problems, p. 74.
326 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
stitution of a ram for the child a poor conclusion, but
doubtless necessary for the information of the early readers.
Such is perhaps the best theory of the origin and
meaning of the narrative before us. The basis of the story is
ultimately mythological (see p. 325). Compare, or contrast,
the story of Jephthah and his daughter. That story, too,
as we find it in Judg. xi. 34-40, is pale enough as
compared with what may have been the ancient myth,
or with the earliest legendary transformation of it. But
it lacks the psychological charm of the story of Abraham
and Isaac. It may be remarked here that the note in
w. 39^-40 relative to the annual mourning of Israelite
women, to those who can see below later phraseology, points
to a primitive ritual mourning for a divine being, such as
most critics (but very possibly see Crit. Bib. by an error)
have found in Ezek. viii. 14 and Zech. xii. 11, and such as
may conceivably have existed in the sacred place to which
Abraham is said to have journeyed (cp. pp. 47/.).
There is yet another narrative besides that of Jephthah
which may plausibly be mentioned in this connexion. It
is difficult not to think that the tradition on which Ex.
xii. 29-36 was based was virtually a protest against child-
sacrifices. The slaying of the Misrite (not Egyptian) first
born may have been represented as the punishment inflicted
upon the oppressors of Israel, by the offended Yahweh, to
strengthen the Israelites (now religiously in advance of the
Misrites) in their resolve no longer to sacrifice human first
born. See the exposition of this view in E. Bib., Plagues,
5-
It would, however, be a mistake to regard the author of
our narrative as having had the object of directly protesting
against such offerings. That he was opposed to them, may
safely be assumed, but in his time this kind of sacrifice was
apparently not common among the Israelites. It is plain
enough that afterwards it began again to fascinate them ; l
the stress of the times, and the increased religious as well
as political influence which criticism appears to assign to
1 Cp. Moore, E. Bib., Molech ; Eerdmans, Melekdienst (1891) ;
Tiele, Geschiedenis van den godsdienst in de oudheid, i. (1893), pp.
227-229.
OFFERING OF ISAAC (GEN. xxn. 1-19) 32?
N. Arabia, will account for this. The name Melek (Molek)
was, in fact, equivalent to Yerahme el that N. Arabian
divinity who was (as has become highly probable) combined
in the worship of the Israelites with Yahweh.
The spirit of the beautiful narrative has had the fullest
justice done to it by Gunkel. Uppermost in the narrator s
mind was the religious character of the model Israelite.
Nothing was too precious for this hero of faith or devotion
to give to Elohim, but there was something too precious for
Elohim, as Abraham s friend as well as master, to accept.
I have assumed that the story is N. Arabian, just as I
have assumed that the illustrative story in Ex. xii. 29 ff. is
N. Arabian. The former assumption is justified partly by
the N. Arabian scenery of the earlier Abraham-legends ;
partly by necessary corrections of corrupt passages in the
narrative before us. One of these passages is v. 2, where
we meet with the difficult phrase the land of Moriah.
Few will any longer maintain that Moriah was so usual
as the name of the temple-hill at Jerusalem that the whole
neighbourhood could be named after it ; and the fact that
even the editor of JE, who gave xxii. 1-19 its present
form, does not make Abraham call the sacred spot Moriah,
but (if the text is right) * Yahweh-yir eh, gives a strong
argument against the traditional view. The only other
passage where JTTiEn occurs (2 Chr. iii. i) may very
possibly be no longer in its original form, i.e. the older text
on which the Chronicler works may have run differently
(see Crit. Bib. p. 31 2). on therefore cannot be right.
Sam., , and Pesh. all give us hints of a truer reading, if
we are wise enough to use them. The first gives
which reminds us that, in 2 S. xxiii. 21, rTNID (like
and ^>N-IN) has come from some form nearer to
the second, ryv v^rrjKrjv, which it also gives in xii. 6 for
miD (see on xii. 6) ; the third, land of the Amorites. These
renderings all suggest ION or CTIN as an element in the true
reading, and the sense will certainly be given if we read
^NQnv. 1
The ( land of Yerahme el, then, was the name of the
1 My earlier suggestion, approved by Winckler (GI ii. 44, note i),
was cnsn (s might have fallen out after px).
328 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
region whither Abraham was sent. But surely the patriarch
needed still more definite instructions. We have seen that
in xii. I the idea that Abraham did not know the goal of
his journey is a mistake. A similar conclusion is forced
upon us here. 1 Following parallels too numerous to
mention, D^inn *TT"TN should be corrected into DTTP "inffiN,
while the cases of xii. I and (more especially) of xxvi. 2
and xxxi. 49 justify the restoration of DTTP D"* 12% for
fklf "1QN "ittfN (cp. on vv. 3, 9, 14), To avoid mistake, it
may be added that each of the three latter words is found
elsewhere miswritten for the corresponding word in the
suggested combined restoration, and that bD?TP is, of course,
a mere gloss on D*IN. It is probable that Ashhur- or Ashtar-
Yerahme el was the name both of a mountain and of a city
upon it (see on Dt. iii. 27). It may also perhaps have been
called Gibeath-Yerahme el (Crit. Bib. on Jer. ii. 34, iii. 23).
To this spot 2 it was that those who steeled themselves
against the cries of children appear to have resorted for the
most terrible of sacrifices. We can hardly doubt that the
words on Ashhur- Yerahme el are a gloss ; the effect is
heightened if v. 2 is made to close at rh ^.
In v. 3 a veil is once more thrown over the name of
the sanctuary ; the concealment, however, involves the editor
in an inconsistency, for Yahweh had not told Abraham
which was the mountain to go to. Instead, therefore, of
DYF^Mn iS -IEN IB>N read ^NDTTT I^N (see on v. 2). if? is
not unfrequently miswritten for htf, and DVT^N[n] may
sometimes, with good reason, be taken as a disguise of
SttC)n[-|]\ Yerahme el, it appears, was dittographed. So
too in v. 9.
And now (v. 8) Abraham himself reveals to the careful
reader the name of the sacred place. There were various
1 Gunkel may be referred to here. He thinks that there is a lacuna
after v. 2. The mountain must have been referred to (see v. 3 end),
but later scribes omitted the reference, because it was inconsistent with
their own theory. This is one of those expedients in which literary
criticism delights, but which are slight and ineffectual remedies for the
imperfections of the texts.
2 It is not meant that this was the only spot. In Palestine proper
(e.g. at Gezer) there were no doubt sanctuaries at which this grim rite
was practised.
OFFERING OF ISAAC (GEN. xxn. 1-19) 329
abbreviations of Yerahme el. One of them was Aram
(see vv. 2, 3, 9); another was W 1 (v. 13); another was
Yeruel (2 Chr. xx. 16) or Yeriel (i Chr. vii. 2). DYT^N
iVnNT is evidently suggested by the form bwiT ; indeed,
most probably, iS is a corruption of hn (see preceding note),
so that DTT^N will be a late insertion, subsequent to the
corruption referred to. 1 Cp. on v. 14.
The mediator between Yahweh and mankind is Yerah
me el. But the old N. Arabian deity has been combined,
in Israelitish belief, with Yahweh. So Mal ak-Yahweh, i.e.
Yerahme el-Yahweh (see on xvi. 7), interposes (vv. 1 1 /.), to
communicate the heavenly decree. Gunkel has the right
impression, but makes a wrong inference from it. The
angel speaks, he says, as if God ; this points to an earlier
recension in which, not an angel, but God himself spoke.
There is no cause to doubt *r& (v. i 3), but very much
to suspect in. Neither * behind nor afterwards is a
satisfactory sense. Sam., @, Pesh., Jubilees, Onk., Jon., and
MSS., besides some moderns (including Konig, Synt. p. 279,
top), prefer ~rn. One would like some more expressive word,
however, and it happens that both THN and in often repre
sent inftN. This must be the case here with inw, and if so,
we should probably supply btfarrp ; i.e. read the compound
phrase Yerahme el-Ashhur, understanding it as a marginal
correction of the corruption QIVT low "i&JN (v. r 4)- SNDTTV
was probably written hw (for shortness), and this fell out
owing to its likeness to h^&.
We now come to the riddle * Yahweh yir eh (v. 1 4).
In view of v. 8 we should most naturally render Yahweh
selects, but this does not suit HMT. Should the two parts
of v. 14 be harmonised (cp. Driver) ? The truth surely is
that riN*P mm at the end of v. 8 is repeated in error.
DV7T "itD^r "I8)N has come from ^NonT DIN "12>N, where onT,
is, of course, a gloss on DI T (cp. on v. 2). irrl, which now
follows 111 IIDN, should certainly precede these words. We
1 Gunkel thinks it likely that the name of the place of sacrifice was
Yeruel, and that it was near Tekoa (2 Chr. xx. 16). The origin of
Yeruel has not occurred to him. Oort s criticisms (Theol. Tijdschr.
1901, pp. 552/1) and Ed. Meyer s (Die Isracliten, p. 256) are not
cogent enough.
330 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
can now, perhaps, solve the opening riddle. The original
reading may have been h& rTNT. The mm prefixed in the
traditional text was probably put in after the h& in ^N rFNT
had fallen out (cp. on v. 8). Thus the name * Yeruel (v. 8)
is ascribed to Abraham, for h& nT is a transparent disguise.
More disguises await us in v. 17, in the supplementary
speech of Mal ak-Yahweh. It is usually supposed that
where a large number of people is compared to the sand
it is an Oriental hyperbole. But why should there be two
hyperboles * as the stars . . . as the sand? Looking closer,
we find that, either deliberately or because he had to work
upon ill-written texts, the redactor has put and as the sand l
which is on the sea-shore instead of Yerahme el- Asshur
("iE)N oiTp) as far as (TI?) the shore of the lake. Similar
corrections have to be made in xxxii. 13, Josh. xi. 4, Judg.
vii. 12, i S. xiii. 5, 2 S. xvii. n, i K. v. 9. The restored
words, in our passage, are a gloss on D" 1 !"!^ "i^N, words which
underlie the traditional reading, VT N *iB> (see on xxiv. 60).
The lake (ovr) means the Dead Sea (see on n^r>n D" 1 ,
xiv. 3). Surely the effect of the promise is heightened I
will multiply thine offspring as the stars of heaven ; what
more needs to be said (cp. xv. 5)? And if it be asked,
what there is to attract in the closing promise, and thine
offspring shall seize upon Asshur of the Arabians (gloss,
Yerahme el- Asshur as far as etc.), the answer is, Because
this region was hallowed by the consecrated traditional
legends.
1 For the corrupt Vim compare rta, Gen. x. 11, nV sn, i S. xxiii. 19,
and -^an, Gen. xlix. 12.
THE SONS OF NAHOR (GEN. xxii. 20-24)
A GROUP of tribes. The bene Nahor are here appar
ently planned after the model of the twelve sons of Israel,
of Ishmael, and of Esau. Partly they come from a wife,
partly from a concubine ; their origin, then, is not equally
noble. There were, of course, not really twelve tribes ; the
combination is artificial. It is, however, highly probable
that Nahor was the name of a considerable tract of
country, the full name of which was Arab-nahor (see on
xxiv. 10, xxxi. 53). The names are difficult, but re
munerate a methodical investigation. Let us remember
that Milkah as well as Nahor is a N. Arabian name (see on
xi. 29).
In v. 21 three glosses have intruded into the text.
They do not, however, relate to the names which they follow,
but most probably to the whole list of names. The
annotator meant (cp. xxv. 18) to say that the region of
these tribes might be called either Yerahme el-Ashhur or
Arab- Aram. -nnftN SNETTP underlies vnN "H31 ; D"1N"1"]S is
disguised as DIN *QN. Similar corruptions abound ; see
especially on iv. 20 /, x. 5, xvi. 12, xi. 29. What reason
can there be for calling Us his firstborn, or for uniting Us
more closely to Buz than to his other brethren (as if they
were twins) ? The meaning of Us is obscure (see on x. 23) ;
711, however, originated in TS1, or some similar form, corrupted
in the popular speech from htw&\ Cp. INT, bill, [n]l*itr,
all from this widely spread name (cp. on I K. vii. 21). In
Jer. xxv. 23 Buz occurs after Dedan and Tema, both
N. Arabian districts ; in Job xxxii. 2, Elihu, of the family of
Ram [ = Yerahme el], is a Buzite ; on Ezek. i. 3 see Crit. Bib.
ad loc. There was probably more than one Buz. Esar-
332 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
haddon tells us of a land of Bazu a desolate region (KB
ii. 131), near N. Arabia, but surely not meant here.
Another interesting name (still in v. 21) is ^NlDp. In
I Chr. v. 14 Michael and Buz are brought together,
precisely as Buz and * Kemuel here. That fpfcO^D has
come from T>NonT, we have seen (on xvi. 7) ; nor can we
reasonably doubt that WlDp has the same origin. The
occurrences in Num. xxxiv. 24 and I Chr. xxvii. 17 are not
opposed to this, Shiphtan and Hashabiah being demonstrably
N. Arabian names. Moreover, in I Chr. iv. 26 S^on
occurs with Mishma and Shimei, both Ishmaelite names ;
ShnEn and S^Qp are as closely related as Dp"! and DHT ;
cp. also the names Wtnp, mop" 1 , DS?Ep^, and pop, and the
scribal corruption Spi?E (Hab. i. 4), all which have the same
origin. The appended words DIN -ON are surprising ; Dillm.
thinks DIN must here have a narrower sense than in x. 22 f.
See, however, above ; Aramaean (Yerahme elite) Arabia is
a general title for the list. Gunkel s inference (p. 215) from
what he confesses to be a gloss (he adheres to father of
Aram ), that the Nahorites were the ancestors of the later
historical Aramaeans, and that after the disappearance of
the Nahorite people single tribes persisted as Aramaeans,
seems imprudent, because based on an excessive trust in
the present redaction of the texts of the O.T.
In v. 22 the capacity of the ordinary criticism is not less
severely strained. We hardly expect, says Driver, to find
a tribe [Kesed] belonging to the extreme S. of Babylonia
grouped with Aramaic tribes centred at Haran. Gunkel
goes a step further, and says, * These Kasdim, who are not
to be confounded with the Bab. Kasdim, though originally
akin to them, are an Aramaean tribe of Beduins, also
mentioned in 2 K. xxiv. 2 and Job i. 17. This is also
Winckler s theory. There is, however, better evidence for
the view that D^WD (as also pfttn) is miswritten for D"i#3,
which, for shortness, was sometimes written SffiD, and that
the origin of Kashram is Ashhur-Aram. See on xi. 28,
also on * Meshek, x. 2, and on Isa. x. 9, where the cities
mentioned are probably N. Arabian, and where, for Kar-
kemish (Ass. Gargamish), we should rather read Kashram.
As to rrn (Hazo), the rocky, mountainous land of Hazu,
THE SONS OF NAHOR (GEN. xxn. 20-24) 333
mentioned with the arid land of Bazu by Esar-haddon (see
above, on Buz), can hardly be meant. It is surely a clan-
name, and may have attached itself to more than one
district. We may group it with hmn, hwn, mn, W*HT,
mm, and probably also with ^inN, mrfN, ninN ; probably,
therefore, itn has come from int&, i.e. TinffiN. The strange
name tlTT^D is obviously a compound. Possibly it comes
from -iffi^l (i Esdr. v. 8) or ]B)Sl (Ezr. ii. 2, Neh. vii. 7),
which, however explained, point to N. Arabia (see on Neh.
vii. 7). jj^rp cannot critically be derived from +/t\h*i, to
drop ; it may come from SDT, i.e. f?NDT (see on Josh,
xviii. 27). More certain is the origin of f?Nin3. Like
and Bait-ili (see on xxviii. 1 9), it must have come from
i.e. h&WW (cp. on i K. xvi. 31, and on fnoriN, I S.
x. 10). So f?:nn, x. 2. Thus Laban and Ribkah were
both Ishmaelites, i.e. Yerahme elites. The situation of
Haran, however, must be considered separately.
rrDlNi (Reumah) is supposed to be another survival of
primitive totemism. According to Holzinger it is the DN-J,
* wild ox. But how improbable that the concubine of
Nahor should have such a widely different kind of name
from the concubine of Abraham ! Method requires us to
group rrmNi with rroin and moNT ; i.e. it comes from some
popular form of Wirrv. mtt (Tebah) may have come
from mim (see on D^mtt, xxxvii. 36). This word ( = n&3,
2 S. viii. 8) illustrates the Mibtah-iah of the Assuan papyri.
Dm (Gaham) should probably be Dm, a Maakathite name
(i Chr. iv. 19). mnn (Tahash) is identified by Winckler
(MVG, 1896, p. 207) with Tihis, mentioned in Pap. Anast.
i. 22 as in the region of Kadesh on the Orontes. But
names have many homes, mnn, like miion (Ezra viii. 2)
and niriN (xxvi. 26), probably comes from mntBN, the
feminine form of inm. nDi?D, i.e. the southern Maakah.
See on Dt. iii. 14, Josh. xiii. i i, 2 S. x. 6.
ABRAHAM BUYS A GRAVE (GEN. xxm.)
THE section before us begins with the death and ends
with the burial of Sarah. But whereas a bare record
is all that is given of her death and of the subsequent
mourning, the elaborate narrative which follows has for its
aim to prove by circumstantial evidence that Sarah was
interred by Abraham in the land of Canaan as a right that
had been conceded by the lords of the country. Here, as
everywhere, the Priestly Writer shows himself a lover of
precision. He tells how the bene Heth listened graciously
to Abraham s proposal to purchase, and how after courtesies
given and received Ephron sold him a piece of land in
which was a cave. If in an earlier form of the story the
forms of legal procedure were at all fully described, the
writer who finally shaped the narrative has omitted the
description. 1 This narrator, at any rate, was contented
with having made it clear that Abraham had secured the
possession of an inalienable family -grave. 2 There is a
parallel but much shorter notice in xxxiii. 18-20 (JE),
where Jacob purchases a piece of land at Shechem, pre
sumably as a place for a family-grave (see Josh. xxiv. 32).
The story in its present form has some peculiarities.
Thus (i) Sarah is said to have died in Kiryath-arba f , that
is, Hebron, in the land of Canaan. Arba f in Hebrew
means * four. Hence theories have arisen, analogous to
those connected with Beer-sheba (see on xxi. 30), explaining
the name Kiryath-arba f either as a city of four (quarters, or
1 Against Sayce s view that the account is in special accordance with
Babylonian usages, see S. A. Cook, The Laws of Moses, etc., 1903,
pp. 38 /, 208.
2 See W. R. Smith, OTJC (<2 \ pp. 4177.
334
ABRAHAM BUYS A GRAVE (GEN. xxni.) 335
even gods)/ or as * a city devoted to the Four-god, i.e. to
the moon-god, one of whose memorial symbols was four. 1
In illustration of this, Winckler compares the place-name
Arba f -ilu, 2 the Four-god city. These theories, however,
are not in themselves probable. If a numeral came in at
all, we should have expected it to be three, corresponding
to the three sons of Anak (Num. xiii. 22, etc.). We cannot,
therefore, disregard the evidence produced by textual criti
cisms to show that SIIN is not unfrequently miswritten
either for yr$ or for mi?, i.e. ami?. 3 City of Arabia or
of Arabians would no doubt be a possible name for a
place in a Yerahme elite region (see on Mamre, xiii. 1 8).
The question, however, still remains whether rnp was
originally the first part of the name. The appendix l-ji?
is most naturally taken as a qualification of some place-
name of frequent occurrence, i.e. K.-arab might mean
Arabian Kiryath, if such a place-name as Kiryath were
well attested. Most probably, however, rmp has the same
origin as rvo (i K. xvii. 3, 5) and TnD (i S. xxx. 14), i.e.
all these names arose very early 4 out of some common place-
name, such as mim (l omitted, n converted into 3 or p), or,
better, miniDN (cp. nDm = "inmN ; ^ = ^IDDN, 2 K. xi. 4, 1 9 ;
and mn, i S. xxii. 5, from mniDN). See xiv. 13 (end),
where Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner are referred to as citizens
of D^ns rvnD, and 1. 5, where Jacob refers to his grave as
situated in crm 7VO (the corrections are secure) ; also on
x. 14 (Kaphtorim).
It is slightly in favour of the reading Rehoboth- f arab
that ]Viin (Hebron), with which Kiryath-arba (?) is here
(as also in xxxv. 27, Josh. xiv. 15, xv. 13, 54, xx. 7,
xxi. 11, Judg. i. 10, but not Neh. xi. 25) identified, may
probably be connected with im. 5 And it is a plausible
1 Winckler, GI ii. 48 ; cp. Tomkins, Times of Abraham , pp. 102 f.
2 I.e. Arbela, between the upper and the lower Zab, a seat of the
cult of Ishtar. Cp. Jastrow, RBA, p. 203, note i. The name may be
a trace of the great Arabian migration. Cp. on l ?N3^^e, Hos. x. 14.
3 On miswritten numerals, see on ii. 10, xiv. 14, xv. 13, i K. xi. 3,
Neh. vii. 68 /
4 We may infer this from Egyptian reproductions of nnp (W.M.M.,
As. u. Eur. pp. 174, 195).
5 Cp. on am, Josh. ii. i. Sayce and Hommel, however, suppose a
336 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
hypothesis that Rehobon in course of time supplanted the
older form Rehoboth. On the whole, however, I am inclined
to prefer, as the original of rnp, mnttftf. See, further, notes
on xiii. 18 (more than one Hebron), Num. xiii. 22 (Hebron,
east of Soan-Misrim), and, for the land of Canaan, on
xi. 31.
Another remarkable feature is the presence of the bene
Heth in Hebron, which has put it into Winckler s head
to transport Kiryath-arba to the far north of Palestine. 1
It is certainly strange to find southern Hittites in a
Genesis narrative, but, as Sayce reminds us, in Ezek.
xvi. 3, Jerusalem is tauntingly informed that her father
was an Amorite and her mother a Hittite, from which
it is inferred that ancient Jerusalem had a mixed popu
lation of Amorites and Hittites. It has been shown, how
ever (on x. 1 6), that Yebusite comes from Ishmaelite/
There must have been a branch of the Ishmaelites, called
corruptly Yebusites, which dwelt both at Jerusalem (Judg.
i. 21) and probably (cp. 2 S. v. 6) elsewhere also. Indeed,
D^B^T itself is marked out as an Ishmaelite town. As
Nestle (2T.Z2P F xxvii. 155) has seen, it comes from oriTJJ ;
to complete this, let it be added that ITS possibly comes
from TJT 1 , and ch certainly from f?M$QBr. It may also be
noticed that in Josh. x. 5 the king of Hebron and the king
of Jerusalem are both represented as Amorites in MT.,
but are Yebusites in @. Perhaps for ^IQN we should
read CTiN, and similarly in Ezek. xvi. 3 ; Arammite and
Yebusite are virtually synonymous.
Accepting these results, we can understand how the so-
called bene Heth (vv. 3, 5, 7, 10, 16, 18, 20) came into the
connexion with the Habiri of the Amarna letters. I would rather (with
Wellhausen, De Gentibus, 1870, p. 27) compare the clan-name -nn.
Heber, in Judg. v. 25, is a Kenite name.
1 GI ii. 39 f. It is also noted that Talmai was the name of a
king of Geshur in David s time (28. xiii. 37). But was there not a
southern Geshur (Josh. xiii. 2 ; see Crit. Bib. pp. 284, 416) ? It is much
more likely that a son of David would take refuge in a southern district.
Cp. the southern refuge of Hadad and of Jeroboam. Both Geshur
and Talmai were transferred Arabian names. Talmai is beyond
doubt, not he of the furrow (Meyer, p. 264, a genius of agriculture ),,
but from ^on (cp. "?iDn), i.e. Ethmaal = Ishmael.
ABRAHAM BUYS A GRAVE (GEN. xxin.) 337
narrative. Hittites or Hethites is = Ashhartites and
* Kiryath-arba = Ashhoreth-arab. The Ashhartites were
the people of the land, and the land was probably that
called Ashhur-Yerahme el. We can also appreciate the
statement that an important Hittite was called Ephron
ben-Sohar, for Sohar has undoubtedly arisen out of Ashhur
(cp. on xlvi. 10), and the descriptive title ben-Sohar marks
Ephron out as an Ashhurite. The Ashhurites or Ash
hartites were the people of the land (vv. 7, 12, i 3), or, as
Ephron calls them, the sons of my people (v. 1 1).
Here another problem arises. It is twofold. First, what
is the text which underlies an impossible phrase in vv. 10,
1 8 ? and next, what is to be inferred from the recovered
text?
The phrase is ITS 1SB> ^Nl W? (v. 10), or, as in v. 18,
^Dl, and the problem is to explain how the idea of * citizens
came (as commentators assure us that it did come) to be
expressed by words meaning those who entered the gate of
his (Ephron s ?) city, and if such an expression of that idea
is impossible, to recover the underlying original text. So
far as I know, no satisfactory justification of the phrase in
question exists. The text, therefore, must be wrong, i.e. the
latest redactor made the best he could of a miswritten text,
and there is a close parallel to this in xxxiv. 24 (twice),
where the idea of citizens is commonly supposed to be
expressed by * those that went out of the gate of his
(Hamor s) city. It would be easy to refer to other passages
in which ISQJ, * gate, enters into hard and improbable phrases,
e.g. in xxii. 17, xxiv. 60, xxxiv. 20, Mic. i. 9, Ruth iii. n.
The first three of these are treated in this work. As for
the two latter passages, the reader may easily convince himself
of the doubtfulness of the traditional text. Probably the
right correction of ^Di? -|i?tt> in Micah and Ruth is D^DIM "ifito*,
1 Asshur of the Arammites, which may be either a district-
name or a place-name. Similarly, the right correction of
DTS ISO? and VPS ISO? in xxxiv. 20, 24, is Dlir T -J^N,
to which in v. 20 ^^ ( the counsellors of), not >!r, is
the right prefix. It follows that ITS ism >?1 in vv. 10,
1 8 is a corruption of mir "IE?N " Ssi, the citizens of
1 For cnjr cp. any mp=Sienv mntrN, and see on xxxvi. 43.
22
338 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Asshur- Yerahme el ? The phrase is probably a gloss on
nn "01, and states more precisely who the persons referred
to were.
A new question now arises. It will be observed that in
xxxiv. 20, 24, it is Hamor s city which is (according to the
preceding criticism) called Asshur of the Arabians/ while
in xxiii. 10, 18 the same name is given to the city inhabited
by Ephron, i.e. Kiryath-arba, or rather Ashhoreth-arab. This
application of the place-name * Asshur of the Arammites
must surely be ancient. May we infer that at an early date
Ashhoreth-arab was identified with the place commonly
called Shechem, but originally (see on xii. 6) Shakram, i.e.
Ashhur-Aram ? Surely not. The strong probability is that
in the older form of the legends more than one place
was called the Arammite or Yerahme elite Asshur. That
Ephron s city Hebron should have borne this name is not
surprising, for Ephron was described sometimes as a
Hethite (Ashhartite), sometimes as a Soharite (Ashhurite).
Next, as to the estate bought by Abraham. It was a
field or piece of cultivated land (mto), with a cave in it
(mso) ; see w. 9, n, 17, 19 / We also hear of Mak-
pelah (or, the Machpelah) before Mamre (w. 17, 19).
What is Makpelah ? l Clearly not a cave (@, TO SnrXovv,
as if a double cavern were meant, which involves mistrans
lation of w. 17 and 19), but the name of the district in
which the field with the cave was situated. A clue to
its meaning is supplied by h^D, xxi. 22, 32, xxvi. 26, which
is presumably a corruption of "f^D ON (see on xxi. 22), and
by nol^D (Ezek. xxx. 17), i.e. noT- lM = noBF-llS.
Following these analogies, rr^DDD ought to have come
from rrD^tr >1 S, i.e. nAo TUJ. That "f^O is a popular symbol
of ^MDITP has often been pointed out in these researches
(cp. on riD^D, xi. 29).
Another question. Did the original story relate the
purchase of a cave, or simply of a piece of land ? It
is in a high degree probable that m$D (usually = cave )
has often arisen out of nom, a popular modification of DIN
(Aram = Yerahme el) ; see on x. 7. This may conceivably
have been the case in the writing from which P most
1 Makpelah only occurs in P (here and in xxv. 9, xlix. 30, 1. 13).
ABRAHAM BUYS A GRA VE (GEN. xxm.) 339
probably borrows. If so, however, the text must have
fallen into a corrupt state, and P felt obliged to recast it
To him mi?D was not a miswritten form of nojn, but meant
cave a meaning not at all unsuitable where a grave was
spoken of. The original text may have resembled the
short account of Jacob s purchase of land in xxxiii. 1 8-20.
The piece of land was probably called Bimalkah (cp. ^noi,
I Chr. vii. 33, from crrr l"]l>), and was defined as being
before psn (cp. nnin), the probable original of NIDD (see
on xiii. 18).
And now as to the purchase. In v. 9 Ephron is to
give up the field N^O f|DDl, for full money/ and in v. 1 5
the land is said to be worth 400 shekels in silver. These
readings are most improbable. We can, however, by using
our experience of recurrent types of corruption, restore a
thoroughly suitable text. It so happens that N^D (Jer.
iv. 12, Nah. i. 10), equally with cbx and obs, is a well-
proved corruption of SNOTT or 7K$DBF. ttSo ^DDl therefore,
if the other references to money consist with this, should be
YlT ^DDl, a phrase which should also be restored in xx. 16
and in I Chr. xx. 24 (where in MT. N^D P]DD1 corresponds
to THCl, from orm [*pD]l in 2 S. xxiv. 24 ; see Crit. Bib.
pp. 3 1 1 /!). It also happens that FIND and ~>ptl> are met
with as corruptions of niD (cp. 2 Chr. ix. 16, where read
mDD, comparing I K. x. 1 7, D^JQ) and SD&N = Ashhur-
Yerahme el (as in Lev. v. 15, Isa. xxxiii. 18) respectively.
This suggests as the original reading in w. I 5 /., nijp WIN
vOttfN *|DD four minae, in money of Ashkal (i.e. Asshur-
Yerahme el ; see on xiv. 13). In v. 16 the mention of the
sum of money is followed by inoS "iris, passing to the
merchant, i.e. as commentators say, * current, or accepted,
among the merchants. For this explanation 2 K. xii. 5 f.
is quoted, but wrongly. ttTN 111$ P]DD in that passage is
untranslatable. There is, however, a thoroughly good
remedy, and that is to restore as the underlying words
"PtEJN 1*15 ^IPl- 1 The following words are a gloss ; rnt&QS
(written iBJDD), like B>DD, ""tDM, and IDD elsewhere, and like
1 Unless naiy has come from ^itarr = SNCHT ; see further on in the
text. In itself, however, the reading iy : is plausible. Cp. Cant. v. 5,
where nnj; -no should be nnj; nis, myrrh of Arabia.
340 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
in ii. 1 1 (see note), represents NDttr, while *OIN, like
7, comes from ms, * Arabia. It is just the same case
with our passage. In two different glosses the sum paid by
Abraham is described first as money of Ashkal, and then
(in an equivalent phrase) as money of Yerahme el-Asshur. 1
In short, the h in "ino^ should be attached to ms, and we
should read nntpN orrp. Cp. the corrupt SlIN in Hos.
x. 14, also tinmDD, Isa. xlv. 14, where "Do may represent
-intEN, a variant to ttTO.
It only remains to do one s best to correct some readings
which, though ancient, are none the less impossible. Let
us turn to w. 5 / 1QS, as in Jer. iii. I and elsewhere, is
a corruption of ^HDHTi and *b, which (as often) represents
corruptly the f?N in that word, records a second attempt of
the late scribe to write the name correctly (note (g s reading
$h, and cp. the DnS which precedes iftt*h at the close of
Jer. ii). The next word lasoBJ, followed by a warning
Pasek, is surely a corruption of 7M&DUT (as often, ~> became
D). oar and onT are glosses on nn "^1 (cp. gloss at end
of w. i o, 1 8 indicated above).
Similarly, *a$oa> in v. 8 is most improbable. Nearly as
in v. 6, etc., we should read TOODflT, a gloss on Ephron
ben Sohar. For * Ephron, see on * Epher, xxv. 4. Sohar
("ins) comes from Ashhur ; group with "isn and in^, and
cp. on Ezek. xxvii. 1 8.
Several other corrections follow as a matter of course.
^!7DtD t*h in v. ii (@, however, presupposes ^h, a corruption
of if?) must be explained nearly as in a similar case in
w. 5 / The peculiarity of the phrase in v. 1 1 is that &b
is separated from ; Dm by rrrN. In dealing with vv. 5 /
I had to say that **h (after iD^S) represented a dittographed
f?om\ Here, however, T7N~N7 gives us both parts of
DTTP ; only the last part (vh = b) is placed first, and
has become ^"TN. Read, therefore, omitting the first
(v. 10, end), ^M9DttP f?WDITI n , a double gloss on nn ^1. In
^.13 ; Ot!) *h Itetfb must, of course, be similarly corrected. A
gloss on pNii E^-
But what of rrn DN IN, interposed between
1 When good weight or measure is spoken of, it is usual to mention
the standards. See on chap. xx. section (e\ also on Hos. iii. 2.
ABRAHAM BUYS A GRAVE (GEN. xxm.) 341
and ott> *h ? Does the anacoluthon express a courteous
embarrassment (Gunkel) ? Much more probably pon has
fallen out before rrriN (i K. xxi. 6); very possibly, too, IN
has come from "TN, i.e. ^n^. In v. i 5 the opening words
(taken with *\h "ION*? at the end of v. 14) should be corrected
in accordance with words in vv. 10 / By way of supple
ment it may be added that Ephron is no ordinary heathen,
but, like Abimelech in chap, xx., a worshipper of Elohim, i.e.
probably Yerahme el, who is so near of kin to Yahweh, and
that DVT^N WID3 in v. 6 means, not merely a mighty prince,
but one who has been set up on high by the god of the
land ; it marks out Abraham as a natural friend of Ephron
and of his clan.
THE SEARCH FOR A WIFE FOR ISAAC
(GEN. xxiv.)
WHO can resist the charm of that gem of purest ray
the story of the wooing and winning of Rebecca? Note
above all the Homeric simplicity. We cannot, however,
avoid confessing that J s work has been retouched, and that
the manipulating process may have begun early. Just as
in xiv. 19, God of Yerahme el has become God Most
High, so it is almost certain that in v. 7 (and in the other
passages where it occurs see on Ezra i. 2) O^OID V7^N has
sprung out of ^NSDBT 1 vrS>N, just as DQ& ppa> in Dan.
xii. 1 1 has come from DO)" 1 plpm ; i.e. DOT, written short,
was misread under the influence of the theory that such a
title as God of heaven was alone worthy of the great
God Yahweh j 1 the article, of course, is redactional. Nor
1 Sievers (Metr. Stud. p. 301) thinks that the formula God of
heaven and earth was brought by the Jews from their exile. It is,
however, really due to the late redactor s manipulation of an old phrase.
342 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
is this all. The manipulator wished for a fuller confession
of Yahweh s greatness, and so in v. 3 he has given us a still
more explicit declaration of Yahweh s universal sovereignty
or creatorship (* God of the heaven and God of the earth ).
It is remarkable that this title occurs nowhere else in the
narrative, and while I do not doubt that Yahweh, to his
worshippers, was indeed the God of heaven, yet it seems
to me more in accordance with the specially N. Arabian
character of the original legends to suppose that here, as
well as in ix. 26 and xxi. 3 (see notes), it was as the
patron-God of the great Yerahme elite race that the God of
Abraham was originally referred to.
That this God was either developed out of, or at least
existed, side by side the great mother-goddess Ashtart, must
be admitted to be a very probable theory (see pp. 17, 21).
In vv. 2, 9 of the present chapter (cp. xlvii. 29) the phrase
put thy hand under my thigh is used by Barton (Sem.
Or. p. 281) as a confirmation of this view. The phrase
does, in fact, indicate that the organs of reproduction were
specially sacred to Yahweh. To be like Elohim was in
primitive times to be capable of generating human beings.
An Australian parallel occurs in George Grey s Journals of
Expeditions, etc. (1841), ii. 342, given by Driver (from Dr.
Tylor s reference) in his Genesis (p. 281). Not a word is
needed ; the position of one seated upon the thighs of the
other, with his hands under them, is sufficient. Among the
Arab tribes of the Sinaitic peninsula the plaintiff puts his
hand in the defendant s girdle, and makes him repeat the
name of God three times before giving his evidence. T
The district to which, after such a striking formality,
the representative of Abraham was sent, was, as the printed
text gives the name, Aram-naharaim (v. 10). To this is
added a second specification, which at first sight appears
more precise, f lr-nahor (the city of Nahor). Both phrases
are difficult. The former (see Dillmann) is very variously
explained, and there are those who would pronounce the
second element in the name naharim, corresponding to
the Egyptian Naharin, i.e. northern Syria and the country
1 Gordon Clark, quoting from Lord Cromer s last report on Egypt.
See Exp. Times, xviii. 46.
THE SEARCH FOR A WIFE FOR ISAAC (GEN. xxiv.) 343
eastward. 1 Of the four other passages in which the com
pound name appears, one is Judg. iii. 8, where the name
Cushan (applied to the oppressor of Israel) points to
N. Arabia ; another is the title of Ps. lx., where it is
mentioned with Aram-Soba 2 and with Edom ; the third is
i Chr. xix. 6, where it goes with Aram-Maacah and Soba ;
and the fourth Dt. xxiii. 5, where it is the country of
Balaam s town ( Pethor ), which was certainly in the south
(cp. on Num. xxii. 5, xxiii. 7). These several passages
will be fully treated elsewhere, but it may be said here that
the first and third sufficiently justify us in placing Aram-
naharaim in the Arabian border-land, to which region also
that other compound name, Paddan-aram, may reasonably
be considered to point (see on xxv. 20, P). It is possible
that Naharaim may refer to the two border-streams which
seem on textual grounds to be most clearly established, viz.
those of Yarhon and of Misrim, which may also not improb
ably have borne other names (see on xv. 1 8).
And what is f lr-nahor ? Does it really mean the
city which Nahor, after Abraham had migrated to Canaan,
still continued to inhabit, i.e. Haran (Driver) ? It is true,
the city referred to in v. 1 1 must be Haran (a southern
Haran, see on xi. 31). But is it clear that a natural
alternative name for this place would be Nahor s city ?
If we sanction this thesis, it may be necessary to hold with
Jensen (ZA, 1896, p. 300) and Zimmern (KAT, p. 477)
that Nahor was a god s name. When, however, we notice
(a) how completely co-ordinated the two phrases in v. 10,
D^im DIM ^H and Yim TIT^N, are, (#) the probability
that TS sometimes comes from is = IIS, (c] the additional
fact that there is an Assyrian place-name Til-nahiri, 8 i.e.
Tubal-nahir, 4 one is led to conclude that Nahor or Nahar
was the name of a district or region, and that Arab-nahor
(not r lr-nahor) was the original reading, a variant to Aram-
naharaim. Possibly, indeed, Nahor was differentiated from
1 Cp. W. M. Miiller, As. tt. Eur. pp. 249^; Ed. Meyer, Gesch.
des Alt. i. 219 ; Gesch. Aeg. p. 227 ; Hogg, E. Bib., Aram-naharaim.
2 See E. Bib., Zoba ; Crit. Bib. p. 274.
3 Johns, Ass. Deeds, iii. p. 127.
4 See E. Bib., Tel-abib ; Crit. Bib. pp. 91 /
344 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Nahar ( river ), just as, most probably, Haran (xi. 27) was
differentiated from Haran (xi. 31). If so, something must
have fallen out between v. 10 and v. n, relative to the
servant s arrival with his train at Haran. See, further, on
xxii. 20-24, and on xxxi. 33 (where it is proposed to read
the God of Arab and the God of Nahor ).
Let us now consider three other personal names. It
is, of course, possible in the abstract that these names,
although of N. Arabian origin, had been carried to the
northern Aram by migrating Yerahme elites ; but the results
from the preceding narratives do not seem to favour this.
First of all, let us study Ribkah (npm). We cannot
get to the bottom of such names without considering the
tribal relations of the patriarchs, in so far as these are
expressed in and by the names. In reality there is,
broadly speaking, but one legend of the ancestry of the
Israelites. According to this, the later people of the bene
Israel was formed by the coalition of two related clans.
Abraham, whose name indicates him as the representative
of the tribe which was at home in Arab- Yerahme el, marries
Sarai, whose name marks her out as the representative of
the closely-related tribe which dwelt in the district of
Asshur (Ashhur). Isaac, i.e. probably an Ashhurite tribe,
unites with an as yet unknown figure. Jacob, i.e. a Yerah-
me elite tribe, unites with Rachel and Leah, i.e. with another
Yerahme elite tribe 1 (both names having sprung from
fragments of * Yerahme el ) ; but tradition also gives
* Jacob the name of Israel, acquired apparently through
a forcible fusion of Jacob or Yerahme el with a tribe called
* Israel or, more correctly, Asshurel (an Asshurite tribe,
therefore). The common idea of all these stories (putting
aside for the moment that of Isaac) is that the bene Israel
arose through a combination of tribes of Yerahme elites and
Ashhurites. The name of Isaac s wife ought therefore to
be one which expresses in some form the concept of a
Yerahme elite tribe, and the question arises, Are there any
of the current popular corruptions of Yerahme el which
throw light on the name Ribkah ? To justify an affirma-
1 Steuernagel too, though on different grounds, holds that originally
only one wife was assigned to Jacob (Einivanderung, p. 39).
THE SEARCH FOR A WIFE FOR ISAAC (GEN. xxiv.) 345
tive answer, let me quote "01, 1D1, and p-Q, all of which (if
analogy is our guide) are closely akin to Dp-|, i.e. ^NQnT
(see on 131, xlvi. 21). It follows that npm is a strictly
Yerahme elite name, and it is in harmony with this that
Ribkah is the daughter of Bethuel (Tubal, i.e. Ishmael),
whose mother bears the Yerahme elite name Milkah (xi. 29),
and that Laban, and therefore also Ribkah, are natives of
the land of the bene Rekem, i.e. Yerahme el ; see on
xxix. i.
It may perhaps be objected that it is P who makes
Ribkah the daughter of Bethue!, Bethuel in vv. 24, 47, 50,
as also in xxii. 23, being probably (with whatever belongs
to it) an interpolation, while the older narrator (J) makes
Laban and Ribkah the children of Nahor (cp. xxix. 5,
* Laban ben Nahor ). But P does not write out of his
own head. The earlier writer on whom he depends most
probably held that Bethuel, i.e. Tubal or Ishmael, and
Nahor were alternative names of the same district, and
since Tubalite ( son of Tubal ) and Nahorite ( son of
Nahor ) were equivalent, preferred the former, as the more
intelligible.
The name Laban (pS) is not so easy to explain as it
may seem. Does it really mean * white, and is it adopted
from the Harranian moon-god ? 1 And does Laban the
shepherd correspond to the moon as shepherd of the stars?
It would be strange indeed, for the other patriarchal
names in these Genesis narratives are not (so far as we have
seen) divine names or titles. Nor can we separate this
name from the place-names pf? (Dt. i. i), HDlS and nro^
(Josh. x. 29, Judg. xxi. 19), the personal or rather clan-
names "^ah (Ex. vi. 17, i Chr. vi. 17), and the well-known
name of a mountain-range pDlS. It is most natural to
hold that all these names have arisen out of a great tribal
name Laban, whose eponym is the Laban ben Nahor, or
Laban the Arammite of our narratives. A name Lapana
is preserved in the Amarna tablets (139, 35, 37), and we
1 Schrader, KAT\ on Gen. xxvii. 43 ; Jensen, ZA, 1896, p. 298 ;
cp. Goldziher, Heb. Myth. p. 158; Winckler, GI ii. 57- Dr. J. P.
Peters, with a light heart, adopts this view (Early Heb. Story, p. 170).
On Laban see further E. Bib., Laban ; * Rachel, 2.
346 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
have elsewhere (see on vi. 4) seen reason to think that the
D vDD of tradition owe their name, equally with the ^1D of
i S. xxv. 3, etc., to slight phonetic corruption of [D^JaiS.
As a compensation for the loss of a supposed lunar god
among the patriarchs, let me point out some fresh occur
rences of the name of the friendly director of human affairs,
Mal ak (see on xvi. 7).
They can, indeed, as I think, hardly be overlooked, if
we direct a trained eye to the text of w. 7 and 40. In
v. 7 (MT.) the patriarch says to his trusty slave, he (i.e.
Yahweh) shall send his messenger before thee, that thou
mayest fetch a wife for my son from thence. Nothing is
said expressly of the fulfilment of the promise ; as Gunkel
points out, the divine action is presupposed and not directly
brought before us a mark of the relatively late origin of
the narrative. Presumably the fortunate concatenation of
circumstances is to be taken as a proof that the promise
was carried out. This is perfectly right, but when else
where Gunkel remarks that later writers did not like to say
that Yahweh himself accompanied the patriarchs on their
journeys, and substituted an inferior divine being a
messenger, he is not strictly accurate. He ought at
least to have added that the name of this messenger had
fallen out or been omitted. But the fact is that the name
of the servant s protector still exists, underlying iDaAo, and
that he is no inferior deity. The case is parallel to that of
the famous passage, Ex. xxiii. 23, where, instead of my
messenger, we should most probably read Yerahme el (or
even Michael, which need not be so late as is usually
supposed). This may be shown by Ex. xiv. 19, where the
protective function of ( going before Israel is assigned to
DTrS^n "[N^O, i.e. (see again on chap, xvi.) Yerahme el-Yahweh.
Of course, when Yahweh is speaking, it could not be said
Yerahme el-Yahweh shall go before thee, because, to
human appearance, the speaker separates himself for the
time from the second member of the divine duad (or triad).
And for a similar reason, in xxiv. 7, Yahweh could not be
represented as sending Yerahme el-Yahweh before the
servant of Abraham. The patriarch might have said,
* Yerahme el-Yahweh . . . shall go before thee, but with
THE SEARCH FOR A WIFE FOR ISAAC (GEN. xxiv.) 347
unerring instinct the original narrator preferred the less
startling statement, Yahweh . . . shall send Michael before
thee, that thou mayest fetch a wife for my son. After all,
though Michael (Yerahme el) was not a mere messenger
for all matters were settled by the divine council, yet, if
represented as separate from Yahweh, he could not but be
said to be commissioned by Yahweh. 1
Another corroboration of the Arabian theory is fur
nished by v. 55. The interest of the passage for most scholars
lies in the supposed reference to the division of the month
into decades (see E. Bib., Month, 6). The text has,
Let the damsel remain with us Titos ^N D^p> The phrase
is, at any rate, peculiar. 2 The prevalent view that TilDS
may be used for a decade is against usage ; it can only
mean the tenth day of the month, or, at any rate, the
last day of the decade. But for a moment suppose it
otherwise, and let the words be taken to mean what even
Kautzsch thinks they do mean * let the damsel remain
with us some days or ten, or, as Ball prefers, a month or
(at least) ten days ; is this natural ? Why trouble the
servant with an alternative period ? At this point we
must begin to criticise the text. Yittfi? IN being exegetically
impossible, may it not be corrupt ? And the answer is,
Certainly, if we can show that similar corruptions have
been traced elsewhere. And this we can show. Similar
mistakes to that of THUS for TitDN abound. The most
complete parallels to the present case are perhaps in Am.
iii. 1 2, where &ns should be IJ&N, a gloss on the preceding
word pftDT (as to which see on xv. 2), in Am. i. I and
Zech. xiv. 5, where minil has come from Tin^N ( = T1BN).
There are also some passages (e.g. Ps. Iv. 4) where a stronger
sense is produced by reading -IDN instead of son. As for
IN, it is not uncommon to find a simple i where we should
expect Nirr ( = that is), introducing a gloss. If so, we could
1 In v. 40 Gunkel alters the text, and reads, Yahweh, who has
walked before me. But this effaces the distinction between Yahweh
and < Mal ak- Yahweh, and the reason for the change seems to me very
trifling.
2 r)pepa.<s wcrei Se/ca ; Sam. nn IN re* ; Pesh. only expresses
D D inn. Olsh. and Ball, y IN D O mn.
348 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
not be surprised to find IN occurring once instead of Nin.
(The case, however, does in fact occur a second time, viz.
in Isa. xxvii. 4, where we should read Nin (not IN) ; but
here the pronoun does not indicate a gloss.) Thus we get
the gloss Yltt>N win, * that is, Asshur. And if we may
consider that the win of Sam. (instead of the i^ws of
MT.) is a various reading, it is obviously a confirmation of
our view, for win, like Win in Josh. ii. I, Din in Judg. i. 35,
viii. 13, Isa. xix. 18 (v. 1. Din), ^Win in 2 S. xxiv. 6, and
Win itself in Hos. v. 7 and perhaps elsewhere, both can,
and in this particular setting must, represent inwn ; now
-|^N and "inttJN are slightly different forms of the same name
of a N. Arabian district.
The gloss which we have now recovered viz. that is,
Asshur was inserted, after having suffered corruption, in
the wrong place. Originally it stood in the margin. The
redactor probably read TUDS-TS, unto the tenth day (of the
current month), and finding a reference in ^.55 to a
postponement of Ribkah s journey, he foisted f $ ID into the
text there.
But this is not the whole solution of the textual problem.
Is it not highly improbable that the redactor would insert
these two words in the middle of a sentence ? Let us then
look at the rest of v. 55, which may, very likely, turn out to
be a transformation of something connected with 1}W9 IS.
As the traditional text (MT. and () now stands, ^.55
closes with ihri irTN[l]. Now, though this phrase is
strangely short and ambiguous, we should not stumble at it,
but for the discovery that the preceding words are a corrup
tion of a gloss. Very possibly, therefore, this phrase too
may be corrupt. Certainly i, as noted above, often repre
sents Nirr, * that is, and IHN (like iriN) often represents
"ini&N, and l^n, like *p7n in xxvii. 3, may easily have come
from ^in (Tuba! in MT.), a form of Ethbaal = Ishmael.
The two closing words may therefore have come from Nin
inN IDN, * that is, Ashhur-Ethbaal, and it would, I think, be
inconsistent not to adopt this well-founded theory.
Returning now to D^D" 1 , it is surely both justifiable and
expedient to point Q-|D S (Hos. vi. 2). The sense then
becomes, * And her brother and her mother said, Let the
THE SEARCH FOR A WIFE FOR ISAAC (GEN. xxiv.) 349
damsel remain two days. Sievers (p. 304) has already
suggested this reading, which, however, is here offered
independently of his great work. But Y11DS IN he fails to
make plausible. Two days or a decade (assuming decade
to be possible) can, in spite of @, hardly mean about ten
days. As we have seen, the verse closes with a twofold
gloss, that is, Asshur ; that is, Ashhur-Ethbaal, which is
misplaced, and belongs to v. 62 (see below).
Another problem. Where was Isaac when he met
Ribkah and her escort ? The latter would naturally journey
back to Hebron. Nothing is said of this in our present
text of w. 62-67. V. 62, however, is, by common admis
sion, corrupt, and the only question is, how to correct it,
having equal regard to critical method and to the require
ments of the whole context. N11D Nl becomes in Sam.
-iTTDl Nl (implied too by $$}. But this is plainly wrong ;
cp. Num. xxi. 1 8, where MT. has IITDD, but (g> presupposes
"1N1D (which many prefer). In our passage INID is prefer
able to 1T7D1 ; the INI which follows is dittographed. 1 It
is true, we expect to be told not only whence Isaac came,
but whither he went. And our text, if treated by the right
methods, meets our expectation. In v. 55 we have already
found a misplaced gloss. Let it be added that in v. 63
another misplaced word exists a word which, without
experience of similar phenomena elsewhere, no one could
possibly account for, but which we are now happily able to
explain. The word is rntob (for rrtoS). What can this
mean ? To complain (to God) ? To meditate ? To
pray ? To cut brushwood ? No ; the word is unintelligible
(Kautzsch). Hence Gesenius (and perhaps Pesh.) would
read fcftBT?, to go about, to make a tour of inspection/
But no such information is required. It suffices to know
that Isaac went out into the country towards evening. The
word referred to is (i) misplaced, and (2) corrupt. And
what can mtt) come from ? Can we hesitate ? In xxv. 2
m is a corruption of YiniDN. Most probably it is so here ;
read, therefore, "finttfcO, and restore this to its original place
in v. 62 after NI m.
Now, too, we can understand the misplaced gloss of
1 So Lagarde ; librarius duas literas repetivit.
350 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
which the correct form is fnmni&N Nin TltDN Nirr (see on
v. 55). It relates most probably to the corrupt niB?^.
V. 62 should therefore run thus, Now Isaac had come to
Ashhur [that is, Asshur ; that is, Ashhur-Ethbaal] from
Beer-Yerahme el ; indeed, he dwelt in the land of the
Negeb. V. 62 b accounts for the mention of Beer-
Yerahme el, which is here placed in the Negeb. By Ashhur,
or Ashhur-Ethbaal, is meant the city of Ephron, respecting
the various names of which see on chap, xxiii. The death
of Abraham seems to have called Isaac to the place where
his father had dwelt. Here he remained till the return of
Abraham s servant with Ribkah. When the caravan
appeared he was taking the air at evening in the open
country. Whether the period of mourning for his father
was over, we are not told ; even the death of Abraham is
omitted, and according to Wellhausen (CH, pp. 29/1) the
original viw in v. 67 b has been changed by a redactor into
I cannot myself, however, follow Wellhausen. Indeed,
I question whether this scholar has seen the whole problem.
That IDN is wrong, I admit ; but is TIN right ? Ball
(p. 79) tries to help by inserting niD before TIN. But this
is too bold, and still leaves nntf, which is wrong (we expect
hsi). Both these scholars omit IDN mtf in v. 67 a as a
marginal gloss. But what an unnecessary gloss ! And
are we sure about nSilNn ? If a tent is mentioned at all,
it ought to be the wife s own tent (xxxi. 33). It is certain,
however, that ^/TN sometimes (e.g. in iv. 20) comes from an
imperfectly written ^NplTP ; and possible that *IEN may
have come from *IQS, i.e. pos, and mw from intt?[]. I
would therefore read [pos in&JN] rnNDTTP V 1 /v l, and Isaac
brought her to Yerahme el [Ashhur-Ammon]. At the end
of v. 67 comes the same geographical gloss dittographed
(""inN, as often, = -nntpN). The reader will remember that
Isaac is residing temporarily at Ephron s city, called some
times Ashhur- Yerahme el (see above).
1 V. 66 implies that Abraham has passed away ; otherwise, why is
there no report to Abraham ? Gunkel, who supposes two recensions of
the story, thinks that one of these read VHN, his father, instead of ION,
his mother, in v. 67.
THE SEARCH FOR A WIFE FOR ISAAC (GEN. xxiv.) 351
It only remains to note briefly that in v. 35 the absurd
camels and asses should be corrected as proposed on
xii. 1 6 (cp. on xxx. 43), and that in v. 60, for vtottt "istt ru*,
we should most probably read ^KWDBT TEN TIN. Cp. on
xxii. 17. It is, of course, a region, not a city, which is here
referred to.
SONS OF KETURAH ; DEATH OF ABRAHAM
(GEN. XXV. 1-6, 7-1 I a)
THE first of these passages (vv. 1-6) is not consistent
with chap. xxiv. It speaks of a second wife and more
children of Abraham, whereas in chap. xxiv. Abraham is
near his end l and has only one son. Here, however, we
are told of a second wife or concubine (see v. 6, I Chr. i. 32,
and cp. xvi. 3, P, where Hagar is called rrfi>N), whose sons
are either eleven, if (with Gunkel) we omit the names
ending in Q or tr (v. 3 b\ or sixteen. As to the name
Keturah, Wellhausen (CH, p. 29, note i) makes it another
name for Hagar. One would rather suggest (after Holz.)
that Abraham may have been substituted for * Ishmael.
It is more important, however, to explain the name Keturah.
Glaser (Skisze, ii. 450) finds in it a reference to the ancient
road of the Minaean incense-merchants. But if the parallel
name Basemath (xxvi. 34) has come from a popular cor
ruption of the name of a N. Arabian district or region, and
if Ishmael has sometimes, or even often, become ]EE
(misinterpreted * oil ), we may presume that Keturah had
originally nothing to do with incense, but referred to a
district. Plainly the name should be grouped with nmp,
]mp, mD, and perhaps even npmn, pmn, m&. All these
1 Cp. preceding note.
352 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
possibly, and almost certainly the three first mentioned,
come from mn&N. That Abraham should have an
Ashhartite wife or concubine is not unnatural (cp. on
* Kiryath-arba, xxiii. 2).
Turning to the names of the c sons (cp. articles in
E. Bib), I remark with some surprise that Ed. Meyer
(pp. 313-322) repeats the old errors. Leummim, to him,
still means peoples ; Letushim is surely connected with
^Wtih, " to sharpen " ; * Asshurim is not to be illustrated
by 2 S. ii. 9, because Ashuri there is, I suppose uni
versally, regarded as a scribe s error. Elsewhere (p. 541)
it is even called * absurd. Let readers of Ed. Meyer beware.
Zimran, he says, is from -|t, * a kind of stag. An
investigation of the passages in which Zimri occurs may
put us on a better track. Unless I Chr. ii. 6 (a passage
which is not adequately appreciated by Meyer, p. 300), be
an exception, all the passages suggest that the name is of
N. Arabian origin. It harmonises with this that in an
early Babylonian text we find the name Zimri-hammu,
which is a transferred N. Arabian name, meaning Zimri-
Yarham (cp Hammu-rabi, Yarham-arab). We need not
therefore appeal to the discoveries of Doughty, Euting, and
Huber pointing to the (quite late) occupation of Central
Arabia by Aramaic tribes.
Yokshan appears in (> EL as ieKrav y i.e. ]tep^ (so Tuch
and Meyer), which comes from DTTP 1DN (see on x. 25) ;
ID is miswritten for n = ID. Kishon, Achish, Cush, may
be compared. Ishbak ; cp. Shobek, Ishbah ; also perhaps
Semachiah, Sibbecai. Shuah. Meyer has not observed that
Del. has retracted his identification with the Mesopotamia!!
Suhi (Hiob, p. 139). Shuhah (i Chr. iv. ii) is a Calebite
name, derived from Yin EN. Sheba and Dedan, in x. 7, are
sons of Ra amah (Yerahme el) ; in x. 28, Sheba is a son of
Yoktan. No serious difference exists.
Now as to the (probably) interpolated clause, v. 3 b.
The Asshurim, so troublesome to Meyer, are a branch of
the tribe or race once very widely extended of Asshur
or Ashhur. Cp. on Shur and Asshur, v. 1 8 ; also on
Sheba, Asshur, Ezek. xxvii. 23. Letushim (cp. on ffitA,
iv. 22), comes from Ashtulim or (i Chr. ii. 53) Eshtaulim,
SONS OF KETURAH; DEATH OF ABRAHAM (GEN. xxv.) 355
for the origin of which see on iv. 25. Possibly the closing
syllable of these first two names should be, not hn, but dm.
Leummim, either from D^MOTTT or from D^NIHDBP, as
probably in Ps. vii. 8, Ixv. 8. See E. Bib., Letushim and
Leummim/ and cp. on N^D, xxiii. 9. EphaJi, in i Chr. ii. 46,
Caleb s concubine. Epher (nos), see on D HSN, xli. 51.
ffanok, see on v. 18. SYQN probably = irp l"ii>. For ^IM,
see on xxxiii. 19; for the N. Arabian name irp, on
2 K. xi. 4. rnrTOtf perhaps from JTTOJQ. hsft, in names
may represent the second part of can or onT. V. 6 tells
us that Abraham, in his lifetime, sent the sons of his
concubines to the land of Rekem (Dpi = DTTP) ; ncflp and
p p*iN are variants. Among these sons is Midian (see on
xxxvii. 28).
With regard to xxv. 7-1 1 a (P) observe (a) in v. 7 the
corrupt, unbiblical TT *I&N (see on v. 5), which should rather
be iinBJN, a gloss on Dpi J>-IN, v. 6, revised text (cp. on v.
1 8); and (b) the recognition, v. 9, of Isaac and Ishmael as
both sons of Abraham.
THE TRIBES OF ISHMAEL (GEN. xxv.
12-17, P, 18, J)
THERE were probably twelve tribes of Ishmael (cp. xvii.
20, P) before there were twelve of Israel ; see E. Bib.,
Tribes, 5. Israel was younger than Ishmael.
It is rather strange to read the names ... by their
names. Here certainly is an error which ought to be,
but has not yet been, corrected. It occurs again in
xxxvi. 40, and lies in DnDlDl, which, following niDO) rAll,
is a superfluity such as even P cannot safely be accused
of (cp. Gunkel). Both here and in xxxvi. 40 it is a
development of Dttn, i.e. ^NSDBT }ii> (see on * Basemath/
23
354 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
xxvi. 34), a geographical gloss. A scribe mistook
(finals slowly became general) for D&I. SNITN, the name
of an Arab chief, temp. Tiglath-Pileser III. 1 (KAT^
pp. 58, 145), probably from T7N and f?ND[lTP]. DID1D
and SDIDD, expansions of DttJl (see above) and i?tt> ( = D&P)
respectively. HOTT, connected with DI^TN ? Cp. E. Bib.,
1 Dumah. NED, apparently mentioned by Tiglath-Pileser III.
with Tema. An Ishmaelite name (see on NHJD, x. 30).
Tin, probably = Tin and T7N ; cp. on Num. xxvi. 33
(THD^). TI^I to ^ e grouped with Tirv (Ex. iii. i), "im
(Ex. iv. 1 8), TIT (Josh. xv. 48), but also with TtoN, or rather
n&N (1. 10), -itoN (Ezra ii. 16), and names in Assyrian deeds
such as Atar-hamu, Atar-kamu, etc. 2 As in the case of the
goddess Atar-samain, Atar = e Athtar = Ashtar. Cp. also
Nabataean iom (Cooke, p. 245). The men of Yetur were
Ashtarites (cp. on Dt. i. 4). &ns3 ; cp. on * Nephisim (Ezra
ii. 50). The origin, of course, was soon forgotten ; but
certainly it is an early corruption of JQBP (cp. ]2ttf, 2 K.
xxii. 3, 12), i.e. pur (cp. mitt, etc.) = |DttT, i.e. *yNSCXF\ cp.
]1DS = psis = OBT. Cp. on xxiii. i 5, Judg. v. 1 8, 21.
Cp. mmp, Dt. ii. 26, etc. ; Dipn in, x. 30 ; DTp
xxv. 6 ; ^crrpn, xv. 1 9. QTp is an early modification of
Dpi = DHT.
V. 1 8 (J), which R no doubt meant as the sequel of
v. 1 6, is full of difficulties to the prevalent criticism, for
the geographical data do not seem reconcilable (Oxf. Hex.
ii- 37^)- From our point of view, however, it must be
clear (see on xvi. 7, and Crit. Bib. on i S. xv. 7, xxvii. 8)
that since (i) Amalek is undoubtedly a popular corruption
of Yerahme el, and (2) Ishmael and Yerahme el are equivalent,
the account given of the tribal limits of Amalek must agree
with that given of those of Ishmael. It is plain, too, that
in i S. xv. 7 and xxvii. 8 (see Crit. Bib.} D^n^o should be
read Misrim ; the Amalekite and the Misrite regions were
contiguous (see on i S. xxx. 9 ff.): 1 Hence in Gen. xxv. 1 8
1 The Musri spoken of is the N. Arabian, as Winckler has shown
(Hibbert Journal^ ii. 581, April 1904).
2 See Johns, Ass. Deeds^ index, p. 551, and cp. Zimmern, KAT & \
PP- 434 /
3 There are few things in the MT. more improbable than the
THE TRIBES OF ISHMAEL (GEN. xxv. 12-17, P, ,8, J) 355
it would be the height of rashness to read D^SD < Misraim
(Egypt). 1 Of course, the scribe who wrote Asshur 1 was
not the same who wrote Shur. TIBN HDNl is a gloss, and
v. 1 8 b is a gloss upon this very gloss, derived from xvi. i 2.
The first to recognise that the Asshur spoken of is in
N. Arabia was Hommel (AHT, pp. 240 /), though he
misunderstands both D^SO and the closing words ( m vjD-fps);
the former he reads Misraim, and the latter n^D ED"^
(that is) before Kelah (see on x. 1 1). Under the influence
of xvi. 1 2 (the text of which is left) this became what we
now read in MT. The objection to this view is twofold.
(l) xvi. 12 b and xxv. i8 are both corrupt and must be
explained together. (2) ^J3, < fell/ i.e. < settled, is as im
possible as Y7TN fe. Experience of the recurrent types of
textual corruption will alone enable us to correct these
errors. WN, as in xvi. 12 b (see note), has come from
Yintm* (a fuller form of Asshur, not noticed by Hommel).
As for hm (Krochmal and Gratz guess J>&D), we must look
out for some name that can be combined with Ashhur.
Lapana, mentioned in Am. Tab. 139, 35. 57, f n the land of
Jbi (Damascus ?), may be the right name ; it is probably
= Laban (see on xxiv. 29). Thus v. 1 8 b will run thus, < in
front of all Ashhur-lapan. Lapanites/ by an easy cor
ruption, became Niphlites (see on Nephilim, vi. 4).
sentence, < I am a young man of Egypt, the slave of an Amalekite (see
Bible Problems, 1904, p. 170). I look in vain for a real explanation
of this.
1 A Dutch scholar (A. Noordtzij), however, actually says The ex
pression "before Egypt" is only accurate if Egypt is intended. He
ers to the map, and compares Ex. xv. 22, Gen. xx. i. See Th. TL,
1906, p. 392. I should like to see that wonderful map.
STORY OF ESAU AND JACOB (GEN. xxv. 19-34)
P S introduction (vv. igf.) to the Isaac-section is followed
by J s account of the birth and upbringing of Esau and
Jacob, with a small interwoven fragment of P (v. 26 b).
First as to the twins and their struggling in the womb.
How large a place twins occupy in mythologies suggested
by the heavenly twins 1 is well known. Dr. Rendel
Harris s recent book on the Cult of the Twins exempts me
from the duty of seeking after completeness. I may,
however, mention a Polynesian parallel to the story before
us, taken from a creation-myth of Mangaia. Tangaroa (see
p. 9) and Kongo are the twins ; the former should have
been born first, but gave precedence to his brother Kongo. 2
And just as Esau is favoured by Isaac, and Jacob by Ribkah,
so Tangaroa is the favourite of his father Vatea, and Kongo
of his mother Papa. Tangaroa was the cleverer, and in
structed his brother Kongo in the arts of agriculture. A
still more complete parallel is the story of Akrisios and
Proitos, sons of Abas, king of Argos, who began their
rivalry in their mother s womb. 3 In Egyptian mythology
the nearest parallel is the birth-story of the divine brothers
Osiris and Set-Typhon. 4 They were not indeed twins, being
born, the one on the first, the other on the third of the
* additional days (r)/^- eVo/yo/zeWt), but equally with Esau
and Jacob they belong to the class of hostile brothers, so
1 The original heavenly twins were surely the sun and moon.
2 Gill, Myths and Songs from the S. Pacific, p. 10 (quoted by
Stucken, p. 232).
3 Apollod. Biblioth. ii. 2, I (Stucken, p. 200). Cp. also the story
of Kronos and Rhea (Hesiod, Theog. 467-476), also adduced by
Stucken).
4 See Maspero, Dawn of Civ. pp. 172, 208.
356
STORY OF ESA U AND JACOB (GEN. xxv. 19-34) 357
well represented in myths. 1 Of Typhon, Plutarch (De. Is.
c. 1 2) relates, neither in due time, nor in the right place,
but breaking through with a blow, he leaped out through
his mother s side, and a similar story is told of the birth of
the Vedic god Indra. 2 For this we have a closer Hebrew
parallel in the birth-story of the twins Peres and Zerah
(xxxviii. 27-30 ; see note).
We see from this how the early Hebrew stories grew up.
Features of mythic origin attached themselves to personages
who had not, so far as we can now see, a mythic origin.
Had we the Hebrew stories in a more complete and a more
original form, we might be able to reproduce the under
lying myths. It is something, however, to discern how
these strange features in the stories of the patriarchs arose.
Naturally the oracle interprets the struggling in the womb
as an omen of a feud between the brothers.
In P s highly characteristic contribution we meet with
the new and strange geographical name Paddan-aram. Its
meaning, according to Winckler, is doubtful, but it is
certainly not = Mesopotamia (GI ii. 5 i). The more familiar
name Aram-naharaim has already (see on xxiv. 10) been
shown to point most probably to the southern Aram, i.e.
some part of the N. Arabian border-land. As to Paddan,
our safest course is to group it with those other O.T. names
of which pd forms the kernel (see on Num. i. 10), and with
the Assyrian names Padi and Paddu-ili, and the Punic ^TD. 3
Nor must we ignore the fact that ]YTD in Ezra ii. 44 is
combined with Dip and Nmro, both ultimately corruptions
of YinttJN ; also that TOiTTD (Num. i. 10) has probably come
from Tini&N TD. Paddan was therefore presumably in
Asshur-Yerahme el. We may confirm this by Hos. xii. 1 2 ;
the present text is plainly wrong, but underneath it we can
see and Jacob fled to the field of Aram, and Israel served
in Ashhur (nt&N from now), and in Ashhur he was preserved
CIDBD) ; i.e. Aram (Yerahme el) and Ashhur are parallel,
equivalent names for the region where Jacob sojourned with
1 Cp. Cain and Abel, Romulus and Remus, Joskeha and Tawiscara
(Iroquois of N. America).
- Oldenberg, Relig. des Veda, p. 134, note 3.
3 See Johns, Ass. Deeds, iii. 238.
358 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Laban. We may also mention the problem of the title of
a Cassite king of Babylonia, * king of Padan and Alman
(Hommel, Gr. p. 1 90). Do these names come from Arabia ?
We now pass on to J s portion. We must, as usual,
give our best attention both to the names and to J s
explanations of the names ; the latter may turn out to be
suggestive. The names are Esau, Jacob, Seir, and Edom.
IBS (Esau) is taken to mean hairy, shaggy ; l if this is
correct, there must, according to analogies, have been a
district to which the name hairy, i.e. perhaps wooded,
was applied. Now there was certainly a district called in
very ancient times 2 by the name TStt) (Seir), and it is just
conceivable that IBS and TirtD may be synonymous and
refer to the same district. 3 Unfortunately we cannot be at
all sure that. TSID originally meant hairy, (i) because the
allusion to this meaning in xxvii. n, coming from an old
Hebrew writer, is more likely to be wrong than right, and
beside it in v. 16 there stands (as Gunkel supposes) an
allusion to the possible meaning * goat ; (2) because, now
at any rate, Seir is for the most part barren (Noldeke,
E. Bib., col. 1184), and (3) because analogy requires that
TSB) as a geographical name should be a curtailed form of
some longer and more widely-spread name. What that
longer name is we can hardly fail to see. For several
reasons it is most probably TIEJN ; note especially how often
in the MT. *itt> has come from THEN or iiniDN (see on
xxii. 17).
Now if the origin of virtD may, on grounds of analogy,
be traced to YitBN, so also may that of itDS. 4 In the case of
neither word can any stress safely be laid on to. There is
a group of related names, such as ^toir, WfHftPi fjwtos, rrtos, in
1 On doubtful philological grounds (see E. Bib.) col. 1333, note 3).
Aware of this, Driver (p. 246) and Hommel (Gr. p. 164, note 3, but
cp. p. 167, note 3) would read Eshau instead of Esau.
2 See the famous passage in the Harris papyrus (Rameses III.),
and cp. W. M. M. As. u. Eur. pp. 13$ f. 240.
3 That Esau and Seir are closely connected geographically is plain
from xxxvi. 8 and Dt. ii. 5, 8.
4 Cp. on Dt. iii. 17 (in^y and int^N equivalent), and for the curtail
ment of f\wy into isry cp. NI& from lurK in Isa. v. 20, xxx. 28. In xxv. 34
(see below) a gloss informs us that Esau is = Ashtar.
STOR Y OF ESA U AND JACOB (GEN. xxv. 19-34) 359
all of which l "to seems to have come from YUEN, while
in ^Nntos has probably come from in&N (cp. n&N from f
in Hos. xii. 12). We can now understand still better how
Esau and Seir, and Seir and the Horites respectively, came
to be so closely linked, and also how Esau and Jacob came
to be represented as brothers. All these names except the
last come from Asshur or (in the case of Hor) Ashhur,
while the last (ipS* 1 ) ultimately goes back to DnT. See on
xxxii. 28, and note that the current explanations, He
follows or He rewards, imply an exaggerated confidence
in the persistence of the original forms of Hebrew names.
On the supposed parallel to v. 26 a in Hos. xii. 4 <2, see on
xxxii. 23-33.
May we connect Esau with the Usoos of Philo of
Byblus (Eus. Prcep. Ev. i. 10. 10? A direct connexion is
plausible but unsafe. So far as legendary details go, there
is not much similarity between them, and Usoos is much
more probably either the personification of the city of USu z
(Palaetyrus) or the Graecised form of vtDS, i.e. Ashhur.
Thus an indirect connexion of Usoos with Esau may
perhaps be admitted. The name of his brcther Samem-
rumos may also be indirectly connected with Jacob, i.e.
Yerahme el, for Samem almost certainly represents Ttt&DQT
(see p. 1 8, note I, and cp. on xxiv. 3), and rum comes
from D"n$, so that the whole name is = Ishmael-aram.
Next, as to J s explanation of Esau (v. 25). Accord
ing to MT. it runs thus c and the first came out ruddy,
all of him like a hair-mantle ; so his name was called Esau.
It should be plain, in spite of Winckler, 3 that ^CTTN cannot
mean shaggy. Hence either IN must have displaced
some word meaning shaggy (so Budde), 4 or -ism rmND
needs critical correction, so as to produce the meaning like
a red garment. The former view is unnatural, for there is
no word meaning shaggy that at all resembles /- TN, and a
violent substitution of one word for another is most improbable.
, however, may without violence be corrected, so as to
1 Cp. the name vc-y on a Hebrew seal (Cooke, p. 362).
2 See E. Bib., Esau, i ; Hosah, and cp. Hommel, Gr, pp. i66/
3 AOF\. 344 / ; cp. Jeremias, ATAO^ p. 235.
4 Die bibl. Urgeschichte (1883), p. 217, note 2.
360 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
produce the required sense. How often do we find
miswritten for -IEJN (see on xxii. 17, xxiii. 10, xxiv. 60)!
To justify this let me remark (i) that we are now concerned
with a professed explanation of the name IBS, i.e. Y)B)N, and
(2) that (if I am not much mistaken) coloured stuffs are
repeatedly spoken of in the true text of the O.T. as special
commodities of Ishmaelite (Yerahme elite) or Asshurite
Arabia. Thus, it was a mantle of Shinar (i.e. of Ishmael-
Arabia ; see on x. I o) that Achan coveted under Joshua
(see on Josh. vii. 2i\ and a difficult phrase in Am. ii. 8
should probably be understood as Habulite (i.e. Yerah
me elite) garments. Lastly, in Ezek. xxxiii. 5 f. we find
the Asshurites referred to as clothed in blue-purple, and in
xxvii. 7 (rev. text), blue-purple and red-purple are spoken
of as coming from Ishmaelite Arabia. 1
These facts make it reasonable to suppose that the
colour of Esau s, i.e. of Asshur s, skin is compared to that
of mantles such as were known far and wide through the
Arabian merchants. The red -purple of such mantles
suggested a comparison for the ruddy skin and blue veins of
an infant. The figure derived an additional fitness from
the fact that these mantles were mantles of Asshur, "
which supplied a fresh reason for the child s being called
Asshur.
It is customary to find a strong dash of humour in the
description in v. 2$. In those witticisms, says Peters, 3
one sees before him just the type of wild Edomite which
Israel held up to laughter as Esau. The open shirt displays
a breast so hairy that it looks like a goat s beard hanging
down. The hairy legs below the short shirt might pass for
a satyr s limbs. The hair of the head but why should I
continue ? The description is quite out of place as an
illustration of v. 2$. Esau is not here represented as
1 For < Ishmael the text has Elishah ; cp. x. 4, Elishah and
Tarshish (Ishmael and Ashtar).
2 The phrase ~\yv mix occurs again only in Zech. xiii. 4, where the
reading seems correct ; the characteristic garment of a prophet is
meant. But how strange it would be if the child Esau were said to
have looked altogether like a little prophet ! On sackcloth, see the
E. Bib. article.
3 Early Hebrew Story ( 1 904), pp. 131 /.
STORY OF ESA U AND JACOB (GEN. xxv. 19-34) 361
ridiculously hairy, 1 nor as having a skin reddened by long
exposure to the sun. If Esau is called admonl, so also is
David (i S. xvi. 12, xvii. 42), in whose case the ruddiness
spoken of is a sign of youthful beauty ; a skin burned by
exposure to the sun would have been otherwise described
(see Lam. iv. 8, and contrast Cant v. 10).
We cannot therefore avoid the conclusion that the
account in xxv. 25 represents Esau as a handsome child,
with a ruddy hue like the young David. At the same time
it must be admitted that with the tradition of the filched
birthright in chap, xxvii. there is very distinctly interwoven
a reference to a birth-story in which Esau, or rather Seir
( = Esau), was represented as hairy (TSto), and probably
the details which contain the reference are meant to be
humorous. 2 Unfortunately the birth-story in question is
lost.
The narrator does not leave his story unfinished. We
naturally ask how the boys (v. 27) grew up. According
to the MT., Esau became a man skilled in hunting, a man
of the open land (into), and Jacob was a perfect man, a
dweller in tents. Here, as in ^.25 a, we have two double
clauses, and Gunkel, as before, assigns them to different
writers. Ought he not, however, first of all to have examined
the text, having due regard to usage and to recurrent types
of correction ? Surely the phrase mm BTN ought to be
questioned, (i) because it is too vague, (2) because it
occurs nowhere else, and (3) because the phrase which
would give the nearest analogy (noT^rr BTN) occurs only
in one passage of MT., and there appears to be corrupt.
Observe, too, that the parallel phrase in this description is
not (as most suppose) D^rrN 1&T, but DD BTN, and we have
a right to expect some further light on the names of the
twin brothers, on, which critics have found so perplexing, 3
1 It is not wise to drag in an Arabic word to explain a very doubt
ful Hebrew word.
2 Cp., however, the archaeological explanation of W. R. Smith and
Sayce (E. Bib., col. 1334, note i).
3 Some explain en simple, plain (@ aTrAacrros ; Aq. a-irXovs ;
Vg. simplex} ; others, quiet, or (E. Bib., col. 1334, note 4) harmless.
But on everywhere else means blameless, or devoted to God. This
does not suit here ; textual criticism must therefore be applied.
362 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
must come from Slon^S NSD&r, 1 for Ishmael is the
equivalent of Yerahme el, and it is the name Yerah-
me el which underlies the much-worn and corrupted name
1 Ya akob. * Esau, then, must obviously be described as
"inch* tim He was the progenitor of a race which dwelt
in a mountainous part of Ashhur known as Seir. Ya akob,
on the other hand, represented the dwellers in a neighbouring
but more fertile region known to the Israelites as Yishmael
or Yerahme el. Thus the names of the brothers are clearly
accounted for. Now, too, we can see the genesis of the
superfluous nttTI (v. 34), and are relieved from the necessity
of endorsing Wellhausen s satirical comment on Hebrew
supplementers and redactors. 2 It is probably a corruption
of nm Nin, * that is, Ashtar a gloss on w$, which intruded
into the text at a very unsuitable place. 3 We can also now
see the popular justification of the equation, Esau = Edom
(v. 30, cp. xxxvi. i). The obscure name Edom was
popularly interpreted c red, and Esau (Asshur) by a little
ingenuity acquired the same meaning.
As to their occupations, Esau was a skilled hunter,
Jacob a dweller in tents. No more is wanted, and no more
is given. The rest of the passage, as we have seen, is
geographical.
1 Cp. ^yanM (i K. xvi. 31), and note that in I K. xxii. 34 "?ian has
become ian 1 ?. See also on i S. x. 10.
2 When the original stops at the statement "he ate," some com
passionate soul among the editors is sure to give the man something to
drink (Wellh. Sam. p. 25), quoted approvingly by Gunkel.
3 So in i S. i. 9 nnt? nrw comes from nn^N ins?N Nin, that is, Ashhur
[Ashtar], a gloss on Shiloh ; Ashtar is a variant to Ashhur. In
i K. iv. 20 DYitr ( -net from Tir) has a similar origin.
ISAAC AT GERAR AND BEERSHEBA
(GEN. xxvi. 1-33)
SOME details (from J and others) respecting Isaac s life
at Gerar and Beersheba. Note that Isaac, like Abraham,
finds his own moral and religious standards recognised by
his hosts and neighbours. All that has to be said here
relates to names ; it may be supplemented by what has
been noticed in chap. xx. (on geographical points and on
* Pelistim ). Cp. also on xii. 10-20, xxi. 22-31. In the
present narrative criticism reveals to us many half-effaced
indications of a N. Arabian background. Thus in v. 2 (end)
we should certainly read ^NOTTP 1DN pNl (see on xxii. 2),
and in v. 3 n7 pNl TO has probably arisen out of 111 pN3,
* in the land of Gerar, a gloss on the preceding words in
the land of Asshur-Yerahme el. In v. 20 ptoz, like
elsewhere, is one of the many early distortions of
cp. pans from -in&?N [as], Ps. Ixxii. 4, and see on
xi. 29 ; pm" 1 , xvii. 19. In v. 26 Pikol his general comes
from Abimelech, prince of Sibeon (see on xxi. 22). We
may therefore well question the correctness of TWIN
( c Ahuzzath ). Its true origin is plain ; it has come from
nnt&N, i.e. mnN. See on im, xxii. 22. imnn also needs
re-examination. The specialising renderings his confi
dential friend (BDB\ * his vizier (Holz.), cannot be well
supported. 1 Probably Q has come from D*W Nin, * that is,
Aram (Yerahme el), a gloss on intDN. Thus v. 26 becomes,
* and Abimelech went to him from Gerar [Ashhur, i.e.
Aram ; i.e. Abimelech, a prince of Ishmael]. To connect
Ahuzzath with the Babylonian kakodsemon Ahhazu
(Stucken) is rather fantastic.
1 @ 6 vvp(f>a.ywyos avrov (cp. Judg. xiv. 20 (g [A and Luc.]).
363
ESAU S WIVES (GEN. xxvi. 34, 35)
SINGULARLY enough, the first wife is called rrTirr,
originally perhaps rvnn, Horith, i.e. Ashhorith (cp. on
xxxvi. 20 ; also on iii. 20). Her father is "n^i, or more
probably rr$ (cp. on Judg. ix. 21). Hittite should, as
usual, be Ashhartite ; the danger of Esau s marrying a true
Hittite wife was small enough. Cp. on c Ephron, xxiii. 8.
The second is HDUD. As in * Bashan and other names (see
on Ex. xxxi. 2) the initial l is a fragment of IN, i.e. ns (cp.
on xvii. 5); DU), as often, represents pur, i.e. ^SDUT. No
wonder that in xxxvi. 2 Basemath should be described as
* daughter of Ishmael. Cp. on ^ DUD, iv. 26, and on
, i K. x. 25.
JACOB WINS THE BIRTHRIGHT (GEN. xxvu.)
WE have here an account (from JE) of the crafty device
of Jacob (the Hebrew Odysseus) for appropriating the
blessing of the first-born, which by rights was Esau s.
Morality and religion, as Gunkel well remarks, were not as
yet inseparable ; morality, in fact, is a plant of slower
growth in ancient than in more recent times. Jacob and
3 6 4
JACOB WINS THE BIRTHRIGHT (GEN. xxvn.) 365
Esau may also fitly be regarded as impersonations of the
national character of their respective posterities. The story,
with its implied approbation of successful shiftiness, 1
flattered the national pride of the Israelites, and yet it is
difficult not to observe something like a charitable feeling on
the part of the narrators (JE) towards the unfortunate Esau.
The narrative as revised by them may be inconsistent, but
ancient hearers and readers were not as exacting as modern.
Nor is this charity towards Esau the only indication that
the story has passed through phases. In v. 1 1 Esau is
described as isto &TN. Must not the story originally have
given the name of Jacob s brother as TSto ? See above,
p. 241, and cp. Gunkel, who suggests that in v. 9, etc. the
early narrator gave, not m, but crto T2tp.
Let us now look at the stratagem of the crafty Ribkah
and her apt pupil Jacob. She took the choicest raiment of
Esau, and put it upon Jacob, her younger son ; she put the
skins of the kids of the goats upon his hands, and upon the
smooth of his neck (vv. i 5 /). Isaac then felt the hands of
Jacob and was deceived, and blessed his younger son Jacob
(vv. 21-23). To mitigate the strangeness of this procedure
Robertson Smith suggests that, when seeking the paternal
benediction, Jacob is invested with the skins of sacrificial
animals, as if Isaac were a semi-divine being. 2 The
explanation is certainly in accordance with facts of archaeo
logy. It is more natural, however, to look for illustrations
in comparative folklore and mythology. Such illustrations
abound, and seem to prove that primitive races everywhere
delight in narratives of great results obtained by the craft
of favourite heroes, like Jacob. Very near the story of
Jacob and Isaac is that of Odysseus and Polyphemus in the
Odyssey. Odysseus, after blinding the Cyclops, binds his
companions and himself under the rams of the monster.
Polyphemus, when he lets out the rams, feels every one of
them on the back, unaware that under each of the rams one
of his crafty enemies is bound. 3 Similarly the Lombards
1 See E. Bib., Esau, 2.
2 ReL Sem. (z} , pp. 437, 467 ; cp. E. Bib., col. 1334, note i ; Barlow,
The Jonah-legend, pp. 1 1 1 - 1 1 8.
3 W. Grimm collected a number of European and Asiatic stories
3 66 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
told how Godan (Wodan) was induced to bless their
ancestors by the artifice of their women, who held their
loosened hair before their face, and so deceived the god,
who gave them the name of Longibarbi (Longibardi) and
promised them the victory. Other specimens of mytho
logical fraud are given by Stucken, Astralmythen, pp. 343 ff.
The tale is full of picturesque and circumstantial details
which need not here be expounded. I may, however, venture
to suggest a small correction of the lexicons. In v. 3 MT.
we meet with the unique word ^n, supposed to mean
quiver, to which a pronominal suffix is appended. But is it
probable that Take now thy weapons (or, thy implements),
thy quiver and thy bow, is correct ? Certainly not. In a
narrative the only natural expression is * thy bow and thy
arrows, and, even if this be doubtful, nni&N is the only
attested word for ( quiver. Surely T^n must be corrupt ;
like ~jbn in xxiv. 55, it most probably represents f?Tin, i.e.
^siriN (Ethbaal = Ishmael). T^> too, is hardly right.
Why should Isaac waste words ? The suffix in 7^3 is a
dittograph of what may seem like a suffix in "pbn. Read
^D and combine it with ^Tin ; also omit the 1 before p.
Thus we get, Take [the weapon of Tubal] thy bow ; the
bracketed words are a gloss. Tubal = Ishmael ; the * bow
of Yerahme el ( = Ishmael) was the most destructive ; see
Jer. xlix. 35, the bow of Elam, (i.e. Yerahme el), and on
Hos. i. 7.
closely resembling the story of Polyphemus (see Die Sage von Polyphem,
1857). A similar story exists in the Avesta (Ard YasAt, x. 56). See
Stucken, p. 345.
JACOB S JOURNEY (GEN. xxvm. 1-9, 10-22)
THE narrative in xxviii. 1-9 (P) should follow on xxvi. 34,
35. Isaac blesses Jacob (see on xvii. I, 3), and sends
him to Paddan-aram. Esau marries another wife, named
nSno, which, of course, like TITO, n^rino, pSnn, ^SriD,
represents a fragment of ^NnnT. Cp. on nmo, xxxvi.
23. Ewald (Gesch. i. 553) would read riD&n, because of
xxxvi. 3. But see ad loc. As Gunkel points out, it was
by Esau s marriages that, according to P, he missed the
blessing of Isaac.
Vv. 10-22 (cp. on xxxv. 9-15). Following his mother s
advice, Jacob the crafty winner of the blessing leaves
Beersheba (see introduction to chap, xx.), and bends his
steps towards Haran (see on xi. 28). On the way he
sleeps at Bethel, and has a striking vision. Into Prof.
Flinders Petrie s interesting conjecture * I need not enter.
Dreams at a sanctuary had, of course, a special value and
significance. It is rather (i) the contents of the vision and
(2) the religious phraseology that I hope to re-interpret
here more correctly.
I must, however, first recall to the reader s recollection
that the Bethel-story is composite, and that some have
supposed that J knew nothing either of the * ladder or of
the angels of Elohim, but only of an appearance of Yahweh.
This imposes upon me the duty of investigating the two
phrases rendered respectively a ladder and * angels of God.
And first as to D^p. If this word is rightly read and
rendered, it is difficult not to suspect a kinship between
Jacob s ladder and the most glorious of the many mytho
logical ladders, the path of the gods, t .e. the rainbow
1 Sinai (1906), p. 69.
367
368 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
(p. 138). Or, if we preferred it, we might suppose in
Assyriological fashion that in the original narrative a
gigantic step-tower was meant (see on xi. 1-9), or at any rate
that the ladder consisted of seven gigantic steps, corre
sponding to the seven tubukati of heaven. 1 It is difficult,
however, to make this supposition very plausible ; as in the
case of the * tower of Babel, it is best to begin our
researches with careful criticism of the text. First, then, as
to D^D. It is true that D^ID in the Mishna, ND^ID in
Chald., and sullam in Ar. mean ladder ; also that in
Phcen. 2 no^D is doubtfully conjectured to mean ladder or
steps. If, however, D^D in our narrative meant ladder,
we may be sure that it would have a gloss, such as n^o,
attached to it. Further, if we accept D?D, and explain it
thus, why is lfc$ in v. 13 to be rendered beside him or
before him ? Upon it would be so much more natural,
however inconvenient for the analysis of the sources. It is
true, critical analysis has seemed to show that E s account
contained no mention of an appearance of Yahweh, and no
revelation beyond that of the peculiar sanctity of the spot,
but can this be called probable ? Angels of Elohim are
but a poor substitute for God Himself. And what, pray, is
the raison cPetre of the ascending and descending angels ?
Surely Jacob needs some direct message of help and guid
ance from his God.
It may assist us here to consider the second phrase,
4 angels of Elohim (DVT^N ^DtAo). Can these words be
correct ? Scarcely. It has, I know, been held that the
plurality of angelic beings has grown out of the one
DVrStf IN^Q. But in a legend like this we do not expect to
find either many angels or a single angel. Besides, such a
phrase as DT&N "Oh&D is hardly probable. Except in
xxxii. 2. the D^DN^Q are not again referred to in pre-exilic
literature. And the phrase in question is all the more
suspicious because, as we have seen (on xvi. 7, xxi. 17),
both miT lf?D and DYifpN hft have come, through the
1 See Jeremias, ATAO, p. 233, cp. 1 1 / ; Peters, Anc. Heb. Story,
p. 112, and cp. Cumont, Mysteres de Mithras, p. 144.
2 Lidzbarski, Hdbuch. der nordsem. Epigr. p. 329 ; Cooke, North-
Semitic Inscriptions, p. 73.
JACORS JOURNEY (GEN. xxvin. 1-9, 10-22) 369
manipulation of a redactor, from mm NOnT, a compound
divine name in which Yerahme el takes the first place,
because intervention in human affairs specially belongs to
the second member of the divine duad or triad of the
Israelites. May we not now proceed further, and maintain
that DTI^N "O^So has the same origin as ^>N IfrAo, *.. that
the original text had ^HOTTP, and that what we now find
is due to the redactor? In this case 11 D^TTI D^I? most
probably comes from iinr ch^ (ll or ^11 from *?NQ as in
1131, Ex. xv. i). This will be a gloss on the miswritten
word "ONTO.
By this time our eyes ought to be open to the most
probable origin of D^D. Where should Yahweh be, but
standing beside the sacred pillar of Bethel ? This pillar in
a correct form of the text would be called hnD, which, like
Jon, designates a standing stone or pillar sacred to the special
deity of N. Arabia, sometimes called Yerahme el, whence
hammdn (see on xxxii. 3) and sometimes Ishmael, whence
semel (see on Dt. iv. 16, and Crit. Bib. on Ezek. viii. 3, 5).
The statement in v. 1 2 that the top of the Ishmael-pillar *
(Son) reached to heaven suggests that in the original story
it may have been a symbol of the mountain of the gods (cp.
on xi. 4). Compare the two enormous pillars of brass,
called respectively Ishmael (Boaz) and Yerahme el (Yachin),
set up in front of Solomon s temple. 1 In the historical
period a great Ishmael-pillar probably did stand at Bethel.
Jacob, however, only saw it in a dream-vision.
The words which originally closed the sentence in v. 12
are not preserved. But the sense may be correctly given
by connecting v. 1 2 and v. I 3 thus, * And he dreamed, and
behold, a pillar set up on earth, whose top reached to
heaven. And behold, Yerahme el-Yahweh stood by it, and
said, I am Yahweh, etc. It may be well to add that since
the name of Yahweh is in the divine being Yerahme el
(see on Ex. xxiii. 21), it is right to make Yerahme el-
Yahweh say, I am Yahweh.
But why does the divine speaker continue, * the God of
Abraham thy father ? Was not Isaac Jacob s father ?
Nor is the God of Isaac the most natural divine title.
1 See p. 30, note 2, and E. Bib., Jachin and Boaz.
24
370 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
We shall meet with the phrase "priN Yrtf again in Ex. iii. 6,
TIN h& in xlix. 25, and the parallel n** YT^N in xxxi. 5
(29 (OF), 42, xxxii. 10, Ex. xv. 2, xviii. 4. Most probably
both "! and "plN in these phrases come from :r$ l as does
^1N sometimes in the narrative books (see e.g. on iv. 20,
xi. 29) and often in personal names (see on xvii. 5).
Naturally the God whose primary connexion is with the
N. Arabian border-land calls himself the God of Arabia.
As for the preceding word DiTilN, it should probably be
D7TT n$ (cp. on xvii. 5), a variant to the yw underlying
T^N, an d pn^ is either a textual or a popular corruption of
"intDN (see on xvii. 19). The God of Arabia or Ashhur
could make an assignment of the land at his good pleasure.
It is possible, however, that the original story did not
contain the promise of the land. For both in v. 16 (J) and
in v. 17 (E) it is the awe-inspiring theophany, and not a
comforting promise of earthly greatness, which fills the mind
of the pilgrim. On awaking he says, Yahweh is in this
place. * This is nothing less than the house of Elohim, this
is the gate of heaven. It is the stone to which Jacob
here refers, anticipating the massebah 2 which doubtless stood
later at the entrance of the sanctuary to Bethel.
May we venture to assume a connexion between the
TO of v. 22 (which, in Sievers hands, becomes htf TO)
and the Greek /SatruXo? and fiairvKuov ? Certainly not on
the ground of the apparent resemblance of /fotTuXo? to
h& TO, for the correct Greek representation of hn TO is
paiOrfk? It is true, however, that tt\zbaityls are represented
in Philo of Byblus as \lQoi e^vyoi, animated stones, 4 and
the fact of the theophany, not less real to Jacob than if he
had seen and not dreamed it, proves that the stone was
already thought to be pervaded by the material essence of
divinity an essence which Jacob sought to heighten by
1 Tax represents any in xii. I (cp. xxxi. 29), xlix. 4, 8, though not in
xlix. 25 (see note).
2 See E. Bib., Massebah (G. F. Moore), and references in BDB,
11256.
3 Lagrange, Rel. sem. (v> p. 194.
4 The baityls were supposed to have come from heaven (i.e. some
times at least they were aerolites) ; this could not be said of Jacob s
stone. Cp. E. Bib., col. 2978 (Moore).
JACOBS JOURNEY (GEN. xxvni. 1-9, 10-22) 371
sacrificially pouring oil upon it (v. 18), i.e. some mysteriously
sacred oil which was as effectual for its purpose as the * oil
of life which flows in the heavenly Paradise (see p. 41).
We cannot for our present purpose make use of the Baby
lonian divine name of west Semitic origin, Bait-ili, for this
(see below) has undergone transformation, much less of the
corrupt phrase Wi&T pN in xlix. 24. Nor can I see more
than an analogy in the anointing of the foundation-stones
of Assyrian temples 1 (KB i. 45, ii. 113, 151,261).
Lastly, as to v. 19. The second part is admittedly a
gloss, which records the fact that the place now called
Bethel formerly bore the name of Luz. These two place-
names the true origin of which was doubtless forgotten
when the narrators lived are really equivalent. Using
right methods we find that ^HTO, equally with the divine
name (KAT, p. 347; see above) Bait-ili, is a very early
transformation of StfiriN = 7M9D0", 1 while tlf? has come by
transposition of letters from Til = SlT, i.e. OOP ; see on pblf,
xxx. 20, and on Judg. i. 26 (nS=ttrS). Probably DT1N,
which precedes, is an old variant to rh, and comes from
^HOfTT 1 or from fpNsa&r (cp. on xxi. 33). At any rate, there
is no reason for such a strong antithetic particle as D^IN ;
the parallel gloss in Judg. i. 23 is quite complete without it
($ has already led the way with its OuXa/^av? (//,au? comes
from n^). The same error has arisen in Judg. xviii. 29,
where MT. has BP^ D71M1, but (> /cal OuXa/^at?. Here OTIN
may be a variant to wrh. Winckler independently takes
offence at the supposed antithetic particle. According to
him, ""ulAm is = l oldm y the north point, where the Supreme
God dwells, and here a place-name (p. 429).
1 Cp. Lagrange, op. cit. p. 196 ; Driver, Genesis, p. 268.
2 Bait-ili is, in fact, a form of the god Ishmael (cp. KAT\ pp. 437 /).
JACOB DWELLS WITH LABAN ; MARRIAGES
(GEN. xxix. 1-30)
JACOB goes on his way from Bethel, and arrives in
the land of the bene Rekem ( = Yarham, i.e. Yerah-
me el). The traditional text has Dip, which Ed. Meyer
consistently, but wrongly, 1 defends. There is no essential
difference between this statement (v. i) and that in v. 4
(cp. xxvii. 43, xxviii. 10), where Laban s home is placed
in Haran, for Haran is certainly a Yerahme elite country
(cp. i Chr. ii. 46) ; indeed, P s name for the region is
Paddan-aram (see on xxv. 20). The phrase referred to
must have come from an early form of the tradition. 2
The narrative begins pleasingly (cp. Ex. ii. 16-19), but
soon changes its colour. In the battle of wits which ensues
Jacob is not at first a match for Laban. He has bargained
for Rachel as the reward of his toil, but he gets Leah. The
names cannot be passed over ; what is their meaning ?
Are Leah (wild cow ?) and Rachel (ewe ?) primitive numina
in animal form ? Ed. Meyer even now (1906) thinks so
(p. 426). To me, however, it seems equally uncritical to
treat names singly and to group them otherwise than by the
principle of external resemblance ; e.g. f?m ought not to be
separated from ^mriN (i Chr. iv. 8), in 3 (i Chr. vii. 12),
mnN (i Chr. viii. i), mmn (Neh. iii. 8). Griineisen deserves
credit for grouping ^m with ^mn, but surely he loses it
again by explaining the latter name as brother of an ewe. 4
Textual criticism, however, shows that HN comes from
1 See on x. 30, xxv. 6, i 5 ; also E. Bib., Rekem, Sela.
2 ^.E.Bib.^ Jacob, 3.
3 Num. xxvi. 38, DvnN = DiN -mrx.
4 Gruneisen, Ahnenkultus (1900), p. 257.
372
JACOB DWELLS WITH LAB AN (GEN. xxix. 1-30) 373
i.e. nni&N (see on xxii. i 3) and ^m from ^NorrP. 1 And the
name mA, like -if? (see on v. 34) has surely a similar origin,
i.e. it comes from rrShT, and is to be grouped with ^r (Judg.
iv. 17) and rh^ (Ezra ii. 56); cp. also on lolaus (p. 31,
note i) ; f?rm, iv. 20 ; D^HN, Judg. viii. 1 1. All these words
come from fragments of * Yerahme el. Lovers of serpent-
myths, however, may prefer to regard * Leah as the name
of a numen in the form of a serpent. And so we get back
to mother Eve the serpent ! This is Ed. Meyer s view ; he
also supposes that Leah was originally only the mother of
Simeon and Levi.
As to the names of the maids, the usual explanations
are only poor guesses. 2 rTD^t must be grouped with ^s
(Neh. iii. 30) and tf? (x. 26), which come from hyz and
SllD respectively, i.e. represent f?NSDar. Cp. also hll (in
Tint) oar, and on THD^, Num. xxvi. 33. The fellow-
name nrr^n must be grouped with the rfel of Josh. xix. 3,
for which i Chr. iv. 29 gives nrfa. Cp also jrrSn, xxxvi. 27,
i Chr. vii. 10, and probably jrn, Josh. xv. 6. The occur
rences are significant, and the common origin of the forms
is orrr or EOT (cp. on xi. 9). Cp. E. Bib., col. 5418,
note 2; Ed. Meyer, Die Israel, pp. 344, 531, who misses
the highly probable connexion between 7rn and
u pi]X a fi presupposes nnrw, i.e. Ashhur-rekab.
2 Stucken (Beitrage, 1902, p. 62) connects nsSi with nsySi and
with nnVa, and explains by mythology. Cp. also E. Bib. zllpah.
BIRTHS OF JACOB S CHILDREN
(GEN. xxix. 3 1 -xxx. 24)
WHAT lies before us here is no genuine tradition, but
an artificial link between two series of popular, stories.
It was necessary to record the births of the sons and of
the daughter of Jacob, of whom so much was to be
said later (Gunkel). The names are accompanied by
popular explanations. It is customary to look down upon
the simple-minded people who derived plNi from ^asi JINI
(v. 32), not knowing that Reuben is really cognate with the
Arabic rtbal, lion or wolf, * though some of our wise
teachers prefer to speculate on possible meanings of a word
re il. A keener criticism, however, needs to be applied to
the names. If we group plNT with the forms which resemble
it, W h& (xvi. 1 3), htiTtin (xxxvi. 4), ^IN (2 S. xxiii. 20),
rphn (i Chr. iv. 2), ^KLT (Judg. vi. 32), and in Aramaic
inscriptions ^Nli, f?Ncn (Cook, Gloss, pp. 107^), and study
these names in the light of our previous experience, we shall
be able to give a final solution of the problem of * Reuben
(cp. E. Bib., ( Reuel ) ; for it has, I think, been abundantly
shown that ^i?l in proper names has frequently come from
the second half of fjNSDttp or fpNonr, and that INI (like ^N
and ^NI) may also represent a fragment of 7NDITP, and no
one, I suppose, doubts that the final ] has taken the place of
an original h. p*l*o, therefore, is a corruption (the origin of
which was early forgotten) of 7ND1TP.
This will appear still more necessary when we have
criticised v. 32 b. It appears at first sight as if the closing
words, * for now my husband will love me, should be a
1 For this and other explanations see Hogg s accurate conspectus
in E. Bib., Reuben, 9 ; and cp. Noldeke s opinion, ibid. Names, 62.
374
BIRTH OF JACOB S CHILDREN (GEN. xxix. 3 i-xxx. 24) 375
second explanation (due to E ?) of the name Reuben. But
how is it possible that ^irTN" 1 can have been supposed either
to explain or even to illustrate plN"i ? Gunkel has remarked
that the true word (now supplanted by " DirTN* ) must have
contained the i of plNl, and has suggested as the original
verb miN, to praise, or m (Dan. ii. 48), to magnify.
The objection is that we require a synonym for ^DinN" 1 , and
such a synonym Gunkel has not produced. The only true
synonym for the verb now in possession is ^DDrm (Dm, to
have a warm affection for, common in Aramaic, and actually
used here by Pesh.). This reading I would restore. It is
true, this implies that the form of the name here explained
was not plNi but \cftm (or the like). But may we not
assume that different forms of the name were current in
early times? In fact, in v. 32 a, by the explanation JINI
^DJa, ] implies not pi MI but ]1S11"1. Just so in xxx. 20 we
shall find it probable that the explanations of Zebulun
suggest other forms of the tribal name, viz. Zabd5n and
Shalmon.
Next, as to Shimeon (JISDID = JOB>), v. 33. Have we
here a hyaena-tribe ? 1 Surely not. The name cannot be
separated from soft, * Shema, the name of a Calebite clan
(i Chr. ii. 43 /!), connected genealogically with Rekem,
Raham, and Yorkeam, all of which are forms of Yarham or
Yerahme el. Cp. also the tribal name D^JIJJD. pott) is
doubtless a form of 7NSDQP, 2 for the origin of which see on
xvi. ii. According to Spiegelberg, a Hyksos king had a
name like Simeon.
Levi ("*if?) is traced in v. 34 to rriS, to be joined (cp.
Num. xviii. 2, 4, P), a connexion which some moderns also
favour, while others prefer to regard Levi as the gentilic
of * Leah. 3 Sound method, however, requires us to group
*b with TIN, which, in an earlier form of the text of Zech.
xi. 1 5 and Dan. viii. 2, was probably ^7DlN or "OHM, i.e.
"^NOnr. In Dan. I.e. we actually find ^1M and ^?TIN side
by side, as alternative readings (cp. the Greek readings,
1 See Hogg, E. Bib., * Simeon, 8.
2 So Land, De Gids, Oct. 1871, p. 21, Simeon, a body of Ish-
maelites which attached itself to Israel.
3 Wellh. Prol p. 146; Stade, ZATW, 1881, p. 116.
376 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
E. Bib., Ulai ). The Yerahme elites were specially known
as priests and diviners ; one of the words for priests (D* 1 "!^)
most probably comes from D^opi, i.e. men of Rekem (Yerah-
me el). 1 Hommel s comparison of the S. Arabian laviu,
priest (AHT, p. 278), and Ed. Meyer s connexion (p. 426)
of *p (and rttfh) with Liwyathan, now become unnecessary.
We now come to the important name Yehudah, ^.35.
Popular etymology makes this the praised (renowned) ;
cp. xlix. 8. Land (I.e.) defends this ; he regards Yehudah,
Reuben ( reconciled, reunited ), and Simeon ( Ishmaelitish )
as late. This, however, will not hold. In Josh. xix. 45
Tim is a Danite place; in Gen. xlvi. 10, Ex. vi. 15, Tiitf
(Ohad) is a son of Simeon ; and in Judg. iii. I 5 ff., I Chr.
vii. 10, THIN (Ehud) is a Benjamite. This suggests that
THN or "TIT was a deeply rooted Israelite name, and pre
sumably old. I have not yet mentioned TliTlN, i.e. "ON
TirrM = Arab-Yehud, indicating that Yehud was originally
a N. Arabian name. Probably we may connect it with Tin
and TTn. The former appears as an Arammite name
(xxxvi. 35), the latter as Ishmaelite (xxv. 15). Aram and
Ishmael are practically synonymous.
We now come to the children of the handmaids. The
first is pr, Dan (xxx. 6). Plausible as it may be to take
Dan as a shortened theophorous name ( = El is judge ),
experience is against this view. Shortened, however, the
name seems to be ; i.e. it comes from Adon or Addon, Adan
or Addan (cp. Ezra ii. 59, Neh. vii. 61), which was probably
the name both of a tribe and of a region. This throws a
light on a group of Hebrew and Phoenician proper names
(see on 2 S. iii. 4, Ezek. xiv. 14). Whether Dan and
* Dinah are connected is doubtful. See on v. 21.
The next, -^riDD, Naphtali (vv. 7, 8). The explanation
in the text is strange. { Wrestlings of Elohim have I
wrestled with my sister ; I have also prevailed. Here there
are three difficulties. i. The form ^TinQD. 2. The mean
ing of the phrase * wrestlings of Elohim. 3. The reference
of the statement that Rachel had wrestled with and pre
vailed over her sister, which seems opposed to the fact
that Leah had already had four children, Rachel only two.
1 Cp. Isa. ii. 6, where mpo probably comes from o-opn or DTDS.
BIRTH OF JACOBS CHILDREN (GEN. xxix. 3i-xxx. 24) 377
For the first there is no remedy, there being no Semitic
parallel for the form. For the second there is no adequate
explanation. Does the phrase wrestlings of Elohim mean
(a) struggles in the divine cause, or (b) struggles brought to
a happy end by God, or (c) violent struggles, 1 or (d) struggles
for the divine blessing ? 2 Clearly the fourth interpretation
is the best (xxix. 31, xxx. 2). As to the third difficulty,
Gunkel suggests that if Rachel prevailed over her sister, it
could only be because, according to E, Reuben thus far was
Leah s only son. This, however, involves supposing that
E gave the births in a different order from J, which is a
purely arbitrary conjecture, and disregards the important
fact that D^n^N DD is inconsistent with TinN-Di> ; instead of
TinN the sense absolutely requires the name of a deity.
Can we throw any fresh light on this problem ? I think
that Prof. H. W. Hogg is well advised when he suggests 2
illustrating h& DD by the story of Jacob s contest in xxxii.
23-33. 1 connexion with this, it is not difficult from our
point of view to discover the true explanation of the
passage. 3 Here, as often, DYT^N is most probably either a
corruption or a deliberate modification of ^NDHT the name
by which the god of the N. Arabian Yerahme elites was
known to the Israelites (see on ii. 4 b). A still worse cor
ruption of another name of the N. Arabian deity, viz. iintDN,
is ^nns, in which n is a corruption or alteration of i (cp. |,
xxxvi. 40, leOep = MT. s nrr). We may illustrate this by
two other passages with nn (probably) for in^N, viz. Judg.
ix. 5, 1 8, nnN p~S^, where ?s is a redactional insertion,
and nn pN comes from inipN ^53, a gloss on ^JQTF ^Dl
( = ^NDnT ^n), and Isa. Ixvi. 17, where nriN (Kr.), equally
with -inN (Kt), has most probably come from "nnipN. Again,
a third corruption is ^nnDD from WpnED, after which word
has fallen out. Thus we get a duplicate reading, TiSnDD
DS, and -nni&N DS X D3. Rachel says that she has
wrestled with her god (i.e. by the use of recognised forms of
adjuration and the like), whose names are Yerahme el and
1 Driver compares trnta NW, xxiii. 6, but see on that passage.
2 E. Bib., < Naphtali, 2.
3 Stucken, as usual, mythologises (Beitrage, 1902, i. 62). But he
assumes the faulty reading T
378 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Ashhur, and has prevailed. Literally, Jacob had done so
(xxxii. 23^) ; metaphorically, Rachel is not behind him.
But what is the true origin of * Naphtali ? A plausible
suggestion was made by Land (De Gids, Oct. 1871, p. 20),
who derived ^nQD, highland, from riDD, height, comparing
^KTO from D-O. Most probably, however, riDD, in the phrase
TH riDD (Josh. xi. 2), comes from mnD3, a tribal name as
well as a place-name the DTrnD3 of x. 13 (see note).
Another form of the name of this tribe was perhaps D^wnDD
or D^nDD, where ~>N is the common formative ending, as in
Gad and Asher. Leah s adoptive children come next
(uv. 10-13). On the birth of each Leah utters a similar
exclamation, the one Tin (Kt), the other ^ml. "Tl^l may,
perhaps, have meant to the narrator by good fortune l ($&,
ev Tv%y; cp. E. Bib., Gad, i), but originally it no doubt
signified by Gad s help. The name belonged both to a
god and to a tribe ; most probably the bene Gad were
originally worshippers of Gad. 2 Another name for this
deity was perhaps ]Vrl (miswritten prr, Judg. xvi. 23, etc.),
and a fuller form of the name was Tl ^i?l, i.e. probably
~n SNDTIT. The other divine name, -QD, in the traditional
text of Isa. Ixv. 1 1 should probably be read ;Q- 3 (Yaman =
Yerahme el ; cp. on x. 2).
If "Ql means by Gad s help, we may well hesitate to
read "HtDNl, by my good fortune. Surely "nt&N covers over,
and that very lightly, a divine name. Can we doubt what
that name is ? If Rachel wrestled with Ashhur, must not
her sister have done the same? Read, therefore, -n$3.
The inference is justified that there was a second form of
the tribal name Asher, viz. Asshur. The existence of a
weakened form of the divine name Asshur appears to be
implied in the feminine form Asherah (see pp. 24^ and
on Ex. xxxiv. 1 3). Asshur and Yerahme el are virtually
identical.
1 The Midrash (Ber. rabba, par. Ixxi.), accepting the Kr. n N3,
understands by Gad the Luck of the house, the domestic Good Genius
(cp. E. Bib., Fortune ).
2 We must not support this by VN -U, Num. xiii. 10, the W, as usual
in such names, being simply formative.
3 The corruption was caused by WJDI in v. 12 ; read Trac?.
BIRTH OF JACOBS CHILDREN (GEN. xxix. 3 i-xxx. 24) 379
A strange story (vv. 14-16) is now interwoven with the
narrative. It relates to the finding of diida lm^ * mandrakes
or * love-apples. We may compare the shammu-sha-alddi,
or plant of birth/ in the Etana legend (KB vi. I, 109 ; cp.
Jastrow, RBA, p. 520). But why is it, we may well ask,
that Reuben is the finder of the love-apples ? Stucken *
sets himself to show that the possessor of the apple famous
in mythology was the husband of two wives. From this it
seems to him to follow that originally Reuben, and not
Jacob, was the husband of Leah and Rachel, and the
ancestor of the clan afterwards named after Jacob-Israel.
The compiler of the traditions took one, but only one, of
the special Reuben-traditions, and worked it into the Jacob-
story.
A simpler solution seems preferable. Gunkel points out
that Reuben was now five or six years old ; his brothers
would not yet be clever enough to pick the mandrakes and
take them home. This remark, however, does not go to
the root of the matter. The real reason probably is that
Reuben was the worshipper of the god Dod, whose con
nexion with the dudd tm is not indeed affirmed, but, at
least to a modern reader, suggested by Cant. vii. 1 3 /.
Dod was a title or second name of the god Yerahme el ;
the worship of the feminine deity Dodah is attested for
the Gadites, and may be presumed for the Reubenites,
who were much mixed up with the Gadites. See further
pp. 46-49 (on Dod).
Leah s fifth son is called Issachar (i3Q)^), w. \7 f.
The popular wit recognised in the name iDto, * hire (cp. on
xlix. 14). Either Jacob received the recompense from Leah
(v. 1 6), or Leah had it for giving her maid Zilpah to Jacob.
If names of tribes or heroes were formed on this model, we
might explain ipto BTN man of hire ; but how many will
(with Ed. Meyer, p. 536) accept this interpretation? 2 Let
us frankly reject the second tt> as due to the popular ety-
1 Beitrcige, i. 58 / ; cp. Astralmythen, p. 5, note *.
2 Ginsburg (Introduction, p. 252) explains 19^ NJT, he brings
reward (xxx. 18), or he takes hire (xlix. I4/.). But the narrator
seems to have found trx in the name ; cp. "t^N 1 ? xxx. 1 8 (Wellh. TSB,
P- 95).
380 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
mology, and maintain the original form of the name to be
"OBF, or rather -omtf. 1 And what is nDttN ? It might be a
corruption of iJiffiN, but the parallel of pmtrr and D^TttD (see
on xi. 31, xiv. 15) suggests as the more probable origin,
IBM, Asshur-Yerahme el (see on * Eshkol, xiv. I 3 ;
xv. i). See further, Ball s note in Genesis ; Hogg,
E. Bib., Issachar, 3, 6 (end). 2
Leah s sixth and last son is ffyyi (vv. 19/i). The two
appended explanations are puzzling, for they do not give
intelligible, even if popular, etymologies of the name. The
first is, Elohim has presented me (^Tlt) with a fair present ;
this implies the form pTlt, Zabdon or Zebudun. The
second, * at last my husband will * me, for I have borne him
six sons, in the Hebrew of which "PIT is untranslatable, 3 and
must have arisen by a redactor s manipulation out of some
other word, What was that word ? The problem is not
quite the same as that in xxix. 32, for there we had to find
some synonym for "OlJiN" containing the letter i ; here we
have to find out a perfectly suitable word, out of which
"Q71P may have arisen by the ordinary causes of textual
corruption. I make bold to say that there is only one such
word ; it is ^D^ttT. This implies the form pD^lD ; but why
should there not have been a name Shalmon, belonging to
the same clan or body of clans which was more commonly
called Zebulun ? As a matter of fact, all the names derived
apparently from ^All are really corruptions of f?NSDBF ; the
names are f?lt, Judg. ix. 28, etc., SI^N] in I K. xvi. 31, and
, and the middle form between pfmSDBF and p^lt is
= po^ffi. To return to the form pllt, presupposed by
That there was an extensive clan called TIT, we may
safely infer from the names, Zabdi, Zabdiel, Zabud, Zebudah,
Zebadiah, Yozabad ; and in so late a record as I Mace,
(xii, 31) we read of an Arabian tribe near Damascus called
1 Cp. the Minaean proper name VNIDK", quoted from D. H. Miiller
by Hogg (E. Bib., col. 2290, note 4).
2 The present writer s suggestion in * Issachar, E. Bib., was a step
in the right direction, for both Heres and Zerah appear to have grown
out of Ashhur.
3 Some would explain u^ir by the Ass. zabdlu, to carry, bring,
but sometimes apparently to lift up. But even lift up does not give
quite a natural sense. (Si s atpertei /AC seems to be a guess.
BIRTH OF JACOBS CHILDREN (GEN. xxix. 3 i-xxx. 24) 3 8r
Zabadseans. 1 There may have been a confusion between
the two independent tribal names |VTl7 and p^l7.
It is remarkable that no account should be given of the
feminine name niPT, Dinah. Was the reference inserted by
an after-thought (to prepare for chap, xxxiv.), and therefore
expressed scantily. One may plausibly connect the word
with prs ^Dl 2 (Ezra ii. 15, viii. 6, Neh. vii. 20) and the
Reubenite personal name Ninu (i Chr. xi. 42), also with
p^nrr and pryirr (see on 2 K. xiv. 2), and, lastly, with the
ethnic >W7 (see on Ezra iv. 9), and, more remotely, the ^1
pi? of 2 K. xix. 12 (cp. on Gen. ii. 8, Am. i. 5, Ezek.
xxvii. 23). If the connexion with the last two names is
correct, the disappearance of Dinah is not absolute
(E. Bib., col. 1 101). Cp. on Dan/ v. 6.
One more birth that of *)DV, Joseph (vv. 22-24), which
E derives from ^DN, * to take away, and J from ^D" 1 , to
add. Noldeke (E. Bib., Names/ 53) explains [Yahweh]
increases/ comparing iTDDV, Ezra viii. 10. Here, however,
the full phrase is * Shelomlth ben Yosiphiah/ and Shelomith
is to be grouped with Shelumiel (Num. i. 6), Shelomi
(Num. xxxiv. 27), etc., all of which are closely connected
with Ishmael. This fact creates a presumption that the
name Yosiphiah (and consequently also Yoseph) had its
origin in the Yerahme elite or Ishmaelite region of N.
Arabia ; in fact, this origin is at once suggested (from our
point of view) by the second element in the name Yosiph-iah,
which, as in other cases, represents nv, i.e. Yarham or
Yerahme el. Now as to * Yoseph. In i Chr. xxv. 2
* Yoseph is one of the sons of Asaph (*JDN), a name to
be grouped with the Rephaite name Saph (2 S. xxi. 18)
or Sippai (i Chr. xx. 4), and apparently a shortened form
of SID^N (Ex. vi. 24), the name of one of the sons of Korah,
a brother of whom is called TON, probably a corruption of
(the N. Arabian Asshur). 3 Most probably *]DV is a
1 Cp. also the Palmyrene name Zabd-nebu (Cooke, p. 295).
2 In Ezra ii. 15 (Neh. vii. 20) the bene Adin come after the bene
Adonikam ( = Adon- Yerahme el) ; in viii. 6, 7, they are followed by the
bene Elam (also a Yerahme elite or Ishmaelite name).
3 Cp. Cheyne, Book of Psalms^, Introd. p. xlii. In Ezra ii. 41
(Neh. viii. 44) the singers, the bene Asaph, are grouped with,
families whose names are certainly N. Arabian.
382 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
popular corruption of ^ON" 1 , a fragment of the Korahite
(N. Arabian) name fjDNMN. 1 It is true, this implies a
faulty analysis of the latter name, as if it were from JjDN^ lN,
whereas really it is from *]DN"1N, *- e - *! D N ^15f> Asaphite
Arabia (cp. on xvii. 5, xx. 2). But such wrong popular
analyses are as possible in Hebrew as they appear to be
in Sanskrit. That many Asaphites joined the Israelite
immigrants follows from Num. xi. 4. It only remains
(i) to find instances of names resembling Yoseph outside
the O.T., and (2) to throw the faint light of conjecture on
this name. As to (i), I am disinclined to refer to the
Palestinian place-name Jsp r in the list of Thotmes III.
(No. 78), 2 because this is more probably to be connected
with fntSDBTS the linking forms being ^NlfiF, fwsittT (cp.
1N1BP, DS1BT 1 ). But I see no absolute hindrance to com
paring the ancient Babylonian personal name Yasup-ilu,
and the Phoenician royal names given in Assyrian inscrip
tions as Milki-asapa and Baal-iasupu (E. Bib., cols. 2583/5.
And as to (2), may not Asaph have arisen out of a mutilated
form of some well-known N. Arabian name, such as mBD,
Neh. vii. 57, the original form of which may be DDIS (cp.
on x. 14). It would certainly not be more strange that one
tribal hero should bear a name connecting him with the
Sarephathites than that others should be called by names
traceable to Yerahme el, Ishmael, and Ashhur or Asshur.
See further, on chap, xxxvii., and cp. E. Bib., Joseph.
1 Another form of this name is *]D\3N (i Chr. vi. 8, etc.).
2 Ed. Meyer now leaves it perfectly open whether Jsp r means
Joseph-el or not (Die Israeliten, p. 292). Cp. E. Bib., col. 2582, note i.
For Winckler s view see GI ii. 68.
JACOB S CRAFT AND SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS
(GEN. xxx. 25-43, xxxi. 1-16)
A NEW contract is made, but Jacob turns the tables
on Laban, outdoes him in craft, and wins all Laban s
best cattle. Three points have to be noticed. In v. 30,
btirh, which Dillmann renders, * at every step of mine ;
Gunkel, since I have been here ; but for which the sense
requires "bhxi (v. 27). In v. 37, po-|2. The plane tree
will do as well or as ill as any other tree, but pcni? probably
comes from psn, and means the Raamite or Yerahme elite
(tree), just as YiENn means the Asshurite (tree), and
]DH> ps tne Ishmaelite (tree). pin ps has the same origin
(see on Dt xii. 2). In v. 43, and camels and asses, at the
end of the list, cannot be right ; see on xxiv. 35.
Laban s altered demeanour towards Jacob leads to a
conversation (xxxi. 5-16) between that self-righteous hero
and his wives, in the course of which he relates two theo-
phanies and revelations; the narrative in vv. 10-13 is
not at all smooth or connected, but we may ascribe this to
the redactor. The wives place themselves entirely on
Jacob s side ; his interests have become theirs. Whatever
Elohim has said to thee, do. Something has to be re
marked on the names of God. In v. 5 Jacob tells his wives
that their father s displeasure is unreasonable, seeing that
* the God of my father (^IN ^H^N) has been with me. But
did Laban really worship a different God from Jacob?
How was it that Isaac, in his instructions to Jacob, made
no reference to this important point ? We shall see, how
ever, that not only here but elsewhere IN or ^IN father,
has supplanted l"i2, Arabia. It was the God of the land,
and people of the region of Arab-aram whom Jacob, not
less than Laban, worshipped, and whose favour was now
383
384 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
turned towards Jacob, the God whose full name was
Yahweh-Yerahme el. See on vv. 29, 42, 53, xxviii. 13,
also the following note.
And who was it that spoke to Jacob in his dream-
vision? From what has been said on xxi. 17 it should
be clear that it was no mere messenger, but the friendly,
beneficent deity whose name was Yahweh-Yerahme el or
Yerahme el-Yahweh. The narrator s form is QTrWn ^N^D ;
but / ?o (as we know) comes from 7>NE>nT, and OTT^Nn is
a substitute for mrr. In the preceding note mention has
been made of one of the titles of this deity. V. 13
gives us another ; it is ^M1T3 h& , God of Bethel (see on
xxviii. 1 9). The text, however, has hnri ; how is , this to
be accounted for ? Neither by expanding in the manner
of (g and Onk. (Olsh., Ball), nor by grammatical subtleties
(see e.g. Driver, Tenses, 191, obs. 2 ; Ges.-Kau., I27/).
The key is probably supplied by Isa. xlii. 5, Ps. Ixxxv. 9,
where ^NH seems to have come from ^NDriT. Here, too,
f?Nn may have the same origin. The final ~>N, too, may
have expelled the essential word h& in the phrase fwrpl hn.
Thus we shall get, 7 1 h& orm ^N. In truth, the ancient
name of the God of Bethel was, we can hardly doubt,
^DJTT 1 ; at any rate, this was the name of the N. Arabian
divinity known to the Israelites. See on xxviii. 10-22, also
on xxxv. 7.
JACOB S DEPARTURE; GILEAD
(GEN. xxxi. 17-xxxii. i)
THE turning-point has come. Obeying the oracle, Jacob
takes a hurried departure from the place where he has
laboured for twenty years. He is accompanied by his
sons and his wives. Rachel carries away her father s
teraphim/ and so ensures for herself and her new house-
JACOB S DEPARTURE; GILEAD (GEN. xxxi. i7-xxxn. i) 385
hold the protection of the gods of Laban s family. From
xxxv. 2 (cp. Josh. xxiv. 2, 14, 20, 23) we gather that the
members of Jacob s household also had taken with them
religious symbols of the nature of images ; they had also
earrings which were regarded as heathenish ; no doubt,
they were used as amulets. Laban pursues Jacob, and
overtakes him on the mountain -range of * Gilead (see
below). But Elohim (i.e. Yerahme el, the common deity
of Laban and Jacob) warns Laban not to enter into any
controversy with Jacob. Laban therefore enters into a
compact with his kinsman on Gilead. They part in
peace.
Let us first give our best attention to geography. The
subject certainly presents some great difficulties. c That the
two narratives, J and E, meant the same part of the Gilead
range can hardly be maintained. They both differ from
the original story ; they also differ from one another. So
I wrote formerly in the E. Bib. ( Gilead, 4), from the
point of view which assumes J and E to have meant by
Gilead a region on the east of the Jordan. This assump
tion, however, is not as safe as I supposed. J and E, as
it now appears, have undergone redactional manipulation.
Nor was the geography of the original story, common to
J and E, that which is supposed in the Encyclopedia
( Galeed ). It was plainly necessary to put the student
on a track of advanced inquiry ; some step forward had
to be taken, otherwise the work would have been antiquated
even before it was published. But the first attempt to
recover the underlying geographical names was not
successful. Nor was it brought out that what the com
posite story (JE) leads to is a contract between two clans
both residing in the Arabian border-land to keep each
within its own limits. It is not the present writer s duty
to clear up all that is geographically obscure in the Genesis
narratives. He is prepared for large alterations and im
provements, as they become necessary through the progress
of the exploration of Palestine and Arabia. What he
claims to have definitely effected is the discovery of a large
number of neglected textual phenomena which facilitate the
gradual recovery of an earlier underlying form of the text.
25
386 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
It seems, however, to be extremely probable that by
the stream (in^rr) in v. 21 the original narrative meant
one of the wadys of the Arabian border-land (for which
see on xv. 18). Perhaps the stream or wady of Ephrath
or Perath may be intended, which in xv. 18 (underlying
text) appears to be represented as Gileadite. The southern
Haran (see on xi. 31), which was in the land of the bene
Rekem (xxix. I, E), seems to have been near this stream
or wady. It is now in point to refer to the statement in
the traditional text (^xxxi. 22 f.) that from Haran to the
Gileadite mountains was a journey of seven, or, with flocks
and herds, of ten days. From the ordinary point of view,
this is plainly impossible. Shall we then suppose that E
imagined Laban s home to be much nearer to the trans-
Jordanic Gilead than Haran, and that * he arose and crossed
the stream (Euphrates) in v. 21 comes from the other
narrator (J) ? This is Dillmann s view. Or shall we
suppose that the number seven in v. 23 is corrupt,
i.e. that the original text had some other number ? This
is Strack s view. Or, considering the parallel of I K.
xix. 8 (see Crit. Bib. ad loc.\ shall we conclude that here,
as elsewhere, the numeral covers over an ethnic or a place-
name ? Surely, to obtain the best sense, we require, not a
numeral, but a place-name. Therefore, instead of ni?ltB
D^D"*, let us restore as the original reading Q^D" 1 ni?l
D^E" 1 from D^Q* 1 , as xlix. 13 ; cp. on Dt. xxxiii. 23 (D* 1 ), Job
iii. 8 (DV), i K. xiv. 3 I (D^IN = \& 111?, Yamanite Arabia ).
Thus the direction of Jacob s flight was towards Shibeah
of the Yamanites (see on jv, x. 2) ; Shibeah may be = one
of the places called Beer-sheba * (see on xxvi. 33, and cp. on
chap. xx. and xxi. 14).
In this connexion may one venture to exonerate a
scribe from Gunkel s accusation of pedantry ? Certainly
nnQNn Titl) SriNTi in v. 33 represents a gloss, but the
glossator cannot have written nnoN ; the context makes
it perfectly obvious that the tents examined were those
of Leah and of Rachel. nnGN must be a corruption of
1 From 2 S. xx. I we may perhaps venture to infer that there was
a place called Sheba near the stream Yarhon. In chap, xxxii. 1 1
Jacob s passage of this stream is mentioned.
JACOB S DEPARTURE; GILEAD (GEN. xxxi. ly-xxxn. i) 387
The scribe had a perfectly sensible object. Aram
or Yerahme el was the home of superstition ; by inserting
the gloss the late scribe wished to convey instruction and
warning to his contemporaries. Note that in vv. 20, 24
Laban is, contrary to custom, described as the Aramaean.
At the same time, minor superstitions cannot alter the
fact that Laban and Jacob worshipped the same God. One
may, indeed, infer from the words the God of your father
spoke to me (v. 29) that the contrary was the case, but
we should be in error. The Hebrew text is clearly wrong ;
the phrase the God of your father (O:TIN f h^\ addressed
to Jacob, is impossible. Seeing this, Ball would read f IN (so
Sam., ^, who also read, rightly, T[!S>S). But this is not enough.
We have seen already that IN and *>1N often represent :ns?.
In vv, 5 and 42 this word is the original of ! ; here (as
in xxviii. 13) it is the word which underlies plN.
In the same verse (29), as in 2 K. ix. 26 l and Job
xxx. 3,~ ttfDN is also corrupt, as the warning Pasek may
indicate. It has probably come from soar (a short way
of writing ^NSDBT), on which a scribe gave the marginal
gloss SNDTTP, represented by IDN^, as in Ex. xv. i, 3 2 S.
v. i. 4 Thus we get the God of Arab-Ishmael [Yerahme el]
said to me (cp. on v. 42). The proper force of "IQN^ was
not so constantly forgotten that good writers have to be
burdened with the awkward phrase "IEN^ YIDN V ).
We now see how to correct ^IN TT7N (v. 42), and the
note on xxviii. i 3 indicates the text underlying the variant
omiN hn ( simply KjBpaa^). The fear of Isaac is
surprising:" Why not the God of Isaac, as in xxviii. i 3 ?
And why the God of Isaac instead of some title equivalent
to the God of Arabia ? An answer can, I think, be
given. We have found (on xvii. 9, xxviii. 1 3) that
1 Was Naboth really dragged out into the darkness of the night ?
Read ystra, in Ishmael, a gloss on n*n np*?m.
2 Read Wyes", a gloss on rvx.
3 Read ^tonr, which is wrongly separated from mrv ; the full divine
name was Yahweh- Yerahme el.
4 Read VNOHT, a gloss on nn-nn.
5 The current explanations are indeed very questionable (Gunkel).
Schwally (review of Staerk s Studien, Lit. Centr.-blatt, June 17, 1899)
even suggests that ~i~z may mean dead spirit, ghost.
3 88 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
or pntD" 1 may sometimes be a corruption of YiniDN. This
is most probably the case here. And if so, should we not
look for some other regional name underneath the very
improbable ins ? The nearest at hand is ion, the name
of one of the sons of Gilead (Num. xxvi. 33). Hepher-
Ashhur might be a gloss on (or variant to) Arab-Yarham,
underlying Abraham. The result is that we should omit
all but the central part am* 1 ms (as variants or glosses),
thus obtaining the sense, * unless the God of Arab-Yarham
had been for me. The closing word &&gt;EN, i.e. $DHT, seems
to be a gloss on one of the preceding district-names, perhaps
on :ni? (n^). We shall see presently (on vv. 45, 49) that
the God of Arabia was called both Yerahme el and Yahweh.
A troublesome error occurs in v. 45 (E), and also, in
a complicated form, in v. 46 (J). That Jacob should be
the expressed or implied subject of the verb is forbidden
by the context. IplP must be wrong. We must not,
however, substitute ]^h for it (cp. Driver), blpy in v. 46
has come from bDJTP (like ipin in Isa. xvii. 5, etc., and
DS~f?lp in 2 K. xv. I o) ; this word ought to be combined
with TiniDN, thus forming the compound name Yerahme el-
Ashhur. This enables us to account for the impossible
IpiT 1 in v. 44, which is no mere error of a scribe, but has
come from SttDrrP ; and this Yrr is the very word which
is wanting to complete v. 44, which should run, And now
come, let us make a compact, I and thou, and Yerahme el
shall be witness between us both. This restoration seems
to me a very great boon ; it gives the key to the subsequent
statement that the heap or the massebah should be
witness. For how could a cairn or a stone be a witness
unless a divinity were within the cairn or the stone (cp.
Gunkel), and who could the divinity be but the God who
was common to both parties Yerahme el the God of
Arabia. V. 45 (E) and v. 46 (J) also become perfectly
clear. They should run thus, * And he (Laban) took a
stone, and set it up as a massebah. And he (Laban) said,
Gather stones, etc. * Yerahme el- Ashhur remains outside ;
it is a gloss on the enigmatical Yegar-sahadutha in v. 47
(see note). For the equation vrw = TirKDN, see on xvi. 1 2,,
xxv. 1 8, Hos. xii. 3.
JACOB S DEPARTURE; GILEAD (GEN. xxxi. i7-xxxn. i) 389
Certainly the riddle of Yegar-sahadutha (v. 47) is a
pretty one. Most have supposed that the name, read in
accordance with MT., means heap of witness/ or heap is
witness/ l and that the cairn received both a Hebrew and
an equivalent Aramaic name because it stood on the
frontier between Aramaic- and Hebrew-speaking popula
tions. But the Hebrew name of the spot intended was
not T$fpa, but T^3l, as indeed J, at any rate, surely must
mean us to read in v. 48 (see Gunkel). 2 And from our
present point of view it is easy to make at least a near
approach to the true solution of the riddle a solution
which has the twofold merit of being methodical and of
harmonising with results attained elsewhere. NnvrniD "OP
would, in fact, be a perfectly regular transformation of
rr. 3 The whole of v. 47 is a gloss on icm Nip
in v. 48. Therefore one called its name Gilead/
said the earlier writer ; upon this the glossator s comment
is, Laban called its name Yerah-Ashharoth ( = Yerahme el-
Ashhur) ; Jacob called it Gil ad. We have seen already
that TTFN Vlpy in v. 46 represents TintDN ^JHDITT 1 , a correc
tion of YKD iy.
The origin of ishz has, I venture to think, been too
hastily traced to an Arabic word {gal* ad} meaning hard,
strong, brave. Analogy seems rather to suggest that "TJ&J
(like the names read as Bashan/ Kasdim/ Akshaph/
Akrabbim ) is a compound. For hi, cp. hlhl, h*hl, &hl ;
for -TS, cp. rns, fwns, and perhaps ^NITTN. hi may be
a fragment of hm ; cp. SN^DI, i.e. h&h&r\ (cp. on = DTTT,
in *J^D mi).
Another riddle is that of Mispah (v. 49). Well-
hausen 4 argues learnedly that Mispah in Gilead may
originally have been called Massebah ; he thinks, too, that
1 Nestle, Marginalien, p. 11.
- That there was textual corruption in the Aramaic name was pointed
out in E. Bib., col. 1627, though the best solution was not given owing
to the prejudice that the scene of the story must be on the frontier of
the northern Aram.
3 nr was very early the short for *?sm\ For mint?K cp. on nntrw,
Num. xxi. 15. With nr we may possibly compare the land of Gari,
Am Tab. 237, 23 (cp. Hommel, ANT, p. 265).
* CH, 1889, pp. 43 /
390 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
the connexion of vv. 48-50 is much disturbed by glosses.
It may be questioned, however, whether Mispah has any
right of existence here. iTQ2E>rr should probably be m^on
(as Sam. actually reads), and "IZDN itBN which follows has
come from D^N 12JN2, in Asshur of Aram (see on xxii. 2).
The words thus read are a misplaced appendage to the
gloss in v. 47, and state that the massebah was still to be
seen in Asshur- Aram. The words mrp *|!T may therefore
be a continuation of the speech of Laban in v. 48.
V. 5 3 a has also been found perplexing. ItoDtt)" 1 has
been held to indicate a lower mode of thinking character
istic of Laban, and nrplN TT^N to be a gloss added for
the purpose of softening a polytheistic trait by subsuming
the God of Abraham and the God (or gods) of Nahor
under a higher unity (Driver, after Del., Dillm., etc.).
This seems a radical error. Laban and Jacob had the
same religion, only the former kept up more superstitious
practices than the latter. Abraham himself uses a plural
verb with Elohim (xx. 1 3), certainly not to conciliate
polytheistic hearers (Dillm., Driver, etc.). Sound method
requires us to hold that DrriN in v. 5 3 a has come either
from a dittographed DmiN, or from D7TV1N, a correction of
DmiN. Referring to what has been said on v. 42, I would
read Yin:) vrS N*) Drrr-rru? VF^N. In v. 53 # we must insert
between l and isn (for ins) ; and for ^ TIN, 1"I2
, which may be a gloss on isn. For * Nahor
( = Arab-nahor) see on xxiv. I o.
LEGEND OF MAHANAIM (GEN. xxxn. 2, 3)
ACCORDING to the MT. of this passage, c angels of
Elohim met Jacob on his progress, and from his exclama
tion, this is a host (camp) of Elohim, the place Mahanaim
derived its name (cp. E. Bib., col. 2902, note i). But
surely, if the origin of Mahanaim were to be explained at
all, something more would have been said by the original
writer. The text, therefore, must have been mutilated,
probably because much that was said was distasteful to a
later generation. We most naturally think of a contest
between Jacob and a company of inferior divine beings
(cp. xxxii. 23^). So Gunkel, who is in the main probably
right. 1 But can we not improve upon this ? In the only
other passage of Genesis in which DYrf?N ON^D occurs
(xxviii. 12), that phrase appears to be not original, but a
development out of mm SNDHT. Probably, therefore, the
original story spoke of a hostile onset (SID) of Yerahme el-
Yahweh, and of Jacob s permitted victory over him. After
this it may have been said that Jacob erected Yerahme el-
pillars (see on xxviii. 22), and worshipped. In this case
the patriarch s exclamation must have been, not ni f ht* IDno,
but m mm DITT, * this one is Yerahme el-Yahweh. To
illustrate this, let it be remarked that p mno in Judg.
xviii. 12 is probably not the original place-name, but
p, or the like, where ]Qrr would be a corruption of
The place-name D^no also, most probably, arose very
early out of D^Dom or n^an, i.e. pillars of Yerahme el. 2
Cp. on nmo, xxxvi. 23.
1 Ed. Meyer (p. 275, note 2) dissents, but without giving any
reason.
2 See on Lev. xxvi. 30, and cp. Isa. xvii. 8, where D jon is coupled
with QH57N, i.e. sacred symbols of the god Asher or Asshur.
392 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Now, as to geography. Mahanaim is commonly sup
posed to have stood in the region beyond the Jordan.
There are, however, reasons for thinking that the Mahanaim
of the early narratives may have been in some part of the
Arabian border-land. Thus (i), it was the residence of
Saul s son and successor * Ishbosheth (2 S. ii. 8, 12, 29),
and there are serious difficulties in placing this king s
residence beyond the Jordan (Crit. Bib, p. 253). (2) It
was also for a time the residence of David (2 S. xviii. 2^.ff.\
and though the geography of Absalom s revolt may have
been manipulated, there are still some indications that the
scene of the events of that episode was originally placed in
the Arabian border-land. See e.g. on 2 S. xvi. 14 f. t and
xvii. 26, which shows that the land of Gilead, where
Mahanaim lay, was in Arab-Ishmael. (3) It was also the
capital of one of Solomon s prefectures (i K. iv. 14). Now
it seems to have been shown ] with no slight probability
that the region divided into prefectures was that possessed
by Solomon in the Arabian border-land. On these grounds
it is probable that the Mahanaim (Hammanim ?) originally
meant was not = Mihne or Mahne in the Jebel Ajlun, nor
yet the town Ajlun itself, but stood on some unrecoverable
site far to the south, in the vicinity of the stream called in
the present text pT, but in the earlier text prrT (see on
v. 11). It may be assumed that an important sanctuary
existed at Mahanaim, and that tales were told there about
Jacob, such as that only just discernible in vv. 2, 3, and
that still preserved in its main features in vv. 23-33.
1 See Crit. Bib., and E. Bib., col. 4687, note i.
JACOB AND ESAU (GEN. xxxn. 4-22)
A LINKING passage. A clear picture of the events
cannot be obtained from the traditional text. Evidently
the narrative is composite (JE), but the difficulties of the
chapter are complicated by corruptions of the text and
geographical misunderstandings. First, as to the latter. It
has already been remarked by Gunkel and Winckler that
the land of Edom is too far away from Mahanaim and
Penuel for Jacob s messengers to return so quickly, followed
at no great distance by Esau himself. Gunkel has suggested
that the domain of Esau may at first have been placed
much more to the north, and Winckler even thinks that
both Abraham and Jacob were moved from the north to
the south by the Yahwist, 1 and that the Seir referred to in
xxxii. 4, xxxiii. 14, 16, was in N. Israel (cp. Judg. iii. 26),
and is the same that is spoken of by Abd-hiba of Jerusalem
(Am. Tab. 181, 26) in the phrase from (the region of)
Sheri to (the city of) Ginti-kirmil.
From our present point of view, however, a different
view is more plausible. As we have seen (on xiv. 6),
Seir is probably a very early modification of Asshur.
It is therefore not impossible that Esau s domain may have
been a part of the great Asshurite country, other parts of
which were occupied by Laban and Jacob respectively.
We may add (i) that it seems to follow from v. 7 and xxxiii. I
(see next note) that the district from which Esau came
could also be described as a part of Ishmaelite Arabia, and
(2) that one or both of the geographical phrases at the end
of v. 4 (as also JTPSB, to Seir, xxxiii. 14, 16) may be due
to a supplementing scribe.
1 AOF, xxi. 265, 439-
393
394 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
We now pass on to a great difficulty, of which none of
the recent critics, except Steuernagel, attempts any explana
tion. How came Esau to have four hundred men at his
beck and call (xxxii. 7, xxxiii. i), and what was his object
in bringing so large a band with him ? The narrative
throws no light on the four hundred. It does not call them
either his trained men or his kinsmen, but simply men,
and allows us to infer that Esau s sole object in coming was
to greet his brother. Steuernagel (Einwand. p. 105)
suggests that the notice of the arrival of Esau and his
band has been transferred hither from another context, in
which Jacob meant * the Jacob-tribe, and Esau meant
the Esau-tribe, and that Num. xx. 14-21, where the king
of Edom refuses to allow Israel to pass, is parallel, in so far
as it is based upon an earlier narrative, which must have
related a hostile encounter between Edom and Israel.
Before making such an arbitrary conjecture, however, it
would have been better to examine the text of xxxii. 7
and xxxiii. I more narrowly. Experience shows that
numerals are very apt to be the disguise of ethnics. I?TIN
flTN mND should, according to parallels (see on xv. 13), be
a scribe s production out of the ill-written words SlDHN ns
"ntEN, 1 while IDS, which rightly stands first in xxviii. I,
probably comes from li?D. 2 Thus we get as the original
reading [from] Arabia of Ishmael-Asshur. (The preposi
tion p has dropped out, and -ii> has been dittographed.)
The reader will now, I hope, recognise the original
form of the story of the meeting of the brothers. It must
have been to this effect that, to improve the relations
between himself and Esau, the younger brother sent
messengers to the elder in Arab-Ishmael, to announce that
he was on his way home, having prospered in his years of
hard service. The messengers returned, and stated that
they had seen Esau, and that with the perfection of courtesy
he had started from Arab-Ishmael to meet Jacob half-way.
and Sion often represent VNJW.
2 The meaning is that in xxxiii. I the MS. on which the late
redactor relied gave wrongly, not nyo, but 3ijny. This the redactor
converted into JWK myi, while in xxxii. 7 he changed the order of the
words, and wrote ioy E"N mxo
JACOB AND ESA U (GEN. xxxn. 4-22) 395
There was nothing in this to perplex one so confident in his
superior shrewdness as Jacob, who at once made prepara
tions for sending a large present before him to propitiate
Esau, whose wrath he still feared. Jacob s calculated
liberality, supported by his extravagant compliments and
self-humiliation, took effect on the dull-minded Esau, who
genially accepted the present, and, assuming that Jacob
would pay him a visit, offered to lead the way. The crafty
Jacob, however, found a good excuse (see on xxxiii. 1 3 /)
for getting rid of his dangerous brother, whose fit of
generosity might not last long. He proposed first of all to
move gently on to Asshur-Yerahme el, where he was at
home, and where he would deposit his family in safety,
and then pay the proposed visit (which he hoped would
never come off) to Esau.
The humorous character of all this will not escape the
reader, and Gunkel has well pointed out how strongly the
narrative contrasts with the inwardness of the prayer in
xxxii. 10-13, which is obviously a later insertion. As to
the details of the prayer, there are four points requiring to
be mentioned here, (i) The titles given to Yahweh in
v. 10 are reduced by a keen textual criticism to one, viz.
TiniDN ns vrW, God of Arab-Ashhur (see on xxviii. 13).
(2) The name pT should rather be prrT (see on xiii. 10).
(3) The supposed popular proverb in v. 12 is most probably
a corruption of ^NSDBF ^1 l (transposing). On this point it
should be added that the phrase the sons of Ishmael is an
interpolated gloss on Esau. The glossator had before
him the false reading with him four hundred men, and
took these men to be Ishmaelite freebooters. (4) The
reference to the sand in ^.13 presupposes a reading in
xxii. 1 7 which has, I think, been shown to be false ; a
sufficient proof of the lateness of the inserted passage.
1 Cp. Hos. x. 14 (end), where read Wycc" inrK 33, the men of
Ashtar- Ishmael.
THE WRESTLING-MATCH (GEN. xxxn. 23-33)
HERE is a severe test, for we have come to the story of
the successful wrestling of Jacob himself a hero with an
antagonist who is no less than divine. Very naturally it
gave offence to some of its ancient readers ; hence it is
omitted in the Book of Jubilees. Indeed, except when
spiritualised by poet or preacher, it is likely to be equally
uncongenial to modern students. Still, we must not, as
historical students, be tempted to despise this antique
narrative, nor refuse the effort required to comprehend it.
Indeed, though antique, it is not strictly primitive ; the
mythical element which it contains must have been con
siderably toned down before the Yahwist and the Elohist
could accept it.
First of all, however, let us examine the geographical
framework, remembering, as always, that the letters of the
traditional text are no more authoritative than the vowel-
points. We have seen already that, if Mahanaim is to be
placed in the north-east, the journey to that place from Seir
is too long for Esau to have taken, whether out of mere com
plaisance or for any other reason. The stream, therefore,
beside which Jacob found himself can neither be the
Yarmuk (Wellh.) nor the Nahr ez-Zerka l (Dillm., Driver,
etc.).
Its name Yabbok, too, has been much misunderstood.
It means neither the * profuse nor the gurgling stream ; 2
but is to be connected with the name of a place, ip^, men
tioned in Judg. vii. 25, not far from the prv, or rather the
1 See Smend, ZATW, 1902, p. 142, note I ; G. A. Smith, HG,
PP- 583/; cp. Eus. in OS 266, 80.
2 BDB apparently suggest this. The early narrators are supposed
396
THE WRESTLING-MATCH (GEN. xxxn. 23-33) 397
(see on xiii. 11), and not far also, though on the
other side of the stream, from niDD (i.e. robo). Both p:r
and ip" 1 1 belong to the same group as 3pir (see below), and
are worn -down forms of onT (Yarham = Yerahme el).
Now, though it is admittedly quite possible for a place and
a stream in N.E. Palestine to have borne a name of
N. Arabian origin for the N. Arabian immigrants carried
their names with them, yet other considerations strongly
favour the view that the stream pT was in the N. Arabian
border-land, and was a tributary of the stream called
Yarhon. Like so many other corruptions of cm* 1 , the
form in question early acquired an independent existence.
See further, on Num. xxi. 24, Dt. ii. 37.
At a later point we find Jacob arriving at Peniel (v. 31)
or Penuel (v. 32) and Succoth (xxxiii. 17; cp. Judg. viii.
5, 8, 1 6 /). Here, too, the name nDD (IYOD) favours,
though it does not, strictly speaking, require, the N. Arabian
theory. For Succath (Succoth) should be Saccath ; it is
most probably identical with Salecath, i.e. Ashcalath. 2 It
is very possible that the original story referred to the
famous Asshurite city called Salecath (cp. on xx. 16,
Dt. iii. 10). It is true, the narrator explains the name as
booths, and this agrees with the old explanation of in
rOD[n] as feast of booths. Originally, however, the feast
was that of Salecath or Salekith, i.e. of the goddess of
Ashcal or Asshur- Yerahme el, properly called Ashtart
(see on Lev. xxiii. 34). The origin of Peniel is less easily
determined. The name must be old ; it may occur, mis-
written, in the name-list of Shoshenk. 3 But though it was
early explained (see v. 31) as hn ^p ( face of God ) a
possible title of the divine Wrestler, or, as others think,
suggested by the appearance of the mountain (if Peniel
was on a mountain) 4 yet it is practically certain that the
(e.g. by G. A. Smith, I.e., and Driver, Hast. DB, p. 350 a, note i) to
have interpreted it the wrestling stream.
1 MT. calls the place am ap-, but T, like 7yn, 113, Vat, comes from
Vxycc", and is merely a variant to ap\ See Crit. Bib. on Judg. vii. 25.
- Cp. nVao and V ; pno and v.
3 W. M. Miiller, As. u. Eur. p. 168.
4 The latter view is held by Gunkel (p. 322) ; the profile of a huge
face may have been imagined, for which analogies can be offered.
398 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
connexion with D*OB is illusory, and probable that VNTQB is
an expansion of the old tribal name ^DD, for the probable
origin of which see on vi. 4.
To fix the sites of these places is entirely beyond us ;
even DDE) (again in xxxiii. 18) and ^NrPl (where Hosea, as
we shall see, apparently places the wrestling) cannot be
identified. But if we can admit that the localities referred
to were in N. Arabia, the general consistency of these
narratives will be preserved. It may be added that if the
same Saccath ( Salecath) is referred to in Ex. xii. 37,
this place must have been situated not far from the border
of Misrim or Musri.
Let us now pass on to the story itself. That the
wrestling in which Jacob engaged is me^nt to be under
stood literally, is undeniable ; l and from a critical point of
view it is only natural to compare the classical passages
in which gods and men mingle in the fray, also, more
especially, the primitive and wide-spread myth of the
halting god. 2 Jacob is evidently regarded as the possessor
of enormous strength (cp. xxviii. 18, xxix. 10, xxxi. 45).
Possibly this story formed the close of a series of tales
which recounted the feats of that mighty hero. One may
at least say that it well deserved to do so from its ex
ceptional character. And what was the object of the
story ? Probably it was to show that Jacob had won the
favour of the God of the N. Arabian land which he had
entered, or, perhaps, that his tribe had full religious sanction
for its occupation of it. 3 These blessings, according to the
legend here adopted, were obtained by a successful contest.
The event took place at Penuel, where, as well as at
Mahanaim, the priests and worshippers at the sanctuary
loved to tell the legend. Possibly, as Gunkel (p. 323)
suggests, a special rite of dancing (like limping) was
Ed. Meyer (after Halevy) in E. Bib., col. 3747, thinks that "?in ja in
Phoenician inscriptions is a place-name. It may be this, and yet ja
need not mean face.
1 I see no reason for supposing that the original narrator thought of
a dream-vision as in xxviii. 12 (Jeremias, ATAO, p. 235).
2 See Folklore, 1902, No. i ; Stucken, Astralmythen, p. 152.
3 This seems better than the view given in E. Bib., Wrestling.
THE WRESTLING- MA TCH (GEN. xxxn. 23-33) 399
practised there 1 (cp. v. 32). If so, the Penuel sanctuary
must have had a wide influence, for the prophets of Baal
(Yerahme el ?) in general appear to have adopted the rite 2
(i K. xviii. 26), and the spring festival called the Pesah
(our Passover ) may have derived its name from such
limping or leaping dances. 3
It is noteworthy that the term for wrestling (^HD3,
see on xxx. 8) does not occur in the narrative ; the word
which has probably taken its place (ipw) means c to use
tricks. The MT., it is true, has (in v. 25) plhTl, but the
explanations of the supposed root piN are most precarious,
and it is needful to correct the text. The gain is manifest.
On this last occasion (v. 29) of Jacob s bearing this name,
legend finds a new reason for it. It means * the tricksome
(cp. Jer. ix. 3), and the last and greatest of Jacob s artifices,
or exhibitions of cleverness, was when he put forth the
craft of an Odysseus against a divine Man. Whether the
narrator thoroughly sympathises with this, we cannot
positively say. The shiftiness of the nomad 4 was slow to
disappear. If the narrator did feel some qualms at Jacob s
action (cp. Hos. xii. 4), he did not care to spoil his story
by indicating this. His object was not to criticise but to
glorify the patriarch, and this he did, not by a modernising
fiction of his own, but by adopting an old and venerated
legend. At this turning-point in Jacob s career, it was
fitting that his name, like Abram s, should be changed.
But the old name was not to be thrown aside as ignoble.
As W. M. Mtiller has pointed out, it was, according to the
original story, Jacob who resorted to an artifice, like
Odysseus in //. xxiii. 725-727 ; i.e. the subject of the verb
in v. 26 a is Jacob. 5 This seems to me to be confirmed by
1 Land (De Gids, Oct. 1871, p. 20, note i). He thinks (com
paring the Arabic nasa) that the name of the mysterious Being with
whom Jacob strove was Menasseh, i.e. one who injures the hip-
sinew (cp. i"u. 26, 33). Surely . TWO, one who tests, would be more
seemly.
2 See references in E. Bib., Dance, col. 1000, note 2.
3 So Toy ; cp. E. Bib., col. 999.
4 On the shiftiness of Jacob and David, see Cheyne, Aids to
Criticism, pp. 34^ note 2.
5 See W. M. M. As. u. Eur. p. 163, note i, who is followed by
400 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
the parallel account in Hosea (xii. 4, etc.), to which we
shall return.
And who can Jacob s antagonist have been ? Two
Midrashic statements were current in later times. Accord
ing to one, it was the angel-prince of Edom ; x according to
another, the archangel Michael. 2 But the narrative itself
answers our question. V. 29 in MT. runs thus, And he
said, Thy name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel,
for thou hast contended with Elohim and with men, and
hast prevailed. Even without criticising the text, we may
venture to guide ourselves provisionally by this statement.
It was evidently a superhuman being, though in human
form, with whom Jacob wrestled.
But must we not allow ourselves to use our already-
gained experience in textual criticism ? Plainly QTlf?N
(god) and D^ttJDN (men) ought to be synonymous, and if
they are not, D- BWN at any rate must be corrupt. Both IDIDN
(see on iv. 26) and D^BEN (see on 2 S. vii. 14), equally with
jDID (cp. pJ7E8), and see on Isa. x. 27, Ps. xcii. 1 1), are well-
established corruptions of ^NDI0\ Does not this furnish a
hint as to the name of Jacob s antagonist ? We have seen
already that ~\*hfc in the phrases mrr f hft and DYT^N h& has
most probably come from ^MDnT, which not only designated
the Yerahme elite race, but was also the name of the god,
or one of the gods, whom the race worshipped. It is also
approximately certain that in the much-disputed Jacob-
passage in Hos. xii. 4, 5 (see below) the antagonist of
Jacob is called Ashhur, Elohim, and Mal ak (or some other
form of Yerahme el). Lastly, we have seen it to be prob
able that Din^N itself is sometimes 3 either an alteration or
a corruption (or half one and half the other) of ^NnnT,
or at any rate of some form of that name which had long
B. Luther, ZATW, 1901, p. 66, Ed. Meyer, and Holzinger. The
view is not inconsistent with the fact that v. 26 b distinctly states that
it was the hollow of Jacob s thigh which became out of joint. This
notice evidently comes from another narrator, and v. 27 connects
admirably with v. 26 a. In v. 26 ft, of course, read icy npyna, when he
tried a trick with him.
1 Bereshith rabba, Ixxvii.yi
2 Targ. Jon. on Gen. xxxii. 24 ; see pp. S9 f~
3 But hardly in the phrase D > n ( 7x[n] ixSc.
THE WRESTLING-MATCH (GEN. xxxn. 23-33) 401
since acquired an independent existence. It follows that
no view is so probable as this that the personage with
whom Jacob, according to the original story, contended
was the second person of the divine duad or triad
Yerahme el, also called Ishmael (see on xvi. i o), and that
in v. 29 the former name underlies DYI^N, and the latter
In v. 30 we find Jacob sharing our own curiosity as to
the name of his opponent, but receiving, as the text now
stands, an evasive answer. 1 This is surprising, if we assign
the narrative to a single narrator, and if we accept the
criticism of DTI^N in the preceding paragraph. For in v. 29,
according to our revised text, it is said, thou hast contended
with Yerahme el [with Ishmael], and hast prevailed ; i.e.
the divinity, unasked, communicates his name to his van
quisher. The solution of the problem is that v. 29 comes
from one source, and vv. 50 f. from another. From the
latter passage it is plain that though Jacob knows that he
has to do with a divinity, he does not know that divinity s
name. It is effective dramatically to represent Jacob as
asking for the sacred name, and this the narrator enjoys.
But he is well aware of the name all the time. Both J and
E are fully persuaded that in Israel s heroic age the second
member of the divine duad or triad frequently intervened in
human affairs (cp. on xvi. 10). And, to confirm this, we
find in the parallel passage Judg. xiii. i 9 (see note) an early
glossator appending to the evasive question of the divine
Speaker ( why askest thou for my name ? ) the note * it is
Yerahme el, which has intruded in a corrupt form into the
text. It was thus no mere local deity the numen of
Penuel 2 over whom Jacob prevailed, but that great Being
1 The idea is that to communicate the true name of a god is danger
ous. He who has this name can dispose of the power of its bearer (cp.
Dieterich, Mithrasliturgie, p. 112). Hence the deep significance of
swearing, e.g. by Ashmath of Shimron (Ashmath in Am. viii. 14 =
Ishme elith, the feminine side of the god Ishmael). In legends con
nected with cultus either the true name or an effective substitute had to
be revealed (cp. on xvii. i). Gunkel thinks that originally it. 30 con
tained a revelation of the true name of the divine wrestler, and compares
El Olam and El Beth-el. But see note 2.
2 This is against the view of Land, De Gids (above), and apparently
26
402 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
who was first to the Arabians, but only second to the better
Israelites, who was conquered by Jacob, only because he
willed to be conquered because he willed to strengthen
Jacob s confidence both in himself and in the divinity.
Hence Jacob says, I have confronted Yerahme el (later
text, Elohim) face to face, and I have come away alive
(v. 3 I)- 1
That Jacob s antagonist is indeed divine appears further
from xxxv. i o, where the giver of the new name Israel is
called Elohim (originally Yerahme el). In this case the gift
is connected with the theophany at Bethel, 2 and the question
arises whether in the original form of the narratives Bethel
or * Beth-on did not mean the same place as Penuel ; for
Bethel and Beth-on, as we have seen, are, like Tubal, Nebat,
and Beten, merely popular modifications of Ishmael.
There is yet another record, besides xxxv. 10, of a
traditional statement that the contest with Elohim, or
Mikael, or Ashhur, took place at Bethel or Ono. This
is in Hos. xii. 4, 5. The passage as handed down in
MT. is in many ways strange. What is to be said, e.g.,
of the statement that in the womb he (Jacob) sup
planted his brother ? The next line is rendered by Harper,
and in his man s strength he contended with God ; Harper
makes this the first line of a later insertion. The complica
tion of the exegesis forced upon those who accept the text
ought to be a stimulus to a keener textual criticism. I have
ventured to attempt this, and strict application of new
methods brings me to this result.
In Beth-on he used a trick with Ashhur,
In Ono he strove with Elohim.
[Gloss I. He strove with Mal ak (Yerahme el), and
prevailed ;
He wept and made supplication to him.]
[Gloss 2. Bethel of Ishmael ; Arab-Ishmael.]
of Gunkel. The view of Robertson Smith (Rel. Sem. p. 456) is still less
correct.
1 Stade s view (Bibl. TheoL des A.T. i. 58) is that Jacob overcame
a Canaanite local divinity named Israel ( = the fighting El).
2 Possibly the account of the theophany was originally much fuller,
and resembled that in chap, xxviii.
THE WRESTLING-MATCH (GEN. xxxn. 23-33) 403
We see here that even in the time of the glossator the
geography of the old legend was understood, and further,
that the identity of the divine antagonist of Jacob with
Mal ak ( = Yerahme el) was realised. The reference to
* weeping and making supplication shows that the legend
had begun to be spiritualised ; the striving had now become
a great upheaval of the spirit in prayer.
And now as to the origin of the names Jacob (ipi?* 1 ,
or [five times] Tips ) and Israel (WlOF). It is useless to
attempt a solution, if we assume the present forms of the
names to be correct, and if we adhere to the prevalent
theory that a large proportion of Semitic names from the
very first embodied statements with regard to the Deity.
Sound method requires us to group ips" with those Hebrew
names which have most of the same letters, or at any rate
letters akin to them such as pT 1 (v. 23), ip- (Judg. vii. 25),
lips (Ezra ii. 42, 45, etc.), rrlps^ (i Chr. iv. 36), SttSlp^ l
(Neh. xi. 25), DpTTN, Dpmtf, ]ps^ (see on xxxvi. 27), and
other similar Semitic names such as ^Nlps and pps, 2
Ikibum 3 (son of Abishar), Akabbi-ili, to which others may
be added from Johns, Deeds, iii. 164. Consistently with
our results thus far, we cannot doubt that the common
origin of all these forms is arm, which, with the formative
ending, becomes ^MOnT. The study of Phoenician,
Aramaic, and Palmyrene names in the light of our
discoveries, suggests that the Semitic parallels to ips" 1 have
the same origin. It is enough, therefore, to record the
favourite interpretation (see e.g. Hommel, Gr. p. 167, note 6)
of Jacob as he (God) rewards. But another favourite
view seems to be probably correct, viz. that the name once
had the fuller form ^Nlps\ Ya f kub-ilu has indeed been
found on Babylonian contract-tablets of Hammurabi s time,
and a Hyksos king Ya f kub-ilu is admitted by Spiegelberg.
Further, in the name-list of Thotmes III. (No. 102) occurs,
a name which may perhaps represent Ya kob- el.
Next as to WiBP. This is not God rules (Knob., Dillm.),
and God strives (Dillm., Noldeke, E. Meyer, WRS, etc.), or
1 VNS, like SSN in Zech. xiv. 5, comes from W (cp. ^ttyov) ; see Crit.
Bib. on Josh. xv. 21.
2 For ppy ( = Sopy) see Cooke, p. 404. 3 Cp. on niaay, xxxvi. 39.
404 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Let God strive (Gray), or God flashes l (Vollers), or
God persists or perseveres 2 (Driver, Hast. DB, p. 5 30 a).
These theories (a) are based upon an erroneous theory of
the original or primary meaning of Semitic names, and (&)
the best-known of them take their notion of iw from the
legend of the wrestling. Independently of Hommel I have
long arrived at the conclusion that the second syllable was
m This enables us to make the patriarch s two names
entirely parallel, for, comparing Wni&M, Num. xxvi. 31, and
SNT&N, i Chr. iv. 16, and rrW "i&&gt;N, i Chr. xxv. 2, it is
difficult not to hold that the first letter was N. 3 This gives
us as the original form fm.$M or ^NTiftN. In accordance
with this I have long recognised in the famous prior; a
development of TII&N, i.e. the N. Arabian region called
Asshur or Ashhur, and in "ittrn 1DD, Josh. x. 13, etc., a
distortion of "inoJN r D, 4 a book relating to Ashhur, i.e. to that
part of Ashhur which was occupied by Israel. In this con
nexion, too, lor:, the name of a son of Caleb, I Chr. ii. 18,
and rT*pN*ittr (another form of "itoN), i Chr. xxv. 14, may be
mentioned. We can now understand how Ahab in an
Assyrian inscription comes to be called Sir lai, and Israel to
be represented on the Merneptah-stele by Y-si-ri l. 5 For
other views of Israel see E. Bib., Jacob, 6, on which
note that Yizrah, too, is a deformation of Ashhur ; also
Steuernagel, Einwand. pp. 6 1 f. The name Seraiah may
also be referred to here (see p. 288).
With regard to the significance of the traditional change
1 Arch. f. Rel.-wiss. ix., 1906, p. 184.
- Driver would render nnc? in xxxii. 29 thou hast persevered. The
sense is unsuitable, and far-fetched (Ar. Sariya, in iii., to persist or
persevere against another ). Surely thou hast prevailed implies thou
hast striven.
3 Asriel is a son of Gilead (the N. Arabian) ; Asarel, of Yehallelel
(i.e. Yerahme el) ; Asarelah, of Asaph (a N. Arabian name ; see Book of
Psalms ( i] , Introd. p. xlii.).
4 In E. Bib., Jasher and Jeshurun, it is supposed that another
form of SKW was fw, from which came a shorter form w (Yesher ?).
The Book of the Righteous has in this case come from Book of
Yesher ( = Israel). So Erbt (Die Hcbrder}, unaware of his predecessor.
In Crit. Bib., however, it is shown that itrn comes from T.ntrN (Ashhur).
5 Cp. Hommel, Gr. pp. 167 /., note 6; Lagarde, Uebersicht,
p. 132 ; Kittel, Chronicles (SB OT, Heb.), p. 58.
THE WRESTLING-MATCH (GEN. xxxn. 23-33) 405
of name, I think that some recent critics have been too
subtle. It does not, e.g., mean that the Jacob-tribe, after
becoming fused with the Rachel-tribe, required and received
a new name, viz. Israel (so Steuern.), but is simply a
legendary expression of the fact that Israel originally dwelt
in a land which had the two synonymous designations
Yerahme el and Asshur (cp. on chap. xvii.). Jacob-Israel
is the hero of the region called (from its two divinities)
Asshur-Yerahme el, just as Esau (another corruption of
Asshur) is the hero of that part of Asshur which was called
Seir or Arab-Edom.
The question of the analysis of the sources has been
treated most recently by B. Luther (ZATW xxi. 65^),
Holzinger, Gunkel, and Ed. Meyer (Die Isr. pp. 57 /.).
The most important variation is that in v. 26 a (see above).
The artifice is used there by Jacob ; in v. 26 b, by the
divinity.
THE MEETING OF THE BROTHERS
(GEN. xxxiii. 1-17)
JACOB and Esau meet, after which Esau returns to Seir,
and Jacob moves on to Succoth (?). Note the generosity
ascribed to Esau, whom Jacob recognises for the first time
as his lord (v. 3 ; cp. Am. Tab. 51, 3, etc.). The statement
suggests that the legend came from a sanctuary visited by
Edomites as well as Israelites. 1
The narrative in the main is assigned to J. Notice,
however, that in v. 14 all from ^vh to D" r A n T7 is due, in its
present form, to the redactor, who did his best with a corrupt
1 Holzinger, Genesis, p. 212.
406 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
text. 1 Originally geographical glosses stood here.
(like ttN in I K. xxi. 27, Hos. xi. 4, and ttxh in 2 S. xviii. 5,
i K. xxi. 27, Isa. viii. 6, Job xv. 11) most probably comes
from ^SinN=^$DBr, while hirh (cp. "faro, Isa. xli. 2;
vfznf?, Ex. iv. 25 ; vf?ra, Judg. v. 1 5 ; also D^n, 2 S.
xvii. 27), nDN^O (see on I S. xv. 9, and cp. f?WD), and
on^YF (cp. on n^T 1 , xiv. 14) come from ^HOTT." ^aS "1B>N
is traceable to SN^D "ii2JN. Thus we get omitting the gloss
Yerahme el in its various forms, due to the ignorance of the
scribes, and the synonym Ishmael, and I will move on
slowly (rrSn^nN) to Asshur-Peniel (or Asshur-Lapan ? see
above), until I come to my lord, to Seir. Jacob proposes,
perhaps, to deposit his family in safety, and then to pay
a visit to Esau. He is only too glad to put off the visit
till a more convenient time comes if it ever will come !
I may here offer two minor but not, I hope, uninterest
ing textual corrections. It has been noticed by Gunkel
that v. 4 is overfull ; he therefore supposes inpirri and
irrptm to be isolated fragments of E s writing. The latter
word, however, is shown by the six superlinear dots to be a
suspicious reading. 2 Several MSS. of ( do not recognise it.
Obviously it is a miswritten and misplaced dittograph of
"inntm (see v. 3). As to nm, it has hardly less certainly
grown out of a miswritten 1pm. 8 Dillmann has already
noticed that in xlv. 14, xlvi. 29, falling on the neck is
followed immediately by weeping. If that is not the case
here, it is a sign that the text needs examination.
Before proceeding to the very difficult Shechem-narra-
tive, the name Sukkoth (v. 17) needs explanation. It can
hardly have meant booths, but comes from ro^D, i.e. rte&N
(the feminine of ^DftN, see on xiv. 13, and cp. on x. 14).
Salekath was an important commercial centre (see on xx. 16,
xxiii. i 5 /, and below, on v. 19). It is possible if our
1 Gunkel s paraphrase is too bold, nor is BDB at all satisfactory.
How can SJH mean pace ? And BK 1 ?, c according to my gentleness ?
And does the latter rendering suit the context ?
" 2 Lagarde (GGA, 1870, p. 1560) in a review of Olshausen s emen
dations, praises this scholar for not excising inptri, but admits that either
j?i or m, which are suspiciously like one another, was not read by .
3 Gunkel finds a sportive reference to Yabbok. But spy is even
nearer to am than pa , and apy and pn have a common origin.
THE MEETING OF THE BROTHERS (GEN. xxxm. 1-17) 407
restoration of v. 14 b is correct that Jacob meant Salekath
( = Ashhur-Yerahme el) in his reply to Esau s invitation to
accompany him ; probable, too if v. 17 and v. 18 repre
sent two parallel traditions, that the same place is meant
by Sukkoth (Salekath) in v. 17 and by whatever place-name
we consider the narrator to have used in v. 1 8 a. See
further, on Dt. iii. 10, Lev. xxiii. 34, 40.
JACOB S PURCHASE OF LAND (GEN. xxxm. 18-20)
JACOB arrives at Shechem (or rather Shalem), purchases
a plot of ground, and erects a sacred stone. The passage
forms the introduction to the Dinah-legend in chap, xxxiv.
It is necessary, therefore, that the land should be acquired
by Jacob. There is, however, some reason to think that
the original tradition may have assigned the acquisition
of it to Joseph, who was certainly buried there l (Josh.
xxiv. 30).
That Jacob arrived at Shechem safe and sound is true
enough (cp. xxviii. 21), but the ancients did not make such
trivial remarks. And certainly, however the opening clause
of v. 1 8 be understood, the construction is unusual, and may
justly excite suspicion. May not must not D^BJ, in spite
of the large dissent of the moderns, be a place-name (so
, Pesh., Eus., Jer., but not Onk.) ? From our present
point of view, two results, already attained, have to be
remembered (i) that in xii. 6 (revised text) Abram is said
to have come to Yerahme el-Shakram (the exact form of
the name may be left open) ; and (2) that D^tE (see on
xxxiv. 21, xiv. 1 8), like D1^fi> (see on Mic. v. 4), is likely to
1 Meyer, op. at. pp. 277, 288.
4o8 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
be a corruption of N2DBT. 1 Most probably, therefore, we
should render, * and Jacob came to Shalem ( = Ishmael), a
city of Shechem (Shakram). This Shalem must have been
an important place, near to, if not even identical with,
Sukkoth (Salekath). It was situated in Shakram, i.e. the
region called Ashhur-Aram (cp. on xii. 6, on xlviii. 22, and
on p&En, xv. 2]. To this was added from P, * which is in
the land of Canaan (see on x. 6). The southern Canaan
may, in fact, have been a part of the wide region called
Ashhur. Cp. the remark in xii. 6, that the Canaanites were
then in the land.
Then, in v. 19, what is the meaning of the phrase,
f W "ON "nan *ai ? Is it correct that the aristocracy of the
town (Judg. ix. 28) called themselves sons of Hamor, i.e. of
the he-ass ? 2 That the phrase bene Hamor may have
been sportively so explained is highly probable. So an
important post-exilic Jewish clan was called the bene
Par osh, i.e., superficially viewed, sons of Flea. Knowing,
however, that Dm ( i Chr. ii. 44) is an abbreviation of arm, 3
can we hesitate to explain -non (as well as Ass. himdni] 4
as = -INCH (cp. nofrO), i.e. ^NDnT ? This means that one of
the various branches of the Yerahme elite race took as its
name one of the many corruptions of Yerahme el. In
xlviii. 22, instead of Hamor, we find -HCNrr. Now "now, like
THN, may ultimately come from ^woriT. Cp. E. Bib.,
* Hamor.
And why should DDB? "QN be added ? Here the scholars
differ. Some say that a later hand must have inserted
these words, because in the Dinah-legend (chap, xxxiv.)
Hamor is the name of a person, not, as here, of a clan.
Others, that "QN here means founder (cp. I Chr. ii. 21, etc.,
and especially Judg. ix. 28). This compels us to examine
the passages in which -QN occurs in connexion with a clan-
1 Wellhausen (C7/ (2) , p. 316, note i) arbitrarily changes nW into c^
* Jacob came to Shechem, the city of (the person) Shechem. In
1906, Winckler suggests Shalem the city of Shechem, i.e. Shalem is
the earlier name of Shechem. A forced explanation !
2 Robertson Smith, Jonrn. of Philology, ix. 94.
Shema, Yorkeam, and Shammai are as obviously Yerahme elite or
Ishmaelite names.
4 Johns, AJSL, July 1902, p. 253.
JACOBS PURCHASE OF LAND (GEN. xxxin. 18-20) 409
name or a place-name, and our result is (see on iv. 20,
x. 21, xxii. 21, Judg. ix. 28) that ^}N in such cases has
come from "Qi?, i.e. lli? (cp. on x. 24). Certainly r tt) N is a
gloss, but it has no harmonistic object. It stands for & IIS,
* Arabia of Shechem (Shakram), which is a gloss describing
where the tribe of the Hamorites dwelt.
So the purchase of the plot of ground where Joseph
was to be buried (Josh. xxiv. 32) was effected. And what
was the price? The MT. says n^toj? TTND. Here the old
methods of criticism fail us. To make progress, we must
follow the parallel of xxiii. I 5 f. (see note) and correct riNQ
into JT3D ( a minae of), if we should not take a further hint
and read rtin IT)M, four minae. iWlDp (also in Job
xlii. ii ; l Josh. xxiv. 32 is imitative) is traced in E. Bib.,
col. 2659, to ttPM[" 0] ; D and 12 confounded. But it is
more probable that p, like JYOD, is a corruption of ro^D.
Thus the passage becomes, * And he bought . . . for a mina
[or, for four minae] of Sakkath. The mina of Salekath in the
south was as much a standard as that of Karkemish in the
north. Cp. on xx. 13. The traditional view of kesitah is
at any rate very hazardous. 2
V. 20 remains. With Wellh. (CH ( 2 \ p. 50, note i)
I read mso (xxxv. 14, 20) for ni7D and nh for if?. This
is because of }jpi ; cp. also the great stone set up by
Joshua (Josh. xxiv. 26) at Shechem. Otherwise mtD
need not be wrong ; cp. the Syrian inscription beginning
Au ftwpw fjiyd\w^ And what was the name of the
god and the stone, or the god-stone, in v. 20 ? Can we,
in spite of B. Luther, 4 leave f vp TrStf hn unquestioned ? h&
by the side of TT^N and WlQT (whether as a personal or a
tribal name) are surely improbable. Yahweh, indeed, could
not be expected from the Elohist ; here B. Luther is right.
But is this enough to justify hn by itself? WlBT appears to
1 Read [inx ant nap] inx naSa njp ; two competing readings.
2 I fear this will not please Mr. Cowley, who supports the traditional
rendering of kesitah, lamb, by the word raa in the Assuan papyri.
This is the name of a coin worth 10 shekels, explained by Mr. Cowley
4 lamb-coin. But vn is, like Vp, a problem.
3 Ed. Meyer, op. cit. pp. 113, 548.
4 Ibid. p. 295.
5 @ eVeKaAecraTo rov 6fov lo-parjA, evading the difficulty.
4 io TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
me to be a gloss on wonT (in xxi. 3 3 disguised as
may underlie VlStf as well as DVT^N. Thus we get
] 7HDT1T fw, the God of Yerahme el [of Israel].
Winckler arbitrarily substitutes HDp ^>N. It is noteworthy
that in Judg. viii. 33, ix. 4 (MT.), the God of Shechem is
called * Baal-berith, underneath which probably lies the
compound divine name Yerahme el Arbith (see p. 18,
note 4).
THE FATE OF DINAH (GEN. xxxiv.)
THE legend of Dinah is partly parallel to the legends
of the fortunes of Sarah and Ribkah in Misrim and
Gerar. In all three the purpose of Yahweh to guard
the purity of the chosen family seemed in danger of
being thwarted ; in all three the attempt of those who
opposed it was brought to nought. The Dinah-legend was
evidently thought of much importance, both as a proof of
the watchful care of Yahweh and because it had to do
with Shechem, which was, in early times, at any rate for the
tribes of Joseph, a great political centre. It was therefore
handed down in two versions. Even an approximately
final analysis of the section has not, however, been arrived at.
At present many critics hold that in both versions of the
story circumcision was a condition either of the marriage of
Shechem and Dinah only, or of a general connubium ; i.e. in
the first case Shechem alone, and in the second all the male
freemen of the city, consented to become like the sons of
Jacob and be circumcised. Those, however, who hold this
view are confronted by a serious difficulty. How can either
J or E (whose work was welded together, and perhaps also
THE FATE OF DINAH (GEN. xxxiv.) 411
retouched, by a redactor) have represented Jacob and his
sons as circumcised, if Ex. iv. 25 ff. and Josh. v. 2 ff. really
give a tradition of the introduction of circumcision among
the bene Israel ? It is not a satisfactory answer that there
may have been two different traditions, one representing
circumcision among the Israelites as pre-Mosaic, the other
as post -Mosaic. It should also be pointed out that
xlix. 5-7 (which is clearly connected with the Shechem-
tradition) does not favour the view that circumcision had
anything to do with this early tradition. The text of this
poetic passage may indeed be partly corrupt, but one thing
at least is certain it does not refer to circumcision. And,
if possible, still more certain is it that the famous saying of
Jacob to Joseph in xlviii. 22 (see note) does not agree with
either of the narratives which Wellhausen ] and others have
sought to extract from the current text of chap, xxxiv.
It is therefore unwise in the critics to be too confident
that circumcision is referred to in the true text of chap,
xxxiv. A needful preliminary is to re-examine the text,
and in order to do this with much profit, we must more
unreservedly adopt the point of view of comparative textual
criticism. Now it so happens that, according to the MT.,
another of the sons of Jacob besides Simeon and Levi is
accused of having violated the moral usages of their race,
viz. Reuben (xxxv. 22, xlix. 3 /.). The passages will be
considered later, but I may venture to say here by anticipa
tion that the results of a thorough criticism excite a
suspicion that the present form of the Shechem-narratives
before us 2 may be partly due to early textual corruption, i.e.
that early redactors may have had corrupt texts to work upon,
and produced rather surprising results. It is the mention
of the circumcision of Shechem or the Shechemites, and all
that is most closely connected with this, that I refer to here.
Of course, the results of textual criticism outside Genesis
must be of high subsidiary value. There are a number of
passages in MT. relative to circumcision which may well be
suspected of corruptness besides the passages in xxxv. 22
1 CW(i889), Nachtrage.
2 Assuming that J s narrative really did include the requirement of
circumcision as a condition of Shechem s marriage with Dinah.
412 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
and xlix. 3 /, and I venture to maintain that by a keener
textual criticism a more credible text can in each case be
brought to light from underneath the corruption.
The passages that I have now in my mind are Ex.
iv. 25, Josh. v. 2 /, 9, Judg. xiv. 3, xv. 18, I S. xiv. 6,
xvii. 26, 36, xviii. 25, 27, xxxi. 4, 2 S. i. 20, iii. 14, I Chr.
x. 4, Ps. cxviii. 10, Isa. Hi. I, Jer. ix. 24 /, Ezek. xxviii. 10,
xxxi. 1 8, xxxii. 19-32, xliv. 7-9. Most of them have been
treated by me elsewhere. 1 Still I may refer here (i) to Josh,
v. 2, etc., where no sense can possibly be made of null
mVttn, whereas D^riNn }, hill of the Arelites, gives an
excellent sense ; Arelites = v Yerahme elites (cp. on 2 S.
xxiii. 20). And (2) to Judg. xiv. 3, i S. xiv. 6, etc., where
h*ro, Q^ni? are glosses on ^nm^D, D^nmSQ, i.e. ( Philistine(s) is
explained as = Arelites ([D^IM), which is a popular
abbreviation of Yerahme elites 2 (D^NDITP). Also (3) to
Jer. ix. 24, where nS"il?} ^1Q is incapable of a satisfactory
explanation ; 3 *y\Q (as in Dt. i. i, iii. 29, iv. 46, etc.) comes
from SlEHN or some other current distortion of ^NSOBT or
bDnrs and rrS-121 from fnitf (cp. on Writf, Hos. x. 14),
i.e. ~>NnT, which was inserted as a gloss on Sid or
Also (4) to Ps. cxviii. 10, where the incomprehensible
( I will circumcise them, i.e. all nations ) is certainly from
D^DIM = ET^MOITP, a gloss of the utmost value for exegesis.
And lastly (5) to Ezek. xxviii. 8, 10, where thou shalt die the
deaths of those that are slain and thou shalt die the deaths
of the uncircumcised admit of no clear explanation, until
we see that D^li? has come from D^VlM ( = Yerahme elites )
and hhn from ^Dn = ^MDm <l (so in 2 S. i. 22, i K. xi. 15,
Ezek. xxxii. 2 1 ff.) ; cp. fnno, i K. v. 1 1 , and D^On D^IJQ,
Habulite or Hablite [Yerahme elite] garments, Am. ii. 8,
referred to on xxv. 25.
At this point it may be well to notice that Kuenen and
Cornill have already suggested what, in their respective
opinions, may have been the condition on which, in the
original J-narrative, Shechem s offer of marriage for Dinah
1 See Critica Biblica, and cp. E. Bib., Moses, 7.
2 Cp. ^>N iN from WcDnv in the much-disputed passage, 2 S. xxiii. 20.
3 Neither N. Schmidt (E. Bib., col. 2385) nor Cornill (Das B^^ch
Jer., 1905) has any real light to throw on the passage.
THE FATE OF DINAH (GEN. xxxiv.) 413
was accepted by her family. According to the former, 1
Jacob and his sons condone the injury done to Dinah in
consideration of a heavy fine, upon which they consent to
Shechem s marriage with Dinah, which would really have
been accomplished if Simeon and Levi had not intervened.
According to the latter," the condition imposed by Simeon
and Levi upon Shechem may have been the cession of a
piece of ground near Shechem. That Jacob did acquire,
with the due legal forms, a plot of land in this district,
appears to have been an essential detail of the tradition (see
xxxiii. 19, E), and accordingly the district of Shechem is
prominently referred to in the early portion of the Joseph-
story (xxxvii. i 2 ff., J).
For my part, I am certainly of opinion that some
condition must have entered into the original narrative of
the negotiations about Dinah. It is clear from xxiv. 3 (J)
and xxviii. I (P) that the patriarchs had a strong objection
to intermarrying with the Canaanites, and the Shechemites
(or Shakramites) were Canaanites. And the condition on
\vhich that objection was waived in the case of Dinah must
have been something more serious than the payment of a
fine or the cession of a piece of ground. It was not, however,
the undergoing of circumcision.
But it is now time to turn to textual details. Let us
first of all repeat that DDtt) is most probably a corruption of
a compound name meaning Ashhur-aram. This fact (as I
may now venture to call it), 3 in combination with the results
of the criticism of Ex. iv. 25, etc. (see above), seems to give
us the key to the very peculiar phrase (Dillm.) ^yh
rh^ iS-llDN (v. 14). Here, as often, -IDN is mistaken for
the relative imw, and *b has come from the final hn in
names like SNGTTT ; nSll?, as in Ex. iv. 25, Jer. ix. 24,
comes from some form of ^NCTTT. The speech of the sons
1 See Bijdragen, vi., in Theol. Tijdschrift, 1880, pp. 257 Jf.
(especially p. 278). The essay is included in Budde s German edition of
Kuenen s Abhandlungen.
2 Beitrage zur Pentateuchkritik, ZATW\ 1891, p. 13.
3 Note that in w. 20, 24, Shechem appears to be distinctly called
Asshur-Aram ; also that in Judg. vii.-ix. Shechem is brought into
close connexion with Yerubbaal ( = Yerahme el). See also on xxxiii. 18,
xii. 6.
414 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
of Jacob in the original E may have been, We cannot do
this thing, that we give our sister to a man of Asshur-
Yerahme el. And it is likely that h^nh (vv. 15, 17), Q^ED
(v. 22), and iScPI (v. 24) have all sprung from a misread
bworrr, which formed part of some omitted sentence. One
of the early redactors (as Wellh. has seen, there were
probably two) spun the whole story out of this and analogous
corruptions.
In vv. 20, 24, we again meet with * Asshur- Yerahme el
(or, more strictly perhaps, with Asshur-Aram ). DTI? "isB
might perhaps pass in v. 20, but in v. 24 rri? ism ""wfe
will certainly not do. The phrase there is supposed to
mean all the citizens. Using our experience, however (see
on xxiii. 10, 18), we may confidently read Diir I&N ^ s ~^3,
i.e. virtually, all the councillors of Asshur - Yerahme el.
Similarly, in v. 20, D1S" 1 l&W^N and Dim ["ifttf]
Cp. on xxiii. 10, xxxvi. 43. Note also ^inn, 1 i.e.
in v. 2 ; Hamor ( = Yerahme el) was an Ashhurite (, a
Horite ). See on xiv. 6, xxxvi. 2, 22.
A confirmation of this view may be given. In v. 21
1 DH croSft interrupts the connexion. We cannot help
connecting IDDN with "OBr ; this indeed is supported by
Sam., 0, Pesh. 2 But on D n D^tt>, if it means are peaceable,
cannot dispense with "iDriN or 1DDI?. But is peaceable a
possible rendering? and how can we venture to insert a
second i:mN ? Above all, note that thw in xxxiii. 18 is a
corruption of ^NSDUT. Surely it is so here ; read certainly
Drr D^NSDBF 1 } they were Ishmaelites, 3 a gloss on the corrupt
phrase DTI? ^DN (v. 20). Thus vv. 20 / (the sequel of
v. 1 8) become, And Hamor came to Asshur-Aram, and
spoke with the men of [Asshur]-Aram, saying, Let these
men dwell with us in the land, etc. V. 22 appears to be a
redactional insertion, in the interest of the circumcision-
theory.
Another confirmation. In the opening words of v. 27
1 Ed. Meyer (p. 331) comes to the right conclusion, but with poor
arguments.
2 Geiger, Ball, and Gunkel agree.
3 Geiger (Urschrift, p. 76) and Winckler (A OF xxi. 442) propose
Salemites, taking oW, xxxiii. 18, as the name of a city.
THE FATE OF DINAH (GEN. xxxiv.) 413
rr, as Gunkel remarks, makes no sense. If the
Shechemites were already slain, why do the brothers fall
upon them ? Gunkel would read D^ nn the sick, regarding
this as parallel to D QM in v. 25. But, as we have seen,
most probably comes from Son = ^MOITP, and as for
orvrrri in v. 25, 3 is surely a redactional substitute
for crntol (cp. Judg. viii. 1 1, xviii. 27), made in the interest
of a theory (similarly Winckler, A OF xxi. 442). Vv. 25-27
will thus contain a statement that on the third day (i.e. after
a short interval ; see Judg. xx. 30) the sons of Jacob took
their swords, and fell upon the unsuspecting Yerahme elites,
and spoiled the city. The sense is greatly improved.
What, then, is the kernel of the story? It is an episode
in the Israelitish conquest of a portion of the Arabian
border-land. A small Israelite clan called Dinah is in
danger of being absorbed by the Canaan ite majority in
Asshur-Aram (Shakram, Shechem), a city which was at once
in the land of Canaan and in Asshur-Yerahme el, for the
latter phrase was used widely, and so could include the
smaller region called Canaan. Other clans (Simeon and
Levi), nearly related to Dinah, seek to prevent this, and,
probably at dawn, fall upon and massacre the freemen of
the city. They have made good their entrance by craft, for
they have given their assent, upon a specified condition, to the
fusion of the two races, and no watch is kept against them.
After they have fallen, the Canaanites of the neighbour
hood gather their warriors, and so nearly destroy Simeon
and Levi that these clans only continue to exist in scattered
fragments. The latter statement is not merely an inference
from v. 30. Chap. xlix. 5-7 (see revised text) shows that a
severe vengeance according to tradition was taken upon
the two Hebrew clans, and that the other Israelite clans
recognised its justice. See further, on xlviii. 22. In justice
to other views I will add that Stucken (Astralmythen, pp.
76, 144 with notes) compares Dinah to Helena, Simeon and
Levi to the Dioscuri. This is plausible ; but what follows ?
The mythological key only opens a few of the locks of
Genesis, and I can see no sign of its doing so either here or
in xlix. 5-7. Also that, according to Ed. Meyer, the
1 Canaanites and Perizzites did not combine to take
416 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
vengeance on Jacob s family (v. 30) or at least on Simeon
and Levi ; xlix., as he thinks, refers not to the remote past
but to the future, i.e. to the writer s own period. He regards
the story as the legendary reflex of the events related
historically in Judg. ix. (Die Israeliten, pp. 419, 422).
THEOPHANIES; DEATHS OF DEBORAH AND
RACHEL (GEN. xxxv.)
COMPOSITE and ill-arranged. Jacob passes on to Bethel,
where he builds an altar, and gives it a name (see below).
We also hear that Deborah died, and was buried ; and
then that Jacob had another theophany, and called the
name of the place Bethel. The notice which now appears
in v. i 3, of Jacob s erection of a masscbah, and of his drink-
offering, is no longer in its original setting. As Cornill
has shown, 1 it originally came after the account of the death
of Deborah ; we must, however, omit the words immediately
following m^D Ipl?" 1 12T1, which are a redactional insertion.
What we have to treat of now is (i) the true form of
the name which appears as El-Bethel (v. 7), and (2} the
statement respecting Deborah (v. 8). (i) As to El-Bethel,
the real difficulty is, not that which seems to have struck Q
as such, but the absence of a proper name prefixed to the
title El-Bethel. In xxxi. i 3 we have had to correct MT. s
S^rvi Wl into n ^N ^NDnr. It is not improbable that
underneath Dlpob in v. 7 a lies the original reading onT "&.
That DIpQ sometimes comes from cm* 1 (cp. D^Qp" 1 , D^p* 1 ) is
clear from xii. 6, etc. (see ad loc.}. Thus we get, And there
he built an altar, and called it Yerahme el, God of Bethel
(cp. on xxxiii. 20).
^ 1891, pp. 16-19. So too Gunkel, p. 336.
THEOPHANIESj ETC. (GEN. xxxv.) 417
Next, who was the person here called Deborah ? Was
she really the nurse of Ribkah ? But is it likely that the
name of a nurse should have been preserved ? J, in xxiv. 59,
simply speaks of her nurse. And can we imagine that a
nurse would have done anything that legend-makers would
have deemed of importance ? For, whoever the dead woman
was, she must traditionally have been a somewhat con
spicuous figure in her life. How strange, too, that this
nurse should have been present in Jacob s train, and that
the whole Jacob- tribe should have made a ceremonial
mourning over her ! Lastly, how comes it that the allon-
tree was not called the allon of Deborah (cp. Judg. iv. 5)?
Can the text be correct ?
The problem is a very difficult one. Let us first of all
consider the name * Allon-bakuth. Tree of weeping is
obviously wrong ; rVDl must be an error. There would be
nothing to surprise us in this ; the names of sacred trees
(nStf, p^M) are often corrupt (see e.g. on xii. 6, xiii. 18,
Judg. iv. n, ix. 37, i S. x. 3). Sound method seems to
require that we should look for some passages which, besides
referring to Bethel, contain some name or names which
admit of being compared with Allon-bakuth. There are
two such passages. One is Judg. ii. I a, 5 b, where a divine
Being is said to have come up from Gilgal to Bochim
(D^n[n]), where sacrifices were offered to Yahweh. Evidently
* Bochim is equivalent to Bethel, and the form may perhaps
best be accounted for as an irregular contraction of tTIDl *
(for the clan Beker, see xlvi. 21, 28. xx. i). The other is
i S. x. 3, where a spot called YQn p^N is spoken of as not
far from Bethel ; Luc. gives TT)? Spvbs 7-775 e /cXe/cT?)?, i.e.
Tim p^H. From these we may safely gather that such a
place-name as Bikrath or Bekorath (cp. i S. ix. i) or
Bahurath is to be expected near Bethel. The original name
of the tree was therefore, probably, not Allon-bakuth, but
Allon-Bikrath, for which an alternative form may have been
Allon-Ribkath, i.e. Tree of Ribkath (Rebekah).
Next, as to Deborah. In Judg. iv. 4 f. we find a
prophetess and judge called Deborah, 2 who dwells under
1 Cp. ona for c -na (2 S. xx. 14), and JN* and }yz from pjns (xxxvii. 2).
- On the name Deborah in Judg. iv. 4, see Crit. Bib. p. 450.
27
4 i8 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
the palm-tree (?) of Deborah, between Ramah and Bethel.
That this Deborah can have no place in a patriarchal
narrative is clear. It is quite possible, however, that a
reference to this personage may have been interpolated by
a gloss-maker into a passage which, properly speaking,
referred only to Ribkah. The difficulty arising out of
np^D is not insuperable. That the tradition really gave
the name Deborah to Ribkah s nurse is most improbable
(see above) ; can the reading np^ft be correct ? For my
part, I think not. It has probably arisen by transposition
of letters from nDGp* 1 , which would be, according to analogy,
a corrupt form l of TT^NDJTP. Deborah (rmirT), Yerah-
me elitess, is possibly an alternative reading to Ribkah
(npn). The Deborah referred to is the prophetess, who,
like other prophets, was of Yerahme elite origin. 2 The
glossator knew this, and stated it clearly. Later on, the
gloss found its way into the text ; a corruptly written
mornr became npDD^, and ultimately, by an ingenious and
easy transposition of letters, npTO. Deborah the tra
ditional heroine of another age became the contemporary
of Jacob, and the humble but honoured dependent of Jacob s
mother, Ribkah. That the statement in v. 8 (with which
v. 14 must be connected) is misplaced, is obvious. The
death of Ribkah must originally have stood in some other
context which is now lost. Her grave was placed at Bethel,
because of the place-name Allon-Ribkath (originally Allon-
Bikrath). 3 Probably, with Winckler, we should read she
was buried under the Ballon in Bethel. The libation in
v. 14, which (apart from R s insertions) refers to Deborah s
grave, is probably meant as consisting of wine, and as a
refreshment for the dead. The reference to the oil was
suggested to R by xxviii. 18 (Cornill). 4
Verses 16-20 record the death of Jacob s favourite wife,
1 Cp.
2 See E. Bib., Prophet, 9, 35, 43, etc.
3 For another view see E. Bib., col., 1102, note i ; also col. 594
( Bochim ), overlooked by Ed. Meyer (p. 273), who can even see in
the name Deborah a vestige of animal-worship. Against this see
Crit. Bib. on Judg. iv. 4/1
4 Against Cornill s view of v. 14, see Griineisen, Der Ahnenkultus,
p. I28/.
THEOPHANJES; ETC. (GEN. xxxv.) 419
Rachel. V. 1 6 in the A.V. reads smoothly enough ( and
there was but a little way to come to Ephrath. The
margin, however, warns us that the translators were uncertain
about pwn miD, for it records the rendering, a little piece
of ground. Certainly it is, as Driver remarks, a peculiar
expression. According to BDB the word miD means a
distance of land, or length of way, which is illustrated by
Assyrian kibrati, a (widely extended) territory, or quarter
of the world. From this Winckler l derives the supposed
meaning, border, frontier. But how this is possible I
cannot see (see Muss Arnolt s Ass. Diet. s.v^). The phrase
pN ; 3 is found in 2 K. v. 19, and the two passages must be
taken together. It is important to notice that the back
ground of both stories may be, and probably is, N. Arabian, 2
and that in both passages a regional name is not impossible.
What, then, is the regional name out of which miD may
have arisen ? Our choice lies between miDl (see above, on
v. 8 b) and mim. To the latter word we have already
traced the obscure regional name "iriDD (see on x. 14), which
is not far off from mi3. It should also be noticed (a) that
pNn and pN are little less peculiar than niM ; (b) that
there are cases in which pN has probably arisen out of a
misunderstood "IN (D1) or is (ns) 5 (0 that in x. 1 1
TS mm has come from ns l, Arabian Rehoboth ; and
(d) that vri has sometimes arisen out of Nirn. The result
is that ^Nn iD TO Tri has most probably come from N^irn
!ns> rani l"is, that is, Arabia ; Arabian Rehoboth, a gloss
indicating the region where the place here called Stfrpl lay.
Omitting this, the narrative runs thus, And they moved
camp from Bethel, in order to come to Ephrath, and
Rachel, etc.
Consistency, when it can be had, is pleasing, and cer
tainly the redactor is consistent when he inserts, most prob
ably as a second gloss on nmDN, ovn ~T2, which (see on
xix. 37/i) probably comes from ]cp nj?, Yamanite Arabia.
The first gloss is onS rri Nin, that is Beth-lehem, i.e.
1 AOF, 3rd ser., iii. 444.
- On 2 K. v. see Crit. Bib. Cp. also E. Bib., Naaman, and
Rachel s Sepulchre, articles which pointed the way without being com
pletely accurate.
420 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
1 Beth-Yerahme el. l Both glosses got into the text, the
one in v. 19 (end), the other, unfortunately, at the end
of v. 20.
Before Rachel s death, tradition stated (v. 18) that she
gave birth to a son variously called Ben-oni and Binyamln.
The former is supposed to mean son of my sorrow (so ) ;
the latter, son of the right hand (i.e. of good fortune). Cp.
the Finnish epic (Kalevala, by Crawford, Rune 1.),
When the mother named him, Flower,
Others named him, Son-of-sorrow.
Tradition, however, was not quite consistent ; Test. xii. Patr.
presupposes for * Binyamm the meaning, son of days, i.e.
of old age. 2 A more plausible explanation is southern
son, a collective term for the people of the southern portion
of Amurru 3 (Palestine, Phoenicia, and Ccele- Syria), or
perhaps of the highland district called Ephraim. 4 For the
former view, Winckler compares ^>NQ& (Sam al, at the foot
of the Amanus mountains) ; for the latter, H. W. Hogg
refers to the name pas (Safon), applied to a district of
Gilead, and to the Edomite district jcm (Teman). We can
hardly doubt, however, that pep is really not = the south,
but a modification of ]ep (see on xlvi. 10), and that SNO^ is
a corruption of ^HSDBT 1 , pQS of psns = oBT 1 (see on xxxvi. 2),
and ]D^n of prr = oar. Similarly, Oni in Ben-oni is a
regional name ; perhaps Oni should rather be Ono (see
Neh. vi. 2, vii. 37). On, Ono, Onam, Onan are character
istically N. Arabian names ; see on xxxviii. 4, xli. 45, Ex.
i. 11, Josh. vii. 2, Ezek. xxx. 17, Hos. iv. 15, Neh. vi. 2.
The centre of the original Benjamite district may have been
called On, and certainly the leading racial element in
Benjamite was Yerahme elite.
As to * Ephrathah, that is, Bethlehem (v. 1 9), it may be
added that Ephrathah may have been the district in which
this Beth-Yerahme el (there were other places of this name)
1 Both Ephrath and Beth-lehem are primarily N. Arabian
names. Other places also came to be so designated. But cp. Ed.
Meyer, p. 273 (for the prevalent view).
- Benj. i ; see E. Bib., col. 534, note i.
\ p. 180. 4 Em Bib ^ col . 534>
THEOPHANIES; ETC. (GEN. xxxv.) 421
was situated. See also i Chr. ii. 19, 24, 50, iv. 4, and cp.
Crit. Bib. p. 202, foot.
In xxxv. 21-22 a J reports what Gunkel calls Reuben s
shameful deed. Once, this scholar thinks, the narrative
must have gone further. Now, it breaks off in the middle. 1
God forbid/ thinks the narrator, that I should even commit
such dreadful things to writing. Is this really so ? Of
course, and (when) Israel heard of it requires to be followed
by the words of blame which he must have uttered if scam
fwiOF is correct, and if this account of Reuben s shameful
deed can be depended upon. But the truth is that textual
corruption and a redactor s ill-placed acuteness have com
bined to produce the result now before us, a result which has
so shocked the moderns that they have tried to explain it
away archaeologically. 2
The received text (reserving v. 2 1 ) needs to be corrected
as follows TIN etnm pii iSn wnn pi oar pan vn
[ShTiar ^ttflDBT ITS] JB&}, And it came to pass, when Ishmael
dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and subdued Bilshan
[gloss, Arabia of Israel]. Here Ishmael is transferred
from the end of the verse, where ^WflDBT underlies scan, and
originally stood side by side with the alternative but inferior
reading, fwiBF. 8)1D for IDE? needs no defence, nn^l and
en^ro have the same origin, viz. ;ariN, i.e. Arab-Ishmael, see
Ezra ii. 2 (cp. on Ex. xxxi. 2, Josh. vii. 21, and on }&T1N,
p. 120); for ma see on TQN, xlix. 4. Bilshan (i.e.
Ishmaelite Arabia) was the name of a district which the
tribe of Reuben conquered, very possibly under circum
stances shocking to the moral sense of a later age.
Let us now turn back to v. 21. -nir^TioS JlN^nE is
doubtless obscure, but the gloom lightens when we remember
that rrN^n and rrN^rrc almost constantly represent SNDTTP
(see on xix. 9, I S. x. 3, etc.), and that a misunderstood
SIN ( = "WTN) may easily have been misread as TTI?. SinD^
may perhaps have come from a dittographed ^NEnT. In
this case the statement simply is that * Israel moved camp,
and pitched his tent in Yerahme el of Edrei. At any rate,
1 (S>, however, adds vrjn yn.
- See W. R. Smith, Kinship, pp. 108^; Jo-urn, of Phil. ix. 86,
note 2 ; Ulmer, Die semit. Eigennamen, p. 1 6.
422 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Edrei must be right. In Dt. i. 4 (see note) and elsewhere
it appears as a place of importance in Bashan, a name
which has come from { Abshan, i.e. Arab-Ishmael. It is
possible that Edrei could also be described as being in
Bilshan (see above).
This land, we now see, was forcibly taken by Reuben
(cp. Num. xxxii. 37) from the Ishmaelites or Yerahme elites
who originally dwelt there. The story may have been
inserted as a parallel to that in chap, xxxiv. ; possibly it is
incomplete. Cp. on xlix. 3 / The remainder of chap.
xxxv. hardly requires any special commentary here.
GENEALOGY OF ESAU (GEN. xxxvi. 1-30)
WE have discussed the name of Esau (see on xxv. 25),
also his early fortunes ; we now proceed to his genealogy.
Vv. 2, 3 give the names of his three wives. For
Adah see on iv. 19, and for Basemath, on xxvi. 34.
* Oholibamah has been much misunderstood. It is quite
right to compare the Phoenician f?i?lf?rTN, "|^of?rTN, and
S. Arabian W?riN, "inru&iW, but this, of course, does not
show that the name, together with its Hebrew parallels,
IN^HN, nSilN, ni^TTN, ^TTN, has anything to do with
SHN, tent, though BDB actually gives tent of the
high place/ and similar meanings for the parallel names.
A more special inquiry into the meanings of bn and hrt in
combination with *>, N, and n will reveal the secret of Oholi
bamah and the like, by which Ed. Meyer (p. 339) confesses
himself baffled. The truth is that hnt* in proper names, and
now and then in narratives where at first sight it seems to
mean tent (e.g. iv. 20; cp. also on xiii. 12, fprw^), is a
GENEALOGY OF ESAU (GEN. xxxvi. 1-30) 423
popular abbreviation (analogous to crus) of f?HDriT. It is so
too with hrt or hn, hn^ or Sir, in the proper names W&TP,
I Chr. iv. 1 6, 2 Chr. xxix. 12 ; ^TTN, I Chr. ii. 31, xi. 41 ;
n^Sn, i Chr. iv. 5 (wife of Ashhur) ; S^Sm, xlvi. 14 (see
note), and the presumed adverb nnhn (see above, on
xxxv. 2 i ). HOI, however, is surely impossible. Either 1
should be 1, or noi (if we may read thus) has come from
noon. From v. 41 it seems that the name underlying
Oholibamah is a clan-name, ms and psis are variants ; see
on vv. 20, 24. Hivite should be Horite or Ashhurite
(xxxiv. 2). 7D^> (Eliphaz) in v. 4 is familiar to us from
Job (ii. n, etc.). How shall we explain it? My God is
pure gold is uncritical and sounds irreligious (Job xxxi. 24).
May it not have come from JDS^M (Ex. vi. 22, Num. iii. 30) ?
A son of Eliphaz is called IDS (v. 1 1), which is a shortened
form of pD2. This name, equally with pans (v. 2, etc.),
comes from psora = Ssora\ Different branches of Ishmael
or Yerahme el may bear names which, critically viewed, have
the same origin. For f?NW see on xvi. 13 (El-roi), Ex.
ii. 1 8. ra^ (vv. 5, 14) or onir, Kr. (so, too, Kt. v. 18), has
been held to be the phonetical equivalent of the Ar.
lion-god Yaghuth, the protector. l It must, however, be
grouped with raYn (i Chr. vii. 8), and probably iras. In all
these names ras may come from iras = mra.s. ch^ is surely
neither ibex 2 (W. R. Sm.) nor he who knows, i.e. the sun
(Winckler). Like h^ and jD^s it comes from SSDra\ mp
seems to have been a widely-spread clan-name. It reminds
one of iplp, Judg. viii. 10; Splp, Josh. xv. 3; also of
DTTp^rrp (Neh. iii. 8), which doubtless comes from DHT-p.
nmp in Mesha s inscription (/. 21) may have the same
origin ; it was perhaps the acropolis which contained a
temple of the supreme god Yerahme el, also called Kemosh
( = Ashhur-Ishmael). See Crit. Bib. pp. 328, 358). Thus
mp is probably an expansion of a fragment of onT. 3
Vv. 9-14. The sons of Esau. How, one asks, can
1 Jottrn. of Phil. ix. 91. But cp. Lagarde, Mitteil. ii. 77; also
Winckler, AOF xxl 446.
2 See Gray, HPN, p. 90, note 5. Besides, the ethnic connexion
is plain.
3 Cp. Psalms, vol. i. p. xlv.
4 2 4 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Esau, in w. 9, 43, become the father of Edom ? Else
where (vv. i, 8, 19, cp. xxv. 30) Edom is but another name
of Esau. Ulmer l suggests that ">1N in v. 43 may have
arisen out of Nin. Most probably, however, MN, as so often,
has come from -QN, i.e. irm In both verses there is a gloss,
though only in v. 43 is it introduced by NV7. In v. 9 it is
Arab-edom, a gloss on Esau ; in v. 43, that is, Esau
Arab-edom, a gloss on Edom. In v. n, pTi hardly
means southern ; indeed, it is not clear that such an
epithet would be correct (see E. Bib., Teman ). Rather, it
comes from ]ElT = pBF, i.e. Ishmael. Cp. Jer. xlix. 7, Is
wisdom no more in Teman ? Yerahme el or Ishmael was
famous for wisdom (i K. iv. 31). Cp. also the suggestive
name Timnath-serah, where Serah certainly comes from
Ashhur. -IQ*IN (like DTI?, ^.43) comes from fwDlTP ; note
the remark on Yerahme elite branches, above. IDS. See on
Eliphaz, v. 4. But reads 1D^ (so in v. 15, and in
i Chr. i. 36 ; cp. Job ii. 1 1). Dnia. Perhaps from now.
Cp. Sophar the Naamathite, Job ii. 1 1. lap. See
Cooke, p. I44/; pTTDD probably from pen isp, Kenaz-
Yerahme el.
Timna (won), in v. 12, like i?D^ (v. 22), mon, and
natr 1 , all probably have the same origin as p^n (see on v. ii ).
See E. Bib., Timna, and cp. Gunkel.
Vv. 15-19. List of the chieftains (@ 7776/401/69) of the
sons of Esau, rim (v. 17); perhaps from nn3D (v. 23).
But cp. am mi, like Din, probably from -inttftf (see on
xxxviii. 30). no ft, i.e. ni?O (see on i S. xvi. 9). niD
(yuo^e, /Ltofat). Cp. noi, I Chr. vi. 5, which, like D^niDl, Dt.
ii. 20, comes from UDtt) or fw^DBT. It may, indeed, be an
inferior variant to not&. (The need of a keener criticism is
very apparent in Gunkel s note.) pSoi? is a popular cor
ruption of bnonr ; cp. Meluhha = N.W. Arabia.
Vv. 20-30. Two lists of clans of Horites. The latter
are not cave-dwellers, 2 but Ashhurites). Dt. ii. 12, 22 (see
note) contains mistaken archaeology ; Esau himself, as we
1 Die semit. Eigennamen, i. 24, note 2.
2 Cave-dwellers would not be distinctive enough. Caves were
abundant in hilly regions (cp. Macalister, Sidelights from the Mound of
Gezer (1906). The Horite names are N. Arabian.
GENEALOGY OF ESAU (GEN. xxxvi. 1-30) 425
have seen, was an Ashhurite. Another corruption of Ashhur
is Seir. 1 How could Seir be a Horite if the Horites were
an aboriginal race, unless, indeed, we suppose that Seir
first of all meant an aboriginal race, and then came to mean
Esau, for certainly xxvii. 1 1 (see note) originally ran my
brother is Seir ? And even apart from this, the opening
names show conclusively that the list is Yerahme elite.
Take, first, Lotan. The origin of Lot (whence Lotan) may
be uncertain (see on xi. 27), but Lot was certainly the
kinsman of the hero of Arab-Aram or Arab-Rekem, known
to us as Abraham. Next, Shobal. Robertson Smith, it is
true, took this to mean young lion. 2 But even if there
were no other objection to this theory, 3 the occurrence of
Shobal in I Chr. ii. 50 among distinctly Yerahme elite
names would be enough to prove my thesis. In fact, 7112?
like blCDVi I Chr. xxiii. 16, comes from ^NSDBT. Lastly,
]1S3S (Sibeon), which Robertson Smith explained, from
Arabic as usual, as c hyaena, is really to be grouped with
NTS, NTI2 [D^]N1S, 1N7, and ^it, and Sin. 1112, all of which
are surely corrupt fragments of 7M9DV.
It is true the MT. adds pn nor (which Gunkel renders
die Ureinwohner ), and (fj| agrees, except that it reads 1&T,
and connects it with nnn. But with the evidence before us
that i&r (like mrr and DT 1 ) is not seldom a corruption of
^MSDflP 4 ( lor = ^JQttP)i we cannot feel sure that the reading
of MT. is correct. Suffice it to refer to 2 S. v. 6 and I S.
xxvii. 8. In the former passage we find pNH 18TP ^DlYT,
and so in I Chr. xi. 4. Nowhere else, however, are the
Jebusites so called, and if Jebusites was the name specially
borne by the pre-Israelite dwellers in Jerusalem, it would be
incorrect to speak of them as the inhabitants of the land ;
in Josh. xv. 63 the only right explanatory phrase is used -
the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The best solution of this
problem is that nmv has come from nor (i.e. ^JQBT), which
1 See on xxv. 25. The corruption is, of course, a very ancient one
(cp. on Dt. xxxiii. 2). Rameses III., in the Harris Papyrus (Brugsch,
p. 203 ; W. M. Miiller, pp. I35/, cp. p. 240), claims to have destroyed
the Saira among the tribes of the Shasu. According to Miiller, the
Saira are the same as the Horites. Cp. E. Bib., col. 1 182, note 2.
2 Joiirn. of Phil. ix. 90. 3 Cp. Gray, HPN, p. 109.
4 Cp. E. Bib., Zibeon.
426 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
was given as a variant to DT, and that pMH is a redactional
insertion, which arose through a misunderstanding.
In i S. xxvii. 8 the same problem emerges. The
traditional text has DSlUD 1&N pMH rniBT mn -D, which
Wellhausen, Driver, and Budde render, for these are the
populations (cp. the prophetic nittT 1 ) that inhabited the
land. A reference to Gen. xxv. 18, however, will show
that mi&T 1 is a corruption of bllQP T (* .& ^MSDBr 1 ), while, as @
suggests, mn is hinneh, behold. See >#. ##.
In the present passage (z;. 20) the solution of the prob
lem must be a similar one. ^ntir must represent nar, z>.
^MSDBP, which is a gloss on -nn (cp. I Chr. ii. I, Hur, a
Calebite). pMH, as in 2 S. v. 6, is a redactional insertion.
Zibeon and * Anah are closely connected in vv. 2 (25),
21, 24. nss is obscure; 2 but cp. Ben-ana, Am. Tab. 125,
37. See on v. 24. Dishon, Dishan 3 should probably be
Rishon, Rishan, i.e. jTi$M, p T $M ; cp. on Rosh, xlvi. 21,
Ezek. xxxviii. 2 /, and on Sirion, Dt. iii. 9. See also
E. Bib., Dishon, Uz (middle paragraph). ISM. Cp.
1SMDID (i Chr. iii. 18), the first part of which represents }ftW,
i.e. ??MSDB^ (cp. on 1D^, xiv. 2). ISM, therefore, is a portion
of the great Ishmaelite family. The name may also enter
into the disputed nSM"n:mD (Crit. Bib. p. 395). In ^.22
DDT7 (in Chr. DDin) should perhaps be ^D^rr (so , Vg. in
Gen.), which may come from JDTIM (i.e. Ashhur-Yaman),
Num. xiii. 22, etc. In v. 23, for Alwan, see on xiv. 18.
nmo, for euphony, from riDon, i.e. ]Dn[T] with feminine
ending, like n^no from ^on[T]. Cp. nmUD, Judg. xx. 43 ;
mmD, I Chr. ii. 52; and E. Bib., Manahethites ; see also
on Mahanaim, xxxii. 3. f?i^ ; see on Dt. xi. 29. ism (in
Chr. v]tt>), like pm^B (ii. n) and ]Btt> (2 K. xxii. 12), from
jBUT (i Chr. viii. 22), a corruption of JDBT = SMSDBT. D^N ;
see on c Ben-oni, xxxv. 18.
We come now to the bene Sibe on (v. 24). JTN is
thought to mean kite 4 (Lev. xi. 14, etc.). But thus far
the supposed animal names have proved illusory. The word
1 Note how often nx and SN are confounded (e.g. in Judg. xix. 18).
2 The Arabists explain wild ass (W. R. Smith, p. 90).
3 A sort of antelope, say some (ibid. ].
4 Ibid. ; E. #., ( Aiah.
GENEALOGY OF ESAU (GEN. xxxvi. 1-30) 427
Cto which MT. prefixes l) is probably imperfect. And what
shall we say of the Midrash-like notice given by MT. ?
Shall we, with Gunkel, adhere to it, with the exception of
the oern, which baffles the utmost ingenuity ? Surely not.
For ni9 (in v. 24 at any rate) we should possibly read Onan
or Ainan. 1 This, however, is a trifle. The main point is
that, where MT. has DDYT, has rov la^eiv [Luc. Ea/ui/],
* .. po* 1 , while Onk. presupposes D^Ni!, which, as we have
seen on xiv. 6, represents and ultimately comes from
D^NDnT. As a gloss on DQTT (? D^pvr), a scribe or
corrector inserted D nonrrriN, * the Hamorites (a branch of
the Yerahme elites, see on xxxiii. 19). For iniHl 11~roi
read perhaps miNl oi (cp. Beeroth bene Yaakan/ a wilder
ness station, Dt. x. 6). NHQ is suspicious. Thus we get,
this is the Anah who * the Yemanites (Hamorites) in the
wilderness of Beeroth for his father Sibeon. Some important
event in the history of the N. Arabian tribes is thus briefly
and inadequately reported. The form of the present text is
influenced by the story in I S. ix. 3 ff.
In v. 25 Oholibamah appears as a man ; bath Anah
is an incorrect gloss. Why not, indeed ? Clans are
sometimes personified as males, sometimes as females. In
v. 26 pen suggests a pretty problem. Noldeke explains
it as desirable, from Ar. hamddn (E. Bib., Names, 77).
But must not the original meaning have been different ?
PPO (Gray, HPN 64) would not be a compound with on,
father-in-law, but with a fragment of orm, while p would
be, not a divine title, but a tribal name. 2 The name would
thus be = p-JTDnD (see footnote on xxxii. 3), and mean
* Danite Yerahme el ; cp. p^lN, Danite Arabia (see on
Num. i. 11). But Chr. gives pen, which would come
from (Dm, a modification of 7MOTTT. Another interesting
name is pQfM, which Noldeke 3 finds as obscure as Ahban
and Ahiman, but which, from the new point of view, is clear
enough, p (as in prop, name "ai) comes from JD, i.e. jD" 1 ; ON,
1 See the readings in E. Bib.) Anak. Luc. favours reading
jry for njy throughout.
- Hommel, however (AHT, p. 322), connects the element hami
with the Minaean hamaya, to protect.
3 E. Bib., Names, 45.
428 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
from -IE>N ; n and ^n from YinttfN. prr ; see on nrr, Ex.
iii. i. pD may be from pDi> (see on Num. i. 13). V. 27,
jnf?lj see on rrn^l, xxix. 29. pirt perhaps = pss (Josh.
xix. 33, plur.), i.e. ps, which comes, through ]1S12, from
^*WOBr, with final \ as in p^lf. ]pi? ; in Chr. ]p$\ See on
Num. xxxiii. 31 / F. 28, ps ; see on x. 23, where it is
an Arammite or Yerahme elite name. pN is not ibex l
(Syr. arna], but like pmN, plN, and pin (in f l fj>), probably
comes from ]EiD, a modification of SDHT. Similarly pN in
I Chr. ii. 25 (@ apa^, apa/ji). The theory of primitive
totemism cannot rightly be supported from the names we
have been treating here.
LIST OF THE KINGS OF ARAM
(GEN. xxxvi. 31-39)
Is this really a list of the kings of Edom ? And does
the writer really wish to impress upon us that the
land of Edom had kings before any king reigned over
the Israelites ? The latter question must be answered
first, and with a view to this the second part of v. 31
must be criticised. Surely it is not likely that he had
any interest in dwelling on the earlier social development
of another people. A somewhat similar notice in Num.
xiii. 22, where Hebron is, according to most, made inferior
in antiquity to the Egyptian Zoan, will prove, on a closer
inspection, to say something altogether different. 2 More-
1 W. R. Smith, Journ, of Phil. ix. 90; Noldeke, E. Bib., Names, 3
68.
2 Is the text as it stands at all natural ? How does it help the
comprehension of the narrative ? What we expect is surely a
topographical, not an archaeological, indication.
LIST OF THE KINGS OF ARAM (GEN. xxxvi. 31-39) 429
over, from a grammatical point of view, yap -oif? must be
incorrect ; to give the sense required "aiS should be "Q}-^.
, in fact, virtually reads WittTl or Df?anTl, which, however,
is purely arbitrary. Nor is there any real gain to be derived
from M. Bruston s conjecture (1892), that the reference is
to the Israelitish conquest of Edom ; for this practically
requires us to insert m, therein, or rp^S, over it. Ex
perience of textual corruption, however, suggests a better
remedy for the faults of the text. It shows that -oof? may,
as in Ps. Ixxii. 5, Ixxx. 3, have been miswritten for "^1^,
and SN-I&T, as in I S. xvii. 25, Zech. xii. I, and elsewhere,
for ^MSDBT i also, that the second "j^o may be a dittograph.
Accepting these possibilities as probabilities, we get this
sense, with reference to the sons of Melek, with reference
to the sons of Ishmael. Thus the second part of v. 3 I is
made up of alternative glosses, stating that the list of kings
has reference to the sons of Melek, or, if we prefer this
clearer statement, to the sons of Ishmael. * Melek, as we
know from the phrases *J^D[n] pS (xiv. 17), l^o[n] p (Jer.
xxxvi. 26), iSorr IH7 (i K. xi. 14), is a popular symbol
perhaps more correctly read n^D (cp. on xiv. 3) for VHDTTT ;
Yerahme el and Ishmael are, in fact, equivalent. And
now we can answer the first of our two questions. The
list is really a list (no longer complete in all its details) of
the kings of the southern Aram ; Q*i"TN should most prob
ably, as in Num. xx. 14, Judg. v. 4, I S. xiv. 47, I K. xi.
14, 1 6, 2 K. iii. 8/, xiv. 7, rather be Dm
The kings, according to Frazer {Adonis, p. 1 1, note 3),
were men of other families who succeeded to the throne by
marrying the hereditary princesses, the blood royal being
traced in the female line. But is it not a nearer-lying
explanation that the kings arose (as in the cases of Abimelech
and perhaps Saul) out of tribal chieftains ? Observe the
care taken to specify the district or city of each king (except
the seventh, Baal-hanan, see below), which reminds us of
the similar notices respecting the Israelite judges. The
first in order is Beta, son of Beor, whose city is called
Dinhabah (v. 32), and whom Noldeke l long ago identified
1 Untersuchungen, p. 87; cp. Hommel, p. 153. Marquart, Fund.
p. ii ; Cheyne, E. Bib., Bela ; Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliten, pp. 376^
430 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
with the great diviner Biram ben Beor (Num. xxii. 5). If,
as I have sought to show (on Pathrusim, x. 14, and on
xxiv. i o), Pethor, i.e. Pathros, 1 Kedem, i.e. Rekem, and
Aram-naharaim are N. Arabian regional names, there are
no documentary reasons for not holding that the Edomite
or rather Arammite king Bela is the same as the great
diviner Biram ; for Di>l is simply a fuller form of sf?l.
At the same time, we cannot regard this as certain ; for
l>l is nothing but a clan-name produced out of a fragment
of fpNDrTP or of its synonym ~>NI>O&T. We find it again in
xlvi. 2 1 (and parallels) and I Chr. v. 8 ; cp. iSl? in pl^S,
2 S. xxiii. 31, and the name f?$i, i Chr. v. 5, viii. 30. In
xiv. 2 it is the name of a N. Arabian town. Ed. Meyer
warns against using these notices, but, as it seems to me,
does not understand them (p. 376). YiiO, too, is worth
investigating. Probably it comes from limirlis (written
ll^l), i t- Arabia of Asshur (see on Bir sha, xiv. 2), so
that it is the name of a district, not of an individual. The
city-name ninin has been variously identified ; see E. Bib.,
Dinhabah, and Tomkins, PEFQ St., Oct. 1891, pp. 322 /
More probably, however, it is a corruption of inn (Dt. i. i),
where int at any rate has probably come from p$12 = S^^Qtt)" 1
(see on v. 39).
The second (v. 33) is Yobab (see on x. 29), a Zerahite
(i.e. Ashhurite, see on xxxviii. 30), whose city was Bosrah.
The place-name occurs in the little oracle, attributed (rightly ?)
to Amos (Am. i. 1 1 /!), which the text makes out to
refer to Edom, but which probably refers really to Aram,
because in v. 12, for the mysterious 2 Vom nn&n, we should
most probably read fjNDnT iniDN win, that is, Ashhur-
Yerahme el, a gloss on DIN. The third, Husham (DBNi).
Again we are warned against comparing D^BHi, xlvi. 23,
Num. xxvi. 42, also I Chr. vii. 12, viii. 8, 1 1. Investigation,
however, would not be unfruitful ; e.g. in i Chr. vii. 1 2 n is
1 In Num. I.e. irun may quite well (pace Meyer) mean one of the
traditional streams of the border-land (see on xv. 18), and fanptap may
be a combination of two corrupt forms of SNOIW. I assume that the
reader has registered frequently recurring types of textual corruption.
2 Harper s summary of explanations is very striking. A new and
effectual method of textual criticism can alone dispel the mystery.
LIST OF THE KINGS OF ARAM (GEN. xxxvi. 31-39) 431
one of the bene Aher (Aher = Ashhur). Husham came
from the land of the Temanites. The exact situation of
4 Teman is admittedly uncertain, 1 but we can hardly be
wrong in tracing jo^n to prr = SNI>&T (see on v. 11).
Perhaps this is the Q-nniDS JOTO (so we should read), a king
of Aram-naharaim(P), 2 in Judg. iii. 10. The fourth, Hadad
("HOO- Properly a divine name (see pp. 33, 56). His
father is called Tra ; (g HapaS (cp. on the place-name TO,
xvi. 14 ; Til in i Chr. vii. 20 is a personal name). TT1 or
"T"Q comes from Bir-dadda, a N. Arabian name (KA T^ 2 \
p. 148, /. 6). Cp. on Trrrp, I K. xv. 18, and on the
defeat of Midian, Ed. Meyer, pp. 381/5 Winckler, GI
i. 49 /, 193 / The royal city is ms, but (g has y00a[i,]fi,
i.e. DTU?. Probably we should read D^inoto (cp. above, on
Husham). If so, Marquart is right in supposing that the
closing words of v. 35 belong rather to v. 34. He is of
opinion that rishathayim in Cushan-rish, Judg. iii. 8,
should rather be rosh attaint] chief of Attaim. But
Attaim is no name. The fifth, Samlah ; or rather
Salmah (HD^to), a N. Arabian ethnic. His city is npl^D ;
probably from pmcn (see on xv. 2). The sixth, Shdill,
plainly N. Arabian (see on i S. i. 20). His city is mini
"irnn. There must have been several Rehoboths (cp. E. Bib.,
Rehoboth ). The im (pace Ed. Meyer) 3 should be one
of the N. Arabian streams, of which we only know from
passages like xv. 1 8.
The seventh is Baal-hanan, where Baal is not primarily
a divine title, but a popular corruption of Yerahme el or
Ishmael. Hanan (Ezra ii. 46 and parallels) is a clan-
name of the Nethinim 4 or Ethanites ; in Chr. xi. 43 it is
1 See E. Bib., Teman.
- Marquart (Fund p. u) identifies these two names, though he
has a peculiar theory of his own for the rishathayim of Judges.
Ed. Meyer (p. 374) naively remarks, How can an Aramaean king from
the Euphrates have made a raid into the far south ? From the
Euphrates !
3 This scholar supposes that the phrase the river in the O.T.,
when by itself, is always the Euphrates.
4 See Amer. Journ. of Theol. July 1901, and cp. jnsoip in Euting s
Nabat. Inschr. No. 12, /. i (quoted by W. R. Smith) ; also Natan-iau
in the second Gezer tablet ( = Yonathan). The various elements in
these names are all primarily N. Arabian ethnics.
432 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
the name of one of David s heroes, a son of Maacah, i.e.
presumably l a native of the southern Maacah. In the
parallel Phoenician names too (see E. Bib., Baal-hanan ),
Hanan or Hanun was originally a clan-name (brought from
Arabia). This seventh king is called a son of TQ^S, a word
which Robertson Smith 2 identifies with 113$, i.e. the male
jerboa (Ar. akbar). But surely the mouse- clan is as
imaginary as the rock-badger clan (Shaphan), the flea-clan
(Par osh), and, one may add, the ascent of the scorpions
(Akrabbim). Experience assures us that both Achbor and
Akrabbim are corruptions of some compound clan-name,
and we may well widen the group by adding the enigmatical
Achshaph and Achzib. To make a long matter short,
trnps is nearer to the original form than "niDi? ; the original
form is given almost correctly in a Punic inscription dis
covered at Carthage in 1898, and is Blips (the inscription
has D for p), i.e. Akab-ram. In treating of ipir (xxxii. 28)
we have already noticed forms like ips, which is to be
regarded as a clan-name. 3 The second element D1 (as in
Baal-ram) represents Aram ( = Yerahme el). The name of
Baal-hanan s city is not given ; the text may be in disorder. 4
The eighth, Hadar, or rather, probably, Hadad (II.). His
city is called ISD, or rather *n$D (, Ball), which may be only
a variation of TlSQ, which may be the name both of a place
and (see on v. 32) of a district. His wife s name, ^NlBYTD,
occurs in Neh. vi. 10 as a man s name. What did it
originally mean ? Certainly not El is a benefactor ; that
is due to the redactors. We may take a hint from h&hhnft,
which is also both an early and a late name (Gen. v. 12,
Neh. xi. 4), and has grown out of ^HDITF. So ^Nl&YFO
contains one element (Stfl^) which can have come quite
regularly from ^irP = ^N$DBT (cp. ^Sin, I K. xvi. 31).
But what shall we say of YTQ ? Is it not recalcitrant ? By
no means ; experience suggests an explanation. The
1 Presumably, 3 because, as has been shown (by Winckler and by
the present writer), David was of Arabian origin.
2 Journ. of Phil. ix. 96 ; Kinship^, p. 235, note I. Johns (Deeds,
iii. 221) compares Ass. Ugbaru.
3 So Akshaph= e Akshaph= t Akab-shaphan, and Akzib= Akzib =
Akab-zSeb, and both names = Jacob-Ishmael.
4 See Marquart s rather complicated hypothesis (Fund. p. 10).
LIST OF THE KINGS OF ARAM (GEN. xxxvi. 31-39) 433
genealogies in Nehemiah (iii. 4, x. 22, xi. 24) contain a
name which is even more parallel than S^SSno. It is
SttlTtrnD. Resisting an obvious but unsuitable interpreta
tion of this name, 1 and remembering that tt>o and Dtt> are
frequently corrupt fragments of SOBJ = ^NSDfip, I suggest
that the form VlDQ may have arisen out of two competing
readings, viz. ^NSDOT and StflT (see on blTM, Jezebel, p. 46),
and similarly that S^l^TTD has arisen out of the two rival
readings SttDrm and ^Nirp (no having come from no = DTT,
cp. on ix. 1 8). Whichever of the two latter we prefer, the
result is the same. The wife of Hadad II. is marked out
by her name as a N. Arabian woman.
She is further represented as TizpD rQ and im " O rQ.
The impossible TIBQ (Winckler and Ed. Meyer, in all
seriousness, IN IBD, rain of mist !) can now, I hope, receive
a natural explanation. T is really a dittographed -|, and
1ZDD is = "Htto, a gentilic in I S. x. 21, which points to a
N. Arabian origin. Cp. on Mithredath, Ezra i. 8.
Similarly im ^ ( gold-water !) represents ^NSDB"D. For
other cases of irn = oBF see on ii. 1 1 f., Dt. i. 1,2 S. xii. 30.
Similar corruptions are INT (Judg. vii. 25), NI^S (2 S. ix. 2),
|1I;1S (xxxvi. 2, etc.). ni is a scribe s error ; perhaps the
archetype had p (so @), miswritten for jp.
For nniDBJl (y. 40) see on xxv. 13, and for v. 43 b, on
v. 9. Pinon ; see on Punon, Num. xxxiii. 42 f. Iram
(DT 1 ^), from some form of ^Nnrrr (cp. D"nip n^p). See,
further, on 11?, xxxviii. 6.
1 Cp. the Ass. Musezib-Marduk, Musezib-Nabu, Salm-musezib.
Such an explanation may suit the Aram, name 31^0^ ( Salm delivers ),
but would be inconsistent with the names with which Meshezabel is
grouped, viz. (i) Meshullam and Berechiah, (2) Zadok and Jaddua,
(3) Pethahiah and Zerah. The redactor imposed a fancy meaning on
a corrupted form.
EARLY STORIES OF JOSEPH (GEN. xxxvu.)
THERE are special peculiarities in the cycle of Joseph-
legends which at this point require to be mentioned. It
may be assumed that Joseph was an old name for all
the tribes that settled in Ephraim/ and that Joseph and
Ephraim are simply two names, older and younger,
tribal and geographical, for the same thing. l The
geographical name is Ephraim, which is probably (see on
xli. 52) a variation of f Arab-Yaman (Yamanite Arabia).
But Ephraim is also a tribal name, and as such it must be
later than Joseph. More and more Joseph may have ex
tended its reference, so as to include a confederation of
tribes, the centre of which was at Shak-ram, a name which
very early became shortened into Shechem (Shekem).
Winckler, I know, takes a partly different view. According
to him, Joseph is a personification of the northern kingdom
just as Israel is the representative of the united David-
kingdom of the twelve tribes, which does not prevent him
from being at the same time a hero who derives his chief
characteristics from Tamuz and from the sun-god (GI
ii. 68 ff.). That Joseph was originally the personification
of a tribal confederation, I do not see my way to admit, but
I fully grant that mythic elements have attached themselves
to him (see below). These elements, however, have developed
into stories of a novelistic character, and in this form have
become attached to the figure of Joseph. As a tribal hero,
the materials for a biography were slender indeed. There
was, it is true (i) the tradition of the partiality with which
his father Jacob treated him, and which excited the envy
1 H. W. Hogg, E. Bib., col. 2583.
434
EARLY STORIES OF JOSEPH (GEN. xxxvn.) 435
of his brothers ; (2) his possession of Shechem (xlviii. 22,
cp. on xxxiii. 18-20); and (3) his slavery in Misrim, which
issued in good both for himself and for his brethren. But
the element which can be plausibly referred to popular
tradition is but small, and the chief object of the narrators
really seems to be to provide their people with an ideal
figure, worthy of equal love and reverence, and to in
culcate a belief in divine providence. It has been well
remarked that, full of devoutness as the narrators are,
they nowhere introduce Yahweh in person, or as repre
sented by a divine being, as acting in Joseph s behalf.
See further, Gunkel, Gen. (2} pp. 349-353 ; Ed. Meyer, Die
Israeliten, pp. 287-293 ; and on the name "fDV, see above,
on xxx. 23, 24.
I now proceed to consider some questions which at once
arise from the traditional text. The first have to do with
the character of Joseph, and his relations to his brothers and
to his father ; and the next, to the geography of this opening
scene of our highly dramatic story. Did Joseph really tell
tales about his brothers to his father, whose favourite he
knew that he was ?
The difficult words are rrin DHl-PT (v. 2), a bad report
about them, an evil one (?). Evidently nin is wrong ; but is
TT right ? Joseph is a popular hero ; how could he have
been represented as a tale-teller ? Gunkel, indeed, supposes
that he told the tales because he was indignant at the
wickedness of the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. But the
sequel does not favour this supposition, the basis of which
is a rather poor conjecture that TIN 122 should be h$ "lift.
I m is not a natural word to express what Gunkel thinks of ;
such superficial emendations rarely answer. But the only
satisfactory answer to make to a critic is to try for a better
solution of his problem. In order to do this, I must go
back to JN3. Why the preposition ? DDttD in xxxvii. I 3
suggests that ]N2 is miswritten for some place-name, and in
fact, in the two parallel cases, I S. xvi. 1 1 and xvii. 34, it
has already been suggested to read 7MSDBPQ ; pi?121 ( = ott^l)
would, however, be sufficient, ]N2 and ps being often cor
ruptions of psis, just as \& and \w are of pSDH) or pott).
The next words, TIN -ISO Nim, as Gunkel has seen, make
436 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
no sense. 1 But it should be remembered that IDS in xiv. i 3
has come from 133 ID, i.e. Si? ]m = l"ii> jOB)" 1 ; it is only natural
to explain "133 in the same way. Thus we get the gloss,
IIS DOT 1 Mini, that is, Ishmael of Arabia. The Ishmaelite
or Yerahme elite race was widely dispersed ; the glossator
will have no uncertainty about his author s meaning. He
knows that the scene of the story is laid in Arabia. As to
ill nn^l ^Q-nN and the troublesome mn, both are late
glosses, the latter on the difficult word DHTT. This last
word still awaits correction. BDB explains, a (true)
report of evil doings ; such a highly condensed phrase is
scarcely tolerable. But the remedy lies close at hand.
A 1 has fallen out (cp. D^il, 2 S. xx. 1 4, for D^m) ; so that
the right word is DrOll, their present (cp. xxxiii. 11).
The function of the youthful Joseph was to go between his
father and his brethren, as the bearer of salutations and
presents. How simple and natural (see I S. xvii. 17 f.)\
Next, what was the great object and occasion of the
envy of Joseph s brethren (v. 3) ? (^ and Vg. here, Pesh.
in 2 S., and E.V. here and in 2 S., give a coat (yjLTwv, tunica")
of [many] colours. This is certainly more plausible than
the rival rendering a coat (tunic) of the extremities ; but
how can it be critically justified ? The explanation suggested
by such analogies as 133 ID rrnw (Josh. vii. 21; cp. on mm
xli. 42) is that D^DD, in X Q nun!}, is a contraction of
( Pathrusim ), which we have already seen (on x. 14) to be
a corruption of DT1D12. From Ezek. xxvii. 7 (cp. on
xli. 42) we learn that fine linen (mm) was one of the
productions of Misrim, and Pathrusim is represented in
x. 14 as one of the sons of Misrim. Probably, therefore,
the * tunic of Passim was made of fine linen. From 2 S.
xiii. 1 8 /. (critically examined) we learn that this garment
was worn by princesses of Israel in their maiden years, and
a gloss in that passage states that CPDQ was equivalent to
^NDriT (miswritten D^SD). Joseph therefore as I under
stand the passage was clad in a tunic of fine linen, as if
1 Winckler (AOF, I.e.} renders, in fact, he was as a servant, etc.,
and finds a mythological meaning. Joseph plays the part of the
younger deities Marduk and Nebo over against the ten older gods.
But ton introduces a gloss.
EARLY STORIES OF JOSEPH (GEN. xxxvn.) 437
he were a king s child, and not intended for the rough
pastoral life. It was this which stirred the angry feelings
of his brothers, and had such strangely romantic con
sequences.
Nor can one avoid raising a question as to the contents
of Joseph s second dream. What can be the meaning of
the sun, the moon, and eleven stars (v. 9 )? Most scholars
regard this as a symbolical expression for Jacob, Rachel
( the unforgotten and un-lost, Del.), and the eleven brethren,
and some find here a confirmation of the supposed actual
character of the patriarchs, and of the connexion of the
* twelve tribes with the signs of the zodiac. 1 The difficulty
on this view is fourfold. i. The moon is never feminine in
Hebrew. 2. A wife has nothing to do with homage to a
ruler. 3. We should have expected both Jacob s wives to
be referred to ; and if only one, then certainly not Rachel,
who was dead. 4. We are not told what symbolical form
Joseph assumed in the dream (contrast v. 7).
This is how Winckler meets these difficulties. 2 He
supposes that the reference to the moon in v. iob is a later
insertion, that originally the moon was interpreted of Jacob,
and Joseph represented as the sun-god, so that the original
form of the statement in v. 9 b would be, f and behold, the
moon and eleven stars bowed down to me. Only eleven
stars, because each month one of the signs of the zodiac
comes into contact with the sun, and is, as it were, absorbed
by it. 3
I cannot, however, see my way to accept these suggestions.
I have no prejudice against admitting the existence of
mythological elements in Biblical narratives. But I cannot
think it likely that the actually existing tribes of Israel
(which can never have been really twelve in number) claimed
a connexion with the zodiac deities, nor can I attach any
weight to the argument of some mythologists (e.g. Zimmern
1 See Winckler, GI ii. 70/5 Zimmern, KAT ( *\ p. 628 ; Gunkel,
Genesis*^ p. 356, cp. p. 293 ; A. Jeremias, ATAO, p. 240 ; and on the
other side Konig, Altorientalische Weltanschauung, etc., pp. $4f.
" 2 GI ii. 70 ; cp. pp. 62 f. See also A. Jeremias, ATAO, p. 240 ;
cp. p. 53, note 3.
3 This is one possible explanation of the number eleven in the myth
of the making of the eleven monsters (Creation Epic, ist Tablet).
438 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
and Stucken), derived from the faulty text of the Blessing
of Jacob in Gen. xlix.
With regard to the supposed interpolation of -JONI (* and
thy mother ) in v. lob, I would point out that in v. loa
the interpolator (perhaps R) of the words, and he told it
to his father and to his brothers, has deliberately passed
over Rachel. How, indeed, could an interpolator have
forgotten that Joseph s mother was dead ? And with regard
to Joseph s being represented as the sun-god, may he not
much more naturally be identified with the twelfth star?
For evidently he corresponds to some extent in our story
to the god Marduk, whose sacred number was eleven, 1
indicating that he was the leader of the remaining eleven
constellations.
But the Babylonian god Marduk is something more
than the leader of the eleven stars. He is also the sun-god,
who dies in winter and sinks into the underworld, and rises
again on the return of spring. 2 And regarded thus, he has
such a close resemblance to Tamuz (see E. Bib., Tammuz )
who indeed is also reckoned as a son of Ea that we
cannot be surprised if Joseph, who corresponds (as we are
bound to admit) to Marduk, is represented at a later point
in the story as if he were a reflection of Tamuz.
These statements, it is true, assume that the Babylonian
myth of the death of Tamuz-Marduk, due (as it appears) to
a wild boar, 3 had penetrated into N. Arabia, and so become
naturalised among the Israelites. They also involve the
further assumption that the Arabian and Israelitish priest
hoods had adapted the myth to pre-existent beliefs. The
N. Arabian deity parallel to Marduk was the god called
Ishmael or Yerahme el, who in Israel came to be regarded
as the beneficent guide and protector of the people. 4 It
was a human manifestation of this deity which died and
rose again, 5 and for which, under the names of Hadad and
1 Zimmern, KAT (Z} , p. 374. It is an archaeological error to
represent the number eleven in v. 9 as a redactional ornament
(C. Niebuhr, Gesch. der Ebr. Zeitalters, i. 169, note i).
2 See Zimmern, KA7\ p. 371.
3 Ibid. p. 398. 4 See on xvi. 11 (p. 279).
5 See Bible Problems, pp. 113, 128, 252^
EARL Y STORIES OF JOSEPH (GEN. xxxvn.) 439
Ramman (Zech. xii. 11), and perhaps also Naaman, there
was an annual lamentation in the spot consecrated by his
memory. These things I have already (see pp. 56 /)
ventured to assume, trusting in the willingness of the reader
to put aside prejudice and adopt a new point of view.
It was certainly a great honour which some early
narrator (a priest of the tribe of Joseph ?) conferred on the
eponym of the Josephites when he enriched the funda
mental tribal legend with details from the story of Tamuz-
Marduk or Adonis. It may be useful at this point to
sum up the details which seem to commend themselves
most to a critical judgment. 1 i. The astral-mythological
dream (v. 9), just now explained. 2. The story of Joseph
in the pit (w. 22 ff.\ which may be suggested by the
mythological statement that Adonis went down into the
pit. Yi3, pit, cistern, is often = Sheol. 2 3. The dipping
of Joseph s tunic in blood (y. 31), and the cry of the horror-
stricken Jacob that a wild beast has devoured him (v. 33;
cp. v. 20). 4. The mourning of Jacob (v. 34), which was
evidently an important element of the tradition and reminds
us of the yearly bikitu, or weeping, for Tamuz. 5. The
exultant exclamation of the aged father, my son Joseph
lives (xlv. 28), which may remind us of the joyous cries
of the votaries of Adonis on his resurrection. And 6. the
intuitive wisdom and impartial beneficence of the rule of
Joseph, which correspond to the same qualities in the god
Marduk.
I now pass on to the geographical details, with the
view of showing how these are affected by a textual criticism
which does not disdain to take notice of the N. Arabian
theory. It has been pointed out already (see on xii. 6,
xxxiii. 1 8) that Shechem (Shekem) referred to in vv. 1 2 ff.
is = Shakram, i.e. Ashhur-Aram, while Hebron (v. 14) is
possibly 3 connected with Rehob (see on xxiii. 2). If so,
the emek of Hebron is presumably the cmek that belongs
1 Cp. Winckler, GI ii. 75-77; Jeremias, ATAO, pp. 239/, and
ENT, p. 40. 2 See Gunkel, Schopfung, p. 132, note 8.
3 Possibly, because some other account of Hebron may be
preferred. The theory given above is only a specimen of possible
explanations. See on xxiii. 2.
440 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
to Beth-rehob 1 (Judg. xviii. 28). It is doubtless surprising
that if Jacob dwelt near Beth-rehob (or Rehobon) he should
have sent his idolised younger son on so long a journey
alone, and, perhaps one may add, that the brethren of
Joseph should have moved with their flocks so far away
from their father. But to omit V? pDSD, with Steuernagel
and Gunkel, seems arbitrary. Perhaps we may suppose
that different views have been combined. 2 According to
one, Jacob dwelt near Shechem, and his sons were with
the flocks at no great distance off. According to another,
based on the tradition in xxxv. 27, Jacob and his two
younger sons were at Hebron or Rehobon. Further, that
there were at least two views respecting the relations of
Jacob and his sons to Shechem. According to one, both
parties were on perfectly friendly terms ; according to
another, Simeon and Levi had brought the guilt of blood
shed upon their family, which was liable at any moment
to be called to account. These different traditions could
not be altogether harmonised. But it is at any rate
plausible that the distance between Rehobon and Shakram
was not so great as that between the best-known Rehobon
or Hebron from the most familiar Shechem.
Next, as to Dothan (v. 17). Whatever may be said
of the Israelitish caravan from Gilead (see below), it is
certain that E s * Midianites, taken in connexion with the
cistern in the desert (v. 22), points to the extreme south.
It is true that 2 K. vi. 13, 19 (see Crit. Bib.) suggests that
the Dothan of the Elisha-story was not far from p-ioB>, and
Judith iii. 9, iv. 6 that the Dothan of the Judith-story was
near Yizreel. But there are reasons for thinking that the
scene of both stories was originally laid in the N. Arabian
border-land, and it is quite possible that there was a
southern Dothan as well as a southern Shimron and Yizreel.
According to Judith iii. 9 f., Dothaea (i.e. Dothan) was near
Scythopolis, i.e. rvOD *ri>, 3 which suggests the question
1 Unless we suppose that poj?, both in xxxvii. 14 and in Judg.
xviii. 28, has come from myD. Cp. on Ps. Ix. 8.
2 Gunkel has already suggested this.
3 man, or rather nan, is probably a contraction of roSo (see on
xxxiii. 17).
EARLY STORIES OF JOSEPH (GEN. xxxvu.) 441
whether riDT, which occurs after nDb in Josh. xv.
may not be a corruption of ]ni, i.e. Dothan.
In v. 25 we meet with the name D"nSD for the first time
in the Joseph-story. The presumption is very strong that
this word means the N. Arabian Musri, but the pros and
cons will be carefully put before the reader. Let us
remember that in Gen. x. 6 Misrim appears as a son of
Ham, i.e. Yerahme el, and that the references to the dwelling
of Joseph and of the Israelites in D*n!JQ in the Psalter can
be quite well understood on the N. Arabian theory. Indeed,
in Ps. Ixxviii. 45 the field of Sib eon (= Ishmael) makes a
better parallelism with * Misrim than we get on the supposi
tion that D HSD means * Egypt and ps Tanis, while the
land of Ham in cv. 23, 27, cvi. 22, is scarcely intelligible,
unless Ham is = Yerahme el, and in cv. 1 7 to say that
Joseph was sold for a slave is vastly inferior to the state
ment that he was sold to the Arabians. If so, the
tradition persisted long.
The statement in v. 25 is that when Joseph s heartless
brethren looked up from their meal they saw a caravan of
merchants conveying gum tragacanth, mastic, and ladanum
to Misrim. These very things are reckoned by Jacob among
the fruits of the land (xliii. 1 1). Here, however (according
to E), the Ishmaelite merchants come from Gilead, which
may quite well refer to a southern Gilead (cp. on xxxi. 47).
It is equally noteworthy that in v. 28 a (cp. v. 36) the
merchants are called Midianites 1 or (v. 36) Medanites.
What this involves, we have seen already. We may also
note that the Midianites were in a large sense Ishmaelites
(see on xxv. 7). With equal truth they might be called
Yerahme elites, and we may hold that an early gloss on
the original text actually gave them this name ; i.e. D^Di
most probably came from crSon, a short form (cp. on
D^fpn, xxxiv. 27) of D^NOrrp, to which is prefixed the
explanatory Waw, thus producing the note, that is, Yerah
me elites. Parallels to this change occur in xii. 16, Judg.
1 We need not, with Hommel and Jeremias, suppose a confusion
between Midianites and Minaeans. Nor does this passage suggest to
us that Midian was the ethnic name for the people of the land of
Musri, as Winckler supposes (KAT, p. 143).
442 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
vi. 5, viii. 21, 26, Ezra ii. 67. I do not, of course, dream
of denying that there was a demand for fragrant resins in
Egypt. But it must surely be admitted that they would
also be wanted in the land of Misrim, and Jer. viii. 22,
xlvi. 1 1 (see Crit. Bib.), when closely examined, seem to
point in this direction.
And now Joseph s time in Misrim begins. According
to J, he was bought by an unnamed Misrite ; according to
E, by a court-officer named IQ^Q. The same name is
given by J in xli. 45 (cp. xlvi. 20) to the priest of On who
became Joseph s father-in-law. It is true that in this form
the second part of the name is JTIQ ; but the omission of 3
in xxxvii. 36 and xxxix. I is not surprising, if we consider
the variations in parallel texts elsewhere in the O.T. 1 It
has been held by recent critics and I formerly took this
view myself that, the background of the story being
Egyptian, and forms like Poti-phera f (Tlere^prj) he whom
Re (Ra) has given being frequent in Egyptian only after
700 B.C., we gain thereby a valuable evidence for the date
of the story. 2 The evidence, however, for the Egyptian
background of the original story is precisely that which
is becoming doubtful, and the fact that the other supposed
Egyptian names in the story (Asenath, Saphenath-pa neah)
cannot be as plausibly explained should suggest the necessity
of caution in supporting this view, which is by no means an
old and thoroughly seasoned hypothesis. 3 In the light of
our previous experience of names, we shall suspect Poti-
phera c to be a combination of two very possibly corrupt
place-names or clan-names. Can we recover the original
form of these names ? tola, certainly, is intelligible enough ;
the original which it represents is ma, i.e. niBM (see on
x. 6). And the key to inQ is furnished by xvi. 1 2 and
Hos. viii. 9, where *na may with much probability be
1 treats the names as identical.
2 See E. Bib., cols. 2588/, 38i4/ For the Egyptological theories
see E. Bib., Potiphar ; also Heyes, Bibel und Aeg. pp. 105-112.
Erman (see Gunkel, p. 361) finds the i in sis inexplicable at present
The examples of Egyptian Aram, names compounded with ES (see
S. A. Cook, Aram. Gloss, p. 97) do not help us.
3 See Naville (PS 13 A xxv. 160 f.}, who finds a name with two
articles rather strange.
EARLY STORIES OF JOSEPH (GEN. xxxvn.) 443
viewed as a corruption of 115. If so, the name of the
court-officer referred to was equivalent to Ephrath- arab,
i.e. Arabian Ephrath. All, therefore, that E could tell or
imagine about this personage was that he held a certain
office and that he was a Putite, or Ephrathite of Arabia.
See further, on Putiel, Ex. vi. 25.
And what was Potiphar s office ? At first sight we
seem to have a twofold account, and we are reminded of
the elaborateness with which Egyptian dignitaries describe
their offices and functions. The first of his titles is
rrino D^HD, and the commentators discuss the question
whether D"HD here means eunuch or high officer. 1 It
should be noticed, however, that whereas in xl. 2 (E) the
chief butler and the chief baker are called D^D^D, the
DTn&n na> (Potiphar) is not called D^D in xl. 3 (E).
The question now arises whether niHQ D"HD in xxxvii. 36
is rightly read. It is quite possible that D"HD may be a
corruption of TIEN. We have an example of this in
2 K. xviii. 17, where D HO ll has probably come from
TIZBN 3-w (see Crit. Bib.) ; cp. NID^D, Judg. iv. 2, Ezra ii. 53,
etc., and D*ID and CTDID often (e.g. Judg. v. 22, I K. x. 25),
for -nffiN, D-< . Very possible, too, that [nJlHD may have
arisen in the same way as sna in Q ^Q. And taking a
wider view of the state of the text, and of the nature of the
textual corruptions and glosses, must we not say that these
possibilities are also probabilities, and that instead of
eunuch of Pharaoh we should recognise, as a gloss on
Poti-phera f , another compound name, Asshur- arab. This
should not be taken to imply that Joseph s master was not
a Misrite. That Misrim was considered an Asshurite region
appears from Ezek. xxxi. 3?
But, if not a eunuch, what was the important personage
who became Joseph s master ? The text replies that he
was D^TOtt[rr] -lip. It is a natural conjecture that this
phrase, here and in 2 K. xxv. 8 ff., Jer. xxxix. 9 ff.,
Hi. i 2 ff., means captain of the bodyguard, an office in the
Egyptian court which in the Ptolemaean age was expressed
1 Cp. E. Bib., Eunuch.
2 That the name Ashhur or Asshur sometimes means a larger,
sometimes a smaller region, need not surprise us. Cp. on x. 1 1.
444 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
by the term a/^t<7&&gt;/mTo<uXaf / though, as Deissmann 2
reports from the Greek papyri, this term was also applied
to the holders of other high offices. But can D^nito mean
bodyguard ? Properly it means * slaughterers, i.e. of
cattle, and hence cooks (i S. ix. 23 f., see ) ; hence
here gives ap^ifMiyetpo^. Chief cook, however, is not
probable in such a context. Nor can we accept chief
executioner (Del.) surely a last resource for those who
do not admit that D TOZD can mean guardsmen. It is
true, BDB and Ges.-Buhl do accept guardsmen. Robertson
Smith remarks 3 that ancient warriors could upon occasion
be butchers. But surely such a vague and obscure term
for guardsmen is not at all probable for an official title.
What remains ? The best solution of all to suppose that
nito is one of those groups of letters which are likely to
have arisen through the misplacement, omission, or mis-
writing of letters in a larger word ; it is this that remains
to the consistent critic. Now, in xxii. 24 we find a name
nito ( = niol, 2 S. viii. 8), a group of letters which, in its
context, and in the light of many of our previous results,
can best be explained as an early corruption of niim ; 4 cp.
the strange-looking DTTtolN (Num. xi. 5), which criticism
compels us to regard as one of three ethnics inserted as a
gloss on the ethnic o^DDN (MT. *]DBDN). To put it briefly,
the probability is that the king of Misrim (Musri in N.
Arabia) had a bodyguard of Rehobothites (cp. xxxvi. 37),
and that, according to the narrative, Joseph s master was
their commander. See, further, on xxxix. 20, and cp. on
2 K. xxv. 8.
1 See (g, i S. xxviii. 2, Esth. ii. 21.
2 Bibelstudien (1895), pp. 93 f.
3 OTJC, p. 262, note i ; so also BDB.
4 See E. Bib., Tebah.
JUDAH AND TAMAR (GEN. xxxvm.)
PROFESSEDLY a story from the life of Judah, a man of
highly independent character, who goes his own way (cp.
xxxvii. 26). Really a legendary record of the early rela
tions of families or clans of the tribe of Judah, genealogic
ally represented. With this it is difficult not to admit
that certain mythological details have been connected.
These details, however, are confined to that part of the
narrative which relates to Tamar. The chapter has been,
of late, much examined from different points of view, 1 but it
still continues difficult to derive from it any clear view of the
early movements of the original Judah. The suggestions of
Winckler and Barton respectively that the story of Judah
and Tamar means the conquest of a place called Baal-tamar
by David, and that a clan, perhaps the Kenites, which took
the palm-tree for its totem, was incorporated into the tribe
of Judah are too imaginative to be accepted. Nor can we
venture to hold with Erbt that the story of the daughter of
Shua has any relation to the story of Bath-sheba in the
life of David, or that the deaths of Er and Onan are
analogous to the attempted sacrifice of Isaac. It may be
admitted, however, that the story of Judah and Tamar, like
that of Ammon and Tamar in 2 S. xiii., is slightly coloured
by some floating story, derived from the myth of the Baby
lonian Ishtar (see on v. 6), who is at once bride and sister
of the beloved man ; and if the story in chap, xxxviii. is
rather paler than that in 2 Samuel, it may be because
1 See Steuernagel, Einwand. pp. 79 / ; Winckler, GI ii. io4/ r
202; Barton, Semitic Origins, pp. 90, 286; Gunkel, Gen. pp. 362^
(cp. Deutsche Rundschau, Oct. 1905, pp. 68 /) ; Erbt, Die Hebrder,
pp. 14-18; Wildeboer, Theol. Studien, 1900, pp. 261/5 B. Luther
and Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliten, pp. 177-180, 200-206, 433./I
445
446 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Tamar in the former is not Judah s sister, but only his
daughter-in-law. We may also compare the deaths of
Tamar s husbands in w. 7, 10 with the story of Sara and
her husbands in Tobit iii. 8, which must be of mythological
origin.
The names, however, have not been adequately studied, 1
and yet some interesting information might be expected
from such a study. My own results definitely confirm the
view that the original scene of the early legends was the
N. Arabian border-land. V. I informs us that, after parting
from his brethren, Judah allied himself to a certain Adullam-
ite whose name was Hirah (v. i). Adullam is familiar
to us as the name in the MT. of a place where David took
refuge (i. S. xxii. i) ; the phrase is D^"TS msD. It so
happens that mso is often (cp. on xxiii. 9, I S. /..) mis-
written for TCGsri = HONI, a popular contraction of ^HOTT (see
on x. 7), while D^"TS must surely come either from
n Ishmaelite tribal name (xxv. 13), or from
z.. ?NDnr. "TO D, therefore, is virtually a doubly
written DHT. This view of Ss is confirmed by the true
meaning of rrrn, which is obviously (like Tin) a corruption
of TntDN, with the feminine ending. Ashhur-Yerahme el
(distinctly mentioned in v. 24 see below) was a N. Arabian
region. It was not far from Canaan, for Num. xiii. 29$,
tells us that the Canaanites dwell by Yaman, and Gen. x. 6
(see note) that Canaan was a son of Ham, i.e. Yerahme el.
V. 2 tells us that while at Adullam (?) Judah married
the daughter of a Canaanite named intt), i.e. not S18J, but irtB)
(@ 2ava) or si_ = sixp ; cp. mm-m, I Chr. iii. 5 ; lattt, of
course, is = SEtt? (see on x. 7). By Shua or Sheba
Judah has three sons offshoots of the older clan, presum
ably. The first is called 11? (Er)> which must be grouped
with -ns (xlvi. 1 6), pi? (Num. xxvi. 36), -pi; (i Chr. vii. 12),
^TS (i Chr. vii. 7), NTS (28. xx. 26, xxiii. 38), ITS (i Chr.
iv. 15), DTS (xxxvi. 43). All that Noldeke (E. Bib., Names,
77) can tell us about these forms is that they are difficult
to explain. 5 Ed. Meyer has no suggestion. A new point
of view, however, can suggest something, and if it does tend
1 Steuernagel s attempt (p. 80) to identify several of them with
names in the Amarna letters is too hazardous (the land of Gari = ny).
JUDAH AND TAMAR (GEN. xxxvin.) 447
to restore some of the credit of the Chronicler and the
Priestly Writer, fair-minded persons will not be vexed at
this. So, then, from I Chr. vii. 1 2 we learn that TS is an
Ashhurite name (for -intf see on xxii. 13), and from iv. 15
that ITS was a Calebite ; also from Gen. xlvi. 43 that DTI?
was the name of a clan of Esau. From lists in 2 Samuel
(xx. 26, xxiii. 38) we know that NTS was a Yairite or Ithrite
name (Yair = Yerahme el ; Yether = Ashtar). I leave the
critical reader to complete the references. Evidently TS or
is is the kernel of a name widely spread in early times in
the N. Arabian border-land, and how can we doubt that the
full name was some form (perhaps ~ni? ; see on chap, xxxiv.)
of bMDJTT ? The second, piN (Onan), is also quite a
N. Arabian name (see on Ben-oni, xxxv. 18). The third,
rh (Shelah), has to be grouped with n^BJ, h*\nw, Sm&? (see
on i S. i. 20, ix. 4) all connected with SNI?&T.
These three clans, then, were partly Israelite, partly
Canaanite ; the two former perished early. At the time of
the birth of the last one, his mother was at rriD (read NTH,
with @) ; a fuller form of the name is i^DN. This place,
according to Josh. xv. 44, lay in the far south of the
Judahite land, near Ke f ilah and Mareshah. Apparently it
was the place occupied by the Shelah clan ; cp. i Chr.
iv. 2 1 /, where Shelah and Cozeba (cognate with
Akzib ) are combined. There was doubtless a northern
Akzib (Josh. xix. 29), but the name was carried from the
south, and originally meant Ashhur-Ishmael (see p.
432); 3N from BEN ( = Ashhur), and in = INI = frill ( =
Ishmael). Cp. on i S. xxi. 10 (Akish), Judg. vii. 25 (Zeeb).
Next, the story of Er s wife (v. 6). Her origin is not
told us only her name, ion, which was no doubt under
stood as palm-tree. An appropriate name, doubtless, for
a woman (cp. Cant. vii. 8 /). But we have also the place-
names Tamar and Baal-tamar, and we have to find an
explanation which will fit both the personal name and the
place-names. Such an explanation has been offered by
Winckler, according to whom Baal-tamar (Judg. xx. 33)
was the place where the men of Benjamin had their tribal
sanctuary, dedicated to the goddess Ishtar. When David
conquered it, thinks this scholar, its name was changed 
