FROM-THE- LIBRARYOF

TWNITYCOLLEGETORONTO
[International
Critical
C0mnuntarg
0n
%
|Mg
Scriptures
0f
%
(lfr attfr
UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF
THE REV. SAMUEL ROLLES
DRIVER,
D.D.
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford
THE REV. ALFRED
PLUMMER, M.A.,
D.D.
Late Master
of University College,
Durham
THE REV. CHARLES AUGUSTUS
BRIGGS,
D.D.
Professor of Theological Encyclopedia
and
Symbolics
Union
Theological Seminary,
New York
The International
Critical
Commentary
On the
Holy Scriptures
of the Old and
New Testaments
EDITORS PREFACE
THERE
are now before the
public many Commentaries,
written
by
British and American
divines,
of a
popular
or homiletical character. The
Cambridge
Bible
for
Schools,
the Handbooks
for
Bible Classes and Private
Students,
The
Speaker
s
Commentary,
The
Popular Commentary (Schaff),
The
Expositor
s
Bible,
and other similar
series,
have their
special place
and
importance.
But
they
do not enter into the
field of Critical Biblical
scholarship occupied by
such series of
Commentaries as the
Kurzgefasstes exegetisches
Handbuch zum
A. T.
;
De Wette s
Kurzgefasstes exegetisches
Handbuch zum
N. T.
;
Meyer
s
Kritisch-exegetischer
Kommentar
;
Keil and
Delitzsch s Biblischer Commentar ilber das A. T.
;
Lange
s
Theologisch-homiletisches
Bibelwerk
;
Nowack s Handkommentar
zum A. T.
;
Holtzmann s Handkommentar zum N. T. Several
of these have been
translated, edited,
and in some cases
enlarged
and
adapted,
for the
English-speaking public ;
others are in
process
of translation. But no
corresponding
series
by
British
or American divines has hitherto been
produced.
The
way
has
been
prepared by special
Commentaries
by Cheyne,
Ellicott,
Kalisch,
Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott,
and
others;
and the
time has
come,
in the
judgment
of the
projectors
of this enter
prise,
when it is
practicable
to combine British and American
scholars in the
production
of a
critical, comprehensive
Commentary
that will be abreast of modern biblical
scholarship,
and in a measure lead its van.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
Messrs. Charles Scribner s Sons of New
York,
and Messrs.
T. & T. Clark of
Edinburgh, propose
to
publish
such a series
of Commentaries
on the Old and New
Testaments,
under th
editorship
of Prof. C. A.
BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt.,
in
America,
and
of Prof. S. R.
DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt.,
for the Old
Testament,
and
the Rev. ALFRED
PLUMMER, D.D.,
for the New
Testament,
in
Great Britain.
The Commentaries
will be international and
inter-confessional,
and will be free from
polemical
and ecclesiastical bias.
They
will be based
upon
a
thorough
critical
study
of the
original
texts
of the
Bible,
and
upon
critical methods of
interpretation.
They
are
designed chiefly
for students and
clergymen,
and will be
written in a
compact style.
Each book will be
preceded by
an
Introduction,
stating
the results of criticism
upon
it,
and discuss
ing impartially
the
questions
still
remaining open.
The details
of criticism will
appear
in their
proper place
in the
body
of the
Commentary.
Each section of the Text will be introduced
with a
paraphrase,
or
summary
of contents. Technical details
of textual and
philological
criticism
will,
as a
rule,
be
kept
distinct from matter of a more
general
character
;
and in the
Old Testament the
exegetical
notes will be
arranged,
as far as
possible,
so as to be serviceable to students not
acquainted
with
Hebrew. The
History
of
Interpretation
of the Books will be
dealt
with,
when
necessary,
in the
Introductions,
with critical
notices of the most
important
literature of the
subject.
Historical
and
Archaeological questions,
as well as
questions
of Biblical
Theology,
are included in the
plan
of the
Commentaries,
but
not Practical or Homiletical
Exegesis.
The Volumes will con
stitute a uniform series.
The
International
Critical
Commentary
ARRANGEMENT
OF VOLUMES
AND AUTHORS
THE OLD TESTAMENT
GENESIS.
The Rev.
JOHN
SKINNER, D.D., Principal
and Professor oi
Old Testament
Language
and
Literature,
College
of
Presbyterian
Church
of
England,
Cambridge, England.
[Now Ready.
EXODUS. The Rev. A. R. S.
KENNEDY, D.D.,
Professor of
Hebrew,
University
of
Edinburgh.
LEVITICUS.
J.
F.
STENNING, M.A.,
Fellow of Wadham
College,
Oxford.
NUMBERS. The Rev. G. BUCHANAN
GRAY, D.D.,
Professor of
Hebrew,
Mansfield
College,
Oxford.
[Now Ready.
DEUTERONOMY. The Rev. S. R.
DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt,
Regius
Pro
fessor of
Hebrew,
Oxford.
[Now Ready.
JOSHUA. The Rev. GEORGE ADAM
SMITH, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of
Hebrew,
United Free Church
College, Glasgow.
JUDGES. The Rev. GEORGE
MOORE, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of Theol
ogy,
Harvard
University, Cambridge,
Mass.
[Now Ready.
SAMUEL. The Rev. H. P.
SMITH, D.D.,
Professor of Old Testament
Literature and
History
of
Religion,
Meadville,
Pa.
[Now Ready.
KINGS. The Rev. FRANCIS
BROWN, D.D., D.Litt, LL.D.,
President
and Professor of Hebrew and
Cognate Languages,
Union
Theological
Seminary,
New York
City.
CHRONICLES. The Rev. EDWARD L.
CURTIS, D.D.,
Professor of
Hebrew,
Yale
University,
New
Haven,
Conn.
[Now Ready.
EZRA AND
NEHEMIAH. The Rev. L.W.
BATTEN, Ph.D., D.D.,
Rector
of St. Mark s
Church,
New York
City,
sometime Professor of
Hebrew,
P. E.
Divinity School,
Philadelphia.
PSALMS.
The Rev. CHAS. A.
BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt.,
Graduate Pro-
fessor of
Theological Encyclopaedia
and
Symbolics,
Union
Theological
Seminary,
New York.
[2
vols. Now Read*
PROVERBS. The Rev. C. H.
TOY, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of
Hebrew.
Harvard
University, Cambridge,
Mass.
[Now Ready.
JOB.
The Rev. S. R.
DRIVER, D.D., D.LUt.,
Regius
Professor of He
brew. Oxford.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
ISAIAH.
Chaps.
I-XXXIX. The Rev. G. BUCHANAN
GRAY, D.D.,
Professor of
Hebrew,
Mansfield
College,
Oxford.
ISAIAH.
Chaps.
XL-LXVI. The Rev. A. S.
PEAKE, M.A., D.D.,
Dean
of the
Theological Faculty
of the Victoria
University
and Professor of
Biblical
Exegesis
in the
University
of
Manchester,
England.
JEREMIAH. The Rev. A. F.
KiRKPATRiCK, D.D.,
Dean of
Ely,
sometime
Regius
Professor of
Hebrew,
Cambridge, England.
EZEKIEL. The Rev. G. A.
COOKE, M.A.,
Oriel Professor of the Inter
pretation
of
Holy Scripture, University
of
Oxford,
and the Rev. CHARLES F.
BURNEY,
D.
Litt.,
Fellow and Lecturer in
Hebrew,
St.
John
s
College,
Oxford.
DANIEL. The Rev.
JOHN
P.
PETERS, Ph.D., D.D.,
sometime Professor
of
Hebrew,
P. E.
Divinity
School,
Philadelphia,
now Rector of
St.
Michael s
Church,
New York
City.
AMOS AND HOSEA. W. R.
HARPER, Ph.D., LL.D.,
sometime Presi
dent of the
University
of
Chicago,
Illinois.
[Now Ready.
MICAH TO HAGGAI. Prof.
JOHN
P.
SMITH,
University
of
Chicago;
Prof. CHARLES P.
FAGNANI,
D.D.,
Union
Theological Seminary,
New
York;
W. HAYES
WARD, D.D., LL.D.,
Editor of The
Independent,
New-
York;
Prof.
JULIUS
A. BEWER, Union
Theological Seminary,
New
York,
and Prof. H. G.
MITCHELL, D.D.,
Boston
University.
ZECHARIAH TO JONAH. Prof. H. G.
MITCHELL, D.D.,
Prof.
JOHN
P. SMITH and Prof.
J.
A. BEWER.
ESTHER. The Rev. L. B.
PATON, Ph.D.,
Professor of
Hebrew,
Hart
ford
Theological Seminary. [Now Ready.
ECCLESIASTES. Prof. GEORGE A.
BARTON, Ph.D.,
Professor of Bibli
cal
Literature,
Bryn
Mawr
College,
Pa.
[Now Ready
RUTH,
SONG OF SONGS AND LAMENTATIONS. Rev. CHARLES A.
BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt.,
Graduate Professor of
Theological Encyclopaedia
ind
Symbolics,
Union
Theological Seminary,
New York.
THE NEW TESTAMENT
ST. MATTHEW. The Rev. WILLOUGHBY C.
ALLEN, M.A.,
Fellow and
Lecturer in
Theology
and
Hebrew,
Exeter
College,
Oxford.
[Now Ready.
ST. MARK. Rev. E. P.
GOULD, D.D.,
sometime Professor of New Testa
ment
Literature,
P. E.
Divinity
School,
Philadelphia. [Now Ready.
ST. LUKE. The Rev. ALFRED
PLUMMER, D.D.,
sometime Master of
University College,
Durham.
[Nuw Ready.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
ST. JOHN. The
Very
Rev.
JOHN
HENRY
BERNARD, D.D.,
Dean of 9t.
Patrick s and Lecturer in
Divinity, University
of Dublin.
HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. The Rev. WILLIAM
SANDAY, D.D.,
LL.D.,
Lady Margaret
Professor of
Divinity, Oxford,
and the Rev. WlL-
LOUGHBY C.
ALLEN, M.A.,
Fellow and Lecturer in
Divinity
and
Hebrew,
Exeter
College,
Oxford.
ACTS. The Rev. C. H.
TURNER, D.D.,
Fellow of
Magdalen College,
Oxford,
and the Rev. H. N.
BATE, M.A.,
Examining Chaplain
to the
Bishop
of London.
ROMANS. The Rev. WILLIAM
SANDAY, D.D., LL.D.,
Lady Margaret
Professor of
Divinity
and Canon of Christ
Church, Oxford,
and the Rev.
A. C.
HEADLAM, M.A., D.D.,
Principal
of
King
s
College,
London.
[Now Ready.
CORINTHIANS.
The
Right
Rev. ARCH.
ROBERTSON, D.D., LL.D.,
Lord
Bishop
of
Exeter,
the Rev. ALFRED
PLUMMER, D.D.,
and DAWSON
WALKER,
D.D.,
Theological
Tutor in the
University
of Durham.
GALATIANS. The Rev. ERNEST D.
BURTON, D.D.,
Professor of New
Testament
Literature,
University
of
Chicago.
EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS. The Rev. T. K.
ABBOTT, B.D.,
D.Litt.,
sometime Professor of Biblical
Greek,
Trinity College,
Dublin,
now
Librarian of the same.
[Now Ready.
PHILIPPIANS AND PHILEMON. The Rev. MARVIN R.
VINCENT,
D.
D.,
Professor of Biblioal
Literature,
Union
Theological Seminary,
New
York
City. [Now Ready.
THESSALONIANS. The Rev.
JAMES
E.
FRAME, M.A.,
Professor of
Biblical
Theology,
Union
Theological Seminary,
New York.
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. The Rev. WALTER
LOCK, D.D.,
Warden
of Keble
College
and Professor of
Exegesis,
Oxford.
HEBREWS. The Rev. A.
NAIRNE, M.A.,
Professor of Hebrew in
King
s
College,
London.
ST. JAMES. The Rev.
JAMES
H.
ROPES, D.D.,
Bussey
Professor of New
Testament Criticism in Harvard
University.
PETER AND JUDE. The Rev. CHARLES
BlGG, D.D.,
sometime
Regius
Professor of Ecclesiastical
History
and Canon of Christ
Church,
Oxford.
[Now Ready.
THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. The Rev. E. A.
BROOKE, B.D.,
Fellow
and
Divinity
Lecturer in
King
s
College, Cambridge.
REVELATION. The Rev. ROBERT H.
CHARLES,
M.
A., D.D.,
sometime
Professor of Biblical Greek in the
University
of Dublin.
GENESIS
JOHN
SKINNER,
D.D.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
CRITICAL
AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY
ON
GENESIS
BY
JOHN
SKINNER, D.D.,
HON.
M.A.(CANTAB.)
PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF OLD TESTAMENT LANGUAGE AND
LITERATURE,
WESTMINSTER
COLLEGE,
CAMBRIDGE
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER S SONS
1910
5
TO
MY WIFE
PREFACE.
IT is a little over six
years
since I was entrusted
by
the
Editors of "The International Critical
Commentary
"
with
the
preparation
of the volume on Genesis.
During-
that
time there has been no
important
addition to the number
of commentaries either in
English
or in German. The
English
reader still finds his best
guidance
in
Spurrell
s
valuable Notes on the
text,
Bennett s
compressed
but
sug
gestive exposition
in the
Century Bible^
and Driver s
thorough
and
masterly
work in the first volume of the
Westminster Commentaries
\
all of which were in existence
when I commenced
my
task. While no one of these books
will be
superseded by
the
present publication,
there was
still room for a
commentary
on the more elaborate scale of
the "International"
series;
and it has been
my aim,
in
accordance with the
programme
of that
series,
to
supply
the fuller treatment of
critical,
exegetical, literary,
and
archaeological questions,
which the
present
state of scholar
ship
demands.
The most recent German
commentaries,
those of
Holzinger
and
Gunkel,
had both
appeared
before
1904;
and I need not
say
that to
both,
but
especially
to the
latter,
I have been
greatly
indebted.
Every
student must have
felt that Gunkel s
work,
with its aesthetic
appreciation
of
the
genius
of the
narratives,
its wider historical
horizons,
and its
illuminating
use of
mythological
and folklore
parallels,
has breathed a new
spirit
into the
investigation
of
Genesis,
whose influence no writer on the
subject
can
hope
or wish to
escape.
The last-mentioned feature is
VIII PREFACE
considerably emphasised
in the third
edition,
the first
part
of which
(1909)
was
published just
too late to be utilised
for this volume. That I have not
neglected
the older
standard commentaries of
Tuch, Delitzsch,
and
Dillmann,
or less
comprehensive expositions
like that of
Strack,
will
be
apparent
from the
frequent acknowledgments
in the
notes. The same remark
applies
to
many
books of a more
general
kind
(mostly
cited in the list of
"Abbreviations"),
which have
helped
to elucidate
special points
of
exegesis.
The
problems
which invest the
interpretation
of Genesis
are, indeed,
too varied and
far-reaching
to be
satisfactorily
treated within the
compass
of a
single
volume. The old
controversies as to the
compatibility
of the earlier
chapters
with the conclusions of modern science are no
longer,
to
my
mind,
a
living
issue
;
and I have not
thought
it neces
sary
to
occupy
much
space
with their discussion. Those
who are of a different
opinion may
be referred to the
pages
of Dr.
Driver,
where
they
will find these matters handled
with
convincing
force and clearness. Rather more atten
tion has been
given
to the recent reaction
against
the
critical
analysis
of the
Pentateuch,
although
I am
very
far
from
thinking
that that
movement,
either in its conservative
or its more radical
manifestation,
is
likely
to undo the
scholarly
work of the last hundred and
fifty years.
At all
events,
my
own belief in the essential soundness of the
prevalent hypothesis
has been confirmed
by
the renewed
examination of the text of Genesis which
my present
under
taking required.
It will
probably appear
to some that the
analysis
is
pushed
further than is
warranted,
and that
dupli
cates are discovered where common sense would have
suggested
an
easy
reconciliation.
That is a
perfectly
fair
line of
criticism, provided
the whole
problem
be
kept
in
view. It has to be remembered that the
analytic process
is a chain which is a
good
deal
stronger
than its weakest
link,
that it starts from cases where
diversity
of
authorship
is almost
incontrovertible,
and moves on to others where
it is less certain
;
and it is
surely
evident that when the
composition
of sources is once
established,
the
slightest
PREFACE IX
differences of
representation
or
language
assume a
signifi
cance which
they might
not have
apart
from that
presumption.
That the
analysis
is
frequently
tentative and
precarious
is
fully acknowledged
;
and the
danger
of
basing
conclusions
on insufficient data of this kind is one that I have
sought
to
avoid. On the more momentous
question
of the historical
or
legendary
character of the
book,
or the relation of the
one element to the
other, opinion
is
likely
to be divided
for some time to come. Several
competent Assyriologists
appear
to cherish the conviction that we are on the eve of
fresh discoveries which will vindicate the
accuracy
of at
least the
patriarchal
traditions in a
way
that will cause the
utmost astonishment to some who
pay
too little heed to the
findings
of
archaeological experts.
It is
naturally
difficult to
estimate the worth of such an
anticipation ;
and it is advis
able to
keep
an
open
mind. Yet even here it is
possible
to
adopt
a
position
which will not be
readily
undermined.
Whatever
triumphs may
be in store for the
archaeologist,
though
he should
prove
that Noah and Abraham and
Jacob
and
Joseph
are all real historical
personages,
he will
hardly
succeed in
dispelling
the
atmosphere
of
mythical imagina
tion,
of
legend,
of
poetic idealisation,
which are the life and
soul of the narratives of Genesis. It will still be neces
sary,
if we are to retain our faith in the
inspiration
of this
part
of
Scripture,
to
recognise
that the Divine
Spirit
has
enshrined a
part
of His Revelation to men in such forms as
these. It is
only by
a frank
acceptance
of this truth that
the Book of Genesis can be made a means of
religious
edification to the educated mind of our
age.
As
regards
the form of the
commentary,
I have en
deavoured to include in the
large print enough
to enable the
reader to
pick up rapidly
the
general
sense of a
passage
;
although
the
exigencies
of
space
have
compelled
me to
employ
small
type
to a much
larger
extent than was
ideally
desirable. In the
arrangement
of footnotes I have
reverted to the
plan adopted
in the earliest volume of the
series
(Driver
s
Deuteronomy?}, by putting
all the
textual,
grammatical,
and
philological
material
bearing
on a
parti-
X
PREFACE
cular verse in consecutive notes
running
1
concurrently
with
the main text. It is
possible
that in some cases a
slight
embarrassment
may
result from the
presence
of a double set
of footnotes
;
but I think that this
disadvantage
will be
more than
compensated
to the reader
by
the convenience of
having
the whole
explanation
of a verse under his
eye
at one
place,
instead of
having
to
perform
the difficult
operation
of
keeping
two or three
pages open
at once.
In
conclusion,
I have to
express my
thanks,
first of
all,
to two friends
by
whose
generous
assistance
my
labour has
been
considerably lightened
: to Miss E. I. M.
Boyd, M.A.,
who has rendered me the
greatest
service in
collecting
material from
books,
and to the Rev.
J.
G.
Morton, M.A.,
who has corrected the
proofs,
verified all the
scriptural
references,
and
compiled
the Index.
My
last word of all
must be an
acknowledgment
of
profound
and
grateful
obligation
to Dr.
Driver,
the
English
Editor of the
series,
for his
unfailing
interest and
encouragement during
the
progress
of the
work,
and for numerous criticisms and
suggestions, especially
on
points
of
philology
and archae
ology,
to which in
nearly every
instance I have been able to
give
effect.
JOHN
SKINNER.
CAMBRIDGE,
April 1910.
CONTENTS.
PAGES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......
xm-xx
INTRODUCTION .......
i-lxvii
i.
Introductory:
Canonical Position
of
the Book its
general Scope
and Title ....
i
A. NATURE OF THE TRADITION.
2.
History
or
Legend?
.....
in
3. Myth
and
Legend Foreign Myths Types ofmythical
Motive ......
viii
4.
Historical Value
of
the Tradition . . . xiii
5.
Preservation and Collection
of
the Traditions . . xxviii
B. STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK.
6. Plan and Divisions .....
xxxii
7.
The Sources
of
Genesis .....
xxxiv
8. The collective
Authorship ofJ
and E . . . xliii
9.
Characteristics
ofj
and E their Relation to
Literary
Prophecy
...... xlvii
10. Date and Place
of Origin
Redaction
ofJE
. . Hi
ii. The
Priestly
Code and the Final Redaction . .
Ivii
COMMENTARY .......
1-540
EXTENDED NOTES :
The Divine
Image
in Man . . . . .
31
The Hebrew and
Babylonian
Sabbath ...
38
Babylonian
and other
Cosmogonies
. . .
4
I
~5
The Site of Eden
......
62-66
The
Protevangelium
.....
80
The Cherubim
......
89
Origin
and
Significance
of the Paradise
Legend
. .
90-97
Origin
of the Cain
Legend
.....
111-115
The Cainite
Genealogy
.....
122-124
The
Chronology
of Ch.
5,
etc. ....
134-139
The
Deluge
Tradition
. . . .
174-181
Noah s Curse and
Blessing
. . . .
185-187
The Babel
Legend
......
228-231
XII CONTENTS
Chronology
of i i
10ff>
233
Historic Value of Ch.
14
. . .
271-276
Circumcision ....
296
The Covenant-Idea in P . .
297
Destruction of the Cities of the Plain . .
310
The Sacrifice of Isaac . . . .
331
The
Treaty
of Gilead and its historical
Setting
. .
402
The
Legend
of Peniel . . . .
411
The Sack of Shechem . . . . .
421
The Edomite
Genealogies
.
436
The
Degradation
of Reuben . . . .
515
The Fate of Simeon and Levi ....
518
The "Shiloh"
Prophecy
of
49
10
. .
521-524
The Zodiacal
Theory
of the Twelve Tribes . .
534
INDEX I.
English
......
541-548
II. Hebrew .
54
8
~5S
J
ABBREVIATIONS.
i. SOURCES
(see pp. xxxivff.),
TEXTS,
AND VERSIONS.
E Elohist,
or Elohistic Narrative.
J
. . .
.
Yahwist,
or Yahwistic Narrative.
JE
. .
Jehovist,
or the combined narrative of
J
and E.
P or PC . . The
Priestly
Code.
PS The historical kernel or framework of P
(see p. Ivii).
R
E
^
I
Redactors within the schools of
E, J,
and
P,
RP J
respectively.
RJE . . . The
Compiler
of the
composite
work
JE.
RJEP . . . The Final Redactor of the Pentateuch.
EV[V].
. .
English
Version[s] (Authorised
or
Revised).
Jub.
. . . The Book
ofJubilees.
MT . . . Massoretic Text.
OT . . . Old Testament.
Aq.
. . . Greek Translation of
Aquila.
0. . . .
,, ,, ,,
Theodotion.
S. . . .
,, ,, ,, Symmachus.
Gr.-Ven. . . Codex Grsecus Venetus
(i4th
or
i5th cent.).
&
The Greek
(Septuagint)
Version of the OT
(ed.
A. E. Brooke and N. M
Lean,
Cambridge,
1906).
<Bi
L
. . . Lucianic recension of the
LXX,
edited
by Lagarde,
Librorum Veteris Testamenti canonicorum
pars
prior
Greece
y
etc.
(1883).
(A.
B, E. M.etc
. Codices of <&
(see
Brooke and M
Lean,
p. v).
3L . Old Latin Version.
&
The
Syriac
Version
(Peshitta).
JUA . , . The Samaritan Recension of the Pent.
(Walton
s
London
Polyglott ).
E
The
Targum
of Onkelos
[and
cent.
A.D.] (ed.
Berliner, 1884).
&J . The
Targum
of
Jonathan [8th
cent.
A.D.] (ed.
Ginsburger, 1903).
y
. . . The
Vulgate.
xm
XIV
ABBREVIATIONS
2. COMMENTARIES.
Ayles
. . H. H. B.
Ayles,
A critical
Commentary
on Genesis
ii.
4-iii. 25 (1904).
Ba[ll]
. . . C.
J.
Ball,
The Book
of
Genesis : Critical Edition
of
the Hebrew Text
printed
in colours . . . with
Notes
(
1
896).
See SBOT.
Ben[nett]
. . W. H.
Bennett,
Genesis
(Century Bible).
Calv[in]
. . Mosis Libri V cum
Joh.
Calvini Commentariis.
Genesis
seorsum,
etc.
(1563).
De[litzsch]
. . F.
Delitzsch,
Neuer Commentar
iiber die Genesis
(5th
ed.
1887).
Di[llmann]
. . Die Genesis. Von der dritten
Auflage
an erkldrt
von A. Dillmann
(6th
ed.
1892).
The work
embodies
frequent
extracts from earlier edns.
by
Knobel : these are referred to below as
"
Kn.-Di."
Dr[iver]
. . The Book
of
Genesis "with Introduction and
Notes,
by
S. R. Driver
(yth
ed.
1909).
Gu[nkel]
. . Genesis iibersetzt und
erkldrt,
von H. Gunkel
(2nd
ed.
1902).
Ho[lzing-er].
. Genesis
erkldrt,
von H.
Holzinger (1898).
lEz. . . . Abraham Ibn Ezra
(t
r.
1167).
Jer[ome], Qu.
.
Jerome (t 420), Qucestiones
sive Traditiones hebraicce
in Genesim.
Kn[obel]
. . A. Knobel.
Kn.-Di. . . See
DiHlmann].
Ra[shi]
. . Rabbi Shelomoh Yizhaki
(t 1105).
Spurrell
. . G.
J. Spurrell,
Notes on the Text
of
the Book
of
Genesis
(2nd
ed.
1896),
Str[ack]
. . Die Genesis iibersetzt und
ausgelegt,
von H. L.
Strack
(2nd
ed.
1905).
Tu[ch]
. . Fr.
Tuch,
Commentar iiber die Genesis
(2nd
ed.
1871).
3.
WORKS OF REFERENCE AND GENERAL LITERATURE.
Earth,
ES . .
J. Barth,
Etymologische
Studien zum sent, insbe-
sondere zum hebr. Lexicon
(1893).
,,
NB . . Die
Xominalbildung
in den sem.
Sprachen
(1889-91).
Barton,
SO . . G. A.
Barton,
A Sketch
of
Semitic
Origins (1902).
B.-D. . . . S. Baer and F.
Delitzsch,
Liber Genesis
(1869).
The Massoretic
Text,
with
Appendices.
BDB . F.
Brown,
S. R.
Driver,
and C. A.
Brig-gs,
A
Hebrew and
English
Lexicon
of
the
07^(1891- ).
Benz[inger],
Arch.- I.
Benzing-er,
Hebrdische
Archdologie (2nd
ed.
1907).
Ber. R. . . The Midrash Bereshith Rabba
(tr.
into German
by
A.
Wiinsche, 1881).
Bochart,
Hieroz. . S.
Bochartus, Hierozoicon,
sive
bipertitum opus
de
animalibus Sacra
Scriptures (ed. Rosenmiiller,
793-96)-
ABBREVIATIONS XV
Bu[dde], Urg.
. K.
Budde,
Die biblische
Urgeschichte (1883).
Buhl,
GP . . Fr.
Buhl, Geographic
des alien Palaestina
(1896).
, ,
Geschichte der Edomiter
(
1
893).
Burck[hardt]
.
Burckhardt,
Notes on the Bedouins and
Wahdbys.
,,
Travels in
Syria
and the
Holy
Land.
Che[yne], TB[A]f
T. K.
Cheyne,
Traditions and
Beliefs of
Ancient
Israel
(1907).
CIS . .
Corpus Inscriptionum
Semiticarum
(1881 ).
Cook,
Gl. . . S. A.
Cook,
A
Glossary of
the Aramaic
Inscriptions
(1898).
Cooke,
NS1 . G. A.
Cooke,
A Textbook
of
North-Semitic
Inscrip
tions
(1903).
Co[rnill],
Einl. . C. H.
Cornill,
Einleitungin
das AT
(see p.
xl, note).
,,
Hist. .
History of
the
People of
Israel
(Tr. 1898).
Curtiss,
PSR . S. I.
Curtiss,
Primitive Semitic
Religion to-day (1902).
Dav[idson]
. . A. B.
Davidson,
Hebrew
Syntax.
, ,
OTTh . The
Theology of
the OT
(
1
904).
DB . . .A
Dictionary of
the
Bible,
ed.
by J. Hastings
(1898-1902).
Del[itzsch],
Hwb . Friedrich
Delitzsch,
Assyrisches
Handworterbuch
(1896).
,,
Par. . Wo
lag
das Paradies ? Eine
biblisch-assyriologische
Studie
(1881).
,,
Prol. .
Prolegomena
eines neuen hebrdisch
-
aramdischen
Worterbuchs zum A T
(1886).
,,
See BA below.
Doughty,
AD . C. M.
Doughty,
Travels in Arabia Deserta
(1888).
Dri[ver],
LOT . S. R.
Driver,
An Introduction to the Literature
of
the OT
(Revised
ed.
1910).
,,
Sam. . Notes on the Hebrew Text
of
the Books
of
Samuel
(1890).
,,
T. .A Treatise on the use
of
the Tenses in Hebrew
(3rd
ed.
1892).
EB . . .
Encychpcedia Biblica,
ed.
by
T. K.
Cheyne
and
J.
Sutherland Black
(1899-1903).
EEL . . .See
Hilprecht.
Ee[rdmans]
. B. D.
Eerdmans,
Alttestamentliche Studien :
i. Die
Komposition
der Genesis.
ii. Die
Vorgeschichte
Israels.
Erman,
LAE . Ad.
Erman, Life
in Ancient
Egypt (tr. by
H. M.
Tirard,
1894).
,,
Hdbk. . A Handbook
of Egyptian Religion (tr. by
A. S.
Griffith,
1907).
Ew[ald],
Gr. . H.
Ewald,
Ausfuhrliches
Lehrbuch der hebrdischen
Sprache
des alien Bundes
(8th
ed.
1870).
HI .
History of
Israel
[Eng.
tr.
1871].
,,
Ant. .
Antiquities of
Israel
[Eng.
tr.
1876].
Field . . . F.
Field,
Origenis Hexaplorum quce supersunt
;
sive Veterum
Interpretum
Grcecorum in totum
V.T.
Fragmenta (1875).
XVI ABBREVIATIONS
Frazer,
AAO
GB
v.
Gall,
CSt.
G.-B. .
Geiger,
Urschr. .
Ges[enius],
Th. .
G.-K. .
Glaser,
Skizze .
Gordon,
ETG
Gray,
HPN
Gu[nkel], Schopf.
Guthe,
GI .
Harrison,
Prol. .
Hilprecht,
EBL .
Ho[lzinger],
Einl.
or Hex.
Hom[mel],
AA .
AHT.
AOD.
,,
Gesch.
,,
SAChrest.
H-ipflcld], Qu.
.
J
astro
w,
RBA .
JE
. . .
Je[remias],
ATLO
2
Jen[sen],
Kosm. .
KAT*.
KAT* .
J.
G.
Frazer,
Adonis Attis Osiris: Studies in the
history of
Oriental
Religion (1906).
The Golden
Bough
;
a
Study
in
Magic
and
Religion
(2nd
ed.
1900).
Folklore in the
OT(i^oj).
A. Freiherr von
Gall,
Altisraelitische Kultstdtten
(1898).
Gesenius Hebrdisches und aramdisches Handworter-
buch liber das AT
(i4th
ed.
by
Buhl,
1905).
A.
Geiger, Urschrift
und
Uebersetzungen
der Bibel
in ihrer
Abhdngigkeit
von derinnern
Enfoaickelung
des
Judenthums (1857).
W.
Gesenius,
Thesaurus
philologicus
criticus
Linguce
Hebrcece et Chaldace V.T.
(1829-58).
Gesenius Hebrdische
Grammatik,
vollig umgear-
beitet von E. Kautzsch
(26th
ed.
1896) [Eng.
tr.
1898].
E.
Glaser,
Skizze der Geschichte und
Geographie
Arabiens,
ii.
(1890).
A. R.
Gordon,
The
Early
Traditions
of
Genesis
(\ 907).
G. B.
Gray,
Studies in Hebrew
Proper
Names
(1896).
H.
Gunkel,
Schopfung
und Chaos in Urzeit und
Endzeit
(1895).
H.
Guthe,
Geschichte des Volkes Israel
(1899).
Jane
E.
Harrison,
Prolegomena
to the
study of
Greek
Religion (2nd
ed.
1908).
H. V.
Hilprecht, Explorations
in Bible Lands
during
the
igth
cent,
[with
the
co-operation
of Ben-
zinger, Hommel, Jensen,
and
Steindorff] (1903).
H.
Holzinger, Einleitung
in den Hexateuch
(1893).
F.
Hommel,
Aufsdtze
und
Abhandlungen
arabistisch-
semitologischen
Inhalts
(i-iii, 1892- ).
The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated
by
the
Monuments
(1897).
Die altorientalischen Denkmdler und das AT
^(1902).
Geschichte
Babyloniens
und
Assyriens (1885).
Siid-arabische Chrestomathie
(1893).
H.
Hupfeld,
Die
Quellen
der Genesis und die Art
ihrer
Zusammensetzung (1853).
M.
Jastrow,
The
Religion of Babylonia
and
Assyria
(1898).
The
Jewish
Encyclopedia.
A.
Jeremias,
Das Alte Testament im Lichte des
alten Orients
(2nd
ed.
1906).
P.
Jensen,
Die
Kosmologie
der
Babylonier (1890).
Die
Keilinschriften
und das
AT,
by
Schrader
(2nd
ed.
1883).
Die
Keilinschriften
und das AT. Third
ed.,
by
Zimmern and Winckler
(1902).
ABBREVIATIONS XVII
Kent,
SOT .
KIB .
Kit[tel],
BH
GH
K6n[ig], Lgl.
KS .
Kue[nen],
Ges. Abh
Lagfarde],
Ank. .
Ges. Abh. .
,, Symm.
OS . .
Lane,
Lex. .
ME .
Len[ormant],
Or.
Levy,
CA. JF&. .
Lidz[barski],
Hb.
or
NSEpigr.
.
Lu[ther],
INS .
Marquart
.
Meyer,
Entst.
INS
Muller,
AE.
Nestle,
MM
No[ldeke],
Bzitr.
Unters.
OH
Oehler,
ATTh .
Ols. .
b
C. F.
Kent,
Narratives
of
the
Beginnings of
Hebrew
History [Students
Old
Testament] (1904).
Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek,
ed.
by
Eb. Schrader
(1889- ).
R.
Kittel,
Biblia Hebraica
(Genesis) (1905).
Geschichte der Hebrder
(1888-92).
F. E.
Konig,
Historisch-kritisches
Lehrgebdude
der
hebrdischen
Sprache (2
vols.,
1881-95).
Historisch
-
comparative Syntax
der hebr.
Sprache
(1897).
E. Kautzsch and A.
Socin,
Die Genesis mit ausserer
Unterscheidung
der
Qtiellenschriften.
A.
Kuenen,
Gesammelte
Abhandlungen (see p. xl,
note}.
Historisch-critisch Onderzoek . . .
(see p. xl, note).
P. A. de
Lagarde, Ankundigung
einer neuen
A
usgabe
der
griech. Uebersezung
des
AT(i882).
Gesammelte
Abhandlungen (1866).
Mittheilungen,
i-iv
(1884-91).
Orientalia, I,
2
(1879-80).
Semitica, i,
2
(1878).
Symmicta,
2
pts. (1877-80).
Onomastica Sacra
(1870).
E. W.
Lane,
An
Arabic-English
Lexicon
(1863-93).
An Account
of
the Manners and Customs
of
the
Modern
Egyptians (5th
ed.
1860).
F.
Lenormant,
Les
Origines
de
Thistoire, (i-iii,
1880-84).
J. Levy,
Chalddisches Worterbuch iiber die
Targumim
. . .
(3
rd ed.
1881).
M.
Lidzbarski,
Handbuch der nordsemitischen
Epi-
graphik (i&).
See
Meyer,
INS.
J. Marquart,
Fundamente israel.
undjiid.
Geschichte
(1896).
E.
Meyer,
Die
Entstehung
des
Judenthums
(1896).
Geschichte des Alterthums
(Bd.
i.
1884).
,, ,, ,,
(2nd
ed.
1909).
Die Israeliten und ihre
Nachbarstdmme^
von E.
Meyer,
mit
Beitragen
von B. Luther
(1906).
W. Max
Muller,
Asien und
Europa
nach
altdgypt-
ischen Denkmdlern
(1893).
E.
Nestle,
Marginalien
und Materialien
(1893).
Th.
Noldeke,
Beitrdge
zur semitischen
Sprach-
Tioissenschaft (1904).
Untersuchungen
zur Kritik des A T
(1869).
Oxford
Hexateuch
=
Carpenter
and Harford-
Battersby,
The Hexateuch
(see p.
xl,
note).
G. F.
Oehler,
Theologie
des A T
(3rd
ed.
1891).
J.
Olshausen.
XVIII ABBREVIATIONS
Orr,
POT . .
OS
P[ayne]
Sm[ith],
Thes.
Petrie . . .
Pro[cksch]
. .
Riehm,
Hdivb. .
Robinson,
BR .
Sayce,
EHH .
,,
HCM .
SBOT. . .
Schenkel,
BL
Schr[ader],
Schultz,
OTTh
Schiirer, GJV
Schvv[ally]
. .
,,
Smend,
A TRG .
GASm[ith],
HG .
Rob.
Smith,
KM*
OTJC*
Pr.
2
.
,,
1ZS
2
.
Spiegelberg
.
,,
Sta[de]
. .
BTh .
GVI .
Steuern[ag-el],
Einiv. . .
TA
J. Orr,
The Problem
of
the
OT(igo6).
See
Lagarde.
R.
Payne
Smith,
Thesaurus
Syriacus (1879, 1901).
W. Flinders
Petrie,
A
History ofEgypt.
O.
Procksch,
Das nordhebrdische
Sagenbuch
: die
Elohimquelle (1906).
E. C. A.
Riehm,
Handworterbuch des biblischen
Altertums
(2nd
ed.
1893-94).
E.
Robinson,
Biblical Researches in Palestine
(2nd
ed., 3 vols.,
1856).
A. H.
Sayce,
The
Early History of
the Hebrews
(1897).
The
Higher
Criticism and the Verdict
of
the Monu
ments
(and
ed.
1894).
The Sacred Books
of
the
OT,
a crit. ed.
of
the Heb.
Text
printed
in
Colours,
under the editorial direc
tion of P.
Haupt.
D.
Schenkel,
Bibel-Lexicon
(1869-75).
Eb.
Schrader,
Keilinschriften
und Geschichts-
forschung (1878).
See KA T and KIB above.
H.
Schultz,
Old Testament
Theology (Eng.
tr.
1892).
E.
Schiirer,
Geschichte des
jiidischen
Volkes im
Zeitalter
Jesu
Chrisli
(3rd
and
4th
ed.
1898-
1901).
Fr.
Schwally,
Das Leben nach dem Tode
(1892).
Semitische
Kriegsaltertiimer,
i.
(1901).
R.
Smend,
Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen
Religions-
geschichte (and
ed.
1899).
G. A.
Smith,
Historical
Geography of
the
Holy
Land
W. Robertson
Smith,
Kinship
and
Marriage
in
Early
Arabia
(2nd
ed.
1903).
The Old Testament in the
Jewish
Church
(and
ed.
1892).
The
Prophets of
Israel
(2n&
ed.
1895).
Lectures on the
Religion of
the Semites
(and
ed.
1894).
W.
Spiegelberg-, Aegyptologische Randglossen
zum
^(1904).
Der
Aufenthalt
Israels in
Aegypten
im Lichte der
aeg.
Monumente
(3rd
ed.
1904).
B.
Stade,
Ausgeivahlte
akademische Reden und
Abhandlungen (1899).
Biblische
Theologie
des A
T,
i.
(1905).
Geschichte des Volkes Israel
(
\
887-89).
C.
Steuernagel,
Die
Einwanderung
der israelitischen
Stdmme in Kanaan
(1901).
Tel-Amarna Tablets
[KIB,
v
; Knudtzon,
Die eU
Amarna
Tafeln (1908- )].
ABBREVIATIONS XIX
Thomson,
LB . W. M.
Thomson,
The Land and the Book
(3
vols.
1 88 1
-86).
Tiele,
Gesch. . C. P.
Tiele,
Geschichte der
Religion
im
Altertum,
i.
(German
ed.
1896).
Tristram,
NHB . H. B.
Tristram,
The Natural
History of
the Bible
(gth
ed.
1898).
We[llhausen], Comp? J. Wellhausen,
Die
Composition
des Hexateuchs und.
der historischen Biicher des AT
(2nd
ed.
1889).
,,
De
gent.
De
gentibus
et
familiis Judceis quce
i Chr. 2.
4
enumerantur
(1870).
Heid. . Reste arabischen Heidentums
(2nd
ed.
1897).
ProL
6
.
Prolegomena
zur Geschichte Israels
(6th
ed.
1905).
,,
. . Skizzen und Vorarbeiten.
, ,
TBS. Der Text der Biicher Samuelis
(1871).
Wi[nckler],
AOF. H.
Winckler,
Altorientalische
Forschungen (1893 ).
,,
ATU. Alttestamentliche
Untersuchungen (1892).
,,
GBA . Geschichte
Babyloniens
und
Assyriens (1892).
,,
GI . Geschichte Israels in
Einzeldarstellungen (i. ii.,
1895,
1900).
See KA T
3
above.
Zunz,
GdV .
Zunz,
Die
gottesdienstlichen Vortrdge
der
Juden
(2nd
ed.
1892).
4. PERIODICALS,
ETC.
AJSL
.
AJTh
.
ARW .
BA
BS .
Exp.
.
ET .
GGA .
GGN .
Heir. .
JBBW
J[S]BL
JPh
.
JQR
-
JRAS
.
American
Journal of
Semitic
Languages
and Litera
tures
(continuing Hebraica).
American
Journal of Theology (
1
897- ).
Archiv
fur Religionswissenschaft.
Beitrdge
zur
Assyriologie
und semitischen
Sprach-
wissenschaft, herausgegeben
von F. Delitzsch und
P.
Haupt (1890- ).
Bibliotheca Sacra and
Theological
Review
(
1
844 ).
Deutsche
Litteraturzeitung (1880 ).
The
Expositor.
The
Expository
Times.
Gottinglsche gelehrte Anzeigen (1753- ).
Nachrichten der
konigl. Gesellschaft
der Wissen-
schaften
zu
Gottingen.
Hebraica
(
1
884- 95).
See
AJSL.
[Ewald s] Jahrbiicher
der biblischen
Wissenschaft
(1849-1865).
Journal of [the Society of]
Biblical Literature and
Exegesis (1881- ).
The
Journal ofPhilology (1872- ).
The
Jewish Quarterly
Review.
Journal of
the
Royal
Asiatic
Society of
Great Britain
and Ireland
(
1
834- ).
XX
JTS
MVAG
NKZ .
OLz ,
PAOS.
PEFS .
PSBA .
SBBA .
SK .
ThLz .
ThT .
TSBA .
ZA
ZATW
ZDMG
ZDPV
ZKF .
ZVP .
ABBREVIATIONS
The
Journal of Theological
Studies
(1900- ).
Lit[erarisches] ZentralbT[att fur Deutschland]
(1850- ).
Monatsberichte der
konigl. preuss.
Akadamie der
Wissenschaften
zu Berlin. Continued in
Sitzungs-
berichte der k.
p.
Ak. . . .
(1881- ).
Mittheilungen
der vorderasiatischen
Gesellschaft
(1896- ).
Neue kirchliche
Zeitschrift (1890- ).
Orientalische
Litteraturzeitung (1898- ).
Proceeding
s
[Journal] of
the American Oriental
Society (1851- ).
Palestine
Exploration
Fund :
Quarterly
Statements.
Proceedings of
the
Society of
Biblical
Archceology
(1878- ).
See MBBA above.
Theologische
Studien und Kritiken
(1828- ).
Theologische Litteraturzeitung (i^b- ).
Theologisch Tijdschrift (\%&i- ).
Transactions
of
the
Society of
Biblical
Archceology.
Zeitschriftfur Assyriologie (1886- ).
Zeitschrift fur
die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft
(1881- ).
Zeitschrift
der deutschen
morgenldndischen
Gesell-
Zeitschrift
des deutschen Paldstina- Vereins
(i8j8- ).
Zeitschriftfiir Keilschriftsforschung ( 1884-85).
Zeitschriftfiir Volkerpsychologie
und
Sprach-wissen-
schaft (1860- ).
NH
v.i.
v.s.
*
N
y
in
5.
OTHER SIGNS AND
CONTRACTIONS.
. New Hebrew : the
language
of the
Mishnah,
Midrashim,
and
parts
of the Talmud.
. . vide
infra \
Used in references from
commentary
. . vide
supra /
to
footnotes,
and vice versa.
. .
Frequently
used to indicate that a section is of
composite authorship.
. . After OT references means that all occurrences of
the word or
usage
in
question
are cited.
. . Root or stem.
. .
Sign
of abbreviation in Heb. words.
. .
= noui =
and so on : used when a Heb. citation
is
incomplete.
INTRODUCTION.
I.
Introductory:
Canonical
position of
the book its
general
scope
and title.
THE Book of Genesis
(on
the title see at the end of this
)
forms the
opening
section of a
comprehensive
historical
work
which,
in the Hebrew
Bible,
extends from the creation
of the world to the middle of the
Babylonian
Exile
(2
Ki.
25
30
).
The
tripartite
division of the
Jewish
Canon has severed the
later
portion
of this work
(Jos. -Kings),
under the title of
the "Former
Prophets" (n^l^Xin
D
&rajn),
from the earlier
portion (Gen.-Deut.),
which constitutes the Law
(minn),
a
seemingly
artificial bisection which results from the Torah
having
attained canonical
authority
soon after its com
pletion
in the time of Ezra and
Nehemiah,
while the
canonicity
of the
Prophetical scriptures
was not
recognised
till some
centuries later.
*
How soon the division of the Torah into
its five books
(minn
Win npn
:
*
the five fifths of the
Law
)
was introduced we do not know for certain
;
but it is
undoubtedly ancient,
and in all
probability
is due to the final
redactors of the
Pent.f
In the case of
Genesis,
at all
events,
*
See
Ryle,
Canon
of
the
OT,
chs. iv. v.
; Wildeboer,
Origin of
the
Canon
of
the OT
2
,
27 ff.,
101 ff.
; Buhl,
Kanon und Text des
AT,
8 f.
;
Budde,
art.
Canon,
in
EB,
and
Woods,
OT
Canon,
in DB.
t Kuenen, Onderzoek,
i.
pp. 7, 331.
The earliest external evidence
of the fivefold division is
Philo,
De
Abrah.,
init.
(Tdij> icpwi/ vbpuv
iv irtvre
/3i/3Xois avaypcKptvTuv, TJ Trpum;
/caXeircu /cai
^7riypd(f)Tai
IVi ea
is,
dirb
TTJS
rov
KOV/J.OV 7ej^crea>s, ty
iv
dpxfj 7rept^x
f
Aa^oOcra TT\V
irpdaprjaiv
xaLroi
KT\.)
;
Jos.
c.
Ap.
i.
39.
It is
found, however,
in JUJL and
ffi,
and seems to
have served as a model for the similar division of the Psalter. That it
II
INTRODUCTION
the division is
obviously appropriate.
Four centuries of
complete
silence lie between its close and the
beginning
of
Exodus,
where we enter on the
history
of a nation as con
trasted with that of a
family
;
and its
prevailing
character
of individual
biography suggests
that its traditions are of
a different
quality,
and have a different
origin,
from the
national traditions
preserved
in Exodus and the
succeeding
books. Be that as it
may,
Genesis is a
unique
and well-
rounded
whole;
and there is no book of the
Pent., except
Deut.,
which so
readily
lends itself to
monographic
treatment.
Genesis
may
thus be described as
the__Bppk
of Hebrew
Origins.
It is a
peculiarity
of the Pent, that it is Law-book
and
history
in one : while its main
purpose
is
legislative,
the
laws are set in a framework of
narrative,
and
so,
as it
were,
are woven into the texture of the nation s life. Genesis
contains a minimum of
legislation
;
but its narrative is the
indispensable prelude
to that account of Israel s formative
period
in which the fundamental institutions of the
theocracy
are embedded. It is a collection of traditions
regarding
the
immediate ancestors of the Hebrew nation
(chs. 12-50),
showing
how
they
were
gradually
isolated from other nations
and became a
separate people
;
and at the same time
how
they
were related to those tribes and races most
nearly
con
nected with them. But this is
preceded
(in
chs.
i-n) by
an
account of the
origin
of the
world,
the
beginnings
of human
history
and
civilisation,
and the distribution of the various
races of mankind. The whole thus
converges steadily
on
the line of descent from which Israel
sprang,
and which
determined its
providential position among
the nations of
the world. It is
significant,
as
already
observed,
that the
narrative
stops
short
just
at the
point
where
family history
ceases with the death of
Joseph,
to
give place
after a
long
interval to the
history
of the nation.
The Title. The name Genesis comes to us
through
the
Vulg.
from
the
LXX,
where the usual
superscription
is
simply
TeWcs
(ffir
EM
-
<="),
rarely
77 ytveais (Ox
72
),
a contraction of lY^eo-is
Kfxruov
(<&
A 121
).
An
follows natural lines of
cleavage
is shown
by
Kuenen
(II. cc.)
;
and there
is no reason to doubt that it is as old as the canonisation of the Torah.
INTRODUCTION 111
interesting
variation in one curs.
(129)
ij /3t/3\os
rCtv
yevtffeuv (cf.
a
4
5
1
)*
might tempt
one to
fancy
that the scribe had in view the series of
TolVdoth
(see p. xxxiv),
and
regarded
the book as the book of
origins
in
the wide sense
expressed
above. But there is no doubt that the current
Greek title is derived from the
opening
theme of the
book,
the creation
of the world.
f
So also in
Syriac (sephra dabritha),
Theod.
Mopsu.
(i) Krlffis),
and
occasionally among
the Rabb.
(m
K
nED).
The common
Jewish designation
is
rrtftna,
after the first word of the book
(Origen,
in
Euseb.
HE,
vi.
25
; Jerome,
Prol.
gal.,
and
Qucest.
in
Gen.} ;
less usual is
ps?Nn
ODin,
the first fifth.
Only
a curious interest attaches to the
unofficial
appellation
nsrn ~\3D
(based
on 2 Sa. i
18
)
or onjrn o
(the
patriarchs)
see
Carpzov,
Introd.
p. 55
j Delitzsch,
10.
A. NATURE OF THE TRADITION.
2.
History
or
Legend
?
The first
question
that arises with
regard
to these
origins
is whether
they
are in the main of the nature
of
history
or of
legend,
whether
(to
use the
expressive
German
terms)
they
are
Geschichte,
things
that
happened,
or
Sage, things
said. There are certain broad differences
between these two kinds of narrative which
may
assist us to
determine to which class the traditions of Genesis
belong.
History
in the technical sense is an authentic record of
actual events based on documents
contemporary,
or
nearly
contemporary,
with the facts narrated. It concerns itself
with affairs of state and of
public interest,
with the actions
of
kings
and
statesmen,
civil and
foreign wars,
national
disasters and
successes,
and such like. If it deals with con
temporary
incidents,
it
consciously
aims at
transmitting
to
posterity
as accurate a reflexion as
possible
of the real course
of
events,
in their causal
sequence,
and their relations to
time and
place,
If written at a distance from the
events,
it
seeks to recover from
contemporary
authorities an exact
knowledge
of these
circumstances,
and of the character and
motives of the
leading personages
of the action. That the
Israelites,
from a
very early period,
knew how to write
*
Cambridge Septuagint, p.
i.
t
See the
quotation
from Philo on
p.
i above
;
and cf. Pseudo
Athanasius L)e
svnop. script,
sac.
5.
IV INTRODUCTION
history
in this
sense,
we see from the
story
of David s court
in 2 Sa. and the
beginning-
of i
Kings.
There we have a
graphic
and circumstantial narrative of the
struggles
for the
succession to the
throne,
free from bias or
exaggeration,
and told with a
convincing
realism which
conveys
the
impression
of first-hand information derived from the evidence
of
eye-witnesses.
As a
specimen
of
pure
historical literature
(as distinguished
from mere annals or
chronicles)
there is
nothing- equal
to it in
antiquity,
till we come down to the
works of Herodotus and
Thucydides
in Greece.
Quite
different from historical
writing-
of this kind is
the
Volkssage,
the mass of
popular
narrative talk about
the
past,
which exists in more or less
profusion amongst
all races in the world.
Every
nation,
as it
emerg-es
into
historical
consciousness,
finds itself in
possession
of a store
of traditional material of this
kind,
either
circulating- among
the common
people,
or woven
by poets
and
singers
into a
picture
of a
legendary
heroic
age.
Such
legends, though they
survive the dawn of authentic
history, belong essentially
to a
pre-literary
and uncritical
stage
of
society,
when the
popular
imagination
works
freely
on dim reminiscences of the
great
events and
personalities
of the
past, producing
an
amalgam
in which tradition and
phantasy
are
inseparably mingled.
Ultimately they
are themselves reduced to
writing,
and
give
rise to a
species
of literature which is
frequently
mistaken
for
history,
but whose true character will
usually
disclose
itself to a
patient
and
sympathetic
examination. While
legend
is not
history,
it has in some
respects
a value
greater
than
history.
For it reveals the soul of a
people,
its in
stinctive selection of the
types
of character which
represent
its moral
aspirations,
its
conception
of its own
place
and
mission in the world
;
and
also,
to some indeterminate
extent,
the
impact
on its inner life of the momentous historic
experi
ences in which it first woke
up
to the consciousness of a
national existence and
destiny.*
*
Comp.
Gordon,
Early Traditions,
84
:
"
As a real
expression
of the
living spirit
of the
nation,
a
people
s
myths
are the mirror of its
religious
and moral
ideals,
aspirations,
and
imaginations."
INTRODUCTION
V
In
raising
the
question
to which
department
of literature
the narratives of Genesis are to be
referred,
we
approach
a
subject
beset
by difficulty,
but one which cannot be avoided.
We are not entitled to assume a
priori
that Israel is an
exception
to the
general
rule that a
legendary age
forms the
ideal
background
of
history
: whether it be so or not must
be determined on the evidence of its records. Should it
prove
to be no
exception,
we shall not
assign
to its
legends
a lower
significance
as an
expression
of the national
spirit
than to the heroic
legends
of the Greek or Teutonic races. It
is no
question
of the truth or
religious
value of the book that
we are called to
discuss,
but
only
of the kind of truth and the
particular
mode of revelation which we are to find in it. One
of the
strangest theological prepossessions
is that which
identifies revealed truth with matter-of-fact
accuracy
either in
science or in
history. Legend
is after all a
species
of
poetry,
and it is hard to see
why
a revelation which has
freely
availed
itself of so
many
other kinds of
poetry
fable,
allegory,
parable
should disdain that form of it which is the most
influential of all in the life of a
primitive people.
As a
vehicle of
religious
ideas,
poetic
narrative
possesses
obvious
advantages
over literal
history
;
and the
spirit
of
religion,
deeply implanted
in the heart of a
people,
will so
permeate
and fashion its
legendary
lore as to make it a
plastic
ex
pression
of the
imperishable
truths which have come to it
through
its
experience
of God.
Thejegendary aspect
of the Genesis traditions
appears
-in,
such
characteristics as these :
(i)
The narratives are the
literary deposit
of an oral tradition
which,
if it rests on
any
substratum of historic
fact,
must have been carried down
through many
centuries. Few will
seriously
maintain that the
patriarchs prepared
written memoranda for
the information of their descendants
;
and the narrators nowhere
profess
their indebtedness to such records. Hebrew historians
freely
refer to
written
authorities where
they
used them
(Kings, Chronicles)
;
but no
instance of this
practice
occurs in Genesis. Now oral tradition is the
natural vehicle of
popular legend,
as
writing"
is of
history.
And all
experience
shows that
apart
from written records there is no exact
knowledge
of a remote
past. Making every
allowance for the
superior
retentiveness of the Oriental
memory,
it is still
impossible
to
suppose
that an accurate recollection of
bygone
incidents should have survived
twenty generations
or more of oral transmission.
Noldeke, indeed,
has
VI INTRODUCTION
shown that the historical
memory
of the
pre-Islamic
Arabs was so
defective that all
knowledge
of
great
nations like the Nabatseans and
Thamudites had been lost within two or three centuries.*
(2)
The
literary quality
of the narratives
stamps
them as
products
of the
artistic
imagination.
The
very picturesqueness
and truth to life which
are sometimes
appealed
to in
proof
of their
historicity are,
on the
contrary,
characteristic marks of
legend (Di. 218).
We
may
assume
that the scene at the well of Harran
(ch. 24) actually
took
place
;
but
that the
description
owes its
graphic power
to a
reproduction
of the
exact words
spoken
and the
precise
actions
performed
on the occasion
cannot be
supposed
;
it is due to the
revivifying
work of the
imagination
of successive narrators. But
imagination,
uncontrolled
by
the critical
faculty,
does not confine itself to
restoring
the
original
colours of a
faded
picture
;
it introduces new
colours,
insensibly modifying
the
picture
till it becomes
impossible
to tell how much
belongs
to the real
situation and how much to later
fancy.
The clearest
proof
of this is
the existence of
parallel
narratives of an event which can
only
have
happened
once,
but which
emerges
in tradition in forms so diverse that
they may
even
pass
for
separate
incidents
(i2
10ff-
||
2O
lff>
||
26
6fft
;
16.
||
2i
8ff-
;
15.
||
17, etc.). (3)
The
subject-matter
of the tradition is of the kind con-
| genial
to the folk-tale all the world
over,
and
altogether
different from
1
transactions on the
stage
of
history.
The
proper
theme of
history,
as
has been
said,
is
great public
and
political
events
;
but
legend delights
in
genre pictures, private
and
personal affairs,
trivial anecdotes of domestic
and
everyday
life,
and so
forth,
matters which interest the common
people
and come home to their
daily experience.
That most of the stories
of Genesis are of this
description
needs no
proof;
and the fact is
very
instructive,
f
A real
history
of the
patriarchal period
would have to tell
of
migrations
of
peoples,
of
religious
movements,
probably
of wars of
invasion and
conquest
;
and
accordingly
most modern
attempts
to
vindicate the
historicity
of Genesis
proceed by way
of
translating
the
narratives into such terms as these. But this is to confess that the
narratives themselves are not
history. They
have been
simplified
and
idealised to suit the taste of an
unsophisticated
audience
;
and in the
process
the
strictly
historic
element,
down to a bare
residuum,
has
evaporated.
The
single passage
which
preserves
the ostensible
appear
ance of
history
in this
respect
is ch.
14
;
and that
chapter,
which in
any
case stands outside the circle of
patriarchal
tradition,
has difficulties of
its own which cannot be dealt with here
(see p. 271 ff.). (4)
The final test
though
to
any
one who has learned to
appreciate
the
spirit
of the
narratives it must seem almost brutal to
apply
it is the hard matter-of-
.
fact test of
self-consistency
and
credibility.
It is not difficult to show
that Genesis relates incredibilities which no reasonable
appeal
to miracle
will suffice to remove. With
respect
to the
origin
of the
world,
the
antiquity
of man on the
earth,
the distribution and relations of
peoples,
the
beginnings
of
civilisation, etc.,
its statements are at variance with
*
A
malekiter,
p. 25
f.
f
Cf. Wi. Abraham als
Babylonier, 7.
INTRODUCTION Vll
the scientific
knowledge
of our time
;
*
and no
person
of educated
intelligence accepts
them in their
plain
natural sense. We know that
angels
do not cohabit with mortal
women,
that the Flood did not cover
the
highest
mountains of the
world,
that the ark could not have accom
modated all the
species
of animals then
existing,
that the
Euphrates
and
Tigris
have not a common
source,
that the Dead Sea was not first
formed in the time of
Abraham,
etc. There is
admittedly
a
great
difference in
respect
of
credibility
between the
primaeval (chs. i-u)and
the
patriarchal (12-50)
traditions. But even the
latter,
when taken as a
whole,
yields many impossible
situations. Sarah was more than
sixty-
five
years
old when Abraham feared that her
beauty might endanger
his life in
Egypt
;
she was over
ninety
when the same fear seized him in
Gerar. Abraham at the
age
of
ninety-nine laughs
at the idea of
having
a son
;
yet forty years
later he marries and
begets
children. Both
Midian and Ishmael were
grand-uncles
of
Joseph
;
but their descendants
appear
as tribes
trading
with
Egypt
in his
boyhood.
Amalek was a
grandson
of Esau
;
yet
the Amalekites are settled in the
Negeb
in the
time of
Abraham.!
It is a thankless task to
multiply
such
examples.
The contradictions and violations of
probability
and scientific
possibility
are
intelligible,
and not at all
disquieting,
in a collection of
legends ;
but
they preclude
the
supposition
that Genesis is literal
history.
It is not
implied
in what has been said that the tradition
is destitute of historical value.
History, legendary history,
legend, myth,
form a
descending scale,
with
decreasing
emphasis
on the historical
element,
and the lines between
the first three are
vague
and
fluctuating.
In what
pro
portions they
are combined in Genesis it
may
be
impossible
to determine with
certainty.
But there are three
ways
in
which a tradition
mainly legendary may yield
solid
historical
results. In the first
place,
a
legend may embody
a more or
^
less exact recollection of the fact in which it
originated.
In the second
place,
a
legend, though
unhistorical in
form,
may
furnish material from which
history
can be
extracted.
Thirdly,
the collateral evidence of
archaeology may bring
to
light
a
correspondence
which
gives
a historical
significance
to the
legend.
How far
any
of these lines can be followed
to a successful issue in the case of
Genesis,
we shall con
sider later
( 4),
after we have examined the
obviously
legendary
motives which enter into the tradition. Mean
while the
previous
discussion will have served its
purpose
*SeeDri. XXXI ff.
19
ff.
t
See
Reuss,
Gesch. d. heiL Schr. AT
2
,
167
f.
viil INTRODUCTION
if
any
readers have been led to
perceive
that the
religious
teaching
of Genesis lies
precisely
in that
legendary
element
whose existence is here maintained. Our chief task is to
discover the
meaning
of the
legends
as
they
stand,
being
assured that from the nature of the case these
religious
ideas were
operative
forces in the life of ancient Israel. It
is a suicidal error in
exegesis
to
suppose
that the
permanent
value of the book lies in the residuum of historic fact that
underlies the
poetic
and
imaginative
form of the narratives.*
3. Myth
and
legend Foreign myths Types of
mythical
motive*
i. Are there
myths
in
Genesis,
as well as
legends?
On
this
question
there has been all the
variety
of
opinion
that
might
be
expected.
Some
writers,
starting
with the
theory
that
mythology
is a
necessary phase
of
primitive thinking,
have found in the OT abundant confirmation of their thesis,
f
The more
prevalent
view has been that the
mythopceic
tendency
was
suppressed
in Israel
by
the
genius
of its
religion,
and that
mythology
in the true sense is unknown
in its literature. Others have taken
up
an intermediate
position, denying
that the Hebrew mind
produced myths
of
its
own,
but
admitting
that it borrowed and
adapted
those
of other
peoples.
For all
practical purposes,
the last view
seems to be
very
near the truth.
For
attempts
to discriminate between
myth
and
legend,
see
Tuch,
pp.
i-xv;
Gu.
p.
xvn
;
Hoffding,
Phil,
of
ReL
(Eng. tr.), 199
ff.
; Gordon,
77
ff.
; Procksch,
Nordhebr.
Sagenbuch,
I. etc. The
practically
im
portant
distinction is that the
legend
does,
and the
myth
does
not,
start
from the
plane
of historic fact. The
myth
is
properly
a
story
of the
gods, originating
in an
impression produced
on the
primitive
mind
by
the more
imposing phenomena
of
nature,
while
legend
attaches itself to
the
personages
and movements of real
history.
Thus the
Flood-story
is a
legend
if Noah be a historical
figure,
and the kernel of the narrative
an actual event
;
it is a
myth
if it be based on observation of a
*
On various
points
dealt with in this
paragraph,
see the admirable
statement of A. R.
Gordon,
Early
Traditions
of
Genesis
,
pp. 76-92.
t Goldziher,
Der
Mythos
bei den Hebrdern
(1876).
INTRODUCTION
IX
solar
phenomenon,
and Noah a
representative
of the
sun-god (see
p. i8of.).
But the
utility
of this distinction is
largely
neutralised
by
a
universal
tendency
to transfer
mythical
traits from
gods
to real men
(Sargon
of
Agade,
Moses, Alexander, Charlemagne, etc.)
;
so that the
most indubitable traces of
mythology
will not of themselves warrant
the conclusion
that the hero is not a historical
personage.
Gordon
differentiates between
spontaneous (nature) myths
and reflective
(setiological) myths
; and,
while
recognising
the existence of the latter
in
Genesis,
considers that the former
type
is
hardly represented
in the
OT at all. The distinction
is
important, though
it
may
be doubted if
aetiology
is ever a
primary impulse
to the formation of
myths,
and as a
parasitic development
it
appears
to attach itself
indifferently
to
myth
and
legend.
Hence there is a
large
class of narratives which it is
difficult to label either as
mythical
or as
legendary,
but in which the
aetiological
or some similar motive is
prominent (see p. xiff.).
2. The influence of
foreign mythology
is most
apparent
in the
primitive
traditions of chs. i-n. The
discovery
of
the
Babylonian
versions of the Creation- and
Deluge-
traditions has
put
it
beyond
reasonable doubt that these are
the
originals
from which the biblical accounts have been
derived
(pp. 45
ff.,
177 f.).
A similar relation obtains between
the antediluvian
genealogy
of ch.
5
and Berossus s list of
the ten
Babylonian kings
who
reigned
before the Flood
(p. 137 f.).
The
story
of Paradise has its nearest
analogies
in Iranian
mythology
;
but there are faint
Babylonian
echoes
which
suggest
that it
belonged
to the common
mythological
heritage
of the East
(p. 90 ff.).
Both here and in ch.
4
a few isolated coincidences with Phoenician tradition
may
point
to the Canaanite civilisation as the medium
through
which such
myths
came to the
knowledge
of the Israelites.
All these
(as
well as the
story
of the Tower of
Babel)
were
originally genuine myths
stories of the
gods
;
and if
they
no
longer
deserve that
appellation,
it is because the
spirit
of Hebrew monotheism has exorcised the
polytheistic
notions of
deity, apart
from which true
mythology
cannot
survive. The few
passages
where the old heathen
concep
tion of
godhead
still
appears (i
26
3
22- 24
6
lff-
n
lff
-), only
serve
to show how
completely
the
religious
beliefs of Israel have
transformed and
purified
the crude
speculations
of
pagan
theology,
and
adapted
them to the ideas of an ethical and
monotheistic faith.
X
INTRODUCTION
The naturalisation of
Babylonian myths
in Israel is conceivable in a
variety
of
ways
;
and the
question
is
perhaps
more
interesting-
as an
illustration of two rival tendencies in criticism than for its
possibilities
of actual solution. The
tendency
of the
literary
school of critics has
been to
explain
the
process by
the direct use of
Babylonian
documents,
and to
bring-
it down to near the dates of our written Pent, sources.*
Largely through
the influence of
Gunkel,
a different view has come
to
prevail,
viz.,
that we are to think rather of a
gradual process
of
assimilation to the
religious
ideas of Israel in the course of oral trans
mission,
the
myths having-
first
passed
into Canaanite tradition as the
result
(immediate
or
remote)
of the
Babylonian supremacy prior
to the
Tell-Amarna
period,
and thence to the
Israelites.!
The
strongest
argument
for this
theory
is that the biblical
versions,
both of the
Creation and the
Flood,
give
evidence of
having- passed through
several
stages
in Hebrew tradition.
Apart
from
that,
the considerations
urged
in
support
of either
theory
do not seem to me conclusive. There are
no
recognisable
traces of a
specifically
Canaanite medium
having
1
been
interposed
between the Bab.
originals
and the Hebrew accounts of the
Creation and the
Flood,
such as we
may
surmise in the case of the
Paradise
myth.
It is
open
to
argue against
Gu. that if the
process
had
been as
protracted
as he
says,
the
divergence
would be much
greater
than it
actually
is.
Again,
we cannot well set limits to the deliberate
manipulation
of Bab. material
by
a Hebrew writer
;
and the
assump
tion that such a writer in the later
period
would have been
repelled by
the
gross polytheism
of the Bab.
legends,
and refused to have
anything-
to do with
them,
is a little
gratuitous.
On the other
hand,
it is unsafe
to assert with Stade that the
myths
could not have been assimilated
by
Israelite
theology
before the belief in Yahwe s sole
deity
had been
firmly
established
by
the
teaching
of the
prophets.
Monotheism had
roots in Heb.
antiquity extending"
much further back than the
ag-e
of
written
prophecy,
and the
present
form of the
legends
is more intel
ligible
as the
product
of an earlier
phase
of
religion
than that of the
literary prophets.
But when we consider the innumerable channels
through
which
myths may
wander from one centre to
another,
we shall
hardly expect
to be able to determine the
precise channel,
or the
ap
proximate
date,
of this infusion of Bab. elements into the
religious
tradition of Israel.
It is remarkable that while the
patriarchal legends
exhibit no traces
of Bab.
mythology, they
contain a few
examples
of
mythical
narrative
to which
analogies
are found in other
quarters.
The visit of the
angels
to Abraham
(see p. 302 f.),
and the destruction of Sodom
(p. 311 f.),
are
incidents of
obviously mythical origin (stories
of the
gods)
;
and to
both,
classical and other
parallels
exist. The account of the births of Esau
*
See Bu.
Urg. (1883), 515 f.; Kuenen, ThT,
xviii.
(1884), 167
ff.
;
Rosters,
ib. xix.
(1885), 325 ff., 344;
Sta. ZATW
(1895),
I
59 f., (1903),
175
ff-
\Schopfung
und Chaos
(1895), 143
ff.
;
Gen.
2
(1902), 64
f. Cf.
Dri.
31.
INTRODUCTION XI
and
Jacob
embodies a
mythological
motive
(p. 359),
which is
repeated
in the case of Zerah and Perez
(ch. 38).
The whole
story
of
Jacob
and Esau
presents
several
points
of contact with that of the brothers
Hypsouranios (Samem-rum)
and Usoos in the Phoenician
mythology
(Usoos
=
Esau : see
pp. 360, 124).
There
appears
also to be a Homeric
variant of the incest of Reuben
(p. 427).
These
phenomena
are
among
the most
perplexing
which we encounter in the
study
of Hebrew tradi
tion.* We can as
yet scarcely conjecture
the hidden source from which
such
widely
ramified traditions have
sprung, though
we
may
not on
that account
ignore
the existence of the
problem.
It would be at all
events a
groundless anticipation
that the facts will lead us to resolve
the
patriarchs
into
mythological
abstractions.
They
are rather to be
explained by
the
tendency already
referred to
(p. ix),
to
mingle myth
with
legend by transferring mythical
incidents to historic
personages.
3.
It
remains,
before we
go
on to consider the historical
elements of the
tradition,
to
classify
the
leading types
of
mythical,
or
semi-mythical (p. ix),
motive which
appear
in
the narratives of Genesis. It will be seen that while
they
undoubtedly
detract from the literal
historicity
of the
records,
they represent points
of view which are of the
greatest
historical
interest,
and are
absolutely
essential to the
right
interpretation
of the
legends.!
(a)
The most
comprehensive category
is that of
cetiological
or ex
planatory myths
; i.e.,
those which
explain
some familiar fact of
experi-
\
ence
by
a
story
of the olden time. Both the
questions
asked and the
answers returned are
frequently
of the most naive and childlike
descrip
tion :
they
have,
as Gu. has
said,
all the charm which
belongs
to the
artless but
profound reasoning
of an
intelligent
child. The
classical
example
is the
story
of Paradise and the Fall in chs. 2.
3,
which con
tains one
explicit
instance of
aetiology (2
24
:
why
a man cleaves to his
wife),
and
implicitly
a
great many
more :
why
we wear clothes and
detest
snakes, why
the
serpent
crawls on his
belly, why
the
peasant
has
to
drudge
in the
fields,
and the woman to endure the
pangs
of
travail,
etc.
(p. 95). Similarly,
the account of creation
explains why
there are
so
many
kinds of
plants
and
animals,
why
man is lord of them
all,
why
the sun shines
by day
and the moon
by night,
etc.
;
why
the
Sabbath
is
kept.
The
Flood-story
tells us the
meaning
of the
rainbow,
and of
the
regular
recurrence of the seasons : the
Babel-myth
accounts for the
existing
diversities of
language amongst
men. Pure
examples
of
aetiology
are
practically
confined to the first eleven
chapters
;
but the
same
general
idea
pervades
the
patriarchal history, specialised
under
the
headings
which follow.
*
See Gu.
p.
LVI.
t
The
enumeration,
which is not
quite exhaustive,
is
taken,
with
some
simplification,
from Gu.
p.
xvm ff.
Xll
INTRODUCTION
(b)
The commonest class of
all,
especially
in the
patriarchal
narra
tives,
is what
may
be called
ethnographic leg-ends.
It is an obvious
feature of the narratives that the heroes of them are
frequently per
sonifications of tribes and
peoples,
whose character and
history
and
mutual
relationships
are exhibited under the
guise
of individual bio
graphy.
Thus the
pre-natal struggle
of
Jacob
and Esau
prefigures
the
rivalry
of two nations
(25
23
)
;
the monuments set
up by Jacob
and
Laban mark the frontier between Israelites and Aramaeans
(3i
44ff>
)
;
Ishmael is the
prototype
of the wild Bedouin
(i6
12
),
and Cain of some
ferocious nomad-tribe
; Jacob
and his twelve sons
represent
the
unity
of Israel and its division into twelve tribes
;
and so on. This mode of
thinking
was not
peculiar
to Israel
(cf.
the
Hellen, Dorus, Xuthus,
Aeolus, Achaeus, Ion,
of the
Greeks) ;
*
but it is one
specially
natural to
the Semites from their habit of
speaking
of
peoples
as sons
(i.e. members)
of the collective
entity
denoted
by
the tribal or national name
(sons
of
Israel,
of
Ammon,
of
Ishmael, etc.),
whence arose the notion that these
entities were the real
progenitors
of the
peoples
so
designated.
That
in some cases the
representation
was correct need not be doubted
;
for
there are known
examples,
both
among
the Arabs and other races in a
similar
stage
of social
development,
of tribes named after a famous
ancestor or leader of real historic
memory.
But that this is the case
with all
eponymous persons e.g.
that there were
really
such men as
Jerahmeel,
Midian, Aram, Sheba, Amalek,
and the rest is
quite
in
credible
; and, moreover,
it is never true that the fortunes of a tribe are
an exact
copy
of the
personal experiences
of its
reputed ancestor,
even if he existed. We must therefore treat these
legends
as
symbolic
representations
of the
ethnological
affinities between different tribes
or
peoples,
and
(to
a less
extent)
of the historic
experiences
of these
peoples.
There is a
great danger
of
driving
this
interpretation
too
far,
by assigning
an
ethnological
value to details of the
legend
which
never had
any
such
significance
;
but to this matter we shall have occa
sion to return at a later
point (see p. xixff.).
(c)
Next in
importance
to these
ethnographic legends
are the cult-
legends.
A considerable
proportion
of the
patriarchal
narratives are
designed
to
explain
the sacredness of the
principal
national
sanctuaries,
while a few contain notices of the
origin
of
particular
ritual customs
(circumcision,
ch.
17 [but
cf. Ex.
4
24ff>
] ;
the abstinence from
eating
the
sciatic
nerve, 32
33
).
To the former class
belong
such incidents as
Hagar
at Lahairoi
(16),
Abraham at the oak of Mamre
(18),
his
planting
of the
tamarisk at Beersheba
(2I
33
), Jacob
at Bethel with the reason for
anointing
the sacred
stone,
and the institution of the tithe
(28
10ff
-),
and
at Peniel
(32
24fr>
) ;
and
many
more. The
general
idea is that the
places
were hallowed
by
an
appearance
of the
deity
in the
patriarchal period,
or at least
by
the
performance
of an act of
worship (erection
of an
altar,
etc.) by
one of the ancestors of Israel. In
reality
the
sanctity
of these
spots
was in
many
cases of immemorial
antiquity, being
rooted in the
most
primitive
forms of Semitic
religion ;
and at times the narrative
*
See Dri. 112
; Gordon, ETC,
88.
INTRODUCTION Xlll
suffers it to
appear
that the
place
was
holy
before the visit of the
patriarch
(see
on I2
6
).
It is
probable
that
inauguration-legends
had
grown up
at the
chief sanctuaries while
they
were still in the
possession
of the Canaanites.
We cannot tell how far such
legends
were transferred to the Hebrew
ancestors,
and how far the traditions are of native Israelite
growth.
(d)
Of much less interest to us is the
etymological
motive which so
frequently appears
as a side issue in
legends
of wider
scope. Specula-
lation on the
meaning
and
origin
of names is
fascinating
to all
primitive
peoples
;
and in default of a scientific
philology
the most fantastic
explanations
are
readily accepted.
That it was so in ancient Israel
could be
easily
shown from the
etymologies
of Genesis.
Here,
again,
it is
just
conceivable that the
explanation given may occasionally
be
correct
(though
there is
hardly
a case in which it is
plausible)
;
but in
the
majority
of cases the real
meaning
of the name stands out in
palpable
contradiction to the
alleged
account of its
origin. Moreover,
it is not uncommon to find the same name
explained
in two different
ways (many
of
Jacob
s
sons,
ch.
30),
or to have as
many
as three
sug
gestions
of its historic
origin (Ishmael,
i6
H
ly
20
2i
17
; Isaac,
17"
i8
12
2i
9
).
To claim literal
accuracy
for incidents of this kind is
manifestly
futile.
(e)
There is
yet
another element
which,
though
not
mythical
or
legendary, belongs
to the
imaginative
side of the
legends,
and has to
be taken account of in
interpreting
them. This is the element of
poetic
idealisation. Whenever a character enters the world of
legend,
whether
through
the
gate
of
history
or
through
that of
ethnographic personifica
tion,
it is
apt
to be conceived as a
type
;
and as the
story passes
from
mouth to mouth the
typical
features are
emphasised,
while those which
have no such
significance
tend to be effaced or
forgotten.
Then the
dramatic instinct comes into
play
the artistic desire to
perfect
the
story
as a lifelike
picture
of human nature in
interesting
situations and action.
To see how far this
process may
be
carried,
we have but to
compare
the
conception
of
Jacob
s sons in the
Blessing
of
Jacob
(ch. 49)
with
their
appearance
in the
younger
narratives of
Joseph
and his brethren.
In the former case the sons are tribal
personifications,
and the char
acters attributed to them are those of the tribes
they represent.
In the
latter,
these characteristics have almost
entirely disappeared,
and the
central interest is now the
pathos
and
tragedy
of Hebrew
family
life.
Most of the brothers are without character or
individuality
;
but the
accursed Reuben and Simeon are
respected
members of the
family,
and
the wolf
Benjamin
has become a
helpless
child whom the father will
hardly
let
go
from his side.
This,
no
doubt,
is the
supreme
instance of
romantic or novelistic treatment which the book contains
;
but the
same
idealising tendency
is at work
elsewhere,
and must
constantly
be
allowed for in
endeavouring
to reach the historic or
ethnographic
basis
from which the
legends
start.
4.
Historical value
of
the tradition.
It has
already
been remarked
(p. vii)
that there are three
chief
ways
in which an
oral,
and therefore
legendary,
tradi-
XIV INTRODUCTION
tion
may yield
solid historical results :
first, through
the
retention in the
popular memory
of the
impression
caused
by
real events and
personalities
; secondly, by
the
recovery
of historic
(mainly ethnographic)
material from the
biographic
form of the tradition
;
and
thirdly, through
the confirmation
of
contemporary archaeological
evidence. It will be con
venient to start with the last of
these,
and consider what is
known about
i. The historical
background of
the
patriarchal
traditions.
The
period
covered
by
the
patriarchal
narratives
*
may
be
defined
very roughly
as the first half of the second millennium
(2000-1500)
B.C. The
upper
limit
depends
on the
generally
accepted assumption,
based
(somewhat insecurely,
as it
seems to
us)
on ch.
14,
that Abraham was
contemporary
with
Hammurabi,
the 6th
king
of the first
Babylonian
dynasty.
The date of Hammurabi is
probably
c. 2100
B.c.f
*
The discussion in this section is confined to the
patriarchal
tradi
tion,
because it is
only
with
regard
to it that the
question
of essential
historicity
arises.
Every
one admits that the
pre-historic chapters
(i-n)
stand on a different
footing-,
and there are few who would claim
for them the
authority
of a continuous tradition.
t
The date here
assigned
to Hammurabi is based on the recent
investigations
of
Thureau-Dangin {Journal
des Savants
[1908], 190
ff.
;
ZA,
xxi.
[1908], 176 ff.),
and
Ungnad (OLz. [1908], 13 ff.);
with whom
Poebel
(ZA,
xxi. 162
ff.)
is in substantial
agreement.
The
higher
estimates which
formerly prevailed depended
on the natural
assumption
that the first three
dynasties
of the
Royal
Lists
(first published
in 1880
and
1884) reigned consecutively
in
Babylon.
But in
1907,
L. W.
King
(Chronicles concerning early
Bab.
Kings] published
new
material,
which
showed
conclusively
that the Second
dynasty, ruling
over the
Country
of the
Sea,
was at least
partly,
if not
wholly, contemporaneous
with
the First and Third
dynasties
in
Babylon. King
himself and
Meyer
(GA
Z
,
i. ii.
339
ff.
[1909])
hold that the Third
(Kaite) dynasty
followed
immediately
on the First
;
and that
consequently
the
previous
estimates
of the
chronology
of the First
dynasty
have to be reduced
by
the total
duration of the Second
dynasty (368 years according
to List
A).
The
scholars cited at the head of this note
consider,
on the other
hand,
that
the
contemporaneousness
was
only partial,
and that there was an
interval of
176 years
between the close of the First
dynasty
and the
accession of the Third. The chief data are these :
King
s new chronicle
has
proved beyond dispute (i)
that
Ilima-ilu,
the founder of the Second
dynasty,
was
contemporary
with Samsu-iluna and
Abi-esV,
the
7th
and
8th
kings
of the First
dynasty
;
and
(2)
that
Ea-gamil,
the last
king
of
INTRODUCTION
XV
The lower limit is determined
by
the
Exodus,
which is
usually assigned (as
it must be if Ex. i
11
is
genuine)
to the
reign
of
Merneptah
of the Nineteenth
Egyptian dynasty
(c. 1234-1214 B.C.).
Allowing
a sufficient
period
for the
sojourn
of Israel in
Egypt,
we come back to about the
middle of the millennium as the
approximate
time when the
family
left Palestine for that
country.
The Hebrew chron
ology assigns nearly
the same date as above to
Abraham,
but a much earlier one for the Exodus
(c. 1490),
and reduces
the residence of the
patriarchs
in Canaan to
215 years;
since, however,
the
chronological system
rests on artificial
calculations
(see
pp. 135^, 234),
we cannot restrict our
survey
to the narrow limits which it
assigns
to the
patriarchal period
in Palestine.
Indeed,
the
chronological
uncertainties are so
numerous that it is desirable to embrace an even wider field
than the five centuries mentioned above.*
In the
opinion
of a
growing
and influential school of
writers,
this
period
of
history
has been so illumined
by
the Second
dynasty,
was an older
contemporary
of a certain Kasgite
(king?),
Kastilias.
Now,
KastiliaS is the name of the
3rd king
of the
Kasite
dynasty
;
and the
question
is whether this Katilia is to be
identified with the
contemporary
of
Ea-gamil. Th.-Dangin,
etc.,
answer
in the
affirmative,
with the result stated above.
King- opposes
the
identification,
and thinks the close of the Second
dynasty
coincides
with a
gap
in the list of Kassite
kings (8th
to
i5th),
where the name of
Kastilias
may
have stood.
Meyer accepts
the
synchronism
of
Ea-gamil
with the third KaSite
king
;
but
gets
rid of the
interregnum by
a
somewhat
arbitrary
reduction of the duration of the Second
dynasty
to
about 200
years.
For fuller
information,
the reader is referred to the
lucid note in Dri. GenJ xxvn. ff.
(with lists). King
believes that his
date for
yammurabi (c. 1958-1916)
facilitates the identification of that
monarch with the
Amraphel
of Gn.
14 (see p. 257
f.
below), by bringing
the interval between Abraham and the Exodus into nearer accord with
the biblical data
;
but in view of the artificial character of the biblical
chronology (v.s.),
it is doubtful if
any weight
whatever ca-n be allowed
to this consideration.
*
Thus the Exodus is sometimes
(in
defiance of Ex. i
11
) put
back to
c.
1450
B.C.
(Hommel,
ET,
x.
[1899],
210 ff.
; Orr, POT,
4226.);
while
Eerdmans would
bring
it down to c.
1125
B.C.
(Vorgeschichte Israels,
74
;
Exp. 1908, Sept. 204). Joseph
is
by
some
(Marquart,
Wi.
al.)
identified with a minister of
Amenophis
IV.
(c. 1380-1360), by
Eerdmans
with a Semitic ruler at the
very
end of the Nineteenth
dynasty
(c.
1205).
See
p. 501
f.
XVI INTRODUCTION
recent discoveries that it is no
longer possible
to doubt the
essential
historicity
of the
patriarchal
tradition."* It is
admitted that no externa evidence has come to
light
of the
existence of such
persons
as
Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob,
and
Joseph,
or even
(with
the
partial exception
of
Joseph)
of
men
playing parts
at all
corresponding
to theirs. But it is
maintained that
contemporary
documents reveal a set of
conditions into which the
patriarchal
narratives fit
perfectly,
and which are so different from those
prevailing
under the
monarchy
that the situation could not
possibly
have been
imagined by
an Israelite of that later
age.
Now,
that recent
archaeology
has thrown a flood of
light
on the
period
in
question,
is
beyond
all doubt. It has
proved
that Palestinian
culture and
religion
were saturated
by Babylonian
influences
long
before the
supposed
date of Abraham
;
that from that
date downwards intercourse with
Egypt
was
frequent
and
easy
;
and that the
country
was more than once
subjected
to
Egyptian conquest
and
authority.
It has
given
us a
most
interesting glimpse
from about 2000 B.C. of the natural
products
of
Canaan,
and the manner of life of its inhabitants
(Tale
of
Sinuhe).
At a later time
(Tell-Amarna letters)
it
shows the
Egyptian
dominion threatened
by
the advance of
Hittites from the
north,
and
by
the incursion of a
body
of
nomadic marauders called Habiri
(see p. 218).
It tells us that
Jakob-el (and Joseph-el ?)
was the name of a
place
in Canaan
in the first half of the
i5th
cent.
(pp. 360, 389 f.),
and that
Israel was a tribe
living
in Palestine about 1200
B.C.;
also that
Hebrews
(
f
Apriw)
were a
foreign population
in
Egypt
from
the time of Ramses n. to that of Ramses iv.
(Heyes,
Bib.
u.
Aeg. 146
ff.
; Eerdmans,
I.e.
52
ff.
;
Exp.
I.e.
197).
All
this is of the utmost value
;
and
if
the
patriarchs
lived in
this
age,
then this is the
background against
which we
have to set their
biographies.
But the real
question
is
whether there is such a
correspondence
between the bio-
*
Jeremias, ATLO~,
365
:
"
Wir haben
gezeig-t,
dass das Milieu der
Vaterg-eschichten
in alien Einzelheiten zu den altorientalischen Kultur-
verhaltnissen
stimmt,
die uns die Denkmaler fur die in Betracht kom-
menden Zeit
bezeugen."
INTRODUCTION
XV11
graphics
and their
background
that the former would be
unintelligible
if
transplanted
to other and later
surroundings.
We should
gladly
welcome
any
evidence that this is the
case
;
but it seems to us that the remarkable
thing
about
these narratives is
just
the absence of
background
and their
general
compatibility
with the universal conditions of ancient
Eastern life.* The case for the
historicity
of the
tradition,
based on
correspondences
with
contemporary
evidence from
the
period
in
question, appears
to us to be
greatly
over
stated
The line of
argument
that claims most careful attention is to the
following
effect : Certain
legal
customs
presupposed by
the
patriarchal
stories are now known to have
prevailed (in Babylon)
in the
age
of
Hammurabi
;
these customs had
entirely
ceased in Israel under the
monarchy
; consequently
the narratives could not have been invented
by legend-writers
of that
period (Je.
ATLO
2
, 355 ff.).
The
strongest
case is the
truly
remarkable
parallel supplied by
Cod. Hamm.
146
to
the
position
of
Hagar
as concubine-slave in ch. 16
(below, p. 285).
Here
everything
turns on the
probability
that this
usage
was unknown in
Israel in the
regal period
;
and it is
surely pressing
the
argumentum
ex silentio too far to assert
confidently
that if it had been known it
would
certainly
have been mentioned in the later literature. We must
remember
that Genesis contains almost the
only pictures
of intimate
family
life in the
OT,
and that it refers to
many things
not
mentioned
later
simply
because there was no occasion to
speak
of them. Were
twin-births
peculiar
to the
patriarchial period
because two are men
tioned in Gen. and none at all in the rest of the OT ? The fact that
the custom of the concubine
-
slave has
persisted
in
Mohammedan
countries down to modern
times,
should warn us
against
such
sweeping
negations. Again,
we learn
(ib.
358)
that the simultaneous
marriage
with two sisters was
permitted by
ancient
Babylonian law,
but was
proscribed
in Hebrew
legislation
as incestuous.
Yes,
but the law in
*
A
striking
illustration of this
washing
out of historical
background
is the contrast between the Genesis narratives and the
Egyptian
Tale
of
Sinuhe,
from which
Je. (ATLO
2
, 298 ff.) quotes
at
length
in
demonstra
tion of their verisimilitude. W
T
hile the latter is full of detailed informa
tion about the
people among
whom the writer
lived,
the former
(except
in chs.
14. 34. 38)
have
hardly any
allusions
(24
3
37
15fl
)
to the
aboriginal
population
of Palestine
proper.
Luther
(INS, i56f.)
even
maintains
that the
original
Yahwist conceived Canaan as at this time an unin
habited
country
! Without
going
so far as
that,
we cannot but
regard
the fact as an indication of the
process
of abstraction which the
narratives
have
undergone
in the course of oral transmission. Would
they appeal
to the heart of the world as
they
do if
they retained,
to the extent
sometimes
alleged,
the
signature
of an obsolete civilisation?
b
XV111 INTRODUCTION
question (Lv.
i8
18
)
is late
;
and does not its enactment in the PC rather
imply
that the
practice against
which it is directed survived in Israel
till the close of the
monarchy
? The distinction between the
mohar,
or
purchase price
of a
wife,
and the
gift
to the bride
(* .),
should not be
cited : the mohar is an institution
everywhere prevailing-
in
early pastoral
societies;
it is known to Hebrew
jurisprudence (Ex.
22
16
)
;
its name is
not old
Babylonian
;
and even its transmutation into
personal
service
is in accordance with Arab
practice (p. 383 below).
In
short,
it does
not
appear
that the
examples given
differ from another class of
usages,
"die nicht
spezifisch altbabylonisch
sind,
sondern auch
spatern
bez.
intergentilen
Rechtszustanden
entsprechen,
die aber . . .
wenigstens
teilweise eine interessante
Beleuchtungdurchden
Cod. Hamm. erfahren."
The "interessante
Beleuchtung"
will be
freely
admitted.
Still less has the new
knowledge
of the
political
circumstances of
Palestine contributed to the direct elucidation of the
patriarchal
tradi
tion,
although
it has
brought
to
light
certain facts which have to be
taken into account in
interpreting
that tradition. The
complete
silence
of the narratives as to the
protracted Egyptian
dominion over the
country
is
very
remarkable,
and
only
to be
explained by
a
fading
of
the actual situation from the
popular memory during
the course of oral
transmission. The existence of Philistines in the time of Abraham
is,
so far as
archaeology
can inform
us,
a
positive
anachronism. On the
whole it must be said that
archaeology
has in this
region
created more
problems
than it has solved. The occurrence of the name Yakob-el in
the time of Thothmes
in.,
of Asher under Seti I. and Ramses
II.,
and
of Israel under
Merneptah
;
the
appearance
of Hebrews
(Habiri?)
in
Palestine in the
15th cent.,
and in
Egypt ( Apriw?)
from Ramses II. to
Ramses
IV.,
present
so
many
difficulties to the
adjustment
of the
patriarchal figures
to their
original background.
We do not seem as
yet
to be in
sight
of a historical construction which shall enable us to
bring
these
conflicting
data into line with an
intelligible rendering
of
the Hebrew tradition.
It is considerations such as these that
give
so keen an
edge
to the
controversy
about the
genuineness
of ch.
14.
That is the
only
section
of Genesis which seems to set the
figure
of Abraham in the framework
of world
history.
If it be a historical
document,
then we have a fixed
centre round which the Abrahamic
traditions,
and
possibly
those of the
other
patriarchs
as
well,
will
group
themselves
;
if it be but a late imita
tion of
history,
we are cast
adrift,
with
nothing
to
guide
us
except
an
uncertain and artificial scheme of
chronology.
For an
attempt
to
estimate the force of the
arguments
on either side we must refer to the
commentary
below
(p.zyiff.). Here, however,
it is in
point
to observe
that even if the
complete historicity
of ch.
14
were
established,
it would
take us but a little
way
towards the
authentication of the
patriarchal
traditions as a whole. For that
episode confessedly occupies
a
place
entirely unique
in the records of the
patriarchs ;
and all the marks of
contemporary authorship
which it is held to
present
are so
many proofs
*
See S. A.
Cook,
Cambridge
Biblical
Essays, 79
f.
INTRODUCTION
XIX
that the
remaining
narratives are of a different
character,
and lack that
particular
kind of attestation. The coexistence of oral traditions and
historic notices
relating
to the same individual
proves
that the former
rest on a basis of fact
;
but it does not warrant the inference that the
oral tradition is accurate in
detail,
or even that it
faithfully
reflects the
circumstances of the
period
with which it deals. And to us the Abraham
of oral tradition is a far more
important religious personality
than
Abram the
Hebrew,
the hero of the
exploit
recorded in ch.
14.
^
2.
Ethnological
theories. The
negative
conclusion ex
pressed
above
(p.
xvii
f.)
as to the value of ancient
Babylonian
analogies
to the
patriarchal
tradition, depends partly
on the
assumption
of the school of writers whose views were
under consideration:
viz.,
that the narratives are a tran
script
of actual
family
life in that remote
age,
and therefore
susceptible
of illustration from
private
law as we find it
embodied
in the Cod. Hamm. It
makes, however,
little
difference if for
family
relations we substitute those of clans
and
peoples
to one
another,
and treat the individuals as
representatives
of the tribes to which Israel traced its
origin.
We shall then find the real historic content of the
legends
in
migratory
movements,
tribal divisions and
fusions,
and
general ethnological phenomena,
which
popular
tradition
has
disguised
as
personal biographies.
This is the line of
interpretation
which has
mostly prevailed
in critical circles
since Ewald
;
*
and it has
given
rise to an
extraordinary
variety
of theories. In itself
(as
in the hands of
Ewald)
it
is not
necessarily
inconsistent with belief in the individual
existence of the
patriarchs
;
though
its more extreme ex
ponents
do not
recognise
this as credible. The theories in
question
fall into two
groups
: those which
regard
the
narratives as ideal
projections
into the
past
of relations sub
sisting,
or
conceptions
formed,
after the final settlement in
Canaan
; f
and those which
try
to extract from them a real
history
of the
period
before the Exodus. Since the former
class
deny
a solid tradition of
any
kind behind the
patriarchal
story,
we
may
here
pass
them
over,
and confine our atten-
*
Hist,
oflsr.
i.
363, 382,
etc.
f
So We. Prol.
6
319
ff.
[Eng.
tr.
318 ff],
Isr.
undjiid.
Gesch. n ff.
;
Sta.
GVI,
i.
145
ff., ZATW,
i.
naff.,
347
ff.
XX INTRODUCTION
tion to those which do allow a certain substratum of truth
in the
pictures
of the
pre-Exodus period.
As a
specimen
of this class of
theories,
neither better nor worse than
others that
might
be
chosen,
we
may
take that of Cornill.
According
to
him,
Abraham was a real
person,
who headed a
migration
from
Mesopotamia
to Canaan about
1500
B.C.
Through
the successive
separations
of
Moab, Ammon,
and
Edom,
the main
body
of
immigrants
was so reduced that it
might
have been
submerged,
but for the arrival
of a fresh
contingent
from
Mesopotamia
under the name
Jacob (the
names, except
Abraham
s,
are all tribal or
national).
This reinforce
ment consisted of four
groups,
of which the
Leah-group
was the oldest
and
strongest.
The tribe of
Joseph
then aimed at the
hegemony,
but
was
overpowered by
the other
tribes,
and forced to retire to
Egypt.
The
Bilhah-group,
thus
deprived
of its natural
support,
was assailed
by
the Leah-tribes led
by
Reuben
;
but the
attempt
was
foiled,
and Reuben
lost his
birthright. Subsequently
the whole of the tribes were driven to
seek shelter in
Egypt,
when
Joseph
took a noble
revenge by allowing
them to settle
by
its side in the frontier
province
of
Egypt
(Hist,
of
Israel, 29 if.).
It will be seen that the construction
hangs mainly
on
two
leading-
ideas : tribal
affinities typified by
various
phases
of the
marriage
relation
;
and
migrations.
As
regards
the
first,
we have seen
(p. xii)
that there is a true
principle
at
the root of the method. It
springs
from the
personification
of a tribe under the name of an
individual,
male or female
;
and we have admitted that
many
names in Genesis have this
significance,
and
probably
no other.
If, then,
two
eponymous
ancestors
(Jacob
and
Esau)
are
represented
as twin
brothers,
we
may
be sure that the
peoples
in
question
were conscious
of an
extremely
close
affinity.
If a male
eponym
is married
to a
female,
we
may presume
(though
with less
confidence)
that the two tribes were
amalgamated.
Or,
if one clan is
spoken
of as a wife and another as a
concubine,
we
may
reasonably
conclude that the latter was somehow inferior to
the former. But
beyond
a few
simple analogies
of this kind
(each
of
which, moreover,
requires
to be tested
by
the inherent
probabilities
of the
case)
the method ceases to be
reliable;
and the
attempt
to
apply
it to all the
complex family
relation
ships
of the
patriarchs
only
lands us in confusion.* The
*
Guthe
(GVI, 1-6)
has formulated a set of five rules which he thinks
can be used
(with
tact
!)
in
retranslating
the
genealogical phraseology
INTRODUCTION XXI
idea of
migration
is still less
trustworthy. Certainly
not
every journey
recorded
in Genesis
(e.g.
that of
Joseph
from
Hebron to Shechem and
Dothan, 37
14ff-
:
pace Steuernagel)
can be
explained
as a
migratory
movement. Even when
the
ethnological
background
is
apparent,
the movements of
tribes
may
be
necessary
corollaries of the assumed relation
ships
between them
(e.g. Jacob
s
journey
to Harran :
p.
357)
;
and it will be difficult to draw the line between these
and real
migrations.
The case of Abraham is no doubt a
strong-
one
;
for if his
figure
has
any ethnological significance
at
all,
his exodus from Harran
(or Ur)
can
hardly
be inter
preted
otherwise
than as a
migration
of Hebrew tribes from
that
region.
We cannot feel the same
certainty
with
regard
to
Joseph
s
being
carried down to
Egypt
;
it seems to us
altogether
doubtful if this be
rightly
understood as an en
forced movement of the tribe of
Joseph
to
Egypt
in advance
of the rest
(see p. 441).
But it is when we
pass
from
genealogies
and
marriages
and
journeys
to
pictorial
narrative that the breakdown of the
ethnological
method becomes
complete.
The obvious truth
is that no tribal
relationship
can
supply
an
adequate
motive
for the wealth of detail that meets us in the
richly
coloured
patriarchal legends
;
and the
theory
stultifies itself
by
as
signing ethnological significance
to incidents which
origin
ally
had no such
meaning.
It will have been noticed that
Cornill utilises a few
biographical
touches to fill in his scheme
(the youthful
ambition of
Joseph
;
his sale into
Egypt, etc.),
and
every
other theorist does the same. Each writer selects
those incidents which fit into his own
system,
and
neglects
those which would embarass it. Each
system
has some
plausible
and attractive features
;
but
each,
to avoid ab
surdity,
has to exercise a
judicious
restraint on the consistent
extension of its
principles.
The
consequence
is endless
into historical terms. There is
probably
not one of them which is
capable
of
rigorous
and universal
application. Thus,
the
marriage
of
Jacob
to Leah and Rachel does not
necessarily imply
that
Jacob
was a
tribe which
successively
absorbed the two clans so named : it is
just
as
likely
that the union of Leah and Rachel with one another
produced
the
entity
called
Jacob
XX11 INTRODUCTION
diversity
in
detail,
and no
agreement
even in
general
out
line.*
It is evident that such constructions will never reach
any satisfactory
result unless
they
find some
point
of
support
in the
history
of the
period
as
gathered
from
contemporary
sources. The second millennium B.C.
is
thought
to have witnessed one
great
movement of Semitic tribes to
the
north, viz.,
the Aramaean. About the middle of the millennium we
find the first notices of the Aramaeans as nomads in what is now the
Syro-Arabian
desert.
Shortly
afterwards the Habiri make their
appear
ance in Palestine. It is a natural
conjecture
that these were branches
of the same
migration,
and it has been surmised that we have here the
explanation
of the tradition which affirms the common descent of
Hebrews and Aramaeans. The
question
then arises whether we can
connect this fact with the
patriarchal
tradition,
and ,if so with what
stratum of that tradition. Isaac and
Joseph
are out of the
reckoning,
be
cause neither is ever
brought
into contact with the Aramaeans
;
Rebekah
is too
insignificant.
Abraham is excluded
by
the
chronology,
unless
(with
Corn.)
we
bring
down his date to c.
1500,
or
(with Steuer.) regard
his
migration
as a traditional
duplicate
of
Jacob
s return from Laban.
But if
Jacob
is
suggested,
we encounter the
difficulty
that
Jacob
must
have been settled in Canaan some
generations
before the
age
of the
Habiri. In the case of Abraham there
may
be a conflation of two
traditions,
one
tracing
his
nativity
to Harran and the other to Ur
;
and
it is conceivable that he is the
symbol
of two
migrations,
one of which
might
be identified with the arrival of the
Habiri,
and the other
might
have taken
place
as
early
as the
age
of Hammurabi. But these are
speculations
no whit more reliable than
any
of those dealt with above
;
and it has to be confessed that as
yet archaeology
has furnished no
sure basis for the reconstruction of the
patriarchal history.
It is
permis
sible to
hope
that further discoveries
may bring
to
light
facts which
shall enable us to decide more
definitely
than is
possible
at
present
how far that
history
can be
explained
on
ethnological
lines,
f
*
Luther
(ZATW, 1901, 366.)
wives a
conspectus
of four
leading-
theories
(We.
Sta. Gu.
Corn.),
with the
purpose
of
showing
that the
consistent
application
of the method would
speedily
lead to absurd
results
(46).
He would
undoubtedly
have
passed
no different verdict on
later
combinations,
such as those of
Steuernagel, Eimvanderung
der. Isr.
Stcimme
; Peters, Early
Hebrew
Story, 45
ff.
; Procksch,
Nordhebr.
Sagen-
buch,
330
ff. etc. What Grote has written about the
allegorical
inter
pretation
of the Greek
legends might
be
applied
word for word to these
theories :
"
The theorist who
adopts
this course of
explanation
finds
that after one or two
simple
and obvious
steps,
the
way
is no
longer open,
and he is forced to clear a
way
for himself
by gratuitous
refinements
and
conjectures" (Hist, of
Greece,
ed.
1888,
p. 2).
f
To the whole class of theories considered above
(those
which
try
to
go
behind the
Exodus),
Luther
(I.e.
44 f.) objects
that
they
demand a
continuous
occupation
of Palestine from the time when the
legends
were
INTRODUCTION XX111
3.
The
patriarchs
as individuals. We
come,
in the last
place,
to consider the
probability
that the oral
tradition,
through
its own inherent
tenacity
of
recollection,
may
have
retained some true
impression
of the events to which it
refers. After what has been
said,
it is vain to
expect
that
a
picture
true in
every
detail will be recoverable from
popular
tales current in the earliest
ages
of the
monarchy.
The course of oral tradition has been too
long,
the
disturbing
influences to which it has been
exposed
have been too
numerous and
varied,
and the
subsidiary
motives which
have
grafted
themselves on to it too
clearly discernible,
to
admit of the
supposition
that more than a substantial nucleus
of historic fact can have been
preserved
in the national
memory
of Israel. It is
not, however,
unreasonable to
believe that such a historical nucleus exists
;
and that with
care we
may disentangle
from the mass of
legendary
accre
tions some elements of actual reminiscence of the
pre
historic movements which determined the
subsequent
development
of the national life.* It is true that in this
region
we have as a rule
only subjective impressions
to
guide
us
;
but in the absence of external criteria a
subjective
formed. He hints at a
solution,
which has been
adopted
in
principle by
Meyer (INS, 127
ff., 415, 433),
and which if verified would relieve some
difficulties, archaeological
and other. It is that two
independent
accounts
of the
origin
of the nation are
preserved
: the
Genesis-tradition,
carrying
the
ancestry
of the
people
back to the
Aramaeans,
and the Exodus-
tradition,
which traces the
origin
of the nation no further than Moses
and the Exodus. There are indications that in an earlier
phase
of the
patriarchal
tradition the definitive
conquest
of Canaan was carried back
to
Jacob
and his sons
(chs. 34. 38. 48
22
) ;
on
Meyer
s view this does not
necessarily imply
that the narratives refer to a time
subsequent
to
Joshua.
A kernel of
history may
be
recognised
in both strands of
tradition,
on the
assumption (not
in itself a violent
one)
that
only
a
section of Israel was in
Egypt,
and came out under
Moses,
while the
rest remained in Palestine. The extension of the Exodus-tradition to
the whole
people
was a natural effect of the consolidation of the nation
;
and this
again might give
rise to the
story
of
Jacob
s
migration
to
Egypt,
with all his sons.
*
Cf.
Winckler, KAT*, 204:
"
Es ist namlich immer wahrschein-
licher,
dass ein
grosses
fur die
Entwicklung
des Volkes
massgebend
gewordenes Ereigniss
in seiner Geschlossenheit dem Gedachtniss besser
crhalten bleibt als die Einzelheiten seines
Herganges."
XXIV INTRODUCTION
judgement
has its
value,
and one in favour of the historic
origin
of the tradition is at least as valid as another to the
contrary
effect. The two
points
on which attention now
falls to be concentrated are :
(a)
the
personalities
of the
patriarchs
;
and
(#)
the
religious significance
of the tradi
tion.
(a)
It is a
tolerably
safe
general
maxim that tradition
does not invent
names,
or
persons.
We have on
any
view
to account for the entrance of such
figures
as
Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob,
and
Joseph
into the
imagination
of the
Israelites
;
and
amongst possible
avenues of entrance we
must
certainly
count it as
one,
that
they
were real
men,
who lived and were remembered. What other
explanations
can be
given
? The idea that
they
were native creations of
Hebrew
mythology (Goldziher)
has,
for the
present
at
least,
fallen into
disrepute ;
and there remain but two theories as
alternatives to the historic
reality
of the
patriarchs
:
viz.,
that
they
were
originally personified
tribes,
or that
they
were
originally
Canaanite deities.
The
conception
of the
patriarchs
as tribal
eponyms,
we have
already
seen to be
admissible,
though
not
proved.
The idea that
they
were
Canaanite deities is not
perhaps
one that can be dismissed as trans
parently
absurd. If the
Israelites,
on
entering-
Canaan,
found Abraham
worshipped
at
Hebron,
Isaac at
Beersheba, Jacob
at
Bethel,
and
Joseph
at
Shechem,
and if
they adopted
the cult of these
deities, they might
come to
reg-ard
themselves as their children
;
and in course of time the
gods mig-ht
be transformed into human ancestors around whom the
national
legend might crystallise.
At the same time the
theory
is
destitute of
proof
;
and the burden of
proof
lies on those who maintain
it. Neither the fact
(if
it be a
fact)
that the
patriarchs
were
objects
of
worship
at the shrines where their
graves
were
shown,
nor the
presence
of
mythical
traits in their
biographies, proves
them to have been
super
human
beings.
The discussion turns
largely
on the evidence of the
patriarchal
names
;
but
this, too,
is indecisive. The name Israel is
national,
and in so far as it is
applied
to an individual it is a case of
eponymous personification. Isaac, Jacob,
and
Joseph (assuming
these
to be contractions of
Yizhak-el,
etc.)
are also most
naturally explained
as tribal
designations. Meyer,
after
long
vacillation,
has come to the
conclusion that
they
are divine names
(INS, 249 ff.)
;
but the
arguments
which
formerly
convinced him that
they
are tribal seem to us more
cogent
than those to which he now
gives
the
preference.
That names
of this
type frequently
denote tribes is a fact
;
that
they may
denote
deities is
only
a
hypothesis.
That
they may
also denote individuals
INTRODUCTION XXV
(Yakub-ilu, Ya$up-ilu}
is
true;
but that
only
establishes a
possibility,
hardly
a
probability
;
for it is more
likely
that the individual was named
after his tribe than that the tribe
got
its name from an individual. The
name Abram stands
by
itself. It
represents
no
ethnological entity,
and
occurs
historically only
as the name of an individual
;
and
though
it is
capable
of
being interpreted
in a sense
appropriate
to
deity,
all
analogy
is in favour of
explaining
it as a
theophorous
human name. The
solitary
allusion to the biblical Abram in the monuments the mention
of the Field of Abram in Shishak s
inscription (see p. 244)
is
entirely
consistent with this
acceptation.
It is
probably
a mistake to insist on
carrying through any
exclusive
theory
of the
patriarchal personalities.
If we have
proved
that Abram was a historical
individual,
we have not
thereby proved
that Isaac and
Jacob
were so also
;
and if we succeed in
resolving
the latter into tribal
eponyms,
it will not follow that Abraham
falls under the same
category.
There is thus a
justification
for the
tendency
of
many
writers to
put
Abraham on a different
plane
from the other
patriarchs,
and to concentrate the discussion of the
historicity
of the tradition
mainly
on his
person.
An
important
element
in the case is the
clearly
conceived
type
of character which
he
represents.
No doubt the character has been idealised
in accordance with the
conceptions
of a later
age
;
but the
impression
remains that there must have been
something-
in
the actual Abraham which
gave
a direction to the idealisa
tion. It is this
perception
more than
anything
else which
invests the
figure
of Abraham with the
significance
which it
has
possessed
for devout minds in all
ages,
and which still
resists the
attempt
to dissolve him into a creation of
religious
phantasy.
If there be
any
truth in the
description
of
legend
as a form of narrative
conserving
the
impression
of a
great
personality
on his
age,
we
may
venture,
in
spite
of the lack
of decisive
evidence,
to
regard
him as a historic
personage,
however dim the
surroundings
of his life
may
oe.*
*
Cf.
Hoffding,
Phil,
of
Rel.
199*?.
:
"
Its essence
[that
of
legend]
consists in the idea of a wonderful
personality
who has made a
deep
impression
on human life who excited
admiration,
furnished an
example,
and
opened
new
paths.
Under the influence of
memory,
a
strong expansion
of
feeling
takes
place
: this in turn
gives
rise to
a need for intuition and
explanation,
to
satisfy
which a
process
of
picture-making
is set in motion. ... In
legends
. . . the central interest
is in the
subject-matter,
in the
centripetal power,
which
depends
on an
intensification of
memory
rather than on
any
naive
personification
and
colouring.
. . ."
XXVI
INTRODUCTION
(b)
It is of little
consequence
to know whether a man
called Abraham lived about 2000
B.C.,
and led a caravan
from Ur or Harran to
Palestine,
and defeated a
great army
from the east. One of the evil effects of the controversial
treatment of such
questions
is to diffuse the
impression
that
a
great religious
value attaches to discussions of this kind.
What it
really
concerns us to know is the
spiritual signi
ficance of the
events,
and of the mission of Abraham in
particular.
And it is
only
when we take this
point
of view
that we do
justice
to the
spirit
of the Hebrew tradition.
It is obvious that the central idea of the
patriarchal
tradi
tion is the conviction in the mind of Israel that as a nation
it
originated
in a
great religious
movement,
that the divine
call which summoned Abraham from his home and
kindred,
and made him a
stranger
and
sojourner
on the
earth,
imported
a new era in God s
dealings
with
mankind,
and
gave
Israel its mission in the world
(Is. 4i
8f
).
Is this
conception historically
credible ?
Some
attempts
to find historic
points
of contact for this
view of Abraham s
significance
for
religion
will be looked at
presently
;
but their contribution to the elucidation of the
biblical narrative seems to us
disappointing
in the extreme.
Nor can we
unreservedly
assent to the common
argument
that the mission of Moses would be
unintelligible apart
from that of Abraham. It is
true,
Moses is said to have
appealed
to the God of the fathers
;
and if that be a
literally
exact
statement,
Moses built on the foundation laid
by
Abraham. But that the distinctive institutions and ideas of
the
Yahwe-religion
could not have
originated
with Moses
just
as well as with
Abraham,
is more than we have a
right
to affirm. In
short, positive proof,
such as would
satisfy
the canons of historical
criticism,
of the work of Abraham is
not available. What we can
say
is,
in the first
place,
that
if he had the
importance assigned
to
him,
the fact is
just
of the kind that
might
be
expected
to
impress
itself
indelibly
on a tradition
dating
from the time of the event. We have
in it the influence of a
great personality, giving
birth to the
collective consciousness of a nation
;
and this fact is of a
INTRODUCTION XXV11
nature to evoke that
centripetal
*
intensification of
memory
which
Hoffding emphasises
as the
distinguishing
mark and
the
preserving
salt of
legend
as contrasted with
myth.
In
the second
place,
the
appearance
of a
prophetic person
ality,
such as Abraham is
represented
to have
been,
is a
phenomenon
with
many analogies
in the
history
of
religion.
The ethical and
spiritual
idea of God which is at the founda
tion of the
religion
of Israel could
only
enter the world
through
a
personal organ
of divine revelation
;
and
nothing
forbids us to see in Abraham the first of that
long
series of
prophets through
whom God has communicated to mankind
a
saving knowledge
of Himself. The
keynote
of Abraham s
piety
is
faith
in the
unseen,
faith in the divine
impulse
which drove him forth to a land which he was never to
possess ;
and faith in the future of the
religion
which he
thus founded. He moves before us on the
page
of
Scripture
as the man
through
whom
faith,
the
living principle
of true
religion,
first became a force in human affairs. It is difficult
to think that so
powerful
a
conception
has
grown
out of
nothing.
As we read the
story,
we
may
well trust the
instinct which tells us that here we are face to face with
a decisive act of the
living
God in
history,
and an act whose
essential
significance
was never lost in Israelite tradition.
The
significance
of the Abrahamic
migration
in relation to the
general
movements of
religious thought
in the East is the theme of
Winckler s
interesting pamphlet,
Abraham als
Babylonier,
Joseph
als
Aegypter (1903).
The elevation of
Babylon,
in the
reign
of
Hammurabi,
to be the first
city
of the
empire,
and the centre of
Babylonian culture,
meant,
we are
told,
a revolution in
religion,
inasmuch as it involved the
deposition
of
Sin,
the old
moon-god,
from the
supreme place
in the
pantheon
in favour of the Deliverer
Marduk,
the
tutelary deity
of
Babylon. Abraham,
a
contemporary,
and an adherent of the older
faith,
opposed
the reformation
; and,
after
vainly seeking support
for his
protest
at Ur and
Harran,
the two
great
centres of the
worship
of
Sin,
migrated
to
Canaan,
beyond
the limits of Hammurabi s
empire,
to
worship
God after his fashion. How much truth is contained in these
brilliant
generalisations
it is difficult for an
ordinary
man to
say.
In
spite
of the
ingenuity
and breadth of
conception
with which the
theory
is worked
out,
it is not unfair to
suggest
that it rests
mostly
on a
combination of
things
that are not in the Bible with
things
that are not
in the monuments.
Indeed,
the
only positive point
of contact between
the two data of the
problem
is the
certainly
remarkable fact that tradi-
XXVlil INTRODUCTION
tion does connect Abraham with two chief centres of the
Babylonian
moon-worship.
But what we
chiefly
desiderate is some evidence that
the
worship
of the
moon-god
had
greater
affinities with monotheism
than the
worship
of
Marduk,
the
god
of the vernal sun.
[The attempt
to connect
Joseph
with the abortive monotheistic reform of Chuenaten
(Amenophis IV.)
is destitute of
plausibility.]
To a similar effect
Jeremias,
ATLO
2
, 327
ff. : "A reform movement of
protest against
the
religious
degeneration
of the
ruling
classes
"
was the motive of the
migration
(333), perhaps
connected with the introduction of a new astronomical
era,
the
Taurus-epoch (which, by
the
way,
had commenced
nearly
1000
years
before ! cf.
66).
The movement assumed the form of a
migration
a
Hegira
under Abraham as
Mahdi,
who
preached
his doctrine as he
went,
made converts in
Harran,
Egypt,
Gerar, Damascus,
and else
where, finally establishing
the
worship
of Yahwe at the sanctuaries of
Palestine. This is to write a new Abrahamic
legend, considerably
different from the old.
5.
Preservation and collection
of
the traditions.
In all
popular
narration the natural unit is the short
story,
which does not too
severely
tax the attention of a
simple audience,
and which retains its outline and features
unchang-ed
as it
passes
from mouth to mouth.* A
large
part
of the Book of Genesis consists of narratives of this
description, single
tales,
of
varying- length
but
mostly
very
short,
each
complete
in
itself,
with a clear
beginning
and a
satisfying
conclusion. As we read the
book,
unities
of this kind detach themselves from their
context,
and
round themselves into
independent
wholes
;
and it is
only
by studying
them in their
isolation,
and each in its own
light,
that we can
fully appreciate
their charm and under
stand,
in some
measure,
the circumstances of their
origin.
The older stratum of the
primaeval history,
and of the
history
of
Abraham,
is almost
entirely composed
of
single
incidents of this kind : think of the
story
of the
Fall,
of
Cain and
Abel,
of Noah s
drunkenness,
of the Tower of
Babel
;
and
again
of Abraham in
Egypt,
of the
flight
or
expulsion
of
Hagar,
of the sacrifice of
Isaac, etc.,
etc.
When we
pass
the middle of the
book,
the mode of narra-
*
Cf. Gu.
p.
XXXII,
to whose fine
appreciation
of the
"
Kunstform
der
Sagen
"
this is
greatly
indebted.
INTRODUCTION XXIX
tion
begins
to
change.
The
biography
of
Jacob
is much
more a consecutive
narrative than that of Abraham
;
but
even here the
separate
scenes stand out in their
original
distinctness of outline
(e.g.
the transference of the birth
right, Jacob
at
Bethel,
the
meeting
with Rachel at the
well,
the
wrestling
at
Peniel,
the
outrage
on
Dinah,
etc.).
It is
not till we come to the
history
of
Joseph
that the
principle
of
biographical
continuity gains
the
upper
hand.
Joseph
s
story
is, indeed,
made
up
of a number of incidents
;
but
they
are made to
merge
into one
another,
so that each
derives its interest from its relation to the
whole,
and ends
(except
the
last)
on a note of
suspense
and
expectation
rather than of rest. This no doubt is due to the
greater
popularity
and more
frequent repetition
of the stories of
Jacob
and
Joseph
;
but at the same time it bears witness
to a considerable
development
of the art of
story-telling,
and one in which we cannot but detect some
degree
of
professional
aptitude
and
activity.
The short stories of
Genesis,
even those of the most
elementary type,
are
exquisite
works of
art,
almost as
unique
and
perfect
in their own kind as the
parables
of our
Lord are in theirs.
They
are
certainly
not random
pro
ductions of fireside
gossip,
but bear the unmistakable
stamp
of individual
genius (Gu. p. xxx).
Now,
between
the
inception
of the
legends (which
is
already
at some
distance from the traditional
facts)
and the written form
in which
they
lie before
us,
there stretches an interval
which is
perhaps
in some instances to be measured
by
centuries. Hence two
questions
arise:
(i)
What was the
fate of the stories
during
this interval ? Were
they
cast
adrift on the stream of
popular
talk,
with
nothing
to
secure their
preservation
save the
perfection
of their
original
form,
and afterwards collected from the
lips
of
the
people
? Or were
they
taken in hand from the first
by
a
special
class of men who made it their business to con
serve the
integrity
of the
narratives,
and under whose
auspices
the mass of traditional material was
gradually
welded into its
present shape?
And
(2),
how is this whole
XXX INTRODUCTION
process
of transmission and consolidation related to the
use of
writing?
Was the work of
collecting
and
syste-
matising
the traditions
primarily
a
literary
one,
or had it
already
commenced at the
stage
of oral narration ?
To such
questions,
of
course,
no final answers can be
given, (i)
It is not
possible
to discriminate
accurately
between the modifications which a narrative would
undergo
through
constant
repetition,
and
changes deliberately
made
by responsible persons.
On the
whole,
the balance of
pre
sumption
seems to us to incline towards the
hypothesis
of
professional oversight
of some
sort,
exercised from a
very
early
time. On this
assumption, too,
we can best under
stand the formation of
legendary cycles
;
for it is evident
that no effective
grouping
of tradition could take
place
in
the course of
promiscuous popular
recital.
(2)
As to the
use of
writing,
it is natural to
suppose
that it came in first
of all as an aid to the
memory
of the
narrator,
and that as
a
knowledge
of literature extended the
practice
of oral
recitation
gradually
died
out,
and left the written record in
sole
possession
of the field. In this
way
we
may imagine
that books would be
formed,
which would be handed down
from father to
son, annotated, expanded,
revised,
and
copied ;
and so collections
resembling
our oldest
pentateuchal
documents
might
come into existence.*
Here we come
upon
one
important
fact which affords
some
guidance
in the midst of these
speculations.
The
bulk of the Genesis-tradition lies before us in two
closely
parallel
and
practically contemporaneous
recensions
(see
p.
xliii ff.
below).
Since there is
every
reason to believe that
these recensions were made
independently
of each
other,
it
follows that the
early
traditions had been
codified,
and a
sort of national
epos
had taken
shape, prior
to the com
pilation
of these documents. When we
find, further,
that
each of them contains evidence of earlier collections and
older strata of
tradition,
we must assume a
very
consider
able
period
of time to have
elapsed
between the formation
*
See Gilbert
Murray,
Rise
of
the Greek
Epic, p. 92
ff.
INTRODUCTION XXXI
of a fixed
corpus
of tradition and the
composition
of
J
and
E.
Beyond
this, however,
we are in the
region
of
vaguest
conjecture.
We cannot tell for certain what kind of
authority
had
presided
over the combination of the
legends,
nor whether it was first done in the oral or the
literary
stage
of translation. We
may
think of the
priesthoods
of
the
leading
sanctuaries as the natural custodians of the
tradition :
*
the sanctuaries were at least the obvious re
positories
of the
cult-legends pertaining
to them. But we
cannot indicate
any sanctuary
of such
outstanding
national
importance
as to be
plausibly regarded
as the centre of a
national
epic.f
Or we
may assign
a
conspicuous
share in
the work to the
prophetic guilds
which,
in the time of
Samuel,
were
foci
of enthusiasm for the national
cause,
and
might conceivably
have devoted themselves to the
propaga
tion of the national tradition.
Or,
finally,
we
may
assume,
with
Gu.,
that there existed in
Israel,
as
among
the
Arabs,
guilds
of
professional story-tellers, exercising
their vocation
at
public
festivals and such like
gatherings,
for the enter
tainment and instruction of the
people.
The one
certainty
is that a considerable time must be allowed for the
complex
mental activities which lie behind our earliest
literary
sources. It is true that the rise of a national
epos pre
supposes
a
strongly developed
consciousness of national
unity
;
but in Israel the national ideal was much older than
its realisation in the form of a
state,
and therefore we have
no reason for
placing
the unification of the traditions later
than the
founding
of the
monarchy.
From the
age
of
Samuel at least all the essential conditions were
present
;
and a lower limit than that will
hardly
meet the
require
ments of the case.
We
may
here refer to a matter of
great importance
in its
bearing
1
on the
possibility
of accurate oral transmissiori of the
leg-ends
: viz.
the recent effort of Sievers
(Metrische
Studien, ii.,
1904-5)
to resolve
the whole of Genesis into verse. If his
theory
should be
established,
*Cf. Sta.
ZATW,
i.
347
ff.
f Pro.,
however
(392
f.
),
suggests
Shiloh as the
place
where the
national
legend
was
developed.
XXxii
INTRODUCTION
it would not
merely
furnish the most
potent
instrument of
literary
analysis
conceivable,
but it would render credible a
very high degree
of verbal exactitude
during
the
period
of unwritten tradition. The
work of Sievers is viewed with
qualified approval
both
by
Gu.
(p.
xxixf.)
and Pro.
(21 off.),
and it is certain to evoke
interesting
dis
cussion.
The
present
writer,
who is
anything
but a Metriker von
Fach,
does not feel
competent
to
pronounce
an
opinion
on its merits.
Neither
reading
aloud,
nor
counting
of
syllables,
has convinced him
that the scansion
holds,
or that Hebrew
rhythm
in
general
is so
rigor
ously
exact as the
system
demands. The
prejudice against divorcing
poetic
form from
poetic feeling
and diction
(of
the latter there is no
trace in what have been considered the
prose parts
of
Genesis)
is not
lightly
to be overcome
;
and the
frequent
want of coincidence between
breaks in sense and
pauses
in
rhythm
disturbs the
mind,
besides
violating
what used to be
thought
a fundamental feature of Hebrew
poetry.
Grave
misgivings
are also raised
by
the
question
whether the
Massoretic
theory
of the
syllable
is
(as
Sievers
assumes)
a reliable
guide
to the
pronunciation
and
rhythm
of the
early
Hebrew
language.
It seems therefore hazardous to
apply
the method to the solution of
literary problems,
whether
by
emendation of the
text,
or
by disentangle
ment of sources.
B. STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK.
6. Plan and Divisions.
That the Book of Genesis forms a
literary unity
has
been a
commonplace
of criticism since the maiden work of
Ewald
*
put
an end to the
Fragmentary Hypothesis
of
*
Die
Kompositlon
der
Genesis,
kritisch untersucht
(1823).
In that
essay
Ewald fell into the natural error of
confusing unity
of
plan
with
unity
of
authorship,
an
error, however,
which he retracted
eight
years
later
(SK, 1831, 595 ff.),
in favour of a
theory (virtually
identical
with the so-called
Supplementary Hypothesis)
which did full
justice
to
the
unity
and skilful
disposition
of the
book,
while
recognising
it to be
the result of an
amalgamation
of several documents. The distinction
has never since been lost
sight of;
and all
subsequent
theories of the
composition
of Genesis have endeavoured to reconcile the
assumption
of a
diversity
of sources with the
indisputable
fact of a
clearly designed
arrangement
of the material. The view which is
generally
held does
so in this
way
: three main
documents,
following substantially
the
same historical
order,
are held to have been combined
by
one or more
redactors
;
one of these
documents, being
little more than an
epitome
of the
history,
was
specially
fitted to
supply
a framework into which
the rest of the narrative could be
fitted,
and was selected
by
the
redactor for this
purpose ;
hence the
plan
which we discover in the
INTRODUCTION XXX111
Geddes and Vater. The
ruling-
idea of the
book,
as has
already
been
briefly
indicated
(p. ii),
is to show how
Israel,
the
people
of
God,
attained its historical
position
among
the nations of the world
;
in
particular,
how its
peculiar
relation to God was rooted in the moral
greatness
and
piety
of its three common
ancestors, Abraham, Isaac,
and
Jacob
;
and how
through
God s
promise
to them it had
secured an exclusive
right
to the soil of Canaan.
*
This
purpose,
however, appears
less in the details of the
history
(which
are
obviously governed by
a
variety
of
interests)
than in the
scope
and
arrangement
of the work as a
whole,
especially
in the framework which knits it
together,
and
reveals the
plan
to which the entire narrative is accommo
dated. The method
consistently
followed is the
progressive
isolation of the main line of Israel s descent
by
brief
genea
logical
summaries of the collateral branches of the human
family
which
diverge
from it at successive
points.
A clue to the main divisions of the book is thus furnished
by
the
editor s
practice
of
inserting-
the collateral
genealogies (Tdl&ddth)
at the
close of the
principal
sections
(i
i
10 30
;
25
12 18
;
36).
f
This
yields
a natural
and convenient division into four
approximately equal parts, namely
:
I. The Primaeval
History
of mankind :
i.-xi.J
II. The
History
of Abraham : xii. i-xxv. 18.
III. The
History
of
Jacob
: xxv.
ig-xxxvi. 43.
IV. The
Story
of
Joseph
and his brethren :
xxxvii.-L
book is
really
the
design
of one
particular
writer. It is obvious that
such a
conception quite adequately explains
all the
literary unity
which
the Book of Genesis exhibits.
*
See
Tuch,
XVI ff.
t
The
genealogies
of
4
17
*
24- 2M-
and 22
20 24
do not count : these are
not
T6l&d6th,
and do not
belong-
to the document used as a
framework.
Ch. 10
(the
Table of
peoples)
would
naturally
stand at the close of a
section
;
but it had to be
displaced
from its
proper position
before n
10
to find room for the
story
of the
Dispersion (n
1 9
).
It
may
be
said,
however,
that the TolMdth of Adam
(ch. 5)
should mark a main
division
;
and that is
probably correct,
though
for
practical purposes
it is better to
ignore
the subdivision and treat the
primaeval
history
as
one section.
Strictly speaking,
the first
part
ends
perhaps
at n
27
or
w
;
but the
actual division of
chapters
has its
recommendation,
and it is not worth
while to
depart
from it.
XXXIV
INTRODUCTION
A detailed
analysis
of the contents is
given
at the commencement of
the various sections.
It is
commonly
held
by
writers on Genesis that the editor has
marked the
headings
of the various sections
by
the formula
m-r/ifl
njrt<[i],
which occurs eleven times in the book: 2
4
*5
1
*6
9
lo
1
n
10
n
2*
25 25*
36 3b
9
37
2
.
Transposing
a
4*
to the
beginning,
and
disregarding 36
9
(both
arbitrary proceedings),
we obtain ten
parts;
and these are
actually adopted by
De. as the divisions of his
commentary.
But the
scheme is of no
practical utility,
for it is idle to
speak
of u
10
*
2*
or
25
12
"
1*
as sections of Genesis on the same
footing
as
25
19
-35
29
or
37
2
~5o
26
;
and
theoretically
it is
open
to serious
objection.
Here it will suffice to
point
out the
incongruity
that,
while the histories of Noah and Isaac
fall under their own
TolVdoth,
those of
Abraham, Jacob,
and
Joseph
fall
under the TdlMolh of their
respective
fathers.
See, further,
p. 40
f.
7.
The Sotirces
of
Genesis.
The Book of Genesis has
always
been the
strategic
position
of Pentateuchal
literary
criticism. It was the
examination of this book that led
Astruc,
in
1753,!
to the
important discovery
which was the first
positive
achievement
in this
department
of research.
Having
noticed the
signifi
cant alternation of the divine names in different sections of
the
book,
and
having
convinced himself that the
phenomenon
could not be
explained
otherwise than as due to the
literary
habit of two
writers,
Astruc
proceeded
to divide the bulk
of Genesis into two
documents,
one
distinguished by
the
use of the name
B^N,
and the other
by
the use of
nj!t|
;
while a series of
fragmentary passages
where this criterion
failed him
brought
the total number of his memoires
up
to
twelve.
Subsequent investigations
served to
emphasise
the
magnitude
of this
discovery,
which Eichhorn
J speedily
put
on a broader basis
by
a characterisation of the
style,
contents,
and
spirit
of the two documents. Neither Astruc
nor Eichhorn carried the
analysis
further than Ex.
2,
partly
because
they
were influenced
by
the traditional
opinion
(afterwards
abandoned
by Eichhorn)
of Mosaic
authorship,
*
nnVin
150
ni.
f
Conjectures
sur les memoires
originaux,
dont il
paroit que Moyse
sest servi
pour composer
le livre de la Genese.
Einleitung
in das
AT, 1780-3 (ist ed.).
INTRODUCTION XXXV
and did not
expect
to find traces of
composition
in the
history contemporaneous
with Moses. We shall see
presently
that there is a
deeper
reason
why
this
particular
clue to the
analysis
could not at first be traced
beyond
the
early chapters
of Exodus.
While the earlier
attempts
to discredit Astruc s
discovery
took the
direction of
showing
that the use of the two divine names is determined
by
a difference of
meaning
which made the one or the other more
suitable in a
particular
connexion,
the more recent
opposition
entrenches
itself
mostly
behind the uncertainties of the
text,
and maintains that the
Vns.
(especially (3r)
show the MT to be so unreliable that no
analysis
of
documents can be based on its data : see
Klostermann,
Der Pentateuch
(1893), p.
20 ff.
; Dahse, ARW,
vi.
(1903), 305
ff.
;
Redpath, AJT/i,
viii.
(1904),
286
ff.; Eerdmans,
Comp.
d. Gen.
(1908), 34
ff.
; Wiener,
BS
(1909), iigff.
It cannot be denied that the facts adduced
by
these
writers
import
an element of
uncertainty
into the
analysis,
so
far
as it
depends
on the criterion
of
the divine names
;
but the
significance
of the
facts is
greatly
overrated,
and the alternative theories
propounded
to
account for the textual
phenomena
are
improbable
in the extreme,
(i)
So far as I have
observed,
no attention is
paid
to what is
surely
a
very
important
factor of the
problem,
the
proportion
of
divergences
to
agreements
as between fflr
and MT. In Genesis the divine name
occurs in one or other form about
340
times
(in MT,
m,v
143
1. +
D nWc
177
t. +
N 20
1.).
The total deviations
registered by Redpath
(296 ff.)
number
50; according
to Eerdmans
(34 f.) they
are
49;
i.e.
little more than one-seventh of the whole. Is it so certain that that
degree
of
divergence
invalidates a
documentary analysis
founded on
so much
larger
a field of
undisputed readings
?
(2)
In
spite
of the
confident assertions of Dahse
(309)
and Wiener
(131 f.)
there is not a
single
instance in which ( is
demonstrably right against
MT. It is
readily
conceded that it is
probably right
in a few cases
;
but there are
two
general presumptions
in favour of the
superior fidelity
of the
Massoretic tradition. Not
only (a)
is the chance of
purely
clerical
confusion between KJ and 6s
greater
than between nirr and D
H^K,
or even
between
"
and
N,
and
(b)
a
change
of divine names more
apt
to occur in
translation than in
transcription,
but
(c)
the distinction
between a
proper
name mrv and a
generic
D n^K is much less
likely
to have been
overlooked in
copying
than that between two
appellatives Kvptos
and
0e6s. An instructive
example
is
4
26
,
where <&
Kvpios
6 6e6s is
demon
strably wrong. (3)
In the
present
state of textual
criticism it is
impossible
to determine in
particular
cases what is the
original
reading.
We can
only proceed by
the
imperfect
method of
averages.
Now it is
significant
that while in Gen.
<& substitutes 0e6s for m,T
21
times,
and
Kupios
6 6e6$
19
times
(40
in
all),
there are
only 4
cases of
Ktipios
and 6 of
Kijpios
6 6eos for D nSx
(10
in all: the
proportions being very
much the
same for the whole
Pent.).
< thus reveals a decided
(and very natural)
preference
for the
ordinary
Greek 0e6s over the less familiar
XXXVI
INTRODUCTION
Dahse
urges (p. 308)
that MT
betrays
an
equally
marked
preference
for
m,T,
and has
frequently
substituted it for D n^x
;
but that is much less
intelligible.
For
although
the
pronunciation
of m.T as
fig might
have
removed
the fear of the
Tetragrammaton,
and that would be a
very
good
reason for
leaving
mrv where it
was,
it
suggests
no motive at all
for
inserting
it where it was not. There is
force, however,
in
Gray
s
remark
on a
particular
case
(Num. p. 311),
that "wherever
[6]
/cs
appears
in (Er
it deserves attention as a
possible
indication of the
original
text."
(4)
The
documentary theory
furnishes a better
explana
tion of the alternation of the names than
any
other that has been
propounded.
Redpath
s
hypothesis
of a double recension of the
Pent.,
one
mainly
Yahwistic and the other
wholly (?)
Elohistic,
of which one
was used
only
where the other was
illegible,
would
explain anything,
and therefore
explains nothing
;
least of all does it
explain
the
frequent
coincidence
of
hypothetical illegibility
with actual
changes
of
style,
phraseology,
and
standpoint.
Dahse
(following
out a hint of
Klostermann)
accounts for the
phenomena
of MT
(and JUA) by
the desire
to
preserve
uniformity
within the limits of each several
pericope
of the
Synagogue
lectionary
;
but
why
some
pericopes
should be Yahwistic
and others
Elohistic,
it is not
easy
to conceive. He admits that his
view cannot be carried
through
in detail
;
yet
it is
just
of the kind
which,
if
true, ought
to be verifiable in detail. One has but to read
consecutively
the first three
chapters
of
Genesis,
and observe how the
sudden
change
in the divine name coincides with a new
vocabulary,
representation,
and
spiritual atmosphere,
in order to feel how
paltry
all
such artificial
explanations
are in
comparison
with the
hypothesis
that
the names are distinctive of different documents. The
experience
repeats
itself,
not
perhaps quite
so
convincingly, again
and
again
throughout
the book
;
and
though
there are cases where the
change
of
manner is not
obvious,
still the
theory
is vindicated in a sufficient
number of instances to be worth
carrying through,
even at the
expense
of a somewhat
complicated analysis,
and a
very
few demands
(see
p.
xlviii
f.)
on the services of a redactor to resolve isolated
problems.
(5)
It was
frankly
admitted
by
Kuenen
long ago (see
Ond. i.
pp. 59, 62)
that the test of the divine names is not
by itself
a sufficient criterion of
source or
authorship,
and that critics
might
sometimes err
throug
h
a too exclusive reliance on this one
phenomenon.*
Nevertheless the
opinion
can be maintained that the MT is far
superior
to the
Vns.,
and
that its use of the names is a valuable clue to the
separation
of documents.
Truth is sometimes
stranger
than fiction
; and,
however
surprising
it
may appear
to
some,
we can reconcile our minds to the belief that the
*
It should be
clearly
understood that as
regards
P and
J
the dis
tinction of divine names is but one of
many
marks of diverse
authorship
(see
Dri. LOT
8
, 131 if.,
where more than
fifty
such
distinguishing
criteria are
given),
and that after Ex.
6,
where this
particular
criterion
disappears,
the difference is
quite
as obvious as before. As
regards J
and
E,
the
analysis, though
sometimes
dependent
on the divine names
alone,
is
generally
based on other differences as well.
INTRODUCTION XXXV11
MT does
reproduce
with substantial
accuracy
the characteristics of the
original autographs.
At
present
that
assumption
can
only
be tested
by
the success or failure of the
analysis
based on it. It is idle to
speculate
on what would have
happened
if Astruc and his successors had been
compelled
to
operate
with (Er instead of MT
;
but it is a rational surmise
that in that case criticism would still have
arrived, by
a more laborious
route,
at
very
much the
positions
it
occupies to-day.
The next
great step
towards the modern
documentary
theory
of the Pent, was
Hupfeld
s* demonstration that
DTt^K
is not
peculiar
to one
document,
but to two
;
so that under
the name Elohist two different writers had
previously
been
confused. It is
obvious,
of
course,
that in this
inquiry
the
divine names afford no
guidance; yet by observing
finer
marks of
style,
and the connexion of the
narrative, Hupfeld
succeeded in
proving
to the ultimate satisfaction of all
j
critics that there was a second Elohistic source
(now
called
E), closely parallel
and akin to the Yahwistic
(J),
and that
both
J
and E had once been
independent
consecutive
narratives. An
important part
of the work was a more
accurate delimitation of the first Elohist
(now
called the
Priestly
Code :
P),
whose outlines were then first drawn
with a clearness to which later
investigation
has had little
to
add.f
Though Hupfeld
s work was confined to
Genesis,
it had results of the
utmost
consequence
for the criticism of the Pent, as a whole. In
par-
*
Die
Quellen
der Genesis und die Art ihrer
Zusamtnensetzung (1853).
Hupfeld
s
discovery
had
partly
been
anticipated by llgen (Urkunden
des ersten Bucks von Moses
[1798]).
Between Eichhorn and
Hupfeld,
criticism had
passed through
two well-defined
phases
: the
Fragmentary
Hypothesis (see p.
xxxiif.
above)
and the
Supplementary Hypothesis,
of which the classical
exposition
is Tuch s fine
commentary
on Genesis
(1858
;
reissued
by
Arnold in
1871).
The latter
theory
rested
partly
on
a
prejudice
that the framework of the Pent, was
necessarily supplied
by
its oldest source
;
partly
on the
misapprehension
which
Hupfeld
dispelled
;
and
partly
on the truth that Yahwistic sections are so inter
laced with Elohistic that the former could
plausibly
be
regarded
as on
the whole
supplementary
to the latter.
Though
Tuch s
commentary
did not
appear
till
1858,
the
theory
had
really
received its death-blow
from
Hupfeld
five
years
before.
t
See
Noldeke,
Untersuchungen
zur Kritik des
AT, 1869, pp. 1-144.
It is
worthy
of mention here that this
great
scholar,
after
long resisting
the
theory
of the late
origin
of
P,
has at last declared his
acceptance
of
the
position
of We.
(see ZA, 1908, 203).
XXXvill INTRODUCTION
ticular,
it
brought
to
light
a fact which at once
explains why
Genesis
presents
a
simpler problem
to
analysis
than the rest of the
Pent.,
and
furnishes a final
proof
that the avoidance of m.v
by
two of the sources
was not
accidental,
but arose from a
theory
of
religious development
held and
expressed by
both writers. For both P
(Ex.
6
2ff
-)
and E
(Ex.
3
13ff
-)
connect the revelation of the
Tetragrammaton
with the mission of
Moses
;
while the former states
emphatically
that God was not known
by
that name to the
patriarchs.* Consistency
demanded that these
writers should use the
generic
name for
Deity up
to this
point
;
while
J,
who was bound
by
no such
theory,
could use ni.T from the first.
f
From
Ex. 6 onwards P
regularly
uses
ni.T;
E s
usage
fluctuates between N
and
(perhaps
a
sign
of different strata within the
document),
so that
the criterion no
longer yields
a sure clue to the
analysis.
It does not lie within the
scope
of this Introduction to
trace the extension of these lines of
cleavage through
the
other books of the Hexateuch
;
and of the reflex results of
the criticism of the later books on that of Genesis
only
two
can here be mentioned. One is the
recognition
of the
unique position
and character of
Deuteronomy
in the
Pent.,
and the
dating-
of its
promulgation
in the
eighteenth year
of
Josiah.J Although
this has
hardly any
direct influence on
the criticism of
Genesis,
it is an
important
landmark in the
Pentateuch
problem,
as
furnishing
a fixed date
by
reference
to which the
age
of the other documents can
partly
be deter
mined. The other
point
is the
question
of the date of P.
The
preconception
in favour of the
antiquity
of this docu
ment
(based
for the most
part
on the fact that it
really
forms
the framework of the
Pent.)
was
nearly
universal
among
scholars down to the
publication
of We. s Geschichte
Israels,
i.,
in
1878;
but it had
already
been shown to be
groundless
by
Graf and Kuenen in
1866-69.
*
A curious
attempt
to turn the
edge
of this
argument
will be found
in the art. of H. M. Wiener referred to above
(BS, 1909, 158 ff.).
t For a
partial exception,
see on
4
26
.
J
De
Wette,
Beitrdge
zur
Einleitung
in das AT
( 1806-7);
Rienm
>
Gesetzgebung
Moses im Lande Moab
(1854)
;
al.
Die
geschichtliche
Sticker des A Ts
(1866).
Graf did not at first see
it
necessary
to abandon the earlier date of the narratives of P
;
for an
account of his
subsequent change
of
opinion
in
correspondence
with
Kuenen,
as well as the
anticipations
of his final
theory by
Vatke, Reuss,
and
others,
we must refer to Kue. Hex.
xixff.,
or Ho. s
Einleitung^
especially p. 64
ff.
INTRODUCTION XXXIX
This
revolutionary change
was
brought
about
by
a
comparison
of the
layers
of
legislation
in the later Pent, books with one
another,
and with the
stages
of Israel s
religious history
as revealed in the
earlier historical books
;
from which it
appeared
that the laws be
longing
to P were later than
Deut.,
and that their codification took
place during
and
after,
and their
promulgation after,
the Exile.
There was hesitation at first in
extending
this conclusion to the
narratives of
P, especially
those of them in Genesis and Ex. i-n.
But when the
problem
was
fairly
faced,
it was
perceived,
not
only
that P in Genesis
presented
no obstacle to the
theory,
but that in
many respects
its narrative was more
intelligible
as the latest than
as the oldest stratum of the book.
The chief
positions
at which
literary
criticism has arrived
with
regard
to Genesis
are, therefore,
briefly
these :
(i)
The
oldest sources are
J
and
E,
closely parallel documents,
both
I
dating
from the best
period
of Hebrew
literature,
but dis
tinguished
from each other
by
their use of the divine
name,/
by slight idiosyncrasies
of
style,
and
by quite perceptible
differences of
representation. (2)
These sources were conu
bined into a
composite
narrative
(JE) by
a redactor
(R
JE
),
whose hand can be detected in several
patches
of a
literary
complexion differing
from either of his authorities. He has
done his work so
deftly
that it is
frequently difficult,
and
sometimes
impossible,
to sunder the documents. It is
generally
held that this redaction took
place
before the com
position
of
Deut.,
so that a third
stage
in the
history
of the
Pent, would be
represented by
the
symbols JE -f
D.
(3)
The
remaining
source P is a
product
of the Exilic or
post-Exilic
age, though
it embodies older material.
Originally
an
independent
work,
its formal and schematic character fitted
it to be the framework of the Pentateuchal narrative
;
and
this has determined the
procedure
of the final redactor
(R
JEP
), by
whom
excerpts
from
JE
have been used to fill
up
the skeleton outline which P
gave
of the
primitive
and
patriarchal history.
The above statement
will,
it is
hoped,
suffice to
put
the
reader in
possession
of the main
points
of the critical
position
occupied
in the
Commentary.
The evidence
by
which
they
are
supported
will
partly
be
given
in the next four
; but,
for a full discussion of the numerous
questions involved,
xl
INTRODUCTION
we must here refer to works
specially
devoted to the
subject.*
Some idea of the extent to which conservative
opinion
has been
modified
by
criticism, may
be
gathered
from the concessions made
by
Professor
Orr,
whose
book,
The Problem
of
the Old
Testament,
de
servedly
ranks as the ablest assault on the critical
theory
of the Pent,
that has
recently appeared
in
English.
Dr. Orr admits
(a)
that Astruc
was
right
in
dividing
a considerable
part
of Genesis into Elohistic and
Yahwistic sections
; (b)
that Eichhorn s characterisation of the
style
of
the two documents
has,
in the
main,
stood the test of time
; (c)
that
Hupfeld
s observation of a difference in the Elohistic sections of Genesis
in substance
corresponds
with facts
;
and
(</)
that even Graf and We.
mark an
advance,
in
making
P a
relatively
later stratum of Genesis
than
JE (pp. 196-201).
When we see so
many
defences evacuated one
after
another,
we
begin
to wonder what is left to
fight about,
and how
a
theory
which was cradled in
infidelity,
and has the vice of its
origin
clinging
to all its
subsequent developments (Orr, 195 f.),
is
going
to be
prevented
from
doing
its
deadly
work of
spreading
havoc over the
believing
view of the OT. Dr. Orr thinks to stem the torrent
by
adopting
two
relatively
conservative
positions
from Klostermann.
(i)
The first is the denial of the distinction between
J
and E
(216 ff.).
As soon as
Hupf.
had effected the
separation
of E from
P,
it
ought
to
have been
perceived,
he seems to
suggest,
that the sections thus disen
tangled
are
really parts
of
J (217).
And
yet,
even to Dr.
Orr,
the matter
is not
quite
so
simple
as
this,
and he makes another concession. The
distinction in the divine names remains
;
and so he is driven to admit that
J
and E
were,
not indeed
independent
works,
but different
literary
re
censions of one and the same old work
(229).
What is meant
by
two
versions in circulation
alongside
of each
other,
which never had cur
rency
as
separate
documents,
is a
point
on which Dr. Orr owes his
readers some
explanation ;
if there were two recensions
they certainly
existed
separately
;
and he cannot
possibly
know how far their
agree
ment extended. The issue between him and his critical
opponents
is,
nevertheless,
perfectly
clear :
they
hold that
J
and E are
independent
recensions of a common
body
of
tradition,
while he maintains that
they
*
The
following may
be mentioned :
Kuenen,
Historisch-critisch onder
zoek naar het ontstaan en de
verzameling
van de boeken des Ouden Ver-
bonds-,
i.
(1885) [Eng.
tr.,
The Hexateuch
(1886)];
and Gesammeltc
Abhandlungen
(transl.
into German
by
Budde) ; Wellhausen,
Com
position
des
Hexateuchs,
etc.
(-1889)
;
and
Prolegomena
zur Geschichtc
Israels
( 1905) [Eng.
tr.
1885]; Westphal,
Les Sources du Pent.
(1888,
1892)
; Reuss,
Geschichte der
heiligen Schriften.
des A Ts
(
2
i89o)
;
Robert
son
Smith,
The Old Testament in the
Jewish
Church
(
2
i892)
; Driver,
Introduction to the Literature
of
the OT
(
s
igog) ; Holzinger, Einleitung
in den Hex.
(1893); Cornill,
Einleitung (
6
i9o8)
;
Konig,
Einl.
(1893);
Carpenter
and
Harford-Battersby, Comp. of
the Hex.
(1902) [
=
vol. i. of
The Hexateuch
(1900)].
INTRODUCTION xli
were recensions of a
single
document, differing
in
nothing
but the use of
.TI.T or DTiW. What
reasons, then,
hinder us from
deserting
the critical
view,
and
coming
over to the side of Dr. Orr ? In the
first place,
the
difference between
J
and E is not confined to the divine names. The
linguistic
evidence is
very
much clearer than Dr. Orr
represents
;
and
differences of
conception, though slight,
are real. It is all
very
well to
quote
from candid and
truth-loving opponents
admissions of the close
resemblance of the
narratives,
and the
difficulty
and
uncertainty
of the
analysis,
in
particular
instances,
and to
suggest
that these admissions
amount to a
throwing up
of the case
;
but no man with an
independent
grasp
of the
subject
will be
imposed
on
by
so
cheap
a device. In the
second
place,
J
and E consist
largely
of
duplicate
narratives of the same
event. It is
true,
this
argument
is lost on Dr.
Orr,
who has no diffi
culty
in
conceiving
that Abraham twice told the same lie about his
wife,
and that his son Isaac followed his
example,
with
very
similar results
in the three cases. But he will
hardly
affect to be
surprised
that other
men take a more natural
view,*
and
regard
the stories as traditional
variations of the same theme.
(2)
The second
position
is that P was
never a distinct or
self-subsisting
document,
but
only
a
"
framework
"
enclosing
the contents of
JE (341-377). Again
we have to ask what
Dr. Orr means
by
a
framework, which,
in his own
words,
"has
also,
at certain
points,
its
original,
and,
in
parts,
considerable contributions
to
bring
to the
history" (272)
;
and how he can
possibly
tell that these
original
and considerable contributions did not come from an inde
pendent
work. The facts that it is now
closely
interwoven with
JE,
and that there are
gaps
in its narrative
(even
if these
gaps
were
more considerable than there is
any
reason to
suppose), prove nothing
except
that it has
passed through
the hands of a redactor. That its
history presupposes
a
knowledge
of
JE,
and is too
meagre
to be in
telligible apart
from
it,
is
amply explained by
the critical view that
the author wished to concentrate attention on the
great religious
turning-points
in the
history (the
Creation,
the
Flood,
the Covenant
with
Abraham,
the
Blessing
of
Jacob by
Isaac,
the
origin
of the name
Israel,
the Settlement in
Egypt, etc.),
and dismissed the rest with a bare
chronological epitome.
When we add that on all these
points,
as well
as
others,
the
original
and considerable contributions are
(Dr.
Orr s
protestations notwithstanding) radically divergent
from the older tradi
tion,
we have
every proof
that could be desired that P was an
independent
document,
and not a mere
supplementary expansion
of an earlier com
pilation
(see, further,
p.
Ivii ff.
below).
But
now,
supposing
Dr. Orr to
have made
good
his
contentions,
what
advantage
has he
gained?
So far as we can
see,
none whatever ! He does indeed
go
on to assert
a
preference
for the term collaboration as
expressing
the kind and
manner of the
activity
which
brought
the Pentateuchal books into their
present shape* (375).
t
But that
preference might just
as
easily
have
*
So even
Sayce, Early History of
the Hebrews
(1897),
62 f.
, 64
f.
t
It is a
grave injustice
to Di. to associate his
name,
however re
motely,
with this
theory
of collaboration
(527).
What Di. is
speaking
xlil INTRODUCTION
been exercised on the full
literary
results of the critical
theory.
And Dr.
Orr deceives himself if he
imagines
that that
flimsy hypothesis
will
either neutralise the force of the
arguments
that have carried criticism
past
the barren eccentricities of
Klostermann,
or save what he chooses
to consider the essential
Mosaicity
of the Pent
Professor Eerdmans of
Leiden,
in a series of recent
publications,
has
announced his secession from the Graf-Wellhausen
school,
and com
menced to
lay
down the
programme
of a new era in OT criticism
(Hibb.
Journ.
vii.
[1909], 8i3ff.).
His
Komposition
der Genesis
(1908) gives
a
foretaste of his
literary
method
;
and
certainly
the
procedure
is drastic
enough.
The divine names are
absolutely misleading
as a criterion of
authorship
;
and the distinction between P and
JE goes
overboard
along
with that between
J
and E. Criticism is thus thrown back into
its
original
chaos,
out of which Ee.
proceeds
to evoke a new kosmos.
His one
positive principle
is the
recognition
of a
polytheistic background
behind the
traditions,
which has been obscured in various
degrees by
the later monotheistic
interpretation. By
the
help
of this
principle,
he
distinguishes
four
stages
in the
development
of the tradition,
(i)
The
first is
represented by
remnants of the
original
undiluted
polytheism,
where Yahwe does not
appear
at all
;
e.g. 35
1
"
7
;
the Israel-recension of
the
Joseph-stories
;
the
groundwork
of chs. i. 20. 28
1 9
6
9
-9
17
.
(2)
Legends
which
recognise
Yahwe as one
among many gods
;
4. 9
18
~
27
22.
27.
28
11 22
29. 30. 31. 39. (3)
In the third
stage, polytheistic legends
are
transferred to Yahwe as the
only
God : 2.
3.
6
1 8
y
1 5
S
20 22
1 1
1 9
16. 18.
19
24. 25
19 34
26.
(4)
Late additions of
purely
monotheistic
complexion
:
j^i-6
j*^
35
9
"
1B
48
3
"
6
. Now
r
,
we are
quite prepared
to find traces of all
these
stages
of
religion
in the
Genesis-narratives,
if
they
can be
proved
;
and, indeed,
all of them
except
the second are
recognised by
recent
critics. But while
any
serious
attempt
to determine the
age
of the
legends
from their contents rather than from their
literary
features is to
be
welcomed,
it is difficult to
perceive
the distinctions on which Ee. s
classification is
based,
or to admit
that,
for
example,
ch.
17
is one whit
more monotheistic than 20 or
27,
or
24.
In
any
case,
on Ee. s own
showing,
the classification affords no clue to the
composition
and
history
of the book. In order to
get
a
start,
he has to fall back on
the
acknowledged literary
distinction between a
Jacob-recension
and
an Israel-recension of the
Joseph-narratives (on
this see
p. 439
be
low).
Since the former
begins apy
nnVn n
1
?^,
it is considered to have
formed
part
of a
comprehensive history
of the
patriarchs, commencing
with Adam
(5
1
),
set in a framework of T6l8d6th, This is the
ground
work of Genesis. It is destitute of monotheistic
colouring (it
contains,
of in the words cited is
simply
the
question
whether the three
documents,
P, E,
and
J,
were combined
by
a
single
redaction,
or whether two of
them were first
put together
and afterwards united with the third.
Dr.
Orr,
on the other
hand,
is
thinking
of "the labours of
original
composers, working
with a common aim and towards a common end
"
(375).
If
everything beyond
this is
conjectural (376),
there is
nothing
but
conjecture
in the whole construction.
INTRODUCTION xliii
however,
leg-ends
of all the first three classes
!),
Yahwe
being
to the
compiler simply
one of the
gods
;
and must therefore have
originated
before the Exile : a lower limit is
700
B.C. This collection was soon
enlarged by
the addition of
legends
not less ancient than its own
;
and
by
the insertion of the
Israel-recension,
which is as
polytheistic
in
character as the T6l$ddth-co\lection ! The monotheistic
manipulation
of the work set in after
Deuteronomy
;
but how
many
editions it went
through
we cannot tell for certain. The last
thorough-going
reviser
was the author of ch.
17
;
but additions were made even later than
that,
etc. etc. A more
bewildering hypothesis
it has never been our lot to
examine
;
and we cannot
pretend
to believe that it contains the rudi
ments of a successful
analysis.
There is much to be learned from Ee. s
work,
which is full of acute observations and sound
reasoning
in detail
;
but as a
theory
of the
composition
of Genesis it seems to us
utterly
at
fault. What with Wi. and
Jer.,
and
Che.,
and now
Ee.,
OT scholars
have a
good many
new eras
dawning
on them
just
now. Whether
any
of them will shine unto the
perfect day,
time will show.
8. The collective
authorship ofJ
and E.
In
J
and E we
have,
according
to what has been said
above,
the two oldest written recensions of a tradition which
had at one time existed in the oral form. When we com
pare
the two
documents,
the first
thing
that strikes us is
their close
correspondence
in outline and contents. The
only important
difference is that E s narrative does not seem
to have embraced the
primitive period,
but to have com
menced with Abraham. But from the
point
where E strikes
into the current of the
history (at
ch.
20,
with a few earlier
traces in ch.
15),
there are few incidents in the one document
to which the other does not contain a
parallel.*
What is
*
The
precise
extent to which this is true
depends,
of
course,
on the
validity
of the finer
processes
of
analysis,
with
regard
to which there is
room for difference of
opinion.
On the
analysis
followed in the com
mentary,
the
only episodes
in E to which there is no trace of a
parallel
in
J,
after ch.
15,
are : the sacrifice of
Isaac, 22;
Esau s
selling
of his
birthright, 25
29 34
(?) ;
the
theophany
of
Mahanaim, 32
2> 3
;
the
purchase
of
land at
Shechem, 33
18 20
;
and the various incidents in
35
1 8- 14 20
. Those
peculiar
to
J
are : the
theophany
at
Mamre,
18
;
the destruction of
Sodom, ig
1
"
28
;
Lot and his
daughters, ig
30 38
;
the birth of
Jacob
and
Esau, 25
21
"
28
;
the
Isaac-narratives,
26
; Jacob
s
meeting
with
Rachel,
29
2 14
;
Reuben and the
love-apples, 3o
14ff-
;
the incest of
Reuben, 35
2 - 22a
;
Judah
and
Tamar, 38
;
Joseph
s
temptation, 39
7
"
20
;
the
cup
in
Benjamin
s
sack, 44
;
Joseph
s
agrarian policy, 47
13
"
26
<
7>
;
and the
genealogies
of
xliv INTRODUCTION
much more
remarkable,
and indeed
surprising,
is that the
manner of narration
changes
in the two documents
paripassu.
Thus the transition from the loose connexion of the Abraham
legends
to the more consecutive
biography
of
Jacob,
and
then to the artistic
unity
of the
Joseph-stories (see p.
xxviii
f.),
is
equally
noticeable in
J
and in E. It is this
extraordinarily
close
parallelism,
both in matter and
form,
which
proves
that both documents drew from a common
body
of
tradition,
and even
suggests
that that tradition had
already
been
partly
reduced to
writing.*
Here we come
back,
from the side of
analysis,
to a
question
which was left unsettled in
5
;
the
question,
namely,
of the
process by
which the oral tradition was con
solidated and reduced to
writing.
It has been shown with
great probability
that both
J
and E are
composite
documents,
in which minor
legendary cycles
have been
incorporated,
and
different strata of tradition are embedded. This
presupposes
a
development
of the tradition within the circle
represented
by
each
document,
and leads
eventually
to the
theory
ad
vocated
by
most recent
critics,
that the
symbols J
and E
must be taken to
express,
not two individual writers but two
schools, i.e.)
two series of
narrators,
animated
by
common
conceptions, following
a common
literary
method,
and trans
mitting
a common form of the tradition from one
generation
to another.
The
phenomena
which
suggest
this
hypothesis
are
fully
described in
the
body
of the
commentary,
and need
only
be
recapitulated
here. In
J, composite
structure has been most
clearly
made out in the Primaeval
History (chs.
i-n),
where at least
two,
and
probably more,
strands of
narrative can be
distinguished (pp. 1-4).
Gu. seems to have shown that
in 1
2-25
two
cycles
of
Abraham-legends
have been interwoven
(p. 240) ;
also that in
25
ff. the
Jacob-Esau
and the
Jacob-
Laban
legends
were
originally independent
of each other : this
last, however, applies
to
J
and E
alike,
so that the fusion had
probably
taken
place
in the
common tradition which lies behind both.
Further,
chs.
34
and
38
*
One is almost
tempted
to
go further,
and
say
that the facts can be
best
explained by
the
hypothesis
of
literary
dependence
of one document
on the other
(so
Lu.
INS,
169
:
"
E steht
vollig
in seinem
[J s]
Banne
").
But the
present
writer is convinced from
repeated
examination,
that
the differences are not of a kind that can be accounted for in this
way
(see Procksch,
305 f.).
INTRODUCTION
xlv
(pp. 418, 450)
belong
to an older stratum of tradition than the main
narrative
;
and the same
might
be said of ch.
49 (p. 512),
which
may
very plausibly
be
regarded
as a traditional
poem
of the school of
J,
and
the oldest extant
specimen
of its
repertoire.
With
regard
to
E,
the
proof
of
composite
authorship
lies
chiefly
in the Books of
Exodus,
Numbers,
and
Joshua ;
in
Genesis, however,
we have
imperfectly
as
similated
fragments
of a more ancient tradition in
34 (?
if E be a
component
there), 35
1 7
48
22
and
perhaps
some other
passages.
The
important
fact is that these
passages
exhibit all the
literary peculiarities
of the main source to which
they
are
assigned ;
at
least,
no
linguistic
differentia
of
any consequence
have
yet
been discovered.* The
problem
is to frame a
theory
which shall do
justice
at once to their material
incongruities
and their
literary homogeneity.
While the fact of collective
authorship
of some kind is
now
generally
recognised,
there is no
agreement
as to the
interpretation
which best
explains
all the
phenomena.
Some
scholars are
impressed (and
the
impression
is
certainly very
intelligible) by
the
unity
of
conception
and
standpoint
and
mode of treatment which characterise the two
collections,
and maintain that
(in
the case of
J especially)
the
stamp
of
a
powerful
and
original personality
is too obvious to leave
much
play
for the
activity
of a school.
f
It is
very
difficult
*
The
only exception
would be Sievers* metrical
analysis,
which leads
to results far more
complicated
than can be
justified by
other indications
(see p. xxxif.).
f
See the
lengthy
excursus of Luther in
INS,
107-170,
where the
thesis is
upheld
that the Yahvvist
(i.e. J
1
)
is not a
stage
in the natural
process
of
remodelling
the tradition
;
that he does not mean
merely
to
retail the old stories as he found
them,
but writes his book with the
conscious
purpose
of
enforcing
certain ideas and convictions which often
run
contrary
to the
prevailing
tendencies of his
age (108).
Lu. seems
to
simplify
the
problem
too much
by excluding
the
primaeval
tradition
from consideration
(108),
and
ignoring
the distribution of the Yahwistic
material over the various
stages
of the redaction
(155).
It makes a
considerable
difference to the
theory
if
(as
seems to be the
case)
the
sections
which Lu.
assigns
to
J
2
(e.g.
chs.
34, 38, 19) really represent
older
phases
of tradition than the main document
;
for if
they
existed in
their Yahwistic
colouring prior
to the
compilation
of
J
1
,
there must have
been a Yahwistic circle of some kind to
preserve
them
;
and even if
they
received
their
literary stamp
at a later
time,
there must still have
been
something
of the nature of a school to
impress
the Yahwistic
character so
strongly upon
them. His
conception
of the Yahwist as an
Ephraimite,
a detached and
sympathetic
adherent of the
prophetic
and
Rechabite movement of the
gth cent.,
an
opponent
of the
cultus,
and
an
upholder
of the nomadic ideal
against
the drift of the old
tradition,
xlvi
INTRODUCTION
to hold the balance even between the claims of
unity
and
complexity
in the documents
;
but the
theory
of
single
authorship may easily
be
pressed
too far. If we could
get
through
with
only
a
J
1
and
J
2
,
E
1
,
E
2
etc., i.e.,
with the
theory
of one main document
supplemented by
a few later
additions,
it would be absurd to
speak
of schools. And
even if the case were
considerably
more
complicated,
it
might
still be
possible
to rest satisfied
(as
a
majority
of critics
do)
with the idea of
literary schools,
manipulating
written
documents under the influence of tendencies and
principles
which had become traditional within
special
circles. Gu.
goes,
however,
much further with his
conception
of
J
and E
as first of all
guilds
of oral
narrators,
whose stories
gradually
took written
shape
within their
respective circles,
and were
ultimately put together
in the collections as we now have
them. The
theory,
while not
necessarily excluding
the
action of an
outstanding personality
in
shaping
either the
oral or the
literary phase
of the
tradition,
has the
advantage
of
suggesting
a medium in which the traditional material
might
have assumed its
specifically
Yahwistic or Elohistic
form before
being incorporated
in the main document of the
school. It is at all events a
satisfactory working hypothesis
;
and that is all that can be looked for in so obscure a
region
of
investigation.
Whether it is
altogether
so artificial and
unnatural as Professor Orr would have us
believe,
the reader
must
judge
for himself.
seems to
go
far
beyond
the evidence
adduced, and, indeed,
to be
hardly
reconcilable with the
religious
tone and
spirit
of the narratives. To a
similar effect writes
Procksch,
Sagenbuch^ 284-308
;
although
he does
justice
to the
composite
structure of the document
J,
and describes it in
terms which throw a shade of
uncertainty
on the
alleged unity
of author
ship.
When we read of an
"
einheitlichen
Grundstock,
auf den wie in
einen Stamm Geschicten
ganz
anderer Herkunft
gewissermassen
auf-
gepropft sind,
jetzt eng
damit verwachsen durch die
massgebenden
Ideen"
(294
f.
),
we cannot
help asking
where these branches
grew
before
they
were
engrafted
on their
present
stem. If we are
right
in
distinguishing
a strand of narrative in which Yahwe was used from the
beginning,
and another in which it was introduced in the time of
Enosh,
it is not
easy
to account for their fusion on
any theory
which does not
allow a relative
independence
to the two
conceptions.
INTRODUCTION xlvii
9.
Characteristics
ofJ
and E their relation to
Literary
Prophecy*
It is not the
purpose
of this section to
give
an exhaustive
characterisation
of the
literary
or
general
features of the
two older documents of Genesis. If
J
and E are to be re
garded
as,
in the
main,
recensions of a common
body
of oral
tradition,
and if
they
are the work of schools rather than
of
individuals,
it is obvious that the search for
characteristic
differences loses much of its interest
;
and in
point
of fact
the
attempt
to delineate two well-defined
literary types
is
apt
to be defeated
by
the
widely
contrasted features which
have to find a
place
in one and the same
picture.
Our
object
here is
simply
to
specify
some
outstanding
differences which
justify
the
separation
of
sources,
and which
may
assist us
later to determine the relative
ages
of the two documents.
J presents,
on the
whole,
a more uniform
literary
texture
than E. It is
generally
allowed to contain the best
examples
of
pure
narrative
style
in the OT
;
and in Genesis it
rarely,
if
ever,
falls below the
highest
level. But while E
hardly
attains the same
perfection
of
form,
there are whole
passages,
especially
in the more
ample narratives,
in which it is difficult
to
assign
to the one a
superiority
over the other.
J
excels
in
picturesque objectivity
of
description,
in the
power
to
paint
a scene with few
strokes,
and in the delineation of life
and character: his
dialogues,
in
particular,
are inimitable
"for the
delicacy
and truthfulness with which character and
emotions find
expression
in them"
(cf.
Gn.
44
18ff>
).*
E,
on
the other
hand,
frequently
strikes a
deeper
vein of
subjective
feeling, especially
of
pathos ;
as in the account of Isaac s
sacrifice
(22),
of the
expulsion
of
Hagar
(2i
8ff
-),
the
dismay
of
Isaac and the tears of Esau on the
discovery
of
Jacob
s fraud
(27
35ff
-),
Jacob
s
lifelong grief
for Rachel
(48
7
),
or his tender
ness towards
Joseph
s children
(48
14
).f
But here
again
no
absolute distinction can be drawn
;
in the
history
of
Joseph,
e.g.,
the vein of
pathos
is
perhaps
more marked in
J
than
*
Driver, LOT,
p. 119.
f
Cf.
Gunkel,
p
LXXVII.
xlviii INTRODUCTION
in E. Where
parallels
are
sufficiently
distinct to show a
tendency,
it is found in several instances that
J
s
objectivity
of treatment has succeeded in
preserving
1
the archaic
spirit
of a
legend
which in E is transformed
by
the more refined
sentiment of a later
age.
The best
example
is
J
s
picture
of
Hagar,
the
intractable,
indomitable Bedawi woman
(ch. 16),
as contrasted with E s modernised version of the incident
(2i
sff
-),
with its
affecting picture
of the mother and child all
but
perishing
in the desert. So
again,
E
(ch. 20)
introduces
an extenuation of Abraham s falsehood about his wife which
is absent from the older narrative of
J (i2
loff
-).
It is not
surprising, considering
the immense
variety
of
material
comprised
in both
documents,
that the
palpable
literary
differences reduce themselves for the most
part
to a
preference
for
particular phrases
and turns of
expression
in
the one recension or the other. The most
important
case
is,
of
course,
the distinctive use
(in
the
pre-Mosaic period)
of
Yahwe in
J
and Elohim in E.* But round this are
grouped
a number of smaller
linguistic
differences
which,
when
they
occur in
any degree
of
profusion
in a consecutive
passage,
enable us to
assign
it with confidence to one or other of the
sources.
The divine names. While the
possibility
of error in the Massoretic
textual tradition is
fully recognised,
cases of inadvertence in the use of
*
This,
it is
true,
is more than a mere matter of
phraseology
;
in the
case of
E,
it is the
application
of a
theory
of
religious development
which connected the revelation of the name Yahwe with the mission of
Moses
(Ex. 3
13
"
10
).
It is now
generally
held that the
original
E con
tinued to use Elohim after the revelation to
Moses,
and that the
occurrences of Yahwe in the later
history belong
to
secondary
strata ol
the document. On either view the choice of the
general
name of
deity
is difficult to account for. Procksch
regards
it as due to the influence
of the
great
monotheistic movement headed
by Elijah
;
but that is not
probable.
The
inspiring
motive of
Elijah
s crusade was
precisely
jealousy
for
Yahive,
the national God of Israel.
Gu.,
on the other
hand,
thinks it arose from the fact that the
legends
were
largely
of Canaanite
and
polytheistic origin
;
and it is
certainly
the ca.se that in the
patriarchal
history
E contains several
strong
traces of a
polytheistic
basis of the
narratives
(28
loflr-
32
2- 3
35
7
etc.).
But that Elohim had a monotheistic
sense to the mind of the Elohistic writers is not to be doubted
(againsl
Eerdmans).
INTRODUCTION xlix
m,r and D n^N are in Genesis
singularly
few. In E
contexts,
m.v occurs
22
n. ubis
2 g-:n
3,41^
where its
presence
seems due to the intentional action
of a redactor.
J
has D .T^K
(a)
in
3
1 5
4
25
(a special
case : see
pp.
2,
53)
;
(b)
where the contrast between the divine and the human is to be
emphasised, 32
29
;
(c)
in conversations
with,
or references
to,
heathen
(real
or
supposed), g
27
39
9
4i
32b - 38
43
s3- ^
44
;
there are also
(d)
some
doubtful
examples
which are
very probably
to be
assigned
to
E,
33
5b- lob- n
42
28
. It is
only
in the last
group (if
even
there),
with
the
possible
addition
(see p. 155)
of 8
1
,
that redactional alteration or
scribal error need be
suspected.
For the inhabitants
of
Canaan, J
uses
JJN3,
io
18bt 19
I2
6
(? R), 24
3 37
5o
ll
+
(with
MTS, i3
7
(R?) 34
30
)
;
E
TDK, i5
16
48-
+ .*
For the name
Jacob, J
substitutes Israel after
35
22
(exc. 46
5b
)
;
E con
sistently
uses
Jacob (exc. 46" 48
8- " 2I
[so
25
?]).
The
following
are selected lists of
expressions (in Genesis) highly
characteristic of
J
and E
respectively
:
J
: 3N and vnx cert in
genealogies
: the
former,
4
20 - 21
io
21
n
29
22
2
;
the
latter, 4
21
io
25
(cf.
22
21
25
26
38
29f
-).
^i?l(in
connexion with a late-born
child),
2i
2a- 7
24
36
37
3
44
20
.
jn
NSD,
6
8
i8
3
ig
19
3O
27
32
6
33
8- 10 - 16
34" 39"
47
s5- 29
5o
4
+ . DTB
(without 3),
2
5
ig
4
24
15- 45
+ .
jrr
(in
sexual
sense),
4
1. 17. 25
,
9
5. 8
24
16
3326 (
algo J n
p)._-,^ (
=
<
beget ), 4
18
IO
8" 13 15 26
22
s3
2
5
8
. *
,
2
4
23- 42- 49
28
16
39
4 - 5- 8
4
a
2
43
4- 7
4419.20.26 4?
6b
+
(42
i
E?
)._
Derivatives of
^ 3sy, 3
16- 16- 17
5
29
6
6
45
5a
.
oysn,
2
s3
i8
32
29
s4- s5
3
o
20b
46
30
+ .
T
ys,
m*ys
(for
the
younger
of two brothers or
sisters), ig
31 - 34 * 35< 38
25
23
2
9
26
43
33
4
8
14
. CK-3
xnp, 4
-6
i2
8
r
3
4
2i
3a
26^
+ .
nKTpS
pT,
i8
2
[I9
1
] 24"
29
I3
33
4._
nn2{7j
, 2
16
l6
l. 5. 6. 8
2
^5 ^7.
10. 12. 43
^.
23
33!.
2. 6
(
2Q
14
3O
18
R
.
also common in
P)
;
see on HDN below.
j
psyn,
i8
16
i9
28
26
8
+ .
yo with
following gen.,
i8
4
24"-
^
43
2 u
44
25
- Particles :
Tiaya,
3
17
8
21
I2
13- 16
i8
26
29. 31. 32
2I
30
26
-24
2?
4. 10. 19. 31
^.p^JTS,
j8
5
I
9
8
33
10
3
8
26
+ .
^3^,
3" 4
15
ig
21
38+ (inE
and P once
each).
w,
in
J
about
40 times,
in E about 6
times
(in Gen.).
E :
,TCK,
2o
17
2i
10- 12- 13
3o
3
3i
33
+
(see
rmsv
above).
^na and
[tip (
elder
and
<
younger ),
2
9
16- 8
4
2
13 - 15- 32 - 34
(cf. 4
i
51f
-) ^^3, 45
11
47
12
So
21
.
mae
D, 29
15
3
1
7 41
. A
very
characteristic idiom of E is the vocative
(some
times doubled: 22
11
46
2
,
Ex.
3
4
, [i
Sa.
3
4
<E]
+
)
with the answer JJ,T :
he
20
; .in,
48
16
+
; int,
3o
ao
; ncn,
2 i
14- 15- 19
-h
; nnc,
2i
16
+
;
p (
honest
), 42
n. 19. si. as. M .
D
,
3D>
3
i
7- 41
+ ;
T33i
pa,
2i
23
(cf.
Is. i
4
22
, Jb.
i8
19
+
);
ipy,
22
9
+
; V^D,
4
8
n
;
nn3,
40
8ff.
4
,8ff. +
.
j
nnB>
4Q
5ff.
4
,11 +
.
m3s> 41
2S.
nB
,
B
pp j 3319+ J
QS>
24
32
[-J
b>
42
U
]+ ;
by
a
partiality
for rare infinitive forms
(3r
8
46
3
5o
2
48
n
+
),
and
the occasional use of
long
forms of the nominal suff.
(2i
29
[3i
6
] 4i
21
42
36
).
The
religious
and
theological conceptions
of the two
documents are in the main
identical,
though
a certain differ
ence of
standpoint appears
in one or two
features. Both
*
The cross
(
+
)
means that the
usage
is continued in the other books
of the Hex.
d
1 INTRODUCTION
evince towards the
popular
cultus an attitude of
friendly
toleration,
with a
disposition
to
ignore
its cruder
aspects
;
and this
tendency
is carried somewhat further in
J
than in E.
Thus,
while neither countenances the
Asherah,
or sacred
pole,
E
alludes,
without
offence,
to the
Mazzebah,
or sacred
pillar (28
18- 22
3i
13- 45ff-
35
20
)
;
whereas
J
nowhere allows to the
mazzebah a
legitimate
function in the
worship
of Yahwe.
A
very singular
circumstance is that while both
frequently
record the erection of altars
by
the
patriarchs, they
are
remarkably
reticent as to the actual
offering
of sacrifice : E
refers to it
only
twice
(22. 46
1
),
and
J
never at all in the
patriarchal history (ct. 4
3ff-
8
20ff
-).
It is difficult to
imagine
that the omission is other than accidental : the idea that it
indicates an indifference
(Gu.),
or a conscious
opposition
(Lu.),
to the
cultus,
can
hardly
be entertained
;
for after all
the altar had no use or
significance except
as a means of
sacrifice. The most
striking diversity appears
in the
repre
sentation of the
Deity,
and
especially
of the manner of His
revelation to men. The
antique
form of the
theophany,
in
which Yahwe
(or
the
Angel
of
Yahwe) appears visibly
in
human
form,
and in broad
daylight,
is
peculiar
to
J (chs.
16. 18.
19),
and
corresponds
to the
highly anthropomorphic
language
which is observed in other
parts
of the document
(chs.
2.
3. 7.
8. 1 1
5 - 7
).
E,
on the
contrary,
records no
daylight
theophanies,
but
prefers
the least sensible forms of
revelation,
the dream or
night-vision (15*
2o
3- 6
2i
12
[cf.
14
]
22
lff-
28
loff -
3i
1L24
46
2
),*
or the voice of the
angel
from heaven
(2i
17
).
In this
respect
E
undoubtedly represents
a more advanced
stage
of
theological
reflexion than
J.
The national
feeling
in both sources is
buoyant
and
hopeful
: the
*
scheue
heidnische
Stimmung,
the sombre and
melancholy
view of
life which marks the
primaeval history
of
J disappears
abso
lutely
when the
history
of the immediate ancestors of Israel
is reached. The
strongly pessimistic
strain which some
*
We do not include the dreams of the
Joseph-stories,
which seem to
stand on a somewhat different
footing- (p. 345).
Nocturnal revelations
occur, however,
in
J (26
24
28
13
),
but whether in the oldest
parts
of the
document is not
quite
certain.
INTRODUCTION II
writers note as characteristic of E finds no
expression
what
ever in Genesis
;
and so far as it exists at all
(Jos. 24),
it
belongs
to
secondary
strata of the
document,
with which we
are not here concerned.
Here we touch on a
question
of
great importance,
and
one
fortunately capable
of
being brought
to a definite issue :
viz.,
the relation of
J
and E to the
literary prophecy
of the
8th and
following
centuries. It is usual to
speak
of the
combined
JE
as the
Prophetical
narrative of the
Pent.,
in
distinction from
P,
the
Priestly
narrative
;
and in so far as
the name is
employed (as,
e.g., by
Dri.
LOT*,
117)
to
emphasise
that
contrast,
it is
sufficiently appropriate.
As
used, however,
by many
writers,
it carries the
implication
that the documents or that one to which the
epithet
is
applied
show unmistakable traces of the influence of the
later
prophets
from Amos downwards. That view seems to
us
entirely
erroneous. It is
undoubtedly
the case that both
J
and E are
pervaded by
ideas and convictions which
they
share in common with the
writing prophets
: such
as,
the
monotheistic
conception
of
God,
the ethical view of His
providential government,
and
perhaps
a conscious
opposition
to certain emblems of
popular
cultus
(asheras,
mazzebas,
teraphim, etc.).
But that these and similar
principles
were
first enunciated
by
the
prophets
of the 8th
cent.,
we have no
reason to
suppose.
Nor does the fact that
Abraham,
as a
man of
God,
is called Nab?
(2O
7
,
cf. Dt.
34
10
) necessarily
imply
that the
figure
of an Amos or an Isaiah was before
the mind of the writers. We must bear in mind that the
gth century
witnessed a
powerful prophetic
movement
which,
commencing
in N
Israel,
extended into
Judah
;
and that
any
prophetic
influences discoverable in Genesis are as
likely
to
have come from the
impulse
of that movement as from the
later
development
which is so much better known to us.
But in truth it is
questionable
if
any prophetic impulse
at
all,
other than those inherent in the
religion
from its foundation
by
Moses,
is
necessary
to account for the
religious
tone of
the narratives of Genesis. The decisive fact is that the
really
distinctive ideas of written
prophecy
find no echo in
lii INTRODUCTION
those
parts
of
J
and E with which we have to do. These
are : the
presentiment
of the
impending
overthrow of the
Israelitish
nationality, together
with the
perception
of its
moral
necessity,
the
polemic against foreign deities,
the
denunciation of
prevalent oppression
and social
wrong,
and
the absolute
repudiation
of cultus as a means of
recovering
Yahwe s favour. Not
only
are these
conceptions
absent
from our
documents,
but it is difficult to conceive that
they
should have been in the air in the
age
when the documents
were
composed.
For, though
it is true that
very
different
religious
ideas
may
exist side
by
side in the same
community,
it is
scarcely
credible that
J
and E could have maintained
their confident
hope
for the future of the nation intact
against
the tremendous
arraignment
of
prophecy.
This
consideration
gains
in force from the fact that the
secondary
strata of
E,
and the redactional additions to
JE,
which do
come within the
sweep
of the later
prophetic movement,
clearly
show that the circles from which these
writings
emanated were
sensitively responsive
to the sterner
message
of the
prophets.
10. Date and
place of origin
Redaction
ofJE.
On the relative
age
of
J
and
E,
there exists at
present
no consensus of critical
opinion.
Down to the
appearance
of Wellhausen s Geschichte Israels in
1878,
scholars were
practically
unanimous in
assigning
the
priority
to E.*
Since
then,
the
opposite
view has been
strongly
maintained
by
the
leading exponents
of the Grafian
theory,! although
a number of critics still adhere to the older
position.
\
The
reason for this
divergence
of
opinion
lies not in the
paucity
of
points
of
comparison,
but
partly
in the
subjective
nature
of the
evidence,
and
partly
in the fact that such indications
as exist
point
in
opposite
directions.
To take a few
examples
from Genesis : Ch. i6
a 14
(J) produces
an
impression
of
greater antiquity
than the
parallel
2i
9
"
19
(E)
; J
s
explana-
*
Hupf.
Schr. No.
Reuss,
al.
f
We. Kuen. Sta.
Meyer
;
so
Luther, Procksch,
al.
+
Di.
Kittel,
Konig,
Wi. al.
INTRODUCTION liii
tion of the name
Issachar,
with its
story
of the
love-apples (3O
14
~
16
),
is
more
primitive
than that of E
(3O
17
)
; J (3O
28 43
)
attributes the increase
of
Jacob
s flocks to his own
cunning,
whereas E
(3i
4
~
13
)
attributes it to
the divine
blessing.
On the other
hand,
E s recension of the Bethel-
theophany (28
m>17ff
-)
is
obviously
more
antique
than
J
s
(
13
-
16
)
;
and in
the
Joseph
narratives the
leadership
of Reuben
(E)
is an element of
the
original
tradition which
J
has altered in favour of
Judah.
A
peculiarly
instructive case is i2
10ff-
(J)
||
20
(E)
||
26
7ff-
(J),
where it seems
to us
(though
Kuenen and others take a different
view)
that Gunkel is
clearly right
in
holding
that
J
has
preserved
both the oldest and the
youngest
form of the
legend,
and that E
represents
an intermediate
stage.
This result is not
surprising
when we understand that
J
and E are not individual
writers,
but
guilds
or
schools,
whose
literary activity may
have extended over several
generations,
and who drew on a store of unwritten tradition
which had been in
process
of codification for
generations
before that. This consideration forbids us also to
argue
too
confidently
from observed differences of
theological
stand
point
between the two documents. It is
beyond
doubt that
E,
with its
comparative
freedom from
anthropomorphisms
and sensible
theophanies,
with its more
spiritual conception
of
revelation,
and its
greater
sensitiveness to ethical
blemishes on the character of the
patriarchs (p. xlviii),
occupies,
on the
whole,
a
higher
level of reflexion than
J
;
but we cannot tell how far such differences are due to the
general
social milieu in which the writers
lived,
and how far
to esoteric tendencies of the circles to which
they belonged.
All that can
safely
be affirmed is
that,
while E has occa
sionally preserved
the more ancient form of the
tradition,
there is a
strong presumption
that
J
as a whole is the earlier
document.
In
attempting
to determine the absolute dates of
J
and
E,
we have a fixed
point
of
departure
in the fact that both
are earlier than the
age
of written
prophecy (p.
li
f.)
;
in other
words, 750
B.C. is the terminus ad
quern
for the
composition
of either. If it be the case that
378
in E
presupposes
the
monarchy
of the house of
Joseph,
the terminus a
quo
for that
document would be the
disruption
of the
kingdom,
c.
930
(cf.
Dt.
33
7
)
;
and indeed no one
proposes
to fix it
higher.
llV INTRODUCTION
Between these
limits,
there is little to
guide
us to a more
precise
determination. General
considerations,
such as the
tone of
political feeling,
the advanced
conception
of
God,
and traces of the influence of
gth-century prophecy,
seem
to us to
point
to the later
part
of the
period,
and in
particular
to the brilliant
reign
of
Jeroboam
n.
(785-745),
as the most
likely
time of
composition.*
In
J
there is no
unequivocal
allusion to the divided
kingdom
;
and
nothing absolutely
prevents
us from
putting
its date as
early
as the
reign
of
Solomon. The sense of national
solidarity
and of confidence
in Israel s
destiny
is even more marked than in E
;
and it
has been
questioned,
not without
reason,
whether such
feelings
could have animated the breast of a
Judaean
in the
dark
days
that followed the dissolution of Solomon s
empire.!
That
argument
is not
greatly
to be trusted :
although
the
loss of the northern
provinces
was
keenly
felt in
Judah
(Is. 7
17
), yet
the
writings
of Isaiah show that there was
plenty
of
flamboyant patriotism
there in the 8th
cent.,
and
we cannot tell how far in the
intervening period religious
idealism was able to overcome the
depression
natural to a
feeble and
dependent state,
and
keep
alive the sense of
unity
and the
hope
of reunion with the
larger
Israel of the north.
In
any
case,
it is
improbable
that
J
and E are
separated by
an interval of two centuries
;
if E
belongs
to the first half
of the 8th
cent., J
will
hardly
be earlier than the
Qth.J
Specific
historical allusions which have been
thought
to indicate a
more definite date for
J (or E) prove
on examination to be unreliable.
If
3i
44ff*
49
23ff-
contained references to the wars between Israel and Aram
under Omri and his
successors,
it would be
necessary
to
bring-
the date
of both documents down to that time
;
but Gunkel has shown that inter
pretation
to be
improbable. 27
40b
presupposes
the revolt of Edom from
Judah (c. 840);
but that
prosaic
half-verse is
probably
an addition to
the
poetic passage
in which it
occurs,
and therefore
goes
to show that
the
blessing
itself is
earlier,
instead of
later,
than the middle of the
9th
cent. The curse on Canaan
(g-
5K
-)
does not
necessarily
assume
the definite
subjugation
of the Canaanites
by
Israel
;
and if it
did,
would
*
So Procksch
(i78ff.),
who
points
out a number of indications
that
appear
to
converge
on that
period
of
history.
We. Kue. Sta. Ho.
agree
;
Reuss. Di. Ki.
place
it in the
gih
cent.
t Procksch,
286 ft . So We. Kue. Sta. Kit. Gu. al.
INTRODUCTION Iv
only prove
a date not earlier than Solomon. Other
arguments,
such
as the omission of Asshur and the inclusion of Kelah and Nineveh in
the list of
Assyrian
cities in lo
11
etc.,
are still less conclusive.
While it is thus
impossible
to
assign
a definite date to
J
and
E,
there are
fairly
solid
grounds
for the now
generally
accepted
view that the former is of
Judaean
and the latter of
Ephraimite origin. Only,
it must be
premised
that the
body
of
patriarchal
tradition which lies behind both documents
is native to
northern,
or rather
central, Israel,
and must
have taken
shape
there.* The favourite wife of
Jacob
is
not Leah but
Rachel,
the mother of
Joseph (Ephraim-
Manasseh)
and
Benjamin;
and
Joseph
himself is the
brightest figure
in all the
patriarchal gallery.
The sacred
places
common to both recensions
Shechem, Bethel,
Mahanaim, Peniel,
Beersheba
are,
except
the
last,
all in
Israelite
territory
;
and
Beersheba,
though belonging geo
graphically
to
Judah,
was for some unknown reason a
favourite resort of
pilgrims
from the northern
kingdom
(Am. 5
5
8
14
,
i Ki.
ig
3
).
It is when we look at the diver
gence
between the two sources that the evidence of the
Ephraimite origin
of E and the
Judaean
of
J
becomes con
sistent and clear. Whereas E never evinces the
slightest
interest in
any sanctuary except
those mentioned
above,
J
makes Hebron the scene of his most remarkable
theophany,
and thus
indelibly
associates its
sanctity
with the name of
Abraham. It is true that he also ascribes to Abraham the
founding
of the northern
sanctuaries,
Shechem and Bethel
(i2
7- 8
);
but we can
hardly
fail to detect
something per
functory
in his
description,
as
compared
with E s
impressive
narrative of
Jacob
s dream at Bethel
(28
10
-
12- 1?
-
22
),
or his
own twofold account of the
founding
of Beersheba
(chs.
21.
26).
It is E alone who records the
place
of Rachel s
grave
(35
19
),
of those of Rebekah s nurse Deborah
(
8
),
of
Joseph
(Jos. 24
32
),
and
Joshua
(
30
),
all in the northern
territory.
The sections
peculiar
to
J (p. xliii)
are
nearly
all of local
*
We. Prol.
6
317.
It is the
neglect
of this fact that has
mainly
led
to the belief that
J,
like
E,
is of
Ephraimite origin (Kue. Reuss,
Schr.
Fripp, Luther, al.).
Ivi INTRODUCTION
Judasan
interest: in 18 the scene is
Hebron;
ig
T
~
28
is a
legend
of the Dead Sea basin
;
ig
30ff-
deals with the
origin
of the
neighbouring peoples
of Moab and Ammon
;
38
is
based on the internal tribal
history
of
Judah (and
is
not,
as
has been
supposed, charged
with
animosity
towards that
tribe : see
p. 455). Finally,
while
Joseph
s
place
of honour
was too
firmly
established to be
challenged,
it is
J who,
in
defiance of the older
tradition,
transfers the
birthright
and
the
hegemony
from Reuben to
Judah (49
8ff>
35
22f-
,
the
Joseph
narratives).
These indications make it at least
relatively
probable
that in
J
we have a
Judaean
recension of the
patri
archal
tradition,
while E took its
shape
in the northern
kingdom.
The
composite
work
JE
is the result of a redactional
operation,
which was
completed
before the other
components
(D
and
P)
were
incorporated
in the Pent.* The redactors
(R
JE
)
have done their work
(in Genesis)
with consummate skill
and
care,
and have
produced
a consecutive narrative whose
strands it is often difficult to unravel.
They
have left traces
of their hand in a few
harmonising
touches,
designed
to
remove a
discrepancy
between
J
and E
(i6
9f
-28
21b?
31
"*.</)
39
1
4i
50?
46
1
5o
lof<
)
: some of
these, however,
may
be later
glosses.
Of
greater
interest are a number of short addi
tions,
of similar
import
and
complexion
but
occurring
both
in
J
and
E,
which
may,
not with
certainty
but with
great
probability,
be
assigned
to these editors
(i3
u
~
17
i8
17
~~
19
22
15
~
18
26
3b
~
5
28
U
32
10
"
13
46^)
: to this redaction we are
disposed
also to attribute a
thorough
revision of ch.
15.
In these
passages
we seem to detect a note of tremulous
anxiety
regarding
the national future of Israel and its tenure of the
land of
Canaan,
which is at variance with the
optimistic
outlook of the
original
sources,
and
suggests
that the writers
are
living
under the shadow of
impending
exile. A
slight
trace of Druteronomic
phraseology
in i8
17ff-
and 26
3bff-
con
firms the
impression
that the redaction took
place
at some
time between the
publication
of
Deuteronomy
and the Exile.
So No. We. and most
;
against Hupf.
Di. al.
INTRODUCTION
Ivii
11. The
Priestly
Code and the Final Redaction.
It is
fortunately
not
necessary
to discuss in this
place
all the intricate
questions
connected with the
history
and
structure of the Priests Code. The Code as a whole
is,
j
even more
obviously
than
J
or
E,
the
production
of a
school,
t
in this case a school of
juristic
writers,
whose main task
was to
systematise
the mass of ritual
regulations
which had
accumulated in the hands of the
Jerusalem priesthood,
and
to
develop
a
theory
of
religion
which
grew
out of them.
Evidence of stratification
appears chiefly
in the
legislative
portions
of the middle
Pent.,
where several minor codes
are
amalgamated,
and overlaid with considerable accretions
of later material.
Here, however,
we have to do
only
with
the
great
historical work which forms at once the kernel of
the Code and the framework of the
Pent.,
the document
distinguished by
We. as
Q (Quatuor foederum liber], by
Kue. as P
2
,
by
others as P
g
.*
Although
this
groundwork
shows traces of
compilation
from
pre-existing
material
(see
pp.
8, 35, 40, 130, 169, 428
f.,
etc.),
it nevertheless bears the
impress
of a
single
mind,
and must be treated as a
unity.
No critical
operation
is easier or more certain than the
separation
of this
work,
down even to
very
small
fragments,
from the context in
which it is embedded. When this is
done,
and the
fragments pieced
together,
we have before
us,
almost in its
original integrity,
an inde
pendent
document,
which is a
source,
as well as the
framework, .of
Genesis. We have seen
(p. xli)
that the
opposite opinion
is maintained
by
Klostermann and
Orr,
who hold that P is
merely
a
supplementing
redactor
of,
or collaborator
with, JE.
But two facts combine to
render
this
hypothesis absolutely
untenable,
(i)
The
fragments
form
a consecutive
history,
in which the lacunce are
very
few and unim
portant,
and those which occur are
easily explicable
as the result of
the redactional
process.
The
precise
state of the case is as follows :
In the
primaeval history
no hiatus whatever can be detected. Dr.
Orr s assertion
(POT, 348 f.)
that P s account of the Flood must have
contained the
episodes
of the birds and the
sacrifice,
because both are
in the
Babylonian
version,
will be worth
considering
when -he has made
it
probable
either that P had ever read the
Babylonian story,
or
that,
if he
had,
he would have wished to
reproduce
it intact. As matter of
*
Kue. s P
1
is the so-called Law of Holiness
(P
h
),
which is older
than the date
usually assigned
to P*.
IVlll INTRODUCTION
fact,
neither is in the least
degree probable
; and,
as we shall see
presently,
Noah s sacrifice is an incident which P would
certainly
have
suppressed
if he had known of it. In the
history
of Abraham
there is
again
no reason to
suspect any
omission. Here is a literal
translation of the
disjecta
membra of P s
epitome
of the
biography
of
Abraham,
with no connexions
supplied,
and
only
one verse
transposed
(ig
29
)
: i2
4b "
Now Abram was
75 years
old when he went out from
Harran.
5
And Abram took Sarai his
wife,
and Lot his brother s
son,
and all their
possessions
which
they
had
acquired,
and all the souls whom
they
had
procured
;
and
they
went out to
go
to the land of
Canaan,
and
they
came to the land of Canaan.
13
And the land could not bear
them so that
they might
dwell
together,
for their
possessions
were
great,
and
they
were not able to dwell
together.
nb
So
they separated
from one another :
12ab
Abram dwelt in the land of
Canaan,
and Lot
dwelt in the cities of the Oval.
i9
29
And when God
destroyed
the
cities of the
Oval,
God remembered
Abraham,
and sent Lot
away
from
the midst of the
overthrow,
when he overthrew the cities in which Lot
dwelt. 16
1
Now
Sarai,
Abram s
wife,
had borne him no children.
3
So
Sarai,
Abram s
wife,
took
Hagar
the
Egyptian,
her
maid,
after Abram
had dwelt ten
years
in the land of
Canaan,
and
gave
her to Abram
her husband for a wife to him.
15
And
Hagar
bore to Abram a
son,
and
Abram called the name of his son whom
Hagar
bore to him Ishmael.
16
And Abram was 86
years
old when
Hagar
bore Ishmael to Abram.
17*
And when Abram was
99 years
old,
Yahwe
appeared
to
Abram,
and said to
him,"
etc. Here follows the account of the covenant with
Abraham,
the
change
of his name and that of
Sarai,
the institution of
circumcision,
and the announcement of the birth of Isaac to Sarah
(ch. 17).
The narrative is resumed in 2i
lb
"And Yahwe did to Sarali
as he had
spoken,
2b
at the
appointed
time which God had mentioned.
3
And Abraham called the name of his son who was born to
him,
whom
Sarah bore to
him,
Isaac.
4
And Abraham circumcised Isaac his son
when he was 8
days old,
as God had commanded him.
5
And
Abraham was 100
years
old when Isaac his son was born to him.
23
1
And the life of Sarah was
127 years
;
2
and Sarah died in
Kiryath
Arba,
that is
Hebron,
in the land of Canaan." This introduces the
story
of the
purchase
of
Machpelah
as a
burying-place (ch. 23),
and
this
brings
us to
2^
"And these are the
days
of the
years
of the lite
of Abraham which he lived:
175 years;
8
and he
expired.
And
Abraham died in a
good
old
age,
an old man and full
[of years],
and
was
gathered
to his father s kin.
9
And his sons Isaac and Ishmael
buried him in the cave of
Machpelah,
in the field of
Ephron
the son of
Zohar,
the
Hittite,
which is
opposite
Mamre :
10
the field which Abraham
bought
from the sons of Heth : there was Abraham
buried,
and Sarah
his wife.
n
And after the death of
Abraham,
God blessed Isaac his
son." The reader can
judge
for himself whether a narrative so con
tinuous as
this, every
isolated sentence of which has been detached
from its context
by
unmistakable criteria of the
style
of
P,
is
likely
to
have been
produced by
the casual additions of a mere
supplementer
of
an older work. And if he
objects
to the
transposition
of
ig
29
,
let him
INTRODUCTION lix
note at the same time how
utterly meaningless
in its
present position
that verse
is,
considered as a
supplement
to
ig
1 28
. In the sections on
Isaac, Jacob,
and
Joseph,
there are
undoubtedly
omissions which we
can
only supply
from
JE ;
and if we were to
judge
from these
parts
alone,
the
supplementary
theory
would be more
plausible
than it is.
We
miss, e.g.,
accounts of the birth of
Jacob
and
Esau,
of
Jacob
s
arrival in Paddan
Aram,
of his
marriage
to Leah and
Rachel,
of the
birth of
Joseph,
of his
slavery
and elevation in
Egypt,
his reconciliation
with his
brethren,
and
perhaps
some other
particulars.
Even
here,
however,
the
theory
is
absolutely negatived by
the contradictions to
JE
which will be
specified immediately.
Dr. Orr s
argument
on this
point (POT, 343
ff.) really
assumes that the account of
JE
is the
only
way
in which the
gaps
of P could be filled
up
;
but the examination of
the
story
of Abraham has shown that that is not the case. The facts are
fully explained by
the
supposition
that a short
epitome
of the
history,
similar to that of the
history
of
Abraham,
has been
abridged
in the
redaction,
by
the excision of a
very
few
sentences,
in favour of the
fuller narrative of
JE. (2)
The second fact which makes Dr. Orr s
hypothesis
untenable is
this,
that in almost
every
instance where P
expands
into circumstantial narration it
gives
a
representation
of the
events which is
distinctly
at variance with the older documents. The
difference between P s
cosmogony
and
J
s account of the Creation is
such that it is ludicrous to
speak
of the one as a
supplement
or a
framework to the other
;
and the two Flood stories are
hardly
less
irreconcilable
(see p. 148).
In the life of
Abraham,
we have two
parallel
accounts of the covenant with Abraham in ch.
15 (JE)
and
17
(P)
;
and it is evident that the one
supersedes
and excludes the other.
Again,
P s reason for
Jacob
s
journey
to
Mesopotamia (aS
1 9
)
is
quite
in
consistent with that
given by JE
in ch.
27 (p. 374 f.) ;
and his
conception
of Isaac s
blessing
as a transmission of the
blessing originally
bestowed
on Abraham
(28
4
)
is far removed from the idea which forms the motive
of ch.
27.
In
JE,
Esau takes
up
his abode in Seir before
Jacob
s return
from
Mesopotamia (32
3
) ;
in P he does not leave Canaan till after the
burial of Isaac
(35
6
).
P s account of the
enmity
between
Joseph
and
his brethren is
unfortunately
truncated,
but
enough
is
preserved
to
show that it differed
essentially
from that of
JE (see p. 444).
It is
difficult to make out where
Jacob
was buried
according
to
J
and
E,
but
it
certainly
was not at
Machpelah,
as in P
(see p. 538 f.).
And so on.
Everywhere
we see a
tendency
in P to
suppress
or minimise discords
in the
patriarchal
households. It is inconceivable that a
supplementer
should thus contradict his
original
at
every
turn,
and at the same time
leave it to tell its own
story.
When we find that the
passages
of an
opposite
tenor to
JE
form
parts
of a
practically complete narrative,
we
cannot avoid the conclusion that P
g
is an
independent document,
which
has been
preserved
almost entire in our
present
Book of Genesis. The
question
then arises whether these
discrepancies spring
from a
divergent
tradition followed
by
P
g
or from a deliberate
re-writing
of the
history
as told
by JE,
under the influence of certain
theological
ideals and
principles,
which we now
proceed
to consider.
x INTRODUCTION
The central theme and
objective
of P
e
is the institution
of the Israelitish
theocracy,
whose
symbol
is the
Tabernacle,
erected,
after its
heavenly antitype, by
Moses at Mount
Sinai. For this event the whole
previous history
of man
kind is a
preparation.
The Mosaic
dispensation
is the last
of four
world-ages
: from the Creation to the
Flood,
from
Noah to
Abraham,
from Abraham to
Moses,
and from
Moses onwards. Each
period
is
inaugurated by
a divine
revelation,
and the last two
by
the disclosure of a new name
of God : El Shaddai to Abraham
(17*),
and Yahwe to Moses
(Ex.
6
3
).
Each
period, also,
is marked
by
the institution
of some
permanent
element of the theocratic
constitution,
the Levitical
system being
conceived as a
pyramid rising
in
four
stages
: the Sabbath
(2
2f>
)
;
permission
of the
slaughter
of
animals, coupled
with a restriction on the use of the
blood
(9
lff>
);
circumcision
(17)
; and,
lastly,
the
fully developed
Mosaic ritual. Not till the last
stage
is reached is sacrificial
worship
of the
Deity
authorised.
Accordingly
neither altars
nor sacrifices are ever mentioned in the
pre-Mosaic history
;
and even the distinction between clean and unclean animals
is
supposed
to be unknown at the time of the Flood. It is
particularly noteworthy
that the
profane,
as distinct from
the
sacrificial,
slaughter
of
animals,
which even the
Deuteronomic law treats as an
innovation,
is here carried
back to the covenant with Noah.
Beneath this
imposing
historical
scheme,
with its
ruling
idea of a
progressive unfolding
of God s will to
men,
we
discover a
theory
of
religion
which,
more than
anything
else,
expresses
the
spirit
of the
Priestly
school to which the author
of P
g
belonged.
The exclusive
emphasis
on the formal or
institutional
aspect
of
religion,
which is the natural
proclivity
of a sacerdotal
caste,
appears
in P
g
in a
very pronounced
fashion.
Religion
is resolved into a series of
positive
enact
ments on the
part
of
God,
and observance of these on the
part
of man. The old
cult-legends (p. xiif.),
which traced
the
origin
of
existing
ritual
usages
to historic incidents in the
lives of the
fathers,
are
swept away
;
and
every practice
to
which a
religious
value is attached is referred to a direct
INTRODUCTION Ixi
command of God. In the
deeper problems
of
religion,
on
the other
hand,
such as the
origin
of
evil,
the writer evinces
no interest
;
and of
personal piety
the
disposition
of the
heart towards God his narrative
hardly
furnishes an
illustration. In both
respects
he
represents
a
theology
at
once more abstract and shallower than that of
J
or
E,
whose more
imaginative
treatment of
religious questions
shows a true
apprehension
of the
deeper aspects
of the
spiritual
Hfe
(chs. 3.
6
5
8
21
i8
23ff-
45** etc.),
and succeeds in
depicting
the
personal religion
of the
patriarchs
as a
genuine
experience
of inward
fellowship
with God
(cf.
22.
24
12ff-
32
9ff-
48
15f-
etc.).
It would be unfair to
charge
the author of P
g
with indifference to the need for vital
godliness,
for he lacks
the
power
of
delineating
character and emotion in
any
relation of life
;
but his defects are none the less character
istic of the
type
of mind that
produced
the colourless
digest
of
history,
which suffices to set forth the dominant ideas of
the
Priestly theology.
Another characteristic distinction between
JE
and P is
seen in the enhanced transcendentalism of the latter s con
ception
of
Deity. Anthropomorphic,
and still more anthro-
popathic, expressions
are
studiously
avoided
(an exception
is Gn. 2
2f-
: cf. Ex.
3i
17b
);
revelation takes the form of
simple speech
;
angels,
dreams,
and visions are never alluded
to.
Theophanies
are
mentioned,
but not described
;
God is
said to
appear
to
men,
and to
*
go up
from them
(Gn.
jyi.
22f.
3^9.
is
^gs^
EX.
53^
Dut ^e manner of His
appearance
is nowhere indicated save in the
supreme
manifestation at
Sinai
(Ex. 24
lff-
34
29b
4o
34f
-).
It is true that a similar incon-
creteness often characterises the
theophanies
of
J
and
E,
and the later strata of these documents exhibit a decided
approximation
to the abstract
conceptions
of P. But a
comparison
of the
parallels
ch.
17
with
15,
or
35
9ff-
with
28
loff
-,
makes it clear that P s
departure
from the older tradi
tion
springs
from a deliberate intention to exclude sensuous
imagery
from the
representation
of Godhead.
It remains to
consider,
in the
light
of these
facts,
P s attitude to the
traditional
history
of the
patriarchs.
In the first
place,
it is clear that
Ixii INTRODUCTION
he
accepts
the main outline of the
history
as fixed in tradition. But
whether he knew that tradition from other sources than
J
and
E,
is a
question
not so
easily
answered. For the
primitive period,
direct
dependence
on
J
is
improbable,
because of the marked
diversity
in the
accounts of the Creation and the Flood : here P seems to have followed
a tradition
closely
akin
to,
but not identical
with,
that of
J.
In the
history
of the
patriarchs
there seems no reason to
suppose
that he had
any
other authorities than
J
and E. The
general
course of events is
the
same,
and differences of detail are all
explicable
from the known
tendencies of the Code. But the
important
facts are that
nearly
the
whole of the
history,
both
primitive
and
patriarchal,
is reduced to a
meagre summary,
with little save a
chronological significance,
and that
the
points
where the narrative becomes diffuse and circumstantial are
(with
one
exception) precisely
those which introduce a new
religious
dispensation
: viz. the
Creation,
the
Flood,
the Abrahamic
covenant,
and the Exodus. The
single exception
is the
purchase
of
Machpelah
(ch. 23),
an event which doubtless owes its
prominence
to its connexion
with the
promise
of the land to Abraham and his seed. For the
rest,
a certain
emphasis naturally
lies on
outstanding events,
like the
origin
of the name Israel
(35
9fl
)
or the settlement of
Jacob
s
family
in
Egypt
(47
5
~
n
)
;
and the author
lingers
with interest on the transmission of the
patriarchal blessing
and
promise
from Isaac to
Jacob (28
3>
35
12
),
and from
Jacob
to his sons
(48
3f
-).
But these are
practically
all the incidents to
which P
g
attaches
any
sort of
significance
of their own
;
and even these
derive much of their
importance
from their relation to the
chronological
scheme into which
they
are fitted. Hence to
say
that P s
epitome
would
be
unintelligible apart
from
JE,
is to confuse his
point
of view with
our own. It is
perfectly
true that from P alone we should know
very
little of the characters of the
patriarchs,
of the motives which
governed
their
actions,
or of the connexion between one event and another. But
these are matters which P had no interest in
making intelligible.
He
is concerned
solely
with
events,
not with causes or motives. The indi
vidual is
sufficiently
described when we are told whose son he
was,
how
long
he
lived,
what children he
begot,
and such like. He is but a link
in the
generations
that fill
up
the
history
;
and even where he is the
recipient
of a divine
revelation,
his selection for that
privilege depends
on his
place
in the divine scheme of
chronology,
rather than on
any
personal
endowment or
providential training.
The
style
of P
s
can be characterised without the reserves
and
qualifications
which were
necessary
in
speaking
of the
difference between
J
and E
(p. xlviif.);
there is no better
illustration of the dictum le
style
c est Vhomme than in this
remarkable document.
Speaking broadly,
the
style
reflects
the
qualities
of the
legal
mind,
in its
stereotyped
termin
ology,
its aim at
precise
and exhaustive
statement,
its
monotonous
repetitions,
and its
general
determination to
INTRODUCTION Ixiii
leave no
loophole
for
misinterpretation
or
misunderstanding-.
The
jurist
s love of order and method
appears
in a
great
facility
in the construction of schemes and schedules
genealogical
tables,
systematic
enumerations,
etc. as well
as in the
carefully planned disposition
of the narrative as a
whole. It is
necessary
to read the whole w
T
ork
consecutively
in order to realise the full effect of the laboured
diffuseness,
the
dry lucidity
and
prosaic monotony
of this characteristic
product
of the
Priestly
school of writers. On the other
hand,
the
style
is
markedly
deficient in the
higher
elements
of literature.
Though capable
at times of
rising
to an
impressive dignity (as
in Gn. i.
47
7
~
n
),
it is
apt
to de
generate
into a tedious and
meaningless
iteration of set
phrases
and
rigid
formulae
(see
Nu.
7).
The
power
of
picturesque description,
or dramatic delineation of life and
character,
is absent : the writer s
imagination
is of the
mechanical
type,
which cannot realise an
object
without the
help
of exact
quantitative specification
or measurement.
Even in ch.
23,
which is
perhaps
the most lifelike narrative
in the
Code,
the characteristic formalism asserts itself in the
measured
periodic
movement of the
action,
and the recurrent
use of
standing- expressions
from the
opening
to the close.
That such a
style might
become the
property
of a school we
see from the case of
Ezekiel,
whose
writings
show
strong
affinities with P
;
but of all the
Priestly documents,
P
e
is the
one in which the
literary
bent of the school is best ex
emplified,
and
(it may
be
added)
is seen to most
advantage.
The
following
selection
(from Driver, LOT*, 131 ff.)
of distinctive
expressions
of
P,
occurring-
in
Genesis,
will
give
a sufficient idea of the
stylistic peculiarity
of the
book,
and also of its
linguistic
affinities with
the later
literature,
but
especially
with the Book of Ezekiel.
D n^N as the name of
God,
uniformly
in
Gen., except ly
1
2i
lb
.
pD,
kind : i
a- 12- 21 - 34-
6
20
y
14
(Lv. u,
Dt.
14; only again
Ezk.
47
10
).
p?,
to swarm : i
20- 21
f
l
8
17
9
+
*
(outside
of P
only
Ps.
1O5
30
,
Ezk.
$f).
*
As on
p.
xlix,
the cross
(
+
)
indicates that further
examples
are
found in the rest of the Pent. It should be
expressly said, however,
that
the +
frequently
covers a considerable number of cases
;
and that a
selection of
phrases,
such as is here
given,
does not
fully represent
the
strength
of the
linguistic argument,
as set forth in the more exhaustive
lists of Dri.
(I.e.)
or the
Oxf.
Hex.
(vol.
i.
pp. 208-221).
Ixiv INTRODUCTION
pe>,
<
swarming things
:
120^21
+
(
O
nly
in P and Dt.
i4
19
).
mm rns :
,22.
28
8
n
9
i.7
I7
2o
2g3
^n 4?
27
^4 (
Ex
j7>
Lv. 26
9
;
elsewhere
only Jer. 3
ie
[inverted],
2
3
8
,
Ezk/
3
6
n
).
n^ax
1
? : i
29- 30
6
21
9
3
+
(elsewhere only
in
Ezk.
(10
times),
and
(as inf.) Jer.
i2
9
).
nn^in : io
32
25
13
+
(elsewhere
i Ch.
s
7
7
2- 4- 9
8
28
9
9- a4
26
31
).
The
phrase
nn^in
n^[i]
occurs in P io
times in Gen.
(see p. xxxiv),
and in Nu.
3
1
;
elsewhere
only
Ru.
4
18
,
i Ch. i
29
.
yu : 6
17
7
21
25
8- 17
35
29
49
33
+
(elsewhere poetical
: Zee.
138,
Ps. 88
16
io4
29
,
La. i
19
,
and 8 times in
Jb.). ?],?y, JJRN,
etc.
(appended
to
enumerations):
6
i8
?
7. is
gie.
is
9
8
28
4
^e.
7
+ ._M
nnK>
etc.
(after
seed
)
:
g
9
if-
9- 10- 19
35
la
4
8* + ._mn ovn
D*y :
7" ly
23- 2
^;
only
in P and Ezk. 2
s
242 4O
1
(Jos.
lo
27
redactional).
en
1
DninstJ D
1
?: 8
19
io
5- 20- 3i
36
40
+
(very
often in P : elsewhere
only
Nu. n
10
[JE],
i Sa. io
21
,
i Ch.
5
7
6
47- 48
).
o^y
nna :
9
16
i7
7- 1;J- J9
+
,
only
in P. nxo nNDn :
iy
2- 6-
*>+ Ex. i
7
;
elsewhere
only
Ezk.
9
9
i6
13
.
j?m : i2
5
i3
6
3i
18
36
7
46
6
+
;
elsewhere Gn.
I4
11 - 12- 16- 21
i5
14
;
and
15
times
in Ch. Ezr. Dn.
vy}:
i2
5
3i
18
36
6
46
6
+ .
^sj(= person ): I236
8
46
lfi-
is. 22. 2C. 26. 27
+
.
much more
frequent
in P than elsewhere." D3 cnrr? :
if-
9- 12
+
36
times
(only
in
P).
D IUD :
i;
8
28*
36
7
37 47
9
+ Ex. 6
4
;
else
where Ezk. 20
38
,
Ps.
55
16
ii9
54
, Jb.
i8
l9
+ . nrnx
4
8
4
49
30
50
13
+ . Often in Ezk.
(44
2
Ps. 2
8
,
i Ch.
7
28
9
2
[=
Neh. n
3
],
2 Ch. n
14
3
i
1
+ .
njpo
: z
7
12. is. 23.27
23
ia
+
(confined
to P
except Jer. 3
2
n- 12- 14- 16
).
D
cy
(=
father s kin
): i7
14
25
8 17
3S
29
49
33
+
(also
Ezk. i8
18
;
elsewhere
Ju. 5
14
?,
Ho. io
u
+
).
arm :
23
4
+
io times
(also
i Ki.
I7
1
?,
i Ch.
29,
Ps.
39
73
). pp
:
3i
18
C34
23
] 36^
+
(outside
of
P, only
Ezk.
3
8
12f-
;
Pr.
4
7
,
Ps. io
4
24
io5
21
).
In the choice of
synonymous expressions,
P exhibits an exclusive
preference
for T^in in the sense of
*
beget
over i
1
?
(in
the
genealogies
of
J),
and for the form JN of the ist
pers. pron. (
DJX
only
in Gn.
23
4
).
Geographical designations peculiar
to Pe are :
Kiryath-
Arbd
(for
25
ao
2g2.
5. e- 7
31
is
^3S
9. 26
4
6
l5
+ .To these
may
be added
jyaa p,
1 1
31
i2
5
i3
12
i6
3
17
8
23
2- 19
3i
18
33
18
35
6
37
1
+;
the
expression
is found in
JE
only
in the
Joseph-section (chs. 42, 44, 45, 47).
P& has
{yaa
without
pit
only
in
jyj3
nun
(28
1
36
2
).
In view of all these and similar
peculiarities (for
the list is
by
no
means
exhaustive),
the
attempt
to obliterate the
linguistic
and
stylistic
distinction between P and
JE (Eerdmans)
is
surely
a
retrograde step
in
criticism.
The date of the
composition
of P
g
lies between the
promulgation
of the Deuteronomic law
(621 B.C.),
and the
post-Exilic
reformation under Ezra and Nehemiah
(444).
It is later than
Deut.,
because it assumes without
question
the centralisation of
worship
at one
sanctuary,
which in
Dt. is
only
held
up
as an ideal to be realised
by
a radical
reform of established
usage.
A nearer determination of
date
depends
on
questions
of the internal
analysis
of P
which are too
complex
to be entered on here. That the
INTRODUCTION IxV
Code as a whole is later than Ezekiel is
proved by
the fact
that the division between
priests
and
Levites,
which is
unknown to the writer of
Deut.,
and of which we find the
origin
and
justification
in Ezk.
44
6
~
16
,
is
presupposed
as
already
established
(Nu. 3. 4.
8,
etc.).
It is
possible,
how
ever,
that that distinction
belongs
to a stratum of the
legislation
not included in P
g
;
in which case P
g
might very
well be earlier than
Ezk.,
or even than the Exile. The
question
does not
greatly
concern us here. For the under
standing
of
Genesis,
it is
enough
to know that P
g
,
both in
its
theological conceptions
and its attitude towards the
national
tradition, represents
a
phase
of
thought
much later
than
J
and E.
The view that PS was written before the Exile
(in
the end of the
yth cent.)
is advocated
by
Procksch
(I.e. 319 IF.),
who reduces this
part
of P to narrower limits than most critics have done. He
regards
it as an
essentially
historical
work,
of considerable
literary
merit,
em
bracing- hardly any
direct
legislation except perhaps
the Law of Holiness
(P
h
),
and
recognising
the
priestly
status of the entire tribe of
Levi,
just
as in Dt.
(Nu. jy
16 24
and P
h
in its
original form).
If that fact could be
established,
it would
go
far to show that the document is older than
Ezk. It is admitted both
by
Kuenen and Wellhausen
(Prol.
6
116)
that
the
disparity
of
priests
and Levites is accentuated in the later strata of
P as
compared
with
PS,
but that it is not
recognised
in PS is not clear.
As to
pre-Exilic origin,
the
positive arguments
advanced
by
Pro. are
not
very cogent
;
and it is doubtful
whether,
even on his own
ground,
he has demonstrated more than the
possibility
of so
early
a date. In
Genesis,
the
only
fact which
points
in that direction is one not mentioned
by
Pro. : viz. that the
priestly
Table of Nations in ch. 10 bears internal
evidence of
having
been drawn
up
some considerable time before the
5th century
B.C.
(p. 191 below)
;
but that
may
be
sufficiently explained
by
the
assumption
that the author of P* made use of
pre-existing
docu
ments in the
preparation
of his work.
The last
distinguishable stage
in the formation of the
Pent, is the
amalgamation
of P with the older
documents,
in Genesis the
amalgamation
of P
g
with
JE.
That this
process
has left traces in the
present
text is
quite
certain
a
priori;
though
it is
naturally
difficult to
distinguish
redactional
changes
of this kind from later
explanatory
glosses
and modifications
(cf.
6
7
f-
22 - 23
io
24
2^
etc.).
The
aim of the redactor
was,
in
general,
to
preserve
the
ipsissima
IxVl INTRODUCTION
verba of his sources as far as was consistent with the
pro
duction of a
complete
and harmonious narrative
;
but he
appears
to have made it a rule to find a
place
for
every
fragment
of P that could
possibly
be retained. It is not
improbable
that this rule was
uniformly
observed
by
him,
and that the
slight
lacunce which occur in P after ch.
25
are due to the
activity
of later scribes in
smoothing away
redundancies and unevennesses from the narrative. That
such
changes might
take
place
after the
completion
of the
Pent, we see from
47
5ff>
,
where
(3J
has
preserved
a text in
which the
dovetailing
of sources is much more obvious than
in MT. If the lawbook read
by
Ezra before the
congrega
tion as the basis of the covenant
(Neh.
8
lff>
)
was the entire
Pent,
(excepting
late
additions),*
the redaction must have
been effected before
444
B.C.,
and in all
probability
the
redactor was Ezra himself. On the other
hand,
if
(as
seems
to the
present
writer more
probable)
Ezra s lawbook was
only
the
Priestly
Code,
or
part
of it
(P
g
+
P
h
),f
then the
final redaction is
brought
down to a later
period,
the ter
minus ad
quern being
the
borrowing
of the
Jewish
Pent,
by
the Samaritan
community.
That event is
usually assigned,
though
on somewhat
precarious grounds,
to Nehemiah s
second term of office in
Judasa
(c. 432 B.C.).
Of far
greater
interest and
significance
than the date
or manner of this final
redaction,
is the fact that it was
called for
by
the
religious feeling
of
post-Exilic Judaism.
Nothing
else would have
brought
about the combination
of elements so discordant as the naive
legendary
narratives
of
JE
and the
systematised history
of the
Priestly
Code.
We can
hardly
doubt that the
spirit
of the
Priestly theology
is
antipathetic
to the older recension of the
tradition,
or
that,
if the tendencies
represented by
the Code had
pre
vailed,
the stories which are to us the most
precious
and
edifying parts
of the Book of Genesis would have found no
place
in an authoritative record of God s revelation of
Himself to the fathers. But this is not the
only
instance
*
So We. Di. Kit. al.
t
So Corn. Ho. al.
INTRODUCTION Ixvii
in which the
spiritual insight
of the Church has
judged
more
wisely
than the
learning
of the schools. We know
that
deeper
influences than the
legalism
and institutionalism
of P s manifesto
necessary
as these were in their
place
were at work in the
post-Exilic community
: the individualism
of
Jeremiah,
the universalism of the second
Isaiah,
the
devotion and
lyric
fervour of the
psalmists,
and the
daring
reflexion of the writer of
Job.
And to these we
may surely
add the vein of childlike
piety
which turned aside from the
abstractions and formulas of the
Priestly
document,
to find
its nutriment in the immortal stories
through
which God
spoke
to the heart
then,
as He
speaks
to ours
to-day.
COMMENTARY.
THE PRIMAEVAL
HISTORY.
CHS. I-XI.
IT has been shown in the Introduction
(p. xxxiii)
that the most obvious
division of the book of Genesis is into four
nearly equal parts,
of which
the first
(chs.
1-1
1)
deals with the Creation of the
world,
and the
history
of
primitive
mankind
prior
to the call of Abraham. These
chapters
are
composed
of
excerpts
from two of the main sources of the
Pent.,
the
Priestly
Code,
and the Yahwistic document.
Attempts
have been made
from time to time
(e.g. by
Schrader, Dillmann,
and more
recently
Winckler)
to trace the hand of the Elohist in chs. i-n
;
but the closest
examination has failed to
produce any
substantial evidence that E is
represented
in the Primitive
History
at all.
By
the
great majority
of
critics the
non-Priestly
traditions in this
part
of Genesis are
assigned
to the Yahwistic
cycle
: that is to
say, they
are held to have been
collected and
arranged by
the school of
rhapsodists
to whose
literary
activity
we owe the document known as
J.
To the Priests
Code,
whose constituents can here be isolated with
great certainty
and
precision, belong:
i. The
Cosmog-ony (i
1
-^
4
*) ;
2. The List of Patriarchs from Adam to Noah
(5) ; 3.
An account of
the Flood
(6
9
-9
29
*); 4.
A Table of
Peoples (10 *) ;
5.
The
Genealogies
of Shem
(n
10 26
),
and Terah
(ii
27 32
*), ending
with Abraham. There
is no reason to
suppose
either that the
original
P contained more than
this, or,
on the other
hand,
that P was written to
supplement
the older
tradition,
and to be read
along
with it. It is in accordance with the
purpose
and
tendency
of the document that the
only
events recorded in
detail the Creation and the Flood are those which
inaugurate
two
successive
World-ages
or
Dispensations,
and are associated with the
origin
of two fundamental observances of
Judaism
the Sabbath
(2
s
),
and the
sanctity
of the blood
(g
4ff
).
In marked contrast to the formalism of this
meagre epitome
is the
*
The asterisk denotes that the
passages
so marked are
interspersed
with extracts from another source. The detailed
analysis
will be found
in the
commentary
on the various sections.
I
2 GENESIS
rich
variety
of life and incident which characterises the Yahwistic
sections,
viz. : i. The Creation and Fall of Man
(2
4b
~3
24
) ;
2. Cain and
Abel
(4
1 16
) ;
3.
The
Genealogy
of Cain
(4
17 24
) ;
4.
A
fragmentary
Sethite
Genealogy (4
25f-
. . .
5
29
. . .
) ;
5.
The
marriages
with divine
beings (6
1 4
);
6. An account of the Flood
(6
5
-8
22
*); 7.
Noah s Curse and
Blessing
(9
20 27
);
8. A Table of
Peoples (10*); 9.
The Tower of Babel
(n
1 9
);
10. A
fragment
of the
Genealogy
of Terah
(n
28 30
).
Here we have a
whole
gallery
of varied and
graphic pictures,
each
complete
in itself and
essentially independent
of the
rest, arranged
in a
loosely chronological
order,
and with
perhaps
a certain
unity
of
conception,
in so far as
they
illustrate the
increasing
wickedness that
accompanied
the
progress
of
mankind in civilisation. Even the
genealogies
are not
(like
those of
P)
bare lists of names and
figures,
but
preserve
incidental notices of new
social or
religious developments
associated with
particular personages
(417.
20-22. 26
^29)?
besides other allusions to a more ancient
mythology
from which the names have been drawn
(4
19- 22- 23fl
).
Composition ofJ.
That a narrative
composed
of so
many separate
and
originally independent legends
should
present discrepancies
and
discontinuities is not
surprising,
and is
certainly by
itself no
proof
of
literary diversity.
At the same time there are
many
indications that
J
is a
composite
work,
based on older collections of Hebrew
traditions,
whose outlines can still be
dimly
traced,
(i)
The existence of two
parallel genealogies (Cainite
and
Sethite)
at once
suggests
a conflate
tradition. The
impression
is raised almost to
certainty
when we find
that both are derived from a common
original (p. 138 f.). (2)
The Cainite
genealogy
is
incompatible
with the
Deluge
tradition. The
shepherds,
musicians,
and
smiths,
whose
origin
is traced to the last three members
of the
genealogy,
are
obviously
not those of a
bygone
race which
perished
in the
Flood,
but those known to the author and his
contemporaries
(p. 115 f.). (3) Similarly,
the Table of Nations and the
story
of the
Confusion of
Tongues imply mutually
exclusive
explanations
of the
diversities of
language
and
nationality
: in one case the division
proceeds
slowly
and
naturally
on
genealogical
lines,
in the other it takes
place
by
a sudden
interposition
of
almighty power. (4)
There is evidence
that the
story
of the Fall was transmitted in two recensions
(p. 52!.).
If Gunkel be
right,
the same is true of
J
s Table of
Peoples,
and of the
account of the
Dispersion
;
but there the
analysis
is less
convincing.
(5)
In
4
26
we read that Enosh introduced the
worship
of Yahwe. The
analogy
of Ex. 6
2f-
(P)
affords a certain
presumption
that the author of
such a statement will have avoided the name m,v
up
to this
point
;
and
as a matter of fact D
rfVg
occurs
immediately
before in v.
26
. It is true
that the
usage
is observed in no earlier Yahwistic
passage except 3
1
"
5
,
where other
explanations might
be
thought
of. But
throughout
chs. 2
and
3
we find the
very
unusual
compound
name DM
1
?*
mrr,
and it is a
plausible conjecture
that one recension of the Paradise
story
was dis
tinguished by
the use of
Elohim,
and that Yahwe was inserted
by
a
harmonising
Yahwistic editor
(so
Bu. Gu. al. : see
p. 53).
To what
precise
extent these
phenomena
are due to
documentary
differences is a
question
that
requires
to be handled with the utmost
caution and discrimination. It is conceivable that a
single
author
i-xi
3
should have
compiled
a narrative from a number of detached
legends
which he
reported just
as he found
them,
regardless
of their internal
consistency.
Nevertheless,
there seems sufficient evidence to warrant
the conclusion that
(as
Wellhausen has
said)
we have to do not
merely
with
aggregates
but with
sequences
;
although
to unravel
perfectly
the
various strands of narrative
may
be a task for ever
beyond
the re
sources of
literary
criticism. Here it will suffice to indicate the
principal
theories.
(a)
We.
(Camp."
2
9-14)
seems to have been the first to
per
ceive that
4
1 16a
is a late
expansion
based
(as
he
supposed)
on
4
16 24
and on chs.
2, 3
;
that
originally
chs.
2-4
existed not
only
without
4
1
"
16
*,
but also without
4
25f-
and
5
29
;
and that chs. 2.
3. 4
16 24
n
1
"
9
form a
connexion to which the
story
of the Flood is
entirely foreign
and
irrelevant.
(b)
The
analysis
was
pushed many steps
further
by
Budde
(Biblische Urgeschichte, pass.),
who,
after a most exhaustive and I
elaborate
examination,
arrived at the
following theory
: the
primary
document
(J
1
)
consisted of 2
4b 9
3
1 19- 21
6
3
3* 4*-
2b
/3-
16b- 17 24
51.
2. 4.
I0
9
jji-9
9
2o-27
j^is was recast
by J
2
(substituting
O rta* for
JUT down to
4
26
),
whose narrative contained a
Cosmogony (but
no
Paradise
story),
the Sethite
genealogy,
the
Flood-legend,
the Table of
Nations,
and a seven-membered Shemite
genealogy.
These two re
censions were then
amalgamated by J
3
,
who inserted dislocated
passages
of
J
1
in the connexion of
J
2
,
and added
4
1 15
5
s9
etc.
J
2
attained the
dignity
of a standard official
document,
and is the
authority
followed
by
P at a later time. The
astonishing
acumen and
thorough
ness which characterise Budde s work have had a
great
influence on
critical
opinion, yet
his
ingenious transpositions
and reconstructions of
the text seem too subtle and
arbitrary
to
satisfy any
but a slavish
disciple.
One feels that he has worked on too narrow a basis
by
con
fining
his attention to successive
overworkings
of the same
literary
tradition,
and not
making
sufficient allowance for the simultaneous
existence of
relatively independent
forms.
(c)
Stade
(ZATW,
xiv.
274
ff.
[=
Ak. Reden u. Abh.
244-251]) distinguishes
three main strata:
(i)
chs. 2.
3.
II
1 9
;
(2) 4
25f- "-22
920-27
IO ? 6
i. 2
?
.
^
the
Flood-legend,
added later to the other
two,
by
a redactor who also
compiled
a Sethite
genealogy (4
25f-
...
5
29
...
)
and inserted the
story
of Cain and
Abel,
and
the
Song
of Lamech
(4
23f>
). (d)
Gunkel
(Gen.
2
i
ff.) proceeds
on some
what different lines from his
predecessors.
He refuses in
principle
to admit
incongruity
as a criterion of
source,
and relies on certain
verses which bear the character of
connecting
links between different
sections. The most
important
is
5
29
(belonging
to the Sethite
genealogy),
where we read : "This
(Noah)
shall comfort us from our labour and
from the toil of our hands on account of the
ground
which Yahwe has
cursed." Here there is an unmistakable reference backward to
3
17
,
and forward to
9
20ff
-. Thus we obtain a faultless
sequence, forming
the core of a document where ni.T was not used till
4
26
,
and hence called
J
e
, consisting
of: one recension of the Paradise
story;
the
(complete)
Sethite
genealogy
;
and Noah s
discovery
of wine. From this
sequence
are excluded
obviously
: the second recension of the Paradise
story
;
the
Cainite
genealogy
;
and
(as
Gu.
thinks)
the
Flood-legend,
where Noah
appears
in
quite
a different character : these
belong
to a second docu-
4
CREATION
(?)
ment
(JJ). Again, 9
18f<
form a
connecting-
link between the Flood and the
Table of Nations
;
but Gu.
distinguishes
two Yahwistic strata in the
Table of Nations and
assigns
one to each of his documents :
similarly
with the section on the Tower of Babel. The
legend
of Cain and
Abel is
regarded (with
We. Bu. Sta.
al.)
as an editorial
expansion.
In this
commentary
the
analysis
of Gu. is
adopted
in the main
;
but with the
following
reservations :
(i)
The account of the Flood
cannot be
naturally assigned
to
J-",
because of its admitted
incompati
bility
with the
assumption
of the Cainite
genealogy (see
above). Gu.,
indeed,
refuses to take such inconsistencies into account
;
but in that
case there is no reason for
giving
the Flood to
JJ
rather than to
J
e
.
There is no
presumption
whatever that
only
two documents are in
evidence
;
and the
chapters
in
question
show
peculiarities
of
language
which
justify
the
assumption
of a
separate
source
(Sta.), say J
d
.
(2)
With the Flood
passage goes
the Yahwistic Table of
Peoples
(9
18f>
).
The
arguments
for two Yahwists in ch. 10 are
hardly
decisive
;
and
J
e
at all events had no
apparent
motive for
attaching
an ethno
graphic survey
to the name of Noah.
(3)
Gunkel s
analysis
of n
1
"
9
appears
on the whole to be sound
;
but even so there is no
ground
for
identifying
the two
components
with
J
e
and
JJ respectively.
On the
contrary,
the tone of both recensions has a
striking affinity
with that
of
P
: note
especially (with We.)
the close resemblance in form arid
substance between 1 1
6
and
3
22
. Thus :
Jj
=
3
20-22. 24
4
17-24
6
l-4
j jl-9
.
Je
_
2
4b_
3
19*.23
4
25f.
. . . . . .
g^-^
;
Jd
=
65-8
22
*9
18f-
io*;
J
r
=
4
1
-
16
*.
Such
constructions,
it need
hardly
be
added,
are in the
highest
degree precarious
and uncertain
;
and can
only
be
regarded
as tentative
explanations
of
problems
for which it is
probable
that no final solution
will be found.
I. i -I I.
3.
Creation
of
the World in Six
Days:
Institution
of
the Sabbath.
A short Introduction
describing
the
primaeval
chaos
(i
1- 2
)
is followed
by
an account of the creation of the
world in six
days,
by
a series of
eight
divine
fiats,
viz. :
(i)
the creation of
light,
and the
separation
of
light
from
darkness,
3
~
5
;
(2)
the division of the chaotic waters into
two
masses,
one above and the other below the
firmament,
~
8
;
(3)
the
separation
of land and sea
through
the collect
ing
of the lower waters into "one
place,"
9- 10
;
(4)
the
clothing
of the earth with its mantle of
vegetation,
n
~
13
;
(5)
the formation of the
heavenly
bodies,
14
"
19
;
(6)
the
peopling
of sea and air with fishes and
birds,
2
-
23
;
(7)
I. i-H.
3 5
the
production
of land
animals,
24- 25
;
and
(8)
the creation
of
man,
26
~
31
.
Finally,
the Creator is
represented
as
resting
from His works on the seventh
day;
and this
becomes the sanction of the
Jewish
ordinance of the
weekly
Sabbath
rest
(2
1
-
3
).
Character
of
the Record. It is evident even from this
bare outline of its contents that the
opening
section of
Genesis is not a scientific account of the actual
process
through
which the universe
originated.
It is a world
unknown to science whose
origin
is here
described,
the
world of
antique imagination, composed
of a solid
expanse
of
earth,
surrounded
by
and
resting
on a
world-ocean,
and
surmounted
by
a vault called the
firmament,
above which
again
are the waters of a
heavenly
ocean from which the
rain descends on the earth
(see
on vv.
6
"
8
).^
That the
writer believed this to be the true view of the
universe,
and
that the narrative
expresses
his
conception
of how it actu
ally
came into
being,
we
have, indeed,
no reason to doubt
(Wellhausen,
Prol.
296).
But the fundamental differ
ence of
standpoint just
indicated shows that whatever the
significance
of the record
may
be,
it is not a revelation of
*
The fact referred to above seems to me to
impose
an absolute veto
on the
attempt
to harmonise the
teaching
of the
chapter
with scientific
theory.
It
may
be
useful, however,
to
specify
one or two
outstanding
difficulties of detail,
(i)
It is
recognised by
all recent harmonists that
the definition of
day
as
geological period
is essential to their
theory
: it is
exegetically
indefensible.
(2)
The creation of sun and
moon
after
the
earth,
after the alternation of
day
and
night,
and even
after the
appearance
of
plant-life,
are so
many
scientific
impossibilities.
(3) Palaeontology
shows that the
origin
of
vegetable life,
if it did not
actually
follow that of animal
life, certainly
did not
precede
it
by
an
interval
corresponding
to two
days. (4)
The order in which the
various
living
forms are
created,
the manner in which
they
are
grouped,
and their whole
development compressed
into
special periods,
are all
opposed
to
geological
evidence. For a
thorough
and
impartial
discussion of these
questions
see
Driver, Genesis,
19-26.
It is there
shown
conclusively,
not
only
that the modern
attempts
at reconciliation
fail,
but
(what
is more
important)
that the
point
at issue is not one of
science,
but
simply
of
exegesis.
The facts of science are not in
dispute
;
the
only question
is whether the
language
of Genesis will bear the
construction which the
harmonising
scientists find it
necessary
to
put
upon
it.
6 CREATION
(?)
physical
fact which can be
brought
into line with the results
of modern science. The
key
to its
interpretation
must be
found elsewhere.
In order to understand the true character of the narra
tive,
we must
compare
it with the
cosmogonies
which form
an
integral part
of all the
higher religions
of
antiquity.
The
demand for some rational
theory
of the
origin
of the world
as known or conceived is one that
emerges
at a
very early
stage
of culture
;
and the efforts of the human mind in this
direction are observed to follow certain common lines of
thought,
which
point
to the existence of a
cosmological
tradition
exerting
a
widespread
influence over ancient
specu
lation on the structure of the universe. There is
ample
evidence,
as will be shown later
(below, p. 45 ff.),
that the
Hebrew thinkers were influenced
by
such a tradition
;
and
in this fact we find a clue to the inner
meaning
of the
narrative before us. The tradition was
plastic,
and there
fore
capable
of
being
moulded in accordance with the
genius
of a
particular religion
;
at the same
time,
being
a tradi
tion,
it retained a residuum of unassimilated material
derived from the common stock of
cosmological speculation
current in the East. What
happened
in the case of the
biblical
cosmogony
is this : that
during
a
long development
within the
sphere
of Hebrew
religion
it was
gradually
stripped
of its cruder
mythological
elements,
and trans
formed into a vehicle for the
spiritual
ideas which were
the
peculiar heritage
of Israel. It is to the
depth
and
purity
of these ideas that the narrative
mainly
owes that
character of
sobriety
and
sublimity
which has led
many
to
regard
it as the
primitive
revealed
cosmogony,
of which all
others are
grotesque
and fantastic variations
(Dillmann,
p.
10).
The
religious significance
of this
cosmogony
lies,
there
fore,
in the fact that in it the monotheistic
principle
of the
Old Testament has obtained classical
expression.
The
great
idea of
God,
first
proclaimed
in all its breadth and fulness
by
the second Isaiah
during
the
Exile,
is here embodied in a
detailed account of the
genesis
of the
universe,
which
lays
I. i-H.
3
7
hold of the
imagination
as no abstract statement of the
principle
could ever do. The central doctrine is that the
world is
created,
that it
originates
in the will of
God,
a
personal Being
transcending
the universe and
existing
independently
of it. The
pagan
notion of a
Theogony
a
generation
of the
gods
from the
elementary
world-matter
is
entirely
banished. It
is, indeed,
doubtful if the
repre
sentation
goes
so far as a creatio ex
nihilo,
or whether
a
pre-existent
chaotic material is
postulated (see
on v.
1
);
it is certain at least that the
kosmos,
the ordered world with
which alone man has to
do,
is
wholly
the
product
of divine
intelligence
and volition. The
spirituality
of the First
Cause of all
things,
and His absolute
sovereignty
over the
material He
employs,
are further
emphasised
in the idea of
the word of God the effortless
expression
of His
thought
and
purpose
as the
agency through
which each successive
effect is
produced
;
and also in the recurrent refrain which
affirms that the
original
creation in each of its
parts
was
good,
and as a whole
very good (v.
31
),
i.e. that it
perfectly
reflected the divine
thought
which called it into
existence. The traces of
mythology
and
anthropomorphism
which occur in the
body
of the narrative
belong
to the
traditional material on which the author
operated,
and do
not affect his own
theological standpoint,
which is defined
by
the doctrines
just
enumerated. When to these we add
the doctrine of
man,
as made in the likeness of
God,
and
marked out as the crown and
goal
of
creation,
we have a
body
of
religious
truth which
distinguishes
the
cosmogony
of Genesis from all similar
compositions,
and entitles it to
rank
among
the most
important
documents of revealed
religion.
The Framework. The most
noteworthy literary
feature of the record
is the use of a set of
stereotyped
formulae, by
which the
separate
acts
of creation are reduced as far as
possible
to a common
expression.
The
structure of this framework
(as
it
may
be
called)
is less uniform than
might
be
expected,
and is much more
regular
in
(fix than in MT. It
is
impossible
to decide how far the
irregularities
are due to the
original
writer,
and how far to errors of transmission. Besides the
possibility
of
accident,
we have to allow on the one hand for the natural
tendency
8 CREATION
(?)
of
copj
ists to
rectify apparent anomalies,
and on the other hand for
deliberate
omissions,
intended to
bring
out sacred numbers in the occur
rences of the several formulae.*
The facts are of some
importance,
and
may
be summarised here :
(a]
The fiat
(And
God
said,
Let . . .
)
introduces
(both
in MT and
(K)
each of the
eight
works of creation
(vv.
3- 6- 9< n- 14< 2- 24- 26
). (b)
And it was so occurs
literally
6 times in
MT,
but
virtually 7
times :
i.e. in connection with all the works
except
the sixth
(vv.^-
7- 9> n 16g
24- 30
);
in
<&
also in v.
20
.
(c)
The execution of the fiat
(And
God
made . . . with
variations)
is likewise recorded 6 times in MT and
7
times in
<&
(
vv.7.
M.
12. ie. 21. 25.
27^ ^
The sentence of divine
approval (And
God saw that it was
good]
is
pronounced
over each
work
except
the second
(in
($r there
also), though
in the last instance
with a
significant
variation: see w.^M.
10. is.
18.21.25.8^
^
The
naming
of the
objects
created
(And
God called . . .
)
is
peculiar
to
the three acts of
separation (vv.
5- 8- 10
). (/)
And God blessed. . .
(3 times)
is said of the sixth and
eighth
works and of the Sabbath
day (vv.
22- 28
2
3
). (#)
The division into
days
is marked
by
the clos
ing
formula,
And it was
evening, etc., which,
of
course,
occurs 6 times
(
vv>
5. a. is. 19. 23.
3i) ? being
omitted after the third and seventh works.
The occurrence of the
p
.Ti
before
the execution of the fiat
produces
a
redundancy
which
may
be concealed but is not removed
by substituting
so for and in the translation
(So
God
made,
etc.).
When we observe
further that in
5
cases out of the 6
(in
(&
$
out of
7)
the execution is
described as a
work,
that the
correspondence
between fiat and fulfilment
is often far from
complete,
and
finally
that 2
2*
seems a
duplicate
of 2
1
,
the
question
arises whether all these circumstances do not
point
to a
literary manipulation,
in which the
conception
of creation as a series of
fiats
has been
superimposed
on another
conception
of it as a series of
works. The observation does not
carry
us
very far,
since no
analysis
of sources can be founded on it
;
but it is
perhaps
a
slight
indication of
what is otherwise
probable,
viz. that the
cosmogony
was not the free
composition
of a
single mind,
but reached its final form
through
the
successive efforts of
many
writers
(see below),
f
The Seven
Days
Scheme. The distribution of the
eight
works over
six
days
has
appeared
to
many
critics
(Ilgen,
Ewald, Schrader,
We.
Di. Bu. Gu. al.
)
a modification introduced in the interest of the
Sabbath
law,
and at variance with the
original
intention of the cos
mogony.
Before
entering
on that
question,
it must be
pointed
out that
*
A familiar instance is the ten
sayings
of Pirk
Abdth, 5,
i :
D^iyn
JO3J rmoxD
msfyn,
where the number 10 is arrived at
by adding
to
the 8 fiats the two other occurrences of iDsn in MT
(vv.
28 - 29
).
t See, now,
Sta. BTh. \.
349
and
Schwally
in
ARW,
ix.
159-175,
which have
appeared
since the above
paragraph
was written. Both
writers
point
out the twofold
conception
of the creation which runs
through
the
chapter
;
and
Schwally
makes out a
strong
case for the
composition
of the
passage
from two distinct recensions of the
cosmogony.
I. i-H.
3 9
the
adjustment
ot
days
to works
proceeds upon
a clear
principle,
and
results in a
symmetrical arrangement.
Its effect is to divide the creative
process
into two
stages,
each
embracing-
four works and
occupying
three
days,
the last
day
of each series
having
two works
assigned
to
it. There
is, moreover,
a
remarkable, though
not
perfect, parallelism
between the two
great
divisions. Thus the
first day
is marked
by
the
creation of
light,
and the
fourth by
the creation of the
heavenly bodies,
which are
expressly designated light-bearers
;
on the second
day
the
waters which afterwards formed the seas are isolated and the
space
between heaven and earth is
formed,
and so the
fifth day
witnesses the
peopling
of these
regions
with their
living
denizens
(fishes
and
fowls) ;
on
the third
day
the
dry
land
emerges,
and on the sixth terrestrial animals
and man are created. And it is
hardly
accidental that the second work
of the third
day (trees
and
grasses) corresponds
to the last
appointment
of the sixth
day, by
which these
products
are
assigned
as the food of
men and animals.
Broadly speaking,
therefore,
we
may say
that "the
first three
days
are
days
of
preparation,
the next three are
days
of
accomplishment" (Dri.
Gen.
2).
Now whether this
arrangement belongs
to the
original conception
of the
cosmogony,
or at what
stage
it was
introduced,
are
questions very
difficult to answer.
Nothing
at all re
sembling
it has as
yet
been found in
Babylonian
documents
;
for the
division into seven tablets of the Enuma eliS series has no relation to
the seven
days
of the biblical account.* If therefore a
Babylonian
origin
is
assumed,
it seems reasonable to hold that the scheme of
days
is a Hebrew addition
;
and in that case it is hard to believe that it
can have been introduced without a
primary
reference to the dis
tinctively
Israelitish institution of the
weekly
Sabbath. It then
only
remains to
inquire
whether we can
go
behind the
present
seven
days
scheme,
and discover in the narrative evidence of an earlier
arrange
ment which either
ignored
the seven
days altogether,
or had them in a
form different from what we now find.
The latter
position
is maintained
by
We.
(Comfit 187 ff.),
who holds
that the scheme of
days
is a
secondary
addition to the framework
as it came from the hand of its
Priestly
author
(Q).
In the
original
cosmogony
of
Q
a division into seven
days
was
recognised,
but in a
different form from what now obtains
;
it was moreover not carried
through
in
detail,
but
merely
indicated
by
the statement of 2
2
that
God finished His work on the seventh
day.
The
key
to the
primary
arrangement
he finds in the formula of
approval,
the
absence of
which after the second work he
explains by
the consideration that the
separation
of the
upper
waters from the lower and of the lower from
the
dry
land form
really
but one
work,
and were so
regarded by Q.
Thus the seven works of creation were
(i) separation
of
light
from
darkness
; (2) separation
of waters
(vv.
6 10
)
;
(3)
creation of
plants ;
(4)
luminaries
;
(5)
fish and fowl
;
(6)
land animals
;
(7)
man. The state
ment that God finished His work on the seventh
day
We.
considers
*
See
below, p. 43
ff. On the other hand there are Persian and
Etruscan
analogies
;
see
p. 50.
IO CREATION
(?)
to be inconsistent with a six
days
creation,
and also with the view that
the seventh was a
day
of rest
;
hence in ch.
2,
he deletes
2b
and
3b
,
and reads
simply
: "and God finished His work which He made on the
seventh
day,
and God blessed the seventh
day
and sanctified it."
This
theory
has been
subjected
to a
searching
criticism
by
Bu.
(Urgesch. 487
ff.
;
cf. also Di.
15),
who
rightly protests against
the
subsuming
of the creation of heaven and that of land and sea under
one rubric as a
separation
of
waters,
and
gets
rid of the
difficulty
presented by
2
2a
by reading
sixth instead of seventh
(see
on the
verse).
Bu.
urges
further that the idea of the Sabbath as a
day
on which
work
might
be done is one not
likely
to have been entertained in the
circles from which the
Priestly
Code
emanated,*
and also
(on
the
ground
of Ex. 2O
11
)
that the
conception
of a creation in six
days
followed
by
a divine Sabbath rest must have existed in Israel
long
before the
age
of that document. It is to be observed that
part
of Bu. s
argument
(which
as a whole seems to me valid
against
the
specific
form of the
theory
advanced
by We.) only pushes
the real
question
a
step
further
back
;
and Bu.
himself,
while
denying
that the seven
days
scheme
is
secondary
to
P, agrees
with Ew. Di. and
many
others in
thinking
that there was an earlier Hebrew version of the
cosmogony
in which that
scheme did not exist.
The
improbability
that a
disposition
of the
cosmogony
in
eight
works should have obtained
currency
in Hebrew circles without an
attempt
to
bring
it into some relation with a sacred number has been
urged
in favour of the
originality
of the
present setting (Holzinger, 23 f.).
That
argument might
be turned the other
way
;
for the
very
fact that
the number 8 has been retained in
spite
of its
apparent
arbitrariness
suggests
that it had some traditional
authority
behind it. Other
objections
to the
originality
of the
present
scheme are :
(a)
the
juxta
position
of two
entirely
dissimilar works under the third
day
;
(b)
the
separation
of two
closely
related works on the second and third
days
;
(c)
the alternation of
day
and
night
introduced before the existence of
the
planets by
which their
sequence
is
regulated (thus
far Di.
15),
and
(d)
the unnatural order of the fourth and fifth works
(plants
before
heavenly bodies).
These
objections
are not all of
equal weight ;
and
explanations
more or less
plausible
have been
given
of all of them.
But on the whole the evidence seems to warrant the conclusions : that
the series of works and the series of
days
are
fundamentally
incon
gruous,
that the latter has been
superimposed
on the former
during
the
Heb.
development
of the
cosmogony,
that this
change
is
responsible
for
some of the
irregularities
of the
disposition,
and that it was introduced
certainly
not later than
P,
and in all
probability long
before his time.
Source and
Style.
As has been
already hinted,
the section
belongs
to the
Priestly
Code
(P).
This is the unanimous
opinion
of all critics
who
accept
the
documentary analysis
of the
Hexateuch,
and it is
abundantly proved
both
by
characteristic words and
phrases,
and
general
features of
style. Expressions
characteristic of P are
(be
sides the divine name D
H^N)
: Kin
(see
on v.
1
),
ropy)
13J
yj
) p
irrn
*
See
Jerome
s
polemical note,
in
Quasi.,
ad loc.
I. i-II.
3
1 1
[
n
,
n
]
24. 25.
30^
n
t,
3K
C,
29.
30^ j,
D
11. 12. 21. 24. M
mpD
10
j
n3n1 nns
22.
88,
^ ^
21. 24. 25. 26. 28.
30^
p^
} pjjj
20. 21
?
an(J nn^n m 2
4a
.
Comp.
the listsin
Di.
p.
i
;
Gu.
p. 107,
and
OH,
i. 208-220
;
and for details see
the
Commentary
below. Of even
greater
value as a criterion of
authorship
is the unmistakable
literary
manner of the
Priestly
his
torian. The
orderly disposition
of
material,
the strict adherence to
a
carefully thought
out
plan,
the monotonous
repetition
of set
phrase
ology,
the aim at exact classification and
definition,
and
generally
the subordination of the concrete to the formal elements of
composi
tion : these are all features of the
juristic style
cultivated
by
this
school of
writers,
"
it is the same
spirit
that has
shaped
Gn. i and
Gn.
5" (Gu.).
On the artistic merits of the
passage very
diverse
judgments
have been
pronounced. Gu.,
whose estimate is on the
whole
disparaging, complains
of a lack of
poetic
enthusiasm and
picturesqueness
of
conception, poorly compensated
for
by
a marked
predilection
for method and order. It is
hardly
fair to
judge
a
prose
writer
by
the
requirements
of
poetry
;
and even a critic so little
partial
to P as We. is
impressed by
"
the
majestic repose
and sustained
grandeur"
of the
narrative, especially
of its
incomparable
exordium
(Pro!.* 297).
To
deny
to a writer
capable
of
producing
this
impression
all sense of
literary
effect is unreasonable
;
and it is
perhaps
near the
truth to
say
that
though
the
style
of P
may,
in technical
descriptions
or
enumerations, degenerate
into a
pedantic
mannerism
(see
an extreme
case in Nu.
7),
he has found here a
subject
suited to his
genius,
and one
which he handles with consummate skill. It is a bold
thing
to
desiderate a treatment more
worthy
of the
theme,
or more
impressive
in
effect,
than we find in the
severely
chiselled outlines and
stately
cadences of the first
chapter
of Genesis.
In
speaking
of the
style
of P it has to be borne in mind that we are
dealing
with the
literary
tradition of a school rather than with the
idiosyncrasy
of an individual. It
has, indeed,
often been asserted that
this
particular passage
is
obviously
the
composition
at one heat of a
single
writer
;
but that is
improbable.
If the
cosmogony
rests
ultimately
on a
Babylonian model,
it "must have
passed through
a
long period
of naturalisation in
Israel,
and of
gradual
assimilation to
the
spirit
of Israel s
religion
before it could have reached its
present
form"
(Dri.
Gen.
31). All, therefore,
that is
necessarily implied
in
what has
just
been said is that the later
stages
of that
process
must
have taken
place
under the
auspices
of the school of
P,
and that its
work has entered
very deeply
into the substance of the
composition.
Of the earlier
stages
we can
say
little
except
that traces of them remain
in those elements which do not
agree
with the
ruling
ideas of the last
editors. Bu. has
sought
to
prove
that the
story
had
passed through
the school of
J
before
being adopted by
that of P
;
that it was in fact
the form into which the
cosmogony
had been thrown
by
the writer
called
J
2
. Of direct evidence for that
hypothesis (such
as would be
supplied by
allusions to Gn. i in other
parts
of
J
2
)
there is none : it is
an inference deduced
mainly
from these
premises
:
(i)
that the creation
story
shows traces of
overworking
which
presuppose
the existence of an
older Heb. recension
;
(2)
that in all other sections of the
prehistoric
12 CREATION
(P)
tradition P
betrays
his
dependence
on
J
2
;
and
(3)
that
J
a
in turn is
markedly dependent
on
Babylonian
sources
(see Urgesch. 463-496,
and
the
summary
on
p. 491 f.).
Even if all these observations be well
founded,
it is obvious that
they
fall far short of a demonstration of
Bu. s thesis. It is a
plausible conjecture
so
long-
as we assume that
little was written
beyond
what we have direct or indirect evidence of
(ib. 463
1
) ;
but when we realise how little is known of the diffusion of
literary activity
in ancient
Israel,
the
presumption
that
J
2
was the
par
ticular writer who threw the Hebrew
cosmogony
into
shape
becomes
very
slender indeed.
I. We are confronted at the outset
by
a troublesome
question
of
syntax
which affects the sense of
every
member
of v.
1
. While all ancient Vns. and
many
moderns take the
verse as a
complete sentence,
others
(following-
Rashi and
Ibn
Ezra)
treat it as a
temporal clause,
subordinate either
to v.
3
(Rashi,
and so
most)
or v.
2
(Ibn
Ezra,
apparently).
On the latter view the verse will read : In the
beginning- of
Gocfs
creating-
the heavens and the earth :
n^toa
being
in
the const,
state,
followed
by
a clause as
gen. (cf.
Is.
2Q
1
,
Hos. i
2
etc.
;
and see G-K.
130^;
Dav.
25).
In a note
below reasons are
given
for
preferring
this construction to
the other
;
but a decision is
difficult,
and in
dealing
with
I.
JT5?to]
The form is
probably
contracted from
n^N")
(cf. nnN^
;
),
and therefore not derived
directly
from B rfl. It
signifies primarily
the
first (or best) part
of a
thing
: On. io
10
(
nucleus
), 49^ (
first
product ),
Dt.
33
21
,
Am. 6
6
etc.
(On
its ritual sense as the first
part
of
crops,
etc.,
see
Gray
s
note,
Num. 226
ff.).
From this it
easily glides
into a
temporal sense,
as the
first stage
of a
process
or series of events : I Io.
9
10
(
in its first
stage ),
Dt. n
12
(of
the
year),
Jb.
8
7
40 (a
man s
life),
Is.
46 (starting point
of a
series),
etc. We.
(/Vo/.
6
386)
has said
that Dt. ii
12
is the earliest instance of the
temporal
sense;
but the
distinction between first
part
and
temporal beginning
is so im
palpable
that not much
importance
can be attached to the remark. It is
of more
consequence
to observe that at no
period
of the
language
does
the
temporal
sense
go beyond
the definition
already given,
viz. the
first
stage
of a
process,
either
explicitly
indicated or
clearly implied.
That
being so,
the
prevalent
determinate construction becomes
intelligible.
That in its ceremonial sense the word should be used
absolutely
was to be
expected (so
Lv. 2
12
[Nu.
i8
12
]
Neh. i2
44
: with
these
may
be taken also Dt.
33
21
).
In its
temporal applications
it is
always
defined
by gen.
or suff.
except
in Is.
46,
where the antithesis
to JVinN
inevitably suggests
the
intervening
series of which ~\ is the
initial
phase.
It is therefore doubtful if
-\$
could be used of an absolute
beginning
detached from its
sequel,
or of an indefinite
past,
like rua
Nip
or
nVnas
(see
Is. i
26
,
Gn.
i3
3
).
This
brings
us to the
question
of
I.I
13
v.
1
it is
necessary
to leave the alternative
open.
In the
beginning}
If the clause be subordinate the reference of
iTWi is denned
by
what
immediately
follows,
and no further
question
arises. But if it be an
independent
statement
beginning
is used
absolutely (as
in
Jn.
i
1
),
and two inter
pretations
become
possible
:
(a)
that the verse asserts the
creation
(ex nihilo)
of the
primaeval
chaos described in v.
2
;
or
(b)
that it summarises the whole creative
process
narrated in the
chapter.
The former view has
prevailed
in
Jewish
and Christian
theology,
and is still
supported
by
the
weighty authority
of We. But
(i)
it is not in
accordance with the
usage
of JV^ SO
(see below)
;
(2)
it is not
required by
the word
(
create,
a created chaos is
perhaps
a contradiction
(Is. 45
18
Hion
inrrt6),
and We. himself
syntax.
Three constructions have been
proposed
:
(a)
v.
1
an inde
pendent
sentence
(all
Vns. and the
great majority
of
comm.,
including
Calv. De. Tu. We.
Dri.).
In sense this construction
(taking
the
verse as
superscription)
is
entirely
free from
objection
: it
yields
an
easy syntax,
and a
simple
and
majestic opening.
The absence of the
art. tells
against
it,
but is
by
no means decisive. At most it is a
matter of
pointing,
and the
sporadic
Greek transliterations
Eaptjffrjd
(Field, Hexap.},
and
Eap-^aed (Lagarde,
Ankiind.
5), alongside
of
B/)?7(rt0, may
show that in ancient times the first word was sometimes
read na. Even the Mass,
pointing
does not
necessarily imply
that the
word was meant as const.
;
T is never found with
art.,
and De. has
well
pointed
out that the
stereotyped
use or omission of art. with
certain words is
governed by
a subtle
linguistic
sense which eludes our
analysis (e.g. Dij^p,
BW,p, n;^N-i|
: cf. Kon. 5.
294 g).
The
construction
seems to
me, however, opposed
to the
essentially
relative idea of
i,
its
express
reference to that
of
"which it is the
beginning (see above).
(b)
v.
1
protasis:
v.
2
parenthesis:
v.
3
apodosis
;
When God
began
to create . . . now the earth "was . . . God
said,
Let there be
light.
So Ra. Ew. Di.* Ho. Gu. al.
practically
all who
reject (a).
Although
first
appearing explicitly
in Ra.
(f 1105),
it has been
argued
that this
represents
the old
Jewish tradition,
and that
(a)
came in under
*
Who, however,
considers the
present
text to be the result of a
redactional
operation. Originally
the
place
of v.
1
was
occupied by
2** in its correct form : D^nSx CN-m
PN.TI
D CBTI nn^in n*?K. When this was
transposed
it was
necessary
to frame a new
introduction,
and in the
hands of the editor it assumed the form of v.
1
(similarly,
Sta. BTh.
i.
349).
I am unable to
adopt
this
widely accepted
view of the
original
position
of 2**
(see
on the
verse),
and Di. s intricate
hypothesis
would
seem to me an additional
argument against
it.
14
CREATION
(?)
admits that it is a remarkable
conception
;
and
(3)
it is
excluded
by
the
object
of that verb : the heavens and the
earth.
For
though
that
phrase
is a Hebrew
designation
of the
universe as a
whole,
it is
only
the
organised universe,
not
the chaotic material out of which it was
formed,
that can
naturally
be so
designated.
The
appropriate
name for
chaos is
*
the earth
(v.
2
)
;
the
representation being
a
chaotic earth from which the heavens were afterwards made
(
6f
-).
The verse therefore
(if
an
independent
sentence at
all)
must be taken as an
introductory heading
to the rest of the
chapter.^
God created,
.]
The verb
N^2
contains the central
idea of the
passage.
It is
partly synonymous
with
nb>y (cf.
w.
21 - 27
with
25
),
but 2
3
shows that it had a
specific
shade of
meaning.
The idea cannot be defined with
precision,
but
the influence of
(5i
from a desire to exclude the idea of an eternal chaos
preceding
1
the creation.
f
But the fact that C
agrees
with
<& militates
against
that
opinion.
The one
objection
to
(b)
is the verzweifelt
geschmacklose
Construction
(We.)
which it involves. It is
replied
(Gu. al)
that such
openings may
have been a traditional feature of
creation
stories, being
found in several Bab.
accounts,
as well as in
Gn. 2
4b 6
. In
any
case a
lengthy parenthesis
is
quite
admissible in
good prose style (see
i Sa.
3
2a
/3-
3
,
with Dri.
Notes,
ad
/or.),
and
may
be
safely
assumed here if there be otherwise sufficient
grounds
for
adopting
it. The clause as
gen.
is
perfectly regular, though
it would
be
easy
to substitute inf. Ni?
(mentioned
but not recommended
by Ra.).
(c)
A third
view,
which
perhaps
deserves more consideration than it
has
received,
is to take v.
1
as
protasis
and v.
2
as
apodosis,
When
God
began
to create the heavens and the
earth,
the earth
was,
etc.
(lEz.
?
but see
Cheyne,
in Hebr. ii.
50).
So far as sense
goes
the
sequence
is
eminently satisfactory
;
the iDN i of v.
3
is more natural as a con
tinuation of v.
2
than of v.
1
. The
question
is whether the
form
of
v.
2
permits
its
being
construed as
apod.
The order of words
(subj.
before
pred.)
is
undoubtedly
that
proper
to the circumst. cl.
(Dri.
T.
157
;
Dav.
138 (c)) ;
but there is no absolute rule
against
an
apod,
assuming
this form after a time-determination
(see
Dri. T.
78).
*
The view that v.
1
describes an earlier creation of heaven and
earth,
which were reduced to chaos and then
re-fashioned,
needs no refutation.
t
See
Geiger,
Urschr.
344, 439, 444.
The Mechilta
(on
Ex. i2
40
:
Winter and Wiinsche s Germ, transl.
p. 48) gives
v.
1
as one of thirteen
instances of
things
written for
King Ptolemy
;
and Gei. infers that
the
change
was
deliberately
made for the reason mentioned. The
reading alleged by
Mech. is n t?Ni:i Kin D
n^K,
which
gives
the sense but
not the order of (5r. The other variations
given
are
only partly
verified
by
our texts of (
;
see on i
26
*-
2
2
1 1
7
i8
12
49
6
.
I.I
15
the
following- points
are to be noted :
(a)
The most im
portant
fact is that it is used
exclusively
of divine
activity
a restriction to which
perhaps
no
parallel
can be found in
other
languages (see
We. Prol.
Q
304). (b)
The idea of
novelty
(Is. 48
6f-
4i
20
65
17f
-,
Jer. 3i
21
)
or extraordinariness
(Ex. 34
10
,
Nu. i6
30
[J])
of result is
frequently implied,
and it
is
noteworthy
that this is the case in the
only
two
passages
of
certainly early
date where the word occurs,
(c]
It is
probable
also that it contains the idea of
effortless production
(such
as befits the
Almighty) by
word or volition^
(Ps. 33).
(d)
It is obvious
(from
this
chapter
and
many passages)
that the sense
stops
short of creatio ex
nihilo,
an idea first
explicitly occurring
in 2 Mac.
7
28
. At the same time the
facts
just
stated,
and the further circumstance that the word
is
always
used with ace. of
product
and never of
material,
constitute a
long
advance towards the full
theological
doc
trine,
and make the word
*
create a suitable vehicle for it.
Close
parallels
(for
it is hard to see that the .Ti makes
any
essential
difference)
are Gn.
7 (J),
22
1
(E),
or
(with impf.),
Lv.
7
16b
(P).
The
construction is not
appreciably
harsher than in the
analogous
case of
2
5
,
where it has been
freely adopted. Kin]
enters
fully
into OT
usage
only
on the eve of the Exile.
Apart
from three
critically
dubious
passages
(Am. 4
13
,
Is.
4
5
, Jer. 3i
21
),
its first
emergence
in
prophecy
is in Ezk.
(3 times) ;
it is
specially
characteristic of II Is.
(20 times),
in
P 10
times,
and in other late
passages
8 times. The
proof
of
pre-exilic
use rests on Ex.
34,
Nu. i6
30
(J),
Dt.
4
32
. There is no reason to doubt
that it
belongs
to the
early language
;
what can be
fairly
said is that
at the Exile the
thought
of the divine creation of the world
became
prominent
in the
prophetic theology,
and that for this reason the term
which
expressed
it
technically
obtained a
currency
it had not
previously
enjoyed.
The
primary
idea is uncertain. It is
commonly reg
arded as
the root of a Piel
meaning
cut,
hence form
by cutting^, carve,
fashion, (Ar.
bara?,
Phcen. ma
[CIS,
i.
347"*]
: see
BDB, s.v.\
Lane,
Lex.
197
b; Lidzbarski,
NS
Epigr. 244 [with ?]) ;
but the evidence of the
connexion is
very slight.
The
only place
where tna could mean
carve is Ezk. 2i
24to
;
and there the text is almost
certainly corrupt
(see Corn., Toy, Kraetschmar,
ad
loc.).
Elsewhere it means cut
*
The same
thought
was associated
by
the
Babylonians
with their
word ban-Ci
(see phil. note)
;
but the association seems accidental
;
and
its
significance
is
exaggerated by
Gu. when he
says
"the idea of
creation is that man
may
form with his
hands,
the
god brings
to
pass
through
his word"
(Schijpf. 23).
Banfi. is
quite synonymous
with
ipisti,
(make),
and is not restricted to the divine
activity.
1 6 CREATION
(?)
2.
Description
of Chaos.
It is
perhaps impossible
to
unite the features of the
description
in a
single picture,
but the constitutive elements of the notion of chaos
appear
to be Confusion
(inai inn),
Darkness,
and Water
(Dinn, DVD).
The weird effect of the
language
is
very impressive.
On
the
syntax,
see above. waste and
void]
The exact
meaning
of this alliterative
phrase
Tohu wa-Bohu is difficult to
make out. The words are nouns
;
the connotation of
inn
ranges
from the concrete
*
desert to the abstract
*
non
entity
;
while 1,12
possibly
means
emptiness (v.i.).
The
exegetical tendency
has been to
emphasise
the latter
aspect,
and
approximate
to the Greek notion of chaos as
empty
down
(Ezk. 23
47
)
or clear
ground by hewing-
down trees
(Jos. ly
15- 18
[J])
a sense as remote as
possible
from fashion or make
(Di.,
G-B.
s.7 .
;
We. Prol.^
387).
The Ar. bara a
(used chiefly
of creation of animate
being s)
is
possibly
borrowed from Heb. Native
philologists
connect
it,
very unnaturally,
with bari
a,
be free
;
so that create means to
Liberate
(from
the
clay, etc.) (Lane, 178
b,c):
Di. s view is similar.
Earth
(ZA>
iii.
58)
has
proposed
to
identify
vra,
(through
mutation of
liquids)
with the Ass. vb. for
create, banu;
but
rejects
the
opinion
that the latter is the common Semitic .133 build
(KAT
A
, 498
1
),
with
which N~a alternates in Sabasan
(Miiller
in
ZDMG,
xxxvii.
413, 415).
2. inDi
inn]
(fa
doparos
/cat d/caraavtetfaoros
;
Aq.
K.vwfj,a
K. ovdev
;
S.
apybv
K.
a8i6.KpiTov ;
6. Kevbv
(or ovdtv]
/cat ov6kv
;
U
inanis et vacua
;
C
N
jpni
(nst
(
desolate and
empty );
ft
rnn on
(JloZ. The
fragmentary Jer. Tg.
has a double trans. : "And the earth was K rai N
nn,
and
(cf. T)
desolate
from the sons of
men,
and
empty
of work." inn occurs
along
with ina
in
Jer. 4
23
,
Is.
34
11
;
inn alone in
17 pass,
besides. The
meaning
varies
between two extremes :
(a)
a
(trackless)
desert
(Jb.
i2
24
[
=
Ps.
IO7
40
]
6
18
,
Dt.
32
10
),
and
(b) unsubstantially (t?DD
I
1
?
J
NB>, lEz.)
or
nonentity,
a
sense all but
peculiar
to II Is.
(also
i Sa. i2
21
,
and
perhaps
Is.
2Q
21
),
but
very frequent
there. The
primary
idea is uncertain. It is
perhaps
easier on the whole to
suppose
that the abstract sense of
formlessness,
or the
like, gave
rise to a
poetic
name for
desert,
than that the concrete
desert
passed
over into the abstract formlessness
;
but we have no
assurance that either
represents
the actual
development
of the idea. It
seems not
improbable
that the OT
usage
is
entirely
based on the
traditional
description
of the
primaeval chaos,
and that the word had no
definite connotation in
Heb.,
but was used to
express any conception
naturally
associated with the idea of chaos
formlessness," confusion,
unreality,
etc.
inn] (never
found
apart
from
inn) may
be connected
with
bahiya
=
be
empty
;
though
Ar. is
hardly
a safe
guide
in the
case of a word with a
long history
behind it. The identification with
Baau,
the mother of the first man in Phoen.
mythology (see p. 49 f.),
is
I. 2
17
space
(Gu.).
But our safest
guide
is
perhaps Jeremiah
s
vision of
Chaos-come-again (4
23
~
26
),
which is
simply
that
of a darkened and devastated
earth,
from which life and
order have fled. The idea here is
probably
similar,
with
this
difference,
that the distinction of land and sea is
effaced,
and the
earth,
which is the
subj.
of the
sentence,
must be understood as the
amorphous watery
mass in
which the elements of the future land and sea were com
mingled.
Darkness
(an
almost invariable feature of ancient
conceptions
of
chaos)
was
upon
the
face of
the
Deep]
The
Deep (ctan)
is the subterranean ocean on which the earth
rests
(Gn. y
11
8
2
4Q
25
,
Am.
7
4
etc.);
which, therefore,
before the earth was
formed, lay
bare and
open
to the
superincumbent
darkness. In the
Babylonian Creation-myth
the
primal
chaos is
personified
under the name Ti amat.
The Heb. narrative is free from
mythological
associations,
and it is doubtful if even a trace of
personification lingers
in
the name
Dinn.
In
Babylonian,
ti amatu or tamtu is a
generic
term for ocean
;
and it is conceivable that this literal
sense
may
be the
origin
of the Heb.
conception
of the
Deep
(see p. 47).
The
Spirit of
God was
brooding\
not,
as has
sometimes been
supposed,
a wind sent from God to
dry
probable. Dinn]
is
undoubtedly
the
philological equivalent
of Bab.
Ti dmat : a connexion with Ar.
Tihamat,
the Red Sea littoral
province
(Hoffmann
in
ZATW,
iii.
118),
is more dubious
(see Lane, 32ob,
c;
Jensen, KIB,
vi.
i,
560).
In
early
Heb. the word is
rare,
and
always
(with poss. exception
of Ex.
I5
5 8
)
denotes the subterranean
ocean,
which is the source from which
earthly spring
s and fountains are fed
(Gn. 49
25
,
Dt.
33
13
,
Am.
y
4
,
and so Dt. 8
7
,
Gn.
7
n
8
2
(P);
cf. Horn. //.
xxi.
195),
and is a remnant of the
primal
chaos
(Gn.
i
2
,
Ps.
IO4
6
,
Pr. 8
27
).
In later
writings
it is used of the sea
(pi. seas),
and even
of torrents of water
(Ps. 42
8
)
; but,
the
passages being poetic,
there is
probably always
to be detected a reference to the
world-ocean,
either
as source of
springs,
or as
specialised
in
earthly
oceans
(see
Ezk. 26
19
).
Though
the word is almost confined to
poetry (except
Gn. i
2
7"
8
2
,
Dt. 8
7
,
Am.
7
4
),
the
only
clear cases of
personification
are Gn.
49
25
,
Dt.
33
13
(TVhom
that coucheth
beneath).
The invariable
absence of the
art.
(except
with
pi.
in Ps. io6
9
,
Is.
63
13
) proves
that it is a
proper
name,
but not that it is a
personification (cf.
the case of
VIK^).
On the
other
hand,
it is
noteworthy
that
Dinn,
unlike most Heb. names of
fluids,
is
fern., becoming occasionally
masc.
only
in later times when its
primary
sense had been
forgotten (cf. Albrecht, ZATW,
xvi.
62)
: this
might
be
a
1 8 CREATION
(?)
up
the waters
(5T,
IEz.,
and a few
moderns),
but the divine
Spirit, figured
as a bird
brooding
over its
nest,
and
perhaps
symbolising
an immanent
principle
of life and order in the
as
yet undeveloped
chaos.
Comp.
Milton,
Paradise
Lost,
i.
19
ff.,
vii.
2336.
It is
remarkable, however,
if this be
the
idea,
that no further effect is
given
to it in the
sequel.
(i)
The idea of the
Spirit
as formative
principle
of the
kosmos,
while in the line of the OT doctrine that he is
the source of life
(Ps. 33 iO4
29f
-), yet goes
much
beyond
the
ordinary representation,
and occurs
only
here
(possibly
Is.
4O
13
). (2)
The
image conveyed by
the word
brooding
(DDrnp)
is
generally
considered to rest on the
widespread
cosmogonic speculation
of the
world-egg (so
even De. and
Di.),
in which the
organised
world was as it were hatched
from the fluid chaos. If
so,
we have here a
fragment
of
mythology
not
vitally
connected with the main idea of the
narrative,
but introduced for the sake of its
religious
suggestiveness.
In the source from which this
myth
was
borrowed the
brooding power might
be a bird-like
deity
*
(Gu.),
or an abstract
principle
like the Greek
"Epws,
the
Phcen.
Ildflos,
etc. : for this the Heb.
writer,
true to his
monotheistic
faith,
substitutes the
Spirit
of
God,
and
thereby
transforms a "crude material
representation
. . .
into a beautiful and
suggestive figure
"
(Dri.
Gen.
5).
due to an
original
female
personification. name]
Gk. Vns. and
U
express merely
the idea of motion
(^re^pero, tiri<pfp6/uiei oi>,
ferebatur)
;
$T
N3B-JD
(
blow or breathe
);
Ss
\L***D. Jerome (Qutzst.}:
"
in-
cubabat sive confovebat in similitudinem volucris ova calore animantis."
It is
impossible
to
say
whether brood or hover is the exact
image
here,
or in Dt.
32",
the
only
other
place
where the Pi. occurs
(the
Qal
in
Jer. 23
9
may
be a
separate root).
The
Syriac
vb. has
great
latitude of
meaning-;
it
describes, e.g.,
the action of Elisha in
laying
himself on the
body
of the dead child
(2
Ki.
4
34
)
;
and is used of
ang-els
hovering
over the
dying Virgin.
It is also
applied
to a
waving
of the
hands
(or
of
fans)
in certain ecclesiastical
functions,
etc.
(see Payne
Smith,
Thes.
3886).
*
In
Polynesian mythology
the
supreme god Tangaloa
is often
represented
as a bird
hovering
over the waters
(Waitz
-
Gerland,
Anthrop.
vi.
241).
I.
3, 4
19
The
conceptions
of chaos in
antiquity
fluctuate between that of
empty space
(Hesiod,
Arist.
Lucr., etc.)
and the rudis
indigestaque
moles of Ovid
(Met.
i.
7).
The
Babylonian representation
embraces
the elements of darkness and
water,
and there is no doubt that this is
the central idea of the Genesis narrative. It is
singular, however,
that of the three clauses of v.
2
only
the second
(which
includes the two
elements mentioned)
exercises
any
influence on the
subsequent descrip
tion
(for
on
any
view the waters of the third must be identical with
the Tehom of the
second).
It is
possible,
therefore,
that the verse
combines ideas drawn from diverse sources which are not
capable
of
complete synthesis.
Only
on this
supposition
would it be
possible
to
accept
Gu. s
interpretation
of the first clause as a
description
of
empty space.
In that case the earth is
probably
not inclusive
of,
but
contrasted
with,
T&hdm : it denotes the
space
now
occupied by
the
earth,
which
being
1
empty
leaves
nothing
but the
deep
and the
darkness.
3-5.
First work: Creation of
light.
[And]
God
said]
On the
connexion,
see
above,
pp. 13
ff.
;
and on the
significance
of the
fiat, p. 7.
Let there be
lighi\
The
thought
of
light
as the first
creation,
naturally suggested
by
the
phenomenon
of the
dawn,
appears
in several cos
mogonies
;
but is not
expressed
in
any
known form of the
Babylonian legend.
There the
creator,
being
the
sun-god,
is in a manner identified with the
primal
element of the
kosmos;
and the antithesis of
light
and darkness is dramat
ised as a conflict between the
god
and the Chaos monster.
In Persian
cosmogony
also,
light,
as the
sphere
in which
Mazda
dwells,
is uncreated and eternal
(Tiele,
Gesch. d. Rel.
ii.
295 f.).
In Is.
45
7
both
light
and darkness are creations
of
Yahwe,
but that is
certainly
not the idea here.
Comp.
Milton s Parad.
Lost,
iii. i fF. :
"
Hail, holy Light
!
offspring-
of heaven first-born
;
Or,
of the Eternal co-eternal
beam,"
etc.
4.
saw that the
light
was
good\
The formula of
approval
does not extend to the
darkness,
nor even to the
coexistence
of
light
and
darkness,
but is restricted to the
light.
*
Good
"
expresses
the contrast of God s work to the chaos of which
darkness is an element. Gu.
goes
too far in
suggesting
that the
expression
covers a
strong anthropomorphism
3.
"IIK \TI
corresponds
to the
p
m of
subsequent
acts.
4.
310 3
iiNn]
20 CREATION
(?)
(the possibility
of
failure,
happily overcome).
But he
rightly
calls attention to the
bright
view of the world
implied
in the
series of
approving"
verdicts,
as
opposed
to the
pessimistic
estimate which became common in later
Judaism.
-And God
divided,
etc.].
To us these words
merely suggest
alternation
in time
;
but Heb. conceives of a
spatial
distinction of
light
and
darkness,
each in its own
place
or abode
(Jb. 38
19f
-).
Even the
separate days
and
nights
of the
year
seem
thought
of as
having independent
and continuous existence
(Jb. 3
6
).
The Heb. mind had thus no
difficulty
in
thinking
of the existence of
light
before the
heavenly
bodies. The sun and moon rule the
day
and
night,
but
light
and darkness exist
independently
of them. It is a mis
take, however,
to
compare
this with the scientific
hypothesis
of a
cosmical
light
diffused
through
the nebula from which the solar
system
was evolved. It is not
merely light
and
darkness,
but
day
and
night,
and even the alternation of
evening
and
morning (v.
5
),
that are re
presented
as
existing
before the creation of the sun.
5.
And God
called,
etc.]
The name that
by
which the
thing
is summoned into the field of
thought belongs
to
the full existence of the
thing
itself. So in the first line of
the
Babylonian
account,
"the heaven was not
yet
named"
means that it did not
yet
exist. And it became
evening,
etc.]
Simple
as the words
are,
the sentence
presents
some
difficulty,
which is not removed
by
the
supposition
that the
writer follows the
Jewish
custom of
reckoning
the
day
from
with attracted
obj.
: see G-K.
117
h
;
Dav.
146. 5.
or in
popular
parlance
denotes the
period
between dawn and
dark,
and is so used
in
Ba
. When it became
necessary
to deal with the
24-hours* day,
it
was most natural to connect the
night
with the
preceding period
of
light, reckoning, i.e.,
from sunrise to
sunrise;
and this is the
prevail
ing usage
of OT
(rp^l cv).
In
post-exilic
times we find traces of the
reckoning
from sunset to sunset in the
phrase
DVI rh"h
(wx6ti/*fpov\
Is.
27*
34
10
,
Est.
4
16
. P
regularly employs
the form
day
and
night
;
and if
Lv.
23
a2
can be cited as a case of the later
reckoning,
Ex. ia
18
is as
clearly
in favour of the older
(see Marti, EB,
1036; Konig,
ZDMG,
Ix.
605
ff.
).
There is therefore no
presumption
in favour of the less natural
method in this
passage. N~]i?]
Mil
el,
to avoid concurrence oftwo accented
syll. nj^] (also
Mil
el)
a
reduplicated
form
fy^
;
cf. Aram. K
^)
: see
Noldeke,
Mand. Gr.
109;
Pratorius, ZATW,
Hi.
218;
Ron. ii.
520.
inx
cv]
a first
day,
or
perhaps
better one
day.
On nriN as ord. see
G-K.
98 a, 134p
;
Dav.
38,
R. i
;
but cf. Wellh. Prol.
6
387.
1.5,6
21
sunset to sunset
(Tu.
Gu. Ben.
etc.).
The
Jewish day may
have
begun
at
sunset,
but it did not end at sunrise
;
and it
is
impossible
to take the words as
meaning
that the
evening
and morn
ingformed
the first
(second, etc.) day. Moreover,
there could be no
evening
before the
day
on which
light
was created. The sentence must refer to the close of the
first
day
with the first
evening
and the
night
that
followed,
leading
the mind forward to the advent of a new
day,
and
a new
display
of creative
power (De.
Di. Ho.
al.).
One
must not overlook the
majestic simplicity
of the statement.
The
interpretation
of or as
(eon,
a favourite resource of harmonists
of science and
revelation,
is
opposed
to the
plain
sense of the
passage,
and has no warrant in Heb.
usage (not
even Ps.
go
4
).
It is true that
the
conception
of successive creative
periods, extending-
over vast
spaces
of
time,
is found in other
cosmogonies (De. 55)
;
but it
springs
in
part
from views of the world which are
foreign
to the OT. To introduce
that idea here not
only destroys
the
analogy
on which the sanction of
the sabbath
rests,
but misconceives the character of the
Priestly
Code.
If the writer had had asons in his
mind,
he would
hardly
have missed
the
opportunity
of
stating
how
many
millenniums each embraced.
6-8. Second work : The firmament. The second
fiat calls into existence a
firmament,
whose function is to
divide the
primaeval
waters into an
upper
and lower
ocean,
leaving
a
space
between as the theatre of further creative
developments.
The
"
firmament" is the dome of
heaven,
which to the ancients was no
optical illusion,
but a material
structure,
sometimes
compared
to an
upper
chamber"
(Ps. io4
13
,
Am.
g
6
) supported by
"
pillars
"
(Jb.
26
11
),
and
resembling
in its surface a "molten mirror"
(Jb. 37
18
).
Above this are the
heavenly
waters,
from which the rain
descends
through
"
windows
"
or
"
doors
"
(Gn. 7
11
8
2
,
2 Ki.
7
2- 19
)
opened
and shut
by
God at His
pleasure (Ps. 78
23
).
The
general
idea of a forcible
separation
of heaven and earth
6.
STp-j] (dS <rre/3<?wjua,
^d
firmamentum}
a word found
only
in
Ezk., P,
Ps.
ig
2
I5O
1
,
Dn. i2
3
. The absence of art. shows that it is a
descriptive
term, though
the
only parallels
to such a use would be Ezk. i
22f- 25f-
jo
1
(cf.
Phcen.
j;piD=
dish
\Blechschale\
:
CIS,
i.
go
1
;
see Lidzb.
370, 421).
The idea is
solidity,
not thinness or extension: the sense beat thin
belongs
to the Pi.
(Ex. 39
3
etc.) ;
and this noun is formed from the
Qal,
which means either
(intrans.)
to
stamp
with the foot
(Ezk.
6
n
),
or
22 CREATION
(?)
is
widely
diffused
;
it is
perhaps
embodied in our word
heaven
(from heave?)
and O.K. Mift. A
graphic
illustra
tion of it is found in
Egyptian pictures,
where the
god
Shu is seen
holding
aloft,
with outstretched
arms,
the dark
star-spangled figure
of the
heaven-goddess,
while the earth-
god
lies
prostrate
beneath
(see Je.
ATLO
2
,
7).*
But the
special
form in which it
appears
here is
perhaps
not
fully
intelligible apart
from the Bab.
creation-myth,
and the
climatic
phenomena
on which it is based
(see
below, p. 46).
Another
interpretation
of the firmament has
recently
been
propounded
(Winckler,
Himmels- u.
Weltenbild,
25
ff.;
ATLO
2
,
164, 174)
which
identifies it with the Bab.
supuk
Same,
and
explains
both of the Zodiac.
The view seems based on the
highly
artificial Bab.
theory
of a
point-
for-point correspondence
between heaven and
earth, according-
to which
the Zodiac
represents
a
heavenly earth,
the northern heavens a
heavenly
heaven
(atmospheric),
and the southern a
heavenly
ocean. But what
ever be the truth about
supuk same,
such a restriction of the
meaning
of
ypn
is inadmissible in Heb. In Ps.
ig
2
,
Dn. i2
3
it
might
be
possible;
but even there it is
unnecessary,
and in almost
every
other case it is
absolutely
excluded. It is so
emphatically
in this
chapter,
where the
firmament is named
heaven,
and birds
(whose flight
is not restricted to 10
on either side of the
ecliptic)
are said to
fly
in front of the firmament.
9,
10. Third work :
Dry
land and sea. The shore
less lower
ocean,
which remained at the close of the second
(trans.), stamp firm,
consolidate
(Is. 42** etc.).
It is curious that
the vb. is used of the creation of the
earth,
never of
heaven, except
Jb. 37
18
. *?n3D
,TI]
on
ptcp. expressing permanence,
see Dri. T.
135,
5. f*T3
: Kon. 5.
3ign. *?!!^]]
fix
supplies
as
subj.
6 6e6s.
7. p ,Ti]
transposed
in (5
to end of v.
6
,
its normal
position,
if indeed it be not
a
gloss
in both
places (We.).
8. (5r
also inserts here the formula of
approval
: on its omission in
Heb.,
see
above, pp. 8, 9.
9. ii|r]
in this
sense,
only Jer. 3
17
. For
Dips
read with
(3i
nipp
=
gathering-place,
as in v.
10
. Nestle
(MM, 3) needlessly suggests
for the latter
rnjpp,
and for
np% IIJT.
nnnp]
not from under but
simply
under
(see
v.
10
) ;
G-K.
iiQc
2
.
n.vnni] juss. unapocopated,
as often
near the
principal pause
;
G-K.
109
a. At the end of the v. ffi adds :
/ecu
ffw^x^
7
]
T&
vSup
rb viroKdrw rov
ovpavov
ets rds
(rvvayuyas
avrwv /ecu
&00?j
7; typd
: i.e.
rvfyjn
Nnm
D.Tjjpzp-^N o:9$j
nnnp
IK
D:5D 11^1.
The addition is
adopted by Ball,
and the
pi.
avruv
proves
at least that it rests on a
Heb.
original, v5up being sing,
in Greek
(We.).
10.
D^l]
the
pi. (cf.
*
Comp.
also the Maori
myth reported
in
Waitz, Anthrop.
vi.
245
ff.
;
Lang,
Custom and
Myth, 45
ff.
I.
7-ii
23
day,
is now
replaced by
land and sea in their
present
con
figuration.
The
expressions
used :
gathered together
. . .
appear
seem to
imply
that the earth
already
existed as a
solid mass covered with
water,
as in Ps.
IO4
5 - 6
;
but Di.
thinks the
language
not inconsistent with the idea of a
muddy
mixture of earth and
water,
as is most
naturally
suggested by
v.
2
. Henceforth the
only
remains of the
original
chaos are the subterranean waters
(commonly
called
Te/iom,
but in Ps.
2^
sea and streams
),
and the
circumfluent ocean on which the heaven rests
(Jb.
26
10
,
Ps.
139,
Pr. 8
27
),
of
which, however,
earthly
seas are
parts.
We. s
argument,
that vv.
6
"
10
are the account of a
single
work
(above, p. gf.),
is
partly anticipated by IEz.,
who
points
out that what
is here described is no true
creation,
but
only
a manifestation of what
was before hidden and a
gathering
of what was
dispersed.
On the
ground
that earth and heaven were made on one
day (2
4
),
he is driven
to take TDN i as
plup.,
and
assign
vv.
9>1
to the second
day.
Some
such idea
may
have dictated the omission of the formula of
approval
at
the close of the second
day
s work.
11-13.
Fourth work : Creation of
plants.
The
appearing
of the earth is followed on the same
day,
not
inappropriately, by
the
origination
of
vegetable
life. The
earth itself is conceived as endowed with
productive
powers
a
recognition
of the
principle
of
development
not to be
explained
as a mere
imparting
of the
power
of annual
renewal
(Di.);
see to the
contrary
v.
12
compared
with v.
24
.
II. Let the earth
produce
verdure]
N^H
means
*
fresh
young herbage,
and
appears
here to include all
plants
in
Gn.
49
13
,
Dt.
33
19
,
Ps.
46
3f-
[where
it is construed as
sing.] 24* etc.)
is
mostly poetic
and late
prose
;
it is
probably
not
numerical,
but
pi.
of
extension like
D^a, D:^
:
,
and therefore to be rendered as
sg.
II. NZH
Kghn]
lit.
vegetate vegetation,
the noun
being
ace.
cognate
with the vb.
p
is
a7r.Xe7. ;
on the
pointing
with
Metheg (Baer-De.
p. 74)
see Kon. i.
42, 7.
S>
(
>
O^Z.)
must have read K^in as v.
12
.
NB^
lyy.]
(&
(fioTdvyv xt>P
TOV
)
and
U treat the words as in
annexion,
contrary
to the accents and the
usage
of the terms. It is
impossible
to define
them with scientific
precision ;
and the twofold
classification
given
above herb and tree is more or less
precarious.
It
recurs,
however,
in Ex.
<f>
io
12- 15
(all J),
and the reasons for
rejecting
the other
are, first,
24
CREATION
(p)
the earliest
stages
of their
growth
;
hence the classification
of flora is not threefold
grass,
herbs,
trees
(Di.
Dri.
al.)
but
twofold,
the
generic
tfH
including
the two kinds
3^
V
and
PV
(De.
Gu. Ho.
etc.).
The distinction is based on the
methods of
reproduction ;
the one kind
producing
seed
merely,
the other fruit which contains the seed. The v.
continues
(amending
with the
help
of
(JE)
:
grass producing-
seed
after
ifs
kind,
and
fruit-tree
producing fruit
in which
(i.e.
the
fruit)
is its
(the
tree
s)
seed
after
its
(the
tree
s)
kind.
after
its
kind]
v.i.
upon
the
earth]
comes in
very
awkwardly
;
it is difficult to find
any
suitable
point
of attach
ment
except
with the
principal verb, which, however,
is too
remote.
14-19.
Fifth work : The
heavenly
luminaries.
On the
parallelism
with the first
day
s work see
above,
p.
8f. The vv. describe
only
the creation of sun and
moon
;
the clause and the stars in v.
16
appears
to be an
the absence of
]
before
nry
; and, second,
the
syntactic
consideration that
Ntn as
cognate
ace.
may
be
presumed
to define
completely
the action
of the vb. Ken denotes
especially
fresh
juicy herbag-e
*
(Pr. 2^)
and
those
grasses
which never to
appearance get beyond
that
stage,
ary,
on the other hand
(unlike "n),
is used of human
food,
and therefore
includes cultivated
plants (the cereals, etc.) (Ps. IO4
14
). fy]
read
fjn
with
jiuCSU.S,
and
3
Heb. MSS
(Ball). irc^, inro!?]
On form of suff.
see G-K.
91
d.
(5r
in v.
11
inserts the word after
yn
(rendering
strangely
/caret,
ytvos
KOL Ka.6
o^uot^ra,
and so v.
12
),
and later in the v.
(/card yv.
els
6/j..) transposes
as indicated in the translation above.
po]
a characteristic word of
P,
found elsewhere
only
in Dt.
i4
13- 14- 15> 18
(from
Lv. j i
),
and
(dubiously) Ezk-47
10
, everywhere
with suff. The
etymology
is uncertain. If connected with ruiDn
(form, likeness),
the
meaning
would be form
(Lat. species) ;
but in
usage
it seems to mean
simply
kind,
the
sg.
suff. here
being
distributive:
"according
to its several
kinds." In
Syr.
the
corresponding
word denotes a
family
or tribe.
For another
view,
see Frd.
Delitzsch,
Pro!.
143
f. 12.
Nxini]
One is
tempted
to substitute the rare NEnni as in v.
11
(so Ball).
After
py
r
adds "12 : Ball deletes the na in v.
11
.
14.
HIND
.v] (||
TIN \v in v.
3
).
On the breach of
concord,
see G-K.
1450;
Dav.
1136.
TIND]
a late
word,
is used of
heavenly
bodies in
Ezk.
32,
Ps.
74
16
;
it never means
lamp exactly,
but is often
applied
collectively
to the seven-armed
lampstand
of the tabernacle
;
once it is
*
In Ar. this sense is said to
belong
to
usb,
but Heb.
3by
has no such
restriction.
I.
12-14
25
addition
(v.i.).
The whole
conception
is as unscientific/
(in
the modern
sense)
as it could be
(a)
in
its^
ge^C.nlcLc~.
standpoint, ()
in
making
the distinction of
day
and
night
prior
to the
sun,
(c)
in
putting
the creation of the
vegetable
world before that of the
heavenly
bodies. Its
religious
significance,
however,
is
very great,
inasmuch as it marks
the~advance of Hebrew
thought
from the heathen notion of
the stars
tojijpure
monotheism..
To the ancient
world,
and
the^Babylonians
in
particular,
the
heavenly
bodies were
animated
beings,
and the more
conspicuous
of them were
associated or identified with the
gods.
The idea of them
as an animated host occurs in Hebrew
poetry (Ju. 5
20
,
Is.
4O
26
, Jb. 38
7
etc.)
;
but here it is
entirely eliminated,
the
heavenly
bodies
being
reduced to mere
luminaries,
i.e.
either embodiments of
light
or
perhaps simply lamps
(v.i.).
It is
possible,
as Gu.
thinks,
that a remnant of the
old
astrology
lurks in the word dominion
;
but whereas in
Babylonia
the stars ruled over human affairs in
general,
their influence here is restricted to that which
obviously
depends
on
them,
viz. the alternation of
day
and
night,
the
festivals,
etc.
Comp. Jb. 38
33
,
Ps.
i36
7
~
9
(Jer. 3i
35
).
It is
noteworthy
that this is the
only
work of creation of which
the
purpose
is
elaborately specified.
luminaries
(flhRlwp)]
i.e. bearers or embodiments of
light.
The word is used
most
frequently
of the sevenfold
light
of the tabernacle
used of the
eyes (Pr. I5
30
),
and once of the divine countenance
(Ps. go
8
).
BTJ
Fpis]
the
gen.
is not
partitive
but
explicative:
Dav.
24 (a).
(
inserts at this
point
: et s
0aOcrti rrjs "y^s,
/ecu
&pxe<-v r?}s i]/j.tpas
K, T.
vvKrbs,
xat. nnx
1
?]
In
Jer.
io
2
a DB n mnx are
astrolog-ical portents
such as the
heathen
fear,
and that is
commonly
taken as the
meaning- here,
though
it is not
quite easy
to believe the writer would have said the sun and
moon were made for this
purpose.*
If we take nx in its
ordinary
sense
of token or
indication,
we
might suppose
it defined
by
the words
which follow. Tuch obtains a connexion
by making
the double "\-both
. . . and
("as signs,
both for
[sacred]
seasons and for
days
and
years ")
: others
by
a
hendiadys (" signs of
seasons
").
It would be less
*
The
prophetic passages
cited
by
Dri.
(Gen.
io
1
)
all
contemplate
a reversal of the order of
nature,
and cannot
safely
be
appealed
to as
illustrations of its normal functions.
26 CREATION
(?)
(Ex. 25
6
etc.);
and to
speak
of it as
expressing
a
markedly
prosaic
view of the
subject (Gu.)
is
misleading.
in the
firmament, etc.}
moving
in
prescribed paths
on its lower
surface.
This, however,
does not
justify
the
interpretation
of
JTp~i
as the Zodiac
(above, p. 22).
to
separate
between
the
day,
etc.}.
Day
and
night
are
independent
entities
;
but
they
are now
put
under the rule of the
heavenly
bodies,
as their
respective spheres
of influence
(Ps.
i2i
6
). -for sign
s
and
for
seasons,
etc.}
DHjrtlD
(seasons) appears
never
(certainly
not in
P)
to be used of the natural seasons of the
year
(Ho.
2
11
, Jer.
8
7
are
figurative),
but
always
of a time con
ventionally agreed upon (see
Ex.
g
5
),
or fixed
by
some
circumstance. The commonest
application
is to the sacrea
seasons of the ecclesiastical
year,
which are fixed
by
the
moon
(cf.
Ps.
TO4
19
).
If the natural seasons are
excluded,
this seems the
only possible
sense here
;
and P s
predilection
for matters of cultus makes the
explanation plausible.
Dhs
(signs)
is more
difficult,
and none of the
explanations
given
is
entirely satisfactory (v.i.).
16.
for
dominion over the
day
. . .
night]
in the sense
explained
above;
and so v.
18
.
and the
stars]
Since the writer seems to avoid on
prin
ciple
the
everyday
names of the
objects,
and to describe
them
by
their nature and the functions
they
serve,
the
clause is
probably
a
gloss (but v.i.).
On the other
hand,
it
would be too bold an
expedient
to
supply
an
express naming
of the
planets
after the
analogy
of the first three works
Cm.).
The laboured
explanation
of the
purposes
of the
heavenly
bodies is
confused,
and
suggests overworking- (Ho.).
The clauses which most
excite
suspicion
are the two
beginning
with vm
(the
difficult
14b
and
15a
*) ;
note in
particular
the awkward
repetition
of Hi
nmoV. The
violent to render the first i und ZTvar
(videlicet):
"as
signs,
and that
for
seasons,"
etc.
;
see
BDB,
5.
i
i.
b,
where some of the
examples
come,
at
any rate, very
near the sense
proposed.
Olshausen arrives at the
same sense
by reading io^> simply (MBA, 1870, 380).
16.
m
mxi]
Dri.
(Heir.
ii.
33)
renders "and the lesser
light,
as also the
stars,
to
rule,"
etc. The construction is not abnormal
;
but would the writer have
said that the stars rule the
night
? 18. ^
lan^j]
On the
comp.
sheva see
Kon. i.
10,
6 e.
I.
1
6-20
27
functions are stated with
perfect
clearness in
16
"
18
:
(a)
to
give light
upon
the
earth, (b)
to rule
day
and
night,
and
(c)
to
separate light
from
darkness. I am
disposed
to think that
14b
was introduced as an ex
position
of the idea of the vb.
f?B>D,
and that
15**
was then added to
restore the connexion. Not much
importance
can be attached to the
insertions of (5r
(v.i.),
which
may
be borrowed from v.
17f-
.
20-23.
Sixth work :
Aquatic
and aerial animals.
Let the waters swarm with
swarming things living creatures,
and let
fowlfly
-,
etc.\
The
conjunction
of two distinct forms
of life under one creative act has led Gu. to surmise that
two
originally separate
works have been combined in order
to
bring
the whole within the scheme of six
days.
Ben.
(rendering
and
fowl
that
may fly]
thinks the author was
probably
influenced
by
some ancient tradition that birds as
well as fishes were
produced by
the water
(so
Ra. and lEz.
on 2
19
).
The
conjecture
is
attractive,
and the construction
has the
support
of all Gk. Vns. and
JJ ;
but it is not certain
that the verb can mean
"producer,
swarm." More
prob
ably (in
connexions like the
present:
see Ex.
7
28
[J]
[EV
8
3
J,
Ps.
I05
30
)
the sense is
simply
teem
with,
indicating
the
place
or element in which the
swarming
creatures
abound,
in which case it cannot
possibly govern spy
as
obj.
?$
has a sense
something
like vermin : i.e. it never
denotes
*
a
swarm/
but is
always
used of the creatures that
20.
p*
. . . in*
]
On
synt.
see Dav.
73,
R. 2. The root has in Aram,
the sense of
creep,
and there are
many passages
in OT where that
idea would be
appropriate (Lv.
n
29- 41 43
etc.);
hence Rob. Smith
(R&,
2
93) creeping
vermin
generally/
But here and Gn. 8
17
9
7
,
Ex. i
7
y
?8
,
Ps.
I05
80
it can
only
mean teem or swarm
;
and Dri.
(Gen.
12)
is
probably right
in
extending
that
meaning
to all the
pass,
in Heb.
Gn. i
80
*-,
Ex.
7
s8
,
Ps.
105*
are the
only places
where the constr. with
cog.
ace.
appears ;
elsewhere the animals themselves are
subj.
of the
vb. The
words,
except
in three
passages,
are
peculiar
to the
vocabulary
of P. But for the fact that
pe*
never means
swarm,
but
always
swarming thing,
it would be
tempting
to take it as st. constr. before
rrn rw
(ffi, Aq. U).
As it
is,
n j has all the awkwardness of a
gloss
(see
2
19
).
The
phrase
is
applied
once to
man,
2
7
(J)
;
elsewhere
to
animals,
mostly
in P
(Gn.
!>
910.12.13.1^
Lv ,,10.46 e
tc.).
^Biy f]ij;i]
The order of words as in v.
22
(ar iiyni),
due to
emphasis
on
the new
subj.
The use of
descriptive impf. (<&, Aq. 20F)
is
mostly
poetic,
and for reasons
given
above must here be refused. JS
*?#]
=
in
28 CREATION
(?)
appear
in swarms
(v.t.).
^*n fc
?}]
lit.
*
living
soul
;
used
here
collectively,
and with the sense of G?BJ
weakened,
as
often,
to individual or
being (ct.
v.
30
and see on
2
7
).
The creation of the
aquatic
animals
marks, according
to OT
ideas,
the first
appearance
of life on the
earth,
for
life is nowhere
predicated
of the
vegetable kingdom.
over
the earth in
front of
the
firmament]
i.e. in the
atmosphere,
for which Heb. has no
special
name. 21.
created]
indis
tinguishable
from made in v.
25
. the
great
sea
monsters]
The
introduction of this new detail in the execution of the fiat
is remarkable.
DJ^fln
here denotes actual marine animals
;
but this is almost the
only passage
where it
certainly
bears
that sense
(Ps.
I48
7
).
There are
strong
traces of
mythology
in the
usage
of the word: Is.
27* 5i
9
(Gu. Schopf. 30-33),
Ps.
74
13
(?)
;
and it
may
have been
originally
the name of
a class of
legendary
monsters like Ti amat. The
mytho
logical interpretation lingered
in
Jewish exegetical
tradition
(see below).
22. And God blessed
them,
etc.]
In contrast
with the
plants,
whose
reproductive powers
are included
in their creation
(v.
llff
-),
these
living beings
are endowed
with the
right
of
self-propagation by
a
s~eparate~"act
a
benediction
(see
v.
28
).
The distinction Is natural. be
fruitful, etc.]
"There is
nothing
to indicate that
only
a
front of : see
BDB,
5.
fWB,
II.
7,
a,
(5r
inserts
p
m at the end of the
v. 21.
DJ
jnrt]
It is
naturally
difficult to determine
exactly
how far the
Heb.
usage
of the word is coloured
by mythology.
The
important
point
is that it
represents
a
power
hostile to
God,
not
only
in the
pass,
cited
above,
but also in
Job 7
12
. There are resemblances in the Ar.
tinnin,
a fabulous
amphibious
monster,
appearing-
now on land and now
in the sea
(personification
of the
waterspout?
RS?,
176), concerning
which the Arabian
cosmographers
have
many
wonderful tales to relate
(Mas adI,
i.
263,
266 ff.
; Kazwmi,
Ethels tr. i.
270
ff.). Ra.,
after
explaining literally,
adds
by way
of
Haggada
that these are Leviathan
and his
consort,
who were created male and
female,
but the female
was killed and salted for the
righteous
in the
coming age,
because if
they
had
multiplied
the world would not have stood before them
(comp.
En.
60, 4
Esd. 6
4y
-
M
,
Ber. R. c.
7).*
nn vsr^
n*o]
Cf.
9
10
,
*
In Bab. tanninu is said to be a
mythological designation
of the
earth
(Jen.
Kosm. 161
; Jer.
ATLO
\ 136? ;
King,
Cr. Tab.
IO9
24
)
;
but that
throws no
light
on Heb.
I.
21-25 29
single pair
of each kind was
originally produced
"
(Ben.)
;
the
language
rather
suggests
that whole
species,
in some
thing
like their
present
multitude,
were created.
24, 25.
Seventh work : Terrestrial animals.
24.
Let the earth
bring forth living
creatures]
rrn 6?D3
(again
coll.)
is here a
generic
name for land
animals,
being
re
stricted
by
what
precedes living
animals that
spring
from the earth. Like the
plants (v.
12
), they
are
boldly
said
to be
produced by
the
earth,
their bodies
being part
of the
earth s substance
(2
7- 19
)
;
this could not be said of fishes in
relation to the
water,
and hence a different form of ex
pression
had to be
employed
in v.
20
. The classification of
animals
(best
arranged
in v.
25
)
is threefold:
(i)
wild
animals,
T^^
n
-0
(roughly
>
carnivord)
;
(2)
domesticated
animals,
fi^r
1
(herbivora)
;
(3)
reptiles, """?"}
$? ^?"!,
including
perhaps creeping
insects and
very
small
quadrupeds (see
Dri.
DB,
i.
518).
A somewhat similar threefold division
appears
in a
Babylonian
tablet cattle of the
field,
beasts
of the field and creatures of the
city (Jen.
K1B,
vi.
i,
42
f.
;
King,
Cr. Tab. 112
f.). 25.
God saw that it was
good\
The formula
distinctly
marks the
separation
of this
work from the creation of
man,
which follows on the same
day.
The absence of a benediction
corresponding
to
Lv. ii
10
;
2
though
without art. is
really
determined
by
*?D
(but
see Dri.
T.
209 (i)).
is-it?
IB-N]
N,
ace. of
definition,
as
p^
in v.
20
. 22. toni
n$]
highly
characteristic of P
(only 3
times
elsewhere).
24.
The distinctions noted above are not
strictly
observed
throughout
the OT. norn
(from
a root
signifying
be dumb Ar. and
Eth.)
denotes
collectively, first,
animals as
distinguished
from man
(Ex.
9
19
etc.),
but
chiefly
the
larger
mammals
; then,
domestic animals
(the
dumb
creatures
with which man has most to
do), (Gn. 34
23
$6
6
etc.).
Of wild
animals
specially
it is seldom used alone
(Dt. 32
24
,
Hab. 2
17
),
but
sometimes with
an addition
(p,
rn
^, $:)
which marks the unusual
reference. As a
noun of
unity,
Neh. 2
12> 14
. See
BDB,
s.v.
px irvn]
an archaic
phrase
in which
i
represents
the old case
ending
of the
nom.,
u or um
(G-K.
90 n).
So Ps.
79
2
;
in-n in other combinations Is.
56
9
,
Zeph.
2
14
,
Ps.
IO4
11
;
Ps.
5o
10
io4
20
. In sense it is
exactly
the same as the
commoner
pxn
rrn
(i
23- 30
g
2- 10
etc.),
and
usually
denotes wild
animals,
though
sometimes animals in
general (fcDo?).
EOT and
p? naturally
overlap
;
but the first name is derived from the manner of
movement,
and the second from the
tendency
to swarm
(Dri. I.e.).
30
CREATION
(?)
vv
22. 28
i s
surprising,
but it is idle to
speculate
on the
reason.
26-28.
Eighth
work : Creation of man. As the
narrative
approaches
its
climax,
the
style
loses
something
of its terse
rigidity,
and reveals a strain of
poetic feeling
which
suggests
that the
passage
is moulded on an
ancient creation
hymn (Gu.).
The distinctive features of
this last work are :
(a)
instead of the
simple jussive
we
have the cohortative of either self-deliberation or consulta
tion with other divine
beings
;
(b)
in contrast to the lower
animals,
which are made each after its kind or
type,
man is
made in the
image
of God
;
(c)
man is
designated
as the
head of creation
by being charged
with the rule of the earth
and all the
living
creatures hitherto made. 26. Let us
make
man]
The
difficulty
of the ist
pers. pi.
has
always
been felt.
Amongst
the
Jews
an
attempt
was made to
get
rid of it
by reading
n
^jy
as
ptcp. Niph.
a view the absurd
grammatical consequences
of
which are
trenchantly exposed by
lEz. The older Christian comm.
generally
find in the
expression
an allusion to the
Trinity (so
even
Calvin) ;
but that doctrine is
entirely
unknown to the
OT,
and cannot
be
implied
here. In modern times it has sometimes been
explained
as
pi. pf
self-deliberation
(Tu.),
or after the
analogy
of the we of
royal
edicts
;
but Di. has shown that neither is consistent with native Heb.
idiom. Di. himself
regards
it as based on the idea of God
expressed by
the
pi.
D
n^N,
as the
living personal synthesis
of a fulness of
powers
and forces
(so Dri.)
;
but that
philosophic rendering
of the
concept
of
deity appears
to be
foreign
to the
theology
of the OT.
26. unions
1JD7S3J
(8r
KO,T elxdva
T]p,^Tepa.v
Kal Ka.6
6/j.oid)(riv.
Mechilta
(see above,
p. 14), gives
as
(Gr
s
reading
nionai D
1
?^. On the
?
of a
model,
cf. Ex.
25*
; BDB,
s.v. III. 8.
D^x]
Ass.
salmu,
the technical
expression
for the statue of a
god (JfAT
3
, 476
3
) ;
Aram, and
Syr.
NpS,
=
image
;
the root is not
zalima,
be
dark,
but
possibly $alama,
cut
off
(Noldeke, ZATW,
xvii.
185^).
The idea of
pattern
or model
is confined to the P
pass,
cited above
;
it stands intermediate between
the concrete sense
just
noted
(an
artificial material
reproduction
:
i Sa. 6
5
etc.)
and another still more
abstract,
viz. an unreal sem
blance
(Ps.
39
7
73
20
).
men is the abstr. noun resemblance
;
but also
used
concretely (2
Ch.
4 ,
like
Syr. (2.Q1D5) ;
AT.
dumyat
=
effigy.
The 1 is radical
(form nv?^,
cf.
Ar.) ;
hence the
ending
n* is no
proof
of
Aramaic influence
(We.
ProZ.
5
388) ;
see Dri.
JPh.
xi. 216.
Ins. n!n
with 5
(v.s.).
Other Vns.
agree
with MT.
1. 26
31
The most natural and most
widely accepted explanation
is that God is here
represented
as
taking
counsel with divine
beings
other than
Himself,
viz. the
angels
or host of
heaven: cf.
3
22
n
7
,
Is. 6
8
,
i Ki. 22
19
-
22
(so
Philo,
Ra. lEz.
De. Ho. Gu. Ben.
ah).
Di.
objects
to this
interpretation,
first,
that it ascribes to
angels
some share in the creation of
man,
which is
contrary
to
scriptural
doctrine
;
*
and, second,
that the
very
existence of
angels
is nowhere alluded to
by
P at all. There is force in these considerations
;
and
probably
the ultimate
explanation
has to be
sought
in a
pre-Israelite stage
of the tradition
(such
as is
represented
by
the
Babylonian
account : see
below,
p. 46),
where a
polytheistic
view of man s
origin
found
expression.
This
would
naturally
be
replaced
in a Heb. recension
by
the idea
of a
heavenly
council of
angels,
as in i Ki.
22, Jb. i,
38
7
,
Dn.
4
14
7
10
etc. That P retained the idea in
spite
of his
silence as to the existence of
angels
is due to the fact that
it was
decidedly
less
anthropomorphic
than the
statement
that man was made in the
image
of the one
incomparable
Deity.
in our
image, according
to our
likeness]
The
general
idea of likeness between God and man
frequently
occurs in
classical
literature,
and sometimes the
very
term of this v.
(ewcwv,
ad
imaginem)
is
employed.
To
speak
of
it,
there
fore,
as
"
the distinctive feature of the Bible doctrine con
cerning
man
"
is an
exaggeration ;
although
it is true that
such
expressions
on the
plane
of heathenism
import
much
less than in the
religion
of Israel
(Di.).
The idea in this
precise
form is in the OT
peculiar
to P
(5*-
3
g
6
)
;
the con
ception,
but not the
expression, appears
in Ps. 8
6
: later
biblical
examples
are Sir.
i7
3g>
,
WS. 2
23
(where
the
*
image
is
equivalent
to
immortality),
i Co. n
7
,
Col.
3, Eph. 4
24
,
Ja.
3
9
-
The
origin
of the
conception
is
probably
to be found in the
Baby
lonian
mythology.
Before
proceeding
to the creation of
Ea-bani,
Aruru forms a mental
image (zikru
: see
Jen. KIB,
vi.
i, 401 f.)
of
the God Anu
(ib. 120,
1.
33)
;
and
similarly,
in the Descent of
Istar,
Comp.
Calvin :
"
Minimam vero tarn
prasclari
operis partem
Angelis
adseribere
abominandum
sacrilegium
est."
32
CREATION
(p)
Ea forms a zikru in his wise heart before
creating
Asusunamir
(ib.
86.
1.
n).
In both cases the reference is
obviously
to the
bodily
form of
the created
being-.
See, further,
KAT*
t 506;
ATLO
1
, 167.
The
patristic
and other
theological developments
of the doctrine
lie
beyond
the
scope
of this
commentary
;
*
and it is sufficient to observe
with
regard
to them
(i)
that the
image
is not
something peculiar
to
man s
original
state,
and lost
by
the Fall
;
because
P,
who alone uses
the
expression,
knows
nothing
of a
Fall,
and in
g
6
employs
the
term,
without
any restriction,
of
post-diluvian
mankind.
(2)
The distinction
between dKwv
(imago)
and
o^oiWis (similitude)
the former
referring
to
the essence of human nature and the latter to its accidents or its en
dowments
by grace
has an
apparent justification
in
(5r,
which inserts
Kal between the two
phrases (see below),
and never mentions the
likeness
after
i
26
;
so that it was
possible
to
regard
the latter as
something belonging
to the divine idea of
man,
but not
actually
con
ferred at his creation. The Heb. affords no basis for such
speculations
:
cf.
5
1 - 3
9
6
.
(3)
The view that the divine
image
consists in dominion
over the creatures
(Greg. Nyss., Chrysostom, Socinians, etc.)
is still
defended
by
Ho.
;
but it cannot be held without an almost inconceiv
able
weakening
of the
figure,
and is inconsistent with the
sequel,
where
the rule over the creatures
is, by
a
separate
benediction,
conferred
on
man,
already
made in the
image
of God. The truth is that the
image
marks the distinction between man and the
animals,
and so
qualifies
him for dominion : the latter is the
consequence,
not the
essence,
of the divine
image (cf.
Ps. 8
6ffi
,
Sir.
ly-"
4
). (4)
Does the
image
refer
primarily
to the
spiritual
nature or to the
bodily
form
(upright
attitude,
etc.)
of man? The idea of a
corporeal
resemblance
seems free from
objection
on the level of OT
theology ;
and it is
certainly strongly suggested by
a
comparison
of
5
3
with
5
l
. God is
expressly
said to have a form which can be seen
(n:iDn,
Nu. i2
8
,
Ps.
i7
15
) ;
the OT writers
constantly
attribute to Him
bodily parts
;
and
that
they
ever advanced to the
conception
of God as formless
spirit
would be difficult to
prove.
On the other
hand,
it
may
well be
ques
tioned if the idea of a
spiritual image
was within the
compass
of Heb.
thought.
D5.,
while
holding
that the central idea is man s
spiritual
nature,
admits a reference to the
bodily
form in so far as it is the ex
pression
and
organ
of
mind,
and
inseparable
from
spiritual qualities.
f
It
might
be truer to
say
that it denotes
primarily
the
bodily form,
but
includes those
spiritual
attributes of which the former is the natural
and self-evident
symbol.
J
Note the
striking parallel
in
Ovid,
Met. i.
76
ff.
Man
(7?)
1S here
generic (the
human
race),
not the
*
A
good summary
is
given by Zapletal, Alttestamentliches, 1-15.
t
So
Augustine,
De Gen. cont. Man. i.
17:
"
Ita
intelligitur per
animum
maxime,
attestante etiam erecta
corporis
forma,
homo factus
ad
imaginem
et
similitudinem Dei."
J
Cf.
Engert,
Die
Weltschopfung, 33.
i.
27-29
33
proper
name of an
individual,
as
5*. Although
the
great
majority
of comm. take it for
granted
that a
single pair
is
contemplated,
there is
nothing
in the narrative to bear out
that view
;
and the
analogy
of the marine and land animals
is
against
it on the whole
(Tu.
and
Ben.). -fish of
the
sea,
etc.\
The enumeration coincides with the classification of
animals
already given, except
that the earth occurs where
we should
expect
wild beast
of
the earth.
nn
should
undoubtedly
be restored to the text on the
authority
of .
27.
in his
image,
in the
image of
God,
etc.\
The
repetition
imparts
a
rhythmic
movement to the
language,
which
may
be a faint echo of an old
hymn
on the
glory
of
man,
like
Ps. 8
(Gu.).
male and
female]
The
persistent
idea that
man as first created was bi-sexual and the sexes
separated
afterwards
(mentioned by
Ra. as a
piece
of
Haggada,
and
recently
revived
by Schwally, ARW,
ix.
172 ff.),
is
far from the
thought
of the
passage.
28.
Ab^JiSdic-
tion is here
again
the
source^of fertility,. bu^this_time_alsp_
of dominion : (ju.
regards
this as another
fragment
of a
hymn.
~~"
29-31.
The record of creation closes with another
(tenth)
27. toVsa]
(K
om. The curious
paraphrase
of S
appears
to reflect
the Ebionite
tendency
of that translator : tv ek&u
diafapy
8n6iov 6 6e6s
tKTurev avrdv
(Geiger, J-iid.
Ztschr.
f.
Wiss. u.
Leben,
i.
40 f.). See,
however, Nestle, MM, 3f.,
who calls attention to the
Spdiov
in
fflr of
i Sa. 28
14
,
and considers this word the source of the idea that
thp
upright
form of man is
part
of the divine
image.
But
(& in i Sa.
probably
misread
jpi
as
*]pi. ink]
construct ad
formam:
Dnk
constr. ad
sensum,
DIK
being
collective : see G-K.
i%2g.
mpai
~nt]
The
phrase
confined to
P
except
Dt.
4
16
;
j alone in
Jer. 3i
21
(a gloss?). Although
the
applica
tion to a
single pair
of individuals
predominates
in the
Law,
the coll.
sense is established
by
Gn.
7
16
,
and is to be assumed in some other cases
(Nu. 5
s
etc.).
On its
etymology
see Ges.
Th., s.v.,
and
(for
a different
view) Schwally, ZATW,
xi. 181 f. 28.
en
1
?
TDJO]
<&
\tyuv ;
perhaps
original. 7f33
<|
]
The
only
instance of a verbal suff. in this
chapter:
a
strong preference
for
expression
of ace.
by
nx with suff. is
characteristic
of the
style
of
P(We.
Prol.
*$%<)). rwmn] ptcp.
with art.
=
relative cl. : see
Dav.
99,
R. i. The
previous
noun is defined
by *?3,
as in v.
21
(JUA
inserts
the
art.).
After D Bs?
5
read normi
(so Ball),
fflr
has for the end of the
V. : KCU Trdvruv rCiv
KTrjvuiv
Kal
Trdcr^s rijs yijs
/cai TT&.VTWV
\r<2v
epTreruv]
T&V
29. nnj]
=
1
1
give
;
Dav.
406;
Dri. T.
13.
jni
(over
Athnach)]
3
34
CREATION
(?)
divine
utterance,
which
regulates
in broad and
general
terms
the relation of men and animals to the
vegetable
world.
The
plants
are destined for food to man and beast. The
passage
is not
wholly intelligible apart
from
9
2ff
-,
from
which we see that its
point
is the restriction on the use of
animal
food,
particularly
on the
part
of man. In other
words,
the first
stage
of the world s
history
that state of
things
which the Creator
pronounced very good
is a state
of
peace
and
harmony
in the animal
world.
This is P s
substitute for the
garden
of Eden.
A distinction is made between the food of man and that
of animals : to the former
(a)
seeding plants (probably
because the seed is
important
in
cultivation,
and in cereals
is the
part eaten),
and
(b) fruit-bearing
trees
;
to the latter
all the
greenness of herbage^
i.e. the succulent
leafy parts.
The statement is not exhaustive : no
provision
is made for
fishes,
nor is there
any
mention of the use of such victuals
as
milk,
honey,
etc. Observe the difference from chs. 2.
3,
where man is made to live on fruit
alone,
and
only
as
part
of the curse has herbs
(DE>y)
assigned
to him.
31.
The
account closes with the divine verdict of
approval,
which
wrongly
omitted
by
(Or.
.I^DN]
found
only
in P and
Ezk.,
and
always
preceded by ^.
It is
strictly
fern,
inf.,
and
perhaps always
retains
verbal force
(see
Dri.
JPh.
xi.
217).
The
ordinary cognate
words for
food are V::N and
^p. 30.
ill ^a
1
?! The construction is obscure. The
natural
interpretation
is that
^
expresses
a contrast to
M
the one
specifying-
the food of
man,
the other that of animals. To
bring
out
this sense
clearly
it is
necessary (with
Ew.
al.)
to insert nnj before
pV^D-nx.
The text
requires
us to treat n^DN
1
? sr.v DO
1
? in
M
as a
paren
thesis
(Di.)
and
pv^rnN
as still under the
regimen
of the distant nra
^P
n]
(K
epTrery
r
ZpirovTi assimilating. w$i]
here used in its
primary
sense of the soul or
animating principle
(see
later on 2
7
),
with a marked
difference from vv.
201- 24
. ivy
pv]
so
9
3
,
=
N$n
"
Ps.
372. pn; (verdure)
alone
may
include the
foliage
of trees
(Ex.
io
16
) ;
rn
^cr
=
grass
(Nu.
22
4
).
The word is rare
(6t.)
;
a still rarer form
p~v may
sometimes be
confounded with it
(Is. 37^
=
2 Ki.
ly
26
?). 31.
ern
or]
The art. with
the num.
appears
here for the first time in the
chap.
On the construc
tion,
see Dri. T.
209 (i),
where it is treated as the
beginning
of a
usage
prevalent
in
post-biblical
Heb.,
which often in a definite
expression
uses
the art. with the
adj.
alone
(nSvun nw3, etc.).
Cf. G-K. 126^
(with
footnote) ;
Ho. Hex.
465
;
Dri.
JPh.
xi.
229
f.
L
30-11. 3
35
here covers a
survey
of all that has been
made,
and rises to
the
superlative
very
good.
yv
29f.
differ
significantly
in their
phraseology
from the
preceding
sections : thus
Jn*
instead of
in]D (
n- 12
)
; jni jni
py
na u nrn
pyn
instead
of the far more
elegant
U
iyni
nt?K nfl
ntyy
fy
;
the classification into
beasts,
birds,
and
reptiles
(ct.
24>
**) ;
rvn t?2J of the inner
principle
of life instead
of the
living being
as in
w^ 24
;
iz>y
p-i
instead of NBH. These
linguistic
differences are sufficient to
prove literary discontinuity
of some kind.
They
have been
pointed
out
by
Kraetschmar
(Bundesvorstg. 103 f.),
who
adds the doubtful material
argument
that the
prohibition
of animal food
to man nullifies the dominion
promised
to him in vv.
26- 28
. But his infer
ence
(partly
endorsed
by Ho.)
that the vv. are a later addition to P
does not commend
itself;
they
are
vitally
connected with
9
2ff
%
and must
have formed
part
of the
theory
of the
Priestly
writer. The facts
point
rather to a distinction in the sources with which P
worked,
perhaps
(as
Gu.
thinks)
the enrichment of the
creation-story by
the
independent
and
widespread myth
of the Golden
Age
when animals lived
peaceably
with one another and with men. The motives of this belief lie
deep
in the human heart horror of
bloodshed,
sympathy
with the lower
animals,
the
longing
for
harmony
in the
world,
and the conviction that
on the whole the course of
things
has been from
good
to worse all
have contributed their
share,
and no scientific
teaching
can rob the idea
of its
poetic
and ethical value.
II.
1-3.
The rest of God. The section contains but
one
idea,
expressed
with unusual
solemnity
and
copiousness
of
language,
the institution of the
Sabbath. It
supplies
an answer to the
question, Why
is no work done on the
last
day
of the week?
(Gu.).
The answer lies in the
fact that God Himself rested on that
day
from the work
of
creation,
and bestowed on it a
special blessing
and
sanctity.
The writer s idea of the Sabbath and its
sanctity
is almost too realistic for the modern mind to
grasp
: it is
not an institution which exists or ceases with its
observance
by
man
;
the divine rest is a fact as much as the divine
working,
and so the
sanctity
of the
day
is a fact
whether
man secures the benefit or not. There is little trace of the
idea that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for
the Sabbath
;
it is an ordinance of the kosmos like
any
other
part
of the creative
operations,
and is for the
good
of man in
precisely
the same sense as the whole creation is
subservient to his welfare.
36
THE SABBATH
I.
And all their
host}
The host of heaven
is
frequently
mentioned in the
OT,
and denotes sometimes
the
heavenly
bodies,
especially
as
objects
of
worship
(Dt.
4
19
etc.),
sometimes the
angels
considered as an
organised army (i
Ki. 22
19
etc.).
The
expression
host of
the earth nowhere occurs
;
and it is a
question
whether
the
pi.
suff. here is not to be
explained
as a denominatio a
potiori (Ho.),
or as a
species
of attraction
(Dri.).
If it has
any special meaning
as
applied
to the
earth,
it would be
equivalent
to what is elsewhere called
pxn
fcfe
(Is.
6
s
34
1
,
Dt.
33
16
etc.)
the contents of the
earth,
and is most
naturally
limited to those
things
whose creation has
just
been described.* In
any
case the verse
yields
little
support
to the view of Smend and
We.,
that in the name Yahwe
of Hosts the word denotes the
complex
of cosmical forces
(Smend,
AT
Rel.-gesch.
201
ff.),
or the demons in which
these forces were
personified (We.
Kl.
Proph. 77).
2. And
God
finished,
etc.}
The
duplication
of v.
1
is
harsh,
and
I.
las]
Lit. host or
army
;
then
period
of service
(chiefly
military).
(5r /c<$cr/uos
and
5J
ornatus look like a confusion with
ny.
Used
of the host of
heaven,
Dt.
4
19
ly
3
,
Is.
24
21
4o
26
,
where U has in the first
case
astra,
in the others militia.
,
(&
tcda-pos
in all. 2. *?3
i]
For the
alleged negative
sense of Piel
(see above),
examine Nu.
ly
25
,
or
(with
jo)
i Sa. io
13
,
Ex
34
33
etc.
nattta]
the word "used
regularly
of the
work or business forbidden on the Sabbath
(Ex.
2o
9 10
35
2
, Jer. ly
2*- 1*
al.)" (Dri.)
;
or on
holy
convocations
(Ex.
i2
16
,
Lv. i6
29
23-
8fft
,
Nu.
29
7
).
It has the
prevailing
sense of
regular occupation
or
business,
as Gen.
39
n
, Jon.
i
8
. -y^tyn
1
]
jux(Ecj$
Jub.,
Ber. A\
tfn, given
as
<&
s read
ing
in Mechilta
(cf. p. 14 above).
n3!"i]
The omission of continued
subj. (DVI^N) might strengthen
We. s contention that the clause is a
gloss (see p.
io
above):
it occurs nowhere else in the
passage except
possibly
i
7
. The verb rot?
(possibly
connected with Ar. sabata cut
off,
or Ass. sabdtu
1
cease,
be
completed
: but see KAT
Z
> 593 f.)
appears
in OT in three
quite
distinct senses:
(a)
cease to
be,
come
to an end
;
(b)
desist
(from
work,
etc.)
;
(c) keep
Sabbath
(denom.).
Of the last there are four undoubted
cases,
all
very
late : Lv.
25* 23
32
26
34f
-,
2 Ch.
36
21
. But there are five others where this
meaning
is at
least
possible:
Gn. 2
s- 5
,
Ex. i6
30
23
12
34
21
31";
and of these Ex.
23"
34
21
are
pre-exilic. Apart
from these doubtful
passages,
the sense
*
Cf. Neh.
9
6
"the
heavens,
the heavens of the
heavens,
and all
their
host,
the earth and all that is
upon
it,
the seas and all that is in
them."
n.
1-3 37
strongly suggests
a
composition
of sources. on the seventh
day}
juxd^S
read sixth
day (so
also
Jubilees,
ii.
16,
and
Jerome,
Qu<zst.\
which is
accepted
as the
original
text
by many
comm.
(Hg.
Ols. Bu.
al.).*
But sixth is so much the easier
reading
that one must hesitate to
give
it the
preference.
To take the vb. as
plup. (Calv. al.)
is
grammatically impos
sible. On We. s
explanation,
see
above,
p. gf.
The
only
remaining
course is to
give
a
purely negative
sense to the
vb.
finish
: i.e. desisted
from,
did not continue
(lEz.
De. Di. Dri.
al.).
The last view
may
be
accepted,
in
spite
of the absence of
convincing parallels.
and he
rested}
The
idea of
ri3B*
is
essentially negative
: cessation of
work,
not
relaxation
(Dri.):
see below. Even
so,
the
expression
is
strongly anthropomorphic,
and warns us
against exaggerat
ing
P s aversion to such
representations.! 3-
blessed . . .
desist
(b)
is found
only
in Ho.
7*, Jb. 32* (Qal)
;
Ex.
5
5
, Jos.
22
25
,
Ezk. i6
41
34
10
(Hiph.) ;
of which Ho.
7
4
(a corrupt
context)
and Ex.
5",
alone are
possibly pre-exilic.
In all other occurrences
(about 46
in all
;
9 Qal, 4 Niph., 33 Hiph.)
the sense
(a)
come to an end obtains
;
and
this
usage prevails
in all
stages
of the literature from Am. to Dn.
;
the
pre-exilic examples being
Gn. 8
22
, Jos. 5
12
(?) (Qal);
Is.
i;
3
(Niph.);
Am. 8
4
,
Ho. i
4
2
13
,
Is. i6
10
(?) 30",
Dt.
^2
26
,
2 Ki. 2
3
8-
, Jer.
7
34
i6
9
36
29
(Hiph.).
These statistics seem decisive
against
Hehn s view
(I.e.
93 ff.)
that
ro^
is
originally
a denom. from
ri2^.
If all the uses are to
be traced to a
single root-idea,
there can be no doubt that
(b)
is
primary.
But while a
dependence
of
(a)
on
(b)
is
intelligible
(cf.
the
analogous
case of
Viri),
desist from
work,
and come to an end are after all
very
different ideas
; and,
looking
to the immense
preponderance
of the latter
sense
(a), especially
in the
early literature,
it is worth
considering
whether the old Heb. vb. did not mean
simply
come to an
end,
and
whether the sense desist was not
imported
into it under the influence
of the denominative use
(c)
of which Ex.
23
12
34
21
might
be
early
examples. [A
somewhat similar view is now
expressed by
Meinhold
(ZATW, 1909,
100
f.), except
that he
ignores
the distinction between
desist and come to an
end,
which seems to me
important.] 3.
N"n
mwyh
. .
.]
The awkward construction is
perhaps adopted
because ton
could not
directly govern
the subst. m*t!?D. (5r
has
ijp^aro
.
. .
TroiTycrcu.
*
Expressly
mentioned as
(&
s
reading
in Mechilta : see
above, p. 14,
and
Geiger,
I.e.
439.
f
In another
passage
of
P,
Ex.
3i
17
,
the
anthropomorphism
is
greatly
intensified :
"
God rested and refreshed Himself"
(lit.
took breath
).
See
Jast. (AJTh.
ii.
3436.),
who thinks that God s
resting
meant
originally
"
His
purification
after His
conquest
of the forces hostile to
38
THE SABBATH
sanctified]
The
day
is blessed and sacred in itself and from
the
beginning
;
to
say
that the remark is made in view of the
future institution of the Sabbath
(Dri.),
does not
quite bring
out the sense. Both verbs contain the idea of selection and
distinction
(cf.
Sir.
36
[33]
7
~
9
),
but
they
are not
synonymous
(Gu.).
A
blessing
is the effective utterance of a
good
wish
;
applied
to
things,
it means their endowment with
per
manently
beneficial
qualities (Gn. 27
27
,
Ex.
23
25
,
Dt. 28
12
).
This is the case here : the Sabbath is a constant source of
well-being
to the man who
recognises
its true nature and
purpose.
To
sanctify
is to set
apart
from common
things
to
holy
uses,
or to
put
in a
special
relation to God. which
God
creatively
made]
see the footnote.
Although
no
closing
formula for the seventh
day
is
given,
it is
contrary
to the
intention of the
passage
to think that the rest of God
means His work of
providence
as distinct from creation : it
is
plainly
a rest of one
day
that is
thought
of. It
is,
of
course,
a still
greater absurdity
to
suppose
an interval of
twenty-four
hours between the two modes of divine
activity.
The author did not think in our
dogmatic categories
at all.
The
origin
of the Hebrew
Sabbath,
and its relation to
Babylonian
usages,
raise
questions
too intricate to be
fully
discussed here
(see
Lotz,
Qucest.
de hist. Sabbati
[1883]
; Jastrow, AJTh.
ii.
[1898], 312
ff.
; KAT*>
592
ff.
;
Dri.
DB, s.v.,
and Gen.
34;
Sta. BTh.
88,
2).
The main
facts, however,
are these :
(i)
The name
sab[p]attu
occurs some five or
six times in cuneiform records
;
but of these
only
two are of material
importance
for the Sabbath
problem, (a)
In a
syllabary (II
R.
32,
16
a,
b)
Sabattu is
equated
with Am
nufy libbi,
which has been
conclusively
shown
to mean
day
of the
appeasement
of the heart
(of
the
deity),
in the
first
instance, therefore,
a
day
of
propitiation
or atonement
(Jen. ZA>
iv.
274
ff.
; Jast.
I.e.
3i6f.). (b)
In a tablet discovered
by
Pinches in
1904,
the name
sapattu
is
applied
to the fifteenth
day
of the month
(as
full-moon-day?) (Pin.
PSBA,
xxvi.
51
ff.
; Zimmern, ZDMG,
Iviii.
199 ff.,
458 ff.). (2)
The
only
trace of a
Babylonian
institution at all
resembling
the Heb. Sabbath is the fact that in certain months of the
year (Elul,
MarcheSvan,
but
possibly
the rest as
well)
the
yth, I4th,
2ist and 28th
days,
and also the
igth (probably
as the
7
x
7th
from the
beginning
of
the
previous month),
had the character of dies
nefasti ( lucky day,
un-
the order of the
world,"
and was a survival of the
mythological
idea of
the
appeasement
of Marduk s
anger against
Ti amat. The vb. there
used is
ndfyu,
the
equivalent
of Heb.
rm,
used in Ex. 2o
n
.
n.
3, 4A
39
lucky day ),
on which certain actions had to be avoided
by important
personages
(king, priest, physician) (IV
R.
32 f.,
33). Now,
no evidence
has ever been
produced
that these dies
nefasti
bore the name sabattu
;
and the likelihood that this was the case is
distinctly
lessened
by
the
Pinches
fragment,
where the name is
applied
to the
i5th day,
but not
to the
yth, although
it also is mentioned on the tablet. The
question,
therefore,
has assumed a new
aspect
;
and Meinhold
(Sabbath
u. Woche
im AT
[1905],
and more
recently [1909],
ZATW,
xxix. 81
ff.),
developing
a hint of
Zim.,
has constructed an
ingenious hypothesis
on the
assump
tion that in Bab. Sabattu denotes the
day
of the full moon. He
points
to the close association of new-moon and Sabbath in
nearly
all the
pre-
exilic references
(Am.
8
5
,
Hos. 2
13
,
Is. i
13
,
2 Ki.
4
22f>
)
;
and concludes
that in
early
Israel,
as in
Bab.,
the Sabbath was the full-moon festival
and
nothing
else. The institution of the
weekly
Sabbath he traces to a
desire to
compensate
for the loss of the old lunar
festivals,
when these
were
abrogated by
the Deuteronomic reformation. This innovation he
attributes to Ezekiel
;
but
steps
towards it are found in the introduction
of a
weekly day
of rest
during
harvest
only (on
the
ground
of Dt. i6
9
;
cf. Ex.
34
21
),
and in the establishment of the sabbatical
year (Lv.
25),
which he considers to be older than the
weekly
Sabbath. The
theory
involves
great improbabilities,
and its net result seems to be to leave the
actual
Jewish
Sabbath as we know it without
any point
of
contact in
Bab. institutions. It is hard to
suppose
that there is no historical con
nexion between the Heb. Sabbath and the dies
nefasti
of the Bab.
calendar
;
and if such a connexion
exists,
the chief difficulties remain
where
they
have
long
been felt to
lie, viz.,
(a)
in the
substitution of
a
weekly cycle running continuously through
the calendar for a division
of each month into
seven-day periods, probably regulated by
the
phases
of the moon
;
and
(b)
in the transformation of a
day
of
superstitious
re
strictions into a
day
of
joy
and rest. Of these
changes,
it must be
confessed,
no
convincing explanation
has
yet
been found. The estab
lished
sanctity
of the number
seven,
and the
decay
or
suppression
of the
lunar
feasts, might
be
contributory
causes
;
but when the
change
took
place,
and whether it was
directly
due to
Babylonian influence,
or was
a
parallel development
from a lunar observance more
primitive
than
either,
cannot at
present
be determined. See
Hehn,
Siebenzahl u.
Sabbat,
91
ff.,
esp. 1140*".
;
cf.
Gordon, JSTG,
216 ff.
4a.
These are the
generations,
etc.]
The best sense that
can be
given
to the
expression
is to refer the
pronoun
to
4a. nn"?in] only
in
pi.
const, or with suff.
;
and confined to
P,
Ch.
and Ru.
4
18
. Formed from
Hiph.
of n
1
?
,
it means
properly
begettings ;
not, however,
as noun of
action,
but
concretely (
=
progeny ) ;
and this
is
certainly
the
prevalent
sense. The
phrase
n K
(only
P
[all
in Gn.
except
Nu.
3 ],
i Ch. i
29
,
Ru.
4
18
)
means
primarily
"These are the
descendants
"
;
but since a list of descendants is a
genealogy,
it is
practically
the same
thing
if we
render,
"This is the
genealogical
register."
In the
great majority
of instances
(Gti. [5
1
]
ro
1
n
10
n
27
25
ia
4O
THE SABBATH
what
precedes,
and render the noun
by
*
origin
:
*
This is
the
origin
of,
etc. But it is doubtful if nn^in can bear
any
such
meaning,
and
altogether
the half-verse is in the last
degree perplexing.
It is in all
probability
a redactional
insertion.
The formula
(and
indeed the whole
phraseology)
is characteristic of
P
j
and in that document it
invariably
stands as introduction to the
section
following.
But in this case the next section
(2
4b
-4
26
) belongs
to
J ;
and if we
pass
over the
J passages
to the next
portion
of P
(ch. 5),
the formula would collide with
5
1
,
which is
evidently
the
proper heading
to what follows.
Unless, therefore,
we
adopt
the
improbable hypothesis
of
Strack,
that a
part
of P s narrative has been
dropped,
the
attempt
to
treat 2
4a
in its
present position
as a
superscription
must be abandoned.
On this
ground
most critics have embraced a view
propounded by Ilgen,
that the clause stood
originally
before i
1
,
as the
heading
of P s account
36
1>9
,
i Ch. i
29
,
Ru.
4
18
)
this sense is
entirely
suitable;
the addition of
a few historical notices is not inconsistent with the idea of a
genealogy,
nor is the
general
character of these sections affected
by
it. There are
just
three cases where this
meaning
is
inapplicable
: Gn. 6
9
25
19
37
2
.
But it is
noteworthy that,
except
in the last
case,
at least a
fragment
of
a
genealogy
follows
;
and it is fair to
inquire
whether
37
3
may
not have
been
originally
followed
by
a
genealogy (such
as
35
22b
"
26
or
46
8 27
[see
Hupfeld, Quellen, 102-109, 213-216])
which was afterwards
displaced
in the course of redaction
(see
p. 423,
below).
With that
assumption
we
could
explain every
occurrence of the formula without
having
recourse to
the unnatural view that the word
may
mean a
"family history" (G-B.
s.v.),
or an account of a man and his descendants
"
(BDB).
The natural
hypothesis
would then be that a series of nn^in formed one of the sources
employed by
P in
compiling
his work : the introduction of this
genea
logical
document is
preserved
in
5
1
(so Ho.);
the recurrent formula
represents
successive sections of
it,
and 2** is a redactional imitation.
When it came to be
amalgamated
with the narrative
material,
some
dislocations took
place
: hence the curious
anomaly
that a man s
history
sometimes
appears
under his own
TolVdoth,
sometimes under those of
his father
;
and it is difficult otherwise to account for the omission
of the formula before I2
1
or for its insertion in
36
9
. On the
whole,
this
theory
seems to
explain
the facts better than the
ordinary
view that
the formula was devised
by
P to mark the divisions of the
principal
work. DN-i3
n
n]
in their creation or when
they
were created. If the
lit. mimisc. has critical
significance (Tu.
Di.)
the
primary reading
was
inf.
Qal (DN-I^?^ ;
and this
requires
to be
supplemented by
D n^K as
subj.
It is in this form that Di. thinks the clause
originally
stood at the
begin
ning
of Gen.
(see
on i
1
).
But the omission of DM^N and the insertion
of the
f<1
minusc. are no
necessary consequences
of the
transposition
of
the sentence
;
and the small
n
may
be
merely
an error in the
archetypal
MS,
which has* been
mechanically repeated
in all
copies.
II.
4A
4
1
of the creation.* But this
theory
also is
open
to serious
objection.
It
involves a
meaning-
of nn nn which is
contrary
both to its
etymology
and
the
usage
of P
(see footnote).
Whatever latitude of
meaning
be as
signed
to the
word,
it is the fact that in this formula it is
always
followed
by gen.
of the
progenitor,
never of the
progeny
: hence
by analogy
the
phrase
must describe that which is
generated by
the heavens and the
earth,
not the
process by
which
they
themselves are
generated (so
Lagarde,
Or. ii.
38
ff.,
and
Ho.).
And even if that
difficulty
could be
overcome
(see Lagarde), generation
is a most unsuitable
description
of
the
process
of creation as conceived
by
P. In
short,
neither as
super
scription
nor as
subscription
can the sentence be accounted for as an
integral part
of the
Priestly
Code. There seems no
way
out of the
difficulty
but to assume with Ho. that the formula in this
place
owes
its
origin
to a mechanical imitation of the manner of P
by
a later
hand. The insertion would be
suggested by
the observation that the
formula divides the book of Gen. into definite sections
;
while the advan
tage
of
beginning
a new section at this
point
would
naturally
occur to
an editor who felt the need of
sharply separating
the two accounts of
the
creation,
and
regarded
the second as in some
way
the continuation
of the first. If that be
so,
he
probably
took n in the sense of
history
and referred nVN to what follows. The
analogy
of
5
1
,
Nu.
3
1
would
suffice to
justify
the use of the formula before the nrn of
4b
. It has
been
thought
that Or
has
preserved
the
original
form of the text : viz.
in n nso n;
(cf. 5
1
)
;
the redactor
having,
"
before
inserting
a section from
the other
document, accidentally copied
in the
opening
words of
5*,
which were afterwards
adapted
to their
present position
"
(Ben.).
That
is
improbable.
It is more
likely
that
(3r
deliberately
altered the text to
correspond
with
5*.
See
Field, Hex.,
ad loc.
; Nestle, MM, 4.
Babylonian
and other
Cosmogonies.
I. The outlines of Bab.
cosmogony
have
long
been known from two
brief notices in Greek writers :
(i)
an extract from
Berossus
(3rd
cent.
B.C.)
made
by
Alexander
Polyhistor,
and
preserved by Syncellus
from
the lost Chronicle of Eusebius
(lib. i.);
and
(2)
a
passage
from the
Neo-Platonic writer Damascius
(6th
cent.
A.D.).
From these it was
apparent
that the biblical account of creation is in its main
conceptions
Babylonian.
The interest of the
fragments
has been
partly enhanced,
but
partly superseded,
since the
discovery
of the
closely parallel
Chal-
daean
Genesis,
unearthed from the debris of
Asshurbanipal
s
library
at
Nineveh
by George
Smith in
1873.
It is therefore
unnecessary
to
examine them in detail
;
but since the
originals
are not
very
accessible
to
English
readers, they
are here
reprinted
in full
(with
emendations
after
KAT*, 488
ff.):
(i)
Berossus : Tevtcrdai
(p-rjcri ^phvov
tv
$
rb irav o-/c6ros Kal
tiSwp elvat,
Kal 4v TOVTOIS cDa
reparudri,
Kal
I5io<pveis [em. Richt.,
cod. et
5i0i>ets]
ras
idtas
ZXOVTO. faoyoveladai avQp&irovs yap diirrtpovs yevvrjdrivai,
tviovs 8
*
On Dillmann s modification of this
theory,
see above on
42
BABYLONIAN
Kal
rerpctTrrepous
Kal
Snrpocr&Trovs
Kal
<ru>/Li.a fj.lv
e
xojro.s eV, Ke0aXds
5e
8vo,
dvdpetav
re Kal
yvvaiKeiav,
Kal alSota 8
[corr.
v.
Gutschm.,
cod.
re]
i<r<rd,
appev
Kai
#77X1;
Kal
ere"poi
s
avQp&irovs
TOVS
fj.lv aiy&v ffK^Xt]
Kal
Ke*para $x
ov
-
ras,
TOVS 5e ITTTTOU irddas
[corr.
v.
Gutschm.,
cod.
brTroTroSas],
TOVS Se rd
btrlffd)
fj.lv fJ.^pfj ITTITUV,
rd 5e
Zfiirpoffdev avQp&iruv,
ovs
[cos?
v.
Gutschm.]
linroKCVTavpovs
rrjv
Idtav elvai.
ZwoyovrjOrjvai
81 Kal
raupovs avdpuvuv
K(pa\as fyovTas
Kal Kvvas
rerpacrw/u.drous, ovpds ixQvos
K T&V 8Tri<r6ev
Kal ITTTTOVS
Kvt>OKe<f>d\ovs
Kal
avdpuirovs,
Kal
Zrepa ^wa /ce^aXds
ovpas
8
tydfitav
Kal a\\a 5e
roi^rots
l\6vas
Kal
epirera
K
("toa
wXeiova Oai
/naffra
Kal
TrapTjXXary/^j
as
[em.
v.
Gutschm.,
cod.
/A^a]
rds d
l/
eis
aXX^Xajj/ J-XOVTCL
&v Kal ras ei/covas eV
ry
rou
B^Xou vcup
dj/a:e<(r^at, apxciv
8t TOVTWV iravTuv
yvvalKa y
6vou.a
0/zop/ca [corr. Scaliger,
cod.
*0/Aopw/ca]
cTi ai rouro 5^ XaXSaiVri
^iev 6a/ire
[corr.
W. R.
Smith,
.^4,
vi.
339,
cod.
0aXar0], EXXTji
iari 5
/j.eOepfj.TjveveTai
^dXatrtra xard 5^
i<?6\//r]<poi
GeK
hvT).
Ourcos 5^ Twy 8\d)v o
vve&TyKOTui ,
tiraveXdbvTa
B?jXoi/
yvvaLKa, /m-^anjv,
Kal rb
/j.v TJ/j,i<rv avrijs iroLrfcrai yijv,
r6 5^ dXAo
ovpavbv,
Kal ra tv
[vvv?
v.
Gutschm.] avrrj
wa
d(pavi<rai, dXX^opt/cws
TOUTO
Tre<t>vffio\oyT)crdat vypou yap
6vros rou Travrds Kal
f&uv
v
avrip
[A]*
roi&vde
[em.
v.
Gutschm.,
cod. rbv
5^]
B7;Xo ,
6v Aa
cr/c6ros
x^P^
-1
T^
1
*
/ca^
ovpavbv
air
dXX?JXwi ,
/cat
5tard|ai
rii
Kfojuov.
Td 5^
^"tDa
OUK
tveyKbvra TTJV
rou
0wr6s 5wa/*tv 00ap-
^I at,
id6vra 5^ r6v
B^Xov x^P
av
tpynov
Kal
aKap-jro(p6pov [em. Gunkel,
cod.
Kapwofp&pov]
K\ev(rai evl r&v 6e&v
TT\V K(fia\T]v a(pe\6vTi
eaurou
ry airoppvtvrL
al/j-art (pvpavat TT)V yrjv
Kal StaTrXdaat
dvdp&Trovs
Kal
difjpta
ra
Swd/meva
rbv
de
pa 0epetv.
ATroreX^erai 5^ rov
BTjXoi
/cai
a<rrpa
Kal
TJ\IOV
Kal
<rf\^vr]v
Kal
roi>s Tr^re
TrXafTjras.
Taurd
077(7^
6
TroXwVrwp AX^ar5pos
r6v
Br}pwcr(rbv
tv
rrj Trp&Tig (fidcTKeiv [B]
*
TOVTOV rbv 8e6v
a<pe\flv TT\V
eaurou
K(f)a\T]v
Kal r6
pu^ af/ia
rous fiXXous Oeobs
0upacrai r?j 7^,
/cai 5ta7rXdo*at rous
5i6
voepous
re eTvai /cai
^poj^crea;?
^etaj
^.er^etv.
(2)
Damascius : Tw^ 5e
fiapfidpuv
eW/catn
Ba/3uXc6vtoi ^ei
r
Aw*/
dpx Jji 0-4777 irapitvai,
8uo 5e Troietv Tau^e *cal
Airaffwv,
rbv
f
&i>5pa
rrjs
Tavde
iroiovvres, ravr-r^v
5e
/x?jr^pa
OeCjv
dvoudfrovres,
iraida
yevvrjdTJvaL
rbv
Mcuu/ati ,
atirbv
61/j.at.
rbv
vot^rbv K6(T[j.ov
K ruv Svoiv
apx&v Trapay6fj.vov.
E* 5^ T&V avr&v
aXkifv yeveav irpoe\6eiv, Aaxyv [cod.
Kal
Aaxov [cod. Aaxoj/].
Elra aft
rpirt]v
K rCov
aurcDv, Kurffapij
Kal
4%
&v
yevtcrdai rpets,
Avov Kal IXXivov Kal Aov rou 5e Aou Kal
vibv
yevtadai
rbv
677X0^,
8v
8rj(j.Lovpy6v
elval
(paffiv.^
*
The sections
commencing
with
[A]
and
[B]
stand in the reverse
order in the text. The
transposition
is due to von
Gutschmid,
and
seems
quite necessary
to
bring
out
any
connected
meaning, though
there
may
remain a
suspicion
that the two accounts of the creation of
man are
variants,
and that the second is
interpolated. Je. ATLO*,
134,
plausibly assigns
the section from aXX
^optKuJs
to
Qdapyvat
to another
recension
(restoring [B]
to its
place
in the
text).
f
The Greek text of Berossus will be found in
Muller, Fragm.
Hist.
Grcec. li.
497
f.
;
that of Damascius in Damascii
philos.
de
print, pr
inc.
(ed. Kopp, 1826),
cap. 125.
For translations of both
fragments,
see
COSMOGONIES
43
2. The
only
cuneiform document which admits of close and con
tinuous
comparison
with Gn. i is the
great
Creation
Epos just
referred
to. Since the
publication,
in
1876,
of the first
fragments, many
lacunae
have been filled
up
from
subsequent
discoveries,
and several
duplicates
have been
brought
to
light
;
and the series is seen to have consisted of
seven
Tablets, entitled,
from the
opening- phrase,
Enuma elis
(=
When
above
).*
The actual tablets discovered are not of earlier date than
the
yth
cent.
B.C.,
but there are
strong
reasons to believe that the
originals
of which these are
copies
are of much
greater antiquity,
and
may go
back to 2000
B.C.,
while the
myth
itself
probably
existed in
writing
in other forms centuries before that.
Moreover, they represent
the
theory
of creation on which the statements of Berossus and
Damascius are
based,
and
they
have
every
claim to be
regarded
as the
authorised version of the
Babylonian cosmogony.
It is
here, therefore,
if
anywhere,
that we must look for traces of
Babylonian
influences on
the Hebrew
conception
of the
origin
of the world. The
following
out
line of the contents of the tablets is based on
King
s
analysis
of the
epic
into five
originally
distinct
parts (C7\ p. Ixvii).
i. The
Theogony.
The first
twenty-one
lines of Tab. I. contain a
description
of the
primaeval
chaos and the evolution of successive
generations
of deities :
When in the
height
heaven was not
named,
And the earth beneath did not bear a
name,
And the
primaeval Apsu,
1
who
begat them,
And
chaos,
Ti
amat,
2
the mother of them
both,
Their waters were
mingled together,
Then were created the
gods
in the midst of
(heaven),
etc.
First Lahmu and
Lahamu,
3
then Ansar and
Kisar,
4
and
lastly (as
we
learn from
Damascius,
whose
report
is in accord with this
part
of the
tablet,
and
may safely
be used to make
up
a
slight defect)
the
supreme
triad of the Bab.
pantheon,
Anu, Bel,
and Ea.
5
1
Damascius,
Aira<rui>.
2
Dam.
Tav0e,
Ber.
0a/rre (em.,
see
above).
3
Dam.
Aaxfj
and
Aaxos (em.).
4
A<rcrw/3os
and
Kicrcra/)?;.
5
Ai/o?,
IXXtvos
(In-lil
=
Bel),
and Aos.
KAT*, 488
ff.
;
G.
Smith,
Chaldean Genesis
(ed. Sayce), pp. 34 ff., 43!".
(from
Cory,
Ancient
Fragments}
;
Gu.
Schopf. if
ff.
; Nikel,
Gen. 11.
Keilschr.
24 f.,
28.
*
The best collection and translation of the relevant texts in
English
is
given
in L. W.
King
s Seven Tablets
of Creation,
vol. i.
(1902)
;
with
which should be
compared Jen. Mythen
und
Epen,
in
KIB,
vi. i
(1900),
and now
(1909)
Gressmann,
Altorient. Texte und Bilder z.
AT.,
i.
46.
See also
Jen.
Kosmologie (iSyo), 268-301
;
Gu.
Schopf. (1894)401-420,
and
the summaries in
KAT*, 492
ff.
; Lukas,
Grundbegriffe
in d. Kosm. d.
alt. Volker
(1893),
2 ff.
; Jast.
Rel.
of
Bab. and Ass.
(1898) 410
ff.
; Jer.
ATLO*, 132
ff.
; EB,
art. CREATION.
44
BABYLONIAN
ii. The
Subjugation of Apsu by
Ea. The
powers
of
chaos,
Apsu,
Tiamat,
and a third
being
1
called Mummu
(Dam. Mow/as),
take counsel
together
to
destroy
the
way
of the
heavenly
deities. An
illegible
portion
of Tab. I. must have told how
Apsu
and Mummu were
vanquished
by
Ea, leaving-
Tiamat still unsubdued. In the latter
part
of the tablet
the female monster is
again
incited to rebellion
by
a
god
called
Kingu,
whom she chooses as her
consort, laying
on his breast the Tables of
Destiny
which the
heavenly gods
seek to recover. She draws to her
side
many
of the old
gods,
and
brings
forth eleven kinds of monstrous
beings
to aid her in the
fight.
iii. The
conflict
between Marduk and Tiamat. Tabs. II. and III. are
occupied
with the consultations of the
gods
in view of this new
peril,
resulting
in the choice of Marduk as their
champion ;
and Tab. IV.
gives
a
graphic description
of the conflict that ensues. On the
approach
of the
sun-god,
mounted on his chariot and
formidably
armed,
attended
by
a host of
winds,
Tiamat s
helpers
flee in
terror,
and she alone con
fronts the
angry deity.
Marduk
entangles
her in his
net,
sends a
hurricane into her distended
jaws,
and
finally despatches
her
by
an
arrow shot into her
body.
iv. The account
of
creation commences near the end of Tab. IV.
After
subduing
the
helpers
of Tiamat and
taking
the Tables of
Destiny
from
Kingu,
Marduk
surveys
the
carcase,
and devised a
cunning
plan
:
He
split
her
up
like a flat fish into two halves
;
One half of her he stablished as a
covering
for the heaven.
He fixed a
bolt,
he stationed a
watchman,
And bade them not to let her waters come forth.
He
passed through
the
heavens,
he
surveyed
the
regions (thereof),
And over
against
the
Deep
he set the
dwelling
of Nudimmud.
1
And the lord measured the structure of the
Deep
And he founded
E-Sara,
a mansion like unto it.
The mansion E-Sara which he created as
heaven,
He caused
Anu, Bel,
and Ea in their districts to inhabit.
Berossus
says,
what is no doubt
implied here,
that of the other half of
Tiamat he made the earth
;
but whether this is meant
by
the
founding
of
E-sara,
or is to be looked for in a lost
part
of Tab.
V.,
is a
point
in
dispute (see
Jen.
Kosm.
1856., 195
ff.
;
and
KIB,
vi.
i,
344 f.).
Tab.
V.
opens
with the creation of the
heavenly
bodies :
He made the stations for the
great gods
;
The
stars,
their
images,
as the stars of the
Zodiac,
he fixed.
He ordained the
year
and into sections he divided it
;
For the twelve months he fixed three stars.
The
Moon-god
he caused to shine
forth,
the
night
he entrusted to
him.
He
appointed him,
a
being
of the
night,
to determine the
days
;
COSMOGONIES
45
Every
month without
ceasing
with the crown he covered
(?) him,
(saying,)
"At the
beginning
of the
month,
when thou shinest
upon
the
land,
Thou commandest the horns to determine six
days,
And on the seventh
day,"
etc. etc.
The rest of Tab.
V.,
where
legible,
contains
nothing bearing
on the
present subject
;
but in Tab. VI. we come to the creation of
man,
which
is recorded in a form
corresponding
to the account of Berossus :
When Marduk heard the word of the
gods,
His heart
prompted him,
and he devised
(a cunning plan).
He
opened
his mouth and unto Ea
(he spake),
(That
which)
he had conceived in his heart he
imparted (unto
him)
:
"
My
blood will I take and bone will I
(fashion),
I will make
man,
that man
may ...(...)
I will create
man,
who shall inhabit
(the earth),
That the service of the
gods may
be
established,"
etc. etc.
At the end of the tablet the
gods
assemble to
sing
the
praises
of
Marduk
;
and the last tablet is filled with a
v.
Hymn
in honour
of
Marduk. From this we learn that to Marduk
was ascribed the creation of
vegetation
and of the firm
earth,
as well
as those works which are described in the
legible portions
of Tabs.
IV. -VI.
How
far, now,
does this
conception
of creation
correspond
with the
cosmogony
of Gn. i ?
(i)
In both we find the
general
notion of a
watery
chaos,
and an
etymological equivalence
in the names
(Tiamat,
T&hdm]
by
which it is called. It is true that the Bab. chaos is the
subject
of a
double
personification, Apsu representing
the
male,
and Tiamat the
female
principle by
whose union the
gods
are
generated.
Accord
ing
to
Jen. (KIB, 559
f.
), Apsu
is the
fresh,
life-giving
water which
descends from heaven in the
rain,
while Tiamat is the
stinking,
salt water of the ocean: in the
beginning
these were
mingled (Tab.
I.
5),
and
by
the mixture the
gods
were
produced.
But in the sub
sequent
narrative the r61e of
Apsu
is
insignificant
;
and in the central
episode,
the conflict with
Marduk,
Tiamat alone
represents
the
power
of
chaos,
as in Heb. TVhorn.
(2)
In Enurna eli$ the
description
of
chaos is followed
by
a
theogony,
of which there is no trace in Gen.
The Bab.
theory
is
essentially monistic,
the
gods being
conceived as
emanating
from a material chaos.
Lukas,
indeed
(I.e. 14 ff.,
24 ff.),
has tried to show that
they
are
represented
as
proceeding
from a
supreme spiritual principle,
Anu. But while an
independent
origin
of
deity may
be consistent with the
opening
lines of Tab.
I.,
it is in direct
opposition
to the statement of
Damascius,
and is
irreconcilable with
the later
parts
of the
series,
where the
gods
are
repeatedly spoken
of as children of
Apsu
and Tiamat. The biblical
conception,
on the
contrary,
is
probably
dualistic
(above, pp. 7, 15),
and at all events
the
supremacy
of the
spiritual principle (Elohim)
is absolute. That a
46
BABYLONIAN
theogony
must have
originally
stood between vv.
2
and
*
of Gn. i
(Gu.)
is more than can be
safely
affirmed. Gu. thinks it is the
necessary
sequel
to the idea of the
world-egg
in the end of v.
2
. But he himself
regards
that idea as
foreign
to the main narrative
;
and if in the
original
source
something
must have come out of the
egg,
it is more
likely
to have been the world itself
(as
in the Phrenician and Indian
cosmogonies)
than a series of divine emanations.
(3)
Both accounts
assume,
but in
very
different
ways,
the existence of
light
before the
creation of the
heavenly
bodies. In the Bab.
legend
the
assumption
is
disguised by
the
imagery
of the
myth
: the fact that
Marduk,
the
god
of
light,
is himself the
demiurge, explains
the omission of
light
from the
category
of created
things.
In the biblical account that
motive no
longer operates,
and
accordingly light
takes its
place
as the
first creation of the
Almighty. (4)
A
very important parallel
is the
conception
of heaven as formed
by
a
separation
of the waters of
the
primaeval
chaos. In Enuma elis the
septum
is formed from the
body
of Tiamat
;
in Gen. it is
simply
a rdkia a solid structure
fashioned tor the
purpose.
But the common idea is one that could
hardly
have been
suggested except by
the climatic conditions under
which the Bab.
myth
is
thought
to have
originated. Jen.
has
shown,
to the satisfaction of a
great many writers,
how the
imagery
of the
Bab.
myth
can be
explained
from the
changes
that
pass
over the face
of nature in the lower
Euphrates valley
about the time of the vernal
equinox (see
Kosm.
307
ff.
;
cf. Gu.
Schopf. 24
ff.
;
Gordon).
Chaos is
an idealisation of the
Babylonian winter,
when the
heavy
rains and
the overflow of the rivers have made the vast
plain
like a
sea,
when
thick mists obscure the
light,
and the distinction between heaven and
sea seems to be effaced. Marduk
represents
the
spring sun,
whose
rays pierce
the darkness and divide the
waters,
sending
them
partly
upwards
as
clouds,
and
partly
downwards to the
sea,
so that the
dry
land
appears.
The
hurricane,
which
plays
so
important
a
part
in
the destruction of the
chaos-monster,
is the
spring
winds that roll
away
the dense masses of
vapour
from the surface of the earth. If
this be the natural basis of the
myth
of Marduk and
Tiamat,
it is
evident that it must have
originated
in a
marshy
alluvial
region, subject
to annual
inundations,
like the
Euphrates valley. (5)
There
is,
again,
a close
correspondence
between the accounts of the creation of the
heavenly
bodies
(see p.
21
f.).
The
Babylonian
is much
fuller,
and more
saturated with
mythology
: it mentions not
only
the moon but the
signs
of the
Zodiac,
the
planet Jupiter,
and the stars. But in the idea that
the function of the luminaries is to
regulate time,
and in the destination
of the moon to rule the
night,
we must
recognise
a
striking
resemblance
between the two
cosmogonies.
(6)
The last definite
point
of contact
is the creation of man
(p. 30 f.).
Here,
however,
the resemblance is
slight, though
the deliberative ist
pers. pi.
in Gn. i
26
is
probably
a
reminiscence of a
dialogue
like that between Marduk and Ea in the
Enuma elis narrative.
(7)
With
regard
to the order of the
works,
it
is evident that there cannot have been
complete parallelism
between
the two accounts. In the tablets the creation of heaven is followed
COSMOGONIES
47
naturally by
that of the stars. The
arrangement
of the
remaining
works,
which must have been mentioned in lost
parts
of Tabs. V. and
VI., is,
of
course,
uncertain
;
but the statement of Berossus
suggests
that the creation of land animals followed instead of
preceding
that of
man. At the same time it is
very significant
that the
separate
works
themselves,
apart
from their order :
Firmament, Luminaries, Earth,
Plants, Animals, Men,
are
practically
identical in the two documents :
there is even a
fragment (possibly belonging
to the
series)
which alludes
to the creation of marine animals as a distinct class
(King, CT, lix,
Ixxxvi).
Gordon
(Early
Traditions
of Gen.)
holds that the differences
of
arrangement
can be reduced to the
single transposition
of
heavenly
bodies and
plants
(see
his
table, p. 51).
In view of these
parallels,
it seems
impossible
to doubt that thel
cosmogony
of Gn. I rests on a
conception
of the
process
of creation!
fundamentally
identical with that of the Enuma eliS tablets.
3.
There
is, however,
another recension of the
Babylonian
creation
story
from which the
fight
of the
sun-god
with chaos is
absent,
and
which for that reason
possesses
a certain
importance
for our
present
purpose.
It occurs as the introduction to a
bilingual magical text,
first
published by
Pinches in
1891.*
Once
upon
a
time,
it tells
us,
there were
no
temples
for the
gods,
no
plants,
no houses or
cities,
no human
inhabitants :
The
Deep
had not been
created,
Eridu had not been built
;
Of the
holy
house,
the house of the
gods,
the habitation had not been
made.
All lands were sea
(tamtu).
Then arose a movement in the sea
;
the most ancient shrines and
cities of
Babylonia
were
made,
and divine
beings
created to inhabit
them. Then
Marduk laid a reed
f
on the face of the waters
;
He formed dust and
poured
it out beside the
reed,
That he
might
cause the
gods
to dwell in the habitation of their
heart s desire.
He formed mankind
;
the
goddess
Aruru
together
with him created
the seed of mankind.
Next he formed
beasts,
the
rivers, grasses,
various kinds of
animals, etc.;
then, having
laid in a dam
by
the side of the
sea,
he made reeds and
trees,
houses and
cities,
and the
great Babylonian
sanctuaries. The
whole
description
is
extremely
obscure,
and the translations
vary widely.
*JRAS, 1891, 393
ff.;
translated in
King, CT, 131*?.; KIB,
39
ff.;
ATLO*, i29ff.
;
Texte u.
Bilder,
i.
27
f.;
Sayce, Early Israel,
336
f.
Cf. the
summary
in
KAT*, 498.
t
So
King;
but
Je.
a reed-hurdle
(Rohrgeflechf)
\
while
Jen.
renders : Marduk
placed
a
canopy
in front of the
waters,
He created
earth and
heaped
it
up against
the
canopy
a reference to the
firmament
(so
KA
T*).
48
PHOENICIAN
The main interest of the
fragment
lies in its
non-legendary,
matter-of-
fact
representation
of the
primaeval
condition of
things,
and of the
process
of
world-building.
Of
special correspondences
with Gn. i there
are
perhaps
but two :
(a)
the
impersonal conception
of chaos
implied
in the
appellative
sense of
tamtu(TVhdm)
for the sea
; (b)
the
comparison
of the firmament to a
canopy,
if that be the
right interpretation
of the
phrase.
In the order of the creation of
living beings
it resembles more
the account in Gn. 2
;
but from that account it is
sharply distinguished
by
its
assumption
of a
watery
chaos in contrast to the arid waste of
Gn. 2
5
. It is therefore inadmissible to
regard
this text as a more illumi
nating parallel
to Gn. i than the Enuma eli$ tablets. The most that can
be said is that it
suggests
the
possibility
that in
Babylonia
there
may
have existed recensions of the creation
story
in which the
mythical
motive of a conflict between the creator and the chaos-monster
played
mo
part,
and that the biblical narrative
goes
back
directly
to one of
ithese.
But when we consider that the Tiamat
myth appears
in both the
jGreek
accounts of
Babylonian cosmogony,
that echoes of it are found in
other ancient
cosmogonies,
and that in these cases its
imagery
is
modified in accordance with the
religious
ideas of the various
races,
the
greater probability
is that the
cosmogony
of Gn. i is
directly
derived
from
it,
and that the elimination of its
mythical
and
polytheistic
elements
is due to the influence of the
pure
ethical monotheism of the OT.
Gu. in his
Schopfung
und Chaos was the first to call attention to
possible
survivals of the creation
myth
in Hebrew
poetry.
We find
allusions to a conflict between Yahwe and a monster
personified
under
various names
(Rahab,
the
Dragon,
Leviathan,
etc. but never
T&hdw)
;
and no
explanation
of them is so natural as that which traces them to
the idea of a
struggle
between Yahwe and the
power
of
chaos,
preceding
(as
in the
Babylonian myth)
the creation of the world. The
passages,
however,
are late
;
and we cannot be sure that
they
do not
express
a
literary
interest in
foreign mythology
rather than a survival of a native
Hebrew
myth.*
4.
The Phoenician
cosmogony,
of which the three extant recensions
are
given below,f hardly presents any
instructive
points
of
comparison
*
The chief texts are Is.
5i
9t
,
Ps. 8
9
loff
-, Jb.
26
12f-
(Rahab);
Ps.
74
12ff
-,
Is.
ay
1
(Leviathan)
; Jb. 7*- (the Dragon),
etc. See the discussion
in
Schlipf. 30-111
;
and the criticisms of Che.
EB,
i.
950 f.,
and
Nikel,
pp. 90-99.
f
Eus.
Prcep. Evang.
i. 10
(ed. Heinichen, p. 37
ff.;
cf.
Orelli,
Sa?ich.
Berytii Fragm. [1826]), gives
the
following
account of the
cosmogony
of Sanchuniathon
(a
Phoenician writer of unknown
date,
and even of
uncertain
historicity)
taken from Philo
Byblius
:
"
TTJV
T&V o\a}v
apxftv
vTroTiGerai
atpa o0u>5?7
Kal
Trvev/JLaTibS-r), i) TTVOTJV
atpos ^~o0a>5oi>s,
Kal
x
ao*
doXepbv, pef3&8es.
Taura 6 elvai
aireipa,
xal 5td
iro\vv aluva
/J.T] l^en/ irtpas.
"Ore
5^, (prjo
i.i
,
ripaffdyrb Trvevfj-arCov
iftlwv
dpx&v,
Kal
tytvero (rvyKpaffis, i] TT\OKT] (Keivr] K\r)Or]
HoOos.
A-vrrj
a.TrdvT<j)v avrb 8t OVK
^yivucTKe ryv
ai/roO
Krlaiv,
Kal K
rrjs
roD
-rrveufJiaTOs, tytvero
Mwr. Tour6 Tivts
(pacus IXvv,
ol
5,
vdarddovs
COSMOGONY
49
with Gn. i. It
contains, however,
in each of its
recensions,
the idea of
the
world-egg
a
very widespread cosmological speculation
to which
no
Babylonian analogies
have been
found,
but which is
supposed
to
underlie the last clause of Gn. i
2
. In
Sanchuniathon,
the union of
gloomy,
breath-like Air" with turbid dark Chaos
produces
a
miry
watery
mixture called
Murr,
in which all
things originate,
and first of all
certain
living beings
named watchers of heaven
(cv?$ si:).
These
appear
to be the
constellations,
and it is said that
they
are
shaped
like
the
form of
an
eggj
i.e., probably,
are
arranged
in the
sky
in that form.
In
Eudemos,
the first
principles
are
Xpovos,
II60os,
and
O/xtxX?;
: the two
latter
give
birth to
Arjp
and
Aupa,
and from the union of these
again
Kal K
TavTys tytveTo
ird<ra
awopd
d Tiva tDa OVK
ZXOVTO, aicrd-rj<nv,
e &v
eyeveTo fu)a voepd,
K
[Zw07;(rayui/x]
TOUT ZCTTIV
ovpavov
KaTbirrai. Kat
dveirXdadT] 6/Aota>s
[-f-cioD,
see
Or.] crxwiaTr
/cat
te\a/..\J/e
Ma>r
77X165
re Kal
ffeXrjvTj, d<rr^pes
re Kal
&<rrpa
/j.eyd\a"
..." Kai TOV
dtpos diavxdaavTos,
did
irvpoxriv
Kal
TTJS daXdaffrjs
Kal
TTJS yijs frytvero
Trj/e^ara,
Kal
vefir),
Kal
ovpaviwv
vSdrwv
fj^yurrai Kara<popal
Kal
-xyfffis.
Kal
tTreidr] dieKpid-rj,
Kal TOV idlov rbirov
diexupicrdT]
did
TT\V
TOU
i]\lov Trtipuffiv,
Kal Trdvra
avvi]VT-f](se
ird\iv v
dtpi
rdde
ToiffSe,
Kal <ri
veppa!;av
re
dTreTeXtffdrjaav
Kal
dcrrpaTral,
Kal
irpos
TOV
iraTayov
T&V
fipovrCov
irpoyeypa/j./u.^va voepd
&a
typriyopTjcrei*
Kal
Trpos
TOV
Tf%ov twTvpr],
Kal
T
yrj
Kal
6a\daa"r] appev
Kal
d-fj\v.
n
. . .
ET?S
rourotj
wit,
N6roi Kal
Boptov,
Kal TUJV
Xonr&v, t-jriXeyei
U
A\X
rd
TTJS yrjs (3\aaTr)/j.aTa,
Kal deovs
frd/u-Hrav,
Kal
vTa, d(p
&v airroi re
oieyivovTO,
Kal 01
fTr6/J.evoi,
Kal 01
irpb
attruv
Trd^res,
Kal
Kal dTriduaeis ^TTotovv." Kai
4iri\yi
"
ACrai 5
rj&av
at ^irivoiai
TTJS
o/^oiai Trj
ai>T&v
avdeveia,
KaL
^VXTJS droX/it
a. Eird
yeyevrjadai
K TOV Ko\iria
dv^ov,
Kal
ywaiKbs
avTov
Edav,
TOVTO 5t
epwveveiv,
Aiuiva Kal
llpurbyovov
dvyTovs dvdpas,
OVTU
/caXouya^o^s."
. . .
[the sequel
on
p. 124 below].
The other versions are from Eudemos
(a
pupil
of
Aristotle)
and a
native writer Mochos :
they
are
preserved
in the
following passage
of
Damascius
(cap. 125;
ed.
Kopp, p. 385):
2i5tt)i iot 5 Kara TOV avTov
crvyypafaa (i.e. Eudemos) irpb
irdvTwv
~%.pbvov
viroTldevTai Kal YlbQov Kal
0/it%X7;j
. TL66ov 5^ Kal
0/utxX7;s fJiiytvTwv
ws Svolv
dpx&v Aepa yevtcrdai
Kal
Avpav, Atpa p.v &KpaTOv
TOV
VOTJTOV
TrapadrjXovvTes,
Aupav
8 Tb
^
avTov KIVOI
I/UCVOV
TOV
vorjTov ^wTiKbv irpoTvir^pLa.
IldXt^ 5
K TOVTUV
d/x0otv
COTOV
[rd. wbv] yevvrjdrjvai
/card TOV vovv
olfj,ai
TOV
vorjTov.
fis 5^ Z$-ti)6v
Eu5?7/ioi; TT]V
^OIVIKOJV
evpl<TKO[j.ev
/card
MtD^o** u.vdo\oylav,
fy
Tb
irp&Tov
Kal
A7/p
at dvo avTai
apxcn,
%
&v
yevva-Tai QvXw/jibs,
6
6ebs,
avrb
ol/j-ai
Tb
&Kpov
rc9
VOTJTOV
ov
eavTi^
ffvveKdbvros
yevvrjdrjvai
<prfffi
JLovffupbv,
dvoiyta irp&TOv,
elra ubv TOVTOV
jj.v
olu,ai TOV
voi]Tbv
vovv
\tyovTes,
rbv d
dvoiyta Xoucrwpif, TTJV VOTJTTJV dvva/niv
dre
irp&njv SiaKplvaaav TTJV
ddidKpiTov (fevffiv,
el
fj.rj apa /*erd
raj dvo
dp%ds
Tb
/JL^V
&Kpov
tffTiv
avf/j.03
b
efs,
Tb 5t
fjiecrov
01 dvo
&ve/j.oi
Al\f/
re Kal N6ros TroioDcrt
7ap
TTWS Kat TOVTOVS
irpb
TOV
Oi^XwyLtoO
6 5
Ov\ti>/j,bi
avTbs b
vor/rbs etrj vovs,
b 5^
avoiycvs,
Xovaupbs,
i) //.era
r6
vor]Tov irpibnr]
rd^ts,
Tb d &bv b
ovpavbs \4yerat ybp
ai/rou
paytvTOS
e/s
dvo, yevtadai ovpavbs
Kal
yi}t
raiv
dixoTo/j,r)/j.dT(t}v e/fdrepo*
.
4
50
COSMOGONIES
proceeds
an
egg.
More
striking
is the
expression
of the idea in
Mochos. Here the union of
Aid-ftp
and
A-f/p produces
0Xw/*os
(o^y),
from
which
proceed Xovawpos,
the first
opener,
and then an
egg.
It is
afterwards
explained
that the
egg
is the
heaven,
and that when it is
split
in two
(? by Xova-wpos)
the one half forms the heaven and the other the
earth. It
may
introduce
consistency
into these
representations
if we
suppose
that in the
process
of evolution the
primaeval
chaos
(which
is
coextensive with the future heaven and
earth)
assumes the
shape
of an
egg,
and that this is afterwards divided into two
parts, corresponding
to the heaven and the earth. The function of
Xou<rwpos
is thus
analogous
to the act of Marduk in
cleaving
the
body
of Tiamat in two. But
obviously
all this throws
remarkably
little
light
on Gn. i
2
. Another
supposed point
of contact is the resemblance between the name Eaav
and the Heb. ini. In Sanchuniathon Baau is
explained
as
night,
and
is said to be the wife of the
Kolpia-wind,
and mother of Alwv and
Hpurbyovos,
the first
pair
of mortals. It is evident that there is much
confusion in this
part
of the extract
;
and it is not
unreasonably
con
jectured
that Ai&v and
Hpurdyovos
were
really
the first
pair
of
emanations,
and
Kolpia
and Baau the chaotic
principles
from which
they spring
;
so that
they may
be the
cosmological equivalents
of Tohu and Bdhfl
in Gn. There is a
strong probability
that the name Baau is connected
with
Bau,
a
Babylonian mother-goddess (see ATLO*, 161)
;
but the
evidence is too
slight
to enable us to
say
that
specifically
Phcenician
influences are traceable in Gn. i
2
.
5.
A division of creation into six
stages,
in an order similar to that of
Gn.
i,
appears
in the late book of the Bundehesh
(the
Parsee
Genesis),
where the
periods
are connected with the six annual festivals called
Gahanbars,
so as to form a creative
year, parallel
to the week of Gn. i.
The order is : i.
Heaven;
2.
Water;
3. Earth; 4.
Plants;
5. Animals;
6. Men. We miss from the enumeration :
Light,
which in Zoroastrian-
ism is an uncreated element
;
and the
Heavenly
bodies,
which are said
to
belong
to an earlier creation
(Tiele,
Gesch. d. Rel. im Altert. ii.
296).
The late date of the Bundehesh leaves
room,
of
course,
for the
suspicion
of biblical influence
;
but it is
thought by
some that the same order can
be traced in a
passage
of the
younger
Avesta,
and that it
may belong
to ancient Iranian tradition
(Tiele,
/.c.,
and
ARW,
vi.
2446.
; Caland,
ThT,
xxiii.
179 ff.).
The most remarkable of all known
parallels
to the
six
days
scheme of Gn. is found in a
cosmogony
attributed to the
ancient Etruscans
by
Suidas
(Lexicon,
s.-v.
Tvppyvia).
Here the creation
is said to have been
accomplished
in six
periods
of 1000
years,
in the
following
order : i. Heaven and Earth
;
2. the
Firmament;
3.
Sea and
Water
;
4.
Sun and Moon
;
5.
Souls of Animals
;
6. Man
(see
K. O.
Miiller,
Die
Etrusker,
ii.
38;
ATLO
3
, 154 f.).
Suidas, however,
lived not earlier
than the loth cent.
A.D.,
and
though
his information
may
have been
derived from ancient
sources,
we cannot be sure that his account is not
coloured
by knowledge
of the Hebrew
cosmogony.
II.
4B-HI. 24
5
1
II.
4b-III. 24.
The Creation and Fall
of
Man
(J).
The
passage
forms a
complete
and
closely
articulated
narrative,*
of which the
leading
motive is man s loss of his
original
innocence and
happiness through eating
forbidden
fruit,
and his
consequent expulsion
from the
garden
of Eden.
The account of creation in 2
4bff>
had
primarily, perhaps,
an
independent
interest
;
yet
it contains little that is not
directly
subservient to the main theme
developed
in ch.
3.
It is
scarcely
to be called a
cosmogony,
for the
making
of
4
earth and heaven
(2
4b
)
is assumed without
being
described
;
the narrative
springs
from an
early phase
of
thought
which
was interested in the
beginnings
of human life and
history,
but had not advanced to
speculation
on the
origin
of heaven
and earth
(cf.
Frankenberg
in Gu.
2
24).
From ch. i it
differs
fundamentally
both in its
conception
of the
primal
condition of the world as an
arid,
waterless waste
(2
5f-
: ct.
i
2
),
and in the order of creative works : viz. Man
(
7
),
Trees
(
9
),
Animals
(
18
-
20
),
Woman
(
21
~
23
).
Alike in this
arrange
ment and in the
supplementary
features the
garden (
8- loff
-),
the miraculous trees
(
9b
),
the
appointments regarding
man s
position
in the world
(
15
~
17
),
and the remarkable omissions
(plants, fishes,
etc.)
it is
governed by
the main
episode
to
which it leads
up (ch. 3),
with its account of the
temptation
by
the
serpent
(
1
~
5
),
the
transgression (
6- 7
),
the
inquest (
8
~
13
),
the sentences
(
14
~
19
),
and the
expulsion
from Eden
(
22
~
24
).
The
story
thus summarised 5s one of the most
charming idylls
in
literature: ch.
3
is
justly
described
by
Gu. as the
pearl
of Genesis.
Its
literary
and aesthetic character is best
appreciated by comparison
with ch. i. Instead of the formal
precision,
the schematic
disposition,
the
stereotyped diction,
the aim at scientific
classification,
which distin
guish
the
great cosmogony,
we have here a narrative marked
by
child
like
simplicity
of
conception,
exuberant
though pure imagination,
and a
captivating
freedom of
style.
Instead of
lifting
God far above man and
nature,
this writer revels in the most
exquisite anthropomorphisms ;
he
does not shrink from
speaking
of God as
walking
in His
garden
in the
cool of the
day (3
8
),
or
making experiments
for the welfare of His first
creature
(a
188
-),
or
arriving
at a
knowledge
of man s sin
by
a
searching
*
Cf.
especially
2
4b
with
3
19- 23
;
2
9- 16f-
with
3
1 5 - " 17- 22
;
2
8b- 10
with
3
. .
2
19
with
3
la. 14 .
2
ai-28
Wj th
3
13 .
(
2
24
wj th
316b)
.
2
25
wUh
f.
10I.
52
PARADISE AND THE FALL
(j)
examination
(3
9flr
)>
etc. While the
purely mythological phase
of
thought
has
long
been
outgrown,
a
mythical background everywhere appears
;
the
happy garden
of
God,
the
magic trees,
the
speaking serpent,
the
Cherubim and
Flaming
Sword,
are all emblems derived from a more
ancient
religious
tradition. Yet in
depth
of moral and
religious insight
the
passage
is
unsurpassed
in the OT. We have but to
thi
nk f
its
delicate
handling
of the
question
of
sex,
its
profound psychology
of
temptation
and
conscience,
and its serious view of
sin,
in order to realise
the educative influence of revealed
religion
in the life of ancient Israel.
It has to be added that we detect here the first note of that
sombre,
almost
melancholy,
outlook on human life which
pervades
the older
stratum of Gn. i-n. Cf. the characterisation in We. Prol.
6
302
ff.
;
Gu.
p.
22 ff.
Source. The features
just noted, together
with the use of the divine
name
mrr,
show
beyond
doubt that the
passage belongs
to the Yahwistic
cycle
of narratives
(J). Expressions
characteristic of this document are
found in
noip
2
14
,
oysn
2
23
,
nxt-no
3
13
,
ITIK
3
14 -
",
pasy 3
16 - 17
,
-naya
3
17
;
and
(in
contrast to
P)
is
, create,
instead of
N13,
marr rrn instead of
pn
n,
D"n nDew instead of n rrn
(see
on
7
22
) ;
and the constant use of ace. suff.
to the verb.
Traces
of Composition.
That the
literary unity
of the narrative is
not
perfect
there are several
indications,
more or less decisive,
(i)
The
geographical
section 2
10 14
is
regarded by
most critics
(since
Ewald)
as
a later
insertion,
on the
grounds
that it is out of
keeping
with the
simplicity
of the main
narrative,
and
seriously interrupts
its
sequence.
The
question
is whether it be
merely
an isolated
interpolation,
or an
extract from a
parallel
recension. If the latter be in
evidence,
we know
too little of its character to
say
that 2
10 14
could not have
belonged
to it.
At all events the
objections urged
would
apply only
to
n 14
;
and there
is much to be
said,
on this
assumption,
for
retaining
10
(or
at least
lt)a
)
as a
parallel
to v.
6
(Ho.). (2)
A more difficult
problem
is the confusion
regarding
the two trees on which the fate of man
depends,
a
point
to
which attention was first directed
by
Bu.
According
to 2
9b
the tree of
life and the tree of the
knowledge
of
good
and evil
grew together
in the
midst of the
garden,
and in 2
17
the second alone is made the test of the
man s obedience. But ch.
3 (down
to v.
21
)
knows of
only
one tree in the
midst of the
garden,
and that
obviously (though
it is never so
named)
the tree of
knowledge.
The tree of life
plays
no
part
in the
story except
in
3
22- 24
,
and its sudden introduction there
only
creates fresh embarrass
ment
;
for if this tree also was
forbidden,
the writer s silence about it in
2
17
3
s
is
inexplicable
;
and if it was not
forbidden,
can we
suppose
that
in the author s intention the boon of
immortality
was
placed freely
within man s reach
during
the
period
of his
probation?
So far as the
main narrative is
concerned,
the tree of life is an irrelevance
;
and we
shall see
immediately
that the
part
where it does enter into the
story
is
precisely
the
part
where
signs
of redaction or dual
authorship
accumu
late.
(3)
The clearest indication of a double recension is found in the
twofold account of the
expulsion
from Eden :
3
23> 24
. Here
22
and
24
clearly hang together
;
M
and
21
are as
clearly
out of their
proper
II.
4B-HI.
2
4
53
position
;
hence
2S
may
have been the
original
continuation of
19
,
to
which it forms a natural
sequel.
There is thus some reason to believe
that in this
instance,
at
any rate,
the tree of life is not from the hand of
the chief narrator.
(4)
Other and less certain
duplicates
are : 2
6
1|
2
10
(
n
-
14
)
(see above),
s*!!
9*
(the planting
of the
garden)
;
and
8b 1Ca
(the placing
of man in
it)
;
2
23
||3
20
(the naming
of the
woman). (5)
Bu.
(Urg. 232 ff.)
was the first to
suggest
that the double name D nVx mrr
(which
is all but
peculiar
to this
section)
has arisen
through amalgamation
of
sources.
His
theory
in its broader
aspects
has been stated on
p. 3,
above
;
it is
enough
here to
point
out its
bearing
on the
compound
name in Gn. 2 f.
It is assumed that two
closely parallel
accounts
existed,
one of which
(J
e
) employed only
D
n^K,
the other
(JJ) only
mrr. When these were
combined the editor harmonised them
by adding
D nSx to mrr
everywhere
in
J-i,
and
prefixing
mrr to D n
1
?^
everywhere
in
J
e
except
in the
colloquy
between the
serpent
and the woman
(3
1
"
5
),
where the
general
name was
felt to be more
appropriate.*
The
reasoning
is
precarious
;
but if it be
sound,
it follows that
3
1 5
must be
assigned
to
J
e
;
and since these vv.
are
part
of the main narrative
(that
which
speaks only
of the tree
of
knowledge),
there remain for
JJ only 3
22 - 24
,
and
possibly
some variants
and
glosses
in the earlier
part
of the narrative. On the
whole,
the facts
seem to warrant these conclusions : of the Paradise
story
two recen
sions existed
;
in
one,
the
only
tree mentioned was the tree of the know
ledge
of
good
and
evil,
while the other
certainly
contained the tree of life
(so
v.
Doorninck, THT>
xxxix.
225
f.)
and
possibly
both trees
;f
the
former
supplied
the basis of our
present
narrative,
and is
practically
complete,
while the second is so
fragmentary
that all
attempt
to recon
struct even its main outlines must be abandoned as
hopeless.
*
So Gu. A still more
complete explanation
of this
particular point
would be afforded
by
the somewhat intricate
original hypothesis
of Bu.
He
suggested
that the
primary
narrative
(J
1
)
in which mrr was
regularly
used, except
in
3
1 5
,
was re-written and
supplemented by J
2
who sub
stituted D n/K for m.T
;
the two narratives were
subsequently amalgamated
in rather mechanical fashion
by J
3
,
with the result that wherever the
divine names differed both were
retained,
and where the documents
agreed
D nW alone
appears (Urg. 233 f.).
Later in the volume
(471 ff.)
the
hypothesis
is withdrawn in favour of the view that
J
2
contained no
Paradise
story
at all. A similar
explanation
is
given by
v. Doorninck
(I.e. 239),
who thinks the retention of trnVx in
3
1 5
was due to the redactor s
desire to avoid the
imputation
of falsehood to Yahwe !
t
The
point
here
depends
on the
degree
of
similarity
assumed to
have obtained between the two recensions.
Gu.,
who assumes that the
resemblance was
very close,
holds that in
JJ probably
both trees were
concerned in the fall of man. But the text
gives
no indication that in
JJ
the
knowledge
of
good
and evil was attained
by eating
the fruit of a
tree : other
ways
of
procuring
unlawful
knowledge
are conceivable
;
and it is therefore
possible
that in this version the tree of life alone
occupied
a
position analogous
to that of the tree of
knowledge
in the
other
(see, further, Gressmann, ARW,
x.
355 f.).
54
PARADISE AND THE FALL
(j)
4b-7.
The creation of man. On the somewhat in
volved construction of the
section,
see the footnote.
40.
At the time when Yahwe Elohim
made,
etc.\
The double
name
CTTO?
n
).? !,
which is all but
peculiar
to Gn.
2f.,
is
probably
to be
explained
as a result of redactional
operations
(v.i.),
rather than
(with
Reuss,
Ayles, al.)
as a feature of
the isolated source from which these two
chapters
were
taken. earth and
heaven]
The unusual order
(which
is
reversed
by,.ux(SS) appears again only
in Ps.
i48
13
.
5-
there was as
yet
?w
bush,
etc.}
Or
(on
Di. s
construction)
while as
yet
there was
no,
etc. The rare word
n^
denotes
elsewhere
(2i
15
[E],
Jb. 3O
4> 7
)
a desert shrub
(so Syr.,
Arab.);
but a wider sense is attested
by
Ass. and Phcen.
It is difficult to
say
whether here it means wild as
opposed
4b-7-
The sudden
change
of
style
and
language
shows that the
transition to the Yahwistic document takes
place
at the middle of v.
4
.
The construction
presents
the same
syntactic ambiguity
as J
1
"
3
(see
the
note
there) ;
except,
of
course,
that there can be no
question
of
taking
4b
as an
independent
sentence. We
may
also set aside the
conjecture
(We.
ProL
6
297
f.
;
KS.
al.)
that the clause is the conclusion of a lost
sentence of
J,
as inconsistent with the natural
position
of the time
determination in Heb.
4b
must therefore be
joined
as
prot.
to what
follows
;
and the
question
is whether the
apod,
commences at
5
(Tu.
Str. Dri.
al.),
or
(with
6f-
as a
parenthesis)
at
7
(Di.
Gu.
al.).
In
syntax
either view is admissible
;
but the first
yields
the better sense.
The state of
things
described in
5f-
evidently
lasted some time
;
hence
it is not correct to
say
that Yahwe made man at the time when He made
heaven and earth : to connect
7
directly
with
4b
is "to
identify
a
period
(v.
6
)
with a
point^."
1
)
of time"
(Spurrell).
On the form of
apod.,
see
again
Dri. T.
78. 4.
D
V?
always emphasises contemporaneousness
of
two events
(cf.
2
17
3
5
) ;
the indefiniteness lies in the
subst.,
which often
covers a
space
of time
(=
when : Ex. 6
28
32
34
, Jer.
1 1
4
etc.).
D nVx
m.v]
in Hex.
only
Ex.
9
30
;
elsewhere 2 Sa.
7--
25
, Jon. 4,
Ps.
72
18
84
9 - 12
,
i Ch.
I7
18
,
2 Ch. 6
41
. (3r uses the
expression frequently up
to
g
12
,
but its
usage
is not uniform even in chs. 2.
3.
The double name has sometimes
been
explained by
the
supposition
that an editor added D nSx to the
original
TTI.T in order to smooth the transition from P to
J,
or as a hint
to the
Synagogue
reader to substitute D .nW for mrr
;
but that is
scarcely
satisfactory.
A more
adequate
solution is afforded
by
the
theory
of Bu. and
Gu.,
on which see
p. 53.
Barton and Che.
(TBAI, 99 f.)
take it as a
compound
of the same
type
as
Melek-AUart, etc.,
an
utterly improbable suggestion. 5-
n a s
probably
the same as Ass.
sifytu,
from
*J grow high (Del. I/fhvb.),
and hence
might
include
trees,
as rendered
by
J5&. On
3K%
see on i
11
. The
gen.
mc>n,
common
n.
4-6
55
to
cultivated
plants (Hupf. Gu.),
or
perennials
as
opposed
to annuals
(Ho.).
For the earth s barrenness two reasons
are
assigned: (i)
the absence of
rain,
and
(2)
the lack of
cultivation.
In the
East, however,
the essence of
husbandry
is
irrigation
;
hence the two conditions of
fertility
corre
spond broadly
to the Arabian
(and Talmudic)
contrast
between land watered
by
the Baal and that watered
by
human labour
(Rob.
Sm. jRS
2
,
96 ff.).
to till the
ground}
This, therefore,
is man s
original destiny, though
afterwards
it is
imposed
on him as a
curse,
an indication of the
fusion of variant traditions.
I
~
I
97^
both here and v.
6
,
has
probably
the restricted sense of
soil,
arable land
(cf. 4
14
).
6. but a
ftood
(or
mist,
v.i.)
used to come
up
(periodically)]
"The idea of the author
appears
to be that the
ground
was rendered
capable
of cultivation
by
the overflow of some
great
river"
(Ayles).
It is
certainly
difficult to
imagine any
other
purpose
to be served
by
the flood than to induce
fertility,
for we can
hardly
attribute to the
writer the trivial idea that it had
simply
the effect of
moistening
the soil
for the formation of
man,
etc.
(Ra. al.,
cf. Gu. Che.
TBAI, 87).
But this
appears
to neutralise
5b
",
since rain is no
longer
an
indispensable
condi
tion of
vegetation.
Ho.,
accordingly, proposes
to remove
6
and to treat
it as a variant of
10
"
14
. The
meaning might
be, however,
that the
flood,
when
supplemented by
human
labour,
was sufficient to fertilise the
tiddmah,
but
had,
of
course,
no effect on the
steppes,
which were de
pendent
on rain. The
difficulty
is not removed if we render mist
;
and
the
brevity
of the narrative leaves other
questions
unanswered
;
such
as,
When was rain first sent on the earth ? At what
stage
are we to
place
the creation of the cereals? etc.
to
both,
denotes
open country,
as
opposed
sometimes to cities or
houses,
sometimes to enclosed cultivated land
(De. 96).
On
D^n
with
impf.
see
G-K.
107
c\
Dri. T.
27/3.
The
rendering
before
(< [one
of the
deviations mentioned in Mechilta see on i
1
] U)
would
imply D^B?,
and
is
wrong.
6.
nx]
(5r
mpyij, Aq. tirifi\vfffi6st
U
fons,
&
]
vn ^Vn. 2T
Njjy.
Che.
conj. IN; ;
others
};y (after Vns.).
The word has no
etymol.
in
Heb.,
and the
only
other occurrence
(Jb. 36")
is even more obscure than
this. Cloud
(ST)
or mist is a natural
guess,
and it is doubtful if it
be
anything
better. The
meaning
flood comes from Ass.
edfi,
applied
to the annual overflow of a river
(Del. ffdwb.),
note the
freq. impf.
Gu.
thinks it a technical
semi-mythological
term of the same order as
T&hom,
with which Ra. seems to connect
it;
while lEz.
interprets cloud,
but
confounds the word with
TN,
calamity (Zeph.
i
15
);
so
Aq.,
who renders
the latter
by ^rijSXuoytis
in Pr. i
26
,
Jb. 3o
12
(see
Ber. R.
13).
On the
tenses,
56
PARADISE AND THE FALL
(j)
If the above
explanation
be
correct,
there is a confusion of two
points
of view which throws an
interesting- light
on the
origin
of the
story.
The rain is
suggested by experience
of a
dry country,
like
Palestine.
The
flood,
on the other
hand,
is a reminiscence of the
entirely
different state of
things
in an alluvial
country
like the
Euphrates
valley,
where
husbandry depends
on artificial
irrigation
assisted
by
periodic
inundations.
While,
therefore,
there
may
be a
Babylonian
basis to the
myth,
it must have taken its
present shape
in some drier
region, presumably
in Palestine. To
say
that it
"
describes . . . the
phenomena
witnessed
by
the first colonists of
Babylonia,"
involves more
than
mythic exaggeration (Che. EB, 949).
7.
Yahwe Elohim moulded
man]
The verb
"^ (avoided by
P)
is
used,
in the
ptcp.,
of the
potter
;
and that
figure
under
lies the
representation.
An
Egyptian picture
shows the
god
Chnum
forming
human
beings
on the
potter
s disc
(ATLO
2
,
146).
The idea of man as made of
clay
or earth
appears
in
Babylonian
;
but is indeed
universal,
and
pervades
the whole OT. breath
of life]
Omit the art. The
phrase
recurs
only 7
22
(J),
where it denotes the animal
life,
and
there is no reason for
supposing
another
meaning
here.
"
Subscribere
eorum sententiae non dubito
qui
de animali
hominis vita locum hunc
exponunt
"
(Calvin).
man became
a
living- being]
t,"|M
here is not a constituent of human
nature,
but denotes the
personality
as a whole.
The v. has
commonly
been treated as a locus classicus of OT
anthropology,
and as
determining
the relations of the three elements of
human nature
flesh, soul,
spirit
to one another. It is
supposed
to
see G-K. 112*;
Dri. T.
113, 4(/3). 7.
nonx . . .
DIK]
Both words are
of uncertain
etymology.
The old derivation from the vb. be red
(
. . .
jrvppbv
tireidrjirep
curb
TTJS Trvppas 7775 <f>vpadei(rr)s yey6vt
:
Jos.
Ant. i.
34)
is
generally
abandoned,
but none better has been found to
replace
it
(recent
theories in Di.
53
f.).
According
to Noldeke
(ZDMG,
xl.
722),
DIK
appears
in Arab, as
J
dnam
(cf. Haupt,
ib. Ixi.
194).
Frd. Del. s
view,
that both words
embody
the idea of
tillage,
seems
(as
Di.
says)
to rest
on the
ambiguity
of the German bauen
;
but it is
very
near the
thought
of this
passage
: man is made from the
soil,
lives
by
its
cultivation,
and
returns to it at death.
nsy]
Ace. of
material,
G-K.
117
hh. Gu.
regards
it as a variant to nrnxn from
J
3
. .Tn
rsi]
This
appears
to be the
only
place
where the
phrase
is
applied
to man
;
elsewhere to animals
(i
20- 24
etc.). 3, primarily
breath,
denotes
usually
the vital
principle (with
various mental
connotations),
and
ultimately
the whole
being
thus
animated the
person.
The last is the
only
sense consistent with the
structure of the sentence here.
n.
7,
8
57
teach that the soul
(i)
arises
through
the union of the universal life-
principle
(nil)
with the material frame
(T^|)
: cf.
e.g. Griineisen,
Ahnen-
kultus, 34
f. No such ideas are
expressed
: neither "W2 nor nn is men
tioned,
while e>s: is not
applied
to a
separate
element of man s
being
1
,
but
to the whole man in
possession
of vital
powers.
"All that seems in
question
here is
just
the
giving
of
vitality
to man. There seems no
allusion to man s immaterial
being,
to his
spiritual
element. . . .
Vitality
is communicated
by
God,
and he is here
represented
as
communicating
it
by breathing
into man s nostrils that breath which is the
sign
of life
"
(Davidson,
OTTh.
194).
At the same
time,
the fact that God
imparts
his own breath to
man,
marks the
dignity
of man above the animals : it
is
J
s
equivalent
for the
image
of God.
8-17.
The
garden
of Eden. That the
planting-
of the
garden
was
subsequent
to the creation of man is the un
doubted
meaning
of the writer
;
the
rendering- plantaverat
(JJ:
so
lEz.)
is
grammatically impossible,
and is connected
with a
misconception
of
DlpO
below. a
garden
in
Eden\
This is
perhaps
the
only place
where Eden
(as
a
geo
graphical designation)
is
distinguished
from the
garden
(cf.
2
10- 15
3
23- 2*
4
16
,
Is.
5i
3
,
Ezk. 28
13
3
i.ie.i8
3535, ji.
2
3
}
Sir.
4O
27
).
The common
phrase HV l-l
would
suggest
to a
Hebrew the idea
garden
of
delight,
as it is rendered
by
(
(often)
and
"JJ
(*>*)
There is no
probability
that the
proper
name was
actually
coined in this sense. It is derived
by
the
younger
Del. and Schrader from Bab.
edinu,
f
plain,
steppe,
or desert
(Del.
Par.
80; KAT*,
26 f.
;
KAT
Z
,
539);
but it is a somewhat
precarious
inference that the
garden
was conceived as an oasis in the midst of a desert
(Ho.).
D
"!i?P]
in the
(far)
East
;
i.e. from the Palestinian
standpoint
of the author
; not,
of
course,
to be identified with
any
other
PV
within the
geographical
horizon of the Israelites
(see
2 Ki. i
9
12
[
=
Is.
37
12
],
Ezk.
2y
23
,
Am. i
5
).
Besides the
passages
cited
above,
the idea of a divine
garden
appears
also in Gn.
i3
10
,
Ezk.
3i
8
.
Usually
it is a mere
symbol
of
8.
p]
<&
TrapdSeio-os (cf. DTifl,
Ca.
4
13
,
EC. 2
5
,
Neh. 2
8
:
probably
from
Pers.),
and so JJ.
]~\y]
is
regularly
treated as nom.
prop, by
<
j,
by
TS
only 4
16
(everywhere
else as
appellative
:
voliiptas, delicice).
(& has
ESe/i
only
in 2
8- 10
4
;
elsewhere
rpv^fs], except
Is.
5i
3
(Trapd&ricros).
mpo]
Lit. in front
(on
the
}D
see Kon.
Lgb.
ii.
p. 318; BDB,
578
b
)
:
in the hist, books it
always
means east or eastward
;
but in
prophs.
and Pss. it
usually
has
temporal
sense
(
of old
) ;
and so it is misunder-
58
PARADISE AND THE FALL
(j)
luxuriant
fertility, especially
in
respect
of its
lordly
trees
(Ezk.
3i
8f- 16- 18
) ;
but in Ezk. 28
13
it is mentioned as the residence of a semi-
divine
being-.
Most of the allusions are
explicable
as based on Gn. 2 f.
;
but the
imagery
of Ezk. 28 reveals a
highly mythological conception
of
which few traces remain in the
present
narrative. If the idea be
primitive
Semitic
(and ja
is common to all the
leading- dialects),
it
may originate
in
the sacred
grove (Hinia)
"where water and verdure are
united,
where
the fruits of the sacred trees are
taboo,
and the wild animals are
anls,
i.e. on
good
terms with
man,
because
they may
not be
frightened
away
"
(We.
Prol.
c
3032
;
cf. Held.
141
; Barton,
SO
1
, 96).
In
early
times
such
spots
of natural
fertility
were the haunts of the
gods
or
super
natural
beings (KS
2
,
102
ff.).
But from the wide diffusion of the
myth,
and the facts
pointed
out on
p. 93
f.
below,
it is
plain
that the
conception
has been enriched
by
material from different
quarters,
and had
passed
through
a
mythological phase
before it came into the hands of the
biblical writers. Such sacred
groves
were common in
Babylonia,
and
mythological
idealisations of them enter
largely
into the
religious
literature
(see
A TLO
Z
, 195 ff.).
p.
all sorts
of
trees . . .
food]
The
primitive vegetation
is conceived as
consisting solely
of
trees,
on whose fruit
man was to subsist
;
the
appearance
of herbs is a result of
the curse
pronounced
on the
ground (3
17L
)-
and the tree
of
life (was)
in
themidst\
On Bu. s strictures on the form of the
sentence,
v.i. The intricate
question
of the two trees must
be reserved for
separate
discussion
(pp. 52
f.,
94)
;
for the
present
form of the
story
both are
indispensable.
The tree
stood here
by
all Vns.
except
<&
(H
in
principio,
etc.).
9. pjrVa]
G-K.
127
b.
njnn]
The use of art. with inf. const, is
very
rare
(Dav. 19),
but
is
explained by
the
frequent
use of
njn
as abstr. noun. Otherwise the
construction is
regular,
jni
aits
being
ace.,
not
gen.
of
obj.
Budde
(Urg. 51 f.) objects
to the
splitting up
of the
compound obj. by
the
secondary pred. pn "pn3,
and thinks the
original
text must have been
ui
nyirr
py pn
Timi
;
thus
finding
a confirmation of the
theory
that the
primary
narrative knew of
only
one
tree,
and that the tree of
knowledge
(p. 52
;
so Ba. Ho. Gu.
al.).
In view of the instances examined
by
Dri.
in
Hebraica,
ii.
33,
it is doubtful if the
grammatical argument
can be
sustained
;
but if it had
any
force it
ought certainly
to lead to the
excision of the second member rather than of the first
(Kuen. ThT, 1884,
136;
v.
Doorninck,
ib.
t
1905, 225
f.
;
Eerdmans,
ib.
494
ff.).
A more im
portant point
is the absence of nN before the def.
obj.
The writer s use
of this
part,
is
very discriminating
;
and its omission
suggests
that
9b
is
really
a nominal
clause,
as rendered above. If we were to
indulge
in
analyses
of
sources,
we
might put
9b
(in
whole or in
part)
after
8a
,
and
assign
it to that
secondary
stratum of narrative which
undoubtedly
spoke
of a tree of life
(3
22
).
ii.
9-1
1
59
of
life,
whose fruit confers
immortality (3
22
;
cf. Pr.
3
18
ii
30
i3
12
15*
; further,
Ezk.
47
12
,
Rev. 22
2
),
is a
widely
diffused
idea
(see
Di.
49;
Wunsche,
Die
Sagen
vom Lebensbaum u.
Lebensivasser).
The tree of
knowledge
is a more refined
conception
;
its
property
of
communicating knowledge
of
good
and evil
is, however,
magical,
like that of the other
;
a connexion with oracular trees
(Lenormant,
Or. i.
85
f.
;
Baudissin,
Stud. ii.
227)
is not so
probable.
As to what is
meant
by knowing good
and
evil,
see
p. 95
ff.
The
primitive
Semitic tree of life is
plausibly supposed by
Barton
(SO
1
,
92 f.)
to have been the
date-palm;
and this
corresponds
to the
sacred
palm
in the
sanctuary
of Ea at Eridu
(IV
R.
15*),
and also to
the conventionalised sacred tree of the seals and
palace-reliefs,
which
is considered to be a
palm
combined with some
species
of conifer. Cf.
also the sacred cedar in the cedar forest of
Gilg.,
Tabs. IV. V. For
these and other Bab.
parallels,
see ATLO
2
,
195
ff.
10. a river issued
(or issues] from Eden]
The
language
does not
necessarily imply
that the fountain-head was outside
the
garden (Dri. Ben.);
the vb.
N
S
T
is used of the rise of a
stream at its source
(Ex. ly
6
,
Nu. 2O
11
,
Ju. i5
19
,
Ezk.
47
1
,
Zee.
i4
8
, Jl. 4
18
).
Whether the
ptcp. expresses past
or
present
time cannot be determined,
from
thence it divides
itself}
The river issues from the
garden
as a
single stream,
then divides into four
branches,
which are the four
great
rivers of the world. The site of
Paradise, therefore,
is at the
common source of the four rivers in
question (pp.
62-66
below).
That is the
plain meaning
of the
verse,
however inconsistent
it
may
be with
physical geography.
II.
Pison]
The name
occurs
(along
with
Tigris, Euphrates, Jordan,
and
Gihon)
10. T
] Freq. impf.
? So Dri. T.
30 a, 113, 4 ft
;
G-K.
107
d
(
always taking place
afresh
),
Dav.
54(6).
That seems
hardly
natural. Is it
possible
that for once
D^p
could have the effect of IK in
transporting-
the mind to a
point
whence a new
development
takes
place? (Dav. 45,
R.
2).
D
^tq]
Not sources but branches
;
as
Arab, ras en-nahr
(as
distinct from ras
el-ain]
means the
point
of
divergence
of two streams
(Wetzstein, quoted by De., p. 82).
So Ass.
ris ndri or ris
ndr,
of the
point
of
divergence (Ausgangsort]
of a canal
(Del.
Par.
98, 191).
II.
inNn]
See on i
5
. aaon
Kin]
On the determina
tion of
pred.,
Dav.
19,
R.
3;
cf. G-K. 126 k
(so
v.
13f
-).
n
vinn]
If
the art. be
genuine,
it shows that the name was
significant ( sandland,
60 PARADISE AND THE FALL
(j)
in Sir.
24
25
,
but nowhere else in OT. That it was not a
familiar name to the Hebrews is shown
by
the
topo
graphical description
which follows. On the various
speculative identifications,
see De. and
Di.,
and
p. 64
f.
below. the whole land
of Hdmldh\
The
phraseology
indicates that the name is used with some
vagueness,
and considerable latitude. In io
7- 29
25
18
etc.,
Havilah
seems to be a district of Arabia
(see p. 202)
;
but we cannot
be sure that it bears the same
meaning
in the
mythically
coloured
geography
of this
passage.
12. Two other
pro
ducts of the
region
are
specified
;
but neither
helps
to an
identification of the
locality.
bedolah\
a substance well
known to the Israelites
(Nu.
n
7
),
is
undoubtedly
the
fragrant
but bitter
gum
called
by
the Greeks
/SSe
AAiov or
ySSe
AAa.
Pliny (NH,
xii.
35 f.) says
the best kind
grew
in
Bactriana,
but adds that it was found also in
Arabia, India,
Media,
and
Babylonia.
the sohani
stone\
A
highly
esteemed
from 7*111
?)
;
but
everywhere
else it is
wanting",
and JUUL omits it here. 12.
3nn]
On
methegf
and
hat.-pathach,
see G-K.
\og,
16
e,f;
K6n. i.
io,
6ed
(cf.
i
18
). Kin]
The first instance of this
Qre perpetuum
of the
Pent.,
where the
regular
K n is found
only
Gn.
\^
20"
38
25
,
Lv. 2
15
1 1
89
,
3
io. 21
l6
si
2l9)
Nu
513^
Ko
-
n
^ Lgb
;
p I24 ff.)
ai most alone
amongst
modern scholars still holds to the
opinion
that the
epicene
consonantal
form is
genuinely
archaic
;
but the verdict of
philology
and of Hex.
criticism seems decisive
against
that view. It must be a
graphic
error
of some scribe or school of scribes : whether
proceeding
from the
original
scrip, def.
NH or not does not much matter
(see
Dri. and White s note
onLv. i
13
in SBO
T,
p. 25 f.). aia]
juu. + nxp.
r6i3n]
Of the ancient Vns.
(Sir
alone has misunderstood the
word, rendering
here 6
&vdpa (red
garnet),
and in Nu. n
7
(the only
other
occurrence) Kp&rrctXAos.
&
|._KK-1O^O
can
only
be a clerical error. That it is not a
g"em
is
proved by
the absence of
pK.
Dnert
p]
<&
6 Xtflos 6
irpdcnvos (leek-
green stone) ;
other Gk. Vns. 6
^^,
and so
U
(onychinus)
;
J5
fjOjjQ,
3T "?Ti3.
Philology
has as
yet
thrown no
light
on the
word, thoug-h
a connexion with Bab. sAmtit is
probable. Myres
(EB, 4808 f.)
makes
the
interesting sug-gestion
that it
originally
denoted
malachite,
which
is at once
striped
and
green,
and that after malachite ceased to be
valued tradition wavered between the
onyx (striped)
and the
beryl
(green).
Petrie,
on the other hand
(DB,
iv.
620),
thinks that in
early
times It was
green felspar,
afterwards confused with the
beryl.
It is
at least
noteworthy
that
Jen. (KIB,
vi.
i, 405)
is led on
independent
grounds
to
identify
s&mtu with malachite. But is malachite found in
any
ii.
12-14
6r
gem (Jb.
28
16
),
suitable for
engraving (Ex.
28
etc.),
one
of the
precious
stones of Eden
(Ezk.
28
13
),
and
apparently
used in architecture
(i
Ch.
2g
2
).
From the Greek
equiva
lents it is
generally supposed
to be either the
onyx
or the
beryl (v.t.). According
to
Pliny,
the latter was obtained
from
India,
the former from India and Arabia
(Nff,
xxxvii.
7
6
?
86).
13.
Gthon]
The name of a well on the E of
Jerusalem (the Virgin
s
spring
: i Ki. i
33
etc.),
which lEz.
strangely
takes to be meant here. In
Jewish
and Christian
tradition it was
persistently
identified with the Nile
(Si. 24
27
;
(S
of
Jer.
2
18
[where
"tfnB>
is translated
Trjwv]
;
Jos.
Ant. i.
39,
and the Fathers
generally).
The
great difficulty
of that view
is that the Nile was as well known to the Hebrews as the
Euphrates,
and no reason
appears
either for the
mysterious
designation,
or the
vague description appended
to the
name. land
of Kiis\
Usually Ethiopia;
but see on io
6
.
14. Hiddekel\
is
certainly
the
Tigris, though
the name
occurs
only
once
again (Dn.
io
4
).
in
front of
tissur]
Either
between it and the
spectator,
or to the east of it : the
latter view is
adopted by nearly
all comm.
;
but the
parallels
are
indecisive,
and the
point
is not
absolutely
settled.
Geographically
the former would be more
correct,
since
the centre of the
Assyrian Empire lay
E of the
Tigris.
The second view can be maintained
only
if
"WX
be the
city
region
that could be
plausibly
identified with Havilah ?
13.
pn j]
Prob
ably
from
*y
m
( Jb. 38
8
4o
23
)
=
bursting
forth.
14. cy]
<& om.
"?p-m]
.7
Bab.
Idigla, Diglat,
Aram. rhn and
AXO5,
Arab.
Diglat;
then Old
Pers.
TigrA,
Pehlevi
Digrat,
Gr.
Tlypis
and
Tiyp-rjs.
The Pers.
TigrA
was
explained by
a
popular etymology
as arrow-swift
(Strabo)
;
and
similarly
it was believed that the Hebrews saw in their name a
compound
of
in,
sharp,
and
^p* swift,
a view
given by Ra.,
and
mentioned
with some scorn
by
lEz. Hommel s derivation
(AHT,
315)
from
hadd,
wadi,
and
n^Ti (
=
wadi of
Diklah,
Gn. io
27
),
is of
interest
only
in
connexion with his
peculiar theory
of the site of
Paradise.
roip]
Rendered in front
by
(Or
(KO.TVOLVTI),
&
(^CLDQJl)
and
5J
(contra) ;
as eastward
by Aq.
S.
(<! dfaroX^s)
and E
(NruiD
1
?).
This last is also
the
view of Ra. lEz. and of most moderns. But see No.
ZDMG,
xxxiii.
532,
where the sense eastward is
decisively rejected.
The
other
examples
are
4
16
,
i Sa.
i3
5
,
Ezk.
39
n
f.
ms]
Bab.
Pur&tu,
Old
Pers.
Ufr&tU)
whence Gr.
62 THE SITE OF PARADISE
which was the ancient
capital
of the
Empire,
now Kafat
Serkat on the W bank of the river. But that
city
was
replaced
as
capital by
Kalhi as
early
as
1300
B.C.,
and is
never mentioned in OT. It is at least
premature
to find
in this circumstance a conclusive
proof
that the Paradise
legend
had wandered to Palestine before
1300
B.C.
(Gress-
mann, ARW,
x.
347). Euphrates}
The name
(
n
^S)
needed
no
explanation
to a Hebrew reader : it is the
inj par
excel
lence of the OT
(Is.
8
7
and
often).
The site
of
Eden. If the
explanation given
above of v.
10
be
correct,
and it is the
only
sense which the words will
naturally
bear,
it is
obvious that a real
locality answering-
to the
description
of Eden exists
and has existed nowhere on the face of the earth. The
Euphrates
and
Tigris
are not and never were branches of a
single
stream
;
and the
idea that two other
great
rivers
sprang
from the same source
places
the whole
representation
outside the
sphere
of real
geographical
knowledge.
In
10
"
14
,
in
short,
we have to do with a
semi-mythical
geography,
which the Hebrews no doubt believed to
correspond
with
fact,
but which is based neither on accurate
knowledge
of the
region
in
question,
nor on authentic tradition handed down from the ancestors
of the human race.
Nevertheless,
the
question
where the Hebrew
imagination
located Paradise is one of
great
interest
;
and
manv
of
the
proposed
solutions are of
value,
not
only
for the
light they
have
thrown on the details of
10 14
,
but also for the
questions they
raise as to
the
origin
and character of the
Paradise-myth.
This is true both of
those which
deny,
and of those which
admit,
the
presence
of a
mythical
element in the
geography
of
10 14
.
i. Several recent theories seek an exact determination of the
locality
of
Paradise,
and of all the data of
10 14
,
at the cost of a somewhat un
natural
exegesis
of v.
10
. That of Frd. Del.
(Wo
lag
das
Paradifs?,
1881)
is based
partly
on the fact that N of
Babylon (in
the
vicinity
of
Bagdad)
the
Euphrates
and
Tigris approach
within some
twenty
miles
of each
other,
the
Euphrates
from its
higher
level
discharging
water
through
canals into the
Tigris,
which
might
thus be
regarded
as an
offshoot of it. The land of Eden is the
plain (edinu)
between the two
rivers from Tekrit
(on
the
Tigris
:
nearly
a hundred miles N of
Bagdad)
and Ana
(on
the
Euphrates)
to the Persian
Gulf;
the
garden being
one
specially
favoured
region
from the so-called isthmus to a little S of
Babylon.
The river of v.
10
is the
Euphrates
;
Pishon is the
Pallakopas
canal, branching
off from the
Euphrates
on the
right
a little above
Babylon
and
running nearly parallel
with it to the Persian
Gulf;
Gihon
is the Shaft
en-Nil,
another canal
running
E of the
Euphrates
from
near
Babylon
and
rejoining
the
parent
river
opposite
Ur
;
Hiddekel
and
Euphrates
are,
of
course,
the lower courses of the
Tigris
and
Euphrates respectively,
the former
regarded
as
replenished through
the canal
system
from the latter. Havilah is
part
of the
great Syrian
II.
u-14
63
desert
lying-
W and S of the
Euphrates
;
and Kush is a name for
northern and middle
Babylonia,
derived from the Kassite
dynasty
that
once ruled there. In
spite
of the
learning
and
ingenuity
with which
this
theory
has been worked
out,
it cannot clear itself of an air of
artificiality
at variance with the
simplicity
of the
passage
it seeks to
explain.
That the
Euphrates
should be at once the undivided Paradise-
stream and one of the heads into which it breaks
up
is a
g-laring
anomaly;
while v.
14
shows that the narrator had
distinctly
before his
mind the
upper
course of the
Tigris opposite Assur,
and is therefore
not
likely
to have
spoken
of it as an effluent of the
Euphrates.
The
objection
that the
theory
confuses rivers and canals is
fairly
met
by
the
argument
that the Bab.
equivalent
of in: is used of
canals,
and also
by
the consideration that both the canals mentioned were
probably
ancient
river-beds
;
but the order in which the rivers are named tells
heavily
against
the identifications.
Moreover,
the
expression
*
the whole land
of Havilah seems to
imply
a much
larger
tract of the earth s surface
than the small section of desert enclosed
by
the
Pallakopas ;
and to
speak
of the whole of northern
Babylonia
as surrounded
by
the
Shaft en-Nil is an abuse of
language. According^
to
Sayce (HCM,
950.
; DB,
i.
643 f.),
the
garden
of Eden is the sacred
garden
of Ea
at Eridu
;
and the river which waters it is the Persian
Gulf,
on the
shore of which Eridu
formerly
stood. The four branches
are,
in
addition to
Euphrates
and
Tigris (which
in ancient times entered the
Gulf
separately),
the
Pallakopas
and the
Choaspes (now
the
Kerkha),
the sacred river of the
Persians,
from whose waters alone their
kings
were allowed to drink
(Her.
i.
188).
Besides the
difficulty
of
supposing
that the writer of v.
10
meant to trace the streams
upwards
towards their
source above the
garden,
the
theory
does not account for the order in
which the rivers are
given
;
for the
Pallakopas
is W of
Euphrates,
while the
Choaspes
is E of the
Tigris.*
Further,
although
the de
scription
of the Persian Gulf as a river is
fully justified by
its
Bab.
designation
as Nar Marratum
(
Bitter River
),
it has
yet
to be made
probable
that either
Babylonians
or Israelites would have
thought
of a
garden
as watered
by
bitter
(i.e.
salt)
water. These
objections
apply
with
equal
force to the
theory
of Hommel
(AA,
iii.
i, p.
281
ff., etc.,
AHT, 314 ff.),
who
agrees
with
Sayce
in
placing-
Paradise at
Eridu,
in
making
the
single
stream the Persian
Gulf,
and one of the four
branches
the
Euphrates.
But the three other
branches, Pishon,
Gihon,
and
Hiddekel,
he identifies with three N Arabian
wadls,
W.
Dawasir,
W.
Rumma,
and W. Sirhan
(the
last the wadi of Diklah
=
frad-dekel
[see
on v.
14
above],
the name
having-
been afterwards
transferred
to the
Tigris).
2. Since none of the above theories furnishes a
satisfactory
solution
of the
problem,
we
may
as well
go
back to what
appears
the natural
*
This
objection
is avoided
by
the modified
theory
of
Dawson,
who
identifies Pishon with the
Karun,
still further E than the
Kerkha. But
that removes it from all connexion with
Havilah,
which is one of the
recommendations of
Sayce
s view.
64
THE SITE OF PARADISE
interpretation
of v.
10
,
and take
along
with it the
Utopian conception
of
four
great
rivers
issuing
from a
single
source. The site of Paradise
is then determined
by
the
imaginary
common source of the two known
rivers, Euphrates
and
Tigris.
As a matter of
fact,
the western arm of
the
Euphrates
and the eastern arm of the
Tigris
do rise
sufficiently
near each other to make the
supposition
of a common source
possible
to ancient
cosmography ;
and there is no
difficulty
in
believing
that
the
passage
locates the
garden
in the
unexplored
mountains of Armenia.
The
difficulty
is to find the Pishon and the Gihon. To seek them
amongst
the smaller rivers of Armenia and Trans-Caucasia is a
hopeless quest
;
for a
knowledge
of these rivers would
imply
a know
ledge
of the
country,
which must have
dispelled
the notion of a common
source. Van Doorninck has
suggested
the Leontes and Orontes
(ThT,
xxxix.
236),
but a Hebrew writer must
surely
have known that
these rivers rose much nearer home than the
Euphrates
and
Tigris.
There is more to be said for the
opinion
that
they represent
the two
great
Indian
rivers, Ganges
and
Indus,
whose sources must have been
even more
mysterious
than those of the
Euphrates
and
Tigris,
and
might very
well be
supposed
to lie in the unknown
region
from Armenia
to Turkestan.* The attraction of this view is that it embraces all
rivers of the first
magnitude
that can have been known in western
Asia
(for,
as we shall
see,
even the Nile is not
absolutely excluded) ;
and it is no valid
objection
to
say
that the Indian rivers were
beyond
the horizon of the
Israelites,
since we do not know from what
quarter
the
myth
had travelled before it reached Palestine. Yet I find no
modern writer of note who
accepts
the
theory
in its
completeness.
De. and Di.
identify
the Pishon with the
Indus,
but follow the tradi
tional identification of Gihon with the Nile
(see p.
61
above).
But if
the biblical narrator believed the Nile to rise with
Euphrates
and
Tigris,
it is
extremely likely
that he
regarded
its
upper
waters as the
Indus,
as Alexander the Great did in his time
; f
and we
might
then
fall back on the old identification of Pishon with the
Ganges.^
But it
must be admitted that the names Havilah and Kush are a serious
*
Strabo
reports
the belief of the ancients that all Indian rivers
rise in the Caucasus
(xv.
i.
13).
The fact that in mediaeval Arabian
geographers
Geifyun
is a
proper
name of the Oxus and the Cilician
Pyramus,
and an
appellative
of the Araxes and the
Ganges, might
seem at first
sight
to have a
bearing
on the
question
at issue
;
but its
importance
is discounted
by
the
possibility
that the
usage
is based on
this
passage,
due to
Jewish
and Christian influences in the Middle
Ages.
f
From the
presence
in both of crocodiles :
Arrian,
Anab. vi.
i,
2 f.
;
cf.
Strabo,
xv. i.
25,
and the similar notion about the Nile and
Euphrates
in
Pausanias,
ii.
5.
2.
Josephus
and most of the Fathers.
Strangely enough,
there
seems
to be no
suggestion
of the Indus earlier than Kosmas Inclico-
pleustes
(ii. 131).
Is this because the
identity
of Nile and Indus was
a fixed idea?
ii.
ii-i4
65
difficulty
to this class of theories. The
latter, indeed, may
retain its
usual OT
meaning-
if Gihon be the
upper
Nile,
either as a continu
ation of the Indus or a
separate
river
;
but if it be the Indus
alone,
Kush
must be the
country
of the
KaSsites,
conceived as
extending indefinitely
E of
Babylonia.
Havilah has to be taken as a name for India con
sidered as an extension of NE
Arabia,
an
interpretation
which finds
no
support
in the OT. At the same
time,
as Di.
observes,
the
language
employed (
the whole land of H.
) suggests
some more
spacious region
than a limited district of Arabia
;
and from the nature of the
passage
we can have no
certainty
that the word is connected with the Havilah
of Gn. 10. An
interesting-
and
independent theory,
based on ancient
Babylonian geographical
documents,
has been
propounded by Haupt.
The common source of the four rivers is
supposed
to have been a
large (imaginary)
basin of water in N
Mesopotamia
: the
Euphrates
and
Tigris
lose themselves in marshes
;
the Pishon
(suggested by
the
Kerkha)
is conceived as continued in the Ndr Marratum
(Persian Gulf)
and the Red
Sea,
and so
encompasses
the whole of Havilah
(Arabia) ;
beyond
this there was
supposed
to be
land, through
which the Gihon
(suggested by
the
Karun)
was
supposed
to reach Kush
(Ethiopia),
whence it flowed northwards as the Nile. The
theory perhaps
com
bines more of the biblical data in an
intelligible way
than
any
other
that has been
proposed
;
and it seems to
agree
with those
just
con
sidered in
placing
the site of Eden at the common source of the
rivers,
to the N of
Mesopotamia.*
3.
It seems
probable
that the resources of
philology
and scientific
geography
are
well-nigh
exhausted
by
theories such as have been
described
above,
and that further advance towards a solution of the
problem
of Paradise will be
along
the line of
comparative mythology.
Discussions
precisely
similar to those we have examined are maintained
with
regard
to the Iranian
cosmography
whether,
e.g.,
the stream
Ranha be the Oxus or the Yaxartes or the Indus
;
the truth
being-
that
Ranha is a
mythical
celestial
stream,
for which various
earthly
equivalents might
be named
(see Tiele,
Gesch. d. Rel. ii.
291 f.).
If
we knew more of the diffusion and
history
of
cosmological
ideas in
ancient
religions,
we should
probably
find additional reason to believe
that Gn. 2
10 14
is but one of
many attempts
to localise on earth a
representation
which is
essentially mythical. <ju. r 33. Mt], aflOPtlB^-
a
suggestion
of
Stucken,
supposes
the
original
Paradise to have been
at the North
pole
of the heavens
(the
summit of the mountain of the
gods
: cf. Ezk. 28
14
),
and the river to be the
Milky Way,
branching-
out
[but
does
it?]
into four arms
(there
is some indication that
the two arms between
Scorpio
and
Capricornus
were
regarded
in
Babylonia
as the
heavenly counterparts
of
Euphrates
and
Tigris
: see
KAT*,
528).
It is not
meant,
of
course,
that this was the idea in
the mind of the biblical
writer,
but
only
that the
conception
of the
mysterious
river of Paradise with its four branches
originated
in
mythological speculation
of this kind. If this be the
case,
we need not
*
The
summary
is taken from Dri.
p. 59
f.
;
the
original article,
in
Ueber Land und
Meer, 1894-95,
I have not been able to consult.
5
66 PARADISE AND THE FALL
(j)
be
surprised
if it should
prove impossible
to
identify
Pishon and Gihon
with
any
known rivers : on the other
hand,
the mention of the well-
known
Tigris
and
Euphrates clearly
shows that the form of the
myth
preserved
in Gn. 2
10
"
14
located the
earthly
Paradise in the unknown
northerly region
whence these rivers flowed. And the conclusion is
almost inevitable that the
myth
took
shape
in a land watered
by
these
two
rivers,
in
Babylonia
or
Mesopotamia
(see Gressmann, ARW,
x.
346
f.)-
15.
to till it and to
guard
ii\
To
reject
this clause
(Bu.),
or the second member
(Di.),
as inconsistent with
3
17ff-
are
arbitrary expedients.
The ideal existence for man is
not idle
enjoyment,
but
easy
and
pleasant
work;
"the
highest aspiration
of the Eastern
peasant" (Gu.) being
to
keep
a
garden.
The
question
from what the
garden
had
to be
protected
is one that should not be
pressed.
l6f.
The
belief that man lived
originally
on the natural fruit of trees
(observe
the difference from i
29
)
was
widespread
in
antiquity,
and
appears
in Phoenician
mythology.*
Here, however,
the
point
lies rather in the restriction than the
permission,
in
the
imposition
of a taboo on one
particular
tree. For the
words
of
the
knowledge ofgood
and evil it has been
proposed
to substitute
"
which is in the midst of the
garden" (as 3
3
),
on the
ground
that the revelation of the
mysterious property
of the tree was the essence of the
serpent
s
temptation
and
must not be
anticipated
(3
5
) (Bu.
Ho. Gu.
al.).
But the
narrative
ought
not to be
subjected
to such
rigorous logical
15.
The v. is either a
resumption
of
8b
after the insertion of
10
~
14
,
or a
duplicate
from a
parallel
document. It is too
original
to be a
gloss
;
and since there was no motive for
making
an
interpolation
at
8b
,
the excision of
10 14
seems to lead
necessarily
to the conclusion
that two sources have been combined.
DiNrrnN]
(5r +
t>v tir\a.<rev
(as
v.
8
). inrvri]
On the two
Hiphils
of nu and their distinction in
meaning-,
see G-K.
72
ee
t
and the Lexx.
py]
(S
L
and most cursives render
r?}s
rpvfirjs
:
ffi
A
and uncials omit the word.
ui
rmy
1
?]
Since
p
is nowhere
fern.,
it is better to
point
rnoffSi
.Tiny
1
?
(see Albrecht,
ZATW,
xvi.
53).
16.
DIK.T]
(&
A5a/i,
U ei.
Except
in v.
18
,
the word is
regularly,
but
wrongly,
treated as nom.
pr. by
these two Vns. from this
point
onwards.
17.
ninn
mo]
S.
6i>r)T&s tvy.
In
<&
the vbs. of this v. are all
pl. (as 3
8
-<).
*
Eus.
Prcep,
Ev. i. 10
(from
Philo
Byblius)
:
efyetv
5 rbv Alwva
r^r
iiirb T&v
devdpuv Tpo<t>T)v.
n.
15-19
67
tests
; and,
after
all,
there still remained
something
for the
serpent
to
disclose,
viz. that such
knowledge put
man on
an
equality
with God. in the
day
. . .
die\
The threat was
not fulfilled
;
but its force is not to be weakened
by
such
considerations
as that man from that time became mortal
(Jer. al.),
or that he entered on the
experience
of miseries
and
hardships
which are the
prelude
of dissolution
(Calv.
al.).
The
simple explanation
is that
God,
having regard
to
the circumstances of the
temptation, changed
His
purpose
and modified the
penalty.
18-25.
Creation of animals and woman. The
Creator,
taking pity
on the solitude of the
man,
resolves to
provide
him with a suitable
companion.
The naivete" of the con
ception
is
extraordinary.
Not
only
did man exist before the
beasts,
but the whole animal creation is the result of an
unsuccessful
experiment
to find a mate for him. Of the
revolting
idea that man lived for a time in sexual inter
course with the beasts
(see
p. 91),
there is not a trace.
l8. a
helper]
The writer seems to be
thinking
(as
in 2
5
),
not of the
original,
but of the
present
familiar
conditions of
human life.
^S?] (only here)
lit. as in front of
him,
i.e.
corresponding
to him.
Ip.
The
meaning
cannot be that the
animals had
already
been
created,
and are now
brought
to
be named
(Calv.
al. and
recently
De.
Str.)
: such a sense
is excluded
by grammar (see
Dri. T.
76,
Obs.),
and misses
the
point
of the
passage.
to see what he would call
it\
To
watch its effect on
him,
and
(eventually)
to see if he would
recognise
in it the associate he
needed,
as one watches
18.
wyN] May
be cohort.
(G-K. 75 /) ;
F render as ist
p. pi. (as
i
26
). "ny] (usually
succour
)
=
helper (ab
sir.
pro concr.)
is used else
where
chiefly
of God
(Dt. 33
7>26
,
Ps.
33
20
H5
9ff-
etc.)
;
possible exceptions
areEzk. i2
14
(if
text
right),
Ho.
i3
9
(if
em. with
We.):
see BDB.
na]
fflr KCLT afrr6v
(but
v.
20
8fJ.oios avry) ;
Aq.
u>s K0.rho.vn avrou
;
S.
avriKptis
aiJroO; U similis sibi
(ejus,
v.
20
) ; 5>
O"lZ(13|
;
&
a
^rpa.
19.
<uu.(& ins.
Tiy after DviStf. Omission of TIN before rvrr^a is remarkable in this ch.
(see
on v.
9
),
and is rectified
by
juu. .Tn
c^]
The
only
construction
possible
would be to take i
1
? as dat.
eth.,
and n : as direct
obj.
to
wnp* ;
but that is
contrary
to the writer s
usage,
and
yields
a
jejune
sense.
Even if
(with Ra.)
we
transpose
and read
every living- thing
which the
man called
[by
a
name],
that was its
name,
the discord of
gender
would
68 PARADISE AND THE FALL
(j)
the effect of a new
experience
on a little child. whatever
the man should call
zV,
that
(was
to
be)
its
name]
The
spon
taneous
ejaculation
of the first man becomes to his
posterity
a name : such is the
origin
of
(Hebrew)
names. The words
rrn C D3
are
incapable
of
construction,
and are to be omitted
as an
explanatory gloss (Ew. al.).
20. The classification
of animals is carried a
step
further than in
19
(domestic
and
wild animals
being distinguished),
but is still
simpler
than
in ch. i. Fishes and
creeping things
are
frankly
omitted
as
inappropriate
to the situation. 21. It has
appeared
that
no fresh creation from the
ground
can
provide
a fit com
panion
for man : from his own
body,
therefore,
must his
future associate be taken.
nErnri]
is a
hypnotic trance,
induced
by supernatural agency (cf.
Duhm on Is.
29
10
).
The
purpose
here is to
produce
anaesthesia,
with
perhaps
the additional idea that the divine
working
cannot take
place
under human observation
(Di. Gu.).
one
of
his
ribs]
A
part
of his frame that
(it
was
thought)
could
easily
be
spared.
There is doubtless a
deeper significance
in the
representation:
it
suggests
"the moral and social relation
of the sexes to each
other,
the
dependence
of woman
upon
man,
her close
relationship
to
him,
and the foundation
existing
in nature for . . . the
feelings
with which each
should
naturally regard
the other"
(Dri.).
The Arabs use
similarly
a word for
*
rib,
saying
hua lizkl or hua bilizki for
he is
my
bosom
companion.
On the other
hand,
the notion
that the first human
being
was
androgynous,
and afterwards
separated
into man and woman
(see
Schw.
ARW^
ix.
172 ff.),
finds no countenance in the
passage.
22. built
up
the rib
be
fatal,
to
say nothing-
of the addition of
DI?.
20.
*py^i]
Rd. with MSS
(GrFcSSP
liySa^i
(Ba.). 0"JN
L;
i]
Here the Mass, takes Adam as a
proper
name. De. al.
explain
it as
generic
=
for a human
being (Gu.);
Ols.
emends DiNni. The truth is that the Mass, loses no
opportunity pre
sented
by
the Kethib of
treating
DTK as n.
pr.
Point
DiKJn.
NHD
*?]
Tu.
al. take God as
subj.
;
but it
ma}
be
pass, expressed by
indef.
subj.
(G-K. 144 rf, e)
=
there was not found. 21.
no-nn]
fflr
^Ka-rainv
;
Aq.
Kara^opdv
;
~Z.
Kapov
;
<&
[j
^-
( tranquillity );
U
sopor
;
t and some
Gr. Vns.
(Field)
have
sleep simply.
The
examples
of its use
(i5
12
,
i Sa. 26
12
,
Is. 2
9
10
, Jb. 4
13
33
15
,
Pr.
i9
:5
t),
all
except
the
last,
confirm
II.
20-23 9
. . . into a
woman]
So in the
Egyptian
"Tale of the two
brothers,"
the
god
Chnum built a wife for his favourite
Batau,
the
hieroglyphic
determinative
showing
that the
operation
was
actually
likened to the
building
of a wall
(see
Wiedemann, DB,
Sup. 180). 23. By
a flash of intu
ition the man divines that the fair creature now
brought
to
him is
part
of
himself,
and names her
accordingly.
There
is a
poetic ring
and
rhythm
in the exclamation that breaks
from him. This at
last]
Lit.
This,
this time
(v.i.):
note
the thrice
repeated
J1NT. bone
of
my bones,
etc.]
The
expres
sions
originate
in the
primitive
notion of
kinship
as
resting
on
"participation
in a common mass of
flesh, blood,
and
bones"
(Rob.
Sm. S
2
, 273
f. : cf. KM
2
, 175 f.),
so that
all the members of a kindred
group
are
parts
of the same
substance,
whether
acquired by heredity
or assimilated in
the
processes
of nourishment
(cf. 2g
14
37
27
, Ju. g
2
,
2 Sa.
5*
ig
13
).
The case before
us,
where the material
identity
is
expressed
in the manner of woman s
creation,
is
unique.
shall be called
Woman]
English
is fortunate in
being
able
to
reproduce
this assonance
f/jf,
J
Issa)
without
straining-
language
: other translations are driven to tours de
force
Duhm s view that
hypnotic sleep
is indicated. It is true that in the
vb.
(Niph.)
that sense is less marked.
23.
cyan
HNT]
The construction
rendered above takes ruxt as
subj.
of the sent, and
cyan
=
this
time,
the
art.
having-
full demonstrative
force,
as in
29
34f-
3o
20
46
30
,
Ex.
9
27
(so
(&
20U
;
De. Di. Gu.
al.).
The
accents, however,
unite the words
in one
phrase
this
time,
after the rather
important analogy
of
c^s
n?
43
10
),
leaving
the
subj. unexpressed.
This sense is followed
by
J,
and advocated
by
Sta.
(ZATW,
xvii. 210
ff.);
but it seems less
acceptable
than the other. c>
X,
,n^x]
The old derivation of these words
from a common
*J
t?3N is
generally abandoned,
U^N
being assigned
to a
hypothetical ^
Bto=
c
be
strong (Ges. Th.).
Ar. and
Aram., indeed,
show
quite clearly
that the
*J
seen in the
pi.
DTJN
(and
in
PUN)
and
that of
ny* (n^ax)
are
only apparently identical,
the one
having-
5- where
the other has f. The masc. and fern, are therefore
etymologically
distinct,
and
nothing
remains but a
very strong
assonance. The
question
whether we are to
postulate
a third
*J
for the
sing-.
E> N
does
not
greatly
concern us here
;
the
arguments
will be found in
BDB,
s.v.
See No.
ZDMG,
xl.
740
("
Aber E> N mochte ich doch bei a>jx
lassen").
In imitation of the
assonance,
2. has
tivSpis,
TB
Virago.
0.
X^^ts,
re
presents
Nb
N,
I will take : a curious blunder which is
fully
elucidated
by
70
PARADISE AND THE FALL
(j)
(e.g. Jer. Virago^ Luther,
Mtinnin).
Whether even in Heb.
it is more than an assonance is doubtful
(v.i.). 24.
An
aetiological
observation of the narrator : This is
why
a man
leaves . . . and cleaves . . . and
they
become
,
etc.}
It is
not a
prophecy
from the
standpoint
of the
narrative;
nor
a recommendation of
monogamic marriage (as applied
in
Mt.
ig
43
-,
Mk. io
6ff
-,
i Co. 6
16
, Eph. s
31
)
;
it is an answer
to the
question,
What is the
meaning
of that universal
instinct which
impels
a man to
separate
from his
parents
and
cling
to his wife ? It is
strange
that the man s attach
ment to the woman is
explained here,
and the woman s to
the man
only
in
3
16
.
It has been
imagined
that the v.
presupposes
the
primitive
custom
called beena
marriage,
or that modification of it in which the husband
parts
from his own kindred for
good,
and
goes
to live with his wife s
kin
(so
Gu. : cf. KM
2
, 87, 207)
;
and other instances are
alleged
in the
patriarchal history.
But this would
imply
an almost incredible
antiquity
for the
present
form of the narrative
; and, moreover,
the dominion of the
man over the wife assumed in
3
16b
is inconsistent with the conditions of
beena
marriage.
Cf. Benz.
EB, 2675:
"The
phrase
. . .
may
be an
old
saying dating
from remote times when the husband went to the
house
(tent)
of the wife and
joined
her clan. Still the
passage may
be
merely
the narrator s remark
;
and even if it should be an old
proverb
we cannot be sure that it
really
carries us so far back in
antiquity."
See, however, Gressmann, ARW,
x.
353*;
van
Doorninck, ThT,
xxxix.
238 (who assigns
2
24
and
3
16
to different
recensions).
oneflesK\
If the view
just
mentioned could be
maintained,
this
phrase might
be
equivalent
to one clan
(Lv. 25
49
)
;
for "both in Hebrew and Arabic flesh is
synonymous
with clan or kindred
group
"
(^?^, 274).
More
probably
it refers
simply
to the connubium.
25.
naked . . . -not
ashamed]
The remark is not
merely
an
anticipation
of the
the
quotation
from
Origen given
in
Field,
p. i5
32
. For
B"ND,
MJL(&^
read
n^ xp,
which is
by
no means an
improvement.
nurnri^]
See G-K. 10
h,
20 c.
24. vm]
Add
D.T#
with
<& &1&) and NT citations. .ux has
on JB D
rrm,
referring
to the
offspring. 25.
n
snj;] Dny naked,
to be care
fully distinguished
from
ony (^/Diy) crafty,
in
3
1
,
is either a
by-form
of o
vy
(fj
niy=
be bare
)
in
3
loft
,
or
(more
probably)
a different forma
tion from
tj
my
(
be bare
).
See
BOB,
s.vv.iervw]
The
Hithpal.
(only here) probably expresses reciprocity (
ashamed before one
another
) ;
the
impf.
is
frequentative.
II.
24-IH.
I
71
account
given
later of the
origin
of
clothing (3?,
cf.
21
).
It
calls attention
to the difference between the
original
and the
actual condition
of man as conceived
by
the writer. The
consciousness
of sex is the result of
eating
the tree : before
then our first
parents
had the innocence of
children,
who are
often seen naked in the East
(Doughty,
AD,
ii.
475).
V.
25
is a transition
verse, leading
1
over to the main theme to which all
that
goes
before is but the
prelude.
How
long
the state of
primitive
innocence
lasted,
the writer is at no
pains
to inform us. This indiffer
ence to the non-essential is as characteristic of the
popular
tale as its
graphic
wealth of detail in features of real interest. The omission
afforded
an
opportunity
for the exercise of later Midrashic
ingenuity
;
Jub.
iii.
15
fixes the
period
at seven
years,
while R. Eliezer
(Ber. R.)
finds that it did not last six hours.
III.
1-7.
The
temptation.
Attention is at once
directed to the
quarter
where the
possibility
of evil
already
lurked amidst the
happiness
of Eden the
preternatural
subtlety
of the
serpent
: But the
serpent
was
wily]
The
wisdom of the
serpent
was
proverbial
in
antiquity (Mt.
io
16
:
see
Bochart,
Hieroz. iii.
246 ff.),
a belief
probably
founded
less on observation of the creature s actual
qualities
than on
the
general
idea of its divine or demonic nature :
Trvev/xart-
KomxTOV
yap
TO
tfiov
TrdvTwv ran/
epTrerwv (Sanchuniathon,
in Eus.
Prcep.
Ev. i.
io).
Hence the
epithet
BVy might
be used of
it sensu bono
(<pon/Aos),
though
the context here makes it
certain that the bad sense
(Travovpyos)
is intended
(see below).
beyond any
beast,
etc.]
The
serpent, therefore,
belongs
to
the
category
of beasts of the
field,
and is a creature of
Yahwe
;
and an effort seems to be made to maintain this
view
throughout
the narrative
(v.^
4
).
At the same time it
is a
being possessing supernatural knowledge,
with the
power
of
speech,
and animated
by hostility
towards God.
It is this last feature which causes some
perplexity.
To
say
that the
thoughts
which it instils into the mind of the woman
were on the
serpent
s
part
not
evil,
but
only extremely
sagacious,
and became sin first in the human
consciousness
(so
Merx,
Di.
al.),
is
hardly
in accordance with the
spirit
of
the narrative. It is more
probable
that behind the sober
description
of the
serpent
as a mere creature of
Yahwe,
72
PARADISE AND THE FALL
(j)
there was an earlier form of the
legend
in which he
figured
as
a
god
or a demon.
The
ascription
of
supernatural
characters to the
serpent presents
little
difficulty
even to the modern mind. The marvellous
agility
of the
snake,
in
spite
of the absence of visible motor
organs,
its
stealthy
move
ments,
its
rapid death-dealing
stroke,
and its
mysterious power
of
fascinating
other animals and even
men, sufficiently
account for the
superstitious regard
of which it has been the
object amongst
all
peoples.*
Accordingly, among
the Arabs
every
snake is the abode of a
spirit,
sometimes bad and sometimes
good,
so that
gann
and
gul
and even
Shaitan are
given
as
designations
of the
serpent (We.
Held.
152
f.
;
cf.
Rob. Sm. 1?S
2
,
I2O
1
, 129 f., 442).!
What is more
surprising
to us is the
fact that in the
sphere
of
religion
the
serpent
was
usually worshipped
as
a
good
demon. Traces of this
conception
can be detected in the narrative
before us. The demonic character of the
serpent appears
in his
posses
sion of occult divine
knowledge
of the
properties
of the tree in the
middle of the
garden,
and in his use of that
knowledge
to seduce man
from his
allegiance
to his Creator. The
enmity
between the race of
men and the race of
serpents
is
explained
as a
punishment
for his
successful
temptation
;
originally
he must have been
represented
as a
being
hostile, indeed,
to
God,
but
friendly
to the
woman,
who tells her
the truth which the
Deity
withheld from man
(see
Gres. I.e.
357).
All
this
belongs
to the
background
of heathen
mythology
from which the
materials of the narrative were drawn
;
and it is the
incomplete
elimina
tion of the
mythological element,
under the influence of a monotheistic
and ethical
religion,
which makes the function of the
serpent
in Gn.
3
so difficult to understand. In later
Jewish theology
the
difficulty
was
*
Comp.
the
interesting sequel
to the sentence from Sanchuniathon
quoted
above : ... /cat
Trup^Ses
UTT aurov
trapedbdr] trap
5 Kal
reives avvrrtp-
(3\r)TOi>
dia TOV
Trvev/j-aros
7ra/)i (rT??<n, XW/HS
iroft&v re Kal
xeip&v, fj
a\\ov Tt.vbs
TUV
w9ev,
e wv TO. XotTrd
fwa
ras
Kivrjcrets
-jroielrai Kal iroiKiX
TVTTOVS
aTToreXe?,
Kal Kara
TTJV iropeiav
e\iKoei5e?s
%et
ras
op^ds, ^0
5
rci%os
Kal
7ro\vxpoviwTaTOv
d
^ffTiv,
ov
IAOVOV ry tK.dv6p.evov
rb
yrjpas peufetv,
dXXd Kal
afj^tjfftv ^7ri5^x
ecr ^at
jJ>ti.ova 7r^0u/ce
. . . Atd Kal &v
lepols
TOVTO rd
a)oj> Kal iv
/jLvtrTTiplois (m/zTrapeiX^TrTai
KT\.
(Orelli, p. 44).
f
Cf. No.
ZVP^
i.
413:
"Das
geheimnissvolle,
damonische Wesen
der
Schlange,
das sie vor alien
grosseren
Thieren
auszeichnet,
die
tiickische, verderbenbringende
Natur vieler
Arten,
konnte in dem
einfachen semitischen Hirten leicht den Glauben
erzeugen,
in ihr wohne
etwas
Gottliches,
den Menschen Bannendes und Bezauberndes. So
finden wir die
Schlange
im
Eingang
des alten
Testaments,
so ist sie 5m
Alterthum,
wie noch
jetzt,
ein
Hauptgegenstand
orientalischer Zauberei.
So
g
laubte auch der
Araber,
die
Schlange (wie einige
andere schadliche
Thiere)
sei kein
gewohnliches Geschopf,
sondern ein
Dschinn,
ein Geist.
Schon die
Sprache
driickt dies dadurch
aus,
dass sie mit
Dzdnn,
einem
Worte welches mit Dzinn
eng
verwandt
ist,
eine
Schlangenart
bezeich-
net,
etc."
in. i
73
solved,
as is well
known,
by
the doctrine that the
serpent
of Eden was
the
mouthpiece
or
impersonation
of the devil. The idea
appears
first in
Alexandrian
Judaism
in Wisd. 2
24
( by
the
envy
of the
devil,
death
entered into the world
): possibly
earlier is the allusion in En. Ixix.
6,
where the seduction of Eve is ascribed to a Satan called Gadreel. Cf.
Secrets
of
En. xxxi.
3
ff.
,
Ps. Sol.
4
;
also Ber. R.
29,
the name
J^nj
ib-ijjn
(Sifrg 138
b),
and in the NT
Jn.
8
44
,
2 Co. u
3
,
Ro. i6
20
,
Ap.
i2
9
20
2
(see Whitehouse, DB,
iv.
408 ff.). Similarly
in Persian
mythology
the
serpent
Dahaka,
to whose
power Yima,
the ruler of the
golden ag-e,
succumbs,
is a creature and incarnation of the evil
spirit
Angro-Mainyo
(
Vend. i.
8,
xxii.
5, 6, 24
; Ya$na
ix.
27
;
cf. Di.
70).
The
Jewish
and
Christian doctrine is a natural and
legitimate
extension of the
teaching-
of Gn.
3,
when the
problem
of evil came to be
apprehended
in its real
magnitude
;
but it is
foreign
to the
thought
of the
writer,
although
it
cannot be denied that it
may
have some
affinity
with the
mythological
background
of his narrative. The
religious teaching-
of the
passage
knows
nothing
of an evil
principle
external to the
serpent,
but
regards
himself as the
subject
of whatever occult
powers
he
displays
: he is
simply
a creature of Yahwe
distinguished
from the rest
by
his
superior subtlety.
The Yahwistic author does not
speculate
on the ultimate
origin
of evil
;
it was
enough
for his
purpose
to have so
analysed
the
process
of
temp
tation that the
beginning
of sin could be
assigned
to a source which
is neither in the nature of man nor in God. The
personality
of the
Satan
(the Adversary)
does not
appear
in the OT till after the Exile
(Zee. Jb. Ch.).
The
serpent
shows his
subtlety by addressing
his first
temptation
to the more mobile
temperament
of the woman
(Ra. al.),
and
by
the skilful innuendo with which he at once
invites conversation and masks his ultimate
design. Ay,
and so God has
said>
etc.
/] Something
like this seems to be
the force of
^
*]N
(v.i.).
It is a
half-interrogative,
half-
reflective
exclamation,
as if the
serpent
had brooded
long
over the
paradox,
and had been driven to an unwelcome
conclusion. Ye shall not eat
of any
tree]
The
range
of the
prohibition
is
purposely exaggerated
in order to
provoke
inquiry
and criticism. The use of the name
E^K
is
I. rrn
t^mm]
The usual order of words when a new
subject
is intro
duced,
G-K.
1420?;
Dav.
105. DTiy]
(&
(f)povifj.d!}TaTOS, Aq.
9.
Travovpyos,
S.
-rravovpydrepos,
U callidior. The
good
sense
(which appears
to be
secondary,
cf. Ar. *arama
=
be ill-natured
)
is confined to
Prov.
;
else
where
(Jb.
5
12
i5
5
)
it means
crafty, wily.
The same distinction is
observed in all forms of the
^/ except
that in
Jb. 5
13
ony has the
good
sense. The resemblance to D
ony
in z^ is
perhaps
accidental. nctn
QrJS + vrun. 3
*\K]
as a
compound part, generally
means much more
74
PARADISE AND THE FALL
(j)
commonly explained by
the
analogy
of other
passages
of
J,
where the name nvT
1
is avoided in conversation with
heathen
(39 etc.),
or when the contrast between the divine
and the human is reflected
upon (32
29
).
But
J
s
usage
in
such cases is not
uniform,
and it is doubtful what is the true
explanation
here
(see p.
53).
2, 3.
The woman s first
experience
of falsehood leads to an
eager repudiation
of the
serpent
s intentional
calumny,
in which she
emphasises
the
generosity
of the divine
rule,
but
unconsciously
intensifies
the
stringency
of the
prohibition by adding
the words : nor
shall
ye
touch
it]
A
Jewish legend says
that the
serpent
took
advantage
of this innocent and immaterial variation
by forcing
her to touch the
fruit,
and then
arguing
that as
death had not followed the
touch,
so it would not follow the
eating (Ber.
R.,
Ra.). Equally
futile inferences have been
drawn
by
modern
comm.,
and the surmise that the clause
is redactional
(Bu. Urg, 241)
is
hypercritical.
the tree . . .
midst]
See
p.
66 f.
4.
Ye shall
assuredly
not
die]
On the
syntax,
v.i. The
serpent
thus advances to an
open
challenge
of the divine
veracity,
and thence to the
imputa
tion of an
unworthy
motive for the
command,
viz. a
jealous
fear on God s
part
lest
they
should become His
equals.
(or less),
not to
mention, etc.,
as in i Sa.
I4
30
,
i Ki. 8
27
,
Pr. n
31
etc.
In some cases the
simple IN
has this
sense,
and the O
(= when,
if
)
introduces the
following-
clause
(i
Sa.
zf,
2 Sa.
4
lof-
etc.).
It would be
easy
to retain this sense in v.
1
(
How much more when God has
said,
etc.),
if we
might
assume with
many
comm. that some
previous
conver
sation had taken
place
;
but that is an unwarrantable
assumption.
The
rendering
on which Dri.
(BDB)
bases the
ordinary meaning-
of 3
FJN
*
Tis indeed that
requires
but a
slight interrogative
inflexion of the
voice to
yield
the shade of
meaning
1
given
above : So it is the case that
God,
etc.? The Vns. all
express
a
question
: <&
rl
#rt,
Aq.
^8rt,
S.
irpbs
Tty Bcur,
A_]i-j-,
&
Koanpa
(= really ?).
"?DD . . .
N^
not o/
any
: G-K.
152
b. 2.
TSD]
ffi
Sap,
S>
^ TBD.
3. nsoi]
Not
concerning
the tree. There is an anakolouthon at D nW
HDN,
and the
emphatically
placed
nso is resumed
by
MOD.
fyn]
juui +
njn. pncn]
On the
ending-,
see
G-K.
47 m, 72
u.
4. pncn
mo N
1
?]
On the unusual
order,
see Dav. 86
(b} ;
G-K.
113
v. It is often
explained
as a
negation
of the threat in 2
17
,
adopting
the same form of words
;
but the
phrase
had not been used
by
the
woman,
and the exact words are not
repeated.
More
probably
its effect is to concentrate the
emphasis
on the
neg. part,
rather than on
in. 2-6
75
5.
But God
knoweth,
etc.]
And therefore has
falsely
threatened
you
with death. The
gratuitous
insinuation
reveals the main
purpose
of the
tempter,
to sow the seeds
of distrust towards God in the mind of the woman.
your
eyes
shall be
opened]
The
expression
denotes a sudden
acquisition
of new
powers
of
perception through super
natural influence
(2i
19
,
Nu. 22
31
,
2 Ki. 6
17
).
as
gods]
or
4
divine
beings,
rather than as God : the
rendering
as
angels (lEz.)
expresses
the idea with substantial
accuracy.
The likeness to
divinity actually acquired
is not
equality
with Yahwe
(see
Gu. on v.
22
). knowing good
and
evil]
See
p. 95
ff. "The facts are
all,
in the view of the
narrator,
correctly
stated
by
the
serpent ;
he has
truly represented
the
mysterious
virtue of the tree
;
knowledge really
confers
equality
with God
(3
22
)
;
and it is also true that death does
v
not
immediately
follow the act of
eating.
But at the same
time the
serpent
insinuates a certain construction of these
facts : God is
envious,
inasmuch as He
grudges
the
highest
good
to man :
(f>6ovcpov
TO
0etoi/,
an
antique
sentiment
familiar to us from the Greeks"
(Gu.).
6. The
spiritual
part
of the
temptation
is now
accomplished,
and
Jthe
serpent
is
silent, leaving
the fascination of sense to do the rest.
The woman looks on the tree with new
eyes
;
she observes
how" attractive to taste and
sight
its fruit
seems,
and how
;.
desirable
for obtaining- insight (so most)
or to
contemplate
(ffiFS;
so Tu. Ges. De. Gu.
al.).
The second trans
lation is the more suitable for how could she tell
by sight
that the fruit would
impart
wisdom ?
although
the vb. is
not elsewhere used in Heb. for mere
looking (v.i.). gave
also to her
husband\
"The
process
in the man s case was
no doubt the same as that
just
described,
the woman
taking
the
place
of the
serpent" (Ben.).
That Adam sinned with
his
eyes open
in order not to be
separated
from his wife has
the verbal idea
(cf.
Am.
9
8
,
Ps.
49
s
). 5.
D
-I^ND]
(5r ws
Oeoi,
T&
6.
fyn
2
]
(Uom.
^^]
(Er
/carcu
OTjcrcu,
U
adspectu,
and
& CTLD
.. ^ Vn\
all take the vb. as vb. of
sight ;
3T .Tn N^rtDN
1
? is indeterminate
(see Levy,
Chald. Wb.
163 a).
In OT the word is used of mental vision
(insight,
or
attentive consideration: Dt.
32
2a
,
Ps.
4i
2
,
Pr. 2i
12
etc.);
in NH and
76
PARADISE AND THE FALL
(j)
been a common idea both
among- Jews
and Christians
(Ber.
R.,
Ra. lEz.
Milton,
etc.),
but is not true to the intention
of the narrative.
7-
^e e
J
es
opened]
The
prediction
of the
serpent
is so far fulfilled
;
but the
change
fills them
with
guilty
fear and shame.
they
knew that
they
were
naked]
The new sense of shame is
spoken
of as a sort of Werthur-
theil
passed by
the awakened
intelligence
on the
empirical
fact of
being
unclothed. A connexion between sexual
shame and sin
(Di.)
is not
suggested by
the
passage,
and
is besides not true to
experience.
But to infer from this
single
effect that the forbidden fruit had
aphrodisiac
properties (see
Barton,
SO
1
,
93
ff.
; Gressmann,
p. 356)
is a
still
greater perversion
of the author s
meaning
;
he
merely
gives
this as an
example
of the new
range
of
knowledge
acquired by eating
of the tree. It is the kind of
knowledge
which comes with
maturity
to
all,
the transition
"
from
the innocence of childhood into the
knowledge
which
belongs
to adult
age" (Dri.). -foliage of
the
fig-tree\
To the
question, Why fig-leaves
in
particular
? the natural answer
is that
these,
if not
very
suitable for the
purpose,
were
yet
the most suitable that the flora of Palestine could
suggest
(Di.
Dri. Ben.
al.).
An allusion to the so-called
fig-tree
of
Paradise,
a native of India
(probably
the
plantain),
is on
every ground improbable;
"
ein
geradezu philisterhafter
Einfall
"
(Bu.).
For
allegorical interpretations
of the
fig-
leaves,
see
Lagarde,
Mitth. i.
73
ff.,
who adds a
very
original
and fantastic one of his own.
8-13.
The
inquest.
Thus far the narrative has dealt
with what
may
be called the natural
(magical)
effects of the
eating
of the tree the access of
enlightenment,
and the
disturbance thus introduced into the relations of the
guilty
pair
to each other. The ethical
aspect
of the offence comes
Aram, it means to look
at,
but
only
in
Hithp. (Ithp.).
On the other
view the
Hiph.
is intrans.
(=
for
acquiring*
wisdom : Ps.
94
8
)
rather
than caus.
(
=
to
impart
wisdom : Ps.
32
8
etc.).
Gu. considers the
clause
.i*?
}
y-"i
iDrm a variant from another source.
nprn]
(5i
L
+
nirNrr.
jJ&
iSiJN 1.
7.
D
DTy]
See on 2
25
. n
1
?^]
coll.;
but some MSS and
have
f?y..
in.
7-12
77
to
light
in their first interview with Yahwe
;
and this is
delineated with a skill
hardly surpassed
in the account of
the
temptation
itself. 8.
they
heard the
sou?id]
^ip
used of
footsteps,
as 2 Sa.
5
24
,
i Ki. i
4
6
,
2 Ki. 6
32
: cf. Ezk.
3
12
-,
Jl.
2
5
.
of
Yahwe God as He
walked]
The verb is used
(Lv.
26
12
,
Dt.
23
15
,
2 Sa.
7
6
)
of Yahwe s
majestic marching
in the midst of Israel
;
but it mars the
simplicity
of the
representation
if
(with De.)
we introduce that idea here. in
the cool
(lit.
*
at the breeze
) of
the
day]
i.e. towards
evening-,
when in Eastern lands a
refreshing
wind
springs up
(cf.
Ca. 2
17
4
6
: but
v.i.),
and the
master,
who has
kept
his
house or tent
during
the heat of the
day (iS
1
),
can walk
abroad with comfort
(24
63
).
Such,
we are led to
understand,
was Yahwe s
daily practice
;
and the man and woman had
been wont to meet Him with the
glad
confidence of
innocence. But on this occasion
they
hid
themselveSjjetc.
p.
Where art
thou?\ (cf. 4).
The
question expresses
ignorance
;
it is not omniscience that the writer wishes to
illustrate,
but the more
impressive
attribute
ofsagacity^.
10. I
feared
. . .
naked]
With the instinctive
cunning
of a bad
conscience,
the man
hopes
to
escape complete exposure
by acknowledging part
of the truth
;
he
alleges
nakedness
as the
ground
of his
fear, putting
fear and shame in a false
causal connexion
(Ho.).
II. Hast thou
eaten,
etc.?]
All
unwittingly
he has disclosed his
guilty
secret :
hejias
shown
himself
possessed
of a
knowledge
which could
only
have
)
been
acquired
in one
way.
12. The man cannot even
yet
|
bring
himself to make a clean breast of it
;
but with a
quaint
j
mixture of cowardice and
effrontery
he throws the blame
8.
iSnno]
ace. of condition: Dav.
70 (a).
cvn
nnS]
<& TO
U
ad auram
post
meridiem,
&
|lDQ._5
rn . l c^
\,
NDV mo
1
?. On
this use of
j> (
=
*
towards
),
see
BDB,
s.v. 6
a;
and cf. 8
n
i7
21
,
Is.
7
15
, Jb. 24
14
. With nn cf. Ar. raivdh
=
tempus -vespertinum. Jewish
exegesis (Ber. R.}
and Calv.
suppose
the
morning (sea)
breeze to be
meant,
as is
probably
the case in Ca. 2
17
4
6
,
and would seem more in
accordance with Palestinian conditions. But it is
manifestly improbable
here.
py]
coll.,
as often.
(&
L
om.
9.
HD
N]
G-K. 100 o.
(&
supplies
Adam
before,
and
S>
after,
the
interrog.
IO.
-nycc]
(& +
Tre/uTraroiWos
(as
v.
8
).
II.
^zh]
See G-K.
1145.
Before
^ (payeiv
(& has TOVTOV
78
PARADISE AND THE FALL
(j)
directly
on the
woman,
and
indirectly
on God who
gave
her
to him.
13.
The woman in like manner
exculpates
herself
by pleading (truly enough)
that she""hacT"been deceived
by
the
serpent.
The whole situation is now laid
bare,
and
nothing
remains but to
pronounce
sentence. No
question
is
put
to the
serpent,
because his evil motive is understood :
he has acted
just
as
might
have been
expected
of him.
Calv.
says,
"
the beast had no sense of
sin,
and the devil no
hope
of
pardon."
14-19.
This section contains the
key
to the
significance
of the
story
of the Fall. It is the first
example
of a
frequently recurring
motive of the Genesis
narratives,
the
idea, viz.,
that the more
perplexing
facts in the
history
of
men and
peoples
are the
working
out of a doom or
*
weird
pronounced
of old under divine
inspiration,
or
(as
in this
case) by
the
Almighty
Himself: see
4
15
8
21ff-
g
253-
i6
12
27
27ff-
39f.
4
8
19ff
-,
ch.
49;
cf. Nu.
23
f.,
Dt.
33.
Here certain fixed
adverse conditions of the universal human lot are traced
back to a
primaeval
curse uttered
by
Yahwe in
consequence
of man s first
transgression.
See, further,
p. 95
below.
The form of the oracles is
poetic
;
but the structure is
irregular,
and no definite metrical scheme can be made
out.
14, 15.
The curse on the
serpent
is
legible, partly
in its
degraded
form and habits
(
u
),
and
partly
in the
deadly
feud between it and the human race
(
15
). 14.
on
thy
belly,
etc.\
The
assumption undoubtedly
is that
originally
the
serpent
moved
erect,
but not
necessarily
that its
organism
was
changed (e.g. by cutting
off its
legs,
etc.
Rabb.}.
As a matter of fact most snakes have the
power
of
erecting
a considerable
part
of their bodies
;
and in
mytho-
pbvov. 13. JINI-HD]
So
commonly
with
nvy
;
with other vbs. nrno
(G-K.
i
3
6<r;Dav.
7 (*)).
14. "?DD]
On this use of
p
(
=
e
numero),
see G-K.
11970,
and cf.
Ex.
i9
5
,
Dt.
i4
2
33
24
, Ju. $*
etc. Sta. s
argument (ZATW,
xvii.
209)
for
deleting
i nDmn
^DD,
on the
ground
that the
serpent belongs
to the cate
gory
of mari n"n but not to
noro,
is
logical,
but
hardly convincing. pru]
Probably
from
*J jru ( Aram.)
=
curve or bend
(De., BDB),
occurs
again only
Lv. n
42
,
of
reptiles.
TJ renders
pectus,
(5r
combines
<rr?)00y
in.
13-15
79
logical representations
the
serpent
often
appears
in the
upright position (Ben.).
The idea
probably
is that this was
its
original posture
: how it was maintained was
perhaps
not reflected
upon.
dust shalt thou
eat]
Cf. Mic.
7
17
,
Is.
6$
25
.
It is a
prosaic explanation
to
say
that the
serpent,
crawl
ing
on the
ground, inadvertently
swallows a
good
deal of
dust
(Boch.
Hieroz. iii.
245
;
Di.
al.)
;
and a mere
metaphor
for humiliation
(like
Ass. ti-ka-lu
ip-ra\
KIB,
v.
232 f.)
is
too weak a sense for this
passage. Probably
it is a
piece
of ancient
superstition,
like the Arabian notion that the
ginn
eat dirt
(We.
Heid.
150).
all the
days
of thy
life]
i.e. each
serpent
as
long
as it
lives,
and the race of
serpents
as
long
as it lasts. It is not so certain as most
comm. seem to think that these words exclude the
demonic character of the
serpent.
It is true that the
punishment
of a
morally irresponsible agent
was
recognised
in Hebrew
jurisprudence (g
5
,
Ex. 2i
28f>
,
Lv. 2o
15fi
).
But it
is
quite possible
that here
(as
in v.
15
)
the
archetypal serpent
is conceived as re-embodied in all his
progeny,
as
acting
and
suffering
in each member of the
species. 15.
The
serpent
s
attempt
to establish
unholy fellowship
with the
woman is
punished by implacable
and
undying enmity
between them.*
thy
seed and her see
d\
The whole brood of
and AcoiXfa.
15. jnj]
in the sense of
offspring
1
,
is
nearly always
col
lective. In a few cases where it is used of an individual child
(4
251
2i
18
,
i Sa. i
11
)
it denotes the immediate
offspring
as the
pledge
of
posterity,
never a remote descendant
(see
No. AR
W,
viii.
164 ff.).
The Messianic
application
therefore is not
justified
in
grammar. Nin]
the
rendering-
ipsa (U)
is said not to be found in the Fathers before Ambrose and
Augustine (Zapletal, ATliches,
19). Jer.
at all events knew that
ipse
should be read. uswn . . .
ISie"]
The form
*jw
recurs
only Jb. 9
17
,
Ps.
I39
11
, and,
in
both,
text and
meaning
are doubtful. In Aram, and
NH the
*y
(i"y
or
y"y)
has the
primary
sense of
rub,
hence wear
down
by rubbing
=
crush
;
in
Syr.
it also means to crawl. There are
a few exx. of a
tendency
of
i"y vbs. to
strengthen
themselves
by
insertion of N
(Kon.
i.
439),
and it is often
supposed
that in certain
pass.
* "
Fit enim arcano naturae sensu ut ab
ipsis
abhorreat homo
"
(Calv.).
Cf.
(with
Boch. Hieroz. iii.
250)
"
quam
dudum dixeras te odisse
aeque
atque angues" (Plaut.
Merc.
4)
;
and tic ?rcu5ds rbv
\f/vxpov 8(j)iv
TO.
^dXiara
(Theoc.
Id.
15).
8O
PARADISE AND THE FALL
(j)
serpents,
and the whole race of men. He shall bruise thce
on the
head)
etc.\
In the first clause the
subj. (Nin)
is the
1
seed of the woman individualised
(or collectively),
in the
second
(
n
^^>)
it is the
serpent himself,
acting" through
his
seed. The current
reading
of
JJ
(ipsa) may
have been
prompted by
a
feeling
that the
proper
antithesis to the
serpent
is the woman herself. The
general meaning
of the
sentence is clear : in the war between men and
serpents
the former will crush the head of the
foe,
while the latter
can
only
wound in the heel. The
difficulty
is in the vb.
cjv^,
which in the sense bruise is
inappropriate
to the
serpent
s
mode of attack. We
may speak
of a
serpent striking
a
man
(as
in Lat.
feriri
a
serpente\
but
hardly
of
bruising.
Hence
many
comm.
(following
ffi
aL)
take the vb. as a
by-form
of
*|S5T
(strictly pant ),
in the sense of be
eager
for,
aim at
(Ges.
Ew. Di.
al.);
while others
(Gu. al.)
suppose
that
by paronomasia
the word means bruise in
the first
clause,
and
*
aim at in the second. But it
may
be
questioned
whether this idea is not even less suitable
than the other
(Dri.).
A
perfectly satisfactory interpretation
cannot be
given (v.i.).
The Messianic
interpretation
of the seed of the woman
appears
in CJ and
Targ. Jer.,
where the v. is
explained
of the
Jewish
com-
(Ezk. 36
3
,
Am. 2
7
8
4
,
Ps.
56"
3
57
4
)
f]iB>
is
disguised
under the
by-form f]NB>.
But the
only places
where the
assumption
is at all
necessary
are
Am. 2
7
8
4
,
where the K
may
be
simply
mater lectionis for the d of the
ptcp. (cf.
DKJJI,
Ho. io
14
) ;
in the other cases the
proper
sense of
r\xy
( pant
or
metaph. long
for
)
suffices. The reverse
process (substitu
tion of
rpiff
for
rpv)
is much less
likely
;
and the
only possible
instance
would be
Jb. 9
17
,
which is too uncertain to count for
anything
1
. There
is thus not much
ground
for
supposing
a confusion in this v.
;
and De.
points
out that vbs. of hostile
endeavour,
as distinct from hostile achieve
ment
(nan, nxi, etc.),
are never construed with double ace. The
gain
in sense is so doubtful that it is better to adhere to the
meaning
crush.
The old Vns. felt the
difficulty
and
ambiguity.
The idea of
crushing
is
represented by Aq. irpoa-rptyet,
S.
0\t^ei,
(5r
Coisl- m
&-
rp^et (see
Field)
and
Jer. (Qucest.}
conterere
; pant
after
by
(5i
A al-
Tr)pr]<rei[s] (if
not a
mistake for
rp^creifs]
or
rctp^cretfs]).
A double sense is
given by
5J co:iteret . . .
insidiaberis,
and
perhaps
&
_O,J
. . . r
.rno > v>.VnZ.
j
while
9T
paraphrases
: .T
1
? IBJ \nn n*i
jTnp
jD ,T|?
mayn
no T:H ,r Kin
in.
15
8 1
munity
and its
victory
over the devil "in the
days
of
King-
Messiah."
The reference to the
person
of Christ was
taught by
Irenaeus,
but was
never so
generally accepted
in the Church as the kindred idea that the
serpent
is the instrument of Satan. Mediaeval
exegetes, relying
on the
ipsa
of the
Vulg., applied
the
expression directly
to the
Virgin Mary;
and even
Luther,
while
rejecting
this
reference, recognised
an allusion
to the
virgin
birth of Christ. In Protestant
theology
this view
gave
way
to the more reasonable view of
Calvin,
that the
passage
is a
promise
of
victory
over the devil to
mankind,
united in Christ its divine
Head. That even this
goes beyond
the
original meaning
of the v. is
admitted
by
most modern
expositors
;
and indeed it is doubtful
if,
from
the
standpoint
of strict historical
exegesis,
the
passage
can be
regarded
as in
any
sense a
Protevangelium.
Di.
(with
whom Dri.
substantially
agrees)
finds in the words the idea of man s vocation to ceaseless moral
warfare with the
serpent-brood
of sinful
thoughts,
and an
implicit
promise
of the ultimate destruction of the evil
power.
That
interpreta
tion, however,
is
open
to several
objections, (i)
A
message
of
hope
and
encouragement
in the midst of a series of curses and
punishments
is not to be assumed unless it be
clearly implied
in the
language.
It
would be out of
harmony
with the tone not
only
of the Paradise
story,
but of the Yahwistic sections of chs. i-n as a whole : it is not till we
come to the
patriarchal history
that the
"
note of
promise
and of
hope
"
is
firmly
struck.
(2)
To the mind of the
narrator,
the
serpent
is no
more a
symbol
of the
power
of evil or of
temptation
than he is an in
carnation of the devil. He is himself an evil
creature,
perhaps
a
demonic creature
transmitting
his demonic character to his
progeny,
but there is no hint that he
represents
a
principle
of evil
apart
from
himself.
(3)
No
victory
is
promised
to either
party,
but
only perpetual
warfare between them : the order of the clauses
making
it
specially
hard to
suppose
that the
victory
of man was
contemplated.
Di. admits
that no such assurance is
expressed
;
but finds it in the
general
tenor
of the
passage
: "a conflict ordained
by
God cannot be without
prospect
of success." But that is
really
to
beg
the whole
question
in
dispute.
If it be said that the
words,
being part
of the sentence on the
serpent,
must mean that he is
ultimately
to be
defeated,
it
may
be answered
that the curse on the
serpent
is the
enmity
established between him
and
the human
race,
and that the feud between them is
simply
the mani
festation and
proof
of that
antagonism.
It is thus
possible
that in its
primary
intention the oracle reflects the
protest
of ethical
religion
against
the unnatural fascination of
snake-worship.
It is
psychologi
cally
true that the instinctive
feelings
which lie at the root of the
worship
of
serpents
are
closely
akin to the hatred and
loathing
which the
repulsive reptile
excites in the
healthy
human mind
;
and the trans
formation of a once sacred animal into an
object
of aversion is a not
infrequent phenomenon
in the
history
of
religion (see
Gres. I.e.
360).
The essence of the
temptation
is that the
serpent-demon
has
tampered
with the
religious
instinct in man
by posing
as his
good genius,
and
insinuating
distrust of the
goodness
of God
;
and his
punishment
is to i
find himself at eternal war with the race whom he has
seduced from
>
82 PARADISE AND THE FALL
(j)
their
allegiance
to their Creator. And that is
very
much the
light
in
which
serpent-worship
must have
appeared
to a believer in the
holy
and
righteous
God of the OT. The
conjecture
of
Gu.,
that
originally
the
seed of the woman and the
*
seed of the
serpent may
have been
mythological personages (cf.
ATLO
2
,
aiyf.),
even if confirmed
by
Assyriology,
would have little
bearing
on the
thought
of the biblical
narrator.
16. The doom of the woman :
consisting
in the
hardships
incident to her
sex,
and social
position
in the
East. The
pains
of
childbirth,
and the desire
wiiich
makes
her the
willing
slave of the
man, impressed
the ancient
mind as at once
mysterious
and unnatural
;
therefore to be
accounted for
by
a curse
imposed
on woman from the
beginning.
/ will
multiply,
etc.]
More
strictly,
I will
cause thee to have much
suffering
and
pregnancy (see
Dav.
3,
R.
(2)).
It
is,
of
course,
not an intensification of
pain
to which she is
already subject
that is meant. For
^Pi^j
(&
read some word
meaning groaning (v.i.)\
but to
prefer
this
reading
on the
ground
that Hebrew women
esteemed
frequent pregnancy
a
blessing (Gu.)
makes a too
general
statement. It is better
(with Ho.)
to assume a
hendiadys
: the
pain
of
thy conception (as
in the ex
planatory
clause which
follows).
in
pain
. . .
children]
The
pangs
of childbirth are
proverbial
in OT for the
extremity
of human
anguish (Is.
2i
3
i3
8
,
Mic.
4
9
,
Ps.
48
6
,
and oft. : Ex. I
19
cannot be cited to the
contrary).
to
thy
16.
*?N]
Read
-Sni,
with
AixfflrS.
naiK
rain]
So i6
10
22
17
. On the
irreg.
form of inf.
abs.,
see G-K.
75^ pasy] (3" 5
29
t
[J]).
ffir
Xrfiras
(^rvayy ?). -pini] ( v/rm):
jux-pv-ini
(Ru. 4,
Ho.
9
11
).
Ols.
(MBA,
1870, 380) conj.
"pi in?,
to avoid the harsh use of
}.
(&
rbv
ffrevay^dv
crov
probably
=
iJVjn
; ^r
(
sorrow
)
has also been
suggested (Gu.);
and
7]rny
(Di.
Ho.
al.).
The other Vns. follow MT.
asya]
JUUL
pasya
;
(& likewise
repeats
tv \virais.
npit?n] Probably
connected with Ar.
Saitk,
ardent desire
(Rahlfs
"
"ty
und
ijv," p. 71);
cf.
pptf,
Is.
29
8
,
Ps.
I07
9
.
Aq. <rvt>d(f>eia,
S.
bpw. Although
it recurs
only 4?
and Ca.
7
11
,
it is found in NH and should not be
suspected,
fflr
i] airoffrpo^n
& v
and &
1 <^/
_(__
point
to the
reading Tin^^p, preferred by many,
and
defended
by
Nestle
(MM, 6)
as a technical
expression
for the relation
here
indicated,
on the basis of
(&
s text of 2 Sa.
i7
3
. His
parallel
between
the return of the woman to her source
(the man)
and the return of the
man to his source
(the ground,
v.
19
)
is
perhaps
fanciful.
III. 1
6, 17
83
husband . .
desire}
It is
quite unnecessary
to
give up
the
rare but
expressive njJ^BTl
of the Heb. for the weaker rQIKTl.
of
(,
etc.
(v.i.).
It is
not, however, implied
that the
woman s sexual desire is
stronger
than the man s
(Kn.
Gu.)
;
the
point
rather is that
by
the instincts of her nature
she shall be bound to the hard conditions of her
lot,
both
the
ever-recurring pains
of
child-bearing,
and
subjection
to
the man. while he
(on
his
part)
shall rule over
thee}
The idea of
tyrannous
exercise of
power
does not lie in the
vb.
;
but it means that the woman is
wholly subject
to the
man,
and so liable to the
arbitrary
treatment sanctioned
by
the
marriage
customs of the East. It is
noteworthy
that
to the writer this is not the ideal relation of the sexes
(cf.
2
18- 23
).
There is here
certainly
no trace of the matri-
archate or of
polyandry (see
on 2
24
).
17-19.
The man s sentence. The
hard,
unremitting
toil of the
husbandman, wringing
a bare subsistence from
the
grudging
and intractable
ground,
is the
standing
evidence of a
divine
curse,
resting, not, indeed,
on man
himself,
but on the earth for his sake.
Originally,
it had
provided
him with all kinds of fruit
good
for
food,
and this
is the ideal state of
things
;
now it
yields nothing spontane
ously
but thorns and briars
;
bread to eat can
only
be
extorted in the sweat of the
brow,
and this is a curse :
formerly
man had been a
gardener,
now he is a
fellah.
It
does not
appear
that death itself is
part
of the curse. The
name death is avoided
;
and the fact is referred to as
part
of the natural order of
things,
the inevitable return of
man to the
ground
whence he was taken. The
question
whether man would have lived for ever if he had not sinned
is one to which the narrative furnishes no answer
(Gu.).
17.
And to the
man}
v.i. The sentence is introduced
by
a
formal recital of the offence. Cursed is the
ground}
As
17.
Point
D-IN^I ;
there is no conceivable reason
why
DIN
should be
a
proper
name here
(cf.
2
20
3
21
).
UDD . . . -tax
1
?]
<& reads TOI/TOU
pbvov
(see
v.
11
) pi) Qayeiv,
air aurou
tyayes. Tinjn]
(&
(tv
rots
I/ryots <rov),
2.
U read
I^O,
0. tv
rrj 7rapa/3dcrei
aou
(Tpy?).
The
phrase
is
characteristic
of
J ;
out of 22 instances in the
Hex.,
only
about
3
can be
assigned
84
PARADISE AND THE FALL
(j)
exceptional fertility
was ascribed to a divine
blessing (27^
etc.),
and
exceptional
barrenness to a curse
(Is. 24,
Jer. 23
10
),
so the relative
unproductiveness
of the whole
earth in
comparison
with man s
expectations
and ideals is
here
regarded
as the
permanent
effect of a curse. in
suffer
ing (bodily fatigue
and mental
anxiety)
shalt thou eat
[of] if]
See
5
29
. The laborious work of the husbandman is re
ferred to in Sir.
7
15
;
but this is not the
prevailing feeling
of the OT
;
and the remark of
Kno.,
that
"
agriculture
was
to the Hebrew a divine
institution,
but at the same time a
heavy
burden,"
needs
qualification.
It is well to be re
minded that
"
ancient Israel did not live
constantly
in the
joy
of the harvest festival
"
(Gu.)
;
but none the less it would
be a mistake to
suppose
that it lived
habitually
in the mood
of this
passage.
18. the herb
of
the
field}
See on i
11
. The
creation of this order of
vegetation
has not been recorded
by
J.
Are w
r
e to
suppose
that it comes into existence
simply
in
consequence
of the earth s diminished
productivity
caused
by
the curse? It seems
implied
at all events that the earth
will not
yield
even
this,
except
under the
compulsion
of
human labour
(see
2
5
). 19.
in the sweat
of thy
brow,
etc.]
A
more
expressive repetition
of the
thought
of
17b
^. The
phrase
eat bread
may
mean earn a livelihood
(Am.
7
12
),
but here it must be understood
literally
as the immediate
reward of man s toil. till thou
return,
etc.]
hardly
means
more than all the
days
of
thy
life
(in
v.
17
).
It is not a
threat of death as the
punishment
of
sin,
and we have no
right
to
say (with Di.)
that vv.
16
~
19
are
simply
an
expansion
of the sentence of 2
17
. That man was
by
nature immortal is
not
taught
in this
passage
;
and since the Tree of Life in
v.
22
belongs
to another
recension,
there is no evidence that
the main narrative
regarded
even endless life as within man s
to E
(none
to
P). mVrrNn]
The
government
of direct ace. seems
harsh,
but is not
unexampled
: see
Jer. 36
16
. 18. (Gr
omits initial
}
: so
U
Jub.
mm
pp]
Hos. io
8
;
mm occurs nowhere else in OT. It is still
used in
Syria (dardar)
as a
general
name for thistles.
--19.
ny
wada
a)
is (Lir.
Xey.
;
cf.
yr,
Ezk.
44
18
.
on
1
?]
(
fub.
ion
1
?.
III. 18-20
85
reach. The connexion of the
closing
words is rather with
2
7
: man was taken from the
ground,
and in the natural
course will return to it
again.
and to
dtist,
etc.}
Cf.
Jb.
TO
9
34
15
,
Ps.
go
3
146*,
EC.
3
20
I2
7
etc. : CK
yatas pXao-rw
yata
yeyova.
The
arrangement
of the clauses in
17 19
is not
very
natural,
and the
repeated
variations of the same idea have
suggested
the
hypothesis
of
textual
corruption
or fusion of sources. In
Jub.
iii.
25
the
passage
is
quoted
in an
abridged form,
the line Cursed . . . sake
being
immedi
ately
followed
by
Thorns ... to
thee,
and
18b
being
omitted. This
is,
of
course,
a much smoother
reading,
and leaves out
nothing
essential
;
but
17b
is
guaranteed by 5
s9
. Ho.
rejects
18b
,
and to avoid the
repetition
of SDK
proposes
njiuyn instead ofruVaitn in
17
. Gu. is satisfied with v.
17f-
as
they
stand,
but
assigns
19a
<*
(to
on
1
?)
and
]9b
to another source
(JJ),
as
doublets
respectively
of
17b
and
19a
. This is
perhaps
on the whole
the most
satisfactory analysis.
The
poetic
structure of the
vv.,
which
might
be
expected
to clear
up
a
question
of this
kind,
is too obscure
to afford
any guidance. Sievers, e.g, (II. lof.)
finds
nothing, except
in v.
19
,
to
distinguish
the
rhythm
from that of the narrative in which
it is
embedded,
and all
attempts
at
strophic arrangement
are
only
tentative.
20-24.
The
expulsion
from Eden. 20. The
naming
of the woman can
hardly
have come in between the sentence
and its
execution,
or before there was
any experience
of
motherhood to
suggest
it. The
attempts
to connect the
notice with the mention of
child-bearing
in
15f-
(De. al.),
or
20.
nin]
(&
Ei!a
[E#a] (in 4
1
), Aq. ASa,
Tff
He-va, Jer.
Eva
(Eng. Eve}
;
in this v. (&
translates
Zo>?7,
S.
Zuoydvos.
The
similarity
of the name
1
*"
1
to the Aram, word for
serpent ( in, K;in,
Syr. _Q_K, Syro-Pal.
|Q_KJ
[Mt. 7
10
])
;
cf. Ar.
hayyat
from
hauyat [No.])
has
always
been
noticed,
and is
accepted by
several modern scholars as a real
etymological
equivalence (No. ZDMG,
xlii.
487;
Sta.
GVI,
i.
633;
We. Heid.
154).
The ancient idea was that Eve was so named because she had done
the
serpent
s work in
tempting
Adam
(Ber.
R.
; Philo,
De
agr. Noe,
21
;
Clem. Alex.
Protrept.
ii. 12.
i). Quite recently
the
philological
equation
has
acquired
fresh
significance
from the
discovery
of the name
nin on a leaden Punic tabella devotionis
(described by
Lidz.
Ephemeris,
i. 26 ff.
;
see
Cooke, NSI, 135),
of which the first line reads : "O
Lady
HVT, goddess, queen
... !" Lidz. sees in this
mythological per
sonage
a
goddess
of the under-
world,
and as such a
serpent-deity
;
and
identifies her with the biblical Havvah. Hawaii would thus be
a
depotentiated deity,
whose
prototype
was a Phoenician
goddess
of
the
Under-world,
worshipped
in the form of a
serpent,
and
bearing
the
86 PARADISE AND THE FALL
(j)
with the
thought
of
mortality
in
19
(Kn.),
are forced. The
most suitable
position
in the
present
text would be before
(so
Jub.
iii.
33)
or after
4
1
;
and
accordingly
some
regard
it as a
misplaced gloss
in
explanation
of that v. But when
we consider
(a]
that the name Havvah must in
any
case be
traditional,
(b)
that it is a
proper name,
whereas
B^n
remains
appellative throughout,
and
(c)
that in the follow
ing
vv. there are
unambiguous
traces of a second recension
of the Paradise
story,
it is reasonable to
suppose
that v.
20
comes from that
recension,
and is a
parallel
to the
naming
of the woman in 2
23
,
whether it stands here in the
original
order or not. The fact that the name Eve has been
pre
served,
while there is no distinctive name for the
man,
suggests
that
nin
is a survival from a more
primitive theory
of human
origins
in which the first mother
represented
the
unity
of the race. the mother
of every living
thing\
Accord
ing
to this
derivation,
Hjn
would seem to denote first the
idea of
life,
and then the source of life the mother.* But
title of Mother of all
living* (see
Ores. I.e.
359 f.)-
Precarious as
such combinations
may seem,
there is no
objection
in
principle
to an
explanation
of the name Havvah on these lines. Besides the Hivvites
of the OT
(who
were
probably
a
serpent-tribe),
We. cites
examples
of
Semitic
princely
families that traced their
genealogy
back to a
serpent.
The substitution of human for animal
ancestry,
and the transference
of the animal name to the human
ancestor,
are
phenomena frequently
observed in the transition from a lower to a
higher stage
of
religion.
If the
change
took
place
while a law of female descent still
prevailed,
the
ancestry
would
naturally
be traced to a woman
(or goddess)
;
and
when the law of male
kinship
was introduced she would as
naturally
be identified with the wife of the first man. It need
hardly
be said that
all
this,
while
possibly throwing
some
light
on the
mythical background
of the biblical
narrative,
is
quite apart
from the
religious significance
of the
story
of the Fall in itself. n^D
DN]
Rob. Sm. renders mother of
every hciyyj Jiayy being
the Arab, word which
originally
denoted a
group
of female
kinship.
Thus "Eve is the
personification
of the bond
of
kinship (conceived
as
exclusively mother-kinship), just
as Adam is
simply man,
i.e. the
personification
of mankind"
(KM
2
, 208).
The
interpretation
has found no
support.
*
So
Baethgen,
Beitr.
148,
who
appends
the note :
"
Im holstein-
ischen Plattdeutsch ist Dat Leben
euphemistischer
Ausdruck fur das
pudendum
muliebre
"
a
meaning by
the
way
which also attaches to
Ar.
hayy (Lane,
Lex. 68 1
b).
III. 20-22
87
the form nin is not
Heb.,
and the real
meaning
of the word
is not settled
by
the
etymology
here
given (v.i.}.
^n 73
commonly
includes all animals
(8
21
etc.),
but is here
restricted to mankind
(as
Ps.
I43
2
, Jb. 3o
23
).
Cf.
however,
irarvia
flr/pooi/, Lady
of wild
things,
a Greek
epithet
of the
Earth -mother
(Miss
Harrison,
Prol.
264).
21. Another
detached notice
describing
the
origin
of
clothing.
It
is,
of
course,
not inconsistent with v.
7
,
but neither can it be
said to be the
necessary sequel
to that v.
;
most
probably
it is a
parallel
from another source. coats
of skin]
"The
simplest
and most
primitive
kind of
clothing
in
practical
use"
(Dri.).
An
interesting- question
arises as to the connexion between this
method of
clothing-
and the loss of
pristine
innocence. That it exhibits
God s continued care for man even after the Fall
(Di. al.) may
be true
as
regards
the
present
form of the
legend
;
but that is
hardly
the
original conception.
In the Phoen.
legend
of
Usoos,
the invention is
connected with the
hunting
of wild
animals,
and this
again
with the
institution of sacrifice : ... 6s
ffK^irrjv
r
(rw/tan Trpwros
IK
Sepfj-druv
&v
&rxf0"e ffv\\a[3e
iv
dypluv edpe
. . .
&/j.a
re (rirtvdeiv avrcus j- &v
ijypeve
Q-ripluv (PrcEp.
Ev. i. 10
; Orelli,
p. iyf.)
Since sacrifice and the use of
animal food were
inseparably
associated in Semitic
antiquity,
it
may
be assumed that this is conceived as the first
departure
from the Golden
Age,
when men lived on the
spontaneous
fruits of the earth.
Similarly,
Rob. Sm.
(RS?, 306 ff.)
found in the v. the Yahwistic
theory
of the
introduction of the sacrifice of domestic
animals,
which thus
coincided,
as in Greek
legend,
with the transition from the state of innocence to
the life of
agriculture.
22-24.
The actual
expulsion.
22. Behold . . . one
of
us]
This is no
(
ironica
exprobatio (Calv. al.),
but a serious
admission that man has snatched a divine
prerogative
not
meant for him. The
feeling expressed (cf.
n
6
)
is akin to
what the Greeks called the
*
envy
of the
gods,
and more
remotely
to the OT attribute of the zeal or
jealousy
of Yah
we,
His resentment of all action that encroaches on His
21. Point
DnxS,
as in v.
17
. 22.
in*o]
Constr. before
prep.
;
G-K.
130
a.
ap]
The so-called oriental
punctuation (which distinguishes
ist
pi.
from
3rd sg.
masc.
suffix)
has
?p,
from us
(B-D. p. 81).
C
(nro ND*?ya
n
rr)
and 2
(6/xoO &$ ecturoD)
treat the form as
3rd sing.
:
cf. Ra. s
paraphrase:
"alone
below,
as I am alone above."
nin
1
?]
in
[respect of] knowing
:
gerundial
inf.
;
Dav.
93;
G-K.
1140;
Dri.
88 PARADISE AND THE FALL
(j)
divinity (see p. 97).
In v.
5
the same words are
put
in the
mouth of the
serpent
with a distinct
imputation
of
envy
to God
;
and it is
perhaps improbable
that the writer of
that v. would have
justified
the
serpent
s
insinuation,
even
in
form,
by
a divine utterance. There are several indica
tions
(e.g.
the
phrase
like one of us
)
that the
secondary
recension to which v.
22
belongs represents
a cruder form
of the
legend
than does the main narrative
;
and it is
possible
that it retains more of the
characteristically pagan
feeling
of the
envy
of the
gods.
in
respect of knowing,
etc.}
Man has not attained
complete equality
with
God,
but
only
God-likeness in this one
respect.
Gres. s contention
that the v. is
self-contradictory (man
has become like a
god,
and
yet
lacks the
immortality
of a
god)
is therefore
unfounded. And
now,
etc.\
There remains another divine
attribute which man will be
prompt
to
seize,
viz. immor
tality
: to
prevent
his thus
attaining complete
likeness to
God he must be debarred from the Tree of Life. The
expression put forth
his hand
suggests
that a
single
partaking
of the fruit would have conferred eternal life
(Bu.
Urg. 52)
;
and at least
implies
that it would have
been an
easy thing
to do. The
question why
man had not
as
yet
done so is not
impertinent
(De.),
but
inevitable;
so
momentous an issue could not have been left to
chance
in
a continuous narrative. The obvious solution is that in this
recension the Tree of Life was a
(or the]
forbidden
tree,
that man in his first innocence had
respected
the
injunction,
but that now when he knows the virtue of the tree he will
not refrain from
eating.
It is to be observed that it is
only
in this
part
of the
story
that the idea of
immortality
is
introduced,
and that not as an essential endowment of
human
nature,
but as
contingent
on an act which would
be as efficacious after the Fall as before it. On the
aposio-
pesis
at the end of the
v.,
v.i.
23
is
clearly
a doublet of
24
;
and the latter is the natural continuation of
22
. V.-
3
is
T.
205.
The
pregnant
use of
~]9 (
=
f
I fear lest
)
is common
(Gn. rg
19
26
38
11
44
s4
,
Ex.
i3
n
etc.).
Here it is more natural to assume an
anakolouthon,
the clause
depending-
on a
cohortative,
converted in v.
28
III.
23, 24
89
a
fitting
conclusion to the main
narrative,
in which it
probably
followed
immediately
on v.
19
.
24.
He drove out
the man and made
\him\
dwell on the east
of
. . .
[and
stationed]
the
Cherubim,
etc.]
This is the
reading
of
fflr
(v.t-),
and it
gives
a more natural construction than
MT,
which
omits the words in brackets. On either view the
assumption
is that the first abode of mankind was east of the
garden.
There is no reason to
suppose
that the v.
represents
a
different tradition as to the site of Eden from 2
8
or 2
loff
-.
It is not said in 2
8
that it was in the extreme
east,
or in
2
10
that it was in the extreme north
;
nor is it here
implied
that it was further west than Palestine. The account of
the
early migration
of the race in u
2
is
quite
consistent
with the
supposition
that mankind entered the
Euphrates
valley
from a
region
still further
east.
the Cherubim and
the
revolving sivord-flame\
Lit. the flame of the
whirling
sword. It has
usually
been assumed that the sword was
in the hand of one of the cherubim
;
but
probably
it was an
independent symbol,
and a
representation
of the
lightning.
Some
light may
be thrown on it
by
an
inscription
of
Tiglath-
pileser
i.
(KIB,
i.
36 f.),
where the
king says
that when he
destroyed
the fortress of Hunusa he made a
lightning
of
bronze. The emblem
appears
to be otherwise
unknown,
but the allusion
suggests
a
parallel
to the
*
flaming
sword
of this
passage.
The Cherubim. See the notes of Di. Gu. Dri.
; KAT*, 529 f.,
631
ff.
;
Che. in
EB, 741
ff.
; Je.
ATLO
2
-, 218;
Haupt, SEAT, Numbers,
46;
Polychrome Bible,
181 f.
;
Furtwangler,
in Roscher s Lex. art. GRYPS.
The derivation of the word is uncertain. The old
theory
of a con
nexion with
ypu\f/ (Greif, griffin, etc.)
is not devoid of
plausibility,
but
lacks
proof.
The often
quoted
statement of Lenormant
(Orig.
i.
118),
that kirubu occurs on an amulet in the de
Clercq
collection as a name
into a historic tense.
DJ]
ffirS
om.
24.
(3r
KO!
ttfia\v
rbv
ASct/ct
Kal
KartpKLffev
avrbv dirtvavTi TOV
irapadeiffov
TTJS
Tpv<prjs,
Kal raev rd
^epov^lv
KT\.
=
131 D am.vnK o
yji py p
1
?
cnpo
pen
onxn-nK enn Ball
rightly adopts
this
text,
inserting
ink after
pan, against J
s
usage.
There is no need
to
supply any pron. obj.
whatever : see 2
19
i8
7
38
18
,
i Sa.
ig
13
etc.
For the first three words
J5 has
simply C"LQ^D|O>
and for
pe^i
y^r^ (O
(with
the
cherubim, etc.,
as
obj.). msnnon] Hithpa.
in the sense of
revolve, Ju. 7
13
, Jb. 37"
;
in
Jb. 38
14
it means be transformed.
9O
THE PARADISE
of the
winged
bulls of
Assyrian palaces,
seems to be
definitely disproved
(see Je. 218).
A
great part
of the OT
symbolism
could be
explained
from the
hypothesis
that the Cherubim were
originally wind-demons,
like the
Harpies
of Greek
mythology (Harrison,
Prol.
i78ff.).
The
most
suggestive analogy
to this verse is
perhaps
to be found in the
winged genii
often
depicted by
the side of the tree of life in
Babylonian
art. These
figures
are
usually
human in form with human
heads,
but
sometimes combine the human form with an
eagle
s
head,
and occasion
ally
the human head with an animal
body. They
are shown in the act
of
fecundating
the
date-palm by transferring
the
pollen
of the male
tree to the flower of the female
;
and hence it has been
conjectured
that
they
are
personifications
of the
winds,
by
whose
agency
the fertilisation
of the
palm
is effected in nature
(Tylor, PSBA,
xii.
383 ff.). Starting
with this
clue,
we can
readily explain (i)
the function of the Cherub as
the
living
chariot of Yah
we,
or bearer of the
Theophany,
in Ps. i8
u
(2
Sa. 22
11
).
It is a
personification
of the storm-wind on which Yahwe
rides,
just
as the
Babylonian storm-god
Zu was
figured
as a
bird-deity.
The
theory
that it was a
personification
of the thunder-cloud is a mere
conjecture
based on Ps. i8
llf>
,
and has no more intrinsic
probability
than
that here
suggested. (2)
The association of the
winged figures
with
the Tree of Life in
Babylonian
art would
naturally
lead to the belief
that the Cherubim were denizens of Paradise
(Ezk.
28
14- 16
),
and
guardians
of the Tree
(as
in this
passage). (3)
Thence
they
came to be viewed as
guardians
of sacred
things
and
places generally,
like the
composite
figures placed
at the entrances of
Assyrian temples
and
palaces
to
prevent
the
approach
of evil
spirits.
To this
category belong probably
in the first instance the colossal Cherubim of Solomon s
temple (i
Ki.
6
23ff<
8
6f>
),
and the miniatures on the lid of the ark in the Tabernacle
(Ex. 25
18ff-
etc.);
but a trace of the
primary conception appears
in the
alternation of cherubim and
palm-trees
in the
temple
decoration
(i
Ki.
6*
9ff
-,
Ezk.
4
i
18ff
-; see, further,
i Ki.
7
29ff
-,
Ex. 26
1 - 31
). (4)
The most
difficult embodiment of the idea is found in the Cherubim of Ezekiel s
visions four
composite
creatures
combining
the features of the
ox,
the
lion,
the
man,
and the
eagle (Ezk.
i
5ff-
io
lff>
).
These
may represent
primarily
the four winds of heaven
;
but the
complex symbolism
of
the Merkdbdh shows that
they
have some
deeper
cosmic
significance.
Gu.
(p. 20)
thinks that an older form of the
representation
is
preserved
in
Apoc. 4
6ff-
,
where the four animal
types
are
kept
distinct. These he
connects with the four constellations of the Zodiac which mark the four
quarters
of the heavens :
Taurus, Leo,
Scorpio (in
the earliest
astronomy
a
scorpion-man),
and
Aquila (near Aquarius).
See
KAT, 631
f.
The
Origin
and
Significance of
the Paradise
Legend.
i. Ethnic
parallels.
The
Babylonian
version of the Fall of man
(if any
such
existed)
has not
yet
been discovered. There is in the
British Museum a much-debated
seal-cylinder
which is often cited as
evidence that a
legend very
similar to the biblical narrative was current
in
Babylonia.
It shows two
completely
clothed
figures
seated on either
LEGEND
91
side of a
tree,
and each
stretching
out a hand toward its
fruit,
while a
crooked line on the left of the
picture
is
supposed
to exhibit the
serpent.*
The
engraving-
no doubt
represents
some
legend
connected with the tree
of life
;
but even if we knew that it illustrates the first
temptation,
the
story
is still
wanting
;
and the details of the
picture
show that it can
have had
very
little resemblance to Gn.
3.
The most that can be
claimed is that there are certain remote
parallels
to
particular
features
or ideas of Gn. 2
4
~3
24
,
which are
yet sufficiently
close to
suggest
that
the ultimate source of the biblical narrative is to be
sought
in the
.Babylonian mythology.
Attention should be directed to the
following
:
(a)
The account
of
Creation in 2
4ff>
has undoubted resemblances
to the
Babylonian
document described on
p. 47
f.,
though they
are
hardly
such as to
prove dependence.
Each starts with a vision of
chaos,
and in both the
prior
existence of heaven and earth seems to be
assumed
;
although
the
Babylonian
chaos is a waste of
waters,
while
that of Gn. 2
sf
is based rather on the idea of a waterless desert
(see
p. 56 above).
The order of
creation,
though
not the
same,
is alike
in its
promiscuous
and unscientific character : in the
Babylonian
we
have a
hopeless medley mankind,
beasts of the
field, living things
of
the
field,
Tigris
and
Euphrates,
verdure of the
field,
grass, marshes,
reeds, wild-cow, ewe, sheep
of the
fold, orchards, forests, houses,
and
cities,
etc. etc. but no
separate
creation of woman. The creation of
-man from earth moistened
by
the blood of a
god,
in another
document,
may
be instanced as a distant
parallel
to 2
7
(pp. 42, 45).
(b)
The
legend of
Eabani,
embedded in the
Gilgames-Epic (Tab.
I.
Col. ii. 1.
33
ff. : KIB
y
vi.
i,
p.
120
ff.),
seems to
present
us
(it
has been
thought)
with a
type
of
primitive
man.
Eabani,
created as a rival
to
Gilgame by
the
goddess
Aruru from a
lump
of
clay,
is a
being
of
gigantic strength
who is found
associating
with the wild
animals,
living
their
life,
and
foiling
all the devices of the huntsman.
Eager
to
capture
him, GilgameS
sends with the huntsman a
harlot,
by
whose attractions
he
hopes
to lure Eabani from his
savagery.
Eabani
yields
to her
charms,
and is
led,
a
willing captive,
to the life of civilisation :
When she
speaks
to
him,
her
speech pleases him,
One who knows his heart he
seeks,
a friend.
But later in the
epic,
the harlot
appears
as the cause of his
sorrows,
and Eabani curses her with all his heart.
Apart
from its
present
setting,
and considered as an
independent
bit of
folk-lore,
it cannot
be denied that the
story
has a certain resemblance to Gn. 2
18
"
24
.
Only,
we
may
be sure that if the idea of sexual intercourse with the beasts be
implied
in the
picture
of
Eabani,
the moral
purity
of the Hebrew writer
never
stooped
so low
(see Jastrow, AJSL,
xv.
198
ff.
; Stade, ZATW,
xxiii.
I74f.).
(c)
Far more instructive affinities with the inner motive of the
story
*
Reproduced
in Smith s Chaldean
Genesis,
88
;
Del. Babel und Bibel
(M
Cormack s trans,
p. 48)
;
ATLO-, 203,
etc.
Je.
has satisfied himself
that the
zigzag
line is a
snake,
but is
equally
convinced that the snake
cannot be
tempting
a man and a woman to eat the fruit.
92
THE PARADISE
of the Fall are found in the
myth
of
Adapa
and the
South-wind,
dis
covered
amongst
the Tel-Amarna
Tablets,
and therefore known in
Palestine in the
i5th
cent. B.C.
(KIB,
vi.
i, 92-101). Adapa,
the son
of the
god
Ea,
is endowed
by
him with the fulness of divine
wisdom,
but denied the
gift
of
immortality
:
"Wisdom I
gave
him, immortality
I
gave
him not."
While
plying
the trade of a fisherman on the Persian
Gulf,
the south-
wind overwhelms his
bark,
and in
revenge Adapa
breaks the
wings
of
the south-wind. For this offence he is summoned
by
Anu to
appear
before the
assembly
of the
gods
in heaven
;
and Ea instructs him how
to
appease
the
anger
of Anu. Then the
gods,
disconcerted
by finding
a mortal in
possession
of their
secrets,
resolve to make the best of
it,
and
to admit him
fully
into their
society, by conferring
on him
immortality.
They
offer him food of life that he
may eat,
and water of life that he
may
drink. But
Adapa
had
previously
been deceived
by Ea,
who did
not wish him to become immortal. Ea had said that what would be
offered to him would be food and water of
death,
and had
strictly
cautioned him to refuse. He did
refuse,
and so missed immortal life.
Anu laments over his infatuated refusal :
"Why, Adapa
! Wherefore hast thou not
eaten,
not
drunken,
so that
Thou wilt not live . . . ?"
"Ea, my lord,
Commanded,
Eat not and drink not !
"
"Take him and
bring
him back to his earth!"
This looks almost like a
travesty
of the
leading
ideas of Gn.
3
;
yet
the
common features are
very striking.
In both we have the idea that
wisdom and
immortality
combined constitute
equality
with
deity
;
in
both we have a man
securing
the first and
missing
the second
;
and in
both the man is counselled in
opposite
directions
by supernatural voices,
and acts on that advice which is
contrary
to his interest. There
is,
of
course,
the vital difference that while Yahwe forbids both wisdom and
immortality
to
man,
Ea confers the first
(and
thus far
plays
the
part
of
the biblical
serpent)
but withholds the
second,
and Anu is
ready
to
bestow both.
Still,
it is not too much to
expect
that a
story
like this
will throw
light
on the
mythological
antecedents of the Genesis
narrative,
if not
directly
on that narrative itself
(see
below,
p. 94).
What is true of
Babylonian
affinities holds
good
in a lesser
degree
of the ancient
mythologies
as a whole :
everywhere
we find echoes of
the Paradise
myth,
but nowhere a
story
which forms an exact
parallel
to Gn. 2.
3.
The Graeco-Roman traditions told of a
golden age,
lost
through
the
increasing
sinfulness of the
race,
an
age
when the earth
freely yielded
its
fruits,
and men lived in a
happiness
undisturbed
by
toil or care or sin
(Hesiod, Op.
et
Dies,
90-92, 109-120;
Ovid,
Met. i.
89-112, etc.);
but
they
knew
nothing
of a sudden fall. Indian and
Persian
mythologies
told,
in
addition,
of sacred mountains where the
gods
dwelt,
with
bright gold
and
flashing gems,
and miraculous trees
conferring immortality,
and
every imaginable blessing
;
and we have
seen that similar
representations
were current in
Babylonia.
The
nearest
approach
to definite
counterparts
of the biblical narrative
LEGEND
93
are found in Iranian
legends,
where we read of Meshia and
Meshiane,
who lived at first on
fruits,
but
who, tempted by Ahriman,
denied the
good god,
lost their
innocence,
and
practised
all kinds of wickedness
;
or of
Yima,
the ruler of the
golden age,
under whom there was neither
sickness nor
death,
nor
hunger
nor
thirst,
until
(in
one
tradition)
he
gave way
to
pride,
and fell under the dominion of the evil
serpent
Dahaka
(see
Di.
p. 47 ff.).
But these echoes are too faint and distant
to enable us to determine the
quarter
whence the
original impulse pro
ceeded,
or where the
myth
assumed the form in which it
appears
in
Genesis. For answers to these
questions
we are
dependent mainly
on
the uncertain indications of the biblical narrative itself. Some features
(the
name Havvah
[p. 85 f.],
and elements of ch.
4)
seem to
point
to
Phoenicia as the
quarter
whence this stratum of
myth
entered the
religion
of Israel
;
others
(the Paradise-geography) point
rather to
Babylonia,
or at least
Mesopotamia.
In the
present
state of our
knowledge
it is a
plausible conjecture
that the
myth
has travelled from
Babylonia,
and reached Israel
through
the Phoenicians or the Canaan-
ites
(We.
Pro!.
6
307
;
Gres.
ARW,
x.
345
ff.
;
cf.
Bevan, JTS,
iv.
500 f.).
A similar conclusion
might
be drawn from the contradiction in the idea
of
chaos,
if the
explanation given
above of 2
6
be correct : it looks as if
the
cosmogony
of an alluvial
region
had been modified
through
trans
ference to a
dry
climate
(see p. 56).
The
fig-leaves
of
3
7
are
certainly
not
Babylonian
; though
a
single
detail of that kind cannot settle the
question
of
origin.
But until further
light
comes from the
monuments,
all
speculations
on this
subject
are
very
much in the air.
2. The
mythical
substratum
of
the narrative. The
strongest
evidence
of the non-Israelite
origin
of the
story
of the Fall is furnished
by
the
biblical account
itself,
in the
many mythological conceptions,
of which
traces still remain in Genesis. "The
narrative,"
as Dri.
says,
"con
tains features which have unmistakable
counterparts
in the
religious
traditions of other nations
;
and some of
these,
though they
have been
accommodated to the
spirit
of Israel s
religion, carry
indications that
they
are not native to it
"
(Gen. 51). Amongst
the features which are at variance
with the
standpoint
of Hebrew
religion
we
may put
first of all the fact
that the abode of Yahwe is
placed,
not in Canaan or at Mount
Sinai,
but in the far East. The
strictly mythological background
of the
story
emerges chiefly
in the
conceptions
of the
garden
of the
gods (see p. 57 f.),
the trees oflife und of
knowledge (p. 59),
the
serpent (p. 72 f.),
Eve
(p. 85 f.),
and the Cherubim
(p. 89 f.).
It is
true,
as has been
shown,
that each of
these
conceptions
is rooted in the most
primitive
ideas of Semitic
religion ;
but it is
equally
true that
they
have
passed through
a
mythological
development
for
which the
religion
of Israel
gave
no
opportunity.
Thus
the association of
trees and
serpents
in Semitic folk-lore is
illustrated
by
an Arabian
story,
which tells
how,
when an untrodden
thicket was
burned
down,
the
spirits
of the trees made their
escape
in the
shape
of
white
serpents (RS*, 133)
;
but it is
quite
clear that a
long
interval
separates
that
primitive superstition
from the ideas that invest the
serpent
and the tree in this
passage.
If
proof
were
needed,
it would be
found in the
suggestive
combinations of the
serpent
and the tree in
94
THE PARADISE
Babylonian
and Phoenician art
;
or in the fabled
garden
of the
Hesperides,
with its
golden
fruit
guarded by
a
dragon, always figured
in artistic
representations
as a
huge
snake coiled round the trunk of the
tree
(cf.
Lenormant,
Origines,
i.
93
f. : see the illustrations in
Roscher,
Lex.
2599 f.).
How the various elements were combined in the
particular
myth
which lies
immediately
behind the biblical narrative, it is
impossible
to
say ;
but the
myth
of
Adapa suggests
at least some elements of a
possible
construction,
which cannot be
very
far from the truth. Ob
viously
we have to do with a
polytheistic legend,
in which rivalries and
jealousies
between the different deities are almost a matter of course.
The
serpent
is himself a demon
;
and his readiness to initiate man in
the
knowledge
of the
mysterious
virtue of the forbidden tree means that
he is at variance with the other
gods,
or at least with the
particular god
who had
imposed
the
prohibition.
The intention of the command was
to
prevent
man from
sharing
the life of the
gods
;
and the
serpent-
demon,
posing
as the
good genius
of
man,
defeats that intention
by
revealing
to man the truth
(similarly
Gu.
30).
To the
original
heathen
myth
we
may
also attribute the idea of the
envy
of the
gods,
which the
biblical narrator
hardly avoids,
and the note of weariness and melan
choly,
the sombre view of
life,
the scheue heidnische
Stimmung,
which is the
ground-tone
of the
passage.
It is
impossible
to determine
what,
in the
original myth,
was the
nature of the tree
(or trees)
which man was forbidden to eat. Gres.
(I.e. 351
ff.)
finds in the
passage
traces of three
primitive conceptions:
(i)
the tree of the
knowledge
of
good
and
evil,
whose fruit
imparts
the
knowledge
of
magic,
the
only knowledge
of which it can be said that
it makes man at once the
equal
and the rival of the
deity
;
(2)
the tree of
knowledge,
whose fruit excites the sexual
appetite
and
destroys
child
like innocence
(3 ) ; (3)
the tree of
life,
whose fruit confers
immortality
(3
22
).
The
question
is
immensely complicated by
the existence of two
recensions,
which do not seem so
hopelessly inseparable
as Gres. thinks.
In the main recension we have the tree of
knowledge,
of which man eats
to his
hurt,
but no hint of a tree of life. In the
secondary
recension
there is the tree of life
(of
which man does not
eat),
and
apparently
the
tree of
knowledge
of which he had eaten
;
but this
depends
on the word
D3 in
3
s2
,
which is
wanting
in
&,
and
may
be an
interpolation. Again,
the statement that
knowledge
of
good
and evil
really
amounts to
equality
with
God,
is found
only
in the second recension
;
in the other it is doubt
ful if the actual effect of
eating
the fruit was not a cruel
disappointment
of the
hope
held out
by
the
serpent.
How far we are entitled to read
the ideas of the one into the other is a
question
we cannot answer.
Eerdmans
ingenious
but
improbable theory (ThT,
xxxix.
504 ff.)
need
not here be discussed. What is meant
by knowledge
of
good
and evil
in the final form of the narrative will be considered under the next head.
3.
The
religious
ideas
of
the
passage.
Out of such crude and seem
ingly unpromising
material the
religion
of revelation has fashioned the
immortal
allegory
before us. We have now to
inquire
what are the
religious
and moral truths under the influence of which the narrative
assumed its
present form, distinguishing
as far as
possible
the ideas
LEGEND
95
which it
originally conveyed
from those which it
suggested
to more
advanced
theological speculation.
(1)
We
observe,
in the first
place,
that the
setiological
motive is
strongly
marked
throughout.
The
story gives
an
explanation
of many
of the
facts,_of Jinjyersal
experiejisg,
the bond between man and wife
(a
24
),
the sense of shame which
accompanies
adolescence
(3
7
),
the use of
clothing (3
al
),
the instinctive
antipathy
to
serpents (3
15
).
But
chiefly
it
seeks the
key
to the darker side of human existence as seen in a
simple
agricultural
state of
society,
the hard toil of the
husbandman,
the
birth-pangs
of the
woman,
and her
subjection
to the man. These are
evils which the author feels to be
contrary
to the ideal of human
nature,
and to the intention of a
good
God.
They
are results of a curse
justly
incurred
by transgression,
a curse
pronounced
before
history began,
and
shadowing,
rather than
crushing,
human life
always
and
everywhere.
It is doubtful if death be included in the effects of the curse. In v.
19
it is
spoken
of as the natural fate of a
being
made from the earth
;
in v.
22
it
follows from
being
excluded from the tree of life.
IVjan
was
capable
of
immortality,
but
not^bj^naJ^u^Jmnaorlal
;
and God did not mean that he
shouTtt~attaTfrimmortality.
The death threatened in 2
17
is immediate
death
;
and to assume that the death which
actually
ensues is the ex
action of that deferred
penalty,
is
perhaps
to
go beyond
the intention of
the writer. Nor
do^Jt^^p^aj^jth^Jt_^h^jrmrjajtJYe_
jseeks
to account for
the
origin
of sin. It describes what
was,
no
doubt,
the first
sin;
but
it
descrTbgJT
lt^as^
something intelligible,
not
needing explanation,
not
a
mystery
like the instinct of shame or The
possession
of
knowledge,
which are
produced by eating
the fruit of the tree.
(2) Amongst
other
things
which
distinguish
man s
present
from his
original state,
is the
possession
of a certain kind of
knowledge
which
was
acquired by eating
the forbidden fruit. This
brings
us to the most
difficult
question
which the narrative
presents
:
what_is
meant^by
the
knowledge
of
good
and evil ?
*
Keeping
in mind the
possibility
that
the two recensions
may represent
different
conceptions,
our data are
these : In
3
22
knowledge
of
good
and evil is an attainment which
(a)
*
In OT
usage, knowledge
of
good
and evil marks the difference
between adulthood and childhood
(Dt.
i
39
,
Is.
7
15f<
),
or second childhood
(2
Sa.
ig
36
)
;
it also denotes
(with
different
verbs) judicial
discernment of
right
and
wrong (2
Sa.
14
17
,
i Ki.
3
s
),
which is an intellectual
function,
quite
distinct from the
working
of the conscience. The antithesis of
good
and evil
may,
of
course,
be ethical
(Am. 5
14
-,
Is.
5
20
etc.) ;
but it
may
also be
merely
the contrast of
pleasant
and
painful,
or
wholesome
and hurtful
(2
Sa.
ig
36
).
Hence the
phrase
comes to stand for the whole
range
of
experience,
"a
comprehensive designation
of
things by
their
two
polar attributes,
according
to which
they
interest man for his weal
or hurt" : cf. 2 Sa.
14"
with
20
all
things
that are in earth
(Gn.
24
5
3i
24
).
We. maintains that the non-ethical sense is
fundamental,
the
expressions
being
transferred to virtue and vice
only
in so far as their
consequences
are
advantageous
or the reverse.
Knowledge
of
good
and evil
may
thus mean
knowledge
in
general^ knowing
one
tiling
from
another.
96
THE PARADISE
implies equality
with
God, (b)
was forbidden to
man, (c)
is
actually
secured
by
man. In the
leading-
narrative
(b) certainly
holds
good (2
17
),
but
(a)
and
(c)
are doubtful. Did the
serpent speak
truth when he said that
knowledge
of
good
and evil would make man like God ? Did man
actually
attain such
knowledge
? Was the
perception
of nakedness a
first flash of the new divine
insight
which man had
coveted,
or was it a
bitter disenchantment and
mockery
of the
hopes inspired by
the
serpent
s
words ? It is
only
the habit of
reading
the ideas of
3
22
into the
story
of
the
temptation
which makes these
questions
seem
superfluous.
Let us
consider how far the various
interpretations
enable us to answer them.
i. The
suggestion
that
magical knowledge
is meant
may
be set aside as
inadequate
to either form of the biblical narrative :
magic
is not
god
like
knowledge,
nor is it the universal
property
of
humanity.
ii. The
usual
explanation
identifies the
knowledge
of
good
and evil with the
moral
sense,
the
faculty
of
discerning
between
right
and
wrong.
This
view is
ably
defended
by
Bu.
(Urg. 69 ff.),
and is not to be
lightly
dis
missed,
but
yet
raises serious difficulties. Could it be said that God
meant to withhold from man the
power
of moral discernment ? Does
not the
prohibition
itself
presuppose
that man
already
knew that
obedience was
right
and disobedience sinful ? We have no
right
to
say
that the restriction was
only temporary,
and that God would in other
ways
have bestowed on man the
gift
of conscience
;
the narrative
suggests nothing
of the sort. iii. We.
(Prol.
6
299 ff.)
holds that the
knowledge
in
question
is
insight
into the secrets of
nature,
and intel
ligence
to
manipulate
them for human ends
;
and this as a
quality
not
so much of the individual as of the
race,
the
knowledge
which is the
principle
of human civilisation. It is the
faculty
which we see at work
in the invention of
clothing (3
21
?),
in the
founding
of cities
(4
17
),
in the
discovery
of the arts and crafts
(4
19ff-
),
and in the
building
of the tower
(n
lff
-).
The undertone of condemnation of the cultural achievements of
humanity
which runs
through
the Yahwistic sections of chs. i-n makes
it
probable
that the writer traced their root to the
knowledge acquired
by
the first
transgression
;
and of such
knowledge
it
might
be said that
it made man like
God,
and that God willed to withhold it
permanently
from His creatures. --iv.
Against
this view Gu.
(u f., 25 f.) urges
some
what
ineptly
that the
myth
does not
speak
of arts and
aptitudes
which
are learned
by
education,
but of a kind of
knowledge
which comes
by
nature,
of which the instinct of sex is a
typical
illustration.
Knowledge
of
good
and evil is
simply
the
enlargement
of
capacity
and
experience
which
belongs
to mature
age, ripeness
of
judgment, reason, including
moral
discernment,
but not identical with it. The difference between
the last two
explanations
is not
great
;
and
possibly
both are true.
We. s seems to me the
only
view that does
justice
to the
thought
of
3
s2
;
and if
4
16ff-
and u
1
"
9
be the continuation of this version of the
Fall,
the
theory
has much to recommend it. On the other
hand,
Gu. s
acceptation
may
be truer to the
teaching
of
3
lff>
. Man s
primitive
state was one of
childlike innocence and
purity
;
and the
knowledge
which he obtained
by
disobedience is the
knowledge
of life and of the world which distin
guishes
the
grown
man from the child. If it be
objected
that such
LEGEND
97
knowledge
is a
good thing,
which God could not have forbidden to
man,
we
may
be content to fall back on the
paradox
of Christ s idea of child
hood :
"Except ye turn,
and become as little
children, ye
shall in no
wise enter into the
kingdom
of heaven."
(3)
The next
point
that claims attention is the author s
conception
of\
sin.
Formally,
sin is
represervted^as
an act of disobedience to a
positive
commandpinrposed
as a test of
fidelity
;
an
act, therefore,
which
implies
disloyalty
"to God,
and a want of the trust and confidence due from man
to hlsM^ker.
But the essence of the
transgression
lies
deeper
: God
had a reason for
imposing
the
command,
and man had a motive Tor
disobeying
it
;
and the reason and motive are
unambiguously
indicated.
Man was
tempted by
the desire to be as
God,
and Yahwe does not will
that man should be as God. Sin is thus in the last instance
presump
tion,
an
overstrrp^nj^ofj.he
limits of
creaturehood,
and an encroach
ment on the
prerogatives qf
i^eitv. It is true that the offence is invested
with
every
circumstance of
extenuation, inexperience,
the absence of
evil
intention,
the suddenness of the
temptation,
and the
superior subtlety
of the
serpent ;
but sin it was
nevertheless,
and was
justly
followed
by
punishment.
How far the
passage
foreshadows a doctrine of
hereditary
sin,
it is
impossible
to
say.
The
consequences
of the
transgression,
both
privative
and
positive,
are
undoubtedly
transmitted from the first
pair
to their
posterity
;
but whether the sinful
tendency
itself is
regarded
as
having
become
hereditary
in the
race,
there is not evidence to show.
(4) Lastly,
what view of God does the narrative
present
? It has
already
been
pointed
out that
3
22
borders hard on the
pagan
notion
of the
envy
of the
godhead,
a notion difficult to reconcile with the
conceptions
of OT
religion.
But of that idea there is no trace in
the main narrative of the
temptation
and the
Fall, except
in the
lying
insinuation of the
serpent
: the writer himself does not thus
charge
God
foolishly.
His
religious
attitude is one of reverent submission to the
limitations
imposed
on human life
by
a
sovereign Will,
which is deter
mined to maintain inviolate the distinction between the divine and the
human. The attribute most
conspicuously displayed
is
closely
akin to
what the
prophets
called the holiness of
God,
as
illustrated,
e.g.,
in Is.
2
i2ff.
> After
all,
the world is God s world and not man
s,
and the
Almighty
is
just,
as well as
holy,
when He frustrates the
impious aspiration
of
humanity
after an
independent footing
and
sphere
of action in the uni
verse. The God of Gn.
3
is no
arbitrary
heathen
deity, dreading
lest
the
sceptre
of the universe should be snatched from his hand
by
the
soaring
ambition of the race of men
;
but a
Being infinitely
exalted above
the
world,
stern in His
displeasure
at
sin,
and terrible in His
justice;
yet
benignant
and
compassionate,
slow to
anger,
and
repenting
Him of
the evil."
Through
an
intensely anthropomorphic
medium we discern the
features of the God of the
prophets
and the Old Testament
;
nay,
in the
analogy
of human fatherhood which underlies the
description,
we can
trace the lineaments of the God and Father of
Jesus
Christ. That is the
real
Protevangelium
which lies in the
passage
: the fact that God
tempers
judgment
with
mercy,
the faith that
man,
though
he has forfeited in
nocence and
happiness,
is not cut off from
fellowship
with his
Creator.
7
9
8
CH. IV.
Beginnings of History
and Civilisation.
Critical
Analysis.
Ch.
4
consists of three
easily separable
sections :
(a)
the
story
of Cain and Abel
t
1 16
), (b)
a Cainite
genealogy O
7 24
),*
and
(r)
a
fragment
of a Sethite
genealogy (^
26
).
As
they
lie before
us,
these are woven into a consecutive
history
of antediluvian
mankind,
with a semblance of
unity
sufficient to
satisfy
the older
generation
of
critics.
f
Closer examination seems to show that the
chapter
is com
posite,
and that the
superficial continuity
conceals a series of critical
problems
of
great intricacy.
i. We have first to determine the character and extent of the
Cainite
genealogy.
It is
probable
that the first link occurs in v.
lfft
,
and
has to be
disentangled
from the Cain
legend (so
We.
Bu.);
whether
it can have included the whole of that
legend
is a
point
to be considered
later
(p. 100).
We have thus a list of Adam s descendants
through
Cain,
continued in a
single
line for seven
generations,
after which it
branches into
three,
and then ceases. It has no
explicit sequel
in
Genesis;
the sacred number
7
marks it as
complete
in
itself;
and
the
attempts
of some scholars to remodel it in accordance with its
supposed original place
in the
history
are to be distrusted. Its main
purpose
is to record the
origin
of various arts and industries of civilised
life
;
and
apart
from the
history
of Cain there is
nothing
whatever to
indicate that it deals with a race of
sinners,
as distinct from the
godly
line of Seth. That this
genealogy belongs
to
J
has
hardly
been
questioned except by
Di.,
who
argues
with some hesitation for
assigning
it to
E,
chiefly
on the
ground
of its discordance with vv.
25- 26
. Bu.
(p.
220
ff.)
has shown that the
stylistic
criteria
point decidedly (if
not
quite unequivocally) toJ;J
and in the absence of
any
certain trace of E
in chs.
i-n,
the
strong presumption
is that the
genealogy represents
a
stratum of the former document. The
question
then arises whether it
be the
original
continuation of ch.
3.
An essential connexion
cannot,
from the nature of the
case,
be affirmed. The
primitive genealogies
are
composed
of desiccated
legends,
in which each member is
originally
independent
of the rest
;
and we are not entitled to assume that an
account of the Fall
necessarily
attached itself to the
person
of the first
man. If it were certain that
3
20
is an
integral part
of one recension of
the Paradise
story,
it
might reasonably
be concluded that that recension
was continued in
4
1
,
and then in
4
17 24
. In the absence of
complete
certainty
on that
point
the
larger question
must be left in
suspense
;
there
is, however,
no
difficulty
in
supposing
that in the earliest written
collection of Hebrew traditions the
genealogy
was
preceded by
a
history
of the Fall in a version
partly preserved
in ch.
3.
The
presumption
that
this was the case
would,
of
course,
be
immensely strengthened
if we could
suppose
it to be the intention of the
original
writer to describe not
merely
the
progress
of
culture,
but also the
rapid development
of sin
(so We.).
*
We.
unites v.
16b
with
17 24
.
f
e.g. Hupfeld, Quelien,
I26ff.
n^ beget,
18
;
Kin
DJ,
M
(in genealogies,
confined to
J,
io
21
I9
M
21
(
rf> I0
2fl).
cf.
19
iv.
99
2. The
fragmentary genealogy
of vv.
25- 26
corresponds,
so far as it
goes,
with the Sethite
genealogy
of P in ch.
5.
It will be shown later
(p.
138 f.)
that the lists of
4
17
"
24
and
5 go
back to a common
original ;
and if the
discrepancy
had been
merely
between
J
and
P,
the obvious
conclusion
would be that these two documents had followed different
traditional variants of the ancient
genealogy.
But how are we to
account for the fact that the first three names of P s list occur also in
the connexion of
J
? There are four
possible
solutions,
(i)
It is conceiv
able that
J,
not
perceiving
the ultimate
identity
of the two
genealogies,
incorporated
both in his document
(cf.
Ew.
JBB W,
vi.
p. 4)
;
and that
the final redactor
(R
p
)
then curtailed the second list in view of ch.
5.
This
hypothesis
is on various
grounds improbable.
It assumes
(see
25b
)
the murder of Abel
by
Cain as an
original
constituent of
J
s narrative
;
now that
story
takes for
granted
that the
worship
of Yahwe was
practised
from the
beginning,
whereas
26b
explicitly
states that it was
only
introduced in the third
generation. (2)
It has not
unnaturally
been
conjectured
that v.
25 -
are
entirely
redactional
(Ew.
Schr.
al.)
;
i.e.,
that
they
were inserted
by
an editor
(R
p
)
to establish a connexion
between the
genealogy
of
J
and that of P. In favour of this view the
use of DIK
(as
a
proper name)
and of D n
1
?^ has been cited
;
but
again
the
statement of
26b
presents
an insurmountable
difficulty.
P has his own
definite
theory
of the introduction of the name m,v
(see
Ex. 6
2ff>
),
and it is
incredible that
any
editor influenced
by
him should have invented the
gratuitous
statement that the name was in use from the time of
Enosh.
(3)
A third view is that vv.
25 ^
stood
originally
before v.
1
(or
before v.
17
),
so that the father of Cain and Abel
(or
of Cain
alone)
was not Adam but
Enosh
;
and that the redactor who made the
transposition
is
responsible
also for some
changes
on v.
25
to
adapt
it to its new
setting (so Sta.)
(see
on the
v.).
That
is,
no
doubt,
a
plausible
solution
(admitted
as
possible by Di.), although
it involves
operations
on the structure of the
genealogy
too drastic and
precarious
to be
readily
assented to. It is
difficult also to
imagine any
sufficient motive for the
supposed
trans
position.
That it was made to find a connexion for the
(secondary)
story
of Cain and Abel is a forced
suggestion.
The
tendency
of a
redactor must have been to
keep
that
story
as far from the
beginning
as
possible,
and that the traditional data should have been
deliberately
altered so as to make it the
opening
scene of human
history
is
hardly
intelligible. (4)
There remains the
hypothesis
that the two
genealogies
belong
to
separate
strata within the Yahwistic
tradition,
which had
been
amalgamated by
a redactor of that school
(RJ) prior
to the
incorporation
of P
;
and that the second list was curtailed
by
R
p
because
of its substantial
identity
with that of the
Priestly
Code in ch.
5.
The harmonistic
glossing
of v.
25
is an inevitable
assumption
of
any
theory except (i)
and
(2)
;
it must have taken
place
after the
insertion
of the Cain and Abel
episode
;
and on the view we are now
considering
it
must be attributed to RJ. In other
respects
the solution is free from
difficulty.
The
recognition
of the
complex
character of the
source called
J
is forced on us
by many
lines of
proof;
and it will
probably
be found
that this view of the
genealogies yields
a valuable clue to the
structure
IOO CAIN AND ABEL
(j)
of the
non-Priestly
sections of chs. 2-11
(see pp. 3, 134).
One
important
consequence may
here be noted. Eve s use of the name D
n^K,
and the
subsequent
notice of the introduction of the name
mrr,
suggest
that this
writer had
previously
avoided the latter title of God
(as
E and P
pre
viously
to Ex.
3
14ff-
and Ex. 6
2fft
).
Hence,
if it be the case that one
recension of the Paradise
story
was characterised
by
the exclusive use
of DM^N
(see p. 53), 4
20 26
will
naturally
be
regarded
as the
sequel
to
that recension.
3.
There remains the Cain and Abel narrative of vv.
1
"
16
. That it
belongs
to
J
in the wider sense is
undisputed,*
but its
precise
affinities
within the Yahwistic
cycle
are
exceedingly perplexing.
If the
theory
mentioned at the end of the last
paragraph
is
correct,
the consistent use
of the name
m.vf
would show that it was unknown to the author of
vv-
25. 26
ancj Of ^at form of the Paradise
story presupposed by
these vv.
Is
it, then,
a
primary
element of the
genealogy
in which it is embedded ?
It
certainly
contains notices such as the introduction of
agriculture
and
(perhaps)
the
origin
of sacrifice in
keeping
with the idea of the
genealogy
;
but the
length
and
amplitude
of the narration would be
without
parallel
in a
genealogy
;
and
(what
is more
decisive)
there is an
obvious
incongruity
between the Cain of the
legend,
doomed to a
fugitive
unsettled
existence,
and the Cain of the
genealogy (v.
17
),
who as
the first
city-builder inaugurates
the
highest type
of stable civilised life.*
Still more
complicated
are the relations of the
passage
to the
history
of
the Fall in ch.
3.
On the one
hand,
a series of material
incongruities
seem to show that the two narratives are unconnected : the
assumption
of an
already existing population
on the earth could
hardly
have been
made
by
the author of ch.
3
;
the free choice of
occupation by
the two
brothers,
and Yahwe s
preference
for the
shepherd
s
sacrifice, ignore
the
representation (3
19
)
that
husbandry
is the destined lot of the race
;
and the curse on Cain is recorded in terms which
betray
no conscious
ness of a
primal
curse
resting
on the
ground.
It is
true,
on the other
hand,
that the
literary
form of
4
1 16
contains
striking
reminiscences of
that of ch.
3.
The most
surprising
of these
(4
7b
||
3
16b
) may
be set down
to textual
corruption (see
the note on the v.
)
;
but there are several other
turns of
expression
which recall the
language
of the earlier narrative :
cf.
4
9 10< n
with
3
9> 13> 17
. In both we have the same
sequence
of
sin,
investigation
and
punishment
(in
the form of a
curse),
the same dramatic
dialogue,
and the same
power
of
psychological analysis.
But whether
these resemblances are such as to
prove identity
of
authorship
is a
question
that cannot be
confidently
answered. There is an indistinct-
*
Cf.
m,T,
* 3- 4- 6- 9- 13- 15- 16
; nnx,
"
; vta^>,
15
;
and obs. the resemblances
to ch.
^
noted below : the
naming
of the child
by
the mother.
t
This
uniformity
of
usage
is
not, however,
observed in
djr.
In
(5i
A
Ktf/nos
occurs twice
(
3- 1S
),
6 9e6s
5
times
(
1 - 4- 9< 10- 16
),
and
Kfy>ios
6 6e&s
3
times
(
6- 15> 15
) (for
variants,
see
Cambridge LXX).
Even if we
adopt
Bu. s emendation of v.
17
,
and make Enoch the
city-founder
(see
on the
v.),
it still remains
improbable
that that r61e
should be
assigned
to the son of a
wandering
nomad.
IV. I IOI
ness of
conception
in
4
1
"
16
which contrasts
unfavourably
with the con
vincing- lucidity
of ch.
3,
as if the writer s touch were less
delicate,
or
his
gift
of
imaginative
delineation more restricted. Such
impressions
are too
subjective
to be
greatly
trusted
; but,
taken
along
1
with the
material differences
already
enumerated, they
confirm the
opinion
that
the
literary
connexion between ch.
3
and
4
lff-
is due to conscious or
unconscious
imitation of one writer
by
another. On the
whole,
the
evidence
points
to the
following
conclusion : The
story
of Cain and Abel
existed as a
popular legend entirely independent
of the traditions
regarding
the
infancy
of the
race,
and
having
no vital relation to
any
part
of its
present literary
environment. It was
incorporated
in the Yah-
wistic document
by
a writer familiar with the narrative of the
Fall,
who
identified the Cain of the
legend
with the son of the first
man,
and linked
the
story
to his name in the
genealogy.
How much of the
original
genealogy
has been
preserved
it is
impossible
to
say
:
any
notices
that
belonged
to it have
certainly
been
rewritten,
and cannot now be
isolated
;
but v.
1
(birth
of
Cain) may
with reasonable
probability
be
assigned
to it
(so Bu.), possibly
also
2b
(Cain
s
occupation),
and
3
b
(Cain
s
sacrifice).
Other
important questions
will be best considered
in connexion with the
original significance
of the
legend (p.
in
ff.).
IV. 1-16. Cain and Abel.
Eve bears to her husband two
sons,
Cain and Abel
;
the
first becomes a tiller of the
ground,
and the second a
keeper
of
sheep (
1- 2
).
Each offers to Yahwe the sacrifice
ap
propriate
to his
calling
;
but
only
the
shepherd
s
offering
is
accepted,
and Cain is filled with morose
jealousy
and
hatred of Abel
(
3
~
5
).
Though
warned
by
Yahwe
(
6f>
),
he
yields
to his evil
passion
and
slays
his brother
(
8
).
Yahwe
pro
nounces him accursed from the fertile
ground,
which will no
longer yield
its substance to
him,
and he is condemned to
the
wandering
life of the desert
(
10
~
12
).
As a
mitigation
of
his
lot,
Yahwe
appoints
him a
sign
which
protects
him from
indiscriminate
vengeance (
14f<
)
;
and he
departs
into the land
of
Nod,
east of Eden
(
16
).
1-5.
Birth of Cain and Abel : their
occupation,
and sacrifice. I. On the
naming
of the child
by
the
I.
y~\"
DINTI]
A
plup.
sense
(Ra.) being
unsuitable,
the
peculiar
order
of words is difficult to
explain
;
see on
3
1
,
and cf. ai
1
. Sta.
(Ak.
Red.
2
39) regards
it as a
proof
of editorial
manipulation.
The
euphemistic
use of
yr
is
peculiar
to
J
in the Hex.
(7 times)
: Nu.
3i
17- 18> K
(P
: cf.
Ju.
2 j
11.
12)
are somewhat different. Elsewhere
Ju.
ii
39
i9
22 - 25
,
i Sa. i
19
,
i Ki. i
4
,
all in the older
historiography,
and some
perhaps
from the
IO2 CAIN AND ABEL
(j)
mother,
see
Benzinger,
ArcJueol? 116. It is
peculiar
to the
oldest strata
(J
and
E)
of the
Hex.,
and is not
quite
con
sistently
observed even there
(4
26
5
29
25
25f
-,
Ex. 2
22
)
: it
may
therefore be a relic of the matriarchate which was
giving
place
to the later custom of
naming by
the father
(P)
at the
time when these traditions were
taking shape.
The difficult
sentence
njir-ns
^
^i?
connects the name
T?.
with the
verb
nj|5.
But
H3p
has two
meanings
in Heb. :
(a)
to
(create,
or) produce,
and
(b)
to
acquire
;
and it is not
easy
to
determine which is intended here.
The second idea would seem more suitable in the
present
connexion,
but it leads to a forced and doubtful construction of the last two words.
(a)
To render TIN with the
help
of
(Di.
and
most)
is
against
all
analogy.
It is admitted that nx itself nowhere has this sense
(in 49
20
the true
reading-
is
SNI,
and Mic
3
8
is at least
doubtful)
;
and the few
cases in which the
synonym
Dj;
can be so translated are not
really
parallel.
Both in i Sa.
i4
45
and Dn. n
39
,
the
cy
denotes association
in the same
act,
and therefore does not
go beyond
the sense
along
with. The
analogy
does not hold in this v. if the vb. means
acquire
;
Eve could not
say
that she had
acquired
a man
along
with Yahwe.
(b)
We
may,
of
course,
assume an error in the text and read nxo
=
from
(Bu.
al. after
2T). (c)
The idea that n is the
sign
of ace.
(3P, al.),
and
that Eve
imagined
she had
given
birth to the divine seed
promised
in
3
15
(Luther, al.) may
be
disregarded
as a
piece
of
antiquated dogmatic
exegesis.
If we
adopt
the other
meaning
of
njp,
the construction is
perfectly
natural : / have created
(or produced)
a -man with
(the
co
operation of)
Yahwe
(cf.
Ra. :
"
When he created me and
my
husband
he created us
alone,
but in this case we are associated with him
").
A
strikingly
similar
phrase
in the
bilingual Babylonian
account of
Creation
(above, p. 47) suggests
that the
language
here
may
be more
deeply tinged
with
mythology
than has been
generally suspected.
We
read that
"Aruru,
together
with him
[Marduk],
created
(the)
seed of
mankind": Aruru zi-ir a-mt-lu-ti it-ti-Su ib-ta-nu
{KIB,
vi.
i, 40
f.
;
King,
Cr. Tab. i.
134 f.). Aruru,
a form of
Istar,
is a
mother-goddess
of the
Babylonians (see
KAT
3
, 430),
i.e.
y
a deified
ancestress,
and
therefore so far the
counterpart
of the Heb.
njn (see
on
3
20
).
The
exclamation
certainly gains
in
significance
if we
suppose
it to have
survived from a more
mythological phase
of
tradition,
in which
literary
school of
J. j;p] *J pp (Ar. kana).
In Ar. kain means smith
;
=
Syr.
f
> ^
Qj
worker in metal
(see 4
M
5
9
).
Noldeke s
remark,
that
in Ar. kain several words are
combined,
is
perhaps equally
true of Heb.
\*$(EB, 130). Many
critics
(We.
Bu. Sta. Ho.
al.)
take the name as
eponym
of the Kenites
({IP, Vp)
:
seep. 113
below.
vnp]
All Vns.
express
the idea of
acquiring (tKTr/a
d/j. rjv, fiossedi, etc.).
The sense create
or
originate, though apparently
confined to Heb. and subordinate
IV.
2, 3
103
Hawwah was not a mortal wife and
mother,
but a creative
deity taking-
part
with the
supreme god
in the
production
of man. See
Cheyne,
TBI) 104,
who thinks it
"psychologically probable
that Eve
congratu
lated herself on
having
created a man." That e> N is not elsewhere
used of a man-child is not a serious
objection
to
any interpretation (cf.
93
in
Jb. 3
s
)
;
though
the
thought readily
occurs that the
etymology
would be more
appropriate
to the name S^JN
(4
26
)
than to
]
$.
2.
And
again
she
bare,
etc.]
The omission of the verb
rnn
is not to be
pressed
as
implying
that the brothers were
twins, although
that
may very
well be the
meaning.
The
OT contains no certain trace of the
widespread superstitions
regarding
twin-births. The sons betake themselves to the
two fundamental
pursuits
of settled life : the elder to
agriculture,
the
younger
to the
rearing
of small cattle
(sheep
and
goats).
The
previous story
of the
Fall,
in which
Adam,
as
representing
the
race,
is condemned to
husbandry,
seems to be
ignored (Gu.).
The absence of an
etymology
of
^n
is remarkable
(but
cf. v.
17
),
and
hardly
to be accounted for
by
the
supposition
that the name was
only
coined afterwards in token of his
brief, fleeting
existence
(Di.).
The word
(=
breath
) might suggest
that to a Heb.
reader,
but the
original
sense is unknown. Gu.
regards
it as the
proper
name of an
extinct tribe or
people
;
Ew. We. al. take it to be a variant of
*?5;,
the father of nomadic
shepherds (4
20
)
;
and
Cheyne
has
ingeniously
combined both names with a
group
of Semitic words
denoting
domestic
animals and those who take
charge
of them
(e.g. Syr.
JiOin
=
herd
;
Ar. abbal
camel-herd, etc.):
the
meaning
would then be
herds
man
(EB,
i.
6).
The
conjecture
is retracted in
TBI,
in the
interests
of Yerahme el.
3.
An
offering}
nnaip,
lit. a
present
or tribute
(^2
US-
33!
43
llff
-,
i Sa. io
27
etc.)
: see below. The use of this word
even
there,
is established
by
Dt.
32
6
,
Pr. 8
22
,
Ps.
I39
13
,
Gn.
i4
19- w
.
nn]
Of the Vns. alone can be
thought
to have read nxc
(cnp
JD)
;
one
anonymous
Gr. tr.
(see Field)
took the word as not. ace.
(&vdpwirov
Ktpiov)
;
the rest
vary greatly
in
rendering (as
was to be
expected
from
the
difficulty
of the
phrase),
but there is no reason to
suppose they
had
a different text : ( 5ia rou
6.,
S. <ri>v
K.,
*E/3p.
ical 6
2tf/>.
: fy
0,,
J5
per
Deum,
S>
I .;VnV Conjectures
: Marti
(Lit. Centralbl.,
1897,
xx-
641)
and
Zeydner (ZATW,
xviii.
120):
rnrr nk V*K
=
I
the man of the
Jahwe
sign (v.
16
);
Gu.
njxnN
B> N =
a man whom I desire.
3.
D D
1
fpo] After
some
time,
which
may
be
longer (i
Sa.
29 )
or
shorter
(24
65
).
To take DT> in the definite sense of
year (i
Sa. i
21
2
19
IO4
CAIN AND ABEL
(j)
shows that the
gift-theory
of sacrifice
(fiS
2
,
39
2
ff.)
was
fully
established in the
age
when the narrative
originated.
of
the
fruit of
the
ground]
"
Fruit in its natural state was
offered at
Carthage,
and was
probably
admitted
by
the
Hebrews in ancient times." "The
Carthaginian
fruit-
offering
consisted of a branch
bearing
fruit,
... it seems
to be clear that the fruit was offered at the
altar,
. . . and
this,
no
doubt,
is the
original
sense of the Hebrew rite also
"
(fiS
2
,
221 and n.
3).
Cain s
offering
is thus
analogous
to
the first-fruits
(D
TJ33
: Ex. 2
3
16- 19
34
22- 26
,
Nu. i
3
20
etc.)
of
Heb. ritual
;
and it is
arbitrary
to
suppose
that his fault
lay
in not
selecting
the best of what he had for God.
4.
Abel s
offering
consisted of the
firstlings of
his
flock, namely
(see
G-K.
154
a,
N. i
(b)) of
their
fat-pieces]
cf. Nu. i8
17
.
Certain fat
portions
of the victim were in ancient ritual
reserved for the
deity,
and
might
not be eaten
(i
Sa. 2
16
etc. :
for Levitical
details,
see Dri.-
White, Lev., Polychr.
Bible,
pp. 4, 65). 4b, 53-
How did Yahwe
signify
His
acceptance
of the one
offering
and
rejection
of the other ? It is
2O
6
etc.)
is
unnecessary, though
not
altogether
unnatural
(lEz. al.).
K
3n]
the ritual use is well established: Lv. 2
2- 8
,
Is. i
13
, Jer. ly
26
etc.
nnp
: Ar. minhat
gift,
Moan :
*J
manaha.* On the uses of the
word,
see Dri.
DB,
iii.
5870.
In sacrificial
terminology
there are
perhaps
three senses to be
distinguished
:
(i)
Sacrifice in
general,
con
ceived as a tribute or
propitiatory present
to the
deity,
Nu. i6
15
, Ju.
6
18
,
i Sa. 2
17- 29
26
19
,
Is. i
13
, Zeph. 3
10
,
Ps.
96*
etc.
(2)
The
conjunction
of rruo
and
nj] (i
Sa. 2
29
3
14
,
Is.
ig
21
,
Am.
5
M
etc.) may
show that it denotes
vegetable
as distinct from animal oblations
(see
1?S
2
, 217, 236). (3)
In
P and late
writings generally
it is restricted to cereal
offerings
: Ex.
3O
9
,
Nu. i8
9
etc. Whether the wider or the more restricted
meaning
be the
older it is difficult to
say. 4. jna^np ]
On
Meth.,
see G-K. 16 d. We
might point
as
sing,
of the noun
(jn^lj,
Lv. 8
16 - 23
;
G-K.
91 c)
;
but AU
has
scriptio plena
of the
pi. jn
aSnD).
ytsn]
(5r KO.\ ZiriSev
(in
v.
5
irpovtaxcv)
Aq.
t7reK\idr] ;
2.
ir^p^Qi]
;
0.
tve-jrupta-ev (see above)
;
6
2i//>. evd6icr)(rev ;
H
respexit
;
&
- > *^
^ ]o
;
&
"
m?
Nijn
mm. There is no exact
parallel
to the
meaning
here
;
the nearest is Ex.
5
9
(
look
aivay [from
their
tasks]
to idle
words). 5. mn]
in Heb.
always
of mental heat
(anger);
(Hr
*
Some, however,
derive it from nm
=
direct
;
and Hommel
(AHT,
322)
cites a Sabsean inscr. where
tanahhayat (V conj.)
is used of
offering
a sacrifice
(see Lagrange,
fctudes,
250).
If this be
correct,
what was
said above about the
gift theory
would fall to the
ground.
IV.
4, 5
105
commonly
answered
(in
accordance with Lv.
g
24
,
i Ki. i8
38
etc.),
that fire descended from heaven and consumed Abel s
offering (.
Ra. lEz. De.
al.).
Others
(Di. Gu.)
think
more
vaguely
of some technical
sign, e.g.
the manner in
which the smoke ascended
(Ew. Str.)
;
while Calv.
supposes
that Cain inferred the truth from the
subsequent
course of
God s
providence.
But these
conjectures
overlook the
strong
anthropomorphism
of the
description
: one
might
as well ask
how Adam knew that he was
expelled
from the
garden (3
24
).
Perhaps
the likeliest
analogy
is the
acceptance
of Gideon s
sacrifice
by
the
Angel
of Yahwe
(Ju.
6
21
). Why
was the
one sacrifice
accepted
and not the other? The distinction
must lie either
(a]
in the
disposition
of the brothers
(so
nearly
all
comm.),
or
(d)
in the material of the sacrifice
(Tu.).
In favour of
(a)
it is
pointed
out that in each case the
personality
of the
worshipper
is mentioned before the
gift.
But since the reason is not
stated,
it must be
presumed
to
be one which the first hearers would understand for them
selves
;
and
they
could
hardly
understand that
Cain,
apart
from his
occupation
and
sacrifice,
was less
acceptable
to
God than Abel. On the other
hand,
they
would
readily
perceive
that the material of Cain s
offering
was not in
accordance with
primitive
Semitic ideas of sacrifice
(see
,
Lect.
VIII.).
From the fact that the altar is not
expressly mentioned,
it has been
inferred that sacrifice is here
regarded
as
belonging-
to the established
order of
things (Sta. al.).
But the whole manner of the
narration
suggests
rather that the incident is conceived as the initiation of
sacrifice,
the first
spontaneous expression
of
religious feeling
in
cultus.* If that
impression
be
sound,
it follows also that the
narrative
proceeds
on a
theory
of sacrifice : the
idea, viz.,
that animal sacrifice
alone is
acceptable
to Yahwe. It is true that we cannot
go
back to
wrongly \vTn)<rev ;
so <S. On
impers. const.,
see G-K.
1446
;
cf.
jgso.32
3I
36
^
NU> l6
is
etc> The word j s not used
by
p._For ^
M>
%
has
ujjlQsZ)
(
Ht - became black
).
*
It
may
be a mere coincidence that in Philo
Byblius
the institution
of animal sacrifice occurs in a
legend
of two brothers who
quarrelled
(Pr.
Ev. i.
10).
Kittel
(Studien
zur hebr. Archdol.
IO3
1
)
suggests
that
our narrative
may go
back to a time
prior
to the introduction of the
fire-offering
and the altar.
IO6 CAIN AND ABEL
(j)
a
stage
of Heb. ritual when
vegetable offerings
were excluded
;
but
such sacrifices must have been introduced after the
adoption
of
agri
cultural life
;
and it is
quite
conceivable that in the
early days
of the
settlement
in Canaan the view was maintained
among
the Israelites
that the animal
offerings
of their nomadic
religion
were
superior
to
the
vegetable offerings
made to the Canaanite Baals. Behind this
may
lie
(as
Gu.
thinks)
the idea that
pastoral
life as a whole is more
pleasing
to Yahwe than
husbandry.
5b.
Cain s
feeling
is a mixture of
anger (it
became
very
hot to
him)
and
dejection
(his
facefell
: cf.
Jb. 2Q
24
,
Jer. 3
12
).
This does not
imply
that his
previous
state of mind had
been bad
(Di. al.).
In
tracing
Cain s sin to a disturbance
of his
religious
relation to
God,
the narrator shows his
profound knowledge
of the human heart.
6-12.
Warning, murder,
and sentence.
7.
The
point
of the remonstrance
obviously
is that the cause of Cain s
dissatisfaction lies in
himself,
but whether in his
general
temper
or in his defective sacrifice can no
longer
be made
7.
The difficulties of the
present
text are "the curt and
ambiguous
expression
nxp
; further,
the use of nNan as
masc.,
then the whole tenor
of the
sentence,
If
thou doest not -well . . .
;
finally,
the exact and
yet
incongruous parallelism
of the second half-verse with
3
16
"
(Ols.
MBBA,
1870, 380).
As
regards
7a
,
the main lines of
interpretation
are these:
(i)
The inf.
nxy may
be
complementary
to TB
J?
as a relative vb.
(G-K.
120, i),
in which case b> must have the sense of offer sacrifice
(cf. 43
s4
,
Ezk. 2O
31
).
So
(a)
(3r
OVK dav
dpQ&s irpocrevtyicris, dpd&s
5e
/AT/
dtt\Tjs, ^uapres ; V^X
a<rc"
(reading nn^
for
nnsV,
and
pointing
the next
two words
fan nNpn)=
Is it not so if thou offerest
rightly,
but dost not
cut in
pieces rightly,
thou hast sinned ? Be still ! Ball
strangely
follows this fantastic
rendering, seemingly
oblivious of the fact that
nej
(cf.
Ex. 2
9
17
,
Lv. i
6- 12
,
r Ki. iS
23- 33
etc.)
for which he
needlessly
substitutes ins
(i5
10
)
has no sense as
applied
to a
fruit-offering. (b)
Somewhat similar is a view
approved by
Bu. as
"
vollig
befriedigend
"
(Urg. 204 f.):
Whether thou make thine
offering costly
or
not,
at the
door,
etc.
[
Whether thou offerest
correctly
or
not,
would be the
safer
rendering], (2)
The inf.
may
be taken as
compressed
apod.,
and n as an
independent
vb.
=
do well
(as often).
&
might
then
express
the idea of
(a)
elevation
of
countenance
(
DMS SP: cf.
Jb.
n
15
22
s6
)
: If thou doest
well,
shall there not be
lifting up
? etc.
(so
Tu.
Ew. De. Di. Dri.
al.);
or
(b) acceptance (
a "v as Gn.
I9
21
,
2 Ki.
3",
Mai. i
8* 9
)
: so
Aq. (fyArets),
0.
(SeKT<H
&
(A\CLD),
U
(recipies]
;
or
(c) forgiveness (as
Gn.
50",
Ex.
32
32
)
: so S.
(d077<ru>),
E-
Jer.
and
recently
Ho. Of these
renderings
2
(a)
or i
(b)
are
perhaps
the most
iv.
5-8 ID;
out.
Every attempt
to extract a
meaning"
from the v. is
more or less of a tour de
force,
and it is
nearly
certain that
the
obscurity
is due to
deep-seated
textual
corruption (v.t.).
8. And Cain
said]
">EN
never
being quite synonymous
with
IS
1
?,
the sentence is
incomplete
: the
missing-
words,
Let us
go
to the
field)
must be
supplied
from Vns.
;
see below
(so
Ew. Di. Dri.
al.).
That
Cain,
as a first
step
towards
reconciliation,
communicated to Abel the
warning
1
he had
just
received
(Tu. al.),
is
perhaps possible grammatically,
but
psychologically
is
altogether improbable.
thefield\
the
open
country (see
on 2
5
),
where
they
were safe from observation
satisfying, though
both are cumbered with the unnatural
metaphor
of
sin as a wild beast
couching-
at the door
(of what?),
and the harsh
discord of
gender.
The latter is not
fairly
to be
got
rid of
by taking
f3T
as a noun
(
sin is at the
door,
a lurker : Ew.
al.), though
no doubt
it
might
be removed
by
a
change
of text. Of the
image
itself the best
explanation
would be that of
Ho.,
who
regards fjT
as a technical
expression
for
unforgiven
sin
(cf.
Dt.
29
19
). Jewish interpreters explain
it of the evil
impulse
in man
(yin ~i^)
and most Christians
similarly
of
the
overmastering
or seductive
power
of sin
;
7b
being regarded
as
a summons to Cain to subdue his evil
passions. 7^
reads
smoothly
enough by
itself,
but connects
badly
with what
precedes.
The ante
cedent to the
pron.
suff. is
usually
taken to be Sin
personified
as a wild
beast,
or less
commonly (Calv. al.) Abel,
the
object
of Cain s
envy.
The word
npwn
is
equally unsuitable,
whether it be understood of the
wild beast s
eagerness
for its
prey
or the deference due from a
younger
brother to an older
;
and the alternative
n^tw-i
of
(5r and
Sb
(see
on
3
16
)
is no better. The verbal resemblance to
3
16b
is itself
suspicious ;
a
facetious
parody
of the
language
of a
predecessor
is not to be attributed
to
any early
writer. It is more
likely
that the
eye
of a
copyist
had
wandered to
3
16
in the
adjacent column,
and that the erroneous
wprds
were afterwards
adjusted
to their
present
context : in
&
the suff.
(are
actually
reversed
(s*^
-^v\A
* 1
OCTIO
m7n\
\)2_l.
Aj]). ^he
paraphrase
of 3T affords no
help,
and the textual confusion is
probably
irremediable
;
tentative emendations like those of Gu.
(p. 38)
are of
no
avail. Che.
TBI,
105,
would remove v.
7
as a
gloss,
and make
**
(reading rm)
Cain s answer to v.
6
.
8.
TON,
in the sense of
speak,
converse
(2
Ch.
32
24
),
is
excessively
rare and late : the
only
instance in
early
Heb. is
apparently
Ex.
ig
25
,
where the context has been broken
by
a
change
of document. It
might
mean mention
(as 43^ etc.),
but in that case the
obj.
must be indi
cated.
Usually
it is
followed,
like
Eng. say, by
the actual words
spoken.
Hence
rn^ri ro^i
is to be
supplied
with
jui^SF,
but not
Aq.
(Tu.
De. : see the scholia in
Field)
: a
Pisqa
in some Heb.
MSS, though
I08 CAIN AND ABEL
(j)
(i
Ki. ii
29
). p.
Yahwe
opens
the
inquisition,
as in
3
9
,
with
a
question,
which
Cain,
unlike
Adam,
answers with a
defiant
repudiation
of
responsibility.
It is
impossible
to
doubt that here the writer has the earlier scene before his
mind,
and
consciously depicts
a terrible advance in the
power
of sin. 10. Hark!
Thy
brothers blood is
crying
to
me,
etc.}
P>
denotes
strictly
the
cry
for
help,
and
specially
for redress or
vengeance (Ex.
22
22- 26
, Ju. 4
3
,
Ps.
1076-
28
etc.).
The idea that blood
exposed
on the
ground
thus
clamours for
vengeance
is
persistently
vivid in the OT
(Jb.
i6
18
,
Is. 26
21
,
Ezk. 2
4
7- 8
,
2 Ki.
9
26
)
: see
R&,
41 f.
In
this
passage
we have more than a mere
metaphor,
for
it is the blood which is
represented
as
drawing
Yahwe s
attention to the crime of Cain. II. And now cursed art
thou
from (off)
the
ground]
i.e.,
not the earth s
surface,
but
the cultivated
ground (cf.
v.
14
,
and see on 2
5
).
To restrict
it to the soil of Palestine
(We.
Sta.
Ho.) goes beyond
the
necessities of the case. which has
opened
her
mouth,
etc.}
a
personification
of the
ground
similar to that of Sheol in
Is.
s
14
(cf.
Nu. i6
32
).
The idea cannot be that the earth
is a monster
greedy
of blood
;
it seems rather akin to the
primitive superstition
of a
physical
infection or
poisoning
of the
soil,
and
through
it of the
murderer,
by
the shed
blood
(see
Miss
Harrison,
Prolegomena, 2i9ff.).
The
ordinary
OT
conception
is that the blood remains un
covered
(cf. Eurip.
Electra,
3i8f.).
The relation of the
two notions is obscure. 12. The curse from off the
ground
has two sides:
(i)
The
ground
will no
longeryield
its
strength (Jb. 3i
39
)
to the
murderer,
so that even if he
wished he will be unable to resume his
husbandry
;
and
not
recognised by
the
Mass., supports
this view of the text. To emend
nb^i (Ols. al.)
or
ion,
no. ]
(Gk.)
is less
satisfactory. 9. ]
WJL
n.>N.
10.
On the
interjectional
use of
Vip,
see G-K.
146
b
;
No. Mand. Gr.
p. 482.
Q
py> ]
.ux
py^, agreeing-
with
Vip
(?).
II.
jp
. . .
nnx] pregnant
constr.,
G-K.
i\qx,y,ff.
This sense of
jp
is more
accurately expressed by
Syo
in v.
14
,
but is
quite
common
(cf.
csp. 27
39
).
Other
renderings,
as
from
(indicating
the direction from which the curse
comes)
or
by,
are
less
appropriate
;
and the
compar.
more than is
impossible.
12.
^pn]
juss.
form with *6
(G-K. 109 d,
h
;
Dav.
63,
R.
3, 66,
R.
6);
fol-
IV.
9-14
IO9
(2)
he is to be a
vagrant
and wanderer in the earth. The
second is the
negative consequence
of the
first,
and need
not be
regarded
as a
separate
curse,
or a
symbol
of the
inward unrest which
springs
from a
guilty
conscience.
13-16. Mitigation
of Cain s
punishment. 13. My
punishment
is too
great
to be
borne}
So the
plea
of Cain is
understood
by
all modern authorities. The older
rendering
:
my guilt
is too
great
to be
forgiven (which
is in some
ways
preferable),
is abandoned because the
sequel
shows that
Cain s reflexions run on the
thought
of
suffering
and not of
sin
;
see below.
14. from Thy face
1 shall be
hidden]
This
anguished cry
of Cain has received scant
sympathy
at the
hands of comm.
(except Gu.).
Like that of Esau in
27
34
,
it reveals him as one who had
blindly
striven for a
spiritual
good,
as a man not
wholly
bad who had
sought
the favour
of God with the
passionate
determination of an
ill-regulated
nature and missed it : one to whom banishment from the
divine
presence
is a distinct
ingredient
in his
cup
of
misery.
every
one that
findeth me,
etc.]
The
object
of Cain s dread
is
hardly
the
vengeance
of the slain man s kinsmen
(so
nearly
all
comm.);
but rather the lawless state of
things
in the
desert,
where
any
one s life
may
be taken with
impunity (Gu.).
That the words
imply
a diffusion of the
human race is an
incongruity
on either
view,
and is one of
many
indications that the Cain of the
original story
was
not the son of the first man.
This
expostulation
of
Cain,
with its
rapid grasp
of the
situation,
lights up
some
aspects
of the historic
background
of the
leg-end, (i)
It
lowed
by
inf. without *?
(G-K. 114 m\ ijj yj]
an
alliteration,
as in i
a
.
Best rendered in anon. Gr. Vns.
(Field)
:
<ra\ei>6/ie;/os
Ka.1 d/carao-raTwv
;
5J
vagus
et
profugus
;
(Er
(incorrectly)
artvwv Kal
rp^uwj
.
13.
On
jty ( v gawd?
=
go astray
: Dri. Sam.
134^)
in the sense of
punishment
of
sin,
see the
passages
cited in
BDB,
s.v.
3.
y
NBU,
in
the sense of bear
guilt,
1
seems
peculiar
to P and Ezk.
; elsewhere it
means to
pardon iniquity (Ex. 34 ,
Nu.
i4
18
,
Ho.
I4
3
,
Mic.
7
18
,
Ps.
32
5
).
This consideration is not decisive
;
but there is
something
to be said
for the consensus of anc. Vns.
(fflr afadrjisai ;
3J veniam
merear,
etc.)
in
favour of the second
interpretation,
which
might
be
retained without
detriment to the sense if the sentence could be read as a
question.
14. VIN]
instead of suff. is unlike
J.
In the next v. tak
after inf. was
I 10
CAIN AND ABEL
(j)
is assumed that Yahwe s
presence
is confined to the cultivated land
;
in other
words,
that He is the God of settled
life,
agricultural
and
pastoral.
To
conclude, however,
that He is the God of Canaan in
particular
(cf.
i Sa. 26
19
),
is
perhaps
an
over-hasty
inference.
(2)
The
reign
of
right
is coextensive with Yahwe s
sphere
of influence : the
outer desert is the abode of lawlessness
;
justice
does not
exist,
and
human life is
cheap.
That
Cain,
the convicted
murderer,
should use
this
plea
will not
appear strange
if we remember the conditions under
which such narratives arose.
15.
What follows must be understood as a
divinely
appointed
amelioration of Cain s lot :
although
he is not
restored to the amenities of civilised
life,
Yahwe
grants
him a
special protection,
suited to his
vagrant existence,
against
indiscriminate homicide. Whoso kills
Kayin (or
*
whenever
any
one kills K
),
it
(the murder)
shall be
avenged
sevenfold}
by
the
slaughter
of seven members of the
murderer
s clan. See below.
appointed
a
sign for Kayin]
or set a mark on K. The former is the more obvious
rendering
of the words
;
but the latter has
analogies,
and
is demanded
by
the context.
The idea that the
sign
is a
pledge given
once for all of the truth of
Yahwe s
promise,
after the
analogy
of the
prophetic
n
lN,
is
certainly
consistent
with the
phrase
^
. . .
Df
: cf.
e.g.
Ex.
I5
25
, Jos. 2^
with
Ex. io
2
etc. So some authorities in Ber.
R.,
lEz. Tu. al. But Ex.
4
1U
proves
that it
may
also be
something
attached to the
person
of Cain
(Calv.
Ber.
R.,
De. and
most)
;
and that nix
may
denote a mark
appears
from Ex.
I3
9 16
etc. Since the
sign
is to serve as a
warning
to all and
sundry
who
might attempt
the life of
Cain,
it is obvious that the second
view alone
meets the
requirements
of the case : we must think of some
thing
about
Cain,
visible to all the
world,
marking
him out as one
whose
death would be
avenged
sevenfold. Its
purpose
is
protective
and not
penal
: that it brands him as a murderer is a natural but
mistaken
idea.
It is to be observed that in this
part
of the narrative
Kayin
is no
longer
a
personal
but a collective name. The clause
p anrr^J (not rirp
p,
or
"
i^tf)
has
frequentative
force
(exx. below), imply
ing
that the act
might
be
repeated many
times on members of the tribe
Kayin
:
similarly
the sevenfold
vengeance
assumes a kin
-
circle to
which the murderer
belongs.
See, further, p.
112.
necessary
to avoid confusion between
subj.
and
obj. 15. }?>] ofy
((0)
implies J?
^ : so &F ;
but this would
require
to be followed
by
?. p
n
n-^]
see G-K.
n6w;
cf. Ex. i2
15
,
Nu.
35
30
,
i Sa. 2
13
3"
etc.
_
Ojr]
The
subj. might
be
pp (as
v.
24
)
or
(more probably) impers.
(Ex.
2i
21
),
certainly
not the murderer of Cain.
0:0^]= *7
times :
Q-K.
134^.
Vns. : (fix
CTTTO.
^KdiKovfieva
TrapaXfoei ;
Aq.
e7rTa7r\a<rui;j
IV.
15,
16 III
16. and dwelt in the land
of Ndd]
The vb.
SB*
is not
necessarily
inconsistent with nomadic
life,
as Sta.
alleges
(see
Gn.
i3
12
,
i Ch.
5
10
etc.).
It is uncertain whether the
name 1i3 is traditional
(We. Gu.),
or was coined from the
participle
"ti =
land of
wandering- (so most)
;
at all events
it cannot
be
geographically
identified. If the last words
PJJ noip belong
to the
original
narrative,
it would be
natural to
regard Kayin
as
representative
of the nomads
of Central Asia
(Knob, al.);
but the
phrase may
have been
added
by
a redactor to
bring
the
episode
into connexion
with the account of the Fall.
The
Origin of
the Cain
Legend.
The
exposition
of
4
1
"
16
would be
incomplete
without some account of recent
speculations regarding-
the
historical or
ethnological
situation out of which the
legend
arose. The
tendency
of
opinion
has been to affirm with
increasing
distinctness the
view that the narrative
"
embodies the old Hebrew
conception
of
the lawless nomad
life,
where
only
the blood-feud
prevents
the wanderer
in the desert from
falling
a victim to the first man who meets him."*
A subordinate
point,
on which undue stress is
commonly laid,
is the
identity
of Cain with the nomadic tribe of the Kenites. These
ideas,
first
propounded by Ew.,f adopted by
We.
,J
and
(in part) by
Rob.
Sm.,
have been worked
up by Sta.,
in his instructive
essay
on The
sign
of
Cain, ||
into a
complete theory,
in which what
may
be called
the nomadic motive is treated as the clue to the
significance
of
every
characteristic feature of the
popular legend lying
at the basis of the
narrative.
Although
the
questions
involved are too numerous to be
fully
dealt with
here,
it is
necessary
to consider those
points
in the
argument
which bear more
directly
on the
original meaning
of vv.
1
"
16
.
i. That the
figure
of Cain
represents
some
phase
of nomadic life
may
be
regarded
as certain. We have seen
(p. no)
that in v.
13ff-
the
name Cain has a collective sense
;
and
every descriptive
touch in these
closing
vv. is characteristic of desert life. His
expulsion
from the noiN
and the
phrase
in
yj, express (though
not
by any
means
necessarily,
0. 5t
U
septuplum punietur;
$s
Vi;JZ)Aj |V">
* *^
r
^J
; jnarv
pi
vrD
(hence
the idea that Cain was killed
by
Lamech the
7th
from
Adam
[see
on v.
24
]).
16.
in]
AM.
13,
<&
Nai5
(TJ?)
with variants
(see
Nestle, MM,
p. 9).
26F
(habitavit profugus
in
terra) [?]
take
the word as a
participle ;
but the order of words forbids this.
nmp]
see on 2
14
. In front of E. and East of E. would here be the same
thing (3").
*
Smith,
AW
2
, 251. *tJBBW,\\.$S. J
Coij>.*
lof.
l>c. Ak.
Reden,
229-73.
112 ORIGIN OF THE
see
below)
the fundamental fact that his descendants are doomed to
wander in the uncultivated
regions beyond
the
pale
of civilisation. The
vengeance
which
protects
him is the
self-acting
law of
blood-revenge,
that
salutary
institution
which,
in the
opinion
of
Burckhardt,
has done
more than
anything
else to
preserve
the Bedouin tribes from mutual
extermination.* The
sign
which Yahwe
puts
on him is most
naturally
explained
as the
"
shart or tribal mark which
every
man bore in his
person,
and without which the ancient form of
blood-feud,
as the affair
of a whole stock and not of near relations
alone,
could
hardly
have been
worked.
"f
And the fact that this kind of existence is traced to the
operation
of a
hereditary
curse embodies the
feeling
of a settled
agricultural
or
pastoral community
with
regard
to the turbulent and
poverty-stricken
life of the desert.
2. While this is
true,
the narrative cannot be
regarded
as
expressing
reprobation
of
every
form of nomadism known to the Hebrews. A dis
paraging
estimate of Bedouin life as a whole
is,
no
doubt,
conceivable
on the
part
of the settled Israelites
(cf.
Gn. i6
12
)
;
but Cain is
hardly
the
symbol
of that estimate,
(i)
The
ordinary
Bedouin could not be
described as
fugitives
and
vagabonds
in the earth : their movements
are restricted to definite areas of the
desert,
and are
hardly
less
monotonous than the routine of
husbandry.
J
(2)
The full Bedouin are
breeders of
camels,
the half-nomads of
sheep
and
goats
;
and both live
mainly
on the
produce
of their flocks and herds
(see Meyer, INS, 303 ff.).
But to
suppose
Cain to
exemplify
the latter mode of life is inconsistent
with the
narrative,
for
sheep-rearing
is the distinctive
profession
of Abel
;
and it is
hardly
conceivable that Hebrew
legend
was so
ignorant
of
the
proud spirit
of the full Bedouin as to describe them as
degraded
agriculturists.
If Cain be the
type
of
any permanent occupation
at
all,
it must be one lower than
agriculture
and
pasturage
; i.e. he must
stand for some of those rude tribes which subsist
by hunting
or
robbery.
(3)
It is
unlikely
that a rule of sevenfold
revenge
was
generally
observed
amongst
Semitic nomads in OT times.
Among
the modern Arabs the
law of the blood-feud is a life for a life : it is
only
under circumstances
of extreme
provocation
that a twofold
revenge
is
permissible.
We
are,
therefore,
led to think of Cain as the
impersonation
of an inferior race
of
nomads, maintaining
a miserable existence
by
the
chase,
and
practising
a
peculiarly
ferocious form of blood-feud. The view thus
suggested
of the fate of Cain finds a
partial
illustration in the
picture
*
Bedouins and
Wahabys^ 148.
The
meaning
is that the
certainty
of retaliation acts as a check on the warlike
tribesmen,
and renders
their fiercest conflicts
nearly
bloodless.
t Smith,
I.e. It
may
be
explained
that at
present
the kindred
group
for the
purpose
of the blood-feud consists of all those whose
lineage
goes
back to a common ancestor in the fifth
generation.
There are
still certain
tribes, however,
who are
greatly
feared because
they
are
said to strike
sideways
;
i.e.
they
retaliate
upon any
member of the
murderer s tribe whether innocent or
guilty.
See Burck.
149 ff., 320
f.
%
No.
EB> 130.
CAIN LEGEND
113
given by
Burck. and
Doug-hty
of a
group
of low-caste tribes called
Solubba or
Sleyb.
These
people
live
partly by hunting, partly by
coarse smith-work and other
gipsy
labour in the Arab
encampments ;
they
are forbidden
by
their
patriarch
to be
cattle-keepers,
and have
no
property
save a few asses
; they
are excluded from
fellowship
and
intermarriage
with the
regular
Bedouin, though
on
friendly
terms with
them
;
and
they
are the
only
tribes that are free of the Arabian deserts
to travel where
they
will, ranging practically
over the whole
peninsula
from
Syria
to Yemen. It
is, perhaps,
of less
significance
that
they
sometimes
speak
of themselves as
decayed Bedouin,
and
point
out the
ruins of the
villages
where their ancestors dwelt as owners of camels
and flocks.* The name
pp, signifying
smith
(p. 102),
would be a
suitable
eponym
for such
degraded
nomads. The one
point
in which
the
analogy absolutely
fails is that tribes so circumstanced could not
afford to
practise
the
stringent
rule of
blood-revenge
indicated
by
v.
15
.
It thus
appears
that the known conditions of Arabian nomadism
present
no exact
parallel
to the
figure
of Cain. To
carry
back the
origin
of
the
legend
to
pre-historic
times would
destroy
the raison detre of Sta. s
hypothesis,
which seeks to deduce
everything
from definite historical
relations : at the same time it
may
be the
only
course
by
which the
theory
can be freed from certain inconsistencies with which it is encumbered,
f
3.
The kernel of Sta. s
argument
is the attractive combination of
Cain the fratricide with the
eponymous
ancestor of the Kenites. In
historical times the Kenites
appear
to have been
pastoral
nomads
(Ex.
2
i6ff.
^i) frequenting
the deserts south of
Judah (i
Sa.
27 3O
29
),
and
(in
some of their
branches) clinging tenaciously
to their ancestral manner
of life
(Ju. 4
n- 17
5
24
, Jer. 35* cpd.
with i Ch. 2
55
).
From the fact that
they
are found associated now with Israel
(Ju.
i
16
etc.),
now with
Amalek
(Nu. 24
21ff>
,
i Sa.
I5
6
),
and now with Midian
(Nu.
io-
9
),
Sta.
infers that
they
were a
numerically
weak tribe of the second rank
;
and
from the
name,
that
they
were smiths. The latter
character, however,
would
imply
that
they
were
pariahs,
and of that there is no evidence
whatever. Nor is there
any
indication that the Kenites exercised a
more
rigorous
blood-feud than other Semites :
indeed,
it seems an
inconsistency
in Sta. s
position
that he
regards
the Kenites as at once
distinguished by
reckless
bravery
in the vindication of the tribal
honour,
and at the same time too feeble to maintain their
independence
without
the aid of
stronger
tribes. There
is,
in
short,
nothing
to show that the
Kenites were
anything
but
typical
Bedouin
;
and all the
objections
to
*
Burck.
14
f.
;
Doughty,
Arabia
Deserta,
i. 280 ff.
f
An
interesting parallel might
be found in the account
given by
Merker
(Die
Masai,
p. 306 ff.)
of the smiths
(ol kononi] among
the
Masai of East Africa.
Apart
from the
question
of the
origin
of the
Masai,
it is
quite possible
that these African nomads
present
a truer
picture
of the conditions of
primitive
Semitic life than the Arabs of the
present day.
See also
Andree, Ethnogr.
Parall. .
Vergl. (1878), 156
ff.
^
The tribe is called
j;p
in Nu.
24
22
,
Ju. 4"
;
elsewhere the
gentilic "y$
is used
(in
i Ch. 2
55
n
j
p).
8
114
THE CAIN LEGEND
associating-
Cain with the
higher
levels of nomadism
apply
with full
force to his identification with this
particular
tribe. When we
consider,
further,
that the Kenites are
nearly everywhere
on
friendly
terms with
Israel,
and that
they
seem to have cherished the most ardent attachment
to
Yahwism,
it becomes almost incredible that
they
should have been
conceived as
resting
under a
special
curse.
4.
It is
very
doubtful if
any
form of the nomadic or Kenite
theory
can account for the rise of the
legend
as a whole. The evidence
on which it rests is drawn almost
exclusively
from vv.
13
"
16
. Sta.
justifies
his extension of the
theory
to the incident of the murder
by
the
analogy
of those
temporary
alliances betw
r
een Bedouin and
peasants
in which the settled
society purchases immunity
from extortion
by
the
payment
of a fixed tribute to the nomads
(cf.
i Sa.
25
2ff
-).
This relation
is
spoken
of as a
brotherhood,
the
tributary party figuring
as the sister
of the Bedouin tribe. The murder of Abel is thus resolved into the
massacre of a settled
pastoral people by
a Bedouin tribe which had been
on terms of formal
friendship
with it. But the
analogy
is
hardly
con
vincing.
It would amount to this : that certain nomads were
punished
for a crime
by being
transformed into nomads : the fact that Cain was
previously
a husbandman is left
unexplained. Gu.,
with more consist
ency,
finds in the narrative a
vague
reminiscence of an actual
(prehis
toric) event,
the extermination of a
pastoral
tribe
by
a
neighbouring
agricultural
tribe,
in
consequence
of which the latter were driven from
their settlements and lived as outlaws in the wilderness. Such
changes
of fortune must have been common in
early
times on the border-land
between civilisation and
savagery
;
*
and Gu. s view has the
advantage
over Sta. s that it makes a difference of sacrificial ritual an
intelligible
factor in the
quarrel (see p. 105 f.).
But the
process
of
extracting history
from
legend
is
always precarious
;
and in this case the motive of indi
vidual
blood-guilt appears
too
prominent
to be
regarded
as a
secondary
interest of the narrative.
The truth is that in the
present
form of the
story
the
figure
of Cain
represents
a fusion of several distinct
types,
of which it is difficult to
single
out
any
one as the central idea of the
legend, (i)
He is the
originator
of
agriculture (v.
2
). (2)
He is the founder of
sacrifice,
and
(as
the foil to his brother
Abel)
exhibits the idea that
vegetable
offer
ings
alone are not
acceptable
to Yahwe
(see
on v.
3
). (3)
He is the
individual murderer
(or
rather shedder of kindred
blood) pursued by
the
curse,
like the
Orestes, Alcmaeon, Bellerophon, etc.,
of Greek
legend
(v.
8ffi
). Up
to v.
12
that motive not
only
is
sufficient,
but is the
only
one
naturally suggested
to the mind : the
expression
1:1
j?j being merely
the
negative aspect
of the curse which drives him from the
ground,
f
*
Instances in
Merker,
Die
Masai, pp. 3, 7, 8, 14, 328,
etc.
f
For a Semitic
parallel
to this
conception
of
Cain, comp. Doughty
s
description
of the wretched Harb Bedouin who had
accidentally
slain
his
antagonist
in a
wrestling
match :
"
None accused
Aly
;
nevertheless
the
mesquin
fled for his life
;
and he has
gone
ever since thus
armed,
lest the kindred of the deceased
finding
him should kill him
"
(Ar.
Des.
ii.
293,
cited
by Stade).
IV.
17-24
I
15
(4) Lastly,
in w.
13 16
he is the
representative
of the nomad tribes of
the
desert,
as viewed from the
standpoint
of settled and
orderly
civilisa
tion. Ewald
pointed
out the
significant
circumstance,
that at the
beginning
of the second
age
of the world s
history
we find the
counterparts
of Abel and Cain in the
shepherd Jabal
and the smith
Tubal-Cain
(v.
208
-).
It seems
probable
that some connexion exists
between the two
pairs
of brothers : in other
words,
that the
story
of
Cain and Abel embodies a variation of the tradition which
assigned
the
origin
of
cattle-breeding
and
metal-working
to two sons of Lamech.
But to resolve the
composite legend
into its
primary
elements,
and
assign
each to its
original
source,
is a task
obviously beyond
the
resources of criticism.
IV.
17-24.
The line
of
Cain.
This
genealogy,
unlike that of P in ch.
5,
is not a mere
list of
names,
but is
compiled
with the view of
showing
the
origin
of the
principal
arts and institutions of civilised
life.* These are :
Husbandry (v.
2
;
see
above), city-life (
17
),
[polygamy (
19
) ?],
pastoral
nomadism,
music and metal-
working (
2
-
22
).
The
Song
of Lamech
(
23f
-) may signalise
an
appalling development
of the
spirit
of
blood-revenge,
which could
hardly
be considered an advance in culture
;
but
the connexion of these vv. with the
genealogy
is doubtful.
It has
commonly
been held that the
passage
involves a
pessimistic
estimate of human
civilisation,
as a record of
progressive degeneracy
and
increasing
alienation from God.
That is
probably
true of the
compiler
who
placed
the section
after the account of the
Fall,
and
incorporated
the
Song
of
Lamech,
which could
hardly
fail to strike the Hebrew mind
as an exhibition of human
depravity.
In
itself, however,
the
genealogy
contains no moral
judgment
on the facts
recorded. The names have no sinister
significance
;
poly
gamy (though
a declension from the ideal of 2
24
)
is not
generally
condemned in the OT
(Dt.
2i
15
)
;
and even the
song
of Lamech
(which
is older than the
genealogy) implies
no condemnation of the reckless and
bloodthirsty
valour
which it celebrates. The institutions enumerated are
clearly
*
Gu.,
however
(p. 47),
considers the
archaeological
notices to be
insertions in the
genealogy,
and treats
them as of a
piece
with the
similar notices in 2
15
3
7- 21- M
.
Il6 CAINITE GENEALOGY
(j)
those
existing
in the writer s own
day
;
hence the
passage
does not
contemplate
a
rupture
of the
continuity
of
develop
ment
by
a
cataclysm
like the Flood. That the
representa
tion involves a series of
anachronisms,
and is not
historical,
requires
no
proof (see
Dri. Gen.
68).
On the relation of the
section to other
parts
of the
ch.,
see
p. 98
above : on some
further critical
questions,
see the
concluding
Note
(p. i22ff.).
17.
Enoch and the
building
of the first
city.
The
question
where Cain
got
his wife is
duly
answered in
Jub.
iv.
1,9:
she was his
sister,
and her name was Awan.
For other
traditions,
see
Marmorstein,
Die Namen der
Schiuestern Kains u.
Abels, etc., ZATW,
xxv.
141
ff. and
he became a
city-buildcr\
So the clause is
rightly
rendered
by
De. Bu. Ho. Gu. al.
(cf.
2i
20b
, Ju.
i6
21
,
2 Ki. i
5
5
).
The idea that he
happened
to be
engaged
in the
building
of a
city
when his son was born would
probably
have been
expressed otherwise,
and is itself a little unnatural.
That
j:p
is the
subj.
of vri
only appears
from the
phrase
ij? DP?
towards
the end. Bu.
(i2off.)
conjectures
that the
original
text was
ID*??,
making-
Enoch himself the builder of the
city
called after him
(so
Ho.).
The
emendation is
plausible
: it avoids the
ascription
to Cain of tivo
steps
in
civilisation
agriculture
and
city-building
;
and it satisfies a natural
expectation
that after the mention of Enoch we should hear what he
became,
not what his father became after his
birth,
especially
when
the
subj.
of the
immediately preceding
vbs. is Cain s wife. But the
difficulty
of
accounting
for the
present
text is a serious
objection,
the
motive
suggested by
Bu.
(123) being
far-fetched and
improbable.
The
incongruity
between this notice and vv.
11 16
has
already
been mentioned
(p.
100).
Lenormant s
examples
of the
mythical
connexion of
city-building
with fratricide
(Origines
2
,
i.
141 ff.)
are not to the
point
;
the
difficulty
is
not that the first
city
was founded
by
a
murderer,
but
by
a nomad. More
relevant would be the instances of cities
originating
in hordes of out
laws,
collected
by
Frazer,
as
parallels
to the
peopling
of Rome
(Fort.
Rev.
1899, Apr., 650-4).
But the
anomaly
is
wholly
due to
composition
of sources : the Cain of the
genealogy
was neither a nomad nor a
fratricide. It has been
proposed (Ho. Gu.)
to remove
17b
as an addition
to the
genealogy,
on the
ground
that no
intelligent
writer would
put
17.
On
J?TI,
see on v.
1
. The vb.
Tjjn
appears
from Ar. kanaka to be a
denom. from hanak
(Heb. Tjn),
and means to rub the
palate
of a new-born
child with chewed dates : hence
trop.
to initiate
(Lane,
s.v.
;
We.
Heid.
173).
In Heb. it means to dedicate or
inaugurate
a
house,
etc.
(Dt.
20
5
,
i Ki. 8
63
: cf.
n|iq,
Nu.
7
11
,
Neh. I2
27
etc.);
and also to
teach
(Pr.
22
6
). See, further,
on
5".
IV.
i;,
i8
117
city-building
1
before
cattle-rearing-
;
but the Phoenician tradition is full
of such
anachronisms,
and shows how little
they
influenced the
reasoning
of ancient
genealogists.
The name
-pan
occurs
(besides 5
18ff>
,
i Ch. i
8
)
as that of a Midianite tribe in
25-* (i
Ch. i
33
),
and of a Reubenite clan
in
46 (Ex.
6
14
,
Nu.
26*,
i Ch.
5
3
).
It is also said that
-pn
is a Sabsean
tribal name
(G-B.
12
s.v.),*
which has some
importance
in view of the
fact that
fi
p
(5
9ff>
)
is the name of a Sabaean
deity.
As the name of a
city,
the word would
suggest
to the Heb. mind the
thought
of initia
tion
(v.i.}.
The
city
Tun
cannot be identified. The older
conjectures
are
given by
Di.
(p. 99)
;
Sayce (ZKF,
ii.
404
;
Hib. Lect.
185)
and
Cheyne (EB, 624
;
but see now
7!Z?7, 106)
connect it with
Unuk,
the
ideographic
name of the ancient
Babylonian city
of Erech.
l8. The next four
generations
are a blank so far as
any
advance in civilisation is concerned. The
only question
of
general
interest is the relation of the names to those of
ch.
5.
On the first three
names,
see
esp. Lagarde,
Orientalia,
ii.
33-38
;
Bu.
Urg. 123-9. ""TV]
&
TaiSad
(
=
Tvy),
Try (the
latter
supported
by Philo), corresponds
to TV in
5
15ff
*. The initial
guttural,
and the want
of a Heb.
etymology,
would seem to indicate
Tvy
as the older form which
has been Hebraized in TV
;
but the conclusion is not certain. If the
root be connected with Ar. arada
(which
is doubtful in view of
ffir s
F),
the idea
might
be either
fugitive (Di. al.),
or
strength, hardness,
courage (Bu.). Sayce (ZKF,
ii.
404) suggests
an identification with
the Chaldean
city
Eridu
;
Ho. with
-nj
in the
Negeb (Ju.
i
16
etc.).
The
next two names are
probably (but
not
certainly
: see
Gray,
ffPN,
164 f.)
compounds
with "?N. The first is
given by
MT in two
forms, S&nnp
and
^8[ ];np.
The variants of
(Er
are reducible to three
types, Mcu^X
(S"nD),
Maoi;i?7\
(Vjnno),
MctXeXe^X (
=
M>WiD, 5
13fn
)- Lag.
considers the last
original, though
the first is the best attested.
Adopting
this
form,
we
may (with Bu.) point
the Heb. *?N
V0<?
or *?N
v
.np
=
*
God makes me live :
so
virtually
Philo airb
fays deov,
and
Jer.
ex vita Deus
(cited by Lag.).
Both Mass, forms
undoubtedly imply
a bad sense :
destroyed (or
smitten)
of God
(though
the form is
absolutely
un-Hebraic,
see Dri. Sam.
14). ^N^ino
is now
commonly explained by
Ass. mutu-$a-ili
y
Man of
God, f
though
the relative Sa
presents
a
difficulty (Gray, I.e.).
The
true
(&
reading
is MatfowraXa
(
=
nV^nt?, 5
21ff-
) ; ^ia6ov<ra-rj\
occurs as a
correction in some MSS
r^h] again inexplicable
from Heb. or even
Arabic.
Sayce (Hib.
Lect.
186)
and Hommel connect it with
Lamga,
a
Babylonian
name of the
moon-god,
naturalised in S. Arabia.
%
18. On ace. nx with
pass,
see G-K. 116
a,
b.
~h\
in the sense of
beget
is a sure mark of the
style
of
J (see
Ho. Einl.
99). inp]
archaic
*
Omitted in
13th
edition.
t
Lenorm.
Orig*
i. 262
f.,
Di. Bu. al. Che.
EB, 625.
It does not
appear
that mutu-sa-ili occurs as an actual name.
%
Hommel,
Altisrael. Uberl.
117
n.:
"
Lamga
ist ein
babylonischer
Il8 CAINITE GENEALOGY
(j)
19.
The two wives of Lamech. No
judgment
is
passed
on Lamech s
bigamy,
and
probably
none was intended.
The notice
may
be due
simply
to the fact that the names of
the wives
happened
to be
preserved
in the
song
afterwards
quoted.
Of the two female names
by
far the most attractive
explanation
is
that of Ew.
(JBBW,
vi.
17),
that
nr\y
means Dawn
(Ar. gaeF",
but ffi
has
A5a),
and nW
(fern,
of
"?$) Shadow,
a relic of some
nature-myth (cf.
Lenorm.
Orig.^ 183 f.).
Others
(Ho.)
take them as actual
proper
names
of inferior stocks
incorporated
in the tribe Lamech
;
pointing
out that
my
recurs in
36
2ff-
as a Canaanite clan
amalgamated
with Esau. This
ethnographic theory, however,
has
very
little foothold in the
passage.
For other
explanations,
see Di.
p.
100.
20-22. The sons of Lamech and their
occupations.
At this
point
the
genealogy
breaks
up
into three
branches,
introducing (as
Ew.
thinks)
a second
age
of the world. But
since it is nowhere
continued,
all we can
say
is that the three
sons
represent
three
permanent
social
divisions,
and
(we
must
suppose)
three modes of life that had some
special
interest for the authors of the
genealogy.
On the
significance
of this
division,
see at the close. 20.
Yabal,
son of
"Adah,
became the
father
(i.e. originator:
J
^-) of
tent- and cattle-
dwellers
(v.i.)]
i.e. of nomadic
shepherds.
n
}i?P, however,
is a wider term than
JN
(v.
2
), including
all kinds of
cattle,
and even camels and asses
(Ex. g
3
).
The whole Bedouin life
is thus
assigned
to
Jabal
as its
progenitor.
21.
Yiibal,
also a
nom. case
(G-K. 90 o)
of an old Sem. word
(also Egypt, according
to
Erman)
np=
man
(male, husband,
etc.)
: cf. G-B. s.v.
2O.
nap.pi Wfk
3tr]
(5r olKovvruv tv
(ncrjva
is
KTrjvoTpdfiui ,
perhaps reading
mpo
VrtK as in 2 Ch.
i4
15
(so Ball).
TS
(atque pastorum]
takes
njpp
as a
ptcp.
;
&
inserts
*__t__fcJLDO,
and 5T
HDI,
before cattle
; similarly
Kuenen
proposed
njpo n:pi.
The
zeugma
is somewhat
hard,
but is
retained
by
most comm. for the sake of
conformity
with v.
21f>
;
G-K.
11766,
118
g.
21. VHN
can]
cf. io
25
(J) (i
Ch.
7).
ui
!*.}
(5r
6 KO.TO.-
5efas
\f/a\rr]piov
KO!
Ki9dpav. ixy] Ti33]
U
cithara et
organo
;
5
|5A--O
]jJLDO
;
QL N313N1 NTUD
(||
K^j).
See
Benzinger,
Archteol.
1
, 237-246
;
We.
Psalms
(Polychr. Bible), 2igf.,
222
f.; Riehm,
Hdwb.
10436*".
The -mi is
Beiname des Sin
;
daraus machten die
Sabaer,
mit
volksetymologischer
Anlehnung
an ihr Verbum lamaka
(wahrsch. glanzen),
einen Plural
Almaku."
IV.
19-22
son of
Adah,
is the father of all who handle
lyre
and
pipe
;
the
oldest
and
simplest
musical instruments. These two
occupa
tions, representing
the
bright
side of human
existence,
have
Adah
(the
Dawn
?)
as their mother
;
recalling
the classical
association
of
shepherds
with music
(see
Lenorm. i.
207).
22.
Equally suggestive
is the combination of
Tubal-kdyin,
the
smith,
and Naamah
(
pleasant
),
as children of the dark
Zillah
;
cf. the union of
Hephasstos
and
Aphrodite
in Greek
mythology (Di. al.).
The
opening
words of
a/3
are
corrupt.
We should
expect
: he became the
father of every artificer
in
brass and iron
(see footnote).
The
persistent
idea that
Tubal-cain was the inventor of
weapons,
Ber.
R.,
Ra. and
most,
which has led to a
questionable interpretation
of the
Song,
has no foundation. He is
simply
the
metal-worker,
certainly
a
stringed
instrument,
played
with the hand
(i
Sa. i6
23
etc.),
probably
the
lyre (Greek Kivvpa).
The
a:iy
(associated
with the ni33
in
Jb.
2 1
12
30
31
: elsewhere
only
Ps.
iso
4
)
is some kind of wind instrument
(H&),
a flute or
reed-pipe, perhaps
the Pan s
pipe (<rvpiy).
22. Kin
DJ]
in
genealogies
(as
here,
4
26
io
21
ig
38
22
20- 24
[Ju.
8
31
])
is characteristic of
J.
pp
^ain]
(5r 0o/SeX-
Kal
ty.
Other Vns. have the
compound name,
and
on the whole it is
probable
that Kal
fy
is a
corruption
of
Kcu>,
although
the next cl. has
0o/3eX
alone. ui
wgh]
( Kal
7jj>
<r<pvpoK6iros, xaX/reus x
a^K v
Kal
ffiSripov,
IS
qui fuit
malleator et
faber
in cuncta
opera
aer. et
/!;
&
;
31 3 m 3
y yv
"?:
To
get any
kind of sense from
MT,
it is
necessary
either
(a)
to take &tih
( sharpener
or hammerer
)
in the sense of instructor
;
or
()
take
enh as neut.
(
a hammerer of
every cutting implement of, etc.) ;
or
(c)
adopt
the
quaint
construction
(mentioned by
Bu.
138)
: a hammerer of
all
(sorts
of
things),
a
(successful)
artificer in
bronze,
etc ! All these
are
unsatisfactory
;
and neither the omission of SD with
(3r
(Di.),
nor the
insertion
of 3N before it
yields
a tolerable text. Bu. s emendation
(139 if.)
m ahn
ID
1
? m
[for pp]
is much too
drastic,
and stands or falls with his
utterly improbable theory
that Lamech and not Tubal-cain was
origin
ally designated
as the inventor of
weapons.
The error must lie in the
words t^a
1
?
pp,
for which we should
expect,
UN rrn Nin
(Ols. Ball).
The
difficulty
is to account for the
present
text : it is
easy
to
say
that tfD
1
?
and
pp
are
glosses,
but there is
nothing
in the v. to
require
a
gloss,
and
neither of these words would
naturally
have been used
by
a Heb. writer
for that
purpose. ^nj]
The Semitic words for iron
(Ass. parzillu,
Aram.
"?ns, Mlr^,
Ar.
farzil)
have no Semitic
etymology,
and are
9 7
probably
borrowed from a
foreign tongue.
On the
antiquity
of iron in
W.
Asia,
see
Ridgeway, Early Age of
Gr. i. 6i6ff.
120 CAINITE GENEALOGY
(j)
an
occupation regarded by primitive peoples
as a
species
of
black-art,*
and
by
Semitic nomads held in
contempt.
On the names in these vv. see the
interesting-
discussion of Lenorm.
Orig?
i.
192
ff. The
alliterations, YabalY&balT&bal,
are a feature
of
legendary genealogies
: cf. Arab. Habil and
Kabil,
Shiddid and
Shaddad,
Malik and
Milkan,
etc.
(Lenorm. 192).
*?y
(<& Iw/3eX -TjX)
and
Snv
( Iov/3aX)
both
suggest
^y
(Heb.
and
Phoen.),
which means
primarily
ram,
then ram s horn as a musical instrument
(Ex. iQ
13
),
and
finally
joyous
music
(in
the
designation
of the
year
of
Jubilee).
On a
sup
posed
connexion of ^n with Vnn in the sense of
herdsman,
see
above,
p. 103.
^yw
is a
Japhetic people
famous in
antiquity
for
metal-working
(see
on io
2
)
;
and it is
generally
held that their heros
eponymus sup
plies
the name of the founder of
metallurgy
here
;
but the
equation
is
doubtful. A still more
precarious
combination with a word for smith
(tumal, dubalanza,
etc.)
in Somali and other East African
dialects,
has been
propounded by
Merker
(Die
Masai,
306).
The
compound
V^m
pp (written
in Oriental MSS as one
word) may
mean either Tubal
[the]
smith
(in
which case
pp [we
should
expect ppn]
is
probably
a
gloss),
or
Tubal of
(the family of)
Cain.
f
<&
has
simply QofieX ;
but see the
footnote. Tuch and others adduce the
analogy
of the
TeX%?ves,
the first
workers in iron and
brass,
and the makers of Saturn s
scythe (Strabo,
XIV. ii.
7)
;
and the
pair
of brothers
who,
in the Phoenician
legend,
were
<ndr]pov evperal
/ecu
rrjs
rotirov
pyafflas,fiQ%j
((5r Noe^a)
seems to
have been a
mythological personage
of some
importance.
A
goddess
of that name is known to have been
worshipped by
the
Phcenicians.J
In
Jewish
tradition she
figures
as the wife of Noah
(Ber. -/?.),
as a
demon,
and also as a sort of St.
Cecilia,
a
patroness
of vocal music
(2TJ
: cf.
Lag.
OS, 180,
56:
Noe^t^ ^aXXovcra (fiwi -fj
OVK v
dpydvtf [Nestle,
MM,
io]).
23, 24.
The
song
of Lamech. A
complete poem
in three
distichs, breathing
the fierce
implacable spirit
of
revenge
that forms the chief
part
of the Bedouin s code of honour.
It is almost
universally
assumed
(since Herder)
that it com
memorates the invention of
weapons by Tubal-cain,
and is
accordingly spoken
of as Lamech s Sword
Song.
But the
23.
The Introd. of the
song
is imitated in Is. 28
23
32
9
;
cf. also Dt.
32
1
.
The words
piixn
and rriDN are almost
exclusively poetical.
On the form
}#!?:?,
see G-K.
46/1
"nnn is
perf.
of
experience (Dav. 40 (c) ;
Dri. T.
12),
rather than of
single completed
action,
or of
certainty (lEz.
De.
Bu.
al.).
?
is not
recitative,
but
gives
the reason for the call to attention.
V?^, Tn
Gn
p]
On this use of
^,
see
BDB,
s.v.
5,
f. : (5r
els
rpav/j.a [/-twXwTra]
*
See
Andree,
Ethnogr.
Parall. u.
Vergleiche (1878), 157.
t
So
Ew.,
who thinks the
pp belongs
to each of the three names.
%
Lenorm. 200
f.; Tiele,
Gesch. 5.
265; Baethgen,
Beitr.
150.
IV. 2
3, 24
I2I
contents
of the
song
furnish no hint of such an occasion
(We.);
and the
position
in which it stands makes its con
nexion
with the
genealogy
dubious. On that
point see,
further,
below. It is
necessary
to
study
it
independently,
as
a
part
of the ancient
legend
of Lamech which
may
have
supplied
some of the material that has been worked into
the
genealogy.
The vv.
may
be rendered :
23
Adah and
Zillah,
hear
my
voice !
Wives of
Lamech,
attend to
my
word !
For I kill a man for a wound to
me,
And a
boy
for a scar.
94
For Cain takes
vengeance
seven
times,
But Lamech
seventy
times and seven !
23a.
Ho. raises the
question
whether the words Adah and
Zillah
belong
to the
song
or the
prose
introduction
;
and
decides
(with JT)
for the latter
view,
on the
ground
that in
the
remaining
vv. the second member is shorter than the
first
(which
is not the
case).
The exordium of the
song
might
then read :
Hear
my voice, ye
women of Lamech !
Attend to
my
word !
the address
being
not to the wives of an individual
chieftain,
but to the females of the tribe
collectively.
It
appears
to
me that the alteration
destroys
the balance of
clauses,
and
mars the metrical effect :
besides,
strict
syntax
would
require
the
repetition
of the
p.
23b.
The
meaning
is that
(the tribe?)
Lamech
habitually avenges
the
slightest personal
injury by
the death of man or child of the tribe to which the
assailant
belongs. According
to the
principle
of the blood-
feud,
B*K
and
"17J
(
is not a
fighting youth,
a sense it
rarely
bears: i Ki. i2
8ff>
,
Dn. i
4ff
-,
but an innocent man-
child
[Bu. Ho.])
are not the actual
perpetrators
of the
outrage,
but
any
members of the same clan. The
parallel
ism therefore is not to be taken
literally,
as if
Lamech
selected a victim
proportionate
to the hurt he had
received.
24.
Cain is mentioned as a tribe noted for the
fierceness
tyol ; U
in vulnus
[livorem]
meum.
24. ?] again introducing
the
reason,
which, however,
"lies not in the words
immediately
after
o,
but in the
122 CAINITE GENEALOGY
(j)
of its vendetta
(7 times)
;
but the
vengeance
of Lamech
knows no limit
(70
and
7 times).
The
Song-
has two
points
of connexion with the
genealogy
: the
names of the two
wives,
and the allusion to Cain. The first would
disappear
if Ho. s division of
^
were
accepted
;
but since the
ordinary
view seems
preferable,
the coincidence in the names
goes
to show that
the
song
was known to the authors of the
genealogy
and utilised in its
construction. With
regard
to the
second,
Gu.
rightly
observes that
glorying
over an ancestor is
utterly opposed
to the
spirit
of
antiquity
;
the Cain referred to must be a rival
contemporary tribe,
whose
grim
vengeance
was
proverbial.
The
comparison,
therefore,
tells
decidedly
against
the
unity
of the
passage,
and
perhaps points
(as
Sta.
thinks)
to a connection between the
song
and the
legendary cycle
from which
the Cain
story
of
13ff-
emanated. The
temper
of the
song
is not the
primitive ferocity
of
"
a
savage
of the
stone-age dancing
over the
corpse
of his
victim,
brandishing
his flint
tomahawk,"
etc.
(Lenorm.)
;
its real
character was first divined
by
We., who,
after
pointing
out the base
lessness of the notion that it has to do with the invention of
weapons,
describes it as
"
eine
gar
keiner besonderen
Veranlassung bedtirftige
Prahlerei eines Stammes
(Stammvaters) gegen
den anderen. Und wie
die Araber sich besonders
gern
ihren Weibern
geg-eniiber
als
grosse
Eisenfresser
riihmen,
so macht es hier auch Lamech"
(Comp.
z
305).
On
this view the
question
whether it be a
song
of
triumph
or of menace does
not arise
;
as
expressing
the
permanent temper
and habitual
practice
of
a
tribe,
it refers alike to the
past
and the future. The sense of the
passage
was
strangely
misconceived
by
some
early
Fathers
(perhaps by
(3rU),
who
regarded
it as an utterance of remorse for an isolated murder
committed
by
Lamech. The
rendering-
of & is based on the idea
(maintained by Kalisch)
that Lamech s
purpose
was to
represent
his
homicide as
justifiable
and himself as
guiltless
: I have not slain a man
on whose account I bear
guilt,
nor wounded a
youth
for whose sake
my
seed shall be cut off. W
T
hen
7 generations
were
suspended
for
Cain,
shall there not be for Lamech his son
70
and
7?
Hence arose the
fantastic
Jewish legend
that the
persons
killed
by
Lamech were his
ancestor Cain and his own son Tubal-cain
(Ra.
al.;
cf.
Jer.
Ep.
ad
Damasum, 125).*
The metrical structure of the
poem
is
investigated
by
Sievers in Metrische
Studien,
i.
404
f.,
and ii.
i2f.,
247^ According
to the earlier and more successful
analysis,
the
song
consists of a double
tetrameter,
followed
by
two double trimeters. Sievers later view is
vitiated
by
an
attempt
to fit the
poem
into the
supposed
metrical scheme
of the
genealogy,
and necessitates the excision of nV*i
nij;
as a
gloss.
Apart
from v.
23f>
,
the most remarkable feature of the
genealogy
is
second
part
of the sentence
"
(BOB,
s.v.
3, c)
: cf. Dt. i8
14
, Jer. 30".
c,r
on
ace.,
see G-K.
29 g.
The
Niph.
op?
would
yield
a better sense :
avenges
himself
(Bu.
Di.
Ho.).
*
See, further,
Lenorm.
Orig.
\. i86ff.
IV.
24
123
the division of classes
represented by
the three sons of Lamech. It is
difficult to understand the
prominence given
to this classification of
mankind into
herdsmen, musicians,
and
smiths,
or to
imagine
a
point
of
view from which it would
appear
the natural climax of human
develop
ment. Several recent scholars have
sought
a clue in the social con
ditions of the Arabian
desert,
where the three
occupations may
be said
to cover the whole area of
ordinary
life.
Jabal,
the first-born
son,
stands for the full-blooded Bedouin with their flocks and
herds,*
the
flite of all
nomadic-living
men,
and the flower of human culture
(Bu. 146).
The two
younger
sons
symbolise
the two avocations to which
the
pure
nomad will not
condescend,
but which are
yet indispensable
to his existence or
enjoyment
smith-work and music
(Sta. 232).
The
obvious inference is that the
genealogy originated among
a nomadic
people, presumably
the Hebrews before the settlement in Canaan
(Bu.) ;
though
Ho. considers that it embodies a
specifically
Kenite tradition in
which the
eponymous
hero Cain
appears
as the ancestor of the race
(so
Gordon, ETG,
1 88
ff.).
Plausible as this
theory
is at first
sight,
it is
burdened with
many improbabilities.
If the
early
Semitic
nomads
traced their
ancestry
to
(peasants and) city-dwellers, they
must have
had
very
different ideas from their successors the Bedouin of the
present
day.f
Moreover,
the circumstances of the Arabian
peninsula present
a
very incomplete parallel
to the classes of vv.
20 22
.
Though
the smiths
form a distinct
caste,
there is no evidence that a caste of
musicians ever
existed
among
the Arabs
;
and the Bedouin
contempt
for
professional
musicians is
altogether foreign
to the sense of the
vv.,
which
certainly
imply
no
disparaging
estimate of
Jubal
s art. And once
more,
as Sta.
himself
insists,
the outlook of the
genealogy
is
world-wide.
Jabal
is the
prototype
of all nomadic herdsmen
everywhere, Jubal
of all
musicians,
and Tubal
(the
Tibareni?)
of all
metallurgists.
It is much more
probable
that the
genealogy
is
projected
from the
standpoint
of a
settled,
civilised,
and
mainly agricultural community.
If
(with Bu.)
we include
vv.
2
and
17b
,
and
regard
it as a record of human
progress,
the order
of
development
is natural :
husbandmen, city-dwellers,
wanderers
[?]
(shepherds,
musicians,
and
smiths).
The three sons of Lamech
represent
not the
highest stage
of social
evolution,
but three
picturesque
modes of
life,
which strike the
peasant
as
interesting
and
ornamental,
but
by
no
means essential to the framework of
society.
This conclusion is on the
whole confirmed
by
the
striking family
likeness between the Cainite
genealogy
and the
legendary
Phoenician
history preserved by
Eusebius
from Philo
Byblius,
and said to be based on an ancient native work
by
Sanchuniathon. Philo s confused and often inconsistent
account is
naturally
much richer in
mythical
detail than the Heb. tradition
;
but
the
general
idea is the same : in each case we have a
genealogical
list
*
But
against
this
view,
see
p.
112
above,
and
Meyer,
IA
T
S,
303
ff.
t
Ho. evades this
objection by deleting
v.
17b
,
and
reducing
the
genealogy
to a bare list of names
;
but
why
should the
Kenites have
interposed
a whole series of
generations
between their
eponymous
ancestor and the
origin
of their own nomadic life ?
124
SETHITE GENEALOGY
(j)
of the
legendary
heroes to whom the
discovery
of the various arts and
occupations
is attributed. Whether the biblical or the Phoenician
tradition is the more
original may
be
doubtful;
in
anv
case "it is
difficult,"
as Dri.
says,
"not to think that the Heb. and Phcen.
representations spring-
from a common Canaanite
cycle
of
tradition,
which in its turn
may
have derived at least some of its elements from
Babylonia" (Gen. p. 74).*
IV.
25,
26.
Fragmentary
Sethite
Genealogy.
The vv. are the
beginning
of a Yahwistic
genealogy
(see
above, p. 99),
of which another
fragment
has
fortunately
been
preserved
in
5
29
(Noah).
Since it is thus seen to have
*
Cf. Eus.
Prcep.
Ev. i. 10
(ed. Heinichen, p. 39 ff.).
The Greek text
is
printed
in Miiller s
Fragni.
Hist. Grcec. iii.
566
f. French transla
tions are
given by
Lenorm.
Orig.
i.
536 ff.,
and
Lag-range,
Etudes sur
les
Religions Semitiques
1
, 362
ff.
(the
latter with a
copious commentary
and critical
introduction).
The
passage
in Eusebius is much too
long
to be
quoted
in
full,
but the
following
extracts will
give
some idea of
its contents and its
points
of
similarity
with Gen. : Of the two
proto
plasts
Aicii/ and
Hpioroyovos,
it is recorded
evpelv
de rbv AuDi/a
rr\v
airb r&v
devdpwv rpcxpriv.
The second
pair,
Yevos and
Feved,
dwelt in
Phoenicia,
and
inaugurated
the
worship
of the sun. Of the race of AIWJ/ and
Hpwr6yovos
were born three mortal
children, ^cDs,
II
Op,
and 4>X6 : oSrot
IK
Traparpifirjs
uXu>i/
eftpov irvp,
Kal
TTJJ/ -^prjcriv
^dida^av.
Then followed
a race of
giants,
of whom was born
[Zajyu/^poC/xos (
=
Dno
VDI?)
6 Kal
c
T^oipcmos,
who founded
Tyre.
Of him we read :
Ka\v(3as
re
eiriforjaai
curb
KctXd/zwj/,
Kal
dpvwv,
Kal
irairvpwv
crTCKrtdcrcu de
irpbs
rbv
a5e\(pbv Ovcrwov,
5s
crKTnjv
T(
(Tib/mart
TT/JWTOS
eK
dep/j.dra)v
&v
f(T%u(re aiiXXa^elv drjpkw edpe
. . .
AtvSpov
d
Xafio/mevov
rbv QVITUOV Kal
aTroK\a8ev(rai>ra, irp&rov TO\/m->j(Tai
fij
da\aa<rav
tyfirivai aviepQxrai
5^ duo
trr^Xas
. . .
al/md
re (nrevSeiv aurats
e%
&v
ijypeve Oypiuv.
The further
history
of invention names
(a) Aypevs
and
AXteuy,
rovs a\eLas Kal
aypas evperds ; (b)
. . . Stfo
d5eX0oi)s <riSripov evperas,
Kal
TTJS
TOVTOV
epyavLas
&v
Barepov
rbv
Xputrcup \6yovs dcncTjcrcu,
Kal
^Tr^Sas
Kal
/j-avreias ; (c) Tex*^
T7
?
s and I
1
7711/05 Avrdxduv
: OUTOL
eTrevb-riffav rcj) 7r?;\y
TT^S
ir\lvdov
(rvfj./j,Lyvveiv cpopvrbv,
Kal
rig i]\iq)
ai)ra?
rep(raiveii>,
d\\a Kal
areyas
e^evpov ; (d) A-ypis
and
Aypovypos (or
3
Ayp&Tr]s)
:
eirevb-rja
av 8 OVTOL av\as
irpoffTLdevai
rols OIKOLS (rat
7re/H/36Acua
Kal
o"7r^Xata
eK rovruv
dyporai
Kal
Kwyyoi ; (e] "A/JLVVOS
and
Mdyos
: ot /care5etaj/
Ku>/j,as
Kal
jroifj.va
s
;
(f) Mtcrcfy)
(nc^D)
and Su5u/c
(pis)
: ourot
rrjv
rov d.X6s
XP^
(rtJ/
ef>pov> [g]
Of
Mi<rtt>/)
was
born
Tdaur,
5?
eCpe
TTJV
r&v
irpwrwv aToixeluv ypatpyv
and
(h)
of
"LvdvK,
the
At<5cr/foi;poi
:
oCrot, 07/cri, trpCnoi
ir\oiov
etipov.
After them came others of
Kal
/3ordi/as evpov,
Kal
r^v
rCov daKeruv
faaiv,
Kal eTruidds. It is
impossible
to doubt that some traditional elements have been
preserved
in this
extraordinary medley
of euhemerism and
archaeology,
however unfavour
ably
it
may
contrast with the
simplicity
of the biblical record.
IV. 2
5
125
contained the three names
(Seth,
Enos,
Noah) peculiar
to
the
genealogy
of
P,
it
may
be assumed that the two lists
were in substantial
agreement,
each
consisting
of ten
generations.
That that of
J
was not a
dry
list of names
and numbers
appears,
however,
from
every
item of it that
has survived. The
preservation
of
4
25f-
is no doubt due to
the
important
notice of the introduction of
Yahwe-worship
(
26b
),
the redactor
having judged
it more
expedient
in this
instance to retain
J
s statement intact. The circumstance
shows on how
slight
a matter
far-reaching
critical
specula
tions
may hang.
But for this
apparently arbitrary
decision
of the
redactor,
the existence of a Sethite
genealogy
in
J
would
hardly
have been
suspected
;
and the whole
analysis
of the
J
document into its
component
strata
might
have run
a different course.
25.
And Adam
knew,
etc.\
see on v.
1
That
JHJ
denotes
properly
the initiation of the
conjugal
relation
(Bu.)
is
very
doubtful: see
38
26
,
i Sa. i
19
. And she
called\
see
again
on v.
1
.
God has
appointed
me
seed] (the
remainder of the v. is
probably
an
interpolation).
Cf.
3
15
. Eve s use of
DTl^tf is
not
surprising (Di.)
;
it
only proves
that the section is
not
from the same source as v.
1
. On the other
hand,
it harmon
ises with the fact that in
3
lff-
DTI7X
is used in
dialogue.
It
is at least a
plausible
inference that both
passages
come
from one
narrator,
who
systematically
avoided the name m,T
up
to
4
26
(see
p. 100).
The v. in its
present
form
undoubtedly presupposes
a
knowledge
of
the Cain and Abel narrative of
4
1
"
16
;
but it is doubtful if the allusions
to the two older brothers can be
accepted
as
original (see
Bu.
154-159).
Some of Bu. s
arguments
are
strained;
but it is
important
to observe
that the word
~f\y
is
wanting
in
(5r,
and that the addition of *?3n nnn inn
destroys
the sense of the
preceding
utterance,
the idea of substitution
being quite foreign
to the connotation of the vb. JVB>. The
following
clause
j p
iJin 3 reads
awkwardly
in the mouth of Eve
(who
would
naturally
have said
p
n
I^N),
and is
entirely superfluous
on the
part
of
25. D^x]
here for the first time
unambiguously
a
prop.
name. There
is no reason to
suspect
the text : the transition from the
generic
to the
individual sense is made
by
P
only
in
5
1 3
,
and is
just
as
likely
to have
been made
by J.
(Gr reads Evav in
place
of
liy
;
Jo has both
words.
Before iWn
Q5t%>
insert inrn.
tnpni]
jjj.
mp
x
?]
(&
\tyov<ra ;
so
U and
126 SETHITE GENEALOGY
(j)
the narrator. The excision of these
suspicious
elements leaves a
sentence
complete
in
itself,
and
exactly corresponding
in form to the
naming
of Cain in v.
1
:
jnt
D n^K ^
ns?,
God has
appointed
me seed
(i.e. posterity).
There is an obvious reference to
3,
where both the
significant
words JVB> and
jni
occur. But this
explanation really implies
that Seth was the first-born son
(according
to this
writer),
and is
unintelligible
of one who was
regarded
as a substitute for another. How
completely
the mind of the
glossator
is
preoccupied by
the
thought
of
substitution is further shown
by
the fact that he does not indicate in
what sense Cain has ceased to be the seed of Eve. As a Heb. word
(with equivalents
in Phoen. Arab.
Syr. Jew.
-Aram. : cf. No. Mand. Gr.
p. 98)
nt?
would mean foundation
(not Setzling,
still less
Ersatz) ;
but its
real
etymology
is,
of
course,
unknown. Rommel s
attempt(A OD,
p.
26 ff.
)
to establish a connexion with the second name in the list of Berossus
(below, p. 137)
involves too
many
doubtful
equations,
and even if
successful would throw no
light
on the name. In Nu.
24"
ns?
appears
to be a
synonym
for Moab
;
but the text is doubtful
(Meyer, INS, 219).
The late Gnostic identification of Seth with the Messiah
may
be based
on the Messianic
interpretation
of
3
15
,
and does not
necessarily imply
a
Babylonian parallel.
26. On the name
B^K
(
=
Man,
and therefore in all
prob
ability
the
first
member of an older
genealogy),
see below.
Then men
began
to call
,
etc.~\
Better
(with
(jjr, etc.,
v.t.):
He was the
first
to call on the name
of
Yahive
(cf. Q
20
io
8
),
i.e. he was the founder of the
worship
of Yahwe
;
cf. i2
8
i3
4
2 1
33
26
25
(all J).
What historic reminiscence
(if any)
lies behind this remarkable statement we cannot
conjec
ture
;
but its
significance
is not
correctly expressed
when
even & 26.
Kin
cu] (G-K. 135 h)
(& om.
enj]
like
DIN,
properly
a
coll. : En6 is a
personification
of mankind. The word is rare and
mostly poetic
in Heb.
(esp. Jb. Ps.);
but is common in other Setn.
dialects
(Ar.
Aram. Nab. Palm. Sab.
Ass.).
Nestle s
opinion (MM,
6f.),
that it is in Heb. an artificial formation from
DT:K,
and that the
genealogy
is
consequently
late,
has no sort of
probability
;
the
only
artificiality
in Heb. is the occasional individual use. There is a
pre
sumption,
however,
that the
genealogy originated among
a
people
to
whom
BnJK or its
equivalent
was the
ordinary
name for mankind
(Aramaean
or
Arabian).
Vmn
m]
so
Aq.
S.
;
JUA *?nn JK
;
<&
OUTOS
1)\irL<rev
(from *y ^rr) implies
either Vnn ni or n ton
;
so
U
(iste coepit]
and
Jub.
iv. 12
;
&
has
;_
jy-tOT
The true text is that read
by (3r,
etc.
;
and if the alteration of MT was intentional
(which
is
possible),
we
may
safely
restore
*?nn ton after io
8
. The
Jewish
exegesis
takes *?nin in the
sense was
profaned,
and finds in the v. a notice of the introduction of
idolatry (Jer. Qu.,
&J,
Ra.
al.),
although
the construction is
absolutely
ungrammatical
(IEz.).
After m.r
<& adds
carelessly
roO 6cou.
IV.
25-V
127
it is limited to the institution of formal
public worship
on
the
part
of a
religious community (De.)
;
and the idea that
it is connected with a
growing
sense of the distinction
between the human and the divine
(Ew.
De.
al.)
is a baseless
fancy.
It means that Ends was the first to invoke the
Deity
under this name
;
and it is
interesting chiefly
as a
reflexion, emanating
from the school of
J,
on the
origin
of
the
specifically
Israelite name of God. The
conception
is
more
ingenuous
than that of E
(Ex. 3
13
~
15
)
or P
(6
3
),
who
base the name on
express revelation,
and connect it with
the foundation of the Hebrew
nationality.
The
expression
nea
tnp (lit.
call
by [means of]
the name of Y.
)
denotes the essential act in
worship,
the invocation
(or
rather
evocation)
of the
Deity by
the solemn utterance of His name. It rests on the wide
spread primitive
idea that a real bond exists between the
person
and his
name,
such that the
pronunciation
of the latter exerts a
mystic
influence
on the former.* The best illustration is I Ki. iS
24
^,
where the test
proposed by Elijah
is which name Baal or Yahwe will evoke a
manifestation of divine
energy.
The
cosmopolitan
diffusion of the name
mrv,
from the
Babylonian
or
Egyptian pantheon, though
often
asserted, f
and in itself not
incredible,
has not been
proved.
The association with
the name of Eno
might
be
explained by
the
supposition
that the old
genealogy
of which Eno was the first link had been
preserved
in some
ancient centre of
Yahwe-worship (Sinai
? or Kadesh
?).
CH. V. The Ante-Diluman Patriarchs
(P).
In the
Priestly
Code the interval between the Creation
(i
1
-2
4a
)
and the Flood
(6
m
-)
is
bridged by
this list of ten
patriarchs,
with its
chronological
scheme
fixing
the duration
of the
period (in MT)
at
1656 years.
The names are
traditional,
as is shown
by
a
comparison
of the first three
with
4
25f
-,
and of Nos.
4-9
with
4
17ff
-. It
has, indeed,
been
held that the names of the Cainite
genealogy
were intention
ally
modified
by
the author of
P,
in order to
suggest
certain
*
See
Giesebrecht,
Die A Tliche
Schdtzung
des
Gottesnamens,
esp. p.
25ff., 9
8fT.
tW.
M.
Muller, AE, pp. 239, 312;
Del. Babel
[tr.
M
Cormack] p.
61 f.
; Bezold,
Die Bab.-Ass. Keilinschr. etc.
p. 31
ff.
;
Oppert, ZA,
xvii.
291 ff.; Daiches,
ib. xxii.
(1908), 125
ff.
;
Algyogyi-Hirsch, ZATW,
xxiii.
355
^
J
Sta. BTh. i.
29;
Me.
GA*,
i.
(ate Halfte), 545
f.
Cf., further,
Rogers,
Rel.
of
Bab. and Ass.
(1908), p. 89
ff.
128 ANTE-DILUVIAN PATRIARCHS
(P)
views as to the character of the
patriarchs.
But that is at
best a doubtful
hypothesis,
and could
only apply
to three or
four of the number. It is
quite probable
that if we had the
continuation of
J
s Sethite
genealogy,
its names would be
found to
correspond closely
with those of ch.
5.
The
chronology,
on the other
hand,
is based on an artificial
system,
the invention of which
may
be
assigned
either to P
or to some later
chronologist (see p. 136 below).
What is
thoroughly
characteristic of P is the
framework
in which
the details are set. It consists of
(a)
the
age
of each
patriarch
at the birth of his
first-born,
(b)
the
length
of his
remaining
life
(with
the statement that he
begat
other chil
dren),
and
(c)
his
age
at death.* The stiff
precision
and
severity
of the
style,
the strict adherence to set
formula;,
and the monotonous iteration of
them,
constitute a some
what
pronounced example
of the
literary
tendencies of the
Priestly
school of writers.
The distinctive
phraseology
of P
(D ng,
K"]3, rnrn,
nrip^ 121)
is seen
most
clearly
in vv.
lb- 2
, which, however, may
be
partly composed
of
glosses
based on i
26ff>
(see
on the
vv.).
Note also
ril^n (
la
), o)v,
WOT
(
3
),
v"pin (throughout),
D
fr?grrn$ ^Vnjpn (&
24
,
cf. 6
9
)
;
the
syntax
of the
numerals
(which, though
not
peculiar
to
P,
is a mark of late
style
: see
G-K.
134
*
;
Dav.
37,
R.
3)
;
the
naming
of the child
by
the father
(
3
).
The one verse which stands out in marked contrast to its environment
is
29
,
which is shown
by
the occurrence of the name mrr and the allusion
to
3
17
to be an extract from
J,
and in all
probability
a
fragment
of the
genealogy
whose first links are
preserved
in
4
25- 26
.
"
The aim of the writer is
by
means of these
particulars
to
give
a
picture
of the
increasing population
of the
earth,
as also of the duration of the first
period
of its
history,
as
conceived
by
him,
and of the
longevity
which was a current
element in the Heb.
conception
of
primitive
times
"
(Dri.
Gen.
p. 75).
With
regard
to the extreme
longevity
attri
buted to the
early patriarchs,
it must be
frankly recognised
that the statements are meant to be understood
literally,
and
that the author had in his view actual individuals. The
*
Only
in the cases of Adam
(v.
3
),
Enoch
(
22-
)
and Lamech
(
w-
)
are
slight
and
easily explicable
deviations from the
stereotyped
form
admitted.
The section on Noah
is,
of
course,
incomplete.
CH. V.
129
attempts
to save the
historicity
of the record
by supposing
(a)
that the names are those of
peoples
or
dynasties,
or
(b)
that
many
links of the
genealogy
have been
omitted,
or
(c)
that the word
n:^
denotes a
space
of time much shorter
than twelve months
(see
Di.
107),
are now
universally
discredited. The text admits of no such
interpretation.
It
is true that
"
the
study
of science
precludes
the
possibility
of such
figures being literally
correct";
but "the com
parative study
of literature leads us to
expect exaggerated
statements in
any
work
incorporating
the
primitive
traditions
of a
people (Ryle, quoted by
Dri.
p. 75).
The author of P knows
nothing
of the
Fall,
and offers
no
explanation
of the violence and
*
corruption
with
which the earth is filled when the narrative is resumed
(6
12
).
It is doubtful whether he assumes a
progressive
deteriora
tion of the
race,
or a sudden outbreak of wickedness on the
eve of the Flood
;
in either case he thinks it
unnecessary
to
propound any theory
to account for it. The fact reminds
us how little
dogmatic importance
was attached to the
story
of the Fall in OT times. The
Priestly
writers
may
have
been
repelled by
the
anthropomorphism,
and indifferent to
the human
pathos
and
profound
moral
psychology,
of
Gen.
3
;
they may
also have
thought
that the
presence
of
sin needs no
explanation, being sufficiently
accounted for
by
the known tendencies of human nature.
Budde
(Urgesch. 93-103)
has endeavoured to show that the
genealogy
itself contains a
cryptic theory
of
degeneration, according
to which the
first five
generations
were
righteous,
and the last five
(commencing
with
Jered
[=
descent
],
but
excepting
Enoch and
Noah)
were wicked.
His chief
arguments
are
(a)
that the names have been
manipulated by
P in the interest of such a
theory,
and
(b)
that the Samaritan
chronology
(which
Bu. takes to be the
original:
see
below,
p. I35f.)
admits of the
conclusion that
Jered, Methuselah,
and Lamech
perished
in the Flood.*
Budde
supports
his thesis with close and acute
reasoning
;
but the facts
are
susceptible
of different
interpretations,
and it is not
probable
that a
writer with so definite a
theory
to inculcate should have been at such
pains
to conceal it. At all events it remains true that no
explanation
is
given
of the introduction of evil into the world.
*
The more
rapid
decrease of life
(in jju)
after Mahalalel
ought
not
to be counted as an additional
argument
;
because it is a
necessary
corollary
from the date fixed for the Flood.
9
I3O
ANTE-DILUVIAN PATRIARCHS
(?)
I,
2. Introduction :
consisting
of a
superscription (
la
),
followed
by
an account of the creation and
naming
1
of Adam
(
lb- 2
).
la. This is the book
of
the
generations of Adam]
See the crit. note below
;
and on the
meaning
of
nTflfl,
see on 2
4a
. lb. When God created Man
(or Adam)
he made
him in the likeness
of
God]
a statement introduced in view of
the transmission of the divine
image
from Adam to Seth
(v.
3
).
On this and the
following
clauses
see, further,
i
26ff
-.
2. And called their name
Adam]
v.i.
The vv. show
signs
of editorial
manipulation.
In
lft
DIN is
pre
sumably
a
proper
name
(as
in
3ff>
),
in
2
it is
certainly generic (note
the
pi. suff.),
while in
lb
it is
impossible
to
say
which sense is intended. The
confusion seems due to an
attempt
to describe the creation of the first
man in terms borrowed almost
literally
from i
26ff-
}
where DIN is
generic.
Since the
only
new statement is and he called their name
Adam,
we
may
suppose
the writer s aim to have been to
explain
how
DIN,
from
being
a
generic term,
came to be a
proper
name. But he has no clear
per
ception
of the relation
;
and
so,
instead of
starting
with the
generic
sense and
leading up
to the
individual,
he resolves the individual into
the
generic,
and
awkwardly
resumes the
proper
name in v.
3
. An
original
author would
hardly
have
expressed
himself so
clumsily.
Ho.
observes that the
heading
DIN mWi nso n? reads like the title of a
book,
suggesting
that the
chapter
is the
opening
section of an older
genea
logical
work used
by
P as the skeleton of his
history
;
and the fuller
formula,
as
compared
with the usual m*?in
n*?N,
at least
justifies
the
assumption
that this is the first occurrence of the
heading.
Di. s
opinion,
that it is a combination of the
superscription
of
J
s Sethite
genealogy
with that of
P,
is
utterly improbable.
On the
whole,
the facts
point
to an
amalgamation
of two
sources,
the first
using
DIN as a
designation
of the
race,
and the other as the name of the first man.
3-5.
Adam.
begat
[a son]
in his
likeness,
etc.} (see
on
i
26
)
:
implying,
no
doubt,
a transmission of the divine
image
(v.
1
)
from Adam to all his
posterity.
6-20. The sections
on
Seth, Eno, Kenan, Mahalalel,
and Yered
rigidly
I. For DnN
(&
has i
avdpuTruv,
2
Add/m. ;
U
conversely
i
Adam,
2
hominem.2.
DCS?]
ffi
1-
totf.
3. iVvi]
ins.
J3
as
obj. (Ols. ah).
T^in
con
fined to P in Pent.
; J,
and older writers
generally, using
i
1
?;
both for
beget
and bear.
iD^S?
irviD
1
]?]
(&
Kara
rrjv
eidtav avrov nai K. r. eli<6va a.
avoiding O/XO/UKTIS
(see
the note on i
26
). 4.
DIN D
r.vi]
(5i
L
ins. As
tfr<rc,
as in v.
5
.
j$
reads DIN
n;i (but
see Ball s
note)
as in vv.
7- 10
etc.
But vv.
3 5
contain several deviations from the
regular
formula : note
n lE N in v.
5
,
and the order of numerals
(hundreds
before
tens).
The
reverse order is observed elsewhere in the
chapter.
V. i-2
4
observe the
prescribed
form,
and call for no detailed com
ment, except
as
regards
the names.
6-8. Seth: cf.
4
25
. For the
Jewish, Gnostic,
and Mohammedan
legends
about this
patriarch,
see Lenorm.
Orig.* 217-220,
and
Charles,
Book
of Jubilees, 336. 9-11.
Ends: see on
4
26
.
12-14.
Kenan is
obviously
a fuller form of
Kdyin
in the
parallel genealogy
of
4
17ff-
;
and
7
possibly,
like
it,
means smith or artificer
(cf. Syr
|
) * O
: see on
4
1
).
Whether the
longer
or the shorter form is the more
ancient,
we
have no means of
judging.
It is
important
to note that
jrp
or
pp
is the
name of a Sabaean
deity, occurring
several times in
inscriptions
: see
Mordtmann, ZDMG,
xxxi.
86;
Baethgen,
Beitr.
127 f., 152. 15-17.
MahdlaPel
(
=
Praise of God
)
is a
compound
with the OLTT.
Xe-y. S^qp
(Pr. 27
21
).
But there the Vns. read the
participle
;
and so
<& must have
done here :
MaXeXeTjX^^Vnp,
i.e.
Praising
God.
Proper
names com
pounded
with a
ptcp.
are rare and late in OT
(see
Dri. Sam.
14*
;
Gray, HPN, 201),
but are common in
Assyrian.
Nestle s inference that
the
genealogy
must be late
(MM, jf. )is
not
certain,
because the word
might
have been
borrowed,
or first borrowed and then hebraized :
Hommel
conjectures (not very plausibly)
that it is a
corruption
of Amil-
Ar&ru in the list of Berossus
(see AOD, 29).
D is found as a
personal
or
family
name in Neh. n
4
. 18-20. Ye"red
(i
Ch.
4
18
)
would
signify
in
Heb. Descent
;
hence the
Jewish legend
that in his
days
the
angels
descended to the earth
{Gen.
6
2
)
: cf.
Jub.
iv.
15;
En. vi.
6,
cvi.
13.
On
Bu. s
interpretation,
see
p. 129
above. The
question
whether
Try
or TV
be the older form must be left
open.
Hommel
(30)
traces both to an
original Babylonian I-yarad=
descent of fire.
21-24.
The account of Enoch contains three
extraordinary
features:
(a)
The twice
repeated
D^KHTIK ^nnl.
In the
OT such an
expression (used
also of
Noah,
6
9
) signifies
intimate
companionship (i
Sa.
25
15
),
and here denotes a
fellowship
with God
morally
and
religiously perfect
(cf.
Mic. 6
8
,
Mai. 2
6
p]?J]),
hardly differing
from the commoner
walk
before
God
(i;
1
24*)
or
after
God
(Dt. i3
5
,
i Ki.
I4
8
).
We shall
see, however,
that
originally
it
included
the idea of initiation into divine
mysteries, (b)
Instead of
the usual
nb i
we read
D
r6 in
Hj5^3
133W
;
i.e. he was
22. D n^K.vnK
l"?nm]
(5r
ev-qptaT-rjcrev r$ 6e$ ((5i
L
adds xal
tfao-ev
Ej/o>x),
2
aveffTptyero,
J5
|cJlXlj ;
&\
,
C "i KnSma
T^n
:
Aq.
and
F render
literally.
The art. before K is unusual in P
(see
6
9 - n
).
The
phrase
must
have been taken from a traditional
source,
and
may
retain an unobserved
trace of the
original polytheism (
with the
gods
).
23. \TI]
Rd vm
(MSS, jumffir, etc.). 24. urtti] indicating mysterious
disappearance
(37
2f.
42
18. 32. 36
j-
E
]
, KL 20
40
);
see G
_
K>
132
ANTE-DILUVIAN PATRIARCHS
(P)
mysteriously
translated so as not to see death
(He.
n
5
).
Though
the influence of this narrative on the idea of immor
tality
in later
ages
is not to be denied
(cf.
Ps.
4Q
16
73
24
),
it is
hardly
correct to
speak
of it as
containing
a
presentiment
of
that idea. The
immortality
of
exceptional
men of God like
Enoch and
Elijah suggested
no inference as to the
destiny
of
ordinary
mortals,
any
more than did similar beliefs
among
other nations
(Gu.). (c)
His life is much the shortest of the
ante-diluvian
patriarchs.
It has
long
been surmised that the
duration of his life
(365 years)
is connected with the number
of
days
in the solar
year
;
and the
conjecture
has been re
markably
verified
by
the
Babylonian parallel
mentioned below.
The
extraordinary developments
of the
Enoch-leg-end
in later
Judaism (see below)
could never have
grown
out of this
passage
alone
;
everything- g-oes
to show that the record has a
mythological
basis,
which
must have continued to be a
living
tradition in
Jewish
circles in the time
of the
Apocalyptic
writers. A clue to the
mystery
that invests the
figure
of Enoch has been discovered in
Babylonian
literature. The
7th
name in the list of Berossus is Evedoranchus
(see
KA
T*, 532),
a
corruption (it
seems
certain)
of
Enmeduranki,
who is mentioned in a
ritual tablet from the
library
of
Asshurbanipal (K 2486
+ K
4364
: trans
lated in
KAT^y 533 f.)
as
king
of
Sippar (city
of
Samas,
the
sun-god),
and founder of a
hereditary guild
of
priestly
diviners. This
mythical
personage
is described as a favourite of
Anu,
Bel
[and Ea],
and is said
to have been received into the
fellowship
of Samas and
Ramman,
to
have been initiated into the
mysteries
of heaven and
earth,
and in
structed in certain arts of divination which he handed down to his son.
The
points
of contact with the notice in Gen. are
(i)
the
special
relation
of Enmeduranki to the
sun-god (cf.
the
365
of v.
23
)
;
and
(2)
his
peculiar
intimacy
with the
gods (
walked with God
)
: there
is, however,
no
mention of a translation. His initiation into the secrets of heaven and
earth is the
germ
of the later view of Enoch as the
patron
of esoteric
knowledge,
and the author of
Apocalyptic
books. In Sir.
44
16
he is
already spoken
of as irn in
1
?
njn ro.
Comp. Jub.
iv.
17
ff.
(with
Charles s
note ad
loc.) ;
and see Lenorm.
Grig? 223; Charles,
Book
of
Enoch
(1893), pass.
25-27.
Methuselah.
n^np commonly explained
as man of the
dart
(or weapon),
hence
tropically
man of
violence,
which Budde
(99)
5J tultt,
but ST;VDK. The vb.
became,
as Duhm
(on
Ps.
49
16
)
thinks,
a
technical
expression
for translation to a
higher
existence
;
cf. 2 Ki. 2
l
,
Ps.
49
16
73
24
. The Rabbinical
exegesis (,
Ber. R.
y Ra.)
understood
it of removal
by death, implying
an unfavourable
judgment
on Enoch
which
may
be due in
part
to the reaction of
legalism against
the
Apocalyptic
influence.
V.
25-31
133
regards
as a deliberate variation of ^MBnno
(4
18
)
intended to
sug-g-est
the
wickedness of the later
generations
before the Flood
(see above, p. 129).
Lenormant
(247)
took it as a
designation
of
Saggitarius,
the
gih sign
of the Zodiac
;
according
to
Hommel,
it means sein Mann ist das
Geschoss
(!),
and is connected with the
planet
Mars.* If the 8th name
in the list of Berossus be
rightly
rendered man of Sin
(the moon-god),
f
a more
probable
view would be that rhv is a divine
proper
name.
Hommel, indeed,
at one time
regarded
it as a
corruption
of
Sarrafyu,
said to be an ancient name of the
moon-god (cf. Cheyne, EB, 625,
4412). 28-31.
Lantech. The scheme is here
interrupted by
the inser
tion of v.
29.
An extract from
J, preserving
an oracle uttered
by
Lamech on the birth of Noah. This
(nj
;
cf.
DKT
in 2
23
)
shall
bring
us
comfort from
our
labour,
and
from
the toil
of
our
hands
[proceeding] from
the
ground,
etc.]
The utterance
seems to breathe the same
melancholy
and sombre view of
life which we
recognise
in the Paradise narrative
;
and Di.
rightly
calls attention to the contrast in character between
the Lamech of this v. and the truculent bravo of
4
23f
-.
There is an obvious reference backwards to
3
17
(cf.
The forward reference cannot be to the Flood
(which
certainly brought
no comfort to the
generation
for whom Lamech
spoke),
but to Noah s
discovery
of vine-culture :
9
20ff-
(Bu. 306
ff.
al.).
This is true even if
the hero of the Flood and the discoverer of wine were
traditionally
27.
After nWinn ( ins. &s
^o-ev
(cf.
v.
8
). 29. pqr]
(Gr
5iai>airat<rei
hence
Ball,
Ki.
urrj;.
The emendation is attractive on two
grounds
:
(a)
it
yields
an easier construction with the
following JD
;
and
(b)
a more correct
etymology
of the name m. The harshness of the
etymology
was felt
by Jewish
authorities
(Ber.
R,
25
;
cf.
Ra.)
;
and
We.
(Degent. 38
3
) boldly suggested
that ni in this v. is a contracted
writing
of orri= comforter. Whether ni
(always
written
defectively)
be
really
connected with no
=
rest is
very
uncertain. If a Heb.
name,
it will
naturally signify
rest,
but we cannot assume that a name
presumably
so ancient is to be
explained
from the Heb. lexicon. The views mentioned
by
Di.
(p. 116)
are
very questionable.
Goldziher
(ZDMG,
xxiv.
207 ff.)
shows that in mediaeval times it was
explained by
Arab writers from
Ar.
naha,
to wail
;
but that is
utterly improbable. ufryp]
Some MSS
and JUA have
W&y_&
(pi.)
;
so
(&,
etc.
*
AOD
[1902], 29.
Here
Amemphsinus
is resolved into Amel-Nisin :
formerly (PSBA,
xv.
[1892-3] 245)
Hommel
propounded
the view now
advocated
by
Zimmern
(see
next
note).
t
Zimmern, KAT*,
532.
%
Aufs.
u. Abh. ii.
[1900]
222.
Cheyne (I.e.)
relies on the fact that
Sarfyu
( all-powerful )
is an
epithet
of various
gods (De.
Hdwb.
690 a).
134
CHRONOLOGY OF
one
person
;
but the connexion becomes
doubly significant
in view of
the evidence that the two
figures
were
distinct,
and
belong
to different
strata of the
J
document. Di. s
objection,
that a biblical writer would
not
speak
of wine as a comfort under the divine
curse,
has little force :
see
Ju. 9
13
,
Ps.
IO4
15
. In virtue of its threefold connexion with the
story
of the
Fall,
theSethite
genealogy
of
J,
and the incident of
9
208
-,
the
v. has considerable critical
importance.
It furnishes a clue to the dis
entanglement
of a strand of Yahwistic narrative in which these sections
formed successive
stages.
The
fragment
is
undoubtedly rhythmic,
and
has assonances which
suggest rhyme
;
but
nothing
definite can be said
of its metrical structure
(perhaps 3
short lines of
3 pulses each).
32.
The abnormal
age
of Noah at the birth of his first
born is
explained by
the consideration that his
age
at the
Flood was a fixed datum
(7
6< 11
),
as was also the fact that
no
grandchildren
of Noah were saved in the ark. The
chronologist,
therefore,
had to
assign
an excessive lateness
either to the birth of
Shem,
or to the birth of Shem s
first-born.
I. The
Chronology of
Ch.
5.
In this
chapter
we have the first instance
of
systematic divergence
between the three chief
recensions,
the
Heb.,
the
Samaritan,
and the LXX. The differences are best exhibited in tabular
form as follows
(after Holzinger)
:
So (5
1
-. (
A
and other MSS have
187
:
782
;
but this is a later correction.
CH. V.
135
These differences are
certainly
not accidental.
They
are due to
carefully
constructed artificial
systems
of
chronology
;
and the business
of criticism is first to ascertain the
principles
on which the various
schemes are
based,
and then to determine which of them
represents
the
original chronology
of the
Priestly
Code. That
problem
has never been
satisfactorily
solved
;
and all that can be done here is to indicate the
more
important
lines of
investigation along
which the solution has been
sought.
i.
Commencing
with the
MT,
we
may
notice
(a)
the
remarkable
relation discovered
by Oppert*
between the
figures
of the
biblical
account and those of the list of Berossus
(see
the next
note).
The
Chaldean
chronology
reckons from the Creation to the Flood
432,000
years,
the MT
1656 years.
These are in the ratio
(as nearly
as
possible)
of
5
solar
years (of 365^ days)
to i week. We
might, therefore,
suppose
the Heb.
chronologist
to have started from the
Babylonian system,
and
to have reduced it
by treating
each lustrum
(5 years)
as the
equivalent
of a Heb. week. Whether this result be more than a
very striking
coinci
dence it is
perhaps impossible
to
say. (b)
A
widely accepted hypothesis
is that of von
Gutschmid,t
who
pointed
out
that,
according
to the
Massoretic
chronology,
the
period
from the Creation to the Exodus is
2666
years
: i.e.
26| generations
of 100
years,
or
f
of a
world-cycle
of
4000 years.
The subdivisions of the
period
also show
signs
of
calculation : the duration of the
Egyptian sojourn
was
probably
tradi
tional
;
half as
long (215 years)
is
assigned
to the
sojourn
of the
patriarchs
in Canaan : from the Flood to the birth of
Abraham,
and
from the latter event to the descent into
Egypt
are two
equal periods
of
290 years
each, leaving 1656 years
from the Creation to the Flood.
(c)
A more intricate
theory
has been
propounded by
Bousset
(ZATW,
xx.
136-147). Working
on lines marked out
by
Kuenen
(Abhandlungen,
tr.
by
Budde, io8ff.),
he
shows,
from a
comparison
of
4
Esd.
9
38ff-
io
45f
-,
Jos.
Ant. viii. 61
f.,
x.
147 f.,
and Ass.
Mosis,
i
2
io
12
,
that a chrono
logical computation
current in
Jewish
circles
placed
the
establishment
of the
Temple
ritual in A.M.
3001,
the Exodus in
2501,
the
migration
of Abraham in
2071
;
and divided this last interval into an
Ante-diluvian
and Post-diluvian
period
in the ratio of
4
: i
(1656
:
414 years). Further,
that this
system
differed from MT
only
in the
following particulars
:
For the birth
year
of Terah
(Gn.
n
24
)
it substituted
(with
<& and
JUA)
79
for
29;
with the same authorities it assumed
215 (instead
of
430)
years
as the duration of the
Egyptian sojourn (Ex.
i2
40
)
; and,
finally,
it dated the dedication of the
Temple
20
years
after its foundation
(as
i Ki. 6
1
(3r).
For the details of the
scheme,
see the art. cited above.
*
GGN,
1877, 201-223
;
also his art. in
Jewish
Enc. \v. 66 f.
t
See No. Unters. in ff.
;
We. ProL*
308.
%
Made
up
as follows
11656
+
290 (Flood
to birth of Abraham : see
the Table on
p. 233)+
100
(birth
of Isaac : Gn. 2i
5
)
+ 6o
(birth
of
Jacob
:
25
26
)+i 3o(age
of
Jacob
at Descent to
Egypt: 47"-
28
)
+
430
(sojourn
in
Egypt:
Ex. i2
40
)
=
2666. The number of
generations
from Adam to
Aaron is
actually 26,
the odd
f
stands for
Eleazar,
who was of mature
age
at the time of the Exodus.
136
CHRONOLOGY OF CH. V.
These
results,
impressive
as
they are, really
settle
nothing-
as to the
priority
of the MT. It would
obviously
be
illegitimate
to conclude that
of b and c one must be
right
and the other
wrong-,
or that that which is
preferred
must be the
original system
of P. The natural inference is
that both were
actually
in use in the first cent.
A.D.,
and that conse
quently
the text was in a fluid condition at that time. A
presumption
in favour of MT would be established
only
if it could be shown that the
numbers of MA and
(&
are either
dependent
on
MT,
or involve no chrono
logical
scheme at all.
2. The Sam. Vn. has
1307 years
from the Creation to the Flood.
It has been
pointed
out that if we add the 2
years
of Gn. n
10
,
we obtain
from the Creation to the birth of
Arpachshad 187
x
7 years
;
and it is
pretty
obvious that this
reckoning by year-weeks
was in the mind
of the writer of
Jub. (see p. 233^).
It is worth
noting
also that if we
assume MT of Ex. i2
40
to be the
original reading (as
the form of the
sentence renders almost
certain),
we find that JUA counts from the Creation
to the entrance into Canaan
3007 years.*
The odd
7
is
embarrassing
;
but if we
neglect
it
(see Bousset, 146)
we obtain a series of round
numbers whose relations can
hardly
be accidental. The entire
period
was to be divided into three
decreasing parts (1300
+
940
+
760
=
3000)
by
the Flood and the birth of Abraham
;
and of these the second exceeds
the third
by
180
years,
and the first exceeds the second
by (2
x
180-)
360.
Shem was born in 1200
A.M.,
and
Jacob
in
2400.
Since the work
of P closed with the settlement in
Canaan,
is it not
possible
that this
was his
original chronological period
;
and that the
systems
of MT
(as explained by
von Gutschmid and
Bousset)
are due to redactional
changes
intended to
adapt
the
figures
to a wider historical
survey?
A somewhat
important objection
to the
originality
of AU.
is, however,
the
disparity
between ch.
5
and n
10ff-
with
regard
to the
ages
at the
birth of the first-born.
3.
A connexion between
(5r
and juu. is
suggested by
the fact that the
first
period
of
(3r
(2242)
is
practically equivalent
to the first two of AU
(1300
+
940=2240), though
it does not
appear
on which side the
depend
ence is. Most critics have been content to
say
that the (
figures
are
enhancements of those of MT in order to
bring
the biblical
chronology
somewhat nearer the
stupendous systems
of
Egypt
or Chaldaea. That
is not
probable
;
though
it does not seem
possible
to discover
any
dis
tinctive
principle
of calculation in (JR. Klostermann
(NKZ,
v.
208-247
\-Pent. (1907) 1-41]),
who defends the
priority
of
d&,
finds in it a
reckoning by jubilee periods
of
49 years
;
but his
results,
which are
sufficiently ingenious,
are attained
by
rather violent and
arbitrary
handling
of the data.
Thus,
in order to
adjust
the ante-diluvian list
to his
theory,
he has to
reject
the 600
years
from the birth of Noali to
the
Flood,
and substitute the 120
years
of Gn. 6
3
! This reduces the
reckoning
of (Sir to
1762 years, and, adding
2
years
for the
Flood,
we
obtain
1764
=
3
x 12 x
49.
See,
further,
on n
loff-
(p. 234 f.).
*
1307
+
940(566 p. 233)
+
290 (as before)
+
430
+
40
=
3007.
THE LIST OF BEROSSUS
137
II. The Ten Ante-dilu-vian
Kings of
Berossus. The number ten
occurs with
singular persistency
in the traditions of
many peoples
*
as
that of the
kings
or
patriarchs
who
reigned
or lived in the
mythical age
which
preceded
the dawn of
history.
The
Babylonian
form of this
tradition is as
yet
known
only
from a
passage
of Berossus extracted
by Apollodorus
and
Abydenus
; f
although
there are allusions to it in
the
inscriptions
which
encourage
the
hope
that the cuneiform
original
may yet
be discovered.
I Meanwhile,
the
general reliability
of Berossus
is
such,
that scholars are
naturally disposed
to attach
considerable im
portance
to
any correspondence
that can be made out between his list
and the names in Gn.
5.
A detailed
analysis
was first
published by
Hommel in
1893,
another was
given by Sayce
in
1899.;!
The first-
named writer has
subsequently
abandoned some of his earlier
proposals,^
substituting
others which are
equally
tentative
;
and while some of his
combinations are
regarded
as
highly problematical,
others have been
widely approved.**
The names of the
Kings
before the Flood in Berossus are : i.
"AAwpos,
2.
AAciTrapos, 3.
A.[j.rj\<j)v
[ A/^XXaposj, 4. A/i/u^ajj/, 5. MeyclXapos [Meyd-
Xavos],
6. Adwi os
[Adws], 7. EueScfyaxos,
8.
A^^ivos, 9. firtdprT/s [Rd.
^jrdpTrjs],
10.
Eicrovdpos.
Of the
suggested
Bab.
equivalents put
forward
by
Hommel,
the
following
are
accepted
as
fairly
well established
by
Je.
and
(with
the
exception
of No.
i) by
Zimmern : i. Aruru
(see p. 102),
2.
Adapa (p. 126), 3.
Amelu
(
=
Man), 4.
Ummanu
(
=
workman
), 7.
Enmeduranki
(p. 132),
8. Amel-Sin
(p. 133), 9.
Ubar-Tutu
(named
as
father of
Ut-Napistim),
and 10.
Hasisatra,
or
Atra[iasis
(
=
the
super
latively Wise,
a title
applied
to
Ut-Napistim,
the hero of the
Deluge).
On
comparing
this selected list with the Heb.
genealogy,
it is evident
that,
as Zimmern
remarks,
the Heb. name is in no case borrowed
directly
from the Bab. In two
cases, however,
there seems to be a
connexion which
might
be
explained by
a translation from the one
language
into the other : viz.
3.
PUN
(
=
Man),
and
4. jrp (=
workman
)
;
while 8 is in both series a
compound
of which the first element means
Man. The
parallel
between
7. Tjijp
||
Enmeduranki,
has
already
been
noted
(p. 132)
;
and the loth name is in both cases that of the hero
of the Flood.
Slight
as these coincidences
are,
it is a mistake to
minimise their
significance.
When we have two
parallel
lists of
equal
length,
each
terminating
with the hero of the
Flood,
each
having
the
name for man in the
3rd place
and a
special
favourite of the
gods
in
the
7th,
it is too much to ask us to dismiss the
correspondence
as
fortuitous. The historical connexion between the two traditions is still
*
Babylonians,
Persians, Indians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Chinese,
etc. See
Liiken,
Traditionen
t 146
ff.
;
Lenorm.
Orig.
i.
224
ff.
t
Preserved
by
Eus. Chron.
[ed. Schoene)
i.
7ff., 31
f. See
Miiller,
Frag.
Hist. Grcec. ii.
499
f.
%
See
Je.
ATLO
2
,
221 f.
PSBA,
xv.
243-246.
||
Exp.
Times, 1899, 353.
[ AOD
[1902], 23
ff.
**
See
Zimmern,
KAT
9
,
531
ff.
;
Dri. Gen.
50 f.; Nikel,
Gen. u.
Kschrfrsch.
133
RELATION OF SETHITE
obscure,
and is
complicated by
the double
genealogy
of ch.
4
;
but that
a connexion exists it seems unreasonable to
deny.
III. Relation
of
the Sethite and Cainite
Genealogies.
The substantial
identity
of the names in Gn.
4
1 - 17- 18
with Nos.
3-9
of ch.
5
seems to have
been first
pointed
out
by
Buttmann
(Mythologus,
i.
170 ff.)
in
1828,
and
is now
universally recognised by
scholars, A
glance
at the
following
table shows that each name in the Cainite series
corresponds
to a name
in the
other,
which is either
absolutely
the
same,
or is the same in mean
ing,
or varies but
slightly
in form ;
SETHITE.
1. Adam
2. Seth
3.
En&
(Man)
4.
Kenan
5.
Mahalal el
6. YeVed
7.
Hanokh_
8. Me-thu-selah
9.
Lemekh
10. Noah
Sem Ham
Ye"pheth
CAINITE.
Adam
(Man)
Kayin
anokh
trad
Mghuya
el
Mgthu-a- el
Lemekh
1 I I
Yabal Yubal
Tubal-Kayin.
While these resemblances
undoubtedly point
to some common
original,
the variations are not such as can be
naturally
accounted for
by
direct
borrowing
of the one list from the other. The facts that each list is
composed
of a
perfect number,
and that with the last member the
single
stem divides into three
branches,
rather
imply
that both forms
were
firmly
established in tradition before
being incorporated
in the
biblical documents. If we had to do
merely
with the Hebrew
tradition,
the easiest
supposition
would
perhaps
be that the Cainite
genealogy
and the kernel of the Sethite are variants of a
single original
which
might
have reached Israel
through
different channels
;
*
that the latter
had been
expanded by
the addition of two names at the
beginning
and
one at the
end,
so as to
bring
it into line with the
story
of the
Flood,
and the
Babylonian genealogy
with which it was linked. The
difficulty
of this
hypothesis
arises from the curious circumstance that in the
Berossian list of
kings, just
as in the Sethite list of
patriarchs,
the
name for Man
occupies
the third
place.
It is
extremely unlikely
*
Hommel s view
(AOD, 29 f.)
is that the
primary
list was
Chaldean,
that the Sethite list most
nearly represents
this
original,
and that the
Cainite
springs
from a modification of it under
Babylonian
influence.
It would be
quite
as
plausible
to
suggest
that the Cainite form came
through
Phoenicia
(see
the notes on
Jabal, Tubal,
and Na
amah),
and
the Sethite from Arabia
(Enos,
Kenan,
Hanokh
[?], Methuselah).
AND CAINITE GENEALOGIES
139
that such a coincidence should be accidental
;
and the
question
comes
to be whether the
Assyriologists
or the biblical critics can
produce
the
most
convincing- explanation
of it. Now Hommel
(AOD,
26
ff.) argues
that if the word for Man is
preceded by
two
others,
these others must
have been names of
superhuman beings
;
and he thinks that his inter
pretation
of the Bab. names bears out this
anticipation.
The
first,
Aruru,
is the creative earth
-goddess,
and the
second,
Adapa (
=
Marduk)
is a sort of
Logos
or
Demiurge
a
being
intermediate between
gods
and
men,
who bears elsewhere the title zir amiluti
(
seed of mankind
)
but is not himself a man.* And the same
thing must,
he
considers,
hold
good
of Adam and Seth : Adam should be read
DIK,
a
personification
of
the
earth,
and Seth is a
mysterious
semi-divine
personality
who was
regarded
even in
Jewish
tradition as an incarnation of the
Messiah.
If these somewhat hazardous combinations be
sound, then,
of
course,
the inference must be
accepted
that the Sethite
genealogy
is
dependent
on the Bab.
original
of
Berossus,
and the Cainite can be
nothing
but
a mutilated version of it. It is
just
conceivable, however,
that the Bab.
list is itself a
secondary
modification of a more
primitive genealogy,
which
passed independently
into Heb. tradition.
f
VI.
1-4.
The
Origin of
the
Nephilim.
This obscure and
obviously fragmentary
narrative relates
how in the
infancy
of the human race
marriage
alliances
were believed to have been formed
by supernatural beings
with mortal women
(vv.
1- 2
)
;
and how from these unnatural
unions there arose a race of heroes or
demi-gods (v.
4
),
who
must have
figured largely
in Hebrew folklore. It is
implied,
though
not
expressly
said,
that the existence of such
beings,
intermediate between the divine and the
human,
introduced
*
But
against
this
interpretation
of the
phrase,
see
Jen. KIB>
vi.
i, 362.
t Thus,
it
might
be
conjectured
that the
original equivalent
of Aruru
was not Adam but
Havvah,
as earth and
mother-goddess (see pp. 85
f.,
102),
and that this name stood at the head of the list. That in the
process
of
eliminating
the
mythological
element Havvah should in one version
become the
wife,
in another remain the
mother,
of the first man
(Adam
or
Enos),
is
perfectly intelligible
;
and an
amalgamation
of these views
would account for the
duplication
of Adam-Enos in
4
25f-
5.
The insertion
of a link
(Seth-Adapa)
between the divine ancestress and the first man
is a
difficulty
;
but it
might
be due to a survival of the old Semitic con
ception
of mother and son as associated deities
(Rob.
Sm. KM
2
, 2986.).
It is obvious that no
great importance
can be attached to such
guesses,
which
necessarily carry
us back far
beyond
the
range
of authentic
tradition.
I4O
THE NEPHILIM
(j)
an element of disorder into the Creation which had to be
checked
by
the
special interposition
of Yahwe
(v.
3
).
The
fragment belongs
to the class of
aetiological myths.
The belief
in
NSphilim
is
proved only by
Nu.
i3
33
(E?);
but it is there seen to
have been associated with a more
widely
attested tradition of a race
of
giants surviving
into historic
times, especially among
the
aboriginal
populations
of Canaan
(Dt.
i
28
2
10- 21
9
2
, Jos. is
14
,
Am. 2
9
etc.).
The
question
was
naturally
asked how such
beings
came to
exist,
and the
passage
before us
supplied
the answer. But while the
setiological
motive
may explain
the retention of the
fragment
in
Gn.,
it is not to be
supposed
that the
myth originated solely
in this reflexion. Its
pag;m
colouring
is too
pronounced
to
permit
of its
being
dissociated from two
notions
prevalent
in
antiquity
and familiar to us from Greek and Latin
literature : viz.
(i)
that
among
the
early
inhabitants of the earth were
men of
gigantic
stature
;
*
and
(2)
that
marriages
of the
gods
with
mortals were not
only possible
but common in the heroic
age.f
Similar
ideas were current
among
other
peoples.
The Koran has
frequent
references to the
peoples
of Ad and
Thamftd,
primaeval
races noted for
their
giant
stature and their
daring impiety,
to whom were attributed
the erection of
lofty buildings
and the excavation of
rock-dwellings,
and who were believed to have been
destroyed by
a divine
judgment.
J
The
legend appears
also in the Phoenician traditions of
Sanchuniathon,
where it is followed
by
an obscure allusion to
promiscuous
sexual inter
course which
appears
to have some remote connexion with Gn. 6
2
.
That the source is
J
is not
disputed.!]
Di., indeed,
following
Schrader
(EinL 276),
thinks it an extract from E which had
passed through
the
hands of
J ;
but
borrowing by
the
original J
from the other source is
impossible,
and the
only positive
trace of E would be the word D V
fll,
which in Nu.
i3
33
is
by
some critics
assigned
to E. That
argument
would at most
prove overworking,
and it is too
slight
to be considered.
The
precise position
of the
fragment among
the Yahwistic traditions
*
Horn. //. v.
302
f.
;
Herod, i.
68;
Paus. i.
35. 5f.,
viii.
29. 3;
32. 4;
Lucret. ii.
1151
;
Virg.
Aen. xii.
900; Pliny,
HN
y
vii.
73
ff. otc.
Cf. Lenorm.
Orig.^
i.
350
ff.
t
Horn. //. xii.
23
:
rj/judeuv ytvos avdpuv
; Plato,
Cratylus, 33
: travres
[sc.
oi
ijpci>es]
drjTrov yey6va(riv tpaadfrTOS ?)
6eov
6vt]rri^ r) BfrjTOu
deas
(text
uncertain)
: see
Jowett,
i.
341.
J
Sur.
vii, xv, xxvi, xii, xlvi,
Ixxxix : see
Sale,
Prelim. Disc. i.
Euseb.
Prcep.
Ev. i. 10
(see p. 124 above)
: curb
ytvovs
Alwvo? Kal
Hpuroyovov yevvrjdTJvat
afidis Traldas
6vr]Tovs,
oh elvai
6v6jJ.ara
4>cl>y /ecu
llvp
Kal
<J>\($ . . . vlovs 5e
lytwriaav
oSroi
[tfyedei
re Kal
vTrepoxy
K
pet
>r cravat
. . . K
Tourcjjv, (frriffiv, ^yevv^dT] "2a/j.-rj/j.pov/uios
6 Kal
T\j/ovpdvi.os
airb
5, (pTjalv, ^xp?7,udrioj
rCov r6re
yvvaiK&v avcS-qv fj^LcfyofjLfvwv
ols av
[v
||
The
literary
indications are not
absolutely
decisive
(except
ni.T,
v.
8
);
but the
following expressions,
as well as the structure of the sentences
(in
v.
lf-
), are,
on the
whole,
characteristic of
J
:
^nn, nipnNn ^^y. (
l
), n;n
p,K3,
iiaa
(
4
)
: see Bu.
Urgesch.
6ff., 39
A.
VI.
I,
2
141
cannot be determined. The
introductory
clause
"
when mankind
began
to
multiply,"
etc., suggests
that it was
closely preceded by
an account
of the creation of man. There
is, however,
no reason
why
it should
not have followed a
genealogy
like that of
4
17 24
or
4
25f>
(against Ho.),
though certainly
not that of P in ch.
5.
The idea that it is a
parallel
to the
story
of the Fall in ch.
3 (Schr.
Di. We.
Schultz)
has little
plausibility, though
it would be
equally
rash to affirm that it
presupposes
such an account. The disconnectedness of the narrative is
probably
due to drastic
abridgment
either
by
the
original
writer or later
editors,
to whom its
crudely mythological
character was
objectionable,
and
who were interested in
retaining
no more than was needful to account
for the
origin
of the
giants.
There remains the
question
whether the
passage
was from the first
an introduction to the
story
of the
Deluge.
That it has been so
regarded
from a
very early
time is a natural result of its
present
position.
But careful examination fails to confirm that
impression.
The
passage
contains
nothing
to
sug-gest
the Flood as its
sequel,
except
on the
supposition (which
we shall see to be
improbable)
that
the 120
years
of v.
3
refer to an
impending judgment
on the whole
human race. Even if that view were more
plausible
than it
is,
it would
still be remarkable that the
story
of the Flood makes no
reference to
the
expiry
of the allotted term
;
nor to
any
such incident as is here
recorded. The critical
probability, therefore,
is that 6
1
"
4
belongs
to a
stratum of
J
which knows
nothing
of a flood
(p.
2
ff.).
The
Babylonian
Flood-legend
also is free from
any
allusion to
giants,
or
mingling
of
gods
and men. O.
Gruppe,
however
(Philologus,
Neue
Folge,
i.
93
ff.
;
ZATW,
ix.
i34ff.),
claims to have recovered from Greek sources a
Phoenician
legend
of
intermarriages
between deities and
mortals,
which
presents
some
striking
affinities with Gn. 6
1 4
,
and which leads
up
to
an account of the Flood. Of the soundness of
Gruppe
s combinations
I am unable to
judge
;
but he himself admits that the Flood is a late
importation
into Greek
mythology,
and indeed he instances the
passage
before us as the earliest
literary
trace of the
hypothetical
Phoenician
legend.
Even, therefore,
if his
speculations
be
valid,
it would have
to be considered whether the later form of the
myth may
not have been
determined
partly by Jewish influence,
and whether the connexion
between the divine
intermarriages
and the Flood does not
simply
reproduce
the
sequence
of events
given
in Gn. That this is not incon
ceivable is shown
by
the fact that on late
Phrygian
coins the biblical
name Nfi
appears
as that of the hero of the
Deluge (see p.
180
below).
I,
2. The sense of these vv. is
perfectly
clear. The sons
of
God
(oTi^Nn.^D)
are
everywhere
in OT
members
(but
probably
inferior
members)
of the divine
order,
or
(usiny
the word with some
freedom) angels (v.i.).
I.
"9
*n;i] peculiar
to
J
in Hex.
;
26
8
27* 43
21
44
24
,
Ex. i
21
13^
Jos.
I7
13
. See Bu. 6. The
apodosis
commences with v.
2
.
!?nn]
see
142
THE NEPHILIM
(j)
*
"The
angels
are not called sons of God as if
they
had
actually
derived their nature from Him as a child from its father
;
nor in a less
exact
way,
because
though
created
they
have received a nature similar
to God
s, being spirits
;
nor
yet
as if on account of their steadfast
holiness
they
had been
adopted
into the
family
of God. These ideas
are not found here. The name Elohim or sons
(i.e.
members of the
race) of
the Elohim is a name
given directly
to
angels
in contrast with
men . . . the name is
given
to God and
angels
in common
;
He is
Elohim
pre-eminently, they
are Elohim in an inferior sense
"
(Davidson,
Job,
Camb.
Bible,
p. 6).
In an earlier
polytheistic
recension of the
myth, they
were
perhaps
called
DTlta
simply.
It is
only
a desire to
save the
credibility
of the record as literal
history,
that
has
prompted
the untenable
interpretations
mentioned in
the note below. 2. These
superhuman beings,
attracted
by
the
beauty
of the
daughters of
men
(i.e.
mortal
women)
took to themselves as wives
(strictly implying
1
permanent
marriages,
but this must not be
pressed)
whomsoever
they
chose. No sin is
imputed
to mankind or to their
daughters
Ho. Einl.
97.
nOTNn
jr^y]
see
Oxf.
Hex. i.
187.
2.
nviSicfn] J3] Jb.
i
6
2
1
38
7
, [Dn. 3
25
]
;
cf. D ^K
3,
Ps.
29
1
89?.
In all these
places
the
super
human character of the
beings
denoted is
evident,
belonging
to the
category
of the
gods.
On this Semitic use of
J3,
see Rob. Sm.
KM*,
17;
Pr.
2
85, 389^ (i)
The
phrase
is so understood
by
(5r
(oi #776X01
[also viol]
TOV
0eoO), Q,Jub.
v.
i,
En. vi. 2 ff.
(Jude
6
,
2 Pe. 2
4
), Jos.
Ant.
i.
73
;
Fathers down to
Cyprian
and
Lactantius,
and
nearly
all moderns.
[S
transliterates ^Q-O1C1 :Vv 1 *^) as in
Jb.
i
6
2
1
.] (2) Amongst
the
Jews
this view was
early displaced by another,
according
to which
the sons of the
gods
are members of aristocratic families in distinc
tion from women of humble rank : CJ
(N
maT
33),
S
(r. dvt>a.(TTev6i>Tii}v),
Ber.
-ff.,
Ra. lEz.
[Aq. (viol
r.
0eu)j>)
is
explained by Jer.
as deos in-
telligens
sanctos sive
angelos }.
So
Spinoza, Herder,
al.
(3)
The
prevalent
Christian
interpretation (on
the rise of which see Charles s
valuable
Note,
B.
ofJub. 33 ff.)
has been to take the
phrase
in an
ethical sense as
denoting pious
men of the line of Seth :
Jul. Afr.,
most
Fathers, Luth.,
Calv. al. : still maintained
by
Strack.
Against
both
these last
explanations
it is decisive that onxn nun cannot have a
narrower reference in v.
2
than in v.
1
;
and that
consequently
n J3 cannot
denote a section of mankind. For other
arguments,
see
Lenormant,
Orig* 291 ff.;
the Comm. of De.
(146 ff.),
Di.
(ngf.),
or Dri.
(82f.).
On the eccentric
theory
of Stuart
Poole,
that the sons of God were a
wicked
pre-
Adamite
race,
see Lenorm.
304
ff. DTJ . . .
inp
i]
=
marry
:
4
19
ii
29
25
1
36
2
etc. nc N
*?3D] consisting of
all
whom,
the rare
JD of
explication;
BDB,
s.v.
3b (e) ;
cf. G-K.
11971;
2
: Gn.
7
M
9
10
.
vi.
2, 3
143
in these relations. The
guilt
is
wholly
on the side of the
angels
;
and consists
partly, perhaps,
in
sensuality, partly
in
high
-
handed
disregard
of the
rights
of God s lower
creatures. It is to be
noted,
in contrast with
analogous
heathen
myths,
that the divine element is
exclusively
masculine.
3.
A divine sentence on the human
race,
imposing
a
limit on the term of man s life.
My spirit
shall not
3. m,v]
ffir
Ktf/uos
6 6eo$.
j n;]
There are two traditional
interpreta
tions :
(a)
abide : so fix
(Kara/ie/i^),
HSC ;
(b) judge (2. Kptvel;
so 2T
J
).
The former is
perhaps nothing-
more than a
plausible guess
at the
meaning, though
a variant text has been
suspected (p*v, TIT,
pa:, etc.).
The latter traces the form to the
*J pi
;
but the
etymology
is
doubtful,
since that
^
shows no trace of med. i in Heb.
(No.
ZDMG>
xxxvii.
533 f.) ;
and to call it a
juss.
or intrans. form is an abuse
of
grammatical language (see
G-K.
71 r).
A
Jewish derivation,
mentioned
by
lEz. and
Calv.,
connects the vb. with
}ij,
sheath
(i
Ch. 2I
27
),
the
body being compared
to the sheath of the
spirit.
The
Ar. ddna
(med. w)=
be humbled or
degraded, yields
but a tolerable
sense
(Tu.
Ew.
al.);
the
Egypt.
Ar.
ddna,
which means to do a
thing continually (Socin
;
see G-B.
s.v.),
would suit the context
well,
but
can
hardly
be the same word. Vollers
(ZA,
xiv.
349 ff.)
derives it from
A^/ pi,
Ass. dan&nu
=
be
powerful
;
the idea
being
that the
life-giving
spirit
shall no
longer
have the same force as
formerly,
etc. It would be
still better if the vb. could be taken as a denominative from Ass.
dindnu,
bodily appearance,
with the sense "shall not be embodied in man for
ever."
D"JK?]
(&
Iv rots
dvdpu-rrois TOI/T-OIS,
whence Klostermann restores
njn
DiN3,*
=
this
humanity,
as
distinguished
from that
originally
created,
an
impossible exegesis,
whose sole
advantage
is that it
gives
a
meaning
to the oa in
D3&>?
(v.i.). D^y^
&
(thus separated)]
here
=
not . . . for
ever,
as
Jer. 3,
La.
3
31
;
elsewhere
(Ps. i5
5
etc.)
the
phrase
means never.
DJi??]
so
pointed
in the
majority
of
MSS,
is
inf. const, of
JJ^, err,
with suff. This sense is
adopted by many (Tu.
Ew. Bu. Ho.
al.),
but it can
hardly
be
right.
If we refer the suff.
to
DTK?,
the
enallage
numeri
( through
their
erring
he is flesh
)
would
be
harsh,
and the idea
expressed
unsuitable. If we refer it to the
angels,
we can avoid an
absurdity only by disregarding
the accents
and
joining
the word with what
precedes
: shall not
(abide
?)
in man
for ever on account of their
(the angels ) erring
;
he is
flesh, and,
etc.
The sentence is
doubly
bad in
point
of
style
: the first member is
overloaded at the end
by
the
emphatic
word
;
and the second
opens
awkwardly
without a
connecting part.
Moreover,
it is
questionable
if
the idea of iw
(inadvertent transgression)
is
appropriate
in the con
nexion.
Margoliouth (Expositor, 1898,
ii.
33 ff.) explains
the obscure
*
Already proposed by Egli (cited by Bu.).
144
THE NEPHILIM
(j)
[
. . .
in?]
man
for
ever
;
[
. . .
?]
he is
flesh,
and his
days
shall be \ 20
years.
A
complete exegesis
of these words is
impossible, owing
first to the
obscurity
of certain
leading expressions (see
the
footnote),
and second
to the want of
explicit
connexion with what
precedes.
The record has
evidently undergone
serious mutilation. The
original
narrative must
have contained a statement of the effects on human life
produced by
the
superhuman alliances,
and that
opens up
a wide field of
specula
tion
;
*
and
possibly
also an account of the
judgment
on the sons of
God,
the
really guilty parties
in the transaction. In default of this
guidance,
all that can be done is to determine as
nearly
as
possible
the
general
sense of the
v., assuming
the text to be
fairly complete,
and a real connexion to exist with vv.
1- 2
.
(i.) Everything
turns on the
meaning
of the word
nn,
of which four
interpretations
have been
given
:
(i)
That nn is the
Spirit
of Yahwe as an ethical
principle, striving
against
and
judging
the
prevalent corruption
of men
(as
in Is.
63
10
)
;
so
S2TJ, Luther,
al. There is
nothing
to
suggest
that view
except
the
particular acceptation
of the vb.
JIT
associated with
it,
and it is
now
practically
abandoned.
(2)
Even less admissible is the
conception
of
Klostermann,
who understands nn
subjectively
of the divine
feeling
(Gemut)
excited
by
human sin
f
(similarly Ra.). (3)
The commonest
view in modern times
(see Di.)
has been that nn is the divine
principle
word
by
Aeth.
shega
=
body
;
but the
proposed rendering,
inasmuch
as their
body (or substance)
is
flesh,
is not
grammatically
admissible.
The correct Mass,
reading
is
GiV$(i.e.
na-f
\y
+
^}
=
inasmuch as he too.
The
objections
to this are
(a)
that the rel. & is never found in
Pent.,
and
is
very
rare in the older literature
(Ju. 5
6
17
y
12
8-
6
),
while
compounds
like
?
do not
appear
before Eccl.
(e.g.
2
16
)
;
and
(b)
that the
D?
has no
force,
there
being nothing
which serves as a contrast to wn. We.
observes that
?
must
represent
a causal
particle
and
possibly nothing
more. The old
translators,
ffir
(Sia
TO elvai.
avrovs)
JbU2u seem to
have been of the same
opinion ;
and it is noticeable that none of them
attempt
to
reproduce
the Da. The
conjectures
of Ols.
((aa vyfy), Cheyne
(-1^2 r^l^psi),
and others are all beside the mark. ui ro
vm]
The
only
natural reference is to the
(maximum)
term of human life
(so Jos.
Tu.
Ew. and most
since),
a man s D
p;
being
a
standing expression
for his
lifetime, reckoning
from his birth
(see
ch.
5. 35
28
,
Is.
65
20
etc.).
The
older view
(J, Jer.
Ra. lEz. Calv. al. : so De.
Klost.),
that the
clause indicates the interval that was to
elapse
before the Hood, was
naturally suggested by
the
present position
of the
passage,
and was
supported by
the consideration that
greater ages
were
subsequently
attained
by many
of the
patriarchs.
But these statements
belong
to
P,
and decide
nothing
as to the
meaning
of the words in
J.
*
Comp. Cheyne
s
imaginary
restoration in
EB, 3391,
with the
reconstructed Phoenician
myth
of
Gruppe
in
Philolog-us, 1889,
i. looff.
f
Reading
nn DT
6,
shall not restrain itself
(lit.
be silent
).
See
NKZ> 1894, 2346. (=
Pent.
[1907]
28
ff.).
vi.
4
i45
of
life implanted
in man at
creation,
the tenor of the decree
being
1
that
this shall not abide
*
in man
eternally
or
indefinitely,
but
only
in such
measure as to admit a maximum life of 120
years.
There are two
difficulties in this
interpretation
:
(a)
It has no connexion with what
precedes,
for
everything-
the v. contains would be
quite
as
intelligible
apart
from the
marriages
with the
angels
as in relation to
them.f
(b)
The
following
words nao Kin have no
meaning
: as a reason for the
withdrawal of the
animating spirit they
involve a
hysteron proteron ;
and as an
independent
statement
they
are
(on
the
supposition)
not
true,
man as
actually
constituted
being
both flesh and
spirit (2
7
).
(4)
The most
probable
sense is that
given by
We.
(Comp? 3050.),
viz.
that nn is the divine substance common to Yahwe and the
angels,
in
contrast to "i
3,
which is the element
proper
to human nature
(cf.
Is.
3i
3
)
:
so Ho. Gu. The idea will then be that the
mingling
of the divine and
human substances
brought
about
by
illicit sexual unions has intro
duced a disorder into the creation which Yahwe cannot suffer to abide
permanently,
but resolves to end
by
an exercise of His
supreme power.
(ii.)
We have next to consider whether the 120
years,
taken in its
natural sense of the duration of individual life
(v.i.),
be consistent with
the conclusion
just
reached. We. himself thinks that it is not: the
fusion of the divine and human elements would be
propagated
in the
race,
and could not be checked
by
a
shortening
of the lives of indi
viduals. The context
requires
an announcement of the annihilation of
the
race,
and the last clause of the v. must be a mistaken
gloss
on the
first. If this
argument
were sound it would
certainly supply
a
strong-
reason either for
revising
We. s
acceptation
of
3
*,
or for
understanding
8b
as an announcement of the Flood. But a
shortening
of the term of
life, though
not a
logical corollary
from the sin of the
angels, might
nevertheless be a
judicial
sentence
upon
it. It would ensure the extinc
tion of the
giants
within a measurable time
;
and
indirectly impose
a
limit on the new intellectual
powers
which we
may suppose
to have
accrued to mankind at
large through
union with
angelic beings.
+
In
view of the defective character of the
narrative,
it would be unwise to
press
the
antagonism
of the two clauses so as to
put
a strain on the
interpretation
of either.
4.
The
Nephilim
were
(or arose]
in the earth in those
days\
Who were the
0^33
? The name recurs
only
in Nu.
i3
33
,
4.
D
>!
??ID]
<5x
ol
ylyavres ; Aq.
ol tirnrlTTTOvTes
;
2. ol
picuoi ;
&
] .
*^
11
)
The
etymology
is uncertain
(see
Di.
123).
There is no
*
On this traditional
rendering
of
JIT,
see the
footnote,
p. 143.
t
Bu. s
argument
that the v. is detachable from its
present
context
is, therefore, perfectly
sound
;
although
his
attempt
to find a
place
for
it after
3
21
is not so successful
(see p. 3 above).
J Just
as in
3
22- 24
man is allowed to retain the
gift
of
illicitly
obtained
knowledge,
but is foiled
by being
denied the boon of
immortality.
The
10
146
THE NEPHILIM
(j)
where we learn that
they
were conceived as
beings
of
gigantic stature,
whose descendants survived till the
days
of Moses and
Joshua.
The circumstantial form of the
sentence here
(cf.
i2
6
i3
7
)
is
misleading,
for the writer can
not have meant that the
3
existed in those
days apart
from
the alliances with the
angels,
and that the result of the latter
were the D"Hi33
(Lenormant, al.).
The idea
undoubtedly
is
that this race arose at that time in
consequence
of the union
of the divine
*
spirit
with human
*
flesh. and also
after-
allusion to a fall
( J ^S})
of
angels
from heaven
(@P, Jer.* Ra.),
or to
a fall of the world
through
their action
(Ber.
JR.
Ra.).
A connexion
with
^,
abortive birth
(from Ssj,
fall dead
),
is not
improbable
(Schwaily, ZATW,
xviii.
144 ff.).
An attractive emendation of Co.
(oViyo O^p i?})
in Ezk.
32
s7
not
only yields
a
striking-
resemblance to this
v.
,
but
supports
the idea that the j
(like
the
CTN^n)
were associated with
the notion of Sheol. ntrK
p nn]
cannot mean after
(as conj.),
which
would
require
a
perf.
to
follow,
but
only
afterwards,
when. On
any
view, iNi;
and
n^;i
are
frequent,
tenses. *?N
NU] (as euphemism)
is
characteristic of
JE
(esp. J)
in Hex.
(Bu. 39, Anm.\
Cf. Rob. Sm.
KM*,
198
ff.
oniaan]
lit.
mighty
ones
(Aq.
dvvarol
;
U
potentes
;
ffi2$&
& do not
distinguish
from D ^
fil).
The word is
thoroughly
naturalised
in Heb.
speech,
and
nearly always
in a
good
sense. But
pass,
like
Ezk.
32
12ff>
show that it had another
aspect,
akin to Ar.
gabbar (proud,
audacious, tyrannical).
The Ar. and
Syr. equivalents
are used as
names of the constellation Orion
(Lane,
Lex. i.
375
a
;
P. Sm. Th.
646).
D^iyo
IB>N]
cf.
oViy
oy,
Ezk. 26
20
,
probably
an allusion to a wicked ancient
race thrust down to Sheol. The whole v. has the
appearance
of a
series of
antiquarian glosses
;
and all that can be
strictly
inferred from
it is that there was some traditional association of the
Nephilim
with
the incident recorded in v.
lft
. At the same time we
may reasonably
hold that the kernel of the v.
reproduces
in a
hesitating
and broken
fashion the essential
thought
of the
original myth.
The writer
apparently
shrinks from the direct statement that the
Nephilim
were
the
offspring
of the
marriages
of vv.
1 - 2
,
and tantalises the
curiosity
of
his readers with the cautious affirmation that such
beings
then existed.
A later hand then introduced a reminder that
they
existed afterwards
as well.
Bu.,
who omits v.
3
,
restores the
original
connexion with v.
lf*
as follows : onn D-D D
pta
D ^Bin rn
[pi]
. . . ovr^Kn 33 ito
[ns?ND .mi].
Some such excellent sentence
may very
well have stood in the
original
;
but it was
precisely
this
perspicuity
of narration which the editor
wished to avoid.
same
point
of view
appears
in n
1 9
: in each case the
ruling
motive
is
the divine
jealousy
of human
greatness
;
and man s
pride
is humbled
by
a subtle and indirect exercise of the
power
of God.
* "
Et
angelis
et sanctorum liberis,
convenit nomen cadentium."
vi.
4
i47
wards whenever
(ffi
ws
av)
the sons
of
the
gods
came in . . .
and
they
(the
women)
bore unto
theni\
That is to
say,
the
production
of
Nephilim
was not confined to the remote
period
indicated
by
v.
lf
-,
but was continued in after
ages
through
visits of
angels
to mortal
wives,
a
conception
which
certainly betrays
the hand of a
glossator.
It is
perhaps enough
to remove
I^TlHf?
D
?1
as an
interpolation,
and connect the
12 S
with
Bnn B
P*? ;
though
even then the
phrasing
is odd
(v.i.).
Those are the heroes
(D ntean)
that
were
of
old,
the men
offame] p$n
HWN,
cf. Nu. i6
2
).
nisn
has
for its antecedent not
")&
f
K
as
obj.
to
Vl^
(We.),
but
D^Bjn.
There is a touch of euhemerism in the notice
(We.),
the
archaic and
mythological
DyB?
being
identified with the
more human
D"ni33
who were renowned in Hebrew
story.
It is
probable
that the
legend
of the
Nephilim
had a wider circula
tion in Heb. tradition than could be
gathered
from its curt
handling by
the editors of the Hex. In Ezk.
32
we meet with the weird
conception
of a
mighty antique
race who are the
original
denizens of
Sheol,
where
they
lie in state with their swords under their
heads,
and are roused to
a transient interest in the newcomers who disturb their
majestic repose.
If Cornill s correction of v.
27
(nSiyD n^gj Dnna)
be
sound,
these are to be
identified with the
Nephilim
of our
passage
;
and the
picture
throws
light
on two
points
left obscure in Gen. :
viz.,
the character of the
primeval giants,
and the
punishment
meted out to them. Ezekiel
dwells on their
haughty
violence and warlike
prowess,
and
plainly
intimates that for their crimes
they
were
consigned
to
Sheol, where,
however, they enjoy
a kind of aristocratic
dignity among
the
Shades.
It would almost seem as if the whole
conception
had been
suggested by
the
supposed
discoveries of
prehistoric
skeletons of
great stature,
buried
with their arms beside
them,
like those recorded
by
Pausanias
(i. 35. 5 f.,
viii.
29. 3, 32. 4)
and other ancient writers
(see
Rob. Sm. in Dri.
Deut.
40 f.).
VI.
5-IX. 29.
Noah and the Flood.
Analysis of
the Flood- Narrative. The section on the Flood
(6
5
~9
17
)
is,
as has often been
observed,
the first
example
in Gen. of a
truly
composite narrative; i.e.,
one in which the
compiler
"
instead of
excerpting
the entire account from a
single source,
has interwoven it out
of
excerpts
taken
alternatively
from
J
and
P,
preserving
in the
process
many duplicates,
as well as
leaving
unaltered
many striking
differences
of
representation
and
phraseology
"
(Dri. 85).
The
resolution of the
compound
narrative into its constituent elements in this case is
justly
reckoned
amongst
the most brilliant achievements of
purely
literary
criticism,
and affords a
particularly
instructive lesson in the art of
148
THE FLOOD
(j
AND
P)
documentary analysis (comp.
the
interesting- exposition by
Gu.
i2iff.).
Here it must suffice to
give
the results of the
process, along-
with a
summary
of the criteria
by
which the critical
operation
is
guided
and
justified.
The division
generally accepted by
recent critics is as
follows :
J
58-8
-1-5 7
(8. 9).
10 1-2 16b 17b 22. 28
p
9-i!2 6 11 13-16a 17a 18-21
J
2b. 3a 6-12 13b 20-22
p
-24
gl.
2a 3lj-5 13a 14-19
g]-17
The minutiae of
glosses, transpositions, etc.,
are left to be dealt with
in the Notes.
Neglecting these,
the scheme as
given
above
represents
the results of Bu.
(to
whom the
finishing
touches are due :
Urgesch.
248 ff.)
Gu. and Ho. Dillmann
agrees absolutely, except
that he
assigns 7
17
wholly
to
J,
and
7
23b
to P
;
and
We.,
except
with
regard
to
7
17
(J)
8
3< 13
,
which are both
assigned entirely
to P. The
divergences
of
Kue. and Co. are almost
equally slight
;
and indeed the main outlines of
the
analysis
were fixed
by
the researches of
Hupfeld, Noldeke,
and
Schrader. This remarkable consensus of critical
opinion
has been
arrived at
by
four chief lines of evidence :
(i) Linguistic.
The
key
to
the whole
process
is,
of
course,
the distinction between the divine names
m,r
(6
5- 6- 7- 8
7
1 - 5- 1(:b
8
20- 21
)
and trn
1
?*
(6
9- n- 12- 13- 22
7
16a
8
1 - J5
9
1 - 6- 8- l 2 16- 17
).
Besides
this,
a number of characteristic
expressions
differentiate the
two sources. Thus
J
s mew STK
(7
2
)
answers to P s
nnpjnm* (6
19
7<
9
)
16
);
nnn
(6
7
7
4- 23
)
to nntf and nwn
(6
13 - 17
9"-
16
)
;
mo
( 7
22
)
to
y\? (6
17
f
l
)
;
mp
.T^D
(7
4- -3
)
to whi*
(6
12- 13 - 17
7
21
and
oft.) ; "?p (8
8-
)
and aw
(7
3tt
)
to
ion
(8
5
)
;
ann
(8
13b
)
to ^n>
(8
14
) [but
see on 8
13b
] ;
D^n noso
(8
22
)
to D"n nn
(6
17
)
;
nvnj> (7
3
)
to
nvqnj> (6
19 - 20
)
; ^a-^a
(7
1
)
to the
specific
enumerations of
6
is
7
(7).
is
gw. is.
(Comp.
the list in Ho. Gen.
p. 68). (2) Diversity of
representation.
In
J
clean and unclean animals are
distinguished,
the
former
entering
the ark
by
sevens and the latter in
pairs (7
2
,
cf. 8
20
)
;
in
P one
pair
of
every
kind without distinction is admitted
(6
19f-
7
lr f
).
According
to
J,
the cause of the Flood is a
forty-days
rain which is to
commence seven
days
after the command to enter the ark
(7
4- 10- 12
8
all< 6
)
the latter
passage showing
that the waters
began
to subside after the
40 days.
In P we have
(7
11
8
2a
)
a different
conception
of the cause
of the Flood
; and,
in
f-
" 13 - 24
8
3b- 4- 5- 13a- 14
,
a
chronological
scheme
according
to which the waters increase for
150 days,
and the entire
duration of the Flood is one
year (see p. 167 ff.). (3) Duplicates.
The
following
are
obviously parallels
from the two documents : 6
5 8
||
6
11
"
13
(occasion
of the
Flood); 7
1
"
5
||6
17 22
(command
to enter the
ark,
and
announcement
of the
Flood) ;
7
7
1|
7
13
(entering
of the
ark)
;
7
10
1|
7
11
(coming
of the
Flood)
; 7
17b
|l7
18
(increase
of the waters :
floating
of ihe
ark) ; 7
22f-
1|
7
21
(destruction
ofterrestrial
life)
;
8
2b- 3a
||
8
lf<
(abatement
of the
Flood);
8
13b
||
8
l3a- 14
(drying
of the
earth);
S
20 22
||
9
8ff-
(promise
that the
Flood shall not
recur). (4)
The final confirmation of the
theory
is that
the two series of
passages
form two all but continuous
narratives,
which
*
Phrases characteristic of the
style
of P
generally.
VI.
5-IX. 29
149
exhibit the distinctive features of the two
great
sources of the
primitive
history, J
and P. The
J
sections are a
graphic popular tale,
appealing
1
to the
imagination
rather than to the
reasoning
faculties. The aim of
the
writer,
one would
say,
was to
bring
the
cosmopolitan (Babylonian)
Flood-legend
within the
comprehension
of a native of Palestine. The
Deluge
is ascribed to a familiar
cause,
the rain
;
only,
the rain lasts for
an unusual
time, 40 days.
The
picturesque
incident of the dove
(see
8
9
)
reveals the touch of
descriptive genius
which so often breaks forth
from this document. The boldest
anthropomorphisms
are
freely
intro
duced into the
conception
of God
(6
6f-
7
16b
8
21
);
and the
religious
institu
tions of the author s time are
unhesitatingly
assumed for the
age
of
Noah. Still more
pronounced
are the characteristics of P in the other
account. The vivid details which are the life and charm of the older
narrative have all
disappeared
;
and if the
sign
of the rainbow
(9
12
~
17
)
is
retained,
its aesthetic
beauty
has
evaporated.
For the
rest,
everything
is
formal,
precise,
and
calculated,
the size of the
ark,
the number of the
persons
and the classification of the animals in
it,
the exact duration of
the Flood in its various
stages,
etc. : if these mathematical determina
tions are
removed,
there is little
story
left. The real interest of the
writer is in the new
departure
in God s
dealings
with the
world,
of
which the Flood was the
occasion,
the modification of the
original
constitution of
nature, 9
1
"
7
,
and the establishment of the first of the
three
great
covenants, 9
8
"
17
. The connexion of the former
passage
with
Gn. i is
unmistakably
evident.
Very significant
are the omission of
Noah s
sacrifice,
and the
ignoring-
of the laws of cleanness and unclean-
ness
amongst
animals.*
The success of the critical
process
is due to the care and skill with
which the Redactor
(R
JP
)
has
performed
his task. His
object evidently
was to
produce
a
synthetic history
of the Flood without
sacrificing
a
scrap
of information that could with
any plausibility
be utilised for his
narrative. The
sequence
of P he
appears
to have
preserved intact,
allowing
neither omissions nor
transpositions.
Of
J
he has
preserved
quite enough
to show that it was
originally
a
complete
and
independent
narrative
;
but it was
naturally impracticable
to handle it as
carefully
as the main document. Yet it is doubtful if there are
any
actual lacunae
except (a)
the account of the
building
of the ark
(between
6
8
and
7
1
),
and
(b)
the notice of the exit from it
(between
8
13b
and
20
).
The middle
part
of the
document, however,
has been broken
up
into minute
fragments,
*
Traces of P s
general vocabulary
are
very
numerous. Besides
some of those
(marked by *) already
enumerated in contrast to
J,
we
have rhVw
(6
9
)
;
rvn
(6
9
9
12
)
;
-r^n (6
10
)
;
ma D
pn (6
18
9
9 - 17
)
and a
;nj
(9
12
);
inx in enumerations
(6
18
y
13
8
16
etc.); J
D
(6
20
7
14
)
;
bp-i,
fczj-i
(6
20
7
(8).
14. 21
g!7.
19
9
2.
3)
.
p^ ^( ?2
l
gi?
^
.
n
^^ (6
21
9
3
)
;
H1H DV.1
DSJD
(y
13
)
;
mo iND
(y
19
)
;
3
of
specification (f
l
8
n
g
10- 15- 16
)
;
nail ma
(8
17
9
1- 7
) ;
Dirnnsti D
1
?
(8
19
)
;
o^iy
nna
(9
16
).
Of the
style
of
J
the
positive
indications
are fewer :
jn
NSD
(6
8
) ;
nno in the sense
destroy (6
7
7
4- 23
) [see
Ho. Hex.
101]
; iw
(6
6
)
;
ronxn
rto
(7*-
23
8
8
<
? 13 LXX
>)
;
iiaya
(8
21
).
See the comm.
of Di. Ho. Gu. etc.
I5O
THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO
J
and these have been
placed
in
position
where
they
would least disturb
the flow of narration. Some
slight transpositions
have been
made,
and a number of
glosses
have been introduced
;
but how far these last
are due to the Redactor himself and how far to
subsequent
editors,
we
cannot tell
(for
details see the
notes). Duplicates
are
freely admitted,
and small
discrepancies
are
disregarded
;
the
only
serious
discrepancy
(that
of the
chronology)
is
ingeniously
surmounted
by making J
s
40
days
count
twice,
once as a
stage
of the increase of the Flood
(y
12
)
and
once as a
phase
of its decrease
(8
6
).*
This
compound
narrative is not
destitute of
interest;
but for the
understanding
of the ideas
underlying
the literature the
primary
documents are
obviously
of first
importance.
We shall therefore treat them
separately.
The Flood
according
to
J.
VI.
5-8.
The occasion of the Flood : Yahwe s
experi
ence of the
deep-seated
and incurable sinfulness of human
nature. It is
unnecessary
to
suppose
that a
description
of
the deterioration of the race has been
omitted,
or
displaced
by
6
1
"
4
(Ho.).
The
ground
of the
pessimistic
estimate of
human nature so
forcibly expressed
in v.
5
is rather the
whole course of man s
development
as hitherto
related,
which is the
working
out of the sinful
knowledge acquired
by
the Fall. The fratricide of
Cain,
the
song
of
Lamech,
the
marriages
with the
angels,
are incidents
which,
if not
all before the mind of the writer of the
Flood-story,
at least
reveal the
gloomy
view of the
early history
which character
ises the Yahwistic tradition.
5.
the whole bent
(lit.
forma
tion
) of
the
thoughts of
his
heart]
It is difficult to
say
whether
"W
is more
properly
the
*
form
impressed
on the
mind
(the
disposition
or
character),
or that which is formed
by
the mind
(imagination
and
purpose
Sinnen und
Trachteri]
:
5. m,T]
(Or
KvpLos
6 debs
(so
v.
8
).
1:1 nx
-^V]
fflr
loosely:
/cat Tras ns
StayoetTcu
(iJT?)
tv
rrj Kapdly.
OLVTOV
^Trt/xeXaJs
^TTI TO,
Trovypd ;
U
cuncta
cogitatio.
Another Gr.
rendering (6 E/3p.,
see
Field,
ad
loc.)
is
(f>v<rti<bv
TOU &t>0.
;
but in 8
21
the same translator has TO
7rXdo>ia r?js /cap.
dvd. On
the later
Jewish theologoumenon
of the
jnn
n*
1
(the
evil
impulse
in
man,
also called "IJT
simply)
which is based on this
passage,
and
by Jewish
comm.
(Ra.
on 8
J1
)
is found here
;
see
Taylor, Sayings ofJew.
Fathers*,
37, 148
ff.
; Porter,
BibL and Sem. Studies
by
members . . .
of
Yale
*
The
supposition
of
Hupfeld
and Lenormant
(Orig.
i.
415),
that the
double
period
occurred in the
original J,
has no foundation.
VI.
5-8
VII. I
151
cf. 8
21
,
Dt.
3i
21
,
Is. 26
3
(Ps. ic-3
14
?),
i Ch. 28
2g
18
;
v.i. 6.
The
anthropopathy
which attributes to Yahwe
regret (OW)
and vexation
(3J?yn*1)
because He had created man is
unusually
strong. Although
in the sense of mere
change
of
purpose,
the former is often ascribed to God
(Ex 32
14
,
Jer.
i8
7- 8
26
3- 13
, Jl.
2
13
, Jon. 3
10
etc.),
the cases are few where divine
regret
for
accomplished
action is
expressed
(i
Sa.
i5
n
).
The
whole
representation
was felt to be
inadequate (Nu. 23,
i Sa.
is
11
)
;
yet
it continued to be used as
inseparable
from
the
religious
view of
history
as the
personal agency
of
Yahwe.
7.
God s resolve to blot out
(nno)
the race : not as
yet
communicated to
Noah,
but
expressed
in
monologue.
8. But Noah had
foundfavour, etc.\
doubtless on account of
his
piety
;
but see on
7
1
. The Yahwistic narrative must
have contained some
previous
notice of
Noah,
probably
at
the end of a
genealogy.
VII.
1-5.
Announcement of the Flood. The section
is an almost exact
parallel
to 6
17
~
22
(P).
V.
1
presupposes
in
J
a
description
of the
building
of the
ark,
which the
redactor has omitted in favour of the elaborate account of
P. Not till the work is finished does Yahwe reveal to Noah
the
purpose
it is to serve: v.
4
is
obviously
the first intima
tion that has been
given
of the
approaching deluge.
The
building
of the ark in
implicit
obedience to the divine
command is thus a
great
test and
proof
of Noah s faith
;
cf.
Heb. ii
7
. I. Thou and all
thy
house]
J
s
brevity
is here far
Univ.
(1901), 93
ff.
DVfr^a] continually
;
see
BDB, 400
b. 6.
mrr]
<& 6 8e6s
(so
v.
7
). asym]
Gn.
34
;
cf. Is.
63 (Pi.).
Ra. softens the
anthrop. by making-
the
impending-
destruction of the creatures the
immediate
object
of the divine
grief. 7. nnox]
cf.
7
4> 23
. In the full
sense of exterminate
(as
distinct from obliterate
[name, memory,
etc.])
the vb. is
peculiar
to
J
s account of the Flood
;
ct. Nu.
5
s3
34
11
(P).
The v. is
strongly interpolated.
The clauses TiN"O nrn and DIND
own
... are in the
style
of P
(cf.
6
20
7
14- 21
8
17- 19
9" etc.);
and the
latter
is, besides,
an
illogical specification
of Dixn.
They
are redac-
tional
glosses,
the
original
text
being
o nnru "3 noiNn Jfi
^>yo
DtK.TriN nriDX
D n
tfy
(Bu. 249
ff.
;
Di.
125).
8. Tjn
jn NXD]
characteristic
of,
though
not
absolutely
confined
to, J
:
ig
19
32
6
33
8- 15
34" 39* 47
25
etc.
(Ho.
Einl.
97 f.).
I.
mrr]
juu.5>
Q nto
;
r
Ktfpcos
6 6e6s.
pns] pred.
accus.
;
Dav.
76.
152
THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO
J
more
expressive
than the formal enumerations of P
(6
18
^13
gi6.
is^
The
principle
involved is the
religious solidarity
of the
family
;
its members are saved for the
righteousness
of
its head
(cf.
iQ
12
).
thee have 1 seen
(to
be) righteous (P^V,
see
on 6
9
)]
Bu. and others take this to be a
judgement
based on Noah s obedience in
building
the ark
;
but that is
hardly
correct. The verb is not
KVE
but
n&O,
which has
pre
cisely
the same force as the
KTI
of 6
5
.
Comp.
also 6
8
. 2.
clean
(~^
n
9)
means, practically,
fit for sacrifice and human
food;
the technical antithesis is
NEt?>
which, however,
is
here
avoided,
whether
purposely (De. 174)
or not it is
impossible
to
say.
The distinction is
not,
as was once
supposed (see Tu.),
a
proof
of
J
s interest in Levitical
matters, but,
on the
contrary,
of the naivete" of his
religious
conceptions.
He
regards
it as rooted in the nature of
things,
and cannot
imagine
a time when it was not observed. His
view is nearer the historical truth than the
theory
of
P,
who traces the distinction to the
positive
enactments of
the Sinaitic
legislation (Lv.
n,
Dt.
14),
and
consequently
ignores
it here. The same difference of
standpoint appears
with
regard
to
sacrifice, altars,
etc.: see
4
3f-
8
20
i2
7
etc.
njntr
nynp]
by
sevens
(G-K. 134 #);
i.e.
7 (individuals)
of each kind
(De.
Str.
al.),
rather than
7 pairs (Ber.
R.
lEz. Di. Gu.
al.),
in
spite
of the
following
inK KI B*K.
It
is a
plausible conjecture (Ra.
De.
Str.)
that the odd
individual was a male destined for sacrifice
(8
20
).
3a presents
an
impure
text
(v.i.),
and must either be removed as a
gloss
(Kue.
Bu. Ho. Gu.
al.)
or
supplemented
with
(&(Ba. Ben.).
3b.
to
keep
seed
alive,
etc.\
reads better as the continuation of
2. For
D
:B>,
jum&JoU
read D JP G
w, probably correctly.
I/IBM tf N
(fos)]
jux
napai IDT, assimilating J
to P.
3a.
The distinction to be
expected
between clean and unclean birds is made
imperfectly by
JUUL and
j$,
which
insert linen after
D DBTI
;
and
fully by (5r,
which
goes
further and adds
the words KCU OLTTO jravruiv TUV irereivuiv T.
/ar) nadapuv
8tio 8uo
(ipcrev
K.
dr]\v.
Ball
accepts
this, thinking
the omission in MT due to homoioteleuton.
But the
phrase
nnpJi
121 shows that
l3*
has been
manipulated
;
and it is
on the whole more
likely
that it is
entirely
redactional. Birds
may
be
included in the nonan of v.
2
; though
Bu. s
parallels (Ex.
8
13f-
g
9- M
,
Jer. 32" 33
10 12
36
29
,
Ps.
36?)
are not
quite convincing. 3b. nvn^]
P uses
vii.
2-7
153
2
than of
3a
.
4.
With
great
rhetorical
effect,
the reason for
all these
preparations
the
coming
of the Flood is reserved
to the end.
J
knows no other
physical
cause of the
Deluge
than the
40 days
rain
(cf.
v.
12
). 5. Comp.
6
22
(P).
7-10,
12, i6b,
I7b,
22, 23.
Entrance into the ark
and
description
of the Flood.
J
s narrative has here
been taken to
pieces by
the
Redactor,
who has fitted the
fragments
into a new connexion
supplied by
the combined
accounts of
J
and P. The
operation
has been
performed
with such care and skill that it is still
possible
to restore
the
original
order and recover a succinct and consecutive
narrative,
of which little if
anything appears
to be lost. The
sequence
of events is as follows : At the end of the seven
days,
the Flood comes
(v.
10
)
;
Noah enters the ark
(
7
)
and
Yahwe shuts him in
(
16b
). Forty days
rain ensues
(
12
),
and
the waters rise and float the ark
(
17b
).
All life on the earth s
surface is
extinguished
;
only
Noah and those in the ark
survive
(
22f>
).
The
rearrangement
here
adopted (io.
7. ib. la. nt>. a.
)
Is due mami
y
to the acute criticism of Bu.
(Urg. 258 ff.),
who has
probably
added the
last refinements to a
protracted process
of
literary investigation.
Some
points (e.g.
the
transposition
of vv.
7
and
10
)
are. of
course,
more or less
doubtful
;
others
(e.g.
16b
)
are seen to be
necessary
as soon as the com
ponents
of
J
have been isolated. The most difficult
thing
is to clear the
text of the
glosses
which
inevitably accompanied
the work of redaction
;
but this also has been
accomplished
with a considerable
degree
of
certainty
and
agreement amongst
recent comm. The most extensive
interpolations
are
part
of v.
7
,
the whole of vv.
8
and
9
,
and
part
of
ffl
.
For details see the footnote.
10. At the end
of
the
7 days
(cf.
v.
4
)]
The interval
(we
may suppose)
was
occupied
in
assembling
the animals and
provisioning
the ark. the waters
of
the
Flood\
TBttn,
a tech
nical name for the
Deluge,
common to both sources
(v.t.).
7*
Noah enters the ark on account
of
the . . . Flood:
Hiph. (6
19fc
). jni]
as
Jer. 3I
27
.
4.
D D
S]
On
$>
as
denoting
the close of a
term
(cf.
v.
10
),
see
BDB,
s.v. 6b.
Dip$]
a rare word
(only J
23
,
Dt. n
6
),
meaning
that which subsists
( *J Dip),
ffi
di/do-re^a (other exx. in
Field,
^avdffTacrLv),
U
substantia,
&
iQ[.Q5
xO-
On the form see
Barth,
Nom.-
bild. 181
;
Kon. ii.
146
;
G-K.
85
d.
7.
tax
r:;u]
The enumeration is in the manner of P
(obs.
also
inx)
;
154
THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO
J
hence v.
7
presupposes
v.
10
. The same order of events is
found in P
(
n> 13
)
and in the
Babylonian legend
:
"
when the
lords of the darkness send at
evening
a
(grimy ?)
rain,
enter
into the
ship
and close
thy
door"
(1.
88
f.).
l6b
(which
must
in
any
case follow
immediately
on v.
7
)
contains a fine anthro
pomorphism,
which
(in spite
of the Bab.
parallel just
cited)
it is a
pity
to
spoil by deleting
niiT and
making
Noah the
implicit subject (Klost.
NKZ,
i.
717).
12.
forty
days
and
forty
nights]
This
determination,
which in
J expresses
the
entire duration of the
Flood,
seems to have been treated
by
R as
merely
a
stage
in the increase of the waters
(cf.
8
6
).
It
obviously
breaks the connexion of P. The
Babylonian
deluge
lasted
only
six
days
and
nights
(1. 128). I7b.
Parallel
to
18
(P).
22, 23.
A
singularly
effective
description
of the
the words either
replace
irvn ^Di
(as
v.
1
),
or are a
pure
insertion
;
in
either case redactional. ^non
<D]
so
y
10
(J), 9" (P) (ct.
D^D
an,
6
17
7
6
).
"?13D]
(Sr
Ka,Ta,K\v(Tfj,6s ;
U diluvium
;
,&
and NJSIB
(J NJjmo).
The word
has
usually
been derived from *?3
, streaming (see
Ges.
Th., Di.)
;
but
is more
probably
a
foreign
word without Heb.
etymology (see
No.
ZDMG,
xl.
732).
Del.
(Parad. 156) proposed
the derivation from Ass.
nabAlu,
destroy,
which is
accepted by Konig (ii. 153),
Ball
(p. 53),
and
others. The Bab. technical
equivalent
is
abubu,
which denotes both a
1
light-flood
and a water-flood : the double sense has been
thought
to
explain
P s addition of
or?
to the word
(see
on 6
17
).
A transformation
of the one name into the other
is, however,
difficult to understand
(see
JfAT
3
, 495
1
, 546
2
).
In Ps.
29
^UD
appears
to be used in a
general
sense without a historic reference to the Noachic
Deluge (see Duhm,
ad
loc.). 8, 9 present
a mixed text. The distinction of clean and un
clean
points
to
J ;
but all other features
(crn
1
?**
[though
a
reading
mn
seems attested
by juxUJP,
and MSS of
(]
; napai
131
;
the undiscrimin
ated C W D Jt?
;
the
categorical
enumeration
[to
which
(5r
adds the birds
at the
beginning
of v.
8
])
to P. In P the vv. are not
wanted,
because
they
are a
duplicate
of
13-16
:
they
must therefore be
assigned
to an
interpolator (Bu. al.).
IO. On the construction of the
sentence,
see
G-K.
1640;,
and on v.
6
below. 12.
0^3] (*/ gasuma=
be massive
)
commonly
used of the
heavy
winter rain
(Ezr.
io
9
,
Ca. 2
11
)
: see GASm.
HG,6^.
l6b.
mrv]
(Or
Kvpios
6 0e6s +
rV
KipwTbv.ijb.
Since
18
belongs
to P
(nsj i,
~IND),
its
duplicate
17b
must be from
J,
where it forms a natural
continuation of
12
.
17a
,
on the other hand
(in spite
of the
40 days),
must be
assigned
to P
(see p. 164).
22.
D"n
nnnDBo]
is an
unexampled
combina
tion, arising
from confusion of a
phrase
of
J (D"n not^j,
2
7
)
with one of P
(D"n
m-i,
6
17
7
15
).
The v.
being
from
J (cf. n;nn
instead of
ntf 3: ;
inn instead
of
jnri,
21
),
nn is
naturally
the word to be deleted.
23a
as a whole is
J
(nno,
Dip ,
nD-mn
3r^y)
;
but the clause o Btfn . . . DIKD seems
again (cf.
6
7
)
VII. 8-VIII.
3A
155
effect of the
Flood,
which is
evidently
conceived as uni
versal.
VIII.
(ib?),
2b, 3a,
(4?),
6-12, isb.
Subsidence of
the waters.
The rain from heaven
having ceased,
the
Flood
gradually
abates.
[The
ark settles on some
high
mountain;
and]
Noah, ignorant
of his whereabouts and
unable to see
around,
sends out first a raven and then a
dove to ascertain the condition of the earth.
The
continuity
of
J
s narrative has
again
been disturbed
by
the
redaction. V.
6a
,
which in its
present position
has no
point
of attach
ment in
J, probably
stood
originally
before
2b
,
where it refers to the
40 days
duration of the Flood
(We. Comp.
2
5).
It was removed
by
R so
as to make
up part
of the interval between the
emergence
of the
mountain-tops
and the
drying
of the
ground.
There are two small
points
in which a modification of the
generally accepted
division of
sources
might
be
suggested, (i)
lb
(the
wind
causing
the abatement
of the
waters)
is,
on account of
DTI^N, assigned
to P. But the order
it 2a
j s
unnatural,
and
transpositions
in P do not seem to have been
admitted. The idea is more in accord with
J
s
conception
of the Flood
than with P s
;
and but for the name DVI^N the half-verse
might very
well be
assigned
to
J,
and inserted between
2b
and
3a
.
(2)
V.
4
is also
almost
universally regarded
as P s
(see
Bu.
269 f.).
But this leaves a
lacuna in
J
between
3a
and
6b
,
where a notice of the
landing
of the ark
must have stood : on the other
hand,
8b
makes it
extremely
doubtful if
P
thought
of the ark as stranded on a mountain at all. The
only
ob
jection
to
assigning
4
to
J
is the
chronology
: if we
may suppose
the
chronological
scheme to have been added or retouched
by
a later hand
(see p. 168),
there is a
great
deal to be said for the view of
Hupfeld
and
Reuss that the remainder of the v.
belongs
to
J.*
The
opening passage
would then read as follows :
6a. At the end
of qo days,
2b. the rain
from
heaven was
restrained
;
lb. and Yahwe
(?)
caused a ivind to
pass
over
the
earth,
and the waters abated.
3a.
And the waters went
to be
redactional,
and the three words
following
must
disappear
with
it.
m
might
be
assigned
with almost
equal propriety
to
J
or to P.
n!l]
(apoc. impf. Qal)
is a better attested Massor.
reading
than ni
(Niph.).
It is
easier, however,
to
change
the
pointing (to Niph.)
than
to
supply
m.T as
subj.,
and the sense is at least as
good.
Gu. s re
arrangement (
23aa- 22< 23b
)
is a distinct
improvement
: of the two homo
logous sentences,
that without
] naturally
stands second.
3a.
yvn
-p^n]
G-K.
113^.
(Qr
has misunderstood the idiom both
*
It
may
be noted that in
Jub.
v. 28 no date is
given
for the
landing
of the ark.
156
THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO
J
on
decreasing from off
the
earthy
4-
and the ark rested on the
mountains
of
Ararat. On the
landing-place
of the
ark,
see
p.
166 below.
6b-I2.
The
episode
of the
sending
out of the birds
appears
in
many
forms of the
Deluge-tradition
;
notably
in
the
Babylonian.
It is here related as an illustration of
Noah s wisdom
(Gu.).
Tuch
quotes
from
Pliny,
vi.
83 (on
the
Indians):
"
siderum in
navigando
nulla observatio
;
septentrio
non cernitur
;
sed volucres secum
vehunt,
emit-
tentes
saspius, meatumque
earum terram
petentium
comi-
tantur."
7-
He sen^ ou^ a
raven\
The
purpose
of the action
is not stated till v.
8
;
partly
for this
reason,
partly
because
the threefold
experiment
with the dove is
complete
and more
natural,
the
genuineness
of the v. has been
questioned (We.
Ho. Gu.
al.).
Dahse, ZATW,
xxviii.
sf.,
calls attention to
the fact that in
(&
M
the v. is marked with the obelus. The
Bab. account has three
experiments,
but with different birds
(dove,
swallow,
raven).
8. And he sent out a
dove]
perhaps
immediately
;
see
(5
below. But if v.
7
be a later
insertion,
we must
supply
and he waited
7 days
(see
v.
10
).
9.
The de
scription
of the return and admission of the dove is unsur
passed
even in the Yahwistic document for tenderness and
beauty
of
imagination.
10. Seven other
days\
implying
a
similar statement before either v.
7
or v.
8
. II. a
freshly
plucked
olive
leaf]
The olive does not
grow
at
great
alti
tudes,
and was said to flourish even under water
(Tu.).
But it is
probable
that some
forgotten mythological signi
ficance attaches to the
symbol
in the
Flood-legend (see
Gu.
p. 60).
Cf. the classical notices of the olive branch as an
emblem of
peace
:
Virg.
Aen. viii. 116
(Paciferaeqite
manu
ramum
prcetcndit oliv(Z)\ Livy,
xxiv.
30,
xxix. 16. 12. The
third time the dove returns no more
;
and then at last
here and in v.
7
.
7. anyn]
on the art. see G-K. 126
r;
but cf. Smith s
note, RS^,
126.
(fix here
supplies
roO Idetv e/ KCKoiraKev r6
i55u>p,
as in v.
8
.
awi Ni*
NJTI]
<& Kal te\6uv
o\>x v-rreffrpe^ev
;
so
"BSb
(accepted by Ball)
:
see on
3a
. 8.
inxn]
(&
d-n-Lcru auroO
(r=vj-x); assuming
that both birds
were sent forth on the same
day.
10.
^nn]
cf.
Sn>l,
v.
12
(jux
has Wi both
times).
Both forms are incorrect : read in each case Srri
(Bu.
Di.
al.).
VIIL
4-2i
157
I3D.
Noah ventures to remove the
covering
of the
ark,
and
sees that the earth is
dry.
20-22. Noah s sacrifice.
J
s account of the
leaving
of
the ark has been
suppressed.
Noah s first act is to offer a
sacrifice,
not of
thanksgiving
but
(as
v.
21
shows)
of
pro
pitiation
: its effect is to move the
Deity
to
gracious
thoughts
towards the new
humanity.
The resemblance
to the
Babylonian parallel
is here
particularly
close and
instructive
(see
p. 177):
the incident
appears
also in the
Greek and Indian
legends.
20. an
altar]
Lit.
*
slaughtering-
place.
The sacrificial institution is carried back
by J
to
the remotest
antiquity (see
on
4
3f-
7
2ft
),
but this is the first
mention of the
altar,
and also of sacrifice
by
fire : see
p. 105
above.
nS
y]
holocausts^
that form of sacrifice which was
wholly
consumed on the
altar,
and which was
naturally
resorted to on occasions of
peculiar solemnity (e.g.
2 Sa.
24
25
).
21. smelted the
soothing
odour]
niTO rpn
(moi/, nidor)
*
becomes a technical term of the Levitical
ritual,
and is
never mentioned elsewhere
except
in P and Ezk.
This,
Gu.
points out,
is the
only place
where Yahwe is
actually
described as
smelling
the sacrifice
;
but cf. i Sa. 26
19
. It is
probably
a refinement of the crude eudaemonism of the
Bab.
story (see p. 177 below);
and it is doubtful how far it
elucidates
primitive
Heb. ideas of the effect of sacrifice.
That "the
pleasing
odour is not the motive but
merely
the occasion of this
gracious purpose
"
(Knobel), may
be
I3b. ncrp] possibly
described in
J
s account of the
building
of the ark.
Elsewhere
only
of the
covering
of the Tabernacle
(P)
;
but cf.
nsap,
Ezk.
27
.
lain]
(&
ins. r6
vdwp
dird.
20. m.T
1
?]
&
T
Oe$.
21.
m.v]
fflt K. 6 0e6s
(bis).
nmn
m]
&
|*^_5
]_KK_i_J5 ^KK_
5
I/O
m>
conflate?
V?P^]
a different vb. from that used
in
3
17
4
n
5
29
(TIN).
Ho.
points
out that Pi. of
^p
is never used with God
as
subj. (cf.
Gn. i2
3
)
;
and for this and other reasons
regards
21a
as an
unskilful
attempt
to link the Noah of the Flood with the
prophecy
of
5
s9
. But
21a
can
only
refer to the
Flood,
while the curse of
5
29
belongs
to the
past
:
moreover,
an
interpolator
would have been
careful to use
the same verb. The sense
given
to
^I?p
is
fully justified by
the
usage
*//.i.
317
:
Kviat]
d
ovpavbv
Z/ce>>
^\t(r<rofji4vr}
vepl Kairvip ;
cf. Ov. Met.
xii.
153.
158
THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
sound
theology,
but it
hardly expresses
the idea of the
passage.
2lb is a
monologue (iz6~ta).
un
"WJ
*3
(see
on 6
5
)
may
be understood either as
epexegetical
of
B}? ?
"^-V?
(a
reason
why
Yahwe
might
be moved to curse the
ground,
though
he will not
[Ho.]),
or as the
ground
of the
promise
not to visit the earth with a flood
any
more. The latter is
by
far the more
probable.
The
emphasis
is on
VHyiiE,
from
his
youth\
the innate sinfulness of man constitutes an
appeal
to the divine
clemency,
since it cannot be cured
by
an
undiscriminating judgement
like the
Flood,
which arrests
all
progress
toward better
things (cf.
Is.
54).
22. The
pledge
of Yahwe s
patience
with
humanity
is the
regularity
of the course of
nature,
in which
good
and bad men are
treated alike
(Mt. 5
45
).
A division of the
year
into six
seasons
(Ra.),
or even into two halves
(De.),
is not in
tended
;
the order of nature is
simply
indicated
by
a series
of
contrasts,
whose alternation is never more to be inter
rupted by
a
catastrophe
like the Flood. This assurance
closes
J
s account of the
Deluge.
It rests on an interior
resolve of Yahwe
;
whereas in P it assumes the form of
a covenant
(g
11
),
a
striking
instance of the
development
of
religious
ideas in the direction of
legalism
: cf.
Jer. 3I
35 -
33
20f.25f..
The Flood
according
to P.
VI.
9-12.
Noah s
piety;
The
corruption
of the
earth.
p.
This is the
genealogy of Noah]
The formula is
usually
taken as the
heading
of the section of P
dealing
with the
Flood;
but see on
Q
28
-. Noah is characterised as
of Pual
(Ps. 37
M
, Jb. 24
18
,
Is.
65
20
). maya]
(Hi Sia r&
tpya,
as
3
17
.
"3
in
1^]
($r
8n
tyxeiTai r?
SiAvoca T. &i>6.
^Ti/ueXws
KT\. See on 6
5
. 22.
iy]
(3r
om.
; Ball,
iy.
inns?
]
come to an end : see on 2
2
.
9.
D Dn
pHx] (so Jb.
I2
4
).
The
asyndeton
is harsh
;
but it is
hardly
safe to
remedy
it on the
authority
of JUUL
(o Dni)
and
U,
against
(JEr.
To
remove
pnx
as a
gloss
from
J (y
1
) (Ball)
is too bold.
Perhaps
the
sentence should be broken
up
into two
clauses,
one nominal and the
other verbal : Noah was a
righteous
man
;
perfect
was
he,
etc. The
forensic sense of
pnx given
above
may
not be the
original
: see S. A.
Cook, /7!5>,
ix,
632!,
who adduces some evidence that it meant what
was due
among
a definite social
group,
and between it and its
gods.
vi.
9-12
159
righteous (P^V)
and
faultless (
D<1
^)
: on the construction
v.t. There is
perhaps
a
correspondence
between these two
epithets
and the
description
of the state of the world which
follows;
p
s
i
being opposed
to the
*
violence,
and
D^n to
the
corruption
of v.
llf
-.
p^V,
a forensic
term,
denotes
one whose conduct is
unimpeachable
before a
judge
;
D n
is sacerdotal in its associations
(Ex.
i2
5
,
Lv. i
3
etc.),
meaning
free from
defect, integer (cf. I7
1
).
in his
genera
tions
(v.i.)]
i.e. alone
among
his
contemporaries (cf. y
1
).
That Noah s
righteousness
was
only
relative to the standard
of his
age
is not
implied.*
walked with
God\
see on
5
22
.
The
expression
receives a fuller
significance
from the
Baby
lonian
legend,
where
Ut-napis
tim,
like the Biblical
Enoch,
is translated to the
society
of the
gods (p. 177 below).
II f.
nnnBO n
?.]
is the intentional antithesis to the
31L3 narn
1NE
of i
31
(De.).
All
flesh
had
corrupted
its
way]
had
violated the
divinely -appointed
order of creation. The
result is violence
(P^,
ffi
aSi/aa)
ruthless
outrage per
petrated by
the
strong
on the weak. A
"
nature red in
tooth and claw with ravin
"
is the
picture
which rises before
the mind of the
writer; although,
as has been
already
remarked
(p. 129),
the narrative of P contains no
explana
tion of the
change
which had thus
passed
over the face of
the world.
The fundamental idea of v.
llf<
is the
disappearance
of the Golden
Age,
or the
rupture
of the concord of the animal world established
by
the decree of i
29f-
. The lower animals contribute their share to the
general corruption by transgressing-
the
regulation
of i
30
,
and com
mencing
to
prey upon
each other and to attack man
(see 9
5
)
: so Ra.
To restrict neo^a to mankind
(C,
Tu. Str. Dri. Ben.
al.)
is therefore
Vrrn?]
(& tv
rrj yevtvei
O.VT. The f.
pi.
is
highly
characteristic of P
(Ho.
Einl.
341);
but
apparently always
as a real
pi. (series
of
genera
tions)
: ct. the
solitary
use of
sg.
in
P,
Ex. i
8
.
Here,
accordingly,
it
seems fair to understand
it,
not of the individual
contemporaries
of
Noah
(Tu.
We. Ho.
al.),
but of the successive
generations
covered
by
his lifetime. The resemblance to nin ina
pns (7
1
)
is adduced
by
We.
(Prol.
6
390)
as a
proof
of P s
dependence
on
J.
II. D
ftWtp]
One of
the few instances of P s use of the art. with N. 12. D
n^K]
(& Ktftos 6 6.
*
So
Jerome
:
"
ut ostenderet non
juxta justitiam consummatam,
sed
juxta generationis
suss eum
justum
fuisse
justitiam."
l6o THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
unnecessary
and unwarranted. The
phrase properly
denotes all
living
being s,
and is so used in 8 out of the
13
occurrences in P s account of
the Flood
(Dri.
ad
loc.).
In 6
19
7
15- 18
8
17
it means animals
apart
from
man
;
but that in the same connexion it should also mean mankind
apart
from animals is not to be
expected,
and could
only
be allowed on
clear evidence. The difference of
standpoint
between P and
J (6
5
)
on
this matter is characteristic.
13-16.
Directions for
building
the ark.
13.
An
nouncement in
general
terms of some vast
impending
catastrophe, involving
the end
of
all
flesh (all living beings,
as v.
12
). 14-16. Description
of the Ark. An Ark
(chest)
of gopher wood]
probably
some resinous wood. In Heb.
HIP)
is used
only
of Noah s ark and the vessel in which
Moses was saved
(Ex.
2
3- 5
)
;
the name ark comes to us
through
JJ
(area),
where, however,
it is also
applied
to the
ark of the
testimony (Ex. 25
10
etc.).
The Bab. Flood-
narrative has the
ordinary
word for
ship (elippu).
The
vessel is to consist
internally
of cells
(lit.
nests
),
and is
to be coated inside and out with bitumen
(cf.
Ex. 2
3
).
13. JD^ xa]
not
(as
Est.
9
n
)
*has come to
my knowledge,
but has
entered into
my purpose.
This is better than
(with Di.)
to take
N? pg
absolutely (as
Am. 8
2
),
and JB
1
? as
according
to
my purpose. D.TJ?P]
through
them
;
Ex. 8
20
9", Ju.
6
6
etc.
pM.-rnN [arvn^p]
&
/cal
rty 77??
;
U
cum terra
;
so <S 2TJ. As Ols.
says,
we should
expect
n
"?yp (FIND
[Graetz]
is
unsuitable).
But the error
probably
lies
deeper.
Ball
emends
rrnxi DHN
rvn^o
;
Bu. .TTIN
Dfl npD
[en]
^ on
n^o
;
Gu.
DJvn^D Qjn]
rrnN. Eerdmans
(AT Studien,
i.
29)
finds a
proof
of
original poly
theism. He reads ui
Divide jn
:
"
we
[the gods]
are about to
destroy
the earth."
14. ^n]
<&
/a/Surds
;
<< Nniirn. The word is the
Egyptian
teb(t)
=
chest, sarcophagus (6ij3is, 6ipij,
in ( of Ex. 2
3- 5
)
: see Ges.
Th.
\ Erman, ZDMG,
xlvi.
123. Jensen (ZA,
iv.
272 f.),
while
admitting
the
Egypt, etymology, suggests
a connexion with the Ass.
ilippu
tl-bi-
turn
(a
kind of
ship).
I am informed
by
Dr. C. H. W.
Johns
that
while the word is written as the determinative for
ship,
it is not
certain that it was
pronounced elippu.
He thinks it
possible
that it
covers the word
tabu,
found in the
phrase
ta-bi-e Bel ilani Marduk
(Del.
ffwb.
699 a),
which he is inclined to
explain
of the
processional
barques
of the
gods.
If this
conjecture
be
correct,
we
may
have
here the Bab.
original
of Heb.
n^n.
See Camb. Bibl.
Essays (1909),
p. 37
ff. isJ-
vy.]
The old trans, were
evidently
at a loss : r
(^K)
^uXow
Terpaydvuis
; U
(de) lignis Icevigatis ; Jer.
ligna
bituminata : the word
being
&ir.
\ey. Lagarde (Sem.
i.
64
f.
;
Symm.
ii.
93 f.)
considered it a
mistaken contraction from nnsj
(brimstone),
or rather a
foreign
word
of the same form which meant
originally pine-wood.
Others
(Bochart,
VI.
I3-I6
l6l
Somewhat
similar details are
given
of the
ship
of Ut-
napistim (p. 176). Asphalt
is still
lavishly applied
in the
construction of the rude boats used for the
transport
of
naphtha
on the
Euphrates (see
Cernik, quoted by
Suess,
The Face
of
the
Earth,
27). 15. Assuming
that the cubit
is the
ordinary
Heb. cubit of six handbreadths
(about
18 in. :
see
Kennedy, DB,
iv.
909),
the dimensions of the ark are
such as modern
shipbuilding-
has
only recently
exceeded
(see
Ben.
140)
;
though
it is
probably
to be assumed that
it was
rectangular
in
plan
and sections. That a vessel of
these
proportions
would
float,
and hold a
great
deal
(though
it would not
carry cannon!),
it
hardly
needed the famous
experiment
of the Dutchman Peter
Janson
in
1609-21
to
prove (see
Michaelis,
Oriental, und
Exeget.
Bibliot. xviii.
27 f.).
16. The details here are
very
confused and
mostly
obscure. The word
"inv
(a?r. Aey.)
is
generally
rendered
Might
or
opening
for
light,
either a
single (square)
aperture (Tu.),
or "a kind of casement
running
round the
al.) suppose
it to contain the root of
/cinrdpurcroy, cypress,
a wood
used
by
the Phoen. in
shipbuilding-,
and
by
the
Egypt,
for
sarcophagi
(De.).
D
lp] Lagarde
s
conjecture,
D
Jp
D
jp (OS
1
,
ii.
95),
has been
happily
confirmed from
Philo,
Qucest.
in Gen. ii.
3
(loculos
loculos : see
Bu.
255),
and from a Palest.
Syr. Lectionary (Nestle,
cited
by Ho.).
On the
idiom,
see G-K.
1232. 122]
also &ir.
\ey. }
=
bitumen
(ffiU),
An
kufr,
Aram,
msna,
Ass.
kupru (used
in the Bab. Flood-
story).
The native Heb. word for bitumen is ion
(ii
3
i4
10
,
Ex. 2
3
).
15. apk]
<&
n^j-irrnN.
16.
nns]
<&
tirurw&ywv (rdg-. naif?);
all other Vns.
express
the idea of
light (Aq. peo-yfj.ppivdi ,
S.
dia<J>avh,
3J
fenestram,
&
(J,_aCl, windows,
2T
O
TI.VJ). They
connected it
(as Aq. shows)
with
D!inx,
noon-day
;
but
if
cnnx means
properly
summit
(see
G-B.
;
BDB, s.v.),
there seems
nothing-
in Heb. to connect the root with
the idea of
light.
The
meaning-
back is
supported by
Ar. zahr.
tbycbo
nj^ap noK-^Ki]
The suff.
may
refer either to the ins
(whose gender
is unknown : cf. Kon. S.
p. 163)
or to the nnri : the latter is
certainly
most natural after
nV?.
The
prevalent explanation
that the cubit
indicates either the breadth of the
light-opening,
or its distance below
the roof
(see Di.)
is mere
guess-work.
Bu.
(following
We.)
removes
the first three words to the end of the
v., rendering-:
"and
according-
to the cubit thou shalt finish it
(the ark)"
: Di.
objects
that this would
require
noun. Ball reads *?D
njcgri
ny]^^,
"and for its
(the
ark
s)
whole
length
thou shalt cover it
above";
Gu. :
njV;fi
V
JNI,
"and on
a
pivot (see
Is. 6
4
)
thou shalt make it
(the roof) revolve,"
a doubtful
suggestion.
II
1 62 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
sides of the ark
(except
where
interrupted by
the beams
supporting
the
roof)
a little below the roof"
(Dri.,
so De.
Di.
al.). Exegetical
tradition is in favour of this
view;
but
the material
arguments
for it
(see
Di.
141)
are
weak,
and
its
etymological
basis is doubtful
(v.i.).
Others
(Ew.
Gu.
G-B.
al.)
take it to mean the
roof (lit.
back : Ar.
zahr)*
The clause and to a cubit thou shalt
finish
it above is unin
telligible
as it stands : some
suggestions
are
given
in the
footnote. The door of the ark is to be in its
(longer?)
side
;
and the cells inside are to be
arranged
in three stories.
The
ship
of
Ut-napistim appears
to have had six
decks,
divided into nine
compartments (11. 61-63).
17-22.
The
purpose
of the ark. Gunkel thinks that
v.
17
commences a second communication to Noah
;
and
that in the source from which P
drew,
the construction of
the ark was recorded before its
purpose
was revealed
(as
in
the
parallel
account of
J
: see on
7
1
).
That,
of
course,
is
possible
;
but that P slurred over the
proof
of Noah s faith
because he had no interest in
personal religion
can
hardly
be
supposed.
There is
really nothing
to
suggest
that
17ff-
are
not the continuation of
13
~
18
.
17.
Behold 1 am about to
bring
the
Flood]
^3Dn : see above on
f (J),
and in the Note below.
18. Iwill establish
my covenant,
etc.]
anticipating Q
92
-. De.
and Gu.
distinguish
the two
covenants,
taking
that here
referred to as a
special pledge
to Noah of
safety
in the
coming judgement
;
but that is
contrary
to the
usage
of
P,
17.
n
<JNI]
cf. Dri.
JPh.
xi. 226.
D:P
Vnon
(cf. 7
6
)]
The D D is
certainly superfluous grammatically,
but
pN.T^y
is
necessary
to the
completeness
of the sentence. (5r
omits D D in
7,
and inserts it in
9
llb
(P).
Whether it be an
explanatory gloss
of the unfamiliar VUD
(so most),
or a
peculiar
case of nominal
apposition (see
Dri. T.
188),
it is difficult to
decide : on the idea that it is meant to
distinguish
the water-flood from
the
light-flood,
see
above,
p. 154.
The
pointing c;p (JDMich. al.)
is
objectionable
on various
grounds
: for one
thing-,
P never
speaks
of the
Flood as
coming
from the sea.
J
s
phrase
is Sunn D :
7
7< 10
;
cf.
9
llft
(P)
nntf^]
juu., nv6;
but elision of n in
Hiph.
is unusual : some Sam. MSS
have/vnB n ?
(Ball). jnr] expire, peculiar
to P in Hex.
(cf. f
l
25*
"
*
According
to
Jensen (KIB,
vi.
i, 487),
the Bab. ark had a
dome-
shaped
roof
(mufyfyu).
VI.
I7-VII.
II
163
to whom the
FT
1
!?
is
always
a solemn and
permanent
embodi
ment of the divine
will,
and never a mere occasional
provision
(Kraetzschmar,
Bundesvorstg. 197 f.).
The
entering
of the
ark is therefore not the condition to be fulfilled
by
Noah
under the
covenant,
but the condition which makes the
establishment of the
promised
covenant
possible
(Ho.).
Thou
and
thy sons,
etc.}
The enumeration is never omitted
by
P
except
in 8
1
;
cf.
7
13
8
16- 18
: ct.
J
in
7
1
.
ipf.
One
pair
of
each
species
of animals
(fishes
naturally excepted)
is to be
taken into the ark. The distinction of clean and unclean
kinds
belongs
on the
theory
of P to a later
dispensation
20. The classification
(which
is
repeated
with
slight
variations in
7
14- 21
8
19
9
2f- 10
)
here omits wild beasts
(njn)
:
v.i. on v.
19
.
wh*
does not
necessarily imply
that the animals
came of themselves
(Ra.
lEz.
al.), any
more than
N^nn
(v.
19
)
necessarily
means that Noah had to catch them. 21. all
food
which is
(or
may be) eaten]
according
to the
prescrip
tions of i
29f
-. 22. so did
he\
the
pleonastic
sentence is
peculiar
to
P;
cf.
esp.
Ex.
4o
16
(also
Ex.
7
I2
28- 50
39
32- 42f
-,
Nu. i
54
,
and
often).
VII.
6,
11,
i3-i7a.
Commencement of the Flood.
These vv.
(omitting
16b
[J])
appear
to form an
uninterrupted
section of the
Priestly
narrative,
following immediately
on
6
22
. 6. Date of the Flood
by
the
year
of Noah s life. The
number 600 is a
Babylonian
ner\
and it has been
thought
that the statement rests
ultimately
on a Bab. tradition.
II. This
remarkably precise
date introduces a sort of
diary
35
s9
49
s8
,
12 t. in
all);
elsewhere
only
in
poetry (Holz.
Einl.
341).
19. Tin] (on
anomalous
pointing
of art. see G-K.
35/"(i)).
WA reads
n nrr
as in 8
17
;
and so
(Sr,
which takes the word in the limited sense of
wild
animals,
reading
1
[/cai
d?r6 iravr&v ruv
KTTJVUIV
Kai d. IT. r.
tpirerwv]
K. d. T. T.
6t]piuv (see 7
14- 21
8
19
).
D
Jt?]
<5rJ5
DW DW as in
7
9- 15
. So also
v.
20
. 20.
ror^aD]
Ins.
i
with
juu.ffij&Uft ;
the
}
is
necessary
to the
sense. ( has "?3 before each
class,
but MT
rightly
confines it to the
heterogeneous
t^on
(Ho.).
For noim
wn,
juu. ffi have N.T
Vy
ron
TTK.
21. n
1
?:^
1
?]
see on i
29
. 22. D n
1
?**]
(
Ktf/xos
6 d.
6. On the
syntax
of the
time-relation,
see G-K.
164
a.
D:D]
see 6
17
.
II. naff
ruffa]
in the
year
of 600
years
;
cf. G-K.
1340.
For
1
i7th
day
<&
has
27th
;
see
p. 167
below. D Brn
ninn]
8
3
,
Mai.
3
10
,=
K,
2 Ki.
7
- 19
= D
1
n29
K,
Is.
24
18
.
Apart
from these
phrases
the
164
THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
of the
Flood,
which is carried
through
to the end : see
below, p. 167
f. V.
6
,
though
consistent with
n
,
is
certainly
rendered
superfluous by
it
;
and it is not
improbable
that
we have here to do with a fusion of authorities within the
Priestly
tradition
(p. 168).
the
fountains of
the Great
Deep\
(nin
Dinri
: see on i
2
).
Outbursts of subterranean water are
a
frequent accompaniment
of seismic disturbances in the
alluvial districts of
great
rivers
(Suess, 31-33);
and a
knowledge
of this
physical
fact must have
suggested
the
feature here
expressed.
In accordance with ancient
ideas,
however,
it is conceived as an
eruption
of the subterranean
ocean on which the earth was believed to rest
(see p. 17).
At the same time the windows
of
heaven were
opened] allowing
the waters of the
heavenly
ocean to
mingle
with the lower.
The Flood is thus a
partial undoing
of the work of creation
;
although
we cannot be certain that the Heb. writer looked
on it from that
point
of view. Contrast this
grandiose
cosmological conception
with the
simple representation
of
J,
who sees
nothing
in the Flood but the result of excessive
rain.
Gunkel was the first to
point
out the
poetic
character and structure
of
llb
: note the
phrase
nan mnn
(Am. y
4
,
Is.
5i
10
,
Ps.
36
7
),
and the
parallelismus
membrorum. He considers the words a
fragment
of an
older version of the
leg-end
which
(like
the
Babylonian)
was written in
poetry.
A similar
fragment
is found in 8
2
.
13.
On that
very
day\
continuing
v.
11
. The idea that all
the animals entered the ark on one
day (J
allows a
week)
has been instanced as an
example
of P s love of the
marvellous
(Ho. Gu.). 14-16.
See on 6
19f
-.
I7a.
the Flood
word N is
rare,
and denotes a latticed
opening,
Hos.
I3
3
,
Is. 6o
8
,
EC. 12
s
. Here it can
only
mean sluices
;
the
KO.TO.P&KTO.L
of (&
"unites
the senses of
waterfalls, trap-doors,
and sluices
"
(De.). 13.
nrn
nxya
nin] i7
-3- 26
,
Ex. i 2
"- 41- n
,
Lv.
23"-
21- 28- 29-
*>,
Dt.
3
2
48
, Jos. 5
n
(all P)
;
Ho. Einl.
346.
vxh
j\ irregular gender:
G-K.
97
c.
DPIX]
Better as
(&
inx
(8
16- 18
). 14. njnn] distinguishing
wild beasts from domestic
(cf.
v.
21
)
;
see on 6
19
. ui iiss
^a]
< om. Cf. Ezk.
i;
23
39
4
.
I7a.
D
yanR
DV]
Ba.
(264) ingeniously suggests
that the last three consonants of
the
gloss (cT>[jmN]) represent
the
genuine
D:/O
of P
(6
17
7
6
).
(3r
adds
n
1
?
1
? D
jmNi.
The half-verse cannot be
assigned
to
J,
because it would
be a mere
repetition
of v.
12
.
VII. I2-VIII. IB
165
came
upon
the
earth]
as a result of the
upheaval,
v.
11
. The
words
forty days
are a
gloss
based on
7
4- 12
(./.);
the
Redactor
treating J
s
forty days
as an
episode
in the
longer
chronology
: see on v.
12
(J).
18-21, 24. Magnitude
and effect of the Flood.
While
J
confines himself to what is essential the extinction
of life and leaves the
universality
of the Flood to be
inferred,
P not
only
asserts its
universality,
but so to
speak
proves
it,
by giving
the exact
height
of the waters above
the
highest
mountains.
18, Ip.
prevailed]
"132,
lit. be
strong (dSi cTrcKparet, Aq. eveSwa/xcotf?/).
The Flood is con
ceived as a contest between the water and the
dry
land.
20.
fifteen cubits]
is
just
half the
depth
of the ark. The
statement is
commonly explained
in the
light
of 8
4
: when
the Flood was at its
height
the ark
(immersed
to half its
depth,
and therefore
drawing
fifteen cubits of
water)
was
just
over one of the
highest
mountains
;
so that on the
very
slightest
abatement of the water it
grounded
! The
explana
tion is
plausible enough (on
the
assumption
that 8
4
belongs
to
P)
;
but it is
quite
as
likely
that the choice of the number
is
purely arbitrary. 24. 150
days]
the
period
of
*
prevalence
of the
Flood,
reckoned from the outbreak
(v.
11
)
: see
p.
168.
VIII.
i, 2a,
30-5, I3a, 14.
Abatement of the Flood.
The
judgement being complete,
God remembers the survivors
in
mercy.
The Flood has no sooner reached its maximum
than it
begins
to abate
(
3b
),
and the successive
stages
of the
subsidence are chronicled with the
precision
of a calendar.
I.
remembered]
in
mercy,
as
ig
29
3o
22
etc. The inclusion
of the animals in the
kindly thought
of the
Almighty
is a
touch of nature in P which should not be overlooked. ib.
The mention of the wind
ought certainly
to follow the arrest
of the cause of the
Delug<^(
2a
).
It is said in defence of the
present
order that the
senmrfg-
of the wind and the
stopping
19. ID:TI]
(&
iD^l,
with D\O as
subj. (better).
So v.
20
. 20.
11:13]
&
irqa (1^07?),
is
preferable
to MT
(cf.
Ps.
IO3
11
). nnnn]
&
(and &)
add
TCI
v\f/T]\d
as in
19
. 21. DiNn
*?DI]
here
distinguished
from IEO^D.
I. The addition of
(fix
/cai iro.vrCiv rCov irereivu)! K. TT. r,
epirer&v
is here
very
much in
place. isen]
The
*J
is rare and late: Nu.
xy
20
(P),
1 66 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
of the elemental waters are
regarded
as simultaneous
(Di.);
but that does not
quite
meet the
difficulty.
See, further,
p.
155
above.
3b.
at the
endof\.\\z 150 days] (7
24
).
See the foot
note.
4.
The
resting
of the ark. on
(one of)
the mountains
of
Ararat]
which are
probably
named as the
highest
known
to the Hebrews at the time of
writing
;
just
as one form of
the Indian
legend
names the
Himalayas,
and the
Greek,
Parnassus. Ararat
(Ass. Urartu)
is the NE
part
of
Armenia;
cf. 2 Ki.
ig
37
=
Is.
37
s8
, Jer. 5i
27
. The name
Mount
Ararat,
traditionally applied
to the
highest peak
(Massis, Agridagh
: c.
17,000 ft.)
of the Armenian moun
tains,
rests on a
misunderstanding
of this
passage.
The traditions
regarding-
the
landing-place
of the ark are
fully
discussed
by
Lenorm. Or.
2
ii. i ff. : cf. Tu.
133-136 ;
No. Unters.
145
ff.
The district called Ararat or Urartu is
properly
that named in Armenian
Ayrarat)
and is
probably
identical with the
country
of the Alarodians
of Herod, iii.
94,
vii.
79.
It is the
province
of Armenia
lying
NE of
Lake
Van, including
the fertile
plain
watered
by
the
Araxes,
on the
right (SW)
side of which river Mt. Massis rises.* Another
tradition,
represented by
Berossus
(p. 177 below)
and & J5
("lP)t,
locates the
mountain in
Kurdistan,
viz. at 6ebel
Ciudi,
which is a
striking
mountain SW of Lake
Van, commanding
a wide view over the Meso-
potamian plain.
This view is
adopted
in the Koran
(Sur.
xi.
46),
and has become traditional
among
the Moslems.: The mountain
of Nisir" of the cuneiform
legend
lies still further
south,
probably
in one of the
ranges
between the Lower Zab and the next
tributary
to the
S,
the Adhem
(Radanu) (Streck, ZA,
xv.
272).
Tiele and
Kosters,
however
(EB, 289), identify
it with
Elburz,
the sacred
mountain of the Iranians
(S
of the
Caspian Sea)
;
and find a trace of
this name in the
jdya $pos
/card,
TT]V
Ap/j.eviav Bd/uj \ey6fji.evov
indicated as
the mountain of the ark
by
Nicolaus Damascenus
(Jos.
Ant. i.
95).
What the
original
Heb. tradition
was,
it is
impossible
to
say.
The
writers
just
named
conjecture
that it was identical with the
Bab.,
Ararat
being
here a
corruption
of Hara haraiti
(the
ancient Iranian
name of
Elburz),
which was afterwards confused with the land of
Urartu. No. and Ho. think it
probable
that & and &
preserve
the
oldest name
(Kardu),
and that Ararat
if
a correction made when it was
Jer. s
26
,
Est. 2
1
7. 3b.
DTDH
nxpo]
Rd. D ronn
J>po
(Str.
Ho.
Gk.).
JULX n
ppo. 4.
For
i7th
(5r has
27th (7").
* "
Ararat
regio
in Armenia
campestris est, per quam
Araxes
fluit,
incredibilis
ubertatis,
ad radices Tauri
mentis, qui usque
illuc
extenditur."
Jerome
on Is.
37
s8
.
t
OP has both
*nmp
and N
JDIN,
as has Berossus.
VIII.
3B-I9
167
discovered that the northern mountains are in
reality higher
than those
of Kurdistan.
5.
the
tops of
the
mountains]
i.e.
(as usually explained)
the other
(lower)
mountains. The natural
interpretation
would be that the statement is made
absolutely,
from the
viewpoint
of an
imaginary spectator;
in which case it is
irreconcilable with v.
4
(cf.
Hupf. Qu. i6f.). I3a, 14.
On
New Year s
day
the earth s surface was
uncovered,
though
still moist
;
but not till the
27th
of the 2nd month was it
dry (arefacta
: cf.
Jer. 5o
38
).
15-19.
Exit from the ark :
blessing
on the
animals.
I7b.
A renewal of the benediction of i
22
,
which
had been forfeited
by
the excesses before the Flood. The
corresponding blessing
on man is reserved for
9
lff
-.
19.
The
animals leave the ark
according
to their
families
,
an
example
of P s love of order.
The
Chronology of
the Flood
presents
a number of intricate
though
unimportant problems.
The
Dates, according
to MT and
r,*
are as
follows :
1. Commencement of Flood . 6ooth
year,
2nd
mo., i7th day ((5 27th)
2. Climax
(resting
of
ark)
.
,, 7th
,,
i7th ,, ((5Sr 27th)
3.
Mountain
tops
visible .
ioth(riith),
ist
,,
4.
Waters dried
up
. . 6oist
year,
ist
mo.,
ist
5.
Earth
dry.
...
,,
2nd
27th
The chief
points
are these :
(a)
In <& the duration of the Flood is
exactly
12
months;
and since the
5
months between
(i)
and
(2)
amount
to
150 days (7
24
8
3
),
the basis of
reckoning
is
presumably
the
Egyptian
solar
year (12
mo. of
30 days
+
5
intercalated
days).
The 2 months
interval between
(3)
and
(4)
also
agrees,
to a
day,
with the
40
+ 21
days
5.
-nom
TI^I
vn]
went on
decreasing (G-K. 113 u)
;
less idiomatic
than
3a
(J). Tenth]
( eleventh.
I3a.
After nw
(ffir adds m "n
1
?
(7").
15.
o n
1
?*]
(5r
Ktpios
6 6.
17.
juu.(>fr
read
rrn.vVsi
j
so v.
19
.
N*in]
Why Qre
substitutes in this
solitary
instance
Kyyi
is not clear : see K6n.
i.
p. 641. )i~}} nsi]
(Gr
?rii nsi
(Impv.), omitting
the
previous pN3
irian.
This is
perhaps
the better text : see on
9
:ff<
U
reads the whole as
Impv.
19.
rDT
ronrrVa]
<&
(better)
bpnn
bcnn ^i
rpyn-^i
nonan-^i. DrrnnEs^D
1
?]
(Jer. i5
3
)
;
the
pi.
of
po (P
s word in ch.
i)
is not in use
(Ho.).
*
Jub.
v.
23-32 (cf.
vi.
25 f.)
adds several
dates,
but
otherwise
agrees
with
MT, except
that it makes the Flood commence on the
27th, gives
no date for the
resting
of the
ark,
and
puts
the
drying
of the earth on
the
i7th,
and the
opening
of the ark on the
27th day
of the 2nd
month.
1 68 THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
of S
6
"
12
(J).
In MT the total duration is 12 mo. + 10
days;
hence the
reckoning- appears
to be
by
lunar months of c.
29^ days, making- up
a
solar
year
of
364 days.* (b)
The Massoretic
scheme, however,
pro
duces a
discrepancy
with the
150 days
;
for
5
lunar months fall short
of that
period by
two or three
days.
Either the
original reckoning-
was
by
solar months
(as
in
<&),
or
(what
is more
probable)
the
150
days belong
to an older
computation independent
of the Calendar.
f
It has been surmised that this
points
to a 10 months duration of
the Flood
(150 days
increase +
150 days subsidence);
and
(Ew. Di.)
that a trace of this
system
remains in the
74 days
interval between
(2)
and
(3),
which amounts to about one-half of the
period
of sub
sidence.
(c)
Of the
separate
data of the Calendar no
satisfactory
explanation
has
yet
been
given.
The
only
date that bears its
signifi
cance on its face is the
disappearance
of the waters on the ist
day
of
the
year
;
and even this is confused
by
the trivial and irrelevant distinc
tion between the
drying up
of the waters and the
drying
of the earth.
Why
the Flood
began
and ended in the 2nd
month,
and on the
iyth
or
27th day,
remains,
in
spite
of all
conjectures,
a
mystery.J (d)
The
ques
tion whether the months are counted from the old Heb. New Year in the
autumn, or, according
to the
post-Exilic (Babylonian) calendar,
from the
spring,
has been discussed from the earliest
times,
and
generally
decided in favour of the former view
(Jub., Jos.
Ant. i.
80, <J,
Ra. and
most).
The
arguments
on one side or the other have little
weight.
If
the second autumn month
(MarcheSwan)
is a suitable time for the
commencement of the
Flood,
because it
inaugurates
the
rainy
season
in Palestine and
Babylonia,
it is for the same reason
eminently
unsuit
able for its close. P elsewhere follows the
Babylonian calendar,
and
there is no reason to
suppose
he
departs
from his usual
procedure
here
(so
Tu. Gu.
al.). (e)
The
only
issue of real interest is how much of the
chronology
is to be attributed to the
original Priestly
Code. If there
be two discordant
systems
in the
record,
the
150 days might
be the
reckoning
of
P,
and the Calendar a later
adjustment (Di.) ; or, again,
the
150 days might
be
traditional,
and the Calendar the work of P himself
(Gu.).
On the former
(the
more
probable) assumption
the further
question
arises whether the additions were made before or after the
amalgamation
of
J
and P. The evidence is not decisive
;
but the diver
gences
of
(Sr
from MT seem to
prove
that the
chronology
was still in
process
of
development
after the formation of the Canon. See
Dahse,
ZATWy
xxviii.
7 ff.,
where it is shewn that a
group
of Greek MSS
*
So
Jub.
vi.
32.
Cf. Charles s
Notes,
pp. 54
f. and
56
f.
f
That it is a later redactional addition
(Ho.)
is much less
likely.
J
King (JTS,
v.
204 f.) points
out the
probability
that in the triennial
cycle
of
Synagogue readings
the Parasha
containing
the
Flood-story
fell to be read about the
i7th lyyar.
This
might conceivably
have
suggested
the
starting-point
of the Calendar
(but
if so it would
bring
down the latter to a somewhat late
period),
or a modification of an
original 27th ((Sir),
which, however,
would itself
require explanation.
See De.
175^, 183, 184;
Di.
i29f.
ix. i
169
agree closely
with
Jub.,
and
argued (but unconvincingly)
that the
original reckoning
was a solar
year, beginning
and
ending
with the
27th
of the 2nd month.
IX.
1-7.
The new world-order.
The
religious sig
nificance of the Flood to the mind of the
Priestly
writers
appears
in this and the
following
sections. It marks the
introduction of a new and less ideal
age
of
history,
which
is that under which mankind now lives. The
original
harmonious order of
nature,
in which all forms of
slaughter
were
prohibited,
had been violated
by
both men and
animals before the Flood
(see
on 6
llf
-).
This is now
replaced
by
a new
constitution,
in which the
slaughter
of animals for
human food is
legalised
;
and
only
two restrictions are
imposed
on the
bloodthirsty
instincts of the
degenerate
creatures :
(i)
Man
may
not eat the life of an
animal,
and
(2)
human blood
may
not be shed with
impunity
either
by
man or beast.
The Rabbinical
theologians
were true to the
spirit
of the
passage
when
they
formulated the idea of the Noachic
commandments,
binding
on men
generally,
and therefore
required
of the
proselytes
of the
gate ;
though they
increased their number. See
Schiirer,
iii. i28f.
Vv.
1 7
,
both in substance and
expression (cf.
.iSsN
1
? .T.T
02^,
D3
1
? vinj
jrnK,
and
esp.
3B>y
pv),
form a
pendant
to i
29f-
We have seen
(p. 35)
that these vv. are
supplementary
to the
cosmogony
;
and the same is
true of the
present
section in relation to the
story
of the Flood. It does
not
appear
to be an
integral part
of the
Deluge
tradition
;
and has no
parallel (as
vv.
8 16
have)
in
J
or the Bab. narrative
(Gu.).
But that
neither this nor i
m
is a
secondary
addition to P is clear from the
phraseology
here,
which is moulded as
obviously
on i
22- 27t
as on i
29
*-.
To treat
9
4 6
as a later insertion
(Ho.)
is
arbitrary.
On the
contrary,
the two
passages represent
the characteristic contribution of P to the
ancient traditions.
I. An almost verbal
repetition
of i
28
. The wives of
Noah and his sons are not
mentioned,
women
having
no
religious standing
in the OT
(so
v.
8
).
It is
perhaps
also
significant
that here
(in
contrast to i
22
)
the
animals are
excluded from the
blessing (though
not from the
covenant
I.
ffir adds at end Kal
Ka.Ta.Kvpiefoa.Te O.VTTJS,
as i
28
. 2. *?331
Vm]
(,&
^331
(bis).
The
?
cannot be that of
specification (y
21
8
17
9
10- 16
etc.),
since no
comprehensive category precedes
;
yet
it is harsh to take it
as
continuing
the sense of
^y
((&),
and not
altogether
natural to render
I7O
THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
vv.
10< 12* 15ff<
).
2. Man s
*
dominion over the animals is re
established,
but now in the form of
fear
and dread
(cf.
Dt. 1 i
25
)
towards him on their
part.
into
your
hand
they
are
given]
conveying
the
power
of life and death
(Lev.
26^,
Dt.
ig
12
etc.).
3.
The central
injunction
: removal of the
prohibition
of animal food.
moving thing
that is
alive]
an
unusually
vague
definition of animal life. Observe P s resolute
ignoring
of the distinction between clean and unclean
animals.
4.
The first restriction. Abstention from
eating
blood,
or flesh from which the blood has not been
drained,
is a fundamental
principle
of the Levitical
legislation
(Lev.
^27 j^io. uj
.
and
though
to our minds a
purely
ceremonial
precept,
is
constantly
classed with moral laws
(Ezk. 33
251
etc.).
The
theory
on which the
prohibition
rests is re
peatedly
stated
(Lev. ly
11- u
,
Dt. i2
23
)
: the blood is the
life,
and the life is
sacred,
and must be restored to God before
the flesh can be eaten. Such
mystic
views of the blood are
primitive
and
widespread ;
and
amongst
some races formed
a motive not for
abstinence,
but for
drinking
it.* All the
same it is
unnecessary
to
go deeper
in search of a reason for
the ancient Heb. horror of
eating
with the blood
(i
Sa.
i4
32ff
-f). 5,
6. The second restriction :
sanctity
of human
life.
*
Life is
expressed alternately by
B"
5
]
and PB3. On
DaTltPB^,
v.i. 1 will
require]
exact an account
of,
or
equivalent
for
(42
22
,
Ezk.
336,
Ps.
g
13
etc.).
That God is
*
along
with
(Di.). un}]
AU.
<&
vnnj
:
3.
^-nx naS
nm]
seems a slavish
repetition
from i
29
. We should at least
expect
the
art.,
which JUUL
(San)
supplies. 4.
IDT is an
explanatory apposition (if
not a
gloss)
to isrS33
;
but (&
renders tv
afytcm ^ux^y,
and
S>
(rnVn> O"l_JSULO5),
S.
(o5
avv
\pvxv
fcfy"* atfrou)
as a rel. cl.
5.
INI
is
suspicious
after the
preceding
IN.
jum.
(DDDTDNI)
omits. D3WSJ
1
?] usually
taken as
circumscription
of
gen., emphasising
the suff. :
your blood, your
own in contrast with
the animals. It is better to render
according
to
your persons,
i.e.
individually;
"dem eloh.
Sprachgebrauch entspricht
distributive
Fassung
des *? doch am besten
"
(De.).
vn* e"N
TD]
from the hand of
*
See ^S
2
, 234
f.
; Frazer,
#
2
,
i.
i33f., 352
f.
; Kennedy,
EB, 1544.
f
It has been
thought
that the offence warned
against
is the bar
barous African custom of
eating portions
of animals still alive
(C
J
,
Ra.
De.
al.)
;
but that is a mistake.
ix. 2-n
the
avenger
of blood is to
J (ch. 4)
a truth of nature
;
to P
it rests on a
positive
enactment.
-from
the hand
of
every
beast]
see Ex. 2i
28f
-. 6a is remarkable for its assonances
and the
perfect symmetry
of the two members :
&[ ^B^
r\2&
ta DlNIt
|
CHNn. It is
possibly
an ancient
judicial
formula which had become
proverbial (Gu.).
The
2T2C
(v.i.)
read into the text the idea of
judicial procedure ;
others
(Tu. al.) suppose
the law of
blood-revenge
to be
contemplated.
In
reality
the manner of execution is left
quite
indefinite.
6b. The reason for the
higher
value set on the life of man.
On the
image of
God see on i
26f>
.
7*
The section
closes,
as
it
began,
with the note of benediction.
8-17.
The Covenant and its
Sign.
In P as in
J
(8
20 22
)
the
story
of the Flood closes with an assurance that
the world shall never
again
be visited
by
such a
catastrophe
;
and in both the
promise
is
absolute,
not
contingent
on the
behaviour of the creatures. In P it takes the form of a
covenant between God and all
flesh,
the first of two
covenants
by
which
(according
to this
writer)
the relations
of the
Almighty
to His creatures are
regulated.
On the
content and
scope
of this Noachic
covenant,
see the con
cluding
note, p. i73f. p.
establish
my
covenant}
in fulfilment
of 6
18
. P s formula for the
inauguration
of the covenant
is
always
H^3 D^pn
or
3
jro
(172,
Nu.
25
12
)
instead of the
more ancient and technical
3
rn3. II. The essence of the
covenant is that the earth shall never be devastated
by
a
Flood. Whether its idea be exhausted
by
this assurance
one man that of another. The full
expression
would be tfcrriN WK TD
VHN
(Ols.);
but all
languages
use
breviloquence
in the
expression
of
reciprocity.
The construction is
hardly
more difficult than in
I5
10
42
26>8C
;
and an exact
parallel
occurs in Zee.
7
10
. See G-K.
139 c\
Bu.
283
ff. The vrmi of MJ.
J5U
makes nonsense
;
(Sx
omits the
previous
DIKH TDI. It would be better to move the Athnach so as to
commence
a new clause with ? *< TD. 6.
mxa]
U
om.
;
{ N:n iD DD
pinoa
:
3P is
still more
explicit. 7.
na
mi]
U
et
implete
earn
(as
v.
1
).
Read na mi
after i
28
(Nestle
in
Ball).
10.
Van]
as
many
as
;
see on 6
2
.
pxn
n n
^]
Q&
om.
^o{>] perhaps
=
in short : cf.
23,
see G-K.
143
e. The sense of n n
=
animals
in
general, immediately
after the same
expression
in the sense of
wild
animals,
makes the
phrase suspicious (Ho.).
n.
172
THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO P
is a difficult
question,
on which see
p. 173
below.
12-17.
sign
of the covenant. "In times when contracts were not
reduced to
writing,
it was
customary,
on the occasion of
solemn
vows, promises,
and other
*
covenant
transactions,
to
appoint
a
sign,
that the
parties might
at the
proper
time
be reminded of the
covenant,
and a breach of its observance
be averted. Exx. in common life: Gn. 2i
30
,
cf.
38
17f-
"
(Gu.).*
Here the
sign
is a natural
phenomenon
the rain
bow
;
and the
question
is
naturally
asked whether the
rainbow is conceived as not
having
existed before
(so
lEz.
Tu.).
That is the most obvious
assumption, though
not
perhaps
inevitable. That the laws of the refraction and
reflection of
light
on which the rainbow
depends actually
existed before the time of Noah is a matter of which the
writer
may very
well have been
ignorant.
For the
rest,
the
image hardly appears
here in its
original
form. The
brilliant
spectacle
of the
upturned
bow
against
the dark
background
of the
retreating
storm
naturally appeals
to man
as a token of
peace
and
good-will
from the
god
who has
placed
it there
;
but of this
thought
the
passage
contains
no trace : the bow is set in the cloud
by
God to remind
Himself of the
promise
He has
given.
It would seem as if
P,
while
retaining
the
anthropomorphism
of the
primitive
conception,
has sacrificed its
primary significance
to his
abstract
theory
of the covenant with its
accompanying sign.
On the
mythological origin
of the
symbol,
see below.
14-16. Explanation
of the
sign.
14b
continues
14a
: and
(when)
the boiv
appears
in the cloud
\
the
apodosis
com
mencing
with
15
(against De.).
The bow seems conceived
as
lodged
once for all in the cloud
(so IEz.),
to
appear
at
(& adds DVD. rms?
1
?]
juu. jrrwnf?
;
so v.
15
. 12. D
.I^R]
(
Ktf/uos
6 0. +
(with
)
nr^R.
13. mu] hardly
historic
pf. (
I have set
),
but either
pf.
of
instant action
(
I do set
),
or
pf.
of
certainty (
I will set
);
see G-K.
106
i, m,
n.
14. py
JJjn]
lit. when I cloud with cloud
;
see G-K.
52
d and
1177-. ntypn]
(5rF
n^p ;
so
(3r
in v.
16
.
15.
rrn]
AU
DanK n^N rrnn
(cf.
v.
12
).
*
Hence both of P s covenants are confirmed
by
a
sign
:
the
Abrahamic covenant
by
circumcision,
and this
by
the rainbow.
ix.
12-17
i73
the
right
moment for
recalling
the covenant to the mind of
God. 16. an
everlasting covenant]
so
iy
7 13> 19
,
Ex.
3i
16
,
Lv. 2
4
8
,
Nu. i8
19
25
13
(all P).
The idealisation of the rainbow occurs in
many mythologies.
To
the Indians it was the battle-bow of
Indra,
laid aside after his contest
with the demons
;
among-
the Arabs
"
Kuzah shoots arrows from his
bow,
and then
hangs
it
up
in
the clouds"
(We.
Prol.
6
311)
;
by
Homer
it was
personified
as
*Ipts,
the radiant
messenger
of the
Olympians
(//.
ii.
786,
iii. 121
;
cf. Ov. Met. i.
270 f.),
but also
regarded
as a
portent
of war and storm
(xi. 27 f.,
xvii.
547 ff.).
In the Icelandic Eddas it is
the
bridge
between heaven and earth. A further
stage
of idealisation
is
perhaps
found in the Bab.
Creation-myth,
where Marduk s
bow,
which he had used
against
Tiamat,
is set in the heavens as a con
stellation.
(See Je.
ATLO
2
, 248;
Di.
155
f.
;
Gu.
138
f.
;
Dri.
99).
These
examples go
far to
prove
a
mythological origin
of the
symbolism
of this
passage.
It
springs
from the
imagery
of the thunderstorm
;
the
lightnings
are Yahwe s arrows
;
when the storm is
over,
His bow
(cf.
Hab.
3
9
"
11
,
Ps.
7
13f>
)
is laid aside and
appears
in the
sky
as a
sign
that His
anger
is
pacified.
The connexion with the
Flood-legend (of
which there are several
examples, though
no
Babylonian parallel
has
yet
been
discovered)
would thus be a
later,
though
still
ancient, adapta
tion. The rainbow is
only
once
again
mentioned in OT
(Ezk.
i
28
nsrpn
oran ova
pya
,T.T -\VK : but see Sir.
43
m-
50 ),
and it is
pointed
out
(by
We.
al.)
that elsewhere
n^g always
denotes the bow as a
weapon,
never
an arc of a circle.
With
regard
to the covenant
itself,
the most
important question
theologically
is whether it includes the
regulations
of vv.
1 6
,
or is con
fined to the unconditional
promise
that there shall no more be a flood.
For the latter view there is
undoubtedly
much to be said
(see Valeton,
ZATW,
xii.
3f)-
Vv.
1
"
7
and
8 17
are
certainly
distinct
addresses,
and
possibly
of different
origin (p. 169)
;
and while the first
says nothing
of a
covenant,
the second makes no reference to the
preceding stipula
tions.
Then,
the
sign
of the covenant is a fact
independent
of human
action
;
and it is
undoubtedly
the
meaning
of the author that the
promise
stands sure whether the
precepts
of
1
"
7
be observed or not.
On the other
hand,
it is difficult to believe that
P,
to whom the nna
means so
much,
should have
dignified by
that name the
negative
assurance of v.
11
. In the case of the Abrahamic
covenant,
the ma
marks a new
ordering
of the relations between God and the
world,
and
is
capable
of
being
observed or violated
by
those with whom it is
established.
Analogy, therefore,
is so far in favour of
including
the
ordinances of
1 7
in the terms of the covenant
(so
Is.
24"-).
Kraetzschmar
(Bundesvorstg. 192 ff.)
solves the
difficulty by
the
supposition
that the
idea of vv.
8 17
is borrowed
by
P from
J,
and
represents
the notion of
the covenant characteristic of that document. It is much
simpler
to
recognise
the existence of different tendencies within the
priestly
school
;
16.
T3]
1
?]
&& 12..
n nK
pa]
1
74
FLOOD
and we have seen that there are
independent
reasons for
regarding
vv.
1 7
as
supplementary
to the
Deluge
tradition followed
by
P. If that
be the
case,
it is
probable
that these vv. were inserted
by
the
priestly
author with the intention of
bringing
under the Noachic rvo those
elementary religious obligations
which he
regarded
as
universally
binding
on mankind. On the
conception
of the nna in
J
and
P,
see
chs.
15
and
17.
28, 29.
The death of Noah.
The form of these vv. is
exactly
that of the
genealogy,
ch.
5
;
while
they
are at the same time the conclusion of the m m"?in
(6
9
).
How much
was included under that rubric? Does it cover the whole of P s
narrative of the Flood
(so
that m^in is
practically equivalent
to bio
graphy ),
or does it refer
merely
to the account of his immediate
descendants in 6
10
? The
conjecture may
be hazarded that 6
9- 10
7
6
9
28- >2S
formed a section of the
original
book of
mWi,
and that into this
skeleton the full narrative of the Flood was inserted
by
one of the
priestly
writers
(see
the notes on 2
481
).
The relation of the assumed
genealogy
to that of ch.
5
would be
precisely
that of the m*?in of Terah
(n
27
*)
to the rrfon of Shem
(n
10 26
).
In each case the second
gene
alogy
is
extremely
short
; further,
it
opens by repeating
the last link
of the
previous genealogy (in
each case the birth of three
sons, 5
33
6
10
)
;
and, finally,
the second
genealogy
is
interspersed
with brief historical
notices. It
may,
of
course,
be held that the whole
history
of Abraham
belongs
to the mSm of Terah
;
that is the
accepted
view,
and the reasons
for
disputing
it are those mentioned on
p. 40
f.
Fortunately
the
question
is of no
great importance.
The
Deluge
Tradition.
i. Next to
cosmogonies, flood-legends present perhaps
the most
interesting
and
perplexing problem
in
comparative mythology.
The
wide, though curiously unequal,
distribution of these
stories,
and the
frequent
occurrence of detailed resemblances to the biblical
narrative,
have
long
attracted
attention,
and were not
unnaturally accepted
as
independent
evidence of the
strictly
historical character of the latter.
*
29.
vn,
Heb. MSS
(London Polyglott)
and JUA vm.
*
Andree
(Die Flutsagen ethnographisch betrachtet, 1891),
who has
collected between
eighty
and
ninety
such stories
(of
which he
recognises
forty-three
as
original
and
genuine,
and
twenty-six
as influenced
by
the
Bab.) points out,
e.g.,
that
they
are absent in
Arabia,
in northern and
central
Asia,
in China and
Japan,
are
hardly
found
anywhere
in
Europe
(except Greece)
or
Africa,
while the most numerous and remarkable
instances come from the American continent
(p. 125 f.).
The enumera
tion, however,
must not be considered as closed : Naville
(PSBA, 1904,
251-257, 287-294)
claims to have found fresh
proof
of an
Egyptian
LEGENDS
175
On the
question
of the
universality
of the
Deluge* they
have,
of
course,
no immediate
bearing
1
, though they frequently
assert it
;
for it could
never be
supposed
that the mere occurrence of a
legend
in a remote
part
of the
globe proved
that the Flood had been there. The utmost
that could be claimed is that there had been a
deluge
coextensive with
the
primitive
seat of mankind
;
and that the
memory
of the
cataclysm
was carried with them
by
the various branches of the race in their
dispersion.
But even that
position,
which is still maintained
by
some
competent writers,
is attended
by
difficulties which are almost
insuper
able. The scientific evidence for the
antiquity
of man all over the
world shows that such an event
(if
it ever
occurred)
must have taken
place many
thousands of
years
before the date
assigned
to Noah
;
and
that the tradition should have been
preserved
for so
long
a time
among
savage peoples
without the aid of
writing
is incredible. The most
reasonable line of
explanation (though
it cannot here be followed out in
detail)
is that the
great majority
of the
legends preserve
the recollection
of local
catastrophes,
such as
inundations,
tidal
waves,
seismic floods
accompanied by cyclones,
etc.,
of which
many
historical
examples
are
on record
;
while in a considerable number of cases these local
legends
have been combined with features due either to the diffusion of
Baby
lonian culture or to the direct influence of the Bible
through
Christian
missionaries,
f
In this note we shall confine our attention to the
group
of
legends
most
closely
affiliated to the
Babylonian
tradition.
2. Of the
Babylonian story
the most
complete
version is contained
in the eleventh Tablet of the
GilgameS Epic.J Gilgames
has arrived at
the Isles of the Blessed to
inquire
of his ancestor
UtnapiStim
how he had
been received into the
society
of the
gods.
The answer is the
long
and
exceedingly graphic description
of the Flood which
occupies
the bulk
of the Tablet. The hero relates
how,
while he dwelt at
Surippak
on
tradition in a text of the Book of the
Dead,
containing
the
following
words : "And further I
(the god Turn)
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" (I.e. p. 289).
*
On the
overwhelming geological
and other difficulties of such a
hypothesis,
see Dri.
99
f.
f
See
Andree,
I.e.
143
ff.
; Suess,
The Face
of
the
Earth,
i.
18-72 pass.
Cf. the discussion
by
Woods in
DB,
ii.
17
ff.
;
and Dri. Gen. 101 ff.
Lenormant,
who once maintained the
independence
of the
legends
as
witnesses to a
primitive tradition,
afterwards
expressed
himself with
more
reserve,
and conceded the
possibility
that the Mexican and
Polynesian
myths might
be distant echoes of a central
legend, emanating
ultimately
from
Babylonia (Orig?
i.
471 f., 488 ff.).
t
Discovered
by
G.
Smith,
in
1872, among
the ruins of
Asshur-
banipal
s
library; published 1873-4;
and often translated
since. See
KAT*, 55
ff.
; Jen. Kosmologie, 368
ff
;
Zimmern in Gu.
sSchoflf.
u.
Chaos,
423
ff.
; Jen. KIB,
vi.
i,
n6ff.
(the
translation followed
below);
Ba.
Light from
the
East, 35
ff.
; Je.
A 7Z<9
2
,
228 ff.
;
and the
abridgments
in
Jast.
RBA
1
, 493
ff.
; KAT*,
545
ff.
;
Texte u.
Bilder,
i.
50
ff.
176
FLOOD
the
Euphrates,
it was resolved
by
the
gods
in council to send the Flood
(ab&bu)
on the earth.
Ea,
who had been
present
at the
council,
resolved
to save his favourite
Utnapistim
;
and contrived without overt breach of
confidence to
convey
to him a
warning-
of the
impending danger,
com
manding
him to build a
ship (elippu]
of definite dimensions for the
saving
of his life. The
superlatively
clever one
(Atra-hasis,
a name of
Utnapistim)
understood the
message
and
promised
to
obey
;
and was
furnished with a
misleading pretext
to offer his fellow-citizens for his
extraordinary proceedings.
The account of the
building
of the
ship
(1. 48
if.
)
is even more obscure than Gn. 6
14
"
18
: it is
enough
to
say
that
it was divided into
compartments
and was
freely
smeared with bitumen.
The
lading
of the
vessel,
and the
embarking
of the
family
and
depend
ants of
UtnapiStim (including artizans),
with domestic and wild
animals,
are then described
(1.
81
ff.)
;
and last of
all,
in the
evening,
on
the
appearance
of a
sign predicted by
Santas the
sun-god, Utnapistim
himself enters the
ship,
shuts his
door,
and hands over the command to
the
steersman,
Puzur-Bel
(90 ff.).
On the
following morning
the storm
(magnificently
described in 11.
97 ff.)
broke;
and it
raged
for six
days
and
nights,
till all mankind were
destroyed,
and the
very gods
fled to
the heaven of Anu and
"
cowered in terror like a
dog."
"When the seventh
day
came,
the
hurricane,
the
Flood,
the battle-
storm was
stilled,
Which had
fought
like a
(host ?)
of men.
The sea became
calm,
the
tempest
was
still,
the Flood ceased.
When I saw the
day,
no voice was
heard,
And the whole of mankind was turned to
clay.
When the
daylight came,
I
prayed,
I
opened
a window and the
light
fell on
my
face,
I
knelt,
I
sat,
and
wept,
On
my
nostrils
my
tears ran down.
I looked on the
spaces
in the realm of the sea
;
After twelve double-hours an island stood out.
At Nisir
*
the
ship
had arrived.
The mountain of Nisir
stayed
the
ship
..."
(11. 130-142).
This
brings
us to the incident of the birds
(146-155):
"When the seventh
dayt
came
I
brought
out a dove and let it
go.
The dove went forth and came back :
Because it had not whereon to stand it returned.
I
brought
forth a swallow and let it
go.
The swallow went forth and came back :
Because it had not whereon to stand it returned.
I
brought
forth a raven and let it
go.
The raven went forth and saw the decrease of the
waters,
It
ate,
it ... it
croaked,
but returned not
again."
*
See
p.
166.
t
From the
landing.
LEGENDS
177
On this
Utnapis
tim released all the animals
; and,
leaving-
the
ship,
offered a sacrifice :
"The
gods
smelt the
savour,
The
gods
smelt the
goodly
savour
The
gods gathered
like flies over the sacrificer"
(i6off.).
The deities then
begin
to
quarrel,
IStar and Ea
reproaching
Bel for
his
thoughtlessness
in
destroying
mankind
indiscriminately,
and Bel
accusing
Ea of
having
connived at the
escape
of
UtnapiStim. Finally,
Bel is
appeased
;
and
entering
the
ship
blesses the hero and his wife :
"
Formerly UtnapiStim
was a
man;
But now shall
Utnapistim
and his wife be like to us the
gods
:
Utnapis
tim shall dwell far hence at the mouth of the streams.
Then
they
took
me,
and far
away
at the mouth of the streams
they
made me dwell"
(202
ff.).*
3.
The
dependence
of the biblical narrative on this ancient
Babylonian
legend hardly requires
detailed
proof.
It is somewhat more obvious in
the Yahwistic recension than in the
Priestly
;
but there is
enough
in the
common substratum of the two accounts to show that the Heb. tradition
as a whole was derived from
Babylonia.
Thus both
J
and P
agree
with
the Bab.
story
in the
general conception
of the Flood as a divine visita
tion,
its
universality (so
far as the human race is
concerned),
the
warnings conveyed
to a favoured
individual,
and the final
pacification
of the
deity
who had caused the
Deluge. J agrees
with Bab. in the
following particulars
: the
entry
of the hero into the ark
after
the
premonitory
rain
;
the
shutting
of the door
;
the
prominence
of the
number
7
;
the
episode
of the birds
;
the sacrifice
;
and the effect of its
savour on the
gods.
P has also its
peculiar correspondences (though
some of these
may
have been in
J
originally)
:
e.g.
the
precise
instruc
tions for
building
the ark
;
the mention of bitumen
(a distinctively
Bab.
touch) ;
the
grounding
of the ark on a mountain
;
the
blessing
on the
survivors,
f
By
the side of this close and marked
parallelism,
the
material differences on which Nickel
(p. 185) lays
stress viz. as to
(a)
the
chronology, (b)
the
landing-place
of the
ark,
(c)
the details of the
*
Two
fragments
of another recension of the
Flood-legend,
in which
the hero is
regularly
named
Atra-hasis,
have also been
deciphered.
One of
them,
being
dated in the
reign
of
Ammizaduga
(c.
1980 B.C.),
is
important
as
proving
that this recension had been reduced to
writing
at so
early
a time
;
but it is too mutilated to add
anything
substantial
to our
knowledge
of the
history
of the tradition
(see KIB,
288-291).
The other is a mere
scrap
of twelve
lines, containing
Ea s
instructions
to Atra-hasis
regarding
the
building
and
entering
of the
ark,
and the
latter s
promise
to
comply (KIB, 256-259).
See KAT
3
,
551
f. The
extracts from Berossus
preserved by
Eus.
present
the
Babylonian
story
in a form
substantially agreeing
with that of the
Gilgames Tablets,
though
with some
important
variations in detail. See Euseb.
Chron, i.
(ed. Schoene,
cols.
19-24, 32-34
: cf.
Miillcr,
Fr. Hist. Gr. ii.
501 ff.).
t
See more
fully
Driver,
p.
106.
12
178
FLOOD
sending-
out of the
birds, (d)
the
sign
of the rainbow
(absent
in
Bab.),
and
(e)
the name of the hero sink into
insignificance. They
are,
indeed,
sufficient to
disprove
immediate
literary
contact between the
Heb. writers and the
Gilgames
Tablets
;
but
they
do not weaken the
presumption
that the
story
had taken the
shape
known to us in
Baby
lonia before it
passed
into the
possession
of the Israelites. And since
we have seen
(p. 177)
that the
Babylonian legend
was
already
reduced
to
writing
about the time
usually assigned
to the Abrahamic
migration,
it is
impossible
to
suppose
that the Heb. oral tradition
had
preserved
an
independent
recollection of the historical occurrence which
may
be
assumed as the basis of fact
underlying
the
Deluge
tradition. The
differences
between the two narratives are on this account all the
more instructive. While the Genesis narratives are written in
prose,
and reveal at most occasional traces of a
poetic original (8
22
in
J, 7
llb
S
2*
in
P),
the
Babylonian epic
is
genuine poetry,
which
appeals
to a
modern reader in
spite
of the
strangeness
of its
antique
sentiment and
imagery. Reflecting
the
feelings
of the
principal
actor in the
scene,
it
possesses
a human interest and
pathos
of which
only
a few touches
appear
in
J,
and none at all in P. The difference here is not
wholly
due to the elimination of the
mythological
element
by
the biblical
writers : it is characteristic of the Heb.
popular
tale that it shuns the
fine
frenzy
of the
poet,
and finds its
appropriate
vehicle in the
unaffected
simplicity
of
prose
recitation. In this we have an additional
indication that the
story
was not drawn
directly
from a
Babylonian
source,
but was taken from the
lips
of the common
people
; although
in
P it has been elaborated under the influence of the
religious theory
of
history peculiar
to that document
(p. Ixf.).
The most
important
divergences
are
naturally
those which
spring
from the
religion
of the
OT its ethical
spirit,
and its monotheistic
conception
of God. The
ethical
motive,
which is but
feebly developed
in the
Babylonian
account,
obtains clear
recognition
in the hands of the Heb. writers : the Flood
is a divine
judgement
on human
corruption
;
and the one
family
saved is
saved on account of the
righteousness
of its head. More
pervasive
still is the influence of the monotheistic idea. The
gods
of the
Baby
lonian version are
vindictive, capricious,
divided in
counsel,
false to each
other and to men
;
the writer
speaks
of them with little
reverence,
and
appears
to
indulge
in flashes of Homeric satire at their
expense.
Over
against
this
picturesque variety
of deities we have in Genesis the one
almighty
and
righteous God,
a
Being capable
of
anger
and
pity,
and
even
change
of
purpose,
but
holy
and
just
in His
dealings
with men.
It is
possible
that this transformation
supplies
the
key
to some subtle
affinities between the two streams of tradition. Thus in the Bab.
version the fact that the command to build the ark
precedes
the
announcement of the
Flood,
is
explained by
the consideration
that
Ea cannot
explicitly divulge
the
purpose
of the
gods
;
whereas in
J
it becomes a test of the obedience of Noah
(Gu. p. 66).
Which
re
presentation
is older can
scarcely
be doubted. It is
true,
at all
events,
that the Bab.
parallel
serves as a "measure of the
unique grandeur
of the idea of God in
Israel,
which was
powerful enough
to
purify
LEGENDS
179
and transform in such a manner the most
uncongenial
and
repugnant
features" of the
pagan myth (tb.)
; and, further,
that "the
Flood-story
of Genesis retains to this
day
the
power
to waken the conscience of
the
world,
and was written
by
the biblical narrator with this
psedagogic
and ethical
purpose" (ATLO*, p. 252).
4.
Of other ancient
legends
in which some traces of the Chaldean
influence
may
be
suspected, only
a
very
brief account can here be
given.
The Indian
story,
to which there is a
single
allusion in the
Vedas,
is
first
fully
recorded in the
Qatapatha
Brahmana,
i. 8. i-io.* It relates
how
Manu,
the first
man,
found one
day
in the water with which he
performed
his
morning
ablution a small
fish,
which
begged
him to take
care of it till it should attain its full
growth,
and then
put
it in the sea.
Manu did
so,
and in
gratitude
for its deliverance the fish warned him of
the
year
in which the Flood would
come, promising,
if he would build
a
ship,
to return at the
appointed
time and save him. When the Flood
came the fish
appeared
with it
;
Manu attached the cable of his
ship
to the fish s
horn,
and was thus towed to the mountain of the
north,
where he
landed,
and whence he
gradually
descended as the waters fell.
In a
year
s time a woman came to
him,
announcing
herself as his
daughter, produced
from the
offerings
he had cast into the water
;
and
from this
pair
the human race
sprang.
In a later form of the tradition
(Mahabharata,
iii.
187. 2ff.),t
the
Babylonian
affinities are somewhat
more obvious
;
but even in the oldest version
they
are not
altogether
negligible, especially
when we remember that the fish
(which
in the
Mahabharata is an incarnation of
Brahma)
was the
symbol
of the
god
Ea.J
The Greeks had several
Flood-legends,
of which the most
widely
diffused was that of
Deukalion,
best known from the account
of
Apollodorus (i. 7. 2ff.). Zeus,
resolved to
destroy
the brazen
race,
sends a
heavy rain,
which floods the
greater part
of
Greece,
and
drowns all men
except
a few who
escape
to the mountain
tops.
But
Deukalion,
on the advice of his father
Prometheus,
had
prepared
a
chest,
loaded it with
provisions,
and taken
refuge
in it with his wife
Pyrrha.
After
9 days
and
nights they
land on Parnassus
;
Deukalion
sacrifices to Zeus and
prays
for a new race of men : these are
produced
from stones which he and his
wife,
at the command of the
god,
throw
over their shoulders. The incident of the ark seems here
incongruous,
since other human
beings
were saved without it. It is
perhaps
an f
*
Translated
by Eggeling,
Sacred Books
of
the
East,
xii. 216 ff. See
Usener,
Die
Sintfluthsagen (Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen,
iii.), 25
ff.
t
Translated
by Protap
Chandra
Roy (Calcutta, 1884),
iii.
552
ff. See
Usener, 29
ff.
+
Usener,
however
(240 ff.),
maintains the entire
independence
of the
Indian and Semitic
legends.
The earliest allusion is
Pindar,
Ol.
9. 41
ff. Cf.
Ovid,
Met. i.
244-
415
Paus. i.
40. i,
x. 6.
2,
etc. The incident of the dove
(in
a
peculiar
modification) appears
only
in PJut.
De sollert. an.
13. Usener, 31 ff.,
244
ff.
l8o FLOOD
indication of the
amalgamation
of a
foreign
element with local
Deluge
traditions. A
Syrian tradition,
with some
surprising-
resemblances to P
in
Gen.,
has been
preserved by
the Pseudo-Lucian
(De
dea
Syra, 12, 13).
The wickedness of men had become so
great
that
they
had to be
destroyed.
The fountains of the earth and the
flood-gates
of heaven
were
opened simultaneously
;
the whole world was
submerged,
and all
men
perished. Only
the
pious
Deukalion-Sisuthros
*
was saved with
his
family
in a
great chest,
into which as he entered all sorts of
animals
crowded. When the water had
disappeared,
Deukalion
opened
the
ark,
erected
altars,
and founded the
sanctuary
of Derketo at
Hierapolis.
The hole in the earth which swallowed
up
the Flood was shown under
the
temple,
and was seen
by
the
writer,
who
thought
it not
quite big
enough
for the
purpose.
In Usener s
opinion
we have here the Chaldean
legend
localised at a
Syrian sanctuary,
there
being nothing
Greek about
it
except
the name Deukalion. A
Phrygian
localisation of the Semitic
tradition is attested
by
the
epithet
/acor<5s
applied
to the
Phrygian
Apameia(Kelainai)
from the time of
Augustus (Strabo,
xii. 8.
13, etc.);
and still more
remarkably by
bronze coins of that
city dating
from the
reign
of
Septimius
Severus. On these an
open
chest is
represented,
bearing
the
inscription
NOE,
in which are seen the
figures
of the hero and
his wife
;
a dove is
perched
on the lid of the
ark,
and another is
flying
with a
twig
in its claws. To the left the same two human
figures
are
seen
standing
in the attitude of
prayer,
f
The late date of these coins
makes the
hypothesis
of direct
Jewish,
or even
Christian,
influence
extremely probable.
The existence of a Phoenician tradition is inferred
by
Usener
(2480.)
from the
discovery
in Etruria and Sardinia of bronze
models of
ships
with various kinds of animals
standing
in them : one
of them is said to date from the
yth
cent. B.C. There is no extant
written record of the Phoenician
legend
: on
Gruppe
s reconstruction
from the statements of Greek
mythographers
see
above,
p. 141.
5.
There remains the
question
of the
origin
of this
widespread
and
evidently very popular conception
of a universal
Deluge.
That it
embodies a common
primitive
tradition of an historic event we have
already
seen to be
improbable.
If we
suppose
the
original story
to have
been elaborated in
Babylonia,
and to have
spread
thence to other
peoples,
it
may
still be doubtful whether we have to do
"
with a
legend
based
upon
facts" or "with a
myth
which has assumed the form of a
history."
The
mythical theory
has been most
fully
worked out
by
Usener,
who finds the
germ
of the
story
in the favourite
mythological
image
of
"
the
god
in the
chest,"
representing
the
voyage
of the sun-
god
across the
heavenly
ocean : similar
explanations
were
independently
propounded by Cheyne (EB, 1063^)
and Zimmern
(ib. 1058
f.
;
KAT
3
,
555).
Of a somewhat different order is the
astrological theory
advocated
by Jeremias (249 ff.).
The
Babylonian
astronomers were aware that
*
Text Aeu/coAtWa rbv
2/a/#ea,
which Buttmann
{Mythologus,
i.
192)
ingeniously
emended to A. T. l^iavQio. a modification of the
Zcri0/>os
of
Abydenus.
f
See the
reproductions
in
Usener,
45,
and
Je.
ATLO
l
y 131,
2
235-
LEGENDS l8l
in the course of
ages
the
spring- equinox
must traverse the
watery
(southern) region
of the Zodiac :
this,
on their
system, signified
a sub
mergence
of the whole universe in water
;
and the
Deluge-myth symbo
lises the safe
passage
of the vernal
sun-god through
that
part
of the
ecliptic.
Whatever truth there
may
be in these
theories,
it is certain
that
they
do not account for the concrete features of the Chaldean
legend
;
and if
(as
can
hardly
be
denied) mythical
motives are
present,
it seems
just
as
likely
that
they
were
grafted
on to a historic tradition as
that the
history
is
merely
the
garb
in which a solar or astral
myth
arrayed
itself. The most natural
explanation
of the
Babylonian
narrative is after all that it is based on the
vague
reminiscence of
some memorable and
devastating
flood in the
Euphrates valley,
as to the
physical possibility
of
which,
it
may
suffice to
quote
the
(perhaps
too
literal) description
of an eminent
geologist
:
"
In the course of a seismic
period
of some duration the water of the Persian Gulf was
repeatedly
driven
by earthquake
shocks over the
plain
at the mouth of the
Euphrates.
Warned
by
these
floods,
a
prudent man, Hasls-adra,
i.e.
the
god-fearing philosopher,
builds a
ship
for the rescue of his
family,
and caulks it with
pitch,
as is still the custom on the
Euphrates.
The
movements of the earth increase
;
he flees with his
family
to the
ship
;
the subterranean water bursts forth from the fissured
plain ;
a
great
diminution in
atmospheric pressure,
indicated
by
fearful storm and
rain,
probably
a true
cyclone, approaches
from the Persian
Gulf,
and
accompanies
the most violent manifestations of the seismic force. The
sea
sweeps
in a
devastating
flood over the
plain,
raises the
rescuing
vessel,
washes it far
inland,
and leaves it stranded on one of those
Miocene foot-hills which bound the
plain
of the
Tigris
on the north and
north-east below the confluence of the Little Zab
"
(Eduard Suess,
The
Face
of
the
Earth,
i.
72). See, however,
the criticism of
Sollas,
The
Age of
the
Earth, 316.
IX.
18-27.
Noah as
Vine-grower:
His Curse
and
Blessing (J).
Noah is here introduced in an
entirely
new
character,
as
the discoverer of the culture of the vine
;
and the first victim
to immoderate
indulgence
in its fruit. This leads on to an
account of the shameless behaviour of his
youngest son,
and the
modesty
and filial
feeling
of the two elder
;
in
consequence
of which Noah
pronounces
a curse on Canaan
and
blessings
on Shem and
Japheth.
The Noah of vv.
20
~
27
almost
certainly
comes from a different
cycle
of tradition
from the
righteous
and blameless
patriarch
who is the
hero of the Flood. The
incident, indeed, cannot,
without
violating
all
probability,
be harmonised with the Flood-
1 82 NOAH S DRUNKENNESS
(j)
narrative at all. In the
latter,
Noah s sons are married men
who take their wives into the ark
(so expressly
in
P,
but
the same must be
presumed
for
J)
; here,
on the
contrary,
they
are
represented
as minors
living
in the
(
tent with
their father
;
and the conduct of the
youngest
is
obviously
conceived as an exhibition of
juvenile depravity (so
Di. Bu.
al.).
The
presumption, therefore,
is that vv.
20
"
27
belong
1
to
a stratum of
J
which knew
nothing
of the Flood
;
and this
conclusion is confirmed
by
an examination of the structure
of the
passage.
First of
all,
we observe that in v.
24
the offender is the
youngest
son
of
Noah,
and in v.
25
is named Canaan
;
while Shem and
Japheth
are
referred to as his brothers.
True,
in v.
22
the misdeed is attributed to
Ham the father of Canaan
;
but the words 3N on have all the
appear
ance of a
gloss
intended to cover the transition from
18f*
to
^>tt
;
and
the clause
jyj?
3N wn cm in
18b
can have no other
purpose.
Now
18a
is
the close of
J
s
*
account of the Flood
;
and
19
points
forward either to
J
s list of Nations
(ch. 10),
or to the
dispersion
of the Tower of Babel.
yv
20-27
interrupt
this
connexion,
and must
accordingly
be
assigned
to a
separate
source. That that source
is, however,
still
Yahwistic,
is shown
partly by
the
language (-Tin:,
v.
26
[in spite
of D
rfS^
in v.
27
]
;
and
*?n;i,
v.
20
)
;
and more
especially by
the connexion with
5
s9
(see pp. 3, i33f.).
It is
clear, therefore,
that a redactor
(RJ)
has here combined two Yahwistic
documents,
and
sought
to reduce the contradiction
by
the
glosses
in
18b
and .
l8, Ip. Connecting
verses
(see above).
Noah s sons are
here for the first time named in
J,
in
harmony,
however,
with the
repeated
notices of P
(5
32
6
10
7
13
).
On the names
see on ch. 10
(p. 195 f.).
20. Noah the husbandman was the
first
who
planted
a
vineyard]
a fresh advance in human
civilisation. The allusion to Noah as the husbandman is
19. pK.rSa nwu]
the whole
(population
of
the)
earth was scattered.
For the construction cf. io
5
.
nysj] hardly
contracted
Niph.
from
N
/
p<fl
[
=
P
3
] (G-K. 67
dd) ;
but from
^ pi,
whether this be a
secondary
formation from
^/ ps (G-B.
14
465 f.),
or an
independent
word
(BOB,
659).
Cf. i Sa. i
3
n
,
Is. ii
12
33
3
. 20.
wi
^m]
cf.
^
6
1
io
8
n
44 (J)
4i
54
(E).
The
rendering
Noah commenced as a husbandman
(Dav.
83,
R.
2}
is
impossible
on account of the art.
(ct.
i Sa.
3
2
)
: to insert
nvnS
(Ball)
does not
get
rid of the
difficulty.
The construction with
i
cons., instead of
inf.,
is
very
unusual
(Ezr. 3
8
)
;
hence Che.
(J3, 3426
2
),
*
Comp.
nyci
with io
18
n
4 - 8- 9
;
and
psrr^ (
=
the
population
of the
earth)
with n
1 - 9
(Bu.)
; nr^?
nj*
n?S?
with io
39
22
23
25* (Ho.).
IX. 1
8-24
183
perplexing*
If the text be
right (v.i.),
it
implies
a
previous
account of him as addicted to
(perhaps
the inventor
of)
agriculture,
which now in his hands advances to the more
refined
stage
of
vine-growing.
See the note on
p. 185.
Amongst
other
peoples
this
discovery
was
frequently
attributed to
a
god (Dionysus among
the
Greeks,
Osiris
among
the
Egyptians),
intoxication
being regarded
as a divine
inspiration.
The
orgiastic
character of the
religion
of the Canaanites makes it
probable
that the
same view
prevailed amongst
them
;
and it has even been
suggested
that
the Noah of this
passage
was
originally
a Canaanitish
wine-god (see
Niebuhr,
Geschichte d. Ebraischen
Zeitalters, 36 ff.).
The native
religion
of Israel
(like
that of
Mohammed)
viewed this form of
indulgence
with
abhorrence
;
and under
strong religious
enthusiasm the use of fermented
drinks was
entirely
avoided
(the Nazirites, Samson,
the
Rechabites).
This
feeling
is reflected in the narrative before
us,
where Noah is
represented
as
experiencing
in his own
person
the full
degradation
to
which his
discovery
had
opened
the
way.
It exhibits the
repugnance
of a
healthy-minded
race towards the excesses of a debased civilisa
tion. Since the vine is said to be
indigenous
to Armenia and
Pontus
(see
De.
Di.),
it has
naturally
been
proposed
to connect the
story
with
the
landing
of the ark in Ararat. But we have seen that the
passage
has
nothing
to do with the
Deluge-tradition
;
and it is more
probable
that it is an
independent legend, originating
amidst Palestinian sur
roundings.
21. uncovered
himself]
the same result of drunkenness in
Hab. 2
15
,
La.
4
21
. 22. There is no reason to think
(with
Ho. and
Gu.)
that Canaan was
guilty
of
any
worse sin than
the
Schadenfreude implied
in the words. Heb.
morality
called for the utmost
delicacy
in such
matters,
like that
evinced
by
Shem and
Japheth
in v.
23
24. jtji^
133
cannot
mean his
younger
son
((KU) (i.e.
as
compared
with
following
Kue.
(ThT,
xviii.
147), proposes Ehq,
1
?
for E> N : Noah was the
first to
plough
the
ground.
That
reading
would be fatal to
any
connexion of the section with Gn.
3,
unless we
suppose
a distinction
between
~oy
(manual tillage)
and chn.
Strangely enough,
Ra.
(on 5
29
)
repeats
the
Haggadic
tradition that Noah invented the
ploughshare ;
but this is
probably
a
conjecture
based on a
comparison
of
3
17
with
s
29
.*
22.
lan]
<
pref.
/ecu
^eXtfcoj/.
23. nWn]
On the
art.,
see G-K. 126 r.
That it was the iff which Canaan had
previously
taken
away,
and that
this notice was
deliberately
omitted
by J (Gu.),
is
certainly
not to be
inferred. The & is the
upper garment,
which was also used for
sleeping
in
(Ex.
22
26
etc.). 24. ] &.}]
on the
irreg. seghol,
see
G-K.
*
So Mr.
Abrahams,
in a
private
communication.
184
NOAH S DRUNKENNESS
(j)
Shem)
;
still less his
contemptible
son
*
(Ra.);
or Ham s
youngest (IEz.).
The conclusion is not to be evaded that
the writer follows a
peculiar genealogical
scheme in which
Canaan is the
youngest
son of Noah.
25-27.
Noah s curse
and
blessings
must be
presumed
to have been
legible
in the
destinies of his
reputed
descendants at the time when the
legend
took
shape (cf. 27
28f- 89f-
49) (on
the fulfilment see the
concluding
note, p.
186
f.).
The dominant feature is the curse
on
Canaan,
which not
only
stands
first,
but is
repeated
in
the
blessings
on the two brothers.
25.
The descendants of
Canaan are doomed to
perpetual
enslavement to the other
two branches of the human
family.
a servant
of
servants]
means the meanest slave
(G-K. 1332).
to his
brethren]
not the other members of the Hamitic
race,
but
(as
is clear
from the
following vv.)
to Shem and
Japheth.
26. Blessed
be Yahwe the God
of Shem]
The idea thus
expressed
is not
satisfactory.
To
*
bless Yahwe means no more than to
praise Him;
and an
ascription
of
praise
to Yahwe is
only
in an
oblique
sense a
blessing
on
Shem,
inasmuch as it
assumes a
religious primacy
of the Shemites in
having
Yahwe for their God. Bu.
(294 f.) proposed
to omit
^K
and
read
D^
!W
Tjro
: Blessed
of
Yahwe be Shem
(cf. 24
31
2 6
29
[both J]).
Di. s
objection,
that this does not
express
wherein
the
blessing
consists,
applies
with
quite
as much force to
the received text.
Perhaps
a better emendation is that of
Graetz
DK
;
^ns* 7ft
3
(Tj-iIP
would be still more
acceptable)
:
[May]
Yahwe bless the tents
of
Shem;
see the next v.
27.
May
God
expand (flSP) Yepheth
: a
play
on the name
(
ri
?.1).
The use of the
generic
D^nta
implies
that the
proper
name
70
n. 26. ic6
may
stand either for
on^> (coll.)
or
i
1
? : see Note
3
in
G-K.
I03/
The latter is the more natural here. Ols.
(MBBA,
June
1870, 382) proposed
to omit
26b
, substituting
27a
^
(at? pen),
and retain
2711
with ref. of
pi.
suff. to rnN. ( has avrov in
26b
and atfrwv in
27h
.
27. rts:]
<&
TrXariWi,
F
dilatet,
etc. The
*J
nns in the sense be
spacious
is
extremely
rare in Heb.
(Pr.
2O
19
[?24
28
]),
and the
accepted
rendering
not
beyond challeng-e.
No.
(BL,
iii.
191)
denies the
geographical
sense,
and
explains
the word from the
frequent
Semitic
figure
of
spaciousness
for
prosperity.
This would almost
require
us to take the
subject
of the
following
clause to be God
(v.s.).
ix.
25-27
1
85
was the
peculiar property
of the Shemites. and
may
he
dwell]
or that he
may
dwell. The
subject
can
hardly
be God
(Jub.
&,
Ber. R. Ra. lEz. No.
al.),
which would
convey
no
blessing
to
Japheth
;
the wish refers most
naturally
to
Japheth, though
it is
impossible
to decide
whether the
expression
*
dwell in the tents of denotes
friendly
intercourse
(so most)
or forcible
dispossession (Gu.).
For the latter sense cf. Ps
yS
55
,
i Ch.
5
10
. A Messianic
reference to the
ingathering
of the Gentiles into the
Jewish
or Christian fold
(2T
J
, Fathers,
De.
al.)
is
foreign
to the
thought
of the
passage
: see further below.
The
question
of the
origin
and
significance
of this remarkable
narrative has to be
approached
from two distinct
points
of view. I. In
one
aspect
it is a
culture-myth,
of which the central motive is the dis
covery
of wine.
Here, however,
it is
necessary
to
distinguish
between
the
original
idea of the
story
and its
significance
in the connexion of the
Yahwistic document. Read in its own
light,
as an
independent frag
ment of
tradition,
the incident
signalises
the transition from nomadic to
agricultural
life.
Noah,
the first husbandman and
vine-grower,
is a
tent-dweller
(v.
21
)
;
and this mode of life is continued
by
his oldest and
favoured son Shem
(
27
).
Further,
the identification of
husbandry
and
vine culture
points
to a situation in which the
simpler
forms of
agri
culture had been
supplemented by
the cultivation of the
grape.
Such a
situation existed in Palestine when it was
occupied by
the Hebrews.
The sons of the desert who then served themselves heirs
by conquest
to
the Canaanitish civilisation
escaped
the
protracted
evolution of vine-
growing
from
primitive tillag-e,
and
stepped
into the
possession
of the
farm and the
vineyard
at once. From this
point
of view the
story
of
Noah s drunkenness
expresses
the
healthy
recoil of
primitive
Semitic
morality
from the licentious habits
engendered by
a civilisation of which
a salient feature was the
enjoyment
and abuse of wine. Canaan is the
prototype
of the
population
which had succumbed to these
enervating-
influences,
and is doomed
by
its vices to enslavement at the hands of
hardier and more virtuous races. In the
setting-
in which it is
placed
by
the Yahwist the incident
acquires
a
profounder
and more
tragic
significance.
The
key
to this
secondary interpretation
is the
prophecy
of Lamech in
5
29
,
which
brings
it into close connexion with the account
of the Fall in ch.
3 (p. 133).
Noah s
discovery
is there
represented
as
an advance or refinement on the
tillage
of the
ground
to which man was
sentenced in
consequence
of his first
transgression.
And the oracle of
Lamech
appears
to show that the invention of wine is conceived as a
relieffrom
the curse. How far it is looked on as a
divinely approved
mode of
alleviating-
the
monotony
of toil is hard to decide. The
moderate use of wine is
certainly
not condemned in the OT : on the
other
hand,
it is
impossible
to doubt that the
light
in which Noah is
1 86 NOAH S DRUNKENNESS
(j)
exhibited,
and the
subsequent
behaviour of his
youngest son,
are meant
to
convey
an
emphatic warning- against
the moral
dangers attending
this new
step
in human
development,
and the
degeneration
to which it
may
lead.
II. In the
narrative, however,
the cultural motive is crossed
by
an
ethnographic problem,
which is still more difficult to unravel. Who are
the
peoples represented by
the names
Shem, Japheth,
and Canaan ?
Three
points may
be
regarded
as settled : that Shem is that
family
to
which the Hebrews reckoned themselves
;
that Canaan stands for the
pre-Israelitish
inhabitants of Palestine
;
and that the servitude of
Canaan to Shem at least includes the
subjugation
of the Canaanites
by
Israel in the
early days
of the
monarchy. Beyond
this
everything
is
uncertain. The older
view,
which
explains
Shem and
Japheth
in terms
of the Table of Nations
(ch. 10),
i.e. as
corresponding roughly
to what
we call the Semitic and
Aryan
races,
has
always
had
difficulty
in dis
covering
a historic situation
combining Japhetic
dominion over the
Canaanites with a
dwelling
of
Japheth
in the tents of Shem.* To
understand the latter of an ideal brotherhood or
religious
bond between
the two races
brings
us no nearer a
solution,
unless we take the
pass
age
as a
prophecy
of the diffusion of
Christianity
;
and even then it
fails to
satisfy
the
expressions
of the text
(Di.,
who
explains
the
figure
as
expressing
the more
kindly feeling
of the Heb. towards these
races,
as
compared
with the
Canaanites).
A number of
critics,
starting
from the
assumption
that the oracles reflect the circumstances and
aspirations
of the
age
when the Yahwistic document
originated,
take
Shem as
simply
a name for
Israel,
and
identify Japheth
either with
the Philistines
(We. Mey.)
or the Phoenicians
(Bu.
Sta.
Ho.).
But that
the Hebrews should have wished for an
enlargement
of the Philis
tines at their own
expense
is incredible
;
and as for the
Phoenicians,
though
their colonial
expansion might
have been viewed with
compla
cency
in
Israel,
there is no
proof
that an
occupation
of Israelitish
territory
on their
part
either took
place,
or would have been
approved
by
the national sentiment under the
monarchy.
The alienation of a
portion
of Galilee to the
Tyrians (i
Ki.
9
n 13
) (Bu.)
is an event little
likely
to have been idealised in Heb.
legend.
The difficulties of this
theory
are so
great
that Bertholet has
proposed
to recast the narrative
with the omission of
Japheth, leaving
Shem and Canaan as
types
of the
racial
antipathy
between the Hebrews and Canaanites : the
figure
of
Japheth,
and the
blessing
on
him,
he
supposes
to have been introduced
*
As
regards
the
former,
the
expulsion
of Phoenician colonists from
the Mediterranean coasts and Asia Minor
by
the Greeks
(Di.)
could
never have been described as enslavement
(see Mey. GA*,
i.
311 f.)
;
and
the
capture
of
Tyre by Alexander,
the Roman
conquest
of
Carthage,
etc.
(De.),
are events
certainly beyond
the horizon of the
writer, unless,
indeed,
we
adopt
Berth. s
suggestion (see above),
that v.
27
is
very
late.
For the
latter,
Di. hints at an
absorption
of
Japhetic peoples
in the
Semitic
world-empires ;
but that would rather be a
dwelling
of Shem
in the tents of
Japheth.
IX.
27-X.
187
after the time of Alexander the
Great,
as an
expression
of the
friendly
feeling
of the
Jews
for their Hellenic
conquerors.*
Gu. s
explanation,
which is
put
forward with all
reserve,
breaks
ground
in an
opposite
direction.
Canaan,
he
suggests, may
here
represent
the
great
wave of
Semitic
migration
which
(according
to some recent
theories)
had
swept
over the whole of Western Asia
(c. 2250 B.C.), leaving
its traces in
Babylonia,
in
Phoenicia,
perhaps
even in Asia
Minor,f
and of which the
later Canaanites of Palestine were the sediment. Shem is the Hebraeo-
Aramaic
family,
which
appears
on the
stage
of
history
after
1500 B.C.,
and no doubt took
possession
of
territory previously occupied by
Canaanites. It is here
represented
as still in the nomadic condition.
Japheth
stands for the
Hittites,
who in that
age
were
moving
down
from the
north,
and
establishing
their
power partly
at the cost of both
Canaanites and Arameans. This
theory hardly explains
the
peculiar
contempt
and hatred
expressed
towards Canaan
;
and it is a somewhat
serious
objection
to it that in io
15
(which
Gu.
assigns
to the same source
as
9
20ff<
)
Heth is the son of Canaan. A better defined
background
would
be the
struggle
for the
mastery
of
Syria
in the
i4th
cent.
B.c.J If,
as
many Assyriologists
think
probable,
the Habiri of the Tel-Amarna
Letters be the
onrij;
of the
OT,
i.e. the
original
Hebrew stock to
which Israel
belonged,
it would be natural to find in Shem the
repre
sentative of these
invaders;
for in io
21
(J)
Shem is described as the
father of all the sons of Eber.
Japheth
would then be one or other of
the
peoples
who,
in concert with the
Habiri,
were then
seeking
a foot
hold in the
country, possibly
the Suti or the
Amurri,
less
probably (for
the reason mentioned
above)
the Hittites. These surmises must be
taken for what
they
are worth. Further
light
on that remote
period
of
history may yet
clear
up
the circumstances in which the
story
of Noah
and his sons
originated
;
but unless the names Shem and
Japheth
should
be
actually
discovered in some historic
connexion,
the
happiest conjec
tures can never effect a solution of the
problem.
CH. X.The Table
of Peoples (P
and
J).
In its
present
form,
the
chapter
is a redactional
composi
tion,
in which are interwoven two
(if
not
three)
successive
attempts
to
classify
the known
peoples
of the
world,
and to
*
See We.
Comp. 14
f.
;
Bu.
Urg. 325
ff.
;
Sta. GVI
y
i.
109;
Mey.
GA
1
,
i.
p. 214
; Bertholet,
Stellung
d. Isr. zu. d.
Fremden,
76
f.
Meyer
s
later
theory (INS,
220 f.
),
that
Japheth (
=
Eg. Kefti ?)
stands for the whole
body
of northern invaders in the i2th
cent.,
to whom the Philistines be
longed,
does not diminish the
improbability
that such a
prophecy
should
have
originated
under the
monarchy.
t
See
Mey. GA\
i.
p.
212 ff.
;
Wi.
GI,
i.
37, 130, 134; Peiser, KIB,
iv.
p.
viii.
Already suggested by
Ben.
(p. 158), who, however,
is inclined to
identify
the Habiri with
Japheth.
1 88 THE TABLE OF PEOPLES
(p
AND
j)
exhibit their
origin
and mutual
relationships
in the form of
a
genealogical
tree.
Analysis.
The
separation
of the two main sources is due to the
lucid and
convincing- analysis
of We.
(Comp.
2
6ff.).
The hand of P is
easily recognised
in the
superscription
(
la
ril^fl
nVn),
and the methodical
uniformity
of the
tripartite scheme,
with its recurrent
opening
1
and
closing
formulas. The
headings
of the three sections are :
ns;
i| (-),
on "ill
(
6
),
and DB>
^ (
22
)
;
the
respective
conclusions are found in
5<
(mutilated)
20- 31
,
v.
32
being
a final
summary.
This
framework,
how
ever,
contains several continuous sections which
obviously belong
to
J.
(a)
8 12
;
the account of Nimrod
(who
is not even mentioned
by
P
among
the sons of
Kush)
stands out both in character and
style
in
strong
con
trast to P : note also i
1
?;
instead of
T^in (
8
),
m,r
(
9
). (b)
13f<
: the sons of
Mizraim
(v.
i
1
?;). (c)
1B
-
19
: the Canaanites
(i^). (d)
21- ** *>
: the Shemites
^L,,
21. 25 .
-^,
26^ Duplication
of sources is further
proved by
the twofold
introduction to Shem
(
21
II
22
),
and the
discrepancy
between
7
and
28f>
re
garding n^
in and
x^v*.
The
documents, therefore,
assort themselves as
follows :
J:
8-12 . 13f. . 15-19 . 21. 28-30
Vv.
9> 16
"
18a
and
24
are
regarded by
We. and most
subsequent
writers
as
interpolations
: see the notes. The framework of P is made the
basis of the Table
;
and so far as
appears
that document has been
pre
served in its
original
order. In
J
the
genealogy
of Shem
(
21 - 25 30
)
is
probably complete;
that of Ham
(
13f< 15ff
-)
is
certainly
curtailed;
while
every
trace of
Japheth
has been obliterated
(see,
however, p.
208).
Whether the Yahwistic
fragments
stand in their
original
order,
we have
no means of
determining.
The
analysis
has been carried a
step
further
by
Gu.
(
2
74f.),
who
first raised the
question
of the
unity
of the Yahwistic
Table,
and its
connexion with the two recensions of
J
which
appear
in ch.
9.
He
agrees
with We. Di. al. that
9
isf-
forms the transition from the
story
of the Flood to a list of nations which is
partly represented
in ch.
10;
io
lb
being
the immediate continuation of
9
19
in that recension of
J (JJ).
But he tries to show that
9
20 27
was also followed
by
a Table of
Nations,
and that to it most of the Yahwistic
fragments
in ch. 10
belong (
8< 10 12t
is. 21. 25-29
=
Je)
t This conclusion is reached
by
a somewhat subtle
examination of v.
21
and vv.
15 19
. In v.
21
Shem is the elder brother of
Japheth,
which seems to
imply
that
Japheth
was the second son of Noah
as in
9
20ff>
;
hence we
may
surmise that the third son was not Ham but
Canaan. This is confirmed
by
the
apparent
contradiction between
15
and
18b- 19
. In
19
the northern limit of the Canaanites is
Zidon,
whereas
in
15
Canaan includes the
Hittites,
and has therefore the wider
geo
graphical
sense which Gu.
postulates
for
g
20
"
27
(see p.
186
above).
He
also calls attention to the difference in
language
between the
eponymous
Jt
j?
in
15
and the
gentilic
^>n?n
in
18b> 19
,
and considers that this was
a
characteristic distinction of the two documents. From these
premises
the further dissection of the Table follows
easily enough.
Vv.
8 12
may
be
CH. X,
189
assigned
to
J
c
because of the
peculiar
use of ^nn in
8
(cf. 9
20
q?
6
).
V.
13f
must in
any
case be
JJ,
because it is inconceivable that
Egypt
should
ever have been
thought
of as a son of Canaan
;
25 29
follow
21
(J
e
).
V.
30
is
assigned
to
J
j
solely
on account of its resemblance to
19
. It cannot
be denied that these
arguments (which
are
put
forward with
reserve)
have considerable cumulative force
;
and the
theory may
be correct.
At the same time it must be remembered
(i)
that the distinction between
a wider and a narrower
geographical conception
of Canaan remains a
brilliant
speculation,
which is not
absolutely required
either
by 9
20flr-
or
io
16
;
and
(2)
that there is
nothing
to show that the
story
of
Noah,
the
vine-grower,
was followed
by
a Table of Nations at all. A
genealogy
connecting
Shem with Abraham was no doubt included in that docu
ment
;
but a writer who knows
nothing
of the
Flood,
and to whom
Noah was not the head of a new
humanity,
had no obvious motive for
attaching
an
ethnographic survey
to the name of that
patriarch.
Further criticism
may
be reserved for the notes.
The names in the Table are
throughout eponymous
:
that is to
say,
each nation is
represented by
an
imaginary
personage bearing
its
name,
who is called into existence for
the
purpose
of
expressing
its
unity,
but is at the same time
conceived as its real
progenitor.
From this it was an
easy
step
to translate the
supposed
affinities of the various
peoples
into the
family
relations of
father, son, brother, etc.,
between the
eponymous
ancestors
;
while the
origin
of the
existing
ethnic
groups
was held to be accounted for
by
the
expansion
and
partition
of the
family.
This vivid and con
crete mode of
representation, though
it was
prevalent
in
antiquity,
was
inevitably suggested by
one of the commonest
idioms of Semitic
speech, according
to which the individual
members of a tribe or
people
were
spoken
of as sons or
*
daughters
of the collective
entity
to which
they belonged.
It
may
be added that
(as
in the case of the Arabian tribal
genealogies)
the
usage
could
only
have
sprung up
in an
age
when the
patriarchal type
of the
family
and the rule of
male descent were
firmly
established
(see
Rob. Sm. AW
2
,
3ff.)-
That this is the
principle
on which the Tables are constructed
appears
from a
slight
examination of the
names,
and is
universally
admitted. With the
exception
of
Nimrod,
all the names that can be
identified are those of
peoples
and tribes
(Madai, Sheba, Dedan, etc.)
or countries
(Mizraim, Havilah,
etc. in most cases it is
impossible
to
say
whether land or
people
is
meant)
or cities
(Zidon) ;
some are
gentilicia (Jebusite, Hivvite, etc.)
;
and some are
actually
retained in
THE TABLE OF PEOPLES
(p
AND
j)
the
pi. (Rodanim, Ludim, etc.).
Where the distinctions between
national and
geographical designations,
between
singular, plural,
and
collective
names,
are thus
effaced,
the
only
common denominator to
which the terms can be reduced is that of the
eponymous
ancestor.
It was the universal custom of
antiquity
in such matters to invent a
legendary
founder of a
city
or state
;
*
and it is idle to
imagine any
other
explanation
of the names before us. It
is,
of
course,
another
question
how far the Hebrew
ethnographers
believed in the
analogy
on which their
system rested,
and how far
they
used it
simply
as a
convenient method of
expressing
racial or
political
relations. When
a writer
speaks
of
Lydians, Lybians, Philistines, etc.,
as sons of
Egypt,
or the
Jebusite,
the
Amorite,
the Arvadite as sons of
Canaan,
it is difficult to
think, e,g.,
that he believed the
Lydians
to be
descended from a man named
Lydians (D"7^),
or the Amorites from
one called the Amorite
( ~Pn)
;
and we
may begin
to
suspect
that
the whole
system
of
eponyms
is a conventional
symbolism
which was
as
transparent
to its authors as it is to
us.f
That, however,
would be
a
hasty
and
probably
mistaken inference. The instances cited are
exceptional, they
occur
mostly
in two
groups,
of which one
(
lfiff
-)
is
interpolated,
and the other
(
13ft
) may very
well be
secondary
too
;
and over
against
them we have to set not
only
the names of
Noah,
Shem, etc.,
but also
Nimrod,
who is
certainly
an individual
hero,
and
yet
is said to have been
begotten by
the
eponymous
Kush
(Gu.).
The bulk of the names lend themselves to the one view as
readily
as
to the other
;
but on the whole it is safer to assume
that,
in the mind of
the
genealogist, they
stand for real
individuals,
from whom the different
nations were believed to be descended.
The
geographical
horizon of the Table is
very
restricted
;
but is
considerably
wider in P than in
J.J J
s
survey
ex
tends from the Hittites and Phoenicians in the N to
Egypt
and southern Arabia in the S
;
on the E he knows
Baby
lonia and
Assyria
and
perhaps
the
Kass"i,
and on the W
the
Libyans
and the south coast of Asia Minor. P includes
in addition Asia
Minor, Armenia,
and Media on the N and
NE,
Elam on the
E,
Nubia in the
S,
and the whole
*
"An
exactly parallel
instance ... is afforded
by
the ancient
Greeks. The
general
name of the Greeks was Hellenes
;
the
principal
subdivisions were the
Dorians,
the
^Eolians,
the
lonians,
and the
Achaeans
;
and
accordingly
the Greeks traced their descent from a
supposed eponymous
ancestor
Hellen,
who had three
sons,
Dorus and
Aeolus,
the
supposed
ancestors of the Dorians and
^Eolians,
and
Xuthus,
from whose two
sons,
Ion and
Achaeus,
the lonians and
Achaeans
were
respectively supposed
to be descended"
(Dri. 112).
t
See
Guthe, GI,
i ff.
Judging,
that
is,
from the extracts of
J
that are
preserved.
Kaphtorim (v.
14
)
:
according
to others the island of Crete.
CH. X.
Mediterranean coast on the W. The world outside these
limits is
ignored,
for the
simple
reason that the writers
were not aware of its existence. But even within the area
thus circumscribed there are remarkable
omissions,
some
of which
defy
reasonable
explanation.
The nearer
neighbours
and kinsmen of Israel
(Moabites, Ishmaelites,
Edomites, etc.)
are
naturally
reserved for the times when
they
broke
off from the
parent
stem. It would
appear, further,
that as a rule
only contemporary peoples
are included in the lists
;
extinct races and
nationalities like the
Rephaim, Zuzim, etc.,
and
possibly
the
Amalekites,
being- deliberately passed
over
; while,
of
course, peoples
that had not
yet played any important part
in
history
are
ignored.
None of these
considerations, however,
accounts for the
apparent
omission of the
Babylonians
in
P,
a fact which has
perhaps
never been
thoroughly
explained (see p. 205).
From what has
just
been said it
ought
to be
possible
to form some
conclusion as to the
age
in which the lists were drawn
up.
For P
the terminus a
quo
is the 8th
cent.,
when the Cimmerian and
Scythian
hordes
(
2f>
)
first make their
appearance
south of the Caucasus : the
absence of the Minaeans
among
the Arabian
peoples,
if it has
any
significance,
would
point
to the same
period (see p. 203).
A lower
limit
may
with less
certainty
be found in the circumstance that the
names
019
and
Tiy
:
, UT#
(Persians
and
Arabs,
first mentioned in
Jer.
and
Ezk.)
do not occur. It would follow that the
Priestly
List is
pre-exilic,
and
represents,
not the
viewpoint
of the PC
(5th cent.),
but
one
perhaps
two centuries earlier
(so Gu.).
Hommel s
opinion
(Aufs.
u. Abh.
314 if.),
that the Table contains the earliest
ethnological
ideas of the Hebrews fresh from
Arabia,
and that its "Grundstock"
goes
back to Mosaic times and even the
3rd
millennium
B.C.,
is reached
by arbitrary
excisions and alterations of the
names,
and
by
unwarranted
inferences from those which are left*
(see Je.
ATLO
2
, 252).
The
lists of
J,
on the other
hand, yield
no definite indications of date.
The S Arabian tribes
(
25
-
30
) might
have been known as
early
as the
age
of Solomon
(Brown, EB,
ii.
1699), they might
even have been
*
It has often been
pointed
out that there is a remarkable
agreement
between the
geographical
horizon of P in Gn. 10 and that of
Jer.
and Ezk. Of the
34
names of nations in P s
Table,
22 occur in
Ezk. and
14
in the book of
Jer. ;
it has to be
remembered, however,
that a
large part
of the book of
Jer.
is later than that
prophet.
Ezk.
has
perhaps
6 names which
might
have been
expected
in P if
they
had been known
(:n,
D
^3, yip, yW, 019, lip?),
and
Jer.
(book)
has
5
([ ]3Ttti
Q l
W, 019, Tips, 39).
The statistics
certainly
do not bear out the
assertion that P
compiled
his list from these two books between
538
and
526
B.C.
(see
Di.
p. 166) ;
they
rather
suggest
that while the
general
outlook was
similar,
the
knowledge
of the outer world was in some
directions more
precise
in the time of Ezk. than in the Table.
THE TABLE OF PEOPLES
(P
AND
j)
known
earlier,
but that does not tell us when
they
were
systematically
tabulated. The
(interpolated)
list of Canaanites
(
16-18
)
is
assigned by
Jeremias
(I.e.
256)
to the
age
of
Tiglath-pileser
in.
;
but since a con
siderable
percentage
of the names occurs in the Tel-Amarna letters
(v. i.),
the
grounds
of that determination are not
apparent.
With
regard
to the section on Nimrod
(
8
"
12
),
all that can
fairly
be said is
that it is
probably
later than the Kassite
conquest
of
Babylonia
: how
.iiuch
later,
we cannot tell. On the
attempt
to deduce a date from the
description
of the
Assyrian cities,
see
p.
212. There
are, besides,
two
special
sources of error which
import
an element of
uncertainty
into
all these
investigations, (a)
Since
only
two names
(xiy
and
njriq)
are
really duplicated
in P and
J,*
we
may suppose
that the redactor has
as a
general practice
omitted names from one source which he
gives
in the other
;
and we cannot be
quite
sure whether the omission has
been made in P or in
J. (b) According
to
Jewish tradition,
the total
number of names is
70 ;
and
again
the
suspicion
arises that names
may
have been added or deleted so as to
bring
out that result,
f
The threefold division of mankind is a feature common
to P and
J,
and to both recensions of
J
if there were two
(above, p. i88f.).
It is
probable,
also,
though
not
certain,
that each of the Tables
placed
the
groups
in the reverse
order of birth :
Japheth
Ham Shein
;
or Canaan
Japheth
Shem
(see
v.
21
).
The basis of the classification
may
not
have been
ethnological
in
any
sense
;
it
may
have been
originally suggested by
the tradition that Noah had
just
three
sons,
in accordance with a
frequently
observed
tendency
to close a
genealogy
with three names
(4
19ff<
5
32
ii
26
etc.).
Still,
the classification must follow some
ethnographic principle,
and we have to consider what that
principle
is. The more obvious distinctions of
colour,
language
,
and race are
easily
seen to be
inapplicable.
The ancient
Egyptian
division of
foreigners
into
Negroes (black),
Asiatics
(light brown),
and
Libyans (white)
is as much
geographical
as chromatic
(Erman, LAE, 32)
;
but in
any
case the
survey
of Gn. 10
excludes the true
negroes,
and differences of colour
amongst
the
peoples
included could not have been
sufficiently
marked to form a
basis of classification. It is
certainly noteworthy
that the
Egyptian
monuments
represent
the
Egyptians, Kos, Punt,
and Phoenicians
*
N&
N, B>13,
DH^P
and
jy^?
do not
count,
because
they
are so introduced
that the two documents
supplement
one another.
t
For the official enumeration see
Zunz,
GdV
2
, 207;
Steinschneider,
ZDMG,
iv.
150
f.
; Krauss, ZATW, 1899,
6
(1900, 38 ff.)
;
cf.
Poznanski,
ib.
1904, 302.
CH. X
193
(P
s
Hamites)
as dark brown
(Di. 167);
but the characteristic was
not shared
by
the offshoots of Kush in Arabia
;
and a colour line
between Shem and
Japheth
could never have been drawn. The test of
language
also breaks down. The
perception
of
linguistic
affinities on
a wide scale is a modern scientific
attainment, beyond
the
apprehen
sion of an
antique people,
to whom as a rule all
foreign tongues
were
alike barbarous. So we find that the most of P s Hamites
(the
Canaanites and
nearly
all the
Kushites)
are
Semitic-speaking peoples,
while the
language
of Elam
among
the sons of Shem
belongs
to an
entirely
different
family
;
and Greek was
certainly
not
spoken
in the
regions assigned
to sons of
Javan.
Of
race, except
in so far as it is
evidenced
by language,
modern science knows
very
little
;
and
attempts
have been made to show that where the
linguistic
criterion fails the
Table follows authentic
ethnological
traditions :
e.g.
that the Canaanites
came from the Red Sea coast and were
really
related to the Cushites
;
or that
Babylonia
was
actually
colonised from central
Africa,
etc. But
none of these
speculations
can be substantiated
;
and the
theory tha{
true racial
affinity
is the main
principle
of the Table has to be abandoned.
Thus,
while most of the
Japhetic peoples
are
Indo-European,
and
nearly
all the Shemitic are Semites in the modern
sense,
the corre
spondence
is no closer than follows
necessarily
from the
geographic
arrangement
to be described
presently.
The Hamitic
group,
on the
other
hand,
is destitute alike of
linguistic
and
ethnological unity.
Similarly,
when
J assigns
Phoenicians and Hittites
(perhaps
also
Egyptians)
to one ethnic
group,
it is
plain
that he is not
guided by
a
sound
ethnological
tradition. His Shemites
are, indeed,
all of Semitic
speech
;
what his
Japhetic peoples may
have been we cannot
conjecture
(see p.
1
88).
So far as P is
concerned,
the main
principle
is un
doubtedly geographical: Japheth representing
the North and
West,
Ham the
South,
and Shem the East. Canaan is the
solitary exception,
which
proves
the rule
(see p.
201
f.).
The
same law
appears (so
far as can be
ascertained)
to
govern
the distribution of the subordinate
groups
;
although
too
many
of the names are uncertain to make this
absolutely
clear. There is
very
little
ground
for the statement that
the
geographical
idea is disturbed here and there
by
con
siderations of a historical or
political
order.
The exact delimitation of the three
regions is,
of
course,
more or
less
arbitrary
: Media
might
have been reckoned to the Eastern
group,
or Elam to the Southern
;
but the actual
arrangement
is
just
as
natural,
and there is no need to
postulate
the influence of
ethnology
in the one
case or of
political
relations in the other. Lud would be a
glaring-
exception
if the
Lydians
of Asia Minor were
meant,
but that is
probably
not the case
(p. 206).
The Mediterranean coasts and islands are
ap-
13
194
THE TABLE OF PEOPLES
(p
AND
j)
propriately enough assigned
to
Javan,
the most
westerly
of the sons of
Japheth.
It can
only
be the
assumption
that Shem
represents
a middle
zone between N and S that makes the
position
of Kittim
appear
anoma
lous to Di. Even if the island of
Cyprus
be meant
(which, however,
is
doubtful
;
p. 199),
it
must,
on the view here
taken,
be
assigned
to
Japheth.
It is true that in
J
traces of
politico-historical grouping
do
appear
(mj>x
and
V^
in
8 12
; onhag,
D
fl^9
in
13f
-).
As to the order within the
principal groups (of P),
it is
impossible
to
lay
down
any
strict rule.
Jen.
(ZA,
x.
326)
holds that it
always proceeds
from the remoter to the
nearer nations
;
but
though
that
may
be true in the
main,
it cannot be
rigorously
carried
through,
nor can it be
safely
used as an
argument
for or
against
a
particular
identification.
The defects of the
Table,
from the
standpoint
of modern
ethnology,
are now
sufficiently apparent.
As a scientific
account of the
origin
of the races of
mankind,
it is dis
qualified by
its
assumption
that nations are formed
through
the
expansion
and
genealogical
division of families
;
and
still more
by
the erroneous idea that the historic
peoples
of
the old world were fixed within three or at most four
generations
from the common ancestor of the race.
History
shows that nationalities are for the most
part political units,
formed
by
the dissolution and re-combination of older
peoples
and tribes
;
and it is known that the
great
nations of
antiquity
were
preceded by
a
long
succession of social
aggregates,
whose
very
names have
perished.
Whether a
single family
has
ever,
under
any
circumstances,
increased
until it became a tribe and then a
nation,
is an abstract
question
which it is idle to discuss : it is
enough
that the
nations here enumerated did not arise in
that
way,
but
through
a
process analogous
to that
by
which the
English
nation was welded
together
out of the
heterogeneous
ele
ments of which it is known to be
composed.
As a historical
document,
on the other
hand,
the
chapter
is of the
highest
importance
:
first,
as the most
systematic
record of the
political geography
of the Hebrews at different
stages
of
their
history
;
and
second,
as
expressing
the
profound
con
sciousness of the
unity
of
mankind,
and the
religious
primacy
of
Israel,
by
which the OT writers were animated.
Its insertion at this
point,
where it forms the transition from
primitive
tradition to the
history
of the chosen
people,
has
X. IA .
195
a
significance,
as well as a
literary propriety,
which cannot
be mistaken
(Di. 164;
Gu.
77;
Dri.
114).
The Table is
repeated
in i Ch. i
4 23
with various omissions and
textual variations. The list is still further
abridged
in
(JEr
of i
Chr.,
which omits
13 18a
and all names after
Arpachshad
in ^ On the ex
tensive literature on the
chapter,
see
especially
the commentaries of
Tu.
(159 f.)
and Di.
(lyof.).
See also the
map
at the end of ATLO.
The Table
of
P.
la.
Superscription.
Shem, Ham,
and
Yepheth]
cf.
5
32
(P), 9
18
(J).
On the
original
sense of the names
only vague conjectures
can be
reported.
Dt?
is
supposed by
some to be the Heb. word for
name,
applied by
the Israelites to themselves in the first instance as De*
\43
=
men of name or distinction the titled or noble race
(cf. dvo/iaaris)
:
"perhaps nothing
more than the
ruling
caste in
opposition
to the
aborigines."
So We.
(Comp.^ 14),
who
compares
the name
Aryan,
and contrasts DP ^3 33
(Jb. 30)
;
cf. Bu.
Urg. 328
f.
;
al. Gu.
(73)
mentions a
speculation
of
Jen.
that DE> is the
Babylonian Sumu,
in the
sense of eldest
son,
who
perpetuates
the father s name.
Din
must,
at a certain
stage
of
tradition,
have
supplanted
the earlier
Jjn?
as the name of Noah s third son
(p. 182).
The
change
is
easily
explicable
from the extension of
geographical knowledge,
which
made
it
impossible any longer
to
regard
the father of the Canaanites as the
ancestor of one-third of the human race
;
but the
origin
of the name
has still to be accounted for. As a Heb. word it
might
mean hot
(Jos. 9
12
, Jb. 37
17
)
: hence it has been taken to denote the hot lands of
the south
(Lepsius,
al.
;
cf.
Jub.
viii.
30:
"the land of Ham is
hot").
Again,
since in some late Pss.
(y8
51
io5
23- 27
io6
22
)
on is a
poetic desig
nation of
Egypt,
it has been
plausibly
connected with the native kerne
or chemi=
black,
with reference to the black soil of the Nile
valley
(Bochart, Ebers,
Bu.
323 ff.).*
A less
probable theory
is that of
Glaser,
cited
by
Hommel
(AffT, 48),
who identifies it with
Eg.
amu,
a collective
name for the
neighbouring
Semitic
nomads,
derived
by
Miiller
(AE,
123 ff.)
from their distinctive
primitive weapon,
the
boomerang.
ns.;
is connected in
g
27
with
*J nns,
and no better
etymology
has been
proposed.
Che.
(EB,
ii.
2330) compares
the
theophorous personal
name
Yapti-
Addu in TA
Tab.,
and thinks it a modification of
S*rnnfl%
God
opens.
But the form nns
(pitti)
with the
probable
sense of
open
also
occurs in the Tab.
(KIB,
v.
290 [last line]).
The derivation from
>J
ns
(beautiful),
favoured
by
Bu.
(358 if.),
in allusion to the
beauty
of the
Phoenician
cities,
is
very improbable.
The resemblance to the Greek
Japetos
was
pointed
out
by
Buttmann,
and is
undoubtedly striking.
was the father of
Prometheus,
and therefore
(through
Deu-
*
Cf. the rare word
Din, black,
196
TABLE OF PEOPLES
(?)
kalion)
of
post-diluvian
mankind. The identification is
approved by
Weizsacker
(Roscher
s Lex. ii.
55 if.),
who holds that
IdTreros,
having
no Greek
etymology, may
be borrowed from the Semites
(cf.
Lenorm.
ii.
173-193). See, further, Mey.
INS,
221.
A
curiously complicated astro-mythical
solution is advanced
by
Wi.
in M
VAG,
vi.
i7off.
2-5.
The
Japhetic
or Northern
Peoples
: fourteen in
number,
chiefly
concentrated in Asia Minor and
Armenia,
but
extending
on either side to the
Caspian
and the shores
of the Atlantic. It will be seen that
though
the enumera
tion is not
ethnological
in
principle, yet
most of the
peoples
named do
belong
to the same
great
Indo-Germanic
family.
J apheth.
8. Elishah.
9.
Tarshish. 10. Kittim. ii. Rodanim.
(i)
nnS
((& Ta/jiep)
: named
along
with
Togarmah
as a confederate of
Gog
in Ezk.
38
6
,
is identified with the Galatians
by Jos.,
but is
really
the
Gamir of the Ass.
inscr.,
the Cimmerians of the Greeks. The earliest
reference to the
Kt/x,/iepioi (Od.
xi.
136.)
reveals them as a northern
people, dwelling
on the shores of the Northern Sea. Their
irruption
into Asia
Minor, by way
of the
Caucasus,
is
circumstantially
narrated
by
Herodotus
(i. 15, 103,
iv. n
f.),
whose account is in its main features
confirmed
by
the Ass. monuments. There the Gimirrai first
appear
towards the end of the
reign
of
Sargon, attacking
the old
kingdom
of
Urartu
(see Johns, PSBA,
xvii.
223^, 226).
Thence
they
seem to have
moved westwards into Asia
Minor,
where
(in
the
reign
of
Sennacherib)
they
overthrew the
Phrygian Empire,
and later
(under Asshur-bani-pal,
c.
657)
the
Lydian Empire
of
Gyges (KIB,
ii.
173-7).
This last effort
seems to have exhausted their
strength,
and soon afterwards
they
vanish from
history.*
A trace of their shortlived
ascendancy
remained
in
Gamir,
the Armenian name for
Cappadocia ; f
but the
probability
is
that the land was named after the
people,
and not vice versd
;
and it is
not safe to assume that
by
nc5 P meant
Cappadocia.
It is more
likely
that the name is
primarily ethnic,
and denotes the common stock of
which the three
following peoples
were branches.
*
Cf. Wi.
AOF,
i.
484-496
; KAT*, 76 f,
101 ff.
; Je.
ATLO
2
, 253.
f
Cf. Eus. Chron. Arm.
(ed. Aucher)
i.
p. 95
3
(Gimmeri
=
Cappa-
docians),
and ii.
p.
12
(T6fjiep}
o5
Ka7r7rd5o/ccj).
x.
2, 3
197
(2)
TJ?y
!
N
( A.<rxw<*>) Jer. 5I
27
,
after Ararat and Minni.* It has been
usual
(Bochart, al.)
to connect the name with the Ascania of //. ii.
863,
xiii.
793
;
and to
suppose
this was a
region
of
Phrygia
and
Bithynia
indicated
by
a
river,
two
lakes,
and other localities
bearing
the old name,
f
Recent
Assyriologists,
however,
find in it the
A$guza%
of the
monn.,
a branch of the Indo-Germanic invaders who settled in the
vicinity
of
lake
Urumia,
and are
probably
identical with the
Scythians
of Herod, i.
103,
106. Since
they
are first mentioned
by Esarhaddon,
they might
readily appear
to a Heb. writer to be a
younger people
than the Cim
merians. See Wi. tt.cc.
;
ATLO
2
, 259
f.
(3)
nan
( Pi0a0, Epi0a0:
but i Ch. i
6
ngn)
: otherwise unknown.
According
to
Josephus,
it denotes the
Paphlagonians.
Bochart and
Lagarde (Ges.
Abh.
255) put
it further
west,
near the
Bosphorus,
on the
ground
of a remote resemblance in name to the river
P?j/3a^
and the
district
VyfiavTia.
Che.
(EB, 4114)
favours the
transposition
of
Halevy
(nTs),
and
compares
Bit
BurutaS,
mentioned
by Sargon along
with the
MuSki and Tabali
(Schr. KGF,
176).
(4)
n!
?~Hn (Qepyay-a-, Go/yya/ta)
=
noiain
rrn,
Ezk.
38
6
27
: in the latter
passage
as a
region exporting
horses and mules.
Jos.
identifies with
the
Phrygians.
The name is
traditionally
associated with
Armenia,
Thorgom being regarded
as the
mythical
ancestor of the Armenians
;
but that
legend
is
probably
derived from
(fix
of this
passage (Lag.
Ges. Abh.
255
ff.
;
Symm.
i.
105).
The
suggested Assyriological equi
valent Til-Garimmu
(Del.
Par.
246; ATLO^^ 260; al.),
a
city
on the
frontier of the Tabali mentioned
by Sargon
and
Sennacherib,
is not
convincing
;
even
though
the Til- should be a fictitious Ass.
etymology
(Lenorm. Orig?
ii.
410).
(5)
jiJD
(Maywy)
: Ezk.
38
2
39
6
. The
generally accepted
identifica
tion with the
Scythians
dates from
Jos.
and
Jer.,
but
perhaps
reflects
only
a
vague impression
that the name is a
comprehensive designation
of the barbarous races of the
north,
somew
r
hat like the Umman-manda
of the
Assyrians.
In one of the Tel-Amarna letters
(KIB,
v.
5),
a land
Ga-ga
is alluded to in a similar manner. But how the author differenti
ated
Magog
from the Cimmerians and
Medes, etc.,
does not
appear.
The name ruo is
altogether
obscure. That it is derived from Jia =
Gyges,
king
of
Lydia (Mey.
GA
1
,
i.
p. 558),
is most
improbable
;
and the
suggestion
that it is a
corruption
of Ass. Mat
Gog (Mdt Gagaia),
must
also be received with some caution.
(6)
no
(MaScu)
: the common Heb. name for Media and the Medes
;
2 Ki.
176
i8
u
,
Is.
i3
17
2i
2
, Jer. 25* si
11 - 28
,
Est. i
3- 14- 18f-
io
2
,
Dn. 8
20
a,
1
[n
1
]
*
Ass.
Manual,
between lakes Van and
Urumia,
mentioned
along
with
Aguza
in
KIB,
ii.
129, 147.
t
Lag. (Ges.
Abh.
254)
instances Ashken as an Armenian
proper
name
; and the
inscription
y^v "Aai<tjvo^
on
Grseco-Phrygian
coins.
Whether the Heb. word is a clerical error for
ns-fN (Wi. Jer.),
or
the Ass. a modification of
ASgunsa,
the
Assyriologists may
decide
(see
Schmidt, EB,
iv.
4330 f.).
Del. Par.
246
f.
; Streck, ZA, 321
;
Sayce,
HCM*,
125.
198
TABLE OF PEOPLES
(p)
(Ass. Madai).
The formation of the Median
Empire
must have taken
place
about the middle of the
7th
cent.,
but the existence of the
people
in
their later seats
(E
of the
Zagros
mountains and S of the
Caspian Sea)
appears
to be traceable in the monuments back to the
gth
cent.
They
are thus the earliest branch of the
Aryan family
to make their mark
in Asiatic
history.
See
Mey.
GA
1
,
i.
4220. ; KAT*,
looff.
; ATLO\
254-
(7) Hr ( Iwucw)
is the Greek
IdFwv-oves,
and denotes
primarily
the
Greek settlements in Asia
Minor,
which were
mainly
Ionian : Ezk.
27
13
,
Is. 66
19
. After Alexander the Great it was extended to the Hellenes
generally:
Jl. 4,
Zech.
9
13
,
Dn. 8
21
io
20
ii
2
. In Ass. Yamanai is said
to be used but once
(by Sargon, KIB,
ii.
43)
;
but the Persian Yauna
occurs,
with the same double
reference,
from the time of Darius
(cf.
-#sch. Pers.
176, 562).
Whether the word here includes the
European
Greeks cannot be
positively
determined.* The sons of
Javan
are
(v.
4
)
to be
sought along
the
Mediterranean,
and
probably
at
spots
known to the Heb. as commercial colonies of the Phosnicians
(on
which
see
Mey.
EB, 3736 f.). Very
few of
them, however,
can be
confidently
identified.
(8)
n$ V$
( EXtcra, E\Krcra)
is mentioned
only
in Ezk.
27 (
N
^N)
as a
place supplying Tyre
with
purple.
The older verbal identifications
with the AtoXeis
(Jos. Jer. ;
so
De.),
EXXds
(EJ),
HXts, etc.,
are value
less
;
and modern
opinion
is
greatly
divided. Some favour
Carthage,
because of
Elissa,
the name of the
legendary
foundress of the
city
(Sta.
Wi.
Je. al.);
others
(Di. al.)
southern
Italy
with
Sicily.t
The
most attractive solution is that first
proposed by
Conder
(PEFS, 1892,
45
;
cf.
1904, 170),
and
widely accepted,
that the Alasia of the TA
Tablets is meant
(see KIB,
v.
80-92).
This is now
generally recognised
as the name of
Cyprus,
of which the
Tyrian purple
was a
product
:
J
see
below on D ro.
Jensen
now
(KIB,
vi.
i, 507) places
nt^K
beyond
the
Pillars of Hercules on the African
coast,
and connects it with the
Elysium
of the Greeks.
(9)
B^in
(0a/>iris)
is identified
(since Bochart)
with
Ta/jT?7<rcr<$j
(Tartesos),
the Phoenician
mining
and
trading
station in the S of
Spain
;
and no other
theory
is
nearly
so
plausible.
The OT Tarshish was rich
in minerals
(Jer.
io
9
,
Ezk.
27
12
),
was a
Tyrian colony (Is. 23
1 - 6- 10
),
and
a remote coast-land reached
by
sea
(Is.
66
19
, Jn.
i
3
4
2
,
Ps.
72)
;
and
to
distinguish
the Tarshish of these
pass,
from that of Gn. io
(E)e.
Jast. al.),
or to consider the latter a doublet of DTn
(Che. Mii.),
are but
counsels of
despair.
The chief rival
theory
is Tarsus in Cilicia
(Jos.
*
Against
the
theory
of a second
jv
in Arabia
(which
in
any
case
would not affect the
interpretation
of this
pass.),
see Sta. Akad.
Red.
125-142. Cf., further, ATLO*,
255.
f
Cf. E on Ezk.
27
7
K^B K mnoo
;
and Eus. Chr. Arm. ii.
p.
13:
EXtcr<rd,
oO Si/ceXo/ + et Athenienses
[Arm.].
J
See
Muller, ZA,
x.
257
ff.
;
OLz. iii. 288 ff.
; Jen. ZA, 379
f.
; Jast.
DB,
v. Sob.
Her. i.
163,
iv.
152;
Strabo,
iii.
151;
Plin.
HN,
iii,
7,
iv.
1
20,
etc.
x.
2,4 199
Jer. al.);
but this in Semitic is nn
(Tarzi).
Cf. Wi.
AOF,
\.
445
f.
;
Miiller,
OLz. iii.
291.
(10)
trn?
(K-nrtoi, KtTtoi)]
cf.
Jer.
2
10
,
Ezk.
27,
Is.
23
- 12
,
Dn. n
30
,
i Mac. i
1
8
5
,
Nu.
24
s4
.
Against
the
prevalent
view that it denotes
primarily
the island of
Cyprus,
so called from its chief
city
Kfrtoi
(Larnaka),
Wi.
(A OF,
ii.
422
1
;
cf.
KAT*, 128) argues
that neither the
island nor its
capital
*
is so named in
any
ancient
document,
and that
the older biblical references demand a site further W. The
application
to the Macedonians
(i Mac.)
he describes as one of those false identifica
tions common in the
Egypt
of the Ptolemaic
period.
His
argument
is
endorsed
by
Muller
(OLz.
iii.
288)
and
Je. (ATLO
2
,
261)
:
they suggest
S
Italy, mainly
on the
authority
of Dn. n
30
. The
question
is
obviously
bound
up
with the
identity
of W^K AlaSia
(v.s.).
(u)
D rVT or D rrn
(juu.(5r [ PoSioi]
and i Ch. i
7
)]
a name omitted
by
Jos.
If
<&
be
right,
the Rhodians are doubtless meant
(cf.
//. ii.
654 f.)
:
the
sing,
is
perhaps disguised
in the
corrupt pi
of Ezk.
27
15
(cf. (5r).
The MT has been
explained
of the Dardanians
(EJ,
De.
al.),
"properly
a
people
of Asia
Minor,
not far from the
Lycians
"
(Che.
EB
y
1
123).
Wi.
(I.e.] proposes
D
m,
the
Dorians;
and Muller
D\u(i)i, Eg.
Da-nd-na
=
TA,
Da-nu-na
(KIB,
v.
277),
on the W coast of Asia Minor.
(12)
^
(GojSeX)]
and
(13)
Tjtf-Q
(Mo<ro%)]
are mentioned
together
in Ezk.
27
13
(as
exporting
slaves and
copper), 32
25
(a
warlike
people
of
antiquity), 38
2f-
39
1
(in
the
army
of
Gog),
Is. 66
19
((5r)
; I^D
alone in Ps. i2O
5
.
Jos.
arbitrarily
identifies them with the Iberians and
Cappadocians respectively
;
but
since Bochart no one has
questioned
their
identity
with the
Tt/Sctp^j/of
and
M(5(r%oc,
first mentioned in Her. iii.
94
as
belonging
to the
igth
satrapy
of
Darius,
and
again (vii. 78)
as
furnishing
a
contingent
to the
host of Xerxes
(cf. Strabo,
XI. ii.
14, 16). Equally
obvious is their
identity
with the Tdball and Muski of the Ass.
Monn.,
where the latter
appear
as
early
as
Tiglath-pileser
I.
(c. noo),
and the former under
Shalmaneser II.
(c. 838),
both as formidable
military
states. In
Sargon
s
inscrs.
they appear together
;f
and
during
this whole
period
their
territory evidently
extended much further S and W than in Graeco-
Roman times. These stubborn little
nationalities,
which so
tenaciously
maintained their
identity,
are
regarded by
Wi. and
Je.
as remnants of
the old Hittite
population
which were
gradually
driven
(probably by
the Cimmerian
invasion)
to the mountainous district SE of the Black
Sea.
(14) Dyn (Getpas)]
not mentioned
elsewhere,
was almost
unanimously
taken
by
the ancients
(Jos. {J, Jer.
etc.
;
and so Boch.
al.)
to be
the Thracians
( 6/>a/c-es) ;
but the
superficial
resemblance vanishes when
the nominative
ending
s is removed. Tu. was the first to
suggest
the
1!vp<T-i)viol,
a race of
Pelasgian pirates,
who left
many
traces of their
ancient
prowess
in the islands and coasts of the
^Egean,
and who were
*
The
city, however,
is called m in Phcen. inscrs. and coins from
the
4th
cent. B.C. downwards
;
see
Cooke, NSI,
pp. 56, 66?,
78, 352.
+ See
KIB,
i.
i8f., 64 f.,
142^,
ii.
40 f., 56
f.
;
and Del. Par.
250
f.
2OO
TABLE OF PEOPLES
(P)
doubtless identical with the E,-trus-ca.ns of
Italy.*
This brilliant con
jecture
has since been confirmed
by
the
discovery
of the name Turusa
amongst
the
seafaring- peoples
who invaded
Egypt
in the
reign
of
Merneptah (Mey.
GA\
i.
260;
W. M.
Miiller, AJE,
356 fF.).
6,
7,
20. The Hamitic or Southern
Group
: in Africa
and S
Arabia,
but
including
the Canaanites of Palestine.
Ham.
1 I
I
i. Kush. 2. Mizraim.
3.
Put.
4.
Canaan.
i i n r~ i
5.
Seba. 6. Havilah.
7.
Sabtah. 8. Ra mah.
9.
Sabtekah.
r ~i
10. Sheba. u. Dedan.
(i)
^3
((& Xofs,
but elsewhere
KWloir-es> -La)]
the land and
people
S of
Egypt (Nubia),
the
Ethiopians
of the
Greeks,
the K6 of the
Eg.
monuments :
f
cf. Is. iS
1
, Jer. i3
23
,
Ezk.
29, Zeph. 3
etc. Ass. Kusu
occurs
repeatedly
in the same sense on inscrs. of Esarhaddon and
Asshurbanipal
;
and
only
four
passages
of Esarhaddon are claimed
by
Wi. for the
hypothesis
of a south Arabian Kusu
(KA
7
s
, 144).
There is
no reason to doubt that in this v. the African Kush is meant. That the
5.
The
subscription
to the first division of the Table is not
quite
in
order. We miss the formula ns J3 n
1
?*?
(cf.
vv.
20t 31
),
which is here
necessary
to the
sense,
and must be
inserted,
not
(with We.)
at the
beginning
of the
v.,
but
immediately
before cnsnio. The clause
D un n^KD is then seen to
belong
to v.
4
,
and to mean that the Mediter
ranean coasts were
peopled
from the four centres
just
named as
occupied
by
sons of
Javan. Although
these
places
were
probably
all at one
time Phoenician
colonies,
it is not to be inferred that the writer confused
the lonians with Phoenicians. He
may
be
thinking
of the native
popula
tion of
regions
known to Israel
through
the
Phoenicians,
or of the
Mycenean
Greeks,
whose
colonising enterprise
is now believed to be
of earlier date than the Phoenician
(Mey. EB,
3736 f.). ITISJ]
construed
like nxsj in
9
19
(J)
;
ct. io
32
. D un
"N]
only again Zeph.
2
n
. Should we
read DTJ "N
(Is.
n
11
24",
Est. lo
1
)? (for
ig, perhaps
from
*J
away,
"
betake
oneself")
seems to be a seafarer s word
denoting
the
place
one makes for
(for
shelter, etc.);
hence both "coast" and "island"
(the
latter also in
Phcen.).
In Heb. the
pi.
came to be used of distant
lands in
general (Is. 4i
1- 5
42* 5i
5
etc., Jer. 3i
10
etc.)
*
Thuc. iv.
109
;
Her. i.
57, 94
; Strabo,
V. ii.
2,
iii.
5
: other reff. in
Tu. adloc.
f
See
Steindorff, BA,
i.
593
f.
X.
5,
6 201
sons of Kush include Arabian
peoples
is
quite naturally explained by
the
assumption
that the writer believed these Arabs to be of African
descent. As a matter of
fact, intercourse, involving-
intermixture of
blood,
has at all times been common between the two shores of the
Red Sea
;
and indeed the
opinion
that Africa was the
original
cradle of
the Semites has still a measure of scientific
support (see Barton,
OS
1
,
6
if., 24).
See, further,
on v.
8
(p. 207 f.).
(2) onyp (Me<rpcui>)]
the Heb. form of the common Semitic name of
Egypt (TA,
Missari, Misri, MaSri, Mizirri;
Ass.
[from
8th and
yth
cent.
] Muf
ur
;
Bab. Misir
; Syr.
__5 LD
;
Ar.
Misr). Etymology
and
meaning
are uncertain : Rommel s
suggestion (Gesch. 530 ;
cf. Wi.
AOF,
i.
25)
that it is an Ass.
appellative
=
frontier,
is little
probable.
The
dual form of Heb. is
usually explained by
the constant distinction in
the native inscrs. between
Upper
and Lower
Egypt, though
onxD is
found in connexions
(Is.
n
11
, Jer. 44
15
)
which limit it to Lower
Eg.
;
and
many
scholars now
deny
that the termination is a real dual
(Mey.
GA,
i.
42,
An.
; Jen. ZDMG,
xlviii.
439).
On the vexed
question
of a
N Arabian
Musri,
it is
unnecessary
to enter here. There
may
be
passages
of OT where that view is
plausible,
but this is not one of
them
;
and the idea of a wholesale confusion between
Eg.
and Arabia
on the
part
of OT writers is a
nightmare
which it is
high
time to be
quit
of.
(3)
BIB
(<J>oi;5,
but elsewhere
At/Sues)]
mentioned 6 times
(incl.
<&
of
Is. 66
19
)
in
OT,
as a warlike
people furnishing
auxiliaries to
Egypt
(Nah. 3
9
, Jer. 46
9
,
Ezk.
3O
5
)
or
Tyre (Ezk. 27
10
)
or the host of
Gog(38
5
),
and
frequently
associated with s^3 and 1&. The
prevalent
view has been
that the
Lybians,
on the N coast of Africa W of
Egypt,
are meant
((5,
Jos. al.), although
Nah.
3
9
and
probably
Ezk.
30 (ffi)
show that the
two
peoples
were
distinguished.
Another
identification,
first
proposed
by Ebers,
has
recently
been
strongly
advocated : viz. with the Pwnt of
Eg.
monuments,
comprising
the whole African coast of the Red Sea
(W.
M.
Miiller,^, 114*?., andZ>#,
iv.
176
f.
; Je. 263 f.).
The
only
serious
objection
to this
theory
is the order in which the name
occurs,
which
suggests
a
place
further north than
Egypt (Jen. ZA,
x.
325 ff.).
(4) fyj? (Xavaav)]
the
eponym
of the
pre-Israelitish
inhabitants of
Palestine,
is
primarily
a
geographical designation.
The
etymology
is
doubtful
;
but the sense lowland has still the best claim to
acceptance
(see, however, Moore, PAOS, 1890, Ixviiff.).
In
Eg.
monuments the
name,
in the form
pa-Ka-n--na {pa
is the
art.),
is
applied
to the
strip
of coast from Phoenicia to the
neighbourhood
of Gaza
;
but the ethno
graphic
derivative extends to the inhabitants of all Western
Syria
(Miiller, AE, 205 ff.). Similarly
in TA Tablets
Kinahhi,
Kinahna, etc.,
stand for Palestine
proper (JFAT
3
, 181),
or
(according
to
Jast. EB,
641)
the northern
part
of the seacoast. The fact that
Canaan,
in
spite
of its
geographical
situation and the close
affinity
of its
language
with
Heb.,
is reckoned to the Hamites is not to be
explained by
the tradition
(Her. i.
I,
vii.
89, etc.)
that the Phoenicians came
originally
from the Red Sea
;
for that
probably implies
no more than that
they
were
connected with
2O2 TABLE OF PEOPLES
(?)
the
Babylonians ( Epvdprj
9d\ao-(ra
=
the Persian
Gulf).
Neither is it
altogether
natural to
suppose
that Canaan is thus
placed
because it
had for a
long-
time been a
political dependency
of
Eg.
: in that
case,
as
Di.
observes,
we should have
expected
Canaan to
figure
as a son of
Mizraim. The belief that Canaan and Israel
belonged
to
entirely
different branches of the human
family
is rooted in the circumstances
that
gave
rise to the
blessing
and curse of Noah in ch.
9. When,
with
the extension of
geographical knowledge,
it became
necessary
to
assign
the Canaanites to a
larger group (p. 187 above),
it was inevitable
that
they
should find their
place
as remote from the Hebrews as
possible.
Of the descendants of Kush
(v.
7
)
a
large proportion all, indeed,
that
can be
safely
identified are found in Arabia. Whether this means
that Kushites had crossed the Red
Sea,
or that Arabia and Africa were
supposed
to be a continuous
continent,
in which the Red Sea formed an
inland lake
(JAT
3
, 137, 144),
it is
perhaps impossible
to decide.
(5) H}p (2a|8a)]
Is.
43
s
45
14
,
Ps.
ya
10
; usually
taken to be Meroe
*
(between
Berber and
Khartoum).
The tall stature attributed to the
people
in Is.
45
14
(but
cf. i8
2- 7
)
is in favour of this view
;
but it has
nothing
else to recommend it. Di. al.
prefer
the Saba referred to
by
Strabo
(xvi.
iv.
8,
10
;
cf.
Ptolemy,
iv.
7. 7f.)
on the African side of
the Red Sea
(S
of
Suakim). Je. (ATLO*, 265)
considers the word as
the more correct variant to JOt?
(see below).
(6) n^iq (Ei [e]iXa[r])]
often
(since Bochart) explained
as sand-land
(fr. Sin)
;
named in v.
29
(J)
as a
Joktanite people,
and in
25
18
(also J)
as
the eastern limit of the Ishmaelite Arabs. It seems
impossible
to
harmonise these indications. The last is
probably
the most
ancient,
and
points
to a district in N
Arabia,
not too far to the E. We
may
conjecture
that the name is derived from the
large
tract of loose red
sand
(nefud)
which stretches N of Teima and S of el-Gof. This is
precisely
where we should look for the XctiAorcuoi whom Eratosthenes
(Strabo,
xvi. iv.
2)
mentions
(next
to the
Nabateans)
as the second of
three tribes on the route from
Egypt
to
Babylon
;
and
Pliny (vi. 157)
gives
Domata
(=
Dumah
=
el-Gof : see
p. 353)
as a town of the Avalitce.
The name
might easily
be extended to other
sandy regions
of
Arabia,
(perhaps especially
to the
great
sand desert in the southern
interior)
:
of some more
southerly
district it must be used both here and v.
29
(see Mey.
INS,
325 f.).
To
distinguish
further the Cushite from the
Joktanite n,
and to
identify
the former with the
AjSaXtrcu, etc.,
on the
African coast near
Bab-el-mandeb,
is
quite unnecessary.
On the other
hand,
it is
impossible
to
place
either of these so far N as the head of the
Persian Gulf
(Glaser)
or the ENE
part
of the
Syrian
desert
(Frd. Del.).
Nothing
can be made of Gn. 2
11
;
and in I Sa.
15 (the only
other occur
rence)
the text is
probably corrupt.
(7)
nrao
(2a/3a0a)]
not identified.
Possibly Ed/Sara,
Sabota,
the
capital
of Hadramaut
(see
on v.
26
) (Strabo,
XVI. iv. 2
;
Pliny,
HN,
vi.
155,
xii.
63), though
in Sabaean this is written nut?
(see Osiander,
*
Jos.
Ant. ii.
249.
In i.
134
f. he seems to confuse N3D and
X.
7
203
xix.
253;
Homm. SA Chrest.
119);
or the
Sd00a
of Ptol. vi.
7. 30,
an inland town
lying (according
to
Glaser,
252)
W of El-Katif.
(8)
nojn
( Pe7/ia
or
Pe7x/ta,)] coupled
with tat?
(?
and n
rin)
in Ezk.
27
22
as a tribe
trading
in
spices, precious stones,
and
gold.
It is doubt
less the
nojh
(Ragmaf)
of a Minaean
inscr.,*
which
speaks
of an attack
by
the hosts of Saba and Haulan on a Minaean caravan en route between
Ma an and Ra mat. This
again may
be connected with the
Pa/i/xai
rrcu
of Strabo
(xvi.
iv.
24)
N of Hadramaut. The identification with the
P^yfajjita
7r6Xts
(a seaport
on the Persian
Gulf)
of Ptol. vi.
7. 14 (Boch.
al.
;
so
Glaser)
is difficult because of its remoteness from Sheba and
Dedan
(v.t.),
and also because this
appears
on the inscr. as
Rgmt
(Glaser, 252).
(9) Npnap (2aa/ca0a)]
unknown.
Za/Avdrfjcq
in
Carmaniaf
(Ptol.
vi.
8.
7f., n)
is unsuitable both
geographically
and
phonetically. Je. sug
gests
that the word is a
duplicate
of
nrap.
(10) K}$ (2a/5a)] (properly,
as inscrs.
show,
N2D : see No.
5 above)
is
assigned
in v.
29
to the
Joktanites,
and in
25
3
to the Ketureans. It is
the OT name of the
people
known to the classical
geographers
as
Sabseans,
the founders of a
great
commercial state in SW
Arabia,
with
its
metropolis
at Marib
(Mariaba),
some
45
miles due E of San
a,
the
present capital
of Yemen
(Strabo,
XVI. iv.
2,
19; Pliny, HN,
vi.
154 f.,
etc.).
"
They
were the centre of an old S Arabian
civilisation,
regarding
the former existence of which the Sabaean
inscriptions
and architectural
monuments
supply ample
evidence"
(Di. 182).
Their
history
is still
obscure. The native inscrs. commence about
700
B.C.
; and,
a little
earlier,
Sabaean
princes (not kings) appear
on Ass. monuments as
paying
tribute to
Tiglath-pileser
iv.
(B.C. 738)
and
Sargon (B.C. 7is).
It would seem that about that time
(probably
with the
help
of the
Assyrians) they
overthrew the older Minaean
Empire,
and established
themselves on its ruins. Unlike their
precursors,
however,
they
do
not
appear
to have consolidated their
power
in N
Arabia,
though
their
inscrs. have been found as far N as el-Gof. To the
Hebrews,
Sheba
was a far
country (Jer.
6
20
, Jl. 4
8
),
famous for
gold,
frankincense,
and
precious
stones
(i
Ki. io
lff
-,
Is. 6o
6
, Jer.
6
20
,
Ezk.
27
22
,
Ps.
72
15
)
: in all
these
passages,
as well as Ps.
72, Jb.
6
19
,
the reference to the southern
Sabaeans is clear. On the other
hand,
the association with Dedan
(25
3
,
Ezk.
38
13
and
here)
favours a more northern
locality
;
in
Jb.
i
15
they
appear
as Bedouin of the northern desert
;
and the Ass. references
appear
to
imply
a
northerly
situation. Since it is undesirable to assume
the existence of two
separate peoples,
it is
tempting
to
suppose
that the
pass,
last
quoted preserve
the tradition of an earlier
time,
before the
*
Halevy, 535,
2
(given
in Homm. SA Chrest.
103)
=
Glaser,
1155:
translated
by Miiller, ZDMG,
xxx. 121
f.,
and Homm.
AA, 322, AHT,
249
f.
t
Boch. : so
Glaser,
ii.
252 ;
but see his virtual withdrawal on
p. 404.
t
It is
important
that neither in their own nor in the Ass. inscrs.
are the earliest rulers
spoken
of as
kings.
Cf.
KIB,
ii.
21,
55.
204
TABLE OF PEOPLES
(p)
conquest
of the Minaeans had led to a settlement in Yemen. V.
28
(J),
however, presupposes
the southern settlement.*
(n) m (Aadav,
Aedav
;
but elsewhere
Aaidav, etc.)]
a merchant tribe
mentioned
along-
with Sheba in
2$
3
(=
i Ch. i
32
)
and Ezk.
38
13
;
with
Tema
(the
modern
Teima,
c.
230
miles N of
Medina)
in Is. 2i
13
, Jer. 25
2:i
,
and (Or
of Gn.
25
3
;
and in
Jer. 49**,
Ezk.
25
13
as a
neighbour
of Edom.
All this
points
to a
region
in the N of Arabia
;
and as the
only
other
reference
(Ezk. 27
20
)
in
27
15
the text is
corrupt
is consistent with
this,
there is no need to
postulate
another Dedan on the Persian Gulf
(Boch.
al.)
or
anywhere
else. Glaser
(397) very suitably
locates the Dedanites
"in the
neighbourhood
of
Khaibar, el-Ola, El-Higr, extending- perhaps
beyond
Teima,"
a
region
intersected
by
the trade-routes from all
parts
of Arabia
(see
the
map
in
EB,
iv.
5160)
;
and where the name is
probably
perpetuated
in the ruins of
Daidan,
W of Teima
(Di.).
The name
occurs both in Minaean and Sabasan inscrs.
(Glaser, 397
ff.
;
Muller,
ZDMG,
xxx.
122),
but not in the Greek or Roman
geographers.
The
older tradition of
J (2^} recognises
a closer
kinship
of the Israelites
with Sheba and
Dedan,
by making
them sons of
Jokshan
and descendants
of Abraham
through
Keturah
(v.
ad
loc.\ (An
intermediate
stage
seems
represented by
io
-5
"
29
,
where S Arabia is
assigned
to the descendants of
Eber).
P follows the
steps
of
2^ by bracketing
the two tribes as sons
of Ra mah : whether he knew them as
comparatively
recent offshoots of
the Kushite stock is not so certain.
22, 23, 31.
The Shemitic or Eastern
Group.
With
the doubtful
exception
of
1^
(see below)
the nations here
mentioned all lie on the E. of
Palestine,
and are
probably
arranged
in
geographical
order from SE to
NW,
till
they
join
hands with the
Japhethites.
Shem.
6. Uz.
7.
Hul. 8. Gether.
9.
Mash.
(i)
oVy
(Afoa.fj.)]
Ass.
Elamtu,^
the name of "the
great plain
E of
the lower
Tigris
and N of the Persian
Gulf,
together
with the mountain
ous
region enclosing
it on the N and E
"
(Del.
Par.
320), corresponding
to the later
Elymais
or Susiana. The district round Susa was in
very
*
See
Mey.
GA
1
,
i.
403;
Glaser,
ii.
399
ff.
;
Sprenger,
ZDMG,
xliv.
501
ff.
; Margoliouth,
DB,
i.
133.
iv.
479
ff.
;
Horn.
AHT, 77
ff.,
and in
EBL,
728
ff.
; KA7*, 148
ff.
; ATLO", 265.
f
Commonly explained
as
highland
(Schr.
Del. ff-wb.
etc.),
but
according
to
Jen. (2A,
vi.
I7O
2
,
xi.
351)
=
front-land,
i.e. East land.
X.
7,
22
2O5
early
times
(after 3000 B.C.)
inhabited
by
Semitic settlers ruled
by
viceroys
of the
Babylonian king
s
;
about 2280 the Anzanite element
(of
a different race and
speaking-
a different
language) gained
the
upper
hand,
and even established a
suzerainty
over
Babylonia.
From that
time onwards Elam was a
powerful monarchy, playing
an
important
part
in the
politics
of the
Euphrates valley,
till it was
finally destroyed
by
Assurbanipal.*
The reason for
including
this non-Semitic race
among
the sons of Shem is no doubt
geographical
or
political.
The
other OT reff. are Gn.
H
1- 9
,
Is. n
u
2i
2
22
6
, Jer. 25 49
34ff
-,
Ezk.
3
2
24
,
Dn. 8
2
.
(2)
w
;
N] Assyria.
See below on v.
11
(p. 211).
(3)
T^ 531N
(*Ap0aa5)]
identified
by
Boch. with the
A/5pa7rax?rts
which
Ptol.
(vi.
i.
2)
describes as the
province
of
Assyria
next to
Armenia,
the mountainous
region
round the sources of the
Upper Zab,
between
lakes Van and
Urumia,
still called in Kurdish Albdk. This name
appears
in Ass. as
Arapha (Arbaha, etc.),f
and on
Eg.
monuments of
the i8th
dynasty
as
Ararpaha (Miiller,
AE,
278 f.). Geographically
nothing
could be more suitable than this identification : the
difficulty
is
that the last
syllable
n is left unaccounted for.
Jos.
recognised
in the
last three letters the name of the Chaldeans
(Ty|),t
and several
attempts
have been made to
explain
the first element of the word in
accordance
with this hint,
(a)
The best is
perhaps
that of
Cheyne (EB, 3i8),
resolving
the word into two
proper
names :
1B")K
or nsnx
(=
Ass.
Arbaha}
and
1^3,
the latter here
introducing
a second trio of sons of Shem.
On this view the
Arpaksad
of v.
24
i i
10ff>
must be an error
(for
nfco
?)
caused
by
the textual
corruption
here,
(b)
An older
conjecture, approved by
Ges.
(Th.),
Knobel, al., compares
the six with Ar.
urfat (= boundary ).||
Eth.
arfat (=
wall
)
;
n?3
TW
would thus be the wall
(or
boundary)
of Kesed.
(c)
Hommel
(AHT,
212,
294-8)
takes the middle
syllable pa
to be the
Egyptian
art., reading Ur-pa-Kesed
=
Ur of the
Chaldees
(n
28
),
an
improbable suggestion, (d)
Del.
(Par. 255 f.)
and
Jen.
(ZA,
xv.
256) interpret
the word as arba-kisddu
=
[Land
of
the]
four
quarters
(or shores),
after the
analogy
of a common
designation
of
Babylonia
in
royal
titles. These theories are
partly prompted by
the
observation
that otherwise Chaldea is
passed
over in the Table of
P,
a
surprising
omission,
no
doubt,
but
perhaps susceptible
of other
explanations.
The
question
is
complicated by
the mention of an Aramean Kesed in 22
22
.
The
difficulty
of
identifying
that tribe with the Chaldeans in the S of
Babylonia
is admitted
by
Dri.
(p. 223)
;
and if there was another
Kesed
near
Harran,
the fact must be taken account of in
speculating
about
the
meaning
of
Arpakgad.
*
See the
interesting
historical sketch
by
Scheil,
Textes
elamites-
semitiques (1900), pp.
ix-xv
[=
vol. ii. of de
Morgan, Delegation
en Perse :
Memoires].
Cf.
Sayce, ET,
xiii.
65.
t KIB,
i.
177, 213,
ii.
13, 89;
cf. Del. Par.
124^
+ Ap0aci577s
5 roi)s vvv XaX5aous
Ka\ovfj.vov
vr&v : Ant. i.
144.
A different
conjecture
in
EB, 3644
; TBI,
178.
||
Note Tu. s
objections, p. 205.
206 TABLE OF PEOPLES
(?)
(4)
H
1
?
(jiu.
i
1
?,
(3r
Aoi>5)] usually
understood of the
Lydians (Jos.
Boch.
al.),
but it has never been
satisfactorily explained
how a
people
in the
extreme W of Asia Minor comes to be numbered
among
the Shemites.
An African
people,
such as
appears
to be
contemplated
in v.
13
,
would
be
equally
out of
place
here. A
suggestion
of
Jen.
s deserves con
sideration : that TiV is the
Lubdu,
a
province lying
"between the
upper
Tigris
and the
Euphrates,
N of Mt. Masius and its western
extension,"
mentioned in
KIB,
i.
4 (1. 9
fr.
below,
rd.
Lu-up-di), 177 (along
with
Arrapha), 199.
See Wi.
AOF,
ii.
47; Streck, ZA>
xiv.
168; Je. 276.
In the
remaining
refs.
(Is,
66
19
, Jer. q6
9
,
Ezk.
27 3o
5
),
the
Lydians
of
Asia Minor
might
be
meant,
in the last three as mercenaries in the
service of
Eg.
or
Tyre.
(5)
DHN
( Apa/i, Apayitwj )]
a collective
designation
of the Semitic
peoples speaking
Aramaic
dialects,*
so far as known to the Hebrews
(No. EB> 276 fF.).
The actual diffusion of that
family
of Semites was
wider than
appears
from
OT,
which uses the name
only
of the districts
to the NE of Palestine
(Damascus especially)
and
Mesopotamia (Aram-
Naharaim, Paddan-Aram)
:
these, however,
were
really
the chief centres
of Aramaean culture and influence. In Ass. the Armaiu
(Aramu, Artmu,
Arumu)
are first named
by Tiglath-pileser
I.
(c. uoo)
as
dwelling
in
the
steppes
of
Mesopotamia (KIB>
i.
33)
;
and Shalmaneser n.
(c. 857)
encountered them in the same
region (ib. 165).
But if Wi. be
right
(KAT
3
,
28
f.,
36), they
are referred to under the name Ahlami from a
much earlier date
(TA
Tab.
;
Ramman-nirari i.
\c. 1325]
;
ASur-ris"-
is"i
[c. 1150]
: see
KIB,
v.
387,
i.
5, 13).
Hence Wi.
regards
the second
half of the 2nd millennium B.C. as the
period during
which the Aramaean
nomads became settled and civilised
peoples
in
Mesopotamia
and
Syria.
In i Ch. i
17
the words DIN 331
(v.
23
)
are
omitted,
the four
following
names
being
treated as sons of Shem :
(6) py (
Os, Oflf)]
is doubtless the same tribe which in 22
21
( Of, Of)
is
classed as the firstborn of Nahor : therefore
presumably
somewhere NE
of Palestine in the direction of Harran. The
conjectural
identifications
are
hardly
worth
repeating.
The other Biblical occurrences of the
name are difficult to harmonise. The Uz of
Jb.
i
1
(Atftrms),
and the
Horite tribe mentioned in Gn.
36
20
, point
to a SE
situation, bordering
on or
comprised
in Edom
;
and this would also suit La.
4
21
, Je. 25
20
(pyn
!), though
in both these
passages
the
reading
is doubtful. It is
suggested by
Rob. Sm.
(KM*t 61)
and We.
(Held. 146)
that the name
is identical with that of the Arabian
god Aud;
and
by
the former
scholar that the OT
py
denotes a number of scattered tribes
worship
ping
that
deity (similarly
Bu. Hiob. ix.-xi.
; but,
on the other
side,
see
No.
ZDMG,
xl.
i83f.).
(7)
^in
(Oi/X)]
Del.
(Par. 259)
identifies with a district in the
neigh
bourhood of Mt. Masius mentioned
by Asshur-nasir-pal.
The word
(hu-li-ia),
however,
is there read
by
Peiser as an
appellative
=
desert
,
i. 86
f., nof.)
;
and no other
conjecture
is even
plausible.
(8)
"ina is
quite
unknown.
*
oOs
"EXX^ves Stfpous irpo<rayopeijov<riv
as
Jos. correctly explains.
X.
22,
2
3, 3i, 32,
8
207
(9)
ete
(jju.
HE
D,
(
Moo-ox,
in accord with i Ch. i
17
MT
?#D)] perhaps
connected with Mons
Masius,
TO Mao-toy
5pos
of Ptol.
(v.
18.
2)
and Strabo
(xi.
xiv.
2),
a mountain
range
N of Nisibis now called Tur- Abdin or
Keraga Dagh
(Bo.
Del. Par.
259,
Di.
al.).
The
uncertainty
of the
text and the fact that the Ass. monuments use a different name render
the identification
precarious. Jen. (KIB>
vi.
i, 567) suggests
the moun
tain MaSu of
GilgameS
IX. ii.
if.,
which he
supposes
to be Lebanon
and Anti-Libanus. The Mdt MaS of
KIB,
ii.
221,
which has been
adduced as a
parallel, ought,
it now
appears,
to be read mad-bar
(KAT*, I9i
2
;
cf.
Jen. ZA,
x.
364).
31, 32.
P s
closing
formula for the Shemites
(
31
)
;
and his
subscription
to the whole Table
(
32
).
The Table
off.
IX.
i8a,
X. ib. Introduction. See
pp.
182,
188.
A
slight discontinuity
in v.
1
makes it
probable
that
lb
is inserted from
J.
If
so,
it would stand most
naturally
after
9
18a
(Di.),
not after
19
.
It seems to me that
19
is rather the Yahwistic
parallel
to io
32
(P),
and formed
originally
the conclusion of
J
s Table
(cf.
the
closing"
formulae,
io
29
22^
25
4
).
8-12. Nimrod and his
empire.
The section deals
with the foundation of the
Babylonio-Assyrian Empire,
whose
legendary
hero, Nimrod,
is described as a son of
Kush
(see below).
Unlike the other names in the
chapter,
Nimrod is not a
people,
but an
individual,
a Gibbor or
despot,
famous as the
originator
of the idea of the
military
state,
based on
arbitrary
force. 8. The statement that he
was the
first
to become a Gibbor on the earth
implies
a dif
ferent
conception
from 6
4
.
There,
the Gibborim are identi
fied with the semi-divine
Nephilim
:
here,
the Gibbor is a
man,
whose
personal prowess
and
energy
raise him above
the common level of
humanity.
The word
expresses
the
idea of
violent,
tyrannical power,
like Ar.
gabbar.
If the Pis of v.
6f-
be
Ethiopia (see p.
200
f.),
it follows that in the view
of the redactor the earliest
dynasty
in the
Euphrates valley
was founded
by immigrants
from Africa. That
interpretation
was
accepted
even
by
Tuch
;
but it is
opposed
to all we know of the
early history
of
Baby-
8.
Yip:
(Nf/3pu>5)]
The Heb.
naturally
connects the name with the
-no
=
rebel
(C
J
,
Ra.
al.)
: see
below, p. 209.
h *?,:n
wn]
he was the
2C>8
TABLE OF PEOPLES
(j)
Ionia,
and it is
extremely improbable
that it
represents
a Heb. tradition.
The
assumption
of a S Arabian Kush would relieve the
difficulty
;
for
it is
generally agreed
that the Semitic
population
of
Babylonia
which
goes
back as far as monumental evidence carries us
actually
came
from Arabia
;
but it is
entirely opposed
to the
ethnography
of
J,
who
peoples
S Arabia with descendants of Shem
(
2U 25ff>
).
It is therefore
not
unlikely
that,
as
many Assyriologists
think,* J
s aha is
quite
inde
pendent
of the Hamitic Kush of
P,
and denotes the Kas or
KasSu,
a
people
who
conquered Babylonia
in the i8th
cent.,
and set
up
a
dynasty
(the 3rd)
which
reigned
there for 600
years
t
(KAT^, 21).
It is conceiv
able that in
consequence
of so
prolonged
a
supremacy,
Ka
might
have
become a name for
Babylonia,
and that
J
s
knowledge
of its
history
did not extend farther back than the KasSite
dynasty.
Since there is no
reason to
suppose
that
J regarded
Ka as
Hamitic,
it is
quite possible
that the name
belonged
to his list of
Japhetic peoples.
p.
Nimrod was not
only
a
great tyrant
and ruler of
men,
but
a hero
of
the chase
(TV
"
|i
i^^).
The v. breaks the connexion
between
8
and
10
,
and is
probably
an
interpolation
(Di. al.);
although,
as De.
remarks,
the union of a
passion
for the
chase with warlike
prowess
makes Nimrod a true
prototype
of the
Assyrian
monarchs,
an observation
amply
illus
trated
by
the
many hunting
scenes
sculptured
on the monu
ments.
Therefore
it is
said]
introducing
a current
proverb
;
cf. i Sa.
ig
24
with io
12
;
Gn. 22
14
etc.
"
When the Hebrews
first to become
;
see on
4
26
9
20
.
9.
While Di.
regards
the v. as an
interpolation
from oral
tradition,
Bu.
(Urg. 390 ff.) assigns
it to his
J
1
,
and finds a
place
for it between 6
4
and n
1
,
a
precarious sugges
tion.
mrr
1
]
<& +
rou #eou.
\JE^>]
before Yahwe. The
phrase
is
variously explained
:
(i) unique,
like O n
1
?^
1
? in
Jn 3
3
(Di. al.); (2)
in
the estimation of Y.
(cf.
2 Ki.
5* etc.); (3)
in
despite
of Y.
(Bu.);
(4)
with the assistance of Y. the name of some
god
of the chase
having
stood in the
original myth (Gu.)
;
(5)
in the constant
presence
of Y. an allusion to the constellation Orion
(Ho.).
The last view is
possible
in
9b
,
but
hardly
in
a
,
because of the n .i. A sober
exegesis
will
prefer (i)
or
(2).
*
See Del. Par.
51-55;
Schr.
KAT*, 87
f.
;
Wi.
ATU,
146
ff.
; Jen.
ZA,
vi.
340-2
;
Sayce,
ffCM*,
148!?.,
etc.
t
Remnants of this
conquering
race are mentioned
by
Sennacherib
(KIB,
ii.
87). They
are
thought
to be identical with the Kocro-cuoi of the
Greeks
(Strabo,
XI. xiii.
6,
XVI. i.
17 f.; Arrian,
Anab. vii.
15;
Dio-
dorus,
xvii. n
i,
xix.
19, etc.)
;
and
probably
also with the KLtrcrioi of Her.
vii.
62, 86,
etc.
(cf.
v.
49, 52,
vi.
119).
Cf. Del. Par.
31, 124, 127
ff.
;
Mey.
GA
1
, 129;
Wi.
GBA, 78
ff.;
Schr.
KGF, 176
f.
;
Oppert,
ZA,
iii.
421
ff.
; Jen. ZDMG,
1.
244 f.,
etc.
X.
9 209
wished to describe a man as
being
a
great hunter, they
spoke
of him as Mike Nimrod
"
(Dri.).
The
expression
nVT \Js6
doubtless
belongs
to the
proverb
: the
precise
meaning
is obscure
(v.i.).
A
perfectly convincing- Assyriological prototype
of the
figure
of
Nimrod has not as
yet
been discovered. The derivation of the name
from
Marduk,
the
tutelary deity
of the
city
of
Babylon,
first
propounded
by Sayce,
and
adopted
with modifications
by We.,*
still commends
itself to some
Assyriologists (Pinches,
DB,
iii.
552
f.
;
cf. KAT
3
,
581);
but the material
points
of contact between the two
personages
seem too
vague
to establish an instructive
parallel.
The identification with Nazi-
Maruttas",
a late
(c. 1350)
and
apparently
not
very
successful
king-
of the
Kassite
dynasty (Haupt, Hilprecht, Sayce, al.),
is also
unsatisfying
: the
supposition
that that
particular king
was so well known in Palestine as to
eclipse
all his
predecessors,
and take rank as the founder of
Babylonian
civilisation,
is
improbable.
The nearest
analogy
is that of
Gilgames^t
the
legendary tyrant
of Erech
(see
v.
10
),
whose adventures are recorded
in the famous series of Tablets of which the
Deluge story occupies
the eleventh
(see p. 175 above,
and
KAT*, 566 ff.).
Gilgames"
is a true
Gibbor "two
parts deity
and one
part humanity"
he builds the walls
of Erech with forced
labour,
and his
subjects groan
under his
tyranny,
until
they cry
to Aruru to create a rival who
might
draw off some of his
superabundant energy (K1B,
vi.
i, 117, 119). Among
his
exploits,
and
those of his
companion
Ea-bani,
contests with beasts and monsters
figure prominently
;
and he is
supposed
to be the hero so often
repre
sented on seals and
palace-reliefs
in victorious combat with a lion
(see
ATLO
2
,
266
f.).
It is true that the
parallel
is
incomplete;
and
(what
is more
important)
that the name Nimrod remains
unexplained.
The
expectation
that the
phonetic reading
of the
ideographic
G7$. TU. BAR
might prove
to be the Bab.
equivalent
of the Heb.
Nimrod,
would seem
to have been
finally dispelled by
the
discovery (in 1890)
of the correct
pronunciation
as
GilgameS (but
see
Je. I.e.). Still,
enough general
resemblance remains to warrant the belief that the
original
of the
biblical Nimrod
belongs
to the
sphere
of
Babylonian mythology.
A
striking parallel
to the visit of
GilgameS
to his father
Ut-napis*tim
occurs in a late Nimrod
legend, preserved
in the
Syrian
Schatzhohle
(see
Gu.
Schopf. I46
2
;
Lidz.
ZA,
vii.
15).
On the
theory
which con
nects Nimrod with the constellation
Orion,
see Tu. ad loc.
;
Bu.
Urg.
395
f.
; KAT*, 58i
2
;
and on the late
Jewish
and Mohammedan
leg-ends
generally, Seligsohn, JE,
ix.
309
ff.
*
Sayce (TSBA,
ii.
243 ff.)
derived it from the Akkadian
equiva
lent of
Marduk, Amar-ud,
from which he
thought
Nimrudu
would be
a
regular (Ass.) Niphal
form. We.
(Comp.
z
309 f.) explains
the 3
as an
Aram.
impf. preformative
to the
*J inn,
a
corruption
from
Mard-uk which
took
place among
the
Syrians
of
Mesopotamia, through
whom the
myth
reached the Hebrews.
f
So
Smith-Sayce,
Chald. Gen.
i76ff.
; Je. Isdubar-Nimrod.
14
2IO TABLE OF PEOPLES
(j)
10. The nucleus
of
his
empire
was
Babylon
. . . in the
land
of
Shinar\
It is not said that Nimrod founded these
four cities
(ct.
v.
11
).
The lise of the
great
cities of
Baby
lonia was not
only
much older than the Kasite
dynasty,
but
probably preceded
the establishment of
any
central
govern
ment
;
and the
peculiar
form of the
expression
here
may
be
due to a recollection of that fact. Of the four
cities,
two
can be
absolutely
identified;
the third is known
byname,
but cannot be located
;
and the last is
altogether
uncertain.
Sn? (Ba/SuXwi/)]
the Heb. form of the native Bab-ili=<
gate
of God
or the
gods (though
this
may
be
only
a
popular etymology).
The
political supremacy
of the
city,
whose
origin
is
unknown,
dates from the
expulsion
of the Elamites
by Hammurabi,
the sixth
king
of its first
dynasty (c.
2100
B.C.) ;
and for 2000
years
it remained the chief centre
of ancient Oriental civilisation. Its ruins lie on the left bank of the
Euphrates,
about
fifty
miles due S. of
Baghdad.
ip
v
x
( Opex)]
the Bab. Uruk or
Arku,
now
Warka,
also on the
Euphrates,
about 100 miles SE of
Babylon.
It was the
city
of
GilgameS
(v.s.).
nj*
( A/>xa$:
cf.
pyOT
and
ptyzrn)]
The name
(Akkad) frequently
occurs in the
inscriptions, especially
in the
phrase
turner and
Akkad,
=
South and North
Babylonia.
But a
city
of Akkad is also mentioned
by
Nebuchadnezzar I.
(KIB,
iii.
lyoff.), though
its site is uncertain.
Its
identity
with the
Agad
of
Sargon
I.
(c. 3800 B.C.),
which was
formerly suspected,
is said to be confirmed
by
a recent
decipherment.
Del. and Zim.
suppose
that it was close to
Sippar
on the
Euphrates,
in
the latitude of
Baghdad (see
Par.
209
ff.
;
KA T
3
,
422*, 4238 ;
A TLO
2
, 270).
n^>3 (XaXavvTj)]
Not to be confused with the ruSa of Am. 6
2
(
=
^>9,
Is. io
9
),
which was in N
Syria.
The Bab. Kalne has not
yet
been
discovered. Del.
(Par. 225)
takes it to be the
ideogram
Kul-unu
(pro
nounced
Zirlahu],
of a
city
in the
vicinity
of
Babylon.
But
Jen. (ThLz.
1895, 510)
asserts that the real
pronunciation
was
Kullab(a),
and
pro
poses
to read so here
(n^jpii).
yyp (Zev[v~\aa.p)\ apparently
the old Heb. name for
Babylonia proper
(u
2
I4
1 9
, Jos. 7
21
,
Is. n
n
,
Zee.
5",
Dn. i
2
),
afterwards DHBG
pN
or
simply
*?33
[ ].
That it is the same as Sumer
(south Babylonia
:
v.s.)
is
improbable.
More
plausible
is the identification with the
Sanfyar
of TA
Tab.
(KIB,
v.
83)
=
Eg. Sahara (Miiller, AE,
279); though
Wi.
(AOF,
i.
240, 399;
KAT*, 31) puts
it N of the Taurus. &ebel
Singar (6 Z.iy-
70/30$ 6pos
: Ptol. v. 1 8.
2),
W of
Nineveh,
is much too far north for the
biblical Shin
ar,
unless the name had wandered.
IX, 12. The colonisation of
Assyria
from
Babylonia.
11.
HB N
Ny;]
he went out to Asshur
(so &],
Cal. and all
moderns).
The
rendering
Asshur went out
((GrU^JD , Jer. al.)
is
grammatically
X. IO-I2 21 I
From that land he
(Nimrod, v.i.)
went out to
Assyria]
where
he built four new cities. That the
great Assyrian
cities
were not
really
built
by
one
king
or at one
period
is certain
;
nevertheless the statement has a certain historic
value,
inasmuch as the whole
religion,
culture,
and
political organ
isation of
Assyria
were derived from the southern state. It
is also
noteworthy
that the rise of the
Assyrian power
dates
from the decline of
Babylonia
under the Kassite
kings
(KAT*, 21).
In Mic.
5
5
Assyria
is described as the land of
Nimrod.
That "i &
:
N is here the name of the land
(along
the
Tigris,
N of the
Lower
Zab),
and not the ancient
capital (now
KaVat
Serkdt,
about half
way
between the mouths of the two
Zabs),
is
plain
from the
context,
and the contrast to
iy:v
in v.
10
.
*mu] (Ass. Ntnua, Nind,
<&
Nt^em;
[-t])
the foremost
city
of
Assyria,
was a
royal
residence from at latest the time of
As"sur-bel-kalu,
son of
Tiglath-pileser
I.
(nth
cent.);
but did not
apparently
become the
political capital
till the
reign
of Sennacherib
(Wi. GBA, 146).
Its site
is now marked
by
the ruined mounds of Nebl Yunus
(with
a
village
named
Nunia)
and
Kuyunjik,
both on the E side of the
Tigris opposite
Mosul
(see Hilp.
EBL, n,
88-138).
vj; run-)
( Poo>/3tbs TroAti/)]
has in Heb.
appellative significance
=
broad
places
of a
city (U plateas civitatis).
A similar
phrase
on Ass
monuments,
rcbit
Nind,
is understood to mean suburb of Nineveh
;
and it has been
supposed
that
]}
~\ is a translation of this
designation
into
Heb. As to the
position
of this suburb authorities differ. Del.
(Par.
260
f.)
thinks it certain that it was on the N or NE side of
Nineveh,
towards
Dur-Sargon (the
modern
Khorsabad)
;
and
Johns (EB,
iv.
4029)
even identifies it with the latter
(cf.
KIB,
ii.
47). Billerbeck,
on
the other
hand,
places
it at Mosul on the
opposite
side of the
Tigris,
as
a sort of tete du
pont
(see
A TLO
2
, 273).
No
proper
name at all
resembling
this is known in the
neighbourhood
of Nineveh.
nhs
(XaXa%, KaXax)
is the Ass. Kalhu or
Kalah,
which excavations
have
proved
to be the modern
Nimrtid,
at the mouth of the
Upper Zab,
20 miles S of Nineveh
(Hilp.
I.e.
inf.).
Built
by
Shalmaneser I.
(c. 1300),
it
replaced
As"s"ur as the
capital,
but afterwards fell into
decay,
and was restored
by As"ur-nasir-pal (883-59) (KJ,
i.
117)-
From that
time till
Sargon,
it seems to have continued the
royal
residence.
J
en
(Aa<re/i, Aacri;, etc.)] Perhaps
=
Ris-in i
(
fountain-head
),
an
extremely
common
place-name
in Semitic countries
;
but its site is
unknown. A
Syrian
tradition
placed
it at the ruins of
Khorsabad,
a
parasang
above
Nineveh,
where a Ras ul-Ain is said still to be found
correct,
and
gives
a
good
sense
(cf.
Is.
23").
But
(i)
irc to
(v.
10
)
re
quires
an antithesis
(see
on i
1
)
;
and
(2)
in Mic.
5
5
Nimrod is the hero
of
Assyria.
212 TABLE OF PEOPLES
(j)
(G.
Hoffmann in
Nestle, ZDMG,
Iviii.
isSff.)-
This is doubtless the
RiS-ini of Sennacherib
{K1B>
ii.
117);
but its
identity
with
JDI
is
phonetically questionable,
and
topographically impossible,
on account
of the definition between Nineveh and Kelah.
The clause nVlJfl
vyn
Kin is almost
universally,
but
very improbably,
taken to
imply
that the four
places just
enumerated had come to be
regarded
as a
single city.
Schr.
(KAT*, 99 f.)
is
responsible
for the
statement that from the time of Sennacherib the name Nineveh was
extended to include the whole
complex
of cities between the Zab and
the
Tigris
;
but more recent authorities assure us that the monuments
contain no trace of such an idea
(KAT*y
75*;
Gu.
2
78;
cf.
Johns, EB,
3420).
The fabulous dimensions
given by
Diodorus
(ii. 3
;
cf.
Jon. 3
3t
)
must
proceed
on some such notion
;
and it is
possible
that that
mig-ht
have induced a late
interpolator
to insert the sentence here. But if the
words be a
gloss,
it is more
probable
that it
springs
from the nWun
vyn
of
Jn.
i
2
,
which was
put
in the
margin opposite
nij
^,
and
crept
into the
text in the
wrong place (ATLO
2
, 273).*
13, 14.
The sons of Mizraim. These doubtless all
represent parts
or
(supposed)
dependencies
of
Egypt;
although
of the
eight
names not more than two can be
certainly
identified. On
O^V&
=
Egypt,
see v.
6
. Since
Mizraim could
hardly
have been reckoned a son of
Canaan,
the section
(if documentary)
must be an extract from that
Yahwistic source to which
9
18f<
belong (see p.
188
f.).
(1)
D -i&
(A-ovdicifi:
i Ch. i
n
D"-r6)]
Not the
Lydians
of Asia Minor
(A
TLO
2
, 274),
who can
hardly
be
thought
of in this connexion
;
but
(if
the text be
correct)
some unknown
people
of NE Africa
(see
on v.
22
,
p. 206).
The
prevalent
view of recent scholars is that the word is a
mistake for
D^S,
the
Lybians.
See Sta. Ak. Red.
141
; Miiller, AE,
iiSf.
; OLz,
v.
475;
al.
(2)
Q
pjy.
(JUUL
D
ory
;
(&
A/i/-[
Ei
-]e/
u.eTtei,u[V])]
Miiller reads D DJ^ or
(after ffir)
D nDJS
;
i.e. the inhabitants of the Great Oasis of Knmt in the
Libyan
desert
(Wahat el-Kliarigah}.^
For older
conjectures
see Di.
*
With the above
hypothesis,
Schr. s
argument that,
since Nineveh
is here used in the restricted
sense,
the
passage
must be of earlier date
than
Sennacherib,
falls to the
ground.
From the writer s silence
regarding
As"s"ur,
the ancient
capital,
it
may safely
be inferred that he
lived after
1300
;
and from the omission of
Sargon
s new residence Dur-
Sargon,
it is
probable
that he wrote before
722.
But the latter
argument
is not
decisive,
since Kelah and Nineveh
(the only
names that can be
positively identified)
were both
flourishing
cities down to the fall of the
Emp<re.
t OLz. v.
471
ff. It should be
explained
that this dissertation,
frequently
cited
above,
proceeds
on the bold
assumption
that almost
the best known name in the section
(a p"ijri,
14
)
is an
interpolation.
X. I
3, 14
213
(3)
D
?n^ (Aaieijw)] commonly supposed
to be the
Lybians,
the
(31
1
?)
of Nah.
3
9
,
Dn. n
43
,
2 Ch. I2
3
i6
8
, [Ezk. 3
o
5
?].
Miiller thinks it a
variant of
D^
1
?
(i).
(4)
frnnsj
(Ne00aA*ei/i)]
Miiller
proposes
D mns
=
P-to-n-he,
cow-
land,
the name of the Oasis of
Fardfra.
But there is a
strong- pre
sumption that,
as the next name stands for
Upper Egypt,
this will be a
designation
of Lower
Egypt.
So Erman
(ZATIV,
x.
u8f.),
who reads
D nons
=
p-t-mahi,
the
north-land,
at all
periods
the native name of
Lower
Egypt.
More
recently Spiegelberg (OLz.
ix.
276 ff.) recognises
in it an old name of the
Delta,
and reads without textual
change
Na-patfih
=
the
people
of the Delta.
(5)
D
p"ifl9
(IlaT-poo-amet/i)]
the inhabitants of
cin^i? (Is.
n
11
, Jer. 44
1 1C
,
Ezk.
3o
14
),
i.e.
Upper Egypt:
P-to-re$i
=
south-land
(Ass. paturisi):
see
Erman,
I.e.
(6)
D
n^pj
(XcKT/Aajj/iefyi)]
Doubtful
conjectures
in Di. Mtiller restores
with
help
of (3r
c
JDDJ,
which he identifies with the
Nacra^twi/es
of Her. ii.
32,
iv.
172,
182,
190,
a
powerful
tribe of nomad
Lybians,
near the
Oasis of Amon.
Sayce
has read the name Kasluhat on the inscr. of
Ombos
(see
on
Kaphtorim, below)
; Man,
1903,
No.
77.
(7)
D
J-1^9 (4>i>Aicmet/i)]
The Philistines are here
spoken
of as an
offshoot of the
Kasluhim,
a statement
scarcely intelligible
in the
light
of other
passages (Jer. 47"*,
Am.
g
7
;
cf. Dt. 2
23
), according
to which
the Ph. came from
Kaphtor.
The clause B
D3>p
^^
nc>N is therefore in
all
probability
a
marginal gloss
meant to come after nnnaa. The Ph.
are mentioned in the
Eg.
monuments,
under the name
Purasati,
as the
leading people
in a
great
invasion of
Syria
in the
reign
of Ramses ill.
(c. 1175 B.C.).
The invaders came both
by
land and sea from the coasts
of Asia Minor and the islands of the
^gean
;
and the Philistines
established themselves on the S coast of Palestine so
firmly
that,
though
nearly
all traces of their
language
and civilisation have
disappeared,
their name has
clung
to the
country
ever since. See
Miiller, AE,
387-
90,
and
MVAG,
v. 2 ff.
; Moore, EB,
iii.
3713
ff.
(8)
onnfls
(Xa00opiei^)] Kaphtor (Dt. 2,
Am.
9
7
, Jer. 47
4
)
has
usually
been taken for the island of Crete
(see Di.), mainly
because of the
repeated
association of D
rn?
(Cretans?)
with the Philistines and the
Philistine
territory (
i Sa.
3O
14- 16
,
Ezk.
25
16
,
Zeph.
2
5
).
There are con
vincing
reasons for
connecting
it with
Keftiu (properly
the
country
behind
),
an old
Eg.
name for the lands of the Great
Ring (the
Eastern
Mediterranean),
or the isles of the Great
Green,
i.e. SW Asia
Minor, Rhodes, Crete,
and the
Mycenian
lands
beyond,
to the NW of
Egypt (see Miiller, AE, 337, 344-53, 387
ff.
;
and more
fully
H. R. Hall
in Annual
of
the British School at
Athens,
1901-2, pp. 162-6).
The
pre
cise
phonetic equivalent Kptar
has been found on a late mural decora
tion at Ombos
(Sayce,
HCM*, 173;
EHH, 291
; Miiller, MVAG,
1900,
When this cuckoo s
egg
is
ejected,
the author finds that the sons of
Egypt
are all
dependencies
or
foreign possessions,
and are to be
sought
outside the Nile
valley.
The
theory
does not seem to have found much
favour from
Egyptologists
or others.
214
TABLE OF PEOPLES
(j)
5 If.)-
"
Keftiu
is the old
Eg.
name of
Caphtor (Crete), Keptar
a Ptole
maic doublet of
it,
taken over when the
original meaning"
of
Keftiu
had
been
forgotten,
and the name had been
erroneously applied
to Phoenicia
"
(Hall,
Man,
Nov.
1903,
No.
92, p.
162
ff.).
In
OLz.,
M.
questions
the
originality
of the name in this
passage
: so also
Je.
ATLO
2
,
275.*
15-19.
The Canaanites. The
peoples assigned
to the
Canaanitish
group
are
(i)
the Phoenicians
(P^V), (2)
the Hittites
(nn),
and
(3)
a number of
petty
communities
perhaps
summed
up
in the
phrase
VSp-??
ninB^
O
in
18b
. It is
surprising
to
find the
great
northern nation of the Hittites classed as a
subdivision of the Canaanites. The writer
may
be
supposed
to have in view offshoots of that
empire,
which survived, as
small enclaves in Palestine
proper
;
but that
explanation
does not account for the marked
prominence given
to Heth
over the little Canaanite
kingships.
On the other
hand,
one hesitates to
adopt
Gu. s
theory
that
}yjD
is here used in a
wide
geographical
sense as
embracing
the main seats of the
Hittite
empire (p. 187).
There is
evidence, however,
of a
strong
settlement of Hittites near Hermon
(see below),
and
it is conceivable that these were classed as Canaanites and
so inserted here.
Critically,
the vv. are difficult. We.
(Comp^ 15)
and others remove
i6-i8a
as a
g-i
oss
.
because
(a)
the boundaries laid down in
19
are exceeded
in
17- 18a
,
and
(b]
the mention of a
subsequent dispersion
of Canaanites
(
18h
)
has no
meaning
after
16
-
18a
. That is
perhaps
the most reasonable
view to take
;
but even so
18b
does not read
quite naturally
after
1C
;
and
what could have induced a
glossator
to insert four of the most
northerly
Phosnician
cities,
passing by
those best known to the Hebrews? Is it
15. via?]
cf. 22
21
(J).
18.
nnx]
adv. of
time,
as i8
5
24
55
3O
21
etc.
=
I?"iqg:
see
BOB, 2gf.wbj] Niph.
fr.
J pa
;
see on
9
19
: cf. n
4- 8- 9
.
i^?n
nngpo]
can
hardly,
even if the clause be a
gloss,
denote the Phcen.
colonies on the Mediterranean
(Brown, EB,
ii.
1698 f.). 19. H:JK]
as
one comes
(see
G-K.
144/0 might
be taken as in the direction of
(so
Di. Dri.
al.) ;
but there does not
appear
to be
any
clear case in
which the
expression
differs from
5|Ni:riy
=
as far as
(cf.
lo
30
13* 25
18
[all J],
i Sa.
is
7
with
Ju.
6
4
n
33
,
i Sa.
if-,
2 Sa.
5
25
,
i Ki. i8
46
). mxnH]
*
V.
18f>
present
so
many peculiar
features the
regular
use of the
pi.,
the
great preponderance
of
quadriliteral names,
all vocalised alike
that we can
hardly help suspecting
that
they
are a
secondary
addition
to the
Table,
written from
specially
intimate
acquaintance
with the
(later?) Egyptian geography.
X.
is,
i6
215
possible
that the last five names were
originally given
as sons of
Heth,
and the
previous
four as sons of Zidon ?
18b
might
mean that the
Canaanite clans emanated from
Phoenicia,
and were
afterwards
dis
persed
over the
region
defined
by
19
. The
change
from
JiN3
in
1B
to
jyjsn
in
18b- 19
is
hardly
sufficient to
prove diversity
of
authorship (Gu.)
}Ty]
The oldest of the Phoenician cities
;
now
Saida,
nearly 30
miles
S of the
promontory
of Beirut.
Here, however,
the name is the
eponym
of the idonians
(D
:TX),
as the Phoenicians were
frequently
called,
not
only
in OT
(Ju.
i8
7
3
3
,
i Ki.
5
20
i6
31
etc.)
and Homer
(//.
vi.
290 f., etc.),
but on the Ass.
monuments,
and even
by
the Phoenicians themselves
(Mey. EBj
iv.
4504).
nn
(rbv XerTcuW)]
elsewhere
only
in the
phrases
n
}$,
n
nhifi (ch. 23
pass. 25
10
27
46b
49
32
[all P])
;
other writers
speak
of
[D]
nn. The Hittites
(Eg. Heta,
Ass.
ffatti)
were a northern non-Semitic
people,
who under
unknown circumstances established themselves in
Cappadocia. They
appear
to have invaded
Babylonia
at the close of the First
dynasty (c. 1930
B.C.) (King,
Chronicles cone,
early
Bab.
Kings, p. 72 f.).
Not
long
after
the time of Thothmes in.
(1501-1447), they
are found in N
Syria.
With
the
weakening
of the
Eg. supremacy
in the Tel-Amarna
period, they
pressed
further
S, occupying
the Orontes
valley,
and
threatening
the
Phoenician coast- cities. The indecisive
campaigns
of Ramses II. seem to
have checked their southward movement. In Ass. records
they
do not
appear
till the
reign
of
Tiglath-pileser
I.
(c.
1
100),
when
they
seem to have
held the
country
from the Taurus and Orontes to the
Euphrates,
with Car-
chemish as one of their chief
strongholds.
After centuries of intermittent
warfare, they
were
finally incorporated
in the Ass.
Empire by Sargon
n.
(c. 717).
See
Paton, Syr.
and Pal.
104
ff. The OT
allusions to the
Hittites are
extremely confusing,
and cannot be
fully
discussed here :
see on
i5
19
-
21
23
3
. Besides the Palestinian Hittites
(whose
connexion
with the
people just spoken
of
may
be
doubtful),
there is mention of an
extensive Hittite
country
to the N of Palestine
(2
Sa.
24
6
[<K
L
],
I Ki.
lo
29
,
2 Ki.
7
6
al.).
The most
important
fact for the
present
purpose
is
the definite location of Hittites in the Lebanon
region,
or at the foot of
Hermon
(Jos.
n
8
[(S
B
-
a1
-]
and
Ju. 3
3
[as
amended
by Mey. al.]),
cf.
Ju.
i
26
?).
It does not
appear
what
grounds
Moore
(Ju. 82)
has for
the statement that these Hittites were Semitic. There is
certainly
no
justification
for
treating (with Jast. EB,
2094)
nn in this v. as a
gloss.
The four names which follow are names of Canaanitish clans which
constantly
recur in enumerations of the
aborigines
of
Palestine,
and
seldom elsewhere.
(1) on;?]
The clan settled in and around
Jerusalem
:
Jos.
I5
8
iS
28
, Ju.
ig
10
,
2 Sa.
5
6 9
etc.
(2) "PH-I]
An
important politico-geographical
name in the
Egyptian
and cuneiform documents
(Eg. Amor, etc.,
Ass.
Amurru).
In the TA
Tablets the land of Amurru denotes the Lebanon
region
behind the
Phoenician
coast-territory.
Its
princes
Abd-Airta and
Aziru were
then the most active enemies of the
Egyptian authority
in the
north,
conducting
successful
operations against
several of the Phoenician
cities. It has been
supposed
that
subsequently
to these events the
2l6 TABLE OF PEOPLES
(j)
Amorites
pressed
southwards,
and founded
kingdoms
in Palestine both
E and W of the
Jordan (Nu.
2i
13ff>
, Jos. 24** etc.)
;
though
Muller has
pointed
out some difficulties in the
way
of that
hypothesis (AE, 230 f.).
In the OT there
appears
an occasional
tendency
to restrict the name
to
highlanders (Nu. i3
29
,
Dt. i
7
),
but this is more than neutralised
by
other
passages (Ju.
i
34
).
The most
significant
fact is that E
(followed
by D) employs
the term to
designate
the
pre-Israelite
inhabitants of
Palestine
generally (cf.
Am. 2
9f>
),
whom
J
describes as Canaanites.
Apart
from the
assumption
of an actual Amorite
domination,
it is
difficult to
suggest
an
explanation
of E s
usage,
unless we can take it
as a survival of the old Bab. name Amurru
(or
at least its
ideographic
equivalent
MAR.
777)
for
Palestine,
Phoenicia and
Coele-Syria. See,
further, Muller,
AE,
218
ff.,
229 ff.;
Wi.
GI,
i.
51-54,
KA T
3
,
178
ff.
; Mey.
ZATW,
i. 122 ff.
;
We.
Comp* 341 ;
Bu.
Urg. 344
ff.
;
Dri. Deut.
nf.,
Gen.
i25f. ; Sayce,
DB,
i.
84
f.
; Paton, Syr.
and Pal.
25-46, U5ff.,
147
f.;
Mey.
GA\
i. ii.
396.
(3) Ta-i:n] only
mentioned in enumerations
(i5
21
,
Dt.
y
1
, Jos. 3 24",
Neh.
Q
8
)
without indication of
locality.
t?:n:i,
D
WIJ,
s?j")3 occur as
prop.
names on Punic inscrs.
(Lidzbarski,
Nord-sem.
Epigr. 4054,
622
4f., 6733
;
Ephem.
i.
36, 308).
Ewald
conjectured
a connexion with NT
lY/yyeo-a.
(4)
WD
(T. Eucuoi/)]
a tribe of central
Palestine,
in the
neighbourhood
of Shechem
(34
2
)
and Gibeon
(Jos. 9
7
)
;
in
Ju. 3
3
,
where
they
are
spoken
of in the
N,
i?nn
should be
read,
and in
Jos.
n
3
Hittites and Hivvites
should be
transposed
in accordance with (
B
. The name has been
explained by
Ges.
(Th.)
and others as
meaning
dwellers innin
(Bedouin
encampments
: cf. Nu.
32
41
)
;
but that is
improbable
in the case of a
people long
settled in Palestine
(Moore).
We.
(Heid. 154)
more
plausibly
connects it with
njn= serpent (see
on
3
20
), surmising
that the Hivvites
were a snake-clan. Cf.
Lagarde,
OS,
187, 174,
1.
97 (Ewuoi
ovcoXtoi u>s
The
5 remaining
names are formed from names of
cities,
4
in the
extreme N of
Phoenicia,
and the last in
Coele-Syria.
(5) ?"$ ? (*"
P
n
y
n
>
r T-
ApovKcuovJ]
is from the
city "Apicrj
tv
ry At/3dj>y
(Jos.
Ant, i.
138),
the ruins of
which,
still
bearing
the name Tell
Arka,
are
found on the coast about 12 miles NE of
Tripolis.
It is mentioned
by
Thothmes ill.
(in
the form r-ka-n-tu : see
AE, 247 f.),
and in TA letters
(Irkata
:
KIB,
v.
171, etc.)
;
also
by
Shalmaneser II.
(KIB,
i.
173
;
along
with Arvad and
Sianu, below],
and
Tiglath-pileser
IV.
(ib.
ii.
29 ; along
with Simirra and
Sianu).
(6)
ren
(T. Affevvalov)]
inhabitants of
| r p,
Ass. Sianu
{KIB, ll.cc.).
Jer. (Qucest.} says
it was not far from
Arka,
but adds that
only
the name
remained in his
day.
The site is unknown : see
Cooke, EB,
iv.
4644
f.
(7) lyi*? (T. Apddiov)]
Arwad
(Ezk. 27
8> u
)
was the most
northerly
of the Phoenician
cities,
built on a small island
(Strabo,
XVI. ii.
13
;
KIB,
i.
109)
about
35
miles N of
Tripolis (now Ruad).
It is named
frequently,
in connexions which show its
great importance
in ancient
times,
in
Eg.
inscrs.
(AE, i86f.),
on TA
Tab.,
and
by
Ass.
kings
from
Tiglath pileser
I. to
Asshurbanipal (KAT
2
, 104
f.
;
Del. Par.
281);
see
also Her. vii.
98.
X.
17-19,
21
217
(8)
^ovn
(r. 2,afj,apaiov)]
Six miles S of
Ruad,
the modern
village
of
Sumra
preserves
the name of this
city
:
Eg.
Samar; TA,
Sumur
;
Ass.
Simirra;
Gr.
Zt^v/m.
See
Strabo,
xvi. ii.
12; AE,
187; KAT*,
105;
Del. Par. 281 f.
(9)
Dnn
(r. A^ua^O]
from the well-known Hamath on the Orontes
;
now
Ifama.
The delimitation of the Canaanite
boundary
in v.
:9
is
very
obscure.
It describes two sides of a
triangle,
from Zidon on the N to Gaza or
Gerar in the SW
;
and from thence to a
point
near the S end of the
Dead Sea. The terminus
yyh
(( Aatra)
is, however,
unknown. The
traditional identification
(2T-J, Jer.)
with
KaXXippdy,
near the N end of
the Dead
Sea,
is
obviously
unsuitable.
Kittel,
BH
(very improbably),
suggests
y
1
?} (i4
2
).
We.
(Comp.
2
15)
reads
rvy*}
or
c^
1
?
(Jos. i9
47
cvh)
=
to
Dan
(B^),
the conventional northern limit of
Canaan,
thus
completing
the E side of the
triangle.
Gerar were
certainly
further S. than Gaza
(see
on 2O
1
)
;
hence we cannot read as
far
as
(v.i.)
Gerar,
up
to
Gaza,
while the
rendering
in the direction
of
Gerar,
as far as
Gaza,
would
only
be
intelligible
if Gerar were a better known
locality
than Gaza.
Most
probably
njjnjjis
a
gloss (Gu. al.).
On the situation of
Sodom, etc.,
see on ch.
19.
On
any
construction of the v. the northern cities of
17> 18a
are excluded. JUUL has an
entirely
different text : Vrun nrun
iy
D-ISD iruD
pnnn
c\n
nyi
ms
iru,
an
amalgam
of
i5
18
and Dt. n
24
.
21,
24, 25-30.
The Shemites. The
genealogy
of
Shem in
J
resolves itself
entirely
into a classification of the
peoples
whose
origin
was traced to
f
Eber. These fall into
two main branches : the descendants of
Peleg (who
are not
here
enumerated),
and the Yoktanites or S Arabian tribes.
Shem is thus
nothing
more than the
representative
of the
unity
of the
widely
scattered Hebraic stock : Shemite and
Hebrew are convertible terms. This
recognition
of the
ethnological affinity
of the northern and southern Semites is
a remarkable contrast to
P,
who
assigns
the S Arabians to
Ham,
the
family
with which Israel had least desire to be
associated.
ay
is the
eponym
of
Dnriy
(Hebrews),
the name
by
which the Israel
ites are often
designated
in distinction from other
peoples,
down to
the time of Saul*
(see
G-K. 2 b : the
pass,
are cited in
BDB,
s.v.}.
It
is
strange
at first
sight
that while the
nay
:a of v.
21
include all Shemites
known to
J,
the
gentilic
word is
historically
restricted to Israelites.
The
difficulty
is
perhaps
removed
by
the still
disputed,
but now
widely
*
After i Sa. it occurs
only
Dt.
I5
12
, Jer. 34
9- 14
, Jon.
i
9
. But see
the
cogent
criticisms of Weinheimer in
ZATW,
1909, 275 ff.,
who
pro
pounds
the view that Hebrews and Israelites were distinct strata of the
population.
\
2l8 TABLE OF PEOPLES
(j)
accepted, theory
that Habiri in the TA letters is the cuneiform
equiva
lent of the OT
enay.
The
equation presents
no
philological difficulty
:
Ass.
$
often
represents
a
foreign
y ;
and Eerdmans statement
(A
T
Studien,
ii.
64),
that the
sign fya
never stands for
y
(if true)
is
worthless,
for
ffa-za-ki-ya-u
=
wp(n
shows that Ass. a
may
become in OT
*,
and
this is all that it is
necessary
to
prove.
The historical
objections
vanish if the Habiri be
identified,
not with the Israelitish invaders after
the
Exodus,
but with an earlier
immigration
of Semitic nomads into
Palestine,
amongst
whom the ancestors of Israel were included. The
chief
uncertainty
arises from the fact that the
phonetic writing Pfa-bi-ri
occurs
only
in a limited
group
of
letters,
those of Abd-hiba of
Jerusalem (179,
180
[182], 183, 185).
The
ideogram
SA. GAS
(
robbers
)
in other letters is
conjectured
to have the same
value,
but this is not
absolutely
demonstrated.
Assuming
that Wi. and others are
right
in
equating
the
two,
the Habiri are in evidence over the whole
country,
occasionally
as auxiliaries of the
Egyptian government,
but
chiefly
as
its foes. The inference is
very plausible
that
they
were the
roving
Bedouin element of the
population,
as
opposed
to the settled
inhabitants,
presumably
a branch of the
great
Aramaean invasion which was then
overflowing Mesopotamia
and
Syria (see above,
p.
206;
cf. Wi. A
OF,
iii.
90
ff.,
KA r
3
, 196
ff.; Paton,
Syr.
and Pal. in
ff.).
There is thus a
strong probability
that
onny
was
originally
the name of a
group
of
tribes which invaded Palestine in the
I5th
cent.
B.C.,
and that it was
afterwards
applied
to the Israelites as the sole historic survivors of the
immigrants. Etymologically,
the word has
usually
been
interpreted
as
meaning
those from
beyond
the river
(cf. tnjn nay, Jos. 24?*-
14f>
)
;
and
on that
assumption,
the river is
certainly
not the
Tigris (De.),
and
almost
certainly
not the
Jordan (We.
Kau.
Sta.),
but
(in
accordance
with
prevailing tradition)
the "inj of the
OT,
the
Euphrates, beyond
which
lay
Harran,
the
city
whence Abraham set out. Hommel s view
(AHT, 252 fF.)
has no
probability (cf.
Dri.
I39
2
).
The vb.
nay, however,
does not
necessarily
mean to cross
(a stream)
;
it sometimes means
simply
to traverse a
region (Jer.
2
6
)
;
and in this sense
Spiegelberg
has
recently (1907)
revived an attractive
conjecture
of Goldziher
(Mythos,
p. 66),
that
onay
signifies
wanderers nomads
(OLz.
x.
6i8ff.).*
21. The
father of
all the sons
of
*Eber~\
The writer has
apparently
borrowed a
genealogical
list of the descendants
21. It is doubtful if the text is in order.
First,
it is
extremely likely
that the introduction to the section on Shem in
J
would
require
modifica
tion to
prevent
contradiction with v.
22f-
(P).
Then,
the omission of the
logical subj.
to
iV;
is
suspicious.
The Pu. of this vb. never
dispenses
*
In
Egyptian
texts from Thothmes in. to Ramses
IV.,
the word
Apuriu (^ Apriii)
occurs as the name of a
foreign population
in
Egypt
;
and had been identified
by
Chabas with the Hebrews of OT.
The
identification has been
generally discarded,
on
grounds
which seemed
cogent
;
but has
recently
been revived
by
Hommel
(AffT, 259),
and
X.
21, 24
219
of Eber which he was at a loss to connect with the name of
Shem. Hence he avoids the direct assertion that Shem
begat
Eber,
and
bridges
over the
gap by
the
vague
hint
that Shem and Eber stand for the same
ethnological
abstrac
tion. the elder brother
of Yepheth]
The Heb. can mean
nothing
else
(v.i.).
The
difficulty
is to account for the
selection of
Japheth
for
comparison
with
Shem,
the oldest
member of the
family.
Unless the clause be a
gloss,
the
most obvious inference is that the
genealogy
of
Japheth
had
immediately preceded ;
whether because in the Table of
J
the
sequence
of
age
was broken
(Bu. 305 f.),
or because
Japheth
was
really
counted the second son of Noah
(Di.).
The most
satisfactory
solution is
undoubtedly
that of
Gu.,
who finds in the remark an indication that this Table
followed the order: Canaan
Japheth
Shem
(see p. 188).
24
is an
interpolation (based
on 1 1
12
"
14
)
intended to harmonise
J
with P. It cannot be the continuation of
21
as it stands
(since
we have not been informed who
Arpaks
ad
was),
and
still less in the form
suggested
below. It is also
obviously
inconsistent with the
plan
of P s
Table,
which deals with
with the
subj.
nor does the
Hoph.
;
the
Niph.
does so once
(Gn. ly
17
[P])
;
but there the
ellipsis
is
explained by
the
emphasis
which lies on the fact
of birth.
Further,
a wn is
required
as
subj.
of the cl. 1:1 UN. The
impression
is
produced
that
originally
"ay
was
expressly
named as the
son of
Shem,
and that the words ui UN Nin referred to him
(perhaps
ui UN Nin
najrriN
i
1
?; 0261). Considering-
the
importance
of the
name,
the
tautology
is not too harsh. It would then be
hardly possible
to
retain
the clause ui nN
;
and to delete it as a
gloss (although
it has been
pro
posed by
others : see
OH}
I admit to be
difficult,
just
because of the
obscurity
of the
expression.
Nin
DJ]
cf.
4
2S
. man ns
TIN]
U
correctly
fratre J.
majore.
The Mass, accentuation
perhaps
favours the
gram
matically impossible rendering
of
<&.
(d5eX0y
I. roG
/ze^oi/os),
2,
al.
;
which
implies
that
Japheth
was the oldest of Noah s
sons,
a notion
extorted from the
chronology
of n
10
cpd.
with
5
32
7
11
(see
Ra.
IEz.).
It is
equally
inadmissible
(with IEz.)
to take Srun
absolutely (
=
Japheth
the
great).
See Bu.
304
ff.
24. n^srnx]
(
pref.
i
1
?
p pi
(with arguments
which seem
very convincing) by Heyes
(Bib.
u.
Aeg.,
1904, 146 ff.).
In view of the
striking
resemblance to
tyabirt,
and the
new facts
brought
to
light by
the TA
Tablets,
the
hypothesis
certainly
deserves to be reconsidered
(cf. Eerdmans,
I.e.
52
ff.
,
or
Expos., 1909,
ii.
i97
ff
-)-
22O TABLE OF PEOPLES
(j)
nations and not with individual
genealogies (note
also
T?)
instead of
ityn).
25.
The two sons of Eber
represent
the Northern and
Southern Semites
respectively, corresponding roughly
to
Aramaeans and Arabs : we
may compare
with
Jast. (DB,
v.
82
a)
the
customary
division of Arabia into Sd?n
(Syria)
and
Yemen. The older
branch,
to which the Israelites
belonged,
is not traced in detail : we
may
assume that a Yahwistic
genealogy (||
to n
16ff-
[P])
existed,
showing
the descent of
Abraham from
Peleg
;
and from scattered notices
(ig
803-
22
20ff.
25
lff>
etc.)
we can form an idea of the
way
in which
the northern and central districts were
peopled by
that
family
of Hebrews. On
373,
see below. For in his
days
the earth was divided
(
n
jr?
3
)]
a
popular etymology
naturally
suggested by
the
root,
which in Heb.
(as
in Aram. Arab,
etc.) expresses
the idea of division
(cf.
the vb. in Ps.
55
10
, Jb.
38
25
).
There is no
very strong
reason to
suppose
that the
dispersion (sn^D,
2T
J
etc.)
of the Tower of Babel is referred
to
;
it is
possible
that some other tradition
regarding
the
distribution of nations is followed
(e.g. Jub.
viii. 8
ff.),
or
that the allusion is
merely
to the
separation
of the Yoktanites
from their northern kinsmen.
&5
(<a\e/f, 3>aXe7, <J>a\e%)]
as a common noun means watercourse
or artificial canal
(Ass. palgu)
: Is.
so
26
,
Ps. i
3
6s
10
, Jb. 296
etc. Hence
it has been
thought
that the name
originally
denoted some
region
intersected
by irrigating
channels or
canals,
such as
Babylonia
itself.
Of
geographical
identifications there are several which are
sufficiently
plausible
:
Phalga
in
Mesopotamia,
at the
junction
of the Chaboras and
the
Euphrates (Knob.)
;
el-Faljr,
a district in NE Arabia near the head
of the Persian Gulf
(Lag.
Or. ii.
50)
;
el-Aflag,
S of Gebel Tuwaik in
central Arabia
(Homm.
AA,
222
2
).
ji?i?; ( leKTav}]
otherwise
unknown,
is derived
by
Fleischer
(Goldz.
Mythos,
p. 67)
from
^
katana
=
l
be settled. The Arab
genealogists
identified him with
Kahtdn,
the
legendary
ancestor of a real
tribe,
who
was
(or
came to
be) regarded
as the founder of the Yemenite Arabs
(Margoliouth, DB,
ii.
743).
On the modern stock of
el-Kahtan,
and its
sinister
reputation
in the more
northerly parts
of the
Peninsula,
see
Doughty,
Arab. Des. \.
129, 229,
282, 343, 389, 418,
ii.
39
ff., 437.
26-30.
The sons of Yoktan number
13,
but in
(f
(see
on
25. nV;]
joxffi-
n
1
?
;
but D :n
*$
is
possibly
ace. after
pass,
as
4
18
etc.
(G-K.
121
a, b)
vn
irnn] similarly
22
21
(J).
26. Some
MSS
have
JTiDisn,
as if
=
court of death.
X.
25-28
221
below) only
12,
which
may
be the
original
number.
The few names that can be
satisfactorily
identified
(Sheleph,
Hazarmaiveth, Sheba>
Havilah) point
to S Arabia as the
home of these tribes.
(1) TiiD^N ( EXjttuSad)]
unknown. The *?*< is
variously explained
as
the Ar. art.
(but
this is not
Sabaean),
as El=
God,
and as dl=
family
;
and mio as a derivative of the vb. for love
(ivadda), equivalent
to Heb. TT
(Wi.
MVAG,
vi.
169)
;
cf.
Glaser, Skizze,
ii.
425
; DB,
i.
67.
(2) *\h$ (2aXe0)]
A Yemenite tribe or district named on Sabasan
inscrs.,
and also
by
Arab,
geographers
: see Homm. SA Chrest.
70 ;
Osiander in
ZDMG,
xi.
153
ff., perhaps
identical with the
Salapeni
of Roman writers.
Cognate place-names
are said to be still common in S Arabia
(Glaser).
(3) "ISl^n ( A.crap/m.wd)]
The modern
province
of
Pfadramaut,
on the S
coast,
E of Yemen. The name
appears
in Sabsean inscrs. of
5th
and 6th
cent.
A.D.,
and is
slightly disguised
in the
Xar/m/Aamrcu
of Strabo
(xvi.
iv.
2),
the Chatramotitce
of
Pliny,
vi.
154 (Atramifce,
vi.
155,
xii.
52?).
(4)
n
"3.) ( IctpaS)]
uncertain. The
attempts
at identification
proceed
on
the
appellative
sense of the word
(=
moon
),
but are devoid of
plausi
bility (see Di.).
(5) DTnq (.ux
Dim,
(Or
Odoppa)]
likewise unknown. A
place
called
Dauram close to San a has been
suggested
: the name is found in
Sabsean
(Glaser, 426, 435).
(6) *?JIN (JUA
*?rN,
(&
At
fTjX)]
mentioned
by
Ezk.
(27
19
: rd.
*?riNp)
as a
place
whence iron and
spices
were
procured.
It is
commonly
taken to
be the same as
Azal,
which Arab, tradition declares to be the old name
of
Sana,
now the
capital
of Yemen. Glaser
(310, 427, 434, etc.) disputes
the
tradition,
and locates Ozal in the
neighbourhood
of Medina.*
(7)
n
^7
T
)
(Ae/cXa)]
Probably
the Ar. and Aram, word
(dakal, N^pi,
for
date-palm,
and therefore the name of some noted
palm-bearing
oasis of Arabia. Glaser
(MVAG, 1897, 438)
and Hommel
(AA,
282
f.)
identify
it with the QOLVLKUV of
Procopius,
and the modern
Gof
es-Sirhdn
t
30
NL
(as
far N as the head of the Red
Sea).
(8) Sjij; (JUA
and i Ch. i
22
^yil,
(5i
L
Fcu/SaX)] supposed
to be the word
Abil,
a
frequent geographical
name in Yemen
(Glaser, 427).
The name
is omitted
by many
MSS of
(,
also
by
(
B
in i Ch. i
22
(see Nestle,
MM, 10),
where some Heb. MSS and j have
^3iy.
(9)
^NC SN
( A/StjueT/X)] apparently
a tribal name
(
=
father is God
),
of
genuine
Sabsean formation
(cf. infiyDnN, ZDMG,
xxxvii.
18),
not hitherto
identified.
*
In view of the
uncertainty
of the last three
names,
it is
worthy
of
attention that the account of
Asshurbanipal
s
expedition against
the
Nabatseans
(KIB,
ii.
221) mentions,
in close
conjunction,
three
places,
Hurarina, Yarki,
and
Azalla,
which could
not,
of
course,
be as far S as
Yemen,
but
might
be as far as the
region
of Medina. In
spite
of the
phonetic
differences,
the resemblance to
Hadoram, Yerah,
and Ozal is
noteworthy.
See, however, Glaser,
273
ff.,
309
ff.
222 TABLE OF PEOPLES
(j)
(10) Nrrf]
see on v.
7
(p. 203).
The
general
connexion
suggests
that
the Sabseans are
already
established in Yemen
;
although,
if Uzal be as
far N as
Medina,
the inference is
perhaps
not
quite
certain.
(u)
nfjiN
(Oi70/>)]
known to the Israelites as a
gold-producing
country (Is. I3
12
,
Ps.
45", Jb.
22 28
16
,
i Ch. 2
9
4
[Sir. 7
18
]),
visited
by
the
ships
of Solomon and
Hiram,
which
brought
home not
only gold
and
silver and
precious
stones,
but
almug-wood, ivory, apes
and
(?) peacocks
(i
Ki.
9
28
lo
11 - 22
;
cf. 22
49
).
Whether this
familiarity
with the name
implies
a clear notion of its
geographical position may
be
questioned ;
but it can
hardly
be doubted that the author of the Yahwistic Table
believed it to be in Arabia
;
and
although
no name at all
resembling
Ophir
has as
yet
been discovered in
Arabia,
that remains the most
probable
view
(see
Glaser, Skizze,
ii.
357-83).
Of other
identifications
the most
important
are : Abhira in
India,
E of the mouths of the Indus
(Lassen); (2)
the Sofala coast
(opposite Madagascar),
behind which
remains of extensive
gold-diggings
were discovered around Zimbabwe
in
1871
: the
ruins, however,
have now been
proved
to be of native
African
origin,
and not older than the
i4th
or
i5th
cent. A.D.
(see
D.
Randall-Maciver,
Mediceval Rhodesia
[1906])
;
(3) Apir(originally Hapir\
an old name for the
ruling
race in
Elam,
and for the coast of the
Persian Gulf around Bushire
(see
Homm.
AHT, 236* ;
Hiising, OLz,
vi.
367
ff.
; Jen. ZDMG,
1.
246).
If we could
suppose
the name transferred
to the
opposite (Arabian)
coast of the
gulf,
this
hypothesis
would
satisfy
the condition
required by
this
passage,
and would
agree
in
particular
with Glaser s localisation. For a
discussion of the various
theories,
see the excellent
summary by
Che. in
EB,
Hi.
3513
ff.
; Price,
DB,
iii. 626 ff.
;
and Dri. Gen? xxvi.
f., 131.
(12) n^iq]
see
p.
202.
(13) yy? ( Iw/3a/3)]
unknown.
Halevy
and Glaser
(ii. 303) compare
the Sabaean name Yuhaibab.
The limits
(probably
from N to
S)
of the
Yoktanite
territory
are
specified
in v.
30
;
but a
satisfactory explanation
is
impossible owing-
to
the
uncertainty
of the three names mentioned in it
(Di.).
N^P
(Mcwo-Tje)
has been
supposed
to be Mesene
(^
. Vn.
Maisan],
within the Delta of
the
Euphrates-Tigris
(Ges.
Th.
823; Tu.);
but the
antiquity
of this
name is not established.
Di.,
following
(3r,
reads
N^D (see
on
25
14
)
in
N Arabia.
This as northern limit would
just
include
Diklah,
if
Glaser s
identification,
given above,
be correct.
rn$p (Sw^Tj/m)
is
generally
acknowledged
to be
%afar
in the S of Arabia. There were
two
places
of the name : one in the interior of
Yemen,
N of Aden
;
the
other
(now pronounced Isjar
or
Isfar]
on the coast of
Mahra,
near
Mirbat.
The latter was the
capital
of the
Himyarite kings (Ges.
Th.
968
; DB,
iv.
437
; EB,
iv.
4370).
Which of the two is here meant is
a matter of little
consequence. Dij-jn nn]
It is difficult to
say
whether
this is an
apposition
to
D^ID (Tu. al.),
or a definition of
nso,
or is a
continuation
of the line
beyond
12D. On the first view the
*
mountain
might
be the
highlands
of central Arabia
(Negd)
;
the second is recom
mended
by
the fact that the eastern Zafar lies at the foot of a
high
mountain,
well
adapted
to serve as a landmark. The third view is not
X.
28-30,
XI.
1-9
223
assisted
by rendering-
n3.va in the direction of
(see
on v.
19
)
;
for in
any
case Zafar must have been the terminus in a southern direction. The
commonly
received
opinion
is that
mpn
in is the name of the Frank
incense Mountain between Hadramaut and Mahra
(see Di.).
XI.
1-9.
The Tower
of
Babel
(J).
A
mythical
or
legendary
account of the
breaking- up
of
the
primitive unity
of mankind into
separate communities,
distinguished
and isolated
by
differences of
language.
The
story
reflects at the same time the
impression
made on
Semitic nomads
by
the
imposing
monuments of
Babylonian
civilisation. To such
stupendous undertakings only
an
undivided
humanity
could have addressed
itself;
and the
existing
disunitedness of the race is a divine
judgement
on
the
presumptuous impiety
which
inspired
these
early
mani
festations of human
genius
and
enterprise.
Gu. has
apparently
succeeded in
disentangling
1
two distinct but
kindred
legends,
which are both Yahwistic
(cf. mrr,
vv.
5 6- s> 9 - y
),
and
have been blended with remarkable skill. One has
crystallised
round
the name
Babel,
and its
leading
motive is the
"
confusion
"
of
tongues
;
the other around the
memory
of some ruined
tower,
which tradition
connected with the
"
dispersion
"
of the race. Gu. s division will be
best exhibited
by
the
following
continuous translations :
A. The Babel-Recension :
(
l
)And
B. The
Tower-Recension: . . .
it
was,
when all the earth had one
(
2
)
And when
they
broke
up from
speech
and one
vocabulary, (
3a
)
that the
East,
they found
a
plain
in the
they
said to one
another,
Come ! Let land
of
Shin
ar,
and settled there,
us make bricks and burn them
[And they said,
Let us
build] (
4a l)
)
thoroughly. (**<>, y]
And
they
said,
a
tower,
with its
top reaching
to
Come! Let us build Tts a
city,
and
heaven,
lest we
disperse
over the
make ourselves a name.
(
6aa
)
And
face of
the whole earth.
(
3b
)
And
Yahwe
said,
Behold it is one
people, they
had brick
for
stone and
asphalt
and all
of
one
language. (
7
)
Come I
for
mortar.
(
5
)
And Yahwe came
Let us
go
down and
confound
there down to see the tower which the
their
language,
so that
they may
sons
of
men had built.
[And
He
not understand one another s
speech,
said . .
.] (
6a b
)
and this is but the
(
8b
)
and that
they may
cease to build
beginning of
iheir
enterprise ;
and
the
city. (
9a
) Therefore
is its name now
nothing
will be
impracticable
called Babel
(Confusion), for
to them which
they purpose
to
do.
there Yahwe
confused
the
speech (
8a
)
So Yahwe scattered them over
of
the whole earth the
face of
the whole earth.
[?There-
fore the name of the tower was
called Piz
(Dispersion), for] (
9b
)
from
thence Yahwe
dispersed
them
over the
face of
the whole
earth.
224
THE TOWER OF BABEL
(j)
It is
extremely
difficult to arrive at a final verdict on the soundness
of this acute
analysis
;
but on the whole it
justifies
itself
by
the readiness
with which the various motives assort themselves in two
parallel
series.
Its weak
point
is no doubt the awkward
duplicate (^
II
9b
)
with which
B closes. Gu. s bold
conjecture
that between the two there was an
etymological play
on the name of the tower
(f?
or
ps) certainly
removes the
objection
;
but the omission of so
important
an item of the
tradition is itself a
thing
not
easily
accounted for.*
Against this,
however,
we have to set the
following-
considerations : the absence of
demonstrable lacunas in
A,
and their
infrequency
even in B
;
the facts
that
only
a
single phrase (] Tj?rrn$
in v.
5
) requires
to be deleted as
redactional,
and there is
only
one
transposition (
3b
)
;
and the
facility
with which
nearly
all the numerous doublets
(
3a
II
3b
;
4a
V
||
">
;
-rn
(5)
|j
rn-y (
7
)
;
6a
<*> II
6a
V
b
;
*
II
8a
+
9b
)
can be
definitely assigned
to the one recension
or the other. In
particular,
it resolves the
difficulty presented by
the
twofold descent of Yahwe in
5
and
7
,
from which
far-reaching
critical
consequences
had
already
been deduced
(see the
notes).
There are
perhaps
some
points
of
style,
and some
general
differences of
conception
between the two
strata,
which
go
to confirm the
hypothesis
;
but these
also
may
be reserved for the notes.
The
section,
whether
simple
or
composite,
is
independent
of the
Ethnographic
Table of ch.
10,
and is indeed
fundamentally
irreconcil
able with it. There the
origin
of
peoples
is conceived as the result of
the natural increase and
partition
of the
family,
and
variety
of
speech
as its inevitable concomitant
(cf.
Drue?
1
?
1
?, etc.,
in
P,
io
5> 20> 31
). Here,
on
the
contrary,
the division is caused
by
a sudden
interposition
of Yahwe
;
and it is almost
impossible
to think that either a confusion of
tongues
or
a violent
dispersion
should follow
genealogical
lines of
cleavage.
It is
plausible, therefore,
to
assign
the
passage
to that section of
J (if
there
be
one)
which has neither a Flood-tradition nor a Table of Nations
(so
We. Bu. Sta.
al.)
; although
it must be said that the idea here is little
less at variance with the classification
by professions
of
4
20 22
than with
ch. 10. The truth is that the
inconsistency
is not of such a kind as
would
necessarily
hinder a collector of traditions from
putting
the two in
historical
sequence.
1-4.
The
Building
of the
City
and the Tower.
(Compare
the translation
given above.)
I,
2. The
expres-
I. vn is not verbal
pred.
to
pN.T73,
but
merely
introduces the
circumstantial
sent.,
as in
15" 42
35
etc.
(Dav. 141
and J?.
1
).
Such
a sent, is
usually
followed
by
n-im,
but see i Ki.
132.
It
may certainly
be doubted if it could be followed
by
another \TI with inf. cl.
(v.
2
)
;
and
this
may
be reckoned a
point
in favour of Gu. s
analysis.
If there be
any
distinction between
n$y
and
nnrn,
the former
may
refer to the
*
In
Jub.
x.
26,
the name of the
tower,
as distinct from the
city,
is
"
Overthrow
"
XI.
1-3
225
sion
suggests
that in A mankind is
already spread
far and
wide over the
earth,
though forming
one
great
nation
(DP,
v.
6
),
united
by
a common
language.
In
B,
on the other
hand,
it is still a
body
of
nomads, moving
all
together
in
search of a habitation
(v.
2
;
cf.
rnxn
\J3,
v.
5
).
broke
up from
the
East\
v.i. a
plain]
the
Euphrates-Tigris valley
;
where
Babylon
iceerai tv 7reSio>
/xeyaXw (Her.
i.
178).
the land
of
Shirt
ar\
see on io
10
.
3a.
With
great
naivete",
the
(city-)
legend
describes first the invention of
bricks,
and then
(v.
4
)
as an
afterthought
the
project
of
building
with them. The
bilingual Babylonian
account of creation
(see p. 47 above)
speaks
of a time when
"
no brick was
laid,
no brick-mould
(nalbantu]
formed": see
KIB,
vi.
i,
38
f.,
360. 3b
shows
that the
legend
has taken
shape amongst
a
people
familiar
with
stone-masonry. Comp.
the construction of the walls
of
Babylon
as described
by
Her.
(i. 179).*
The
accuracy
pronunciation
and the latter to the
vocabulary (Di.),
or
(Gu.)
r
v to
language
as a
whole,
and ~\ to its individual elements. D
iny
on;n]
4
a
single
set of vocables
;
<&
t^uvT] /xta (
+ 7ra<nf
=
0^,
as v.
6
).
Else
where
(ay
44
29
20
[with DV?;])
DHHN means
single
in the sense of few
;
in Ezk.
37
17
the text is uncertain
(see Co.).
On the
juxtaposition
of
subj.
and
pred.
in the nom.
sent.,
see Dav.
29 (e}.-~
2.
Q-ij?.
1
?
oypj?]
rendered as above
by
(ErUj?^- .
Nearly
all moderns
prefer
as
they
wandered in the east or eastward
;
justifying-
the translation
by
I3
11
,
which is the
only place
where
onpD
means eastward with a vb. of
motion. That
pD
never means from the east is at least a
hazardous
assertion in view of Is. 2
6
g
11
. yoj
(cf.
Ass.
nisti, remove, depart,
etc.)
is a nomadic
term, meaning pluck up [tent-pegs] (Is. 33
20
) ;
hence break
up
the
camp
or start on a
journey (Gn. 33
12
35
5>16<21
37
17
etc.)
; and,
with the
possible exception
of
Jer. 3I
23
(but
not
Gn. I2
9
),
there is no case where this
primary
idea is lost
sight
of.
Being essentially
a vb. of
departure,
it is more
naturally
followed
by
a determination of the
starting-point
than of the direction or the
goal
(but
see
33
17
) ;
and there is no
difficulty
whatever in the
assumption
that the cradle of the race was further E than
Babylonia (see
2
s
;
and
cf. Sta. Ak. Red.
246,
and n.
43). nyp?] (Syr. A^n^,
Ar. bak
at)
in
usage,
a
wide,
open valley,
or
plain (Dt. 34
3
,
Zech. i2
n
,
Is.
40*,
etc.).
The derivation from
^/ ypn,
split,
is
questioned by
Barth
(ES, 2),
but is
probable
nevertheless.
3. nan] impve.
of
*J 3,T,
used
interjectionally (G-K. 690),
as in vv.
4- 7-
38
16
,
Ex. i
10
(all
J),
is
given
by
Gu. as a
stylistic
mark of the recension A
(J
e
?).
Contr. the
*
Cf.
Jos.
c.
Ap.
i.
139, 149;
Diod. ii.
9; Pliny,
HN
y
xxxv.
51.
15
226 THE TOWER OF BABEL
(j)
oi the notice is confirmed
by
the excavated remains of Bab.
houses and
temples
(A
TLO
2
,
279) 4.
With its
top reaching
to
heaven]
The
expression
is not
hyperbolical (as
Dt. i
28
),
but
represents
the serious
purpose
of the builders to raise
their work to the
height
of the
dwelling-place
of the
gods
(Jub.
x.
19, etc.).
The most
conspicuous
feature of a Bab.
sanctuary
was its
aikkurat,
a
huge pyramidal
tower
rising-,
often in
7
terraces,
from the centre
of the
temple
area,
and crowned with a shrine at the
top (Her.
i.
181 f. : see
Jast. RBA,
615-22).
These structures
appear
to have
embodied a
half-cosmical, half-religious symbolism
: the
7
stories
represented
the
7 planetary
deities as mediators between heaven and
earth
;
the ascent of the tower was a meritorious
approach
to the
gods
;
and the summit was
regarded
as the entrance to heaven
(KAT*,
6i6f.
;
ATLO
2
,
52 f.,
281
f.).
Hence it is
probably something
more
than mere
hyperbole
when it is said of these zikkurats that the
top
was
made to reach heaven
(see p.
228 f.
below)
; and,
on the other
hand,
the
resemblance between the
language
of the inscrs. and that of Genesis
is too
striking
to be dismissed as accidental. That the tower of
Gn. 1 1 is a Bab. zikkurat is obvious on
every ground
;
and we
may
readily suppose
that a faint echo of the
religious
ideas
just spoken
of
is
preserved
in the
legend ;
although
to the
purer
faith of the Hebrews
it savoured
only
of human
pride
and
presumption.
The idea of
storming
heaven and
making
war on the
gods,
which is
suggested
by
some late forms of the
legend (cf.
Horn. Od. xi.
313 ff.),
is no doubt
foreign
to the
passage.
4b.
Lest we
disperse]
The tower was to be at once a
symbol
of the
unity
of the
race,
and a centre and
rallying-
point,
visible all over the earth
(IEz.).
The idea is missed
by (SU
and
5
J
,
which render ere we be
dispersed.
verbal use
29
21
3O
1
(both E), 47,
and
pi. (inn) 47
16
,
Dt. t
18
32*,
Jos.
i8
4
. On the
whole,
the two uses are characteristic of
J
and E
respectively;
see Holz. Einl.
98
f. D
J3^> n^?
1
?:]
Ex.
5
7 * 14
. So in Ass.
labdnu libittu
(KIB,
ii.
48,
etc.
), although
libittu is used
only
of the
wwburned,
sun-dried brick. See No.
ZDMG,
xxxvi. 181
; Hoffmann,
ZATW,
ii.
70. ngifrb]
dat. of
product (Di.);
iff
=
burnt mass
(cf.
Dt.
29^,
Jer. 5i
2B
)._-icn (14,
Ex. 2
3
)]
the native Heb. name for bitumen
(see
on
6
{4
). ih] (note
the
play
on
words)
is
strictly clay,
used in Palestine
as
mortar.
4.
c:s
;
3
it?K-ii]
5
of
contact,
as in
3 yjj
(De.).
Dp
n
^jyi]
acquire
lasting
renown
;
cf. 2 Sa. 8
18
, Jer. 32
20
,
Neh.
9.
The
suggestion
that
D2> here has the sense of
monument, though
defended
by
De.
Bud.
(Urg. 375
>2
),
al.
(cf. Sieg.-St. s.v.),
has no sufficient
justification
in
usage.
In Is.
55
13
s6
5
(cf.
2 Sa. i8
18
),
as well as the amended text of 2 Sa 8
13
XI.
4-9
227
5-Q.
Yahwe s
Interposition.
The
turning-point
in the
development
of the
story
occurs at vv.
6- 6
,
where the descent
of Yahwe is twice
mentioned,
in a
way
which shows some
discontinuity
of narration. On heaven as the
dwelling-
place
of
Yahwe,
cf. 28
12f
-,
Ex.
ig
11 - 20
34* 24,
i Ki. 22
19
,
2 Ki. 2
11
;
and with v.
5
cf. i8
21
,
Ex.
3
8
.
On the
assumption
of the
unity
of the
passage,
the conclusion of
Sta.
(Ak.
Red.
274 ff.)
seems unavoidable: that a
highly
dramatic
polytheistic
recension has here been toned down
by
the omission of
some of its most characteristic incidents. In v.
8
the name Yahwe
has been substituted for that of some
envoy
of the
gods
sent down to
inspect
the latest human
enterprise
;
v.
6
is his
report
to the
heavenly
council on his return
;
and v.
7
the
plan
of action he recommends to
his fellow immortals. The main
objection
to this
ingenious
solution is
that it
involves,
almost
necessarily,
a
process
of conscious
literary
manipulation,
such as no Heb. writer is
likely
to have bestowed on a
document so saturated with
pagan theology
as the
supposed
Bab.
original
must have been. It is more natural to believe that the
elimination of
polytheistic representations
was effected in the course of
oral
transmission,
through
the
spontaneous
action of the Hebrew mind
controlled
by
its
spiritual
faith. On Gu. s
theory
the
difficulty disappears.
6.
This is but the
beginning,
etc.]
The reference is not
merely
to the
completion
of the
tower,
but to other enter
prises
which
might
be undertaken in the future.
9.
Babet\
(JSi
rightly
2
v<yxycri<$
;
v.i.
(see
Dri. Sam.
217 f.),
the
ordinary
sense suffices.
psj]
the
word,
ace.
to
Gu.,
is distinctive of the recension B : cf. vv.
8a>9b
. 6. ui IHK
oy
jn]
incomplete interjectional
sent.
(G-K. 147 b). nis^S
D^np nj]
lit. this
is their
beginning
to act. On the
pointing nn,
see G-K.
67
w.
5_ijf^ N<>]
imitated in
Jb. 42*. -120]
lit. be inaccessible
(cf.
Is. 22
10
,
Jer. si
63
);
hence
impracticable. ID];]
contr. for
lai; (G-K. %6
t
jdd].
7.
ui
.ITU]
(5r
retains the
pi.
in
spite
of the
alleged reading
in
Mechilta nSaw .TTIN
(see p. 14 above). n^3,j] (see
last
note)
: fr.
*]
^3
=
mix
(not
divide,
as
&
[._\.21J]).
*6
n^]
G-K.
165
5.
yop]
=
understand :
42
23
,
Dt. 2S
49
,
Is.
33, Jer. 5
15
etc. 8. It is
perhaps
better,
if a distinction of sources is
recognised,
to
point
iVnfl^ (juss.
of
purpose
: G-K.
109 f), continuing
the direct address of
7b
.
ryn]
AM.
pr. n,
and
(with <)
adds Snaon-nw.
9. K-JJJ]
one called
(G-K.
144 d).
*?2?]
mixture or confusion. The name is
obviously
treated as a
contraction from
*?3^3,
a form not found in
Heb.,
but
occurring
in
Aram.
(cf.
&
v.
9
,
and E v.
7
)
and Arab. On the Bab.
etymology
of
the
name,
see io
10
.
Qb.
m.T]
<& + b 0e6s.
228 THE TOWER OF BABEL
(j)
Origin
and
Diffusion of
the
Legends.
r. The double
legend
is a
product
of naive reflexion on such facts
of
experience
as the
disunity
of
mankind,
its want of a common
language,
and its
consequent inability
to bend its united
energies
to
the
accomplishment
of some
enduring
memorial of human
greatness.
The contrast between this condition of
things
and the ideal
unity
of
the race at its
origin
haunted the mind with a sense of fate and dis
comfiture,
and
prompted
the
questions,
When,
and
where,
and for
what
reason,
was this doom
imposed
on men ? The answer
naturally
assumed the
legendary
form,
the concrete features of the
representation
being supplied by
two vivid
impressions produced by
the achievements
of civilisation in its most ancient centre in
Babylonia.
On one hand
the
city
of
Babylon
itself,
with its mixture of
languages,
its cosmo
politan population,
and its
proud
boast of
antiquity, suggested
the
idea that here was the
very
fountainhead of the confusion of
tongues
;
and this
idea, wrapped up
in a
popular etymology
of the name of the
city,
formed the nucleus of the first of the two
legends
contained in
the
passage.
On the other
hand,
the
spectacle
of some ruined or un
finished
Temple-tower (zikkurat],
built
by
a vast
expenditure
of human
toil,
and
reported
to
symbolise
the ascent to heaven
(p. 226), appealed
to the
imagination
of the nomads as a
god-defying
work, obviously
intended to serve as a landmark and
rallying-point
for the whole human
race. In each case mankind had measured its
strength against
the
decree of the
gods
above
;
and the
gods
had taken their
revenge by
reducing
mankind to the condition of
impotent
disunion in which it
now is.
It is evident that ideas of this order did not emanate from the
official
religion
of
Babylonia. They originated
rather in the
unsophisti
cated
reasoning
of nomadic Semites who had
penetrated
into the
country,
and formed their own notions about the wonders
they
beheld
there: the
etymology
of the name Babel
(
=
Balbet) suggests
an
Aramaean
origin (Ch. Gu.).
The stories travelled from land to
land,
till
they
reached
Israel, where,
divested of their cruder
polytheistic
elements, they
became the vehicle of an
impressive
lesson on the
folly
of human
pride,
and the
supremacy
of Yahwe in the affairs of men.
It is of
quite secondary
interest to determine which of the numerous
Babylonian
zikkurats
gave
rise to the
legend
of the
Dispersion.
The
most famous of these edifices were those of
E-sagil,
the
temple
of Mar-
duk in
Babylon,*
and of
E-zida,
the
temple
of Nebo at
Borsippa
on the
opposite
bank of the river
(see
Tiele, ZA,
ii.
179-190).
The former
bore the
(Sumerian)
name E-temen-an-ki
(
=
house of the foundations of
heaven and earth
).
It was restored
by Nabo-polassar,
who
says
that
before him it had become
"dilapidated
and
ruined,"
and that he was
commanded
by
Marduk to
"
lay
its foundations firm in the breast of the
underworld,
and make its
top equal
to heaven"
(KIB,
iii. 2.
5).
The
*
On its
recently
discovered
site,
see
Langdon, Expos.
, 1909,
ii.
p. 91
ff.
XI.
1-9
229
latter
expression
recurs in an inscr. of Nebuchadnezzar
(BA,
iii.
548)
with reference to the same
zikkurat,
and is
thought by
Gu.
(
2
86)
to
have been characteristic of E-temen-an-ki
;
but that is
doubtful,
since
similar
language
is used
by Tiglath-pileser
I. of the towers of the
temple
of Anu and
Ramman,
which had been allowed to fall
gradually
into
disrepair
for
641 years
before his time
(KIB,
i.
43).
The zikkurat
of E-zida was called E-ur-imin-an-ki
(
(
house of the seven
stages (?)
of
heaven and earth
)
;
its restorer Nebuchadnezzar tells
us,
in an inscr.
found at its four
corners,
that it had been built
by
a former
king,
and
raised to a
height
of
42
cubits
;
its
top,
however,
had not been set
up,
and it had fallen into
disrepair (KIB,
iii. 2.
53, 55).
The
temple
of
Borsippa
is entombed in Birs Nimrud a
huge
ruined mound still
rising
153
feet above the
plain (see
Hil.
EBL, 13, 30 f.)
which local
(and
Jewish)
tradition identifies with the tower of Gn. ir. This view has
been
accepted by many
modern scholars
(see
EB,
i.
412), by
others
it is
rejected
in favour of
E-temen-an-ki,
chiefly
because E-zida was not
in but
only
near
Babylon.
But if the two narratives are
separated,
there is
nothing
to connect the tower
specially
with the
city
of
Babylon
;
and it would seem to be
mainly
a
question
which of the two was the
more
imposing
ruin at the time when the
legend originated.
It is
pos
sible that neither was meant. At Uru
(Ur
of the
Chaldees)
there was
a smaller zikkurat
(about 70
feet
high)
of the
moon-god Sin,
dating
from the time of Ur-bau
(c. 2700 B.C.)
and his son
Dungi,
which Nabu-
na id tells us he rebuilt on the old foundation "with
asphalt
and bricks
"
(KIB,
iii. 2.
95;
EBL,
i73ff.).
The notice is
interesting, because,
according
to one
tradition,
which is no doubt
ancient,
though
it cannot
be
proved
to be
Yahwistic,
this
city
was the
starting-point
of the Hebrew
migration (see
below,
p. 239).
If it was believed that the ancestors of
the Hebrews came from
Ur,
it
may very
well have been the zikkurat
of that
place
which
figured
in their tradition as the Tower of the
Dispersion.
2. In
regard
to its
religious content,
the narrative
occupies
the same
standpoint
as
3
20> 22
and 6
1 3
. Its central idea is the effort of the
restless,
scheming, soaring
human mind to transcend its
divinely appointed
limitations: it
"emphasises
Yahwe s
supremacy
over the
world;
it
teaches how the self-exaltation of man is checked
by
God
;
and it shows
how the distribution of mankind into
nations,
and
diversity
of
language,
are elements in His
providential plan
for the
development
and
progress
of
humanity
"
(Dri.).
The
pagan
notion of the
envy
of the
gods,
their
fear lest human
greatness
should subvert the order of the
world,
no
doubt
emerges
in a more
pronounced
form than in
any
other
passage.
Yet the essential
conception
is not mere
paganism,
but finds an obvious
point
of contact in one
aspect
of the
prophetic theology
: see Is. 2
12 17
.
To
say
that the narrative is
totally
devoid of
religious significance
for
us is therefore to
depreciate
the value for modern life of the OT
thought
of
God,
as well as to evince a lack of
sympathy
with one of the
pro-
foundest instincts of
early religion.
Crude in form as the
legend is,
it
embodies a truth of
permanent validity
the
futility
and
emptiness
of
human effort divorced from the
acknowledgment
and service of God :
230
THE TOWER OF BABEL
(j)
haec
perpetua
mundi dementia
est,
neglecto
coelo immortalitatem
quaerere
in
terra,
ubi nihil est non caducum et evanidum
(Calv.).
3.
Parallels. No
Babylonian
version of the
story
has been dis
covered
;
and for the reason
given
above
(p. 226)
it is
extremely unlikely
that
anything- resembling
the biblical form of it will ever be found
there.* In Greek
mythology
there are dim traces of a
legend ascribing
the diversities of
language
to an act of the
gods,
whether as a
punish
ment on the creatures for
demanding
the
gift
of
immortality (Philo,
De
Conf. ling.})
or without ethical
motive,
as in the
I43rd
fable of
Hyginus.f
But while these
myths
are no doubt
independent
of
Jewish
influence,
their resemblance to the Genesis narrative is too
slight
to
suggest
a common
origin.
It is
only
in the literature of the Hellenistic
period
that we find real
parallels
to the
story
of the Tower of Babel
;
and these
agree
so
closely
with the biblical account that it is
extremely
doubtful if
they embody any separate
tradition.
J
The difference to
which most
importance
is attached is
naturally
the
polytheistic phrase
ology (
the
gods ) employed by
some of the writers named
(Polyhistor,
Abyd.)
;
but the
polytheism
is
only
in the
language,
and is
probably
nothing
more than conscious or unconscious
Hellenising
of the
scriptural
narrative. Other differences such as the identification of the tower-
builders with the race of
giants (the Nephilim
of 6
4
?),
and the destruc
tion of the tower
by
a storm are
easily explicable
as accretions to the
legend
of Genesis. The remarkable Mexican
legend
of the
pyramid
of
Cholula,
cited
by Jeremias
from von
Humboldt,||
has a
special
in
terest on account of the unmistakable resemblance between the Mexican
pyramids
and the
Babylonian
zikkurats. If this fact could be
accepted
*
The
fragment (K 3657)
translated in
Smith-Sayce,
Chald. Gen.
163
ff.
(cf.
HCM^t I53f.)>
and
supposed
to contain obscure allusions to
the
building
of a tower in
Babylon,
its overthrow
by
a
god during
the
night,
and a confusion of
speech,
has since been shown to contain
nothing
of the sort: see
King,
Creation
Tablets,
i.
2i9f. ; Je. ATLCP,
286.
f
"
Sed
postquam
Mercurius sermones hominum
interpretatus
est
... id est nationes
distribuit,
turn discordia inter mortales esse
ccepit,
quodJovi placitum
non est."
J
Cf. Orac.
Sibyll.
iii.
98
ff.
(Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen, 187);
Alex
ander
Polyhistor (Eus.
Chron. i.
23 [ed. Schoene])
;
Abydenus
(ib.
\.
33) ;
Jos.
Ant. \.
118;
Eupolemos (Eus. Prcep.
Ev. ix.
17);
and Book
of
Jub.
x.
18-27.
The lines of the Sib
y! (" 99 )
mav be
quoted
as a
typical example
of this class of
legends
:
leal
jSotfXoj
r
dvaprjvai
els
ovpavbv dffTep6evra.
aurka 5 addvaros
jj,eyd\T)i> tirtdrjKev dvdjKrjv
irvetfj.a.(nv atrap
^TTCLT
dve/xot /j^yav
ptyav,
Kal
dvrjTOiffiv
6r
dXX^Xois tpiv
Totivexd rot
Ba/SvXcDva fiporoi
7r6Xei
otfvo/j.
So Gu.
2
88 f. On the other
side,
cf.
Gruppe,
Griechische Culte
und
Mythen,
i.
677
ff.
;
Sta. Ak. Red.
277
f.
; Je. ATLO\
383
ff.
||
Vues des Cordilleres
(Paris, 1810), 24, 32
ff.
XL 10
231
as
proof
of direct
Babylonian
influence,
then no doubt the
question
of
a
Babylonian origin
of the
legend
and its transmission
through
non-
biblical channels would assume a new
complexion.
But the
inference,
however
tempting,
is not
quite
certain.
XI. 10-26. The
Genealogy of
Shem
(P).
Another section of the
Toledoth,
spanning
the interval
between the Flood and the birth of Abraham. It is the
most
carefully planned
of P s
genealogies
next to ch.
5
;
with which it
agrees
in
form, except
that in MT the frame
work is
lightened by omitting
the total duration of each
patriarch
s life. In jux this is
consistently supplied ;
while
(JK
merely
adds to MT the statement KOL dvretfavev. The
number of
generations
in MT is
9,
but in
(& 10,
corre
sponding
with ch.
5.
Few of the names can be
plausibly
identified
;
these few are
mostly geographical,
and
point
on the whole to NW
Mesopotamia
as the
original
home of
the Hebrew race.
In
(3r
the number 10 is made
up by
the addition of Kenan between
ArpakSad
and Shelah
(so
lo
24
).
That this is a
secondary
alteration
is almost
certain,
because
(a)
it is
wanting
in i Ch. i
18- 24
(5r ;
(b)
Kenan
already
occurs in the former
genealogy (5^*)
; and
(c)
the
figures
simply duplicate
those of Shelah. It has been
proposed
to count Noah
as the first name
(Bu. 41
2
f.),
or Abraham as the loth
(Tu. De.)
;
but
neither
expedient brings
about the desired formal
correspondence
be
tween thel ists of ch.
5
and i i
loff<
An indication of the artificial character
of these
genealogies
is found in the
repetition
of the name
Nahor,
once
as the
father,
and
again
as the
son,
of Terah
(see Bosse,
Chron.
Systeme, 7 ff.).
It is not
improbable
that
here,
as in ch.
5 (correspond
ing
with
4
25f>
)>
P has worked
up
an earlier Yahwistic
genealogy,
of
which a
fragment may
have been
preserved
in w.
28
"
30
. We.
(Comp.
2
9,
Pro!.
6
313)
has
conjectured
that it consisted of the
7
names left of P s
list when
Arpakad
and Shelah
(see
on io
21 24
)
and the first Nah6r are
omitted
(Abraham counting
as the
7th).
But there is no
proof
that the
Yahwistic
genealogy lying
behind ch.
5
was
7-membered ;
and
J
s
parallel
to n
loff-
could not in
any
case be the continuation of
4
16 22
.
10.
IK^SIN]
see on io
22
. He is here
obviously
the oldest son of Shem
;
which does not
necessarily
involve a contradiction with ch.
io,
the
arrangement
there
being
dictated
by geographical
considerations.
Hommel
(AA,
222
1
), maintaining
his
theory
that
Arp.
=
Ur-Kasdim,
comes to the absurd conclusion that in the
original
list it was not the
name of Shem s
son,
but of his
birthplace
: Shem
from Arpakshad
!
7i3n IPX
crn^y>]
The
discrepancy
between this statement and the chron-
232
GENEALOGY OF SHEM
(?)
ology
of
5
32
7
11
9
28f-
is not to be
got
rid of either
by
wire-drawn arith
metical calculations
(Ra. al.),
or
by
the
assumption
that in the other
passages
round numbers are used
(Tu. De.).
The clause is
evidently
a
gloss,
introduced
apparently
for the
purpose
of
making
the birth of
Arpakgad,
rather than the
Flood,
the commencement of a new era.
It fits in
admirably
with the scheme of the B. of
Jub.,
which
gives
an
integral
number of
year-weeks
from the Creation to the birth of
Arp.,
and from the latter event to the birth of Abraham
(see p. 234 below).
12.
n^tff
(SaAa)] probably
the same word which forms a
component
of
n^np (5
21ff
)
and therefore
originally
a divine name. This need not
exclude a tribal or
geographical sense,
the name of a
deity being
fre
quently
transferred to his
worshippers
or their
territory.
A
place
Salah
or Salah in
Mesopotamia
is instanced
by
Knobel
(Di.).
Others
regard
it as a
descriptive
name
=
offshoot or dismissal
;
but
very improb
ably. 14. i^y]
see on io
21
. 16.
^?]
io
25
. Hommel
(I.e.]
combines the
two names and takes the
compound
as a notice of Shelah s
birthplace
:
Shelah
from Eber-peleg
=
Eber-hannahar,
the
region
W of the lower
Euphrates (see pp.
218,
220
above).
18.
?jn
( Payav)]
unknown
;
certainly
9
M
not
*_jiCTl5o|
(Edessa).
It is
possibly
abbreviated from
^Kfljrj (36
4
,
Ex. 2
18
etc. : so
Homm.)
;
and Mez considers it a divine name. An Aramaean
tribe Ruua is
frequently
mentioned in
Assyr.
inscrs. as dwellers on the
banks of the
Euphrates
and
Tigris,
in or near
Babylonia (Del.
Par.
238 ff.).
20.
Jnif (Sepovx)]
a- well-known
city
and district about
half-way
between Carchemish and
Harran,
mentioned
by Syr.
and Arab, writers
under the name
Sarug.
The name
(Sarugi)
also occurs several times
in the census of the district round Harran
(yth
cent.
B.C.), published by
Johns
under the title of An
Assyrian Domesday
Book : see
pp. 29, 30,
43, 48,
68. 22. n
inj (Na^w/))]
is in
J
the brother of Abraham
(22
20
;
cf.
Jos. 24
2
)
;
in P he is both the
grandfather
and the brother
(n
26
).
The
name must have been that of an
important
Aramaean tribe settled in or
around Harran
(27^
28
10
2Q
4
). Johns
compares
the
place-name
Til-
Nahiri in the
neighbourhood
of
Sarugi
;
also the
personal
names Nahiri
and Nahar&u found in
Assyrian
Deeds
(I.e. 71
;
Ass.
Deeds,
iii.
127
;
cf.
KAT
3
, 477 f.).
As a divine name
Na%a/)
is mentioned
along
with other
Aramaean deities on a Greek
inscription
from
Carthage (KAT*, 477)
;
and
Jen. (ZA,
xi.
300)
has called attention to the
theophorous
name
,
*^
V,
in the Doctrine of
Addai,
as
possibly
a
corruption
of
t
^V.
24.
mn
(0ct/3p<x)]
is instanced
by
Rob. Sm.* as a totem
clan-name
; \*j)L(?} being
the
Syr.
and turahfi, the Ass. word for wild
goat. Similarly
Del.
(Prol. 80),
who also refers
tentatively
to Til-sa-
turahi,
the name of a
Mesopotamia!!
town in the
neighbourhood
of
Harran. Knobel
compares
a
place Tharrana,
S of Edessa
(Di.); Jen.
(ZA,
vi.
70;
Hittiter und
Armenier,
150
ff.
[esp. 154])
is inclined to
identify
Terah with the Hittite and N
Syrian god
(or
goddess) Tarfyu,
Tap/to,
etc.
(cf.
KAT*,
484).
26. j& reads
75
instead of
70.
*
KM\
220
(afterwards abandoned).
Cf.
Noldeke, ZDMG,
xl.
167
f. : "sicher
unmoglich."
XI. 12-26
233
The
Chronology.
The
following
Table shows the variations of the
three chief recensions
(MT,
JUUL and
(5), tog-ether
with the
chronology
of
the Book of
Jubilees,
which for this
period parts company
with the
Sam.,
and follows a
system peculiar
to itself
(see p. 134
ff.
above)
:
The three versions
plainly
rest on a common
basis,
and it is not
easy
to decide in favour of the
priority
of
any
one of them. On the
application
to this
period
of the
general chronological
theories described
on
p. 135
f. it is
unnecessary
to add much. Klostermann maintains his
scheme of
Jubilee-periods
on the basis of
ffir,
(a) by allowing
a
year
for the Flood
;
(b) by adopting
the
reading
of
j,
75
instead of
70,
in
the case of Terah
;
and
(c) by following
certain MSS which
give 179
for
79
as the
age
of Nahor at the birth of Terah. This makes from the
Flood to the birth of Abraham
1176 years
=
2X
12x49. By
an
equally
arbitrary
combination of data of MT and
($r,
a similar
period
of
1176
years
is then made out from the birth of Abraham to the
Dedication of
the
Temple.
The
seemingly
eccentric scheme of
Jub.
shows clear in
dications of a
reckoning by year-weeks.
Since the birth of
Arpaksad
is said
(vii. 18)
to have occurred two
years
after the
Flood,
we
may
con
clude that it was
assigned
to A.M.
1309,
the iO2nd
year
of Shem. This
234
GENEALOGY OF SHEM
(?)
gives
a
period
of
187 year-
weeks from the Creation to the birth of
Arp.,
followed
by
another of 81
(567-^7)
to the birth of Abraham. We
observe further that the earlier
period
embraces 1 1
generations
with an
average
of
exactly 17 year-weeks,
and the later
9 generations
with an
average
of
exactly 9
:
i.e.,
as
nearly
as
possible
one-half: the author ac
cordingly
must have
proceeded
on the
theory
that after the Flood the
age
of
paternity suddenly dropped
to one-half of what it had
formerly
been.
[It
is
possible
that the
key
to the various
systems
has been discovered
by
A.
Bosse,
whose
paper
*
became known to me
only
while these sheets
were
passing through
the
press.
His main results are as follows :
(i)
In MT he finds two distinct
chronological systems, (a)
One reckons
by generations
of
40 years,
its termini
being
the birth of Shem and
the end of the Exile. In the Shemite
table,
Terah is excluded
entirely,
and the two
years
between the Flood and the birth of
Arp.
are
ignored.
This
gives
: from the birth of Shem to that of Abraham
320 (8
x
40)
years;
thence to b. of
Jacob 160(4x40);
to Exodus
560 (14x40);
to
founding
of
Temple 480 (12x40);
to end of Exile
480:
in all 2000
(50
x
40).
This
system is,
of
course,
later than the Exile
;
but Bo. con
cedes the
probability
that its middle
section,
with 1200
(30x40) years
from the b. of Abr. to the
founding
of the
Temple, may
be of earlier
origin. (b)
The other
scheme,
with which we are more
immediately
concerned, operates
with a Great Month of 260
years (260
the number
of weeks in a
five-years lustrum].
Its
period
is a Great Year from the
Creation to the dedication of the
Temple,
and its
reckoning
includes
Terah in the Shemite
table,
but excludes the 2
years
of
ArpakSad.
This
gives 1556 years
to b. of Shem +
390 (b.
of
Abr.)
+
75 (migration
of
Abr.)
+
215 (descent
to
Egypt)
+
430 (Exodus)
+
480 (founding
of
Temple)
+ 20
(dedication
of
do.)
=
3166.
Now
3166
12 x 260 -f
46.
The odd
46 years
are thus accounted for : the
chronologist
was
accustomed to the
Egyptian reckoning by
months of
30 days,
and
a solar
year
of
365^ days, requiring
the
interposition
of
5^ days
each
year
;
and the
46 years
are the
equivalent
of these
5^ days
in
the
system
here followed.
(For,
if
30 days
=
260
years,
then
5^ days
Cjx
260 21 X26
7X 13
= = =
-
45i [say 46] years.)
The first third of this
Great Year ends with the b. of Noah
1056
=
4
x
260+ 16
(
of
46).
The
second third
nearly
coincides with the b. of
Jacob ;
but here there
is a
discrepancy
of
5 years,
which Bo. accounts for
by
the
assumption
that the
figure
of the older
reckoning by generations
has in the case of
Jacob
been allowed to remain in the text.
(2)
(5r reckons with a Great
Month of
355 years (the
number of
days
in the lunar
year),
and a Great
Year of 12 x
355
=
4260 years
from the Creation to the
founding
of the
Temple,
made
up
as follows:
2142
+
n73t
+
7S
+ 2
15
+ 2
15
+
440
+
=
4260.
*
Die
Chronologischen Systeme
im AT und bei
Josephus (MVAGt
1908, 2).
f
Allowing
a
year
for the
Flood,
and two
years
between it and the
b. of
ArpakSad.
J
See i Ki. 6
1
((5).
XI.
27-32
235
Significant
subdivisions cannot be traced.
(3)
JLJU. returns to the earlier
Heb.
reckoning by generations,
its terminus ad
quern being
the measur
ing
out of
Gerizim, which, according
to the Sam. Chronicle
published
by Neubauer,
took
place 13 years
after the
Conquest
of Canaan. Thus
we obtain
1207
+
1040
+
75
+
215
+
215
+
42 (desert wandering)
*
+
13
(measurement
of
Gerizim)
=
2807
=
70
X
40
+
7.
t
(4)
The Book of
Jubilees
counts
by Jubilee-periods
of
49 years
from the Creation to the
Conquest
of Palestine :
1309
+
567
+
75
+
459 (Exodus)
+
40 (entrance
to
Canaan)
=
2450
=
50
x
49.]
XI.
27-32.
The
Genealogy of
Terah
(P
and
J).
The vv. are of mixed
authorship
;
and
form,
both in
P and
J,
an introduction to the Patriarchal
History.
In P
(
27- 31- 32
),
the
genealogical
framework encloses a notice of the
migration
of the
Tera^ites
from Ur-Kasdim to
Harran,
to
which i2
4b- 5
may
be the immediate
sequel.
The insertion
from
J (
28
~
30
)
finds an
equally
suitable continuation in I2
lff>
,
and is
very probably
the conclusion of
J
s lost Shemite
genealogy.
The
suppression
of the
preceding
context of
J
is
peculiarly tantalising
because of the
uncertainty
of the
tradition which makes Ur-Kasdim the home of the ancestors
of the Hebrews
(see concluding
note, p. 239)
On the
analysis,
cf.
esp.
Bu.
Urg. 414
ff. Vv.
27
and
32
belong quite
obviously
to P
;
and
31
,
from its diffuse
style
and close resemblance
to P s
regular
manner in
recording
the
patriarchal migrations (12 3i
18
36 46
6
: see
Hupf. Qu. igf.), may
be
confidently assigned
to the same
source.
28a
presents nothing
distinctive of either document
;
but in
28b
mSio
pN
is
peculiar
to
JE (see
the footnote on the
v.).
^
is
J
because
presupposed
in 22
20ffl
;
and its continuation
(
30
) brings
as an additional
criterion the word
rrjEj; (cf. 25
21
29
31
),
which is never used
by
P. The
extract from
J
is
supplementary
to
P,
and it
might
be
argued
that at
least
28a
was
necessary
in the latter source to
explain why
Lot and not
Haran went with Terah. Bu.
points
out in answer
(p. 420)
that with
still
greater urgency
we desiderate an
explanation
of the fact that
Nahor was left behind : if the one fact is left
unexplained,
so a
fortiori
might
the other.
The formula n
n^n
nVx]
does not occur
again
till
25
12
;
and it is
very
widely
held that in v.
27
it stands as the
heading
of the section of P
*
After
Jos. 5
6
t
The odd
7 years
still remain
perplexing (see p. 136).
One cannot
help surmising
that the final
13
was
originally
intended to
get
rid of
it,
though
the textual data do not enable us now to
bring
out a round
number.
236
GENEALOGY OF TERAH
(?, j)
dealing-
with the life of Abraham. That is
wholly improbable.
It is
likely enough
that a
heading- (D.TQK
n
N)
has been somewhere omitted
(so
We. Bu. Ho.
al.)
;
but the truth is that from this
point
onwards
no consistent
principle
can be discovered in the use of the formula. The
hypothesis
that an
originally independent
book of T6ledoth has been
broken
up
and dislocated
by
the
redaction,
is as
plausible
a solution as
any
that can be
thought
of.
See, further,
on
25
19
.
27.
On the name
Abram,
see on
i7
5
;
on
Nahor,
v.
22
above. Haran
begat Lof]
A statement to the same effect
must have been found in
J (see
i2
4a
).
Haran has no
signifi
cance in the tradition
except
as
expressing
the
relationship
of
Lot, Milkah,
and Yiskah within the Hebraic
group.
That
pn
is formed from
pjn (v.i.) by
a
softening
of the initial
guttural
(We.
Pr.
6
313)
is an
improbable conjecture (see
Bu.
443
2
).
The name
occurs elsewhere
only
in
.TJT?
(Nu. 32
36
: cf.
o^rrrva, Jos. i3
27
)*
in the
tribe of Gad : this has
suggested
the view that
fin
was the name of a
deity worshipped among
the
peoples represented by
Lot
(Mez
: cf. Wi.
AOF,
ii.
499).
The name ci
1
? is also
etymologically
obscure
(?
Ar.
!af
=
cleave to
).
A connexion with the Horite clan
jai
1
? in Gn.
36
20- 2~- w
is
probable.
28. The
premature
death of Haran
(which
became the
nucleus of some fantastic
Jewish legends)
took
place
in the
land
of
his
nativity; i.e., according
to the
present text,
Ur
of
the
Chaldees,
where his
grave
was shown down to
the time of
Josephus (Ant.
i.
151
;
Eus.
OS,
285, 50
ff.).
"HK
(v.
31
I5
7
,
Neh.
9
7
: ffir
x^P
a T&V
XaXoa/wi/)
is now almost
universally
identified with the ancient S
Babylonian city
of
Uru,
whose
remains have been discovered in the mounds of
el-Rfukayyar,
on the
right
bank of the
Euphrates,
about
25
miles SE from Erech and
125
from
Babylon (see Hilp.
EBL, 172!?.).
The evidence for this view is
28.
\45
Vi7]
is coram
(<& tvu-rriov),
rather than ante
(U
: so
Tu.),
or in
the lifetime of
(5
ju^-K^D) ;
cf. Nu.
3
4
: see BOB and G-B. s.v.
C
:$.
irnViD
pv x]
so
24
7
(J), 3i
13
(
E
);
cf-
J
er- 22
10
4
6
18
,
Ezk. 2
3
15
,
Ru. 2".
A commoner
phrase
in Pent, is 101
IN,
I2
1
24"* 3i
3
32,
Nu io
30
(all J).
From the
way
in which the two
expressions alternate,
it is
probable
that
they
are
equivalent
;
and since D alone
certainly
means kindred
(43
7
[J],
cf. Est. 2
10> 20
8
6
),
it is better to render land ofone s
parentage
than land in which one was born
[>
here and I2
1
] (cf.
Bu.
4I9
2
).
P
has the
word,
but
only
in the sense of
progeny (48
6
,
Lv. i8
9
[H]).
*
Though
Wi.
(AOF,
ii.
499)
contends that both names are
corrup
tions of D Jiin.
XI.
27-30 237
very strong-.
Uru is the
only city
of the name known from
Assyri-
ology (although
the addition of the
gen.
triea
suggests
that others were
known to the Israelites : G-K.
125 h)
: it was situated in the
properly
Chaldasan
territory,
was a
city
of
great importance
and vast
antiquity,
and
(like
Harran,
with which it is here
connected)
was a chief centre of
the
worship
of the
moon-god
Sin
(KAT? i2t)f.).
The
only
circumstance
that creates serious
misgiving
is that the
prevalent
tradition of Gen.
points
to the NE as the direction whence the
patriarchs migrated
to
Canaan
(see below)
;
and this has led to
attempts
to find a northern
Ur connected
probably
w
r
ith the
Mesopotamian
Chaldaeans of 22
22
(see
Kittel,
Gesch. i.
163 ff.). Syrian
tradition identifies it with Edessa
(Urhai, Urfa).
It is
generally recognised,
however,
that these considera
tions are insufficient to invalidate the
arguments
in
favour
of Uru.
D
^3]
Bab.
KaSdu,
Ass. Kaldu
(Xa\5-cuot),
is the name of a
group
of
Semitic
tribes, distinguished
from the Arabs and
Aramaeans,
who are
found settled to the SE of
Babylonia,
round the shore of the Persian Gulf.
In the i ith cent, or earlier
they
are believed to have
penetrated Babylonia,
at first as
roving, pastoral
nomads
(KA
7*
3
,
22
ff.),
but
ultimately giving
their name to the
country,
and
founding
the
dynasty
of
Nabopolassar.
By
the ancients D iBa was
rightly
understood of
Babylonia (Nikolaos
Damasc. in
Jos.
Ant. i.
152
;
Eupolemos
in Eus.
Prap.
Ev. ix.
17
;
Jer. al.)
;
but
amongst
the
Jews
"UN came to be
regarded
as an
appella
tive
=
fire
(in
igne
Chaldceorum,
which
Jer.
accepts, though
he
rejects
the
legends
that were
spun
out of the
etymology).
This is the
germ
of
the later
Haggadic
fables about the fire in which Haran met an
untimely
fate,
and the furnace into which Abraham was cast
by
order
of Nimrod
(Jub.
xii.
12-14; J
er-
Qucest.,
ad loc.
; &J,
Ber.R.
38,
Ra.).
2p.
While we are told that Nahor s wife was his
brother s
daughter,
it is
surprising
that
nothing
is said of the
parentage
of Sarai.
According
to E
(2o
12
),
she was
Abraham s
half-sister
;
but this does not entitle us to
suppose
that
words
expressing
this
relationship
have been omitted from
the text of
J (Ewald).
It would
seem, however,
that
tradition
represented marriage
between near
relations as
the rule
among
the Terahites
(2o
12
24
3ff-
2Q
19
).
With
regard
to the
names,
n
^
seems to be an archaic
form of
n~iV
princess (see
on
i7
15
),
while
n^p
means
queen.
In
Bab. the
relations are
reversed,
Sarratube
mg
the
queen
and malkatuthe
princess.
It cannot be a mere coincidence that these two names
correspond
to two
personages belonging
to the
pantheon
of
Harran,
where
Sarratu
was a title of the
moon-goddess,
the consort of
Sin,
and
Malkatu a title
29. npn] sing., according
to G-K.
146/1 30. mpy]
as
25
21
29"
(J)
;
not in P
(see
i6
la
). ijn]
JUA i
1
? .
Only again
as Kethib of Or.
MSS in
2 Sa. 6
23
. It is
possibly
here a scribal
error,
which
eventually
influenced
the other
pass.
238
GENEALOGY OF TERAH
(?, j)
of
IStar,
also
worshipped
there
(Jen.
ZA>
xi.
299
f.
;
KAT*, 364 f.).
It is needless to
say
that these
associations,
if
they
existed,
are
forgotten
in the Hebrew
legend. If,
as is not
improbable,
the tradition contains
ethnographic
reminiscences,
v.
28*-
express (i)
the dissolution of an older
tribal
group,
Haran
;
(2)
the survival of one of its subdivisions
(Lot)
through
the
protection
of a
stronger
tribe
;
and
(3)
the
absorption
of
another
(Milkah)
in a kindred stock. Of
n$y. nothing
is known. The
Rabbinical fiction that she is Sarah under another name
(implied
in
Jos.
Ant. i.
151
; tCJ, Jer.
Ra. lEz.
al.)
is worthless. Ewald s
conjecture
that she was the wife of Lot is
plausible,
but baseless.
31, 32.
The
migration
from Ur-Kasdim to Canaan is
accomplished
in two
stages.
Terah,
as
patriarchal
head of
the
family,
conducts the
expedition
as far as
Harran,
where
he dies. The obvious
implication
is that after his death
the
journey
is resumed
by
Abram
(i2
5
); although
jux alone
gives
a
chronology
consistent with this view
(v. supra].
Nahor,
we are left to
infer,
remained behind in Ur-Kasdim
;
and in the
subsequent
narratives P
(in opposition
to
J)
seems
carefully
to avoid
any suggestion
of a connexion between
Nahor and the
city
of Harran.
prj (with virtually
doubled
n
: cf. (&
Xappav
;
Gr.
K&ppai
;
Lat.
Carra,
Charra
;
Ass. Harranu
;
Syr.
and Arab.
Harran)
was an
important
centre of the caravan trade in NW
Mesopotamia,
60 miles E of
Carchemish,
situated near the
Balih, 70
miles due N from its confluence
with the
Euphrates. Though
seldom mentioned in OT
(i2
4f-
[P],
27
43
2gio 2
g4 rj]j
2 Ki.
i9
12
,
Ezk.
27
23
t),
and now
ruined,
it was a
city
of
great antiquity,
and retained its commercial
importance
in classical
and mediaeval times. The name in Ass.
appears
to be
susceptible
of
several
interpretations way,
caravan
(TA Tab.), joint-stock
enterprise (Del.
ffd-wb.
s.v.,
KAT
5
,
2<f] any
one of which
might
denote
its
commercially advantageous position
at the
parting
of the route to
Damascus from the main
highway
between Nineveh and Carchemish.
Harran was also
(along
with
Ur)
a chief seat of the
worship
of
Sin,
who
had there a
temple, E-fyul-hul,
described
by
Nabuna id as "from
remote
days"
a
"dwelling
of the
joy
of his
(Sin s)
heart"
(KIB,
in. 2.
97),
and who was known in NW Asia as the "Lord of Harran"
(Zinjirli
inscr. : cf.
Lidzbarski,
Hb.
444, An.}.
See, further, Mez,
Gc-sch.
d. St.
ffarran , Tomkins,
Times
of Abraham, 55
ff. etc. This double
connexion of Abraham with centres of lunar
religion
is the most
31. irta]
nVj
(Syr. ]A\n,
Ar.
kannat)
means both
spouse
and
daug-hter-in-law
: in
Syr.
and Ar. also
sister-in-law,
a fact adduced
by
Rob. Sm. as a relic of Baal
polyandry (KM"*, 161, 2O9
1
).
on*
iN:n]
gives
no sense. Read with JUUL^T
(/cat ^r/yayev oiroiJs) U, opk KjfVi,
or
5,
anx
*..!.
32. mn-p:]
Q5c + 4v
Xafipdv.
XI.
31, 32
239
plausible argument
advanced
by
those who hold the
mythical
view of
his
figure
as an
impersonation
of the
moon-god.
It will be observed that while both P and
J (in
the
present text)
make Ur-Kasdim the
starting-point
of the Abrahamic
migration, J
has
no allusion to a
journey
from Ur to Harran. His
language
is
perfectly
consistent either
(a)
with a march
directly
from Ur to
Canaan,
or
(b)
with the view that the real
starting-point
was
Harran,
and that Tixa
DHBO is here a
gloss
intended to harmonise
J
and P.
Now,
there is a
group
of
passages
in
J which,
taken
together, unmistakably imply
that Abraham was a native of
Harran,
and therefore started from
thence to seek the
promised
land. In
24*
7- 10
,
the
place
of A. s
nativity
is
Aram-Naharaim,
and
specially
the
city
of Nah5r
;
while a com
parison
with
27^
28
10
29*
leaves no doubt that the
city
of Nahor was
Harran.
P,
on the other
hand,
nowhere deviates from his
theory
of a
double
migration
with a halt at Harran
;
and the
persistency
with
which he dissociates Laban and Rebecca from Nahor
(25
20
28
2>5ff
-)
is a
proof
that the omission of Nah6r from the
party
that left Ur was
intentional
(Bu. 421 ff.).
It is
evident, then,
that we have to do with a
divergence
in the
patriarchal
tradition
;
and the
only uncertainty
is
with
regard
to the
precise point
where it comes in. The
theory
of
P,
though consistently
maintained,
is not natural
;
for
(i)
all the antecedents
(n
10
"
26
) point
to
Mesopotamia
as the home of the
patriarchs;
and
(2)
the twofold
migration,
first from Ur and then from
Harran,
has itself
the
appearance
of a
compromise
between two
conflicting
traditions.
The
simplest
solution would be to
suppose
that both the references to
Ur-Kasdim in
J (n
28
15 )
are
interpolations,
and that P had another
tradition which he harmonised with that of
J by
the
expedient just
mentioned
(so
We. Di. Gu. Dri.
al.).
Bu. holds that both traditions
were
represented
in different strata of
J (J
1
Harran, J
2
Ur),
and tries
to show that the latter is a
probable
concomitant of the Yahwistic
account of the Flood. In that he can
hardly
be said to be successful
;
and he is influenced
by
the consideration that
apart
from such a
discrepancy
in his sources P could never have
thought
of the circuitous
route from Ur to Canaan
by way
of Harran. That
argument
has little
weight
with those who are
prepared
to believe that P had other
traditions at his
disposal
than those we
happen
to know from
J
and E.*
In
itself,
the
hypothesis
of a dual tradition within the school of
J
is
perfectly
reasonable
;
but in this
case,
in
spite
of Bu. s close
reasoning,
it
appears insufficiently supported by
other indications. The view of
We. is on the whole the more
acceptable.
*
The
suggestion
has,
of
course,
been made
(Wi.
AOF. \.
980.;
Paton, Syr.
and Pal.
42)
that E is the source of the Ur-Kasdim
tradition
j
but in view of
Jos. 24
2
that is not
probable.
THE PATRIARCHAL HISTORY.
ABRAHAM.
CHS. XII-XXV. 18.
Critical
Note. In this section of Genesis the broad lines of demarca
tion between
J, E,
and P are so clear that there is seldom a serious
diversity
of
opinion among
critics. The real difficulties of the
analysis
concern the
composition
of the Yahwistic
narrative,
and the relation of
its
component parts
to E and P
respectively.
These
questions
have
been
brought
to the front
by
the
commentary
of
Gu.,
who has made it
probable
that the Yahwistic document contains two main
strata,
one
(J
h
) fixing-
Abraham s residence at
Hebron,
and the other
(J
b
) regarding
him as a denizen of the
Negeb.
i. The kernel of
J
h
is a
cycle
of
legends
in which the fortunes of
Abraham and Lot are interlinked : viz. I2
1 8
; i^
2- 5
-^;
x g
;
ig
1 28
; iQ
30 38
.
If these
passages
are read
continuously, they
form an
orderly narrative,
tracing
the march of Abraham and Lot from Harran
through
Shechem
to
Bethel,
where
they separate
;
thence Abraham
proceeds
to
Hebron,
but is
again brought
into ideal contact with Lot
by
visits of
angels
to
each in turn
;
this leads
up
to the salvation of Lot from the fate of
Sodom,
his
flight
to the
mountains,
and the
origin
of the two
peoples
supposed
to be descended from him. In this
sequence
i2
9
-i3
1
is
(as
will
be more
fully
shown
later)
an
interruption.
Earlier critics had
attempted
to
get
rid of the
discontinuity
either
by seeking
a suitable connexion for
I2
9ffi
at a
subsequent stage
of
J
s
narrative,
or
by treating
it as a
redactional
expansion.
But neither
expedient
is
satisfactory,
and the
suggestion
that it comes from a
separate
source is
preferable
on several
grounds.
Now i2
9ff-
is
distinguished
from
J
h
,
not
only by
the absence
of
Lot,
but
by
the
implication
that Abraham s home was in the
Negeb,
and
perhaps by
a less idealised
conception
of the
patriarch
s character.
These characteristics
reappear
in ch.
16, which,
as
breaking
the con
nexion of ch. 18 with
13,
is
plausibly assigned
to
J
b
.
(To
this source
Gu. also
assigns
the Yahwistic
component
of ch.
15;
but that
chapter
shows so
many signs
of later elaboration that it can
hardly
have
belonged
to either of the
primary sources.)
After ch.
19,
the hand of
J
appears
in the accounts of Isaac s birth
(2I
1 7
*)
and Abraham s
treaty
with Abimelech
(2I
22 34
*):
the latter is
probably J
b
(on
account of the
Negeb),
while the former shows
slight discrepancies
with the
pre
diction of ch. 1
8,
which lead us
(though
with less
confidence)
to
assign
240
XII.-XXV. 18
241
it also to
J
b
. With
regard
to ch.
24,
it is
impossible
to
say
whether it
belongs
to
J
h
or
J
b
: we
assign
it
provisionally
to the latter.* The bulk
of the Yahwistic material
may
therefore be
disposed
in two
parallel
series as follows :
Jb.
I2
l-8.
I3
2-18*.
j gl-16.
20-22a. 83b .
^1-28.
,
gSO-38
.
Jb.
I29_,
3
1
; ,6;
2 1
1 7
*;
2 1
22 34
*;
2
4
*.
f
The Yahwistic sections not
yet
dealt with are ch.
15* (see above)
;
and the two
genealogies,
22
*
and
25
1 8
,
both inserted
by
a Yahwistic
editor from unknown sources. Other
passages (i3
14
~
17
i8
17 19- 23b
"
33a
22
i5
"
18
)
which
appear
to have been added
during
the redaction
(RJ
or RJ
E
)
will be examined in
special
notes ad locc.
2. The hand of E is
recognised
in the
following
sections :
15*
;
20
;
2I
i-7*.
2I
8 21
;
2I
22 34
*;
22
1 19
(24*?).
Gu. has
pointed
out that where
J
and E run
parallel
to one
another,
E s affinites are
always
with
J
b
and never with
J
h
(cf.
the variants I2
9ff"
|| 20;
16
||
2i
8
"
21
;
and the
compositions
in 2I
1 7
and 2i
22 34
).
This,
of
course,
might
be
merely
a
consequence
of the fact that
E,
like
J
b
,
makes the
Negeb (Beersheba)
the scene of Abraham s
history.
But it is remarkable that in ch. 26 we
find
unquestionable
Yahwistic
parallels
to E and
J
b
,
with Isaac as hero
instead of Abraham. These are
probably
to be attributed to the writer
whom we have called
J
h
,
who thus succeeded in
preserving
the
Negeb
traditions,
while at the same time
maintaining
the
theory
that Abraham
was the
patron
of
Hebron,
and Isaac of Beersheba.
Putting
all the indications
together,
we are led to a tentative
hypo
thesis
regarding
the formation of the Abrahamic
legend,
which has
some value for the
clearing
of our
ideas,
though
it must be held with
great
reserve. The tradition
crystallised mainly
at two
great religious
centres,
Beersheba and Hebron. The Beersheba narratives took
shape
in two
recensions,
a Yahwistic and an
Elohistic,
of which
(it may
be
*
Gu.
analyses 24
into two
narratives,
assigning
one to each
source.
The
question
is discussed in the
Note,
pp. 340 f.,
where the
opinion
is
hazarded that the subordinate source
may
be
E,
in which case the other
would
naturally
be
J
b
.
f
It is
interesting
to
compare
this result with the
analysis
of the
Yahwistic
portions
of chs. i-i i
(pp. 2-4).
In each case
J
appears
as a
complex
document,
formed
by
the
amalgamation
of
prior
collections of
traditions
;
and the
question naturally
arises whether
any
of the com
ponent
narratives can be traced from the one
period
into the
other.
It is
impossible
to
prove
that this is the case
;
but certain
affinities of
thought
and
expression suggest
that
J
h
in the
biography
of
Abraham
may
be the continuation of
J
e
in the
primitive history.
Both use the
phrase
call
by
the name of Yahwe
(V
6
i2
8
[i3
4
], [but
cf. 2I
33
(J
b
)])
;
and the
optimistic religious
outlook
expressed
in the
blessing
of Noah
(9
26ff
-)
is shared in a marked
degree by
the writer of
J
h
.
Have we here
fragments
of a work whose theme was the
history
of the Yahwe-
religion,
from its commencement with Enosh to its
establishment in the
leading
sanctuaries of Palestine
by
Abraham and
Isaac? See I2
7
(Shechem),
12"
(Bethel), is
18
(Hebron),
26-
5
(Beersheba).
16
242
MIGRATIONS OF ABRAM
(j, P)
added)
the second is
ethically
and
religiously
on a
higher
level than the
first. These were
partly amalgamated, probably
before the union of
J
h
and
J
b
(see
on ch.
26).
The Hebron tradition was
naturally
indifferent
to the narratives which connected Abraham with the
Negeb,
or with
its
sanctuary
Beersheba
;
hence the writer of
J
h
,
who attaches himself
to this
tradition,
excludes the Beersheba stories from his
biography
of
Abraham,
but finds a
place
for some of them in the
history
of Isaac.
3.
The account of P
(i2
4b- 5
i
3
6- nb- 12ab
;
i6
la- 3- 5
;
17
;
i
9
29
;
2i
lb- 2b 5
;
23 ;
25
7 11*
;
25
12
*
17
)
consists
mostly
of a skeleton
biography
based on the
older
documents,
and
presupposing
a
knowledge
of them. The sole
raison detre of such an outline is the
chronological
scheme into which
the various incidents are fitted : that it fills some
gaps
in the
history
(birth
of
Ishmael,
death of
Abraham)
is
merely
an accident of the
redaction. P s affinities are
chiefly
with
J
h
,
with whom he shares the
idea that Hebron was the
permanent
residence of Abraham. Of the
sections
peculiar
to
P,
ch.
17
is
parallel
to
15,
and
25
12
"
17
has
probably
replaced
a lost Yahwistic
genealogy
of Ishmael. Ch.
23
stands alone
as
presumably
an instance where P has
preserved
an
altogether
in
dependent
tradition.
Ch.
14
cannot with
any
show of reason be
assigned
to
any
of the
recognised
sources of the
Pent.,
and has
accordingly
been omitted from
the above
survey.
The
question
of its
origin
is discussed on
pp. 271
ff.
below.
CHS. XII. XIII. The
migrations of
Abram
(J
and
P).
Leaving"
his home at the command of
Yahwe,
Abram
enters Canaan and erects altars at Shechem and Bethel
(I2
1
"
8
).
From Bethel he
migrates
to the
Negeb,
and
thence,
under stress of
famine,
to
Egypt
;
where
by
a false
repre
sentation he enriches
himself,
but
imperils
his wife s honour
(i2
9
-i3
1
).
Laden with
wealth,
he returns to
Bethel,
where
an amicable
separation
from his
nephew
Lot leaves him in
sole
possession
of the
promise
of the land
(i3
2
~
17
).
Abram
journeys
southward and settles in Hebron
(
18
).
Analysis.
The slender thread of P s narrative is
represented by
i2
4b> 6
,
3
e. nb
isaba.
note the date in I2
4b
;
the form of
12; eb-j, rirj,
12
13";
E>93,
*
person,
I2
5
;
JJ? pH,
1 2
I3
12
;
N
^> i3
8
; n$?n ny, i3
12
;
and see on the
vv. below. These
fragments
form a continuous
epitome
of the events
between the exodus from Harran and the
parting
of Abram and Lot.
With a
slight
and
inherently plausible transposition (i2
5- 4b
;
Bu.
p. 432)
thev
might pass
for the immediate continuation of n
32
,
if we can
suppose
that the call of Abram was
entirely
omitted
by
P
(see
Gu.
231).
The rest of the
passage
is Yahwistic
throughout
: obs. the consistent
use of mrv
;
the reference to
Paradise, 13;
the
anticipation
of ch.
19
in
I3
10- 13
;
and the
following expressions: rnjto,
I2
1
; ? TTigj,
i2
3
; nn?s?
p
*?3
XII.
1-3
243
2
13- 16
;
y
nrfrro,
ia
18
;
ITJIH 13?,
1-jio.n.
It falls
naturally
into three sections :
(a)
i2
1 4a- 6 8
;
(b)
la
10
-^
1
;
(c)
1
3
s- 5< 7 lla- 12b
/3-
18
;
i2
9
and
i3
:i- 4
being
redactional links
(RJ) uniting-
b
to a on the one side and c on the other. The
purely
mechanical con
nexion of b with a and c was first shown
by
We.
(Comp.
z
24 f.).*
The
removal of b restores the direct and natural
sequence
of c
upon a,
and
gets
rid of the redactor s artificial
theory
of a double visit to Bethel with
a series of aimless
wanderings
between. In the main narrative Abram s
journey
is
continuously southward,
from Shechem to Bethel
(where
the
separation
from Lot takes
place),
and thence to his
permanent
abode in
Hebron. In the inserted
episode (b\
Abram
simply
moves down to
Egypt
from his home in the
Negeb
and back
again.
As to the
origin
of i2
10 20
,
see
p. 251
below.
XII. 1-8. The
journey
to Canaan and the
promise
of the Land. I. The
opening
v. strikes a note
peculiarly
characteristic of the
story
of Abram the trial of faith.
There is intentional
pathos
in the
lingering" description
of
the
things
he is to leave :
thy land, thy kindred,
and
thy
fathers
house
,
and a
corresponding significance
in the
vagueness
with which the
goal
is indicated : to a land
which I will show thee. Obedience under such conditions
marks Abram as the hero of
faith,
and the ideal of Hebrew
piety (Heb.
n
8f
-).
2, 3-
The
blessings
here
promised express
the
aspirations
of the
age
in which the narrative
originated,
and reveal the
people
s consciousness of its
exceptional
destiny among
the nations of the world.
They
breathe the
spirit
of
optimism
which is on the whole characteristic of the
Yahwistic treatment of the national
legends,
as contrasted
with the
primitive
and
cosmopolitan mythology
of chs.
2-11,
whose sombre tone is
only
once
(9
26f
-)
relieved
by
a similar
gleam
of
hope.
and will make
thy
name
greai\
It has
been noticed that the order in which the names of the
patriarchs
emerge
in the
prophetic
literature is the reverse
of that in
Genesis,
and that Abraham is first mentioned in
Ezk.
33
24
. The inference has been drawn that the
figure
of
2
2
[E];
cf. Ca. 2
10- 13
)]
see G-K.
1195.
On
jnjto (ffi
see n
28
. 2.
np-j? n;m] Impve. expressing consequence (G-K.
no
t)
is here
questionable,
because the
preceding
vbs. are
simple
futures. The
pointing
as consec.
pf. (n;ni)
was
suggested by
Giesebrecht
So Di.
Ho. Gu.
244
MIGRATIONS OF ABRAM
(j, P)
Abraham
represents
a late
development
of the
patriarchal
legends (cf.
We. Prol.
Q
317 f.).
But from this
promise
we
may fairly
conclude that even in the
pre-prophetic period
the name of Abraham was famous in
Israel,
and that in this
particular
the
religious
ideas of the
people
are not
fully
reflected in
prophecy (i
Ki. i8
36
has also to be
considered).
The
antiquity
of the name is now
placed beyond
doubt
by
an
archaeological discovery
made
by
Erman in
1888,
but
first
published by
Breasted in
1904.
In the Karnak list
of
places conquered by
Sheshonk
I.,
the
contemporary
of
Rehoboam,
there is mentioned
pa-hu-q-ru-a
a-ba-ra-m
D"QK
fjpn,
Field of Abram. It has not been
identified;
but from its
place
in the list it must have been in the S of
Palestine
(see
Breasted,
AJSL^
xxi.
35
f.
;
and cf.
Meyer,
INS, 266).*
and be thou a
blessing (cf.
Zee. 8
13
)]
Rather:
audit
(the name)
shall be a
blessing (point
n*n^
v.i.)
i.e. a
name to bless
by,
in the sense
explained by
3b
.-^3b
has
generally
been rendered
through
thee shall all the
families
of
the earth be
blessed]
i.e. the
blessings
of true
religion
shall be mediated to the world
through
Abram and his
descendants
(so
all Vns.
;
cf. Sir.
44
21
,
Ac.
3
25
,
Gal.
3
8
).
The better
translation, however,
is that of
Ra., adopted by
most modern comm. :
by
thee shall all . . . bless
themselves]
the idea
being
that in
invoking blessings
on themselves or
others
they
will use such words as God make thee like
Abram,
etc.
(see
48
20
,
Is.
65
16
,
Ps.
72
17
;
and the
opposite,
(A
Tliche
Schcitzung
d.
Gottesnamens,
15);
see Gu. adv.
3. iJ j pD] sing-. ;
but the
pi.
of some
MSS,
joxffir!F5
(T)>
is more
probable
;
cf.
27
29
,
Nu.
24.
5)3
*3i3ji]
<5r
Kal
evXoyrjd^a-ovTai
ei>
croi,
and so all Vns. The
rendering
depends
on the
grammatical question
whether the
Niph.
has
pass,
or
refl. sense. This form of the vb. does not occur
except
in the
parallels
i8
18
(with 13)
and 28
14
(lJ2,1!?i
*|a).
In 22
18
26
4
it is
replaced by Hithp.,
which
is,
of
course, refl.,
and must be translated bless themselves
;
the
renderings
feel themselves blessed
(Tu.
KS.
Str.),
or wish them
selves blessed
(De.)
are doubtful
compromises.
These
passages,
however, belong-
to
secondary
strata of
J (as
does also i8
18
,
and
perhaps
28
14
),
and are not
necessarily
decisive of the sense of i2
8
. But it is
significant
that the
Pu.,
which is the
proper pass,
of
?p3,
is
consistently
avoided
;
and the
presumption appears
to be
distinctly
in favour of the
*
See, further, pp. 292
f. below.
XII.
3-6
245
Jer. 29
22
).
"
So the ancient mind
expressed
its admiration
of a man s
prosperity" (Gu.).
The clause is thus an
expan
sion of
2b
: the name of Abram will
pass
into a formula of
benediction,
because he himself and his seed will be as it
were blessedness incarnate. The
exegetical question
is
discussed below.
4a.
The mention of Lot
(see
on n
27
)
establishes a
literary
connexion with the Lot narratives of
chs.
13. 19. 5
is P s
parallel
to
4a
(v.z.)
;
the last sentence
supplying
an obvious
gap
in
J
s narrative. and
they came,
etc.\
This time
(ct.
n
31
)
the
goal
is
actually
reached. On
the
probable
route from Harran to
Canaan,
see Dri.
146,
300
ff.
6,
7-
Arrived at
Shechem,
Abram
receives,
through
a
theophany,
the first intimation that he has reached the
goal
of his
pilgrimage,
and
proceeds
to take
possession
of
sense
given
in the text above. The idea is well
expressed by
Ra. :
-p3 "p
rrsiD nn
Knpc3B> -p
ID-QJI Vn
pi
D.TDKD Nnn un
1
? IDIK DIN lairs inn
W3D31 D 1BN3 D n^N
1D
TD6 Wlff
(Gn. 48
20
). 4. ^ l]
>
r
CLLO
(
=
fe^ll),
adopted by
Ba.
5.
The
parallel
to
4*
in the distinctive form
(see
on n
31
)
and
phraseology
of P. The vb. tfan is
peculiar
to P
(3i
18
36
6
46
6
)
;
Bhrj
is a word of the later
language,
found in P
(7 1.),
in Gn.
14 (5 1.)
and
as a
gloss
in
15";
in Ch. Ezr. Dn.
(i5t.):
see Ho. Einl.
347.
It is
supposed
to denote
primarily riding
beasts,
like Heb.
Eton,
Aram.
P
I
*"n, Nfc/3"l,
Ass. rukuSu
(Haupt,
Hebraica,
iii. 1
10)
;
then
property
in
general. e>5j]
in the sense of
person
is also
practically
confined to P
in Hex.
(Ho. 345). ^]
=
<
acquired,
as
31
1
,
Dt. 8
17
, Jer. 17"
etc.
The idea of*
proselytising (CJ)
is
rightly
characterised
by
Ra. as
Haggada. jyj? H$]
"
em fas^ sicheres Kennzeichen fiir P"
(Ho. 340).
In
JE
JJ733 appears
never to be used in its
geographical
sense
except
in
the
story
of
Joseph (42. 44-47. 5o
5
)
and
Jos. 24
3
.
jyj? N3;i]
ffir
L
om.,
probably
from homoioteleuton. 6.
H^?
1
]
so *
L
>
but
Cr
A>
a1
-,
read
n^x|? (i3
17
).
For
.TTID,
S and
S read
NI.OO.
The convallem illustrem of
U is an
amalgamation
of (Or
(TTJV dpuv TTJV v\f/ij\^v [oho ?])
and C
(ne^n
miD=
plains
of M.
);
the latter is
probably
accounted for
by
aversion
to the idolatrous associations of the sacred tree. 2P has VO nm nt^o
;
on which see
Levy,
Chald. Wb.
33.
The absence of the art.
(ct.
ny33
.TTisn, Ju. 7
1
)
seems to show that the word is used as norn.
pr. Ji
1
?^]
unlike
its Aram,
equivalents (.^j
|, }^K),
which mean tree in
general,
is never
used
generically,
but
always
of
particular (probably sacred)
trees. In
the Vns. oak and terebinth are used somewhat
indiscriminately
(see
v.
Gall,
CSt.
24 ff.)
for four Heb. words :
p^N, jiW, n^N, n^N (only
Jos.
24
26
).
The
theory
has been advanced that the forms with e are
alone
correct;
that
they
are derivatives from
Vx,
god,
and denote
246
MIGRATIONS OF ABRAM
(j, P)
the land in the name of Yahwe
by erecting
altars for His
worship.
It
is, however,
a
singular
fact,
that in
J
there is
no record of actual sacrifice
by
the
patriarchs
on such altars :
see
p.
1.
The
original
motive of this and similar
leg-ends
is to
explain
the
sacredness of the
principal
centres of cultus
by
definite manifestations of
God to the
patriarchs,
or definite acts of
worship
on their
part.
The
rule is that the
legitimacy
of a
sanctuary
for Israel is established
by
a
theophany (Ex.
2O
24
[E]).
/ The historic truth is that the sanctuaries
were far older than the Hebrew
immigration,
and inherited their
sanctity
from lower forms of
religion.
That fact
appears
in v.
6
in the use of the
word
Dips,
which has there the technical sense of sacred
place,
as in
22
4
28
11
35
1
(<),
Ex.
3
5
,
i Sa.
7
lfi
(& ^yictoy^ois), Jer. f
2
(cf.
Ar.
makam).
Shechem is the first and most
northerly
of four sanctuaries the others
being
Bethel,
Hebron
(J
h
),
and Beersheba
(E, J
b
)
connected with the
name of Abraham. The name
(Skwm,
with
pi. termination)*
occurs in
an
Eg.
inscr. as
early
as the 1 2th
dynasty.
It was an
important place
in
the Tel-Amarna
period (see Steuernagel, Einivanderung,
1 20 f.
; Knudtzon,
BA,
iv.
127),
and
figures prominently
in OT
legend
and
history.
On its
situation
(the
modern
Ndbulus]
between Mts. Ebal and
Gerizim,
see
J5J3,
iv.
4437
f. The .TYID
p
1
?*
(
=
oracle-giving
terebinth
)
was
evidently
an ancient sacred tree from which oracles were
obtained,
and therefore
a survival of
primitive tree-worship.
f
Besides Dt. n
30
(a
difficult
pass.,
originally
the sacred tree without distinction of
species.
J
The
J
I^N of
Gn.
35
8
is called a
palm
in
Ju. 4
5
,
and
D^N
(pi.
of
nJ>N?) (Ex. I5
27
etc.)
derived its name from
70 palm-trees.
But
though
the Mass, tradition
may
not be
uniformly
reliable, n^N
and
pW appear
to be
distinguished
in
Hos.
4
13
,
Is. 6
13
(Di.)
;
and the existence of a form
pWt
is confirmed
by
alldnu,
which is said to be an Ass. tree-name
(G-B.
14
36 b).
It is
probable
from Zee. n
a
,
Ezk.
27
6
etc.,
that
p^N
is the oak. With
regard
to the other names no
convincing theory
can be
formed,
but a connexion
with *?K
(Wit)
is at best
precarious.
6b is
probably
a
gloss:
cf.
i3
7b
.
7.
-i**
l]
juuffiFS
add ^.
V^B nx^n]
so
35
1
(E).
*
It is
possible
that this
(ODDS )
is the oldest form in Heb. also
;
since
< often has the
pi.
Ski/ia
(33
18
35*
5
etc.).
t
"Where a tree is connected with a well it was
probably
the
original object
of honour"
(Curtiss,
Prim. Sem. ReL
1
91).
On the
obtaining
of oracles from
trees,
see Rob. Sm. fiS
2
, 195. Comp. Ju. 4
5
,
2 Sa.
5
24
;
and the oak of Zeus at Dodona. Duhm s brilliant
generali
sation
(Isaiah
1
, 13 f.),
that Abraham was
traditionally
associated with
sacred
trees,
Isaac and Ishmael with sacred
wells,
and
Jacob
with
sacred
stones, though
not
literally
accurate,
has sufficient truth to be
suggestive ;
and
may possibly correspond
to some
vague impression
of
the
popular
mind in Israel.
i
We. Pr.
234
;
Sta.
GVI,
i.
455
;
v.
Gall,
I.e.
;
cf.
Schwally,
ThLzg.,
1899* 35
6-
XII. 6-8
247
see Dri. ad
loc.,
and v.
Gall,
Cult-St.
107 ff.),
it seems to be mentioned
as one of the sacra of Shechem under other names :
n^xn, n^Nn (a
mere
difference of
pointing-, v.i.},
Gn.
35
4
, Jos. 24
26
;
D
jfiyo p"?N (
terebinth of
soothsayers ), Ju. 9"
;
and
nyc
N
(
t. of the
pillar [n^xsn]) Ju. 9
6
. The
tree is not said to have been
planted by
Abram
(like
the tamarisk of
Beersheba,
2i
33
),
an additional indication that Abram was not
origin
ally
the
patron
or well of the shrine. The sacred stone under the tree
(the
3^
of
Ju. 9
6
?)
was believed to have been set
up by Joshua (Jos. 24
26
).
The
sanctuary
of Shechem was also associated with
Jacob (33
18
35
4
),
and
especially
with
Joseph,
who was buried there
(Jos. zq
32
),
and whose
grave
is still shown near the
village
of Balata
(balldt=
(
oak
)
: see v.
Gall, 117.
8.
Abram moved
on,
nomadic
fashion,
and
spread
his
tent
(26
25
33
19
35
21
)
near
Bethel^
about 20 m. from Shechem
;
there he built a second
altar,
and called
by
the name
of
Yahwe\
see on
4
26
. Luther s
rendering: predigte
den
Namen des
Herrn,
is
absolutely
without
exegetical
warrant
;
and the whole notion of a monotheistic
propaganda,
of
which Abram was the Mahdi
(Je.
ATLO
2
,
328),
is a modern
invention
unsupported by
a
particle
of historical evidence.
It is noticeable that no
theophany
is recorded
here,
perhaps
because the definite consecration of Bethel was ascribed
to
Jacob (ch. 28).
Here the
parting
from Lot took
place
(ch. 13).
On Bethel
(Beitin),
see on 28
10fr-
35*
;
cf.
Jos. f.
Di.
distinguishes
the site of Abram s altar
(E
of Bethel and W of
Ai)
from that of
Jacob
s
pillar,
which he takes to have been at Bethel itself. The more natural
view is that the local
sanctuary lay
E of the
city (so Gu.), perhaps
at
Burg
Beitin^
the traditional scene of Abram s
encampment (GASm.
EB,
i.
552).
On the somewhat uncertain situation of
^n
(always
with
art.
=
.vy,
Neh. n
31
,
i Ch.
7
s8
;
and
n:j?,
Is. ro
28
),
see
Buhl, GP,
177.
XII.
9-XIII.
I. Abram in
Egypt.
The first of three
variants of what must have been a
very popular
story
in
ancient Israel
(cf.
20. 26
6ff<
).
Whether the
original
hero
was Abraham or Isaac we cannot tell
;
but a
comparison
of
the three
parallels
shows that certain
primitive
features of
the
legend
are most
faithfully preserved
in the
passage
before us : note the entire absence of the
extenuating
circumstances introduced into the other
accounts,
the
whole
subject being
treated with a frank realism which
8.
pnyn]
intr.
Hiph.
as 26
22
(J).
248
MIGRATIONS OF ABRAM
(j, P)
seems to take us down to the bed-rock of Hebrew
folklore.
p.
to the
Negeb}
The
dry region
between the
Judaean
highland
and the wilderness of
et-Tlh,
extending
from 10 or
12 m. N of Beersheba to the
neighbourhood
of Kadesh
(v.i.).
It is still a suitable
pasture ground
for camel-
breeding
Bedouin,
and the remains of
buildings
and
irriga
tion works
prove
that it was once much more
extensively
cultivated than at
present.
10. the
famine
was severe
(lit.
1
heavy )]
emphasising
the fact that the visit to
Egypt
was
compulsory.
The Nile
valley,
on account of its
great
fertility
and its
independence
of the annual
rainfall,
was the
natural resort of Asiatics in times of
scarcity
;
and this
under
primitive
conditions involved an actual
sojourn
in the
country.
The admission of Semites to the rich
pastures
of
Egypt
is both described and
depicted
in the monuments
(see
Guthe,
GJ
y
16).^
The
purchase
of corn for home
consumption (42
lff
-)
was
possible
as a
temporary expedient
at a somewhat more advanced
stage
of culture.
11-13.
The
speech
of Abram to his wife is an instructive revelation of
social and moral sentiment in
early
Israel. The Hebrew
women are fairer than all
others,
and are sure to be coveted
by foreigners
;
but the
marriage
bond is so sacred that even
a
foreigner,
in order to
possess
the
wife,
will kill the husband
9.
jnoji
"n^n]
Dav.
86,
R.
4;
G-K.
113
u. The idea of continuous
journeying-
lies not in
JTIDJ
(see
on n
2
),
but in
"p^n
(cf. Ju. i4
9
). n|j|n]
(
tv
rfj tpfiw
:
Aq.
vfaovoe : S. els v6rov. The
word,
from a
^/ meaning
dry,
occurs as a
proper
name of S Palestine
(Ngb)
in a document of
the
reign
of Thothmes m.
(Muller,
AE, 148; Mey.
ZATW,
vi.
i).
Its
use to denote the S direction is rare in
JE,
and
apparently
confined to
later additions
(i3
u
a8
14
, Jos.
i8
5
).
The
geographical
limits of the
region can,
of
course, only
be
roughly determined, chiefly
from the list
of its cities in
Jos. I5
21
"
32
: on
this,
and its
physical characteristics,
see
Che.
EB,
3374
ff.
; Palmer,
Desert
of
the
Exodus,
ii.
351
f.
(1871).
IO.
D^
"\uh
(Jer. 42
15ff-
)] properly
dwell as a client or
protected guest
(na
=
Ar.
gar:
cf.
OTJC
2
, 342
1
).
The
words, however,
are often used in
the wider sense of
temporary sojourn (i5
13
, Jer. i4
8
),
and this
may
be
the case here. II.
Kj-nan]
i6
2
iS
27- 31
ig
2- 8- 1"
2
7
a
(all J).
The free use
of
K} (c. 40
t. in
Gen.)
is
very
characteristic of
J (Ho.
EinL
no). 13.
nN
nhyj
oratio
obliqua
without
5,
G-K.
157
a.
(&,
on the
contrary,
6rt
*
Cf.
Authority
and
Archeology
,
p. 59
; DJ5,
ii.
53
i
b
(note t)>
774
b
-
XII.
9-io
249
first. Hence the dilemma with which Abram is confronted :
if Sarai is known as his
wife,
her life will be
safe,
but he
will
probably
be slain
;
if she
passes
as his
sister,
her honour
will be
endangered,
but his
advantage
will be served. In
such a case the true Hebrew wife will not hesitate to sacrifice
herself for her husband: at the same time she is a free
moral
agent
: Abram s
proposal
is not a command but a
deferential
request. Lastly,
it is assumed that in the
circumstances
lying
is excusable. There is no
suggestion
that either the untruthfulness or the selfish cowardice of the
request
was
severely reprobated by
the ethical code to which
the narrative
appealed. 14, 15.
The
stratagem
succeeds
beyond expectation.
Sarai attracts the notice of the
courtiers,
and is
brought
into Pharaoh s harem. The
incident is characteristic of Oriental
despotisms generally
:
Ebers
(Aeg.
u. d. B.
Moszs,
262
f.)
cites from the d
Orbiney
papyrus
an
example
of the zeal of
Egyptian
officials in
matters of this kind. 16. he treatedAbram
well,
etc.\
cf. v.
13
.
This feature of the reward is a
standing
element of the
tradition
;
but in ch. 20 it is
only
bestowed after the
misunderstanding
has been cleared
up,
and in 26
12ff>
its
connexion with the incident is loosened.
The
gifts
enumerated constituted the riches of the
patriarchs
: 2O
14
24
35
3o
43
32
15f-
(cf. Jb.
i
3
42
12
),
and were
perhaps regarded by
this nar
rator as the foundation of Abram s
subsequent
wealth. The animals
mentioned were all known in ancient
Egypt (Ebers, 265 ff.), except
the
d5. atrov
el^L
^"p:?]
In Hex.
only 3O
27
39 (J)
and
3
t. in Dt. : elsewhere
4
t.
15- iJns]
The title of all
Egyptian kings
mentioned in OT
except
Shishak
(i
Ki.
i4
25
)
and Seve"
(2
Ki.
ly
4
).
It
corresponds exactly
to
Eg.
Pero
(
Great House
), denoting originally
the
palace
or
court,
and
is not
applied
to the
person
of the
king
earlier than the i8th
dynasty
(Erman, LAE,
58
; Griffith, DB,
iii.
819
;
Mil.
EB,
iii.
3687).
It is needless
to
go
further in search of an
etymology, though Renouf, PSBA,
xv.
421,
may
be consulted. A confusion of the name here with the
"
Pir u
king
of
Musuri
"
mentioned
by Sargon (KIBy
ii.
55, etc.),
is too
readily suspected
by Cheyne (EB, 3164,
and
TBAI, 223
;
cf. Wi.
MVAG,
iii.
2ff.).
Even
supposing
it
proved
that this is the
proper
name of a N Arabian
prince,
the narrative here must be much older than the time of
Sargon
;
and it
is inconceivable that the Heb.
designation
for the
kings
of
Egypt
should
have been determined
by
an isolated and accidental resemblance to a
native word. 16. After
11331
juu. inserts IND 133
njpo,
and
puts
250
MIGRATIONS OF ABRAM
(j, P)
camel,
which is neither
represented
nor named in the monuments before
the Greek
period.*
This,
Mliller
supposes,
was due to a
religious
scruple
; but,
of
course,
the
difficulty
remains of
thinking-
that a
religiously
unclean animal should have been bred in
Egypt,
or have
been
gifted by
Pharaoh to Abram. The order also slaves between
he-asses and she-asses is
strange
;
the
explanation (Ho. Gu.)
that
the slaves were intermediate in value between these animals is
jejune,
and
is, besides,
contradicted
by 24
35
3O
43
. It is
possible
that D
V^
ninx
has been added at the end
by
a
glossator ;
but see
24^ 30**,
and cf.
juu. below.
17.
The
story
reaches its climax. Yahwe
interposes
at
the extreme moment to save Sarai and avert
calamity
from
the
patriarchal
house. It is
noteworthy
that Yahwe s inter
vention is here
purely providential
: in 2o
3ff<
it takes the form
of a
personal
communication,
while in the attenuated version
of 26
6ff-
it has become
superfluous
and is omitted. smote ivifh
great
plagues]
severe
bodily
maladies
;
cf. 2O
17
,
Ex. n
1
,
Ps.
39
11
etc. How Pharaoh discovered the cause of his sickness
we are left to
conjecture
;
Jos. (Ant.
i.
164 f.) pretty nearly
exhausts the
possibilities
of the case when he mentions
sacrifice,
inquiry
at the
priests,
and
interrogation
of Sarai.
Gu. is
probably right
in
suggesting
that
something
has been
omitted between
17
and
18
.
18, ip.
To the
vigorous expos
tulation of the
Pharaoh,
Abram is unable to
reply.
The
narrator
evidently
feels that
morally
the heathen
king
is in
the
right
;
and the zest with which the
story
was related
was not
quite
so
unalloyed by
ethical reflexions as Gu.
(151)
would have us believe. The idea of
God, however,
is im
perfectly
moralised
;
Yahwe s
providence puts
in the
wrong
the man who is
justified
at the bar of human conscience
;
He
is not here the
absolutely righteous Being proclaimed by
the
prophets (Am. 3
2
).
20. Pharaoh
gave
men
charge concerning
before
nnbqj, 17. V3j;i]
The Pi.
only
of
smiting
with disease : 2 Ki.
15*,
2 Ch. 26
20
(Pu.
Ps.
73
6
).
D
Via]
Q& + KO.I
irevrjpo
is.
irrsvw] possibly
a
gloss
from 2O
m
(KS. al.)
;
see on 2
9
.
19. njPK}]
so that I took
;
Dri.
^-
74
a,
1
16,
Obs. 2.
WJK]
Qb +
V^.
20. AU< add at the end
ioy tsify,
as in MT of
I3
1
: the
phrase
is
interpolated
in both
places.
*
Cf. Ex.
9
3
(J)
;
and see
Sayce,
EHH, 169 (the
notice
unhistorical) ;
Erman,
LAE
t
493.
Ebers statement as to the name is corrected
by
Muller, AE, 142, EB,
i.
634.
XII.
I7-XIII.
6
251
Abram]
i.e.
provided
him with an escort
(n?K>
as i8
16
3i
27
).
The
thought
of
ignominious expulsion
is far from the writer s
mind
;
the
purpose
of the escort is to see that no further
injury
is done to the
patriarch
or his wife
(IEz.), bringing
fresh
judgements
on the realm. XIII. I. The narrative
closes with the return of Abram to his home in the
Negeb
(cf.
i2
9
).
Source
of
I2
10 20
. It has
already
been
pointed
out
(p. 242 f.) that,
though
the section breaks the connexion of the main
narrative,
it is Yahwistic
in
style
;
and the
question
of its
origin
relates
only
to its
place
within
the
general cycle
of Yahwistic tradition. Three views are
possible
:
that it is
(i)
a
secondary expansion
of
J by
a later hand
(We.)
;
(2)
a
misplaced chapter
of
J
s main narrative
belonging properly
to a subse
quent stage
of the
history
;
or
(3)
an
excerpt
from a
separate
Yahwistic
collection
(Gu. [J
b
]).
To
(i)
and
(2)
there are distinct
objections
:
(a)
the
style
and moral tone of the
narrative,
which are those of
racy
popular legend,
and
produce
the
impression
of
great antiquity
;
(b)
the
absence from the character of Abram of those ideal features which are
prominent
in the main
narrative,
and which later
ages
tended to ex
aggerate (e.g.
ch.
14)
;
especially (c)
the fact that the home of Abram
is not at Hebron but in the
Negeb.
Gu. s
theory,
which is not
open
to
these
objections,
seems, therefore,
to mark an advance in the
analysis
of
J.
2-18.
Separation
of Abram and Lot.
2,
5, 7.
The
great
wealth of the two
patriarchs
leads to
bickering among
their retainers. The situation reflects the relations of tribes
rather than of
private
families,
quarrels
about
pastures
and
watering-places being
a common feature of nomadic life and
a
frequent
cause of
separation
: cf. 2i
25
26
20ff
-. 2. Silver and
gold}
24
85
20
16
23
16
.
5.
Lot s
substance,
on the other
hand,
is
purely
nomadic:
flocks,
herds,
and tents. The last word
appears
to have the sense of
people,
families
;
cf. Ar.
ahl,
Sab.
^riK
(Miiller,
ZDMG,
xxxvii.
341
;
Homm. SA
Chrest.
121). 3, 4.
A redactional addition
(p. 243), bringing
the narrative back to
Bethel,
the traditional scene of the
separation.
6.
P s account of the
parting
: cf.
^6
7
. It has
often been noticed that he makes no mention of a
quarrel ;
just
as
J says nothing
of the straitness of the land
(v.i.).
3. vj^c] simply by stages
;
not
by
the same
stages by
which he
had come
(<F Ra.):
cf. Ex.
i;
1
4O
36- 88
etc.
5.
D
^nxi
(G-K. 93
r,
23 h}}
(5
A
KTT)vri,
prob.
Gr.
corruption
ot
(ncrjvai (so
many MSS).
6.
N^J]
AU HHBO better. Cf.
36 (P). 6ty3
is
by
some
(KS. Ho.) assigned
to
J,
252
MIGRATIONS OF ABRAM
(j, P)
8, 9-
The
thought
of strife between relatives
(E^K
D
T
j**)
is in
tolerable to
Abram, who,
though
the older
man,
renounces
his
rights
for the sake of an amicable settlement. The
narrator has
finely
conceived the
magnanimity
which
springs
from
fellowship
with God. The
peaceable disposition
ascribed to the
patriarchs
is characteristic of the old narra
tives.
Jacob
substitutes
guile
for
force,
but Abraham and
Isaac
conquer by
sheer reasonableness and conciliation.
10, Iia,
I2b/3.
Lot s choice.
lifted up
his
eyes
and
saw,
etc.]
The
Burg
Beitln
(p. 247),
a few minutes SE from the
village,
is described as
"
one of the
great view-points
of Palestine
"
(GASm.
EB,
552),
from which the
Jordan valley
and the N
end of the Dead Sea are
clearly
visible. the -whole Oval
of
the
Jordan\
cf. Dri. Deut.
421
f.
IT1-D
13?
(only
here and t Ki.
7^
=
2 Ch.
4"),
or
i|?n simply (v.
13
I9
iv.25. 28f
}
Dt.
34.3,
2 Sa. i8
23
),
is not
(as
Di.
230)
the whole of the Arabah
from the Lake of Galilee to the Dead
Sea,
but the
expansion
of the
Jordan
valley
towards its S
end,
defined in Dt.
34
3
as the
plain
of
Jericho (see ffG, 505
ff.
; Buhl, GP, 112).
The northern limit is in
determinate
;
the southern
depends
on the site of Zoar
(v.
10
),
whether
N or S of the Dead Sea. It is thus not
quite
certain whether the term
includes the Dead Sea basin
;
and on this
hangs
the much more
import
ant
question
whether the writer conceives the Sea as non-existent at the
time to which the narrative refers. That is
certainly
the
impression
produced by
the
language
of v.
10
.
Apart
from the
assumption
of a
radical transformation of the
physical
features of the
region,
the words
before
Yahive
destroyed
S. and G. have no
significance.
As a mere note
of time
they
would
merely
show the connexion of the
story
with ch.
19,
and
might very
well be a
gloss (Ols. Di.).
See
below,
pp. 273
f.
go
ar
is the S limit of the
Kikkar, and,
if situated at the S end of the Lake
(as
is most
probable),
would not be seen from Bethel.
but on insufficient
grounds (cf. Hupf. Qu.
21
f.) .^h, 3;r]
jux D 3B".
The name is
coupled
with
Jjy?n
m
34
30
, Ju.
i
4- 5
(J),
and often
appears
in enumerations of the
pre-Israelite
inhabitants
(i5
20
etc.).
If,
as is
probable,
it be connected with
n?
(Dt. 3,
i Sa. 6
18
,
Est.
9"), rrtrj?
(Ezk. 38",
Zee. 2
8
,
Est.
9
19
),
it would mean hamlet-dwellers as dis
tinguished
from
Canaanites, occupying
fortified cities
(see
on
^nn,
io
17
).
That the P. were remnants of a
/w-Canaanite population
is
hardly
to
be inferred from the omission of the name in io
16f-
,
or from its
association with the
Rephaim
in
Jos.
I7
15
: this last notice is
wanting
in (5r
y B
and is
perhaps
a
gloss (Moore, Jud. 17). 9. tfVq]
(Erj$
nini.
^Di^n ppNj]
Ball
suggests
the
pointing
^NJp
^n, po
n
(infs. abs.).
x
reads n^NDBTT nro n DNI nrD m n^NDt?n QN. io.
n^r]
juu. "62
;
fflr
L
om.
n^D]
in the sense of watered
region only again
Ezk.
45
15
(where
XIII.
7-17
253
like the land
of Egypt]
coming
after like the
garden of
Yahnve
(2
10
~
14
;
cf. Is.
5i
3
)
it is an
anti-climax,
which
might
be excused
(as
Di.
thinks)
because the first
comparison
was
pitched
too
high.
But the last half of the v. seems
greatly
overloaded,
and it is not
improbable
that both nifotf
^Bp
and
o
r
K3
are to be removed as
glosses.
On the luxuriant
fertility
and abundant
water-supply
of the
district,
see HG
t
483
f.
;
Buhl,
39;
Seetzen, Reisen,
i.
417.
Iia. Lot
departed
east
ward]
see on n
2
and the footnote
infra.
I2b/3.
The im
mediate continuation
(in J)
of
lla
: and moved his tent
up
to
Sodom]
the
intervening
words
being
from P
(cf.
^33H
"ny
instead of
HP
5
?
f
3).
13.
This notice of the sinfulness of Sodom
is another
anticipation
of ch.
19
;
but it is introduced here
with
great
effect as
showing
how Lot had over-reached him
self
by
his selfish conduct.
14-17.
The
promise
of the land
is now confirmed to Abram.
14. Lift up
thine
eyes,
etc.]
the contrast to Lot s self-interested
glance
(v.
10
),
while
Abram,
by
his
magnanimous
surrender of his
claims,
had
unconsciously
chosen the
good part. 15.
It is
very
doubtful
if the ufiy IV can be considered
(with Di.)
a new element of
the
promise
as
compared
with I2
7
. 16. the dust
of
the
earth}
28
14
.
This solemn assurance of the
possession
of the land
(
14
*
17
)
is some
what of a contrast to the
simple promises
of i2
2- 7
;
and has affinities
with a series of
passages
which
appear
to
represent
a later
phase
of
religious
reflexion
(see
on ch.
15, p. 284).
Other reasons are adduced
for
thinking
that
:4
~
17
are the work of a
younger
hand than the
original
J. (a)
It is not the habit of
J
to cite divine oracles without a
specifica
tion of the circumstances under which the
theophany
takes
place (but
see I2
lff
-). (b)
The
conception
of Abram as
wandering
over the land
is not that of
J
b
,
who fixes his
permanent dwelling-place
at
Hebron.
(c)
While Bethel commands a view of the
Jordan valley,
it
affords no
the text is
corrupt)
and Sir.
39
23
. Should we read
n^D?
-"13$$]
see
io
19
.
IKS]
5
^A^
=
Tanis
(jitf)
in
Egypt (Nu.
I
3
22
,
Is.
19"-
1S
etc.),
which is
preferred by
Ball,
but is rather an error caused
by
the
pre
ceding
Dn$p.
II.
Dnjgp (cf.
II
2
)]
(&
airb
dvaroX&v,
U ab
oriente. But
the
only possible
sense here is eastward
;
hence Sta.
(Ak. Reden,
292)
and Gu. emend to
np-ip. nb,
in
spite
of its
resemblance to
9a
}
must be
assigned
to
P, being necessary
to the
completeness
of that
account,
and because it disturbs the connexion of
lla
with
12b
.
_
16.
^K]=
SO that
(G-K.
166
b). 17.
ffi adds at end /cai
254
MIGRATIONS OF ABRAM
(j, P)
wide
prospect
of the land as a whole. We.
(Comp.* 25 f.)
admits that
these
general impressions
are not such as to
procure
universal assent.
In
point
of fact
they
are rather overstated
;
and Di. s answers
may
satisfy
those who refuse to
carry
critical
operations
further than is
absolutely necessary. Nevertheless,
We. s
impression
is
probably
correct,
and has commended itself to KS. Ho. Gu. al.* The vv.
may
be omitted not
only
without
injury
to the
context,
but with the
obvious
advantage
of
bringing-
out the reference of
18
to
12ft
. The
redactor has
rightly
seized the
point
of the
story,
which is that
by
his
selfish choice Lot left Abram the sole heir of Canaan.
l8. Abram moves his tent to the
terebinth(s] of
Mamre,
in
Hebron,
and
inaugurates
the local
sanctuary
there. In
the main narrative of
J
h
the statement was
immediately
followed
by
ch.
18;
and it is
possible
that the
theophany
recorded at the
beginning
of that
chapter
is that which
marked the
place
as
holy (see
on I2
7
).
The site of the tree
(or
trees,
v.t.)
is not known. There was a
Terebinth of Abraham about
15
stadia from
Hebron,
which was the
scene of mixed heathen and Christian
worship, suppressed by
order
of Constantine
(Sozomen, HE,
ii.
4). Josephus (BJ,
iv.
533)
mentions
a
very large
terebinth said to have existed airb
TTJS
AcHcrews
/J-^XP
1 v^v
>
6 stadia from the
city.
In
spite
of the
discrepancy
as to
distance,
it
is
probable
that these are to be identified
;
and that the site was the
f/ardm
Rdmet
el-Halll,
2 m. N of Hebron. The
difficulty
in
accepting
this,
the oldest
accessible,
tradition is that the distance is inconsistent
with the statement that the
sanctuary
was in Hebron. And if we
suppose
the ancient Hebron to have been at er-Rdme in the
vicinity
of the
Hardnty
this conflicts with the tradition as to the cave of
ffov els rbv
aluva,
approved by
Ball. 18.
1095
iS*
(i4
18
iS
1
)]
see on
i2
6
.
(ffi TT)V Spuv
TTJV
Ma/i/J/nJi
.
,
also reads the
sing.,
which
may
be
right, though
i8
4
cannot be cited in
support
of it. In
J,
Mamre is
said"]
to be in
Hebron,
in P
(where
the tree is never
mentioned)
it is a ;
name of
Hebron,
and in
i4
13- 24
it becomes the name of an Amorite>
chief,
the owner of the trees. So &
here,
as shown
by
the addition of
*
The
only point
on which it is
impossible
to follow We. is his
assumption
that Hebron is the fixed residence of Abram in all strata
of
J,
and that the notion of his
migratory
life arose from the
amalgama
tion of E
(which puts
Beersheba in the
place
of
Hebron)
with
J.
There
was
probably
a whole
cycle
of Yahwistic
legends,
in which he is
represented
as
living
in the
Negeb (see already
on I2
9ff-
).
So far as
mere
literary
criticism
goes,
there is no reason
why
the addition should
not be
prior
to R
JE
.
xin. i8-xiv.
255
Machpelah,
which has as
good
claims to be considered authentic.
The
present
Oak of
Abraham,
about 2 m.
NW,
is as old as the
i6th cent. See
Robinson, BR,
i.
216; Buhl, GP, 160, 162; Baedeker,
Pal. and
Syr.
3
138, 142 j
Dri.
DB,
iii.
224
f.
;
v.
Gall,
CSt.
52.
CH. XIV. Abram s
Victory
over Four
Kings.
While Abram was at
Hebron,
a revolt of five
petty kings
in the
Jordan valley against
their over-lord Chedorlaomer
of Elam
brought
from the East a
great punitive expedition,
in which no fewer than four
powerful
monarchs took
part.
A successful
campaign
the course of which is traced in
detail ended in the
complete
defeat of the rebels in a
pitched
battle in what is now the Dead Sea
basin,
followed
by
the sack of
Sodom,
and the
capture
of Lot
(
1
~
12
).
Abram,
with a handful of
slaves, pursues
the victorious allies to
Dan,
routs them in a
night attack,
and rescues the
captives,
including
Lot
(
13
~
16
).
On his homeward
journey
he is
met
by
Melchizedek, king
of
Salem,
who blesses him in
the name of God Most
High,
and to whom he
pays
tithes
(
18
~
20
)
;
and
by
the
king
of
Sodom,
whose offer of the
spoil
Abram
rejects
with
proud
and almost disdainful
magnanimity
(
17- 21
~
24
).
Such is in brief the content of this
strange
and
perplexing chapter,
in its
present
form and
setting.
It is
obvious that the first half is
merely introductory,
and that
the
purpose
of the whole is to illustrate the
singular dignity
of Abram s
position among
the
potentates
of the earth.
Essentially peaceful, yet ready
on the call of
duty
to take
the field
against overwhelming
odds,
disinterested and
considerate of others in the hour of
victory,
reverential
towards the name and
representative
of the true
God,
he
moves as a
great prince amongst
his
contemporaries,
combining
the
highest
earthly
success with a certain
detachment and unworldliness of character. Whether the
picture
be
historically
true or not a
question
reserved for
a
concluding
note it is unfair to
deny
to it
nobility
of con
ception ;
and it is
perhaps
an
exaggeration
to assert that
it
stands in absolute and unrelieved
opposition
to all we
elsewhere read of Abram. The
story
does not
give
the
256
ABRAM S VICTORY
impression
that Abram forfeits the character of Muslim and
prophet (We.)
even when he assumes the role of a warrior.
Literary
character.
Many
features of the
chapter
show that it has
had a
peculiar literary history, (a)
The
vocabulary^ though exhibiting
sporadic
affinities with P
(eton,
" 12 16 21
;
n:g
T
1
?;,
14
;
vsi
[=
<
person ],
21
)
or E
(nnxn,
7- 13
;
"]I$3,
24
),
contains several
expressions
which are eithe*
unique
or rare
(see
the
footnotes): Tpaij,
14
(&TT. \ey.)
; pnn,
14
; a^En,
1J
n^ p,
j v^j;
Sx,
18 20- 22
;
jap,
20
; T]D,
4
.*
(b)
The numerous
antiquarian glosses
and archaic
names,
suggesting-
the use of an ancient
document,
have no
parallel except
in Dt. a
10 12- 20 23
3
9- u- 13b- 14
;
and even these are not
quite
of the same character.
(c)
The annalistic official
style, specially
noticeable in the
introduction, may
be
genuine
or simulated
;
in either
case it marks the
passage sharply
off from the narratives
by
which it
is surrounded. That the
chapter
as it stands cannot be
assigned
to
any
of the three sources of Gen. is now
universally acknowledged,
and
need not be further
argued
here. Some writers
postulate
the existence
of a
literary
kernel which
may
either
(i)
have
originated
in one of the
schools
J
or
E,t
or
(2)
have
passed through
their
hands.J
In neither
form can the
theory
be made at all
plausible.
The treatment of docu
mentary
material
supposed by (i)
is
unexampled
in Gen.
;
and those who
suggest
it have to
produce
some sufficient reason
why
a narrative of
(say)
E
required
to be so
heavily glossed.
As for
(2),
we
have,
to be
sure,
no
experience
of how E or
J
would have edited an old cuneiform
document if it had fallen into their
hands, they
were collectors of oral
tradition,
not
manipulators
of official
records,
but we
may presume
that
if the
story
would not bear
telling
in the vivid
style
that went to the
hearts of the
people,
these writers would have left it alone. The
objec
tions to P s
authorship
are
equally strong,
the
style
and
subject being
alike
foreign
to the well-marked character of the
Priestly
narration.
Ch. xiv. is therefore an isolated boulder in the stratification of the
Pent.,
a fact which
certainly
invites examination of its
origin,
but is
not in itself an evidence of
high antiquity.
1-4.
The revolt of the five
kings.
i. The four names
I.
V? ?]
(&
tv
rrj jSacriXeig.
;
U
in illo
tempore, reading
all the names in
the nom. (r has the first in
gen.
and the rest nom.
;
r
A
further inserts
*
The
singularity
of the
passage appears
to be reflected even in the
translation of
(5r,
which has some unusual
renderings
: ITTTTOS for
^o~j,
11. is. 21
(nowhere
else in
OT)
;
<pdpay
for
pcy,
3
(not again
in Pent. : twice
in
Jos.
and
4
t. in Book of
Isa.)
; Trepdr???
(a?ra| Xe7.)
for
nziy,
13
, though
this
might
be
explained by
the
unexpected
occurrence of the
gentilic
in
this connexion
(Aq. TrepcurTjs).
t So Di. Kittel
(GH
y
i.
124, 1586.),
and
(with reserve)
Ho.,
all of
whom think of E as the most
likely
source.
J
So Wi.
GI,
ii.
26-48,
who holds that the
original
was a cuneiform
document of
legendary
and
mythical
character,
which was worked over
first
by
E and then
by J (see
below,
p. 272).
XIV.
I,
2
257
(see below)
do double
duty,
as
gen.
after
^2
and as
subj.
to
D
WV a
faulty syntax
which a
good
writer would
have avoided
(v.i.).
The
suggestion
that the first two names
are
gen.
and the last two
subj.,*
has the
advantage
of
putting
Kedorld
omer,
the head of the
expedition
(*
5- 9- 17
),
in the
place
of honour
;
but it is without warrant in the Heb.
text
;
and
besides,
by excluding
the first two
kings
from
participation
in the
campaign (against
5- 9- 17
),
it necessitates
a series of
changes
too radical to be
safely
undertaken.
2. The
group
of five cities
(Pentapolis,
Wis. io
6
)
is
thought
to be the result of an
amalgamation
of
originally independent
traditions.
In ch.
19, only
Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned as
destroyed
(i 9
24- 28
[i8
20
] ;
so i
3
10
,
Is. i
9f
-, Jer.
2
3
14
etc.)
and Zoar
(i 9
17ff
-)
as
spared.
Admah and Zeboim are named alone in Hos. n
8
,
in a manner
hardly
consistent with the idea that
they
were involved in the same
catastrophe
as S. and G. The
only passages
besides this where the four are
associated are io
19
and Dt.
2Q
22
,
although neighbour
cities of S. and
G. are referred to in
Jer. 49
18
5o
40
,
Ezk. i6
46ff
-.
If,
as seems
probable,
there were two distinct
legends,
we cannot assume that in the
original
tradition Admah and Zeboim were connected with the Dead Sea
(see
Che.
EB,
66
f.).
The old name of
Zoar, y^a
(Destruction?), appears
nowhere else.
The four names in v.
1
are
undoubtedly historical,
although
the monu
mental evidence is less conclusive than is often
represented, (i)
^EnpN
( A.(JLa.p(f>a\)
is
thought
to be a
faulty transcription
of
ffammurabi
(Ammurab[p]i),
the name of the 6th
king
of the first Bab.
dynasty,
who
put
an end to the Elamite domination and united the whole
country
under his own
sway (c.
2100
B.c.).f
The final h
presents
a
difficulty
which has never been
satisfactorily explained
;
but the
equivalence
is
icai between the second and third. The
reading
of the Sixtine ed.
(first
two names in
gen. coupled by KaL),
which is
appealed
to in
support
of Wi. s
construction,
has
very
little MS
authority.
"
I have little doubt
that both in H. and P.
19 (which
is a rather
carelessly
written
MS)
and
in
135
the
reading
is due to a scribe s
mistake,
probably arising
from
misreading
of a contracted termination and induced
by
the
immediately
preceding /ScurcA^ws.
How it came into the Roman
edition,
I do not feel
sure."
I
2.
j;
1
?!]
(5r
BoAXa,
etc.
3%$]
<5
Zevvaap. ?y]
(Sr
Su/*oo/3,
I
1
P
2u/io/3,
juu. iDNDE
(
name has
perished ),
&
i-pL.
N
n]
the first
of the 1 1 instances of this Kethib in Pent,
(see
on 2
12
).
*
Wi.
GI,
ii.
27, 30
; Peiser, MVAG, 1897, 308
ff.
;
approved by
Gu.
t
See Introd.
pp.
xiv f.
%
Private communication from Mr. M Lean.
17
253
ABRAM S VICTORY
widely recognised by Assyriologists.*
It
is, however, questioned by
Jen.f, absolutely rejected by Bezold,
and
pronounced problematical
by Mey.
GA
2
,
I. ii.
551. (On -yrf,
see io
10
.) (2)
tfn*
(cf.
Dn. 2
14
, Jth.
i
6
),
it
seems,
is now
satisfactorily
identified with
Eri-agu,
the Sumerian
equivalent
of
Arad-Sin,
a
king-
of
Larsa,
who was succeeded
by
his
more famous
brother, Rim-Sin,
the ruler who was
conquered by
Hammurabi in the
3ist year
of the latter s
reign (KAT*,
16, 19).
The
two
brothers,
sons of the Elamite
Kudurmabug-,
were first
distinguished
by Thureau-Dangin
in
1907 (Sumer.
iLnd Akkad.
Kunigsinschr.
2iof.
;
cf.
King,
Chronicles
concerning early
Bab.
Kings,
vol. i. 68
2
;
Mey.
GA*
t
I. ii.
p. 550 f.). Formerly
the two names and
persons
were
confused;
and Schrader s
attempt
to
identify
Rim-Sin with
Arioch, though
accepted by many,
was
reasonably
contested
by
the more cautious
Assyriologists, e.g. Jen. (ZDMG, 1896, 2476.),
Bezold
(op.
cit.
27, 56),
and Zimmern
(KAT*, 367).
The
objections
do not hold
against
the
equation
Arioch
=
Eriagu
Arad-Sin,
provided
Arad-Sin be
kept
distinct
from Rim-Sin. The
discovery by
Pinches
||
in
1892
of the name
Eri-[E]akii
or Eri-Ekua stands on a somewhat different
footing.
The
tablets on which these names occur are
admittedly
late
(not
earlier than
the
4th
cent.
B.C.);
the
identity
of the names with Eri-Aku is called in
question by King
;
H who further
points
out that this Eri-Ekua is not
styled
a
king,
that there is
nothing
to connect him with
Larsa,
and
that
consequently
we have no reason to
suppose
him the same as
either of the well-known
contemporaries
of Hammurabi. The real
significance
of the
discovery
lies in the coincidence that on these
same late
fragments (and
nowhere
else)
the two
remaining
names
of the v. are
supposed
to occur.
(3) -ipy^-n? (Xodo\\oyo/j.op) unquestion
ably
stands for
Kudur-lagamar,
a
genuine
Elamite
proper
name,
con
taining
the name of a known Elamite
divinity Lagamar (KAT
3
,
485),
preceded by
a word which
appears
as a
component
of
theophorous
Elamite names
(Kudur-mabug, Kudur-Nanfyundi, etc.).
It is
extremely
doubtful, however,
if the actual name has
yet
been found outside of this
chapter.
The "sensational" announcement of Scheil
(1896),
that he
had read it
(Ku-dur-nu-uh-ga-mar)
in a letter of Hammurabi to Sinid-
innam, king
of
Larsa,
has been
disposed
of
by
the brilliant refutation
of
King (op.
cit. xxv-xxxix. Cf. also Del.
BA,
iv.
90).
There remains
the
prior discovery
of the Pinches
fragments,
on which there is men
tioned thrice a
king
of Elam whose
name,
it was
thought, might
be
read Kudur-lah-mal or
Kudur-lah-gu-mal.**
The first element
(Kudur)
*
See Schr.
SBBA, 1887,
xxxi. 600 ff.
f ZDMG,
1896, 252.
J
Die bab.-ass.
Keilinschriften,
etc.,
1904, pp.
26,
54.
SBBA, 1894,
xv.
279
ff.
||
See his OT in the
light,
etc.,
223
ff.
;
cf. Homm.
AHT,
181 ff.
;
and
Sayce
s amended trans, in
PSBA,
1906, 193 ff,
241
ff.
;
1907, 7
ff.
II Letters and Inscrs.
of
Hammurabi,
5.
p.
liii.
Jen., Peiser,
and
Bezold also
pronounce against
the identification.
**
This
reading
is
questioned by King
;
see
liv-lvi,
or the extract in
Dri.
Gen.,
Addenda on
p. 57. Sayce
now
(I.e. p. 194
ff
.) proposes
to
XIV.
i,
2
259
is no doubt
right,
but the second is
very widely questioned by Assyri-
ologists.*
There
is, moreover,
nothing-
to show that the
king
in
question,
whatever his
name,
belonged
to the
age
of Hammurabi.
|
(4) ^1^ (C
EL
Qo-pyaX,
j$
Vv
^^/)
was identified
by
Pinches with a
"
Tu-ud-fyul-a,
son of Gaz. . .
.,"
who is named once on the tablets
already spoken
of
(see
Schr. SBBA
y 1895,
xli.
961 ff.).
The resemblance
to Tid al is
very
close,
and is
naturally convincing
to those who find
Ariok and Kedorla omer in the same document
;
there
is, however,
no
indication that
Tudfyula
was a
king,
or that he was
contemporary
with
Hammurabi and Rim-Sin
(King, op. cit.}.
DM3 can
hardly
be the usual
word for nations
((BrUfE),
either as an indefinite
expression (Tu.)
or
as a
"
verschamtes et cetera"
(Ho.).
We seem to
require
a
proper
.0
P<-.
*
name
(J6
has
f \ii) ;
and
many accept
the
suggestion
of
Rawlinson,
that Guti
(a people
N of the
Upper Zab)
should be read. Peiser
(309)
thinks that
cyia TjVo
is an
attempt
to render the common
Babylonian
title
lar kisSati.
The
royal
names in v.
2
are of a different character from those of v.
1
.
Several circumstances
suggest
that
they
are fictitious.
Jewish
exegesis
gives
a sinister
interpretation
to all four
(3T-J,
Ber. R.
42, Ra.)
;
and
even modern scholars like Tu. and No.
recognise
in the first two a
play
on the words in
(evil)
and
yen
(wickedness).
And can it be accidental
that
they
fall into two alliterative
pairs,
or that each
king
s name
contains
exactly
as
many
letters as that of his
city
? On the other
side,
it
may
be
urged (a)
that the textual tradition is too uncertain to
justify
any
conclusions based on the Heb.
(see
the
footnote)
;
(b)
the
nameless-
ness of the fifth
king
shows that the writer must have had traditional
authority
for the other four
;
and
(c]
Sanibu occurs as the name of an
Ammonite
king
in an inscr. of
Tiglath-pileser
iv.
(Del.
Par.
294, KIB,
ii.
21).
These considerations do not remove the
impression
of
artifici
ality
which the list
produces.
Since the names are not
repeated
in v.
8
,
it is
quite possible they
are late insertions in the
text, and,
of course
(on
that
view),
unhistorical.
j>Vf
is elsewhere a
royal
name
(36
32
).
read Kudur-lakhkha-mal
;
but the
reading appears
to be
purely
con
jectural
; and,
unless it should be
corroborated,
nothing
can be built
upon
it.
*
e.g. by King,
Zimmern
(KA
T
9
, 486
1
),
Peiser
(who
reads it Kudur-
tur-bit,
I.e.
310), Jen., Bezold,
al.
t
There is no doubt some
difficulty
in
finding
room for a
king
Kudur-lagamar alongside
of
Kudur-mabug (who,
if not
actually king
of
Elam,
was
certainly
the over-lord of Arad-Sin and
Rim-Sin)
in the
time of Hammurabi
;
but in our
ignorance
of the situation that
difficulty
must not be
pressed.
It
has, however,
induced
Langdon (Dri.,
Gen
7
,
Add.
xxxii.)
to revive a
conjecture
of G.
Smith,
that
Kudur-mabug
and
the
Kudur-lagamar
of this
chapter
are one and the
same
person.
It
does not
appear
that
any
fresh
facts
have come to
light
to
make the
guess
more
convincing
than it was when first
propounded.
260 ABRAM S VICTORY
3.
all
these]
not the
kings
from the East
(Di. Dri.),
but
(see
v.
4
)
those of the
Pentapolis.
That there should be
any
doubt on the
point
is an indication of the weak
style
of the
chapter.
What
exactly
the v. means to
say
is not clear.
The most
probable
sense is that the five cities
formed
a
league]
of the Vale of
Siddim,
and therefore acted in concert.
This is more natural than to
suppose
the statement a
pre
mature mention of the
preparations
for battle in v.
8
. the
Vale
of Siddini\
The name is
peculiar
to this
narrative,
and
its
meaning
is unknown
(v.z.).
1 t .e writer
manifestly
shares
the belief
(i3
10
)
that what is now the Dead Sea was once
dry
land
(see p. 273
f.
below).
The Sea
of Salt]
one of the
OT names for the Dead Sea
(Nu. 34
3
,
Dt.
3
17
,
Jos. 3
16
i5
5
etc.):
see
PEFS,
1904, 64.
Wi. s
attempt
to
identify
it
with Lake Huleh is
something
of a tour
deforce (Gf,
ii.
36
f.
;
cf.
io8f.). 4. they rebelled} by
refusal of tribute
(2
Ki. i8
7
241-20
e
tc.).
An Elamite dominion over Palestine in the
earlier
part
of Hammurabi s
reign
is
perfectly
credible in
the
light
of the monumental evidence
(p. 272).
But the
importance
attributed in this connexion to the
petty kings
of the
Pentapolis
is one of the features which excite
suspicion
of the
historicity
of the narrative. To
say
that this is due
to the writer s interest in Lot and Sodom is to concede that
his
conception
of the situation is determined
by
other influ
ences than authentic historical information.
5-7.
The
preliminary campaign.
One of the sur-
3.
m(
?x
nnn] apparently
a
pregnant
constr.
(G-K. 119 e)=
came
as confederates to
;
but this is rather harsh. *?x after nan
naturally
refers to that to which one is
joined (Ex.
26
3
;
of a
person,
Sir. 1 2
14
)
:
that
being- impossible
here,
inn must be understood
absolutely
as
Ju.
2O
11
(v.
Moore or Bu. ad
loc,)
and the W
may
have some
vague
local
reference: all these had formed a
confederacy
at
(?)
the V. of S.
D^iyn
p^y]
(J5
TTJV <f>dpayya rr)v a\vicr)v,
apparently
a
conjecture
from the
context,
U vallem silvestrem. C has N
^pn (from
-"n
^),
3T
J
N
omS;
&
v. of the Sodomites : on the
renderings
of
Aq.
and 0. see Field
s
Note,
p. 30
f. It is evident the Vns. did not understand the word.
Noldeke
(Unters.
i6o
3
),
Renan
(Hist.
i.
116),
We.
(Gesch.
6
105),
Je.
(ATIO
2
,
351),
al. think the true form is ant?:
valley
of demons.
4.
tf^]
Acc. of time
(G-K.
118
z)
;
but JUA nhwx is better.
-no]
rare in
Hex.
(Nu
i
4
9
, Jos.
22
16- 18- 19 - 29
[PJ);
and
mostly
late.
5.
D
NET]
The
art. should be
supplied,
with jux. <5r TOVS
yly
arras
;
so E
OJ
.
p
rr
XIV.
3~7
26 1
prising* things
in the narrative is the circuitous route
by
which the Eastern
kings
march
against
the rebels. We
may
assume that
they
had followed the usual track
by
Carchemish and Damascus : thence
they
advanced south
wards on the E of the
Jordan
;
but
then,
instead of attack
ing
the
Pentapolis, they pass
it on their
right, proceeding
southward to the head of the Gulf of Akaba. Then
they
turn NW to
Kadesh,
thence NE to the Dead Sea
depression
;
and
only
at the end of this
long
and difficult
journey
do
they join
issue with their enemies in the vale of Siddim.
In
explanation,
it has been
suggested
that the real
object
of the
expe
dition was to secure command of the caravan routes in W
Arabia,
especially
that
leading through
the Arabah from
Syria
to the Red Sea
(see
Tu.
257 ff.).
It must be
remembered, however,
that this is the
account,
not of the first assertion of Elamite
supremacy
over these
regions,
but of the
suppression
of a revolt of not more than a few
months
standing
: hence it would be
necessary
to assume that all the
peoples
named were
implicated
in the rebellion. This is to
go
behind
the
plain meaning
of the Heb. narrator
;
and the verisimilitude of the
description
is
certainly
not enhanced
by
Hommel s
wholly improbable
speculation
that the
Pentapolis
was the centre of an
empire embracing
the whole
region
E of the
Jordan
and the land of Edom
(AHT, 149).
If there were
any
truth in theories of this
kind,
we should still have to
conclude that the
writer,
for the sake of
literary
effect,
had
given
a
fictitious
importance
to the
part played by
the cities of the
Jordan
valley,
and had so
arranged
the incidents as to make their defeat seem the
climax of the
campaign. (See Noldeke, 163 f.)
The
general
course of the
campaign
can be traced with sufficient
The
reading
of the Sixtine and Aldine edd. of
(Ur, A(rrapu>0
Kal
Kappcu; ,
which even Di. adduces in favour of a distinction between
the two
cities, has,
amongst
the MSS used
by
the
Cambridge
editors,
the
support
of
only
one late
cursive,
which Nestle maintains
was
copied
from the Aldine ed. It is doubtless a conflation of
Kapvaiv
and the /ecu Nca^
(? Kaivaiv)
of
(Sr
E> al-
(Nestle,
ZDPV,
xv.
256;
cf.
Moore,
JBL,
xvi.
i55f.). DMNPI]
(&
tQv-r]
l<rxvpd=vmy
: so SEJ. 2. has
Zotfo/u*
/xety=D Z5iDi.
on?]
&F&
read
on?
(&/j.a
aurois, etc.).
Some MSS of jux
have
DH3,
which
Jerome
expressly says
is the real
reading
of the Heb.
text. 6.
D-i-in?]
jui(SF
"13*?. Duplication
of n is rare and doubtful
(Ps. 3o
8
, Jer. i7
3
)
in
sing,
of this
word,
but common in const,
pi.
Buhl
strikes out
Tyfc
as an
explanatory gloss, retaining D^n?. px^ "?&]
$&&
render terebinth of
Paran,
and so
virtually
U&J,
which have
plain
(see
on
12").
If the
ordinary theory,
as
given above,
be
correct,
*? N
is used
collectively
in the sense of
great
tree
(here palms ). 7.
For
^(2,
S<2T
OJ
(also Saadya)
have
Dpi,
apparently identifying
it with Petra :
see Tuch s
Note,
p. 271
f.
rriip]
(5rj$
n^, princes.
262 ABRAM S VICTORY
certainty
from the
geographical
names of
5 7
;
although
it does not
appear quite clearly
whether these are conceived as the centres of the
various nationalities or the battlefields in which
they
were defeated.
D
JIP nnp-fy (
Astarte of the two horns :
*
Eus.
Prcep.
Ev. i. 10
;
or A. of
the
two-peaked
mountain
f)
occurs as a
compound
name
only
here. A
city
ASfarofk in
Bashan,
the
capital
of
Og
s
kingdom,
is mentioned in
Dt. i
4
, Jos. 9
10
i2
4
i3
12 - 31
,
i Ch. 6
s6
[-
.TW^3,
Jos.
2i-
7
].
Karnaim is named
(according
to a
probable emendation)
in Am. 6
13
,
and in i Mac.
5
26- 43f>
,
2 Mac. I2
21
. It is uncertain whether these are two names for one
place,
or two
adjacent places
of which one was named after the other
(
Astaroth of
[i.e. near] Karnaim)
;
and the
confusing
statements of
the OS
(84
5ff-
86
32
io8
17
209"
268
98
)
throw little
light
on the
question.
The various sites that have been
suggested
Sheikh
Sad,
Tell
Agtarah,
Tell el-
As"ari,
and El-Muzerib lie near the
great
road from Damascus
to
Mecca,
about 20 m. E of the Lake of Tiberias
(see
Buhl, GAP, 248
ff.;
Dri.
DB,
i. i66f.
;
GASm. in
EB,
335 f.).
Wetzstein s identification
with Bozrah
(regarded
as a
corruption
of
Bostra,
and this of rnpc
;
j,;3,
Jos.
2 1
27
),
the
capital
of the
Hauran,
has been shown
by
No.
(ZDiMG,
xxix.
43I
1
)
to be
philologically
untenable. Of a
place
on
nothing-
is
known. It is a natural
conjecture (Tu. al.)
that it is the archaic name
of
Rabbath,
the
capital
of
Ammon;
and
Sayce (HCM, i6of.)
thinks
it must be
explained
as a
retranscription
from a cuneiform source
of the word
pay.
On the text v.i.
D!JV"!P rn^
is doubtless the
Moabite or Reubenite
city np,
mentioned in
Jer. 48
2S
,
Ezk.
25
9
,
Nu.
32
s7
, Jos. I3
19
(OS, Kapcadaet/j., Ka/)ia0a),
the modern
Kuraiydt,
E
of the Dead
Sea,
a little S of the Wadi Zerka Main,
m?
(only
here and v.
17
)
is
supposed
to mean
plain (Syr. |Zo_)
;
but that
is somewhat
problematical.
On the
phrase
"\"y
&
Dyin,
see the foot
note. While
~ry
& alone
may
include the
plateau
to the W of the
Arabah,
the commoner
fyty
"in
appears
to be restricted to the
mountainous
region
E of that
gorge,
now called es-Sera
(see
Buhl,
Gesch. d.
Edomiter,
28
ff.). fix^
*? N
(v.i.)
is
usually
identified with
n^
N
(Dt.
2
8
,
2 Ki.
I4
22
i6
6
)
or nrt K
(i
Ki.
9
-6
,
2 Ki. i6
6
),
at the head of the E arm
of the Red
Sea,
which is
supposed
to derive its name from the
groves
of
date-palms
for which it was and is famous
(see esp.
Tu.
264 f.).
The
grounds
of the identification seem slender
;
and the evidence does not
carry
us further than Tu. s earlier view
(251),
that some oasis in the N
of the desert is meant
(see
Che.
EB,
3584).
The wilderness is the
often mentioned Wilderness of Paran
(2i
21
,
Nu. io
12
etc.),
i.e. the
desolate
plateau
of
et-T?h,
stretching
from the Arabah to the isthmus
of Suez. There is
obviously nothing
in that definition to
support
the
theory
that El-Pdran is the
original
name of the later Elath.
enp (i6
14
20
1
etc.),
or
yrp
p (Nu. 34*,
Dt. i
2- 19
2
14
).
The
controversy
as to the
*
See
Muller, AE, 313; Macalister, PEFS, 1904, 15.
t Moore, JBL,
xvi.
i56f.
J
Trumbull
places
it at the oasis of Kaidat
Nahl,
in the middle of
et-Tlh,
on the
Hagg
route
halfway
between Akaba and Suez
{Kadesh-
Barnea, p. 37).
XIV.
s-7
263
situation of this
important place
has been
practically
settled since the
appearance
of Trumbull s Kadesh-Barnea m
1884(566
Guthe, ZDPV,
viii.
183 ff.).
It is the
spring-
now known as Ain
Kadis,
at the head of the
Wadi of the same
name,
"northward of the desert
proper,"
and about
50
m. S of Beersheba
(see
the
description by Trumbull,
op.
cit.
272-275).
The distance in a
straight
line from Elath would be about
80
m.,
with a difficult ascent of
1500
ft. The alternative name
B^p py
(
Well of
Judgement )
is found
only
here. Since
&?$
means
holy*
and
B^p judicial
decision,
it is a
plausible conjecture
of Rob. Sm. that the
name refers to an ordeal
involving
the use of
holy
water
(Nu. 5")
from
the sacred well
(fiS
2
, 181).
The
sanctuary
at Kadesh seems to have
occupied
a
prominent place
in the earliest Exodus tradition
(We.
Prol.
6
341 ff.);
but there is no reason
why
the institution
just
alluded
to should not be of much
greater antiquity
than the Mosaic
age.
in
Ji^n
is, according
to 2 Ch. 2O
2
,
En-g^di (Ain &idi)
t
about the middle of
the W shore of the Dead Sea. A more unsuitable
approach
for an
army
to
any part
of the Dead Sea basin than the
precipitous
descent
of
nearly
2000 feet at this
point,
could
hardly
be
imagined
: see
Robinson, BR>
i.
503.
It is not
actually
said that the
army
made the
descent there : it
might again
have made a detour and reached its
goal
by
a more
practicable
route. But
certainly
the conditions of this
narrative would be better satisfied
by Kurnub,
on the road from Hebron
to
Elath,
about 20 m. WSW of the S end of the Dead Sea. The
identification, however, requires
three
steps,
all of which involve
uncertainties :
(i)
that ncn n
=
the icn of Ezk.
47
19
48^ ;
(2)
that this is
the Thamara of OS
(8s
3
,
2io
86
),
the
Qa^apw
of Ptol. xvi. 8
j
and
(3)
that
the ruins of this are found at Kurnub. Cf.
EB,
4890 ; Buhl, GP,
184.
The six
peoples
named in vv.
5
"
7
are the
primitive
races
which,
according
to Heb.
tradition,
formerly occupied
the
regions
traversed
by
Chedorlaomer.
(i)
The D
K2i
are
spoken
of as a
giant
race
dwelling
partly
on the W
(is
20
, Jos. i7
15
,
2 Sa. 2i
16
,
Is.
17*), partly
on the
E,
of the
Jordan, especially
in
Bashan,
where
Og reigned
as the last of
the
Rephaim (Dt. 3
11
, Jos.
i2
4
etc.). (2)
The D
W,
only
mentioned
here,
are
probably
the same as the Zamzummim of Dt. 2
20
,
the
aborigines
of
the Ammonite
country.
The
equivalence
of the two forms is
considered
by Sayce
(ZA,
iv.
393)
and others to be
explicable only by
the
Baby
lonian confusion of m and
TV,
and thus a
proof
that the narrative came
ultimately
from a cuneiform source.
(3)
D
p
Nn]
a kind of
Rephaim,
aborigines
of Moab
(Dt.
2
10f
-). (4) nnn]
the race
extirpated by
the
Edomites
(36
20flr
-,
Dt. 2
12 - 22
).
The name has
usually
been
understood to
mean
troglodytes (see
Dri. Deut.
38) ;
but this is
questioned
by Jen.
(ZA y
x.
332
f.,
346 f.)
and Homm.
(AffT, 264
2
),
who
identify
the word with
guru,
the
Eg.
name for SW Palestine.*
(5) p^pjjn]
the
Amalekite
territory
(."ny),
was in the
Negeb, extending
towards
Egypt (Nu. 13
i4
43- 45
,
i Sa.
27
8
).
In ancient
tradition,
Amalek was the
firstling
of
peoples (Nu. 24
20
), although, according
to Gn.
36
12
its ancestor was
a
grandson
of Esau.
(6) "P^n]
see on io
16
;
and cf. Dt. i
44
, Ju.
i
36
.
*Cf.
Miiller,
AE
t 136 f.,
148
ff.
264
ABRAM S VICTORY
While there can be no
question
of the absolute
historicity
of the last
three
names,
the first three
undoubtedly provoke speculation. Rephaim
is the name for shades or
ghosts ;
Emim
probably
means terrible ones
;
and Zamzummim
(if
this be the same word as
Zuzim),
murmurers.
Schwally (Leben
nach d.
Tode,
64 f.,
and more
fully
ZATW,
xviii.
127*?.)
has
given
reasons to show that all three names
originally
denoted
spirits
of the
dead,
and afterwards came to be
applied
to an
imaginary
race of extinct
giants,
the
supposed original
inhabitants of the
country
(see
also Rob. Sm. in Dri. Deut.
40).
The tradition with
regard
to the
Rephaim
is too
persistent
to make this
ingenious hypothesis altogether
easy
of
acceptance.
It is unfortunate that on a matter
bearing
so
closely
on the
historicity
of Gn.
14
the evidence is not more decisive.
8-12. The final
battle,
and
capture
of Lot
9.
four kings against
the
five\
That the four Eastern
kings
should have been all
present
in
person
(which
is the obvious
meaning
of the
narrator)
is
improbable enough ;
that
they
should count heads with the
petty kinglets
of the
Pentapolis
is an unreal and
misleading
estimate of the
opposing
forces,
due to a desire to
magnify
Abram s
subsequent
achievement.
10. The vale of Siddim was at that time wells
tipon
wells
of
bitumen\
The notice is a
proof
of
intelligent popular
reason
ing
rather than of authentic information
regarding
actual
facts. The Dead Sea was noted in
antiquity
for the
pro
duction of
bitumen,
masses of which were found
floating
on
the surface
(Strabo,
xvi. ii.
42;
Diod. ii.
48,
xix.
98;
Pliny,
vii.
65),
as, indeed,
they
still are after
earthquakes,
but
"
only
in the southern
part
of the sea"
(Robinson,
BR,
i.
518,
ii.
189, 191).
It was a natural inference that
the bottom of the sea was covered with
asphalt
wells,
like
those of Hit in
Babylonia.
Seetzen
(i. 417) says
that the
bitumen oozes from rocks round the
sea,
"and that
(und
zwar)
under the surface of the
water,
as swimmers have felt
and seen
"
;
and Strabo
says
it rose in bubbles like
boiling
water from the middle of the
deepest part.
II,
12. Sodom
and Gomorrah are
sacked,
and Lot is taken
captive.
The
10. rrma
rh^3]
On the nominal
appos.
and
duplication,
see Dav.
29,
R. 8
;
G-K.
123
e
(cf. 130 e).
(5
L
has the word but once.
rvibjy]
better
as jjuffir ]) 7]ta.
rnn]
On the
peculiar
v>
see G-K.
275-, 90*
. XX.
pri]
ffir
t-mrov
(i.e. eon)
;
the confusion
appears
in
16> 21
,
but nowhere else
in OT. 12. Dn3N
n$ff3]
(&
inserts the words
immediately
after
ai
1
?,
an
indication that
they
have been introduced from the
margin.
It is to be
XIV.
8-13
265
account leaves much to be
supplied by
the
imagination.
The
repetition
of
inp
s
T
and
w.^3
in two consecutive sentences
is a mark of inferior
style
;
but the
phrase
tms Sf
?*Tl3,
which
anticipates
the introduction of Abram in v.
13
,
is
probably
a
gloss (v.i.).
13-16.
Abram s
pursuit
and
victory.
The homeward
march of the victorious
army
must have taken it
very
near
Hebron, Engedi
itself is
only
about
17
m.
off,
but Abram
had Met the
legions
thunder
past,
until the
intelligence
reached him of his
nephew
s
danger. 13.
Abram the
Hebrew]
is
obviously
meant as the first introduction of Abram in this
narrative. The
epithet
is not
necessarily
an
anachronism,
if
we
accept
the view that the Habiri of the Tel Amarna
period
were the nomadic ancestors of the Israelites
(see
on io
21
);
though
it is difficult to believe that there were Habiri in
Palestine more than 600
years
earlier,
in the time of Ham
murabi
(against
Sellin, NKZ,
xvi.
936
;
cf.
Paton, Syria
and
PaL
39 ff.).
That, however,
is the
only
sense in which
Abram could be
naturally
described as a Hebrew in a
contemporary
document
;
and the
probability
is that the
term is used
by
an anachronistic extension of the later
distinction between Israelites and
foreigners.
Mamre the
Amorite\
see on
i3
18
. In
J (whose phraseology
is here
followed)
N?.*?
?
is the name of the sacred tree or
grove
;
in
P it is a
synonym
of Hebron
;
here it is the
personal
name
of the owner of the
grove.
In like manner Eskol is a
personal
name derived from the
valley
of Eshcol
( grape-
cluster,
Nu.
i3
23f
-)
;
and
(
Aner
may
have a similar
origin.
The first
two,
at all
events,
are
"
heroes
eponymi
of the most
unequivocal
character"
(No.
Unters.
166),
a
misconcep
tion of which no
contemporary
would have been
capable.*
noted also that Lot is elsewhere called
simply
the brother of Abram
(
14- 16
).
The last clause is
awkwardly placed
;
but
considering-
the
style
of the
chapter,
we are not
justified
in
treating
it as an
interpolation.
13.
e
^n]
Ezk.
24
26
33
21
(cf. Tjen,
2 Sa.
i5
13
).
For the
idiom,
see
G-K. i26r.
"jay?]
( T
Trepdry (only here), Aq. r$
TrepatTrj.l^]
jux
*
Di. s remark
(p. 235),
that
"
it makes no difference whether Mamre
or the
(lord)
of Mamre
helped
Abram,"
is hard to understand. If
266 ABRAM S VICTORY
the
confederates of
Abram
(ffi O-WW/AOTCU)]
The
expression yP3
nnn
does not
recur;
cf.
nyttP ^3,
Neh. 6
18
. Kraetzschmar s
view
(Bundesvorstg* 23 f.),
that it denotes the relation of
patrons
to
client,
is
inherently improbable.
That these men
joined
Abram in his
pursuit
is not
stated,
but is
presupposed
in v.
24
,
another
example
of the writer s
laxity
in narration.
14.
As soon as Abram learns the fate of his brother
(i.e.
1
relative
},
he called
up
his trained men
(?
: on
P"]*!
and
l^n,
v.t.)
and
gave
chase. three hundred and
eighteen]
The num
ber cannot be an
arbitrary
invention,
and is not
likely
to be
historical. It is
commonly explained
as a
piece
of
Jewis
h
Gematria,
318 being
the numerical value of the letters of
ity^X
(i5
2
) (Ber.
R.
43:
see
Nestle, ET,
xvii.
44
f.
[cf.
139
f.]).
A modern Gematria finds in it the number of the
days
of the moon s
visibility during
the lunar
year (Wi.
GI,
ii.
2*7).
to
Dan]
Now Tell
el-Kadi,
at the foot of Hermon.
E"uy,
(&
AVVO.V.
14. p"V}]
Lit.
emptied out,
used of the
unsheathing
of a sword
(Ex. is
9
,
Lv. 26
33
,
Ezk.
5
2- 12
etc.),
but never with
pers. obj.
as
here. Tu. cites the Ar.
garrada,
which means both unsheath a sword
and detach a
company
from an
army (see Lane)
;
but this is no real
analogy.
AU. has
pv}=
scrutinize
(Aram.).
(5r
^pldfj.Tjfffv (so U)
and 3T
I ll
( equip
: so 5
and
&J)
settle
nothing,
as
they may
be
conjectural.
Wi.
(AOF,
i. io2
2
)
derives from Ass. diku
=
ca.\\
up troops
;
so
Sellin,
937.
Ball
changes
to n
pS
l.
v:nq]
air.
Xe7.,
(Gr rovs
/5tovs,
U
expedites,
J&3T
young
men. The
*J
"pn
suggests
the
meaning
initiated
(see
on
4
17
),
hence
trained,
experienced,
etc. Sellin
(937) compares
the word
fyanakuka= thy
men,
found in one of the Ta annek tablets.
If it comes direct from the
ceremony
of
rubbing
the
palate
of a new-born
child
(see p. 116),
it
may
have
nothing
to do with
war,
but denote
simply
those
belonging
to the
household,
the
precise equivalent
of
fV3
:&
The latter
phrase
is found
only
in P
(I^IM-
a. 87
f
Lv> 2
,ii)
Mamre and Eshcol were
really
names of
places,
and the writer took
them for names of individual
men,
the fact has the most
important
bearing
on the
question
of the
historicity
of the record. The alternative
theory,
that the names were
originally
those of
persons,
and were after
wards transferred to the
places
owned or inhabited
by them,
will
hardly
bear examination.
Grape-cluster
is a suitable name for a
valley,
but not for a man. And does
any
one
suppose
that
J
would have re
corded Abram s settlement at Hebron in the terms of
I3
18
,
if he had
been aware that Mamre was an individual
living
at the time? Yet the
Yahwist s historical
knowledge
is far less
open
to
suspicion
than that
of the writer of ch.
14.
XIV.
14-iS
26;
This name
originated
in the
period
of the
Judges (Jos. ig
47
,
Ju.
i8
29
);
and it is
singular
that such a
prolepsis
should
occur in a document elsewhere so careful of the
appearance
of
antiquity. 15.
He divided
himself}
i.e.
(as usually
under
stood)
into three
bands,
the favourite tactical manoeuvre
in Hebrew warfare
(Ju. 7
16
,
i Sa. n
11
i3
17
, Jb.
i
17
,
i Mac.
5
33
)
: but see the footnote. smote
them,
and
pursued
them as
far
as
Hobati\
Hobah
(cf. Jth. i5
5
)
has been identified
by
Wetzstein with
Hoba,
c. 20 hours
journey
N of
Damascus.
Sellin
(934)
takes it to be the Ubi of the TA
Tablets,
the
district in which Damascus was situated
(KIB,
v.
139, 63;
146, 12).
The
pursuit
must in
any
case have been a
long
one,
since Damascus itself is about
15
hours from Dan. It
is idle to
pretend
that Abram s
victory
was
merely
a
surprise
attack on the
rearguard,
and the
recovery
of
part
of the
booty.
A
pursuit
carried so far
implies
the rout of the main
body
of the
enemy.
17,
18-20. Abram and Melkizedek. "The scene be
tween Abram and Melkizedek is not without
poetic
charm :
the two ideals
(Grosse)
which were afterwards to be so
intimately
united,
the
holy people
and the
holy city,
are
here
brought together
for the first time : here for the first
time Israel receives the
gift
of its
sanctuary" (Gu. 253).
17.
The scene of the
meeting
is
rnt?
pDV,
interpreted
as the
kings
vale. A
place
of this name is mentioned in 2 Sa. i8
18
as the site of Absalom s
pillar,
which,
according
to
Josephus
(Ant.
vii.
243),
was two stadia from
Jerusalem.
The situa
tion harmonises with the common view that Salem is
Jerusalem
(see below)
;
and other information does not
exist. 18.
Melkizedek,
king of
Salem,
etc.}
The
primitive
and
Jer.
2
14
.
15. pipiri] (cf.
i Ki. i6
21
).
The sense
given
above is not
altogether
natural. Ball emends
p3"]!l.
Wi.
(67,
ii.
27
2
) suggests
a
pre
carious Ass.
etymology, pointing
as
Piel,
and
rendering
and he fell
upon
them
by night
: so Sellin.
SKD^I?]
Lit. on the left. The sense
north is rare :
Jos. ig
27
(P),
Ezk. i6
4ti
, Jb. 23*.
17.
rrup
(without art.)
must
apparently
be a different word from
that in v.
5
. Hommel and Wi. emend
n.^
(Sarre,
the Ass. word for
king ).
18.
pn}H?5>3] usually explained
as
King
of
Righteousness
(Heb.
y
2
),
with z as old
gen. ending
retained
by
the
annexion
;
but
more
probably
=
My king
is
Zidk,
Zidk
being
the name of a S
268 ABRAM S VICTORY
combination of the
kingly
and
priestly
offices has been
abundantly
illustrated
by
Frazer from
many quarters.*
The existence of such
priest-kings
in Canaan in
very early
times is
perfectly
credible,
though
not
historically
attested
(comp.
the
patesis
of
Babylonia).
Salem is
usually
under
stood to be an archaic name for
Jerusalem (Jos.
Ant. i.
180;
2E
OJ
,
Jer.
[Qu.]
y
lEz.
al.),
as in Ps.
76*,
the
only
other
place
where it occurs. The chief
argument
in favour of this view
is the
typical significance
attached to Melkizedek in
Ps. i io
4
,
which is
hardly intelligible except
on the
supposi
tion that he was in a sense the ideal ancestor of the
dynasty
or
hierarchy
of
Jerusalem.
Whether the name was
actually
in use in ancient
times,
we do not
know. The Tel Amarna Tablets have
certainly proved
that the name
Uru-Salim is of much
greater antiquity
than
might
have been
gathered
from the biblical statements
(Ju. ig
10
,
i Ch. n
4
);
but the shortened
form Salem is as
yet
unattested. It has been
suggested
that the cunei
form uru was misread as the determinative for
city (see
Sellin, 941).
The identifications with other
places
of the name which have been
discovered
e.g.
the Salim 8 R. m. from
Scythopolis (where, according
to
Je. [Ep.
ad
Evagr.~\,
the ruins of Melkizedek s
palace
were to be
seen)
have no claim to
acceptance.
On the name
pvJJ
7S
(God
Most
High},
see
below, p. 270
f.
bread and
wine]
comp.
*
food and drink
(akali
Ukari)
provided
for an
army,
etc.,
in the TA Tablets:
KIB,
5o
22
207
16
209
12f-
242
16
(Sellin, 938). ip,
20. The
blessing
of
Arabian and Phoenician
deity (Baudissin,
Stud. i.
15 ; Baethgen,
Beitr.
128).
That Zedek was an ancient name for
Jerusalem (see
Is. i
21 - 26
, Jer. 3I
23
so
7
,
Ps. n8
19
)
there is no reason to believe.
19.
rnj?
has two senses in the OT
(if,
indeed,
there be not two distinct roots :
see G-B.
14
s.v.): (a)
create or
produce (Ps. i39
13
,
Pr. 8
22
,
Dt.
32
6
[?
Gn.
4
1
])
;
(i) purchase
or
acquire by purchase (frequent).
The
idea of bare
possession apart
from
purchase
is
hardly represented
(?
Is. i
3
)
;
and since the
suggestion
of
purchase
is here
inadmissible,
the sense create must be
accepted.
That this
meaning
can be
established
only by
late
examples
is
certainly
no
objection
so far as
the
present passage
is concerned : see on
4
1
. 20. After
~n^,
(Oi
L
ins.
*
Studies in the
Kingship, 29
ff.
"
The classical evidence
points
to
the conclusion that in
prehistoric ages,
before the rise of the
republican
form of
government,
the various tribes or cities were ruled
by kings,
who
discharged priestly
duties and
probably enjoyed
a sacred character
as descendants of deities"
(p. 31).
XIV.
i8,
20
269
Melkizedek is
poetic
in form and
partly
in
language
;
but
in
meaning
it is a
liturgical
formula rather than a
blessing
in the
proper
sense. It lacks
entirely
the
prophetic
inter
pretation
of concrete
experiences
which is the note of the
antique blessing
and curse
(cf. 3
14ff-
4
llf-
9
25ff-
27
27ff- 39f
-).
Creator
of
heaven and
eartJi\
so
ffi5J.
There is no reason
to tone down the idea to that of mere
possession ((JT, al.);
v.
infra. By payment
of the
tithe,
Abram
acknowledges
the
legitimacy
of Melkizedek s
priesthood (Heb. 7
4
),
and
the
religious
bond of a common monotheism
uniting
them
;
at the same time the action was
probably regarded
as a
precedent
for the
payment
of tithes to the
Jerusalem
sanctuary
for all time
coming (so already
in
Jub.
xiii.
25-27
:
comp.
Gn. 28
22
).
The excision of the Melkizedek
episode (see
Wi.
GI,
ii.
29),
which
seems to break the connexion of v.
21
with v.
17
,
is a
temptingly
facile
operation
;
but it is doubtful if it be
justified.
The
designation
of
Yahwe as God Most
High
in the mouth of Abram
(v.
22
)
is
unintellig
ible
apart
from
18f>
. It
may
rather have been the writer s
object
to
bring
the three actors on one
stage together
in order to illustrate
Abram s contrasted attitude to the sacred
(Melkizedek)
and the secular
(king
of
Sodom) authority.
Hommel s
ingenious
and confident solution
(AHT, 1586.),
which
gets
rid of the
king
of Sodom
altogether
and
resolves
17 24
wholly
into an interview between Abram and
Melkizedek,
is an
extremely arbitrary piece
of criticism. Sellin s view
(p. 939 f.),
that vv.
18
"
20
are
original
and
17- 21 24
are Israelitische
Wucherung,
is
simpler
and more
plausible
;
but it has no more
justification
than
any
of the numerous other
expedients
which are
necessary
to save the
essential
historicity
of the narrative.
The
mystery
which invests the
figure
of Melkizedek has
given
rise
to a
great
deal of
speculation
both in ancient and modern times. The
Jewish
idea that he was the
patriarch
Shem
({J,
Talm.
al.)
is
thought
to be a reaction
against mystical interpretations prevalent
in the
school of Alexandria
(where
Philo identified him with the
Logos),
which,
through
Heb.
7
lff>
,
exercised a certain influence on
Christian
theology (see Jerome, Ep.
ad
Evagrium
;
cf.
JE,
viii.
450).
From a
critical
point
of view the
question
of interest is whether M.
belongs
to the
sphere
of ancient tradition or is a fictitious
personage,
created
to
represent
the claims of the
post-Exilic priesthood
in
Jerusalem
(Well. Comp.^ 312).
In
opposition
to the latter
view,
Gu.
rightly
points
out that
Judaism
is not
likely
to have invented as the
prototype
m,T.
|ap] only
Hos. n
8
,
Is.
646 (<&, etc.),
Pr.
4
9
. The
etymology
is
uncertain,
but the view that it is a denom. fr.
j:,
shield
(*J pj, BDB)
is
hardly
correct
(see
Earth.
S,
4).
2/0
ABRAMS VICTORY
of the
Hig-h
Priesthood a Canaanitish
priest-king,
and that all
possible
pretensions
of the
Jerusalem
hierarchy
were covered
by
the
figure
of
Aaron
(253).
It is more
probable
that M.
is,
if not a historical
figure,
at least a traditional
figure
of
great antiquity,
on whom the
monarchy
and
hierarchy
of
Jerusalem
based their
dynastic
and
priestly rights.*
To the writer of Ps.
no,
M. was "a
type,
consecrated
by antiquity,
to
which the ideal
king
of
Israel,
ruling
on the same
spot,
must conform
"
(Dri. 167)
;
and even if that Ps. be not
pre-Exilic (as
Gu.
supposes),
but as late as the Maccabaean
period,
it is difficult to conceive that
the
type
could have
originated
without some traditional basis. Some
writers have
sought
a
proof
of the historical character of Melkizedek
in a
supposed parallel
between the
dirdrup, ct/^rw/), ayvea\oyr]Tos
of
Heb.
y
3
and a formula several times
repeated
in letters
(Tel Amarna)
of Abdhiba of
Jerusalem
to
Amenophis
iv. : "Neither
my
father nor
my
mother set me in this
place
;
the
mighty
arm of the
king
estab
lished me in
my
father s house,
"f
Abdhiba
might
have been a
successor of Melkizedek
;
and it is
just
conceivable that Hommel is
right
in his
conjecture
that a
religious formula,
associated with the
head of the
Jerusalem sanctuary,
receives from Abdhiba a
political
turn,
and is made use of to
express
his absolute
dependence
on the
Egyptian king.
But it must be observed that Abdhiba s
language
is
perfectly intelligible
in its
diplomatic
sense
;
its
agreement
with the
words of the NT is
only partial,
and
may
be accidental
;
and it is
free from the air of
mystery
which excites interest in the latter.
This,
however,
is not to
deny
the
probability
that the writer to the Hebrews
drew his
conception partly
from other sources than the vv. in Gen.
El
*
Ely
on.
El,
the oldest Semitic
appellative
for
God,
was
frequently
differentiated
according
to
particular aspects
of the divine
nature,
or
particular
local or other relations entered into
by
the
deity
:
hence arose
compound
names like
*$ ^8
(i?
1
), o^V
*
(2i
33
), *?N-jsr
vrSi* *?K
(33
2
)
^
n
3 ^
(35
7
)>
and
j^j;
W
(here
and Ps.
7
8
35
).t jv^ (
=
upper/
highest )
is not
uncommonly
used of God in
OT,
either alone
(Nu. 24
16
,
Dt.
32
8
,
Ps. i8
14
etc.)
or in combinations with m.T or D n
1
?**
(Ps. 7
18
(?), 47
3
57
3
etc.).
That it was in actual use
among
the
Canaanites is
by
no means incredible : the Phoenicians had a
god
"EXiovv
Ka\ovfj.fvos "lY
KTTos
(Eus. Pr(ep.
Ev. i.
10, u,
12);
and there is
nothing
to forbid the
supposition
that the
deity
of the
sanctuary
of
Jerusalem
was
worshipped
under that name. On the other
hand,
there is
nothing
to
prove
it
;
and it is
perhaps
a more
significant
fact
*
Gu. instances as a historical
parallel
the
legal
fiction
by
which
the
imperial prestige
of the Caesars was transferred to
Charlemagne
and his successors.
Josephus
had the same view when he
spoke
of M.
as Xavavaluv
dvvdvTrjs,
and the first founder of
Jerusalem (J5J,
vi.
438).
f
Homm.
ART, 155*?.
;
Sayce,
Monn.
175;
EHH,
28 f.
; Exp.
Times,
vii.
340 ff., 4786., 565
f.,
viii.
43 f., 94 ff., 142
ff.
(arts,
and
letters
by Sayce,
Driver,
and
Hommel).
J
See
Baethgen,
Beitr.
291
f.
Comp.,
in classical
religion,
Zeus
MeilichioSj -Xenios,
Jupiter
Terminus^ -Latiaris,
etc.
XIV.
i;, 21-24
271
that the Maccabees were called
dpxtep^
Qeov
itytVrou (Jos.
Ant. xvi.
163;
Ass.
Mosis,
6
1
).*
This
title,
the
frequent
recurrence of
jv^y
as a
divine name in late
Pss.,the
name Salem in one such
Ps.,and
Melkizedek
in
(probably)
another,
make a
group
of coincidences which
go
to show
that the Melkizedek
legend
was much in
vogue
about the time of the
Maccabees.
17, 21-24.
Abram and the
king
of Sodom. The
request
of the
king-
of Sodom
presupposes
as the usual
custom of war that Abram was entitled to the whole of the
booty.
Abram s
lofty reply
is the climax to which the whole
narrative leads
up.
22. /
lift up -my
hand]
the
gesture
accompanying
an oath
(Ex.
6
8
,
Nu.
i4
30
,
Dt.
32*,
Ezk. 2O
23
,
Dn. i2
7
etc.).
to
Yahive,
El
(
Elydn\
A
recognition
of
religious affinity
with
Melkizedek,
as a
fellow-worshipper
of the one true God. The
mn%
however,
is
probably
an
addition to the
text,
wanting
in
(j
and
Si
while jux has
DTl^n.
23.
lest thou shouldst
say,
etc.]
An earlier writer
(cf.
i2
16
)
would
perhaps
not have understood this
scruple:
he would have attributed the enrichment of Abram to
God,
even if the medium was a heathen
king. 24.
The con
descending
allowance for the weakness of inferior natures
is mentioned to enhance the
impression
of Abram s
generosity (Gu.).
The Historic Value
of
Ch.
14.
There are obvious reasons
why
this
chapter
should have come to be
regarded
in some
quarters
as a
shibboleth between two
opposite
schools of OT criticism
(Homm.
AHT,
165).
The narrative is
unique
in this
respect,
that it sets the
figure
of Abraham in the framework of
world-history.
It is the case
that certain features of this framework have been
confirmed,
or
rendered
credible,
by
recent
Assyriological
discoveries
;
and
by
those
who look to
archaeological
research to correct the aberrations of
literary
criticism,
this fact is
represented
as not
only
demonstrating
the
historicity
of the narrative as a
whole,
but as
proving
that the
criticism which resolved it into a late
Jewish
romance must be vitiated
22.
-nbnq]
On the
pf.,
G-K. 106 /.
23.
On the DN of
negative
asseveration, 149 a,
c. The second
DNi,
which adds force to the
negation,
is not rendered
by
(5r or U.
24. "]J^?]
lit. not unto me!
(in
Hex.
only 4i
16- 44
[E], Jos.
22
19
[late]).
<F<S seem to have read
P"5
1^?
as a
compound prepositional phrase (= except ).
*
Siegfried, ThLz.,
1895, 304.
On the late
prevalence
of the
title,
see
also DB
y
iii.
450, EB,
i.
70 (in
and near
Byblus),
and
Schurer, SBBA,
1897, p.
200 ff.
272
HISTORICITY OF
by
some radical fault of method. How far that
sweeping-
conclusion
is
justified
we have now to consider. The
question
raised is one of
extreme
difficulty,
and is
perhaps
not
yet ripe
for final settlement. The
attempt
must be
made, however,
to review once more the chief
points
of the
evidence,
and to ascertain as
fairly
as
possible
the results to
which it leads.
The case for the historic trustworthiness of the
story (or
the
antiquity
of the source on which it is
founded)
rests on the
following-
facts :
(i)
The occurrence of
prehistoric
names of
places
and
peoples,
some of which had become
unintelligible
to later
readers,
and
required
identification
by explanatory glosses.
Now the mere use of ancient
and obsolete names is not in itself inconsistent with the fictitious
character of the narrative. A writer who was
projecting
himself into a
remote
past
would
naturally
introduce as
many
archaic names as he
could find
;
and the substitution of such terms as
Rephaim, Emim,
Horim, etc.,
for the
younger populations
which
occupied
these
regions,
is no more than
might
be
expected.
Moreover,
the force of the
argument
is weakened
by
the undoubted anachronism involved in the
use of the name Dan
(see
on v.
14
).
The
presence
of
archaeological
glosses,
however,
cannot be
disposed
of in this
way.
To
suppose
that
a writer
deliberately
introduced obsolete or fictitious names and
glossed
them,
merely
for the
purpose
of
casting
an air of
antiquity
over his
narrative,
is
certainly
a somewhat extreme
hypothesis.
It is fair to
admit the
presumption
that he had
really
before him some traditional
(perhaps documentary) material, though
of what nature that material
was it is
impossible
to determine.*
(2)
The
general
verisimilitude of
the
background
of the
story.
It is
proved beyond question
that an
Elamite
supremacy
over the West and Palestine existed before the
year
2000 B.C.
;
consequently
an
expedition
such as is here described is
(broadly speaking)
within the bounds of historic
probability.
Further,
the state of
things
in Palestine
presupposed by
the record a number of
petty kingships striving
to maintain their
independence,
and
entering
1
into
temporary
alliances for that
purpose
harmonises with all we know
of the
political
condition of the
country
before the Israelitish
occupation,
though
it
might
be difficult to show that the writer s
knowledge
of the
situation exceeds what would be
acquired by
the most
cursory perusal
of the
story
of the
Conquest
in the Book of
Joshua. (3)
The considera
tion most relied
upon by apologetic
writers is the
proof
obtained from
Assyriology
that the names in v.
1
are historical. The evidence on this
question
has been
given
on
p. 257
ff.,
and need not be here
recapitulated.
*
It is to be observed that in no
single
case is the correctness of the
gloss
attested
by independent
evidence
(see
vv.
2< 3- 6- 7- 8- 17
).
Those who
maintain the existence of a cuneiform
original
have still to reckon with
the
theory
of
Wi.,
who holds that the basis of the narrative
is a
Babylonian legend,
which was
brought
into connexion with the
story
of
Abraham
by arbitrary
identification of names whose
primary significance
was
perhaps mythological.
See GI
t
ii. 28 ff. The
question
cannot
be
further discussed here.
CH. XIV
273
We have seen that
every
one of the identifications is
disputed by
more than one
competent Assyriologist (see, further,
Mey.
GA
2
,
I. ii.
p. 551 f.)
;
and since
only
an
expert
is
fully qualified
to
judge
of the
probabilities
of the
case,
it is
perhaps premature
to
regard
the confirma
tion as assured. At the same
time,
it is
quite
clear that the names
are not invented
;
and it is
highly probable
that
they
are those of
contemporary kings
who
actually reigned
over the countries
assigned
to them in this
chapter.
Their exact relations to one another are still
undetermined,
and in some
respects
difficult to
imagine
;
but there is
nothing
in the situation which we
may
not
expect
to be cleared
up by
further discoveries. It would seem to follow that the author s informa
tion is derived
ultimately
either from a
Babylonian source,
or from
records
preserved amongst
the Canaanites in Palestine. The
presence
of an element of authentic
history
in v.
3
being
thus
admitted,
we have to
inquire
how far this enters into the substance of the narrative.
Before
answering
that
question,
we must look at the
arguments
advanced in favour of the late
origin
and fictitious character of the
chapter.
These are of two kinds :
(i)
The inherent
improbability
or
incredibility
of
many
of the incidents recorded. This line of criticism was
most
fully
elaborated
by
Noldeke in
1869 (Untersuchungen, 156-172):
the
following points may
be selected as illustrations of the difficulties
which the narrative
presents. (a)
The route said to have been
traversed
is,
if not
absolutely impracticable
for a
regular army,
at least
quite
irreconcilable with the
alleged object
of the
campaign,
the
chastisement of the
Pentapolis.
That the four
kings
should have
passed
the Dead Sea
valley, leaving
their
principal
enemies in their
rear,
and
postponing
a decisive
engagement
till the end of a circuitous
and
exhausting march,
is a
proceeding
which would be
impossible
in real
warfare,
and could
only
have been
imagined by
a writer out of touch
with the actualities of the situation
(see
the Notes on
p. 261). (b)
It is
difficult to resist the
impression
that some of the
personal
names
especially
BZra and Birsha
(see
on v.
2
),
and Mamre and Eshcol
(v.
13
)
are artificial
formations,
which reveal either the animus of the
writer,
or else
(in
the last two
instances)
a
misapprehension
of traditional data
into which
only
a
very
late and ill-informed writer could have been
betrayed, (c)
The rout of Chedorlaomer s
army by 318
untrained men
is
generally
admitted to be incredible. It is no sufficient
explanation
to
say
that
only
a
rearguard
action
may
have taken
place
;
the writer
does not mean that
;
and if his
meaning misrepresents
what
actually
took
place,
his account is at
any
rate not historical
(see p. 267). (ct)
It
appears
to be assumed in v.
3
that the Dead Sea was formed
subsequently
to the events narrated. This idea seems to have been traditional in
Israel
(cf. i3
10
),
but it is nevertheless
quite
erroneous.
Geological
evidence
proves
that that
amazing depression
in the earth s surface had
existed for
ages
before the advent of man on the
earth,
and
formed,
from the
first,
part
of a
great
inland lake whose waters stood
originally
several hundred feet
higher
than the
present
level of the Dead Sea. It
may, indeed,
be
urged
that the vale of Siddim was not coextensive
with the Dead Sea
basin,
but
only
with its shallow southern
Lagoon
18
274
HISTORICITY OF
(S
of
el-Lisan),
which
by
a
partial
subsidence of the
ground might
have
been formed within historic times.* But even if that were the true
explanation,
the manner of the statement is not that which would be
used
by
a writer conversant with the facts. The
improbabilities
of the
passage
are not confined to the four
points just
mentioned,
but are
spread
over the entire surface of the narrative
;
and while their force
may
be
differently
estimated
by
different
minds,
it is at least safe to
say
that
they
more than neutralise the
impression
of trustworthiness which
the
precise dates, numbers,
and localities
may
at first
produce. (2)
The
second class of considerations is derived from the
spirit
and
tendency
which characterise the
representation,
and reveal the
standpoint
of the
writer. It would be
easy
to show that
many
of the
improbabilities
observed
spring-
from a desire to enhance the
greatness
of Abraham s
achievement
;
and indeed the whole
tendency
of the
chapter
is to set
the
figure
of the
patriarch
in an ideal
light, corresponding
not to the
realities of
history,
but to the
imagination
of some later
age.
Now the
idealisation of the
patriarchs is,
of
course,
common to all
stages
of
tradition
;
the
question
is to what
period
this ideal
picture
of Abraham
may
be most
plausibly
referred. The answer
given by
a number of
critics is that it
belongs
to the later
Judaism,
and has its affinities "with
P and the midrashic elements in Chronicles rather than with the older
Israelite historians"
(Moore,
EB,
ii.
677).
Criticism of this kind is
necessarily subjective
and
speculative.
At first
sight
it
might appear
that the
conception
of Abraham as a warlike hero is the mark of a
warlike
age,
and therefore older than the more
idyllic types
delineated
in the
patriarchal legends.
That
judgement, however,
fails to take
account of the
specific
character of the narrative before us. It is a
grandiose
and lifeless
description
of
military operations
which are
quite
beyond
the writer s
range
of
conception
;
it contains no trace of the
martial ardour of ancient
times,
and
betrays
considerable
ignorance
of
the conditions of actual warfare
;
it is
essentially
the account of a
Bedouin razzia
magnified
into a
systematic campaign
for the consolida
tion of
empire.
It has been
fitly
characterised as the
product
of a time
which
"
admires
military glory
all the more because it can conduct no
wars itself
; and, having
no warlike
exploits
to boast of in the
present,
revels in the
mighty
deeds of its ancestors. Such narratives tend in
imagination
towards the
grotesque ;
the lack of the
political experience
which is to be
acquired only
in the life of the
independent
state
produces
a condition of mind which can no
longer distinguish
between the
possible
and the
impossible.
Thus the
passage belongs
to an
age
in
which,
in
spite
of a certain historical
erudition,
the historic sense of
Judaism
had sunk almost to zero
"
(Gu. 255).
It remains to consider the extent and
origin
of the historic element
whose existence in the
chapter
we have been led to admit. Does it
proceed
from an ancient Canaanite
record,
which
passed
into the Hebrew
tradition,
to be
gradually
moulded into the form in which we now find
*
Cf. Dri. s elaborate
Note,
p.
i68ff.
;
also
Robinson, BR,
ii.
187
f.
;
Gautier, EB,
1043
f., 1046;
Hull, DB,
i.
576.
CH. XIV
275
it ? Or did it come
directly
from an external source into the hands of a
late
author,
who used it as the basis of a sort of historical romance ?
The former alternative is difficult to maintain if
(as
seems to be the
case)
the narrative stands outside the
recognised literary
sources of the
Pentateuch.* The most
acceptable
form of this
theory
is
perhaps
that
presented by
Sellin in the article to which reference has
frequently
been
made in the
preceding- pages
(NKZ,
xvi.
929-951).
The
expedition,
he
thinks,
may
have taken
place
at
any
time between
2250
and
1750
B.C.
;
and he allows a
long
1
period
of oral transmission to have
elapsed
before
the
preparation
of a cuneiform record about
1500.
This document he
supposes
to have been
deposited
in the
Temple
archives of
Jerusalem,
and to have come into the
possession
of the Israelites
through
David s
conquest
of that
city.
He thus leaves room for a certain distortion of
events in the
primary
document,
and even for traces of
mythological
influence. The
theory
would
gain immensely
in
plausibility
if the
alleged
Canaanite
parallels
to the obscure
expressions
of vv.
14f>
(p i, T:n,
p"?n)
should
prove
to be relevant. At
present, however,
they
are not
known to be
specifically
Canaanite
;
and whatever be their value it
does not
appear
that
they
tell more in favour of a Palestinian
origin
than of a cuneiform basis in
general.
The
assumption
that the docu
ment was
deposited
in the
Temple is,
of
course,
a
pure hypothesis,
on
which
nothing
as to the
antiquity
or
credibility
of the narrative can be
based.
On the other
hand,
the second alternative has definite
support
in a
fact not
sufficiently regarded by
those who defend the
authenticity
of the
chapter.
It is
significant
that the cuneiform document in which three
of the four
royal
names in v.
1
are
supposed
to have been discovered is as
late as the
4th
or
3rd
cent. B.C.
Assuming
the correctness of the
identifications,
we have here a
positive proof
that the
period
with
which our
story
deals was a theme of
poetic
and
legendary
treatment in
the
age
to which criticism is
disposed approximately
to
assign
the
composition
of Gn.
14.
It shows that a cuneiform document is not
necessarily
a
contemporary
document,
and need not contain an accurate
transcript
of fact. If we
suppose
such a document to have come into
the
possession
of a
Jew
of the
post-Exilic age,
it would furnish
just
such
a basis of
quasi-historical
material as would account for the
blending
of
fact and fiction which the
literary
criticism of the
chapter suggests.
In
any
case the extent of the historical material remains undetermined.
The names in v.
1
are historical
;
some such
expedition
to the West as is
here
spoken
of is
possibly
so
;
but
everything
else
belongs
to the
region
of
conjecture.
The
particulars
in which we are most interested the
figures
of Abram and Lot and
Melkizedek,
the
importance,
the
revolt,
and even the
existence,
of the Cities of the
KikLiir, and,
in
short,
all
the details of the
story
are as
yet
unattested
by any
allusion in secular
history.
In
conclusion,
it should be noticed that there is no real
antagonism
between
archaeology
and
literary
criticism in this matter.
They
deal
*
P.
256
above.
276
THE COVENANT WITH ABRAM
(jE)
with
quite
distinct
aspects
of the
problem
;
and the
fallacy
lies in treat
ing-
the
chapter
as a
homogeneous
and indivisible
unity
: it is like dis
cussing-
whether the climate of Asia is hot or cold on
conflicting-
evidence
drawn from
opposite
extremes of the continent. Criticism claims to
have shown that the narrative is full of
improbabilities
in detail which
make it
impossible
to
accept
it as a reliable
contemporary
record of fact.
All that the
archaeologist
can
pretend
to have
proved
is that the
general
setting
of the
story
is consistent with the
political
situation in the East
as disclosed
by
the monuments
;
and that it contains data which cannot
possibly
be the fabrications of an unhistorical
age.
So much as this
critics are
perfectly prepared
to admit.
No.,
who has stated the case
against
the
authenticity
of the
chapter
as
strongly
as
any man,
ex
pressly
declined to build an
argument
on the fact that
nothing-
was then
known of an Elamite dominion in the
West,
and allowed that the names
of the four
kings might
be traditional
(op.
cit.
159^).* Assyriology
has
hardly
done more as
yet
than make
good
the
possibilities
thus conceded
in advance. It is absurd to
suppose
that a
theory
can be overthrown
by
facts for which due allowance was made before
they
took rank as
actual discoveries.
CH. XV.Gotfs Covenant with Abram
(JE).
In a
prolonged
interview with
Yahwe,
Abram s mis
givings regarding
the fulfilment of the divine
promises
are
removed
by
solemn and
explicit assurances,
and
by
a
symbolic
act in which the
Almighty
binds Himself
by
the inviolable
ceremonial of the
berlth.\
In the
present
form of the
chapter
there is a clear division between the
promise
of a son and heir
(
1
"
6
)
and the
promise
of the land
(
7
~
21
),
the latter alone
being
strictly
embraced in the
scope
of the covenant.
Analysis.
See,
besides the
comm.,
We.
Comp.
z
23
f.
;
Bu.
Urg. 416* ;
Bacon, Hebraica,
vii.
75
ff.
; Kraetzschmar,
op.
cit.
58
ff. The
chapter
shows unmistakable
signs
of
composition,
but the
analysis
is beset with
peculiar,
and
perhaps
insurmountable,
difficulties. We
may begin by
*
The same admission was made
by
We. as
long ago
as
1889
(Comp.* 310).
In view of the
persistent misrepresentations
of critical
opinion,
it is not
unnecessary
to
repeat
once more that the
historicity
of
the names in v.
1
has not been denied
by any leading-
critic
(e.g.
Ew.
No. Di.
We.),
even before the discoveries of later
years.
For an
exposure
of
Sayce
s
extraordinary travesty
of Noldeke s
arguments,
the reader should consult Dri. Gen.
7
,
Addenda to
p. 173.
f
"Die Berith ist
diejenige
kultische
Handlung-,
durch die in feierlicher
Weise
Verpflichtungen
oder
Abmachungen irgend
welcher Art absolut
bindend und unverbriichlich
g-emacht
wurden"
(Kraetzschmar,
Bvndes-
vorstellung) 40 f.).
xv. i
277
examining
the solution
proposed by
Gu. He
assigns
la-
*
b
r
2a- 8b- * 6> 9<
10. 12a
a
. b. 17. 18a. b
a
to
J
. lb
a)3
. 3a.
f2b?]
5. 11.
l^p.
13a. 14
(
to m
,).
16
to
.
ancj
7. 8.
isb. i4b. 15.
isbp.
19-21
to a redactor. On this
analysis
the
J fragments
form
a consecutive and
nearly complete narrative,
the break at v.
7
being
caused
by
R s insertion of
7f-
But
(i)
it is not so
easy
to
get
rid of
7f
V.
8
is,
and
6
is
not,
a suitable
point
of contact for
9ff-
;
and
the omission
of
7f>
would make the covenant a confirmation of the
promise
of an
heir,
whereas
18
expressly
restricts it to the
possession
of
the land. And
(2)
the
parts assigned
to
J
contain no marks of the
Yahwistic
style except
the name m.T
;
they present
features not else
where observed in that
document,
and are coloured
by
ideas character
istic of the Deuteronomic
age.
The
following points may
be here noted :
(a)
the
prophetic
character of the divine communication to Abram
(
K 4
)
;
(b)
the address
m,r JIN
(
2a
[cf.
8
])
;
(c)
the
theological
reflexion on the
nature of Abram s
righteousness (
6
: cf. Dt. 6
25
24
13
)
;
(d)
the idea of the
Abrahamic covenant
(found only
in redactional
expansions
of
JE,
and
common in
Dt.)
;
to which
may
be added
(e)
the ideal boundaries of the
land and the enumeration of its inhabitants
(
18b
-
21
),
both of which are
Deuteronomistic
(see
on the vv.
below).
The ceremonial of
9f< 17
is no
proof
of
antiquity (cf. Jer. 34
17ff>
)
}
and the
symbolic representation
of
Yahwe s
presence
in
17
is
certainly
not decisive
against
the late author
ship
of the
piece (against Gu.).
It is difficult to
escape
the
impression
that the whole of this
J
narrative
(including
7f-
)
is the
composition
of an
editor who used the name
m.T,
but whose affinities otherwise are with
the school of
Deuteronomy
rather than with the
early
Yahwistic writers.
This
result, however,
still leaves unsolved
problems, (i)
It fails to
account for the obvious doublets in
2t 3
.
2b
and
3a
are
generally recog
nised as the first traces in the Hex. of the document
E,
and
5
(a night
scene in contrast to
12t 17
)
is
naturally assigned
to the same source.
(2)
With
regard
to
t
12?
l
13 16
,
which most critics consider to be a redactional
expansion
of
J,
I incline to the
opinion
of
Gu.,
that
n< 13
~
16
form
part
of
the
sequel
to the E narrative
recognised
in
* 2b- 5
(note
noKn,
v.
16
). (3)
The renewed introduction of Yahwe in v.
7
forms a hiatus
barely
con
sistent with
unity
of
authorship.
The
difficulty
would be
partly
met
by
Bacon s
suggestion
that the
proper position
of the
J
material in
l
~
9
is
intermediate between
i5
18
and i6
l
. But
though
this
ingenious theory
removes one
difficulty
it creates
others,
and it leaves untouched what
seems to me the chief element of the
problem,
the marks of lateness both
in
1-6
and
7 21
. The
phenomena might
be most
fully explained by
the
assumption
of an Elohistic
basis,
recast
by
a
Jehovistic
or Deuteronomic
editor
(probably
R
JE
),
and afterwards combined with extracts from its
own
original
;
but so
complex
a
hypothesis
cannot be
put
forward
with
any
confidence.
1-6. The
promise
of an heir
(J),
and a numerous
posterity (E).
I. The v.
presupposes
a situation of
I. nWn cmmn
[ ]inK] frequent
in E
(22
1
40
1
48
1
, Jos. 24
29
),
but also
used
by J (22
20
39
7
).
mrvij
] n;n (cf.
v.
4
)]
not elsewhere in the Hex.
;
278
THE COVENANT WITH ABRAM
(JE)
anxiety
on the
part
of
Abram,
following
1
on some meri
torious action
performed by
him. It is not certain that
any
definite set of circumstances was
present
to the mind of the
writer, though
the conditions are
fairly
well satisfied
by
Abram s defenceless
position amongst
the Canaanites im
mediately
after his heroic obedience to the divine call
(Gu.).
The
attempts
to establish a connexion with the events of
ch.
14 (Jewish
Comm. and a few
moderns)
are far-fetched
and
misleading.
the word
of
Yahwe
came]
On the formula
v.i. The
conception
of Abram as a
prophet
has no
parallel
in
J
;
and even
E,
though
he
speaks vaguely
of Abram as a
&033
(2o
7
,
g.v.),
does not describe his intercourse with God
in technical
prophetic phraseology.
The
representation
is
not
likely
to have arisen before the
age
of written
prophecy.
in a
vision]
probably
a
night-vision
(see
v.
5
),
in which case
the
expression
must be attributed to E. The mediate
character of
revelation,
as contrasted with the directness of
the older
theophanies (e.g.
ch.
18),
is at all events character
istic of E.
thy
shield]
a
figure
for
protection
common in
later
writings:
Dt.
33
29
,
Ps.
3* y
11
oft.,
Pr. 2
7
3O
5
.
thy
reward
[will be]
very
great]
a new sentence
(ffij&)>
not
(
as
U>
EV)
a second
predicate
to 33K. 2.
seeing
I
go
hence
childless}
found
occasionally
in the older
writing
s
(i
Sa.
i5
10
,
2 Sa.
24
n
),
but
chiefly
in later
prophets
and
superscriptions
:
specially
common in
Jer.
and Ezk.
niqp] Only
Nu.
2^-
16
,
Ezk.
i3
7
. The word is thus not at
all characteristic of
E, thoug-h
the idea of revelation
through
dreams
and visions
(n^HD,
Nu. I2
6
;
n^.
Wi
nN"]D,
Gn.
46
2
) undoubtedly
is. Consider
ing-
the
many
traces of late
editing-
in the
chapter,
it is
highly
precarious
to divide the
phrases
of v.
1
between
J
and E.
nsin
(inf.
abs.)
as
pred.
is unusual and late
(Ps. i3o
7
,
EC. n
8
).
JXJL
rmK,
I will
multiply,
is
perhaps preferable.
2. ni.T
JIN] (cf.
8
)
is common in the
elevated
style
of
prophecy (esp. Ezk.),
but rare in the Pss. In the
historical books it occurs
only
as a vocative
(exc.
i Ki. 2
26
)
:
Jos. 7
, Ju.
622 I6
5>
8)
_
Dt>
3
24
^
2 Sa>
ylS.
19. 20. 28. 29
}
, Ki. ^ Qf these the fifst
three are
possibly J ;
the rest are Deuteronomic.
itjrW
pi]
ffir
has 6 5t
vies Mdcre/c
TTJS oiKoyevovs /xou,
OVTOS
Aa/ma/cds EAt^ep,
a
meaningless
sen
tence in the
connexion,
unless
supplemented by
/cX7?poi/o/*^<ret /xe,
as in some
MSS of Philo
(before oSros).
&
paraphrases
:
(j-dCDOk)5> 5].^
i
\]o
w^.\
Z^_i
OO1 t_.rA
> *^
^^. pK
D is a air.
\ey.,
which
appears
not to
have been understood
by any
of the Vns.
(Sr
treats it as the name of
Eliezer s
mother, Aq. (TTOT/^OZ/TOS)
as
-
n^,
1
?
;
0F^J
g"ive
it the sense
xv.
2-5 279
So all
Vns., taking-
^n
in the sense of die
(Ps. 39
14
:
cf. Ar.
halaka], though
the other sense
(*
walk
=
live
)
would be
quite
admissible. To die childless and leave no
name on earth
(Nu. 27*)
is a fate so
melancholy
that even
the assurance of
present fellowship
with God
brings
no
hope
or
joy.
2b is
absolutely unintelligible
(v.t.).
The Vns.
agree
in
reading
1
the names Eliezer and
Damascus,
and
also
(with
the
partial exception
of
(S)
in the
general
under
standing
that the clause is a statement as to Abram s heir.
This is
probably
correct
;
but the text is so
corrupt
that
even the
proper
names are
doubtful,
and there is
only
a
presumption
that the sense
agrees
with
3b
.
3.
In the
absence of children or near
relatives,
the
slave,
as a member
of the
family, might
inherit
(Sta.
GVI,
i.
391
;
Benzinger,
Arch.**
113).
n??~I?
is a member of the
household,
but not
necessarily
a home-born slave
(JV3
Tp)} i4
14
). 5.
The
promise
of a numerous seed
(cf.
3a- 13
)
is E s
parallel
to the announce
ment of the birth of a
bodily
heir in
J (v.
4
).
the
stars]
a
favourite
image
of the later editors and
Deuteronomy (22
17
of
steward,
which
may
be a mere
conjecture
like the
avyyevrjs
of 2.
Modern comm.
generally regard
the word as a modification of
je
O
(Jb.
28
18
?)with
the sense of
possession TV? ]!
=
son of
possession
=
possessor
or inheritor
(so
Ges. Tu. KS. Str.
al.) ;
but this has
neither
philological justification
nor traditional
support.
A
*J pt?o
(in
spite
of
p^pp,
Zeph.
2
9
)
is
extremely
dubious. The last clause cannot be
rendered either This is Eliezer of
Damascus,
or This is
Damascus,
namely
Eliezer
(De.).
&
and
3T
adopt
the
summary expedient
of
turning
the subst. into an
adj.,
and
reading
Eliezer the Damascene
(similarly E/3/3.
in
Field).
It is difficult to
imagine
what Damascus
can have to do here at all
;
and if a
satisfactory
sense for the
previous
words could be
obtained,
it would be
plausible enough (with
Hitz. Tu.
KS.
al.)
to strike out
paw [Kin]
as a
stupid gloss
on
pg
D. Ball s emenda
tion,
"iji;
1
^ ptfayfl
NH jv2
pa>Di,
and he who will
possess my
house is a
Damascene
Eliezer,
is
plausible,
but the
sing. J|
with the name of a
city
is
contrary
to Heb. idiom. Bewer
(JBL, 1908, pt.
2,
i6off.
)
has
proposed
the
reading ingenious
but not
convincing jqi
^>
px n^pa cn;u.
2a
and
^
are
parallels (note
the double N noN
i),
of which the former
obviously belongs
to
J,
the latter
consequently
to E. Since
3b
is
J
rather
than E
(cf.
ahi with v.
4
),
it follows that
^ >
must be
transposed
if the
latter be E s
parallel
to
3b
.
3. PV]
in the sense of be heir to : cf. 2i
10
(E),
2 Sa. i
4
7
, Jer. 49
1
,
Pr.
3O
23
.
4.
TOD
(ffi 1?9?)]
of the
father,
2 Sa.
7
12
16",
Is.
4
8
19
;
of the
mother,
25
23
(J),
Is.
49
1
,
Ru. i
11
,
Ps.
71". 5.
nsnnn]
in
J,
i
9
17
2
4
29
39
12- 13- ]5- 18
(Jos.
2
19
?) ;
but also Dt. 2
4
U
25*
etc.
280 THE COVENANT WITH ABRAM
(jE)
26*,
Ex.
32
13
,
Dt. i
10
io
22
28
62
).
6. counted it
(his implicit
trust in the character of
Yahwe)
as
righteousness}
i Mac. 2~
)2
.
npnv is here neither inherent moral
character,
nor
piety
in
the
subjective
sense,
but a
right
relation to God conferred
by
a divine sentence of
approval (see
We.
Pss., SBOT,
174).
This remarkable
anticipation
of the Pauline doctrine of
justification
by
faith
(Ro. 4
3- 9- 22
,
Gal.
3
6
;
cf.
Ja.
2
23
)
must,
of
course,
be understood
in the
light
of OT
conceptions.
The idea of
righteousness
as de
pendent
on a divine
judgment
(3$
:
n)
could
only
have arisen on the basis
of
legalism,
while at the same time it
points beyond
it. It stands later
in
theological development
than Dt. 6
25
24
13
,
and has its nearest
analogies
in Ps. io6
31
24.
The reflexion is
suggested by
the
question
how
Abram,
who had no law to
fulfil,
was nevertheless
righteous
;
and,
finding
the
ground
of his
acceptance
in an inward attitude towards
God,
it marks a real
approximation
to the
Apostle
s
standpoint.
Gu.
(161)
well remarks that an
early
writer would have
given,
instead of
this abstract
proposition,
a concrete illustration in which Abram s faith
came to
light.
7-21.
The covenant.
7,
8. The
promise
of the
land,
Abram s
request
for a
pledge (ct.
v.
6
),
and the self-introduc
tion of Yahwe
(which
would be natural
only
at the com
mencement of an
interview),
are marks of
discontinuity
difficult to reconcile with the
assumption
of the
unity
of the
narrative. Most critics
accordingly
recommend the excision
of the vv. as an
interpolation.
So Di. KS.
Kraetzschmar,
Gu. al. Their
genuineness
is maintained
by
Bu. De.
Bacon,
Ho.
;
We. thinks
they
have been at least worked
over. The
language certainly
is
hardly
Yahwistic. The "JN
(
7
)
is not
a sufficient
ground
for
rejection (see
Bu.
439)
;
and
although
D ttya mx in
a
J-context may
be
suspicious,
we have no
right
to assume that it did
not occur in a stratum of Yahwistic tradition
(see p. 239 above).
But
nnenV nn
1
? is a
decidedly
Deuteronomic
phrase (see
Off,
i.
205)
: on JiK
JUT,
see on v.
2
. On the
theory
of a late recension of the whole
passage
these
linguistic
difficulties would vanish
;
but the
impression
of a
change
of scene
remains,
an
impression,
however,
which the
interpolation
theory
does not
altogether
remove,
since the transition from
6
to
9
is
very abrupt.
Bacon s
transposition
of the two sections of
J
is also
unsatisfactory.
6.
pDKm] (on
the
tense,
see Dri. T.
133;
G-K. 112
ss):
<F
add
D-J3N.
The construction
with
3
is usual when the
obj.
of faith is God
(Ex. i4
31
,
Nu. i
4
u
2o
12
,
Dt. i
32
,
2 Ki.
i7
14
,
2 Ch. 2O
20
,
Ps.
yS
32
, Jon. 3
9
):
j> only
Dt.
g
23
,
Is.
43. npiy]
second
obj.
ace. The
change
to
$ (Ps.
Io6
31
)
is
unnecessary.
XV. 6-12 28 1
Q,
10. The
preparations
for the covenant
ceremony
;
on
which see
below, p. 283. Although
not
strictly
sacrificial,*
the
operation
conforms to later Levitical
usage
in so far as
the animals are all such as were allowed in
sacrifice,
and
the birds are not divided
(Lv.
i
17
). of
three
years
old]
This
is
obviously
the
meaning
of BwD here
(cf.
i Sa. i
24
[ffi]
:
elsewhere
=
threefold,
Ezk.
4
2
6
,
EC.
4
12
).
& ,
which renders
three
(calves, etc.),
is
curiously enough
the
only
Vn. that
misses the sense
;
and it is followed
by
Ber.
R.,
Ra. al. On
the number three in the
OT,
see
Stade, ZATW,
xxvi.
124
ff.
[esp.
127
f.].
II. The descent of the unclean birds of
prey (OT),
and Abram s
driving
them
away,
is a sacrificial
omen of the kind familiar to
antiquity.!
The
interpreta
tion seems to follow in
13
-
16
(Di. Gu.).
12.
nDTin
(( Wrao-ts)
is the condition most favourable for the
reception
of
visions
(see
on 2
21
).
a
great
horror]
caused
by
the
approach
of the
deity (omit
HD^n
as a
gloss).
The text is mixed
(see below),
and the two
representations belong,
the one to
J,
and the
other to E
(Gu.).
The scene is a vivid
transcript
of
primitive
religious experience.
The
bloody ceremony just
described
was no
perfunctory piece
of
symbolism
;
it touched the mind
below the level of consciousness
;
and that
impression
(heightened
in this case
by
the
growing
darkness)
induced a
susceptibility
to
psychical
influences
readily
culminating
in
ecstasy
or vision.
13-16.
An oracle in which is
unfolded
the
destiny
of Abram s descendants to the
4th generation.
It is to be noted that the
prediction
relates to the
fortunes
of Abram s
seed,
the mention of the land
(
16
) being
in-
9. *?nj]
Dt.
32
11
t
=
young-
of the
vulture;
but here
=
young-
dove
;
..o v
Ar.
gauzal-, Syr.
Xs
\_,.OV
IO.
151^1]
a technical term
;
the vb.
only
here
;
cf.
nria, Jer. 34
18- 19
-pm]
MJL mna
(inf. abs.)-
"i
np? ]
cf.
9
e
;
G-K.
139
c. II.
cnj$n]
(J
A
ret
o-c^ara
ra
Stxoro^T^uara ;
a
conflation of
D -uan and
onjan (v.
17
). a^ll] Hiph.
of 3Kb
only
here in the sense of
scare
away
: so
Aq. (dire<r6pi)ffev)
j$U. & read
ayo,
which is less
expressive ;
and
ffir
onx
a^n
is
quite
inadmissible. 12. NU
1
?
\TI]
G-K.
114?;
cf.
*
So in the covenant between Aur-nirari and Mati ilu
(MVAG,
iii.
228
ff.),
the victim is
expressly
said not to be a sacrifice,
f
Comp. Virg-.
Aen. iii.
225
ff.
282 THE COVENANT WITH ABRAM
direct and incidental. The
passage may
therefore be the
continuation of the E-sections of
1-6
,
on the
understanding
that in E the covenant had to do with the
promise
of a
seed,
and not with the
possession
of the land.
13.
a
sojoumer\
(coll.):
see on I2
10
.
400
years]
agreeing approximately
with the
430 years
of Ex. i2
40
(P). 15
is a
parenthesis,
if
not an
interpolation, reassuring
Abram as to his own
personal
lot
(see
on
25
8
).
16. the
fourth
generation}
e.g.
Levi, Kohath, Amram,
Aaron
(or Moses) (Ex.
6
16ff
-).
To
the
reckoning
of a
generation
as 100
years (cf.
v.
13
)
doubtful
classical
parallels
are cited
by
Knobel
(Varro, Ling.
lat.
6,
ii
; Ovid,
Met. xii.
188,
etc.).*
the
guilt of
the
Amorites]
(the
inhabitants of
Palestine)
is
frequently
dwelt
upon
in
later
writings (Dt. g
5
,
i Ki.
i4
24
,
Lv. i8
24f-
etc.
etc.)
;
but the
parallels
from
JE
cited
by
Knobel
(Gn.
i8
20ff-
i9
lff-
2O
11
)
are
of
quite
a different character.
yv<
13-ie
are
obviously
out of
place
in
J,
because
they presuppose
18
(the promise
of the
land). They
are
generally assigned
to a
redactor,
although
it is difficult to conceive a motive for their insertion. Di. s
suggestion,
that
they
were written to
supply
the
interpretation
of the
omen of v.
11
, goes
a certain distance
;
but fails to
explain why
the inter
pretation
ever came to be omitted. Since
n
is
intimately
connected
with
13 16
,
and at the same time has no influence on the account of
J,
the
natural conclusion is that both
n
and
13
"
16
are
documentary,
but that the
document is not
J
but E
(so Gu.).
It will be
necessary,
however,
to
delete the
phrases
^na
BO")?
in
14
and
rtjio nyjsqi
12^
in
15
as characteristic
of the
style
of P
;
perhaps
also
nj?
nixp V31*
in
13
. The whole of
15
may
be removed with
advantage
to the sense. The text of
12
is not homo
geneous,
so that as a whole it cannot be linked either with
u
or with
1;iff
\
ui
nipyin]
and ui no N n-jm are doublets
(note
the
repetition
of
"?y
Vfla)
;
and the
poetic njgjq (only
here in
Pent.)
is doubtless a
gloss
to ne K.
The
opening
clause
Nia^
tyn
rn_
is
presumably J (in
E it is
already night
in v.
6
).
E s
partiality
for the
visionary
mode of revelation
may
be
sufficient
justification
for
assigning
the norm to him and the no N to
J ;
but the choice is immaterial.
Jos.
2
8
(J). 13. Di-nyi]
(5r
pr.
/ccd /cct/cc6crov<ni> atfr.
;
and
apparently
read
D2
113^1, avoiding
the awkward
interchange
of
subj.
and
obj.
16.
"mi
yu-i]
ace. of
condition,
as a fourth
generation (cf. Jer. 3i
8
);
G-K.
*
Cf. We. Prol.
6
308 (Eng.
tr.
p. 308),
who cites these vv. as
positive
proof
that the
generation
was reckoned as 100
years (see p. 135
above),
a view
which,
of
course,
cannot be held unless vv.
13
"
16
are a
unity.
XV.
13-iS
283
17.
a
smoking-
oven and a
blazing
torch]
the two
together
making
1
an emblem of the
theophany,
akin to the
pillar
of
cloud and fire of the Exodus and Sinai narratives
(cf.
Ex.
3
2
ig
9
i3
21
etc.).
The oven is therefore not a
symbol
of
Gehenna reserved for the nations
(Ra.).
On the
appearance
of the
"N3JD,
see the
descriptions
and illustrations in
Riehm,
HWb.
178; Benzinger,
Arch.
2
65. passed
between these
pieces]
cf.
Jer, 34
18f-
(the only
other
allusion).
On this rite see
Kraetzschmar,
op.
cit.
44
fF.
Although
attested
by
only
one other OT
reference,
its
prevalence
in
antiquity
is
proved by
many analogies
in classical and other writers. Its
original significance
is
hardly
exhausted
by
the well-known
passage
in
Livy (5. 24),
where a
fate similar to that of the victim is invoked on the violators of the
covenant.* This leaves
unexplained
the most characteristic
feature,
the
passing
between the
pieces.
Rob. Sm. surmises that the divided
victim was eaten
by
the
contracting parties,
and that afterwards "the
parties
stood between the
pieces,
as a
symbol
that
they
were taken
within the
mystical
life of the victim"
(KS
2
, 480 f.).
18. This
ceremony
constitutes a
Bertth>
of which the one
provision
is the
possession
of
*
the land. A Berith neces
sarily implies
two or more
parties
;
but it
may happen
that
from the nature of the case its
stipulations
are
binding only
on one. So here : Yahwe alone
passes
(symbolically)
between the
pieces,
because He alone contracts
obligation.
The land is described
according
to its ideal limits
;
it is
generally thought,
however,
that the
closing
words,
along
with
19
~
21
,
were added
by
a Deuteronomic
editor,
and that in
the
original J
the
promise
was restricted to Canaan
proper.
The
onp? irq (not,
as elsewhere ft
*?nj
=
Wadi
el-Arish)
must be the
Nile
(cf. Jos. 13 ,
i Ch.
13).
On an old belief that the W. el-Arish was
an arm of the
Nile,
see Tuch. ui Vnan
injn]
cf. Dt. i
7
1 1
24
, Jos.
i
4
. The
boundary
was never
actually
reached in the
history
of Israel
(the
notice
17.
ma
w] pf.
with sense of
plup. (G-K. iii^-). no^] only
here and Ezk. i2
6< 7- 13
.
(Sr
#X6
is
certainly wrong (n;?n|?
? en
1
??).
tfy]
(SrUSS read the
ptcp.,
hence Ball emends
faty. nnun]
the noun recurs
only
Ps.
I36
13
;
but cf. the
analogous
use of the vb. i Ki.
3
s3- 26
.
*
". . . turn illo
die, Juppiter, populum
Romanum sic
ferito,
ut
ego
hunc
porcum
hie hodie
feriam, tantoque magis
ferito
quanto magis potes
pollesque."
Cf. //. iii.
2986. Precisely
the same idea is
expressed
with
great circumstantiality
in an
Assyrian
covenant between Asur-
nirari and the
Syrian prince
Mati ilu : see
Reiser, MVAG^
iii. 228 If.
284
HAGAR S FLIGHT
(j)
in i Ki.
5
J> 4
is late and
unhistorical). 19-21.
Such lists of
pre-Israelite
inhabitants are characteristic of Dt. and Dtnic.
expansions
of
JE. They
usually
contain
5
or 6 or at most
7
names : here there are 10
(see
Bu.
344 ff.,
and Dri. s
analysis,
Deut.
97).
The first three names
appear
in
none of the other lists
;
and the same is true of the
RZphaim
in 20.
The Kenites
(see p. 113)
and Kenizzites
(36
n
)
are tribes of the
Negeb,
both
partly incorporated
in
Judah
: the Kadmonites
(only here)
are
possibly
identical with the
CHJD \i?
(ag
1
),
the inhabitants of the eastern
desert. The
Hivvites,
who
regularly appear,
are
supplied
here
by
JUA
(after Girgashites)
and
ffir
(after Canaanites).
On the
ffittites,
see
p. 215
; and, further,
on ch.
23
below.
The idea of a covenant
(or oath)
of Yahwe to the
patriarchs
does not
appear
in the literature till the time of
Jer. (n
5
)
and Deut.
(4
31
7
12
8
18
,
2 Ki.
I3
23
etc.)
: see
Kraetzschmar,
61 ff. Of
31 passag-es
in
JE
where
Kr. finds the
conception (the
list
might
be
reduced),
all but three
(i5
18
i2
7
24 )
are
assigned
to the Deuteronomic
(Jehovistic)
redaction
(see
Staerk,
Studien,
i.
37
ff.) ;
and of these three 12? is a mere
promise
without an
oath,
while in
24"
the words
^
y^yi
I^NI
have all the
appearance
of a
g-loss.
It
is,
of
course, quite possible
that
i5
m
may
be
very
ancient,
and have formed the nucleus of the
theological development
of the
covenant-idea in the
age
of Deut. But it is
certainly
not unreasonable
to
suppose
that it emanates from the
period
when Israel s tenure of
Canaan
began
to be
precarious,
and the
popular religion sought
to
reassure itself
by
the
inviolability
of Yahwe s oath to the fathers. And
that is
hardly
earlier than the
7th
cent.
(Staerk, 47).
CH. XVI. The
Flight of Hagar
and Birth
of
Ishmael
(J
and
P).
Sarai, having-
no
hope
of herself
becoming
a
mother,
persuades
Abram to take her
Egyptian
maid
Hagar
as a
concubine.
Hagar,
when she finds herself
pregnant,
be
comes insolent towards her
mistress,
from whose harsh
treatment she
ultimately
flees to the desert. There the
Angel
of Yahwe meets
her,
and comforts her with a dis
closure of the
destiny
of the son she is to
bear,
at the same
time
commanding
her to
go
back and submit to her mistress.
In due course Ishmael is born.
In the
carefully
constructed
biographical plan
of the editors the
episode
finds an
appropriate place
between the
promise
of a
bodily
heir
in
15
and the
promise
of a son
through
Sarai in 18
(J)
or
17 (P).
The
narrative itself contains no hint of a trial of Abram s
faith,
or an
attempt
on his
part
to forestall the fulfilment of the
promise.
Its real interest
lies in another direction :
partly
in the
explanation
of the sacredness of
a certain famous
well,
and
partly
in the characterisation of tiie
XV.
I9-XVI.
2
285
Ishmaelite nomads and the
explication
of their relation to Israel. The
point
of the
story
is obscured
by
a redactional excrescence
(
9
), obviously
inserted in view of the
expulsion
of
Hagar
at a later
stage.
In
reality
ch. 16
(J)
and 22
8 21
(E)
are variants of one tradition
;
in the Yahwistic
version
Hagar
never
returned,
but remained in the desert and bore her
son
by
the well Lahai Roi
(We. Comp.* 22).
The
chapter belongs
to the
oldest stratum of the Abrahamic
legends (J
b
),
and is
plausibly assigned
by
Gu. to the same source as i2
10
"
20
. From the main narrative of
J
(J
h
)
it is marked off
by
its somewhat unfavourable
portraiture
of
Abram,
and
by
the
topography
which
suggests
that Abram s home was in the
Negeb
rather than in Hebron. The
primitive
character of the
legend
is best seen from a close
comparison
with the Elohistic
parallel (see p. 324).
Analysis.
Vv.
la> 3- 15> 16
belong
to P : note the
chronological
data
in
3- 16
;
the
naming
of the child
by
the father
15
(ct.
n
) ;
jyj? p,K,
8
;
and
the stiff and formal
precision
of the
style.
The rest is
J
: cf.
nirr,
2> 6- 7-
9. .0. n. is.
nn^
i. 2. s. 6. s
(also
3
[p])
.
^ ^-^
2._The redactional
addition in
9f>
(v.s.) betrays
its
origin by
the threefold
repetition
of
"ipN l
m,T
3N^>p
rh,
a fault of
style
which is in
striking
contrast to the
exquisite
artistic form of the
original
narrative,
though
otherwise the
language
shows no decided
departure
from Yahwistic
usage (Di.,
but see on v.
10
).
1-6. The
flight
of
Hagar.
I.
Hag-ar
is not an
ordinary
household
slave,
but the
peculiar
property
of
Sarai,
and therefore not at the free
disposal
of her master
(cf. 24
59
20,24.29.
see
Benzinger,
Arch.
2
104 f.,
126
f.).*
an
Egyptian}
so v.
3
(P),
2 1
9
(E)
;
cf. 2i
21
. This consistent tradition
points
to an admixture of
Egyptian
blood
among-
the
Ishmaelites,
the
reputed
descendants of
Hagar.
f
2.
peradventure
I
may
la is
assigned
to P
partly
because of D-ON ne>N
(cf.
v.
3
),
and
partly
because the statement as to Sarai s barrenness
supplies
a
gap
in that
document,
whereas in
J
it is
anticipated by
n
30
. ib.
nnc^] (from
the
same
fj
as
nnspp)
is
originally
the slave-concubine
;
and it is a
question
*
"Some wives have female slaves who are their own
property,
generally purchased
for
them,
or
presented
to
them,
before their
marriage.
These cannot be the husband s concubines without their
mistress s
permission,
which is sometimes
granted (as
it was in the case
of
Hagar)
;
but
very
seldom"
(Lane,
Mod.
Egypt,
i.
233 [from
Dri.]).
On the resemblance to Cod. Hamm.
146,
see
Introduction,
p.
xvii.
t
The instance is one of the most favourable in Gen. to
Winckler s
theory
that under
nn^p
we are
frequently
to understand the N
Arabian
land of Musri
(Gu. ;
cf. Che.
EB, 3164 ;
KAT
3
,
146 f.).
Yet even here
the case is far from clear. An
Egyptian
strain
among
the
Bedouin
of Sinai would be
easily
accounted for
by
the
very early Egyptian
occupation
of the Peninsula
;
and Burton was struck
by
the
Egyptian
physiognomy
of some of the Arabs of that
region
at the
present day.
(Dri. DB,
ii.
504*).
286 HAGAR S FLIGHT
(j)
be built
up
or obtain children
(v.i.) from
her\ by adopting
Hagar
s son as her own
;
cf.
3O
3
.
3
is P s
parallel
to
2b- 4a
.
4.
and went
in,
etc.
(see
on 6
4
)]
the immediate continuation
of
2b
in
J.
was
despised]
a natural
feeling,
enhanced in
antiquity by
the universal conviction that the
mysteries
of
conception
and birth are
peculiarly
a
sphere
of divine
action.
5- My wrong
be
upon thee\
i.e.
May my grievance
be
avenged
on thee ! her
injured self-respect finding
vent
in a
passionate
and most
unjust imprecation.
6.
Thy
maid
is in
thy
hand]
Is this a statement of
fact,
or does it mean
that Abram now hands
Hagar
back to her mistress s
authority?
The latter is Gu. s
view,
who thinks that as a
concubine
Hagar
was no
longer
under the
complete
control
of Sarai. treated her
harshly]
The word
(^JV) suggests
excessive
severity; Hagar
s
flight
is
justified by
the
indignities
to which she was
subjected (v.
11
).
7-14.
The
theophany
at the well.
7.
the
Angel of
Yahwe] (see below)
is here introduced for the first time as
the medium of the
theophany.
The scene is a
fountain of
water
(as yet
nameless: v.
14
)
in the desert . . . on the
way
to Shur. Shur is an unknown
locality
on the NE frontier
of
Egypt (see
Dri.
DB,
iv.
5io
b
),
which
gave
its name to
the
adjacent
desert: 2O
1
25
18
,
Ex.
i5
22
,
i Sa.
i5
7
27 (v.i.).
The nvr
3^5 (or
DVI^N
D)
is "Yahwe Himself in
self-manifestation,"
or,
in other
words,
a
personification
of the
theophany.
This somewhat
subtle definition is founded on the fact that in
very many
instances the
Angel
is at once identified with God and differentiated from Him
;
cp.
e.g.
w.
10- 13
with
u
. The ultimate
explanation
of the
ambiguity
is no
doubt to be
sought
in the advance of
religious thought
to a more
whether the
purpose
of
presenting
a
newly-married
woman with a nnEp
may
not have been to
provide
for the event of the
marriage proving
childless. In
usage
it is
largely
coextensive with
nDN,
and is characier-
istic of
J against E, though
not
against
P.
*un]
The motive of
Hagar
s
flight may
have been
suggested by
a
supposed
connexion with Ar.
hagara,
flee. For another
etymology,
see No. EB
y
I933
2
. 2.
nJ2N] (so
only 3O
3
) may
be either a denom. from
}3 (so apparently (HrUS),
or a
metaphor
from the
family
as a house
(Ex.
i
ai
,
i Sa. 2
35
,
Ru.
4
11
etc.)
5. -DDii] gen.
of
obj.,
G-K,
128 h
(cf.
Ob.
10
).
(
Adiicovfuu
K <rov.
T^ai]
The
point
over indicates a clerical error : rd.
(with JUUL) $;?
.
7b
seems a
duplicate
of
14b
,
and one or other
may
be a
gloss.
The
words Tits "anna are omitted
by
(K
L
entirely,
and
partly
in several
XVI.
4-12
287
spiritual apprehension
of the divine nature. The oldest
conception
of
the
theophany
is a visible
personal appearance
of the
deity (ch.
2
f.,
Ex.
24
10
,
Nu. I2
6ff-
etc.).
A
later,
though
still
early, age
took
exception
to this bold
anthropomorphism,
and reconciled the
original
narratives
with the belief in the
invisibility
of God
by substituting
an
angel
or
*
messenger
of Yahwe as the
agent
of the
theophany, without, however,
effacing
all traces of the
primitive representation (Gu. 164^).
That
the idea underwent a remarkable
development
within the OT
religion
must,
of
course,
be
recognised (see esp.
Ex.
23
21
)
;
but the
subject
cannot
be further
investigated
here. See
Oehler,
ATTh*
203-211 ; Schultz,
OTTh. ii.
218-223 [Eng. tr.]; Davidson, DB,
i.
94;
De. Gen. 282 ff.
8.
The
Angel
s
question
reveals a
mysterious knowledge
of
Hagar
s
circumstances,
who on her
part
is as
yet ignorant
of the nature of her visitant
(cf.
i8
2ff>
). p,
10 are
interpolated
(v.i.).
II,
12. The
prophecy regarding
Ishmael
(not
12
alone:
Gu.)
is in metrical form: two
triplets
with lines of
4
or
3
measures.
Behold,
etc.\
The form of announcement
seems consecrated
by usage
;
cf.
Ju. i3
5- 7
,
Is.
y
14
.
Yishmuel\
properly, May
God
hear,
is rendered God
hears,
in token
of Yahwe s
regard
for the mother s distress
(i\yy
;
cf. TO
*??,
6
).
12. a wild ass
of
a
man]
or
perhaps
the wild ass
of
humanity
(S3T
J
)
IEz. De.
al.)
Ishmael
being among
the
families of mankind what the wild ass is
amongst
animals
(Jb. 39
5
~
8
, Jer.
2
24
).
It is a fine
image
of the free intractable
Bedouin character which is to be manifested in Ishmael s
descendants. dwell in the
face of
all his brethren
(cf. 25
18
)]
hardly
to the east
of,
which is too weak a sense.
^3~7j;
seems to
express
the idea of defiance
(as Jb.
i
11
), though
it
is not
easy
to connect this with the vb.
Possibly
the
cursives : JS
omits
pyrr^y. ~$v\ (
wall
?)
has been
supposed (doubtfully)
to be a line of fortifications
guarding
the NE frontier of
Egypt.
The
tain of CJ
(if
an
Arabism) may express
"in? in the sense of wall :
."
9
&
has
5^.
( =113,
2O
1
). 9,
10 are a double
interpolation.
The command
to return to Sarai was a
necessary consequence
of the
amalgamation
of
J
and E
(22
8ff-
)
;
and
10
was added to soften the return to
slavery (Gu.).
10
is
impossible
before
n
,
and is besides made
up
of
phrases
character
istic of redactional additions to
JE (cf.
22
17
32). n;nn]
Inf. abs.
;
G-K.
75^11.
rn ri for
rn
p]
so
Ju. i3
5- 7
(G-K. $8od).
12. DIK
tos]
see
G-K.
128*,
/. &
has
]^.J.j,JLr^5 "jjfJL,
and
&
xw 333
inj?
1
? DID.
288 HAGAR S FLIGHT
(j)
meaning-
is that Ishmael will be an inconvenient
neighbour
(135?)
to his settled brethren.
13, 14.
From this
experience
of
Hagar
the local
deity
and the well derive their names.
13.
Thou art a God
of
vision]
i.e.
(if
the
following
text can
be
trusted)
both in an
objective
and a
subjective
sense,
a God who
may
be seen as well as one who sees. Have I
even here
(? v.i.)
seen
after
him who sees me
?]
This is the
only
sense that can be extracted from the
MT, which, however,
is
strongly suspected
of
being corrupt. 14.
Be er
Lahay
Roi\
apparently
means either Well of the
Living
One who sees
me,
or Well of
"
He that sees me lives ". The name
occurs
again 24
62
25
11
. between Kadesh and
Bered\
On
Kadesh,
see on
i4
7
. Bered is unknown. In Arab tradition
the well of
Hagar
is
plausibly enough
identified with *Ain-
Muiveilih)
a caravan station about 12 miles to the W of
Kadesh
(Palmer,
Des.
of
Exod. ii.
354 fF.).
The well must
have been a chief
sanctuary
of the
Ishmaelites;
hence the
later
Jews,
to whom Ishmael was a name for all
Arabs,
identified it with the sacred well Zemzem at Mecca.
15,
l6.
The birth of
Ishmael,
recorded
by
P.
The
general scope
of
1Sf-
is
clear, though
the details are
very
obscure.
By
a
process
of
syncretism
the
original
numen of the well had come to
be
regarded
as a
particular
local manifestation of Yahwe
;
and the
attempt
is made to
interpret
the old names from the
standpoint
of the
higher religion.
"io "?N and NT nS are traditional names of which the
real
meaning
had been
entirely forgotten,
and the
etymologies
here
given
are as fanciful as in all similar cases,
(i)
In *o
n^
the Mass.
punctuation recognises
the roots
n,
*
live,"
and
.TNI,
*
see, taking
*? as
circumscribed
gen.
;
but that can
hardly
be correct. We.
(Prol.
6
323 f.),
following
Mich, and Ges.
(Th. 175), conjectures
that in the first element
13.
n *?N
nnN]
(5r
2i> 6 0e6s 6
t<tn5uv /xe,
TS Tu Deus
qui
vidisti me : both
reading *p (ptcp.
with
suff.).
For
nriN,
Ba. would substitute
nfix, deleting
T^K. The
vp
of
13b- 14*
is not the
pausal
form of the
preceding
to
(which
would be
V-]
: i Sa. i6
12
,
Nah.
3
6
, Jb. 33
21
),
but
Qal ptcp.
with suff. The
authority
of the accentuation
may,
of
course,
be
questioned. 14.
N"}i?]
.^
9
indef.
subj.,
for which JJLX. substitutes
nnp. T$]
<S 5
r
.i,&
*ojn
(see
on
v.
7
).
W has KxiSn
(Elusa), probably
el-Halasa,
about 12 miles SW of
Beersheba. It has been
supposed
that
T$ may
be identical with
a
place E-rjpddv
in the Gerar
district,
mentioned
by
Eus.
(OS, 145^
[Lag.
2
99
76
])>
wno
explains
the name as
<&ptap KpLveus (
=
J? IN^)
: see v. Gall,
CSt.
43-
XVI.
I3-XVII.
289
we have the word
nj>, jaw-bone (Ju. is
17
),
and in the second an
obsolete animal name: hence Well of the
antelope
s
(?) jaw-bone.
V. Gall
(CSt. 40 ff.) goes
a
step
further and
distinguishes
two
wells,
KT
(IN?) py,
and
njj>
nx|,
the former
peculiar
to
J
and the latter to E
(cf.
(5r of
24
82
25
n
). (2)
>n
SN,
whatever its
primary significance,
is of a
type
common in the
patriarchal
narratives
(see p. 291).
Of the
sug
gested
restorations of
1Sb
, by
far the most attractive is that of We.
(I.e.),
who
changes
D^n to D
nVx,
reads n as
^io,
inserts TIKI between
wxn and
nnx,
and
renders,
"
Have I
actually
seen God and lived after
my
vision?" an allusion to the
prevalent
belief that the
sight
of God
is followed
by
death
(Ex. 33
20
, Ju.
6
23
I3
23
etc.).
The emendation has
at least the
advantage
of
giving-
a
meaning
to both elements in the
name of the well. Gu. s
objection
that the
emphatic
here is indis
pensable,
is of doubtful
validity,
for
unfortunately D^q
does not mean
1
here but hither.
CH. XVII. The Covenant
of
Circumcision
(P).
To
Abram,
who is henceforth to be called Abraham
(
5
),
God reveals Himself under a new name
(
1
), entering-
into a
covenant with him
(
2
~
8
),
of which the
sign
is the rite of
circumcision
(
9
~
u
).
The heir of this covenant is to be a
son born to Sarai
(whose
name is
changed
to
Sarah)
in the
following year (
15
~
22
).
Abraham
immediately
circumcises all
the males of his household
(
23
-
27
).
To the writer of the
Priestly
Code the incident is
important
(i)
as an
explanation
of the
origin
of
circumcision,
which in his
day
had become
a fundamental institution of
Judaism ;
and
(2)
as
marking
a new
stage
in the revelation of the true God to the world.
The Abrahamic covenant
inaugurates
the third of the four
epochs
(commencing respectively
with
Adam, Noah,
Abraham
and
Moses)
into which the
Priestly theory
divides the
history
of mankind. On the ethnic
parallels
to this
scheme,
Gu. s
note
(p. 233 ff.) may
be consulted.
Source. The marks of P s
authorship appear
in
every
line of the
zhapter.
Besides the
general qualities
of
style,
which need not
again
be
particularised,
we
may
note the
following expressions
: D n"?K
(throughout, except
v.
1
,
where ni.T is either a redactional
change
or a
scribal
error)
;
HP
*?N,
1
;
rva D
pn,
3
jru,
3- 7- 19< 21
;
IND
1ND3,
2. e. 20 .
-jy-w
nnx
pnx,
7- < 10- 19
; on-nV,
7- 9- 12
; DH;D,
8
;
jjnn p, f
; nirm,
8
;
nar^a,
10- 12- 28 .
mpo,
12- 1S- 2s- ^
;
-nrp,
12- 27
;
ui vsm
nmaai,
14
;
nmi
mj,
20
; DN^J,
2
; n^in,
20 .
nin orn
D^ya,
23- M
;
see Di. Ho. Gu. References to the
passage
in other
parts
of P are 2i
2- 4
28
4
35
12
,
Ex. 2
24
6
3 -
(Lv.
I2
3
?).
19
2QO
THE COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION
(?)
The close
parallelism
with ch.
15
makes it
probable
that that
chapter,
in its
present composite form,
is the
literary
basis of P s account
of the covenant. Common to the two narratives are
(a)
the self-intro
duction of the
Deity (17* || i5
7
)
;
(b)
the covenant
(17 pass.
\\
i5
9tt>
) ;
(c)
the
promise
of a numerous seed
(ly
4
pass.
||
15") ; (d)
of the land
(i7
8
|j
I5
18
) ,
(e)
of a son
(i7
19- 21
||
15*)
;
(/)
Abraham s
incredulity (17"
||
i$*-
8
).
The
features
peculiar
to
P,
such as the
sign
of
circumcision,
the
etymology
of
pn$:
in v.
17
,
the
changes
of
names, etc.,
are
obviously
not of a kind
to
suggest
the existence of a
separate
tradition
independent
of
J
and E.
1-8. The
Covenant-promises.
These are three in
number :
(a)
Abraham will be the father of a numerous
pos
terity (
2b- 4
~
6
)
;
(b)
God will be a God to him and to his seed
(
7b- 8b
); (c)
his seed shall inherit the land of Canaan
(
8a
).
We
recognise
here a trace of the ancient
religious concep
tion
according
to which
god,
land,
and
people
formed
an indissoluble
triad,
the land
being
an
indispensable
pledge
of
fellowship
between the
god
and his
worshippers
(see
RSP,
92 f.).
I.
appeared
to
Abram\
i.e.,
in a theo-
phany,
as is clear from v.
22
. It is the
only
direct communi
cation of God to Abram recorded in P. P is indeed
very
sparing
in his use of the
theophany, though
Ex. 6
8
seems to
imply
that his narrative contained one to each of the three
patriarchs.
If that be
so,
the revelation to Isaac has been
lost,
while that to
Jacob
is twice referred to
(35 48
3
).
I am
El
Shaddai\
The
origin, etymology,
and
significance
of this
I.
"*\y SN]
For a
summary
of the views held
regarding
this divine
name,
the reader
may
be referred to
Baethgen,
Beitr.
293
ff.,
or
Kautzsch in
EB,
iii.
3326
f.
(cf.
Che. ib. iv.
4419 f.);
on the render
ings
of the ancient
Vns.,
see the
synopses
of Di.
(259),
Dri.
(404 f.),
and Valeton
(ZATW,
xii. n
1
).
It is
unfortunately impossible
to
ascertain whether
nt?
was
originally
an
independent noun,
or an
attribute of *?x : Noldeke and
Baethgen
decide for the latter view. The
traditional
Jewish etymology
resolves the word into v
=
~\yx
and
"5,
the all-sufficient or self-sufficient
(Ber.
R.
46
: cf. Ra. v*v wn JN
,vu Ss
1
? wn^Ka
H). Though
this
theory
can be traced as far back as
the
rendering
of
Aq.
S. and 0.
(iKav6s),
it is an
utterly groundless
conjecture
that P used the name in this sense
(Valeton).
On the other
hand,
it seems rash to conclude
(with
No.
al.)
that the Mass,
punctua
tion has no better
authority
than this untenable
interpretation,
so that
we are at
liberty
to vocalise as we
please
in accordance with
any
plausible etymological theory.
The old derivation from
*J
ntf
=
destroy,
is still the best : it is
grammatically unobjectionable,
has at
XVII.
1-4
29
I
title are alike obscure : see the footnote. In P it is the
signature
of the
patriarchal age (Ex.
6
3
) ;
or rather it
designates
the true God as the
patron
of the Abrahamic
covenant,
whose terms are
explicitly
referred to in
every
passage
where the name occurs in P
(28
3
35
11
48
3
).
That it
marks an advance in the revelation of the divine character
can
hardly
be
shown,
though
the words
immediately
follow
ing may suggest
that the moral condition on which the
covenant is
granted
is not mere obedience to a
positive
precept,
but a life ruled
by
the
ever-present
sense of God as
the ideal of ethical
perfection.
Walk
before
me
(cf. 24*
48
15
)]
i.e.,
Live
consciously
in
My presence,
i Sa. i2
2
,
Is.
38
3
;
cf. i
Jn.
i
7
.
perfect]
or blameless
;
see on 6
9
.
2. On the idea and
scope
of the covenant
(n*
1
"!?),
see
p.
297
f. below.
4. father of
a multitude
(lit. tumult] of
nations]
In substance the
promise
is
repeated
in 28
3
48
4
(&% ^]i?)
and
35
11
(D?
t2
P)
;
the
peculiar expression
here
anticipates
the
etymology
of v.
6
. While
J (i2
2
i8
18
46
3
)
restricts the
promise
to Israel
pna ^3),
P
speaks
of nations in the
plural, including
the Ishmaelites and Edomites
amongst
the
least some
support
in Is.
13
, Jl.
i
15
,
and is free from
difficulty
if we
accept
it as an ancient title
appropriated by
P without
regard
to its
real
significance.
The
assumption
of a
by-form
me>
(Ew.
Tu.
al.)
is
gratuitous,
and would
yield
a form
^,
not
*$.
Other
proposed
etymologies
are : from
ig>
originally
lord
(Ar. sayyid),
afterwards
=
demon
(pointing
ny
or
rap
[pi. maj.]
: No.
ZDMG,
xl.
735 f.,
xlii.
480 f.);
from
>J
me>
(Ar. ada)
=
be wet
(
the
raingiver
:
OTJC
2
,
424);
from
Syr. )
r
,
hurl
(Schwally,
ZDMG>
Hi.
136:
"a dialectic
equivalent
of m.T in the sense of
lightning-thrower
"
["5$]).
Vollers
(ZA,
xvii.
310) argues
for an
original
it?
(\/ ~M?),
afterwards,
through
popular etymology
and
change
of
religious meaning,
fathered on
^/
lie?.
Several
Assyriologists
connect the word with $ad
rabfi,
great
mountain,
a title of Bel and other Bab. deities
(Homm. AffT, 109
f.
;
Zimmern,
KAT
3
,
358)
: a view which would be more
plausible if,
as Frd.
Del.
(Prol. 95 f.)
has
maintained,
the Ass.
*J
meant
lofty
;
but this is
denied
by
other authorities
(Halevy,
ZKF,
ii.
405
ff.
; Jen. ZA,
i.
251).
As to the
origin
of the
name,
there is a
probability
that ng>
"?x was an old
(cf.
Gn.
49
25
)
Canaanite
deity,
of the same class as El
Elydn (see
on
I4
18
),
whom the Israelites identified with Yahwe
(so
Gu.
235). 4.
:g
is
casus
pendens (Dri.
T.
197 (4)),
not
emphatic anticipation
of
following
suff.
(as
G-K. I
35/).
292
THE COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION
(?)
descendants of Abraham.
See, however,
on 28
3
.
5.
Abram s
name is
changed
to
Abraham, interpreted
as
<
Father of
multitude. Cf. Neh.
9*.
The
equation
orn:m
=
[D i:i] poq
3N is so forced that Di. al. doubt if a
serious
etymology
was intended. The line between
word-play
and
etymology
is difficult to draw
;
and all that can
safely
be said is that
the strained
interpretation
here
given proves
that Drn:m is no artificial
formation,
but a
genuine
element of tradition,
(i)
The form
D^N
is an
abbreviation of
DT^N
(Nu.
i6
l
etc. : cf.
1.J2N,
i Sa.
14" etc.,
with
ij
rK,
i Sa.
i4
50
; Dityim,
2 Ch. ii
20- 21
,
with
DiS^N,
i Ki.
is
2- 10
),
which occurs as
a
personal
name not
only
in Heb. but also as that of an Ass. official
(Abi-rdmu]
under
Esarhaddon,
B.C.
677 (see KAT*,
482)*. (2)
Of
C.VQN,
on the other
hand,
no scientific
etymology
can be
given.
The
nearest
approach
to P s
explanation
would be found in the Ar. ruhdm
=
copious
number
(from
a
*J descriptive
of a fine
drizzling
1
rain :
Lane, s.i;.).t
De. thinks this the best
explanation;
but the
etymology
is
far-fetched,
and
apart
from the
probably
accidental
correspondence
with P s
interpretation
the sense has no claim to be correct. With
regard
to the relation of the two
forms,
various theories are
propounded.
Hommel
(AffT, 275
ff.
; MVAG,
ii.
271) regards
the difference as
merely
orthographic,
the n
being inserted,
after the
analogy
of
Minaean,
to
mark the
long
a
(crnriN),
while a later
misunderstanding
is
responsible
for the
pronunciation
crn~. Strack and Stade
(ZATW,
i.
349) suppose
a dialectic distinction :
according
to the
latter,
D.VON is the
original
(Edomite)
form,
of which D13N is the HebraVzed
equivalent.
%
Wi.
(/,
ii.
26)
finds in them two distinct
epithets
of the
moon-god Sin,
one
describing
him as father of the
gods
(Sin
abu
ildni),
and the other
(
father of the strife of
peoples )
as
god
of war
(Sin
karib
ilant).
The
possibility
must also be considered that the difference is due to the
fusion in tradition of two
originally
distinct
figures (see Paton, Syr.
and
5.
pB-nN]
G-K.
i2i,
b
;
but nN is omitted in some MSS and in JUA.
*
Hommel s
reading
of Abi-ramu on a contract tablet of
Abil-Sin,
the
grandfather
of Hammurabi
(see
AffT,
96),
has
proved
to be in
correct,
the true
reading being Abt-Erafy (see Ranke,
Personcnnamen
in d. Urk. der ffam.
-dynastie, 1902, p. 48).
The name
has, however,
recently
been discovered in several documents of the time of Ammi-
zaduga,
the roth
king
of the same
dynasty.
See
BA,
vi.
(1909),
Heft
5,
p.
60,
where
Ungnad
shows that the name is not West
Semitic,
but
Babylonian,
that the
pronunciation
was
Abaram,
and that the first
element is an accusative. He
suggests
that it
may
mean
"
he loves the
father
"
(rdma
=
cm),
the unnamed
subject being probably
a
god. Comp.
ET
t
xxi.
(1909),
88 ff.
t
The Ar.
kunyd,
Abu-ruhm is
only
an accidental coincidence : No.
ZDMG
t
xlii.
4
8
4
2
.
Similarly
v. Gall
(CSt. 53),
who
compares
Aram.
Zoi-O,
Ar. bht
t
appearing
in Heb. as ^13.
XVII.
5-9
293
Pal.
41).
It is
quite
a
plausible supposition, though
the
thoroughness
of the redaction has effaced the
proof
of
it,
that m:m was
peculiar
to
J
and C.TUN to E. Outside of Gen.
(with
the
exception
of the citations
i Ch. i
27
,
Neh.
9
7
)
the form Abraham alone is found in OT.
6. The
promise
of
kings among
Abraham s descendants
is
again peculiar
to P
(35
11
).
The reference is to the
Hebrew
monarchy
: the rulers of Ishmael are
only princes
(DK
iw,
v.
20
),
and those of Edom
(36
40
)
are
styled
^N.
7.
to be to thee a
God]
The essence of the covenant relation is
expressed by
this
frequently recurring
formula.* It is
important
for P s notion of the covenant that the correlative
they (ye)
shall be to me a
people,
which is
always
added
in other
writings (ex.
Ezk.
34
24
),
is
usually
omitted
by
P
(ex.
Ex. 6
7
,
Lv. 26
12
).
The berith is conceived as a self-
determination of God to be to one
particular
race all that the
word God
implies,
a
reciprocal
act of choice on man s
part
being
no essential feature of the relation. 8. land
of thy
sojourning}
28*
36? 37* 47,
Ex. 6
4
(all P).
9-14.
The
sign
of the Covenant. To the
promises
of
vv.
2
"
8
there is attached a
single
command,
with
regard
to
which it is difficult to
say
whether it
belongs
to the content
of the covenant
(v.
10
),
or is
merely
an
adjunct,
an external
mark of the invisible bond which united
every Jew
to
Yahwe
(
n
)
: see
p. 297.
The theme at all events is the
institution of circumcision. The
legal style
of the section is
so
pronounced
that it reads like a
stray
leaf from the book
of Leviticus
(note
the address in 2nd
p. pi.
from
10
onwards),
p.
And God
said]
marks a new section
(cf.
15
),
nnto
being
the antithesis to
"OK
in
4
.
keep my covenant}
"HOI2>
is
opposed
to
"^n, break,
in
u
;
hence it cannot mean watch over
(Valeton),
but must be used in the
extremely
common sense
of observe or act
according
to. The
question
would
6.
IDD]
ji$
v*t-*-
L
^ =
Ti^P
;
see on
15*.
8.
-"KPN]
a common word
in P
;
elsewhere
only
Ps. 2
8
,
Ezk.
44**
J Ch-
7-
*
The list of
passages
as
given by
Dri.
(p. 186)
is as follows : In
P,
Ex. 6
7
2
9
45
,
Lv. i i
4S
;
in P
h
,
Lv. 22
33
2
5
38
26
12-
,
Nu.
15"
; elsewhere,
Dt.
2
9
13
(cf.
26
17
-), Jer. 7
23
n
4
24
7
so
22
3I
1- 88
,
Ezk. u
20
i
4
n
34
24
3
6
28
a;
23-
,
2 Sa.
7
M
(
=
i Ch.
if
2
),
Zee. 8
8
.
294
THE COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION
(?)
never have been raised but for a disinclination to admit
anything
1
of the nature of a
stipulation
into P s idea of the
covenant. 10. This is
my
covenant}
Circumcision is both
the covenant and the
sign
of the covenant : the writer s
ideas are
sufficiently vague
and elastic to include both
representations.
It is therefore
unnecessary (with
Ols. and
Ball)
to read
WU JIN DNT
(see
v.
13
).
II.
for
a
covenant-sign}
i.e.,
after the
analogy
of
9
12f>
,
a token
by
which God is
reminded of the existence of the covenant. The
conception
rises out of the
extraordinary importance
of the rite when
the visible fabric of Hebrew
nationality
was
dissolved,
and
nothing-
remained but this
corporal badge
as a mark of the
religious standing
of the
Jew
before Yahwe. I2a. at the
age
of eight
days\
connected with the
period
of the mother s
uncleanness : Lv. I2
1- 3
;
cf. Gn. 2i
4
,
Lk. i
59
2
21
,
Phil.
3
5
;
Jos.
Ant. i.
214.
I2b, 13 go together (De.), extending
the
obligation
to
slaves^
who as members of the household
follow the
religion
of their master. The
penalty
of dis
obedience is death or
excommunication, according
as one or
the other is meant
by
the obscure formula : be cut
off from
its kindred
(v.i.\.
IO.
Tint* 1VN
pai]
(Hir + eJsT&s
yeve&s
avr&v. The whole is
possibly
a
gloss (KS.
Ba.
Gu.),
due to confusion between the
legislative
stand
point
of
10ffl
with its
plural
address,
and the
special
communication to
Abraham
; see, however,
vv.
12f>
^isn]
inf. abs. used as
juss.
;
G-K.
113 cc, gg:
cf. Ex. I2
48
,
Lev. 6
7
,
Nu. 6
5
. II.
on^]
treated
by
&J as
active,
from
J tai,
but
really
abbreviated
Niph.
of
^/
^D
(cf.
G-K.
67 dd)t
a rare
by-form (Jos. 5
2
)
of ^D.
rrm]
x
nrvni,
adopted by
Ba. 12. rva
vV]
see
i4
14
.
f]D3 nupo] only
vv.
13> 23< w
and Ex. i2
44
.
~jrnD
is the individual
ising
use of 2nd
p. sing., frequently alternating
with 2nd
pi.
in
legal
enactments. So v.
13
.
14. in^iyj
juuffi +
rDn ova
(Ba.).
.TDJ;D
nmDJi]
SO EX.
30
33 88
3
I
14
,
LV.
7
20/.25.27
,
?
9
^8 ^^
Nu>
9
13
>
_
aH in p
?
whO
employs
a number of similar
phrases
his
people,
Israel,
the con
gregation
of
Israel,
the
assembly,
etc. to
express
the same idea
(see
Dri.
iSy
2
).
D
sy
is here used in the sense of
kin,
as
occasionally
in OT
(see ig
88
25
8
).
It is the Ar.
amm,
which combines the two senses of
people,
and relative on the father s side : see We.
GGN, 1893,480,
and cf. Dri. on Dt.
32
50
(p. 384);
Krenkel, ZATW,
viii. 280 if.
; Nestle,
ib. xv
;
.
322
f.
; KAT*, 480
f. With
regard
to the sense of the formula
there are two
questions
:
(a)
whether it embraces the
death-penalty,
or
merely
exclusion from the sacra of the clan and from burial in the
family
grave
;
and
(b)
whether the
punishment
is to be inflicted
by
the com-
XVII. io-i8
295
15-22.
The heir of the Covenant. The
promise
of the
birth of Isaac is
brought
into connexion with the main idea
of the
chapter by
the assurance
(
m 21
)
that the covenant is
to be established with him and not with Ishmael.
15.
Sarai s name is
changed
to Sarah. The absence of an
etymo
logical
motive is remarkable
(v.i.).
l6b. In
(&,Jub., JJ
and
j,
the
blessing
on Sarah is
by slight changes
of text turned
into a
blessing
on the son whose birth has
just
been foretold
(v.i.).
The
MT, however,
is more
likely
to be correct.
17.
Abraham s demeanour is a
strange
mixture of reverence
and
incredulity:
"
partim gaudio exultans, partim
admir-
atione extra se
raptus,
in risum
prorumpit
"
is Calvin s
comment. It is P s somewhat unnatural
clothing
of the
traditional
etymology
of Isaac
(pmr,
v.
19
)
;
cf. i8
12
(J),
2i
6
(E).
18. The
prayer,
O that Ishmael
might
live
before
thee!
under
Thy protection
and with
Thy blessing (Hos.
6
2
)
is a
fine touch of nature
;
but the writer s interest lies rather in
the determinate counsel and
foreknowledge
of
God,
which
overrides human
feeling
and
irrevocably
decrees the election
munity,
or
by
God in His
providence.
The
interpretation
seems to have
varied in different
ages.
Ex.
3i
13f-
clearly contemplates
the death
penalty
at the hands of the
community;
while Lv.
i7
9f>
2o
3t6
point
as
clearly
to a divine
interposition.
The
probability
is that it is an archaic
juridical
formula for the
punishment
of
death,
which came to be used
vaguely
"as a
strong
affirmation of divine
disapproval,
rather than as
prescribing
a
penalty
to be
actually
enforced
"
(Dri.).
See Sta.
GVI,
i.
421
f.
;
Ho.
p. 127
f.
isn] pausal
form for
ngn
(G-K. 29 q\
15.
Tp
(ffi 2</>a)
and
m;p (ffi- 2d/5pa)] According
to No.
(ZDMG,
xl.
183,
xlii.
484),
"
is an an old fern, termin.
surviving
in
Syr.
Arab, and
Eth. On this view
n
y
may
be either the same word as
rn^,
princess
(/v/"ne>),
or
(as
the differentiation of
(3r
suggests)
from
^/mt?, strive,
with which the name Israel was connected
(Gn. 32^,
Ho. i2
4
: see
Rob. Sm.
KM*, 34
f.
[No. dissents]).
On
Lagarde
s
(Mitth.
ii.
185)
attempt
to connect the name with Ar. Sara*
=
wild fertile
spot,
and so
to
identify
Abraham
(as
husband of Sarai
)
with the Nabatean
god
Dusares
(du-ssara*),
see
Mey.
INS, 269 f.,
who thinks the
conjecture
raised
beyond
doubt
by
the
discovery
of the name
Sarayat
as consort of
Dusares on an inscr. at Bosra in the Hauran. The
identification re
mains
highly problematical.
16.
.Trmai]
JUA vnanai. So
<&
Jub. 3J5,
which
consistently
maintain the masc. to the end of the v.
17. q
ns
i]
a combination of the
disjunctive question
with casus
pendens ;
see G-K.
296
THE COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION
(p)
of Israel
(
19
). ipa. Comp.
the
language
with i6
n
,
and observe
that the
naming
of the child is
assigned
to the father.
20.
a remote allusion to the
popular explanation
of
May
God hear
(cf.
i6
n
2i
17
).
Ishmael is to be
endowed for Abraham s sake with
every
kind of
blessing,
except
the
religious privileges
of the covenant.
twelve
princes] (cf. 25
16
)
as contrasted with the
kings
of
6- 16
.
22. The close of the
theophany.
7PO i>JH as
35
13
.
23-27.
Circumcision of Abraham s household.
23.
on that
very day
(cf. y
13
)]
repeated
in v.
26
.
Throughout
the
section,
P excels himself in
pedantic
and redundant circum
stantiality
of narration. The circumcision of
Ishmael,
how
ever,
is inconsistent with the
theory
that the rite is a
sign
of the
covenant,
from which Ishmael is excluded
(Ho. Gu.).
25.
thirteen
years
old\
This was the
age
of circumcision
among
the ancient
Arabs,
according
to
Jos.
Ant. i.
214.
Origen
(Eus. Prcep.
Ev. vi. n :* cf. We. Heid^
I75
3
);
and
Ambrose
(de
Abrah. ii.
348) give
a similar
age (14 years)
for the
Egyptians.
It is
possible
that the notice here is
based on a
knowledge
of this custom.
Among
the modern
Arabs there is no fixed
rule,
the
age varying
from three to
fifteen
years
: see Di.
264
;
Dri.
in
DB>
ii.
5O4
b
.
Circumcision is a
widely
diffused rite of
primitive religion,
of whose
introduction
among-
the Hebrews there is no authentic tradition. One
account
(Ex. 4
24ft
) suggests
a Midianite
origin,
another
(Jos. 5
2ff>
)
an
Egyptian
: the mention of flint knives in both these
passages
is a
proof
of the extreme
antiquity
of the custom
(the
Stone
Age).f
The anthro-
19. "?3x] Nay, but,
a rare asseverative
(42
Z1
,
2 Sa.
i4
6
,
2 Ki.
4 *,
i Ki. i
43
)
and adversative
(Dn.
io
7- 21
,
Ezr. io
is
,
2 Ch. i
4
19 33") par
ticle. See the
interesting
note in
Burney,
Notes on
Kings,
p.
1 1
;
and
cf.
Konig,
ii.
265.
rinx
ijn?
1
?]
(5r
/cai
ry o-Tr^uart
avrov
juer
avrbv
appears
to
imply
a
preceding-
clause dvai
aiyry 6e6s,
which is found in
many
cursives. This is
probably
the correct
reading-.
20.
CN^J]
( ZOvti.
24. -"us?]
jju. D jtf.
itana]
The
Niph.
is here either refl. or
pass.
;
in
*5
it
is
pass.
26
VIDJ] irreg. pf. Niph.
;
G-K.
72
ee. & takes it as act.
with Ishmael as
obj.
;
and so
<&
in v.
27
(7repitTfj,ev aurotfs).
*
Ed.
Heinichen,
p. 310
f.
f
la a tomb of the Old
Empire
at Sakkara there are
wall-pictures
of the
operation,
where the
surgeon
uses a flint knife : see G. Elliot
Smith in British Medical
Journal, 1908, 732 (quoted by Matthes)
;
and
the illustration in Texte u.
Bilder>
ii.
p.
126.
XVII.
IQ-26 297
pological
evidence shows that it was
originally performed
at
puberty,
as a
preliminary
to
marriage,
or,
more
generally,
as a
ceremony
of
initiation into the full
religious
and civil status of manhood. This
primary
idea was
dissipated
when it came to be
performed
in
infancy
;
and its
perpetuation
in this form can
only
be
explained by
the inherited
belief that it was an
indispensable
condition of
participation
in the
common cultus of the clan or nation.
Passsages
like Dt. io
16
30,
Ezk.
44
7 - 9
,
show that in Israel it came to be
regarded
as a token of
allegiance
to Yahwe
;
and in this fact we have the
germ
of the remarkable de
velopment
which the rite underwent in
post-Exilic Judaism.
The new
importance
it then
acquired
was due to the
experience
of the Exile
(partly
continued in the
Dispersion),
when the
suspension
of
public
worship gave
fresh
emphasis
to those rites which
(like
the Sabbath and
circumcision)
could be observed
by
the
individual,
and served to distin
guish
him from his heathen
neighbours.
In this
way
we can understand
how,
while the earlier
legal
codes have no law of
circumcision,
in P it
becomes a
prescription
of the first
magnitude, being placed
above the
Mosaic
ritual,
and second in
dignity only
to the Sabbath. The
explicit
formulating
of the idea that circumcision is the
sign
of the national
covenant with Yahwe was the work of the
Priestly
school of
jurists
;
and
very
few
legislative
acts have exercised so tremendous an influence
on the
genius
of a
religion,
or the character of a
race,
as this
apparently
trivial
adjustment
of a detail of ritual observance. For information on
various
aspects
of the
subject,
see
Ploss,
Das Kind in Branch und Sitte
der Volker*
(1894),
i.
342-372;
We. Heid*
174^,
Pro!.
6
338
ff.
;
Sta.
ZATW,
vi.
132-143
;
the arts, in DB
(Macalister)
and EB
(Benzinger)
;
and the notes in Di.
258;
Ho.
129;
Gu.
237;
Dri.
189
ff.
;
Strack
2
,
67; Matthes, ZATW,
xxix.
70
ff.
The Covenant-idea in P
(see
also
p. 290
f.
above).
In P s scheme
of four
world-ages,
the word
rvi?
is used
only
of the revelations associ
ated with Noah and Abraham. In the Creation-narrative the term is
avoided because the constitution of nature then
appointed
was after
wards
annulled,
whereas the Berith is a
permanent
and irreversible
determination of the divine will. The
conception
of the Mosaic revela
tion as a covenant is
Jehovistic (Ex. 24
3 8
34
10ff<
etc.)
and
Deuteronomic
(Dt. 4
10ff>
5
2ff-
9
9ff>
etc.)
;
and there are traces of it in
secondary
strata
of P
(Lv.
26
45
[P
h
],
Ex.
3
i
1 .*
[ps])
.
but it is not found in the
historical
work which is the kernel of the Code
(P
g
).
Hence in
trying
to under
stand the
religious significance
of the BZrith in
P*,
we have but two
examples
to
guide
us. And with
regard
to
both,
the
question
is
keenly
discussed whether it denotes a
self-imposed obligation
on the
part
of
God,
irrespective
of
any
condition on the
part
of man
(so Valeton,
ZATW>
xii. I
ff.),
or a bilateral
engagement involving reciprocal obliga
tions between God and men
(so
in the main
Kraetzschmar,
Bundes-
vorst.
183 ff.).
The answer
depends
on the view taken of circumcision
in this
chapter. According
to
Valeton,
it is
merely
a
sign
and
nothing
*
Could
this, however,
be taken to mean that the Sabbath was a
sign
of the Adamic
dispensation
conceived as a covenant ?
298
ABRAHAM ENTERTAINS ANGELS
(j)
more
; i.e.,
a means
whereby
God is reminded of the covenant. Ac
cording
to
Kraetzschmar,
it is both a
sign
and a constituent of the
covenant, forming-
the condition on which the covenant is entered into.
The truth seems to lie somewhere between two extremes. The BVrith is
neither a
simple
divine
promise
to which no
obligation
on man s
part
is
attached
(as
in
i5
18
),
nor is it a mutual contract in the sense that the
failure of one
party
dissolves the relation. It is an immutable determina
tion of God s
purpose,
which no unfaithfulness of man can invalidate
;
but it carries
conditions,
the
neglect
of which will exclude the individual
from its benefits. It is
perhaps
an over-refinement when Kraetz
schmar
(I.e.
201)
infers from the
expressions
D
pn
and
jnj
that for P there
is
only
one eternal divine
BVrith, immutably
established
by
God and
progressively
revealed to man.
CH. XVIII. The
Theophany
at Hebron: Abraham s
Intercession
for
Sodom
(J).
Under the terebinths of
Mamre,
Abraham
hospitably
entertains three
mysterious
visitors
(
1
~
8
),
and is rewarded
by
the
promise
of a son to be born to Sarah in her old
age (
9
~
ir>
).
The three
men,
whose true nature had been disclosed
by
their
supernatural knowledge
of Sarah s
thoughts,
then turn
towards
Sodom, accompanied by
Abraham
(
16
),
who,
on
learning
Yahwe s
purpose
to
destroy
that
city (
17
~
21
),
inter
cedes
eloquently
on its behalf
(
22
~
33
).
The first half of the
chapter (
1
~
16
)
shows at its best the
picturesque,
lucid,
and flexible narrative
style
of
J,
and contains
many expressions
characteristic
of that document :
m.T,
* 13- 14
;
mnp
1
?
fn,
2
(only
in
J 24"
29
13
33
4
); 10
N*O,
s
;
J,
3>4
;
*n?H (for
ist
per.),
3- 5
;
jr^jr?,
6
;
w
nsS,
18
;
*]
p*n,
16
. The latter
part (
17 33
)
is also Yahwistic
(mny
20- *
; Nr[n>n],
27. soff. .
n^Sn,
^
; oy?n,
32
),
but contains two
expansions
of later date than
the
primary
narrative. We.
(Conip? 27 f.) appears
to have
proved
that the
original
connexion between i8
15
and
ig
1
consists of
16- 2
-
22a- 3?b
;
and that
17-19. 22b-33a
are editorial insertions
reflecting theological
ideas
proper
to
a more advanced
stage
of
thought (see below).
A more
comprehensive
analysis
is
attempted by
Kraetzschmar in
ZATW,
xvii. 81
ff., prompted
by
the
perplexing
alternation of the
sing, ([n,v]
] - 3- 10 - 13- 14- 15- 17 21 - 221 " 33
)
and
pi. (
2> 4- 0< 8< 9 16 22a
)
*
in the
dialogue
between Abraham and his
guests.
The
theory
will
repay
a closer examination than can be
given
to it here
;
but I
agree
with Gu. in
thinking
that the texture of
1 16
is too
homogeneous
to admit of
decomposition,
and that some other
explana-
*
It is
important,
however,
to observe that in JJUL
(if
we
except
the
introductory
la
)
the
sing,
does not
appear
till
10
,
but after that
regularly
up
to
15
.
XVIII.
1-3 299
tion of the
phenomenon
in
question
must be
sought
than the
assumption
of an
interweaving"
of a
sing,
and a
pi.
recension of the
legend (see
on
v.
1
and
p. 303 below).*
With Gu.
also,
we
may regard
the
chapter
as
the immediate
sequel
to
i3
18
in the
legendary cycle
which fixes the
residence of Abraham at Hebron
(J
h
).
The
conception
of Abraham s
character is
closely
akin to what we meet
throughout
that section of
J,
and differs
appreciably
from the
representation
of him in i2
10
"
20
and 16.
1-8. The entertainment of the three
wayfarers.
The
description "presents
a
perfect picture
of the manner in
which a modern Bedawee sheikh receives travellers
arriving
at his
encampment.
He
immediately
orders his wife or
women to make
bread,
slaughters
a
sheep
or other
animal,
and dresses it in haste
; and,
bringing
milk and
any
other
provisions
that he
may
have at
hand,
with the bread and
the meat that he has
dressed,
sets them before his
guests
: if
they
are
persons
of
high
rank he also stands
by
them while
they
eat
"
(Lane,
Mod.
Eg-.**
i.
364:
from
Dri.).
I. Yahwe
appeared^ etc^\
This
introductory
clause
simply
means that
the incident about to be related has the value of a
theophany.
In what
way
the narrator conceived that Yahwe was
present
in the three men whether He was one of the
three,
or whether
all three were Yahwe in self-manifestation
(De.)
we can
hardly
tell. The common view that the visitors were Yahwe
accompanied by
two of His
angels
does not meet the diffi
culties of the
exegesis
;
and it is more
probable
that to the
original
Yahwist the
{
men were emissaries and
representa
tives of
Yahwe,
who was not
visibly present (see p. 304 f.).
DVH
Dh2]
at the hottest
(and drowsiest)
time of the
day
(2
Sa.
4
5
).
2. and
behold]
The
mysteriously
sudden advent
of the
strangers
marks them as
superhuman beings (Jos. 5
13
),
though
this makes no
impression
on Abraham at the time.
The interest of the
story
turns
largely
on his
ignorance
of
the real character of his
guests. 3.
The Mass,
pointing
s
pN implies
that Abraham
recognised
Yahwe as one of
the three
(Tu.
De.
al.);
but this we have
just
seen to be
I.
m,T]
(3r
6 0e<5s. In V^N the suff.
may
refer back
directly
to
i3
18
(see
on the
v.).
NTDD
i*?N3]
(Hr
7rp6s TT? Bpvt
TT?
M.
;
see on
I3
18
.
3.
Read with
*
The same solution had occurred to Ball
(SBOT, 1896),
but was
rightly
set aside
by
him as
unproved.
300
ABRAHAM ENTERTAINS ANGELS
(j)
a mistake. The correct form is either
J ltf
(as 23
6- n
,
etc. :
so Di.
Dri.),
or
(better,
as
ig
2
)
TIK
: Sirs!
restoring (with
*.)
the
pi. throughout
the v. The whole of Abraham s
speech
is a fine
example
of the
profuse, deferential,
self-
depreciatory courtesy
characteristic of Eastern manners.
4.
wash
your
feet]
Cf.
ig
2
2^ 43**, Ju.
i
9
21
,
2 Sa. n
8
,
Lk.
7
44
,
i Ti.
5
10
. recline
yourselves]
not at meat
(Gu.),
but
during
the
preparation
of the meal. Even in the time of
Amos
(6
4
) reclining
at table seems to have been a new
fangled
and luxurious habit introduced from abroad : ct.
the ancient custom
27
19
,
Ju. 19,
i Sa. 2O
5- 24
,
i Ki.
i3
20
.
5. support your
heart]
with the
food, Ju. ig
5- 8
,
i Ki.
i3
7
,
Ps. io
4
15
;
cf. bread the staff of
life,
Lv. 26
26
,
Is.
3
1
.
seeing
that,
etc.] Hospitality
is,
so to
speak,
the
logical
corollary
of
passing
Abraham s tent. 6-8. The
preparation
of a
genuine
Bedouin
repast, consisting
of
hastily
baked
cakes of
bread,
flesh,
and milk in two forms. On the
items,
v.i. 8. and
they
ate]
So
ig
3
the
only
cases in OT where
the
Deity
is
represented
as
eating (ct. Ju.
6
20f-
i3
16
).
The
anthropomorphism
is evaded
by Jos. (Ant.
i.
197
: 01 Se 86av
avrw
7ra/>eo-^ov
larOiovruv
;
cf. Tob. I2
19
),
3
J
,
Ra. al.
9-15.
The
promise
of a son to Sarah.
The
subject
is introduced with consummate skill. In the course of the
conversation which
naturally
follows the
meal,
an
apparently
casual
question
leads to an announcement which shows
.ox oa
rjn, myn,
DJ-ny.
5.
i-ayn
-in*} (.mdSE
-1
)
is the better
reading,
to
which
(Or
adds els
TTJV
odov
vfj.u>v
(cf. 19
-
).- p-Sy"
1
} is not to be resolved
into
?
and
f?"^y,
denn eben desshalb
(G-B.
14
, 308
a
;
De.
al.)
;
but is a
compound conj
unction
quandoquidem,
inasmuch as*
(Tu.
Di.
Dri.),
as
usag-e clearly
shows;
cf.
19* 33
10
38
Nu. io
31
i4
43
(all J), Ju.
6
22
,
2 Sa. i8
20
, Jer. 2Q
28
38"
f;
see G-K.
158
6
s
; BDB, 475
b.
"?y
omny]
(5
p6s
=
i
?x
DniP (
r
9
2f
)j
which is too
rashly accepted by
Ba.
(&
has the
sing, wrongly.
6. Three seahs would be
(according
1
to
Kennedy
s
computation,
DB,
iv.
912) approximately equal
to
4$
pecks.
nSo
ncp]
(fix (re/xtSciXews, [U similes],
which
might
stand either
for
nop
(i
Sa. i
24
)
or nSo
(as
in
every
other
instance).
The latter
(the
finer
variety)
is here
probably
a
gloss
on
nop.
nuy] (ffi tyKpv(pla
>,
T&
subcinericios
panes)
are thin round cakes baked on hot stones or in the
ashes
(Benz.
Arch.
2
64).
8.
non is the Ar.
laban,
milk
slightly
soured
by
fermentation,
which is
greatly
esteemed
by
the nomads of
Syria
and
Arabia as a
refreshing
and
nourishing beverage (see
EB>
iii.
3089
f.).
xvm.
4-12
3
O1
superhuman
knowledge
of the
great
blank in Abraham s
life,
and
conveys
a first intimation of the real nature of the
visitors. See Gu. s fine
exposition, 172
f.
;
and contrast the
far less delicate
handling
of an identical situation in
2 Ki.
4
13
~
16
.
p.
The
question
shows that Sarah had not
been introduced to the
strangers,
in accordance
probably
with Hebrew custom
(Gu.).
10. / will
return]
The definite
transition to the
sing,
takes
place
here
(see
on v.
3
).
In the
original legend
the
pi.
was no doubt
kept up
to the end
;
but the monotheistic habit of
thought
was too
strong
for
Hebrew
writers,
when
they
came to words which could be
properly
ascribed
only
to Yahwe. On
njn
nj?3,
v.i. Sarah
was
listening]
with true feminine
curiosity;
cf.
27
5
. The
last two words should
probably
be rendered : she
being
behind it
(the
tent or the
door);
cf. the footnote. II. A
circumstantial sentence
explaining
Sarah s
incredulity (v.
12
).
after
the manner
of
women
(cf. 3i
35
)]
"quo genere
loquendi
verecunde menses notat
qui
mulieribus fluunt"
(Calv.)
; (&
ro.
yviW/aa;
JJ
muliebria.
12. Sarah
laughed
within
herself\
obviously
a
proleptic explanation
of
9.
nDN
i]
(5r
TDK"i
(wrongly). V"?N]
The
super-linear points (cf.
i6
5
)
are
thought
to indicate a
reading-
"6. 10.
n;n n;;?]
This
peculiar phrase (re
curring only
v.
14
,
2 Ki.
4
16f<
)
is now almost
invariably
rendered at the
(this)
time,
when it
revives, i.e.,
next
year,
or
spring- (so
Ra. lEz.
;
cf. Ges. Th.
470;
G-B.
14
,
202 a
; BOB, 312
a;
Ew. Gr.
33ya;
G-K.
ii8w;
K6. 6".
3876);
but the sense is
extremely
forced. It is sur
prising
that no one seems to
suspect
a reference to the
period
of
preg
nancy.
In NH rrn means a woman in child-birth
(so perhaps
.rn in Ex.
i
19
[Ho. adv.]);
and here we
might point
rvn
nj??
or rrn
3,
rendering
according
to the time of a
pregnant woman,
or
9
months hence,
"UpaS
in v.
14
is no
obstacle,
for
ly.ic
is
simply
the time determined
by
the
pre
vious
promise,
and there is no need to add
njn ((
after
I7
21
).
2 Ki.
4
16
(nm
a
1
?)
does
present
a
difficulty
;
but that late
passage
is modelled on
this,
and the
original phrase may
have been
already misunderstood,
as
it is
by
all Vns. :
e.g.
(Gr
/rctri rbv
Koupbv
TOUTOV els
wpaj
;
{ at a time
when
you
are
living
; j$
at this
time,
she
being
alive
;
U
tempore isfo,
vita comile. Ba. also
points
as
constr.,
but thinks
n;n
an old name for
spring. rum]
QJX&
read rrrn. vinK
Kim]
jux N N m
;
so ( ofcra ftiriadev
airroO. MT is
perhaps
a
neglect
of the
QZre perpet (NVi]).
II. D D 3 C
N3]
cf.
24
1
, Jos. I3
1
23
1- 2
,
i Ki. i
1
. D BOS
m]
Ba. Kit. more
smoothly, mc|
DTi. 12.
nj-ij; "ID}*]
r O^TTW
fjiAv pot ytyovev
tws TOV vvv
presupposes
an
impossible
text
rrjTfl;
^
np;g ^^?.
The
change
is
perhaps
alluded to in
3O2
ABRAHAM ENTERTAINS ANGELS
(j)
the name
pnv*
(see
on
i7
17
), although
the
sequel
in this docu
ment has not been
preserved.
waxed
old]
lit. worn
away,
a
strong
word
used,
e.g.>
of worn out
garments
(Dt.
8
4
29*
etc.).
i"0"iy
(only here),
sensuous
enjoyment (Liebeswonne).
13.
This leads to a still more remarkable
proof
of divine
insight
: the
speaker
knows that Sarah has
laughed, though
he has neither seen nor heard her
(ninp3,
v.
12
).
The inser
tion of Yahwe here was
probably
caused
by
the occurrence
of the name in the next v.
14.
Is
anything
too
strange for
Yahwe
?\
As the narrative
stands,
the sentence does not
imply identity
between the
speaker
and
Yahwe,
but rather
a distinction
analogous
to that
frequently
drawn between
Yahwe and the
angel
of Yahwe
(see
on i6
7
). 15.
Sarah
denied
ii\
startled
by
the
unexpected exposure
of her secret
thoughts
into fear of the
mysterious guests.
From the
religious-historical point
of
view,
the
passage just
con
sidered,
with its
sequel
in ch.
19,
is one of the most obscure in Genesis.
According
to Gu.
(174!^),
whose
genial exposition
has thrown a flood
of
light
on the
deeper aspects
of the
problem,
the narrative is based
on a
widely
diffused Oriental
myth,
which had been localised in Hebron
in the
pre-Yahwistic period,
and was afterwards
incorporated
in the
Abrahamic tradition. On this
view,
the three
strangers
were
originally
three
deities,
disguised
as
men,
engaged
in the function described in
the lines of Homer
(Od.
xvii.
485 ff.)
:
Ka re deol
^elvoiviv
^oi/tdres dAXo5a7rorti
,
dvdp<j)TT(i}i> vfipiv
re Kal
ef>vofj,Lt]v
Dr. Rendel Harris
goes
a
step
further,
and identifies the
gods
with
the Dioscuri or
Kabiri,
finding
in the
prominence given
to
hospitality,
and the renewal of sexual
functions,
characteristic features of a
Dioscuric visitation
(Cult of
the
Heavenly
Twins,
37 ff.).
Of the
numerous
parallels
that are
adduced,
by
far the most
striking
is the
account of the birth of Orion in
Ovid, Fasti,
v.
495
ff. :
Hyrieus,
an
aged peasant
of
Tanagra,
is visited
by
Zeus, Poseidon,
and
Hermes,
and shows
hospitality
to them
;
after the
repast
the
gods
invite him to
Mechilta on Ex. I2
40
(see p. 14
above;
Geiger,
Urschr.
439, 442). nqp
tfS?] Aq.
/JLCTCL
rb
KararpL^val
fie ;
2.
(less accurately)
p.
T.
Ar.
14. p
*6s
n] Jer. 32
17- OT
,
Dt.
178 3
o
u
.
*
The belief
appears
to be
very
ancient. Dr. Frazer cites several
primitive
rites in which
strangers
are treated as deities not
always
to
their
advantage (Golden Bough,
ii.
225, 232, 234
f.,
and
especially
237;
Adonis Attis
Osiris,
21
ff.).
XVIII.
I3~i6
303
name a wish
;
and
he, being
1
widowed and
childless,
asks for a son.
Pudor est ulteriora
loqui ;
but at the end of ten months Orion is
miraculously
born. The resemblance to Gn. 18 is manifest
;
and since
direct
borrowing-
of the Boeotian
legend
from
Jewish
sources is
improb
able,
there is a
presumption
that we have to do with variations of the
same tale. The
theory
is rendered all the more
plausible by
the fact
that a
precisely
similar
origin
is
suggested by
the
leading
motives of
ch.
19 (see below). Assuming-
that some such
pagan original
is the
basis of the narrative before
us,
we find a clue to that confusion
between the
sing-,
and
plu.
which has been
already
referred to as a
perplexing
feature of the
chapter.
It is most natural to
suppose
that
the threefold manifestation is a remnant of the
original polytheism,
the
heathen deities
being-
reduced to the rank of Yahwe s
envoys.
The
introduction of Yahwe Himself as one of them would thus be a later
modification,
due to
progressive Hebraizing-
of the
conception,
but
never
consistently
carried
throug-h.
An
opposite
view is taken
by
Fripp (ZATW,
xii.
236.),
who restores the
sing, throughout,
and
by
Kraetzschmar, who,
as we have
seen, distinguishes
between a
sing-,
and
a
pi.
recension,
but
regards
the former as the older. The substitution
of
angels
for Yahwe
might
seem a later refinement on the anthro
pomorphic representation
of a
bodily appearance
of Yahwe
;
but the
resolution of the one Yahwe into three
angels
would be
unaccountable,
especially
in
J,
who
appears
never to
speak
of
ang-els
in the
plural (see
on
I9
1
).
See Gu.
171,
and Che.
EB,
iv.
4667
f.
i6-22a. The
judgement
of Sodom revealed.
The
soliloquy
of Yahwe in
17 19
breaks the connexion between
16
and
20
,
and is to all
appearance
a later addition
(see p. 298). (a)
The
insertion assumes that Yahwe is one of the three
strangers
;
but this
is
hardly
the intention of the main
narrative,
which continues to
speak
of the men in the
pi. (
22a
). (6)
In
17
Yahwe has resolved on the
destruction of
Sodom,
whereas in
20f-
He
proposes
to abide
by
the
result
of a
personal investigation, (c)
Both
thought
and
language
in
i7 19
show
signs
of Deuteronomic influence
(see
Ho. and
Gu.).
Di. s
assertion
(265),
that
***
have no motive
apart
from
17
*
19
and
23ff
,
is
incomprehensible ;
the
difficulty
rather is to
assign
a reason for the addition of
17ff
-. The
idea seems to be that Abraham
(as
a
prophet
: cf. Am.
3
7
)
must be
initiated into the divine
purpose,
that he
may
instruct his
descendants in
the
ways
of Yahwe.
l6. and looked out in view
of
Sodom
(cf. iQ
28
)]
The Dead
Sea not
being-
visible from
Hebron,
we must understand
that a
part
of the
journey
has been
accomplished.
Tradition
fixed the
spot
at a
village
over
3
m. E of
Hebron,
called
by
Jerome
Caphar
Barucha,
now known as Beni
Nairn,
but
l6.
Dip]
ffi -f KCU
304
ABRAHAM S PRAYER FOR SODOM
(j)
formerly Kefr
Barik,
from which the Sea is seen
through
gaps
in the mountains
(see
Robinson, BR,
i.
490
f.
;
Buhl,
GP
y 158 f.). I?.
But Yahwe had
said]
sc.
<
to
Himself;
the construction
marking
the introduction of a
circumstance.
18.
Seeing
Abraham
,
etc.}
Yahwe
reflects,
as it
were,
on the
religious importance
of the individual beside Him. and all
nations^
etc.}
See the notes on i2
3
.
13
possibly
refers not to
Abraham but to
13;
cf. 22
18
(We.). ip. Comp.
Dt. 6
1
"
3
.
For 1 have known
(i.e.
entered into
personal
relations
with : as Am.
3
2
,
Hos.
i3
6
)
him in order
that,
etc}
There
is a certain
incongruity
between the two
parts
of the v. :
here the establishment of the true
religion
is the
purpose
of
Abraham s election
;
in
19b
the end of the
religion
is the
fulfilment of the
promises
made to Abraham. 20. Re
suming
v.
16
. An earlier form of the
story
no doubt read
nON1
instead of
mrp
ID^I. On the
peculiar construction,
v.i. 21.
Restoring
the
pi.
as
before,
the v. reads as a dis
junctive question
: We will
go
down that we
may
see
whether . . . or not : we would know.
22b-33.
Abraham s intercession.
The
secondary
character of
22b
-
33a
(see p. 298) appears
from the
following-
considerations :
(a)
In
22a
the men
(i.e.
all
three)
have moved
away
to Sodom
;
in
22b
Yahwe remains behind with Abraham. That
17.
After nn-oN
<&&
read
*njj.
19. vnyr]
.uxdKF
omit the
suffix,
while
(5rHJ$
treat what follows as an
obj.
cl.
(guod, etc.), through
a
misunderstanding
of the sense of
jn\
20.
npyi]
JUA
npys
as v.
21
.
?
(bis)]
5T "m. The
particle
is
ignored by
(SrU
;
also
by J5,
which
supplies
. . Vn n A\V
and omits
nfi
?.
If the text be retained the
?
is
either corroborative
(G-K. 148
d, 159 ee\
or causal
(BOB, 473 b)
;
but
neither construction is natural.
Moreover,
the
parallelism
of clauses is
itself
objectionable
;
for whether the sin
actually corresponds
to the
*cry
is the
very point
to be
investigated (v.
21
).
This material diffi
culty
is not removed
by
the addition of
ViyQy
(Ols.)
or
^_x nx? (Kit).
Its removal is the sole recommendation of We. s
proposal
to omit
]
before
DnNBn and
render,
*
There is a rumour about S. and G. that their sin
is
great,
that it is
very grievous.
21. Read with
<&&
onp^pn.
On
nxari for
n^n,
see G-K.
138
.
rr?|
is difficult: cf. Ex. n
1
,
another
doubtful
pass.
We. here
suggests
aVa,
Ols.
D^S.
22b contains one of the 18
Q""]so \?i?n
(corrections
of the
scribes).
The
original reading
an JD
1
?
noy iny
mm is said to have been
changed
xviii.
17-27
305
Yahwe was one of the three is
certainly
the view of the later editors
(see
on
ig
1
)
;
but if that had been the
original conception,
it must have
been
clearly expressed
at this
point, (b)
In
20f-
we have seen that the
fate of Sodom still
hangs
in the
balance,
while in
23ff-
its destruction is
assumed as
already
decreed,
(c)
The whole tenor of the
passage
stamps
it as the
product
of a more reflective
age
than that in which the
ancient
legends originated.
It is inconceivable that the
early
Yahwist
should have
entirely
overlooked the case of
Lot,
and substituted a
discussion of abstract
principles
of the divine
government.
Gunkel
points
out that the most obvious solution of the actual
problem
raised
by
the
presence
of Lot in Sodom would have been a
promise
of deliver
ance for the few
godly people
in the
city
;
that
consequently
the line of
thought pursued
does not arise
naturally
from the
story itself,
but must
have been
suggested by
the
theological
tendencies of the
age
in which
the section was
composed.
The
precise point
of view here
represented
appears
most
clearly
in such
passages
as
Jer. 15
,
Ezk.
i4
14ff-
;
and in
general
it was not till near the Exile that the allied
problems
of indi
vidual
responsibility
and vicarious
righteousness began
to
press heavily
on the
religious
conscience in Israel.
23.
Wilt thou even
sweep away,
etc.}
The
question
strikes
the
keynote
of the
section,
a
protest against
the
thought
of an indiscriminate
judgement (cf. Jb. 9
22
). 24. Suppose
there should be
fifty, etc.}
A small number in a
city,
but
yet
sufficient to
produce misgiving
if
they
should
perish
unjustly.
and not
forgive
the
place]
In
OT,
righteousness
and
clemency
are
closely
allied : there is more
injustice
in
the death of a few innocent
persons
than in the
sparing
of
a
guilty
multitude. The
problem is,
to what limits is the
application
of this
principle subject
?
25.
Shall not the
fudge,
etc.}
Unrighteousness
in the
Supreme
Ruler of the
world would make
piety impossible:
cf. Ro.
3
6
.
27.
I have
ventured]
cf.
Jer.
I2
1
.
7 fctfn
expresses
the
overcoming
of a
certain inward reluctance
(Jos. 7
7
).
dust and
ashes]
an
alliterative combination
(Jb. 3O
19
42
6
,
Sir.
4O
3
).
As a
descrip-
out of a
feeling
of reverence
(Ginsburg,
Introd.
352 f.).
The worth of
the tradition is
disputed,
the
present
text
being supported by
all Vns.
as well as
by I9
27
;
and the sense
certainly
does not demand the
sug
gested
restoration
(Tu.
Di.
against
KS. Ba. Gu.
al.). 23,
24. f]n]
3T
nran, mistaking
for
qx
=
anger
: so
&
J
.
23 end]
(& + /cai &TTCU
6 Skaios ws 6
ao-e/STjj (
25a
). 24. XBTi]
sc.
|iy= forgive
: Nu.
14",
Is. 2
9
,
Hos. i
6
etc.
25. n^n]
lit.
*
profanum (sit},
construed with
ftp,
as
44
7< 17
,
oft. The full formula is m.TB Vn
(i
Sa.
24?
26"
etc.).
es^D
rwj,"
vh]
JT
(nequaquam fadesjudicium hoc)
and Jt>
(which
takes ustyn
as
vocative)
20
306
DESTRUCTION OF SODOM
(j)
tion of human
nature,
the
phrase
recurs
only
Sir. io
9
ly
32
.
28.
n
^
P
7!?]
lit. on account of the
5
;
a somewhat
para
doxical form of
expression. 30-32.
Emboldened
by success,
Abraham now ventures on a reduction
by
io instead of
5
(De.);
this is continued till the limit of human
charity
is
reached,
and Abraham ceases to
plead. 33.
went]
not to
Sodom,
but
simply
*
departed. 33b
would be
equally appro
priate
after
33a
or
22a
.
XIX.
1-29.
The Destruction
of
Sodom and Deliverance
of
Lot
(J
and
P).
The three men
(see
on v.
1
)
who have
just
left Abraham
reach Sodom in the
evening,
are received as
guests by
Lot
(
1
"
3
),
but are threatened with
outrage by
the Sodomites
(
4
~
n
).
Thus convinced of the
depravity
of the
inhabitants,
they
secure the
safety
of Lot s household
(
12
~
22
),
after which the
city
is
destroyed by
fire and brimstone
(
23
~
28
).
Thus far
J
: cf.
m,v,
13- 14 - 16- 24-
;
NJ
[-nan],
2- 7- 8- 18- 19- ~>0
; DTB,
4
;
p
Vs,
8
;
ntopS,
a
; IKS,
3 - 9
;
Tpn,
**. The
summary
in
29
is from P : cf. n
.nto,
ODD
ny,
nns?
(cf.
6
17
9"-
15
).
The
passage
continues i8
22a- 33b
(J
h
),
and
forms an effective contrast to the scene in Abraham s tent
(iS
1 15
).
The
alternation of
sing-,
and
pi.
is less
confusing
than in
18;
and Kraetzsch-
mar s
theory (see p. 298 f.)
does less violence to the structure of the
pass
age.
Indeed,
Gu. himself admits that the
sing,
section
" ^
(with
JtJ
)
is
an intermezzo from another Yahwistic author
(Gu. 181).
1-3.
Lot s
hospitality. Comp. Ju. iQ
16
-
21
. la. the
two
angels\
Read the
men,
as i8
16
[ig
5- 8
]
io-i2-i6
;
see the
footnote. in the
gate]
the
place
of rendezvous in Eastern
cities for business or social intercourse
;
Ru.
4
lff - n
,
Jb. 29*
etc.
ib,
2a. Cf. i8
2
.
TIK]
SirsJ See on i8
3
.
mistake the sense. 28.
JTiDrr]
The
regular
use of the
ending p (G-K.
47 m)
from this
point
onwards is remarkable
(Di.).
The
form, though
etymologically
archaic,
is
by
no means a mark of
antiquity
in
OT,
and
is
peculiarly frequent
in Deut.
style (Dri.
on Dt. i
17
). 32. cyan]
see
on 2
s3
.
I. D DN^on
3t?]
This word has not been used
before,
and recurs
only
in v.
15
(in
juu. also v.
12
,
and in
(5r
v.
16
).
The
phrase
is,
no
doubt,
a cor
rection for
DVJNJ7,
caused
by
the introduction of
m
-
33
%
and the con
sequent
identification of Yahwe with one of the
original
three,
and
the other two with His
angels (We. Com/>* 27 f.).
2.
NJ n-n]
so
pointed
XVIII. 28-XIX. II
307
De. s inference that Lot s
spiritual
vision was less clear
than Abraham s
may
be
edifying,
but is
hardly
sound.
2b. The refusal of the invitation
may
be
merely
a
piece
of Oriental
politeness,
or it
may
contain a hint of the
purpose
of the visit
(i8
21
).
In an
ordinary city
it would
be no
great hardship
to
spend
the
night
in the street:
Lot knows
only
too well what it would mean in Sodom.
4-1
1. The assault of the Sodomites.
4. They
had
not
yet
retired to rest
when,
etc.]
That all the men of the
city
were involved in the attack is affirmed with
emphasis
(nxj5?p
:
v.t.):
an instance of the
*
shamelessness of Sodom
(Is. 3). 5.
The unnatural vice which derives its name
from the incident was viewed in Israel as the lowest
depth
of moral
corruption:
cf. Lv. i8
22ff-
2O
18- 23
,
Ezk. i6
50
,
Ju. iQ
22
. 6-8. Lot s readiness to sacrifice the honour of
his
daughters, though
abhorrent to Hebrew
morality
(cf. Ju. ig
25- 30
),
shows him as a
courageous champion
of
the
obligations
of
hospitality
in a situation of extreme
embarrassment,
and is recorded to his credit. Cf. i2
13ff-
8. inasmuch as
they
have come under the shadow
(i.e.
protection ) of my
roof-tree]
n"ip,
beam
(like
/xe
Aafyxi),
for
house.
p.
Lot is reminded of his
solitary pHNn,
der Eine
da)
and defenceless
position
as a.
ger (see
on i2
10
).
II. The
divine
beings
smite the rabble with demonic blindness
(onup: v.i.).
only
here: G-K. 20
rf,
1000.
3. nss] Only again ig
9
33" (J), Ju.
ig
7
,
2 Ki. 2
17
5
16
.
4.
mo
TJN]
probably
a
gloss (Ols.). nspD] ((5r tL^o)
an abbreviation
of
nspmjn
nsp.Tjo (Gn. 47
21
,
Ex. 26
28
,
Dt.
i3
8
etc.
)=
exhaustively
:
so Is.
56", Jer. 5i
31
,
Ezk.
25.
6.
nnnsn]
om.
by
<F. 8.
^n^nJ-Kn
(only again ig
25
26
3f>
,
Lv. i8
27
,
Dt.
4*2 7
22
19",
i Ch. 2O
8
)
is an ortho
graphic
variant
(not
in
JJUL),
meant
originally
to be
pronounced ^*n.
See Dri. on Dt.
4
42
.
jrSjra]
as i8
5
.
9.
ro5n
[x mwjtfa]
(Er aboard
&cet: stand back there
;
cf.
j~n^3,
Is.
49
20
. BIEI?
oat?")]
Consec.
impf.
expressing paradoxical consequence (De.)
;
cf.
32
31
4O
23
, Jb.
2
s
: see
G-K. 1 1 1
/,
m. The inf. abs.
after
its vb.
properly
denotes continuance
of the action
;
here its
position
seems due to the consec.
i,
and its
force as if it had stood first
(G-K. 113
r,
/>).
u.
n*Ti}p] (2
Ki. 6
18
f)
is
related to
ordinary
blindness
(fnjy,
Dt. 28
28
,
Zee. I2
4
f),
somewhat as
!
T]5 (2
21
)
is to
ordinary sleep,
Jf
from
^
iu
(
shine
),
it is either a
308
DESTRUCTION OF SODOM
(j)
12-16. The deliverance of Lot. 12. On the construc
tion,
v.i.
13.
Ya/iive has sent
us]
i.e. the three are
agents
ofYahwe,
who is therefore not
present
in
person. 14.
Lot
warns his
(prospective)
sons-in-law,
who were to
marry
his
daughters
, so
Jos.
Ant. \.
202, JJ,
Tu. Di. Dri. al. Others
((2r
J
>
IEz. De.
al.)
take
s
npS as
referring-
to the
past,
which is
possible (cf. 27
46
).
as one that
jested]
see on 21.
15.
as the dawn
appeared]
The
judgement
must be ac
complished by
sunrise
(
23f
-)
;
hence the
urgency
of the
summons. the
angels]
the
men,
as v.
1
.
nxVE3n]
who
are at hand
(i
Sa. 2i
4
).
16. he
hesitated]
reluctant,
and
only
half-convinced.
through
Yahwe s
compassion
on
him].
left
him without the
city]
rather
suggests,
as Gu.
(186)
holds,
that there he is in
safety.
17-22.
The
sparing
of Zoar.
17.
the
mountain]
the
elevated Moabite
plateau,
which rises
steeply
to
heights
of
2500-3000
ft. from the E side of the Sea. look not
behind
thee]
Such
prohibitions
are
frequent
in
legends
and
incantations
;
comp.
the
story
of
Orpheus
and
Eurydice
(Ovid,
Met. x.
51
;
Virg.
Ge. iv.
491);
cf. also
Virg.
Eel.
viii.
102;
Ov.
Fasti,
v.
439.
20. is near
enough
to
flee
to].
_
lyvp]
a
trifle
:
repeated
with a view to the
etymology
of
22b
.
common oriental
euphemism (Kon.
ii.
p. 404),
or
dazzling
from excess
of
light (Ac. 9
3
)
: cf.
Hoffmann, ZATW,
ii. 68
1
.
2T
xT-utf means both
brightness
and blindness
;
and in the Talmud Shabriri is a demon of
blindness
(JE,
iv.
517 a).
5
]
A-ktf..*
,
hallucinations.
12. ui
"I
rD
iy]
The stiff construction has led to various
operations
on the text. <&1S
seem to have read
niji DM}? D^nq
; 5
has
?!
,jnq.
Di.
suggests
that the letters J3i have been
accidentally
thrust into the
word
"p
jnn
;
Ho. and Gu. omit 1 in
TJ31
(so JJUL)
and commence a new
sentence there
;
Ba. Kit. delete 1
jnn.
The text
may
be retained if
we take the first cl. as indirect
qn.
: Whomsoever thou hast here as
a
son-in-law,
and
thy
sons . . .
bring forth,
etc. At end add
n?n
with )jj.(&.
15.
ico]
"rare and
poetic" (Di.).
Here used as
conj.
(^ntJ-ND).
riKxcan]
(Sr
&s
%ets
Kal e\#e
;
U
quas
habes. 16.
nSon]
f. inf.
const. l6b is omitted
by
(5
A
-
a1
-,
but is found in
many
cursives.
17. into]
(ErlJS
have
pi.,
which is
supported by
the
previous
DN Jfl.i
and the
following
Dfl^K, though
the
sing,
is maintained in the rest of the
section.
o
an]
for B3R ;
G-K.
icy/*. -oSon]
five times
repeated
in
the six vv. is
thought by
Ba. to be a
play
on the name oi
1
?. 20.
PSJ
nm]
<& +
ZveKv
(roG,
a slavish imitation of i2
13
.
xix. 12-26
39
The
city
of Zo ar
(ffir Zyywp)
was well
known,
not
only
in OT times
(i3
10
i4
2- 8
,
Dt.
34
3
,
Is.
is
5
, Jer. 48
34
),
but also in the time of the
Crusades,
and to the Ar.
geographers,
who call the Dead Sea the Sea
of
Zugar,
That this mediaeval Zoar was at the S end of the lake is
undisputed
;
and there is no
good
reason to
question
its
identity
with
the biblical
city (see Jos. BJ,
iv.
482
;
OS
1
,
26i
37
).
Since
Wetzstein,
it
is
usually
located at Ghor
es-Safiyeh,
about
5
m. SE from the
present
shore of the Sea
(cf.
Di.
273
; Buhl, GP,
271
; Smith, HG, 505
ff.
;
and
esp.
Dri.
DB,
iv.
c)8$bff.).
The situation of the
city naturally gave
birth to the
secondary legend
that it had been saved from the fate of
the
adjacent
cities on account of the intercession of Lot
;
while the
name in Heb.
readily suggested
the
etymology
of
22b
.
23-28.
The
catastrophe. Brevity
in the
description
of
physical phenomena
is in accord with the
spirit
of the
Hebrew
leg-end,
whose main interest is the dramatic
pre
sentation of human character and action.
23> 24.
The
clause when Lot entered
Zoar,
presupposes
17
-
22
, and,
if
the latter be from a
separate source,
must be deleted as
an
interpolation (Gu.).
The connexion is
improved by
the
excision :
just
as the sun rose the
catastrophe
took
place
(G-K.
164 b). sulphur
and
fire (Ezk. s8
22
,
Ps. 1 1
6
)]
a
feature
suggested by permanent physical phenomena
of
the
region (see below).
Yahwe rained . . .
from Yahive\
A distinction between Yahwe as
present
in the
angels
and
Yahwe as seated in heaven
(Di.)
is
improbable.
We must
either
suppose
that the
original subject
was
*
the men
(so
Gu. : cf. v.
13
),
or that
nirr
nsp
is a doublet to
B?B#n"p
: the latter
phrase, however,
is
generally
considered
to be a
gloss (Ols.
KS. Ho. Gu.
Kit.). 25.
^rm]
see on
29
. 26. Lot s wife
transgresses
the
prohibition
of
17
,
and
is turned into a
pillar of
salt.
The literal
interpretation
of this
notice, though
still maintained
by
Strack,
is
clearly
inadmissible. The
pillar
is mentioned as still exist
ing
in WS io
7
, Jos.
Ant. i.
203 ;
the reference
obviously being
to some
curious resemblance to a female
figure,
round which the
popular
21.
TJS
TiNtn]
have
accepted
thee
(lit.
lifted
up thy
face :
opp.
DM2 3
B-n)
here in a
good
sense
(as 32",
2 Ki.
3
14
,
Mai. i
8f
-),
more fre
quent
in the bad sense of
partiality
in
judgement (Lv. ig
15
,
Dt. io
17
,
Mai. 2
9
, Jb.
i
3
10
etc.).
23.
NU
J
JULX HNS
;
cf.
15". 25.
Wn
(v.
8
)]
ffi +
ai
1
?
jn? ng>; i^g,
as v.
29
.
26. The v. stands out of its
proper position (note
the 1
consec.,
and the
suffs.),
and
belongs
to
17
"
22
rather than to the main narrative
(Gu.).
31O
DESTRUCTION OF SODOM
(j, P)
imagination
had woven a
legend connecting
it with the
story
of Lot.
Whether it be identical with the
huge cylindrical column, 40
ft.
high,
on the E side of 6ebel
Usdum,
described
by Lynch, is,
of
course,
doubtful.* The fact that G.. Usdum is on the SW side of the
lake,
while Zoar was on the
SE,
would not
preclude
the identification : it
would
simply
mean that the whole
region
was haunted
by
the
legend
of Lot. But the
disintegration
of the rock-salt of which that remark
able
ridge
is
mainly composed, proceeds
so
rapidly,
and
produces
so
many
fantastic
projections
and
pinnacles,
that the tradition
may
be
supposed
to have attached itself to different
objects
at different
periods.
See Dri.
DB,
iii.
152.
27,
28. Abraham s
morning
1
visit to the
spot
where he
had
parted
from his
heavenly guests
forms an
impressive
close to the narrative. and he
looked,
etc.]
an effective
contrast to i8
16
. the smoke
of
the land was afterwards
believed to ascend
permanently
from the site of the
guilty
cities
(Wisd.
io
7
).
The idea
may
have been
suggested by
the cloud of
vapour
which
generally hang
s over the surface
of the Dead Sea
(see Di.).
29.
(From
P: see
p.
306.)
Gu.
conjectures
that the v.
formed the introduction to a lost
genealogy
of Lot
;
and
that its
original position
in P was after
i3
12a
. The
dependence
of P on
J
is
very
manifest. the cities in
[one of]
which Lot
dwelt]
as 8
4
,
Ju.
i2
7
.
The destruction
of
the Cities
of
the Plain. The narrative of ch.
19
appears
at first
sight
to be based on
vague
recollection of an actual
occurrence,
the destruction of a
group
of cities situated in what is now
the Dead
Sea,
under circumstances which
suggested
a direct inter-
27.
TK
DDB"i] preg.
constr.
27b.
must have been
interpolated
after
the
expansion
of ch. 18
by
vv.
2
;
Jb 33a
. 28.
"nan
p
does not occur else
where. The variations of
juu.(3JrJ5
warrant the emendation
^n-
1
?^ (Kit.).
1^33.1
"tti
p
3
]
the same simile in Ex.
iQ
18
(also J).
nb
p]
Ps.
ng
83
i
29. rpsnn]
the
overthrow,
&TT.
\ey.
The usual verbal noun is
(Dt.
2
9
22
,
Is. i
7
[rd. 019
for
onj], 13, Jer.
49
18
5
o
40
,
Am.
4
n
f),
which is
never used
except
in connexion with this
particular judgement.
The
unhebraic form of
inf.,
with the fact that where
subj.
is
expressed
it is
always (even
in
Am.)
D nVtf and not
ni.v,
justify
the conclusion that the
phraseology
was
stereotyped
in a heathen version of the
story
(Kraetzschmar,
ZA TW
y
xvii.
87 f.). Comp.
the use of the vb.
ig
21- - 5-
,
Dt.
29
22
, Jer.
2o
16
,
La.
4
6
.
isna]
jux issna is easier. (
m.T na.
*
I cannot find the
proof
of Gu. s assertion that this
pillar
is now
called the
daughter
of Lot.
XIX.
27-29
3
11
position
of divine
power.
It seems unreasonable to
suppose
that a
legend
so
firmly
rooted in Hebrew
tradition,
so full of local
colour,
and
preserving-
so
tenaciously
the names of the ruined
cities,
should be
destitute of historic foundation
;
and to doubt whether
any
such cities
as Sodom and Gomorrah ever existed in the Dead Sea basin
appears
an
unduly sceptical
exercise of critical
judgement.
It has been
shown,
moreover,
that a
catastrophe corresponding
in its main features to the
biblical
description
is an
extremely probable
result of volcanic and
other
forces, acting
under the
peculiar geological
conditions which
obtain in the Dead Sea
depression. According
to Sir
J.
W.
Dawson,
it
might
have been caused
by
an
explosion
of bitumen or
petroleum,
like
those which so
frequently prove
destructive in Canada and the United
States
(see Exp.
1886,
i.
p. 74 ;
Modern Science in Bible
Lands, 486 ff.).
A similar
theory
has been worked out in elaborate and
picturesque
detail
by
Blanckenhorn in
ZDPV,
xix.
1-64,
xxi.
65-83 (see
Dri.
p.
202
f.).*
These theories are
very plausible,
and must be allowed their
full
weight
in
determining
the
question
of
historicity.
At the same time
it
requires
to be
pointed
out that
they
do not
prove
the incident to be
historical
;
and several considerations show that a
complete explanation
of the
legend
cannot be reached on the lines of
physical
science,
(a)
It is
impossible
to dissociate the
legend altogether
from the current OT
representation (i3
10
I4
3 10
e
)
that
prior
to this event the Dead Sea did not
exist,
an idea which
geology proves
to be
absolutely
erroneous. It is
true that the narrative does not state that the cities were
submerged
by
the waters of the Dead Sea
;
and it is
possible
to
suppose
that
they
were situated either south of the
present margin
of the
lake,
or in its
shallow southern
bay (which might possibly
have been formed within
historic
times).
The
fact, however, remains,
that the Israelites had a
mistaken notion of the
origin
of the Dead Sea
;
and this fact throws
some
suspicion
on the whole
legend
of the cities of the Plain.
(b)
It
is remarkable that the
legend
contains no mention of the Dead
Sea,
either as the cause of the
catastrophe,
or as
originating contemporane
ously
with it
(Gu.).
So
important
an omission
suggests
the
possibility
that the
Sodom-legend may
have arisen in a
locality answering
still
more
closely
to the volcanic features of the
description (such
as the
dismal ffarras of Arabia
[Meyer]),
and been transferred to the
region
of the Dead Sea
valley, (c)
The
stereotyped
term
npsni? (see
on v.
29
),
which seems to have been
imported
with the
legend, points clearly
to an
earthquake
as the main cause of the overthrow
;
and there is no mention
of an
earthquake
in
any
Hebrew version of the
story (see
Che.
EB,
4668 f.)
another indication that it has been
transplanted
from its native
environment.
(d)
The most
important
consideration is that the
narrative seems to
belong
to a
widely
diffused class of
popular tales,
*
Physical explanations
of the
catastrophe
were also current in ancient
times. Strabo
(xvi.
ii.
44) says
that it took
place
virb
<rei(r/j.&v
Kal
di>a0u-
<ry/j,dTti)v
7ri)p6s
Kal
dep/jt.wv
vdaruv
do"0aXrw5wi
re Kal
deiwStSv,
in
consequence
of which the lake burst its
bounds,
the rocks took
fire,
and so on. Cf.
Jos. BJt
iv.
484
f.,
Ant. i.
203; Tacitus,
Hist. v.
7.
312
LOT AND HIS DAUGHTERS
(j)
many interesting- examples
of which have been
published by Cheyne
in
The New
World, 1892, 239
ff. It is indeed obvious that no
physical
ex
planation
of the
cataclysm
furnishes
any
clue to the
significance
of the
angels
visit to Lot
;
but a
study
of the folklore
parallels
shows that the
connexion between that incident and the destruction of Sodom is not
accidental,
but rests on some
mythological
motive whose
origin
is not
as
yet explained.
Thus in the
story
of Philemon and Baucis
(Ovid,
Met.
viii.
625 ff.),
an
aged Phrygian couple give
shelter in their humble
dwelling
to Zeus and Hermes in human
guise,
when
every
other door
is closed
against
them. As a reward for their
hospitality they
are
directed to flee to the
mountain,
and
there, looking back,
they
see the
whole district inundated
by
a
flood, except
their own wretched
hut,
which has been transformed into a
temple,
etc. The resemblance here
is so
great
that
Cheyne (I.e. 240) pronounces
the tale a
secondary
version of Gn.
19;
but other
parallels, hardly
less
striking, present
the
same combination of kindness to divine
beings
rewarded
by escape
from a destructive visitation in which a whole
neighbourhood perishes
for its
impious neglect
of the duties of
hospitality.
On these
grounds
some writers consider the narrative before us to be a Hebrew
adaptation
of a
widespread legend,
its
special
features
being suggested by
the
weird
scenery
of the Dead Sea
region,
its barren
desolation,
the cloud
of
vapour hanging
over
it,
its salt rocks with their
grotesque formations,
its beds of
sulphur
and
asphalt,
with
perhaps
occasional
conflagrations
bursting
out
amongst
them
(see
Gu.
i88f.).
Dr. Rendel Harris
(Heavenly
Twins, 39 ff.)
takes it to be a form of the Dioscuric
myth,
and
thus a natural
sequel
to iS
1
"
15
(see p. 302 above). Assyriologists
have
found in it a
peculiar
modification of the
Deluge-legend (Jast. ZA>
xiii.
291, 297 ;
RBA
1
,
507),
or of the
World-conflagration
which is the astro
nomical
counterpart
of that
conception (ALTO
2
, 360 ff.)
: both forms of the
theory
are mentioned
by
Zimmern with reserve
(KAT
3
, 559 f.).
What
ever truth there
may
be in these
speculations,
the
religious
value of the
biblical narrative is not affected. Like the
Deluge-story,
it retains the
power
to touch the conscience of the world as a terrible
example
of
divine
vengeance
on heinous wickedness and unnatural lust
;
and in
this ethical
purpose
we have another
testimony
to the
unique grandeur
of the idea of God in ancient Israel.
XIX.
30-38.
Lot and his
Daughters (J).
This account of the
origin
of the Moabites and Ammonites
is a
pendant
to the destruction of
Sodom,
just
as the
story
of Noah s drunkenness
(9
20ff
-)
is an
appendix
to the
Deluge
narrative.
Although
it has
points
of contact with
1
~
28
,
it is
really
an
independent myth,
as to the
orig-in
and motives of
which see the
concluding
1
Note
(p. 314).
Source.
Though
the criteria of
authorship
are
slight,
there is no
reason to doubt that the section
belongs
to
J
: note the two
daughters,
XIX.
30-38
3
!
3
and the mention of Zoar in
80
;
and cf.
jnj nm,
* M
,
with
7
s
;
and
U 33
-
35 37 38
,
with
29
26
.
30a
is a transition
clause,
connecting
what follows with
1
~
s*
t esp.
with
17
-
22
. ZTZ M
mountain\
of Moab
;
cf. v.
17
.
he was
afraid
to dwell in
Z.\
lest it should be
consumed,
though
the motive involves a
slight discrepancy
with
21
.
30b.
in the
cave]
probably
a
particular
cave which was
named after Lot
(cf.
i Ki.
19).
It is
pointed
out that
IBv,
a
possible
variant of
Di^,
is named as a Horite
(Troglodyte ?)
in
36
20- 22> 29
. The habit is said to have
persisted
till modern
times in that
region (Di.
Dri. after
Buckingham,
Travels in
Syria
[1825]).
31.
there is no man in the
earth\
*
We are the
survivors of a universal
catastrophe.
So
Gu.,
following
Pietschmann,
Gesch. der
Phonizier,
115; Jastrow, ZA,
xiii.
298 (see below).
The usual
explanations
:
*
no man in
the
vicinity (Di. al.),
or all men will shrink from us
(Dri.), hardly
do
justice
to the
language.
H??"
5
?
T!l?]
So
in the
Jewish marriage
formula
sjns
^D miK3
"jnA
JJJJK NJN1
(De.).
32.
The intoxication of Lot shows that the
revolting
nature of the
proposal
was felt
by
the Hebrew conscience.
"
When the existence of the race is at
stake,
the woman is
more
eager
and
unscrupulous
than the man"
(Gu. 192).
irilNp]
repeated
in
34> 36
, anticipating
the
etymology
of
37
.
33) 35-
h- e kneiv
not,
etc.~\
still
minimising
Lot s
culpability
(cf. 38
16ff
-). 37.
3Nio]
as
if=38J, from
a
(my?) father*
(v.i.).
38.
W~|3]
not son of
my people,
which would be
30 end]
jux<Ei5J +
isy.
31.
>(
?y
NU]
in this sense
only
Dt.
25. 32.
no
1
?]
w> ^.
33. pprm] (so s.36^
;
Q_K<
47
;._ Xin
n^i] (x Kinn).
On
omission of art. with
demonstr.,
see G-K. 126
y
,
cf.
3o
16
32
23
38
21
,
I Sa.
I9
10
.
n^N-nx]
<& +
TTJV
V^KTO.
^Keivtjv. ac^p^i] Appung-unt desuper,
quasi
incredibile !
(Je.).
In
reality
the
point probably
marks a
super
fluous letter
(cf.
v.
35
). 34. a]
(&
;^. 37. 3NiD]
(& +
X^owra,
E/c TOU
ira.Tp6sfj.ov ([ ]3Nc).
For the
equivalence
of ID and
p,
cf. Nu. n
26f-
(nrp
=
juu.
vro,
^
Mw5a5), Jer. 48
21
(nys
D,
Qr.
=
nysiD, Kt.),
etc. : see
ZATW,
xvi.
322
f. The real
etymology is,
of
course,
uncertain. Homm.
ingeni
ously
and
plausibly explains
the name as a contraction of
nxias,
his
mother is the
father,
after the
analogy
of a few
Assyrian proper
names
(Verhand.
d, XIII.
Orient.-Kong. 261).
The view of Kn. and De. that
to is Aram. "ID
(= "p),
water,
and that the word meant water
(i.e.
semen]
of a
father,
hardly
deserves consideration.
38. Djrp]
6 fto$ TOU
ytvovs fAov,
missing
the
significance
of the
J3 (z ..s.).
314
LOT AND HIS DAUGHTERS
(j)
nothing"
distinctive of
any
child,
but son of
my (paternal)
kinsman
(see i7
14
).
Note the formal
correspondence
with
jisy
%
33,
which
(and
not
P^V
simply)
is the invariable
designa
tion oif the
people
in OT
(exc.
Ps.
83
8
,
and MT of i Sa. n
11
[ffi
$
^3]).
Both
etymologies
are
obviously pointless except
as
expressing
the
thought
of the
mothers, who,
as is usual
in
J,
name the children.
Original
idea
of
the
legend.
It is
very
natural to
regard
this account
of the
origin
of Moab and Ammon as an
expression
of intense national
hatred and
contempt
towards these two
peoples.
It has further been
surmised
(though
with little
proof)*
that incestuous
marriages,
such as
are here
spoken of,
were
customary
in these
lands,
and
gave
an
edge
to this Hebrew taunt
(so Di.).
That the
story
was so understood
by
later readers is indeed
probable
;
but how
precarious
it is to extend
this
feeling
to ancient times
appears
from ch.
38,
where the
ancestry
of the noble tribe of
Judah (held
in
special
honour
by J)
is
represented
as
subject
to a similar taint. The truth seems to be that while incest
was held in abhorrence
by
Israel
(as by
the ancient Arabs
;
see We.
GGN, 1893, 441),
it was at one time
regarded
as
justified by
extreme
necessity,
so that deeds like those here related could be told without
shame.
Starting
from this view of the
spirit
of the
narrative,
Gu.
(190 f.) gives
a
suggestive interpretation
of the
legend.
It
is,
he
thinks,
originally
a Moabite
legend tracing
the common
ancestry
of Moab and
Ammon to
Lot,
who was
probably worshipped
at the cave referred
to in v.
30
. V.
31
, however,
presupposes
a universal
catastrophe,
in which
the whole human race had
perished, except
Lot and his two
daughters.
In the
ordinary
course the
daughters
would have been doomed to
barrenness,
and mankind would have become extinct
;
and it is to avert
this
calamity
that the women resolve on the
desperate expedient
here
described. That such an
origin
should have been a
subject
of national
pride
is
conceivable,
though
one
may
fail to find that
feeling
reflected
in the forced
etymologies
of
m
. If Gu. s
theory
is
anywhere
near the
truth,
we are here on the track of a Moabite
parallel
to the
story
of the
Flood,
which is
probably
of
greater antiquity
than the
legend
of
I9
lff
-. .
Lot is the
counterpart
of the Hebrew Noah
;
and
just
as the Noah of
9
20ff-
steps
into the
place
of the
Babylonian Deluge-hero,
so the Lot of
j^soff.
was identified with the entertainer of
deity
in the heathen
myth
which
probably
lies at the basis of
I9
lff
f
*
Cf. the similar
conjecture
with
regard
to Reuben
(p. 515 below).
It is difficult to know what to make of Palmer s curious observation that
in that
region
a wife is
commonly spoken
of as bint
(daughter)
: Desert
of
the
Exodus,
ii.
478
;
see Dri.
205.
t
The connexion with the
Deluge-legend
was
anticipated by Jast.
in
the art.
already
cited, ZA,
xiii.
197
f. It is a flood of water which
destroys
the
inhospitable people
in the
parallel
from Ovid cited above
(p. 312).
xx. i
315
CH. XX. Abraham and Sarah at the Court
of
Gerar
(E).
The
chapter
deals with an incident
closely
similar to that
recorded in i2
10
~
20
. It is indeed
impossible
to doubt that the
two are variants of the same tradition
;
a view which is con
firmed rather than shaken
by
Strack s enumeration of
petty
diiferences. A close
comparison
(see
p. 364
f.
below) appears
to show that the
passage
before us is written from a more
advanced ethical
standpoint
than that
represented by
ch. 12 :
note the
tendency
to soften the harsher features of the in
cident
(
4- 6- 16
),
and to minimise the extent of Abraham s
departure
from strict
veracity.
Source. The narrative is the first continuous
excerpt
from E
;
and
contains several
stylistic
and other
peculiarities
of that document :
esp.
Q
r6g[3],
3 6m u< 18< 17
(
18
m,T is a
gloss)
;
nox
(J
nrjs?
),
n
;
naS
(J nV),
5
;
see
also the notes on
jVjjj,
5
;
-"?N
-V?N,
* 18
;
j> jnj,
6
; njpx,
12
(cf.
Di.
279
;
Ho.
159;
Gu.
193).
The
appearing
of God in a dream is characteristic of
E
;
and the
conception
of Abraham as a
prophet (
7
)
is at least
foreign
to the
original J (but
see on
I5
1
).
Another circumstance
proving
the
use of a source distinct from
J
h
or P is that Sarah is here conceived as
a
young
woman
capable
of
inspiring passion
in the
king (ct.
i8
la
i7
17
).
Lastly,
it is to be observed that ch. 20 is the
beginning
of a section
(20-22) mainly
Elohistic, representing
a
cycle
of tradition
belonging
to
the
Negeb
and,
in
particular,
to Beersheba.
I,
2.
Introductory
notice. The method of the
narrator,
Gu.
points
out,
is to let the
story
unfold itself in the col
loquies
which
follow,
vv.
lft
containing just enough
to make
these
intelligible.
I. the land
of
the
Negeb\
see on i2
9
.
between Kadesh
(i4
7
)
and Shur
(i6
7
)
would be in the extreme
S of the
Negeb,
if not
beyond
its natural limits. The words
TXia
-IJM (note
the
paronomasia)
are not a nearer
specifica
tion of the
previous clause,
but introduce a new
fact,
a
further
stage
of the
patriarch
s
wanderings.
There is there
fore no reason to
suppose
that Gerar
lay
as far S as Kadesh
I.
W.l]
see II
s
.
3333 ny-jN]
33
p,x only 24
62
, Jos. is
19
, Ju.
i
15
(J),
Nu.
i
a
29
(E?). ni|] (io
19
26
1- 8- 17
[VJ3 to],
20 26
,
2 Ch.
I4
12f
-t)
<
<&
3j-it
;
commonly identified,
on the
authority
of
OS,
24O
28fft
E\eu0e/307n5\ews (TTj/ie/ots
KC
irp6$ vbrov),
with the modern Umm Gerar
( place
of
water-pots ),
6 miles SSE of Gaza
(so
Rowlands,
Holy City,
i.
464 ;
Robinson
[who
did not find the
name], BR,
ii.
43
f.
[cf.
i.
189],
Ho. Gu.
316
ABRAHAM AT GERAR
(E)
(v.i.).
2. The bareness of the narration is
remarkable,
and
was felt
by
the Greek translators to be
wanting
in
lucidity
(v.i.).Abimelech, king of Gerar] ^^
=
Milk is
[my]
father,
is a
genuine
Canaanite
name, compounded
with the
name of the
god
Milk
(see
Baeth. Beitr.
37 if.).
It occurs
as the name of the
governor
of
Tyre (Abi-milki)
in the TA
Tablets
(149-156).
There is no trace here of the anach
ronism which makes him a Philistine
prince (ch. 26)
;
Gerar
is an
independent
Canaanite
kingdom.
took
Sarah]
sc. as
wife
;
the same
ellipsis
as
ig
u
.
3-7.
Abimelech s dream. This mode of revelation is
peculiar
to E
(
2 i
12- 14
22
lff-
28
12
3i
1L24
37* 4
6
2
,
Nu. i2
6
22
9- 20
),
and
probably
indicates a more
spiritual
idea of God than the
theophanies
of
J.
It must be
remembered, however,
that
according
to
primitive
ideas the
coming
of God
(so
3i
24
,
Nu. 22
20
)
would be as real an event in a dream as in
waking
experience. 4a.
had not drawn near
her]
Not an
explana-
al.).
This suits 26
1
(according-
to which it was in Philistine
territory),
io
19
and 2 Ch.
I4
13
;
but
hardly
26
17ff
-,
and it is
certainly
inconsistent
with the notice -ntf
p:M
ehj?
j"3.
There
happens
to be a Wadl
Gerilr,
c.
13
miles SW of
Kadesh,
which
exactly agrees
with this
description
;
and so Trumbull
(Kad.-Bar.
62
f., 255)
and others have decided that this
must be the biblical
Gerar,
while others think there
may
have been two
places
of the name
(Che.
EB,
ii.
1705^).
The
question really
turns on
26
17g 21f-
: so far as the
present
reference is
concerned,
we have seen that
the
argument
rests on a
misconception
;
and it is not even
necessary
to
assume
(with KS.)
that
la
is a redactional
clause,
or
(with
Ho.
Gu.)
that
part
of E s narrative has been
suppressed
between
la
and
lb
. It is true
that
osto has no antecedent in
E,
and it
is,
of
course,
conceivable that it
was written
by
R
E
to connect the
following-
with a
previous
section of
E
(Gu.),
or
by
RJ
E
to mark the transition from Hebron
(iS
1
)
to the
Negeb.
A
redactor, however,
would not have been
likely
to insert the
notice between Kadesh and Shur unless he had meant it as a definition
of the site of Gerar. 2. -^x
i$]
=
said
regarding
is rare: 2 Ki.
ig
82
,
Jer.
22i
8
27
19
;
cf.
\
K,
v.
13
, Ju. 9",
Ps.
3* 7
1
10
. After
Athnach,
<&
inserts
^0o/3i7$?7 yap
elrretv 6n
Tvvf) /JLOV iariv^ fj.r/
irore airoKTfivua iv avrbv oi
AvSpes
7-775
7r6Aeo>s 5t
avrr]v (from
26
7b
).
3. V|
JUUL rrm
"?y
: cf.
21",
Ex. i8
8
,
Nu. I2
1
i3
24
(E),
Gn. 2I
25
26
32
(J),
Jos. i4
8
(R), Ju.
6
7
.
*?jn
nSyn]
a married
woman,
Dt. 22
22
.
4.
To ia in
the indefinite sense of
people (Leufe)
we
may compare
Ps.
43
1
,
Dn.
i i
v3
;
but the sense is
doubtful,
and the idea
may
be that the whole
nation is involved in the
punishment
of the
king (Str.).
Eerdmans
(Komp.
der
Genesis, 41)
offers the incredible
suggestion
that U here has
xx.
2-9
3
J
7
tion of Abimelech s
good
conscience
(which depended
solely
on the
purity
of his
motives),
but of Yahwe s words in
6b
.
Why
he had not come near
her,
we
gather fully
from
17
.
4b, 5.
Abimelech
protests
his innocence. innocent
folk]
such as I am
(v.i.). 5.
*M7"nna] unsuspectingly
;
cf.
2 Sa.
15",
i Ki. 22
34
;
in the wider sense of moral
integrity
the
phrase
occurs i Ki.
9*,
Ps.
y8
72
ioi
2
. 6. have
kept
thee
back
from sinning (i.e. inexpiably) against
me]
The sin is
not mere
infringement
of the
rights
of a
privileged person
(Di.),
but the moral offence of
violating
the
marriage
bond.
suffered
thee
noi\
by
sickness
(v.
17
). 7*
The situation is
altered
by
this disclosure of the facts to Abimelech : if he
now retains
Sarah,
he will be on
every ground deserving
of
punishment.
he is a
prophet]
in a
secondary sense,
as a
man of
God,
whose
person
and
property
are inviolable:
cf. Ps.
io5
15
. On intercession as a function of the
prophet,
Dt.
9
20
,
i Sa.
y
5
i2
19- 23
,
Jer. y
16
etc.;
but cf.
Jb. ^.that
thou
mayest
live]
or recover.
The section
(
3 7
)
exhibits a vacillation which is characteristic of the
conception
of sin in
antique religion.
Sin is not
wholly
an affair of the
conscience and inward
motive,
but an external fact a violation of
the
objective
moral
order,
which works out its
consequences
with the
indifference of a law of nature to the mental condition of the
transgressor
(cf.
the matricide of
Orestes,
etc.
;
and see
Smend, ATRG*,
io8f.).
At
the same time God Himself
recognises
the relative
validity
of Abimelech s
plea
of
ignorance (
6
).
It is the first faint
protest
of the moral sense
against
the
hereditary
mechanical notion of
guilt.
But it is a
long
way
from Abimelech s
faltering- protestation
of innocence to
Job
s
unflinching-
assertion of the
right
of the individual conscience
against
the decree of
an
unjust
fate.
8-13.
Abimelech and Abraham.
9.
a
great
sin]
i.e.,
a state of
things
which,
though unwittingly brought about,
involves
heavy judgement
from God
(see
on
3
~
7
above).
deeds
its late
Jewish
sense of an individual heathen.
Geiger, Graetz,
al.
regard
the word as a
gloss
or a
corrupt dittography.
(& has
tdvos
ayvoovv
Kal diKaiov.
5. p
ir:] only
here in Hex.
;
E is addicted to rare
expressions.
For
93
J,
cf. Ps. 26
73
13
. 6. its
DP]
for
itonp ;
G-K.
75^.
<?
jm]
=
permit, 3
i
7
,
Nu. 2O
21
2I
23
22*
(E),
Ex. I2
23
(J)i 3
1
(R),
Dt. i8
14
,
Jos.
io
19
(D)
: see
Off,
i.
192.
8. D
WK.i]
Juxd&H
pr.
*?3.
9.
uS
n^j?
no]
J5
^
t*^
v
]i
Vn^^ *wy
no,
318
ABRAHAM AT GERAR
(E)
that are not
done\
are not sanctioned
by
the conventional
code of morals : cf.
34*,
2 Sa.
i3
12
etc. To this rebuke
Abraham
(as
in i2
18f<
)
has no
reply,
and Abirnelech
proceeds
in 10 to
inquire
into his motive for so
acting.
nip
rPtO]
<
What
possessed
thee?
(v.t.).
11-13.
Abraham s self-
exculpation,
which is at the same time the writer s
apology
for his
conduct,
consists of three excuses:
(i)
he was
actuated
by
fear for his life
;
(2)
he had not been
guilty
of
direct
falsehood,
but
only
of mental reservation
;
(3)
the
deceit was not
practised
for the first time on
Abirnelech,
but
was a
preconcerted
scheme which
(it
is
perhaps implied)
had
worked well
enough
in other
places.
Whether 2 and
3
had
any
foundation in the Elohistic
tradition,
or were invented
by
the narrator ad hoc
(Gu.),
we cannot now determine.
II. There is no
piety (D^N nT)
in this
place}
Religion
was
the
only
sanction of international
morality,
the
ger having
no civil
rights
;
cf.
42
18
: see
Bertholet,
Stellung
d.
Fremden,
15.
Cf. i2
12
. 12.
Besides,
she
really
is
my
sister] Marriage
with a half-sister on the father s side was
frequent among
the Semites
(Smith,
KM
2
,
191 f.),
and was allowed in ancient
Israel
(2
Sa.
I3
13
), though prohibited by
later
legislation
(Dt. 27
22
,
Lv. i8
9- n
2o
17
). 13.
When God caused me to
stray]
The
expression
is
peculiar,
as if God had driven him
rashly adopted by
Ba. Ho. Kit.
"nKtsn]
<&
TjfidpTo/nev.
10.
p
wri
nip]
ffi
rl
tviduv
;
so
U.
Ba.
conj.
rwv
;
Gu.
p jrj.
The translation
given
above is
taken from
Bacher, ZATW,
xix.
345
ff.,
who cites
many examples
from
NH of the idiom
(lit.
What hast thou
experienced
?
).
II.
?]
us. mo *a
3.
P"]]
=
[I
should act
otherwise] only?
etc. : a
purely
asseverative force
(BOB)
seems to me
insufficiently
established
by
Dt.
4",
i K5. ai
28
,
2 Ch.
28
,
Ps.
32
6
. 12.
niDN]
jux
DJDN[n?],
as :8
13
,
Nu. 22
s7
;
but cf.
Jos. 7*.
These are all the occurrences in Hex.
13. iynn]
jju
nynn. The constr. of
Q
rih$
(pi. emin.}
with
pi. pred.
is
exceptional, though
not uncommon
(3I
88
35
7
, Jos. 24
19
),
and does not
appear
to be
regulated
in our
present
text
by any principle.
A
tendency
to substitute
sing,
for
pi.
is shown
by
I Ch.
i7
21
cpd.
with 2 Sa.
7
23
;
and it is
probable
that the
change
has
taken
place
in
many
cases where we have no means of
tracing
it : see
Str.
2
77
;
G-K.
145
i. A kindred and
equally inexplicable anomaly
is
the
sporadic
use of the art. with this word
(so
vv.
6- 17
).
Both
phenomena
are
probably
survivals from a
polytheistic
form of the
legend. "3KJ
jn +
m^o
pKW (as
I2
1
). mpon-^a]
determined
by following
1
relative clause;
so Ex. 20
24
,
Dt. n
24
.
XX. io-i6
319
forth an aimless wanderer
(Di.).
It
proves
that in
E,
as in
J
and
P,
Abraham was an
immigrant
in
Canaan.
14-18.
Abimelech makes
reparation
to Abraham.
14.
The
present
to Abraham in i2
16
was of the nature of
mohar or
purchase-price
of a wife
;
here it is a
compensation
for
injury unwittingly
inflicted. The restoration of Sarah
is,
of
course,
common to both accounts.
15.
The invitation to
dwell in the land is a contrast to the honourable but
peremptory
dismissal of I2
19f>
. 16.
see,
I
give
. . . to
thy
brother}
For
injury
done to a woman
compensation
was due
to her relatives if
unmarried,
to her husband if married or
betrothed
(Ex.
22
15f
-,
Dt. 22
23ff
-)
:
Abimelech,
with a touch
of
sarcasm, puts
Sarah in the former
category.
1000
(shekels) of silver]
not the
money
value of the
gifts
in v.
14
(Str.),
but a
special present
as a solatium on behalf of Sarah.
a
covering of
the
eyes\
seemingly
a forensic
expression
for
the
prestation by
which an offence ceases to be
seen, i.e.,
is
condoned. The
fig.
is
applied
in various
ways
in OT
;
cf.
Jb. 9
24
,
Gn.
32
21
,
Ex.
23
8
,
i Sa. i2
3
. The cl.
nroji bbvw
is
obscure,
and the text
hardly
correct
(v.i.).
The
general
sense is that Sarah s honour is
completely
rehabilitated.
14. JKK]
jmxffi
pr. } >]03 q^R (fr.
16
) wrongly.
nnsisn D
najn] probably
a
gl.
fr. i2
16
,
this
being-
the
only
instance of
nn?
;
in an E context. 16. run
^I?N
Nin]
(3r
raGra ecrrcu <rot e/s
Tifj,T]v
TOU
Trpoffuirov
<rov /cal Trdcrais TCUJ
ywera
crop
;
U hoc erit tibi in velamen oculorum ad omnes
qui
tecum sunt
\et
quocunque perrexeris]
;
&
.>V^>
* \ *")\ ^Ha(TLj OO1
^)| JO1O
- V>V>
^35
]i
> ^ - -A c* ^.y
The difficulties of the v. com
mence here. The
suggestion
that R?n refers to Abraham
(lEz.) may
be
dismissed,
and also the fantastic idea that Sarah is recommended to
spend
the
money
in the
purchase
of a
veil,
so that she
may
not
again
be
mistaken for an unmarried woman
(24
65
)
! The first
qn.
is,
Whose
eyes
are to be covered? Sarah s own
(T])),
or those of the
people
about her
(
in
Sb^),
or both
(Sb^i [with .uxffi])?
Di.
adopts
the second
view,
taking
rf?
as dat. comm. To this De.
forcibly replies
that dat. comm. before
dat. of reference is unnatural : hence he takes the first view
(TJ^,
dat. of
ref.,
and h^>
=
bezugs
aller
)
; i.e.,
"
Her credit with her
household,
which
had been
injured by
her forcible
abduction,
would be
restored,
and the
malicious taunts or
gossip
of men and maids would be
checked,
when
they
saw how
dearly
the unintentional insult had been atoned for"
(Ba.).
A better sense would be obtained if
IB^ Vb^
could be taken as
neuter: all that has befallen thee
(Tu.
Ho.
al.).
That is
perhaps
32O
BIRTH OF ISAAC
(j,
E,
P)
17.
God healed
Ab.]
The first
explicit
intimation
(see
4< 6
)
that Abimelech had been smitten with a
bodily malady,
whose nature is indicated
by
the last word
VP*).
18. A
superfluous
and
inadequate explanation
of
17
,
universally
recognised
as a
gloss
;
note also
mn\
">?]
see on i6
2
.
XXI. I -2 1 . Birth
of
Isaac and
Expulsion of
Ishmael
(J,
E,
and
P).
The
birth, circumcision,
and
naming
of Isaac are
briefly
recorded in a section
pieced together
from the three sources
(
1
~
7
).
Then follows a notice of the
weaning
festival
(
8
),
to
which,
by
a
finely descriptive
touch
(
9
),
is linked the
Elohistic version of the
origin
of the Ishmaelites
(
10
~
21
).
A
comparison
with the Yahwistic
parallel (ch. 16)
will be found
below
(p. 324).
Analysis.
2b-5
are from P
(who by
the
way ignores altogether
the
expulsion
of Ishmael
[see
on
25
9
])
: obs. the
naming by
the father and
the exact
correspondence
with i6
16
in
3
,
circumcision
(
4
),
the
chronology
(
5
)
;
and the words D
rf?,
2b- 4
; ny/io,
2b
(cf. if
1
)
; n# nxp,
5
.
*
is to be
assigned
to
J (V3j3|S J3, ?>.*.);
and
also,
for the same
reason,
7
. There
remain the doublets
la
II
lb
and
6a
II
6b
. Since the
continuity
of P is sel
dom
sacrificed,
lb
is
usually assigned
to that source
(m.r,
a scribal
error),
leaving
la
to
J (wrr, np).
6b
goes
with
7
(therefore J
:
v.i.)
;
and there
remains for E the
solitary
half-verse
^
(D nVtf),
which cannot
belong
to
P because of the different
etymology implied
for
pnx\
So Ho. Gu.
;
Di.
Str. differ
only
in
assigning
the whole of
6
to E. The
J fragments
u. 2a. 7. eb
form a
completely
consecutive account of the birth of
Isaac;
which, however,
is not the
sequel
to ch. 18
(see
on
6a
),
and therefore
impossible
with the
present
text;
hence Gu. s emendation
TJHN
(pf.
^/nnx
w. ace. :
Jb. 3
25
)
is not unattractive. nnaii
^"^N]]
Untranslatable.
(5r
Kol Trdvra
a\r)devcrov ;
IS
quocunque perrexeris
:
mementoque
te
depre-
hensam
;
5
. 1
.Amn] ^sQ^
^D ^LlO
(
about all wherewith thou
hast
reproached
me
)
;
&
nroin N mom ND SD
"?yi.
The
change
to
nrgi]
(2
s.
pf.)
is of no
avail,
the
difficulty being mostly
in
*?2TiNi,
which
cannot be continuation of
TJPIN
(Tu. al.),
or of
o;ry n^05
:J7,
but must with
MT accents be taken with 31. The
rendering
and before all men thou
shalt be
righted (Di.
De.
Dri.)
is the best that can be made of the text.
The easiest emendation is that of Gu. : nrtDJ iVs
?xi
=
and thou in all this
(affair)
art
justified, though
the sense
given
to 1^3 has no clear
example
in OT. The more drastic remedies of Ba. do not commend themselves.
18.
ni.r]
.01. DM
1
?**.
XXI. i-8
3
21
belongs
to
J
b
rather than
J
h
(Gu.).
8 21
is
wholly
Elohistic : D
nto,
12- "
is- 20-
; nwc,
10 12 13
;
u
1
?
DT,
1S- 18
(J
t(
>
nvy,
i2
2
;
P
/(
?
|ru, i;
20
)
;
and rare
expressions
like
nnn,
14- 15> 19
; wp ineo,
16
; nerp nan,
20
. Further character
istics are the revelation of God
by night (
12f
)>
and i n a voice from
heaven
(
17
).
1-7.
The birth of Isaac. 2. a son to his old
age\
so v.
7
24
36
37
3
44
20
(all J).
All the sources
emphasise
the fact that
Isaac was a late-born child
;
but this section contains
nothing implying-
a miracle
(ct.
chs.
17, 18). 3-5.
The
naming
and circumcision of
Isaac,
in accordance with
iy
19- 12
(P).
6a. God has made
laughter for
me]
Both here and in
6b
laughter
is an
expression
of
joy,
whereas in i8
12ff-
i7
17
it
expresses incredulity.
6b,
7
is the Yahwistic
parallel.
It
has been
pointed
out
by
Bu.
(Urg. 224:
so Kit. KS.
Ho.)
that the
transposition
of
6b
to the end of
7
greatly improves
the
sense,
and
brings
out the metrical form of the
original
(in
Heb.
4 trimeters)
:
Who would have said to
Abraham,
"
Sarah
gives
children suck
"
?
For I have borne him a son in his old
age
!
Every
one that hears will
laugh
at me !
8-10. Sarah demands the
ejection
of Ishmael. 8.
The occasion was the
customary family
feast of the
weaning
of Isaac
(Benz.
Arch.
2
131).
The
age
of
weaning
in
modern
Palestine is said to be 2 or
3 years (ib. 116);
in
ancient
Israel also it must often have been late
(i
Sa. i
22ff>
,
2
Mac.
la.
nps]
never used
by
P sensu bono
(Str.).
2. D
n^]
(& m,n\
3.
nSu.n] pointed
as
pf.
with art.
(i8
21
).
6a.
pn*]
The
N
/
pnx
never
occurs
outside of
Pent.,
except Ju.
i6
25
(where
pn
y]
should
probably
be
read)
and
Ezk.
23
32
(but
see Corn, and
Toy),
the
Qal being
used
only
in
connexion
with Isaac
(i;
17
i8
12- 13> 15
2i
6
),
while Pi. has a
stronger
sense
(19
2i
9
26
8
39
14- 17
,
Ex.
32
6
).
The other form
pnb
(not
in
Pent.)
is
mostly
later
than
Jer. (except Ju
I6
27
,
i Sa. i8
7
,
2 Sa. 2
14
6
5- 21
)
: in four cases
(Am. f-
16
,
Jer. 33
s6
,
Ps.
io5
9
)
even the name
pn^ appears
as
pn^%
It will be
seen
that in Gn. we have no fewer than
4 (17"
i8
12
2I
6*- 6b
)
or
5 (21
9
?)
different
suggestions
of a connexion of
pn^
with
^f
pnjf.
Analogy
would lead us to
suppose
that in
reality
it is a contraction of
7Kpn^,
in all
probability
the
name of an extinct tribe
(cf. ^Ny.p^^, Vxpirv,
etc.).
6b.
pnj;]
see G-K.
IO-.
7. VVp]
Aram.
;
in Heb. rare and
poetic.
On the modal use of
pf. (
would have said
),
cf. G-K.
io6/> ;
Dri. T.
19. D\n]
pi.
of
species ;
tf. Ex. 2I
22
,
i Sa.
I7
43
,
Ca. 2
9
(Di.).
(5r has
sing. vjpi
1
?]
ffi tv
T$ yr/pei pov.
21
322
EXPULSION OF HAGAR
(E)
7
27f
-). p. playing
with Isaac her
son]
The last words are
essential to the
sense,
and must be restored with
(JUr^J
(see
Jub.
xvii.
4,
with Charles s
Note).
It is the
spectacle
of
the two
young
children
playing" together,
innocent of social
distinctions,
that excites Sarah s maternal
jealousy
and
prompts
her cruel demand. The
chronology
of
P,
according
to which Ishmael was some
17 years
old,
has for uncritical
readers
spoiled
the effect
;
and
given
rise to the notion of
Ishmael as a rude lad
scoffing
at the
family joy,
or to the still
more fanciful
explanations
current in
Jewish
circles.* 10.
with
my
son]
If this
presupposes
an
equal right
of inheritance
as between the sons of the wife and the concubine
(Gu.),
it
also shows a certain
opposition
to that custom : cf. the
case of
Jephthah, Ju.
n
lff-
(see
Benz. Arch.
2
296).
this
slave
girl (
n
?^)]
In
E, Hagar
is not Sarah s
maid,
but
simply
a household
slave,
who has become her master s concubine.
11-13.
Abraham s
misgivings
removed. n. on
account
of
his
son]
whom he loves as his own flesh and
blood
;
for the
mother,
as a
slave,
he has no
particular
affection. 12. It is revealed to him
(by night
: cf.
14
)
that
Sarah s maternal instincts are in accord with the divine
purpose.
shall a seed be called to
thee\
i.e.,
*
in the line of
Isaac shall
thy
name be
perpetuated (Is. 4i
8
,
cf. Ro.
9
7
,
Heb. ii
18
).
The same idea otherwise
expressed
in P
(iy
19- 21
).
13. Hagar
s child
(still unnamed)
is also Abraham s
seed, though
his descendants are not to be known as such.
a
great
nation
(j*xffi3)]
cf.
i7
20
.
9. pnjjp]
(Er
iralovTa
/xerd
Itraa/c roO utoO
fair??? ;
so U
(cf.
Zee. 8
9
).
The sense mock
( play
with in a bad
sense)
would
require
a
following
3,
but it is doubtful
if it
actually
occurs.
39"-
17
may
be
explained
after
26
8
;
in
i9
14
it means
simply play
as
opposed
to serious behaviour
(cf.
Pr. 26
19
).
See above on v.
6
. On the
pausal ,
see G-K.
52
. n
end]
(JR +
loTuiijX (wrongly).
12.
jn:.]
(5r + r6
pjj/wu 13.
jux(3r
read
"?n: ^a
1
? roon noun : Vna also in
Uj$.
[ :]
1:6 D
^j
so v.
18
46
3
(E).
*
St. Paul s allusion to Ishmael as
persecuting
Isaac
(Gal. 4
29
,
^5iu>K^)
is based on this
pnsD.
For other
Haggadic interpretations,
see
Ber. R. liii
;
Dri.
DB,
ii.
503^
and Gen. 210.
Unchastity (cf. 39"
17
),
idolatry (Ex. 32",
&
Ra), attempted
murder
(2
Sa. 2
14
,
Pr. 26
19
),
etc.,
are
among
the crimes inferred from this unfortunate word.
xxi.
9-19
3
2
3
14-16.
Mother and child in the desert. The suffer
ings
and
despair
of the
helpless
outcasts are
depicted
with
fine
feeling
and
insight. 14.
a skin
of
water]
ripn
(v.z.)
t
the
usual Eastern
water-bag, answering
to the
girby
of the
modern Bedouin
(Doughty,
Ar. Des. i.
227,
ii.
585).
and the
boy
he
placed
on her shoulder
(v.i.]\
cf.
15> 16
. the wilderness
of
Beersheba
(see
on
31
)]
implying
that Abraham dwelt
near,
but not
necessarily
at,
Beersheba.
15.
she cast the
boy (whom,
therefore,
she must have been
carrying)
under
one
of
the
bushes]
for
protection
from the sun
(i
Ki.
i9
4f-
).
To save P s
chronology,
De. and Str. make cast
=
eilends
niederlegen
with what
advantage
does not
quite appear.
16.
a bowshot
off]
out of
sight
of her
child,
but within
hearing
of his
cry.
The last cl. should be read with
(j ;
and the
boy lifted up
his voice and
wept (v.
17
)
: the
change
of
subject being
due to the false
impression
that Ishmael was
now a
grown
lad.
Hagar
s
dry-eyed despair
is a more
effective
picture
than that
given by
MT.
17-19.
The Divine succour comes in two forms : a
voice from heaven
(
17f
-),
and an
opening
of
Hagar
s
eyes (
19
).
17.
God
heard] (twice) preparing
for an
explanation
of
^y^\-_While
God Himself
hears,
the medium of His
revelation is the
Angel of
God
(as
28
12
3i
n
32*,
Ex.
i4
19
),
who
by
a refinement
peculiar
to E
(22
11
) speaks from
heaven.
This
goes beyond
the
primary conception
of the
Angel
: see
on i6
7
. 18.
Hagar
is
encouraged by
a disclosure of the
future
greatness
of her son.
19. opened
her
eyes]
cf.
3
5- 7
.
14.
nnn] Only
here
(
15> 19
)
=
Ar. hannt
( ^ hamita,
rancid
?).
On
the forms
npn,
ncp,
or
ncn, nan,
see G-K.
95
/. ui
-Vy
CB-]
The trans
position ncpsrVy
n?
"iVnvw was
suggested by Ols.,
and is
by
far the best
remedy
for an awkward constr. In MT it would be
necessary
to take
nvmi as second
obj.
to
jrn,
and
TODtr^y
as? as a
parenthetic
circumst. cl.
(so
Di. De.
Str.).
It is an effort to evade the
absurdity
of a
youth
of
17 being
carried on his mother s back.
15.
Dn
tsri]
desert shrubs
;
see
on 2
5
. 16.
prnn]
G-K.
113
h.
nvp
intiDD]
lit. as
(far as)
bowmen
do
;
& uxrel
rdgoi; po\-/iv,
&
]
A O *~>
],
V)
^],
hardly imply
a different
text. On inisD
(ptc.
Pal.
v
/nna,
only here),
see G-K.
75^.
in
&
TP..l
nVp-nN
[i^n] N^I. I7b.
Sr
1
?*]
MSS and jux
J?TIN.
19.
D D
( +
on
}
attractive !
(cf.
26
19
).
324
EXPULSION OF HAGAR
(E)
The tact of the narrator leaves us in doubt whether the well
was now
miraculously opened,
or had been there all
along
though
unseen. In
any
case it is henceforth a sacred well.
20,
21. Ishmael s career. Here we
expect
the
naming
of the
child,
based on v.
17
: this has been omitted
by
R in
favour of
J (i6
n
).
20. The
boy grew up,
amidst the
perils
and
hardships
of the
desert,
a
proof
that God was with htm.
he became a
bowman] (pt. niPiJ
roh
:
v.t.),
the bow
being
the
weapon
of his descendants
(Is.
2i
17
).
21. The wilderness
of
Paran is
et-Tih,
bounding
the
Negeb
on the S. His
mother took him a wife
from
the land
of Egypt\
her own
country (v.
9
)
: see
p. 285
above.
Comparison of
ch. 16 with 2I
1 21
. That these two narratives are
variations of a common
legendary
theme is obvious from the
identity
of
the
leading
motives
they embody
: viz. the
significance
of the name
Ishmael
(i6
u
2i
17
)
;
the mode of life characteristic of his descendants
(i6
12
2i
20
)
;
their relation to Israel
;
and the sacredness of a certain
well,
consecrated
by
a
theophany (i6
7 - t4
2i
19
).*
Each tale is an exhaustive
expression
of these
motives,
and does not tolerate a
supplementary
anecdote
alongside
of it. Ch.
21, however,
represents
a
conception
of
the incident further removed from
primitive
conditions than 16 : contrast
the
sympathetic picture
of nomadic life in i6
12
with the colourless notice
of 2 1
20
;
in
16, moreover,
Hagar
is a
high-spirited
Bedawi woman who
will not brook
insult,
and is at home in the desert
;
while in 21 she is a
household
slave who
speedily
succumbs to the
hardships
of the wilder
ness.
In E the
appeal
is to universal human
sympathies
rather than to
the
peculiar
susceptibilities
of the nomad nature
;
his narrative has a
touch of
pathos
which is absent from
J ;
it is marked
by
a
greater
refinement
of moral
feeling,
and
by
a less
anthropomorphic
idea of God.
See the admirable characterisation of Gu.
p. 203
f.
2O.
ntyp
rm
%
n"i]
and he
became, growing up,
an archer
;
U
juvenis Sagittarius
(so 3T).
But
n^p
is air.
elprjfj,.,
the
syntax
is
pecu
liar, and, besides,
the
growing up
has been
already
mentioned. The
true text is doubtless that
given
above and
implied by
<&
tytvero
8t
To6rr)s.
&
"(A
- o
]oCTI
^lXjO
also
implies n^g ;
but there are further
divergences
in that Vn. nm
=
shoot
(not
so
elsewhere), might
be a
by-form
of am
(see
on
49
23
;
and cf. m=
shooter,
in
Jer. 5o
29
, Jb.
i6
13
) ;
but it
may
be a
question
whether in these three cases we should not
substitute ran for
nm,
or whether in this
pass,
we should not read
ron
n$>i3
with Ba.
(see esp.
Jer. 4
29
,
Ps.
78
9
).
The
rendering
*
a
shooter,
an
archer
(De.),
is
clumsy
;
and the idea that
rvfp
is an
explanatory
gloss
on
n^
n
(KS.)
is not
probable.
*
The well is not identified in E. Gu. s
view,
that it was Beersheba,
has little to commend it.
XXI. 20-26
3
2
5
XXI.
22-34.
Abrahams Covenant with Abimelech
(E
and
J).
Two distinct
narratives,
each
leading up
to a covenant
at
Beersheba,
are here combined.
(A)
In the
first, Abraham,
acceding
to a
request
of
Abimelech,
enters into a covenant
of
permanent friendship
with
him,
from which the
place
derives its name Well of the Oath
(
22
~
24- 27- 31
)
.
(B)
In the
other,
the covenant closes a
long-standing dispute
about
springs,
and secures the claim of Abraham s
people
to the
wells of
Beersheba,
where Abraham
subsequently plants
a
sacred tree
(
25- 26- 28
-
30- 32- 3S
).
Sources. The
passage, except
some redactional touches in
S2 34
,
has
usually
been
assigned
to E
(We.
Kue. Di. Ho.
Str.).
Its
disjointed
character
has, however,
been
felt,
and tentative solutions have been
proposed by
several critics
(cf.
KS. Anm.
92, 93
;
Kraetz.
Bundvorstg.
14, 31
;
v.
Gall,
CSt.
46
f.
;
OH. ii.
30 f.).
The most successful is that of
Gu.,
who
assigns
^ ^ 28 30- 32 w
to
J,
the rest to E: the reasons will
appear
in the notes. The
analysis
rests on the
duplicates (
27a
u
so
*,
S7b
j
32a)
an^ material
discrepancies
of the section
;
the
linguistic
criteria
being
indecisive as between
J
and
E, though quite
decisive
against
P
(npn,
njn,
2S
;
nn? ms,
27
;
inyj,
30
).
But the connexion with ch.
20,
and Q n^K
in
22- 2S
, prove
that the main account is from E
;
while
mrr, ^
and
luj/a,
80
,
show the other to be
J.
Since the scene is
Beersheba,
the Yahwistic
component
must be
J
b
.
32
"
S4
have been
considerably
modified
by
R.
Procksch
(loff.)
holds that in the
original
E v.
22ff-
preceded
^
;
his
detailed
analysis being
almost identical with Gu. s.
22-24.
Abimelech
proposes
an oath of
perpetual amity
between his
people
and Abraham
s,
and the latter consents
(E).
22. Pikol
(v.i.),
his
Commander-in-chief,
seems here
merely
a
symbol
of the
military importance
of Gerar: other
wise 26
26ff
-,
where P. is a
party
to the covenant.
23.
Swear
to me
here]
in the
place
afterwards known as Beersheba
(
31
).
Abraham s
departure
from
Gerar,
and Abimelech s visit to
him in
Beersheba,
must have stood in E between 2O
17
and
2i
22
(cf.
26
13- 26
). 24.
This unreserved consent is incon
sistent with the
expostulation
of
25,
26
(J),
which
pre-
22.
STEI]
(5
pr.
/ta2
Oxofd0
6
vv/j-faywybs
avrov
(fr.
26*
6
).
Spiegelberg
(OLz,
ix.
109)
considers this one of the few
Egyptian
names in OT
=p
<
H-r{j),
"
the
Syrian." 23. ON]
G-K.
149
c. i^i
J J] (proles etsoboles)
an
alliterative
phrase
found in Is.
I4
22
, Jb.
i8
19
,
Sir.
41 47
22
f.
25.
wvn]
"
must be corrected to
nsVi
"
(Ba.,
cf. G-K. 112
tt)
: JUUL rran. But
326
THE COVENANT WITH ABIMELECH
(E, j)
supposes
strained relations between the
parties,
and
repeated
disputes
about the
ownership
of wells. Note
(i)
the fre
quentative
rpini,
(
2
)
the
pi.
<
wells
(retained by ffi), (3)
the
fuller
parallel
of 26
15- 18ff
-,
which shows that the
right
to
several wells had been contested. And as
often
as Abraham
took Abimelech to task about the wells . . . Abimelech would
answer]
that he knew
nothing-
of the matter
(so Gu.).
27. Continuing
24
(E). Giving (or exchange?)
of
presents
seems to have been
customary
when a covenant was made
(i
Ki.
i5
19
,
Is.
30,
Ho. i2
2
).
The action would be no suit
able answer to v.
26
.
28-30
(J).
the seven ewe lambs are set
apart
for the
purpose explained
in
30
;
but the art. shows
that
they
must have been mentioned in the
previous
context.
It is clear from
30
that the lacuna is in
J,
not in
E;
while
Abimelech s
question
29
proves
that the lambs were not an
understood
part
of the
ceremony (Di.).
30.
that it
(the
acceptance
of the
present) may
be a
witness,
etc.]
so that in
future there
may
be no
quarrel
about Beersheba.
31
be
longs
to E :
W3KO,
cf.
23f-
; Dn^,
cf.
27
. VlW
"i3 =
*
seven
wells,
is here
explained
as Well of the
Oath,
the oath
being
the central feature of the berith. The
etymology
is not
altogether
at
fault,
since V3B
3
may
mean lit. to
put
oneself
under the influence of
seven,
the sacred number
(Her.
iii.
8;
Horn. //. xix.
243
ff.
;
Paus. iii. 20.
9). 32a. J
s
parallel
to
27b
.*
33.
The
inauguration
of the cult of Beersheba
(J
: cf.
MT is
probably right,
with
freqve.
sense of
pf. given
above. For the
following-
TDtn
(instead
of
TOW),
see Dri. T.
11418. T*O]
<&
0pedrwv,
ut
sup.
28.
|N* TJ
JUUL
(which
also omits
TIN)
JNS.
De. thinks this one of the
few cases
(G-K. 127 e)
where art. determines
only
its own
word,
and
not the whole
expression. 29.
Rd. rwaan with juu
(
30
).
nra
1
?
(jot jmaS)].
On suff. cf. G-K.
91^
The form is
chiefly pausal
;
and
though
the
only
other ex. in Pent.
(Gn. 42
36
)
is
E, 3O
41
(n$ v-)
is
J,
and the form cannot be
considered distinctive of E.
31.
jnt?
TN3]
(Or
4>peap o/moyxou,
but in
^
4>. TOV
8pKov.
The constr.
(num.
in
gen.
after
sing, noun)
has been
supposed by
Sta. to be Canaanite idiom
(cf.
MTN
nnp, 23
2
). 33. ty&]
Ar.
aff,
Aram.
*
32b
would be a natural conclusion to E s narrative
(cf.
22
),
but for
the fact that that source never
speaks
of a Philistine
occupation
of Gerar.
The last three
vv., however,
seem to have been altered
by
a
compiler.
It is
probable
that
J gave
an
explanation
of the name of the
well,
con
necting
it with the seven lambs
;
so 3P
(JSTIH
jntn
Kva).
XXI.
27-34
3
2
7
26
25
). Among
the sacra of that famous shrine there must
have been a sacred tamarisk believed to have been
planted
by
Abraham
(see
on i2
6
).
The
planting
of a sacred tree
is no more a contradictio in
adjecto (Sta.
in v.
Gall,
47)
than
the
erecting
of a sacred
stone,
or the
digging
of a sacred
well. The
opinion (KS. Ho.)
that the
subj.
is
Isaac,
and
that the v. should stand after 26
25
,
rests on the incorrect as
sumption
that no stratum of
J puts
Abraham in connexion
with Beersheba. El
Oldm]
presumably
the
pre-Israelite
name of the local
mimen,
here identified with Yahwe
(Gu.
:
see i6
13
).
Canaanite
analogies
are
T
HXos 6 KCU
KpoVos (Eus.
Prcep.
Ev. i.
10,
13 ff.),
and
XpoVos ayijparos (Damasc.
Princ.
123). 34.
The
assumption
that Beersheba was in Philistine
territory being incompatible
with
32b
,
the v. must be an in
terpolation.
On the historical
background
of these
legends,
see after 26
33
.
Beersheba is the modern
Bfr-es-Sebd,
in the heart of the
Negeb,
some 28 miles SW from
Hebron,
and
25
SE from Umm el-Gerar. Its
importance
as a
religious
centre in OT
appears
not
only
from its fre
quent
mention in the
patriarchal history (22
19
26
23ff- 31ff>
28
10
46
lff>
),
but still
more from the fact that in the 8th cent, its oracle
(cf. 25
22
)
was resorted
to
by pilgrims
from the northern
kingdom (Am. 5
5
8
14
).
V. Gall
(44 ff.)
questions
the
opinion
that it was
originally
a
group
of
7 wells,
holding
that there was but
one,
whose name meant Well of the Oath. But that
"
among
the Semites a
special sanctity
was attached to
groups
of seven
wells
"
is shown
by
Smith
(R&,
181 f. : cf. No.
ARW,
vii.
340 ff.) ;
and
the existence of a
plurality
of wells at Bi r es-Seba has never been dis
puted.
See Rob.
BR,
i.
204
ff.
; Smith, HG, 284
f.
; Robinson,
BibL
World,
xvii.
(1901), 247
ff.
; Gautier,
ib. xviii.
49
ff.
;
Dri.
ET,
vii.
(1896), 567
f.
;
Joel
and Amos*
(1901), p. 239
f.
; Trumbull, ET,
viii.
89.
CH. XXII. The
Sacrifice of
Isaac
(E
and R
JE
).
The
only
incident in Abraham s life
expressly
character
ised as a trial of his faith is the one here
narrated,
where
the
patriarch proves
his readiness to offer
up
his
only
son
*?nN,
Ass.
aslu\
\ Sa. 22
6
3i
13
[in
i Ch. io
12
nj>N]
t,
in both cases
prob
ably denoting
a sacred tree. The word seems to have been
strange
to
Vns. : (5
apovpav, Aq. oevopwva.,
2.
(jivreiav,
U
netnus,
etc. The substitution
of rniyN
proposed by
Sta.
(v.s.)
is uncalled
for,
though
see
EB,
4892
f.
D
1
?^]
MX
D^iy-x
34
is
wanting
in &
(ed. Ginsburger).
328
THE SACRIFICE OF ISAAC
(E)
as a sacrifice at the command of God. The
story,
which is
the
literary masterpiece
of the Elohistic
collection,
is told
with
exquisite simplicity; every
sentence vibrates with re
strained
emotion,
which shows how
fully
the author realises
the
tragic
horror of the situation.
Source. The
original
narrative consists of vv.
1
"
14- 19
. In
spite
of m.v
in
n- 14
,
this
belongs
to E : cf. D
r6s[n],
* 3- s. 9. 12 .
nriy
5
;
the revelation
by night,
lff>
;
the
Angel calling
from
heaven,
n
. On
15 18
see below.
Comp.
Di. Ho. Gu.
1-8. Abraham s
willing preparation
for the sacri
fice. I. God
tempted Abraham]
i.e.,
tested
him,
to "know
what was in his heart
"
(Dt.
8
2
),
an
anthropomorphic
re
presentation
: cf. Ex. i6
4
2o
20
,
Dt. 8
16
13* 33
8
etc. This
sentence
governs
the narrative and
prepares
the reader for
a
good ending.
2.
thy
son thine
only
one whom thou lovest
Isaac]
emphasising
the
greatness
of the
sacrifice,
as if to
say
that God knows
right
well how much He asks. the land
of
Moriyyah
(nnfon)]
All
attempts
to
explain
the name and
identify
the
place
have been futile.
The
prevalent Jewish
and Christian tradition
puts
the scene on the
Temple
mount at
Jerusalem (nnVsn
in,
2 Ch.
3
1
;
rb
Mciptoi/ 6pos, Jos.
Ant.
\.
224,
cf.
226).
But
(a)
the attestation of the name is so late and unre
liable that it is a
question
whether the Chronicler s use of it rests on a
traditional
interpretation
of this
passage,
or whether it was introduced
here on the
strength
of his notice,
(b)
Even if
nna[n]
were a
genuine
ancient name for the
Temple
hill,
it is not credible that it was extended
to the land in which it
was,
and still less that the hill itself should be
described as one of the mountains in the
region
named after it.
There is reason to
suspect
that the name of a land
may
have been modi
fied
(either
in accordance with a fanciful
etymology [v.
14
],
or on the
authority
of 2 Ch.
3
1
)
in order that the chief
sanctuary
of later times
I.
n in
nrw] I5
1
. HDJ D
nVxni]
The reluctance of
grammarians
to
admit that this can be the main
sent.,
and
apod,
after time determina
tion,
is
intelligible (De.
Di.
Gu.),
the order
being
that of the circumst.
cl.
;
but it is
difficult,
without
sophistical
distinctions,
to take it
any
other
way.
As cir. cl. it could
only
mean when God had
tempted
A.,
which is nonsense
;
and to
speak
of it as a
Verumstandung
of the fol.
iDN i
(De.)
is to deceive oneself with a word. The
right explanation
in
Dri. T.
78 (3). O.TIDK] repeated
in F
;
cf. ". 2.
.vion]
The word was
no doubt
popularly
connected with
^/
nio as used in
14
(cf.
JUUL
nNY.Dn, Aq.
rrjv KaTafiavrj,
S.
TTJS 6wTa<rias,
U
vtstonis), though
a real derivation from
that
V
is
impossible,
ffi
rty v^ijX^v (cf.
i2
6
).
&
has
xxii. i-8
3
2
9
might
not be
altogether ignored
in the
patriarchal history.
The
Samaritan
tradition identified Moriah with Shechem.* This view
hay been revived in two forms :
(i)
that the name is a
corruption
or
variant of
.TYID in i2
6
etc.
(Bleek,
SIC, 1831, 520
ff.
; Tu.,
v. Gall
[see
(5r
inf.])
;
and
(2)
that it is a
corruption
of
onbq (
land of the Hamorites
[3T
19
]) (We.).
But both these names are too local and restricted to suit
the context
;
and the distance is
perhaps
too
great.
Of the
attempts
to recover the
original
name,
the
simplest
is
"PSfJ X
which would be a
natural
designation
of Palestine in E :
f
see on io
16
. If the
legend
be
very
ancient,
there is no
certainty
that the
place
was in the
Holy
Land
at all.
Any
extensive mountainous
region,
well known at the
time,
and
with a
lingering
tradition of human
sacrifice,
would
satisfy
the condi
tions.
Hence,
Che. s
suggestion
that the land of Musri is to be read
(EB, 3200;
Wi.
GI,
ii.
44),
is not devoid of
plausibility.
On Gu. s
solution,
see below.
which
I will name to
thee\
When this more
precise
direction
was
imparted,
does not
appear. 3.
While the outward
pre
parations
are
graphically
described,
no word is
spared
for the
conflict
in Abraham s
breast,
a
striking
illustration of the
reticence of the
legends
with
regard
to mental states.
4.
saw the
place afar off\
The
spot, therefore,
has
already
been
indicated
(v.
2
).
We are left to
imagine
the
pang
that shot
through
the father s heart when he
caught sight
of it.
5.
Another
touch,
revealing
the tense
feeling
with which the
story
is told : the servants are
put
off with a
pretext
whose
hollowness
the reader knows. 6. "The
boy
carries the
heavier
load,
the father the more
dangerous
: knife and fire
"
(Gu.).
It is curious that OT has no allusion to the method
of
producing
fire.
7>
8. The
pathos
of this
dialogue
is
inimitable : the artless
curiosity
of the
child,
the
irrepressible
(
worship ). 3.
J
atrnN]
So Nu. 22
22
. The determination is
peculiar.
That it means the two slaves with whom a
person
of
import
ance
usually
travelled
(Gu.)
is little
probable.
It is
possible
that in this
legend
Abraham
was conceived as a man of moderate
wealth,
and that
these were all the servants he had.
5.
m
-iy]
On ns as
demonst. of
place,
see
BDB,
s.v.
(
rare,
chiefly
in E
)
;
cf.
3i
37
.
7.
"J3
33.1] Yes,
my
son
;
the Here am I of EV is much too
pompous.
dRU excel
lently
: rl
tanv,
T^KVOV
;
Quid vis,
fili
? 8.
wn]
JUA
(3r
om. art.
(Ba.).
*
See
ZDPV,
vi.
198,
vii.
133.
V. Gall
(CSt. 112)
seems in error
when he
says
this was a.
Jewish
tradition.
t
But it is doubtful
if the restoration can claim the
authority
of
J5,
for that Vn. reads
U Q^l? ]>Q-
in 2 Ch-
3
1
also.
33O
THE SACRIFICE OF ISAAC
(E)
affection of the
father,
and the stern
ambiguity
of his
reply,
can
hardly
be read without tears. Note the effect of the
repetition:
and
they
went both
of
them
together (
6>s
).
God
will
provide]
nxT,
lit. look out
;
as
4i
33
[Dt.
I2
13
33
21
],
i Sa. I6
1- 17
. The word
points
forward to v.
14
.
9-14.
The sacrifice averted.
9,
10. The w. describe
with
great
minuteness the
preliminary
ritual of the !"6ty in
highly
technical
language (=l"}y, "iBjf, BHE?)
;
v.i.
II,
12. At
the extreme moment Abraham s hand is
stayed by
a voice
from heaven. II is
certainly
from
E; nifT
1
must therefore
be a redactional accommodation to v.
15
(cf.
<
inf.).
The
repetition
of Abraham
expresses urgency
;
as
46
2
,
Ex.
3* (E),
i Sa.
3
10
. 12. The
Angel speaks
in the name of
God,
as
i6
10
,
2 1
18
. now 1
know,
etc.]
Thus
early
was the truth
taught
that the essence of sacrifice is the moral
disposition
(Ps. 5i
18f>
).
13.
The substitution of the ram for the human
victim takes
place
without
express command,
Abraham re
cognising by
its
mysterious presence
that it was
*
provided
by
God for this
purpose. I4a.
The
naming
of the
place
is
an essential feature of the
legend,
and must therefore be
assigned
to E.
HOT iTiiT
alludes to v.
8
;
but that
any
sanctuary actually
bore this name is
scarcely probable.
In
truth,
it seems to be
given
as the
explanation,
not of a
name,
but of a current
proverbial saying (Sta.
GVI>
i.
450),
which
can
hardly
be the
original
intention
(see below). I4b.
The
words
nV
njrT
"inn
yield
no sense
appropriate
to the
context.
MT
might
be rendered :
(a)
In the mount of Yahwe he
(it)
is
seen
(Str.),
or
(b)
In the mount of Y. men
appear [for worship]
(Dri.
220,
cf. Ql
o
inf.),
or
(disregarding- ace.) (c)
In the mount where V. is
9. ~\~\y]
of the
arranging
of the wood on the
altar,
i Ki. iS
33
,
Nu.
23*,
Is
30^. npy] (&TT. Xe7.)
in NH means to bind the bent fore- and hind-
legs
of an animal for sacrifice
(Dri.)
:
(&
av/jurodiffas.
IO. DDK* is techni
cally
to cut the throat of a sacrificial victim
(Jacob,
ZATW,
xvii.
51).
II.
mrr]
jg
D
rtSg
;
so v.
15
.
13.
in*
SN]
a ram behind
;
so Tu. Di. De.
Str.
(C,
2. in
temp, sense).
AXI
<->,
//^.
and Heb. MSS have
nnx
K,
a
[certain]
ram
;
which
may
be
nichtssagend>
but is
preferable
to MT
(Ho. Gu.).
Rd. also
(with <S)
in*o
(ptcp.)
for
pf. -poa]
ffi
iv
<pvrf
jafttK,
2. ev
BiKTiKf) (np5^2), Aq.
tv
0-i>x"ewj t,
IS infer
vcpres. 14.
The
paraphrase
of E is
interesting
: And A.
worshipped
and
prayed
there
XXII.
9-19
33
*
seen : in this case the
saying
would be ntfv m,v
(
14a
),
and
14b
would
merely
mean that it was used in the
Temple
mount. All these are ob
viously unsatisfactory.
With a
slight change ("in?
for
?)
the cl. would
read In the mount Y.
appears (so (5),
or
(with n$rv
for
n$rv)
In . . .
Y. sees
(U<S).
The text has
probably
been altered under the same
tendency
which
gave
rise to nnb in v.
2
;
and the
recovery
of the
original
is
impossible.
Gu.,
with brilliant
ingenuity, conjectures
that
the name of the
sanctuary
was
Sxn:
(2
Ch. 2O
16
)
;
this he inserts after
wnrr
;
and restores the remainder of the v. as follows :
in?
Dvn TEN
TJ^N
D
rrVg n$n!
=
for he
said,
"To-day,
in this
mountain,
God
provideth."
15-19.
Renewal of the
promises:
Conclusion.
15.
The occasion seemed to a
Jehovistic
red. to demand an
ampler
reward than the
sparing
of Isaac
;
hence a
supple
mentary
revelation
(WW)
is
appended.
16.
By myself
I
swear]
cf. Ex.
32
13
(also
R
JE
),
elsewhere Is.
45
23
,
Jer.
22
5
49
13
f.
nin
1
*
DtO]
lit. murmur of
Yahwe,
an
expression
for
the
prophetic inspiration,
whose
significance
must have been
forgotten
before it could be
put
in the mouth of the
Angel.
Even P
(Nu. i4
28
)
is more
discriminating
in his use of the
phrase. 17. occupy
the
gate of
their
enemies]
i.e.,
take
possession
of their cities
(( TroAets)
;
cf.
24.
18.
by thy
seed . . . bless themselves
(Hithp.)]
So
26*;
cf. Dt.
2Q
18
,
Is.
6
5
16
,
Jer. 4
2
,
Ps.
72
17
f.
See on i2
3
.
19.
The return to
Beersheba is the close of E s
narrative,
continuing
v.
14
.
The
secondary
character of
15
~
18
is clear not
only
from its loose
connexion with the
primary narrative,
but also from its combination
of Elohistic
conceptions
with Yahwistic
phraseology,
the absence of
originality,
the
improper
use of m.V
DNJ,
etc. Cf. We. Com
p.
2
20
;
Di.
291
;
Ho.
165.
The view of De.
(324 f.j
and Str.
(82),
that
14 18
are from
a
J parallel
to 22
1 14
,
is untenable.
The difficult
question
of the
meaning
of this incident is
approached
from two sides,
(i)
Those who
regard
it as a literal occurrence in the
life of a man of eminent
piety, holding
views of truth in advance of
his
age,
are
undoubtedly
able to
give
it an
interpretation charged
with
deep religious significance.
Familiar with the rite of child-
sacrifice
amongst
the
surrounding
heathen,
the
patriarch
is conceived
(o^
for
cty),
in that
place, saying
before the
Lord,
Here shall
generations
worship.
So it is said at this
day,
In this mountain A.
worshipped
before the Lord.
HNT;
m,v
nn?]
Qfc
v T
&pei
KI
/MOS &(f>6i],
U in monfe
Dominiis
videbit,
16
end]
Add
|ED
as v.
12
: so
&U.
18.
i& N
npy]
elsewhere
only
26,
2 Sa. i a
6
.
332
THE SACRIFICE OF ISAAC
(E)
as arrested
by
the
thought
that even this terrible sacrifice
might
rightly
be demanded
by
the
Being
to whom he owed all that he was
;
and as
brooding
over it till he seemed to hear the voice of God
calling
on him to offer
up
his own son as
proof
of devotion to Him. He is
led on
step by step
to the
very verge
of
accomplishing
the
act,
when an
inward monition
stays
his
hand,
and reveals to him that what God
really
requires
is the surrender of the will that
being
the truth in his
previous
impression
;
but that the sacrifice of a human life is not in accord
ance with the character of the true God whom Abraham
worshipped.
But it must be felt that this line of
exposition
is not
altogether satisfying.
The
story
contains no word in
repudiation
of human
sacrifice,
nor
any
thing
to enforce what must be
supposed
to be the main
lesson, viz.,
that
such sacrifices were to find no
place
in the
religion
of Abraham s
descendants.
(2) Having regard
to the
origin
of
many
other Genesis
narratives,
we must admit the
possibility
that the one before us is a
legend, explaining
the substitution of animal for human sacrifices in
some
type
of ancient
worship.
This view is worked out with remark
able skill
by
Gu.
(211-214),
who thinks he has recovered the lost name
of the
sanctuary
from certain
significant expressions
which seem to
prepare
the mind for an
etymological interpretation
: viz.
nN~j
D
tf^gi
8
(cf.
14
)
;
D
rf^f
NT
12
;
and
^N
[rum] N"i!],
13
. From these indications he
concludes that the
original
name in
14
was
Sxn;
;
and he is
disposed
to
identify
the
spot
with a
place
of that name somewhere near
Tekoa,
mentioned in 2 Ch. 2O
16
(Vhin^
in i Ch.
7
2
is excluded
by geographical
considerations).
Here he
conjectures
that there was a
sanctuary
where
the custom of child-sacrifice had been modified
by
the substitution of a
ram for a human
being.
The basis of Gn. 22 would then be the local
cultus-legend
of this
place. Apart
from the
philological speculations,
which are
certainly pushed
to an
extreme,
it is not
improbable
that
Gu. s
theory correctly expresses
the character of the
story
;
and that
it
originally belonged
to the class of
astiological legends
which
every
where weave themselves round
peculiarities
of ritual whose real
origin
has been
forgotten
or obscured. An older
cultus-myth
of the same
kind is found in the Phoenician
story
in which Kronos
actually
sacrifices
his
only
son leoud
(nin
=
Tn;?)
or ledouS
(TT ?)
to his father Uranus
(Eus. Prcep.
Ev. i.
10, 29).
The sacrifice of
Iphigeneia,
and the later
modification in which a hind is substituted for the
maiden, readily
suggests
itself as a
parallel (Eurip. Iph.
Aid.
1540 ff.).
XXII.
20-24.
The Sons
of
Nahor
(J,R).
In the
singular
form of a
report brought
to
Abraham,
there is here introduced a list of 12 tribes
tracing
their
descent to Nahor.
Very
few of the names can be identified
;
but so far as the indications
go, they point
to the
region
E and NE of Palestine as the area
peopled by
the Nahorite
family.
The division into
legitimate (
2
-
23
)
and
illegitimate
xxii.
20-24
333
(
24
)
sons
expresses
a distinction between the
pure-blooded
stock and
hybrid,
or
perhaps
alien and
subjugated,
clans
(Guthe,
GVI,
5).
The vv. bear the unmistakable
signature
of a Yahwistic
genealogy
:
cf. KVJ Da
2 - 24
,
w.
4
22- 26
io
21
i
9
38
;
2U
w. io
15
;
^
w.
9
19
(io
29
25
4
)
;
n
1
?;
(see p. 98).
Of P s
style
and manner there is no trace
;
and with
regard
to Uz and
Aram,
there is a material
discrepancy
between
the two documents
(v.
21
cpd.
with io
22f>
).
The
introductory
formula
nn "in nrm is not
exclusively
Elohistic
(see
on
I5
1
),
and in
any
case
would be an insufficient reason for
ascribing- (We. Comp.* 29 f.)
the whole
section to E. See Bu.
Urg.
220 ff. The
genealogy appears
to have
been inserted with reference to ch.
24,
from which it was afterwards
separated by
the
amalgamation
of P
(ch. 23)
with the older documents.
Its
adaptation
to this context
is, however,
very imperfect.
Here
Abraham is informed of the birth of Nahor s
children,
whereas in the
present
text of
24
the
grandchildren (Laban
and
Rebekah)
are
grown
up.
Moreover,
with the excision of the
gloss
23a
(v.i.),
the
only point
of direct contact with ch.
24 disappears
;
and even the
gloss
does not
agree
with the view of Rebekah s
parentage originally given by J
(see
on
24
15
).
Hence we must
suppose
that the basis of the
passage
is
an ancient
genealogy,
which has been
recast, annotated,
and inserted
by
a Yahwistic writer at a
stage
later than the
composition
of ch.
24,
but earlier than the final redaction of the Pent.
20.
n^o]
see on n
29
.
TON
Tim
1
?]
n
22
. 21.
py]
in io
23
a subdivision
of
Aram,
is here the
principal (TO?)
Nahorite tribe
(cf. 36
28
).
na
(Bai ,
Bauf, etc.)]
mentioned in
Jer. 25
23
after DSdan and
Tema,
is
probably
the Bazu of Esarhaddon s inscr.
(KIB,
ii.
130 f.),
an unidentified dis
trict of N Arabia
(so Jb. 32
2
). ^iDp]
unknown
;
see
Praetorius,
ZDMG, 1903, 780.
D"ig ?
(-rrar^pa ^Lvpwv)
is
possibly
a
gloss (Gu.),
but the classification of the
powerful
Aramaeans
(see
on io
22
)
as a
minor branch of the Nahorites is none the less
surprising
: see
p. 334
below. 22.
"i^f]
The
eponym
of the
nnips.
But whether
by
these the
well-known Chaldaeans of S
Babylonia
are meant is a difficult
question.
Probability
seems in favour of the
theory
that
here,
as in 2 Ki.
24
2
, Jb.
I
17
,
an Arabian
(or
rather
Aramaean)
nomadic tribe is to be
understood,
from which the Bab.
Dn^j
may
have
sprung (Wi. AOF,
ii.
250
ff.
;
Gu.).
The result has a
bearing
on the
meaning
of
ArpakSad
in io
32
(see
also on ii
28
).
itn
( AfaD)] probably
the Hazfi mentioned after B&zu
in Esarhaddon s inscr.
(above). Bh^>9
and
^T ( IeX5d<,
Ie5Xd0)
are not
known. With the former have been
compared
Palm. inSfl
(Levy,
ZDMG,
xiv.
440)
and Sin. wua
(Cook,
67.
98
;
Lidz. Hdb.
352),
both
personal
names.
^n?]
as
personal
name
24
15ff-
(J), 25
20
28
2>6
(P).
23a.
is a
gloss (Di. Gu.)
excluded
by
the
general
scheme of the
genealogy
and
by
the number 8 in
23b
. The last
consideration is
decisive
against
Di. s view that the
original
text was
nprrrrtNi
pVnxi.
24. iB^S $*]
cas.
pend.
: G-K. in
h, 147
<?.
^
9= 7raAAaAc/s
(see
Sta.
GVI,
i.
380)
: a Hittite
origin
is
suggested by Jensen
(ZDMG,
xlviii.
468 ff., developing
a hint of
Ew.). nc?q]
JUUL
nnn,
<
Pey/ia,
Perjpd,
etc.
334
GENEALOGY OF NAHOR
(j)
njB] rightly
read
by
&
in 2 Sa. 8
8
(MX
na? || nrnt?,
i Ch. i8
8
),
a
city
of
Aram-Zobah,
probably
identical with the Tubihi of TA No.
127,
and
Pap.
Anast.,
near Kadesh on the Orontes
(but
see
Miiller, AE,
173, 396).
oni
(Taa/A, Fact/*,
etc.)]
unknown. B>nn
(Toxos, Baas,
etc.)]
probably Eg. Tehisi,
on the
Orontes,
N of Kadesh
(AE, 258;
Wi.
MVAG,
i.
207).
royo
(Maaxa, Mwx,
etc.)]
Dt.
3
14
, Jos.
i2
5
13"-
13
2 Sa. io
6- 8
,
i Ch.
i9
6f>
;
an Aramaean tribe and state
occupying
the
modern
Golan,
S of
Hermon,
and E of the
Upper Jordan.
To the
discrepancies already
noted
(p. 333)
between the
genealogy
and ch.
24, Meyer (INS, 239 ff.)
adds the
important
observation that
the territorial distribution of the sons of Nahor fits in
badly
with the
theory
of
J,
which connects Nahor and Laban with the
city
of Harran.
He
points
out that the full-blooded
Nahorites,
so far as
identified,
are
tribes of the
Syro-Arabian
desert,
while those described as
hybrids
belong
to the settled
regions
of
Syria,
where nomadic
immigrants
would
naturally amalgamate
with the native
population.
Now the
Syro-Arabian
desert is in other
parts
of the OT the home of the Bnc
Kedeni
;
and
according
to E
(see
on
29
1
)
it was
among
the Bn$ Kedem
that
Jacob
found his uncle Laban.
Meyer
holds that this was the
original
tradition,
and finds a confirmation of it in the
geographical
background
of the list before us. In other
words,
the Israelites were
historically
related,
not to the civilised Aramaeans about
Harran,
but
to nomadic Aramaean tribes who had not crossed the
Euphrates,
but
still roamed the deserts where Aramaeans first
appear
in
history (see
p. 206). J
s
representation
is
partly
due to a
misunderstanding
of the
name
Aramaean,
which led him to transfer the kinsfolk of Abraham to
the
region
round
Harran,
which was known as the chief seat of
Aramaean culture. The
genealogy
is therefore an authentic document
of
great antiquity,
which has
fortunately
been
preserved by
a Yahwistic
editor in
spite
of its
inconsistency
with the main narrative. It
may
be
added that the Palestinian
view-point
will
explain
the subordinate
position assigned
to the name Aram. It can
hardly
be denied that
Meyer
s
reasoning
is
sufficiently cogent
to
outweigh
the traces of the
names Nahor and Milkah in the
neighbourhood
of Harran
(pp. 232,
237 f.). Meyer
s
explanation
of Nahor as a modification of Nahar
(the
Euphrates)
is, however,
not
likely
to commend itself.
CH. XXIII. Purchase
of
the Cave
of Machpelah (P).
On the death of Sarah at the
age
of
127 years (
L 2
),
Abraham
becomes, through
formal
purchase
from the
Hittites,
the owner of the field and cave of
Machpelah (
3
"
18
)
and there buries his dead
(
19- 20
).
This is the second occasion
(cf.
ch.
17)
on which the
Priestly epitome
of Abraham
s life
expands
into circumstantial and even
graphic
narration.
The transaction must therefore have had a
special
interest
xxiii.
i,
2
335
for the writer of the Code
;
though
it is not
easy
to determine
of what nature that interest was
(see
the
closing- note).
Source. That the
chapter belongs
to P is
proved (a) by
allusions in
later
parts
of the Code
(25
9f-
49
29ff>
so
13
) ; (b] by
the
juristic
formalism
and
redundancy
of the
style
;
(c) by
the names nn
m, nSsDD,
jniN
mp,
jy pN
;
and the
expressions
arm,
4
; mntf,
4- 9- 20
; N^,
6
; Dip,
17- 20
; wpa,
18
(see
the notes
;
and cf. Di. Ho.
Gu.). Against
this we have to set the 33X of
v.
4
,
which is never elsewhere used
by
P. At the same time it is difficult to
acquiesce
in the
opinion
that we have to do with a free
composition
of
the writers of P. The
passage
has far more the
appearance
of a trans
cript
from real life than
any
other section in the whole of P
;
and its
markedly
secular tone
(the
name of God is never once
mentioned)
is in
strong
contrast to the free introduction of the divine
activity
in human
affairs which is characteristic of that document. It seems
probable
that the narrative is based on some local tradition
by
which the form of
representation
has been
partly
determined. A similar view is taken
by
Eerdmans
(Komp.
d. Gen.
88), who, however,
assigns
the
chapter
to the
oldest stratum of
Gen., dating
at latest from
700
B.C.
Steuernagel (SK,
1908, 628) agrees
that ch.
23
is not in P s manner
;
but thinks it a
midrashic
expansion
of a brief notice in that document.*
I,
2. The death of Sarah. 2.
Kiryath-
Arbct\
an old
name of
Hebron,
v.i.
^2*1]
not
came,
but went in to
where the
body lay.
to wail . . .
iveep]
with the
customary
loud demonstrations of
grief (Schwally,
Leben n. d.
Tode,
20; DB,
iii.
453 if.).
I. After vm it is advisable to insert
$ (Ba.
Kit. : cf.
$f-
28
).
The
omission
may
have caused the addition of the
gloss
rrvy \>n *iy at the
end
(wanting
in
().
2.
jm*
nnp (<Br
tv ?r6\ei
A/a/36/c)]
The old name of
Hebron
(Jos. i4
15
, Ju.
i
10
), though seemingly
in use after the Exile
*
Sayce
s contention
(EHH, 57 ff.),
that the incident
belongs
essenti
ally
to the
early Babylonian
and not to the
Assyrian period,
is not borne
out
by
the cuneiform documents to which he refers
;
the
correspondences
adduced
being quite
as close with contracts of the later Ass.
kings
as
with those of the
age
of Hammurabi.
Thus,
the
expression
full silver
(v.
9
)
is
frequent
under
Sargon
and
subsequently {KIBy
iv.
io8ff.)
;
under
the first
Babylonian dynasty
the
phrase
is silver to the full
price
(ib.
7ff.).
The formula for before
(a witness) is,
in the earlier
tablets,
mahar
;
in the
later,
p&n,
neither the
precise equivalent
of those here
used
(v?]N3
and
?}>).
There remains
only
the
expression
*
weigh silver,
which does
appear
to be characteristic of the older contracts
;
but since
this
phrase
survived in Heb. till the latest times
(Zee.
n
12
,
Est.
3
9
),
it is
plain
that
nothing
can be inferred from it.
Sayce
has not
strengthened
his case
by
the
arguments
in
ET,
1907, 418
ff.
;
see Dri.
230,
and
Addenda
1
,
XXXVII f.
336
THE CAVE OF MACHPELAH
(?)
3-7.
The
request
for a
burying-place.
The
negotia
tions fall into three well-defined
stages
;
and while
they
illustrate the
leisurely courtesy
of the East in such
matters,
they
cover a real reluctance of the Hittites to
give
Abraham
a
legal
title to land
by purchase (Gu.).
To his first
request
they respond
with
alacrity
: the best of their
sepulchres
is at
his
disposal. 3.
arose]
from the
sitting posture
of the mourner
(2
Sa. I2
16- 20
).
the sons
of Heth}
see on io
15
.
P is the
only
document in which Hittites are
definitely
located in the
S of Canaan
(cf.
26
s4
36
2
)
;
and the historic
accuracy
of the statement is
widely questioned.
It is conceivable that the
Cappadocian
Hittites
(p. 215)
had extended their
empire
over the whole
country prior
to the Heb.
invasion. But
taking-
into account that P
appears
to use
*
Heth inter
changeably
with Canaan
(cf.
26
34
27^ 36
2b
w. 28
- 8
36
2a
),
it
may
be
more reasonable to hold that with him Hittite is a
general designation
of the
pre-Israelite
inhabitants,
as Canaanite with
J
and Amorite
with E
(cf. Jos.
i
4
,
Ezk. i6
3
).
It
may,
of
course,
be
urged
that such an
idea could not have arisen unless the Hittites had once been in actual
occupation
of the
land,
and that this
assumption
would best
explain
the
all but constant occurrence of the name in the lists of
conquered peoples
(see p. 284).
At
present,
however,
we have no
proof
that this was the
case
;
and a historic connexion between the northern Hittites and the
natives of Hebron remains
problematical.
Another solution is
pro
pounded by Jastrow (EB, 2094
ff.
), viz.,
that P s Hittites are an
entirely
distinct
stock,
having- nothing
but the name in common with either the
conventional Hittites of the enumerations or the
great empire
of N
Syria.
See Dri. 228 ff.
4.
a
sojourner
and
dweller]
so Lv.
25
35-
***,
Nu.
35
15
,
and
(in
a
religious sense)
Ps.
39
13
(cf.
i Pe. 2
11
).
The technical
(unless
Neh. u
25
be an artificial archaism
[Mey.
Entst.
106]).
The name
means Four cities
(see
on
yya
IN?,
p. 326).
The
personification
of
WIN
as heros
eponymus (Jos. I4
15
I5
13
2I
11
)
has no better
authority (as
ffi
shows)
than the mistake of a
copyist (see Moore, Jud. 25). Jewish
Midrash
gave
several
explanations
of the numeral :
amongst
others
from the
4 patriarchs
buried there
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
and Adam
(Ber.
R.
;
P. R,
Eliezer> 20, 36; Ra.)
the last
being
inferred from Dixn
Snan in
Jos. i4
15
(Jer.
OS, 84
12
).
The addition of .ux
poy
VN
(ffi
$
t<rriv iv
T<
/coiXw/iari)
seems a
corruption
of
piy
3N
(Ba.)
or
(with (5r)
i
DN in
Jos.
i5
13
2 1
11
. nso
1
?]
In Heb.
usage,
as in that of all the
cognate languages,
IBD means to wail
;
see Mic. i
8
.
4. n^in]
lEz.
pN3
nsyvrr IJH Nin. Ac
cording
to Bertholet
(Stell.
z. d. Fr.
156-166),
the n is
simply a.ger(se&
on i2
10
)
who resides
fixedly
in one
place,
without civil
rights,
and
per
haps incapable
of
holding
land
;
see
EJ3,
4818. 5.
i
1
?
-ib*<j?
(so
v.
14
)
is an
abnormal
combination, doubtfully supported by
Lv. n
1
. The last word
xxin.
3-is
337
distinction between
"13
and
SC in
is obscure
(v.i.).
6. O
if
thou ivouldst hear us
(rd. ^yp^"
v,
v.i.)].
The formula
always
introduces a
suggestion preferable
to that
just
advanced : cf.
11. is. i5
>
_Din*)K
N^3
is more than <a
mighty prince
(as
Ps.
36
7
68
16
I04
16
etc.)
;
it means one
deriving
his
patent
of
nobility straight
from
Almighty
God. Not a man
of
us will
withhold,
etc.]
therefore there is no need to
buy.
Behind their
generosity
there lurks an aversion to the idea of
purchase.
7.
The v. has almost the force of a refrain
(cf. 12).
The first
stage
of the
negotiations
is concluded.
8-12. The
appeal
to
Ephrdn.
In his second
speech
Abraham shows his tact first
by ignoring tacitly
the
sugges
tion of a free
gift,
and then
by bringing
the favourable
public opinion just expressed
to bear on the individual he
wishes to reach.
9.
On the cave
of Makpelah,
see at the
close. in the end
of
his
field]
Abraham
apparently
does not
contemplate
the
purchase
of the whole field : that was thrust
on him
by Ephron
s offer.
-for full
money]
see
p. 335
above
(footnote).
The same
expression
occurs in i Ch. 2i
22- 24
.
10.
entering
the
gate,
etc.]
i.e.,
his
fellow-citizens,
with the
right
of
sitting
in
public assembly
at the
gate (cf.
y
V
t|
N\
34
24
)-
13-16.
The
purchase
of the field. With the same
tactful
persistency,
Abraham seizes on
Ephron
s
expression
of
goodwill,
while
waving
aside the idea of a
gift. 13. Ifonly
thou
pray
hear me
f]
The anakolouthon
expresses
the
polite
embarrassment of the
speaker. 14, 15. Ephron
s resistance
being
now broken
down,
he names his
price
with the affecta-
must be
joined
to v.
6
,
and read either riS
(as
v.
11
: so
jux(5r),
or I
1
?
(as
13
).
The last is the
only
form suitable in all four cases
(
5- n- 13- 15
).
On ?*?
with
impve.,
cf. G-K. noe. 6.
rta:]
=
vby,
G-K.
75??.
8.
DSParnR]
in accordance with
your [inner]
mind. Cf. 2 Ki.
Q
16
,
i Sa. ao
4
: see
BOB,
66 1 a.
9. nj>2?en]
Elsewhere
only 25" 492 50" ;
always
with
art., showing
that it retained an
appellative
sense.
(3r
(rd
<nrr]\aiov
TO
5iir\ovv),
UJO&OJ
are
probably right
in
deriving
it from
^/ VSD,
double
(see p. 339).
10.
^] *}= namely (see
on
9
: cf.
BOB,
514 b) ;
in
18
it is
replaced by
3
=
among.
u. For S
pt.
N
1
? : see on
5
.
-fr
wo]
(& om.
rrnnj
is
perf.
of instant action : I
give
it
;
G-K. io6m.
13.
For i
1
?,
&&)
(? 5)
read
^,
mistaking
the idiom.
14.
^ :
TOR]?]
as
9
.
15.
(Si
(0^xt> Kupie,
dicrjKoa yap)
does not render
fjx,
but the
yap
is odd.
22
338
THE CAVE OF MACHPELAH
(p)
tion of
generosity
still observed in the East.* land
[worth]
4.00
shekels . . . what is that . . .
?J
The word for land is
better omitted with
(JK ;
it is not the land but the
money
that
Ephron
pretends
to
disparage.
16. Abraham
immediately
pays
the sum
asked,
and clenches the
bargain.
current with
the
merchant}
The
precious
metals circulated in
ingots,
whose
weight
was
approximately
known, without, however,
superseding
the
necessity
for
weighing
in
important
trans
actions
(Benzinger,
Arch?
197; Kennedy,
DJS,
iii.
420;
ZA
y
iii.
391 f.).f
17-20. Summary
and conclusion.
17,
18 are in the
form of a
legal
contract.
Specifications
of the dimensions
and boundaries of a
piece
of
land,
and of the
buildings,
trees, etc., upon it,
are common in ancient contracts of sale
at all
periods;
cf.
e.g.
KIB,
iv.
7, 17, 33 (ist
Bab.
dynasty),
101,
and 161
(8th
cent.
B.C.), 223-5 (6th cent.);
the Assouan
Papyri (sth cent.);
and
especially
the Petra Inscr. cited in
Authority
and
Archceology, p. 135.
The traditional site of the Cave of
Makpelah
is on the E side of the
narrow
valley
in which Hebron
lies,
and
just
within the modern
city
(el-Halll).
The
place
is marked
by
a sacred enclosure
(the ffaram),
within which Christians have seldom been admitted. The SE half is
occupied by
a
mosque,
and six
cenotaphs
are shown : those of Abraham
and Sarah in the
middle,
of Isaac and Rebekah in the SE
(within
the
mosque),
and of
Jacob
and Leah in the NVV : that of
Joseph
is
just
-JINI]
better
riNi
((&).
16. inn
1
?
nay]
The
only
other instance of this use of
nay
(2
Ki. I2
5
)
is
corrupt (rd. T)-TJ;, (&). 17. mp]
=
*
pass
into
permanent
possession,
as Lv.
25
30
27"-
" 19
(P).
n^BDDa
-UK]
< ds
ty
iv
ry StTrXy
ffTrrj\al({}
is nonsense
;
but
U
in
quo
erat
spelunca duplex suggests
a
reading
en ia
n^
which
(if
it were better
attested)
would remove the
difficulty
of
supposing
that the name double cave was
applied
to
the district around.
JS
1
?]
JUUL ifl
"?y
as in
19
^
in front
of, perhaps
to
the E of.
* "
The
peasants
will often
say,
when a
person
asks the
price
of
any
thing
which
they
have for
sale,
Receive it as a
present
: this answer
having
become a common form of
speech, they
know that
advantage
will not be taken of it
;
and when desired
again
to name the
price,
they
will do
so,
but
generally
name a sum that is exhorbitant." Lane,
Mod.
Eg.*\\. i3f.
f
Cuneiform
records
recently
discovered in
Cappadocia
seem
to
prove
that shekels
"
stamped
with a seal" were in use in the time of
Hammurabi.
See
Sayce,
Contemp.
Rev., Aug. 1907, p. 259.
xxiii. i6-xxiv.
339
outside the Haram on the NW. The cave below has never been
examined in modern
times,
but is stated
by
its
guardians
to be double.
There is no reason to doubt that the tradition as to the site has
descended from biblical times
;
and it is
quite probable
that the name
Makpelah
is derived from the feature
just
referred to. That the name
included the field attached to the cave
(v.
19
49
30
5o
13
)
is natural
;
and
even its extension to the
adjacent
district
(see
on
17
)
is
perhaps
not a
decisive
objection.
For further
particulars,
see
Robinson, BR,
ii.
75
ff.
; Baedeker,
P. and S*
141
f.
; PFS, 1882,
197-214
;
Warren, DB,
iii.
197
ff.
; Driver,
Gen. 228.
Whatever
assumption
we make as to the
origin
of this
narrative,
P s
peculiar
interest in the transaction is a fact that has to be
explained.
The motive
usually assigned
is that the
purchase
was a
pledge
of the
possession
of the land
by
Abraham s descendants
;
that view
is, indeed,
supported by nothing
in the
passage (see
Gu.
241),
but it is difficult to
imagine any
other
explanation.
It is
just
conceivable that the elabora
tion of the narrative was due to a
dispute
as to the
possession
of the
sacred
place
between
Jews
and Edomites in the
age
of P. It has been
held
probable
on
independent grounds
that the Edomites had advanced
as far north as Hebron
during
the Exile
(see Mey.
Entst.
106,
114),
and
from Neh. n
25
we learn that a
colony
of
Jews
settled there after the
return. We can at least
imagine
that a contest for the
ownership
of the
holy place (like
those which have so
largely
determined the later
history
of
Palestine)
would arise
;
and that such a situation would account for
the
emphasis
with which the
Priestly jurists
asserted the
legal
claim of
the
Jewish community
to the traditional
burying-place
of its ancestors.
So Gu.
1
251
;
Students
OT,gg:
otherwise Gu.
2
241
f.
CH. XXIV.
Procuring
a
Wifefor
Isaac
(J, [E?]).
Abraham on his death-bed
(see below) solemnly charges
his house-steward with the
duty
of
procuring-
a wife for
Isaac
amongst
his
Mesopotamian
relatives
f
1
"
9
).
The
servant is
providentially guided
to the house of
Nahor,
in
whose
daughter (see
on v.
15
)
Rebekah he is led to
recognise
the
divinely appointed
bride for Isaac
(
10
~
49
). Having
obtained the consent of the
relatives,
and of the maiden her
self
(
50
~
61
),
he
brings
her to
Canaan,
where Isaac marries
her
(
62
~
67
).
The
chapter
is one of the most
perfect specimens
of
descriptive
writing
that the Book of Gen. contains. It is marked
by idyllic grace
and
simplicity, picturesque
elaboration of scenes and
incidents,
and a
certain
epic amplitude
of
treatment,
seen in the
repetition
of the
story
in the form of a
speech (see
Dri.
230).
These artistic
elements so
predominate
that the
primary ethnographic
motive is
completely
sub
merged.
It
may
be
conjectured
that the basis of the
narrative was a
34O
THE MARRIAGE OF ISAAC
reinforcement of the Aramaean element in the Hebrew
stock,
as in the
kindred
story
of
Jacob
and his wives
(see Steuernagel,
Eimu.
39
f
.).
But if such a historical kernel
existed,
it is
quite
lost
sight
of in the
graphic
delineation of human
character,
and of ancient Eastern
life,
which is to us the main interest of the
passage.
We must also note the
profoundly religious conception
of Yahwe s
providence
as an unseen
power, overruling
events in answer to
prayer.
All these features seem
to indicate a somewhat advanced
phase
in the
development
of the
patriarchal
tradition. The
chapter belongs
to the
literary type
most
fully represented
in the
Joseph-narrative (cf.
Gu.
220).
Source and
Unity of
the Narrative. From the
general
character of
the
style,
and the consistent use of the name
ni.T,
critical
opinion
has
been
practically
unanimous in
assigning
the whole
chapter
to
J.
It is
admitted, however,
that certain unevennesses of
representation
occur
;
and the
question
arises whether these are to be
explained by
accidental
dislocations of the
text,
or
by
the
interweaving
of two
parallel
recen
sions.
Thus,
the servant s
objection
that the maiden
may
not be
willing
to follow him
(
5t 39
),
is met
by
Abraham in two
ways
: on the one hand
by
the confident assurance that this will not
happen (
7> 40
),
and on the
other
by absolving
him from his oath if his mission should
miscarry
(
41
).
In
29f-
Laban twice
goes
out to the man at the well
(
m
II
m
)
;
M
speaks
of the mothers
house,
23b
of the
father
s : in the servant
negotiates
with Laban and
Bethuel,
in
M* 55
with the brother and mother
of the bride
;
in
51
the
request
is at once
agreed
to
by
the relatives with
out
regard
to Rebekah s
wish,
whereas in
67ft
the decision is left to
herself ,
in
59
Rebekah is sent
away
with her
nurse,
in
61a
she takes her
own maidens with her
;
her
departure
is twice recorded
(
61a
II
6)b
).
These
doublets and variants are too numerous to be
readily
accounted for
either
by transpositions
of the text
(Di. al.)
or
by divergences
in the
oral tradition
(SOT, 96)
;
and
although
no
complete analysis
is here
attempted,
the
presence
of two narratives must be
recognised.
That
one of these is
J
is
quite
certain
;
but it is to be observed that the
characteristically
Yahwistic
expressions
are somewhat
sparsely
distri
buted,
and leave an
ample margin
of neutral
ground
for critical
ingenuity
to sift out the variants between two recensions.* The
problem
has been attacked with
great
acuteness and skill
by
Gu.
(215-221)
and Procksch
(i4f.), though
with
very
discordant results. I
agree
with Procksch that the second
component
is in all
probability
E, mainly
on the
ground
that a fusion of
J
h
and
J
b
(Gu.)
is without
parallel,
whereas
J
b
and E are combined in ch. 21. The
stylistic
criteria
are, indeed,
too indecisive to
permit
of a definite conclusion
;
but the
parallels
instanced above can
easily
be
arranged
in two
series,
one of which is free from
positive
marks of
J ; while,
in the
other,
*
iT|iTj
1. 3. 7. 12. 21. 26. 27. 31. 35. 40. 42. 44. 48. 60. 51. 52. 56 .
onnj D-,
K>
10
(
a
g-
ai nSt
P s on.x
ps)
;
mViDi
!HN,
4
(I2
1
)
;
D D 3
N3,
J
(see
on i8
n
)
; rwnDMB,
16
(26
7
,
cf.
I2
11
); yr,
16
(see
on
4
1
)
;
v with suff. and
ptcp.
42- 49
; DIO,
15- 45
;
n
fcm,
21. 40. 42. 56 2. 3.
23)
.
m
pn>
12
(^20)
.
j^pS
p^
17
(
see lg
2)
.
KJj
2. 12. 14. 17. 23. 43.
34i
everything
is consistent with the
supposition
that Abraham s residence
is Beersheba
(see p. 241 above).
The Death
of
Abraham. It is
impossible
to
escape
the
impression
that in vv.
1 9
Abraham is
very
near his
end,
and that in
6-~67
his death is
presupposed.
It follows that the account of the event in
JE
must have
occurred in this
chap.,
and been
suppressed by
the Red. in favour of
that of P
(25
7
"
n
), according
to which Abraham survived the
marriage
of
Isaac
by
some
35 years (cf. 25
20
).
The
only question
is whether it
happened
before or after the
departure
of the servant.
Except
in
14b
,
the servant
invariably speaks
as if his master were still alive
(cf.
12< 14b
/3-
27. 37. 42. 44b. 48. 5i. 54.
56).
i n
65
j
on the other
hand,
he seems to be
aware,
before
meeting
Isaac,
that Abraham is no more. There is here a
slight
diversity
of
representation,
which
may
be due to the
composition
of
sources. Gu.
supposes
that in the document to which
14b
a-
36b
and
65
belong (J
b
),
the death was recorded after
9
(and
related
by
the servant
after
41
)
;
while in the other
(J
h
)
it was first noticed in connexion with
the servant s
meeting
with Isaac
(before
66
).
Procksch thinks E s notice
followed v.
9
,
but doubts whether Abraham s death was
presupposed by
J
s account of the servant s return. V.
3613
is
thought
to
point
back to
2$
5
;
and hence some critics
(Hup.
We. Di.
al.)
suppose
that
25
1 6
(
llb
)
originally preceded
ch.
24
;
while others
(KS.
Ho.
Gu.)
find a more
suitable
pi
ice for
25
s
(with
or without
llb
)
between
24
1
and
24
2
.
See,
further,
on
25
1 6
below.
I-p.
The servant s commission I. had
blessed,
etc.]
His life as recorded
is, indeed,
one of unclouded
prosperity.
2. the oldest
(i.e.
senior in
rank)
servant,
etc.]
who,
in
default of an
heir,
would have succeeded to the
property
(i5
2f>
),
and still acts as the trusted
guardian
of the
family
interests
;
comp.
the
position
of Ziba in 2 Sa.
9
lff-
i6
lff>
.
put thy hand,
etc.] Only again 47
2i)
another death-bed scene !
It
is,
in
fact,
only
the imminence of death that can account for
the action here : had Abraham
expected
to
live,
a
simple
command would have sufficed
(Gu.).
The reference is to an oath
by
the
genital organs,
as emblems of the
life-giving power
of
deity,
a survival of
primitive religion
whose
significance
had
probably
been
forgotten
in the time of the narrator.
Traces have been found in various
parts
of the world : see Ew. Ant.
iQ
6
[Eng. tr.]
;
Di.
301 ; ATLO*,
395
;
and
especially
the
striking
Australian
parallel
cited
by Spurrell (
2
2i8)
from Sir G.
Grey.* By Jewish
writers
*
"One native remains seated on the
ground
with his heels tucked
under him . . .
;
the one who is about to narrate a death to him
approaches
. . . and seats himself
cross-legged upon
the
thighs
of the
other
;
. . . and the one who is seated
uppermost places
his hands
under the
thighs of
his
friend;
... an inviolable
pledge
to
avenge
the
death has
by
this
ceremony passed
between the two."
34
2 THE MARRIAGE OF ISAAC
(]E)
it was considered an
appeal
to the covenant of circumcision
(& , Jer.
Qu.,
Ra.
;
so Tu.
Del.).
lEz.
explains
it as a
symbol
of
subjection,
(adding
that it was still a custom in
India)
;
Ew. Di. Ho. al. as
invoking
posterity (bi: x^, 46
26
,
Ex. i
5
, Ju.
8
30
)
to maintain the
sanctity
of the
oath.
3-
God
of
heaven and
of eartti\
an
expression
for the
divine
omnipresence
in
keeping
with the
spiritual
idea of
God s
providence
which
pervades
the narrative. The full
phrase
is not
again
found
(see
v.
7
).
thou shalt not
take,
etc.\
The motive is a natural concern for the
purity
of the stock :
see
Bertholet,
Stellung, 67. 5-8.
The servant s fear is not
that he
may
fail to find a bride for
Isaac,
but that the
woman
may
refuse to be
separated
so far from her kindred :
would the oath bind him in that event to take Isaac back to
Harran ? The
suggestion
elicits from the
dying patriarch
a
last utterance of his unclouded faith in God.
7.
God
of
heaven]
v.i. send his
Angel]
cf. Ex.
23
20- 23
33
2
,
Nu. 2O
1G
.
The
Angel
is here an invisible
presence,
almost a
personi
fication of God s
providence
;
contr. the older
conception
in i6
7ff
-.
10-14.
The servant at the well. On the
fidelity
of
the
picture
to Eastern
life,
see
Thomson, LB,
i. 261. 10. ten
camels]
to
bring
home the bride and her attendants
(
61
).
But "such an
expedition
would not now be undertaken . . .
3.
"33
1
?]
(J +
I<radff
(as
v.
4
)
;
so v.
7
.
4. o]
JUUL DX 3. At the end
<F add
D^pas
v.
7
5. ,13$] always
with
neg.,
exc. Is. i
19
, Jb. 39
9
(Sir.
6
33
).- 7.
D DBTi
T^K] appears only
in late books
(Jon.
i
9
,
2Ch.
36
-23
=
Ezr. i
2
,
Neh. i
4f>
2
4. 20 .
N
^,^ -^g
i s
frequent
in Aram,
parts
of Ezr. and
Dn.).
The words
are
wanting
in one Heb. MS
(see Kit.),
and
may
be deleted as a
gloss.
Otherwise we must add with (5
pun
nWi
(cf.
3
).
"^
intsu
new] probably
interpolated by
a later hand
(Di.);
see
p. 284
above. 8.
TinK]
(Hr + e/s
TTJV yriv raijT-rjv.
UBTI xS
(but
JUA
irKTi)] juss.
with rf
1
?
;
G-K.
109
d.
10. Unless we admit a
duality
of
sources,
it will be
necessary
to
omit the first
^.
1
(with
<&). -^i]
better
-^$ei (ffiFS).
onru
DIN]
Dt.
23*,
Ju. 3
8
,
Ps. 6o
2
,
i Ch.
I9
6
f. &
ms
hin
DIN. The
identity
of the second
element with
Eg.
Naharin,
TA. Nahrima
(yQ
14
[rev.],
i8i
34
, iig
82
)
is be
yond dispute
;
but it is
perhaps
too
readily
assumed that
geographically
the
expressions correspond.
The
Eg.
Naharin extended from E of the
Euphrates
to the
valley
of the Orontes
(AE, 249 ff.);
all that can be
certainly
affirmed about the biblical term is that it embraced both sides
of the
Euphrates (Harran
on the E
;
Pethor on the W
[Dt. 23*]).
Since
there is no trace of a dual in the
Eg.
and Can.
forms,
it is doubtful
if
xxiv.
3-is
343
with
any
other
animals,
nor with a less number."
goodly
things]
for
presents
to the bride and her relations
(
22- 53
).
On Aram
Naharaim,
see the footnote. the
city of
Nahor
in
J
would be Harran
(cf. 2y
43
28
10
29*)
: but the
phrase
is
probably
an Elohistic variant to ^Aram
Naharaim^
in which
case a much less distant
locality may
be referred to
(see
on
29
1
). 12-14.
The servant s
prayer.
The
request
for a
sign
is illustrated
by Ju.
6
36ff
-,
i Sa.
i4
8ff-
: note
[n3N]
"Dbx nan
in all three cases. A
spontaneous
offer to draw for the
camels would
(if
Thomson s
experience
be
typical)
be un
usual,
in
any
case the mark of a kind and
obliging
dis
position. 13.
the
daughters
. . . to draw
water]
cf. i Sa.
9
n
-
15-27.
The servant and Rebekah.
15.
who was bom
to
Bethuel,
etc.]
cf.
24 - 47
.
The somewhat awkward
phrasing
has led Di. al. to surmise that
all these vv. have been
glossed,
and that here the
original
text ran
-\y$
ui
np^p
rn^,
Rebekah
being
the
daughter
of Milkah and Nahor.
Comp.
29
5
,
where Laban is described as the son of Nahor. The redactional
insertion of Bethu el would be
explained by
the
divergent
tradition of P
(25
20
28
2- 5
),
in which Bethfi el is
simply
an
Aramaean,
and not connected
with Nahor at all
(see
Bu.
421
ff.).
The
question
can
hardly
be decided
(Ho.
1
68);
but there is a considerable
probability
that the
original J
made Laban and Rebekah the children of Nahor. In that
case, however,
it will be
necessary
to assume that the tradition
represented by
P was
known to the Yahwistic school before the final
redaction,
and caused a
remodelling
of the
genealogy
of 22
20flr>
(see p. 333).
Cf., however, Bosse,
MVAG, 1908,
2,
p.
8f.
the Heb.
ending
be
anything
but a Mass,
caprice (rd. Dnru?),
or a
locative
term.,
to be read -am
(We. Comp.
2
45
1
;
Meyer, ZATW,
Hi.
307f.
: cf. G-K. 88
c,
and Str.
p. 135
f. with
reff.).
There would in
this last case be no need to find a second river
(Tigris, Chaboras, Balih,
Orontes, etc.)
to
go
with
Euphrates.
The old identification with the
Greek
Mesopotamia
must
apparently
be abandoned.
See, further,
Di.
302
; Moore, /. 87, 89
;
KAT*,
28 f. 12.
mpn]
make it
occur,
272 (J).
14. TVjn]
Kre. myjn ;
so vv.
16- 28- 55- 57
34
3- 12
,
Dt. 22
1M-
-*>.
myin
is found as Ke. in Pent,
only
Dt. 22
19
,
but JUA reads so
throughout.
It is hazardous to
postulate
an archaic
epicene
use of
nyj on such
restricted evidence: see
BDB,
655
a
;
G-K.
if
c.
npt^w]
(8r + &;s &v
TraiArwvrcu Trlvov<rou.
J-in?n] decide,
adjudicate,
here
=
allot
;
so
only
v.
44
. Contr. 20
16
2i
25
3
i
37 - 42
f
(E),
Lv. i
9
17
t
(P). nai]
and
thereby
;
G-K. 1
35 p.
15.
After DID rd.
nVg; (cf. )
;
G-K.
107
c. .ux&F ins. iaHx after
344
THE MARRIAGE OF ISAAC
(jE)
1 6.
Taking
no notice of the
stranger,
the maiden went
down to the
fountain (TV)
. . . and came
up]
In Eastern wells
the water is
frequently
reached
by steps
: ct. Ex. 2
16
(njTlPIl),
Jn. 4
11
.
Ip,
20. The writer
lingers
over the
scene,
with
evident
delight
in the alert and
gracious
actions of the
damsel. 21. The servant meanwhile has stood
gazing
at
her in
silence,
watching
the
ample
fulfilment of the
sign.
22. The
nose-ring
and bracelets are not the bridal
gift (Gu.),
but a reward for the service
rendered,
intended to excite
interest in the
stranger,
and secure the
goodwill
of the
maiden. See
Lane,
Mod.
Eg?
ii.
320, 323
;
cf.
R&>
453
2
.
23-25.
In the twofold
question
and
answer,
there is
perhaps
a trace of the
composition
of narratives
;
v.i.
24.
See on
15
.
Read the
daughter of
Milkah whom she bore to Nahor
(as 34
1
).
26,
27.
The servant s act of
worship
marks the close of
the scene.
28-32.
Laban s
hospitality
is
inspired by
the selfish
greed
for which that
worthy
was noted in tradition.
28.
her mother s house cannot mean
merely
the female side of the
family (Di.),
for Laban
belongs
to
it,
and
53- 55
imply
that the
father
(whether
Bethuel or
Nahor)
is not the head of the
house. Some find in the notice a relic of
matriarchy (Ho.
Gu.)
;
but the
only necessary
inference is that the father was
dead.
31. seeing-
I have cleared the
house]
turning part
of
131^ (
45
).
18
end]
(5r-fu>s
^Tra&raro
irlvuv,
omitting-
the first two words
of v.
19
. 2O.
np&n]
the stone
trough
for
watering
animals,
found at
every
well
(30
38
,
cf.
30
41
,
Ex. 2
16
).
21.
nx/wc]
not
*
wondering (</
niw
;
so
De.),
but
gazing (by-form
of
N
/
nyt?)
as Is.
4i
10
. Constr. before
prep.:
G-K.
130
a. 22.
i^pffD]
JUU. +
.TBK
^y
ntri,
a
necessary
addition
(cf.
47
).
on
accordingly
is here a
nose-jewel (Is. 3
21
,
Pr. n
22
),
in
35"*,
Ex.
32^
*
(E)
an
earring. yp3]
=
%
shekel
(Ex. 38
26
). 23-25.
The
theory
of two re
censions derives some little
support
from the
repeated
V^N nDNni of
M>
*.
A mere
rearrangement
such as Ba.
proposes (
23a> a4< 23b< M
) only
cures one
anomaly by creating
another
;
and
is, besides,
impossible
if the amend
ment
given
above for v.
24
be
accepted. 25. }M]
jutx
p
1
?
1
*,
as v.
23
;
but inf.
elsewhere is
always p
1
?.
27.
3JN
emphasises
the
following
ace. suff.
(G-K.
1436, 135^, *).
&
]]] implies perhaps
DN
?
(Ba.)
or
"9
(Kit.);
if not
a mistake for
p]. TIN]
Point n
(sing.)
with Vns.
28.
W?N]
%>
<J1CLO| (wrongly). 30.
imKi3
(JUA)
is better than MT n*n3.
ioy
rwm]
see G-K.
1165;
Dav. 100
(a). 31. vrj?]
cleared
away,
1
xxiv.
16-48
345
it into a stable.
32.
he
(Laban) brought
the man in
(v.i.)
. . . and
ungirt
the
camels]
without
removing
the
pack-
saddles."^ to wash his
feet, etc.]
cf. i8
4
.
33-49.
The servant s narrative. A
recapitulation
of
the
story up
to this
point,
with intentional variations of
language,
and with some
abridgment.
(&
frequently
ac
commodates the text to what has
gone
before,
but its
readings
need not be considered.
35.
Cf. i2
16
i3
2
.
36b.
has
given
him all that he
had]
This is the
only
material
addition to the narrative. But the notice is identical with
25
5
,
and
probably points
back to it in some earlier context
(see p. 341 above). 40. before
whom I have
walked]
Cf.
17*.
Gu. s
suggested
alteration : who has
gone
before
me,
is an
unauthorised and
unnecessary
addition to the Tikkune
Sopherim (see
i8
22
). 41.
nta
(bis)
for
nyttP,
v.
8
. On the
connexion of oath and
curse,
see We. Heid?
\^2.i. 45-47.
Greatly
abbreviated from
15
~
25
. the
daughter of {Bethuel
the
son
of]
Nahdr,
etc.]
see on
15- 24
.
48. daughter of my
master s
brother]
Brother,
may,
of
course,
stand for
*
relative or
1
nephew (2g
12- 15
)
;
but if Bethuel be
interpolated
in
15- 24- 47
,
Rebekah was
actually
first cousin to
Isaac,
and such mai-
as Lv.
i4
36
,
Is.
4o
3
etc.
;
cf. Ar.
^ fana? \V.=ejfecit
ut
dispareret. 32.
K?
T l] (U)
avoids an awkward
change
of
subj.,
and is to be
preferred
(Ols.
KS.
Gu.).
The
objection (Di. al.)
that this would
require
to be
followed
by
"nx is answered
by
the
very
next cl.
Irregularity
in the
use of TIN is a
puzzling phenomenon
in the
chapter,
which
unfortunately
fits in with no workable scheme of
documentary analysis.
33.
bty
M
i]
Kre and JUUL CBTI
(Hoph. *J ow),
&&
ojftl.
But Keth. recurs
in MT of
5O
26
(Db"o), again
with
pass, significance.
The anomalous
form
may
be
pass,
of
Qal
(G-K.
73/"),
or
metaplastic Niph.
from DS?
or cbn
(No.
Beitr. z. sent.
Sprachiv. 39 f.).
-inm
2
]
juu(5J!$
nnrh,
which
is
perhaps
better.
36. nrupi]
AJU.
injpi. 38.
& DN never has the sense of
Aram.
J^N (sondern\
and must be taken as the common form of
adjura
tion
(De.).
juu
(Lond. Pol.)
has DK a.
41. -nS^o]
G-K.
95
. The v.
contains a
slight redundancy (
a
<* I
b
/5),
but
nothing
is
gained by
inter
posing
a cl. between
a
0and
b
a
(KS.). 46.
n
Syo]
fflr tirl rbv
ppaxiova ayr^s
&<f> eaur^s (connate ?) ;
U de humero
(cf.
18
).
* "
The camel is
very
delicate,
and could
easily
catch a chill if the
saddle were taken
away imprudently
;
and on no account can the camel
stay
out of doors in bad weather. It is then taken into the
house,
part
of which is turned into a stable"
(Baldensperger,
PEFS,
1904, 130).
346
THE MARRIAGE OF ISAAC
riages
were considered the most
eligible by
the Nahorites
(29
19
). 49.
that 1
may turn,
etc.}
not to seek a bride else
where
(Di.),
but
generally
that I
may
know how to act.
50-61. Departure
of
Rebekah,
with the consent and
blessing"
of her relatives.
50.
The
relatives,
recognising
the hand of Providence in the servant s
experiences,
decline
to answer bad or
good:
i.e.,
anything
whatever,
as
^i
24- 29
,
Nu.
24
13
etc.
The v. as a whole
yields
a
perfectly good
sense : we cannot
speak,
because Yahiue has decided
;
and
51
is a natural
sequel.
It is a serious
flaw in Gu. s
analysis
of
50ff>
,
that he has to break
up
60
,
connecting
ni.Tp
-i;nn xy;
with
51
,
and the rest of the v. with
57f-
(
we cannot
speak:
let
the -maiden decide
).
On the other
hand,
Swnrn
j;6
in
^
is
barely
con
sistent with FISNI rrnisi in
53< 55
. Since the mention of the father after the
brother would in
any
case be
surprising,
Di. al.
suppose
that here
again
^Ninai is an
interpolation
;
Kit. reads
toni,
and Ho. substitutes
n|^pi.
Gu.
(219)
considers that in this recension Bethuel is a
younger
brother of Laban.
51.
Here,
at all
events,
the matter is settled in accord
ance with
custom,
without
consulting
the bride.
53.
The
presents
are
given partly
to the bride and
partly
to her
relatives. In the latter we
may
have a survival of the
"inb
(34
12
,
Ex. 22
16
,
i Sa. i8
25
f)
or
purchase-price
of a
wife;
but
Gu.
rightly
observes that the narrative
springs
from a more
refined idea of
marriage,
from which the notion of actual
purchase
has all but
disappeared.
So in Islam mahr and
sadak
(the gift
to the
wife)
have come to be
synonymous
terms for
dowry (KM
2
,
93, 96)
: cf.
Benzinger,
Arch? 106.
55.
The reluctance to
part
with Rebekah is another indica
tion of refined
feeling (Gu.).
On "rtfeW
IN
&V,
z>.z.
56.
The
servant s
eagerness
to be
gone
arises from the
hope
of
finding
his old master still alive.
57
>
5^-
The
question
here
put
to
Rebekah is not whether she will
go
now or wait a few
days,
53.
naiJD
(Ezr.
i
6
,
2 Ch. 2i
3
32
23
f)] costly gifts,
fr.
v/iJD,
Ar.
magada
be noble.
55. rrnyi]
(# read rrnNi
;
and so SiB and
many
Greek
curss. in
53
.
iwy
IN c D
]
a few
days, say
ten,
is a
fairly satisfying
ren
dering (ffir ri/J-tpas
tlxret
5^/ca)
;
a
year
or ten months
(& Ra.)
is
hardly
ad
missible. But the text seems uncertain : JUJL srin IN ovr
; 5
> Vor> >
oof-*
(cf. 29
14
).
In deference to xS
we
may
insert enh before D
p;
: a month
or at least ten
days (Ols. Ba.). TjSri] probably 3rd
fern,
(so
all
Vns.).
XXIV.
49-62
347
but whether she will
go
at all. The reference to the wishes
of the bride
may
be
exceptional (owing
to the
distance,
etc.)
;
but a
discrepancy
with
51
cannot
easily
be
got
rid of.
59.
their
sister]
cf.
your daughter, 34
8
,
the relation to the
family being
determined
by
that to the head of the house.
But it is better to read
n HK
(pi.)
in
53- 55
with
JJ&
and
MSS of
ffi.
her
nurse]
see on
358.
60. The
blessing
on
the
marriage (cf.
Ru.
4
llff>
), rhythmic
in
form,
is
perhaps
an
ancient
fragment
of tribal
poetry
associated with the name of
Rebekah.
possess
the
gate]
as 22
17
. 6ia and 6lb seem to be
variants. For another solution
(K.S.),
see on
62
. her
maidens]
parallel
to
*
her nurse in
59
.
62-67.
The
home-bringing-
of Rebekah. 62. Now
Isaac had come . . .
]
What follows is
hardly intelligible.
The most
probable
sense is that
during
the servant s absence
Isaac had removed to
Beer-lahai-roi,
and that near that well
the
meeting
took
place.
The
difficulty
lies
partly
in the
corrupt
wap
(v.-i.), partly
in the circum
stantial form of the
sent.,
and
partly
in the
unexplained disappearance
of Abraham.
Keeping-
these
points
in
mind,
the most conservative
exegesis
is that of De. : Isaac
(supposed
to be
living
with his father at
Beersheba)
was
coming/row
a walk in the direction
of
B.
,
when he
met the camels
; this, however,
makes
NX. !
(
63
) plup.,
which is
hardly
right.
More recent writers
proceed
on the
assumption
that the death
of Abraham had been
explicitly
recorded. Ho.
suggests
that Isaac
had removed to Lahairoi
during
his father s life
(transposing 25
llb
before
24
2
),
and that now he comes
from
that
place (reads laiso)
on
hearing
of
Abraham s death. Di. reads
62a
a mo *?N
[pns ]a i,
and finds in these
words the notice of Isaac s
migration
to B.
KS., reading
as
Di.,
but
making
the servant
implicit subj.
of Na
i,
puts
the chief hiatus between
61a
and
61b
: the servant on his return learned that Abraham was dead
;
59-
nnpjo]
ffi
TO.
vTrdpxovTa avrfy
=
afljjjp,
a word of P. 60. flN
is
apposi-
tional
vocative,
not
subj.
to unhx
(soror
nostra
es, U). ^q]
with abnormal
~
(G-K. 63 q). VK3ff]
jux V3
K,
as 22
17
.
62.
Niap]
cannot be inf. const, with
jp
;
the French il vint darriver
(Hupf. 29)
has no
analogy
in Heb. idiom. Nor can it
readily
be
sup
posed equivalent
to N
u/>p
(i
Ki. 8
65
;
De.
v.s.)
;
for the direction in which
Isaac took his walk is an
utterly
irrelevant circumstance. AJU. and
r
(oid
TT}S
fyijjLiov)
read
"moa,
from which a
fairly
suitable text
(^7?
or
sp)
could
be obtained
(cf.
Di. and Ho.
s.\
Gu. s NUD
(as
ace. of
direction)
has
no
parallel except
the
very
remote one of D
nNi2D,
Ezk.
2y
3
(of
the situa
tion of
Tyre).
Other
suggestions
are to delete the word as an uncor-
rected
lapse
of the
pen
;
to read
^^il5p
with omission of the
following nN^i
348
THE MARRIAGE OF ISAAC
(jE)
then
(
81b
)
took Rebekah and went further
;
and
(
62a
)
came to Lahairoi.
Gu.
(operating-
with two
sources)
considers
62
the immediate
sequel
to
61a
in the document where Abraham s death
preceded
the servant s
departure,
so that
nothing-
remained to be chronicled but Isaac s removal
to Lahairoi
(reads Ntop,
*
to the entrance
of).
This solution is
attractive,
and could
perhaps
be carried
through independently
of his division of
sources. For even if the death followed the
departure,
it
might very
well have been recorded in the
early part
of the ch.
(after
10
).
63.
n^J]
a word of uncertain
meaning-, possibly
to roam
(v.i.).
toward the
approach of evening-] (Dt. 23
12
),
when the
Oriental walks abroad
(cf. 3
8
).
camels were
coming]
In the
distance he cannot discern them as his own.
64.
At the
sight
of a
stranger
Rebekah dismounts
(?J
as 2 Ki.
5
21
),
a mark
of
respect
still observed in the East
(LB,
i.
762
; Seetzen,
Reisen,
iii.
190)
;
cf.
Jos. i5
18
,
i Sa.
25
23
.
65.
It is
my
master]
Apparently
the servant is
aware,
before
meeting
Isaac,
that
Abraham is dead. The
putting
on of the veil
(cf.
nubere
viro],
the survival of a
primitive marriage
taboo,
is
part
of
the
wedding ceremony (see
Lane,
ME
5
,
i.
217 f.). 67. brought
her into the
tent]
The next
phrase (tetf
rnfc
)
violates a funda
mental rule of
syntax,
and must be deleted as a
gloss.
Isaac s
own tent is referred to. This is the essential feature of the
marriage ceremony
in the East
(see
Benz. Arch*
io8f.).
comforted himself after [the
death
of]
his
mother]
It is con
jectured (We. al.)
that the real
reading
was his
father,
whose death had
recently
taken
place.
The
change
would
(Lag. Procksch)
;
to substitute
[yaeh]x3D (
from Beersheba to :
Ba.).
K1 n
1
?
"inn]
(5i
(here
and
25
11
)
rd
<pptap rijs opdcreus, omitting
Vl^
;
refer to
p. 289
above.
63.
rpt}6]
O.TT.
\ey. commonly
identified with
rp^
=
muse,
complain,
talk,
etc.
;
so (5r
(dSoXeax^crcu), Aq. (6/J.i\TJ(rai),
~Z.
(\a\rjffai),
J5
(ad
meditandum : so Tu.
De.),
J
(rmW?
:
Ra.)
;
Di. KS. al. think
the sense of
mourning (for
his
father)
most
probable
;
but? lEz.
(
to
walk
among
the shrubs
)
and Bottcher
(
to
gather
brushwood
)
derive
from ir
P
(2i
15
).
&
n nxrn^x is
thought
to rest on a
reading cuff?
(adopted by
Ges.
al.),
but is rather a
conjecture.
No.
(Beitr.
z. sem.
Spr.
43 f.) suggests
a connexion with Ar. saha
=
stroll*
(point niB>)).
D Soanof jux is
wrong (v.s.).6$. njWi] 37
19
t ;
jux i^n.
*]yxn] 38
14- 19
t (J)
On the art. cf. G-K. 126 s. After
Lagarde
s brilliant note
(Sem.
23 ff.),
it can
scarcely
be doubted that the word denotes a
large
double
square
wrapper
or
shawl,
of
any
material.
67.
,1*3*1]
G
dari\dev
S4.niv
nSin]
art. with const, is
violently ungrammatical
;
G-K.
127^
For
i2N
a
read V3N nio
(Kit.)
v.s.
xxiv.
63-xxv.
349
naturally suggest
itself after
J
s account of the death of
Abraham had been
suppressed
in accordance with P s chron
ology.
The death of Sarah is likewise unrecorded
by J
or E.
XXV. i-6. The Sons
of
Keturah
(J
?
R?).
The Arabian tribes with whom the Israelites acknow
ledged
a looser
kinship
than with the Ishmaelites or Edom-
ites are here
represented
as the
offspring
of Abraham
by
a
second
marriage (cf.
i Ch. I
32f>
).
The names
Midian, Sheba,
Dedan
(see below)
show that these
Keturean
peoples
must be
sought
in N
Arabia,
and in the tract of
country partly assigned
to the Ishmaelites in v.
18
. The fact that in
Ju.
8
24
Midianitcs are classed as Ishmaelites
(cf.
Gn.
37
25ffl
) points
to
some confusion between the two
groups,
which in the absence of a
Yahwistic
genealogy
of Ishmael it is
impossible altogether
to clear
up.
We.
(Comp.* 29
1
)
has
dropped
a hint that Keturah
may
be but a tradi
tional variant of
Hagar
;
*
Ho.
conjectures
that the names in
2
"
4
are
taken from
J
s lost Ishmaelite
genealogy
;
and Kent
(SOT,
i.
101)
thinks
it not
improbable
that Keturah was
originally
the wife of Ishmael.
Glaser
(ii. 450)
considers the Ketureans remains of the ancient Minsean
people,
and not
essentially
different from the Ishmaelites and Edomites.
See, further,
on v.
18
below.
Source.
(a)
The
genealogy (
1-4
)
contains
slight
traces of
J
in
nV;,
8
;
.45
n|?N S$
4
(cf.
io
29
9
19
) ;
P is excluded
by
i
1
?
,
and the
discrepancy
with
io
7
as to Sheba and Dedan
;
while E
appears
not to have contained
any
genealogies
at all. The vv. must therefore be
assigned
to some Yah
wistic
source,
in
spite
of the different
origin given
for Sheba in io
28
.
(b)
The section as a whole
cannot, however,
belong
to the
primary
Yahwistic document
;
because there the death of Abraham had
already
been recorded in ch.
24,
and
24
36
refers back to
25
B
.f
We must conclude
that
25
1 6
is the work of a
compiler,
who has
incorporated
the
genealogy,
and taken v.
5
from its
original position (see
on
24
36
)
to
bring
it into con
nexion with Abraham s death. These
changes may
have been made in
a revised edition of
J (so Gu.);
but in this case we must
suppose
that
the account of Abraham s death was also transferred from ch.
24,
to
be afterwards
replaced by
the notice of P. It seems to me easier
(in
view of
llb
and
18
)
to hold that the
adjustments
were effected
during
the final redaction of the
Pent.,
in accordance with the
chronological
scheme of P.
*
So
Jewish interpreters
:
&J,
Ber.
R., Jer. Qu.,
Ra.
(but
not
IEz.).
t
The mere
transposition
of
25
1 6
before ch.
24 (Hupf.
We.
al.)
does
not
fully
meet the
difficulty,
there
being,
in
fact,
no suitable
place
for a
second
marriage
of Abraham
anywhere
in the
original J
(Ho.).
350
THE SONS OF KETURAH
(j, R)
I.
Keturah,
called a concubine in i Ch. i
32
(cf.
v.
6
below),
is here a
wife,
the death of Sarah
being presupposed.
The name occurs nowhere
else,
and is
probably fictitious,
though
Arabian
genealogists speak
of a tribe Katilra in the
vicinity
of Mecca
(Kn.-Di.).
There is no
absurdity (De.)
in the
suggestion
that it
may
contain an allusion to the
traffic in incense
(rniDp)
which
passed through
these
regions
(see Mey.
INS
y
313). 2-4.
The Keturean stock is divided
into 6
(fflr 7)
main
branches,
of which
only
one, Midian,
attained historic
importance.
The minor
groups
number 10
(ffi 12), including
the well-known names Sheba and Dedan.
2.
pPl (Tjefipdv, Zofj-Ppdv, etc.)
has been connected with the
Za/3/m/z,
[ZaSpati?]
of Ptol. vi.
7. 5,
W of Mecca
(Kn.) ;
and with the Zamareni
of
Pliny,
f?N,
vi.
158,
in the interior
;
but these are
probably
too far S.
The name is
probably
derived from "107
=
*
wild
goat,
the
ending
1
an
(which
is common in the Keturean and Horite lists and rare
elsewhere)
being apparently gentilic
: cf.
npi,
Nu.
25
14
,
i Ch. 2
6
8
36
9
43
. A connexion
with nst
(J5
vr^1)>
J
en 2
5
25
is verv doubtful. On
Jtfj?; (
Iedi>, le/crav,
etc.)
see on v.
3
pp (MaSafyt)]
unknown. Wetzstein instances a Wadi
Medan near the ruins of Daidan.
JHp (Madid/*)]
The name
appears
as Mo5/aj>a
=
Ma5ia/Aa
in Ptol. vi.
7.
2,
27 (cf. Jos.
Ant. ii.
257
;
Eus.
OS,
p. 276),
the
Madyan
of Ar.
geogr.,
a town on the E side of the Gulf of
Akaba, opposite
the S end of the Sinaitic
peninsula (see
No.
EB, 3081).
The chief seat of this
great
tribe or nation must therefore have been in
the northern
Higaz,
whence
roving
bands
ravaged
the
territory
of
Moab,
Edom
(Gn. 36
35
),
and Israel
(Ju. 6-8).
The mention of Midianites in the
neighbourhood
of Horeb
may
be due to a confusion between
J
and E
(see Mey.
INS, 3f.) ;
and after the time of the
Judges they practically
disappear
from
history.
"
As to their
occupations,
we sometimes find
them described as
peaceful shepherds,
sometimes as merchants
[Gn.
37
28- 36
,
Is. 6o
6
],
sometimes as
roving
warriors,
delighting
to raid the
more settled districts"
(No.). p$y
.
and nis?
have been identified
by
Frd.
Delitzsch
(ZKF,
ii.
91
f.,
Par.
297 f.)
and Glaser
(ii. 445 f.)
with Yasbuk
and
S&fyu
of Ass. monuments
(KIB,
i.
159, 33, 99, 101),
both
regions
of
northern
Syria.
Del. has since abandoned the latter identification
(Hiob,
1
39)
for
phonetic
reasons.
3. 5f
and
J^]
see on io
7
. As
they
are there
bracketed under
nip^n,
so here under
f^p;,
a name otherwise unknown.
The
equation
with
j^p; (io
25ff-
), proposed by
Tu. and
accepted by Mey.
(318),
is
phonologically
difficult. Since the Sabaeans are here still in the
N,
it would seem that this
genealogy goes
farther back than that of the
Yoktanite Arabs in ch. io. Between Sheba and
Dedan,
(5r
ins.
Qat/j.dv
(
=
K,p\i,
v.
15
). 3b.
The sons of Dedan are
wanting
in i
Ch.,
and are
prob
ably interpolated
here
(note
the
pi.),
ffir
has in addition
Payoi^X (cf.
36
1U
)
KCU
Na/35ei7\ (cf.
v.
13
). DI^N]
certainly
not the
Assyrians (IJ
;
N),
but
some obscure N Arabian
tribe,
possibly
the I^NN mentioned on two
xxv.
i-;
35
T
Minsean inscrs.
along-
with 1*0
(Egypt), pna 13J;,
and Gaza
(Homm.
AHT, 248 f., 252 f., AA, 297
ff.
; Glaser,
li.
455
ff.
; Winckler, AOF,
i.
28 f.
;
Konig, FiinfLandschaften, 9
:
cf.,
on the other
side,
Mey.
ZA
y
xi.
327
ff.
, INS,
320
ff.
).
D?ho^]
The
personal
name irts
1
?
(as
also
TII^N)
has been
found in Nabat. inscrs.
;
see
Levy, ZDMG,
xiv.
403
f.,
447, 477 f.,
where
attention is called to the
prevalence
of craftsmen s names in these
inscrs.,
and a connexion of
/(
? with ttfo in
4^
is
suggested. 4.
Five sons of
Midian. ns
j?
is named
along
with Midian in Is. 6o
6
as a
trading
tribe.
It has been identified with the
Jrlayapa (
=
nD;y
?)
mentioned
by Tiglath-
pileser
iv. and
Sargon, along
with some 6 other rebellious Arab tribes
(KIB,
ii.
21, 43)
: see Del. Par.
304,
KAT*,
58.
With
nsy,
Wetzst. com
pares
the modern
Ofr (Di.) ;
Glaser
(449),
Ass.
Apparu (KIB,
ii.
223).
7]jq] Perhaps Handkiya
near
Ofr (Kn.-Di.).
It is
noteworthy
that
these three names
ns%
i Ch. 2
46f-
; nsy,
i Ch.
4" 5
24
; -pn,
Gn.
46
9
,
Ex.
6
14
,
Nu. 26
B
,
i Ch.
5
3
are found in the Heb. tribes most
exposed
to
contact with Midian
(Judah, Manasseh, Reuben).
Does this show an
incorporation
of Midianite clans in Israel?
(No.). Vy?** (Abi-yadad]
and
HJ^K
( Il-yedd
and
Yeda-il)
are
personal
names in
Sabaean,
the
former
being
borne
by
several
kings (ZDMG,
xxvii.
648,
xxxvii.
399 ;
Glas. ii.
449).
5.
See on
24
36
. 6. The exodus of the Bne Kedem
(com
posed by
a
redactor).
the
concubines] apparently Hagar
and
Keturah,
though
neither bears that
opprobrious epithet
in
Gen. : in i6
3
Hagar
is even called n$N.
Moreover,
Ishmael
and his
mother,
according
to
J
and
E,
had
long
been
separated
from Abraham. sent them
away from off
Isaac}
so as not to be a burden
upon
him. Cf.
Ju.
ii
2
. eastward
to the land
of
Kedem\
the
Syro-Arabian
desert.
So we must
render,
unless
(with Gu.)
we are to take the two
phrases
npnp
and
Dnj3
pN-
1
?^!
as variants. But
Dnj5
in OT is often a definite
geo
graphical expression, denoting
the
region
E and SE of the Dead Sea
(cf. 29
1
,
Nu.
23 , Ju.
6
3- 33
7
12
8
10
,
Is. n
14
, Jer. 492*,
Ezk.
25
4- 10
, Jb.
i
s
) ;
and
although
its
appellative significance
could,
of
course,
not be for
gotten,
it has almost the force of a
proper
name. It is so used in the
Eg.
romance of Sinuhe
(c. 1900 B.C.):
see
Muller, AE, 46
f.
;
Wi.
GI,
52
ff.;
Mey.
INS, 243
f.
XXV.
l-u.The
Death and Burial
of
Abraham
(P).
7 lla
are the continuation of
23
20
in P. Note the
characteristic
phrases
:
V.n ^y
p;,
7
; jna, n^io n^sy?, vsySx
qp^.,
8
;
o n
1
?^,
m
;
the chron
ology
7
,
the reminiscences of ch.
23,
and the backward reference in
49
31
.
llb
belongs
to
J.
5 end]
.uxffiJS + ij?.
6. ?:/
?
(see
on 22
4
)
is used of a
nns^
in
35
s2
.
O.VTQV.
352
DEATH OF ABRAHAM
(?)
8.
gathered
to his kindred
(see
on
i7
u
)] Originally,
this
and similar
phrases
(i5
15
47
30
,
Dt.
3i
16
etc.)
denoted burial
in the
family sepulchre ;
but the
popular conception
of Sheol
as a vast
aggregate
of
graves
in the under world enabled the
language
to be
applied
to men who
(like Abraham)
were
buried far from their ancestors. Isaac and
Ishmael]
The
expulsion
of Ishmael is
consistently ignored by
P. Iia.
Transition to the
history
of Isaac
(25
19ff
-).
Ub
(like
v.
5
)
has been torn from its context in
J,
where it
may
have
stood after
24! 25,
or
(more probably)
after the notice of Abraham s
death
(cf. 24
62
). Meyer (INS, 253, 323)
makes the
improbable conjecture
that the statement referred
originally
to
Ishmael,
and
formed, along-
with
v.
18
,
the conclusion of ch. 16.
XXV. 12-18. The
Genealogy
and Death
of
Ishmael
(P).
With the
exception
of v.
18
,
which is another isolated
fragment
of
J,
the
passage
is an
excerpt
from the Toledoth
of the
Priestly
Code. The names of the
genealogy (
13
~
16
)
represent
at once
(
princes (EN^iD
: cf. the
promise
of
i7
20
)
and
*
peoples
(ntes,
16
)
;
that is to
say, they
are the assumed
eponymous
ancestors of 12 tribes which are here treated as
forming
a
political confederacy
under the name of Ishmael.
In the
geography
of P the Ishmaelites
occupy
a
territory
intermedi
ate between the Arabian Cushites on the
S(io
7
),
the
Edomites, Moabites,
etc.,
on the
W,
and the Aramaeans on the N
(ro
22f
-) ; i.e., roughly speak
ing,
the
Syro-
Arabian desert north of Gebel Shammar. In
J they
extend
W to the border of
Egypt (v.
18
).
The Ishmaelites have left
very
little
mark in
history.
From the fact that
they
are not mentioned in
Eg.
or
Ass.
records,
Meyer
infers that their
flourishing period
was from the
1 2th to the
Qth
cent. B.C.
(INS, 324).
In OT the latest
possible
traces
of Ishmael as a
people
are in the time of David
(cf.
2 Sa.
i7
25
,
i Ch. 2
17
27
80
), though
the name occurs
sporadically
as that of an individual or
clan in much later times
(Jer. 4O
8ff
-,
2 Ki.
25**,
i Ch. S
38
9",
2 Ch.
19" 23!,
Ezr. IO
M
).
In Gn.
37
25ff
, Ju.
8
24
,
it is
possible
that Ishmaelites is
syno
nymous
with Bedouin in
general (see Mey. 326).
13.
-npi
n
^]
are the
Nabayati
and Kidri of Ass. monuments
(Asshur-
banipal:
KIB,
ii.
215
ff.
;
cf. Del. Par.
297, 299;
KAT*, 151),
and
possibly
the Nabatcei and Cedrei of
Pliny,
v.
65 (cf.
vi.
157, etc.).
The
references do not enable us to locate them with
precision,
but
they
must
8.
nD i
yiri]
v.
17
35
29
;
see on 6
17
.
yatsn]
juu.(5r better D D
1
jnan,
as
3$**.
w
*pm]
so
25" 35 49-
88
,
Nu. 2o
24- 26
27
13
3
i
2
,
Dt.
32
60
f(all P).
10.
xxv. 8-i8
353
be
put
somewhere in the desert E of Palestine or Edom. The Nabataeans
of a later
age (see
Schiirer, GJV^
4
,
i.
728 ff.)
were
naturally
identified with
TV}} by Jos. (Ant.
i. 220
f.), Jer. (Qu.},
&J
[naj],
as
they
still are
by Schr.,
Schiirer,
and some others. But since the native name of the Nabatseans
was
1BD3,
the identification is
doubtful,
and is now
mostly
abandoned.
The two tribes are mentioned
together
in Is. 6o
7
:
TV?}
alone
only
Gn.
28"
36
s
;
but
Tip
is alluded to from the time of
Jeremiah
downwards as
a
typical
nomadic tribe of the Eastern desert. In late Heb. the name
was extended to the Arabs as a whole
(so
&
y\y). Sxfi* (Na/35e^X
: see
on v.
8
)] Perhaps
an Arab tribe Idibi il which
Tiglath-pileser
IV.
(KIB,
ii.
21) appointed
to watch the
Egyptian
frontier
(not necessarily
the
border of
Egypt proper).
D
^ap]
a Simeonite clan
(i
Ch.
4
25
),
otherwise
not known.
14. yip^
p
follows OBQD in i Ch.
4
25
. Di.
compares
a Gebel
Misma SE of
Kaf,
and another near
Hayil
E of Teima.
ncn]
Several
places bearing
this name are known
(Di.)
;
but the one that best suits
this
passage
is the Dumah which Arabic writers
place 4 days journey
N of Teima
;
viz. Dumat
el-Gendel>
now called
el-Gof,
a
great
oasis in
the S of the
Syrian
desert and on the border of the
Nefud (Doughty,
Ar. Des. ii.
607
;
cf.
Burckhardt,
Trav. in
Syr. 602).
It is
probably
the
Aotf/M0a
of Ptol. v.
18(19). 7,
the Domata of Plin. vi.
157. Kjpo]
See
on io
30
,
and cf. Pr.
3I
1
. A tribe Mas a is named
by Tiglath-pileser
IV.
along
with Teima
(v.
15
),
Saba
,
Hayapa (
4
),
Idibi il
(
13
),
and
may
be
identical with the Macravoi of Ptol. v. 18
(19).
2,
NE of
Aotf/tcufla.
15.
inn]
unknown. ND n
(Is.
2i
14
, Jer. 25
23
, Jb.
6
19
)
is the modern
Teima,
on the
W border of the
Negd,
c.
250
miles SE of
Akaba,
still an
important
caravan station on the route from Yemen to
Syria,
and
(as
local inscrs.
show)
in ancient times the seat of a
highly developed
civilisation : see
the
descriptions
in
Doughty,
Ar. Des. i.
2856., 549
ff.
~\\^\
and t^m
are named
together
in i Ch.
5
19
among
the
East-Jordanic
tribes defeated
by
the Reubenites in the time of Saul. Titr is no doubt the same
people
which
emerges
about IOOB.C. under the name
Iroiyjcuoi,
as a
body
of
fierce and
predatory
mountaineers settled in the Anti-Lebanon
(see
Schiirer, GJV,
i.
707 ff.).
Of
npnp
nothing
is known. Should we read
3113 as i Ch.
5 (Ball, Kit.)?
16.
nnnsn?]
in their settlements or
villages
;
cf. Is.
42
11
the
villages
that Kedar doth inhabit.
Dnvc?3i] nytp
(Nu. 3
1
10
,
Ezk.
25*,
Ps.
Gg
26
,
i Ch. 6
89
)
is
apparently
a technical term
for the circular
encampment
of a nomadic tribe.
According
to
Doughty
(i. 261),
the Arab, dirah denotes the Bedouin
circuit,
but
also,
in some
cases,
their town settlements.
DpbN^] according
to their
peoples. nzpx
is the Ar.
ummat,
rare in Heb.
(Nu. 25,
Ps.
i^t). 17.
Cf. vv.
7- 8
.
V.
18
is a
stray
verse of
J,
whose
original setting
it is
impossible
to
determine. There is much
plausibility
in Ho. s
conjecture
that it was
the conclusion of
J
s lost
genealogy
of Ishmael
(cf.
io
19
^j.
Gu. thinks
it was taken from the end of ch. 16 :
similarly Meyer,
who
makes
llb
(p. 352 above)
a
connecting
link. Di.
suggests
that the first half
may
have followed
25,
the reference
being
not to the Ishmaelites but to the
Kefcureans ;
and that the second half is a
gloss
from i6
12
. But even
18a
is not consistent with
nb
,
for we have seen that the Ketureans are found
E and SE of
Palestine,
and Shur is
certainly
not eastward from where
23
354
GENEALOGY OF ISHMAEL
(?)
Abraham dwelt. If Havilah has been
rightly
located on
p.
202
above,
J
fixes the eastern limit of the Ishmaelites in the
neighbourhood
of the
Gof
es-Sirhan,
while the western limit is the frontier of
Egypt (on
Shur^
see on i6
7
).
This
description is,
of
course, inapplicable
to P s Ishmaelites
;
but it
agrees sufficiently
with the statement of E
(2i
21
)
that their home
was the wilderness of Paran
;
and it includes
Lahai-roi,
which was
presumably
an Ishmaelite
sanctuary.
Since a reference to
Assyria
is
here out of
place,
the words .TWN
raya
must be either deleted as a
gloss
(We.
Di.
Mey. al.),
or else read .TWX 2
;
"wx
being
the
hypothetical
N
Arabian tribe
supposed
to be mentioned in
25
3
(so
Gu.
;
cf. Homrn.
AHT, 240
f.
;
Kon.
Fiinf
Landsch.
nff.),
a view for which there is
very
little
justification.
18b
is an
adaptation
of i6
12b
,
but throws no
light
on that difficult sentence.
Perhaps
the best
commentary
is
Ju. 7
12
,
where
again
the verb hsi has the sense of settle
(=}??
in i6
12
).
Hommel s restoration
n^D
:?
l
?y,
in front of Kelah
(a secondary gloss
on iiB
N),
is a brilliant
example
of
misplaced ingenuity.
THE HISTORY OF JACOB.
CHS. XXV.
iQ-XXXVI.
SETTING aside ch. 26
(a misplaced appendix
to the
history
of Abraham :
see
p. 363),
and ch.
36 (Edomite genealogies),
the third division of the
Book of Genesis is devoted
exclusively
to the
biography
of
Jacob.
The
legends
which cluster round the name of this
patriarch
fall into four
main
groups (see
Gu.
257 ff.).
A.
Jacob
and Esau :
i. The birth and
youth
of Esau and
Jacob (25
19 28
).
2. The trans
ference of the
birthright (25
29 3:
). 3. Jacob procures
his father s
blessing
by
a fraud
(27).
B.
Jacob
and Laban :
i.
Jacob
s
meeting
with Rachel
(29
1
"
14
).
2. His
marriage
to Leah
and Rachel
(29
15 30
). 3.
The births of
Jacob
s children
(29
81
-3o
24
). 4.
Jacob
s
bargain
with Laban
(3O
28
"
43
). 5.
The
flight
from Laban and the
Treaty
of Gilead
(3i
1
~32
1
).
C.
Jacob
s return to Canaan
(loose
and
fragmentary)
:
i.
Jacob
s measures for
appeasing
Esau
(32
4
~
22
).*
2. The
meeting
of
the brothers
(33
1 17
).* 3.
The sack of Shechem
(34). 4.
The visit to
Bethel,
etc.
(35
1
-
15
). 5.
The birth of
Benjamin
and death of Rachel
(3518-20).
6. Reuben s incest
(35
21f<
)-
D.
Interspersed amongst
these are several
cult-legends,
connected
with sanctuaries of which
Jacob
was the
reputed
founder.
i. The dream at Bethel
(aS
10 22
)
a transition from A to B. 2. The
encounter with
angels
at Mahanaim a
fragment (32
2f>
). 3.
The
wrestling
at Peniel
(32
23
-
83
). 4.
The
purchase
of a lot at Shechem
(33
18
"
20
)- 5-
The second visit to Bethel
partly biographical (see below)
(35
1
-
16
)-
The section on
Jacob
exhibits a much more intimate fusion of sources
than that on Abraham. The
disjecta
membra of P s
epitome can, indeed,
be
distinguished
without much
difficulty,
viz.
25
19> 20t 26b
26
84f-
28
1 9
2g
24-
Mb. 29
30
4a. 9b. 22a
^l^pyfr 33^^ 356*.
9f. ll-13a. 15. 22b-26. 27-29
35*^
Even
here,
however,
the redactor has allowed himself a freedom which he
hardly
*
Gu.
recognises
a second series of
Jacob-Esau
stories in C.
i,
2
;
but these are
entirely
different in character from the
group
A. To all
appearance they
are conscious
literary
creations,
composed
in a bio
graphical interest,
and without historical or
ethnographic significance.
355
356
HISTORY OF
JACOB
uses in the earlier
portions
of Gn. Not
only
are there omissions in
P s narrative to be
supplied
from the other
sources,
but
transposition
seems to have been resorted to in order to
preserve
the
sequence
of
events in
JE.
The rest of the material is taken from the
composite JE,
with the
exception
of ch.
34,
which seems to
belong-
to an older
stage
of
tradition
(see p. 418).
But the
component
documents are no
longer
represented by homogeneous
sections
(like
chs. 16. i8f.
[J],
20. 22
[E])
;
they
are so
closely
and
continuously
blended that their
separation
is
always
difficult and
occasionally impossible,
while no
lengthy
context
can be
wholly assigned
to the one or to the other. These
phenomena
are not due to a deliberate
change
of method on the
part
of the
redactors,
but rather to the material with which
they
had to deal. The
J
and E
recensions of the life of
Jacob
were so much
alike,
and so
complete,
that
they
ran
easily
into a
single compound
narrative whose strands are
naturally
often hard to unravel
;
and of so
closely
knit a texture that P s
skeleton narrative had to be broken
up
here and there in order to fit
into the connexion.
To trace the
growth
of so
complex
a
legend
as that of
Jacob
is a
tempting
but
perhaps hopeless undertaking.
It
may
be surmised that
the
Jacob-Esau (A)
and
Jacob-Laban (B)
stories arose
independently
and existed
separately,
the first in the south of
Judah,
and the second
east of the
Jordan.
The
amalgamation
of the two
cycles gave
the idea
of
Jacob
s
flight
to Aram and return to Canaan
;
and into this frame
work were fitted various
cult-legends
which had
presumably
been
preserved
at the sanctuaries to which
they
refer. As the
story passed
from mouth to
mouth,
it was enriched
by
romantic incidents like the
meeting
of
Jacob
and Rachel at the
well,
or the reconciliation of
Jacob
and Esau
;
and before it came to be written down
by J
and
E,
the
history
of
Jacob
as a whole must have assumed a fixed form in Israelite
tradition. Its most remarkable feature is the
strongly
marked
biographic
motive which lends
unity
to the
narrative,
and of which the writers
must have been
conscious,
the
development
of
Jacob
s character from
the
unscrupulous roguery
of chs.
25, 27
to the moral
dignity
of
32
ff.
Whether tradition saw in him a
type
of the national character of Israel
is more doubtful.
As
regards
the
historicity
of the
narratives,
it has to be observed in
the first
place
that the
ethnographic
idea is much more
prominent
in the
story
of
Jacob
than in that of
any
other
patriarch.
It is obvious that
the
Jacob-Esau
stories of chs.
25, 27
reflect the relations between the
nations of Israel and Edom
;
and
similarly
at the end of ch.
31, Jacob
and Laban
appear
as
representatives
of Israelites and Aramaeans. It
has been
supposed
that the
ethnographic motive,
which comes to the
surface in these
passages,
runs
through
the entire series of narratives
(though disguised by
the
biographic form),
and that
by
means of it we
may
extract from the
legends
a kernel of ancient tribal
history.
Thus,
according
to
Steuernagel, Jacob (or
Ya
akob-el)
was a Hebrew tribe
which, being overpowered by
the
Edomites,
sought refuge among
the
Aramaeans,
and
afterwards,
reinforced
by
the
absorption
of an Aramaean
clan
(Rachel),
returned and settled in Canaan : the events
being placed
xxv. i
9
357
between the Exodus from
Egypt
and the
conquest
of Palestine
(Einiv.
38 ff., 56
if. : cf. Ben.
286).
There are indeed few
parts
of the
patriarchal
history
where this kind of
interpretation yields
more
plausible
results
;
and it is
quite possible
that the above construction contains elements of
truth. At the same
time,
the method is one that
requires
to be
applied
with
very great
caution. In the first
place,
it is not certain that
Jacob,
Esau,
and Laban were
originally personifications
of
Israel, Edom,
and
Aram
respectively
:
they may
be real historic individuals
;
or
they may
be
mythical
heroes round whose names a rich
growth
of
legend
had
gathered
before
they
were identified with
particular peoples.
In the
second
place,
even if
they
were
personified
tribes,
the narrative must
necessarily
contain
many
features which
belong
to the
personifications,
and have no
ethnological significance
whatever.
If,
e.g.,
one set of
legends
describes Israel s relations with Edom in the south and another
its relations with the Aramaeans in the
east,
it was
necessary
that the
ideal ancestor of Israel should be
represented
as
journeying
from the
one
place
to the other
;
but we have no
right
to conclude that a similar
migration
was
actually performed by
the nation of Israel. And there
are
many
incidents even in this
group
of narratives which cannot
naturally
be understood of
dealings
between one tribe and another. As
a
general
rule,
the
ethnographic interpretation
must be confined to
those incidents where it is either indicated
by
the terms of the
narrative,
or else confirmed
by
external evidence.
XXV.
19-34.
The Birth
of
Esau
andjacob,
and the
Transference of
the
Birthright (P, JE).
In answer to Isaac s
prayer,
Rebekah conceives and
bears twin
children,
Esau and
Jacob.
In the circumstances
of their birth
(
21
~
26
),
and in their contrasted modes of life
(
27- 28
),
Hebrew
legend
saw
prefigured
the national charac
teristics,
the close
affinity,
and the mutual
rivalry
of the two
peoples,
Edom and Israel
;
while the
story
of Esau
selling
his
birthright (
2d
~
34
) explains
how
Israel,
the
younger nation,
obtained the
ascendancy
over the
older,
Edom.
Analysis.
Vv.
19> 20
are taken from P
;
note rnVw
rr?Ni, T^in,
cnNrr
(bis),
D^N fn.
To P must also be referred the
chronological
notice
2lib
,
which
shows that an account of the birth of the twins in that source has been
suppressed
in favour of
J.
There is less reason to
suspect
a similar
omission of the
marriage
of Isaac before v.
20
. The rest of the
passage
belongs
to the
composite
work
JE.
The
stylistic
criteria
(mrv,
21Wj-
22. 23 .
-^
21 bis .
n, n
^
22 .
^,^
23)
and the resemblance of
24 26
to
3
8
27ff-
point
to
J
as the
leading
source of
21
~
28
; though
Elohistic variants
may
possibly
be detected in
25> 27
(Di.
Gu. Pro.
al.).
Less
certainty
obtains
with
regard
to
29 34
,
which most critics are content to
assign
to
J (so
Di.
35&
BIRTH OF ESAU AND
JACOB
(p, JE)
We. Kue. Cor. KS. Ho. Dri.
al.),
while others
(OH.
Gu. SOT.
Pro.)
assign
it to E because of the allusion in
ay
36
. That reason is not de
cisive,
and the
linguistic
indications are rather in favour of
J (KJ,
^
;
l
We-
Comp* 36]
;
\DV
top jrty, *>).
19,
20. Isaac s
marriage.
P follows E
(3120.24)
j n ^e
.
scribing
Rebekah s
Mesopotamian
relatives as Aramceans
(cf.
28
5
), though perhaps
in a different sense. Here it
naturally
means descendants of
Aram,
the fifth son of Shem
(io
23
).
That this is a conscious
divergence
from the tradi
tion of
J
is confirmed
by
28
2
: see Bu.
Urg. 420
fT. On
BetJmel,
see
p. 247
above. Paddan
"Aram] (28
2- 6- 7
3i
18
33
18
3
5
9- 26
46
15
[Ffi
alone
48
7
]
:
(
MeoroTrora/uas)
is P s
equivalent
for Aram Naharaim in
J (24
10
)
;
and in all
probability
denotes
the
region
round Harran
(v.i.).
21-23.
The
pre-natal
oracle. 21. With the
prolonged
barrenness of
Rebekah,
compare
the cases of
Sarah,
and
Rachel
(2Q
31
),
the mothers of Samson
(Ju. i3
2
),
Samuel
(i
Sa. i
2
),
and
John
the
Baptist
(Lk.
i
7
).
Isaac
prayed
to
Yahwe}
Cf. i Sa. i
loff
-. No miraculous intervention is
19. prur
n
n*?Ni] commonly regarded
as the
heading
of the section
(of
Gen.
or)
of P
ending
with the death of Isaac
(3S
29
)
;
but see the notes
on
pp. 40 f., 235
f. The use of the formula is
anomalous,
inasmuch as
the birth of
Isaac, already
recorded in
P,
is included in his own
gene
alogy.
It looks as if the editor had handled his document somewhat
freely, inserting
the words
-j| pri*:
in the
original heading
Drn:iN riita
(cf.
v.
12
).
20.
ps] Syr. j^,
Ar.
faddan
=
yoke
of
oxen";
hence
(in
Ar.)
a definite measure of land
(jugerum
: cf.
Lane, 2353 b).
A similar
sense has been claimed for Ass.
padanu
on the
authority
of II R.
62,
33 a,
b
(Del.
Par.
135).
On this view DIN B would be
equivalent
to
niijf
D-IN= field of Aram in Ho. i2
13
.
Ordinarily, padanu
means
way (Del.
Hwb, 515
f
) ;
hence it has been
thought
that the word is another
desig
nation of Harran
(see
n
81
),
in the
neighbourhood
of which a
place
Paddana
(vicus firope
Harran : PSm. Thes.
3039)
has been known from
early
Christian times :
Noldeke, however,
thinks this
may
be due to a
Christian localisation of the biblical
story (EB,
i.
278).
Others less
plausibly
connect the name with the
kingdom
of
Patin,
with its centre
N of the Lake of Antioch
(Wi.
KAT*
t 38).
21.
-iny] peculiar
to
J
in Hex. : Ex. 8
4- 6- *
<f
io
17- 18
. In Ar. atr
and ailraf mean animals slain in sacrifice
;
hence Heb.
Tnyn
(Hiph. may
everywhere
be read instead of
Qal) probably
referred
originally
to
sacrifice
accompanied by prayer, though
no trace of the former idea
survives in Heb. :
"
Das Gebet ist der Zweck oder die
Interpretation
xxv. i
9
-2
5
359
suggested
;
and our
only regret
is that this
glimpse
of
everyday family piety
is so
tantalisingly meagre.
22.
During pregnancy
the children crushed one
another} (v.i.)
in
a
struggle
for
priority
of birth.
Comp.
the
story
of Akrisios and Proitus
(Apol.
BibL ii. 2. i
ff.),
sons
of
Abas, king
of
Argos,
who Kara
yaffrpbs ptv
In fores tffTaffiaov
irpbs
dXX^Xovs.
The
sequel presents
a
certainparallelism
to the
history
of
Esau and
Jacob,
which has a
bearing
on the
question
whether there is
an element of
mythology
behind the
ethnological interpretation
of the
biblical narrative
(see pp. 455 f.).
Another
parallel
is the
Polynesian
myth
of the twins
Tangaroa
and
Kongo (Che.
TJ3I
t
356).
Rebekah,
regarding
this as a
portent, expresses
her
dismay
in words not
quite intelligible
in the text :
If
it
[is
to]
be
so, why
then am I . . .
?]
v.i. to
inquire of Yahwe}
to seek an oracle at the
sanctuary. 23.
The oracle is
communicated
through
an
inspired personality,
like the Arab.
kdhin
(We.
Heid.
z
134 ff.),
and is
rhythmic
in form
(ib.
135).
two
nations]
whose future rivalries are
prefigured
in the
struggle
of the infants. The
point
of the
prophecy
is in the
last line : The elder shall serve the
younger (see
on
27
29* 40
).
24-26.
Birth and
naming
of the twins.
24.
Cf.
38
27
~
30
,
the
only
other
description
of a twin-birth in OT.
25.
OiDiN
either
tawny
or red-haired is a
play
on the name
des
Opfers,
die
Begriffe liegen
nahe bei einander
"
(We. 142).
22.
<Br
tffKtpraiv (the
same word as Lk. I
41* 44
), perhaps confusing pi, run,
with
pi,
break. More
correctly, Aq.
ffvvedXdffO-rjcrav ;
2. 3iird\aiov.
*33N m no
1
?
p DN]
(5r
d OVTUS
fioi /xAXet ytve<r0ai,
tva rl
/j,oi TOVTO;
But the
11
merely emphasises
the intern
(G-K. 136 c),
and the latter
part
of the
sentence seems
incomplete:
15
quid
necesse
fuit concipere?
&
1
1 Vo \
pi ]
*
Graetz
supplies
.11.1
;
Di. Ba. Kit.
n;n (cf. 27^)
;
Frankenberg
(GGA, 1901, 697) changes
DJN to
.vrw,
while Gu. makes it
^ njx
(Ps. 91),
with m as
subj. 23. DN^J]
a
poetic
word;
in Hex.
only 27^ (J). Tjtt]
the
small[er],
in the sense of
younger,
is characteristic of
J
(ig
31- 34-
24.
D
p
in] properly
D
pkjq
(so JUUL),
as
3S
27
.
25. }Vrj*]
used
again only
of
David,
i Sa. i6
12
I7
42
. It is
usually explained
of the reddish brown
hue of the skin
;
but there is much to be said for the view that it means
red-haired
((Sr irvppdK7]s,
U
rufus
: so Ges. Tu.
al.).
The
incongruity
of the word with the name
V^y
creates a
suspicion
that it
may
be either
a
gloss
or a variant from a
parallel
source
(Di.)
: for various
conjectures
see Bu.
Urg. 2if-,
Che.
EB, 1333
;
Wi. A
OF,
i.
344 f.fyy.
has no Heb.
etymology.
The nearest
comparison
is Ar. dta*
(so most)
=
hirsute*
360
BIRTH OF ESAU AND
JACOB
(p, JE)
Edom
(see
on v.
30
)
;
similarly,
all over like a mantle
of
hair
("W)
is a
play
on Se
Ir,
the
country
of the Edomites
(36
8
).
It is
singular
that the name Esdiv itself
(on
which
v.i.)
finds no
express etymology.
26a. with his hand
holding-
Esau s
heel] (Ho. 12*)
a last effort
(v.
22
)
to secure the
advantage
of
being
born first. There are no solid
grounds
for
thinking (with
Gu. Luther
[INS, 128],
Nowack,
al.)
that
Hos. i2
4a
(VruXTiN
Hy
jam) presupposes
a different version
of the
legend,
in which
Jacob actually
wrested the
priority
from his brother
(cf. 38
28f>
).
The clause is meant as an
explanation
of the name
Jacob.
27,
28. Their manner of life.
27.
Esau becomes a
man skilled in
hunting,
a man
of
the
field\
It is
hardly
necessary
to
suppose
that the
phrases
are variants from
(also stupid ), though
that would
require
as strict Heb.
equivalent
i^y.
(Dri.).
A connexion with the Phoen.
Ou<ro>os,
brother of
Samemr&m,
and
a hero of the
chase,
is
probable, though
not certain. There is also a
goddess
Asit,
figured
on
Eg. monuments,
who has been
thought
to be
a female form of Esau
(Miiller, AE, 316 f.).
ixnp
i]
(HirJS
Nip i,
as v.
26
;
but AH has
pi.
both times. In
any
case the
subj.
is indef. 26.
3py_.;
is
a contraction of
Wapy (cf. rtp?:, Jos. is
43
, Ju.
n
lff-
with
VNTWS:, Jos. iQ
14-
27
; ru?:,
2 Ch. 26
6
with
^Nn:, Jos. I5
11
)
which occurs
(a)
as a
place
name
in central Palestine on the list of Thothmes in.
(No
102:
Y*ktir)\*
and
(b]
as a
personal
name
( Yakub-ilu) f
in a Bab. contract tablet of the
age
of Hammurabi. The most obvious
interpretation
of names of this
type
is to take them as verbal
sentt.,
with El as
subj.
: God
overreaches,
or
follows,
or
rewards, according
to the sense
given
to the
^/
Spy (see
Gray,
HPN, 218).^ They may,
however,
be nominal sentt. : Ya kob is
God
(see Mey. 282) ;
in which case the
meaning
of the name 3
pyj.
is
pushed
a
step
farther back. The
question
whether
Jacob
was
origin
ally
a
tribe,
a
deity,
or an individual
man,
thus remains unsettled
by
etymology.
At end of
v.,
(J5
adds
Pe/3<?/c/ca,
an
improvement
in
style.
*
Mey.
ZATW,
vi. 8
; INS, 251 f.,
281 f.
; Miiller, AE,
162 f.
; Luther,
ZATW,
xxi. 6off. The name has since been read
by
Miiller in a list
of Ramses
II.,
and
(defectively written)
in one of Ramses in. : see
MVAG,
1907,
i.
27. Questioned by Langdon,
ET,
xxi.
(1909), p. 90.
t
Homm.
AHT, 96,
112.
According
to
H.,
the contracted form
Yakubu also occurs in the Tablets
(ib. 2O3
1
).
$
In Heb. the vb.
(a
denom. from
spy,,
heel
)is only
used with allusion
to the
story
or character of
Jacob (27
36
,
Ho. I2
4
, Jer. 9^
: in
Jb. 37*
the
text is
doubtful),
and
expresses
the idea of insidiousness or
treachery.
So
apy, (Ps. 49
6
t),
3
py, (Jer. if), n?,^ (2
Ki. io
9
t).
The
meanings
follow and reward are found in Arab.
(BDB, 784 a).
XXV.
26-30
$6
1
different documents.
Though
this
conception
of Esau s
occupation
is not
consistently
maintained
(see 33
9
),
it has
doubtless some
ethnographic significance
;
and
game
is
said to be
plentiful
in the Edomite
country (Buhl,
Edomiter^
43).
Jacob,
on the other
hand,
chooses the half-nomadic
pastoral
life which was the
patriarchal
ideal.
Dn B*K
}
else
where an
ethically
blameless man
(Jb.
i
8
etc.),
here
describes the
orderly-, well-disposed
man
(Scotice,
douce
),
as contrasted with the
undisciplined
and
irregular
huntsman.
28. A
preparation
for ch.
27,
which
perhaps
followed im
mediately
on these two verses. V.
27
, however,
is also
pre
supposed by
29-34.
Esau
parts
with the
birthright.
The
superi
ority
of Israel to Edom is
popularly explained by
a
typical
incident,
familiar to the
pastoral
tribes
bordering
on the
desert,
where the wild huntsman would come
famishing
to
the
shepherd
s tent to
beg
for a morsel of food. At such
times the
*
man of the field is at the
mercy
of the tent-
dweller
;
and the
ordinary
Israelite would see
nothing
immoral in a transaction like
this,
where the
advantage
is
pressed
to the uttermost. The
legend
takes no account of
the fact that
Edom,
as a settled state older than
Israel,
must have been
something
more than a mere nation of
hunters. The contrasted
types
of civilisation
Jacob
the
shepherd
and Esau the hunter were
firmly
fixed in the
popular
mind
;
and the
supremacy
of the former was an
obvious
corollary. 2Q. Jacob
stewed
something
, an inten
tionally
indefinite
description,
the nature of the dish
being
reserved as a
surprise
for v.
34
.
30.
Let me
gulp
some
of
the
red that red there
/]
With a
slight
vocalic
change (v.t.),
we
28. v?5 T$
?]
A curious
phrase, meaning
venison was to his taste.
It would be easier to read
(with
Ba.
al.)
VB^>
;
or an
adj. (aio?) may
have
fallen out.
(3rj$
appear
to have read
IT*.
29.
TIJ
in]
TU
only
here in the lit.
sense;
elsewhere
=
act
pre
sumptuously.
The derivative TT3
(2
Ki.
4
s8
, Hag-,
a
12
)
with rare
prefix
na
(common
in
Ass.). 30.
Ja
J^n (#TT. Xey.)]
a coarse
expression suggest
ing
bestial
voracity;
used in NH of the
feeding
of cattle. DINH
Ditfn]
The
repetition
of the same word is
awkward,
even in an
expression
of
impatient greed.
The emendation referred to above consists in
reading
362
ESAU SELLS HIS BIRTHRIGHT
may
render : some
of
that red
seasoning (strictly
obsonium
).
Edo?n\
a
play
on the word for red
(E*
1
^).
The name is
"
a memento of the
never-to-be-forgotten greed
and
stupidity
of the ancestor"
(Gu.).
31. Jacob
seizes the
opportunity
to secure the
long-coveted birthright,
i.e. the
superior
status which
properly belonged
to the first-born son.
The rare term
.rib?
denotes the
advantages
and
rights usually
enjoyed by
the eldest
son,
including
such
things
as
(a)
natural
vigour
of
body
and character
(Gn. 49
3
,
Dt. 2i
17
:
||
}
IK
rrtpN-i), creating
a
pre
sumption
of success in
life,
(b)
a
position
of honour as head of the
family (Gn. 27^ 49
8
),
and
(c)
a double share of the inheritance
(Dt.
2i
16ff
-). By
a
legal
fiction this status was conceived as transferable
from the actual first-born to another son who had
proved
himself more
worthy
of the
dignity (i
Ch.
5
lf>
).
When
applied
to tribes or
nations,
it
expresses superiority
in
political might
or material
prosperity
;
and
this is the whole content of the notion in the narrative before us. The
idea of
spiritual privilege,
or a
mystic
connexion
(such
as is
suggested
in Heb. i2
16ft
)
between the
birthright
and the
blessing
of ch.
27,
is
foreign
to the
spirit
of the ancient
legends,
which owe their
origin
to
astiological
reflexion on the historic relations of Israel and Edom.
The
passage
furnishes no
support
to the
ingenious theory
of
Jacob
s
(Bibl.
Arch.
46 ff.),
that an older custom of
"junior right
"
is
presupposed
by
the
patriarchal
tradition.
32.
Esau s answer reveals the sensual nature of the
man : the remoter
good
is sacrificed to the
passing necessity
of the
moment,
which his ravenous
appetite
leads him to
exaggerate.
fTCD?
7|>n
does not mean
*
exposed
to death
sooner or later
(lEz.
Di.
al.),
but at the
point of
death
now.
34.
The climax of the
story
is Esau s unconcern
even when he discovers that he has bartered the
birthright
for such a trifle as a dish of lentil
soup.
E^^S? (2
Sa.
i7
28
,
23
11
,
Ezk.
4),
still a common article of diet in
Egypt
and
Syria,
under the name *adas : the colour is said to be a
darkish brown
(DB,
iii.
95a).
The last clause
implies
a
certain moral
justification
of the transaction : if Esau was
defrauded,
he was defrauded of that which he was
incapable
of
appreciating.
the first CINH after Ar.
J
iddm
=
t
seasoning
or condiment for bread*
(cf.
v.
84
):
so
Boysen (cited
in Schleusner
2
,
i.
969),
T. D. Anderson
(ap. Di.).
This is better than
(Dri. al.)
to make the
change
in both
places.
(Sr
(rov
e^/iaros
TOV
Trvppov TovTov)
and ~E (de
coctione
hacrufa)
seem to differentiate
the words.
31. DVs]=
first of
all,
as
,
i Sa. 2
16
,
i Ki. i
51
22
s
(BDB, 400 b).
XXV.
3I-XXVI.
I
363
CH. XXVI. Isaac and the Philistines
(},
R,
P).
The
chapter comprises
the entire
cycle
of
Isaac-legends
properly
so called
;
consisting,
as will be
seen,
almost ex
clusively
of incidents
already
related of Abraham
(cf.
esp.
ch. 20
f.).
The
introductory
notice of his arrival in Gerar
(
1-6
: cf. 2O
lf
-)
is followed
by
his denial of his
marriage
with
Rebekah
(
7
~
n
||
i2
10f-
2O
2ff>
),
his success in
agriculture (
12
~
16
,
the
only
circumstance without an Abrahamic
parallel),
his
quarrels
with the Philistines about wells
(
17
~
22
||
2i
25f
-),
and,
lastly,
the Covenant of
Beersheba,
with an account of the
naming
of the
place (
23
~
33
||
2i
22
-
34
).
The notice of Esau s
wives
(
34f
-)
is an
excerpt
from P.
Source. The
style, except
in
^
and some
easily recognised
re-
dactional
patches (i/3y
2a/3*>.
*-* w
: see the
notes),
is
unmistakably
Yahwistic: cf. m.T
(2.12.22.20 [
even m the mouth of
Abirnelech,
28-
K
]);
nmo
naiB,
7
(24
16
); ]prn,
8
; p njm,
^
(i2
8
);
ni.r DBQ
*np, ; nj>*,
28
(24
41
)
;
m.v
ipn:-!,
M
(24
31
).
Some critics find traces of E in
lf
-,
but these
are dubious. The relation of the
passage
to other strata of the
J
document is
very
difficult to determine. On the one
hand,
the
extremely
close
parallelism
to ch. 20 f.
suggests
that it is a
secondary
compilation
based on
JE
as a
composite
work,
with the name of Isaac
substituted for that of Abraham. But it is
impossible
to
imagine
a
motive for such an
operation
;
and several considerations favour the
theory
that ch. 26 is a continuation of the source
distinguished
as
J
h
in
the
history
of Abraham,
(i)
The Abrahamic
parallels
all
belong
to
the
Negeb
tradition
(J
b
and
E)
;
and it is natural to think that
J
h
,
re
presenting
the Hebron
tradition,
would connect the
Negeb
narratives
with the name of Isaac
(whether
Abraham or Isaac was the
original
hero of these
legends
we cannot well
ascertain). (2)
The
language
on the whole confirms this view
(cf. ^P^n, p nyn,
c& 3
*op, KVI,
and
all the
phrases
of
25a
). (3)
The ideal of the
patriarchal
character
agrees
with that which we find in
J
h
(magnanimity, peaceableness, etc.).
In
any
case,
it is to be observed that the ch. stands out of its
proper
order. The Rebekah of
7ff<
is
plainly
not the mother of two
grown-up
sons,
as she is at the close of ch.
25 ;
and
27*
is the immediate con
tinuation of
25
34
or
M
(see
We.
Comp.
2
30).
1-6. Isaac
migrates
to Gerar.
Cleared of
interpola
tions,
the section reads :
(
lact
)
There was a
famine
in the
land
;
(
lb
)
and Isaac went to
Abimelech, king of
the
Philistines,
to Gerar.
(
2aa
)
And Yahwe
appeared
to him and
said,
(
3a
)
Sojourn
in this
land,
and I will be with thee and bless thee.
(
G
)
So Isaac abode in Gerar. I. Isaac comes
probably
from
364
ISAAC AT GERAR
(j)
Beer
Lahai-roi, 25
11
. On Abimelech and
Gerar,
see 2o
lf
-.
The
assumption
that Gerar was a Philistine
kingdom
is an
anachronism (see
on io
u
),
made also in
J
b
(2i
32
)
but not in
E.
3a.
and bless
thee\
a
promise
fulfilled in Isaac s success
ful
husbandry (
12ff<
),
and other tokens of the divine favour
(
22 - 24< 28f
-),
with no reference
primarily
to the
blessing
of
Abraham.
la
y
(D.VDK irita)
is a redactional
gloss (RJ
or R
JE
), pointing-
back to
I2
10
.
2a
/3
b
(
ui
TUT^N)
is
obviously
inconsistent with
3a
,
and is best ex
plained
as a
gloss
from the same hand as
la
y
(KS. Ho.).
Di. Gu.
al. consider it a variant from a
parallel
narrative of E
(cf.
I^N
IDK nt^N
with 22
2
),
to which Di.
quite unnecessarily assigns
also
la
and
8
;
but the
evidence is too weak to warrant the
improbable hypothesis
of a second
E version of 2o
lff
*.
3b
"
5
an
expansion
in the manner of 22
15
"
18
, emphasis
ing
the
immutability
of the oath to Abraham
(see
on
I5
18
),
and
showing-
many
traces of late
composition.
7-1
1. Rebekah s honour
compromised. 7,
8. Isaac s
lie
(as
i2
13
2o
2
),
and the
king
s accidental
discovery
of it.
looked out at a
window]
possibly
into a court of the
palace
:
cf. 2 Sa. 1 1
2
.
HN
pHVfp]
exchanging conjugal
caresses
(see
on 2 1
6
),
a
play
on the name Isaac. The vb. is nowhere
else construed with riN.
9,
10. Abimelech s rebuke of
Isaac,
and the latter s
self-exculpation.
thou
mightest
have
brought
guili\
Cf. 2O
9
. It is an instance of the writer s timid
handling
of the theme
(see below)
that no actual
complica
tion arises. II. So stern an
injunction
would have been in
place
in ch. 12 or ch.
20,
but here it is unmotived.
That the three narratives i2
10ff-
20,
26
7 11
are variations of a common
theme,
appears
not
only
from their close material
resemblance,
but also
3. msnNn]
so v.
4
;
(5r
Jub.
read
sing.
The nearest
analogies
to this
use of
pi. (which
is rare and
mostly late)
are i Ch.
I3
2
,
2 Ch. n
23
=
districts
(of Palestine).
SNH]
see
ig
8
.
4a.
The
comparison
with the
stars,
as
15
22
17
.
4b, 5
almost
verbally
identical with 22
18
: note
esp.
the uncommon
ns^K
spy.
5b
is made
up
of
Priestly
and Dtnic.
expressions
:
cf. Lv. 26
46
,
Dt. 6
2
28
45
3O
10
etc. metro ics? denotes
chiefly
the service
of
priests
in the
sanctuary,
but is here used in a wider sense
(cf.
Lv.
i8
30
22
9
,
Dt. ii
1
, Jos.
22
3
,
r Ki. 2
3
,
Mai.
3
14
).
The
expression
is
highly
characteristic of P
(Ho.
Einl.
344). Oman]
juuffi +
TO-
7.
raipon t?jN]
cf.
29
22
38", Ju. ig
16
.
~)>vb]
a
very
rare and
question
able use of the word as a real inf.
(dicere,
not
dicendo).
Should wx be
deleted? JUUL& read K n
pyx.
IO.
eyca]
G-K.
io6/>. room]
cons.
pf.
;
thou wouldst
(in
that
case)
have
brought.
II.
pyn]
juxffi istf.
XXVI.
3
-i6
365
from
particular phrases
recurrent in each :
e.g.
ton
%
nnN, nn,
u
1
? w
TU,
njoD
[na ] roiB,
etc.
(cf.
Kuen. Orca?. i.
228). Although many good
scholars
(We.
Kue. Ho.
al.)
are of a different
opinion,
the
present passage
appears
to be the most colourless and least
original
form of the tradition.
In i2
10ff<
(J
b
)
the
leading
features the
beauty
of the
heroine,
the
patriarch
s fear for his
life,
his
stratagem,
the
plagues
on the heathen
monarch,
his rebuke of the
patriarch,
and the rewards
heaped
on the
latter are combined in a
strong
and
convincing situation,
in which
each element stands out in its full natural
significance.
In ch. 20
(E),
the connexion of ideas is in the main
preserved
;
though
a
tendency
to
soften the harsher
aspects
of the incident
appears
in God s communica
tion to
Abimelech,
in the statement that no actual harm had come to
Sarah,
and in the
recognition
of the half-truth in Abraham s account
of his relation to Sarah. In 26
7ff-
(J
h
)
this
tendency
is carried so far
as to obscure
completely
the dramatic
significance
of those features
which are retained.
Though
Isaac is the
guest
of Abimelech
(v.
1
),
it
is
only
the men of the
place
who
display
a
languid
interest in his
beautiful wife : no one wants to
marry
Rebekah,
least of all the
king,
who is introduced
merely
as the accidental discoverer of the true state
of
affairs,
and is concerned
only
for the
morality
of his
subjects.
No
critical situation arises
;
and the
exemplary
self-restraint manifested
by
the men of Gerar affords no
adequate
basis for the stern
injunction
of
n
,
which would have been
appropriate enough
in ch. 12 or ch. 20.
It
is,
of
course,
impossible
to
assign
absolute
priority
in
every respect
to
any
one of the three recensions
;
but it
may reasonably
be affirmed that
in
general
their relative
antiquity
is
represented by
the order in which
they happen
to stand
J
b
, E, J
h
. The transference of the scene from
Gerar to
Egypt
is
perhaps
the
only point
in which the first version is
less faithful to tradition than the other two. See the elaborate com
parison
in Gu.
197
ff.
12-16. Isaac s successful
husbandry.
12. Cultiva
tion on a small scale is still
occasionally practised
by
the
Bedouin
(see
Palmer,
Des.
of
Ex. ii.
296).
The
only
other
allusions in the
patriarchal history
are
3O
14
37
7
.
13-16.
Isaac s
phenomenal prosperity
excites the
jealousy
of the
Philistines,
which leads to his enforced
departure. 15.
See
on
18
below.
13-16.
Gu. thinks the vv. are a
pendant
to the Rebekah
incident,
corre
sponding
to the
gifts
of the heathen
king (i2
16
2o
14
)
and the
expulsion
of
Abraham
(i2
20
).
It is more natural to consider
12ff-
the
continuation of
6
;
indeed,
it
might fairly
be
questioned
whether
7 1]
is not a later
insertion,
interrupting
the
continuity
of the main narrative. 12.
onyr]
(
wrongly
D
"i;
ip, barley.
The word is
~\%
&, meaning
measure or value
(cf.
"W= reckon,"
in Pr.
23 ,
with allied words in
J.
Aram, and NH
;
esp.
NH
11^=
measure
). 13.
Siai
li"?n iS
i]
G-K.
113
u.
366
ISAAC AT GERAR
(j)
17-22.
Isaac s wells. See on 2i
25f
-.
17.
Isaac retires to
the Wadi
of Gerar] probably
the
&urf
el-Gerar,
above
(SE)
Ummel-G.(2O
l
),
into which several wadis
converge, including
W. er-Ruhaibeh
(v.
22
)
and W. es-Seba
c
.
19,
20. The first
well is named Esek
(
(
annoyance )
;
the name has not been
found. 21. Sitnah
(* hostility )
is
possibly
to be
sought
in
the W. Sutnet
er-Ruhaibeh^
close to
Ruhaibeh,
though
v.
22
seems to
imply
that the
places
were some distance
apart.
22. Rehoboth
(
room
)
is
plausibly
identified with er-
Ruhaibeh,
in the wadi of the same
name,
about 20 m. SW
of Beersheba
(a description
in
Palmer,
ii.
382 f.).
In the
narrative,
Isaac himself was
represented
as the discoverer of
these
wells,
though
another tradition
(partially preserved
in 2I
251
-)
ascribed the
discovery
and
naming"
of them to Abraham. Vv.
18* 18
are
an ancient
gloss,
inserted to harmonise the two views
by
the
supposition
that the wells had been
stopped up by
the
Philistines,
a
practice
frequently
resorted to in desert warfare
(2
Ki.
3
s5
).
23-25.
The
theophany
at Beersheba.
23.
went
up]
though
Bir es-Seba lies
considerably
lower than er-Ruhaibeh.
24.
That an
inaugural theophany (see
on i2
7
)
is
meant,
is
clear from v.
25
.
According
to this
narrative,
no
patriarch
had
previously
visited Beersheba
(cf.
2i
33
). my
servant]
ffi
reads
thy
father. Nowhere else in Gen. is Abraham
spoken
of as the servant of Yahwe.
25a.
Note the corre
spondence
of the
phraseology
with i2
7f-
i3
4- 18
.
25b.
Seev.
32
.
17. jm]
so
(of
an
individual) 33
18
(E).
18.
VDO] juudKF, Jub.
n^lf.
DiDnD
i]
used in the same sense 2 Ki.
3
19- 25
,
2 Ch.
32
3t *
*. On the masc.
suf.
(so
v.
16
),
see G-K. 60
h,
135
o.
19. Vma]
(3r +
Tepdpuv.
20.
ppp]
HIT.
Xey. poy
is common in
NH,
Tg.
in the sense of be
busy, occupied
;
in
Syr.
it means
dttrus, asper, molestus,
fuit
: hence in
Ethpa. difficilem
se
prcebuit.
21. (Br
pr.
pnr
DB>D
pnyii] (with following
vb. in
sing.),
as
v.
22
: cf. i2
8
. 22.
irnsi]
rFE
WISH,
cf. 28
3
.
24, 25aa
are
regarded by
Gu. as an
interpolation
of the same
character as
8b
~
5
;
but the
linguistic
marks of late
authorship
which
abound in
8b
"
5
are
scarcely
to be detected
here,
and the mention of the
altar before the tent is not sufficient to
prove
dislocation of the text.
Nor is it
quite
correct to
say
that v.
33
implies
a different
origin
of the
sacreclness of Beersheba from
24f-
: the consecration of the
sanctuary
and the
naming
of the
place
are
separate things
which were
evidently
kept
distinct in
J
b
(2i
33
). 25.
ns
i] synonymous
with
n&n
in Nu. 2i
18
;
elsewhere
only
used of a
grave (50)
or
pit (Ex.
2I
33
etc.).
XXVI.
17-33
3
6
7
26-33.
The
treaty
with Abimelech. 26. Ahuzzath
(v.i.)
his
friend]
his confidential
adviser,
or
vizier,
an
official title common in
Egypt
from an
early period,
and
amongst
the Ptolemies and Seleucids
(i
Mac. 2
18
io
65
;
cf.
2 Sa. i6
16f
-,
i Ki.
4
5
,
i Ch.
2f*).Pikol}
see on 2i
22
.
27.
See vv.
14- 16
. 28. The
n?N
is
properly
the curse invoked on
the violation of the covenant
;
rp-13
refers to the
symbolic
ceremony (not
here
described) by
which it was ratified
(see
on
I5
17f<
).
2p.
Abimelech dictates the terms of the covenant :
cf. 2 1
23
.
30, 31.
The common meal seems to be a feature of
the covenant
ceremony (cf. 3i
53f<
), though
here the essential
transaction takes
place
on the
morning
of the
following day.
32, 33-
The
naming
of the well
(
25b
).
The
peculiar
form
Sib ah
(v.i.)
is
perhaps
chosen as a
compromise
between
njDP,
oath
(as
Gu.
points),
and
y?f
,
the actual name of the
place.
It is
possible
to
recognise
in these
imperfectly preserved legends
a
reflexion of historic or
pre-historic
relations between nomadic tribes of
the
Negeb (afterwards incorporated
in
Israel)
and the settled
population
of Gerar. The
ownership
of certain wells was
disputed by
the two
parties
;
others were the
acknowledged possession
of the Hebrew
ancestors. In the oldest tradition
(J
b
)
the
original purpose
of the
covenant of Beersheba still
appears
: it was to
put
a
stop
to these
disputes,
and secure the
right
of Israel at least to the
important sanctuary
of Beersheba
(ai
30
).
In the later variations this connexion is lost
sight
26.
nin] (for
the
ending,
see Dri. Sam.
107)
has sometimes been
mistaken for the noun
meaning possession (i7
8
),
taken in the sense
of a
body holding- together (see
Ra. ad
loc.}
;
so 2T
imom
njro,
company
of his friends
; Jer. collegium
amicorum
ejus ;
Gr.-Ven.
Karox n
re roil
<f>t\ov (Field). JHD]
a rare word for
companion,
sodalis
(Ju. i4
H- 20
i5
2- 6
,
2 Sa.
3
8
,
Pr. 1 2
s6
(?) I9
7
t)>
whose use in the
story
of Samson
suggested
the
vvpfayuybs
of (Hi here. 28.
irnira]
need not be deleted
((BiJSU,
al.).
The form mra
foa
88
, Jos.
22
s4
, Ju.
ii
10
,
2 Sa. 2i
7
, Jer. 25,
Ezk. io
2- 6f
-f)
is
always two-sided,
and is here resolved into the commoner
pa*
. . .
p?,
exactly
as 2 Sa. 2i
7
. Hence in the first case
"
us
"
means all the
parties
to the
covenant,
in the second
only
the Philistine
representatives.
29.
nfe
im]
On the
,
see G-K.
75
hh.
nny
nnx]
JUA nnx
nny,
& N
jn,
a more natural order.
32. iV]
(5r
strangely
reads Oi
/x [eupo^cev fldw/>].
33- nn]
<> better nap.
njja^ (&ir. \ey.)]
(Si
"Op/cos;
but
Aq.
2.
TT\TJ(T/U,O^,
U
Abundantiam,
5
]vofri (n^a;?-,
Ezk. i6
4<J
).
In
spite
of the
interchange
of
sibilants,
one is
tempted
to
agree
with these authorities :
Jerome
pertinently
asks :
Quae
enim
etymologia
est,
propterea
vocari
jura-
menfuin,
quod aquam
-non
(cf. (Hi)
invenissent ? DE
]
ffi^
pr. N"]J5.
368
JACOB
SECURES THE BLESSING
of,
and the covenant becomes a
general treaty
of
peace
and
amity,
which
may
also have had historic
importance
for a later
period.
In E there
is no mention of contested wells at
all,
nor even a hint that Abraham
had
dug-
the well of Beersheba
;
while
J
h
seems
expressly
to bar
any
connexion between the covenant and the
discovery
of the well.
34, 35.
Esau s Hittite wives
(P).
In
P,
Esau is
represented
as still
living
with Isaac at Mamre
(35
29
).
Hittite for
*
Canaanite : see on
23
3
. It is
possible,
however,
that in the case of Basemath the true text was
*
Hivvite
(so
. On the
names,
see on
XXVII.
1-45.
How
Jacob
secured his Fathers
Blessing (]E).
This vivid and circumstantial
narrative,
which is to be
read
immediately
after
25
34
(or 25
28
), gives yet
another
explanation
of the historical fact that
Israel,
the
younger
people,
had
outstripped
Edom in the race for
power
and
prosperity.
The clever but heartless
stratagem by
which
Rebekah succeeds in
thwarting
the intention of
Isaac,
and
diverting
the
blessing
from Esau to
Jacob,
is related with
great vivacity,
and with an indifference to moral considera
tions which has been
thought surprising
in a writer with the
fine ethical
insight
of
J (Di.).
It must be
remembered,
however,
that
"J"
is a collective
symbol,
and embraces
many
tales which sink to the level of
ordinary popular
morality.
We
may fairly
conclude with Gu.
(272)
that
narratives of this
stamp
were too
firmly
rooted in the mind
of the
people
to be omitted from
any
collection of national
traditions.
Sources.
The
presence
of a dual narrative is rendered
probable by
the
following duplicates
(see
We.
Comp* 34-36)
:
(a)
s*.**\\ *&-*. In
(iD*n)
we are recalled to the same
stage
as the TOK i of
w
;
and
34
(Esau
s
cry)
carries us forward to the same
point
as
38
.
(b)
s1 23
II
a* a7a
: here
again
"iDN i commences two sections which must be
alternative,
since
both lead
up
to the
blessing (irmm). (c)
A less obvious doublet
may
be discovered in
n
"
13- 16
II
15
: in the one case
Jacob
is
disguised by
the
skin of the
kids,
in the other
by wearing
Esau s clothes.
(d)
30a
II **P.
(e)
44b
u
4Baa
(to IDD).
The
language
is
predominantly
that of
J,
with occa
sional traces of E
;
and that the incident was
actually
recorded in both
these documents
appears
from chs.
32, 35
3- 7
. In the
parallels just
en-
xxvii.
1-5
umerated, however,
the
stylistic
criteria are hard to trace
;
and in the
attempt
to
disentangle
them almost
everything- hangs
on the word nirr
in
OT
. As to
(b),
9*Jsa
is
certainly J,
and
21 23
consequently
E
;
it will
follow that in
(c)
I5
belongs
to
J
and
n 13- 1S
to E. With
regard
to
(a),
it
is almost
impossible
to decide which is
J
s variant and which E s. Gu.
assigns
33 38
to
E,
on the somewhat subtle
ground
that in
J (^
27
)
Isaac
is
ignorant
who it is that has
personated Esau,
whereas in E
(
88-
**)
he
knows
very
well that it is
Jacob (so
OH.
SOT).
Most critics have
taken the
opposite
view,
but without
any
decisive
positive
reason. See
Gu.
p. 270
f.
;
Pro.
19
f. It is not worth while to
push
the
precarious
analysis
further :
anything
else of
importance may
be reserved for the
notes.
1-5.
Isaac s
purpose
to bless Esau :
explained by
his
partiality
for his first-born
son,
and
(more naively) by
his
fondness for venison
(25
28
).
It is
quite contrary
to the sense
of the narrative to attribute to him the
design
of
frustrating
the decree of Providence
expressed
in the
independent legend
of
25
23
. I. Blindness is
spoken
of as a
frequent
concomitant
of old
age (cf. 48
10
,
i Sa.
3
2
,
i Ki. i
4
4
,
EC. i2
3
: ct. Dt.
34
7
).
3. thy quiver (v.i.)
and
thy
bow]
the
latter,
the hunter s
weapon
(Is.
7
24
;
cf. 2 Ki.
I3
15
). 4.
that
my
soul
may
bless
thee\
so
19t 25- 31
. As if the
expiring nephesh gathered up
all
its force in a
single potent
and
prophetic
wish. The uni
versal belief in the
efficacy
of a
dying
utterance
appears
often in OT
(48
loff-
5<D
24f
-,
Dt.
33, Jos. 23,
2 Sa.
23
lff
-,
i Ki.
2
lff
-,
2 Ki.
131^). 5.
But Rebekah was
listening}
cf. i8
10
.
The close connexion of the
blessing
and the
eating,
which is in
sisted on
throughout
the
narrative,
is
hardly
to be
explained
as a reward
for the satisfaction of a sensual
appetite
;
it
rests,
no
doubt,
on some
religious
notion which we can no
longer
recover. Ho.
compares
the
physical
stimuli
by
which
prophetic inspiration
was induced
(cf.
i Sa.
I.
pnani]
On vav cons, in the subord.
cl.,
cf. G-K. in
q.
The last
cl.
(
ui iDN
i)
contains a characteristic formula of E
(cf.
22
1 7- n
31
n
: so
v.
18
),
and is
probably
to be
assigned
to that source. 2.
wrun] J ;
see on
I2
11
.
3. ^n] (JM. in^n)
:
only here,
from
*J
nSn, hang,
is a more
suitable
designation
of the
quiver (ffilJW lEz.)
than of the sword
(2TRa.).
nyy
Keth.
may
here be noun of
unity (G-K.
122
/)
=
piece
of
game
from
TS
(QSre) (so
Tu. De. Di.
Gu.).
Elsewhere
(42^ 45
21
etc.)
it
means
provisions,
1
especially
for a
journey.
This
may
be
explained
by
the fact that
game
was
practically
the
only
kind of animal food used
by
the Semites
(see
R&,
222
f.);
but the
identity
of the
^ ^
is doubted
(BDB, 845 a). 5.
N an
1
?]
<&
V?N^
is
better,
unless both words should be
read.
2
4
370
JACOB
SECURES THE BLESSING
lo
5
*-,
2 Ki.
3
15
) ;
Gu. surmises that a sacrificial
meal,
establishing
com
munion with the
Deity,
was
originally
intended
(cf.
3D
1
?,
v.
7
: see Nu.
23
1
).
6-17.
Rebekah s
stratagem.
The mother s
jealousy
for her favourite son
(25
2S
)
is aroused
by
what she has over
heard
;
and she
instantly
devises a scheme whose
daring
and
ingenuity
illustrate the Hebrew notion of
capable
and
quick-witted
womanhood.
7- before Ycihwe]
in the solemn
consciousness of Yahwe s
presence
: see on v.
4
.
11-13
probably belong
1
to E
(see above),
and
may
be omitted from
the other
narrative,
with the effect of
making"
Rebekah s
initiative still more
apparent
:
Jacob obeys
her without a
word. II. a
hairy
man]
see
25
25
. The
objection
shows
just enough
shrewdness on
Jacob
s
part
to throw his mother s
resourcefulness into bolder relief.
13.
On me be
thy
curse]
cf.
i6
5
.
15.
the choice
clothes\
the festal raiment : the fact that
this would have been
put
on
by
Esau
proves
once more that
the
blessing
was a
religious ceremony.
Since the clothes
were in Rebekah s
charge,
Esau must
(as
Ho.
points out)
have been still an unmarried man
(ct.
P 26
34f>
).
16
goes
with
n
~
13
(E),
and
may
be removed without breach of con
tinuity. 17.
Rebekah s
part being
now
ended,
Jacob
is left
to his own resources.
18-29. Jacob
obtains the
blessing.
20. How
very
quickly
thou hast
found
it
\ my
son!
]
an exclamation rather
than a
question:
the answer
being:
Yes,
for
Yahive,
etc.
^Bp
rnpn]
caused the
right thing
to
happen,
as
24
12
(J).
21-23 may
be the direct continuation of
19a
(E)
;
the clause
6.
nan]
cf.
to?,
v.
5
;
the addition of
J9j?n ((5r)
is
unnecessary.
8.
^
p|
and
ui
T^NJ2 may
be variants : ace. to Di.
? yo^
is characteristic of
E,
and
^
joy
of
J.
12.
ynyno
(
^yyn)]), properly
a stammerer
(cf.
Ar.
tdtad]
then
a mocker
(2
Ch.
36")
;
hence not a mere
practical joker (Kn-Di.),
but a
profaner
of
religious
solemnities
(Ho. Gu.). room]
j& _jA_Z.O
(2 s.f.).
13.
7|ht
is
given by
Di. as a mark of
E,
in distinction from
J
s
pi (i9
8
2.\*).
15.
-U2
being
masc.
(exc.
Lv. 6
20
),
and
rncq
in
usage
a
subst.,
it is
best to
suppose np repeated
as nom.
regens
before the
gen. (otherwise
Dav.
27).
18.
HI TDN i
1
is
probably
to be
assigned
to E for the same reason
as
lb
,
though something
similar must have stood in the other source : Gu.,
however,
makes
19b
the direct
sequel
of
(-CN-I)
V3K-^K in
18tt
(J), giving
19*
to E.
K:TI]
<&JJ
K30
(cf.
10- 14- 31
). 23. in:i:n]
Another view of the
con-
XXVII.
6-27
37
l
and so he blessed him must have been followed
by
the words of
blessing. 24-27 bring
the
parallel
narrative
(J) up
to the
same
point. 27a.
The
smelling
of the
garments
seems to
have a twofold
significance
: on the one hand it is a final
test of Esau s
identity (otherwise
tta
disguise
v.
15
would
have no
meaning),
on the other it
supplies
the sensuous im
pression
which
suggests
the words of the
blessing
27b
(so Gu.).
The
section,
we have
seen,
is
composite (perhaps
18 19a- n
-
ffl- 28
=
E
||
19b-
20. 24-27 _
j)
.
m t^
primary
documents the interview was less
complicated,
and the movement
quicker,
than it now
appears
: but since neither has
been
preserved intact,
we cannot tell how
long
Isaac s hesitation and
Jacob
s
suspense
lasted in each case. In
J
as it
stands,
it would seem
that Isaac s
suspicions
are first aroused
by
the
promptness
of the
sup
posed
hunter s
return,
and
perhaps only finally allayed by
the smell of
Esau s
garments.
In E it is the voice which almost
betrays Jacob,
and the feel of his arms which saves him from detection. For
details,
see the footnotes.
27b-2p.
The
blessing
is
partly
natural
(
27b- 28
), partly politi
cal
(
29
),
and
deals,
of
course,
not with the
personal history
of
Jacob,
but with the future
greatness
of Israel. Its nearest
analogies
are the
blessings
on
Joseph,
Gn.
49
22ff
-,
Dt.
33
13ff-
;
and it is not
improbable
that its Elohistic elements
(v.t.)
originated
in N. Israel.
27b (J).
the smell
of
a
richfield\
cf.
struction,
avoiding
the division of
documents,
in Dri. T.
75.
The
narrator is
supposed
to "hasten at once to state
briefly
the issue of the
whole,
and
afterwards,
as
though forgetting
that he had
anticipated,
proceed
to annex the
particulars by
the same means
"
(\ cons.).
Ew. and
Hitz.
applied
the same
principle
to several other
passages (see id.) ;
but
the
explanation
seems to me not
very
natural.
24. Jinx]
juu. nrmn.
25.
33
TXD]
(& & ?|TS!? ;
but see v.
31
.
27b-29-
The critical
analysis
of the
blessing, precarious
at the
best,
depends
on such considerations as these : m.T
27b
points decisively
to
J ;
D .TJKM
,
less
certainly,
to
E,
which is confirmed
by
PTJII
}JT (cf.
37
).
29a
*
(to
D DN
1
?)
is
J
because of the last word
(25)
;
and
29b
because of the
resemblance to i2
3
. ***P
(from mn)
is E
(cf.
w
)
:
(so Gu.).
KS. and Ho.
differ first in
treating
29a b
as
wholly
||
29a
*,
thus
assigning
29a
*
to E and
a
to
J (thus
far Pro.
agrees
with
them) ;
then in the inference that
^
is
J ;
and,
lastly,
in the reflex inference that
28b
is E. The metrical structure
is
irregular.
Parallelism
appears
in
28a
and in
^
throughout.
27b
falls
into three trimeters
;
but
29
(also J)
can
only
be scanned in tetrameters.
In E trimeters and tetrameters are combined. See
Sievers,
i.
405, 577,
ii.
79, 316. 27b.
TIB
]
jux
(ungrammatically)
N"?D mrn. The
K"?D,
how-
372
JACOB
SECURES THE BLESSING
Dt.
33
23
(v.t.).2S (E). fat places of
the
earth}
for the
image
cf. Is.
5
1
28
1
,
Nu.
i3
20
.
"
Heaven and earth
conspire
to
give
him of their best"
(Gu.).
corn and
must]
often combined
with
*
oil in
pictures
of
agricultural felicity (Dt. 7
13
,
Ho.
2
8- 22
etc.). 2paa (J). J>eoples
. . .
nations]
cf.
25
23
. The
reference is to the
neighbouring
nations subdued
by
David
(2
Sa.
8). 2pa/3 (E)
resembles a tribal
blessing (cf. 49
8
).
At all events the mention of brethren
(pi.)
shows that the im
mediate situation is
forgotten.
2pb (J).
Cf. i2
3
.
30-40.
Esau sues in vain for a
blessing. 30.
Both
J
and E
bring
out how
narrowly Jacob escaped being
detected
(v.i.).
3lb.
Esau s address
(jussives)
is if
anything
a little more deferential than
Jacob
s
(v.
19
). 33. Who, then,
is he. . . .
?]
The words
express
but a
momentary
un
certainty
;
before the sentence is finished Isaac knows on
whom the
blessing
has fallen. The clause is a real
parallel
to
35
,
but a difference of
conception
is
scarcely
to be
thought
of
(Gu.
: see
above).
and blessed he shall
be]
Not that Isaac
now
acquiesces
in the
ruling
of
Providence,
and
refuses
to
withdraw the
blessing
;
but that such an oracle once uttered
is in its nature irrevocable.
34.
bless me
too]
parallel
to the
same words in
38
. Here
J
s narrative breaks
off,
and
35
(E)
resumes from the
standpoint
of
32
.
36.
Is it because he was
named
Overreacher]
that he must
always
be
overreaching
ever,
is rendered in
(5rU,
and should
perhaps
be retained. 28.
*JDB>D]
|| ^>p,
and therefore
=
^y +
p? (G-K.
20
m),
from
jctf (
39
t). 29.
inntr
i]
the final 1 should be
supplied
with
Qre
and JUA
(see
next
cl.).
rrin =
rvo]
mrr
(Kin)
is the common Aram, and NH form of rrn
(cf.
Ph. Kin =
n;n,
K;q)
:
in OT Heb.
only here,
Is. i6
4
,
Neh. 6
6
, Jb.
37*,
EC. 2
M
u
3
f,
and
(ace.
to Ex.
3
14
)
in the name mn\ Its occurrence in
early
Heb.,
as
here,
is
surprising.
V3J]
v.
87
f.
TC
1
^]
rSu
*Pfl$S wrongly.
1DK
-33]
fflr T^x
3
after
49*.
On the distributive
sing. (nn, in?),
see G-K.
1457.
3Oa
contains two
variants,
of which the second is connected
syntactic
ally
with
80b
. Since the form of
*
resembles iS
33
2^ 43
2
(all J),
we
may
assign
this to
J,
and the rest of the v. to E.
31. D-r]
Pt. rather
np;
(juss.). 33. *?3C]
KS.
conj.
VDN
(emphatic
inf.
abs.).
.T,T
11*13
DJ
K]
The
emendation of Hitz.
(Ols. Ba.) n;i
:
nin?
05
ax is
hardly
suitable : such a
sentence would
require
to be
preceded by
another
action,
of which it
was an
aggravating
or
supplementary
circumstance
(cf. 3i
16
46*,
Nu. i6
18
).
It is better
(with JJUL)
to read
031,
and
(with <&)
to insert
?;!
at the
beginning
of
M
.
36. -an]
cf. 2
9
15
,
2 Sa.
9
1
(23 ?), Jb.
6
22
f.
The
xxvii.
28-40
373
me ? Note the
word-play
Vnba
: nrna.
37.
Cf.
29a^28b
(E).
All that makes a
blessing political supremacy,
and material
wealth has been
given away
;
what remains for Esau ?
38.
Is that the
only blessing
thou
hast?]
That the
blessing
can be
revoked,
Esau does not
imagine
;
but he still
hopes
that a second
(inferior) blessing may
be his.
lifted up
. . .
wept]
corresponding
to
34a
.
"
Those tears of
Esau,
the
sensuous, wild, impulsive
man,
almost like the
cry
of some
4
trapped
creature,
are
among
the most
pathetic
in the
Bible
"
(Davidson,
Hebrews,
242). 39, 40a.
His
importunity
draws forth what is
virtually
a
curse,
though
couched in
terms similar to those of v.
29
:
Away from
the
fat places of
the earth shall
thy dwelling be;
And
away from
the dew
of
heaven above!
The double entendre in the use of
IP
has misled
JJ
and some
comm. into
thinking
this a
replica
of the
blessing
of
Jacob
(cf.
No.
EB,
1184). Compare 4O
13
with
4o
19
.
40a.
live
by
thy
sword]
by
raids on
neighbouring territory, plunder
of
caravans,
etc.* serve
thy
brother]
fulfilled in the
long
sub
jection
of Edom to
Israel,
from the time of David to that of
Joram (2
Ki. 8
20ff
-),
or even Ahaz
(i6
6
). 40b.
The
prosaic
form
suggests
that this
may
be a later addition
dating
from
after the
emancipation
of Edom
(Ho. Gu.).
break his
yoke]
a common
figure
:
Jer.
2
20
5
5
28
2< 4- n
3O
8
,
Lv. 26
13
,
Is.
9
3
etc.
The
territory
of Edom is divided into two
parts by
the Arabah
;
that
to the E is described
by
Strabo
(XVI.
iv.
21)
as
x^P
a
^P^fJ-os T) Tr\dart]
Kal
judXi<rra ^ 717)6?
lovdata. Modern
travellers, however,
speak
of it as
rendering- above,
is it that?
etc.,
satisfies
every
case
(see
BDB,
472 a),
and is
simpler
than that
given
in G-K.
150
. Ho.
(so Gu.)
thinks
36a
a redactional
expansion
;
but it has to be considered whether
36b
(II
38a
<*)
is not rather a
fragment
of
J. 38.
3N JN DJ
3D-n]
=
34b
(J).
On the
syntax
of
JN,
see G-K.
135
e. in N
^M]
(5r
A
.
**
om.,
but MSS and
daughter-
Vns.
retain,
some with the addition
/cardi/i/x^i/ros
8t I<raa:
(pn^ DTI). 40.
^y
n;n]
cf. Dt. 8
3
,
Ezk.
33".
ing
(Jer.
2
31
,
Hos. i 2
1
[?],
Ps.
55 , Ju.
u
37
[em.Jf) probably
connected with Ar. rdda
y go
to and fro
(No. ZDMG,
xxxvii.
539 f.)
: when thou becomest restive. JUUL
"HNn,
(3r
*
Comp. Josephus
on the Idumseans :
dopvfiudes
Kal &TO.KTOV 6vos atei re
Trpbs
TO.
KivfuJLO/TO.
Kal
/ieTa/SoXcus x
a
?P
ov KT^-
(&./>
iv.
231),
and
re
w/u6raTot <f>ove\jiv
fivres
(ib.
310).
Cf. Diod. ii.
48.
374
ISAAC S CHARGE TO
JACOB
(P)
extremely
fertile
(Robinson, BR,
ii.
154;
Palmer,
Des.
of
Ex. ii.
430
f.
;
cf.
Buhl, Edomiter, 15 f.).
Buhl
accordingly
thinks the curse refers
only
to the barren
plateau
W of the Arabah
;
and this is
perhaps
better
than
(with
No.
Dri.)
to assimilate the terms of the
blessing-
and the
curse.
It is
probable
that
J
s narrative contained a form of the curse on
Esau,
but whether
any part
is
preserved
in
39f-
is doubtful.
39
is
certainly
from the same source as
2S
(E)
;
with
regard
to
40a
the
question
stands
open.
On the
metre,
see
again
Sievers,
i.
404 f.,
ii.
78
f.,
317.
Ba. s
denial of metrical form is based
wholly
on the doubtful
40b
.
41-45.
Esau s
purpose
of
revenge. 41.
Esau
cherished
enmity (so
15
) against Jacob.
the
days of mourning
(5
10
)]
a
period
of seven
days,
within which Esau
hoped
to
accomplish
his
revenge. 42. Thy
brother is
going
to take
satisfaction of
thee
(Is.
i
24
,
Ezk.
5
13
)
by
killing
thee.
44,
45.
a
few
days
. . . till he
forget]
reckoning
on Esau s well-
known
instability,
and at the same time
making light
of the
trial of
separation.
bereaved
of you both\
The writer has in
view the custom of
blood-revenge (cf.
2 Sa.
i4
7
), though
in
the case
supposed
there would be no one to execute it.
XXVII.
46-XXVIII. 9.
Isaac s
Charge
to
Jacob (P).
This short section records the
only
action attributed to
Isaac in the
Priestly
Code. Two facts are taken over from
the earlier tradition
(JE)
: Isaac s
blessing
of
Jacob,
and
Jacob
s visit to
Mesopotamia.
But the
unedifying
stories of
Jacob
s
treachery,
which were the essential link of connexion
between
them,
are here omitted
;
and a new motive is intro
duced, viz.,
the
inadmissibility
of
intermarriage
with the
inhabitants of Canaan.
By transgressing
this unwritten
law,
Esau forfeits his title to the
blessing
of
Abraham,
which is thus transferred
to
Jacob;
and
Jacob
s
flight
is
transformed into an honourable mission in search of a wife.
The romantic interest of
Jacob
s
love-story (ch. 29)
is
largely
43. -jS-ma]
($r +
et s
TT\V lA.effOTrorafj.iav.
44
f.
DHHK]
as
29
20
,
Dn. n
20
;
ct.
Gn. ii
1
. awn "IB N
ty
and Ditrij;
are
obviously
doublets, though
there
are
no data for
assigning
either to its
proper
source. (Gr
runs both
together
:
u>s TOV
airoffTp^ai.
rbv
6v/j.6v
xal
TT]V opyijv
T. a.8. <rov.
XXVII.
4I-XXVIII. 9
375
discounted
by
this
prosaic representation
of the course of
events
(cf.
Gu.
341).
Marks of P s
style
are abundant : ntf
*?N,
8
;
n
rfStj,
4
; V?-]NH,
5
; cry* pg,
2 - 5-
*,
4
;
jw?
nija,
6 - 8
(J ^?n
3,
2
4
3- 37
) ; n<sy
"?n,7,
3
.
46
is an
amplification
of 26
35
(Hi") rnb),
but attributes to
Rebekah an initiative more in the
spirit
of
JE
than of P. It
may
have been
supplied by
R to facilitate the transition
from ch.
27
to 28
(v.i.).
XXVIII. I. The
language
seems
modelled on
24
3- 37
. 2.
thy
mothers
father]
The earlier
affinity
between the two families is
again ignored by
P : see on
2
5
19f
-
4-
the
blessing (JJS blessings ) of Abraham] Comp.
178.
Whereas in
JE,
Isaac is the
inspired
author of an
original blessing,
which fixes the
destiny
of his
descendants,
in P he
simply
transmits the
blessing
attached to the cove
nant with Abraham.
9.
went to
Ishmaet]
Not to dwell with
him
permanently,
but to
procure
a wife
(see 36
6f>
).
It is
undoubtedly
assumed that Ishmael was still alive
(Di.),
in
spite
of the
chronological
difficulties raised
by
De.
XXVIII. 10-22.
Jacob
at Bethel
(]E).
On his
way
to
Harran,
Jacob passes
the
night
at
Bethel,
where the sacredness of the
place
is revealed to him
by
a
dream of a ladder
leading
from earth to heaven.
Awaking,
he consecrates the stone on which his head had
lain,
as a
house of
God,
at the same time
naming
the
place Bethel,
and vows to dedicate a tithe of all he
has,
in the event of
his safe return.
46.
The
objections
to
assigning-
the v. to P
(Kue.
KS. Di. Ho. Gu.
al.)
are
perhaps
not decisive. If MT be
right,
nn rmn
agrees
in
substance with 26
34f>
, though
in 28
lff-
P
consistently
uses
JV33
3.
(5r,
however,
omits the words
nj-Kj
nrrnijap.
2.
runs] (so
5- 7
)
cf. G-K.
90
i.
3.
n
cy
Snp] 35
11
4
8
4
(P),
Ezk.
23
24
32
3
;
=
D:
U
por?, i7
4f
-. In
spite
of
Dt.
33
3
(Di.),
the
phrase
cannot well denote the tribes of Israel. It
seems to
correspond
to
J
s In thee shall all
nations,
etc.
(i2
3
etc.),
and
probably expresses
some sort of Messianic outlook.
J.
IDN
^NI]
perhaps
a
gloss suggested by 27
43f-
(Di. al.). 9. WyD^-W]
JUA om.
nVqp]
J5
(cf. SP) ;
see on
36".
376
JACOB
AT BETHEL
(jE)
Analysis.
The section consists of a
complete
Elohistic narrative
(
11ft
17 22
),
with a Yahwistic insertion
(
13
-
16
).
For
E,
cf.
D\n"?N,
12- 17- 2
;
ajtf?,
is. 22 .
the
dream,
12
;
the
tithe,
22
;
and the
retrospective
references in
3i
13
35
s- 7
. For
J,
nirr
13
<**)
16
; ^
3?}
13
>
and the resemblances to i2
3- 7
i3
18f-
i8
18
22
15ff-
26
24
32
13
. To
J belong-,
further,
10
(nnn),
and
(if genuine)
21b
,
though
the latter is more
probably interpolated.
19a
breaks the con
nexion of
18
and
M
,
and
may
be taken from
J ;
19b
is an
explanatory
gloss. (So nearly
all recent
critics.) Kuenen(0n</.
i.
145, 247)
considers
i8-i
a redactional addition to
E,
similar to 22
14 18
, etc.,
on the
ground
that
J
attributes the
inauguration
of the
worship
at Bethel to Abraham
(i2
8
),
and nowhere alludes to the
theophany
here recorded
(so Meyer,
INS, 236
3
).
But
(to say nothing
of
19a
)
the
parallelism
of
16
and
17
appears
to
prove
a real
amalgamation
of
primary
sources
(Di.).
Gu.
regards
14
as
secondary,
on account of its
stereotyped phraseology.
10-12
(E).
Jacob
s dream. II. he
lighted upon
the
place]
i.e.)
the
holy place
of Bethel
(see
i2
6
),
whose
sanctity
was revealed
by
what followed. he took
[at
hap
hazard]
one
of
the stones
of
the
place}
which
proved
itself to
be the abode of a
deity by inspiring
the dream which came
to
Jacob
that
night.
12. a
ladder}
or stair*
(the
word
only
here).
The
origin
of the idea is difficult to account for
(see
on v.
17
).
Its
permanent religious significance
is
expressed
with
profound insight
and truth in
Jn.
i
51
.
angels of God}
So
(in pi.) only
in E
(cf. 32
2
)
in the Hex. As
always
in
OT,
the
angels
are
represented
as
wingless beings (cf.
En. Ixi.
i).
In v.
11
the
rendering
a certain
place*
would be
grammatically
correct
(G-K.
126
r)
;
but it
destroys
the
point
of the
sentence,
which
is that
night
overtook the
patriarch just
at the sacred
spot (see
Ex.
3
5
).
The idea
expressed by
the
primitive
form of the
legend
is that the
inherent
sanctity
of the
place,
and in
particular
of the
stone,
was unknown
till it was discovered
by Jacob
s dream. It is
very probable,
as Ho.
suggests,
that this
points
to an ancient custom of incubation at
Bethel,
in which dream-oracles were
sought by sleeping
with the head in contact
with the sacred stone
(see
Sta.
GVI,
i.
475 f.).
13-16 (J).
The
promise.
In
place
of the vision of the
ladder,
which in E constitutes the whole
revelation, J
records a
personal appearance
of
Yahwe,
and an articulate
communication to the
patriarch.
That it was a nocturnal
theophany
(as
in 26
24
) appears
from
16a
,
as well as the word
3?#
in
13
. The
promise
is
partly
addressed to
Jacob
s
special
circumstances
(
13> 15
), partly
a re-
II.
VWKTD]
Acc. of
place (lit.
at his
head-place ),
as i Sa.
I9
1S> 16
257.
11.
16^
j jit
^6
12> njm
nSm]
The usual vivid formula in
relating
a
XXVIIT.
lo-i;
377
newal of the
blessing-
of Abraham
(
14
).
The latter is not
improbably
a
later
amplification
of the former
(see above).
13.
Yahwe stood
by
him
(v.z.)
y
and announced Himself as
one with the God of his
fathers. This
unity
of Yahwe
amidst the
multiplicity
of His local manifestations is a stand
ing- paradox
of the
early religion
of Israel : cf. v.
16
. the
land whereon thou
liest\
a
description peculiarly appropriate
to the
solitary
and homeless
fugitive
who had not where to
lay
his head.
14. Comp. i3
14ff-
22
17f-
26*-
24
32
13
. On
14b
see
the note on i2
3
. 16. Yahwe is in this
place,
etc.}
The under
lying feeling
is not
joy (Di.),
but
fear,
because in
ignorance
he had treated the
holy place
as common
ground
(<JE
J
).
The
exclamation doubtless
preserves
an echo of the local tradi
tion,
more
forcibly represented
in E
(v.
17
).
It is the
only
case in Gen. where a
theophany
occasions
surprise
(cf.
Ex.
3 ).
17-19.
Consecration and
naming"
of the
place. 17
follows v.
12
(E)
without sensible breach of
continuity
;
even
the mention of
Jacob
s
awaking (
16
)
is not
absolutely
indis
pensable (see
18
).
The
impression
of fear is far more
power
fully expressed
than in
J ;
the
place
is no
ordinary haram,
but one
superlatively holy,
the most sacred
spot
on earth.
Only
a N Israelite could have written thus of Bethel. a
house
of
God . . . the
gate of
heaven]
The
expressions
rest
on a materialisation of the
conception
of
worship
as
spiritual
intercourse between God and man.
The first
designation naturally
arises from the name Beth-
el,
which
(as
we see from v.
22
)
was first
applied
to the sacred
stone,
but was after
wards extended to the
sanctuary
as a whole. When to this was added
the idea of God s
dwelling
in
heaven,
the
earthly sanctuary
became as
it were the entrance to the true
heavenly temple,
with which it com
municated
by
means of a ladder. We
may compare
the
Babylonian
theory
of the
temple-tower
as the means of ascent to the
dwelling-place
dream:
yf (<)
9
4O
9
4I
1
, Ju. 7,
Is.
29*. 13.
v^y
SM]
i8
2
24" 45 (all J).
(5iH<S
take
D^D
as antecedent to the suff.
;
but the idea would have been
expressed
otherwise
(i
1
?
^ysp),
and the translation loses all its
plausibility
when the
composition
of documents is
recognised.
Before
f")Nn,
(Hr ins.
/AT?
0o/3oD. 14. pN.n
nsya]
(3r ws
T? <fyc/xos TT}S 6a\d<ra-rjs,
after
32
13
4i
49
.
nnsi]
(&
psi
: for the word
properly
break
through [bounds],
cf.
3O
30-
**,
Ex. i
12
,
Is.
54
3
etc.
15.
^aa]
378 JACOB
AT BETHEL
(JE)
of the
gods
in heaven
(see p.
226
above).
It is conceivable that the
ladder of Bethel
may embody cosmological speculations
of a similar
character,
which we cannot now trace to their
origin.
The
Egyptian
theology
also knew of a ladder
by
which the soul after death mounted
up
to the
gate
of heaven
(Erman,
Hdbk.
96).
Whether it has
any
connexion with the
sillu,
or decorated arch over a
palace gate, depicted
in ATLO
2
, 13,
remains doubtful. That the
image
was
suggested by
physical
features of the
locality
a
stony
hillside
rising up
in terraces
towards heaven seems a fanciful
explanation
to one who has not visited
the
spot
;
but the
descriptions given
of the
singular
freak of nature which
occurs near the summit of the
slope
to the north of Beitin
(" huge
stones
piled
one
upon
another to make columns nine or ten feet or more in
height
. .
.")lend
some
plausibility
to the
conjecture (see
Peters,
Early
Hebrew
Story, noff.).
18.
Jacob
set
up
the
stone,
whose
mystic properties
he
had
discovered,
as a
mazzgbah,
or sacred
pillar (v.t.)
t
and
poured
oil on the
top of
it
(35
14
),
in accordance with a custom
widely
attested in ancient and modern times
(see p. 380).-
IQa gives J
s account of the
naming
of the
place.
If a similar
notice occurred in E
(as
seems
implied
in
3i
13
35
3
),
it would
naturally
have stood later.
Ipb
is
usually
considered a
gloss.
From
Jos.
i6
2
(i8
13
)
it
appears
that Luz was
really
distinct
from
Bethel,
but was overshadowed
by
the more famous
sanctuary
in the
neighbourhood.
20-22
(E).
Jacob
s vow. The vow in OT "consists
18.
n^> D] ( thing
set
up,
Ar.
nusb,
Ph.
na*D)
is the technical name
of the sacred monolith which was
apparently
an
adjunct
of
every fully
equipped
Canaanite
(or Phcenician)
and
early
Hebrew
sanctuary (see
Vincent, Canaan,
96,
102 f.
,
140). Originally
a
fetish,
the
supposed
abode
of a
spirit
or
deity,
a belief of which there are clear traces in this
passage,
it came afterwards to be
regarded
as a
vague symbol
of
Yahwe s
presence
in the
sanctuary,
and
eventually
as the memorial of
a
theophany
or other
noteworthy
occurrence. In this harmless sense
the word is
freely
used
by
E
(3
i
13- "
33
20
[em.] 35",
Ex.
24*);
but not
by J,
who never mentions the
object except
in connexion with
Canaanitish
worship (Ex. 34
13
).
But that the emblem retained its
idolatrous associations in the
popular religion
is shown
by
the strenuous
polemic
of the
prophets
and the Dtnic.
legislation against
it
(Hos.
io
lf>
,
Mic.
5
12
,
Dt. i2
3
etc.,
esp.
i6
22
[cf.
Lv. 26
1
])
;
and
J
s
significant
silence
is
probably
an earlier indication of the same
tendency.
It is
only
at a
very
li*te
period
that we find the word used once more without offence
(Is. 19^).
See Dri. on Dt. i6
21f-
; RS?, 204 ff.,
456
f.
;
Moore in
EB,
2974
ff.
;
Whitehouse in
DB,
iii.
879
ff.
pin]
On
this,
the usual
form,
see
G-K.
71. 19. nSiKi]
A
strong
adversative,
found in Pent,
only 48
19
,
xxvin. 18-22
379
essentially
of a solemn
promise
to render God some
service,
in the event of some
particular prayer
or wish
being granted
"
(Dri.)
;
*
hence it falls into two
parts
: a condition
(
20f
-),
and
a
promise (
22
).
20,
2ia. The conditions
correspond
with the
divine
promise
in
15
(J) (a)
the
presence
of God
;
(b) protec
tion
;
(c)
safe return
except
as
regards
the
stipulation
for
bread to eat and raiment to "wear. The
separation
of sources
relieves
Jacob
from the
suspicion
of
questioning
the
sincerity
of an
explicit
divine
promise.
On
2lb,
v.i. 22. The
promise.
this stone . . . shall be
(ffi
adds to
me)
a house
of God]
i.e.
(in
the view of the
writer),
a
place
of
worship.
It is to be
noted that this reverses the actual
development
: the stone
was
first
the residence of the
numen,
and
afterwards
became
a mazzebah. 22b. He will
pay
a tithe of all his
possessions.
This and Am.
4*
are the
only pre-Deuteronomic
references
to the tithe
(cf. i4
20
).
In its
present setting-
the above narrative forms the transition link
between the
Jacob-Esau
and the
Jacob-
Laban
cycle
of
leg-ends.
In sub
stance it
is,
we can
hardly
doubt,
a modification of the
cultus-legend
of
Bethel
(now
Beitln,
situated on an eminence about 10 miles N of
Jeru
salem,
a little E of the road to
Nabulus),
the
founding-
of which was
ascribed to the
patriarch Jacob.
The concrete features which
point
to
a local
origin
the erection of the
mazzebah,
the
ladder,
the
gate
of
heaven,
and the institution of the tithe are all indeed
peculiar
to the
account of
E,
which
obviously
stands nearer to the sources of the native
tradition than the
stereotyped
form of the
theophany given by J.
From
E we learn that the immemorial
sanctity
of Bethel was concentrated in
the sacred stone which was itself the
original
Beth-
el,
i.e. the residence
of a
g-od
or
spirit.
This belief
appears
to
g-o
back to the
primitive
stone-
Ex.
9
16
,
Nu.
I4
21
. For nS
IKI,
ffi
has icai
OuXa^atfy ;
cf.
Ju.
iS
29
(<&\ nS]
35
6
48
3
, Jos.
i6
2
i8
13
, Ju.
i
23
!.
The name
Aoitfd
appears
to have been
known in the time of Euseb.
(OS, I35
1
)
;
and Miiller
(AE, 165)
thinks it
may
be identical with Rusa on
Eg",
inscr.
21.
vnsn]
(fix
KO.I
a.iroaTpt\f/Ta
/xe,
as v.
10
. 2lb can with
difficulty
be
assigned
either to the
protasis
or to the
apodosis
of the sentence. The
word mrr shows that it does not
belong
to E
;
and in all
probability
the
cl. is to be omitted as a
gloss (Di. al.).
The
apod,
then has the same
unusual form as in 22
1
.
*
But We.
(Heid.* 190)
remarks of the Arabian custom :
"
Die Araber
geloben
nicht in eventum : wenn der und der Fall
eiiitritt,
so will ich das
tun
;
sondern sie iibernehmen durch das Geliibde eine absolut bindende
Pflicht."
380 JACOB
S MARRIAGE
worship
of which traces are
very widely
diffused over the surface of the
globe.*
The characteristic rite of
anointing-
the
stone,
originally perhaps
a sacrifice to the
indwelling numen,
was familiar to classical
writers.!
The most instructive
parallel
is the fact mentioned
by
Pausanias
(x. 24,
6),
that on a small stone in the
sanctuary
of
Delphi
oil was
poured every
day
: we
may conjecture
that a similar
practice
was
kept up
at Bethel
long
after its
original significance
was
forgotten. Though
the monolith
of Bethel is not elsewhere
explicitly
referred to in
OT,
we
may
assume
that,
stripped
of its
pagan
associations and reduced to the rank of a
mazzebdh,
it was still
recognised
in historic times as the chief
religious
symbol
of that
great
centre of Hebrew
worship.
XXIX.
1-30. Jacob
s
Marriage
with Laban s
Daughters
(JE, P)-
Instead of
spending
a few
days (27
44
)
as Laban s
guest,
Jacob
was destined to
pass
20
years
of his life with his
Aramaean kinsman. The circumstances which led to this
prolonged
exile are recorded in the two
episodes
contained
in this section
;
viz.
Jacob
s
meeting
with Rachel at the well
(
1
~
14
),
and the
peculiar
conditions of his
marriage
to Leah
*
See
Tylor,
Prim. Cult? ii. 160 ff.
; Frazer,
Pausan. iv.
154 f., Adonis,
21
;
J?S
2
, 204 ff., 232
f. The wide distribution of these sacred
objects
seems fatal to the
theory
of
Lagrange,
that
they
were miniature
repro
ductions of the
Babylonian temple-towers,
which
again
were miniature
symbols
of the earth conceived as a
mountain,
a
difficulty
of which the
author himself is conscious
(tudes*y 192 ff.).
f
On anointed stones
(\idoi \nrapol, a.\rj\ififi^voij lapides uncft,
lubri-
cati, etc.),
see Clem. Alex. Strom, vii.
4,
26;
and the remarkable state
ments of
Theophrastus,
Char. 16
; Lucian, Alexander, 30 ;
and
Arnobius,
Adv.
Gentes,
i.
39, quoted by Frazer,
Pausan. v.
354.
For
Assyrio-
logical parallels
see
KIB,
i.
44
f.,
ii.
113, 151,
261. A curious
develop
ment of the ancient belief
appears
in the name
BcdriAos, ~BaiTu\iov, Betulus,
applied
to small stones
(aerolites?), supposed
to be
self-moving
and
endowed with
magical properties,
which
played
a considerable
part
in
the
private superstitions
of the
beginning
of the Christian era ^Eus.
Prcep.
Ev. i.
10, 18; Photius,
BibL
[Migne,
ciii.
1292 f.]; Pliny,
UN,
xxxvii.
135, etc.).
The existence of a Canaanitish
deity
Bait-ili
(who
can
only
be
regarded
as a
personification
of the
temple
or the sacred
stone)
is
proved by unimpeachable Assyriological
evidence
(A
A T
3
, 437
f.
;
Lagrange,
I.e.
196).
Since BalrvXos is also the name of a
god
in Philo-
Byblius,
it seems unreasonable to doubt the
etymological
and material
connexion between the ancient Semitic
/NTT?
and the
portable betyl
of
the Graeco-Roman
period,
which was so named as the residence of a
spirit
;
but see the
important
article of
Moore, Journal of
the Archaeo
logical
Institute
ofAmerica,
vii.
(1903),
No.
2, p. 198
ff.
and Rachel
(
15
"
3
).
The
first,
a
purely idyllic
scene
reminding
us of
24
n
~
33
and Ex. 2
15
~
22
,
forms a
pleasing
introduction to
the
cycle
of
Jacob-Laban
narratives,
without a trace of the
petty chicanery
which is the
leading
motive of that
group
of
legends.*
In the
second,
the true character of Laban is ex
posed by
the
unworthy
trick which he
practises
on
Jacob ;
and the reader s
sympathies
are enlisted on the side of
Jacob
in the trial of astuteness which is sure to ensue.
Analysis. Fragments
of P s narrative can be
easily recognised
in
vv.
24- 29
,
and
probably
also in
Wb
. The
separation
of
J
and E is uncertain
on account of the close
parallelism
of the two documents and the absence
of material differences of
representation
to
support
or correct the
literary
analysis.
Most
subsequent
critics
agree
with Di. that v.
1
belongs
to E
(see
the
notes),
and
2 14
to
J
: cf.
nxnpV
pi,
13
(i8
2
24")
;
"ai
Dsy,
14
(a
23
).
In
16f>
Rachel
appears
to be introduced for the first time
;
hence Di.
regards
E as the main source of
15
(or
15b
)
"
30
,
excluding, however,
v.
26
,
where
"vyyv
and
rry?5
reveal the hand of
J
: characteristic
expressions
of
E are
matra,
15
(3i
7- 41
);
n^na and
njop,
1G- 18
;
ui inn nfl
,
17
. So Gu. Pro.
nearly.
Ball and Corn,
assign
all from
19
onwards to
J.
1-14. Jacob
s
meeting"
with Rachel. i. the sons
of
the
East\
Since the
goal
of
Jacob
s
journey
is in
J,
Harran
(aS
10
29*)
and in
P,
Paddan Aram
(28
7
),
it is to be
presumed
that
this third variation comes from E
(Di.).
Now the
D^P ^3
are
everywhere
else the tribes of the
Syro-Arabian
desert,
and
3i
21ff-
certainly suggests
that Laban s home was not so
distant from Canaan as Harran
(see
on
24
lof-
[city
of
Nahor]).
It is
possible,
therefore,
that in the tradition followed
by
E,
Laban was the
representative
of the nomadic Aramaeans
between Palestine and the
Euphrates (see
p. 334 above).
2. The well in the
open country
is
evidently
distinct,
even in
J,
from the town-well of Harran
(cf. 24
13
).
For . . .
they
used to
water,
etc.\
To the end of v.
3
is an
explanatory par
enthesis
describing
the
ordinary procedure.
The custom of
covering
the well with a
heavy
stone is referred to
by
I. The curious
expression
lifted
up
his feet is found
only
here.
<3rU om.
33 ;
and (5r adds to the v.
irpbs Aafiav KT\.,
as 28
5b
. 2. n*?ia
pxm
can
only
mean and the stone was
great
: it is
perhaps
better to omit
*
2P thinks it
necessary
to introduce a hint of the
coming rivalry
into
the conversation between
Jacob
and Rachel
(v.
13
).
382
JACOB
S MARRIAGE
(JE)
Robinson,
BR
y
i.
490; Thomson, LB,
589; Palmer,
Des.
of
Ex. ii.
319
f.
;
cf. also Diod. ii.
48,
xix.
94. 4. Jacob
accosts
the
shepherds,
and learns that
they
come
from
Harran. There
is
nothing
else in the narrative to
suggest
the
proximity
of
a
great city
;
Laban is no
city-dweller
as in ch.
24,
but a
nomad sheikh
;
and the life
depicted
is
everywhere
that of
the desert. All this confirms the
impression
that the
topo
graphy
of E
(v.
1
)
has been modified
by J
in accordance with
the
theory
that Harran was the
city
of Nahor.
5-
^e son
f
Nahor\
see on
24
15
.
7>
8.
Jacob
is
puzzled by
the
leisurely
ways
of these Eastern
herdsmen,
whom he
ironically supposes
to have ceased work for the
day.
He is soon to show them
an
example
of how
things
should be
done,
careless of the
conventions which
they plead
as an excuse.
9.
a
shepherdess]
cf. Ex. 2
16
. The trait is in accordance with the freedom still
allowed to unmarried
girls among
the Bedouin. Burck. found
it an established rule
among
the Arabs of Sinai that
only girls
should drive the cattle to
pasture (Bedouin,
i.
351).
10. The
removal of the stone is a feat of
strength
which has been
thought
to
belong
to a more
primitive legend,
in which
Jacob
figured
as a
giant (Di.
Gu.
al.):
cf.
32
26
. II.
ivept aloud\
after the demonstrative fashion of the Oriental
(Ben.),
tears of
joy
at the
happy
termination of his
journey.
12.
brother]
as in v.
15
i3
8
I4
14
(24
48
?). 13.
kissed him
repeatedly
(Piel)]
The effusive
display
of
affection,
perhaps
not
wholly
disinterested,
is characteristic of Laban
(cf. 24
29ff
-). 14. my
bone and
my
flesh}
as
37
27
, Ju. 9
2
,
2 Sa.
5
1
i9
13f>
. It is an
absurd
suggestion
that the exclamation is called forth
by
the
recital of
Jacob
s
dealings
with
Esau,
in which Laban
recog
nised a
spiritual affinity
to himself! The
phrase
denotes
literal
consanguinity
and
nothing
more.
the art.
(with JUA). 3.
D
nyn]
JUUL D
jnn,
needlessly
substituted
by
Ba. So
also v.
8
,
where jux is
supported by
&. 6. Before
njm,
(5r
ins. ri avrov
XaXoGi Tos
(as
v.
9
).
An
assimilating- tendency reappears
at the end of the
v.
;
and the variations have no critical value.
9. nxS] perf.
;
ct. the
ptcp.
n$3 in v.
6
. ton
njn]
(5r +
ra
7r/3<5/3ara
rou
irarpds avTys.
IO. ?J
l]
with
original
* in
impf. Qal (G-K. 67 p). 13.
yotf
((Or Dt?)
=
the
report
con
cerning-,
followed as
always by gen. obj. 14.
D D
snn]
a whole month
;
see G-K.
131
d.
xxix.
3-25
3^3
15-30- Jacob
s double
marriage. 15.
Laban s char
acter
begins
to unfold itself as that of a man
ostensibly
actuated
by
the most honourable
motives,
but at heart a
selfish
schemer, always ready
with some
plausible pretext
for his nefarious conduct
(see
vv.
19- 26
).
His
apparently
generous
offer
proves
a well-laid
trap
for
Jacob,
whose love
for Rachel has not
escaped
the notice of his shrewd kinsman.
l6-l8a. An
explanatory parenthesis.
The manner in
which Rachel is
introduced,
as if for the first
time,
is
thought
to mark the transition to another source
(Di. al.).
On the
names Leah and
Riihel,
v.i.
17.
Leah s
eyes
were weak
(
3
~!> ffi
dor#evets, Aq.
2.
aTraXoi)
: i.e.
they
lacked the lustrous
brilliancy
which is counted a feature of female
beauty
in the
East. l8b.
Jacob,
not
being
in a
position
to
pay
the
purchase
price
(mohar)
for so
eligible
a
bride,
offered seven
years
service instead. The custom was
recognised by
the ancient
Arabs,
and is still met with
(We.
GGN,
1893, 433
f.
;
Burck.
Syria,
i.
297 f.). Ip.
The first cousin has still a
prior
(sometimes
an
exclusive) right
to a
girl
s hand
among
the
Bedouin and in
Egypt (Burck.
Bedouin,
i.
113, 272; Lane,
Mod.
Eg?
i.
199).
22. Laban
proceeds
to the execution of
his
long
meditated
coup.
He himself
arranges
the
marriage
feast
(ct. Ju. i4
10
), inviting
all the men
of
the
place,
with
a view doubtless to his
self-exculpation (v.
26
). 23.
The sub
stitution of Leah for Rachel was rendered
possible by
the
custom of
bringing
the bride to the
bridegroom
veiled
(24^).
To have thus
got
rid of the
unprepossessing
Leah for a hand
some
price,
and to retain his
nephew
s services for other
seven
years (v.
27
),
was a master-stroke of
policy
in the
eyes
of a man like Laban.
25. Jacob
s
surprise
and
indignation
15. an]
see on
27^. rrpfco] 3i
7- 41
(E),
Ru. 2
12
f;
-n
^
is common to
J
(3O
28- 82f
-)
and E
(3i
8
,
Ex. 2
9
).
16. ^iJ and
pp
are in such
connexions
characteristic of E
(v.
18
42
13- 16- 20- 32- 34
)
;
see Ho. Einl.
104.
^ri
means
ewe
(Ar. rafyil she-lamb)
;
hence
by analogy
nx? has been
explained
by
Ar. la
at,
bovine
antelope (see
No.
ZDMG,
xl.
167
;
Sta.
ZATW,
\.
112 ft
.),
and the names are cited as evidence of a
primitive
Heb.
totemism
(KM**, 254 f.).
Others
prefer
the derivation from Ass.
liat,
lady (see
Haupt, GGN, 1883, 100).
18.
Wnn]
3
pretii (G-K. ng/);
so
20--5
20.
nn
vm]
ffiA om. 21.
nan]
Milra before N
(G-K.
690). 24.
nnsti
]
better
384 JACOB
S MARRIAGE
(jE)
are
vividly depicted.
26. It is not so
done]
cf.
34*,
2 Sa.
i3
12
.
Laban no doubt
correctly
states the local
usage
: the
objec
tion to
giving
a
younger daughter
before an older is
natural,
and
prevails
in certain countries
(Lane,
i. 201
;
ci.Jub.
xxviii.,
Ju. i5
lf
-,
i Sa. i8
17
). 27,
28.
Fulfil
the week
of
this
one]
i.e.,
the usual seven
days (Ju. i4
12
,
To. n
19
)
of the
wedding
festival for Leah. For the
bridegroom
to break
up
the
festivities
would,
of
course,
be a
gross
breach of
decorum,
and
Jacob
has no alternative but to fall in with Laban s new
proposal
and
accept
Rachel on his terms.
30.
Laban s
success is for the moment
complete ;
but in the alienation
of both his
daughters,
and their
fidelity
to
Jacob
at a critical
time
(3i
14fft
),
he suffered a
just
retribution for the
unscrupu
lous assertion of his
paternal rights.
In
Jacob
s
marriages
it has been surmised that features survive of
that
primitive type
of
marriage (called
beena
marriage)
in which the
husband becomes a member of the wife s kin
(Rob.
Sm. KM
<2
~,
207).
Taken as a whole the narrative
hardly
bears out that view. It is true
that
Jacob
attaches himself to Laban s
family
;
but it does not follow
that he did not set
up
a house of his own. His
remaining
with Laban
was due to his
inability
to
pay
the mohar otherwise than in the
way
of
personal
service. As soon as the contract
expired
he
pleads
his
right
to
provide
for his own house
(3O
30
J).
On the other
hand,
Laban cer
tainly
claimed the
right
to detain his
daughters,
and treated them as
still members of his
family (31
26 43
E)
;
and it
might
be
imagined
that the
Elohistic tradition
recognised
the existence of beena
marriage,
at least
among
the Aramaeans. But it is doubtful if the claim is more than an
extreme assertion of the
right
of a
powerful family
to
protect
its female
relatives even after
marriage.
XXIX.
3
i-XXX.
24.
The Birth
ofJacob
s Children
(JE).
A difficult
section,
in which the
origin
of the tribes of
Israel is
represented
in the fictitious form of a
family history.
The
popular etymologies
attached to the names are here
extremely
forced,
and sometimes
unintelligible
;
it is remark
s^ (-xC )
;
see v.
29
. 26.
.Yvysm]
distinctive of
J
;
see v.
1B
.
27.
rather
3rd
f. s.
pf. Niph.,
than ist
pi.
cohort.
Qal (as most).
read
JRNI.
28b. rcvvh
iV]
The double dative is characteristic of
P,
to
whom the whole clause
may
be
assigned along
with
2y
.
30.
The second
pa has no
sense,
and should
probably
be deleted
(fflrU).
XXIX.
26-31
able
that,
with
hardly
an
exception, they
are based on the
rivalry
between
Jacob
s two wives.
(The
names are bestowed
by
the
mothers,
as is
generally
the case in
JE.)
How far
genuine
elements of tradition are embodied in such a narra
tive is a
question
which it is
obviously impossible
to answer
with
certainty.
We cannot be
wrong-
in
attributing-
historical
significance
to the distinction between the tribes whose
descent was traced to
Jacob
s wives and those
regarded
as
sons of concubines
;
though
we are
ignorant
of the actual
circumstances on which the classification
depends.
It is
also certain that there is a solid basis for the
grouping
of
the chief tribes under the names of Leah and
Rachel,
repre
senting perhaps
an older and a later settlement of Hebrews
in Palestine
(Sta.
ZATW,
i. 112
f.).
The fact that all the
children
except Benjamin
are born in
Mesopotamia may
signify
that the
leading
tribal divisions existed before the
occupation
of Canaan
;
but the
principle certainly
cannot
be
applied
in
detail,
and the nature of the record forbids the
attempt
to discover in it reliable data for the
history
of the
tribes.
(For
a
conspectus
of various
theories,
see
Luther,
ZATW,
xxi.
36
ff.
;
cf.
Mey. INS,
291 f.,
509 ff.)
The sources are
J
and
E,
with occasional clauses from P.
29
31 88
is
wholly
from
J (m.T,
3U 32- ** M
; .Tip;;,
81
; ny?n,
" 35
),
with the
possible excep
tion of
3-b
y
30
1 8
is
mainly
E
(D .T^K,
2- 6- 8
; no*,
8a
) ;
but
3a
reminds us of
J (i6
2
),
4a
is
assigned
to P
(nnsi^
and cf. i6
3
),
and in
7
nrt?>
must be either
from
J (KS.
Ba.
Gu.)
or P
(Ho.). 3o
9 13
is
again mostly
from
J ("inr? ,
10. 12 .
c
9a
with
29
31
30
1
29
35
).
9b
is P.
3o
14 24
presents
a
very
mixed
text,
whose elements are difficult to
disentangle
;
note the double
etymologies
in
is.
(
cf<
i6)
20. 23f.
The hand of E
dearly appears
in
17*- 18- 20a
/3-
22b
o.
(22a
may
be from P : cf. 8
1
)
23
. Hence the
parallels
14 16- 20a
y-
24
must be as
signed
to
J,
who is further
characterised, according
to
Gu.,
by
the
numeration of the sons
(
17b- 19 20a
y).
21
is
interpolated.
31-35.
The sons of Leah.
31.
hated\
The
rendering
is too
strong.
nNW
is almost a technical term for the less
favoured of two wives
(Dt.
2i
15ff>
)
;
where the two are
sisters
the
rivalry
is
naturally
most
acute,
hence this
practice
is
forbidden
by
the later law
(Lv.
i8
18
).
The belief that Yahwe
takes the
part
of the unfortunate wife and rewards her with
children,
belongs
to the
strongly
marked
family religion
of
2
5
386
JACOB
S CHILDREN
(JE)
Israel
(i
Sa. I
2ff
-).
32.
Reuben}
The
only plausible
ex
planation
of the
etymology
is that it is based on the form
EBK-i
(.f.)=:^?3-0
s>
and that
mrv
is substituted for the
divine name
?3.
Most comm.
suppose
that the writer
resolves
pi&O
into
[^]?[V]? [
n
]^"J
\
but that is too extrava
gant
for even a Heb.
etymologist. 33.
Simon]
derived from
JJDt?, hear,
1
expressing precisely
the same idea as Re ubon.
34-
L&vi)
as the third
son,
is
explained by
a verb for
*
adhere
(Niph. *J rr6),
on the
principle
that a threefold
cord is not
easily
broken.
35.
Yehudah]
connected with a
word
meaning praise
(rniil:
cf.
impf.
!
"
I
PT,
Neh. n
17
).
So in
49
8
.
XXX. 1-8. Rachel s
adopted
sons.
1,
2. A
passionate
scene, showing
how Rachel was driven
by jealousy
of her
sister to
yield
her
place
to her maid. Her
petulant
be
haviour recalls that of Sarah
(i6
5
),
but
Jacob
is less
patient
than Abraham. Am I in God s
stead?}
So
5o
19
,
cf. 2 Ki.
5
7
.
3.
bear
upon my
knees]
An allusion to a
primitive ceremony
of
adoption,
which here
simply
means that Bilhah s children
will be
acknowledged by
Rachel as her own.
On the
ceremony
referred
to,
see Sta.
ZATW,
vi.
143
ff.
;
Ho.
196;
DrL
274.
Its
origin
is traced to a
widespread
custom,
according-
to
which,
in
lawful
marriage,
the child is
actually brought
forth on the father s knees
(cf. Jb. 3
12
;
//. ix.
455
f.
;
Od. xix.
401 ff.);
then it became a
symbol
of
32. pl*q]
(
Pov^rjv,
etc.
;
& *^o5
; Jos. Po^Xos.
The
origin
of
the name has
given
rise to an
extraordinary
number of
conjectures
(see
Hogg,
EB, 4091 ff.).
We seem driven to the conclusion that the
original
form
(that
on which the
etymology
is based:
v.s.)
was ^31K1. In that
form the name has been connected with Ar. ri
bdl, lion,
or
wolf,
in
which case Reuben
might
have to be added to the
possibly
totemistic
names of OT. Another
plausible suggestion
is that the word is softened
from
^W*JT]
a
theophorous compound
after the
analogy
of
SNIJH
33-
After
J3,
ins.
Uff,
which
may
be correct
(cf. 30*-
12- 17- 19- 24
). f>w]
Another
supposed
animal
name,
from Ar.
stm,
a cross between the wolf
and
hyaena (see
Rob. Sm.
JPh.
ix.
80).
Ewald
regarded
it as a diminu
tive of
SNVD-^:,
and
similarly recently Cheyne (TBI, 375). 34.
mp]
.uxd&LS
nN-i;
<
A
tK\r)0rj.
-i
1
?]
We. s
conjecture
that this is the
gentilic
of nx? is
widely accepted (Sta.
Rob.-Sm. No.
Mey. al.)
Homm.,
on
the other
hand,
compares
S Arab, laviu
priest,
Levi
being
the
priestly
tribe
(AHT, 278
f.
;
cf. Benz. Arch*
56).
3- n^?] (of
unknown
etymology)
is
probably
to be connected
with
XXIX.
32-XXX.
II
387
the
legitimisation
of a natural
child,
and
finally
a form of
adoption
generally (so
23
).
Gu.
, however,
thinks the rite
originated
in cases like
the
present (the
slave
being
delivered on the knees of her
mistress),
and
was afterwards transferred to male
adoption.
obtain children
by
her}
see on i6
2
. 6. The
putative
mother
names the
adopted
child.
Dan]
The
etymology
here
given
(\/
P
1
"
1
)} judge )
is
very probably
correct,
the form
being
an
abbreviated
theophorous
name
(cf.
Abi-dan^
Ass. Asshur-
dan,
etc.).
8.
wrestling
s
of
God I have
wrestled}
The words
are
very
obscure
(see
Che.
376 ff.).
Either
*
I have had
"
a
veritable God s bout"
(Ba.)
with
my
sister,
or
(less
probably)
*
I have wrestled with God
(in prayer)
like
my
sister. and
have
overcome]
This seems to
imply
that Leah had
only
one
son at the time
(Gu.);
and there is
nothing
to
prevent
the
supposition
that the
concubinage
of Bilhah followed immedi
ately
on the birth of Reuben.
9-13.
Leah s
adopted
sons. II. Gad is the name of an
Aramaean and Phoenician
god
of Luck
(Tv^r/),
mentioned in
Is.
65
11
(see
Camb.
Bible,
ad loc.
;
cf.
Baethgen,
Beitr.
76
ff.
159 ff.).
There is no
difficulty
in
supposing
that a
hybrid
tribe like Gad traced its
ancestry
to this
deity,
and was
named after him
;
though,
of
course,
no such idea is
expressed
in the text. In Leah s exclamation the word is used
appella-
tively:
With luck!
(v.i.}.
It is
probable, however,
that at
an earlier time it was current in the sense With Gad s
help
the
yorite
clan
{^3 (36).
6.
3*3]
On the
form,
see G-K. 26
g. 7a/3b
must be
assigned
to
J,
on account of nn2ts> and w
p (note
also the
expression
of
subj.
after second
vb.).
8.
WiB3]
#?r.
Xe-y.
The vb. has
nowhere else the sense of
wrestle,
but means
primarily
to twist
(cf.
Pr. 8
8
, Jb. 5
13
,
Ps. i8
27
t) ;
hence
V$?J might
be the
tortuous,
cunning
one
(BDB).
But a more
plausible etymology
derives it from a
hypo
thetical
Naphtal (from n|u [Jos. i7
11
f,
if
correctly vocalised],
usually
taken to mean
height
: cf.
^-13
fr.
D^a), denoting
the northern
high
lands W of the
Upper Jordan
(Mey.
INS,
539).
The Vns. render the v.
more or less
paraphrastically,
and
give
no
help
to the elucidation of the
sense.
10. Both here and v.
12
(
gives
a much fuller text. II.
1:13]
So
Keth.,
(53r By
rvxy,
H
Feliciter. But
Qre t^
K3
is
ancient,
being presupposed
by
S
(-r-ii ]Z1)
and &J. These Vns. render Good fortune comes
(so Ra)
: another
translation, suggested by 49
19
,
is A
troop (ina)
comes
388
JACOB
S CHILDREN
(JE)
(Ba. Gu.).
13.
The name A$er
naturally suggested
to Heb.
writers a word for
happiness ;
hence the two
etymologies
:
S
")K N3,
In
my happiness,
and
W$K
(women)
count me
happy.
It is
possible
that the name is
historically
related to
the Canaanite
goddess
*
Aserah
(Ba. Ho.),
as Gad is to the
Aramaean
deity.
Aser
appears
in
Eg.
monuments as the
name of a district in NW Palestine as
early
as Set! and
Ramses n.
(Miiller,
AE,
236 ff.).
14-24.
The later children.
14-16.
The incident of the
love-apples
is a
piece
of
folklore, adopted
with reserve
by
the writer
(J),
and so curtailed as to be shorn of its
original
significance.
The
story
must have
gone
on to tell how
Rachel
partook
of the fruit and in
consequence
became
pregnant,
while Leah also conceived
through
the restoration
of her
marriage rights (see
We.
Comp.
2
38 f.).
How much
of this stood in
J
and has been
suppressed
in the
history
of
the text we cannot
say
;
we here read
just
what is
necessary
to
explain
the name of Leah s child.
14.
D &OYn
(v.i.)
is the
round,
greenish-yellow, plum-like
fruit of
mandragora
vernalis,
which in
Syria ripens
in
May
the
days of
wheat harvest and
is still
eagerly sought
in the East to
promote conception (see
Tuch s
note,
385 ff.).
Reuben is
named, probably
as the
only
child old
enough
to follow the
reapers
in the field
(cf.
2 Ki.
4
18
).
The
agricultural background
shows that the
episode
is out of
place
in its
present
nomadic
setting. 15.
he shall lie with thee
to-nighi\
Jacob,
therefore,
had
wrongly
withheld from Leah her
conjugal rights (""^W,
Ex. 2i
10
).
16.
/ have hired thee
pW?^ "^f)]
Obviously
an
anticipation
of
13.
-IPN is &tr.
Xe7. jnyi<] pf.
of confidence
(G-K. io6n).
It is
to be noted that
pfs. greatly preponderate
in E s
etymologies,
and
impfs.
in those of
J ;
the two
exceptions (29
32f<
) may
be
only apparent,
and due
to the absence of definite
stylistic
criteria.
14.
D loro
(Ca. 7
14
t)]
&
/*^a
fj.avdpay6pov,
%>
]
v>n. ^
.,
&OJ
pnvn
(
=
Ar.
yabruh, explained
to be the root of the
plant).
The
sing,
is
nn,
from the same
*/
as
TH, lover,
and D
l
n,
love
;
and
very probably
associated with the
love-god
mn
(MeSa,
1.
12). Cheyne plausibly
suggests (379)
that this
deity
was
worshipped by
the Reubenites
;
hence
Reuben is the finder of the
apples. 15.
vh]
(&
n$!?
f
&
nvb
-i
1
?.
nnp^i
(inf.)]
Dri. T.
204;
but
pnp^ (pf. f.)
would be easier. 16.
*rta$]
-uxCr
+
nftfco.
Wi
n^fcs]
see on
i9
33
.
ija.
is from E
;
but
xyb probably
from
XXX.
13-24
3
8
9
J
s lost
etymology
of Issachar. 18. E s
interpretation
of
"O
&?,
which
is,
of
course,
independent
of the
story
of the
mandrakes. The name is resolved either into
"OB> B*tf
,
*
man
of
hire,
or into
"OP
B?,
there is a reward
(Tu. Di.)
;
or else
the
"
and
quiescent
W are
simply dropped (Gu.)
: v.t. 20.
Two
etymologies
of Zebulun
;
the first from E
(DTlta),
and
the
second, therefore,
from
J
: both are somewhat obscure
(v.i.).
21.
DinaK\
The absence of an
etymology,
and the
fact that Dinah is excluded from the enumeration of
32
23
,
make it
probable
that the v. is
interpolated
with a view to
ch.
34. 22-24.
At last Rachel bears a
son,
long hoped
for
and therefore marked out for a brilliant
destiny Yoseph.
23b, 24b.
E derives the name from
^DK,
*
take
away
; J
more
naturally
from
*|DJ,
*
add :
May
Yahwe add to me
another son !
XXX.
25-43.;Jacob
enriched at Laban s
Expense
(JE).
Jacob, having accomplished
his
14 years
of service for
his
wives,
is now in a
position
to dictate terms to
Laban,
J,
on account of the numeral.
l8a/3,
while
correctly expressing-
the
idea of
E,
contains the word
nnr?>,
which E avoids
;
and is therefore
probably
redactional. i8b.
~%vy\\
So Ben Asher
regularly,
with
Qr
per/). "9^!:
B.
Naphtali
has
"O^,
or
ip^ (see
Baer-Del. Gen.
84
f.
;
Ginsburg,
Introd.
250 ff.).
The
duplication
of the w cannot be dis
posed
of as a Massoretic
caprice,
and is most
naturally explained by
the
assumption
that two
components
were
recognised,
of which the
first was C> N
(We.
TBS,
p. v).
For the second
component
We. refers
to the 13
^
of i Ch. 1 1
36
26*
;
Ba.
compares
an
Eg-, deity
Sokar
;
while
Mey. (INS, 536)
is satisfied with the
interpretation
man of
hire,
corresponding
to the
description
of the tribe in Gn.
49
14f<
. 20.
"or, 71:21]
The
*J (except
in
proper names)
is not found in
OT,
but is
explained by
Aram.
(cf. {rH^lj
dowry ),
and is common in Palm.
prop,
names
(BDB,
s.v.).
The
interchange
of *? and T is
probably
dialectic
(cf.
dacrima
=
lacrima),
and
hardly justifies Cheyne
s view that the name in the
writer s mind was
f
vni
(I.e. 380). *aVar]
Another &TT.
\ey.
apparently
connected with
Vrij, poet,
for abode : Vns. dwell with
(as
E
VV).
This
gives
a
good enough
sense
here,
and is
perhaps supported by 49
(see
on the
v.)
;
but
pSrn
remains without
any
natural
explanation.
See
Hogg,
in
EB, 5385
ff.
Mey. (538)
derives it from the
personal
name
^3)
(Ju. 9
28
).
21
end]
<5r +
m^D
noym
(as 29
35
). 24. ^pV] Probably
a con
traction of
SN-TIDV, though
the
YSp
r of the list of Thothmes III.
(No. 78)
39O JACOB
OUTWITS LABAN
(JE)
who,
in his
eagerness
to
keep him,
invites him to name the
price
for which he will remain with him. It is
interesting
1
to
contrast the relative attitudes of the two men with their
bearing
in
2Q
15ff-
Jacob
here shows a decision of
purpose
which causes Laban to
adopt
an
obsequious
tone
very
unlike
his former
easy
assurance. He is
overjoyed
to find his
nephew
s demands so reasonable
;
and
correspondingly
mortified
(3i
2
)
when he discovers how
completely
he has been
deceived
by Jacob
s
apparent
moderation. The
story,
as Gu.
reminds
us,
was
originally
told to
shepherds,
who would
follow with keen interest the various tricks of their craft
which
Jacob
so
successfully applies (and
of which he was
probably regarded
as the
inventor).
To more refined readers
these details were irksome
;
hence the
abridged
and some
what
unintelligible
form in which the narrative stands.
Sources. In the earlier w.
(8
5
-
81
)
several
duplicates
show the com
position
of
J
and E :
25
1
26a
;
26b
I
*
;
*
I
31a
;
TDN i in and
28
; nyv
nnx,
26b
and
29a
. Here
29
-
31
are from
J (m,T,
*>
;
jn
K?D,
*
; ^33,
27
),
and
*
from
E,
each narrative
being- nearly complete (cf.
Di. Gu.
Pro.).
In
32-36
ft j s
q
uite
possible,
in
spite
of the
scepticism
of Di. and
others,
to
distinguish
two
conceptions
of
Jacob
s reward
(We. Camp.* 40 ff.). (a)
In the
first, Jacob
is that
very day
to take out from Laban s flock all
abnormally
coloured animals : that is to be his hire
(
32
).
On the morrow
(or
in time to
come),
Laban
may inspect
Jacob
s flock : if he find in it
any normally
coloured
animals, Jacob
is at once convicted of fraud
(
83
).
This account
belongs
to E
(cf. n;^, **,
with
28
), though
it is doubtful if to
the same stratum of E as
3i
7
"
12
.
(b)
In the
other,
Laban himself
separates
the
flocks,
leaving
the
normally
coloured
sheep
and
goats
in
Jacob
s
keeping,
and
removing
the others to a distance of three
days
journey,
under the
charge
of his sons
(
32a
[from "icn]
3M
-).
Thus
Jacob
receives for the
present nothing
at all
(
Sl
J).
The narrative must have
gone
on to
explain
that his hire was to consist of
any variegated
animals
appearing
in the
normally
coloured flock now left in his
charge (
36b
) ;
Laban s
precautions
aim at
securing
that these shall be few or none.
Hence we obtain for
J
***&
****,
and for E
sa^b.
as. SH
_
S7-
is the
natural continuation of
J
s
account,
but with numerous
insertions,
which
may
be either from variants or
glosses.
The text here is
very
confused,
and
(5r has
many
variations.
is less
confidently
identified with
Joseph
than the
companion
Y kb r
with
Jacob (cf. p. 360
above
; Mey.
INS,
262
;
Spiegelberg-,
Rand-
g-Iossen, 13
f.
; Muller, MVAG, 1907,!. 23,
and
JBL, 1909, 31).
But
Yasupili
has been found in contract tablets of the Hammurabi
period
along
with Yakub-ili
(Homm.
AHT, 96 [from Sayce]).
xxx.
25-32
25-31- Jacob proposes
to
provide
for his own house.
A
preliminary parley,
in which both
parties
feel their
way
to an
understanding.
26
(E).
thou knowest with what kind
of
service
)
etc.\
E
always lays
stress on
Jacob
s rectitude
(cf.
^J. 27 (J). If
Ihave
foundfavour,
etc.}
followed
by aposio-
pesis,
as i8
3
23
13
. Laban continues : / have taken omens
(
WTO
;
cf.
44
5- 15
,
i Ki. 20
33
)
and
(found that)
Yahwe has
blessed
me,
etcJ\
an
abject plea
for
Jacob
s
remaining-
with
him. 28
(E).
Laban surrenders at once
(the
answer is in
v.
32
),
whereas
2p, 30
in
J, Jacob presses
for a dis
charge
: his service has been of immense value to
Laban,
but he has a
family
to consider.
31. anything
at
all]
See
introd. note above. this
thing]
which I am about to men
tion. resume
herding
thy
flock]
G-K.
120^-.
32-36.
The new contract. The
point
in both narratives
is that
parti-coloured
animals form a
very
small
proportion
of
a
flock,
the
Syrian sheep being nearly
all white
(Ca. 4
2
6
6
,
Dn.
7
9
)
and the
goats
black or brown
(Ca. 4
lb
).
In
E,
Jacob
simply
asks this small share as his
payment. 32.
and it
shall be
my
hire]
The
rendering
*
and of this sort shall be
my
hire
(in future),
is
merely
a violent
attempt
to obliterate
26.
nfvnRi]
Not
necessarily
a
gloss
;
the children
might fairly
be con
sidered included in
Jacob
s
wages. 27.
On
tfru,
v.
44*. l^an]
r
rrj
a-y
efcriSv,
Arm. in
pede
tuo
=
-^rfc
(
30
).
28. fflrF om.
TDin, smoothing
over
the transition from
J
to E.
mpa] designate (lit. prick [off] )
: cf. the
use of
Niph.
in Nu. i
17
,
i Ch. i6
41
etc.
29.
IE>K
nx]
the manner in
which
(G-K. 157 c)
;
but
&
reads as in v.
26
.
30.
^jn
1
?]
contrasted
with "3D
1
? above.
Prosperity
has followed
Jacob
wherever he went
(cf.
Is.
4i
2
, Jb.
i8
u
etc.).
It is
unnecessary
to emend
^33 (<S2T,
Che.). 31. TD?N] ((&& pr. i)
must be deleted on account of its awkward
position.
32.
nnyN,
non]
To
get
rid of the
change
of
person (and
the division of
sources) many
construe the latter as inf. abs.
( removing )
;
but the
only
natural
rendering
is
impve. (cf.
85
).
(& has
impve.
both times.
DMJ;
rwr^a]
(5r
irav
irpbfiaTov <f>ai&v
tv rots
apv6.ffi.v
KO.I irav
5i6.pa.vTOV
Kal \evKbv tv rats
ali-tif,
a smoother and therefore less
original
text. The Heb. seems
overloaded
;
Gu. strikes out D
3^?3
fflrrn^J],
and the
corresponding
ell.
in
** 35
.
K^^i
npj] speckled
and
spotted, parti-coloured.
The words
are
practically synonymous,
both
being
distinct from
ipy (
K- 39- *
3i
8-
10- 12
1
),
which means
striped.
If there be a
difference,
)
(** 3
1
8- 10- 12
f)
suggests
smaller
spots
than B
(cf.
Ezk. i6
16
, Jos. 9,
the
only places
where the
>J
occurs outside this
pass.).
mn] only
in this
chap.
:
=
black
392
JACOB
OUTWITS LABAN
(JE)
the difference between
J
and E.
33. my righteousness
shall
testify against
me]
i.e.,
the
proposal
is so
transparently
fair
that
Jacob
will be as it were
automatically
convicted of theft
if he violates the
compact.
n
iHV>
unimpeachable conduct,
here means fair
dealing
1
,
*
honesty.
in time to
come]
when
ever Laban chooses to make an
investigation. 35> 3^
(J)-
And he
(Laban,
see
32a
^)
removed that
day,
etc.}
Laban s
motive in
removing
the
variegated
animals to a distance of
three
days journey
is obvious
;
he wishes to reduce to a
minimum the chance that
any
such animals should hence
forth be born
amongst
those now entrusted to
Jacob.
white}
Heb.
laban, perhaps
a
play
on Laban s name.
37-43. Jacob
s
Stratagem.
The main account is from
J,
to whose narrative the artifice is
essential,
but there are
many interpolations. 37~39-
The first
step
is to work on
the
imagination
of the females
by
rods of
poplar, etc., peeled
in such a
way
as to show
patches
of
white,
and
placed
in
the
drinking troughs. 38? 39- Removing glosses, J
s ac-
or dark-brown.
33.
3
njy] testify against (see
i Sa. I2
8
,
2 Sa. i
lfi
,
Is.
3
9
).
An easier sense would be obtained if we could translate witness
for,
but there seem to be no
examples
of that
usage.
Dri. s
interpretation
:
there will be
nothing
whatever to
allege against my honesty,
seems,
on the other
hand,
too subtle. ino
ovn]
in time to come
(Ex. i3
14
,
Dt. 6
20
).
If we could insist on the literal
rendering
on the
morrow,
the
proof
of
divergence
between
J
and E would be
strengthened,
but
the sense is less suitable.
TJS
1
?
^]
$r
6n ta-rlv 6
/j,i<r66s /j,ov
tvwmdv
crov.
36. ivu]
***.(&
cm. UJL follows
M
with a
long
addition based on
31
11-13.
37.
run
1
?
(Ho 4
18
t)]
the white tree
; according
to
some,
populus
alba
(Di. al.),
but
very probably sty
rax
officinalis (Ar.
lubna?,
so called from its
exuding
a wz7-like
gum), (Ges.
De. Dri.
al.).
i^
t]
-Aram.
NjiS,
almond
tree.
jiD-ja (Ezk. 3i
8
1)] platanus
orientalis
(Ass. irmednu).
Instead of
the last three words ffir has
<J>alvero
5 tirl rats
pd/iJSois
r6 \evKbv 5 tXtnurfv
iroiidXov,
a
very
sensible
comment,
but
hardly original.
The whole
clause
(with)
a
laying
bare
(G-K. 117 r)
of the white on the
rods,
is
superfluous,
and
certainly
looks like a variant.
jm] pi.
; "?po
being
coll.
38
ff. The text of
J,
as sifted
by We.,
commends itself
by
its
lucidity
and
continuity.
It is
impossible
to tell whether the
interpolated
words
are variants from another source
(E?)
or
explanatory glosses. 38.
BO!
(v.
41
,
Ex. 2
16
t)]
either
trough,
fr. Ar.
rahafa,
be
collected,
or
runnel,
from Aram. B.T
=
fn (see
No.
ZA,
xii.
187). rfnpp]
const,
pi.
of
n|3r, 24
20
f-
The words TViftvh
ninpeQ
divorce
JNxn
m^S from its
connexion,
and must be omitted from the text of
J.
(Sir
appears
to have
changed
XXX.
33-42
393
count reads : And he
placed
the rods which he had
peeled
in
the runnels . . . in
front of
the
flock,
and
they
bred when
they
came to drink. . . . And the
flock brought forth streaked,
speckled,
and
spotted (young),
The
physiological
law involved is said to be well established
(Dri.),
and was acted on
by
ancient cattle breeders
(see
the list of authorities
in
Bochart,
Hieroz. ii. c.
49 ;
and cf.
Jer. Qucest. adloc.}.
The full
repre
sentation seems to be that the ewes saw the reflexion of the rams in the
water,
blended with the
image
of the
parti-coloured rods,
and were de
ceived into
thinking they
were
coupled
with
parti-coloured
males
(Jer.,
We.
Cbmp.* 41).
40.
And
(these)
lambs
Jacob
set
apart
. . . and made
separate flocks for himself,
and did not add them to Laban s
stock
(We.). 41, 42.
A further refinement :
Jacob employed
his device
only
in the case of the
sturdy
animals,
letting
the
weakly
ones
gender freely.
The difference
corresponds
to a
difference of
breeding-
time
(v.i.).
The
consequence
is that
Jacob
s stock is
hardy
and Laban s delicate.
XXXI. i-XXXII. \.
Jacob
s
Flight from
Laban: their
friendly Parting (J, E).
Jacob perceives
from the altered demeanour of Laban
and his sons that he has
outstayed
his welcome
(
L 2
)
; and,
after consultation with his
wives,
resolves on a secret
flight
(
3
~
21
).
Laban
pursues,
and overtakes him at Mt. Gilead
(
22
-
25
),
where,
after a fierce altercation
(
26
~
43
), they
enter into a
treaty
,-UDm
JKSPI
to
niSpD.t,
rendering
thus
(
38b
)
Iva cos tut t\0w<nv rb.
tv&TTiov TUV
pd(3dwv [/cat]
\6bvT<j)v OLVTUV es rb
irieiv,
ivK.i.aa
haucnv
(
S9
)
ra
irpb-
/3ara.
rnprn]
On the unusual
pref.
of
3
f.
pi.,
see G-K.
47
k.
3ga
is a
doublet to the last three words of
w
.
icm]
ib.
69/5
juu. naom.
40.
He
set the faces of the flock towards a
(sic)
streaked and
every
dark one in
Laban s
flock,
is an
imperfect text,
and an
impossible
statement in
J,
where Laban s cattle are three
days
distant. (&
vainly
tries to make
sense
by omitting p/,
and
rendering
\}9
=
tvavTlov,
and
ipjf
Vx =
uptbv
(*?:><!)
did\evKov.
41. -^33]
(Brj^
supply
ny.
42.
D
Wpn,
D
Mjm]
fir tirl-
a-r]/j.a, &ar]fj.a ;
but S.
(paraphrasing) Trpcii
/xa 6\f/tfj.a,
and
similarly Aq.
U,&<Zr
o
. It is the fact that the
stronger sheep
conceived in summer and
yeaned
in
winter,
while the weaker conceived in autumn and
yeaned
in the
spring
:
Pliny,
HN
t
viii.
187 ( postea concepti
invalidi
).
394
JACOB
S FLIGHT
(JE)
of
peace (from
which Gilead receives its
name),
and
separate
with
many
demonstrations of
goodwill
(3i
44
-32
1
).
Sources.
1 16
is an almost
homogeneous (though perhaps
not con
tinuous) excerpt
from E :
DV^N,
7- 9- " 16
;
ivjtyc,
7
(cf.
4l
29
15
)
;
D
jb,
7
(
41
)
;
na$D,
13
;
the revelation
by
dream,
lof>
;
the summons and
answer,
n
(22*
7 n
)
;
and the
explanation
of
Jacob
s wealth
7ff*
;
cf. also the refer
ence to 28
20 22
.
1
and
8
are from a
J parallel
:
m,v,
8
; *jrn^D,
3
;
the
sons of
Laban,
l
(cf. 3O
35
).
In
17 54
E still
preponderates, though J
is
more
largely represented
than some critics
(Di.
Kue. KS. Dri.
al.)
allow.
The detailed
analysis
is here
very intricate,
and will be best dealt with
under the several sections.
18
(except
the first four
words)
is the
only
extract from P.
1-16.
Preparations
for
flight.
I, 3 (J).
The
jealousy
of Laban s sons
corresponds
to the dark looks of Laban him
self in E
(v.
2
)
;
the divine communication is a feature of both
narratives
(v.
13
). 4-13. Jacob
vindicates his conduct towards
Laban,
and sets forth the reasons for his
projected flight.
The motive of the
speech
is not
purely literary, affording
the writer an
opportunity
to
express
his belief in
Jacob
s
righteousness (Gu.)
;
it is first of all an
appeal
to the wives
to
accompany
him :
comp.
the
question
to Rebekah in
24
58
.
6. Ye
yourselves know, etc.]
Cf.
3o
26- 29
. But to
repeat
the
protestation
after the work of the last six
years implies
great
hardihood on
Jacob
s
part
;
and rather
suggests
that
the
passage belongs
to a stratum of E which said
nothing
about his tricks with the flock.
J. changed my wages
ten
times\
Perhaps
a round
number,
not to be taken
literally.
8.
A
sample
of Laban s
tergiversations,
and their frustration
by
God s
providence. p.
And so God has taken
away,
etc.\
The hand of God has been so manifest that Laban s dis
pleasure
is
altogether
unreasonable. 10-12.
Jacob
receives
through
a dream the
explanation
of the
singular good
fortune
that has attended him.
In the text w.
10 13
form
part
of the same revelation as that in which
Jacob
is commanded to
depart (
13
).
But,
as We.
(Comp* 39)
asks,
"
How
2. MJ
%
K]
jux DJ K
(sov.
B
).
6.
run*] only
here and thrice in Ezk.
(cf.
G-K.
32
z
-). 7. rjSnm]
.ox
qWn.
crp ms?y]
(5r
(
nescio
qua opinione
ducti
[Jer.])
rwv d^Ka
&(j.vuv
(so
41
probably
a
transliteration,
afterwards
made into a Gr.
word).
D
jb
(
41
t)
from
J
HJD, count,
for the usual
TI^K]
juu. nvr
(so
9- 16a
). 9. -nit]
ffi
-V-rny. Dm*]
for
p
3K
(i);
xxxi. i-i6
395
could two such dissimilar revelations be
coupled together
in this
way?
"
V.
10
recalls an incident of the
past,
while
1S
is in the
sphere
of the
present
:
moreover,
I am the God of Bethel must
surely open
the com
munication. We. solves the
difficulty by removing
10
and
12
(assigning
them to an unknown
source),
and
leaving
n
as the introduction to
13
:
similarly
Di. Ho. OH. al. Gu.
supposes parts
of
Jacob
s
speech
to
have been omitted between
9
and
10
and between
]2
and
1S
. It is
scarcely
possible
to recover the
original
sense of the
fragment.
If the dream had
preceded
the
negotiations
with
Laban,
it
might
have been a hint to
Jacob
of the kind of animals he was to ask as his hire
(Str. Gu.) ;
but
that is excluded
by
12b
; and, besides,
in v.
8
it is Laban who fixes the
terms of the contract. We can
only
understand it
vaguely
as an
assurance to
Jacob
that
against
all natural
expectations
the transaction
will be overruled to his
advantage.
13.
/ am the God
of
Bethet\
links this
theophany
with
that of 28
lofl
-,
and is
(in E)
the first assurance
given
to
Jacob
that his vow
(aS
20
"
22
)
had been
accepted. 14-16. Jacob
s
appeal
has been addressed to
willing
ears : his wives are
already
alienated from their
father,
and
eagerly espouse
their husband s cause.
I4b. Comp.
2 Sa. 2O
1
,
i Ki. i2
16
.
15.
has sold
us]
like slaves. consumed our
money\
i.e.,
the
price paid
for us
(cf.
Ex. 2I
35
).
The
complaint implies
that
it was considered a mark of meanness for a man to
keep
the
mohar for himself instead of
giving
it to his
daughters.
A
similar
change
in the destination of the mahr
appears
in
Arabia before Islam
(We.
GGN,
1893, 434 f.).
16. is ours
G-K.
135
o.
13.
Wrr:i
Wn]
The art. with constr. violates a well known
rule of
syntax (G-K. I27/)
;
and it is doubtful if the
anomaly
be
rightly
explained by supposing
the
ellipsis
of ^N or n^x. The
original
text
may
have been
Vxip
S
[oipn?
?]^>N
nx-ijrt]
"?Nn
;
(so [but
without
SNJTII] ffi,
adopted
by Ba.) ;
or
SKIV^O ]"?Nn (J, Kit.).
irnViD
p]
see on n
28
. It is the
only
occurrence of D in E. (5r adds KO.I
&ro/icu /ierd
<rov.
15. nvnj]
juaffir^U J?.
VON
D:]
see on
27
s3
. 16.
"i^y]
(5r +
/cai
rijv
56cu>.
17-25.
A
complete analysis
of the w. cannot be effected. The hand
of E is
recognised
in
19b
(D S-JPI,
cf.
3
35
2ff
-),
20
(? 913i
as
24
),
and
especi
ally
M
(Q
r6N,
D^q
;
cf.
M> 42
).
J betrays
its
presence chiefly by
doublets :
2J/3
II
n
(oijn),
and
25a
I
m
(at*:!, pSTl).
The
assignment
of
2l
*P to
J
is
warranted
by
the mention of the
Euphrates
: hence
17
is E. Further
than this we cannot
safely go.
Gu. s division
(
19a- 21 23- ^
=
J ;
" 18a - 19b- ao-
24. 26a_
E)
i s
open
to tjje
objection
that it
ignores
the
discrepancy
between
the seven
days
of
aa*
and the
crossing
of the
Euphrates
in
21a
(see
on
*
above) ;
but is otherwise attractive.
Mey. (235 if.) gets
rid of the
geo
graphical difficulty by distinguishing
two strata in
E,
of which the
later had been accommodated to the
representation
of
J.
18
(from
396 JACOB
S FLIGHT
(JE)
and our children
s\
E never mentions sons of Laban
;
and
apparently
looks on Leah and Rachel as the sole
heiresses.
17-25.
The
flight
and
pursuit.
18. and drove
away
all his
cattle]
Hence the slowness of his march as
compared
with Laban s
(33
13b
).
The rest of the v. is from P
(cf.
i2
6
36 46
6
).
to Isaac his
father} 35
27
.
Ip.
Now Laban had
gone
to shear his
flock} Sheep-shearing
was the occasion of an im
portant
festival in ancient Israel
(38
12ff
-,
i Sa.
25
2ff
-,
2 Sa.
I3
23
).
With Rachel s theft of the
teraphim (the
household idol :
v.t.),
cf.
Virg.
Aen. ii.
293
f.,
Hi.
148
f. 20. stole the
heart}
(
28
,
2 Sa.
i5
6
f)
*
deceived
;
the heart
being
the seat of intelli
gence
(Ho.
4
11
)
: cf.
eKAei/fe
vo
ov,
//. xiv.
217.
the Aramaan
(only
here and
24
)]
The
emphasising
of Laban s
nationality
at this
point
is hard to
explain.
That it is the correction
(by
E
2
)
of an older version
(E
1
),
in which Laban was not an
Aramaean
(Mey.
INS,
236),
is not
probable.
Bu.
(Urg. 42
2
1
)
regards
it as a
gloss,
inserted with a view to v.
47
21. crossed
the River
(])]
the
Euphrates (Ex. 23
31
,
Jos. 24
2
etc.). 23.
his
brethren]
his fellow-clansmen. In the
sequel Jacob
also
is surrounded
by
his clansmen
(
37- 46- 54
),
a
proof
that tribal
relations are clothed in the
guise
of individual
biography.
seven
days
journey]
The distance of Gilead from Harran
iNi)
is
obviously
P.
17.
sons and
Ti>ives~\
juu.(5r wives and sons.
18. (5r
om. the cl.
ia;$p I^K (so 5?) ;
and adds after
cnx,
KO.I jravra TO. avrov.
19.
D
Eniri]
A
pi.
of
eminence,
like D n
1
?^,
etc.
;
hence it is doubtful
whether one
image
or several is here referred to. The
teraphim
was a
god (3),
its form and size were those of a man
(i
Sa.
i9
13- 16
),
it was
used in
private
houses as well as in
temples (Ju. 17
iS
14fn
,
Ho.
3"),
and
was an
implement
of divination
(Ezk.
2i
26
,
Zee. io
2
).
The indications
point
to its
being-
an emblem of
ancestor-worship
which survived in
Israel as a
private superstition,
condemned
by
the
enlightened
conscience
of the nation
(35
2
,
i Sa.
I5
23
,
2 Ki.
23
24
).
It seems
implied by
the
present
narrative that the cult was borrowed from the
Aramaeans,
or
perhaps
rather that it had existed before the
separation
of Hebrews and
Aramaeans.
(See
Moore, Jud. 379 ff.)
2O.
SrrVy]
#TT.
Aey.,
is difficult.
*?y
for -WK
hy
is rare and
poet. (Ps. ug
136
:
BDB,
758 a)
;
Va
(poet,
for
N
1
?)
is also rare with fin. vb.
(ib. 115
b).
Since the
following
clause is a
specification
of the
preceding, wegen Mangels
davon dass
(Di.)
is
not a suitable
rendering.
We should
expect
Tjn
fl^,
in not
telling
him
that,
etc. : AJU. has vta
ij/.
22.
p
5
?
1
?]
<JR +
T<
xxxi.
17-28
397
(c. 350
miles as the crow
flies)
is much too
great
to be
traversed in that time.
If the v. be from
J (Gu. Pro.),
we must assume
(what
is no doubt
conceivable)
that the writer s
geographical knowledge
was defective.
Hut it is a
strong
reason for
assigning
the v. to
E,
that in that source
nothing
is said of Harran or the
Euphrates,
and Laban s home is
placed
somewhere in the eastern desert
(see 29
1
).
24.
God
(not
the
Angel
of
God,
as v.
11
)
warns Laban in
a dream to take heed to his words when he encounters
Jacob. good
or
dad]
anything
whatever
(24
50
,
2 Sa.
I3
22
etc.).
Laban did not
interpret
.the
prohibition literally (
29
).
25.
in the mountain . .
.]
The idea
suggested being
that
Jacob
and Laban
encamped
each on a different
mountain,
we must
suppose
the name to have been omitted. The
insertion of
Mizpah (v.
49
)
is
strongly
recommended
by Ju.
io
17
(see
Ball,
88).
On the situation of Mount
Gilead,
see
p. 402
f.
26-43.
The altercation.
The
subjects
of recrimination are : on Laban s
part, (a)
the secret
flight, (b)
the
carrying
off of his
daughters,
and
(c)
the theft of his
god ;
on
Jacob
s
part, (cf)
the
hardships
of his 20
years service,
and
(e)
the
attempts
to defraud him of his hire. Of
these, b, c,
and e
certainly
belong
to E
;
a and d more
probably
to
J.
In
detail,
the w. that can
be
confidently assigned
to E are :
^
(n|?
3j3,
as
20
),
28
(continuation
of
26
),
39
(cf.
24
),
30- 32 35
(D snn),
41
(<
ten times
),
42
(cf.
24 - 29
)
and
43
(because
of
the connexion with
26< 28
)
: note also D
.-rVg,
w> 42
; nncy,
8S
. The
sequence
of E is
interrupted by
27
d
26
)-
31b
(the
natural answer to
27
),
36a
<>):
these clauses are
accordingly assigned
to
J ; along
with
88
"
40
(a parallel
to
***).
The
analysis (which
is due to
Gu.) yields
for E a
complete
narrative :
28
-
31a- 32 35- >- 37-
-
The Yahwistic
parallel
is all but
complete (^
81a- b- 86a- 38
-
40
)
;
but we miss
something
after
31
to account
for
Jacob
s
exasperation
in
36
. We
may suppose (with Gu.)
that Laban
had accused
Jacob
of
stealing
his
flocks,
and that
38 40
is a
reply
to
this
charge.
Procksch s division is
slightly
different.
26-28. Laban offers a sentimental
pretext
for his warlike
demonstration : in E his
slighted
affection for his
offspring
f
28
)
;
in
J
his desire to honour a
parting guest (
27
). 27.
with
mirth and
music]
This manner of
speeding
the
parting guest
25. rnx]
Better
i^ntj (Ba.).
26,
27.
<3r
om. aa-rw
aajni,
and
transp.
27a. 26b
>
_
2
y
t K
^j
(
^i,
which is
perhaps
better than MT. 28.
B>BJ]
usually reject
or abandon
; only
here
=
allow.
it?y]
for
nifc^ (G-K.
398 JACOB
S FLIGHT
(JE)
is not elsewhere mentioned in OT.
2p.
It is in
my power
(v.i.)
to do
you
harm]
but for the
interposition
of God.
30.
Thou hast
gone off forsooth,
because
forsooth,
etc.]
The
infs. abs.
express irony (Dav. 86).
stolen
my
gvd(s)]
This
is a serious
matter,
and leads
up
to the chief scene of the
dispute. 3
2-
Jacob
is so sure of the innocence of his house
hold that he offers to
give up
the
culprit
to death if the theft
can be
proved
: a similar enhancement of dramatic interest in
44
9ff
-.
33-35.
The search for the
teraphim
is described with
a touch of
humour,
pointed
with sarcasm at a
prevalent
form
of
idolatry. 34.
Rachel had hidden the idol in the cameTslitter
or
palanquin (Burck.
Bed. ii.
85
;
Doughty,
Ar. Des. i.
437,
ii.
304;
BDB,
1124),
in which she was
apparently resting
within the
tent,
on account of her condition.
35.
D^
T
7)~n
=
D*B 33 rnfc
(i8
n
,
J).
Women in this condition were
pro
tected
by
a
powerful
taboo
(cf.
Lv.
is
19
etc.).
36, 37. Jacob
now turns on
Laban,
treating
the accusation about the
teraphim
as mere
pretext
for
searching
his
goods. 38-40 (J).
A fine
picture
of the ideal
shepherd,
solicitous for his
master s
interests,
sensitive to the least
suspicion
of
fraud,
and careless of his
personal
comfort.
39.
/
brought
not to
thee\
as a witness
(Ex.
22
12
). Jacob
had thus
gone
far
beyond
his
legal obligation.
made it
good]
lit. counted it
75
.
29. n; ^hsKJ
Mic. 2
1
,
Pr.
f,
Sir.
5
1
(Dt.
2S
32
,
Neh.
5).
The
meaning-
is certain
(
be within one s
power ),
but the
expression
is
very
obscure. The current
explanations (both represented
in the
Vns.)
are:
(i)
That VN is an abstract noun
=
power,
and
n; gen. (2)
That T is
subj.
of the sent, and *?K the word for God :
my
hand is for a God.
The first
depends
on a
singular
sense of Sx
;
and for the second SxS T
<(
? B"
would have been more natural. A third view has
recently
been
pro
pounded by
Brockelmann
(ZATW,
xxvi.
29 ff.),
who renders it
belongs
to the God of
my
hand,
a survival of a
primitive
belief in
special
deities
or
spirits animating
different members of the
body (cf. Tylor,
Prim.
Cult.
4
ii.
127).
D3Dy,
DD
3N]
juixffir
have
sing-,
suff.
30. T3K]
(Sr + cl7reX0etV*
Ko.1. The i should
probably
be restored.
31.
fflr om. VINT a.
32.
The
opening
words in (3r
3
py.,!
i
1
? "iran
may
be
original, introducing-
the
dupli
cate from E.
32b
is
preceded
in (5r
by
the variant Ka.1 OVK
tTrtyvu vap
avr<t
ovdtv.
33. J2
1
?]
juA + Bam
(rd.
e
sm)
;
so (3r. The cl.
83
*^
disagrees
with what
follows,
and
may
be a
gloss.
(Sr reduces the
discrepancy
by
omissions,
and a
complete rearrangement
of clauses.
--36.
n^
2
]
Rd.
noi
with Heb. MSS .ux(&<&.
39.
On
n:en{<
for
njNtsnx,
cf. G-K.
74
or
XXXI.
29-43 399
missing. 40.
heat
by day
and
frost by
nighi\ Jer. 36
80
.
Under the clear skies of the East the extreme heat of the
day
is
apt
to be followed
by
intense cold at
night (see
Smith,
HG,
69 ff.). 41, 42 (E).
the Fear
of Isaac}
The
deity
feared
and
worshipped by
Isaac
(
53
t).
That
pnyi
"ina
meant
origin
ally
the terror
inspired by
Isaac,
the local
deity
of Beersheba
(Meyer,
INS, 254 f.),
is a hazardous
speculation. 43.
Laban maintains his
right,
but
speedily adopts
a more
pathetic tone,
leading
on to the
pacific proposal
of
44
. The
question
what shall I do to . . .
?]
means what last kind
ness can I show them?
(Gu. Dri.);
not
*
how can I do
them harm ?
(Di.
and
most).
44-54.
The
treaty
of Gilead.
Evidences of a double recension
appear
in
every
circumstance of the
narrative,
(a)
Two names are
explained
: Gilead
(
48b
),
and
Mizpah (
49a
)
;
(b)
two sacred monuments are
erected,
a cairn
(
46- ^ 51< 52
),
and a
monolith
(
45- 52
)
;
(c)
the covenant feast is twice recorded
(
46b- M
)
;
(d)
the terms of the covenant are
given
in two forms :
(i) Jacob
will not
ill-treat Laban s
daughters (
50
),
and
(2)
the cairn is to mark the
boundary
between two
peoples (
52
)
;
(e)
God is twice called to witness
(
49f- 53
).
To
arrange
these
duplicates
in two
parallel
series is
difficult,
because of the
numerous
glosses
and dislocations of the text
;
but some
connecting
lines can be drawn. Since
J always
avoids the word
n^jfO
(p. 378),
we
assume first of all that the monolith
(and consequently Mizpdh] belongs
to
E,
and the cairn to
J.
Now the cairn
goes
with the
frontier treaty
(8i.
52
[removing glosses], J),
and
Mizpah
with the
family compact (
49
,
E).
To
J
we must
obviously assign
46>
*",
and also
(if
we
may suppose
that
only
the Va was
spoken
of as an
iy)
44
;
while E as
naturally
claims
45
.
At the
end,
53b
is E
(pmr ins,
cf.
42
),
and likewise
M
(the feast, ||
46
, J).
53a
is
probably J
: note the difference of divine names. Thus :
44< ^ 48
51-53a
=
J.
45. 49. 50. 53b. 54
=E<
_
The anal
ys
i s i s due to Ho. and Gu.
J
Pro.
practically agrees,
with the
important
difference that the
parts
of
J
and E are
(quite wrongly,
as it seems to
me) interchanged.
It is
superior
to the schemes of We. Di. KS.
al.,
which
assign
the cairn and
the mazzebah to the same sources. The
principal glosses (many
of
which excite
suspicion apart
from the
analysis)
are
apjr
in
45
and
^
;
75
oo. n
1
?
1
*? ;n nr 0333 is
probably
an archaic technical
phrase, pre
serving
an old
case-ending (G-K. go/). 40.
On the
syntax,
see G-K.
143
a.
41.
These
twenty years]
The
repetition (v.
38
) would,
as Di.
says,
not be
surprising
in animated
speech
;
and is not of itself evidence
of a
change
of source. But
Jacob
s
oratory
is more
dignified
if re
lieved of this
slight
touch of affectation.
m]
not here a
pron.
but used
adverbially,
as
2^
etc.
(see BDB,
261
b). 42.
DTQN n^N
may
be a
gloss
(Gu.)
: (& om. "n^K.
400
TREATY OF GILEAD
w.
47> 49a
a
;
nason mm in
51
;
nason
mjn
and ronn naso.Tnw in
B2
: on these ./.
Nearly
all are retained
by (5r, where, however,
the confusion is increased
by
a
complete change
in the order of clauses :
^ 47- 5L 52a< ^ 49- 5Ua- f - b
,
50b
being-
inserted]
after **. The
analysis
works out in translation as
follows
(glosses being
enclosed in
square
brackets,
and
necessary
additions and corrections in
r
"")
:
E:
45
And rhel
(i.e.
Laban) [Jacob]
took a stone and set it
up
as a
pillar.
^
r
and he said
1
,
May
rQodi
[Yahwe]
watch between me and
thee,
when we are hidden from one
another.
50
If thou ill-treat
my
daughters,
or take other wives be
sides
my daughters,
no man
being
with
us, see,
God is witness be
tween me and thee.
53b
And
Jacob
swore
by
the Fear of his father
Isaac.
54
And
Jacob
offered a
sacrifice on the mountain and called
his brethren to eat bread
;
and
they
ate
bread,
and
spent
the
night
on
the mountain.
J
:
**
And now
(the speaker
is
Laban), come,
let us make a cove
nant,
I and thou
;
. . . and it shall be
for a witness between me and thee.
46
And rheT
(i.e. Laban) [Jacob],
said to his
brethren,
Gather
stones
;
and
they
took
stones,
and
made a
cairn,
and
they
ate there
upon
the cairn.
[
47
And Laban
called it Y
garSahMiltha,
but
Jacob
called it
GaFed.~\
48
And Laban
said,
This cairn is a witness be
tween me and thee this
day
;
there
fore he called its name
r
Gil ad
1
[49a
a
an(j
Mizpah,
for he
said].
51
And Laban said to
Jacob,
Behold
this cairn
[and
behold the
pillar]
which I have thrown
up
between
me and thee
52
a witness is this
cairn
[and
a witness is the
pillar]
:
I will not
pass
this cairn to
thee,
and thou shalt not
pass
this cairn
[and
this
pillar]
to
me,
with evil
intent.
53a
The God of Abraham
and the God of Nahor be
Judge
between us !
[the
God of their
father].
44.
Cf. 2i
23ff-
26
28fl-
The
subj.
of
njrn
cannot be
which is
fern.,
and is rather the fact to be witnessed to than
a witness of
something
else. There must be a lacuna before
TiTl,
where we must
suppose
that some material
object
(probably
the cairn : cf.
48
,
J)
was mentioned.
45 (E).
And
he took a
stone\
Since it is Laban who
explains
the
meaning
of the stone
(
49
),
it must have been he who set it
up
;
hence
3j?l
is to be deleted as a false
explication
of the
implicit
44b.
The omitted words
(v.s.) might
be S:
n^jyi
or some such
expres
sion
(Ols.
Di. Ba. Gu.
al.).
To the end of the v. (3r
appends
: elirev 5
Ta/c.
,
I5oi) ov6eis
/ze0 r)fj.u>i>
tffrlv (8e d 6ebs
ftdprvs
ava
/m.^aov t/j.ou
xal
XXXI.
44-49
4
01
subj.
set it on
high
as a
mazzebah\
see 28
18- 22
. The mono
lith
may
have stood on an eminence and formed a con
spicuous
feature of the
landscape
(Di.). 46
(J).
And he
(Laban)
said,
etc.]
Here
Sptfj!.
is
certainly wrong,
for Laban
expressly says
that the cairn was raised
by
him
(
51
).
a
cairn]
i>3 means
simply
a
heap
of stones
(v.t.),
not a
rampart
(We.
Di.).
The idea that the ?3 was
originally
the mountain
range
of Gilead
itself,
Laban and
Jacob being
conceived as
giants
(We.
Gu.
Mey.),
has
certainly
no
support
in the text.
they
ate
upon
the
cairn]
The covenant
feast,
which
may very
well
have
preceded
the covenant
ceremony
;
see 26
30
.
47.
In
spite
of its
interesting
and
philologically
correct
notice,
the
v. must
unfortunately
be
assigned
to a
glossator,
for the
reasons
given
below.
48 (J).
Laban
explains
the
purpose
of the
cairn,
and names it
accordingly:
cairn
of
witness.]
The stone
heap
is
personified,
and was no doubt in ancient
times
regarded
as animated
by
a
deity (cf. Jos. 24
27
).
1^3
is,
of
course,
an artificial
formation,
not the real or
original
pronunciation
of
"li^a.
49
(E).
And
[the] Mizpah, for
he
said]
The
text,
if not
absolutely ungrammatical,
is a
very
ffov
(fr.
v.
50
). 46. in,Ti]
<&
rep5".i. ^]
From
*J
^ roll
(stones, 29*,
Jos.
io
18
,
i Sa.
I4
33
,
Pr. 26
27
).
On sacred
stone-heaps among
the
Arabs,
see We. Heid.^ in f.
(with
which cf.
Doughty,
Ar. Des. i.
26, 81,
431)
;
Curtiss, PSR,
80
(cairn
as
witness)
;
on the
eating upon
the
cairn,
Frazer,
Folklore in
OT, 131
ft.
47. Nnnqb
ir is the
precise
Aramaic
equivalent
of Heb.
ty. ^J, heap
of witness. The decisive reasons for
rejecting
the v. are :
(i)
It stands out of its
proper place, anticipating
48b
;
(2)
it contradicts
48b
,
where the Heb. name
i^a
is
given by
Laban
;
(3)
it assumes
(contrary
to the
implication
of all the
patriarchal
narratives)
that the Nahorites
spoke
a different dialect from the
ancestors of the Hebrews. It
may
be added that the Aram,
phrase
shows the
glossator
to have taken
ny.Sa
as const, and
gen.,
whereas the
latter in
48b
is more
probably
a sent. the
heap
is witness
(see Nestle,
MM,
io
f.).
The actual name
lj^[D]
is
usually,
but
dubiously, explained
by
Ar.
gal
ad
hard,
firm.
48.
ID
Nip
p
ty]
so n
9
\<f- 2^- (all J),
25
30
(J ?). 49. n^rn]
.ux
nnsoni,
which We. thinks the
original
name of
the
place,
afterwards
changed
to nsson because of the evil
associations
of the word mazzebah. He instances the
transcription
of
(5r
MacrcrT/^xx,
as
combining
the consonants of the new name with the vowels of the old
(Camp? 44
1
).
The
argument
is
precarious
;
but there seems to be a word
play
between the names
;
and since the
opening
is
evidently corrupt,
it
is
possible
that both stood in the text. Ball s restoration D
lQJ
i&
26
402
TREATY OF GILEAD
uncouth continuation of
48b
,
with which in the
primary
documents it had
nothing-
to do
;
see further
inf. May
God
(read
so with
ffi)
watch]
Mizpah
means
watch-post.
On
its
situation,
see
p. 403. 5-
The
purport
of the
covenant,
according-
to E.
Jacob
swears
(
53b
)
that he will not maltreat
Laban s
daughters,
nor even
marry
other wives besides them.
The latter
stipulation
has a
parallel
in a late
Babylonian
marriage
contract
(KIB,
iv.
187,
No.
XI.).
God is
witness]
The idea is less
primitive
than that of
J,
where the witness
is an inanimate
object.
We observe how the
religious
sanction is invoked where human
protection
fails
(cf.
2O
11
42
18
,
both
E). 5
I-
53
a> The terms of the covenant in
J
t
neither
party (people)
is to
pass
the cairn with hostile intent.
All the
reff.
to the mazzebah
(
51b- 52a- b
)
are to be deleted as
glosses.
The God
of
Abraham . . .
Nahdr}
Whether a
polytheistic
differentiation of two
gods
is attributed to
Laban can
hardly
be determined. The
pi.
vb. would not
necessarily imply
this in E
(see
2O
13
), though
in
J
it
might. 53b, 54.
The covenant oath and feast in E. The
Fear
of
. . .
Isaac]
See on v.
42
.
54.
his
brethren]
not
Laban and his
companions,
but his own fellow-clansmen
(v.
37
). spent
the
night,
etc.}
Is this
part
of the
religious
ceremony? (Gu.).
The Scene
of
the
Treaty.
The name Gil ad
(often
with
art.)
in OT is
sometimes
applied
to the whole
region
E of the
Jordan (Jos.
22
9
etc.),
but more
properly
denotes the mountain
range ("U^flO in) extending
from
HDN
[<2 ns^en N-JQ
has met with the
approval
of several scholars
(Ho. Str.)
;
but as the
sequence
to
^
we should rather
expect n^an
TO>
*nj? i. (Gr
lias
/fai H 6
pacrts, T)J/ elirev, following
MT.
mrr]
(& DM
1
?** must be
adopted
if
the v. is
rightly
ascribed to E.
51. mson]
<5r +
mbn(so
v.
52
).
WT -,B
K]
which I have thrown
up. .TV, throw,
is most
commonly
used of
shooting
arrows,
and
only
here of
piling up
stones. Once it means to
lay (jacere)
a foundation
(Jb. 38),
but it could
hardly
be
applied
to the
erection of a
pillar.
It is an
advantage
of the
analysis given
above
that it avoids the
necessity
of
retaining
the mazzebah as
obj.
of vrv and
rejecting
the cairn.
52.
N
1
? DN
(bis)]
The double
negative
is
contrary
to
the
usage
of asseverative sentt.
(cf.
60
),
but
may
be
explained by
an
anakolouthon
(G-K. 1676).
run
Wrix]
& om.
53.
l
Bbjp%
D.T:IK
viStf]
(5r and Heb. MSS
om.,
juu. D.T-QN
N,
Probably
a
marg. gloss
to
53a
. XXXII. I. 3n
1^1]
&
7)J>
i
xxxi.
50-53
the Yarmuk to the Arnon
(2
Ki. lo
33
etc.),
divided
by
the
Jabbok
into
two
parts (Jos.
I2
2
), corresponding-
to the modern Gebel
Aglun
and el-
Belka,
N and S
respectively
of the Wadl ez-Zerka. The name Gebel
Gilad still survives as that of a
mountain,
crowned
by
the
lofty
summit
of Gebel Osha
,
N of
es-Salt,
where are found the ruined cities Gil ad and
Gal aud
(Burckh. Syria, 348).
It is therefore natural to look here in the
first instance for the cairn of witness from which the mountain and
the whole
region
were
supposed
to have derived their names. The
objections
to this view are
(i)
that
Jacob,
coming
from the
N,
has not
yet
crossed the
Jabbok,
which is identified with the Zerka
;
and
(2)
that
the frontier between Israel and the Aramaeans
(of Damascus)
could not
have been so far S. These reasons have
prevailed
with most modern
authorities,
and led them to seek a site somewhere in the N or NE of
6.
Aglun.
But the
assumption
that Laban
represents
the Aramaeans of
Damascus is
gratuitous,
and has no foundation in either
J
or E
(see
the
next
note).
The
argument
from the direction of
Jacob
s march
applies
only
to
J,
and must not be too
rigorously pressed
;
because the
treaty
of Gilead and the
crossing
of the
Jabbok belong
to different
cycles
of
tradition,
and the desire to finish off
Jacob
s
dealings
with Laban before
proceeding
to his encounter with Esau
might very naturally
occasion
a
departure
from strict
geographical consistency.*
The site of
Mizpah
has to be
investigated separately,
since we cannot be certain that
J
and E
thought
of the same
locality.
E of the
Jordan
there was a
Mizpah (Ju.
io
17
n
11- 34
,
Ho.
5
1
)
which is
thought
to be the same as
i$a
nsyo
(Ju.
ii
29
)
and
ns^en
ncn
(Jos. i3
26
)
;
but whether it
lay
S or N
of the
Jabbok
cannot be determined. The identification with Ramdth-
Gil
ad,
and of this with
er-Remte,
SW of the ancient
Edrei,
is
precarious.
The name
( watch-post )
was a common
one,
and
may readily
be
sup
posed
to have occurred more than once E of the
Jordan.
See
Smith,
//, 586
; Buhl, GP,
262
;
Driver in smaller
DB,
s.v.
;
and on the whole
of this
note,
cf.
Smend, ZATW, 1902, 1496.
Historical
Background 0/3
i
44 54
. The
treaty
of Gilead in
J
evi
dently
embodies
ethnographic reminiscences,
in which
Jacob
and
Laban were not
private
individuals,
but
represented
Hebrews and
Aramaeans
respectively.
The
theory mostly
favoured
by
critical
historians is that the Aramaeans are those of
Damascus,
and that the
*
It seems to me
very
doubtful how far
Jacob
s
route,
as described
in chs.
32, 33,
can be
safely
used as a clue to the identification of the
localities mentioned
(Gilead, Mizpah,
Mahanaim,
the
Ford, Peniel,
Succoth).
The writers
appear
to have
strung together
a number of
Transjordanic legends
connected with the name of
Jacob,
but without
much
regard
to
topographical consistency
or consecutiveness
(see
p. 408).
The
impossibility
of the current identifications
(e*g.
those of Merrill and
Conder),
as
stages of
an actual
itinerary,
is
clearly
shown
by
Dri. in
ET,
xiii.
(1902), 457
ff. It is
only
when that
assumption
is
frankly
abandoned that the identification of Gilead with Gil
dd,
of Mahanaim
with Mahne
(p. 405),
of the Ford with
Mufyadat en-Nusranlyeh (p. 408),
becomes feasible.
404 JACOB
PREPARES TO MEET ESAU
situation reflected is that of the
Syrian
wars which
raged
from c. 860 to
c.
770
B.C.
(see
We. Prol.
s
320 f.).
Gu.
(p. 312) has, however, pointed
out
objections
to this
assumption
;
and has
given strong
reasons for be
lieving
that the narratives refer to an earlier date than 860. The
story
reads more like the record of a loose
understanding
between
neighbour
ing
and on the whole
friendly
tribes,
than of a formal
treaty
between
two
highly organised
states like Israel and Damascus
;
and it exhibits
no trace of the intense national
animosity
which was
generated during
the
Syrian
wars. In this
connexion,
Meyer
s
hypothesis
that in the
original
tradition Laban
represented
the
early
unsettled nomads of the
eastern desert
(see p. 334), acquires
a new interest.
Considering
the
tenacity
with which such
legends cling
to a
locality,
there is no diffi
culty
in
supposing
that in this case the tradition
goes
back to some
prehistoric
settlement of territorial claims between Hebrews and
migratory
Aramaeans. It is true that
Meyer
s
theory
is based on
notices
peculiar
to
E,
while the tribal
compact belongs
to
J ;
and it
may appear
hazardous to
go
behind the documents and build
specula
tions on a substratum of tradition common to both. But the
only
material
point
in which
J
differs from E is his identification of Laban
with the Aramaeans of Harran
;
and this is not inconsistent with
the
interpretation
here
suggested.
In
any case,
his narrative
gives
no
support
to the
opinion
that he has in view the
contemporary political
relations with the
kingdom
of Damascus.
XXXII.
2-33
.
JacoUs
Measures
for propitiating
Esau ;
His
Wrestling
with the
Deity
at Peniel
(J, E).
After a vision of
angels
at Mahanaim
(
2- 3
), Jacob
sends
a humble
message announcing
his arrival to
Esau,
but
learns to his consternation that his brother is
advancing
to
meet him with
400
men
(
4
~
7
).
He divides his
company
into
two
bands,
and invokes God s
help
in
prayer (
8
~
14a
)
;
then
prepares
a
present
for
Esau,
and sends it on in advance
(
14b
~
22
). Having
thus done all that human
foresight
could
suggest,
he
passes
a
lonely night
in the ravine of the
Jabbok, wrestling
with a
mysterious antagonist,
who at
daybreak
blesses him and
changes
his name to Israel
m-33\
Sources. Vv.
2- 3
are an isolated
fragment
of E
(crn^N
DN^D,
3
y:$
[
28
n
]) ;
4 14a
and
14b 22
are
parallels (cf.
14a
with
>\
the former from
J
(m.T,
10
; nnst?,
6
; m^iD,
10
;
jn
NSD,
6
;
ct. the
implied etymology
of
D^na
in
s. 9. 11
with E s in
a
)
:
14b
"
22
must therefore be
E,
though positive
marks
of that writer s
style
cannot be detected. On the
complicated
structure
of
23-33
(JE),
see
p. 407
below.
xxxn. 2-6
45
2, 3.
The
legend
of Mahanaim. 2.
angels
. . . met
him\
The verb for
meet,
as here construed
(v.z.), usually
means to
oppose. 3.
This is God s
camp\
or a
camp of
gods.
The idea of divine armies
appears
elsewhere in OT
(cf. Jos. 5
14
),
and
perhaps
underlies the
expression
*
Host
of heaven and the name Yahive Zeba dth. Mahanaim is
here
apparently
not
regarded
as a dual
(ct.
8- 9- n
).
On its
site,
v.i.
The brief statement of the text seems to be a torso of a
legend
which
had
gathered
round the name
Mahanaim,
whose
original meaning
has
been lost. The curtailment
probably
indicates that the
sequel
was
objectionable
to the
religious feeling
of later times
;
and it has been
surmised that the
complete story
told of a conflict between
Jacob
and
the
angels (originally
divine
beings),
somewhat similar to the
wrestling
of vv.
24ff-
(Gu. Ben.).
The word
camp (cf.
the fuller text of <&
inf.),
and the verbal
phrase
3
yjs both
suggest
a warlike encounter.
4-i4a. Jacob
s
precautionary
measures
(J). 4.
Isaac s death and Esau s settlement in the
country
after
wards
occupied by
his descendants are here assumed to
have
already
taken
place
: otherwise P
(s6
6
). 5,
6. We
note the extreme
servility
of
Jacob
s
language
:
my
lord
. . .
thy
servant . . .
find grace,
dictated
by
fear of his
brother s
vengeance (27
41
).
In substance the
message
is
2. After 12m
1
? (& ins. Kal
dvap\e\f/as
rots
600a\,uo?s
idev
7rape/x/3oX7ji/
deov
irape/ui^f3\r]Kv?av, enhancing
the vividness of the
description.
5
J^B]
encounter with
hostility, Ju.
8
21
i5
12
i8
25
,
i Sa. 22
m
-,
2 Sa. i
15
,
i Ki.
2
25ff
-,
Ru. 2
22
;
=
intercede, Jb.
2i
15
, Jer. 7
16
2;
18
,
Ru. i
16
. The neutral
sense
meet,
with
pers. obj.,
is
doubtfully supported by
Nu.
35
19 21
,
Jos.
2
16
,
where hostile intention is
evidently implied
: elsewhere this is
expressed by
ace.
pers. (Ex. 5
20
23*,
i Sa. io
6
,
Am.
5
19
).
Gn. 28
11
is
somewhat
different,
the
obj. being impers. (cf.
the use in
Jos.
i6
7
i7
10
etc.). 3.
D
jnD]
an
important
East
Jordanic city
and
sanctuary,
the
capital
of Ish-bosheth
(2
Sa. 2
8
),
and David s
headquarters during
the revolt of Absalom
(2
Sa.
i7
24 - 27
),
the centre of a fiscal district under
Solomon
(i
Ki.
4
14
).
The situation of Mahne or Mihne on W.
el-Hirnar^
some
14
m. N of the
Jabbok (see
Buhl, GP, 257),
suits all the other
references
(cf. Jos. I3
26- 30
the
boundary
of Gad and
Manasseh),
but
is too far from the
Jabbok
for this narrative
(v.
23
).
On the
ending,
which is
probably
no real
dual,
see on
24
10
.
4.
rjsV]
dS om. DIIN
mty] (cf.
Ju. 5
4
)
is
probably
a
gloss
on
Tys?
nsiK.
5. jncxn]
cf. i8
28ff-
inxi]
for
inggj (G-K. 64 A).
6.
nnWw]
Cohort,
form with vav consec.
chiefly
late
;
see Dri. T.
69 Obs.,
72
;
G-K.
406 JACOB
PREPARES TO MEET ESAU
nothing
but an announcement of his arrival and his
great,
wealth
(cf. 33
12ff>
)
The
shepherd,
with all his
success,
is
at the
mercy
of the fierce marauder who was to
*
live
by
his sword
(27
40
). 7-
The
messengers
return with the
ominous news that Esau is
already
on the march with
400
men. How he was
ready
to strike so far north of his
own
territory
is a
difficulty (see
p. 415).
8,
p. Jacob
s first
resource is to divide his
company
into two
camps,
in the
hope
that one
might escape
while the other was
being
captured.
The
arrangement
is
perhaps
adverted to in
33
8
.
10-13. Jacob
s
prayer, consisting
of an invocation
(
10
),
thanksgiving (
ll
), petition
(
12
),
and
appeal
to the divine
faithfulness
(
13
),
is a classic model of OT devotion
(Gu.);
though
the element of
confession,
so
prominent
in later
supplications,
is
significantly
absent. 12. mother with
(or on) children]
Hos. io
14
;
cf. Dt. 22
6
. A
popular saying,
the mother conceived as
bending
over the children to
protect
them
(Tu.). I4a. spent
that
night
there]
z.e.,
at
Mahanaim
(v.
22
).
We
may suppose
(with
We.
Gu.)
that an
explicit etymology,
based on the two
camps (vv.
8* n
), pre
ceded or followed this clause.
yv
10-13
a
pp
ear to be one of the later
expansions
of the Yahwistic
narrative,
akin to
i3
14 17
22
15 18
26
3b
"
5
28
14
.
They
can be removed with
out loss of
continuity,
14a
being"
a natural continuation of
9
. The in
sertion
gives
an
interpretation
to the two
camps
at variance with
the
primary
motive of the division
(v.
9
)
;
and its
spirit
is different from
that of the narrative in which it is embedded.
Comp.
also D n Vin with
22
17
,
aiD nso K
1
? with i6
10
22
17
. See Gu.
316.
i4b-22.
The
present
for Esau
(E). 14.
a
present]
Not
492.
8.
ISM] \/
TM intrans.
=
be
cramped
;
on the
form,
cf. G-K.
67 p.
D
VDjm]
(3r
A
om. and
transp. jNxrrnNi nparrnNi.
nuno
*w]
That
this
implies
an
etymology
of
Mahanaim,
and that
J
located the incident
there,
cannot
reasonably
be doubted
(as by Ho.).
The name is
obviously regarded
as a dual
(in
contrast to v.
8
), showing
that the
current
pronunciation
is
very
ancient
(Di.). 9. nnxn]
.ax iriKn
(masc.),
which is demanded
by
the
context,
as well as
by prevailing usage
(Albrecht, ZATW,
xvi.
52).
II.
JD
wop]
too
insignificant
for
;
G-K.
133^.
mrr
pT.t]
The writer
apparently
locates Mahanaim in the
vicinity
of the
Jordan ;
but the
allusion,
in an editorial
passage,
has
perhaps
no
great topographical importance.
14. K3.T|D]
Art. with
ptcp. (not pf.)
;
see G-K.
138
k\
Dri. Sam.
XXXII.
7-24
tribute
(as often)
in
acknowledgment
of
vassalage,
but
(as 43
11
,
2 Ki. 8
8f>
)
a
gift
to win favour.
17-20. By arrang
ing
the cattle in successive droves
following
at considerable
intervals, Jacob hopes
to wear out Esau s resentment
by
a
series of
surprises.
The
plan
has
nothing
in common with
the two
camps
of v.
8f>
in
J.
2ia. A
repetition
of
19b
:
Jacob lays
stress on this
point,
because the effect would
obviously
be weakened if a
garrulous
servant were to let
out the secret that other
presents
were to follow. 2lb. Let
me
pacify kirn]
lit.
*
cover
(or
*
wipe
clean
)
his
face,
the
same
figure, though
in different
language,
as 2o
16
. On
"133,
see
OTJC
2
,
381
; DB,
iv. i28f. see his
face]
(
obtain access to
his
presence
: cf.
43
3- 5
44
23- 26
,
Ex. io
28
,
2 Sa.
i4
24- 28
- 32
,
2 Ki.
25
19
,
Est. i
14
. The
phrase
is
thought
to
convey
an allusion
to Penti el
(Gu.)
;
see on
33
10
. 22.
spent
. . .
camp
(runea)]
cf.
Ua
. We.
(Comp* 46)
renders in Mahaneh
(i.e.
Mahanaim),
but the
change
is
hardly justified.
23-33.
The
wrestling
at Peniel
(JE). 23, 24.
The
crossing
of the
Jabbok.
The Yabbok is now almost univers-
57
f.
nmo]
see on
4
3
.
17.
nn
(Est.
4
14
t)] \/ nn,
be wide
(i
Sa. i6
23
,
Jb. 32
20
).
18. On the forms
!#as; (Ben Napht.), SI^E; (Ben Asher),
see G-K.
91;, \og(c),
60
b, [and B.-D.,
Gen,
p. 85];
and on
iWi,
64/1
20. is
i]
fflr +
rw
Trpwry. D^sb] irreg.
inf. for
D^uip (G-K.
74 h,
93?).
21.
npjr]
juu. &J+ KI.
23-33.
The
analysis
of the
passage
is beset
by
insurmountable diffi
culties. While most
recognise
doublets in
m
(v.s.),
25 33
have
generally
been
regarded
as a
unity, being assigned
to
J by
We. Kue. Corn. KS.
Dri. al.
;
but
by
Di. to E. In the view of more recent
critics,
both
J
and
E are
represented, though
there is the utmost
variety
of
opinion
in
regard
to details. In the notes
above, possible
variants have been
pointed
out
in
26a
II
26b
(the laming
of the
thigh)
and
29
II
30
(the
name and the
blessing)
;
to these
may
be added the still more doubtful case
31
II
32
(Peniel, Penuel).
As
showing
traces of more
primitive conceptions,
26a
and
30
would natur
ally go together,
and also
27
for the same reason. Since
J prefers
the
name Israel in the
subsequent history,
there is a
slight presumption
that
xt"
belong
to him
;
and the D n"?N of
31
points (though
not
decisively)
to E.
Thus we should
obtain,
for E :
26a- 27- 30- 31
;
leaving
for
J
:
26b- 28- * 32
: v.
88
may
be a
gloss.
The result
corresponds nearly,
so far as it
goes,
with
Gu. s
(3i8f.).
The reader
may compare
the
investigations
of Ho.
(209 f.),
Procksch
(32), Meyer (SNS, 57 f.). 23.
Kin n^*?3
(juu. mnn)]
as
ig
33
3o
16
.
p3!
(JUUL prn) (Nu.
2i
24
,
Dt. 2
37
3, Jos.
i2
2
, Ju.
n
13- 22
f)
is
naturally
ex
plained
as the
gurgler,
from
^/
pp3 (Ar. bakkci),
the resemblance to
p^N
(v.
26
) being,
of
course,
a
popular word-play. 24!).
Insert
"^
before
408
THE WRESTLING AT PENIEL
(JE)
ally,
and no doubt
correctly,
identified with the Nahr ez-Zerka
(Blue River),
whose middle course
separates
Gebel
f
Aglun
from
el-Belka,
and which flows into the
Jordan
about
25
m.
N of the Dead Sea. See
Smend, ZATW,
1902, 137
ff.
;
and
the
descriptions
in
Riehm,
ffwb.
2
665
; Smith, ffG,
583-5.
The
ford
referred to cannot be determined
;
that of Muhadat
en-Nusranlyeh,
where the road from &eras* to es-Salt
crosses the
deep
narrow
gorge
which cleaves the mountains
of
Gilead,
as described
by
Thomson
(ZZ?,
iii.
583 ff.)
and
Tristram
(Land of
Israel?,
549), supplies
a more
fitting
back
ground
for the weird
struggle
about to be narrated than the
one in the
Jordan valley;
but on the difficulties of this
identification,
see Dri.
ET,
xiii.
459.
The
passage
of the river seems to be twice
described,
24a
and
24b
being
apparently
doublets. The former continues
23a
,
which
belongs
to
J (rtnsr).
Following
this
clue,
we
may
divide thus :
23a- 24a
=
J ;
^ 24b
=E
(so Gu.).
While E
implies
that
Jacob
crossed with his
company,
the account of
J
is consistent with the statement of
25a
,
that after
sending
the others
across he himself was left alone. On
any
view the action is somewhat
perplexing.
To cross a ford
by night,
with
flocks,
etc.
,
was a
dangerous
operation, only
to be
explained by apprehension
of an attack from
Esau
(We.).
But Esau is
represented
as
advancing
from the south
;
and
Jacob
is in haste to
put
his
people
and
possessions
on that side of
the river on which
they
were
exposed
to attack. Either the narrative
is defective at this
point,
or it is written without a clear
conception
of
the actual circumstances.
25
a man wrestled with him till the
appearing of
the
dawn]
Only
later does
Jacob
discover that his unknown
antagonist
is a
god
in human form
(cf.
i8
2
ig
5
).
The rare word
(v.i.)
for
wrestle
(p3tf)
is chosen because of the assonance with
p3\
26a. he saw that he
prevailed not]
The
ambiguity
of the
subject
extends to the next
clause,
and leaves two inter
pretations open
(v.i.).
struck the socket
of
his
thigh]
putting
it out of
joint.
26b. the socket
of Jacob
s
thigh
was dislocated
as he wrestled with him.
The dislocation of the
thigh
seems to be twice recorded
(see
KS. An.
159),
and it is
highly probable
that the two halves of the v. come from
.
25. pnN i]
A vb. used
only
here and v.
26
,
distinct from
NH
priNnn,
make oneself
dusty,
and
very probably
a modification
of
pan, clasp
(De.
Di.).
26.
ypm] ^
U.T,
lit. be rent
away (cf. Jer.
6
8
)
:
XXXII.
24-29
49
different sources. In
26a
it is a
stratagem
resorted to
by
a wrestler
unable to
gain
the
advantage by ordinary
means
(like
the trick of
Ulysses
in //. xxiii.
725 ft".);
in
26b
it is an accident which
happens
to
Jacob
in the course of the
struggle.
It has even been
suggested
that in
the
original legend
the
subj.
of
26a
was
Jacob
that it was he who dis
abled his
antagonist
in the manner described
(Ho.
Gu. Che. : see
Miiller,
AE,
163
; Luther, ZATW,
xxi.
65
ff.
;
Meyer, INS,
57).
It is
possible
(though certainly
not
probable)
that this was the view of the document
(J
or
E)
to which
26*
belongs,
and that it underlies Hos. I2
5
.
27.
Let me
go, for
the dawn is
breaking}
Comp. Plautus,
Amphitr. 532
f.,
where
Jupiter says:
"Cur me tenes?
Tempus
est : exire ex urbe
priusquam
lucescat volo." It is
a survival of the
wide-spread
belief in
spirits
of the
night
which must vanish at dawn
(Hamlet,
Act i. Sc.
i.);
and
as
such,
a
proof
of the extreme
antiquity
of the
legend.
But
the
request
reveals to
Jacob
the
superhuman
character of
his
adversary,
and he resolves to hold him fast till he has
extorted a
blessing
from him.
28, 2p.
Here the
blessing
is
imparted
in the form of a new name conferred on
Jacob
in
memory
of this
crowning struggle
of his life. thou hast
striven with
God\
Yisrael,
probably
=
God strives
(z;.z.),
is
interpreted
as Striver with God
;
cf. a similar transforma
tion of i
Jin*
(
Baal contends
)
in
Ju.
6
32
. Such a name is a
true
blessing,
as a
pledge
of
victory
and success to the
nation which bears it. and with
men]
This can
hardly
refer
merely
to the contests with Laban and Esau
;
it
points
rather to the existence of a fuller
body
of
legend,
in which
Jacob figured
as the hero of
many
combats, culminating
AjL,
U
emarcutt,
& jn
( gave way ),
all
conjectural.
29.
^NI^]
A name of the same
type
as
StfJJDB", Sxcnv, etc.,
with some such
meaning
as God strives or Let God strive
; originally (it
has been
suggested)
a
war-cry
which
passed
into a
proper
name
(see Steuernagel,
Eimv.
61).
The vb.
msy, however,
only
occurs in connexion with this
incident
(Ho.
I2
4- 5
,
where read
"itf .l),
and in the
personal
name
nn^ ;
and
its real
meaning
is uncertain. If it be the Heb.
equivalent
of Ar.
Sariya,
Dri.
argues
that it must mean
persist
or
persevere
rather than
strive
(DB,
ii.
530),
which
hardly yields
a suitable idea. Some take
it as a
by-form
of
vib,
either in a denominative sense
( rule,
from ifc
,
prince),
or in its assumed
primary significance
shine forth
(Ass.
sardru :
see
Vollers, AKW,
ix.
184).
Some doubt has even been thrown on the
traditional Heb.
pronunciation by
the form Ysir
r,
found on an inscr. of
Merneptah (Steindorff,
ZATW,
xvi.
330 ff.),
with which we
may compare
4IO
THE WRESTLING AT PENIEL
in this successful
struggle
with
deity. 30. Jacob
vainly
endeavours to extort a disclosure of the name of his anta
gonist.
This is
possibly
an older variant of
28f
-,
belonging
to a
primitive phase
of
thought,
where he who
possesses
the
true name of a
god
can
dispose
of the
power
of its bearer
(Che.
TBI,
40I
1
;
DB,
v.
640).
For the concealment of the
name,
cf.
Ju. i3
18
(the
same
words).
Gu. thinks that
in the
original
narrative the name of the wrestler was
actually
revealed.
31.
Pen?
el]
Face of God
(v.z.).
The
name is derived from an incidental feature of the
experience
:
that
Jacob
had seen
"
God
face
to
face" (Ex. 33",
Dt.
34
10
),
and
yet
lived
(see
on i6
13
).
The site of Peniel is unknown :
see Dri.
ET,
xiii.
457
ff.,
and Gen.
300
ff.
32.
limping-
on
his
thigh\
in
consequence
of the
injury
he had received
(
26b
).
That he bore the hurt to his
death,
as a memorial of the
conflict,
is a
gratuitous
addition to the narrative.
33.
The
food-taboo here mentioned is nowhere else referred to in
OT
;
and the Mishnic
prohibition (Hulltn, 7)
is
probably
dependent
on this
passage.
Rob. Sm.
explains
it from the
sacredness of the
thigh
as a seat of life
(R&, 38O
1
)
;*
and
Ass.
Sir--lai(
=
^vrxr>) (see Kittel,
SBOT
Chronicles,
p. 58). Comp.
also
Che.
TBIy 404. nnw]
(5r
Mffxv<rayt Aq.
7}pi- as,
S.
^/>w,
U
fortis fuisti,
&
"
2.55
A^],
E
RN
m.
31. WJB]
(Sr Er$os
0eou,
juu.2UJ read SKUB as v.
3a
.
The formal difference arises from the old
case-ending
s of
gen.
and nom.
(G-K. 900).
Strabo
(xvi.
ii.
16,
18)
mentions a Phoenician
pro
montory
near
Tripolis
called Qeov
irpbGwirov
: it is not
improbable
that
in both cases the name is derived from a fancied resemblance to a face.
33-
nvnn
TJ] na>}
is to be
explained by
Ar. nas
an
(for nasay""),
which
means the nervus
ischiadicus,
or the
thigh
in which it is found
(Ges.
Th.
921 f.).
The
question
remains whether TJ denotes here a
nerve,
an
artery,
a
sinew,
or a muscle
;
the first seems
by
far the most
pro
bable. So it seems to have been understood
by
5>
()
- * *
.P
],
*
,t
=
tetanus-nerve),
and
by
(5r and
F,
which
appear
to have connected
W3 with the vb. for
forget (Gr.-Venet,
rb
vevpov
rb
^TriXeX^a/i^ov !).
The modern
Jewish
restriction
applies, according
to
De.,
to the
"
Span-
nader,
d. h. die innere Ader des
sogen.
Hinterviertels mit Einschluss
der ausseren und der
Verastelungen
beider."
* "
The nature of the lameness
produced by injury
to the sinew of the
thigh
socket is
explained by
the Arabic
lexx.,
s.v.
hdrifat
,
the man
can
only
walk on the
tips
of his toes. This seems to have been a
common
affection,
for
poetical metaphors
are taken from it."
XXXII.
30-33
4
11
We.
(fieid.
i68
3
)
calls attention to a trace of it in ancient
Arabia. For
primitive parallels,
see
Frazer,
Golden
Bough,
ii.
419
ff.,
Folklore in
OT,
142
f. The
precise meaning
of
n^an
T3
is uncertain
(v.i.).
In its fundamental
conception
the
struggle
at Peniel is not a dream
or vision like that which came to
Jacob
at Bethel
;
nor is it an
allegory
of the
spiritual life,
symbolising
the inward travail of a soul
helpless
before some
overhanging
crisis of its
destiny.
It is a real
physical
en
counter which is
described,
in which
Jacob
measures his
strength
and
skill
against
a divine
antagonist,
and
prevails, though
at the cost of
a
bodily injury.
No more
boldly anthropomorphic
narrative is found in
Genesis
;
and unless we shut our
eyes
to some of its salient
features,
we
must
resign
the
attempt
to translate it
wholly
into terms of
religious
experience.
We have to do with a
legend, originating
at a low level of
religion,
in
process
of accommodation to the
purer
ideas of revealed
religion
;
and its
history may
have been somewhat as follows :
(i)
We
begin
with the fact of a hand-to-hand conflict between a
god
and a man.
A similar idea
appears
in Ex.
4
24ff>
,
where we read that Yahwe met Moses
and
sought
to kill him. In the
present passage
the
god
was
probably
not Yahwe
originally,
but a local
deity,
a
night-spirit
who fears the
dawn and refuses to disclose his name. Dr. Frazer has
pointed
out
that such stories as this are associated with
water-spirits,
and cites
many primitive
customs
(Folklore, 1360.)
which seem to rest on the belief
that a river resents
being
crossed,
and drowns
many
who
attempt
it.
He hazards the
conjecture
that the
original deity
of this
passage
was
the
spirit
of the
Jabbok ;
in which case the
word-play
between
pi:
and
p3N may
have
greater significance
than
appears
on the surface.
(2)
Like
many patriarchal theophanies,
the narrative accounts for the foundation
of a
sanctuary
that of Peniel. Of the cultus at Peniel we know
nothing
;
and there is
very
little in the
story
that can be
supposed
to bear
upon
it,
unless we
assume,
with Gu. and
others,
that the
limping
on the
thigh
refers to a ritual dance
regularly
observed there
(cf.
i Ki. i8
26
).* (3) By
J
and E the
story
was
incorporated
in the national
epos
as
part
of the
history
of
Jacob.
The God who wrestles with the
patriarch
is Yahwe
;
and how far the
wrestling
was understood as a literal fact remains un
certain. To these writers the main interest lies in the
origin
of the name
Israel,
and the
blessing
bestowed on the nation in the
person
of its
ancestor.
(4)
A still more refined
interpretation
is
found,
it seems to
me,
in Ho. i2
4- 5
: In the womb he overreached his
brother;
and in his
prime
he strove with God. He strove
(1^1)
with the
Angel
and
pre
vailed
;
he
wept
and made
supplication
to him. The substitution of the
Angel
of Yahwe for the divine
Being
Himself shows
increasing
sensitive
ness to
anthropomorphism ;
and the last line
appears
to mark an advance
in the
spiritualising
of the
incident,
the
subject being
not the
Angel (as
Gu. and others
hold),
but
Jacob,
whose
prevailing
thus becomes that
of
importunate prayer.
We
may
note in a word
Steuernagel
s ethno-
*
But see footnote on
p. 410
above.
412
MEETING OF
JACOB
AND ESAU
logical interpretation.
He considers the
wrestling-
to
symbolise
a
victory
of the
invading-
Israelites over the inhabitants of N Gilead. The
chang-e
of name reflects the fact that a new nation
(Israel)
arose from the fusion
of the
Jacob
and Rachel tribes
(Einw.
61
f.).
CH. XXXIII. The
Meeting of
the Brothers:
Jacob
s March
toShechem
(JE, P).
The dreaded
meeting
at last takes
place
;
the brothers
are
reconciled,
and
part
in
friendship
;
Esau
returning-
to
Seir,
while
Jacob
moves on
by
slow
stages
first to Succoth
and then to Shechem. It is difficult to characterise the
spirit
in which the main incident is conceived. Was Esau s
pur
pose friendly
from the
first,
or was he turned from
thoughts
of
vengeance by Jacob
s submissive and
flattering
demeanour?
Does the writer
regard
the reconciliation as
equally
honour
able to both
parties,
or does he
only
admire the skill and
knowledge
of human nature with which
Jacob
tames his
brother s
ferocity?
The truth
probably
lies between two
extremes. That Esau s intention was
hostile,
and that
Jacob gained
a
diplomatic victory
over
him,
cannot reason
ably
be doubted. On the other
hand,
the narrator must be
acquitted
of a desire to humiliate Esau. If he was
vanquished
by generosity,
the noblest
qualities
of manhood were released
in him
;
and he
displays
a chivalrous
magnanimity
which no
appreciative
audience could ever have held in
contempt.
So
far as
any
national
feeling
is
reflected,
it is one of
genuine
respect
and
goodwill
towards the Edomites.
Sources. Vv.
1 17
are
rightly assigned
in the main to
J,
in
spite
of the
fact that the
only
divine name which occurs is
DTI^N,
in
5b- 10- n
. In these
vv. we must
recognise
the hand of E
(cf.
also
6b
with
48
9
,
and
lob
with
32
21
) ; and,
for all that
appears,
E s influence
may
extend further. The
chief
indications, however,
both material and
linguistic, point
to
J
as the
leading
source : the
400
men
(32
7
),
the
camp
in v.
8
(32
8
),
and the ex
pressions
:
ninsB>,
l - 2> 8
; nxnp
1
?
pi,
4
;
jn
NSO,
8- 10- 15
;
p-^jPS,
10
. The docu
ments are so
deftly
interwoven that it is
scarcely possible
to detect a
flaw in the
continuity
of the narrative.
18 20
are
probably
from
E, except
18ft
/3,
which is taken from P
(see
on the vv.
below).
1-7.
The
meeting.
I,
2.
Jacob
s fears revive at
sight
xxxni. i-ii
413
of the
400
men
(32
7
).
He marshals his children
(not
the
whole
company,
as
32
8f
-,
though
the motive is the
same)
under their
mothers,
and in the reverse order of his affection
for them.
3. passed
on
before them\ having previously
been in
the rear. He
approaches
his brother with the reverence
befitting
a
sovereign
;
the sevenfold
prostration
is a favourite
formula of
homage
in the Tel Amarna tablets :
"
At the feet
of
my
Lord, my
Sun,
I fall down seven and seven times
"
(38
ff.
pass.).
It does not
follow, however,
that
Jacob
acknowledged
himself Esau s vassal
(Nestle,
MM, 12;
Che.
TBI,
405)
;
cf. i Sa. 2O
41
.
4. fell
on his
neck]
45
14
46
29
(J)
;
Lu.
i5
20
.
5-7.
An
interesting picture:
the mothers with
their little ones come forward in
groups
to
pay
their
respects
to the
grim-visaged
warrior,
whose name had caused such
terror in the
camp.
8-II. The
present.
8. Esau remembers another
great
cavalcade
camp
which he had met. The
present
of
32
14ff>
(E)
cannot be referred
to,
for Esau must have been
told
repeatedly
what it was for
(32
18f>
).
The word
"wno
points
rather to the
arrangement
of
32
8f>
(J).
Gu. somewhat in
geniously explains
thus : Esau had met the first division of
Jacob
s
company
;
and
Jacob,
ashamed to avow his
original
motive,
by
a
happy inspiration
now offers
*
this whole
camp
as a
present
to his brother.
9.
Esau at first
refuses, but,
10, II, Jacob
insists on his
accepting
the
gift.
as one sees the
Read
accordingly
D.TiriK for the first N.
4. inpbn]
The
puncta
extra-
ordinaria mark some error in the text. Di. observes that elsewhere
(45
14
46
29
)
fell on his neck is
immediately
followed
by wept.
The
word should
probably
be inserted
(with (5r)
after
inpnm
(so 29" ;
cf.
48
10
). IDITI]
The
sing,
would be
better,
unless we add with
(ffir
C.Ti^.
inpsn inpnm || im
rum
*?y
Ss i seem to be variants
;
of which one or other
will be due to E.
5- P
n
l
with double
ace.,
lit. has been
gracious
to
me
(with)
them
(G.-K, 117 ff.)
=
has
graciously given (so
v.
11
) ;
cf.
Ju.
2i
22
,
Ps. 1
19
29
.
7. 2>iJ] Niph.
for the
previous Qal.
Point
BUJ?
Srvn
FJDV]
(&
transp.
as v.
2
.
10.
p
^irs]
see on i8
5
. This and the
preceding jn
YIN^D
mark the v.
as
J s,
in
spite
of the
appellative
use of D .n
1
?**. Iia is a doublet of
10a
,
and
may
be
assigned
to E.
nDta] blessing,
hence the
gift
which is meant
to
procure
a
blessing
: i Sa.
25^ 3o
26
,
2 Ki. i8
31
.
nxjn]
see G-K.
but
^CrFS
read better
414
MEETING OF
JACOB
AND
ESAU
(jfi)
face of God\
with the
feelings
of
joy
and reverence with which
one
engages
in the
worship
of God. For the
flattering
com
parison
of a
superior
to the
Deity,
cf. i Sa.
29,
2 Sa.
I4
17
ig
28
. It is
possible
that the
phrase
here contains a reminis
cence of the
meaning
of PSnfel in
32
31
(We.
Di.
al.),
the
common idea
being
that "at Peniel the
unfriendly
God is
found to be
friendly
"
(Di.).
The resemblance
suggests
a
different form of the
legend,
in which the
deity
who wrestled
with
Jacob
was Esau the Usous of Phoenician
mythology
(see
on
2^
;
cf.
INS,
278).
12-17.
The
parting
1
. 12.
Esau,
assuming
that
they
are
no more to be
separated, proposes
to march in front with his
troop. 13.
But
Jacob
has other
objects
in
view,
and invents
a
pretext
for
getting
rid of his brother s
company.
vjf
fife]
lit. are
giving
suck
upon
me: i.e. their condition
imposes
anxiety upon
me.
14.
Iwill
proceed by stages (? v.i.), gently,
according
to the
pace of
the cattle
before
me].
till I come . . .
to
Seir]
It
is,
of
course, implied
that he is to follow in Esau s
track;
and the mention of Seir as a
possible goal
of
Jacob
s
journey
causes
difficulty. Meyer (INS, 275 f.)
advances the
attractive
theory
that in
J Jacob
does not cross the
Jordan
at
all,
but
goes
round
by
Seir and the S of the Dead Sea to
Hebron. The
question
has an
important
bearing
on the
criticism of ch.
34. 15-17.
The offer of an armed escort
having
been
courteously
declined,
Jacob proceeds
but a short
13. mSy] */
y,
of which
only
the
ptcp.
is in use
(i
Sa. 6
7> 10
,
Is.
40",
Ps.
78 f). mpsrn]
better with
.UA&&
D
Pi?^.
On the
synt.
see G-K.
I
59?-
1
4-
/i:n ^
"Nrw]
$*
^"rxtf<rw
^"
TV o5y
Kara
crxoXV rfjs iropeixrews.
Why Cheyne (405 f.)
finds it
necessary
to resolve the text into a series of
geographical glosses
is not
apparent. *?n:nn,
Hithp.
is aw.
Xe-y.,
but is
a natural extension of the Pi.
guide [to
a
watering-place?],
Is.
40"
49
10
.
BN in the sense of
gentleness (2
Sa. i8
5
,
i Ki. 2I
27
,
Is. 8
6
, Jb. 15"),
and Sri in the sense of
pace
are
unexceptionable
: the
}
of norm with
both words
(BDB, 5i6b).
For HUN^D in the sense of
property,
we
have
examples
in Ex. 22?-
10
,
i Sa.
i5
9
.
15. nrsie]
lit. let me set. The
sense
suggested by
the
context,
leave
behind,
is
supported by
Ex.
lo^Hoph.).
in no
1
?]
The Heb. is
peculiar.
The obvious
rendering
would
be, Why
should I find
favour,
etc.?
;
but as that is
hardly
possible,
we must tr.
Why
so?
May
I
find,
etc. a
very abrupt
transition. We should at least
expect
NJ N*DN.
17. apjn]
The
precedence
of
subj.
indicates
contrast,
and shows that the v. continues
le
(J). yw]
xxxiii.
distance,
and takes
up
his
quarters
at Sukkdth
(v.i.).
The
name is derived from the
booths^
or
temporary
shelters for
cattle,
which he erects there. built
himself
a
house]
showing
1
that he
contemplated
a
lengthy sojourn.
Here Esau
disappears
from the histories of
J
and E. We have
already
remarked on the
change
of tone in this last
episode,
as
compared
with the
earlier
Jacob-Esau
stories of chs.
25, 27.
Esau is no
longer
the rude
natural
man,
the
easy
victim of his brother s
cunning,
but a noble and
princely
character,
whose
bearing
is
evidently
meant to
inspire
admira
tion.
Jacob, too,
is
presented
in a more favourable
light
: if he is still
shrewd and
calculating,
and not
perfectly
truthful,
he does not sink to the
knavery
of his earlier
dealings
with Esau and
Laban,
but exhibits the
typical
virtues of the
patriarchal
ideal. The contrast
betrays
a differ
ence of
spirit
and
origin
in the two
groups
of
legends.
It is conceivable
that the second
group
came from sanctuaries
frequented by
Israelites
and Edomites in common
(so
Ho.
212)
;
but it is also
possible
that the
two sets reflect the relations of Israel and Edom at different
periods
of
history.
It is
quite
obvious that chs.
25
and
27
took
shape
after the
decay
of the Edomite
empire,
when the
ascendancy
of Israel over the
older
people
was assured. If there be
any ethnological
basis to
32. 33,
it must
belong
to an earlier
period. Steuernagel (Ein-w. 105) suggests
as a
parallel
Nu. 2O
14 21
,
where the Edomites resist the
passage
of Israel
through
their
territory. Meyer (387
1
)
is
disposed
to find a recollection
of a time when Edom had a
powerful empire extending
far north on
the E of the
Jordan,
where
they may
have rendered assistance to Israel
in the Midianite war
(ib. 382), though they
were unable
ultimately
to
maintain their
position.
If there be
any
truth in either of these
specula
tions
(which
must remain
extremely doubtful),
it is evident that chrono
logically 32
f.
precede 25, 27 ;
and the
attempt
to
interpret
the series
(as
a
whole) ethnographically
must be abandoned.
18-20.
Jacob
at Shechem. 18. The
crossing
of the
Jordan
is not recorded
;
it is
commonly supposed
to have
see on n
2
.
nap
was E of the
Jordan,
but nearer to it than Peniel
(Jos.
I3*
7
, Ju.
8
4- 6- 8
).
The site is unknown
(see
Smith, HG,
585
; Buhl,
GP
%
206, 260;
Dri.
ET,
xiii.
458 a,
n.
i).
The modern Ain es-Sakut
(9
m.
S. of
Beisan)
is excluded on
phonetic grounds,
and is besides on the
wrong
side of the
Jordan.
18.
DSP
TV
[juu DiW] oVr]
The
rendering given
above is
pronounced by
We. to be
impossible,
no doubt on the
ground
that
D^tf, meaning pro
perly
whole
(Dt. 27
6
),
is nowhere else used in the sense safe and
sound of a
person.
Still,
in view of Di
1
?^
(cf.
28
21
43^),
and oW i
in
Jb.
9
4
,
it
may
be
reasonably supposed
that it had that sense.
<&
Jub.
3JJ5 take D^s? as a nont.
pr.
;
a view which
though
it derives some
plausi
bility
from the fact that there is still a
village
Salim about
4
m. E of
Nabulus
(Robinson,
BR,
ii.
275, 279), implies
a sense not consonant
416
JACOB
AT SHECHEM
(E, P)
taken
place
at the ford
ed-Damiyeh,
a little S of the
Jabbok,
on the road from es-Salt to Shechem. in
safety (&<?
)]
after
his
escape
from
Esau,
E not
having
recorded the
lengthened
stay
at Succoth. On the
rendering
of
D^
as a
proper name,
v.i.
encamped
in
front of
the
city\
in the vale to the E of
it,
where
Jacob
s well is still shown
(Jn. 4
6 12
).
ip.
The
pur
chase of the
ground
is referred to in
Jos. 2^
2
in the account
of
Joseph
s burial. It is
significant
that Israel s claim to
the
grave
of
Joseph
is based on
purchase, just
as its
right
to that of Abraham
(ch. 23).
The Bne Hdmor were the
dominant clan in Shechem
(ch. 34, Ju. g
28
).
a hundred
kesitahs\
an unknown sum
(v.i.).
20. he set
up
there an
altar\
or more
probably (since
^Jfn
is never used of an
altar)
a
mazzebah. called it
El,
God
of
Israel}
the stone
being
identified with the
deity;
cf. 28
22
35
7
,
Ex.
i;
15
, Ju.
6
24
. For
heathen
parallels,
see
Mey.
INS,
295.
Israel is here the name of the nation : cf.
Jos.
8
30
,
where
Joshua
builds an altar on Ebal
(E
of
Shechem)
to Yah
we,
God of Israel. The
stone and its name are
undoubtedly historical,
and
go
back to an
early
time when Shechem
(or
Ebal
?)
was the sacred centre of the
confederacy
of Israelitish tribes
(cf.
i Ki. I2
1
).
We cannot therefore
conclude with Di. that the v. refers back to
32
29
,
and comes from the
same document.
with
usage
;
there
being-
no case of a
village
described as a
city
of
the
neighbouring
town
(De.).
We.
(Comp.
i
3I6
1
)
emends
D?;?
:
Shechem the
city
of
(the man)
Shechem. Procksch
accepts
the
emendation,
but
regards
the words as a conflation of variants from two
sources
(p. 34).
<&
distinguishes
the name of the
city (SLKlfjiwv,
see on
i2
6
)
from that of the man
(Si^A
1
,
v.
19
34
1>ffl
). }m]
as 26
17
.
19. ntrspp
(Jos. 24
3
-, Jb. 42
11
f)] apparently
a coin or
weight ;
but the
etymology
is
obscure. (ErU^
render lamb
;
and it was
thought
that
light
had been
thrown on this traditional
explanation by
the Aramaic Assuan
papyri,
where BO3
(lamb)
is used of a coin
(of
the value of 10 shekels
?) (so Sayce-
Cowley,
Aram.
Pap.
disc, at
Assouan,
p. 23).
But Lidzbarski
(Deutsche
Lzg., 1906, 3210
ff.
)
holds that the word there should be read &~v
(found
on a Persian
weight:
PSBA, 1888,
4640:.).
20. Read naso for
nuiD,
and
consequently ~^
for i
1
?
(We. al.).
1:1
N^TI]
(S
KGU eVe/caX^o-aro rbv
6ebv
laparjX. Except
the clause DIN
pSD
1N33 2 NU it?N in v.
18
,
which
is
evidently
from
P,
the whole section
18 20
may safely
be
assigned
to E.
xxxni.
19-xxxiv.
4
T
7
CH. XXXIV. The
Outrage
on Dinah.
Two narratives are here combined :
I.
Shechem,
son of
Hamor,
the II. Shechem dishonours
Dinah,
native
princeling",
falls in love with but lets her return to her
family
Dinah,
the
daughter
of
Leah,
ab-
(
1 3
*
;
cf.
1V
)
;
but
continuing-
to love
ducts
her,
and
keeps
her in his
her,
he
appeals
toHamor to
arrange
house
(
1 s
*
;
cf.
26
).
He asks her in a
marriage (
4
).
Hamor comes to
marriage
from her father and
speak
to
Jacob (
6
),
and finds him
brothers,
offering-
to
accept any
and his sons
together (
7
).
He
pro-
conditions
they may impose (
n< 12
). poses
not
only
a
marriage
between
They
raise an
objection
on the Shechem and
Dinah,
but a
general
score of circumcision
(
14
),
but eventu- connubium which would
legalise
ally
consent on terms not
expressed
all such unions in the future
(
8 10
).
in this recension. Shechem com-
Jacob
s sons
agree,
on condition
plies
with the
condition,
whatever that all the clan be circumcised
(
13>
it was
(
19
).
Simeon and
Levi,
how-
15
-
18
).
Hamor
proceeds
to the
gate
ever,
decide that the insult can
only
of the
city,
and
persuades
his
people
be
wiped
out
by
blood
;
they gain
to
undergo
the
operation (
20 24
).
access to Shechem s
house,
slay
While the fever is on
them,
the sons
him,
and
depart
with their sister of
Jacob
rush the
city,
kill all the
(
25f
-).
Their
father,
fearing
an
up-
males,
capture
the women and
rising
of the
country against
him, children,
and
carry
off the
spoil
reproves
them for their rash
act,
(
27 29
).
The
sequel
is
perhaps
sum-
which
they proudly justify (
30- 81
).
marised in
35.
The conclusion is lost.
This
rough analysis
*
rests
mainly
on the material
incongruities
of
the
narrative,
viz. :
(a)
In
II.,
after the seduction Dinah is still in the
hands of her
relatives,
17
;
but in I. she is in Shechem s house and has to
be rescued
by
force,
26
.
(b)
The
negotiations
are conducted
by
Ham6r
alone,
& 8
-
10
(II.) ;
but in
" 12
(I.)
Shechem is
abruptly
introduced
pleading
his own cause,
(c)
Shechem has
already
fulfilled the
compact,
19
(I.),
before the
people
of the
city
are
consulted,
20 24
(II.). (d)
Simeon
and
Levi alone
avenge
the
outrage,
and are alone held
responsible
for the
*
The
parts
left unresolved are w.
1 3
and
- 7
. In
1 s
,
**
looks like a
first mention of Dinah
;
and in
2b
nnN 3DBn is
perhaps
|| rujn
nriN
np
i
;
and
with a
transposition
we
might
read thus : II.
* ^
And Dinah . . . and
Shechem . . . saw
her,
2b
and
lay
with her.
Sb
And he comforted the
girl
. . . : I.
**
And the soul
[of
Shechem . . .
]
clave to Dinah . . .
2b
and
he took her and violated her.
ab
And he loved the
girl
. . .
6
and
7
seem
to me to
belong
to II. rather than I.
;
but the indications are
conflicting,
and
they
are
possibly
redactional
w.,
inserted to
explain
the transition
from the
sing,
in
6
to the
pi.
in
8
.
Naturally
the redactor has been
busy
smoothing
over
discrepancies
;
and to him
may
be attributed i DTC TIN in
",
the whole of
18b- 18b
,
133 nan in
,
cry
for
ivy
in
m
(cf.
24
),
ua
oaertoi in
34
;
i TiDrrnNi and U3 in
26*
;
and the removal of
26b
from
37
(v.i.).
4i8
THE STORY OF DINAH
consequences,
aw- 30f-
(I.) ;
but all the sons of
Jacob
are
implicated
in the
sack of the
city,
**-*
(II.).
Sources. If
style
alone were
decisive,
I.
might safely
be identified
with
J
: note a
pm,
3
(2-
4
)
; -jyj,
3- 12
; jn
jn
KUC,
n
;
nsm
357333,
M
. In
II.,
Corn, has
pointed
out some
linguistic
affinities with E
(see
the notes on
u
1
?
*?y
-m,
3
;
mS
4
; ino,
10- 21
etc.) ;
but
they
are
insignificant
in
comparison
with the
strongly
marked
Priestly phraseology
of this recension : N
tfJ,
~
;
KBD,
6- I3> **
; inw,
10
;
nai ^D D2
1
?
Von,
15- "
;
pjp
and
now,
23
;
1:1
*?3,
M
;
* "?3
vy Ty
24
(6/s)
:
comp.
the list in Kue. Ges. Abh.
269
f. These are so
striking
that Di. and Dri.
assign
the narrative
unhesitatingly
to
P,
and
all admit that it has
undergone
a
Priestly
redaction
(Corn,
calls attention
to a
very
similar case in Nu.
31).
But there are
grave
material difficulties in
assigning
either recension
to
J
or E.
(i)
In ch.
34, Jacob
s children are
grown up
;
and this
implies
a considerable
lapse
of time since ch.
33. (2)
A
bloody
encounter with
the natives of the land is
contrary
to the
peaceful
ideal of
patriarchal
life
consistently
maintained
by J
and
(hardly
less
consistently) by
E.
(3) Against
I.
=
J,
in
particular, (a)
In
J
the
patriarch
is
generally
named
Israel after
32
28
;
and here
Jacob
is used
throughout, (b)
We have seen
reason to believe that in
J, Jacob
was not W of the
Jordan
at all at this
time
(p. 414). (c)
The sons of
Jacob
would not be found
quietly feeding
their flocks at Shechem
(37
12ff<
)
if an incident like this had been of recent
occurrence.
(4)
As
regards
II.
=E,
there is less
difficulty ;
but on this
hypothesis
the
amalgamation
with
J
must be due to RJ
E
;
and how does
it
happen
that the assumed
Priestly
redaction is confined to the one com
ponent?
Moreover,
the incident is irreconcilable with
48
22
(E). (5)
Finally,
if Horite be the true
reading
in v.
2
,
we have here a tradition
differing
from
any
of the Pent, documents.
These
objections
are
urged
with
great
force
by Meyer,
who also
shows that in Gen. there are
sporadic
traces of a
divergent
tradition
which
ignored
the
Exodus,
and traced the
conquest
and division of the
land
directly
to
Jacob
and his sons
(chs. 38. 48-
2
).
To this
(older)
tradition he
assigns
ch.
34.
The first recension must have taken
literary
shape
within the Yahwistic
school,
and the second
may
have been
current in Elohistic circles
;
but neither found a
place
in the main docu
ment of the school to which it
belonged,
and its insertion here was an
afterthought suggested by
a
supposed
connexion with
33 (E).
This
seems to me the best
solution,
though
it leaves the dual
recension,
the
amalgamation,
and the
Priestly
redaction
unexplained
riddles.
Calling
the two narratives
J
x
and E
x
,
we divide as follows :
Tx / _
J
\ . 3a. 2b*. 3b
a
. 11. 12. 14. 19. 25a. 26. 30. 31
]?x
I
H
\ . 1. 2a. 2b*. Sb. 4. 5?. C. 7?. 8-10. 13a. 15-18a. 20-24. 27.
(28b).
28. 29
<
Comp.
We.
Comp.
2
45
f., 3146.;
Kue.
ThT, 1880, 257
ff.
(
=
Ges.
AbhandL
2556.),
Ond. i.
315^;
Corn.
ZATW,
xi.
1-15
;
Mey.
INS, 412
ff.;
De.
413;
Di.
368
ff.
;
Ho.
213
ff.
;
Gu.
326
ff.
;
Stra. 126 f.
;
Pro.
35
f.
1-12. Dinah is seduced
by Shechem,
and afterwards
sought
in
marriage.
2. the
Hivvite]
see on io
17
; (
the
I.
pan nun] 27^ (P
or
R).
2.
"inn]
ffir nnn. Confusion of i and
n is
xxxiv.
i-i4
4
!
9
HSrite
(v.i.).
3. spoke
to
(lit. over)
the
heart]
5o
21
(E).
The
phrase
means to
comfort,
not to woo
;
cf. Ho. 2
16
,
Is.
40
2
,
Ru. 2
13
etc.
4. Comp.
2 i
21 - 24
3
8
6
,
Ju.
i
4
2
.
5.
kept silence]
took no
steps
to redress the
injury (2
Sa.
iQ
11
).
7. wrought
scandalous
folly
in
Israel]
a
standing phrase
for
crimes of the kind here indicated
(Dt.
22
21
,
Ju.
2o
6- 10
;
cf.
Ju. i9
23f
-,
2 Sa.
i3
12ff>
); though
in Israel is an anachronism.
np23
is never mere
foolishness,
but
always disgraceful
conduct
or
language.
such
things
are not
done]
20
2g
26
. 8-10.
Hamor,
as
prince,
takes a broad view : not content with
arranging
this
particular marriage,
he
proposes
an
amalga
mation of the two races
;
thinking apparently
that the ad
vantage
to
Jacob
would be sufficient
compensation
for the
offence.
p.
Almost
verbally
identical with Dt.
7
3
(cf. Jos.
2
3
12
)*
IJ
>
I2 Shechem s offer relates
only
to his own
private
affair. Ask me ever so
much]
lit.
*
Multiply upon
me.
The Hebrew law of
compensation
for seduction is
given
in
Ex. 22
15f-
inb,
the
price paid
to the
parents (Ex.
22
15f
-,
i Sa.
i8
25
),
and
|riE
(so only here),
the
gift
to the
bride,
are
virtually
distinguished
in
24
53
.
13-17.
The answer.
I3a.
with
duplicity]
In this recen
sion
(E
x
)
the
requirement
of circumcision is
merely
a
pretext
to render the Shechemites
incapable
of self-defence.
14.
Here,
on the
contrary (J
x
),
the
family
acts in
good
faith,
and
common
;
but (5r
deserves consideration as the harder
reading-
;
and
also because the
only
other
place
where (5r has nn for MT "in is
Jos. g
7
,
a
passage
somewhat similar to this
(see Mey. INS, 331).
It is a
slight
confirmation of r that animal names are
frequent among
1
the Horite
clans
(36
20ff
-),
and Hamor means he-ass. N B
j]
a favourite word of P
;
cf.
ly
20
23
6
25
16
. nN 32V
(v.
7
35
22
etc.)]
The Mass,
always point
the n in
this
phrase
as not. ace.
3. "jjn]
see
24
14
.
5. N?e]
in the sexual sense
VVi
is.
27^
Ezfc. jge.
11. ic
22
n
t;
otherwise
very frequent
in P.
7.
Dyoc
1
:;]
occupies
an unusual
position
;
and there are other small
syntactic
anomalies in
6- 7
. 8.
3
ps-n]
Dt.
f
io
15
21",
Ps.
9i
]4
t ;
ct.
psi,
v.
3
. On
the casus
pendens,
G-K.
143
b.
9. jnnnn]
enter into the relation of
jrn
and
jnn (i
Sa. i8
21ff<
,
i Ki.
3
1
),
and more
generally
form
marriage
alliance
(Dt. f, Jos. 23
]a
,
Ezr.
9
14
).
10.
ino] as42
34
(E)
;
but cf.
23
16
(P).
iinNm] Niph.
in this sense
peculiar
to P
(47
27
,
Nu.
32
30
, Jos.
22
9< 19
).
12.
jnDl
ino]
(&
TT]v (pepv/jv.
I3b occupies
a
syntactically impossible position,
and must be deleted
as a redactional
gloss.
vnTi
joins
on to
15
.
14.
(Gr /cat cl-jrav aurotj
420
THE STORY OF DINAH
the
compact
is violated
by
Simeon and Levi alone. that were
a
reproach
to
us]
Jos. 5.
Circumcision is
regarded
as a
tribal
custom,
which it would be a
disgrace
to
infringe.
That
the custom
actually
existed from the earliest time
among
the
Hebrews is
extremely probable
(p. 296^);
but the fact that
both
J (Ex. 4^)
and E
(Jos. 5
3ff
-)
record its introduction in the
age
of the Exodus is an additional
proof
that this
chapter
follows an
independent
tradition.
15. Continuing
13a
.
Only
on this condition will we
consent] referring primarily
to the
connubium. 16. become one
people]
A result
really
desired
by
the
Shechemites,
but not
seriously contemplated by
the
sons of
Jacob.
18-24.
The condition
accepted. 19.
the most honoured
member
of
his
family]
emphasising
the
greatness
of his sacri
fice,
and the
strength
of his attachment to Dinah.
21-23.
Hamor
naturally says nothing
of the
personal matter,
but
dwells on the
advantages
the clan will derive from union
with the Israelites. The men are
already
on
friendly
ter??is
with them
;
the land is
spacious enough
;
and
by adopting
circumcision
they
will obtain a
great
accession to their
wealth.
25-31.
The
vengeance
of the Hebrews.
25.
on the
third
day]
when the inflammation is
said,
in the case of
adults,
to be at its
height (De. Di.).
S. and
Z.,
the brothers
of
Dinah]
cf.
4Q
5
. In ch.
29
f.,
Leah had four other sons who
were as much full brothers of Dinah as these two. Was
there another
tradition,
according
to which Simeon and Levi
were the
only
sons of Leah
(so Mey.
INS,
286
1
,
426 f.)?
26. mn
B^]
according
to the
usage
of war : without
quarter
Si/yuecbv
Kal Aeui ol
ci5eX0oi
Aet^cu viol d Ae/cts KT\. an
intelligent anticipa
tion of critical results
(cf.
M
)
? Or is this the
original
text ?
rbiy
iS }& K
for uncircumcised does not recur.
15. mw]
Either
(BDB) impf. Niph.,
or
(G-K. 72^)intrans. impf. Qal of^/nte,
consent
1
(
2a- 33
,
2 Ki. i2
9
t).
ui
Vor6]
as
ly
10
.
19. irtN]
G-K.
64
d. 21. D v mm
(ffi irXaTcta)]
broad on both sides
;
Ju.
i8
10
. Is. 22
18
[33
21
,
i Ch.
4
40
,
Neh.
y
4
,
Ps.
io4
28
]t. 24.
Between i^D i
and
IDI
1
?::]
(&
ins.
rrjv o-dpua r^s aKpoj3v<TTLas
O.VTUV.
x
ui K^
^D]
cf.
23
10< 18
.
The
repetition
of the
phrase
is avoided
by
r.
27-29
are
regarded by
Di. as a late
interpolation
;
and this is
per
haps
necessary
if the second account is to be identified with P. The
XXXIV.
15-31
4
21
(cf.
2 Sa. ii
25
).
and went
out] Evidently
this is the close
of the
exploit. 27.
came
upon
the
slain]
Cf.
JJ Quibus
egressis,
irnterunt
super
occisos cceteri
filii Jacob.
That is
perhaps
the sense intended
by
the redactor.
But,
to
say
nothing
of the
improbability
of two men
being
able to kill
all the males of the
city,
the second narrative
(E
x
)
must
have
given
an
independent
account of the attack on Shechem.
265
must be transferred to this v.
;
and another word must
be substituted for
DvPn
(iu.).
28, 2Q.
Cf. the similar
phrase
ology
of Nu.
3i
9- n
(P).
30, 31 (continuing
26
). Jacob
rebukes Simeon and
Levi,
not for their
treachery
and
cruelty,
but for their recklessness in
exposing
the whole tribe to the
vengeance
of the Canaanites. lam
few
in
number]
it is the
tribal,
not the
individual,
consciousness which finds
expres
sion here.
The
legend
at the basis of ch.
34 reflects,
we can
scarcely
doubt,
an
incident of the Hebrew settlement in Canaan. Shechem is the
eponymus
of the ancient
city
of that
name,
and Hamor of the tribe
dwelling-
there
;
Ham6r is the father of
Shechem,
because the tribe is older than its
possession
of the
city. Jacob,
in like
manner,
stands for the
Israelites,
who are nomads
ranging-
the
country
round
Shechem,
and on
friendly
terms with its inhabitants. Whether Dinah was a weak Hebrew clan
threatened with
absorption by
the Hamorites is not so certain
;
it is
more natural to
suppose
that a literal
outrage
of the kind described was
the cause of the racial
quarrel
which ensued.* There are two historic
events which seem to stand in some connexion with the narrative the
Hebrew
conquest
of
Shechem,
and the dissolution of Simeon and Levi
as tribal entities,
(i)
The
conquest
of Shechem is
presupposed
in
Jos. 24
;
but it is remarkable that it is never mentioned either
among
the cities
captured by
the
Israelites,
or
among
those which remained
independent.
The account of its destruction
by
Abimelech in
Ju. 9 appears
to
imply
possibility
that the vv. have been
glossed by
some one who had Nu.
31
in
mind is not to be denied.
27.
D
^n]
lit.
pierced,
means either slain
(Nu. i9
18
3i
8- 19
etc.),
or
(rarely) fatally
wounded
(La.
2
12
etc.)
;
neither
sense
being
suitable here. Gu.
suggests
D^h,
sick
)|
D
3K3,
v.
25
.
29.
ttjri u^]
Remove athnach to int?
( ^ msy)
and omit i before n
(cf. juxrS).
rvi-l]rrt11
;
Vmt
ft
|A
>;
n*"!.
(J
V
TT)
Tr6\6l KO.I foa
TjV
tv TCUS Ol/^CUS.
30.
n3y]
=
Ar.
a&ira,
be
turbid,
in Heb. lit. make turbid
=
undo,
a
strong
word
;
cf.
Jos.
6
18
7
20
,
i Ki. i8
17f-
12DD
no]
lit. men of
number,
numerable,
and therefore few
;
Dt.
4^ 33", Jer. 44
J8
etc.
*
A
singularly apposite
and
interesting
modern
parallel
is
quoted by
Bennett
(p. 318 f.)
from
Doug-hty,
Arabia
Deserfa,
ii.
114.
422 JACOB
IN CANAAN
(E,
J,
P)
that it had been
continuously
in the
possession
of the Bne H&m6r down
to that time. On the other
hand,
the
poetic fragment
Gn.
48
22
attributes
the
conquest
to
Jacob himself,
but as an honourable feat of arms un
stained
by
the
treachery
which is so
prominent
in ch.
34.
How these
conflicting-
data are to be
reconciled,
we can
hardly conjecture.
The
differences are too
great
to
justify
the
opinion
that
48
22
and
34
are
merely legendary
reflexions of the historic fact recorded in
Ju. 9.
Yet
it Is
scarcely
credible that Shechem was thrice
conquered,
twice from
the same
people
under circumstances of
general similarity.
One chief
objection
to
identifying- 34
with
Ju. 9
is the
prominence
of Simeon and Levi
in
J
x
. We
may
either
(with Steuernag-el) put
back the incident
(which
may
after all have been an
unsuccessful
attack on
Shechem)
to the
early days
of the Hebrew
migration,
while Simeon and Levi were
independent
and still
migratory
tribes
;
or
(with Mey.)
assume that the
story
of Dinah
originated
near the Simeonite
territory
in the
S,
and was
afterwards transferred to Shechem because of certain
points
of
affinity
with the historic overthrow of that
city
under Abimelech.
(2)
The dis
persion
of Simeon and Levi is referred to in the
Blessing-
of
Jacob
(49
6- 7
),
as the
consequence
of deeds of
violence,
disapproved by
the conscience
of the nation. It is
universally
assumed
by
critics that the two
passages
are variations of the same theme
;
hence it is held
by many (We.
Sta.
Gu.
Steuernagel, al.)
that
J
1
went on to tell how the Canaanites
actually
retaliated
by
the
slaughter
of Simeon and
Levi,
while the other brothers
escaped.
That is
just possible
;
but if
so,
the narrative
departs very
widely
from the
prevailing tradition, according
to which S. and L. not
only survived,
but went down into
Egypt
with the rest of the
family.
And there is room for doubt whether the curse on S. and L. in ch.
49
is
the result of
any particular
action of these two tribes
(see pp. 516 f.).
The one
point,
indeed,
which stands out with some
degree
of evidence
from these discussions is that there was a form of the
patriarchal
tradition which knew
nothing
of the
sojourn
in
Egypt,
and connected
the
story
of the
conquest
with the name of
Jacob.
CH.
XXXV.facob
in Canaan
(E, J, P).
The
compiler
s interest in the
story
of
Jacob
would seem
to have
flagged
after he had
brought
him
safely
back to
Canaan
;
and he hurries to a close with a series of
frag
mentary excerpts
from his sources : a second visit to
Bethel,
with the death and burial of
Deborah,
I
~
15
;
the birth of
Benjamin
and death of
Rachel,
16
~
20
;
Reuben s
incest,
21. 22a .
a list; of
Jacob
s
sons,
22b
-
26
;
the death and burial of
Isaac,
27
~
29
.
Sources. The P sections are
easily recognised by
their
phraseology,
viz.
fa*
-
13- 16- >>-*
-. The last continuous extract from P was 28^
;
and the
connecting
links are
2Q
24- 28b- 29
3o
4a- 9b- 22a
3i
18a
/3y
h
33
18a
/3. The
xxxv.
i-s
423
natural
position
of
35
22b
~
26
is between
3o
22a
and
3i
18
(see
v.
26
) ;
and this
transposition
is
adopted by
We.
(Prol.
6
327) ;
but
perhaps
a still better
position
would be in
37
2
(see p. 443).
A more
thorough readjustment
is
proposed by
Gu. : 28
1
"
9
356*.
ll-lSa. IB
29
24.a8b.2
3Q
4a. 9b. 21*
3
-22b-26
3I
18a
/3y
8b
33
1Sa
3
35
10 27
"
29
. This division of the
Bethel-theophany
into
two,
one on
the
way
to
Mesopotamia
and the other after the return
(as
in
E),
is
very
attractive,
and relieves some critical
difficulties,
as shown in the notes
on
9ff
-. To E
belong-
^6b
-
8- 14
: cf. D
nVxfn],
!
; <?,
3 - 7
; mso,
14
;
naan
vito,
2- 4
(cf. Jos.
2
4
2- *> 23
) ;
and the reference in v.
1
to 28
20ff
-.
-*>
are also from
E in the
main, though perhaps
with
J
variants
(misD,
20
;
cf. the retro
spective
reference in
48
7
).
The
only purely
Yahwistic section is
21> 22a
(^Nisr bis).
1-8
+
14.
Bethel re-visited : the death of Deborah.
I.
Jacob
is reminded of his vow at Bethel
(28
20ff
-),
and
commanded to build an altar there.
go
up]
From Shechem
to Bethel there is a continuous ascent of over 1000 ft. and
dwell
there]
It would almost seem that Bethel is to be
Jacob
s
permanent
residence
;
and this
(though
contradicted
by
v.
16
)
would be in
harmony
with the tenor of the Elohistic
tradition,
which
closely
associates this
patriarch
with the
chief
Ephraimite sanctuary.
2.
Jacob purifies
his household
for a solemn act of
worship.
Put
away
the
strange
gods]
The same words
spoken
under the same tree
by Joshua
(24
23
[E]),
point,
it would
appear,
to the
memory
of a
great
national renunciation of
idolatry
at Shechem in the
early
history
of Israel
(see
v.
4
).
A reference to the
Teraphim
stolen
by
Rachel
(3i
19
)
does not exhaust the
significance
of
the notice.
3.
The use of the old name
/S
here and v.
1
(cf.
v.
7
)
is noticeable.
4.
the
earrings (see
on
24
22
)] Objects
of
superstition, being
used as
amulets,
and in false
worship
(Ho.
2
15
,
cf.
Ju.
8
24ff
-).
the terebinth near
Shechem}
See on
I2
6
. The burial of idolatrous emblems under this sacred
tree has some traditional
meaning
which we cannot now
explain. 5-
a terror
of
God]
a TTO.VI.K.OV
Sci/xa
(De.)
;
cf.
Ex.
23
27
,
i Sa.
i4
15
,
2 Ch.
i4
13
etc.
V.
5
presupposes
an incident like that recorded in ch.
34.
The inter
vening
vv.
1
"
4
are not in
keeping
with this view of the situation
;
and the
I. ^xn
3]
<& els rbv rbirov
Bcu0^X
is not
unlikely
to be
original (cf.
28"
I2
6
).
3. nsyyNl]
(Gr n?jm.
4
end]
(3r + /cat a7ru\e<rei> ai rA a>s
r-fjs
<rr]ju,epov
s.
5.
iyo
1]
(5r Kal
e^pe^ lcrpa^X
K Si/a
/*wv. 3py]
(S
Icrpa^X.
424 JACOB
IN CANAAN
(E,
J,
P)
change
of
subject
from
Jacob
to the sons of
Jacob
makes it
highly
probable
that v.
5
is either redactional
(Kue.),
or
belongs
to a different
stratum of E.
6a
(P).
See below.
7
The
designation
of the
place (i.e.
the
sanctuary:
i2
6
28
11
)
as El Beth el is not confirmed
by
any
other OT allusion. Partial
analogies may
be found in
such
place-names
as
Asteroth-Karnaim, Nbo, Baal-Hazor,
Baal-Gad, etc.,
where the name of the
deity
is extended to
the sacred
precincts (Gu. 248)
;
but the text is not above
suspicion.
there the
gods
had revealed themselves to
him]
The
pi.
vb.
together
with the use of the art.
suggests
that
the sentence
preserves
a more
polytheistic
version of the
Bethel-legend
than 28
12
,
one in which the
*
angels
of God
*
were
spoken
of as
simply
B
rOK.
8,
14.
The death and
burial of Deborah. below
Bettief\
means
apparently
*
to the
S of Bethel. under the
oak]
or
*
sacred tree
(see
on
12).
tree
of weeping}
But v.i.
14.
For the
grounds
on which
this v. is connected with
8
,
see the footnote ad loc. set
up
a
mazz&bah\
So v.
20
at the
grave
of Rachel. These monu
ments came to be
regarded
as
simple grave-stones
;
but
were doubtless
originally objects
of
worship,
as the next
clause indicates.
poured
out a libation on
it\
The libation
was in the first instance an
offering
to the
dead,
according
to a custom attested
among many
ancient
peoples,*
and found
in Catholic countries at the
present day. poured oil]
28
18
.
6a.
nn
1
?]
See on 28
19
. The cl. is an
amalgam
of P and E.
7.
mpof>]
(Sr
7-6
faofta.
TOV rbirov. ^tMva
"?*<]
&F<S
^Kn a. 8.
napm]
<5r om.
fiW]
see on I2
6
.
mm] weeping.
The text is
perhaps
confirmed
by
D .~3
(weepers),
Ju.
2
5
,
which
may
be the same
place.
But
though
D 33
might
plausibly
be
regarded
as a
corruption
of c
fo?
(2
Sa.
5
23flr
-,
Ps.
84
7
),
it is
difficult to think that nm is so : sacred tree of the baka-trees is an
improbable
combination
(see
v.
Gall,
CSt.
103).
9. ~ny]
(5r + tv
Aovfa. inx]
jju.(& + D n^K. 10. (Hr
simplifies by
omit
ting
spy
iDr
and ^NIB" IDP nx
Knp
i. 12.
Tiro]
S nyntso
(so
a schol. in
Field).
14.
The v. cannot
possibly
be from
P,
who
recognises
no
mazzebas,
*
Egyptians (Erman,
LAE, 307),
Persians
(Her.
vii.
43),
Greeks
(Horn.
//. xxiii.
196,
Od. xi. 26
ff.),
Arabs
(We.
Heid* 182
f.).
It is not
mentioned in
OT,
but
food-offerings
to the dead are referred to in Dt.
26
14
(To. 4
18
,
Sir.
3
o
18
).
xxxv.
6-i5
4
2
5
The notice of Deborah is in
many ways perplexing.
The nurse who
accompanied
Rebekah
(24
59
)
is
nameless,
and there is
nothing-
to lead us
to
expect
that she was to be an
important figure
in Hebrew
legend.
How she could have come into
Jacob
s
family
is
quite inexplicable ;
and
the
conjectures
that have been advanced on this
point
are all
puerile.
Moreover,
the sacred tree referred to is in all
probability
identical with
the
palm-tree
of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in
Ju. 4
4f>
.
There seems to have been a confusion in the local tradition between the
famous
prophetess
and the nurse
;
and the chief
mystery
is how the
name of Rebekah
got
introduced in this connexion at all. If we could
suppose
with
Cheyne (417 f.)
that rma should be
rrp3
and that this is an
alternative form of
npai,
so that the real name of the tree was Tree of
Rebekah,
we
might
be a
step
nearer a solution. The
identity
of the
two trees would then have to be abandoned. It
is, however,
an unsafe
argument
to
say
that a nurse could not have been
conspicuous
in
legend
: cf. the
grave
of the nurse of
Dionysus
at
Scythopolis,
in
Pliny,
HN,
v.
74 (De. Gu.).
9,
10.
Jacob
s name
changed (P). Comp. 32
28f-
(J).
when he came
from
Paddan
Aram\
On Gu. s
rearrangement
(p. 423 above),
there is
nothing
to
suggest
Bethel as the
scene of the revelation. It is a faint echo of
32
25ff-
from
which
every
element of local
tradition,
down to the name of
the
sanctuary,
has been eliminated.
6a, 11-13, 15-
The
blessing
transmitted to
Jacob:
P s
parallel
to 28
loff
-.
II,
12. El
Shaddai]
see on
ly
1
. For
other
expressions
in the
vv.,
cf.
ly
6- 8- 16
2S
3- 4
46
26
48*. I3a.
God ivent
up from him\
as
ly
22
.
I3b
is an awkward continu
ation,
and has
probably
arisen
through dittography
from v.
15
.
15.
The
naming
of the
place,
as 28
19
.
That the section refers to
Jacob
s outward
journey,
and that
9f-
describe a different
theophany
on his
return,
is
probable
from the follow
ing
considerations :
(i)
The
analogy
of the older tradition
(JE). (2)
1N33
and no ritual
worship
of
any
kind before the Sinaitic
legislation.
As a
part
of the
Bethel-narrative,
it is
unintelligible
in
E,
who has
already
described the
origin
of the mazzebah there
(28
18
),
and still more in
J,
who does not sanction mazzebas at all. The
impression
that the scene
is Bethel
depends solely
on the words inN
Dipon,
which can
easily
be
excised,
as a
gloss
from
15
. The
suggestion
that the v. continues
8
is due
to Cornill
(ZATW,
xi.
i$ff. ),
and seems the most
satisfactory
solution
of the
problem. TJDJ]
2 Ki. i6
13- 15
is the
only
other instance of the word
before
Jeremiah,
though
the vb.
appears
in 2 Sa.
23
16
,
Ho.
9*.
In
Jer.,
Ezk.
(2o
28
),
and II Isa. it is an
accompaniment
of heathenish
worship ;
its
legalisation
for the
worship
of the
temple appears
in Ezk.
45
17
and P.
Its mention here is a
proof
of the
great antiquity
of the notice
(Corn. I.e.).
426 JACOB
IN CANAAN
(E,
J,
P)
o-m
psD (
9
)
is
superfluous
after we have read
(
6a
)
that he had reached a
spot f>
!
33 a.
(3)
That two consecutive w.
(
10- u
)
should commence with
i"? TDO is unnatural even in P
(so KS.). (4)
The self-disclosure of the
divine
speaker (
n
)
must introduce the revelation
(cf. 17*). (5)
The
Tiy
of
v.
9
(generally
treated as
redactional) presupposes
a former revelation.
The one
difficulty
in this
theory
of Gu. is to
imagine
an
adequate
reason
for the dislocation of P.
16-20. Rachel dies in child-birth
(E).
16. The event
took
place
on the
journey
from Bethel to
Ephrath,
an un
known
locality
in the later
territory
of
Benjamin (see
after
v.
20
). 17.
This also is a son
for
thee\
So the nurse cheers the
dying
woman
by recalling
her
prayer
at the birth of
Joseph
(3O
24
).
18. With her last breath Rachel names her son
Ben-6ni\
but the
father,
to avert the
omen,
calls him Bin-
yamin.
The
pathos
of the narrative flows in
sympathy
with
the
feelings
of the mother : a notice of
Jacob
s
life-long grief
for the loss of Rachel is reserved for
48
7
.
ip.
on the
way
to
*EphratK\
The next
clause,
that is
Bethlehem^
is a
gloss (see
Sta.
ZATW,
iii. i
ff.).
20. See on v.
14
.
The site of Rachel s
grave
is determined
by
i Sa. io
2
(on
the
border of
Benjamin,
between Ramah and
Gibeah)
and
Jer. 3i
14
(cf. 4O
]
).
Christian tradition
places
it about a mile N of
Bethlehem,
in accordance
with the
gloss
at the end of
19
.
This, however,
rests on a confusion of
Ephrath
and the better known clan-name c n
JTJCS-,
which is
always
connected with Bethlehem. It is
unnecessary
to assume a
divergence
of ancient tradition
regarding
the site. The beautiful verse of
Jeremiah
3
1
14
shows how vivid and
persistent
was the hold of these
legends
on
the
popular
mind. The birth of
Benjamin
in Canaan is
interpreted by
many
critics to mean that this
tribe,
unlike the
rest,
was formed after
o
l]
(3r
A.Trdpas
d I. +
tTrr)ei> rr\v VKT]VT\V
avrov eir^Kecva rov
irvpyov TaSep (fr.
21
), showing
the influence of the
theory
that my ^iffl
was at
Jerusalem,
which
Jacob
would
naturally pass
on the
way
to
Bethlehem.
pn maa] 48
7
,
2 Ki.
5
19
f
(without art.). Apparently
a
measure of distance
(j$
a
parasang)
;
but
nothing
is certain. Ace.
to Hoffmann
(GGA, 1890, 230.),
as far as one can see.
17.
nntypna
(Hi.)
|| typni
(Pi.)
in
16
, possibly
variants from E and
J.
Another trace
of
J
is ni
GJ,
pointing
back to
3o
24b
. 18. :ix
p]
son of
my sorrow,
from
JIN,
*
trouble. Not
improbably
it is an obsolete
proper name, having
some connexion with
UIN,
a
city
and
valley
in
Benjamin (Ben. 325 ;
Che.
420). J
D
-p] Usually
understood as son of
good
fortune,
the
right
hand
being
in
antiquity
the
lucky
or fortunate side. The
original
meaning
is
probably
son of the south
(cf.
i Sa.
23
19> 24
,
Ps.
89
13
etc.),
Benjamin being
the most
southerly
of the Rachel tribes.
XXXV. i6-26
427
the
conquest
of the
country (We.
Sta.
Guthe,
al.)
: Steuern.
goes further,
and infers that the rise of
Benjamin brought
about the dissolution of
the Rachel tribe. But all such
speculations
are
precarious.
The name
Benjamin,
however,
does furnish evidence that this
particular
tribe was
formed in Palestine
(v.i.
on
18
).
21,
22a. Reuben s incest
(J).
21. Tower
of
the
Flock]
Such towers would be numerous in
any pastoral
country
;
and the
place
here referred to is unknown. Mic.
4
8
proves
nothing
;
and the tradition which locates it near Bethlehem
rests on this
passage.
The order of
J
s narrative
(see p.
414)
would lead us to seek it E of the
Jordan,
where the
tribe of Reuben was settled. 22a. and when Israel
heard]
Probably
a
temporal clause,
of which the
apodosis
has been
intentionally
omitted.
The
story,
no
doubt,
went on to tell of a curse
pronounced
on
Reuben,
\vhich
explained
his loss of the
birthrig
ht
(so
Gu.
;
otherwise
Di.).
The
crime is referred to in
49
4
. The
original
motive is
perhaps suggested
by
the
striking parallel
in //. ix.
449
ff.
(Gu.)
:
fJ.oi
V atrros
0iA^ecr/ce^, drijudfecr/ce
5
&KOITIV,
jji-/iv 17
5 altv
/*
XioWcr/cero
yotivuv,
7raXAa/a5t
Trpo/n.iyiji ai,
iV
e%#?7peie ytpovra.
Note that in
3o
14ff-
also,
Reuben
plays
a
part
in the restoration of his
mother s
conjugal rights.
An
ethnographic reading
of the
legend
finds
its historic basis in some humiliation inflicted
by
Reuben on the Bilhah-
tribe,
or one of its branches
(Dan
or
Naphtali).
See on
49"*.
22b-26. A list of
Jacob
s sons
(P).
In two
points
the list deviates from the tradition of
JE (chs. 29. 30)
: The
children are
arranged according
to their mothers
;
and
the birth of
Benjamin
is
placed
in
Mesopotamia.
Other
wise the order of
JE
is
preserved:
Leah
precedes Rachel;
but Rachel s maid
precedes
Leah s.- On the
position
of the
section in the
original Code,
see
pp. 423, 443.
22a. The double accentuation means that
22a
was treated
by
the
Mass, sometimes as a whole
v.,
sometimes as a
half;
the former for
private,
the latter for
liturgical reading (Str. 129
; Wickes,
Prose
Accents, 130).
Note the
gap
in the middle of the
verse,
which (5r
fills
up
with /ecu
irovnpbv e<pdvr}
tvavriov avrov. Ss*"!^
]
The
name,
instead of
Jacob,
is from this
point
onwards a
fairly
reliable criterion of the
document
J
in Gen. 26.
iV]
.ux and Heb. MSS
n
1
? .
428
EDOMITE GENEALOGIES
(?*)
27-29.
The death of Isaac
(P).
In
JE
Isaac was
at the
point
of death when
Jacob
fled from Esau
;
whereas,
according
1
to the
chronology
of
P,
he survived for 80
years.
An
equally
remarkable
divergence
from the earlier tradition
is seen in Esau s
living
on with his father in Hebron
(see
on
32*),
and the unbroken
friendship
between him and
Jacob. 27.
Mamre, Kiryath-
Arba
,
Hebron. See
i3
18
23
2
.
29.
Cf.
25-
9
. Isaac is buried
by
Esau and
Jacob
his
so?is\
as Abraham
by
Isaac and Ishmael
(25
9
).
P
always lays
stress on the
harmony
of the
patriarchal family
life.
CH. XXXVI. Edomite
Genealogies,
etc.
(partly P).
The
chapter
consists of seven
(or eight)
sections : I.
Esau s wives and
children,
1-5
;
II. His
migration
to
Mount
Seir,
6
-
8
;
III. A list of Esau s
descendants,
9
~
u
;
IV. An enumeration of clans or clan-chiefs of
Esau,
15
~
19
;
V. Two Horite lists : a
genealogy,
20
~
28
,
and a list of
clans,
29.30.
vi. The
kings
of
Edom,
31
~
39
;
VII. A second list of
clans of
Esau,
40
~
43
. The lists are
repeated
with variations
in i Ch. i
35
-
54
.
The
chapter evidently
embodies authentic information
regarding
the
history
and
ethnology
of Edom. Whether the statistics were
compiled by
Israelite writers from oral
tradition,
or are the
scanty
remains of a native Edomite
literature,
it is
naturally impossible
to
determine
;
the
early development
of
political
institutions in Edom
makes the latter
hypothesis
at least credible
(see Meyer,
INS, 329,
383 fO-
Analysis.
A section headed nn?n n?Ni
would,
if
homogeneous,
be
unhesitatingly
ascribed to
P-;
but the
repetition
of the formula
(v.
9
)
throws doubt on its
unity,
and
betrays
the hand of a redactor. The
phraseology
of P is most
apparent
in II. and
VII.,
but can be detected
occasionally
elsewhere
(
3l- 5b- 10*- 12b- 13b- 3yb
: i.e. in
I., III.,
and
V.).
The
crucial
difficulty
is the contradiction as to Esau s wives between I. and
27.
jniKn
nnp]
Rd.
perhaps
jmn
nnnp
(Kit.). pnan]
28.
prw]
ffi +
n -WK
(as 25
7
). 29 end]
S
^Olf^)
._(TIQ.D
|.
In P s
chronology, Jacob
at his father s death had reached
the
age
of 120
years (cf. 35
as
with
25
26
)
: he was
40 years
old when he
set out for Paddan Aram. The interval of 80
years
has to be divided
between his
sojourn
with Laban and his
subsequent
residence
with
Isaac
;
but in what
proportions
we have no data to determine.
xxxvi.
1-5 4
2
9
26
s4
28
9
(see
on w.
1 5
).
On this
point
I., III.,
and IV.
hang together;
and if these sections are
excluded,
there remains
nothing-
that can be
plausibly assigned
to P
except
II. and VII.
(so
We. Kue. Ho. Gu.
al.).
The
argument
for
reducing
P s share in the
chapter
to this minimum
rests, however,
on the
assumption
that the Code is the
compilation
of
a
single writer,
who cannot be
supposed
to
lapse
into self-contradiction.
The facts seem to
point
to a redactional
process
and a
divergence
of
tradition within the
Priestly
school
;
and I am inclined to think that in
I.
(?),
III.,
and IV. we have
excerpts
from the book of T61ed6th incor
porated
in
P,
whose main narrative will have included 26
s4
28
9
,
and in
which
35
29
36
6 8
37* may
have read
continuously.
VII. must then be
rejected
as a late
compilation
in which the
style
of the Toledoth is
successfully
imitated
(so Meyer).
As
regards
V. and VI. little can be
said. The former
might
well have been
part
of the Toledoth
;
the
latter is
unique
in
Gen.,
and there are no
positive
reasons for
assigning
it to
J (so most)
or
any
other source.
1-5.
Esau s wives and sons. The scheme here
pro
jected supplies
the common framework of the two Edomite
genealogies,
9
~
u
and
15
~
19
, except
that in the
following
sections the second and third wives
exchange places.
These
marriages
and births are said to have taken
place
in the
land
of
Canaan,
before the
migration
to Se ir
;
but the fact
that Oholibamah is a Horite
(see below),
indicates an ab
sorption
of Horite clans in Edom w
r
hich would
naturally
have followed the settlement in Se
f
ir. Here we come on
a difference of tradition
regarding
the names and
parentage
of Esau s wives.
According
to 26
34
28
9
(P),
the three wives are
(a)
YVMdith bath-
Be"eri,
the Hittite
;
(b)
BasVmath bath-
Elon,
the Hittite
(JUU(&
A
&
Hivvite)
;
(c)
Mahalath
bath-Yismael,
sister of
Ngbayoth.
Here
they
are
(a)
Add bath-
Elon,
the Hittite
;
(b)
Oholibamah bath-
Anah,
the Horite
;
(c)
BasVmath bath-Yima
el,
sister of
Ngbayoth.
The confusion is too
great
to be accounted for
naturally by
textual
corruption, though
that
may
have
played
a
part.
We can
only conjecture vaguely
that vv.
9 14
I. DDK
Nin] probably
a
gloss (cf.
v.
8- 19
);
but the
persistency
with
which the
equivalence
is asserted is itself instructive. Esau and Edom
are
really
distinct names
(see p. 359f.)>
and P has no
legendary
identi
fication of
them,
such as
25
30
. Hence the connexion is established in
two
ways
: Esau Edom
(
a - 8- 19
)
;
and Esau the father of Edom
(
9- 43
).
2.
np
1
?
iry]
had
taken,
as
already
recorded
(26
s4
28
9
). pyast m]
juaffi5
srp
;
deleted
by
Ho. and Gu. as a
gloss.
But in clan names
gender
is
not
always
carefully distinguished
;
and the writer
probably
took
njy
as fern. In v.
25
Oholibamah is herself one of the sons of Anah.
inn]
Rd.
nhn,
v.s.
5.
T]
Keth. as v.
14
,
i Ch.
7
10
; Qre wy;f
as v.
18
,
i Ch.
430
EDOMITE GENEALOGIES
(?*)
represent
a different tradition from 26
34
28
9
;
and that in
s 5a
a
clumsy
and half-hearted
attempt
has been made to establish some
points
of contact between them. If we
accept
the inn of
AJU., etc.,
in 26
34
,
the
two traditions
agree
in the main
ethnological point,
that the Edomite
people
was
composed
of Hittite
(? Canaanite),
Hivvite
(? Horite),
and
Ishmaelite elements.
On the Names.
(a)
my
is the name of one of Lamech s wives : see
on
4
19
.
(b)
noa^nK
( OXi/3e/*<, EXt/3eyu,d, etc.).
Somewhat similar com
pounds
with WIN are found in Phoenician
(^JD^rm, i^oSn^)
and Sab.
(infiyW, ^,-IK)
as well as in Heb.
(atrWiK,
Ex.
3i
6
; nn^nx,
Ezk.
23
4flr
)
(see Gray,
HPN, 2^.6
l
).
The first
component
is
presumably
Ar. and
Sab.
ahly
family
;
the second
ought by analogy
to be a divine
name,
though
none such is known. It is
philologically probable
that names
of this
type
were
originally
clan-names
;
and nx is taken from the old
list of Horite clans
(v.
25
,
cf.
41
). (c)
ncaa
(for
which JM.
always
reads
nVnn,
28
9
),
if from
/J DBQ,
smell
sweetly,
is
likely
to have been a
favourite woman s
name,
but recurs
only
i Ki.
4
15
of a
daughter
of
Solomon. On n:y and
pyns,
see on v.
20
: the obvious connexion with
that v. makes it
practically
certain that vn in v.
2
is a mistake for nh.
On the
sons,
see below. It is
pointed
out
by
Ho.
(187)
that both in
9
*
14
and
15 19
the Oholibamah branch holds a somewhat
exceptional
position.
This
may
mean that it
represents hybrid
clans,
whereas the
other two are of
pure
Edomite stock : that it is a later insertion in the
lists si
ess
likely.
6-8. Esau s
migration
to Se
f
ir. 6. Cf. i2
5
(34
23
).
and his
daughters}
None are mentioned in
2
~
5
. to the land
of
Seir\
So we must read with
,
7-
The motive for the
separation
is the same as that which led to the
parting
of
Abraham and Lot
(i3
6a
), implying
that Esau had lived at
Hebron after
Jacob
s
return;
contrast
J, 32* 33
14 16
. 8. the
mountain
of
Seir\
the mountainous
country
E of the
Arabab,
the southern
part
of which is now called e$-$era and the
northern &ebal
(Buhl,
Edom. 28
ff.).
The landSe ir includes
the whole Edomite
territory
as far W as Kadesh
(Nu.
2O
1G
).
See on
i4
6
27
39f
-,
and below on v.
20
.
9-14.
The
genealogy
of Esau.
9,
10. For the double
heading
nr6n KI
followed
by
moP
N1,
cf.
25
12f
-. Esau the
father of
Edom]
see footnote on v.
1
. It is
strange
that
except
in these
glosses
Edom is never the
eponymus
of the
i
35
8
39
^3
lof
-,
2 Ch. ii
19
f.
6.
px
^N
gives
no
sense,
and to insert
(&->!F)
is inadmissible without a
change
of text.
u\(&
\yi3 pND
is
pos
sible
;
but it is
simplest
to follow
& ~\"])v
pN
1
?**.
-JSD]
on account
of,
as 6
13
27
4
etc.
XXXVI. 6-n
nation, although
it
appears
to have been the name of a
god
(D1K
"13V,
2 Sa. 6
10
).
II ff. The total number of the
tribes,
excluding
the bastard
*Amalek,
is
12,
as in the cases of
Israel and Ishmael
(25
12
~
16
).
The sons of Oholibamah
are,
however, put
on a level with the
grandsons
of the other two
wives
(so
v.
18
).
The list
may
be tabulated thus :
[ Arnalek].
7% Names.
(a) TB^N]
Known otherwise
only
as the name of the
oldest and wisest of
Job
s friends
(Jb.
2
11
etc.), probably
borrowed from
this list.
(i) JD
n
(0cu/*di>)] Frequently
mentioned as a district of Edom
(Jer. 49
7 - 20
,
Ezk.
25
13
,
Am. i
12
,
Ob.
9
,
Hab.
3
3
),
famous for its
wisdom,
the home of
Eliphaz (Jb.
2
11
)
and of the third
king-
of Edom
(v.
34
).
A
village bearing
the Greek
name, 15
Roman m. from
Petra,
is mentioned
in
OS,
260
;
but the site is now lost.
(2)
noix
( tyudp, O/xdi
), (3)
IBS
i Ch.
ES), (4)
Dnya
(rotfo/i,
etc.)
are
quite unknown,
unless
be the
original
of
Job
s third friend.
(5) up]
the
eponym
of the
Kenizzites,
the
group
to which
Kaleb(the dog -tribe,
settled in
Hebron)
and Othniel
belonged (Nu. 3
2
12
, Jos.
i
4
6- 14
i
5
17
, Ju.
i
la
3
9- u
).
The
incorporation
of these families in
Judah
is a
typical example
of the
unstable
political
relations of the southern tribes between Israel and
Edom,
a fact
abundantly
illustrated from the lists before us. The once
powerful people
of
pSoy (see
on
14 )
is here described as descended from
jnon,
a Horite clan absorbed in Edom
(w.
22- 40
),
of which
nothing
else
is known. The reference
may
be to an offshoot of the old Amalekites
who had found
protection
from the Edomites.
(b)
^JOin
( PayovTjX)]
Friend of God
(?)
is one of the names of Moses father-in-law
(a
Midianite) (Ex.
2
18
,
Nu. io
29
),
also that of a Gadite
(Nu.
i
14
2
14
)
and of
a
Benjamite (i
Ch.
9
8
). (6)
nru
(Nct^o^, Na^o/x)]
cf. 2 Ch.
31". (7)
m?
(Zape)] (cf.
v.
33
).
Also a clan of
Judah foS
30
)
;
cf. Nu. 26
13
(Simeonite),
i Ch. 6
6- 26
(Levite). (8) nDff(2ope)]
cf. i Sa. i6
9
(David
s
brother),
2 Sa.
23
11
(one
of his
heroes);
also
W
in Yerahmeel
(i
Ch. 2
28- 32
)
and Kaleb
(2
44f
-). (9)
mo
(Moj"6, O/uofo etc.)] only
here. It is
pointed
out that the
four names form a
doggerel
sentence : descent and
rising,
there and
here
(KS.
An.
178)
;
but three of them are
sufficiently
authenticated
;
and the fact does not
prove
them to be inventions of an idle
fancy.
(io)
V
y
( Ie[o]vs,
leouX,
etc.)]
v.i. on v.
5
. As an Israelite
name,
i Ch.
7
10
8
39
(Benjamite),
2
3
lof-
(Levite),
2 Ch. n
19
(son
of
Rehoboam).
The
43
2
EDOMITE GENEALOGIES
(?*)
name is
thought by
some to be identical with that of an Arabian lion,
god Yagut (though
(Hr must have
pronounced
.
not
.i), meaning
helper/
whose
antiquity
is vouched for
by
inscrs. of Thamud
(Rob.
Sm.
KM*,
254 ;
We. Heid*
19, 146 ;
No.
ZDMG,
xl. 168
; Fischer,
ib.
Iviii.
869 ; Mey. INS,
351
f.
;
on the other
side,
No.
ZDMG,
xlv.
595
;
Di.
384
; Buhl,
Edom.
48 f.). (n)aV ( le-yXo/*,
etc.)] possibly
an animal name
fr.
^T
=
(
ibex
;
but see
Gray,
HPN,
go
5
;
cf.
ty;, Ju. 4
17ff-
s
24
,
and
nty:,
Ezr. 2
s6
.
(12) rnp
(Ko/ae)]
a son of
Hebron,
and therefore a Kalebite clan
in i Ch. 2
43
.
Meyer (352
5
)
traces to this Edomite-Kalebite
family
the
origin
of the Iorahite
singers
and subordinate officials of the second
Temple,
who were afterwards admitted to the ranks of the
Levites,
and
received an artificial
genealogy (Ex.
6
21< M
,
Nu. 26
58
,
i Ch. 6
7 22
etc.).
15-19.
The clan-chiefs of Edom.
15.
On the word
tf,
-ZJ.Z. Since the list is all but identical with vv.
9
~
14
,
we
have here a clear
proof
of the artificial character of the
family
trees used in OT to set forth
ethnological
relations. It is
not
improbable
that this is the
original
census of Edomite
*
thousands from which the
genealogy
of
9
~
14
was con
structed. 16. Amalek is here
placed
on a level with the
other branches
(ct.
v.
12
).
20-30.
Horite
genealogies.
20. the inhabitants
of
the
land} (Ex. 23
31
,
Nu.
32", Ju.
i
33
)
;
cf.
i4
6
,
Dt. 2
12
. These
autochthones are described
geographically
and
ethnologic-
ally
as sons of Seir the
Horite, i.e.,
a section of the Horite
population
settled in Mt. Se
ir,
Se ir
being personified
as
the fictitious ancestor of the natives of the
country.
15. fpW]
(5r
riyefjiuv,
"B
dux,
whence EV duke. The word means
properly
*
chiliarch,
the chief of an
f]^x (
=
thousand or clan
):
so
Ex.
i5
15
,
Zee. i2
5 - 6
9
7
. Elsewhere it
signifies
friend
;
and since the
sense clan would be suitable in all the
passages
cited,
it has been
proposed
to read in each
case,
as well as in this
ch.,
f\ht<
as the
original
text
(Rob.
Sm.
JPh.
ix.
90
;
Mey. INS, 330). Practically
it
makes no difference
;
for in
any
case the chiefs are but
personifications
of their clans. 16.
mp rp
1
?**]
.ux
om.,
probably
a
gloss
from v.
18
.
l8.
is?y
m]
(5 om.
19.
D11K
Kin]
<&
ovrol daiv ol
rjye/j.6vS currwi/,
viol
E5o>/4.
2O.
3B"]
(5r
sing. 24b.
cp.
.n]
The word is
utterly
obscure. (6. rbv
lapel? ;
Aq.
TOI>S
r)/j.iv [i>eiAt] (see Field)
;
JUUL D a K.n
(Dt.
2
10
: so 2T
13J)
;
W wild-asses and mules
;
<S
]
* ^
OlX
(o:sn ?)
;
F
aquce
callidce.
If 5J be
right (and
it is
certainly
the most
plausible conjecture
for
sense),
24b
is a
fragment
of an old
well-legend, claiming
the
proprietorship
of
these hot
springs
for the tribe of Anah
(cf. Ju.
I
14ff>
).
See,
further,
Haupt,
in
Ball, SBOT,
118.
30b
is in the
style
of P.
vy]
<&
xxxvi.
is-so
433
The name nh is now
generally regarded
as a
geographical designa
tion,
identical with the
garu
of the
Eg.
monuments
(Muller, AE, 137,
i49ff., 240; Jen. ZA,
x.
332 f., 346
f.
;
Schw.
ZATW,
xviii.
126;
Mey.
INS, 330 f.),
The older
theory
that the name is derived from Tin and
means
cave-dwellers,
is not
necessarily
discredited
by
this identifica
tion. Even if the Horites were a stratum of
population
that once
covered the
region
from the
Egyptian
frontier to the
neighbourhood
of
Damascus,
there still seems no reason
why they
should not have been
largely
an old
troglodyte
race,
from whom the
country
derived its
name.
The
Classification. According
to
20f< 29f>
there were seven main
branches of the Horites in Se
ir,
represented by Lotan, Sobal,
Zib
6n,
Anah, Dis"6n, Ezer,
and RiSan
(see below).
Of
these, however,
Anah
and DiSon
reappear
as subdivisions of Zib on and Anah
respectively.
The
duplication
has been
explained by supposing
that
parts
of these
tribes had
amalgamated
with kindred
branches,
and thus came to
figure
both as sons and
grandsons
of the
original
ancestor
(Di.
Gu.
al.).
It is more
likely
that Anah and Dion were at first subordinate
septs
of Zib on
(so Mey. 341)
;
that
they
came into the list of
alltiphim
(
29f
-)
as heads of clan
groups
; and,
finally,
obtained a
primary position
amongst
the sons of Se ir. The
relationship
as thus reconstructed
may
be exhibited as follows :
(a)
Lotan
(Timna). (b)
Sobal.
(c)
Zib 6n.
(^)
E/er.
(e)
Rian.
i i *i i i
Hori,
Hemam.
Alwan,
Ayyah, Anah, Bilhan, Cz,
Manahat,
|
Za Svan
[Zu an],
Aran.
Ebal,
Dis"6n
[Yajakan.
Sgpho, (OhSlibamah),
Onam.
|
Hemdan, Es"ban,
Yithran,
K6ran.
The Names.
(a) jai^
is
plausibly
connected with ciV
(also
a cave-
dweller, I9
30
),
who
may
have been
originally
an ancestral
deity
wor
shipped
in these
regions. Philologically
it is
interesting
to observe the
frequency
of the
endings
-an,
-on in this
list,
pointing
to a
primitive
nunation,
as constrasted with
sporadic
cases of mimation in the
Edomite names. nn
(v.
22
)]
The occurrence of the national name
(v.
20
)
as
a subdivision of itself is
surprising. Mey. (339) suspects
confusion with
another
genealogy
in which Lotan
figured
as ancestor of the whole
Horite race. DD n
(i
Ch.
DDin,
<
Af/^)]
cf.
jD
n,
i Ki.
5",
i Ch. 2
6
,
Ps.
8g\
VJDn, strangely
introduced as the sister of
Lotan,
is the same as the
concubine of
Eliphaz (v.
12
)
:
probably interpolated
in both
places. (b)
Vmsy
(2w/3d\)]
also a Kalebite tribe settled in
Kiryath-Ye arim,
incorpor
ated in
Judah (i
Ch. 2
50 - 52
4"-).
The name was connected
by
Rob. Sm.
with Ar.
Sibl,
young
lion. Ar. ,
ought
to be v in Heb.
;
but the
objection
is
perhaps
not final in a borrowed name
(but
see No.
ZDMG,
xl.
168;
Gray,
HPN,
109). pVy (i
Ch.
]^y,
<&
Tw\6v, TwXd/i,
etc.)]
cf.
mSy,
v.
40
;
otherwise unknown.
nruoj
It cannot be accidental that in
28
434
EDOMITE GENEALOGIES
i Ch. 2
52
the half of Manahat is
again represented
as descended from
6bal. These Manahathites are further connected with
ny/iy (v.
53f
-),
a
notice which We.
(Bleek
4
, 197)
has
ingeniously
combined with
Ju. i$
2
,
where
niaD,
the father of
Samson,
is a native of Zor ah. It seems to
follow,
not
only
that rruD is
originally
the
eponymus
of
nriJD,
but that
this Horite clan lived in
early
times in Zor ah and was included in the
mixed tribe of Dan
(Mey. 340).
*?3
y
(Fai/S^X)] Mey.
identifies with the
well-known mountain E of
Shechem,
originally
a Horite settlement
(?).
IBB*
(i
Ch.
ae>,
&
Scurfy, Sw^dv, Sco0, etc.)]
unknown. DJIX
(
ft/Aav,
Qvav)]
A Yerahmeelite
name,
i Ch. 2
26< 28
. The name of
Judah
s son
pix (Gn.
38
4ff
-) may
also be
compared. (c) pjosf (Zepeydv)] Possibly
a
hyaena-
tribe
(dabu, ^l, NH, yns) (Smith,
JO/
2
,
254; Gray, 95). .TK]
falcon
(Lv.
n
14
,
Dt.
14", Jb.
28
)
;
cf. the
personal name,
2 Sa.
3
7
2i
8fi
-.
n:y]
unknown.
pB""i, JBT (Arjcruv, Aaicri>}v)]=
(
mountain-goat (Dt. i4
5
).
pan (Ch. pen)
and
pe^
are not known.
prr]
Derived from a
widely
diffused
personal
name
(Heb.
Bab. Sab.
Nabat.),
best known in OT
as that of Moses s father-in-law
(Ex. 3
1
etc.)
;
also a son of Gideon
(Ju.
S
20
),
and the Ishmaelite father of Amasa
(2
Sa.
ly
25
etc.). pa
(Xappdv)] only
here.
(d)
ISN]
unknown.
jn
1
?-]
can
scarcely
be dissoci
ated from Rachel s handmaid
nnVn,
whose Horite
origin
would be some
what more
intelligible
if Horite clans were
amalgamated
in one of her
subdivisions
(Dan
;
see on Manahat
above). pyr (JUA jyit,
(&
ZovicAu.,
Zaw<v
=
jy
i ?t)]
unknown.
jpy (better jpy,
as i Ch. i
42
)]
The tribe is doubt
less to be identified with the
Jjjy;.
:?
mentioned in Nu.
33
31f>
,
Dt. io
6
as
the owners of some wells S of Kadesh.
(^) jt5"T (^r P[e]icrwj )]
Rd.
f
r
l
or
}^H,
to avoid concurrence with the
f^n
of v.
25f>
.
py ("fis)]
see on lo
23
22
21
.
pN] Perhaps
connected with the Yerahmeelite
jnk,
i Ch. 2
25
. The
reading
DIN
(Heb.
MSS,
fflr5J3T
J
)
is
probably
a mistake caused
by
the
proximity
of
py.
31-39.
The
kings
of Edom.
31.
before
there
reigned
a
king of
the Israelites
(v.i.)}
This
may
mean either before
the institution of the
monarchy
in
Israel,
or before
any
Israelitish
sovereign
ruled over Edom. The natural terminus
ad
quern
is,
of
course,
the overthrow of Edomite
independ
ence
by
David
(p. 437 below).
The document bears
every
mark of
authenticity,
and
may
be
presumed
to
give
a
complete
list of Edomite
kings. Unfortunately
the chrono
logy
is
wanting.
An
average reign
of 20
years
for the
eight
kings (Meyer)
is
perhaps
a reasonable allowance in
early
un-
31.
VxiK" ^n
1
?] Expression
of
gen. by
*? to
prevent
determination of
the
governing
noun
by
the
following
determinate
gen. (G-K. 129^),
*
a
king belonging
to the I. The second
interpretation given
above is
the
only
natural one. (Sr
A
tv
lepovcraX^,
d
L
tv
la-pcujX,
the latter
too
readily approved by
Ball.
xxxvi.
31-36
435
settled times
;
and the foundation of the Edomite
monarchy
may
be dated
approximately
from
150
to 200
years
before
the time of David. The
monarchy
was
obviously
not
hereditary,
none of the
king
s
being
the son of his
pre
decessor;
that it was elective
(Tu.
Kn. Di. De. Dri.
al.)
is more than we have a
right
to assume. Frazer
(AAO,
n
3
)
finds here an illustration of his
theory
of female
succession,
the crown
passing
to men of other families who married the
hereditary princesses
;
but v.
39
is fatal to this view. The
fact that the
kings reigned
in different cities
supports
an
opinion (Winckler,
G/,
i.
192;
Che.
429)
that
they
were
analogous
to the Hebrew
Judges,
i.e. local chiefs who held
supreme power during
their
life,
but were unable to establish
a
dynasty.
A
beginning
of the
recognition
of the
hereditary
principle may
be traced in the
story
of Hadad
*
of the seed
royal (i
Ki. n
14ff
-),
who is
regarded
as
heir-presumptive
to
the throne
(Meyer).
32. mjQ-p
y*?3
((5r
Bd\a/c vl. rou
Becip)]
The name of the first
king-
bears a
striking-
resemblance to
Tijn-p
Dy"?a,
the
soothsayer
whom the
king-
of Moab hired to curse Israel
(Nu.
22
ff.),
and who afterwards died
fighting
for Midian
(Nu. 3i
8
[P]).
The
identity
of the two
personages
is
recognised by (amongst others)
Kn-Di. No.
(Unters. 87),
Hommel
(AHTt 153,
222
1
), Sayce (EHH, 224, 229),
Che.
al.,
though
the
legend
which
places
his home at Pethor on the
Euphrates (E)
is
hardly
con
sistent with this notice. mnji
(Aei>va/3a),
his
city,
is not known
;
ace.
to
Jerome, OS,
p. 115,*
it is
Dannaia,
between Ar Moab and the
Arnon,
orDannaba near Heshbon
(cf.
Eus.
OS, U4
31
,
[p. 249])
;
Hommel
and
Sayce suggest Dunip,
somewhere in N
Syria. 33.
nnv
( Iw[a]/3d/3,
1(6/3, etc.)]
identified
by
<&
(Jb. 42
18
)
with the
patriarch
Job. mso]
A
chief
city
of Edom
(Is. 346 63
1
, Jer. 48
24
49
13-
,
Am. i
12
),
now
el-Busaireh,
20 m. SE of the Dead Sea.
34.
DE>n
CA<r6/t,
& xOCL_KJ
=
DIETI)].
the
land
of
the
Temanite]
see on v.
11
.
35.
Tin bears the well-known
name
of an Aramaean
deity,
whose
worship
must have
prevailed widely
in
Edom
(see
v.
39
,
i Ki. n
14ff
-).
who smote
Midian, etc.]
The
solitary
historical notice in the list. It is a
tempting- suggestion
of Ewald
(HI,
ii.
336),
that the battle was an incident of the
great
Midianite raid
under which Israel suffered so
severely,
so that this
king
was con
temporary
with Gideon
(cf. Meyer, 381 f.). my]
(5r
Ye6dalfj.
=
w$yt
on
which
reading Marquart (Fundatnente, u)
bases an
ingenious
explana
tion of the
mysterious
name D
nyen
jtro
in
Ju. 3
8ff<
(o^ny
e>n
D^in,
a con
fusion of the third and fourth
kings
in our
list). 36.
nVw]
(5r
no
Sty,
perhaps
the same name as Solomon.
npit^D]
A
place
of this name
is mentioned in
OS, I37
10
(p. 277),
in
Gebalene, the northern
EDOMITE
GENEALOGIES
part
of Mt. Seir.
37. INS?]
The name of the first
king-
of Israel. mam
von]
so called to
distinguish
it from other
places
of the same name
(cf.
26
22
),
is
probably
the
Poufiud
of
OS,
I45
15
(p. 286),
a
military post
in
Gebalene. The river
is, therefore,
not the
Euphrates (although
a
place
Rahaba has been discovered on its W
side),
but some
perennial
stream
in the N of
Edom,
defined
by
the
city
on its banks
(cf.
2 Ki.
5
12
).
38. pn
^>ya]
Baal is
gracious.
The name of the seventh
king
is the
only existing
trace of
Baal-worship
in Edom.
TQ2JJ] jerboa (Ar.
akbar)
: see Rob. Sm. KM
2
,
235*.
Here it is
probably
a
clan-name,
but
appears
as
personal
in OT
(2
Ki. 22
14
, Jer.
26
22
36
12
). 39. Tin]
To
be read Tin
(Heb. MSS,
jumS
partly,
and i Ch. i
50
).
For
iys
(i
Ch.
*ys)>
(5r has
<bbyup,
i.e.
"liy?,
the mountain in Moab
(Nu. 23
s8
etc.). Why
the wife of Hadad II. is named we cannot tell. ^K30nD
(
God does
good )
is a man s name in Neh. 6
10
. For an? D na it would be better to
read
D
p ((&>).
But am D
(gold-water)
is more
likely
to be the name
of a
place
than of a
person
;
hence
Marquart
s emendation D
ja (I.e. 10)
is
very plausible,
as is his identification of am D with the miswritten
ant H of Dt. i
1
.
40-43.
The chiefs of Esau. This second list of
*Alluphtm presents
more features of P s
style
than
any
other
section of the
chapter,
but is of doubtful
antiquarian
value.
Of the eleven
names,
more than one half are found in the
preceding
lists
(
1Q
-
39
)
;
the new
names,
so far as
they
can be
explained,
are
geographical.
It is
possible
that the docu
ment
preserves
a statistical
survey
of administrative districts
of Edom
subsequent
to the overthrow of its
independence
(Ew.
Di. Dri.
al.);
but there is no evidence that this is
the case.
40. m!?y=p^y,
v.
23
. nrr
( ledtp, etc.)] probably in;
=
pn,
v.
-2fi
.
41.
n"?K
is
supposed
to be the
seaport
n^N
;
see on
i4
6
.
jrs (<f>iyes, $[e]iva}v}
JJIEJ,
Nu.
33
42f
,
the Qawuv
(Fenon)
of
OS,
123* (p. 299
;
cf.
p. 123),
a
village
between Petra and
Zoar,
where were
copper
mines worked
by
convicts.
The name
(see
Seetzen,
iii.
17),
and the ruins of the mines have been
discovered at
Fenan,
6 or
7
m. NNW of Sobek
(Meyer, 353 f.). 42.
ns^o]
Ace. to
OS, I37
11
(p. 277), Mafiaapd
was a
very large village
in
Gebalene,
subject
to Petra.
43.
^NHJD and
ovy are unknown. For the
latter,
ffi
has
Za<wet[>]
=
is*,
v.
11
. It is
probable
that in the
original
text both
names were
contained,
as in an
anonymous
chronicle edited
by Lagarde
(Sept-St.
ii.
j
see
Nestle,
Marg. 12), making
the number
up
to twelve.
It remains to state
briefly
the more
important
historical results
yielded by study
of these Edomite lists,
(r)
At the earliest
period
of
which >ve have
any knowledge,
the
country
of Se ir was
peopled by
a
40.
DnopoS]
j DnnWi^. ancK
3]
(Jj
D.Tiaai ann^a
(lo
20- 31
). 43.
(v.
40
).
wy
win]
see on v.
1
.
XXXVI.
37-43
437
supposed aboriginal
race called Horites.
Though
remnants of this
population
survived
only
in Se
ir,
there are a few traces of its former
existence in Palestine
;
and it is
possible
that it had once been co
extensive with the wide
region
known to the
Egyptians
as Haru
(p. 433).
(2)
Within historic times the
country
was
occupied by
a
body
of
nomads
closely
akin to the southern tribes of
Judah,
who
amalgamated
with the Horites and formed the nation of Edom.
(3)
The date of this
invasion cannot be determined. Se irites and Edomites
appear
almost
contemporaneously
in
Egyptian documents,
the former under Ramses
in. as a nomadic
people
whom the
king
attacked and
plundered
;
and
the latter about
50 years
earlier under
Merneptah,
as a band of Bedouin
who were
granted
admission to the
pastures
of WadI Tumilat within the
Egyptian
frontier
{Pap.
Harris and Anastasi : see
Miiller, AE,
135
f.
;
cf.
Mey.
INS,
337 f.)-
Since both are described as
Bedouin,
it would
seem that the Edomites were still an unsettled
people
at the
beginning
of the 1 2th cent. The land of
Seri, however,
is mentioned in the TA
Tablets
(KAT
Z
, 201)
more than two centuries earlier.
(4)
The list of
kings
shows that Edom attained a
political organisation
much sooner
than Israel : hence in the
legends
Esau is the elder brother of
Jacob.
The
interval between Ramses ill. and David is sufficient for a line of
eight
kings
;
but the institution of the
monarchy
must have followed within
a few decades the
expedition
of Ramses referred to above. It is
probable (though
not
certain)
that the last
king
Hadad II. was the one
subdued
by David,
and that the Hadad who fled to
Egypt
and after
wards returned to trouble Solomon
(i
Ki. n
14ff>
)
was of his
family.
(5)
The
genealogies
furnish evidence of the
consanguinity
of Edomite and
Judaean
tribes. In several instances we have found the same name
amongst
the descendants of Esau or Se ir and
amongst
those of
Judah
(see
the notes
pass.}.
This
might
be
explained by assuming
that a clan
had been
split up,
one
part adhering
to
Edom,
and another
attaching
itself to
Judah ;
but a consideration of the actual circumstances
suggests
a more
comprehensive theory.
The consolidation of the tribe of
Judah
was a
process
of
political segregation
: the desert tribes that had
pushed
their
way
northwards towards the
Judaean highlands,
were welded
together by
the
strong
hand of the Davidic
monarchy,
and were
reckoned as constituents of the dominant southern tribe. Thus it would
happen
that a Horite or Edomite clan which had
belonged
to the
empire
of Edom was drawn into
Judah,
and had to find a
place
in the artificial
genealogies
which
expressed
the
political unity resulting
from the
incorporation
of diverse
ethnological groups
in the tribal
system.
If
Meyer
be
right
in
holding
that the
genealogies
of the Chronicler reflect
the conditions of the late
post-Exilic age,
when a wholesale conversion
of Kalebite and Yerahmeelite families to
Judaism
had taken
place (INS,
30of. ;
Entst. d.
Jud. 1146., 130 ff.),
a
comparison
with Gn.
36 yields
a
striking testimony
to the
persistency
of the minor
clan-groups
of the
early
Horites
through
all vicissitudes of
political
and
religious
condition.
JOSEPH AND HIS BRETHREN.
CHS. XXXVII-L.
THE last division of the Book of Genesis is
occupied
almost
entirely
with the
history
of
Joseph,
at once the most artistic and the most
fascinating-
of OT
biographies.
Its connexion is twice
interrupted
:
(a)
by
the
story
of
Judah
and Tamar
(ch. 38)
;
and
(b) by
the so-called
Blessing-
of
Jacob (49
1
"
28
)
: see the
introductory
notes on these
chapters.
Everywhere
else the narrative follows the thread of
Joseph
s fortunes
;
the
plan
and contents
being-
as follows :
I. Chs.
37. 39-41. Joseph
s
solitary
career in
Egypt
: i.
Joseph
betrayed by
his brethren and carried down to
Egypt (37).
2. How
he maintained his virtue
ag-ainst
the solicitation of his master s
wife,
and was thrown into
prison (39). 3.
His skill in
interpreting-
dreams
discovered
(40). 4.
His
interpretation
of Pharaoh s
dreams,
and his
consequent
elevation to the
highest dignity
in
Egypt (41).
II. Chs.
42-45.
The reunion of
Joseph
and his brethren :
5.
The first
meeting
of the brethren with
Joseph
in
Egypt (42).
6. The second
meeting- (43. 44). 7. Joseph
reveals himself to his brethren
(45).
III. Chs.
46-50.
The settlement of the united
family
in
Egypt
: 8.
Jacob
s
journey
to
Egypt
and settlement in Goshen
(46. 47
1
"
12
). 9.
Joseph
s
agrarian policy (47
13 28
).
10.
Joseph
at his father s death-bed
(47
29-3i
4g).
x x . Death and burial of
Jacob,
and death of
Joseph (49
29 33
50).
The
composition
of documents is of the same
general
character as in
the
previous
section of
Genesis,
though
some
peculiar
features
present
themselves. The
Priestly epitome (37
2
4i
4Ga
42
5 - 6a
4
6
6 -
^1
478*.
6a. 7-11. 27 b. 23
4S
3 6
49
ltt- 28t-33u
a
b
50
i2.
is)
is
hardly
less broken and
fragmentary
than in the
history
of
Jacob,
and
produces
at first
sight
the same
impression
as
there,
of
being- merely supplementary
to the older
narratives,
an
impression,
however,
which a closer
inspection easily dispels.
Certain late words
and constructions have led some critics to the conclusion that
theJE
passag-es
have been worked over
by
an editor of the school of P
(Giesebrecht,
ZATW,
i.
237,
a66
2
;
Ho.
234).
The cases in
point
have
been examined
by
Kue.
(Ond.
i.
p. 317^),
who
rightly
concludes that
they
are too few in number to bear out the
theory
of
systematic
Priestly
redaction. With
regard
to the
composition
of
J
and
E,
the
most
important
fact is that the clue to
authorship supplied by
the
divine names almost
entirely
fails
us,
and is
replaced by
the distinction
between Israel and
Jacob
which as names of the
patriarch
are character-
438
XXXVII.-L
439
istic of
J
and E
respectively (exceptions
are
46
2
48
8- " 21
[5O
25?
]; 46
5b
).
nirr
occurs
only
in ch.
39 (7 times)
;
elsewhere D rr?K is
invariably
used,
some
times in contexts which would otherwise be
naturally assig-ned
to
J,
though
no reason
appears why J
should
depart
from his
ordinary
usage (e.g. 42
28
).
It
may
not
always
be safe to
rely
on this character
istic when it is not
supported by
other indications.
Eerdmans,
who
rejects
in
principle
the
theory
of a Yahwistic and an Elohistic
document,
is
obliged
to admit the existence of an Israel-recension and a
Jacob-
recension,
and makes this distinction the basis of an
independent
analysis.
A
comparison
of his results with those
commonly accepted by
recent critics is instructive in more
ways
than one.* On the
whole,
it
increases one s confidence in the
ordinary
critical method.
*
The Israel-recension
(I-R) consists,
according-
to
Eerdmans,
of
37^ (J
-f
E),
2**
(E), (E),
30-33
(
E +
J),
86
(E)
.
43 (J)
.
^ (J)
.
^8 (J)> ^1.
2a
(JE),
28 34
(J)
;
47
1 5
(J [v.
5
,
P*]),
13 27a
(J),
27b
(P),
29
-
31
(J)
;
48
1
(E),
>
(J),
*-*>
(J
+
E)
;
so
1 11
(J),
14 26
(E*).
To the
Jacob-recension (J-R)
he
assigns 37
2
(P),
*-"
(J),
28b
(J),
34
(JE),
35
(J)
;
40
;
41
;
42 (all E)
;
45!-" (E*), 46^ (E*),
6. 7
( p)
.
47
6-ll
(
p.
)f
12
(E)>
28
(P)
.
^la
(p),
29-33
(p)
.
^12.
13
( p) (]
Kom
p
m d.
Gen.
6571)
: the usual
analysis
is
roughly
indicated
by
the
symbols
within brackets. How does this
compare
with the
generally accepted
critical results?
(i)
No distinction is
recognised
between P and the
other sources
;
the
fragments
are
mostly assigned
to the
J-R,
but
48
3 8
is
rejected
as an
interpolation (p. 27). (2)
Eerdmans
regards
ch.
39 (the
incident of
Potiphar
s
wife)
as the addition of an
unintelligent
redactor
;
mainly
on the
ground
that it contains the name m.T
(the
use of the divine
names is thus after all a reliable criterion of
authorship
when it suits
Eerdmans
purpose !).
A more
arbitrary piece
of criticism could
hardly
be found.
(3) Apart
from these two
eccentricities,
and the finer shades
of
analysis
which Eerdmans refuses to
acknowledge,
it will be seen that
except
in ch.
37
his division
agrees
a
potiori
with that of the
majority
of
critics
; i.e.,
the I-R
corresponds
in the main with
J
and the
J-R
with
E.
(4)
Inch.
37,
on the
contrary,
the relation is reversed : I-R
=
E,
and
J-R
=
J.
But this
divergence
turns on a
wholly arbitrary
and indefens
ible selection of data. Since the
J-R
in
45
5
speaks
of a sale of
Joseph
(to
the
Ishmaelites),
it is inferred that
3725-27.
28b
belonged
to it. It is
conveniently
overlooked that
40 (also J-R)
refers back to
37
28a- aw-
(the
stealing
of
Joseph),
that
42 (J-R) presupposes 37
22
(I-R);
to
say
nothing
of the broad distinction that
Judah
s
leadership
is as character
istic of one source as Reuben s is of the other. If Eerdmans had
duly
considered the whole of the
evidence,
he would have seen first that it is
absolutely necessary
to
carry
the
analysis
further than he chooses to
do,
and next that the two recensions in ch.
37
must
exchange places
in order
to find their
proper
connexions in the
following chapters.
With that
readjustment,
it is not unfair to claim him as an
unwilling
witness to the
essential soundness of the
prevalent theory.
With the best will in the
world,
he has not been able to deviate
very
far from the beaten track
;
and where he does strike out a
path
of his
own,
he becomes
entangled
in difficulties which
may yet
cause him to retrace his
steps.
44-O
THE STORY OF
JOSEPH
The
story
of
Joseph
is the finest
example
in
Genesis,
or even in the
OT,
of what is sometimes called novelistic narrative. From the
other
patriarchal biographies
it is
distinguished
first of all
by
the
dramatic
unity
of a
clearly
conceived
plot,
the
unfolding-
of which
exhibits the conflict between character and
circumstances,
and the
triumph
of moral and
personal
forces amidst the chances and vicissitudes
of human affairs. The
ruling-
idea is
expressed
in the words of
E,
"Ye
intended evil
against
me,
but God intended it for
good
"
(so
20
;
cf.
45"
7
)
:
it is the sense of an
overruling, yet
immanent,
divine
Providence,
realising
its
purpose through
the
complex
interaction of human
motives,
working
out a result which no
single
actor
contemplated.
To this
higher
unity everything-
is subordinated
;
the
separate
scenes and incidents
merge naturally
into the main stream of the
narrative,
each
representing
a
step
in the
development
of the theme. The
style
is
ample
and
diffuse,
but never tedious
;
the vivid human interest of the
story,
enhanced
by
a
vein of
pathos
and sentiment
rarely
found in the
patriarchal narratives,
secures the attention and
sympathy
of the reader from the
beginning
to
the close. We
note, further,
a certain freedom in the
handling
of tradi
tional
material,
and subordination of the
legendary
to the ideal element in
the
composition.
The
comparatively
faint traces of local
colour,
the
absence of
theophanies
and
cult-legends generally,
the almost
complete
elimination of tribal
relations,
are to be
explained
in this
way
;
and also
perhaps
some minute deviations from the dominant
tradition,
such as the
conception
of
Jacob
s
character,
the
disparity
of
age
between
Joseph
and
his older
brothers,
the extreme
youth
of
Benjamin (suggesting
that he
had been born since
Joseph
left
home),
the allusions to the mother as if
still
alive,
etc.
Lastly,
the hero himself is idealised as no other
patri
archal
personality
is.
Joseph
is not
(like
Jacob)
the embodiment of one
particular
virtue,
but is conceived as an ideal character in all the relations
in which he is
placed
: he is the ideal
son,
the ideal
brother,
the ideal
servant,
the ideal administrator.
The close
parallelism
of
J
and
E,
together
with the fact that the
literary
features enumerated above are shared
by both,
show that it had taken
shape
before it came into the hands of these
writers,
and
strongly
suggest
that it must have existed in written form. The
hypothesis
of 1>.
Luther
(INS, 141 ff.),
that the
original
author was
J,
and that he
composed
it as a
connecting
link between the
patriarchal legends
and those of the
Exodus,
is destitute of
probability.
The motive
suggested
is
inadequate
to account for the
conception
of a narrative so rich in concrete detail as
that before us.
Moreover,
there is no reason to think that E is
depend
ent on
J ;
and it is certain that in some
points (the leadership
of
Reuben,
e.g.)
E follows the older tradition. Nor is there much foundation for
Luther s
general impression
that such a narrative must be the creation
of a
single
mind. In
any
case the
mastery
of
technique
which is here
displayed implies
a
long
cultivation of this
type
of literature
(ib. 143)
;
and the matter of the
Joseph-narratives
must have
passed through many
successive hands before it reached its
present perfection
of form.
It is
impossible
to resolve such a
composition completely
into its
traditional or
legendary
elements
;
but we
may perhaps
distinguish
XXXVII.-L
441
broadly
the three kinds of material which have been laid under contribu
tion,
(i)
The element of tribal
history
or
relationships, though slight
and
secondary,
is
clearly recognisable,
and
supplies
a
key
which
may
be used with caution to
explain
some
outstanding-
features of the narrative.
That there was an ancient tribe named
Joseph,
afterwards subdivided
into
Ephraim
and
Manasseh,
is an item of Hebrew tradition whose
authenticity
there seems no
good
reason to
question (see p. 533)
;
and
the
prestige
and
prowess
of this tribe are doubtless reflected in the
distinguished position
held
by Joseph
as the hero of the
story. Again,
actual tribal relations are
represented by
the close
kinship
and
strong
affection between
Joseph
and
Benjamin
;
and
by
the
preference
of
Ephraim
before
Manasseh,
and the elevation of both to the status of
adopted
sons of
Jacob.
The
birthright
and
leadership
of Reuben in E
implies
a
hegemony
of that tribe in
very early times,
just
as the similar
position
accorded to
Judah
in
J
reflects the circumstances of a later
age.
These are
perhaps
all the features that can
safely
be
interpreted
of real
tribal relations. Whether there was a
migration
of the tribe of
Joseph
to
Egypt,
whether this was followed
by
a
temporary
settlement of all
the other tribes on the border of the
Delta, etc.,
are
questions
which
this
history
does not enable us to answer
;
and
attempts
to find a
historical
significance
in the details of the narrative
(such
as the sleeved
tunic of
Joseph,
the
enmity
of his
brethren,
his
wandering
from Hebron
to Shechem and thence to
Dothan,
the deliverance of
Joseph by
Reuben
or
Judah,
and so
on)
are an abuse of the
ethnographic principle
of inter
pretation.
For
(2) alongside
of this there is an element of individual
biography,
which
may very
well
preserve
a reminiscence of actual
events. There must have been current in ancient Israel a tradition of
some
powerful
Hebrew minister in
Egypt,
who was the means of
saving
the
country
from the horrors of
famine,
and who used his
power
to re
model the
land-system
of
Egypt
to the
advantage
of the crown. That
such a tradition should be true in essentials is
by
no means
improbable.
There were Hebrews in Palestine as
early
as the
i4th
cent. B.C.
(p. 218),
and that one of these should have been
kidnapped
and sold as a
boy
into
slavery
in
Egypt,
and afterwards have risen to the office of
viceroy,
is in accordance with
many parallels
referred to in the monuments
(p. 469);
while his
promoting
the
immigration
of his kinsfolk under stress
of famine is an incident as
likely
to be real as invented. The
figure
of
Yanhamu,
the Semitic minister of
Amenhotep
IV.
(pp. 501 f.), presents
a
partial counterpart
to that of
Joseph, though
the identification of the two
personages
rests on too slender data to be
plausible.
The insoluble
difficulty
is to discover the
point
where this
personal history passes
into
the stream of Israelite national
tradition,
or where
Joseph
ceases to be
an individual and becomes a tribe. The common view that he was the
actual
progenitor
of the tribe afterwards known
by
his name is on
many
grounds
incredible
;
and the
theory
that he was the leader of a
body
of
Hebrew
immigrants
into
Egypt
does violence to the most distinctive fea
tures of the
representation. Steuernagel
s
suggestion (Eimv. 67),
that the
story
is based on feuds between the tribe
Joseph
and the other
tribes,
in
the course of which individual
Joscphides
were sold as slaves to
Egypt,
44
2
JOSEPH
BROUGHT TO EGYPT
(p, JE)
illustrates the
futility
of
trying
1
to
explain
the narrative from two
points
of view at once. The tribal and the
personal conceptions
must be
kept
distinct,
each
may
contain a kernel of
history
of its own kind
;
but the
union of the two was effected not on the
plane
of
history
in either
sense,
but
during
the
process
of artistic elaboration of the theme.
(3)
There
is,
lastly,
an element of
Egyptian folklore,
which has been drawn on to
some extent for the
literary
embellishment of the
story.
The incident of
Joseph
s
temptation (ch. 39) appears
to be founded on an
Egyptian
popular
tale
(p. 459).
The obscure allusions to
Joseph
as a
potent
magician
are
very probably surviving
traces of a motive which was more
boldly developed
in an
Egyptian
source. The
prominence
of dreams and
their
interpretation perhaps hardly
falls under this head
;
it
may
rather
be
part
of that accurate
acquaintance
with
Egyptian
life which is one of
the most
striking
features of the narrative. That in this
legendary
element there is an admixture of
mythical
material is
very possible
;
but
a direct influence of
mythology
on the
story
of
Joseph
is
extremely
speculative.
It has been
argued
with some force that the
presence
of
this
Egyptian colouring
itself
goes
far to show that we have to do with
genuine history,
not with a
legend
woven
by popular fancy upon
the
hills of
Ephraim (Dri.
DB,
ii.
TJib).
At the same time it has to be
considered that the material
may
have been
largely
woven in
Egypt
itself,
and afterwards borrowed as
drapery
for the Israelite hero
Joseph.
Egyptian
folklore
might easily
have been naturalised in Canaan
during
the
long Egyptian
domination,
or have been
imported
later as a result
of
Egyptian
influence at the court of
Jeroboam
I. It is not difficult to
suppose
that it was
appropriated by
the Hebrew
rhapsodists,
and
incorporated
in the native
Joseph-legend,
and
gradually
moulded into
the
exquisite story
which we now
proceed
to examine.
CH. XXXVII. How
Joseph
was lost to his Father
through
his Brethren s Hatred and
Treachery (P, JE).
As the favoured child of the
family,
and because of dreams
portending
a brilliant
future, Joseph
becomes an
object
of
hatred and
envy
to his brothers
(
2
~
n
).
A favourable
oppor
tunity presenting
itself,
they
are
scarcely
restrained from
murdering
him
by prudential
and sentimental considerations
urged by
one or other of their number
(Judah, Reuben)
;
but
eventually
consent to
dispose
of him without actual bloodshed
(
12
~
30
).
With heartless
cruelty they pretend
that
Joseph
must have been devoured
by
a wild
beast,
and witness their
father s distress without
being
moved to confession
f
31 36
).
The
chapter
is not
only
full of
thrilling
human
interest,
but
lays
the
*
plot
for the
highly
dramatic
story
which is to
follow. The sudden
disappearance
of the most
interesting
xxxvu.
i,
2
443
member of the
family,
the inconsolable
grief
of the
father,
the
guilty
secret shared
by
the
brothers, and,
above
all,
the
uncertainty
which
hangs
over the fate of
Joseph, appeal
irresistibly
to the romantic instinct of the
reader,
who feels
that all this is the
prelude
to some
signal
manifestation of
divine
providence
in the
working
out of
Joseph
s
destiny.
Sources. Vv.
1 - 2
belong-
to P
(v.i.).
The
analysis
of the rest of the
chapter may
start from
25 30
,
where evidences of a double recension are
clearest. In one
account,
Joseph
is sold to Ishmaelites on the
advice of
Jndah
;
in the
other,
he is
kidnapped by passing
1
Midianites,
unknown
to the
brethren,
and to the
dismay
of
Reuben,
who had
hoped
to save
him
(see
the
notes).
The former is
J (cf. 45*-),
the latter E
(4o
15
).
Another safe clue is found in the double motive
assigned
for the
envy
of the brethren :
* 4
(the
sleeved
tunic)
||
5 n
(the dreams)
: the dream-
motive is characteristic of K
throug-hout
the
narrative,
and
3f>
are from
J
because of Strw
(cf.
13
,
and ct.
apy
in
34
).
Smaller doublets can be
detected in
12 14
;
in
18 20
,
in
21f
-,
and in
34f>
. The
analysis
has been worked
out with substantial
agreement among-st
critics
; and,
with some
finishing-
touches from the hand of Gu.
(353 ff.),
the result is as follows :
J
=
3- 4- 13a*
14b. 18b. 21. 28. 25-27.
28ay (V-Q^ to
HOD)
31 S2a
a-y*>-
33a
a
b. 34b. 35a . _ 5-11. 13b. 14a. 15-17.
ia. 19. 20. 22. 24. 28a
a/3
(
to
man)
b- 29- >
W**{*
84a- ***> 36
. This
may
be
accepted
as the basis of the
exposition, though
some
points
are
open
to
question,
particularly
the
assumption
that all references to a tunic of
any
kind are
to be ascribed to
J.
i-n. The alienation between
Joseph
and his
brethren.
I,
2. Three
disjointed fragments
of
P,
of which
v.
1
is the
original
continuation of
36
6
~
8
(see p. 429)
;
and
2aa
is
a
heading
from the Book of Toledoth
(see p. 40 f.),
which
ought
to be followed
by
a
genealogy, perhaps 35
22b
~
26
,*
which we
have seen to stand out of its
proper
connexion
(p. 423)
:
2a0yb
then introduces P s
history
of
Joseph,
which has been
mostly suppressed by
the redactor. The clause
">5^ &ttrvj
is
difficult. As a
parenthesis
(Dri.)
it is
superfluous
after the
I. D nuD
(i7
8
)
and
jyaa p (but
see
p. 474)
are characteristic of P.
2. a
njn]
Mike verbs of
governing* (Str.);
so i Sa. i6
n
ly
34
. nya
NinVJ
Gu.
suggests
^y nyj
m
(Niph. ^
iiy
: cf.
Jer.
6
s2
etc.,
and the
Hithpal.
in
Jb. i7
8
),
or
rrjn
m
(= kept company
with
),
neither
proposal just
convincing.
njn
orm
(so
Nu.
i4
37
)]
lit.
brought
the
report
of them
evil,
n
being
second
ace.,
or
tertiary pred. (Da. 76).
A bad sense is in
herent in
nyn,
which is a late
word,
in Hex. confined to P
(Nu. I3
32
i4
36f
-)
*
Rather than
46
8ff
-,
as
suggested by
Kurtz
(quoted by Hupf. Qu.
216).
444 JOSEPH
BROUGHT TO EGYPT
(jE)
definite statement of
Joseph
s
age
in
2a
^,
and leaves us with
a
wrong
identification of the sons of the concubines with the
previous
VnN. If it be
joined
to what
follows,
Gu. has
rightly
seen that we want a word
expressing something
that
Joseph
was or did in relation to the sons of Bilhah and
Zilpah.
The
meaning probably
is that
Joseph,
while
shepherding
with
(all)
his
brethren,
fell out with the four sons of the con
cubines.
With this
change,
Di. s
objections
to the
unity
of v.
2
fall to the
ground,
and the whole
may
be
safely
ascribed to P
(note
the
chronology,
the
supplementary
V3N
^j,
and the
phrase
njn
mi).
Short as the
fragment
is,
it shows that P s account was
peculiar
in two
respects
:
(i)
He
restricts the
hostility
to the sons of Bilhah and
Zilpah,
and
(2)
he traces
it to
Joseph
s
reporting
their misdeeds to
Jacob.
It is
plain
that P is
no mere
supplementer
of the older
history,
but an
independent author,
though
his account has been sacrificed to the more
graphic
narratives
of
J
and E.
3, 4 (J).
Now Israel loved
Joseph
. .
.J
These are
evidently
the
opening
words of
J
s
Joseph-story,
in which the sole
motive of the brothers hatred is the father s favouritism
towards the son
of
his old
age (i6
2
44
20
J).
D*B?
n
^?]
a
shirt or tunic
reaching
to the extremities
(E
>
BS),
i.e. the wrists
and
ankles,
whereas the
ordinary under-garment
was sleeve
less,
and reached
only
to the knees. That it was an unusual
habiliment
appears
also from 2 Sa.
I3
18f-
;
but
speculations
as to its
mythological significance (ATLO
2
,
384)
have no
support
in either
passage. 4.
could not address him
peace-
3.
nc
jn]
JUA
8?jn.
As the tense can
hardly
be
freq.,
it is best to restore
ntyll.P. (Ba. Kit.).
D DS
runs]
Cf.
Jos.
Ant. vii.
171
:
<f>6povv yap
al ruv
Except
(
(xtrwva iroiKlXov)
and U
(tunicam polymitam [but
cf. v.
23
]),
all Vns. here
support
this sense :
Aq. x- acrTpayaXuv,
S.
x- X/)i5wr6v,
&
|A_V25 |i
>7on
(
with
sleeves
),
C
on NJin
3,
etc. In 2 Sa.
13,
(5xU and
5
curiously change
sides
(x Ka/>7ro>r6s,
talaris tunica
t
")A*^
\\
\K<sD
]
1 >7nn
[=
tunica
striata]).
The real
meaning
is deter
mined
by
NH and Aram. D?
(Dn. 5
5- M
)
=D:P?N,
Ezk.
47
;
see
Bevan,
Dan. loo.
4.
vnN
2
]
Heb. MSS **>.<&
na
;
5
V
OCTI^
^o.mSrS
h?l]
On the
sufF.,
see G-K.
115
c. But no other case
occurring
of
nil
with
ace. of
pers.
addressed
(Nu.
26
3
is
corrupt),
Gu.
points n^ (
could
not
take his matter
peaceably ),
Kit. em. ? \h
n?^ (the
^
might
be omitted:
xxxvn.
3-i3
445
ably]
or,
salute him. The text is doubtful
(v.i.). $-11.
Joseph
s dreams
(E).
6,
7-
The first dream a harvest scene
represents Jacob
s
family
as
agriculturists (see
on 26
12
)
;
in vv.
2- 13ff-
46
31ff-
they
are
shepherds.
There
may
be some
hint of the immediate cause of its
fulfilment,
a failure of the
harvest
(Gu.),
though
this is
questionable.
8a. Wilt
thou,
forsooth^
be
king
over us
P]
The
language points beyond
the
personal history
of
Joseph
to the
hegemony
of the house of
Joseph
in N Israel
(Ju.
i
22f
-). 9.
The second dream
pre
sages Joseph
s elevation not
only
over his
brothers,
but over
his father
(Ho.),
i.e. Israel
collectively.
eleven
stars]
Sup
posed by
some to be an allusion to the
signs
of the Zodiac
(De.
Gu.
al.,
cf.
Je.
ATLO
2
,
383),
the twelfth
being
either
Joseph
himself,
or the constellation obscured
by Joseph
as the
sun-god.
The
theory
will stand or fall with the identification
of
Jacob
s twelve sons with the Zodiacal
signs (see pp. 534 f.)
;
the absence of the art. here makes
it, however,
at least im
probable
that the
theory
was in the mind of the writer.
II. envied is the
appropriate
word for E s
account,
as hated
(v.
4
)
is for
J
s
(
6b
and
8b
are
redactional).
his
father kept
the
matter
(in mind)] OUT^O-CI/.
Cf. Lk. 2
19- 51
.
While
significant
dreams bulk
largely
in E s
Joseph
-
narrative
(ch. 40 f.),
it is characteristic of this section of the work that the dreams
contain no oracular revelations
(like
2o
3ff<
3i
11-24
),
but have a
meaning-
in themselves which is
open
to human
interpretation.
The
religious
spirit
of these
chapters (as
also of ch.
24),
both in
J
and
E,
is a mature
faith in God s
providential ruling
of human
affairs,
which is
independent
of
theophanies,
or visible
interpositions
of
any
kind. It can
scarcely
be
doubted that such narratives took
shape
at a later
period
of OT
religion
than the bulk of the
patriarchal legends.
12-17. Jacob
sends
Joseph
to
inquire
after his
brethren.
12, I3a, I4b J || 130, I4a
E
(see
the
analysis
see Ex. 2
3
etc.). 5b
is out of
place before
the
telling-
of the
dream,
and is
om.
by
(5r.
7.
Ins. YioSn at the
beginning,
with (Er. D.
i
x]
&ir.
\ey. ;
ra^g,
Ps. i26
6
f.
8b. Another redactional
addition,
though
found in
(3r
;
note
the
pi.
dreams when
only
one has been told. ioa. vriN nso i is an in
terpolation
intended to
explain
what
immediately
follows. <&
omits,
and
seeks to
gain
the same end
by inserting-
1 van
1
? before vnx^ in
9
.
12-14
is
composite.
Sine" shows that
12> 13a
belong
to
J ;
and "an
shows that
13b
is from E
(cf.
22
1 - 7- n
27* 31").
Hence
14a
is not a
specifi-
446 JOSEPH
BROUGHT TO EGYPT
(JE)
below).
In
J, Jacob
is
dwelling
in the vale
of Hebron\
the
sons have
gone
to Shechem. If the incident of ch.
34 belonged
to the same
cycle
of
tradition,
the brethren would
perhaps
hardly
have ventured into the
neighbourhood
of Shechem so
soon
(see p. 418)
;
though
it has been
argued
that this
very
circumstance accounts for
Jacob
s solicitude. In E we find
no indication of either the
starting-point
or the
goal
of the
journey. I4a suggests
that the flocks were at some distance
from
Jacob
s home :
possibly
the narrative is based on a
stratum of E in which
Jacob
s
permanent
residence was at
Bethel
(see
on
35
1
). I5-I7-
The man who directs
Joseph
to
Dothan is not
necessarily
a
neighbour
of the
family
who knew
Joseph by sight (Gu.)
;
nor is the incident a faded version of
a
theophany (Ho. Ben.):
it is
simply
a vivid
description
of
the
uncertainty
of
Joseph
s
persistent
search for his brethren.
Ddthan
(2
Ki. 6
13ff
-,
Jth. 3
9
4
6
y
18
)
is the modern Tell
Dothan,
near
Genm,
about
15
miles N of Shechem. Some
local
legend may
have connected it with the
history
of
Joseph.
15-n
Would be a
sufficiently
natural continuation of
14b
(J),
and Gu. s
conjecture (above)
establishes no
presumption
to the
contrary. They
may,
however,
be from E : in this case it is
probable
that E did not
mention Shechem at
all,
nor
J
Dothan.
18-30.
The
plot
to murder
Joseph
frustrated
by
Reuben
(E),
or
Judah
(J).
i8a, 19,
20 E
||
i8b
J.
Common to both sources is the
proposal
to kill
Joseph ;
E
develops
it most
fully, revealing
the motive of the crime and
cation,
but a
variant,
of
13a
, continuing
13b
.
14b
obviously
follows
13a
. 12.
h^]
with
puncta
extraordinaria,
because for some reason the text was
suspected. 14. pnan
pnyo
(23*-
19
)]
The words
mig-ht
be a
gloss
based on
P
(35
27
49
29ff*
5O
13
)
;
but
Steuernagel
s
proposal
to remove them
(Eimv. 36)
takes too little account of the
fragmentariness
of
J
s narrative in ch.
35
;
and Gu. s
argument
that the
journey
was too
long
for a
young
lad is
weak.
17.
Tiycfc
1
]
-ux(Sr
D
nyDi?.
na
m,
jm]
The form with is the older
(cf. Eg. Tu-ti-y-na,
Miiller, AE,
88),
the other an accommodation to a
common nominal termination. The
ending p
is not
dual,
but an old
(Aram. ?)
locative
corresponding
to Heb.
3]
(see pp. 342
f.
; Earth,
NB, sio
8
;
G-K.
88c).
l8a and l8ba are
obviously
doublets
;
the
analysis adopted
above
efives
the
simplest arrangement. i733rn]
acted
craftily, only
found
in
late
writings (Nu. 25
18
,
Mai. i
14
,
Ps.
los^f),
but the
,J
occurs in Aram.
xxxvii.
14-25
447
the device
by
which it was to be concealed.
19. yon
master-
dreamer}
a
mocking epithet
;
cf.
20b
. 20. and throw him
(his
dead
body)
into one
of
the
pits\
The idea would suit either
narrative
;
and we cannot be sure that the indefinite one
of the
pits
does not come from
J (see
22
).
21
J
||
22 E. In
21
we must read.
Judah
for Reuben. and delivered him out
of
their
hand\
is
premature (v.
23
)
: the clause
might
stand
more
naturally
in
J
between
23
and
25
,
though
the rest of the
v. must be left where it is
(so Gu.).
we will not kill
him
outright]
Judah
has as
yet
no
counter-proposal.
22.
Reuben,
on the other
hand,
has his scheme
ready
: he
appeals
to the
antique
horror of shed
blood,
which cries for
vengeance
on the murderer
(4
11
).
this
pit]
a
particular
cistern
which Reuben knew to be
empty
of water
(
24b
).
It is
prob
able that one of the numerous
pits
round Dothan was tradi
tionally
associated with the fate of
Joseph
(Gu.)
: cf. the
Khan Gubb
Yusuf
near
Safed,
incorrectly
identified with the
Dothan cistern
(BR,
ii.
418 ). 24 (E). 25-27,
28a
(J).
The fate of
Joseph
is
apparently
still
undecided,
when
Judah
makes an
appeal
to the
cupidity
of his brothers
(what profit,
etc.
"\ by proposing
to sell him to some
passing
Ishmaelites.
25.
a caravan . . .
from Gilead\
The
plain
of Dothan is
traversed
by
a
regular
trade route from Gilead
through
Beisan
to
Ramleh,
and thence
(by
the
coast)
to
Egypt (Buhl,
GP,
127).
Shechem also lies on several routes from the E of the
Jordan
to the coast. The natural
products
mentioned
(v.i.)
were much in
request
in
Egypt
for
embalming,
as well as
and Ass. On the
accus.,
see G-K.
117
w.
19.
niD^nn
"?in]
The render
ing-
above is a little too
strong ;
for the use of
^yu
as n. of
relation,
see
BDB,
1270.
21. B SJ
waa]
Second ace. of
respect,
G-K.
117/7.
22.
run
Torr^x]
(J
e/s Zva TWV \&KKuv
t
a false assimilation to v.
20
.
23.
irunrnN]
(Sr om. It is
impossible
to
say
whether this and the
following
appositional phrase
are variants from E and
J respectively,
or whether
the second is a
(correct) gloss
on
J.
U combines both in the
rendering
tunica talari et
polymita. 25.
Dn r^DN
1
? i3B
l
i] Assigned by many
critics
(Di. al.)
to
E,
and
certainly
not
necessary
in
J.
But we still miss a
statement in E that the brothers had moved
away
from the
pit.
noj
(43
11
f)] supposed
to be
gum-tragacanth ;
Ar. nakaat,
""![ ]
n
^]
the
resinous
gum
for which Gilead was famous
(43
n
, Jer.
8
2a
46** 5i
8
,
Ezk.
27
17
f) ; possibly
that exuded
by
the mastic-tree
;
but see
EJ3,
465
f.
448
JOSEPH
BROUGHT TO EGYPT
for medicinal and other
purposes.
26. cover his
blood]
Ezk.
24
7
,
Is. 26
21
,
Jb.
i6
18
. 28.
twenty (shekels) of silver]
cf. Lv.
27
5
with Ex. 2i
32
(see Dri.).
28aab,
2p, 30
(E). Joseph
is
kidnapped by trading
Midianites,
who
pass
unobserved after
the brothers have left the
spot. 30. Only
now does Reuben
reveal his secret
design
of
delivering Joseph.
It is interest
ing
to note his own later confusion of the intention with the
act,
in
42
22
.
That the last section is from another source than
25 27
appears
from
(a)
the different
designation
of the
merchants,
(b)
the absence of the art.
showing-
that
they
have not been mentioned
before,
(c)
Reuben s
surprise
at
finding-
the
pit empty.
The
composite
narrative
requires
us to
assume that the brethren are the
subj.
of
i^jn
OtfD
i,
against
the natural
construction of the sentence.
31-36.
The
deceiving
of
Jacob. 31, 32.
Gu. remarks
that the
sending
of a
bloody
token is a favourite motive in
popular
tales. Whether the incident is
peculiar
to
J,
or
common to
J
and
E,
can
hardly
be determined
(v.i.)
33.
an
evil beast has devoured
him] Exactly
as v.
20
(E).
A
slight
change
of text in
32
(v.i.)
would enable us to take the words
as
spoken by
the sons to
Jacob (so Gu.). 34, 35.
The
grief
of
Jacob
is
depicted
in both
sources,
but with a difference.
E
(
34a< 35b
) hardly goes beyond
the conventional
signs
of
mourning
*
the
trappings
and the suits of woe
;
but
J
(
34b- 35a
)
dwells on the inconsolable and
life-long
sorrow of
B
4
?
(43
11
f)]
Gk.
\rjdai>ov,
Lat.
ladanum,
the
gum
of a
species
of cistus-
rose
(EB, 2692 f.).
Mentioned
amongst objects
of
Syrian
tribute
(ladunu)
by Tiglath-pileser
iv.
(KAT\ 151). 27.
D
WDB^]
ffi + nWr. The word
is
apparently
used in the
general
sense of
Bedouin,
as
Ju.
8
24
(cf.
6
1
etc.)
: see on i6
12
.
uiBaJ
joidfcJSU
prefix
i. 28b is
assigned
to E
because of
i*r:ri, J using
TTin in this connexion
(
M
39
1
43" etc.). 29. p]
<
oux Qf4-
31.
The reason for
assigning
the v. to
J (Gu.)
is the
precarious
as
sumption
that
Joseph
s coat
plays
no
part
at all in E. There is a
good
deal to be said for the view that it
belongs
to E
(Di.
Ho.
al.). 32. wai]
Gu. IN
UO,
and
they
came
(see
on
33
above),
which would be an excellent
continuation of
31
: in E
they dip
the coat in
blood,
come to their
father,
and
say
an evil
beast,
etc.
;
in
J they
send the coat
unstained,
and let
Jacob
form his own conclusion. In
any
case iai iN :n is E s
parallel
to
J
s
mi inVisn. KriDn
(cf. 38
25
),
and the
disjunctive question (cf.
i8
21
24
21
) point
distinctly
to
J (Di.). ronap]
G-K. 100 /.
33.
After
33,
JUA&& ins. K n.
xxxvu.
26-36
449
the bereaved father. This strain of
pathos
and
subjectivity
is
very
marked in
J
in the
Joseph
narratives. rent his
clothes . . .
put
on
sackcloth\
On these
customs,
the
origin
of which is still
obscure,
see Schw. Leben n. d.
Tode,
1 1 ff.
;
Griineisen, Ahnencultus,
6 1 ff.
;
Engert,
Ehe- u.
Familienrecht,
96
ff.
34b.
^?xnn,
chiefly
used in reference to the
dead,
in
cludes the outward tokens of
mourning
: Ex.
33*,
2 Sa.
i4
2
;
cf. Is. 6i
3
,
Ps.
35
14
.
35-
all his
daughters}
There was
really
only
one
daughter
in the
family.
A similar indifference to
the
prevalent
tradition in details is seen in the
disparity
of
age
between
Joseph
and his brothers
(v.
3
),
and the
assump
tion that Rachel was still alive
(
10
). go
down . . . as a
mourner]
Jacob
will wear the mourner s
garb
till his
death,
so that in the underworld his son
may
know how
deep
his
grief
had been
(Gu.).
The shade was believed to
appear
in
Sheol in the condition in which it left the world
(Schw. 63 f.).
36
(E) resuming
28b
.
See, further,
on
3Q
1
.
CH. XXXVIII.
Judah
and Tamar
(J).
Judah, separating
himself from his
brethren,
marries a
Canaanitish
wife,
who bears to him three
sons, Er,
Onan
and Shelah
(
1-5
).
Er and Onan become in succession
the husbands of Tamar
(under
the levirate
law),
and die
without issue
;
and
Judah
orders Tamar to remain a widow
in her father s house till Shelah should reach manhood
(
6
~
n
).
Finding
herself
deceived,
Tamar resorts to a
desperate
stratagem, by
which she
procures offspring
from
Judah
himself
(
12
~
26
).
With the birth of her twin
sons,
Perez and
Zerah,
the narrative closes
(
27
-
30
).
The
story
rests on a substratum of tribal
history, being"
in the main a
legendary
account of the
origin
of the
principal
clans of
Judah.
To this
historical nucleus we
may
reckon such facts as these : the isolation of
Judah
from the rest of the tribes
(see
on v.
1
)
;
the mixed
origin
of its
leading-
families
;
the extinction of the two oldest clans Er and Onan
;
the
rivalry
of the
younger
branches,
Perez and
Zerah,
ending-
in the
*pb rpip]
cf.
44
M
. On inf. abs.
Qal
used with
Pu.,
see G-K.
11371-.
35.
ICI,TI]
&
<rvi>T)x6 n<rw W,
adding
/cai
^\Bov
before mm
1
?.
36. ovnom]
Rd.
with all Vns. D :nom as v.
28
.
29
450
JUDAH
AND TAMAR
(j)
supremacy
of the former
;
and
(possibly)
the
superiority
of these two
(as
sons of
Judah)
to the more ancient Shelah
(his grandson).
See Steuer-
nagel,
Eimv.
79
f.
; where, however,
the
ethnological explanation
is
carried further than is reasonable. It is obvious that the
legend belongs
to a
cycle
of tradition
quite independent
of the
story
of
Joseph.
The
latter knows of no
separation
of
Judah
from his
brethren,
and this record
leaves no room for a reunion.
Although P,
who had both before
him,
represents Judah
and his sons as afterwards
accompanying Jacob
to
Egypt (46
12
),
there can be no doubt that the intention of this
passage
is
to relate the
permanent
settlement of
Judah
in Palestine. Where
precisely
the break with the
prevalent
tradition
occurs,
we cannot
certainly
determine. It is
possible
that the
figure
of
Judah
here is
simply
a
personification
of the
tribe,
which has never been
brought
into
connexion with the
family history
of
Jacob
: in this case the events
reflected
may
be
assigned
to the
period subsequent
to the Exodus. It
seems a more natural
supposition, however,
that the
legend ignores
the
Exodus
altogether,
and
belongs
to a stratum of tradition in which the
occupation
of Canaan is traced back to
Jacob
and his immediate descend
ants
(see pp. 418, 507).
On some touches of
mythological colouring
in
the
story
of
Tamar,
see
below,
pp. 452, 454.
Source. The
chapter
is a
pure specimen
of Yahwistic
narration,
free
from redactional
manipulation.
The
following
characteristics of
J
may
be noted :
mrr,
7- 10
; rjn
jn,
7- 10
; xrnan,
16
; xnan,
2
(37^)
;
p-^jra,
26
;
yr,
26
; further,
the
naming
of the children
by
the
mother,
3
"
5
;
and the
resemblance of
27fp
to
25
m
. Since the
sequence
of
39
1
on
37^
would be
harsh,
it is
probable
that ch.
38
was inserted here
by
RJ
E
(Ho.).
1-5. Judah
founds a
separate family
at Adullam. i.
went down
from
his
brethren]
Since the
chapter
has no con
nexion with the
history
of
Joseph,
we cannot tell when or
where the
separation
is conceived to have taken
place.
From
the situation of
Adulla^n,
it is clear that some
place
in the
central
highlands
is indicated. Adullam is
possibly
*Id el-
Mlye (or
*Aid
el-Ma),
on the border of the
Shephelah,
12 m.
SW of Bethlehem and
7
NE of
Eleutheropolis (Buhl,
GP,
193
; Smith, HG,
229).
It is marked on the Pal. Surv.
map
as
1150
ft. above sea-level.
The isolation of the tribe of
Judah
was a fact of
capital importance
in the
early history
of Israel. The
separation
is described in
Ju.
i
3fn
;
in the
song
of Deborah
(Ju. 5) Judah
is not mentioned either for
praise
or blame
;
and his reunion with Israel is
prayed
for in Dt.
33
. The
rupture
of the Davidic
kingdom,
and the
permanent cleavage
between
south and
north,
are
perhaps
in
part
a
consequence
of the
stronger
I.
B
i]
ffi
d(f)iKTo
: the
precise
force here of
ntjj,
turn
aside,
is doubt
ful. The
change
of
iy to *?
(Ba.)
is
unnecessary (cf.
i Sa.
9
9
).
xxxvm. i-io
451
infusion of
foreign
blood in the southern tribe. The verse
sug-gests
that the first
Judahite
settlement was at
Adullam,
where the tribe
gained
a
footing by
alliance with a native clan named Hirah
;
but
Mey. (INS,
435 f.)
thinks it
presupposes
a
previous occupation
of the
region
round
Bethlehem,
and deals
merely
with an extension towards the
Shephelah.
It is
certainly
difficult otherwise to account for the verb TV
(ct. S^M, Ju.
i
4
);
but were
Judah
s brethren ever settled at Bethlehem? Gu. s
emendation, inn,
freed himself
(see
on
27*
;
cf. Hos. I2
1
),
would relieve
the
difficulty,
but is too bold for a
plain prose
narrative.
2. A more
permanent amalgamation
with the Canaanites
is
represented by Judah
s
marriage
with Bath-Shua or Bath-
Sheva
(See
on v.
12
).
The freedom with which connubium
with the Canaanites is
acknowledged (ct. 34. 24
3
) may
be a
proof
of the
antiquity
of the source
(Ho. Gu.). 5^-
^n
Keztb^
etc.\
It is
plausibly
inferred that KezJb
(=
Akzib,
an un
known
locality
in the
Shephelah, Jos. is
44
,
Mic. i
14
)
was the
centre of the clan of Shelah
;
though
(&
makes all three
births
happen
there.
6-1 1. Tamar s
wrong.
6.
Tamar>
the Heb. word for
date-palm,
occurs twice as a female name in David s
family
(2
Sa.
I3
1
i4
27
).
There is therefore little
probability
that it
is here a
personification
of the
city
of the same name on the
S border of Palestine
(Ezk. 47) (so Steuernagel).
A
mytho
logical origin
is
suggested
on
p. 452
below. As head of the
family, Judah
chooses a wife for his first-born
(24
3
34
4
2i
21
),
as he is also
responsible
for the
carrying
out of the levirate
obligation (
8- n
). 7-
No crime is
alleged against
*Er,
whose
untimely
death was
probably
the
only
evidence of Yahwe s
displeasure
with him
(Pr.
io
27
).
8-10.
Onan,
on the other
hand,
is slain because of the
revolting
manner in which he
2.
toy*]
(
acipi.
See on v.
12
.
3. JO,TI]
Better as vv.
4- 5
topm
(.uxCJ
Heb.
MSS). 5.
nW]
<&
STjXuy* ;
comp.
the
gentilic $#,
Nu. 26
20
.
.vni]
is
impossible,
and JULX .TI little better. Rd. with (Sr torn.
:rt:a]
JUUL
.-aim,
cf.
N}TJ>,
i Ch.
4
22
.
irw]
(5r
apx.
Nothing-
can be made of the
strange
renderings
of
5b
in
S>
and
U
:
m/
,\ ^
ZoOl
Aomg^n
;
quo
nato
parere
ultra cessavit
(cf. 29" 3O
9
). 7.
m,T
2
]
<&
6 0e6s. 8.
03:]
Dt.
25
- 7
f ;
denom. from
D};,
the term, techn. for husband s brother in relation to
the levirate institution.
9.
DN
rrm]
as often as
;
G-K.
159
o. nn?>
(sc. semen)]
in the sense of
spoil,
make ineffective
(BDB). jnj
for
nn] only again
Nu. 2O
31
;
comp. TfSq,
Ex.
3,
Nu. 22
13- 14- 18
. xo. nvy
IB
K]
(5,
pr.
45
2
JUDAH
AND TAMAR
(j)
persistently
evaded the sacred
duty
of
raising up
seed to his
brother. It is not correct to
say (with Gu.)
that his
only
offence was his selfish
disregard
of his deceased brother s
interests. II.
Judah
sends Tamar home to her
family,
on
the
pretext
that his third son Shelah is too
young
to
marry
her. His real motive is fear lest his
only surviving
son
should share the fate of
f
Er and
Onan,
which he
plainly
attributes in some
way
to Tamar herself. in
thy
father
s
house] according
to the law for a childless widow
(Lv.
22
13
,
Ru. i
8
).
The custom of levirate
marriage
here
presupposed prevailed widely
in
primitive
times,
and is still observed in
many parts
of the world. In
its Hebrew form it does not
appear
to have
implied
more than the
duty
of a
surviving-
brother to
procure
male issue for the oldest member of a
family,
when he dies childless : the first-born son ot the union is counted
the
son,
and is the
heir,
to the deceased
;
and
although
in Dt.
25
5ff-
the
widow is said to become the wife of her
brother-in-law,
it
may
be
questioned
if in
early
times the union was more than
temporary.
It is
most
naturally explained
as a
survival,
under
patriarchal conditions,
of
some kind of
polyandry,
in which the wife was the common
property
of the
kin-group (Smith, KM^, i46ff.);
and it
naturally
tended to be
relaxed with the advance of civilisation. Hence the law of Dt.
25
5 10
is
essentially
a concession to the
prevalent
reluctance to
comply
with the
custom. This is also illustrated
by
the conduct of Onan : the
sanctity
of the
obligation
is so
strong
that he does not dare
openly
to
defy
it
;
yet
his
private family
interest induces him to defeat its
purpose.
It is
noteworthy
that the
only
other historical
example
of the law the
analogous though
not identical case of Boaz and Ruth also reveals the
tendency
to
escape
its
operation.
See Dri. Deut. 280 ff.
(with
the
authorities there
cited)
;
also
Engert,
Ehe- und
Familienrecht,
15
ff.
;
Barton,
SO
1
,
66 ff.
Judah
s belief that Tamar was the cause of the deaths of Er and
Onan
(v.s.) may spring
from an older form of the
legend,
in which she
was
actually
credited with
death-dealing power.
Stucken and
Je.
recognise
in this a common
mythical motive,
the
goddess
who
slays
her
lovers,
and
point
to the
parallel
case of Sara in the Book of Tobit
(3
8
).
Tamar and Sara
($arratu,
a title of
Itar)
were
originally
forms of
Istar
(ATLO
2
, 381 f.).
The connexion is
possible
;
and if there be
any
truth in Barton s
speculation
that the
date-palm
was sacred to I Star
(SO
1
,
92, 98, io2ff.),
it
might
furnish an
explanation
of the name Tamar.
12-19.
Tamar s
daring stratagem.
12.
Bath-Skua]
See the footnote. was
comforted]
a conventional
phrase
for
II.
atf, 3^51]
Ba. al.
propose
?3>, n^rn,
after Lv. 22
13
;
but see Is.
47*.
12.
jt
iB
Tia]
Apparently
a
compound proper
name,
as in i Ch. 2
3
=
xxxvin. ii-i8
453
the effect of the
mourning ceremonies;
see
Jer.
i6
7
. The
death of
Judah
s wife is mentioned as a
palliation
of his
subsequent
behaviour: "even in
early
times it was con
sidered not
quite
comme il
faut
for a married man to have
intercourse with harlots"
(Gu.).
On the
sheep-shearing,
see
^i^.Hirah
his
associate} (see
v.
1
)
is mentioned here because
of the
part
he has to
play
in the
story (vv.
20
~
23
).
ivent
up
. . .
to
Timnah\
This cannot be the Danite Timnah
(Jos. I5
10
ig
43
,
Ju. I4
1- 2- 5
),
which lies lower than Adullam. Another Timnah
S of Hebron
(Jos.
i5
57
),
but
unidentified,
might
be
meant;
or it
may
be the modern
Tibne,
W of
Bethlehem,
though
this is
only 4
m. from
Adullam,
and room has to be found
for Enaim between them
(but
v.i. on v.
14
). 14.
her widow s
garments}
Cf.
Jth.
8
5
io
3
i6
8
. She assumes the
garb
of a
common
prostitute,
and
sits,
covered
by
the veil
(see
below
on v.
21
), by
the
wayside;
cf.
Jer. 3
2
,
Ezk. i6
25
,
Ep. Jer. 43.
15. for
she had covered her
face\
This
explains,
not
Judah
s
failure to
recognise her,
but his
mistaking
her for a harlot
(see
v.
16
). 17.
a kid
of
the
goat
s\
Cf.
Ju. I5
1
. The
present
of a kid on these occasions
may
be due to the fact that
(as
in
classical
antiquity)
the
goat
was sacred to the
goddess
of
love
(Paus.
vi.
25.
2
[with
Frazer s
Note,
vol. iv.
106]
;
cf.
Tac. Hist.
2,
3,
and
Lucian,
Dial, meretr.
7. i) (Kn-Di.).
18. The master-stroke of Tamar s
plot
is the
securing
of
a
pledge
which rendered the identification of the owner
(cf.
i Ch.
3
5
with 2 Sa. n
3
etc.), through
an intermediate
jn.yvo.
ffi,
both here and v.
2
(but
not i Ch. 2
3
), gives
yitf
as the name of
Judah
s
wife. my-i]
(SrU iny n,
his
shepherd, wrongly. 13. en]
husband s
father,
i Sa.
4
19- 21
f.
Smith
(KM
1
,
161
f.)
finds in the Arabic
usage
a
distinct trace of
baal-polyandry
;
the correlative is
kanna,
"which
usually
means the wife of a son or
brother,
but in the Hamasa is used
. . . to
designate
one s own wife."
14.
D?J?II]
so Dt. 22
12
, Jon. 3".
Read
either
D$, Niph. (Gu.),
or
D3nni,
Hithp.,
with jot
(as 24
65
).
D<ry
nnsn]
,?
|A>j5O|
A ^ \ c^
O,
U
in bivio
itineris,
and 5EJ
take the
meaning-
to
be at the cross-roads
(of
which there are several on the short
way
from Aid el- Ma to
Tibne).
The sense is
good,
and it is
tempting
to
think that these Vns are on the
right
track,
though
their
rendering
has
no
support
in Heb.
usage.
If D J
y be a
proper
name it
may
be identical
with the unknown
Dry
of
Jos. I5
34
,
in the
Shephelah.
i
1
? n:ru N
1
?
Kim]
(JJr
h
1
?
run}
N
1
?
Kin],
better.
15 end]
ffi +
KQ.\ OVK
eir^yvia o.vT-f)v
454 JUDAH
AND TAMAR
(j)
absolutely
certain.
Seal, cord,
and
staff
must have been the
insignia
of a man of rank
amongst
the
Israelites,
as seal and
staff were
among
the
Babylonians (Herod,
i.
195)
*
and
Egyptians (Erman, LAE,
228
f.).
The cord
may
have been
used to
suspend
the
seal,
as
amongst
modern town Arabs
(Robinson,
BR,
i.
36),
or
may
have had
magical properties
like those
occasionally
worn
by
Arab men
(We.
Heid.
166).
For illustrations of ancient Hebrew
seals,
see
Benzinger,
Arch.
2-
82,
179
f.,
228 ff.
20-23. Judah
fails to recover his
pledge.
20. It is
significant
that
Judah employs
his
fidus
Achates Hirah in
this discreditable
affair,
and will rather lose his
seal, etc.,
than run the risk of
publicity (v.
23
).
21. Where is that
Kedeshah?\
strictly
sacred
prostitute,
one dedicated for
this
purpose
to
Istar-Astarte,
or some other
deity (Dt. 23
18
,
Hos.
4
14
f).
This is the
only place
where
ne>np appears
to be used of an
ordinary
harlot
;
and Luther
(INS, 180) points
out that it is confined to the con
versation of Hirah with the
natives,
the writer
using
ruii. The code of
Hammurabi
( no)
seems to
contemplate
the case of a
temple-votary
(kadistu,
KAT
A
,
423
; ATLO*, 380) separating
herself for
private prosti
tution
;
and it is
possible
that this custom was familiar to the
Canaanites,
though
not in Israel. That the harlot s veil
(vv.
14- 19
)
was a
symbol
of
dedication to IStar the veiled
goddess (KA7*t 276, 432
;
ATLO
2
, 109)
is
possible, though
it is
perhaps
more natural to
suppose
that the
veiling
of IStar is an idealisation of the
veiling
of her
votaries,
which rests on a
primitive
sexual taboo
(cf.
the bridal veil
24
65
).
24-26.
The vindication of Tamar.
24.
As the widow
of
Er,
or the betrothed of
Shelah,
Tamar is
guilty
of
adultery,
and it falls to
Judah
as head of the
family
to
bring
her to
justice.
Lead her
oui\
a forensic
term,
Dt. 22
21- 24
. let her
be
bumt\
Death
by burning
is the
punishment imposed
in
Hammurabi,
157,
for incest with a
mother,
and was doubt-
21.
nopo]
juxdlrS
DipDn (v.
22
).
If this
reading
be
accepted,
there is no
reason to hold that D
ry
(if
a
place-name
at
all)
was Tamar s native
village. Kin]
jot K nn
;
but see
ig
33
etc.
24. E^DD]
juu. more
correctly
i.-r)iJ.tvov 7) /j.ri\ov r) poSov r) KpLvov 7}
cuerds
rj
&\\o TV &vev
yap tiri<rr}jjiou
ou
<r<t>i va^os
&rrt
?x
etj/
ffK-fjirrpof. Similarly Strabo,
XVI. i. 20.
xxxvin.
19-28
455
less the common
punishment
for
adultery
on the
part
of a
woman in ancient Israel. In later times the milder
penalty
of
stoning
was substituted
(Lv.
2O
10
,
Dt. 22
23ff>
,
Ezk. i6
40
,
Jn.
8
5
),
the more cruel death
being
reserved for the
prostitu
tion of a
priest
s
daughter (Lv.
2i
9
;
cf. Hamm.
no). 25.
By waiting
till the last
moment,
Tamar makes her
justifica
tion as
public
and
dramatically complete
as
possible.
Ad
dressing
the crowd she
says,
To the man who owns these
things,
etc.
;
to
Judah
himself she
flings
out the
challenge,
Recognise
to whom this
seal, etc.,
belong!
26. She is in the
right
as
against
me
(G-K. 133
3
;
cf.
Jb. 4
17
32
2
)]
i.e.,
her
conduct is
justified by
the
graver wrong
done to her
by
Judah.
To
suppose
that incidents like that recorded in
I2
"
26
were of
frequent
occurrence in ancient
Israel,
or that it was the
duty
of the father-in-law
under
any
circumstances to
marry
his son s
widow,
is to miss
entirely
the
point
of the narrative. On the
contrary,
as Gu. well shows
(365 f.),
it is
just
the
exceptional
nature of the circumstances that
explains
the
writer s obvious admiration for Tamar s heroic conduct.
"
Tamar shows
her fortitude
by
her
disregard
of conventional
prejudice,
and her deter
mination
by any
means in her
power
to secure her
wifely rights
within
her husband s
family.
To obtain this
right
the
intrepid
woman dares
the utmost that
womanly
honour could
endure,
stoops
to the level of
an unfortunate
girl,
and does that which in
ordinary
cases would lead to
the most cruel and shameful
death,
bravely risking
honour and life on
the issue. At the same
time,
like a true mother in
Judah,
she
manages
her
part
so
cleverly
that the
dangerous path
conducts her to a
happy
goal."
It follows that the
episode
is not meant to reflect discredit on
the tribe of
Judah.
It
presents Judah
s behaviour in as favourable a
light
as
possible, suggesting extenuating
circumstances for what could
not be
altogether
excused
;
and
regards
that of Tamar as a
glory
to
the tribe
(ef.
Ru.
4
12
).
27-30.
Birth of Perez and Zerah.
The
story closely
resembles that of Rebekah in 2
^~
ZQ
(38
27b
=
25
24b
),
and is
probably
a variation of the same
originally mythical
theme
(see p, 359).
28. The scarlet thread
probably represents
some feature of the
original myth (note
that in
25
25
the first
25.
On
the
syntax,
see G-K.
n6u, v, 142
e\
Dri. T. 166 ff.
TN^]
st. constr. with cl. as
gen.
;
Ho. al.
point
B"K^>. nDnnn]
fern,
only
here.
D^nsn]
uj.& F^C
S nsn
(as
v.
18
).
26.
p-Vjrul
see on i8
8
.
2&.
sc
IP
5
?
(G-K. 144 e}
; (& + 6
eft.
456 JOSEPH
S TEMPTATION
(j)
came out red
}.
The forced
etymology
of Zerah
(v.
30
)
could
not have
suggested
it.
29.
What a breach hast thou made
for thyself
f\
The name Perez
expresses
the violence with
which he secured the
priority. 30.
Zerah~\
An Edomite
clan in
36
13- 33
. On the
etymology,
v.t.
To the name
Perez, Cheyne (TBI, 357) aptly compares
Plutarch s
account of the birth of
Typhon,
brother of Osiris :
"
neither in due
time,
nor in the
rig-ht place,
but
breaking through
with a
blow,
he
leaped
out
through
his mother s side"
(de
Isid. et Os. c.
12).
The
ascendancy
of
the Perez clan has been
explained by
the
incorporation
of the
powerful
families of Caleb and
Jerahmeel,
i Ch. 2
6- 9
(so
Sta.
GVI,
i.
158 f.);
but
a more obvious reason is the fact that David s
ancestry
was traced to
this branch
(Ru. 4
18 22
).
CH. XXXIX.
-Joseph
is cast into Prison
(J).
Joseph
is sold
by
the Ishmaelites
(37
28> 36
)
to an
Egyptian
householder,
who finds him so
capable
and successful that ere
long
he entrusts him with the whole administration of his
estate
f
1
"
6
).
But his master s wife conceives a
guilty passion
for
him,
and when her advances are
repelled, falsely
accuses
him of
attempted outrage,
with the result that he is thrown
into
prison
(
7
"
2
).
Here
again
he wins the favour of his
superior,
and is soon
charged
with the
oversight
of the
prison f
21 23
).
Source. With the
exception
of a
harmonising- gloss
in
lb
,
and a
sprinkling-
of E variants
(discussed
in the
notes),
the whole
passage
is
from
J.
It
represents
the chief
divergence
between the two recensions
of the
history
of
Joseph.
In
J, Joseph
is first sold to a
private Egyptian
(nso
B",
v.
1
),
then cast into the state
prison
in the
way
here
narrated,
where he
gains
the confidence of the
(unnamed) governor,
so that when
the butler and baker are sent thither
they naturally
fall under his
29.
3TP?
rri]
An
ungrammatical
use of the
ptcp.
Rd. with Ball
3
tfn io?
\n
(cf. 19"). pa nna] cogn.
ace. The
rendering
as a
question
(no
=
<
why
>
: De. Di.
Dri.)
is less natural than that
given above;
and
to detach
ps
y^y
[JUA
u
1
?;;]
as a
separate
exclamation
(
A breach
upon
thee !
)
is worse. (&
(rl 816*671-77
5id <re
0pa7/x6s ;)
U<&
take the vb. in a
pass,
sense.
Nip i]
JUA
<&EJ
Nipm (sov.
30
). 30. nij]
as a Heb. word would
mean
rising
1
(of
the
sun,
Is 6o
3
)
or autochthonous
(
=
ni|N).
A con
nexion with the idea of redness is difficult to establish. It is com
monly supposed
that there is a
play
on the Aram. Nfvim
(which
is used
here
by S(2T,
and is the
equivalent
of Heb.
J#),
and Bab.
zafyuritu (so
De. Dri. Gu.
al.)
;
but this is not
convincing.
XXXVIIT.
29-xxxix. 4
457
charge.
In
E,
Joseph
is sold at once to
Potiphar (37
36
),
the
palace
officer
in whose house the butler and baker are afterwards confined
(4O
3a
)
;
and
Joseph,
without
being-
himself a
prisoner,
is told off to wait on these
eminent
persons (4O
4
).
The
imprisonment, therefore,
is
indispensable
in
J,
and at least
embarrassing-
in E. This conclusion is
partly
confirmed
by
the
literary phenomena
:
JUT,
2> 3> 5
;
the
Ishmaelites,
l
;
mm,
l
; rr^rr,
8t 2s
;
jn
NSD,
4
; ^jn,
8
. It is somewhat
disconcerting-
to find that none
of these occur in the central
section,
7 20
;
and
(We. Comfi.
2
56) positively
assigns
6 19
to
E,
because of the
phrases
HNID nsn IND
ns\
6b
(cf. 29
17
) ;
m
n Qnann
N,
7
(cf. is
1
22
20
40
1
48
1
)
; ixn,
14
;
and DM
1
?*
1
?,
9
. These are not
decisive
(see
Di.
403
;
Ho.
231),
and on the whole the material
argument
must be held to
outweig-h
the dubious
linguistic
evidence that can be
adduced on the other side. Procksch
(42 f.) assigns
7 10
to E and
11 23
to
J ;
but
nothing
is
gained by
the division.
1-6.
Joseph
becomes the controller of an
Egyptian
estate. I. But
Joseph
had been taken
down,
etc.}
while his
father was
mourning
over him as one dead
(37
31ff
-)
;
the
notice resumes
37
28a
. a certain
Egyptian}
who is nameless
in
J (v.i.}.
2. The secret of
Joseph
s success : a combination
of
ability
with
personal
charm which marked him out as a
favourite of Yahwe
(cf.
3- 5> 2L 23
).
remained in the
house,
etc.}
under his master s
observation,
instead of
being-
sent to
work in the field.
4a.
served
hini\
i.e.,
became his
personal
I. The words Q naan TD BIB are a
repetition by
RJ
E
from
37
36
(E),
in
order to harmonise the two sources. But the contradiction
appears
(i)
in the
meaningless
"ixD &"N after the
specific designation (this
is not
to be
got
rid of
by
Ebers s observation that under a
Hyksos dynasty
a
high
official was not
necessarily
a native
Egyptian),
and
(2)
the
improbability
of a eunuch
being
married
(though
cases of this kind are
known
[Ebers, 299]).
ns
eis]
<&
nere^/n/fs],
an exact
transcription
of
Eg. Pedephre=
He whom the
sun-god gives (see
DB,
i.
665b ; EB,
3814) ;
but the
long
o of the Heb. has not been
explained.
Cf.
Heyes,
105-112. ono]
means eunuch in NH. Aram. Arab,
(as
is shown
by
the
denom. vbs.
=
be
impotent ),
and there is no case in OT where the
strict sense is
inapplicable (Ges.
Th.
973 b).
That such a word should
be extended to mean courtier in
general
is more
intelligible
than
the reverse
process (so Heyes, 122),
in
spite
of the
opinion
of several
Assyriologists
who derive it from $a rest he who is the head
(Zimmern,
ZDMG,
liii.
116;
KAT
A
,
649).
Q natsn
it?]
<
dpxindyetpot,
a title like ir
D
ptfDn
and D Sinn v in ch.
40 (E).
Cf. on
an,
2 Ki.
25
8ff
-, Jer. 39
9ff-
4o
lff-
etc.,
Dn. 2
14
. The D nats w
r
ere
apparently
the
royal
cooks or
butchers
(i
Sa.
9
23f
-),
who had come to be the
bodyguard (Smith, OTJC
2
,
262
).
2. ivSxo
B"]
The intrans.
Hiph.
is
thought by
Di. Gu. al. to be incon
sistent with
J
s
usage (vv.
3- 23
24
21
) ;
therefore
.4.
vrpa]
.uxdKF rya
niK.
i rtr
J
7:n]
juu. inserts
n^N as y.
8 ** 8
.
4a
is
wholly assigned
to E
by
45
8
JOSEPH
S TEMPTATION
(j)
attendant. The
phrase
is a variant from E
(cf.
40*). 4b.
In
J, Joseph
s
position
is far
higher, that,
namely,
of
mer-per
(mer-pa
y
mer en
peri-t, etc.},
or
superintendent
of the house
hold,
frequently
mentioned in the
inscriptions
(Ebers, Aeg.
303
ff.
; Erman, LAE>
187 f.).
6a. knew not with
him} (i.e.
with
Joseph
[v.
8
])
: held no
reckoning
with him
;
a
hyperbolical expression
for absolute confidence. 6b is intro
ductory
to
7ff
-.
7-20. Joseph tempted by
his master s wife.
7-10.
The first
temptation.
The solicitation of a
young
man
by
a married woman is a
frequent
theme of
warning
in Pr.
1-9. pa.
13p;x
does not mean there is none
(which
would
require j^),
but he is not.
pb.
sin
against
God]
The
name Yahwe is
naturally
avoided in conversation with a
foreigner.
All the more
striking
is the consciousness of
the divine
presence
which to the exiled Israelite is the
ultimate sanction of
morality.
II,
12. The final
tempta
tion. On the freedom of social intercourse between the
sexes,
see
Ebers,
306
f. But the difficulties raised about
Joseph
s access to the harem do not
really
arise,
when we
remember that
J
is
depicting
the life of a
simple Egyptian
family,
and not that of a
high palace
official
(see Tu.).
13-20.
The woman s
revenge. 14.
A covert
appeal
to the
jealousy
of the men-servants
against
the hated
Hebrew,
and
to the fears of the
women,
whom she
represents
as unsafe
from insult
(to
mock
us).
An additional touch of venom
lurks in the
contemptuous
reference to her husband as he.
Hebrew
may
be here a
general designation
of the Asiatic
Gu.
;
but
jn
KJJDI
pleads strongly
for
J.
8.
no]
JUUL ,-TDIKD
(v.
23
). n*33j
ux&SU
W33. 10. rta-K nsjf
1
? and
noy
nvnS look like variants
;
but one
swallow does not make a
summer,
and it would be rash to infer an
Elohistic recension. II. run
ovro]
A
very
obscure
expression,
see BDB
1
,
400
b. Of the other occurrences
(Dt.
6
s4
, Jer. 44
M
,
Ezr.
9
7- 16
,
Neh.
9
10
f)
aU
except
the last are
perfectly transparent
: as
[it is]
this
day,
a sense
quite
unsuitable here. One must
suspect
that the
phrase,
like the kindred
Di
3,
and mn
ovj
(cf. esp.
i Sa. 22
8> 13
),
had
acquired
some elusive idiomatic
meaning-
which we cannot recover. Neither on a certain
day (G-K.
1265)
nor on this
particular day (BDB)
can be
easily justified.
13.
DJM]
MSS juu($r + Njn
(
12- lc
). 14.
a
pn^V]
see on 26
8
.
15. *?*]
Ju*<F
(pallium quod tenebam)
read
V3,
wrongly,
singe to have
said this
xxxix.
4-21
459
Bedouin
(ATLO
2
,
387)
;
but see on
4O
15
.
19.
Her distorted
account of the facts has the desired effect on her husband.
his -wrath was
kindled]
against Joseph,
of course. There
is no hint that he
suspected
his
wife,
and was
angry
with
her also
(De. Di.).
20.
Imprisonment
would
certainly
not
be the usual
punishment
for such a crime as
Joseph
was
believed to have committed
;
but the
sequel
demanded
it,
Joseph
s further career
depending
on his
being lodged
in
the
place
where the
kings prisoners
were bound. That he
became a
king
s slave
(according
to Hamm.
129)
is not
indicated
(against Je.
ATLO
2
,
388).
The term for
prison
(v.i.)
is
peculiar,
and recurs
only
21> 22> 23
4o
3- 5
.
To this
episode
in
Joseph
s life there is an
Egyptian parallel
so
close that we can
hardly
fail to
recognise
in it the
original
of the
Hebrew
story.
It is the Tale of the two brothers in the d
Orbiney
Papyrus, assigned by Egyptologists
to the
igth dynasty.
Two brothers
lived
together,
the older
Anpu having
a house and
wife,
and the
younger
Batu
serving
him in the field. One
day
Batu enters the house to fetch
seed for the
sowing,
and is
tempted by
his brother s
wife,
exactly
as
Joseph
was
by
his mistress.
Furiously indignant
"like a
panther
for
rage
"
he
rejects
her
advances,
out of
loyalty
to the brother who has
been like a father to
him,
and
expresses
horror of the
great
sin
which she had
suggested. Promising silence,
he returns to his brother
in the field. In the
evening Anpu
comes home to find his wife covered
with self-inflicted
wounds,
and listens to a tale which is a
perfect
parallel
to the false accusation
against Joseph. Anpu
seeks to murder
his brother
;
but
being
at last convinced of his
innocence,
he
slays
his
wife instead. Here the human interest of the
story ceases,
the re
mainder
being fairy
lore of the most fantastic
description, containing
at least a reminiscence of the Osiris
myth. (See
Ebers, 311
ff.
; Erman,
LAE, 378
ff.
; Petrie,
Egypt. Tales,
ii.
36
if.
; Volter,
Aeg.
u. die
Bibel,
50
f.
[who
takes the
story
as a whole to be founded on the
myth
of Set and
Osiris].)
It is true that the theme is not
exclusively Egyptian (see
the
numerous
parallels
in
Lang, Myth, Ritual,
and
Religion,
ii.
303 ff.) ;
but
the fact that the scene of the biblical narrative is in
Egypt,
and the
close resemblance to the
Egyptian
tale,
make it
extremely probable
that there is a direct connexion between them.
21-23. Joseph
in
prison.
His
good
fortune and con-
would have been to
betray
herself
(De. Di.). 17 end]
<Er + /caJ elirtv
pot
KotjUT^Tycro/iat yaerci
<rov
[(5r
A
KoifJ-ridrjTi per /J.GV],
18. D lHD
m]
(5 ujs 5
tfKovffev
6n
tfi/
axra.
ori]
<&& + Ksn. 20. nnon n
3J Only
in
2
-
23
^o
3- 5
(J).
The name
may
be
Egyptian (see Ebers, 317
ff.
;
Dri.
DB,
ii.
768
a, n.),
but has not been
satisfactorily explained.
IPN
cips]
G-K.
130
c.
so JJJL
(and
also in v.
22
) ;
but rd. with
Qre
TON
(
22
).
21. wn
jm] (as
460 JOSEPH
IN PRISON
(E)
sequent promotion
are described in terms
nearly
identical
with those of vv.
1
"
6
. In
J,
the
governor
of the
prison
is
anonymous,
and
Joseph
is made
superintendent
of the
other
prisoners.
CH. XL.
Joseph proves
his
Gift of interpreting
Dreams
(E).
Joseph
is
appointed
to wait on two officers of the court
who have been
put
under arrest in his master s house
f
1
"
4
),
and finds them one
morning
troubled
by
dreams for which
they
have no
interpreter (
5
~
8
).
He
interprets
the dreams
(
9
-
19
),
which are
speedily
verified
by
the event
(
2
-
22
).
But
his
eager request
that the chief butler would intercede for
him with Pharaoh
(
14f<
)
remains unheeded
(
23
).
Source. The main
narrative,
as summarised
above,
obviously
be
longs
to E
(see p. 456 f.). Joseph
is not a
prisoner (as
in
J 39
20ff-
)>
but
the servant of the
captain
of the
guard (cf. $f 4i
12
) ;
the officers are
not
strictly imprisoned,
but
merely placed
in ward
(TD&D3)
in
Potiphar
s
house
(
3< 4- 7
)
;
and
Joseph
was stolen from his native land
(
15a
;
cf.
37
28a
),
not sold
by
his brethren as
37
28b
(J). Fragments
of a
parallel
narrative
in
J
can be detected in
la b
(a duplicate
of
2
),
3a
(from
n n
3-^K}
b
(Joseph
a
prisoner),
5b
(the
officers
imprisoned),
and
15b
. In the
phraseology
note
J
s
npsron, n-jxn,
l * 5b
||
E s o
pBO.n it?,
D SNH
v,
2> 9- 16- 20- - 1 -
22. 23 .
J
nnon n
,
3j
3a|3.
5b
||
^Q
VQj
3aa
. 4. 7. .
wnile QTlDBn
1^,
3l 4
,
and D
lD,
" 7
,
connect the main narrative with
37
36
(E).
That in
J
the turn of
Joseph
s
fortune
depended
on the successful
interpretation
of dreams does not
explicitly appear,
but
may
be
presumed
from the fact that he was
afterwards
brought
from the
dungeon
to
interpret
them
(4i
14a
J).
1-8. Pharaoh s officers in
disgrace:
their dreams.
I. the butler . . . the
baker]
J
writes as if the
king
had
only
one servant of each class : his notions of a
royal
establishment are
perhaps simpler
than E s. In
Babylonia
the
highest
and oldest court offices are said to have been
those of the baker and the butler
(ATLO
2
,
54;
cf.
Zimmern,
ZDMG,
liii.
ngf.).
2.
chief of
the butlers . . . bakers
(E)]
Ex.
3
21
ii
3
i2
36
f) gen.
of
obj.
=
favour towards him. 22. Q
tety]
On
omission of
subj.,
see G-K. n6s.
rwy
rrn
in]
<JRA.ai.
Om.
23.
rrn]
(fix
TrdvTa
yap fy
8iCL
x
ei
ph
! n^i
d]
(& + tv rats
x
e
P^
v avrov.
I. nsKm
nj3D]
On the
synt.,
see G-K. 128
a, 129/5
;
Dav.
27(6):
cf. v.
5
. 2.
fjspM
is the
regular
continuation of the time-clause in
la
(E).
VD
iD]
with so-called
qamez impurum
;
so
always except
in const, st.
XXXIX. 22-XL. II
461
The rise of household slaves to
high
civil
dignity
seems to
have been characteristic of the
Egyptian government
under
the
igth dynasty (Erman,
LAE,
105).
Titles
corresponding
to those here used are scribe of the
sideboard/
superin
tendent of the
bakehouse,
etc.
(Erman, 187). 3a.
The
officers are not
incarcerated,
but
merely
detained in
custody
pending investigation (Gu.).
3^> (])>
bound]
i.e. confined
;
cf.
39
22f>
.
4. Joseph
is
charged
with the
duty
of
waiting
on
them
(rnt?
as
39*,
2 Sa.
is
17
). 5-8
is a skilful
piece
of
narration : the effect of the dreams is
vividly depicted
before
their character is disclosed.
5-
each
according
io the
interpretation of
his
dream]
a sort of idem
per
idem con
struction, meaning
that the dreams had each a
peculiar
significance. 5b (J).
8. no one to
interpret
ii\
No
pro
fessional
interpreter,
such as
they
would
certainly
have
consulted had
they
been at
liberty. interpretations belong
to
God]
The maxim is
quite
in accord with
Egyptian
sentiment
(Herod,
ii.
83),
but in the mouth of
Joseph
it
expresses
the Hebrew idea that
inspiration
comes
directly
from God and is not a nnsfe
D^JK
JTttp
(Is. 2g
13
).
On the
Egyptian
belief in
divinely inspired dreams,
see
Ebers,
321
f.
;
Wiedemann,
Rel.
of
the Ancient
Eg.
266 ff.
;
Heyes, 174!?.
: on the
belief in classical
antiquity,
Horn. //. ii.
5-34,
Od. iv.
795
ff.
; Cicero,
De di-vin. i.
39
ff. etc.
;
in modern
Egypt,
Lane,
ME
5
,
i.
330.
While
this idea was
fully
shared
by
the
Israelites,
the
interpretation
of
dreams,
as a distinct art or
gift,
is
rarely
referred to in OT
(only
in the case of
Joseph,
and that of
Daniel,
which is
largely
modelled on
it).
Elsewhere
the dream either contains the revelation
(2o
3ff-
etc.),
or carries its
sig
nificance on its face
(28
12ff-
37
10
).
See Sta. BTh.
63.
i.
9-19.
The dreams
interpreted. 9-11.
The butler had
seen a vine
pass rapidly through
the
stages
of its
growth
;
had seemed to
squeeze
the
ripe grapes
into a
cup
and
present
(4o
7
etc.). 3.
TCB
Da]
Better
perhaps
nctroa
(cf.
v.
4
),
with nu as ace. of
place.
So v.
7
.
4.
D D
=
for some time
;
G-K.
139
h. 6.
jyi]
be fret
ful
;
elsewhere late
(Dn.
i
10
,
Pr.
iq
3
,
2 Ch. 26
19
f).
8.
J
K
ins]
On the
order,
G-K.
152
o. D
jnns]
& arms.
10.
nni3
Nim]
Not
*
when it budded
(<),
for such a use of
?
with
a
ptcp. (G-K. 164^-)
is dubious even in the Mishnah
(JQR, 1908, 697 f.).
If the text be retained we must render as if
budding (Dri.
T.
p. I72
2
).
462 JOSEPH
IN PRISON
(E)
it to
Pharaoh,
a mixture of the
*
realistic and the fantas
tic which
belongs
to the
psychology
of the dream
(Gu.).
It is
disputed
whether the
drinking
of the fresh
juice
is
realism or
phantasy.
"
The
ordinary interpretation
is that
the
king
drank the fresh
grape-juice
;
but as the butler sees
the natural
process
of the
growth
of the
grapes
take
place
with dream-like
swiftness,
so
probably
it is taken for
granted
that the
juice
became wine in similar fashion
"
(Ben.
;
so
Gu.).
On the other
hand,
Ebers
(Durch
Gosen z. Sinai
2
,
492)
cites
two texts in which a
beverage prepared by squeezing grapes
into water is mentioned.
12,
13.
The
interpretation
: the
butler will be restored to his office within three
days. lift up
thy
head] Commonly
understood of restoration to honour.
But in view of the fact that the
phrase
is used of the baker
also,
it
may
be doubted if it be not a technical
phrase
for
release from
prison (as
it is in 2 Ki.
25
27
,
Jer. 52
31
). 14, 15.
Joseph
s
petition.
remember
me]
On the difficult construc
tion,
v.i.from
this
house]
Not the
prison (as
Vns.,
below),
but
Potiphar
s
house,
where he was
kept
as a slave.
I5a.
/ was
stolen]
cf.
37
28aa
(E).the
land
of
the
Hebrews]
The ex-
Ball emends
(after
<&
KO.I
avrrj
0dXXov<ra)
nrnED torn
(cf. Jb. 14,
Ps.
92")
;
Kit.
nrns?.
nyj]
The masc.
f:
does not occur
(in
this
sense)
in bib.
Heb.,
and a contraction of
n^v
to n
is doubtful
(G-K. 91 e)
;
hence it is
better to read
nyj
as ace. : it
(the vine)
went
up
in blossom. It is
pos
sible that here and Is. i8
5
nyj
means
berry-cluster
;
see
Derenbourg-,
ZATW,
v.
301
f.
i^ran]
lit. cooked
;
Hiph. only
here. Note the
asyndetous construction,
expressing-
the
rapidity
of the
process. 13.
-]i?NTrm
KJP:]
<&
/j.vt]<r0ri<rcTai
. . .
TT/S apxys
<rov
;
similarly
F&&.
}S]
lit.
pedestal,
used
metaphorically
as here in
4i
13
,
Dn. u
7- 20- 21 - S8
f.
14.
3m3i~DN
3]
(5r dXXd,
iJ.vfj<r6t]ri fj.ov,
U tantum memento mei
;
similarly
J5 and
CJ.
Something-
like this must be the
meaning-
;
the
difficulty
is
(since
a
precative pf.
is
g-enerally
disallowed in
Heb.)
to fit the sense to
any
known use of the bare
pf. (a)
If it be
pf.
of
certitude,
the nearest
analogy
seems to me to be
Ju. 15 ,
where DN 3 has
strong-
affirmative
force,
per
haps
with a
suppressed adjuration,
as 2 Ki.
5
20
(
run DK D mrr
n)
: thou
wilt
surely
remember me. To
supply
a
negative
sent, like I desire
nothing- [except
that thou remember
me] (G-K. 163^;
De.
Str.), destroys
the idea of
pf.
of
certainty,
and is a doubtful
expedient
for the additional
reason that DN 3
may
mean
except,
but
hardly except
that.
(6)
It
may
be fut.
pf.,
in which case the DN must have its
separate
conditional
sense
;
and then it is better
(with We.)
to
change
3 to
yx
:
only,
if thou
remember me. The
objection (De. Di.)
that the remembrance is too
XL.
12-19 463
pression
is an anachronism in the
patriarchal history.
It is
barely possible
that both here and in
39
14- 17
(4i
12
)
there is a
faint reminiscence of the historical
background
of the
legends,
the
early occupation
of Palestine
by
Hebrew tribes.
I5b(J)
was
probably
followed in the
original
document
by
an ex
planation
of the circumstances which led to his
imprison
ment.
l6-Ip.
The baker s dream contains sinister features
which were absent from the
first,
the decisive difference
being
that while the butler dreamed that he
actually per
formed the duties of his
office,
the baker
only sought
to do
so,
and was
prevented (Gu.).
16. three baskets
of
white
bread]
The
meaning
of
<l
"}
n
> however,
is doubtful
(v.i.).
upon my
head]
See the
picture
of the
court-bakery
of
Rameses m. in
Ebers,
Aeg. 332;
Erman, LAE,
191.
Ac
cording
to
Ebers,
the custom of
carrying
on the head
(Herod,
ii.
35)
was not usual in ancient
Egypt except
for bakers.
17.
in the
uppermost basket]
Were the other two
empty (Ho.
Ben.)
? or were
they
filled with inferior bread for the court
(Gu.)?
all manner
of
bakemeats]
The court -baker of
Rameses in.
"
is not content with the usual
shapes
used for
bread,
but makes his cakes in all manner of forms. Some
are of a
spiral shape
like the
*
snails of our confectioners
;
others are coloured dark-brown or
red,"
etc.
(Erman, 192).
while the birds
kept eating]
In real life he would have driven
off the birds
(cf. I5
11
)
;
in the dream and this is the ominous
circumstance he cannot.
ip. lift thy
head
from off thee]
In view of the
fulfilment,
it is
perhaps
better
(with Ball)
to
remove
"j^yo
as a mistaken
repetition
of the last word of the
v.,
and to understand the
phrase
of the baker s release from
prison (see
on v.
13
).
The verb
hang may
then refer to the
mode of
execution,
and not
merely (as generally supposed)
essential an element of the
request
to be made a mere
condition,
has no
great weight
;
and
might
be met
by giving
DN
interrogative
force
(Ho.).
See, further,
Dri. T.
119 (5). Krirrjn]
The
only
case of consec.
pf.
fol
lowed
by
N3
(G-K. 105 b).
mn n
a.rp]
<BrF&3E
OJ
seem to have read
mn
niarrp,
or run nnbn
rvsp.
16.
nh]
&TT.
\ey., commonly
derived from
^/
iin,
be white
;
so
virtually
(
Aq.
3J&2TJ
;
but E of
nobility (nrn).
Others
(Ra. al.)
understand it as a characteristic of the baskets :
per
forated
(from
lin,
hole
).
The
/3aiVd (of palm-leaves)
of 2. seems to
464 JOSEPH
S ELEVATION
(JE)
to the
exposure
of the
decapitated corpse. Decapitation
is
said to have been a commoner
punishment
in
Egypt
than
hanging,
but the latter was not unknown
(Ebers, 334).
The
destruction of the
corpse by
birds must have been
specially
abhorrent to
Egyptians,
from the
importance they
attached
to the
preservation
of the
body
after death. For OT
examples,
see Dt. 2i
22f
-, Jos.
io
26
,
2. Sa.
4
12
,
and
esp.
2 Sa. 2i
9- 10
.
20-23.
The dreams fulfilled. 20. That it was custom
ary
for the Pharaoh to celebrate his
birthday by
court
assemblies and
granting
of
amnesties,
is
proved
for the Ptole
maic
period by
the tables of Rosetta and
Canopus. lifted
the
head\
see on v.
19
.
23.
The notice of the butler s
ingratitude
forms an effective
close, leaving
the reader
expectant
of
further
developments.
CH. XLI.
Joseph
becomes
Viceroy of Egypt (JE, P).
Two
years
after the events of ch.
40,
the
king
of
Egypt
has a wonderful double
dream,
which none of his
magicians
is able to
interpret (
1-8
).
The chief butler is
naturally
re
minded of his own
experience,
and mentions
Joseph,
who is
forthwith summoned into the
royal presence (
9
~
u
).
Having
interpreted
the dreams as a
prophecy
of a
great
famine
(
15
~
32
),
Joseph
adds some
sage
advice on the
right way
to
cope
with
the
emergency (
33
~
36
)
;
and Pharaoh is so
impressed by
his
sagacity
that he entrusts him with the execution of the
scheme,
and makes him absolute ruler of
Egypt (
37
~
46
).
In
pursuance
of the
policy
he had
foreshadowed,
Joseph
stores
the
surplus
of seven
years
of
plenty,
and sells it
during
the
subsequent
famine
(
47
~
57
).
Analysis.
The connexion of this
chapter
with the
preceding- appears
from
la
and
9 13
: note c
ps
sn
nz>,
D sxn
&,
c nnon
V, TOB-D,
fjsp (40*)
;
Joseph
rest on Aramaic
(Field). 19.
rH
E
1
]
Om.
by
two MSS and F
(Ba. Kit.).
20.
TIN
n-6n]
as Ezk. i6
5
;
cf. G-K.
69
TV,
121 b. 21.
nf^o]
is never
elsewhere used of the office of butler :
perhaps
over his
[Pharaoh s]
drink
(as
we should
say,
his cellar
),
as Lv. n
34
,
i Ki. io
21
,
Is.
32*
(so
Ges.
Th., Di.). 23.
inmcn] Expressing-
"a
logical
or
necessary
con
sequence
of that which
immediately precedes
"
(G-K.
1 1 1
/)
;
cf. Dav.
47-
XLI.
1-4
465
the servant of the on v the officers confined in his house
;
Joseph
with them
(
10
,
cf.
4O
3 - 4
)
;
and
comp.
u
with
4o
5
. In the first half of the
chapter
there is no sufficient reason to
suspect
a second source
except
in
14b
(J)
;
the
repetitions
and
slight
variations are not
greater
than can
be
readily explained by
a desire for
variety
in the elaboration of detail.
The whole of this section
(
1 28
) may
therefore be
safely assigned
to E
(cf.
DniN
inis-pNi,
8
,
inN
p
insi,
15
with
4o
8a
;
16
with
4o
8b
).
In the second
half, however,
there are
slight
diversities of
expression
and
representa
tion which show that a
parallel
narrative
(J)
has been
freely
utilised.
Thus,
in
33
Joseph
recommends the
appointment
of a
single dictator,
in
84
the
appointment
of overseers
;
in
S4
a
fifth part
is to be
stored,
in
851 **
all the corn of the
good years
;
in
35b
a
the collection is to be cen
tralised under the
royal authority,
in
b
localised in the different cities
;
-13 13* alternates with "?DN
pp (
35b - 49
1
35a- 48
). Further,
38
seems
I
39
;
41
H*
;
and
45b
H
46b
;
45a
(jna
Bis
=
ns
Bis)
can
hardly
be from
E,
who has
employed
the name for another
person (37
36
)-
Some of these differences
may,
no
doubt,
prove
to be
illusory
;
but taken
cumulatively they
suffice to
prove
that the
passage
is
composite, although
a
satisfactory analysis
cannot
be
given.
For
details,
see the notes below
;
and consult Ho.
234
;
Gu.
380
f.
;
Pro.
43
f.
46a
is from
P,
and
50b
is a
gloss.
1-8. Pharaoh s dreams. 2.
from
the Nile
(v.i.)}
the
source of
Egypt
s
fertility (Erman,
LAE,
425 ff.), worshipped
as the father of the
gods,
and at times identified with
Osiris or Amon-re
(Erman,
Handbook,
14
f.,
80
ff.).
seven
cows,
etcJ\
According
to Diod. Sic. i.
51,
the male ox is the
symbol
of the
Nile,
and sacred to
Osiris,
the inventor of
agriculture (ib.
i.
21).
. . . The Osiris-steer often
appears
accompanied by
seven
cows,
e.g.
on the
vignettes
of the old
and new Book of the Dead"
(ATLO
2
,
389). 4.
The devour
ing
of one set of cows
by
the other is a fantastic but
suggestive
feature of the dream
;
the
symbolism
is almost
transparent.
I. Q^n
njnsi] Participial
cl. as
apodosis
;
see Dri. T.
78 (3). IN\I]
An
Eg.
loan-word
(^iotr,
ior= stream
),
used in OT of the Nile and its
canals
(except
Is.
33
al
, Jb. 28,
Dn. i2
5ff
-)
;
found also in Ass. in the form
ya
aru. See
Ebers, 337
f.
; Steindorff, BA,
i. 612
(cf. 171).
2. iroe
(4i
18
,
Jb.
8
n
f)] Nile-grass
=
Eg.
ahu,
from
aha,
be
green (Ebers, 338).
(3r
#X
ft occurs also vv.
3- 19
,
Is.
19 ,
Sir.
4o
16
.
3. mpn]
JJUL
mp-n
(so
v.
4
).
It is
naturally
difficult to decide which is
right
;
but Ba.
pertinently points
to
the alliterations as
determining
the choice : read therefore ~\ in
4- 19>
** 27
,
but "n in
6- 23
,
in other
words,
n
always
of the cows and i
always
of the ears.
VSN]
(G
om.,
thus
making
all the
14
cows stand
together.
4.
n^DNni]
(5r + JW ;
so
7> 20- 24
. <& has
many
similar variations
(which
need not be
noted), revealing
a
tendency
to introduce
uniformity
into the
description.
30
466 JOSEPH
S ELEVATION
(JE)
5~7-
The second dream
is,
if
possible,
more fantastic and
at the same time more
explicit.
6. blasted with the east-wind
(ffi avff*6(j>9opoi)]
the dreaded sirocco or
Hamsin,
which blows
from the SE from
February
to
June, destroying vegetation,
and even
killing
the seed-corn in the clods
(Ebers, 340
;
Erman, LAE,
9;
Smith, HG,
67 ff.).
8. all the
magicians
and wise men
of Egypt]
The
possessors
of occult
knowledge
of all
sorts, including
the
interpretation
of dreams
(see p. 461 )
;
comp.
Tac. Hist. iv.
83:
"
Ptolemaeus . . . sacerdotibus
^Egyptiorum, quibus
mos talia
intellegere,
nocturnos visus
aperit";
see
Ebers,
341-349.
The motive the confutation
of heathen
magic by
a
representative
of the true
religion
is
repeated
in the histories of Moses
(Ex. 7-9)
and Daniel
(chs.
2.
5)
;
cf. Is.
47
12
etc.
9-14. Joseph
summoned to
interpret
the dreams.
9.
The butler s
ungrateful memory
is stimulated
by
the
opportunity
of
ingratiating
himself with his
royal
master,
though
this
requires
him to make mention
of
his old offence.
12.
according
to each man s dream he
interpreted]
Note the
order of ideas as contrasted with v.
11
(4O
5
)
: there is a
pre-
established
harmony
between the
interpretation
and the
dream,
and the office of the
interpreter
is to
penetrate
the
imagery
of the dream and reach the truth it was sent to
convey. 13.
/ was restored . . . he was
hanged"]
Lit. Me
one
restored, etc.,
according
to G-K.
144^,
e. To
suppose
the omission of
Pharaoh,
or to make
Joseph
the
subj.,
is
barely
admissible.
14.
and
they brought
him
hastilyfrom
the
dungeon]
is a clause inserted from
J.
shaved
himself\
his
head and
beard,
a custom which seems to have been
peculiar
to the
priests
under the New
Empire
(Erman,
LAE,
219;
cf. Herod, ii.
37).
8.
oysm]
was
perturbed
;
as Dn. 2
3
(a
1
Hithp.),
Ps.
77.
D
DBin]
Only
in this
ch.,
in Ex.
7-9 (P),
and
(by imitation)
in Dn. 2
2
. The
word is thus
practically
confined to
Egyptian magicians, though
no
Eg", etymology
has been found
;
and it
may
be
plausibly
derived from
Heb.
B-jn, stylus. onx]
Read with
<&
inx,
after ioWi
;
the dream is one
(vv.-
5 - 26
). 9. nyifl-nK]
JUA better a
VN.
NBH]
(&
NBH
(sing.)-
The resem
blance of the cl.
(
9b
)
to
40
1
does not
prove
it to be from
J
(Gu.).
IO.
VIN]
.ux
cnx,
(5
"unx. ii.
no^mi]
G-K.
492.
12. ins ins
i]
(5
/cat
XLI.
5-28
467
15-24.
Pharaoh s recital of his dreams.
15.
thou
canst hear a dream to
interpret it]
i.e.,
thou canst
interpret
a dream when thou hearest it : Heb. subordinates the em
phatic
clause where we would subordinate the condition.
l6.
Comp. 4o
8
. The answer
(on
the
form,
v.i.)
exhibits a
fine combination of
religious sincerity
and
courtly
deference.
17-21.
The first dream. The
king gives
a vivid
subjective
colouring
to the recital
by expressing
the
feelings
which the
dream excited. This is
natural,
and creates no
presumption
that a
parallel
narrative is drawn
upon. Similarly,
the
slight
differences in
phraseology (~\xr\
for
n&OlD, Wl,
etc.)
are due to
the
literary
instinct for
variety. 22-24-
The second dream.
25-32.
The
interpretation. 25-27a.
The
general
out
line of the
interpretation
: the dream is one
;
it is a
presage
of what is to
happen ;
the number seven refers to
years.
The methodical
exposition
is meant to be
impressive. 27b
brings
the climax: There shall be seven
years offamine (so
Pro.
v.i.).
28. It is uncertain whether
mri
refers back to
25b
(
This is what
[I
meant
when]
I said to Pharaoh
),
or to
27b
15.
i
DB-n]
Oratio
olliqua
after
ibN?
(without a),
G-K.
157
a
;
Dav.
146,
R. i. 16.
l>^3]
lit.
Apart
from me
(&
Vicoin
JD V),
used as
I4
24
. .ox read
ruy:.
N
1
? D n^K
n^?
=
Apart
from
God,
one will not be
answered/
etc.
;
cf.
&
]l
M
1<JlX| A^^? Aj] ;JDD ]V)\?
(
Dost
thou
expect
that
apart
from God one will answer?
etc.).
U
Absque
me
Deus
respondebit, shifting
the accent. There seems a double entendre in
the use of
njy : answer and
correspond
: God will
give
an answer
corresponding
to the
welfare,
etc.
19. mSn]
flaccid
;
(& om. 21.
n^^np]
On the suff. cf. G-K.
91/1 J.TNTD] Sing. (ib. 93^). 23. mcos]
Aram.
=
dried,
hardened. The word is #TT.
Xe7.
in
OT,
and is omitted
by
(HrFS.
D.rinK]
MSS and jux
jn
. The
irregular gender
of MT
only
here in this
chapter.
26.
ma]
Om. of art.
may
be
justified
on the
ground
that the numeral
is
equivalent
to a determinant
(G-K.
126
AT)
;
but MJL rmsn is much to be
preferred. 27. nip-in] empty.
The
pointing
is
suggested partly by
the
contrast to nxSc
(
22
etc.), partly by
the fact that
(in MT) pi
has not been
used of the ears. We
ought undoubtedly
to read
ni,rnn
(JUAJ?).
ui
V,T]
The translation above is not free from
difficulty
;
it omits a
prediction
of unusual
plenty preceding
the
famine,
which
is, nevertheless,
pre
supposed by
what follows. But the
ordinary rendering
is also weak :
why
should the seven thin ears alone be
fully interpreted
?
Besides,
D^3?>
is fern.
28-32.
The critical difficulties of the ch. commence in
this section. Pro.
assigns
29 31
to
J (||
m-
E), instancing n^? (cf.
iS
33
24
1S- 19
468 JOSEPH
S ELEVATION
(JE)
(
This is the announcement I
[now]
make to Pharaoh
).
In
any
case
29
looks like a new
commencement,
and
may
intro
duce a variant from
J (v.i.). 31.
Vlj*
N71
goes
back to the
jni3 N?1 of
21
.
32.
If the dream is
one,
why
was it twice
repeated? Because,
says Joseph,
the crisis is certain and
urgent.
So he rounds off his finished and
masterly explana
tion of the dreams.
33-36. Joseph
s advice to Pharaoh. Here
Joseph
proves
himself to be no mere
expert
in
reading
dreams,
but
a man with a
large
reserve of
practical
wisdom and states
manship. 33-35.
There is an
apparent discrepancy
between
the
appointment
of a
single
official
(
33a
)
and that of a com
mission of overseers
(
34a
)
;
and
again
between the fifth
part (
34b
)
and the whole
(
35a
)
;
we note also the transition
from
sing, (B>Dm)
to
pi.
(l^p"
11
),
etc.).
For
attempts
at division
of
sources,
see below.
34.
The
taxing
of a fifth
part
of the
crop
seems to have been a
permanent Egyptian
institution
(see
on
47
24
),
whose
origin
the Hebrews traced to the
administration of
Joseph. 35.
under the hand
(i.e.
the
authority) of Pharaoh]
cf. Ex. i8
10
,
2 Ki.
13*,
Is.
3
6
.
37-46. Joseph
s elevation.
37, 39 (E) || 38 (J).
The
thing-
that was
pleasing
to
Pharaoh, etc.,
is not the
interpreta-
2
7
30
43
2
44
12
)>
and
""?? (i2
10
43
1
47
4< 13
)
as characteristic of
J ;
but
they
are
not decisive. Gu. limits
J
to
30a- 32b
(||
27f- 30b- 31- 32ab
<x
E).
This is on the
whole more
satisfying,
since ms^i and
jn;:
tfVi
appear
to be doublets
(Di.)
;
but a
positive
conclusion will
hardly
be reached.
33-36.
The
passage
is
certainly composite,
and can be resolved into
two
nearly complete sequences
as follows : E
=
33 - 34b-
^a
(to
njns)-
36a
0y ;
j_34a.
ssabp
(f
rom
^j,)-
3(ia
a
b
. Characteristic of E are
sr%
cnaD
p,
-ox
-a, against J
s O
Tpa
(with j
njps),
pn,
Sa*t
pp
;
and the
only necessary
change
is najr to nns . The result
corresponds pretty closely
with Gu. s
analysis
;
that of Procksch differs
widely. 33.
NT]
see Baer-Del.
p. 78
;
G-K.
75^. Str., however,
holds the true
reading
to be *n
?
.
34.
wy]
JUUL jyy
i. To the
peculiar
idiom,
De.
compares
the Latin
fac
scribas
;
nvy
may, however,
mean take
action,
as i Ki. 8
32
.
rnm]
fix
pi.
35.
iiDsfi
cnyn
^N]
Ball
prefixes 1:9:1 (as
v.
48
)
;
some such
expedient
is
necessary
to make sense of the last word. For
noon,
AJU.^
have noe"
;
(&
(rwaxdriTw (vux ?). 36. j ng?]
Lv.
5
21> 23
f ;
obviously suggested
here
by
DHp3
in v.
34
.
37-46. Analysis.
To E we
may pretty confidently assign
^ 39
(ju:
Dam as
33
)
*
;
to
J
**- 44- 45
. Whether
J
s
parallel
to
40
commences
with
41
(Pro.),
or is
delayed
to
**
(Gu.),
it is hard to decide.
41b
reads like a
XLI.
29-42
469
tion of the
dreams,
but the
practical
suggestion
with which it
was followed
up, though
it was the former which
proved
that
Joseph
was
truly inspired.
The statement that the
policy
commended itself comes from E
;
in
J,
Pharaoh
improves
upon
it
by entrusting
the
supervision
to
Joseph
himself in
stead of to the overseers he had
proposed. 38.
the
spirit
of God]
here first mentioned in Gen. as the source of inward
illumination and intellectual
power.
The idea that eminent
mental
gifts proceed
from the
indwelling
of the divine
spirit,
which is
implied
in Pharaoh s
exclamation,
was
probably
ancient in
Israel, although
the
proofs
of it are
comparatively
late
(cf.
Ex.
3i
3
,
Nu.
2y
18
;
see
Stade,
BTh.
43. i). 40.
over
my
house]
The
dignity may
be
compared
to that of
4
Mayor
of the
palace"
under the
Merovingian kings;
cf.
i Ki.
4
6
i6
9
,
Is. 22
15
etc.
41.
over all the land
of
Egypt}
The most coveted civic office in
Egypt
was that of the
T^ate,
the chief of the whole
administration,
"the second after the
king
in the court of the
palace" (see
Erman, LAE,
87 ff.,
69).
The elevation of
Syrian
slaves to such
dignities
is likewise attested for the
age
of the New
Empire (ib.
106,
517 f.). 42.
The form of investiture is
specifically
Egyptian.
his
signet-ring\
used in
sealing
documents
(Est.
3
12
8
8
),
and
given
as a token of
authority (Est. 3
10
8
2
,
i Mac.
6
15
etc.). -fine linen]
the
weaving
of which was carried to
extreme
perfection
in
Egypt
; Erman,
448
ff. the
golden
collar]
There is
probably
an allusion to the reward of the
gold,
a decoration
(including
necklets of
gold)
often con
ferred in
recognition
of eminent service to the crown
(Erman,
formula of investiture
accompanying
the action of
4Ja
,
of which
43b
would
be the
explication.
46h
/3 would be a natural
sequel
to
43a
("Din). Hence,
if a division must be
attempted,
that of Procksch
may
be
followed, viz.,
E
=
40. 42b. 43a. 46b
j8
.
J
=
41. 42a. 43b. 44. 4
5>
_
3
3 Kswn
]
Jst>
pL impf> Q
al._
40.
pw ~pS~Vjn]
(S fal T<
<rT6fj.arl
<rov uTra/coiArercu. The
meaning"
kiss
being obviously unsuitable,
Tu. De. Di. render
arrange
themselves
(from
Ar.
nasaka) ;
others
point
PK
;
;,
run
;
but no
explanation
is
quite
satisfactory.
fST^y
may,
of
course,
mean at
thy
command
(45
21
,
Ex.
ly
1
etc.).
ND3H
pi] only
as
regards
the throne
;
G-K. n8A.
41. IHN]
(3r +
<rfi(j.epoj>. 42. w]
Apparently
an
Egyptian
word
(Copt.
Sens), replaced
in
post-Exilic
Heb.
by p3.
It is
disputed
whether it
means cotton
alone,
or linen
alone,
or both
;
see Di. s exhaustive note
47 JOSEPH
S ELEVATION
(JE)
1 1
8 ff.: see the
engraving, 208*). 43.
the second-best
charioi]
Horses and
carriages
first
appear
on monuments of the
1 8th
dynasty,
and must have been introduced
"
during
the
dark
period
between the Middle and the New
Empire"
(Erman, 490). they
cried
before
him
*Abrek\
A
very
obscure
word
;
for
conjectures,
v.i.
44.
An almost exact
parallel (J)
to
41
(E). 45a. Joseph
s
marriage.
The
conferring
of a
new name
naturally accompanied promotions
like that of
Joseph (Erman, 144).
the
high priest of
^
On\
was an
import
ant
personage
in the
religion
and
politics
of the New
Empire
(see
Erman, LAE,
76, 83, 89,
and
pass.),
and the
priestly
college
there was
reputed
the
greatest
in the
country
for
learning (Herod,
ii.
3
; Strabo,
xvn. i.
29).
"On
(Eg. Anu)
is
Heliopolis, 7
m. NE of
Cairo,
an ancient seat of the
on Ex.
25*,
and
EB,
2800 f.
nntn]
jux nnt.
43. m:n!?3]
G-K.
85^.
imp i]
xfflr5>
NVi. TJ-13N]
The word remains an
enigma.
The re
semblance to Heb.
TU
has misled no anc. Vn.
except Aq. (yovaTtfa} )
and
U
(ut genuflecterenf).
& renders
].^
VC
]^1
;
C *ON
jn
KD^D
1
?
;
W
K"Jea
"
311 NnCOm 31 ND^D
1
? K3N
p ;
(5i has
Krjpv
as
subj.
of vb.
(U
also has clamante
prcscone}.
The
speculations
of
Egyptologists
are
too numerous to mention: see
BDB, s.v.,
or
Heyes, 2540.
The best
is that of
Spiegelberg (OLz.
vi.
317 ff.),
who considers that it is a call
to Attention !
(Eg.
b r-k
;
lit.
Thy
heart to thee !
).
Frd. Del.
(Parad. 225) suggested
a connexion with Ass. abarakku
(the
title of
a
high official),
which his father declared to be a
"
neckischer Zufall" !
Radical emendations of the text have been
proposed by
Ball
("3 TDN^]
jna)
and Che.
(jmo
3
-I?N
=
Mighty
one of Chuenaten
[Amenophis
IV.
]:
OLz. iii.
151 f.);
these are
wholly
unsatisfying,
and the latter has not
survived the criticisms of Miiller
(ib. 325 f.):
see
77?7, 467. prui]
thus
placing.
As continuation of
jm
in
42a
,
the inf. abs. is
grammatically
correct
(G-K. 113^)
;
and
though
the idiom is
infrequent,
there is no
reason to
suspect
the text.
45.
nays
rgsji]
dr
tyovdojAQavrjx (transposing
x and D?
[see Nestle, ZATW,
xxv.
209 ff.]).
The old
interpretations
follow two lines:
(i)
Revealer of secrets
(Jos.
Ant. ii.
91;
J52T
OT
,
Patr.), connecting
with Heb.
]sx
;
and
(2)
Saviour of the world
(Copt.
p-sot-om-ph-eneh,
De.
Ho.)
;
so U
Jer. Qucest.
Of modern
Egyptological
theories the one most in favour seems to be that
propounded by
Steindorff in Ztsch.
f. Aeg. Spr.
xxvii.
41
f. : that it
represents Eg.
De-pnute-ef-onh,
and means The
god speaks
and he lives. It is said
(ib.
42)
that
personal
names of this
type (though
with the
proper
name
of a
deity)
are common from the
beginning
of the 22nd
dynasty.
See
the discussion in
Heyes, op.
cit.
258 ff.,
who
prefers
the
interpretation
*
Comp. Heyes,
Bib. u.
Aeg. 248
ff.
XLI.
43-55
471
worship
of the
sun-god
Ra. On the other names in the
v.,
v.-i.
45b
and
46b
are doublets.
46a (P).
The
chronology
is
altogether
inconsistent with the
assumptions
of
JE regarding
the relative
ages
of
Joseph
and
Benjamin (see
Ben.
360).
stood
before
Pharaoh
]
cf.
47
7
(P).
47-57. Joseph
s measures for relief of the famine.
47, 49 (E) || 48 (J).
He stores corn
during
the seven
years
of
plenty. 5~5
2
(E ?) Joseph
s two
sons.
Menal$eK\
inter
preted quite grammatically
as
causing
to
forget.
The
etymology
is not to be taken too
literally,
as if the narrator
meant that
Joseph
had
actually forgotten
his father s house
(cf.
Ps.
45
11
). 5
2- made me
fruitful]
The name of the tribe
is
generally thought
to contain the idea of
fruitfulness,
from
the
fertility
of the
region
in central Palestine which it
occupied. 54-57-
The
beginning
of the famine.
54, 55
contain a
slight discrepancy. According
to
64b
the
Egyptians
of Lieblein
(PSBA, 1898,
202
ff.)
:
defenti [or defenta\-pa-an^
=
"
celui
qui
donne la nourriture de la vie."
njpx] Explained,
with some hesita
tion,
as
belonging-
to
(the goddess)
Neith
(Steindorff,
Spiegelberg, al.).
jns
-BIS] ((5r Herpe^r), etc.)
is a fuller form of IE "BIB
;
see on
39
1
. It
is
worthy
of remark
that,
except
in the case of
Asenath,
the
suggested
Egyptian analogues
of these names do not
occur,
save
sporadically,
earlier than the 22nd
dynasty (that
of
Shishak). 45b.
(5r om.
46.
njns
DnsD
i"?D
is an
amplification
in the
style
of P
(Ex.
6
11 - 13> 27 - 29-
14").
47-57.
Analysis. Starting
from the
presumption
that the
storing
of
food in the cities and the direct
appeal
of the
famishing people
to
Pharaoh are not from the same
source,
the best division seems the
following:
E=
47- 49- 54a- 55- b
; J
^
48. 53. Mb. sea. 57
(
com
p.
Gu. and
Pro.).
60
"
w
are
universally assigned
to E
(on
account of D
nSx)
in
spite
of the
fact that the children are named
by
the father. P s
authorship
is
perhaps
excluded
by
the
explicit etymologies,
to which there are no real
analogies
in that document. The vv. in
any
case
interrupt
the context
of
JE,
and
may
be a
supplementary
notice inserted
by
a lace hand at
what seemed the most suitable
place. 47.
D
JJOp^]
The
*J
is elsewhere
peculiar
to P
(Lv.
2
2
5
12
6
s
,
Nu.
5
2R
f) ;
and Ball
assigns
46 48
to that
sour7e. But the sense
by
handfuls is
doubtful,
and is
represented by
none of the old Vns.
except
the
clumsy paraphrases
of U and 3P
;
so that
the text is
probably
at fault.
<& has
S/xfyyuaro,
;
>
and E
")
J .
O\Z2
and
pxix
1
?
(with
A\^n^n and waai for
ym). 48.
vn WK
DJ*]
Rd. with
MJ.&
y^a-n
rrn IK-K D JB n.
50. n^
:
]
ffi
rd eirra.
try. 51. 3Bg]
Pi.
only
here
;
both
the form and the
irregular
vocalisation
(G-K. 52 m}
are chosen for the
sake of assonance with
na
:
:a.
54.
rrn]
<& oik
%<rai> ;
so
&
a natural mis-
472
JOSEPH
S ELEVATION
(JE)
had no lack of
bread,
and
consequently
no need to
apply
to
Joseph, though they
were indebted to his
forethought.
In
65
they
are
famishing,
and have to
buy
their food from
Joseph
: this view is connected with
47
13ff
-.
56. opened
all
that was in
them\
Read with
(|J
all the
granaries, though
the Hebrew text cannot be
certainly
restored
(v.i.) 57
prepares
for the next scene of the drama
(ch. 42).
State
granaries,
for the sustenance of the
army,
the officials and the
serfs,
were a
standing-
feature of
Egyptian
administration
(Erman, LAE,
107
f.
;
cf.
433 f.),
and were
naturally
drawn
upon
for the relief of the
populace
in times of
scarcity (ib. 126).
The
superintendent
of the
granaries
was a
high
officer of
state, distinct,
as a
rule,
from the vizier
or T ate
(p. 469)
;
but a union of the two
dignities
was
just
as
easy
under
exceptional
circumstances as the combination of the
Premiership
with
the
Chancellorship
of the
Exchequer
would be with us
(see Erman,
89).
We can
readily
understand that such a wise and
comprehensive pro
vision
impressed
the
imagination
of the
Israelites,
and was attributed
by
them to a divine
inspiration
of which one of their ancestors was the
medium
(cf.
Gu.
384).
Besides these
general
illustrations of the writer s
acquaintance
with
Egyptian
conditions,
two
special parallels
to this
aspect
of
Joseph
s career are cited from the monuments :
(i) Ameny,
a
nomarch under Usertsen I.
(i2th dynasty),
records on his
grave
at Beni-
Hasan that when
years
of famine came he
ploughed
all the fields of his
district,
nourished the
subjects
of his
sovereign
and
gave
them
food,
so
that there was none
hungry among
them.
(2) Similarly,
on a
grave
of
the 1
7th dynasty
at El-Kab :
"
When a famine
arose,
lasting many years,
I distributed corn to the
city
in each
year
of the famine"
(see
ATLO",
390
;
Dri.
346 f.).
For the sale of
grain
to
foreigners,
we have the case
of
Yanhamu,
governor
of
Yarimutu,
in the Amarna letters
(see
below on
47
13fr<
).
It is
impossible
to desire a fuller demonstration of the
Egyptian
background
of the
Joseph-stories
than ch.
41
affords. The
attempt
to
minimise the
coincidences,
and show that
"
in a more
original
and shorter
form the
story
of
Joseph
had a N Arabian and not a Palestinian and
Egyptian
background,
and
consequently
that
Pharaoh,
king
of
Egypt,
should be Pir
u, king
of Misrim
"
(TBI, 454-473),
tends to discredit
rather than confirm the seductive
Musri-theory,
which is
pushed
to such
an
extravagant length.
understanding. 56.
crn
IS?N]
juu. nn am n& N. The context
imperatively
demands a noun
((Er <rtro/3oAu>j/as,
J5
J5*O|).
Lagarde (Sym.
i.
57) sug
gested
a Heb.
equivalent
of Talmud. Nin^ N
;
We. some derivative of -nt?
;
De. Ba. and Kit.
(combining
juu. and
j$) njn
nmiN.
nao"i]
Pt. 13
f
!1
(Hi.)
;
cf.
42
6
. ui
pirn]
&
om.
57. pun
1
]
Better msnK.n as (
(cf.
M
).
XLI.
56, 57-XLI1
473
CH. XLII.
Joseph
s Brethren come to
Egypt
to
buy
Food(E,])
One
thing
is still
wanting-
to the dramatic
completeness
of the
story
of
Joseph:
the
recognition
of his
greatness by
his
family,
or
(in E)
the fulfilment of his
youthful
dreams.
This is the theme of the second
part
of the
history (chs. 42-
45),
where the writers tax their inventiveness to the utmost
in
retarding
the denouement of the
plot.
Two visits to
Egypt,
and not fewer than four interviews with
Joseph,
are needed
to
prepare
for the final reconciliation
;
and the hearers
attention is all the while
kept
on the stretch
by
the
surprising
expedients adopted by Joseph
to
protract
the
suspense
and
excite the
compunction
of his brethren. In ch.
42
we are
told how the ten brothers are
brought
to
Egypt by
stress of
famine
f
1
"
4
),
are
recognised by Joseph,
and denounced and
imprisoned
as
spies (
5
~
17
)
;
and how after three
days
confine
ment
they
are sent
home, leaving
Simeon behind them as
a
hostage (
18
~
28
).
Arrived in
Canaan,
they
relate their
adventure to
Jacob,
who
bitterly complains
of the loss of two
children,
and refuses to trust
Benjamin
to their
charge (
29
-
38
).
The incident of the
money
found in the sacks
(
25> 27f< 35
)
increases the dread with which
they contemplate
a return to
Egypt.
Analysis.
Ch.
42 belongs
a
potiori
to
E,
and
43. 44
to
J (We. Comp.
z
58 ff.).
A distinct difference of
representation appears
from a
comparison
of
42
29
"
37
(which, pace
Procksch,
is an undiluted
excerpt
from
E)
with
43
3
"
7
44
19 23
(J).
"
In ch.
42, Joseph
secures,
by
the detention of
Simeon,
that the brethren shall return under
any
circumstances,
with
Benjamin
or without
;
inch.
43 f.,
on the
contrary,
he forbids them to return unless
Benjamin
is with them"
(We.).
In
J, moreover,
the brethren do not
volunteer the information that
they
have a
younger
brother,
but it is
drawn out of them
by searching" questions.
It is certain
(from
doublets
and
phraseology)
that both
J
and E are
represented
in
42
1
"
14
;
though
the former is so
fragmentary
that it is difficult to reconstruct a narrative
consistent with
43
3ff<
44
19ffi
.
Apparently,
the
colloquy reproduced
in
43
44
20 23
43
3
must have followed the
acknowledgment
that
they
were all
one man s sons
(
lla
II
1Sa
E),
a view which seems to fit in with all the
literary
indications. E s account can
easily
be traced with the
help
of
2t) 37
: it includes the
charge
of
espionage (
9- n- 14- lf5 - 30
),
the
imprisonment
(
17> 30
),
the detention of Simeon
(
19> 24 - 33f<
),
the command to
bring
down
Benjamin (
16> 20- 84
),
and the
putting
of the
money
in the sacks
(
M
).
In
474
VISIT OF THE BRETHREN TO EGYPT
(E)
J 14
,
the more obvious doublets are
la
II
^
5a
II
b
,
7a
II
8
,
lla
II
13a
; character
istic
phrases
of
J: if,
2- 3
;
niDJ N
1
?!
rrrui,
a
(43
8
47
li
); JIDK *np,
5
(42
38
44
29
); Sw,
6
; SSN,
7- 10
.
Possibly
also
pn
nnjrn*
nix-)
1
?,
9b- 12b
,
is
J
s variant for E s
D^JTD,
9b- llb
etc.
(cf.
30- 34
) (Gu.).
Hence we
may assign
to
J
2- ** 4b-
BT- 7
(except
nwp
DHN
navi,
which should
probably
follow
9*
in E
[Di.
KS.
Gu.]),
9b
0-
10 - "
and to E all the rest
(so
Gu.
nearly: Procksch,
however,
very plausibly assigns
5> 6a
to
P).
After
12
there is no trace
of
J
till we come to
m 28ab
a/3
)
an obvious
duplicate
of
35
,
containing J
s
peculiar
word nnnDN.
29
-
37
are from E : note the name
Jacob,
29> **
;
Reuben s
leadership,
37
;
and the words
wan,
34
; nnon,
34
(37
28
[? 34
20f>
])
;
nj7|,
x
. We also obtain some new
expressions
which
may
be
employed
as criteria of E :
mrp,
>
(cf.
7
)
;
D
ja,
S1- 33 - 34
(cf.
19
) ;
oa na
pajn, (cf.
19
)
;
ps?,
M
(cf.
25
).
38
belongs
to
J,
but its
proper place
is after
43
2
(see
on the
v.).
A
peculiar
feature of this and the
following
chs. is the name
p
jyjD,
which is elsewhere in Gen. characteristic of P
(see p. 245).
From
this and some similar
phenomena,
Giesebrecht and others have inferred
a
Priestly
redaction of the
Joseph pericope
;
but the
usage may
be due
to the constant and unavoidable antithesis between Canaan and
Egypt
(see p. 438 above).
1-4.
The
journey
to
Egypt.
I,
2. Another effective
change
of scene
(cf. 3Q
1
4I
1
), introducing
the deliberations
in
Jacob
s
family regarding
a
supply
of food
;
where the
energy
and resourcefulness of the father is set in
striking
contrast to the
perplexity
of the sons.
4. Benjamin
has
taken
Joseph
s
place
in his father s affection
(44
29ff>
)
;
Jacob
s
unwillingness
to let him out of his
sight
is a
leading
motive
both in
J
and E.
5-17.
The arrival in
Egypt,
and first interview with
Joseph.
On
5>
6a,
v.i. 6b. As
suspicious strangers
the
brothers are
brought
before the
viceroy.
bowed
themselves,
etc.]
Reminding Joseph
of his dreams
(v.
9
).
The
original
connexion in E is broken
by
the insertion of v.
7
from
J.
I.
ia]
of uncertain
etymology,
is
always
used of
grain
as an article
of commerce
(Am.
8
6
,
Neh. lo
3
*). apjr]
(& om.
ijonn]
(&
ppflivmre (?
=
nqNfi, Kit.). Though
the
Hithpa.
occurs elsewhere
only
in the sense of
face one another in battle
(2
Ki.
148-
"
=
2 Ch.
25
17- 21
),
a
change
of
text is uncalled for. 2.
-on]
< om.
D^D]
<&
^N
oyo
(as 43
2
)
;
rd.
perhaps
*?3X Dtro.
3.
n-iB
j;]
ten in
number/
ace. of condition.
4.
apJT]
ffir om.
5a
reads like a new
beginning,
and
Sb
is
superfluous
after
1 4
. Pro.
is
probably right
in the
opinion
that
5 - 6a
are the introduction to P s lost
narrative of the
visit,
a view which is confirmed
by
the
unnecessary
explanation
of
6a
,
and
by
the late word. 6. B
Vtf] only
EC.
7
8
8
IO
B
[Ezk.
I6
30
]
and Aram,
portions
of Ezr. and Dn.
(Kue.
Ond. i.
p. 318).
The resemblance to
ZdAans,
the name of the first
Hyksos king
in
Jos.
XLII.
1-13
475
7 (J)
||
8
(E).
That
Joseph
was not
recognised by
his brethren is
natural,
and creates a situation of whose dramatic
possibilities
the narrators take full
advantage.
The
strange
mixture of
harshness and
magnanimity
in
Joseph
s treatment of his
brothers,
the skill with which he
plays alternately
on their
fears and their
hopes,
the
struggle
in his mind between
assumed
severity
and real
affection,
form the chief interest of
the narratives
up
to the time of the final disclosure. It is
unnecessary
to
suppose
that the writers traced in all this the
unfolding
of a consistent ethical
purpose
on
Joseph
s
part,
and it is
certainly
an
exaggeration
to
speak
of it as an
exhibition of
seelsorgerische geistliche
Weisheit
(De.).
On
the other
hand,
to
say
that his
object
was
merely
to
punish
them
(Gu.),
is
clearly inadequate.
To the
writers,
as to the
brethren,
the official
Joseph
is an inscrutable
person,
whose
motives
defy analysis
;
and it is
probably
a mistake to
try
to read a moral
meaning
into all the devices
by
which his
penetrating knowledge
of the human heart is
exemplified.
p.
Ye are
spies]
A
charge
that travellers in the East often
encounter
(see p. 484 below).
The eastern frontier of
Egypt
was fortified and
closely
watched
(Erman,
LAE,
537 ff.),
and
a band of ten men
seeking
to cross it excited
suspicion.
the nakedness
of
the
land]
Not its
poverty,
but its
open
and
defenceless
spots.
II
(J) || 13
(E).
sons
of
one
man,
etc.]
Their
eagerness
to clear their character
betrays
them into a dis
closure of their
family circumstances,
which in
J
is followed
up by
direct
interrogation
and a
warning
that
they
need not
return without their
youngest
brother
(p. 473 above)
;
while
in
E,
Joseph
seizes on the reference to
Benjamin
as a test of
their
veracity,
and threatens that
they
shall not leave
Egypt
until he is
produced
(
15f>
).
one is
not]
It is a fine instance of
cont.
Ap.
i.
77,
can
hardly
be other than accidental.
Kin
2
]
juxJS&J Kim.
9. TyiJ;]
lit.
pudenda,
is
only
here used of defencelessness. Ar. *aurat
is
similarly
used of a breach in the frontier of a hostile
country (Lane,
2104 c)
;
cf. Kor. S.
33
13
"our houses a.re
aurat,"
a
nakedness,
i.e.
unoccupied
and undefended.
(& has TO,
l-xyt] (reading perhaps rupy
[Ba.])
;
2. ra
Kpvn-Td.io. T^yi]
cf. G-K.
163
a : -ut&,S om. 1. n.
urn]
So
Ex. i6
7- 8
,
Nu.
32
32
,
La.
3
4
~t
(G-K. 32 d)
;
MX. urn*.
D\n]
lit.
right
men,
is used of
persons only
in this ch.
13.
inx B"N 331 (&
om.,
perhaps
476
VISIT OF THE BRETHREN TO EGYPT
(fi)
literary
tact that
Joseph
never
presses
the
question
as to the
fate of the
missing
brother.
14.
This is what I
said]
It is
as I have said
(cf. 4i
28
). Joseph
maintains his
opinion
with
well-feigned
official
obstinacy (Di.). 15,
16.
By
this shall
ye
be
tested]
The
pretext
covers a real desire to see
Benjamin,
which is
explicitly
avowed in
J (44
21b
43
30
). By
the
life of
Pharaoh}
In
Egypt
the
king
was honoured as a
god (Diod.
i.
90
; Erman,
Handb.
36
f.)
;
and the oath
by
his life is attested
by
an
inscription
of the 2oth
dynasty.
The OT
analogies
cited
by
Kn.
(i
Sa.
ly
55
,
2 Sa. n
11
)
are not in
point,
since
they
do
not differ from the same formula addressed to
private persons
(i
Sa. 2O
3
25
26
). 17.
The three
days imprisonment
is rather
meaningless
after v.
16
(see p. 477).
Gu. remarks on the
prominence
of
imprisonment
in the
Joseph
narratives,
and
surmises that a
good many
Hebrews had known the inside
of an
Egyptian jail.
18-26. The second interview. After three
days
Joseph appears
to
relent,
and to entertain the idea that
they
may
after all be
telling
the truth. He now
proposes
to
retain
only
one of them as a
hostage,
and let the rest
carry
corn for their
starving
households. 18. /
fear God]
the
guardian
of international
religious morality (Gu.),
which
is
presupposed throughout
the
patriarchal history
;
see on
2O
3
2Q0.
21.
Nay,
but we are
guilty}
The confession is
wrung
from them
by
the distress
( TJV)
which has overtaken
them,
reminding
them of
Joseph
s distress of soul
(1
S3
J"HV)
when
they
left him to
die,
when he
pleaded
with
us]
This
touch of
pathos
is not recorded in ch.
37.
22. Reuben had
a
right
to dissociate himself from the confession of
guilt,
for he had meant to save
Joseph
;
but like
many
another
rightly
;
cf. the
||
v.
11
. 16.
i~iDNn] Impv. expressing
1
a
determination,
G-K. 1 10 c.
nyifl
n]
G-K.
93
aa>. The distinction between
vt and M
is a Massoretic
caprice (Di.).
At the end of the v. JUJL inserts a refusal
of the condition in the exact terms of
44^ (J),
which
undoubtedly
smooths the transition to v.
17
,
but cannot be
original.
18.
vni is?
j;
nwt]
See G-K.
uof. 19. inx]
without art.
(MX nn^n)
ib.
134^;
cf.
43
14
;
ct.
42
s3
. 2O.
p-icri]
The words are out of
place (cf.
26b
).
Did
they
stand
originally
after v.
16
? 21.
^N] Nay,
but
,
in
dicating
an affirmation of what one would
gladly deny (see
on
I7
19
).
XLII.
14-27
477
man he claims credit for his
good
intention rather than
for the
temporising
advice he had
actually given (37
22
).
his
very
blood is
required]
in
spite
of the fact that the
speaker
had
kept
them from actual bloodshed.
23.
an
interpreter]
This is the
only place
in the
patriarchal history
where
diversity
of
language appears
as a bar to intercourse.
24. Joseph
is moved to tears
by
this first
proof
of
penitence.
Simeon is chosen as
hostage
as the oldest next
to
Reuben,
of whose
attempt
to save him
Joseph
has
just
learned for the first time. The effect on the brothers
would be the same as in
43
33
.
25.
The rest are treated
with
great generosity; though
whether the restoration of
the
money
is
pure
kindness or a
trap,
we can
hardly say.
provision for
the
way]
Hence in E the sacks are not
opened
till the
journey
s end
(
35
).
yv
15-24
show a disconnectedness which is unusual in the lucid and
orderly Joseph story,
and which cannot be
explained by discrepancies
between
J
and E. The first
proposal
to send one man to fetch
Benjamin
leads to no
consequences,
but is
followed,
most
unnaturally,
by
the
imprisonment
of all the ten. This in like manner serves no
purpose
but to
give Joseph
time to
change
his mind. And the
colloquy
of the brothers
(
21f>
)
could
hardly
find a less
appropriate place
than the
moment when
hope
breaks in on their
foreboding
s. The
proper setting
for the
imprisonment
would seem to be their first encounter with
Joseph
(as
v.
30
&)
;
and the confession of
guilt
would stand in a suitable con
nexion there. It is
possible
that
15f>
are a variant to
19f<
,
belonging
to a
somewhat different recension. If Gu.
(p. 387)
be
right
in
thinking
that
the earliest form of the
legend
knew of
only
one visit to
Egypt,
it is
easy
to conceive that in the
process
of
amplification
several situations were
successively
invented,
and that two of these have been
preserved
side
by
side
by
an
editor,
in
spite
of their
imperfect consistency.
26-38.
The return to Canaan.
27,
28.
J
s
parallel
to
K
(E).
To leave room for the
latter,
the account is cut
rm]
JUUL msa. irSx
2
]
JUA *?D
ir^y.
25. yvrfai]
Continuation of vb. fin.
by
inf.
(as here)
is
very
unusual
(G-K. I2O/).
vy*\]
wyi? cf. >F.
27. ip]
Rd. innnEN with
ffi.
-KISDD]
characteristic of
J (24
25- 32
43),
also
Ju. i9
19
t-
pte] (x/p
1
?) strictly resting-place
for the
night (Ex. 4
24
)
or
night encampment (Jos. 4
3
), perhaps
a rude shelter of bushes or
canvas
(cf.
nn
pD, hut,
Is. i
8
24
20
)
rather than a khan or
caravanserai.
IBDD]
E
says
ISDS ins
(
35
**-f);
so
(&
here, wrongly. nrjfiDN]
A word re
curring 13
times in chs.
43
f.
(J),
and nowhere else in OT : (Sir
invariably
/j.dp(wnros.
The
^
nno
=
spread
out
(Is. 4O
22
),
found in NH. Aram.
SECOND VISIT TO EGYPT
(j)
short with the
opening
of the first sack. In
J,
each man
found his
money
at the inn
(43
21
).
28. their heart went
out]
their
courage
sank.
Partly
from the
anticipated
accusation of theft
(43
18
),
but still more from the
super
stitious notion that God was
bringing
trouble
upon
them.
nnnpK]
J
s
peculiar
word for corn-sack
(v.i.).
The last
clause, however,
What has God
(D^n^x)
done to
us?]
is
apparently
taken from
E,
probably transposed
from the end
of
35
(KS.). 29-34. They
recount their
experiences
to
Jacob. 30.
treated us as
spies]
Better,
as
ffi
(*>*) P
ut us m
ward as
spies. 35.
See on
27f
-. The incident
explains
Jacob
s
foreboding (v.
3G
)
that Simeon and
Benjamin
are as
good
as lost.
36.
Me have
ye
bereaved . . .
upon
me all
this has
come]
The
point
of the
complaint
is that it is his
children,
not their
own,
that
they
are
throwing away
one
after another : to which Reuben s offer to sacrifice his two
sons is the
apt rejoinder. 37
is E s variant to
43
: here
Reuben,
there
Judah,
becomes
surety
for
Benjamin.
In E
an immediate return to
Egypt
is
contemplated,
that Simeon
may
be released
;
hence the discussion about
sending
Benjamin
takes
place
at once. In
J
the
thought
of
returning
is
put
off to the last
possible
moment
(43
8
),
and the
difficulty
about
Benjamin
does not
yet
arise.
38
therefore has been
removed from its
original
context : see on
43!-
2
.
bring
down . . . to She
ol\
See on
37
s5
.
CHS. XLIII. XLIV. The second Visit to
Egypt (J).
The
supply
of food
being
exhausted,
another
family
council is
held,
at which
Jacob
s reluctance to
part
with
Benjamin
is at last overcome
by Judah becoming surety
for
his safe return : the eleven brethren set out with a
present
Ar. 28.
run]
juu.S add Kin
unnecessarily.
VN
-nn] Preg-n.
const.
;
G-K.
Il
9
r
g
r
-
3O-
13nt*
P
1
]
r + tv
0uXa/C77
(= IClfB^). 32.
D nx
UnJNJ
juCr^
transp. 33. pajn]
Rd. with &C
n
nar,
as v.
19
.
34.
oa
mow]
(551T
P
r- 1 -~
35-
On the
syntax,
cf. G-K.
111^36.
na^o]
for
}b,
as Pr
3
1
29
(G-K.
9i/).
On E s
preference
for these
lengthened
stiff.,
see
Di. on
4
1
21
.
XLII. 28-xLin.
i,
2
479
for
Joseph
and double
money
in their hand
f
1
"
14
).
To their
surprise they
are received with
every
mark of honour as the
guests
of the
viceroy
;
and their fears
give place
to con
vivial abandonment at his
hospitable
table
(
15
~
34
).
But
Joseph
has devised one more trial for them : his silver
cup
is
secretly placed
in
Benjamin
s
sack,
and on their homeward
journey they
are overtaken with the accusation of theft.
Brought
back to
Joseph
s
presence, they
offer to surrender
their freedom in
expiation
of some hidden
guilt
which God
has
brought
home to them
(44
1
~
16
).
But when
Joseph
proposes
to detain
Benjamin
alone, Judah
comes forward
and,
in a
speech
of noble and
touching eloquence, pleads
that he
may
be allowed to redeem his
pledge by bearing
the
punishment
for his
youngest
brother
(
17
~
34
).
The second
journey "brings
to
light
the
disposition
of the brethren
to one another and to their
father,
thus
marking
an advance on the
first,
which
only brought
them to the
point
of self-accusation
"
(Di.).
That
is
true
of the narrative as it stands
;
but since the first
journey
is taken
almost
entirely
from E and the second from
J,
the difference indicated
is
probably
due to the different
conceptions represented by
the two
writers,
rather than to a conscious
development
of the
plot.
Source. That the chs. are not the continuation of
42 (E) appears
(a)
from the more reasonable attitude attributed to
Joseph, (b)
from the
ignoring
of Simeon s
confinement,
and
(c)
the
consequent postponement
of the second
journey
to the last
moment,
and
(d)
the
divergent
account of
the first
meeting
with
Joseph (p. 473).
Positive
points
of contact with
J
are
(a)
the
discovery
of the
money
at the first
halting-place (43
21
), (b)
Judah
as
spokesman
and leader
(43
3ff> 8ff>
44
14 18ff-
)> (c)
the name Israel
(43
6- 8 n
)i
and the
expressions
:
"?rk, 43
2- 4- 20- 22
44
U 25
;
s? n
(of Joseph,
without
qualification), 43
3- 5- 6f- " 13f>
44
26
;
mw N*?I
,vmi, 43**
; nnrrann, 43 ;
TV and
v-nn, 43
n- 1S- 20- 22
; nnnDK, 43
12- 18- 21ff-
44
lf- 8- llf-
;
pte, 43
21
; NISDD,
43
24
;
pDN
mp, 44
29
. The
only
clear traces of E s
parallel
narrative are the
allusions to Simeon in
43
14 - 23b
. Pro. makes
***
(1
12b
a)
13- "
"a/gb.
iea
a
. m
a
continuous
sequence
from E
;
but the evidence is
conflicting (note
t?
K,i,
14
; ITVI,
15b
)
:
see, however,
on
12
.
1-14.
The
journey
resolved on. 2.
Jacob speaks
in
evident
ignorance
of the
stipulation regarding Benjamin ;
hence
42
38
(J)
stands out of its
proper place.
The motive
of the
transposition
is
obvious, viz.,
to account for the
seeming rejection
of Reuben s
sponsorship
in
42
37
.
The
original
order in
J
can be recovered
by
the
help
of
44
25flr
-. After
v.
2
there must have been an
announcement,
in terms similar to
44
26
,
of
480
SECOND VISIT TO EGYPT
(j)
the
necessity
for
taking Benjamin
with
them,
to which
Jacob
replies
with the resolute refusal of
43** (cf. 44
29
).
Then follows
(
3ff
-)
the more
emphatic
declaration of
Judah,
and his
explanation
of the circumstances
out of which the inexorable demand had arisen
(see
We.
Comp.
2
59 f.).
3-5. Judah
s ultimatum. On the difference of
representa
tion from
E,
see
p. 473
above. 6. The
reproachful question
is
intelligible only
on the
understanding
that
Jacob
has
just
heard for the first time that he must
part
with
Benjamin.
7. according
to the
tenor,
etc.\
In accordance with the
gover
nor s
leading questions.
8-10.
Judah
becomes
responsible
for
Benjamin
s
safety (as
in E
Reuben, 42
37
). 9.
I shall be a
sinner,
etc.\
For the
idea,
cf. i Ki. i
21
:
guilt
is measured
not
by
the moral
intention,
but
by
the external
consequences,
of an action.
11-14. Jacob yields
to the
inevitable;
but
with characteristic shrewdness
suggests
measures that
may
somewhat ease the situation. II. the
produce of
the
land\
its
rarer
products,
as a token of
homage.
On
n"jDT,
v.i. On
"HV,
n&Q3
} b?,
see
37
25
.
honey] may
here mean
grape-syrup,
the
dibs of modern
Syria (see
Robinson, BR,
ii.
81,
iii.
381);
but there seems no reason to
depart
from the usual OT
sense of the
word, viz.,
the
honey
of the wild-bee
(see
Kennedy
s careful art. in
EB,
2io4ff.). pistachio-nuts (v.i.)
are
highly
esteemed as a
delicacy
in
Egypt
and
Syria,
although
the tree is said to be
rarely
found in Palestine
(according
to
Rosen, ZDMG,
xii.
502,
not at
all).
12.
3.
vi
1
?:}]
followed
by
nom.
sent.,
G-K.
163
c. Instead of
DDriN,
Qfr
has
6
vewrepos Ka.Ta.j3r) irpos fJ.^]. 5- n-^]
@J -\-rbv d5.
r\i*.u>v yu,e# i]/j,u)i>.
10.
3
nny]
in that
case,
as
3i
42
;
see G-K.
159^.
u.
rnpi]
&TT.
Xey.
(&
Kapirot,
F
optimis fructibus,
3T NyiNa
n^pi,
j$
]^5]> Ql^CL^.
The
meaning
is obscure. The derivation from
*J
noi,
praise [in song j
(iT5I
o
-J
,
Tu.
al.)
is
perhaps
too
poetic
to be
natural,
though
it
yields
a
good
sense;
that from
^/ TDT,
prune,
is
hardly
suitable
(see Di.).
T< 7
DHMiiller
(in
Ges. Hd-wb.
p. 983)
connects with Aram.
jlD5,
admire :
admirable
products, practically
the same idea as Tu.
(On
Ar.
damara,
dimdr
[agreeing phonetically
with Aram, and
Heb.],
v.
Lane,
977 f.)
D
jan]
air.
\ey.
Almost
certainly
nuts of Pisfacia
vera, belonging
to the terebinth
family (hence
(&.
rept^filivdov,
so
U),
for which the
Syr.
name is
*)AVn
A^
(Aram. Kaon,
Ar.
butm,
Ass.
butnu)
;
see
BDB,
s.v.
12. nJB D
^03]
cf.
r
(
D3
njj^D,
v.
15
;
and see G--K.
131 e, q. a^icn]
See Ba-Del.
XLIII.
3-23
481
double
money
. . . and the
money,
etcJ\
can
hardly
mean
double
money
besides that which had been returned
;
unless
(Procksch)
the first clause be a variant from
E,
we must
take
1
as
=
namely. 14.
El Shaddai does not occur else
where in
J
or E
(see
on
17*),
and
may
be redactional. On
the
composition
of the
v.,
v.i. as I am
bereaved,
etc.]
An
utterance of subdued
resignation
: cf.
42
36
,
2 Ki.
7*,
Est.
4
16
.
15-25.
In
Joseph
s house.
15. They
first
present
themselves before
Joseph
at his official
bureau,
and are
afterwards conducted
by
the steward to his
private
residence.
The house of a
wealthy Egyptian
of the i8th
dynasty
will
be found described in
Erman, LAE,
153, i77ff.
16.
Joseph
s
desire to set his
eyes
on
Benjamin being
now
gratified,
he rewards his brothers
by
a
display
of kindness which
must have seemed excessive.
slay
and make
ready]
In
Egypt, accg.
to Her. ii.
37, 77,
Diod. i.
70,
flesh was eaten
daily by priests
and
kings, although
the former had to
abstain from certain kinds of animal food
(Kn-Di.).
18.
To the
simple-minded peasants
all this looks like an
elaborate
military stratagem
to overwhelm them
by
main
force and reduce them to
slavery. Ip-22.
To forestall the
suspicion
of
theft,
they
offer to return the
money
found in
their sacks. in its
full weight]
On the
weighing
of
money,
see
23
16
.
23. your money
came to
me]
Therefore what
you
found has
nothing
to do with it. The steward has
entered into
Joseph
s
purpose,
and
encourages
them to
p. 79 ( pathachatum
uti
expresse
ait Masora
),
G-K.
72 bb,
14.
inx]
tu.05: "inNn. The
phrasing-
is
peculiar,
and
suggests
that RJ
E
may
have added to
J
the words
j
D jaTNi
"inx,
at the same time
inserting-
DD
1
?
(which
(5r
om.),
to
bring-
about the desired allusion to Simeon.
nSar]
Pausal : G-K.
29
u.
16.
DI?N]
.uxdJrU
]
DHN.
|
DM3]
<Hr +
lDK"|3
rriN
(v.
29
). rptp]
The
only
case
of
impve.
in o with final
gutt. (G-K. 65 b).
18.
INTI]
(&
*KII. 3?n]
AXI
& 3?V3n (v.
12
).
S^nn
1
?]
&TT.
\cy.
5
read S-unnV
(see Ba.).
ffi roO
avKocpavTTJcrai
TJAtas,
U ut devolvat in nos cahimniam. The text is not to
be
questioned.
20.
?] Always
followed
by
3iN
(44
18
,
Ex.
4
10- 13
,
Nu. i2
n
,
Jos. 7
8
, Ju.
6
13- 16
i
3
8
,
i Sa. i
26
,
i Ki.
3
17- 26
t).
It is
commonly
derived
from
,/
nyn, ask,
or
(BOB)
Ar.
bayyat
entreat :
might
it not rather
be
regarded
as a
shortening
of
^N
(2
Ki.
5
13
, Jb. 34
3(i
)
from
^/ rDN,
be
willing
?
23. emu]
JUA( DrraK.
3
482
SECOND VISIT TO EGYPT
(j)
believe that it was a
supernatural occurrence,
but of
auspicious
omen,
and
not,
as
they
had
imagined,
a
calamity.
The notice of Simeon s release is here inserted as the
most convenient
place,
from E.
24.
Cf.
24
32
.
25. they
had
heard,
etc.\
In conversation with the steward
(cf.
v.
16
).
26-34.
At
Joseph
s table.
27,
28.
Joseph
s courteous
inquiries
as to their welfare and that of their father are a
studied
prelude
to
29-31,
his
profound
emotion
at the
sight
of
Benjamin,
his
(full)
brother,
the son
of
his
mother. The
disparity
in
age
must have been
great (^)
:
one wonders whether the narrative does not
presuppose
that
Benjamin
had been born since
Joseph
had been lost.
30, 31.
For the second time
(42
24
) Joseph
s affection finds
relief in
tears,
and
again
he restrains
himself,
that he
may
carry
out his
plan.
The interlude
reveals,
as Gu.
remarks,
a
power
of
psychological
observation which is absent from
the oldest
legends. 32-34.
The feast
brings
two more
surprises
: the
arrangement
of the brothers in the order of
seniority (see
on
42
24
)
;
and the
special
favour shown to
Benjamin. 32
affords an
interesting glimpse
of
Egyptian
manners.
Joseph
s isolation at table was
perhaps
due to
his
having
been admitted a member of the
priestly
caste
(4i
45
),
which
kept
itself
apart
from the
laity (Kn-Di.).
The
Egyptian
exclusiveness in intercourse with
foreigners,
which
would have been
perfectly intelligible
to the later
Jews,
evidently
struck the ancient Israelites as
peculiar (Gu.).
Cf. Her. ii.
41. 34.
The custom of
honouring
a
guest by
24. jm
&"Nn]
(5r
om.
25.
lVa
]
(Gr more
easily
*?3N
(of Joseph).
26. W3
i]
On
Dagh.
or
Mappiq
in
N,
see G-K.
14^. nsnx]
(Sr
pr.
D EK.
27.
mWri]
noun? or
adj.
? See G-K.
141
c
4
. 28. After Athnach
jju.(5r ins. D n^N
1
? Ni.tn B"NH
T)"O TDNI,
a
parallel
to the benediction on
Benj.
(
29
): clumsy
in
expression
and
hardly original. 29.
cmDN]
(Si +
N nn
1
?,
an
interesting-
and
perhaps
correct addition.
-pn;]
for
^n; (as
Is.
30")
;
see G-K.
6j
n.
30.
J?p3
i ino
i] hastily sought, though
an inter
mediate clause between the
complementary
vbs. is
very
unusual.
?x]
juu. hy.
32.
DnsD
1
?]
Better D
-ipS
: so Vns. Ba. (5r
adds iras
vrot/x,?)*
Trpoftdruv,
in mistaken accommodation to
46
34
.
34.
Ntri]
(&&
iNtri.
mr]
=
shares or
times,
47
24
,
2 Ki. n
7
,
2 Sa.
ig
44
,
Neh. n
1
,
Dn.
i
20
!.
riDBn] hardly got
drunk : I:JB> of convivial
drinking, Hag.
i
6
,
Ca. *.
XLIII.
24-XLIV. 5
483
portions
from the table is illustrated
by
2 Sa. 1 1
8
;
cf. Horn.
//. vii.
321
f.,
Od. iv.
65 f.,
xiv.
437. five
times].
It is
hardly
accidental that the number five occurs so often in
reference to matters
Egyptian (4i
34
45^ 47
2< 24
,
Is.
ig
18
).
Whether
there be an allusion to the five
planets recognised by
the
Egyptians
(Kn.),
or to their ten
days
week
(Di.),
it is
impossible
to
say. Jeremias
(ATLO
*, 385)
connects it with the five
intercalary days by
which the
Egyptian
calendar
adjusted
the difference between the conventionalised
lunar
year (12
months of
30 days)
and the solar
year (365 days),
these
belonging
to
Benjamin
as the
representative
of the I2th month! The
explanation
is too
ingenious,
and overlooks the occurrence of the
numeral where
Benjamin
is not concerned.
XLIV.
1-17.
The
cup
in
Benjamin
s sack.
i,
2. This
final test of the brethren s
disposition
is
evidently arranged
between
Joseph
and the steward on the
evening
of the ban
quet,
to be carried out at
daybreak (v.
3
).
ib. each mans
money,
etc.]
Though
this seems a useless
repetition
of
42
25
,
with no
consequences
in the
sequel,
the clause
ought scarcely
to be omitted
(with Gu.)
before
2a
. 2. the silver
cup]
Joseph
s
ordinary drinking-vessel,
but at the same time an
implement
of divination
(v.
5
)
: therefore his most
precious possession.
3-5.
The
trap
is
skilfully
laid :
just
when
they
have
emerged
from the
city,
and think all
danger
is left
behind,
exulting
in the fresh
morning
air,
and still unwearied
by
travel,
they
are arrested
by
the steward s
challenge,
and
finally plunged
in
despair. 4. Why
have
ye
. . .
good?]
(JEr
adds,
*
Why
have
ye
stolen
my
silver
cup
? The addition
seems
necessary
in view of the
following
n]f.
5.
and,
more
over,
he divines with
(or in) it]
See on v.
15
.
On the
widely prevalent species
of divination referred to
(KV\IKO-
fj-avTela,
XcKavofJUJLvrela),
cf.
August.
De civit.
Dei,
vii.
35
; Strabo,
XVI. ii.
39 ; lamblichus,
De
myst.
iii.
14.
Various methods seem to have been
I. (5r ins.
IucT77<
as
subj.
nNtf
jtav]
Ba.
plausibly,
riNs?
1
? tar. 2.
JT33]
Used of the
golden cups
of the candlestick
(Ex. 25
31ff
37
17ff
-) ;
else
where
only Jer. 35, along
with the
ordinary
word for
cup (ota),
of the
bowls of wine set before the Rechabites.
3, 4.
On the
synt.
of these
vv. see G-K.
142 e,
156 f\
Dav.
141, 41,
R.
3.
The addition in ffir
runs : Ivo. rl
tnXtyare /J.QV
TO Kbvdv r6
apyvpovv
;.
5. v~i]
The derivation of
this vb. from
E>nj, serpent,
first
suggested by
Boch.
(Hicroz.
i.
3),
is
sup
ported by (amongst
others)
No.
(ZVP,
i.
413)
and Baudissin
(Stud.
i.
287)
;
on the other
hand,
see We.
Skizzen,
iii.
147
;
and Rob. Sm.
JPh.
484
SECOND VISIT TO EGYPT
(j)
employed
;
e.g.
,
amongst
the
Babylonians
oil was
poured
into a vessel
of
water,
and from its movements omens were deduced
according-
to a
set of fixed rules of
interpretation
: see
Hunger, Bechenvahrsagung
bei
den
Babyloniern
nach zivei
Keilschriften
aus der Hammurabi-zeit
(Leipziger
Semit.
Stud., 1903,
i.
1-80).
An
interesting
modern
parallel
is
quoted by
Dri.
(358*),
and
Hunger (4),
from the Travels of Norden
(c. 1750),
where a Nubian sheikh
says
: I have consulted
my cup,
and I
find that
you
are Franks in
disguise,
who have come to
spy
out the land.
6-p.
The brethren
appeal
to their
honesty
in the matter
of the
money
returned in their
sacks,
and
propose
the
severest
punishment
death to the
thief,
slavery
for the rest
should the
missing
article be found with them. 10. The
servant holds them to their
pledge,
but offers easier terms :
the thief alone shall be
Joseph
s slave.
11-13.
To the dis
may
of the brethren the
cup
is found in
Benjamin
s sack.
12.
beginning
. . .
youngesi\
A calculated strain on the
brethren s
suspense,
and
(on
the
part
of the
narrator)
an
enhancement of the reader s interest : cf. i Sa. i6
6ff
-.
13.
Their submissiveness shows that no
suspicion
of a trick
crossed their minds
;
their sense of an adverse fate was
quickened by
the still unsolved
mystery
of the
money
in the
sacks,
to which
they
had so
proudly appealed
in
proof
of
their innocence.
14-17.
The brethren before
Joseph. 14.
he was still
there]
had not
gone
out to his
place
of business
(see 43
15- 17
),
but was
waiting
for them.
15.
that a man in
my
position (one
of the wise men of
Egypt)
can divine.
It is difficult to
say
how much is
implied
in this claim of
superhuman
knowledge
on
Joseph
s
part.
No doubt it links itself on the one hand to
the
feeling
in the brethren s mind that a divine
power
was
working
against
them,
and on the other to the
proofs they
had had of the
governor
s marvellous
insight.
But whether
Joseph
is conceived as
really practising
divination,
or
only
as
wishing
his brothers to think
so,
does not
appear.
Not
improbably,
as Gu.
surmises,
the motive comes
from an older
story,
in which the
prototype
of
Joseph actually
achieved
his ends
by
means of occult
knowledge.
l6. God has
found
out>
etc.]
The exclamation does not
xiv.
115.
8.
*pD
x
]
.ux
*]DDn. 9. IDN]
(& + rb icdvdv.
not]
jux
nnr, equally
good.
12. n*?3 . . .
*?nn]
Infs. abs.
(.Y?3
. . .
Vnrr)
would be more idiom
atic than the
pf.
(so Ball).
16. We.
(Comp.^ 60)
would omit
mi,v and
read notn
;
but the text is
safeguarded by
v.
14
,
and the
change
is un
called for.
Judah
speaks
here in the name of
all,
in
18ff-
for himself.
XLIV. 6-28
485
necessarily imply
consciousness of
particular guilt (see
on
43
9
),
and is
certainly
not meant as a confession of the
wrong
done to
Joseph
: at the same time we
may
be sure that that
is the crime to which their secret
thoughts gravitate
(42
21ff
-).
17. Judah
s
proposal
that all should remain as slaves is
rejected by Joseph,
who insists on
separating Benjamin
s fate
from that of the rest. Did he
purpose
to retain him
by
his
side,
while
sustaining
the rest of the
family
in their homes ?
18-34. Judah
s
plea
for
Benjamin.
The
speech,
which
is the finest
specimen
of
dignified
and
persuasive eloquence
in the
OT,
is
perhaps
modelled on the
style
of forensic
oratory
to which the Hebrews were accustomed in
public
assemblies at the
city gates (ct.
the stilted oration of Ter-
tullus in Ac.
24). Sincerity
and
depth
of
feeling
are not more
remarkable than the skilful selection and
disposition
of the
points
most
likely
to
appeal
to the
governor: (i)
a recital of
the interview in which
Joseph
had insisted on
Benjamin being
brought
down
(
19
~
23
)
;
(2)
a
pathetic description
of the father s
reluctance to
part
with
him,
overcome
only by
the harsh
necessity
of
hunger (
24
-
29
)
;
(3)
a
suggestion
of the death-
stroke which their return without
Benjamin
would inflict on
their
aged parent (
30- 31
);
and,
lastly, (4)
the
speaker
s
personal
request
to be allowed to redeem his honour
by taking
Ben
jamin
s
punishment
on himself
(
32
~
34
).
The Massoretes
commence a new Parashah with v.
18
, rightly perceiving
that
Judah
s
speech
is the
turning-point
in the relations between
Joseph
and his brethren.
19-23.
On the
divergent
re
presentations
of
J
and
E,
see on
p. 473
above. 20. to his
mother}
See
p. 449.
28. The words of
Jacob
enable
Judah
to draw a veil over the brothers share in the
tragedy
of
Joseph.
and 1 have ?wt seen him till
now\
Comp.
the
rugged pathos
of Lowell s
"
Whose comin" home there s them that wan t
No,
not
life-long-
leave off awaitin ."
The
simple
words,
with their burden of
suppressed emotion,
18. S3
-pD3]
G-K. l6l C. 20. 1DN
1
?]
( V3N^.
24.
(so
<&&
in
27
,
and
<&%"&
in
30
).
28.
TDKI]
<&
/ta! civa-rc.
486 JOSEPH
REVEALS HIMSELF
(E, j)
have a
meaning
for the
governor
of which the
speaker
is all
unconscious.
2p.
in trouble to She
ol]
Cf.
42
38
37
35
44
31
.
30.
his soul
(not
life
)
is bound
up, etc.\
a
figure
for in
alienable
affection;
as i Sa. iS
1
.
CH. XLV.
Joseph
reveals
himself
to his Brethren
(E, J).
The crisis so
slowly
matured and so
skilfully
led
up
to is
at last
reached,
and in a scene of inimitable
power
and tender
ness
Joseph
makes himself known to his brethren
f
1
"
8
).
In
a
message
to his father he discloses his
plans
for the
future,
inviting
the whole
family
to settle in
Egypt
while the famine
lasted
(
9
-
15
).
The invitation is confirmed
by
the
king (
16
-
20
)
;
and the brethren
depart
laden with rich
gifts
and
provision
for the
journey (
21
~
24
). Jacob,
after a
momentary incredulity,
is cheered
by
the
prospect
of
seeing Joseph
before his death
The
sources,
E and
J,
are here so
intimately
blended that a
complete
analysis
is
impossible.
The main fact is the
preponderance
of
E,
which
appears
both from
language (o nW,
5t 7 - 8 - 9
;
npjr,
-5
; \ry:j
mn,
5
[ji
35
] ; ms,
21
[42
25
] ; -n,
23
;
perhaps
also
pio,
;
and
DDTyrnN
wye,
17
[ct. J
s norr^y DDy
i,
44
13
]),
and
representation
: ct. v.
3
with
43
271
-,
17 20
with
46
31
~47
5
(J),
where
Joseph
s kindred are
apparently brought
under Pharaoh s notice for the
first time. Indubitable traces of
J
are found in
4b> 5a
(the selling
of
Joseph),
10
(Goshen,
see the
notes),
28
(^NIB")
;
these are
supported by
the ex
pressions, pDKnn,
la
(as 43
31
)
; 3*yj,
6a
; win,
13
;
"iNur^y
*?EJ,
14
. Thus far in
the main We. and Di. More subtle and less reliable criteria are
ap
plied by
Gu.
(402 f., 406),
and
(with very
different
results)
by
Pro.
(52 f.).
It is
probable
that
3
(E)
is
||
4
(J),
and
(agt. Pro.)
9
(E)
||
13
(J).
But it is
very
doubtful if the dismissal of the attendants
(
a
)
be inconsistent with the
overhearing
of the
weeping (
2
),
or if the latter be
necessarily
connected
with the Pharaoh s invitation
(
16ff
-).
Some minor
questions,
such as
the
waggons
of
19- S1- 27
(cf. 46 ),
and the
authorship
of vv.
19 21
,
must
be reserved for the notes.
1-8. The disclosure.
I,
2.
Joseph
s self-restraint
gives
way
before
Judah
s irresistible
appeal.
It is
pressing
matters
too far to
say
that the dismissal of the attendants is a device
31. ijn]
juxU<S
+nx(as
v.
30
). 32. 3]
JUA
ran,
5
u 3K.
34.
*nn]
I.
jrnnn]
Nu. i2
6
f
(E?).
2.
onso]
(Gr onson-^a. The
pointing
without art.
(Gu.)
is no
improvement.
yDtri]
XLIV.
29-XLV. 9
487
to
keep
his relation to the
strangers
a secret from Pharaoh
(see
on the sources
above). 3.
is
myfatheryet
alive?}
The
question
is
slightly
less natural in the context of
J
(see 43
26f-
44
24ff>
)
than in
E,
where the absence of
any
mention of
Jacob
since the first visit
(42
13
) might
leave room for
uncertainty
in
Joseph
s mind. But since he does not wait for an
answer,
the doubt can
hardly
be real. were troubled
before
hini\
Comp. 5o
15
"
21
(also E). 4. J
s
parallel
to v.
3
,
probably
the
immediate continuation of v.
1
(cf. 44
18
). 5~8.
With
singular
generosity Joseph
reassures them
by pointing
out the
provi
dential
purpose
which had overruled their crime for
good
;
cf.
5o
20
. The
profoundly religious
conviction which
recog
nises the hand of
God,
not
merely
in miraculous
interventions,
but in the
working
out of divine ends
through
human
agency
and what we call
secondary
causes,
is characteristic of the
Joseph-narrative amongst
the
legends
of Genesis : see Gu.
404 (cf.
ch.
24). 7-
n<1
"!^]
remnant, perhaps
in the sense
of descendants
(2
Sa.
i4
7
, Jer. 44
7
).
But the use of
no^s
(strictly escaped
remnant,
cf.
32
9
)
is
difficult,
seeing
the
whole
family
was saved
(v.i.}.
8. a
father
to
Pharaoh]
Prob
ably
an honorific title of the chief minister
(cf.
i Mac. n
32
,
Add. Est.
3
13
8
12
)
; see, further,
inf.
9-15. Joseph
s
message
to his father. That both
J
and E recorded the invitation
may
be
regarded
as
certain,
apart
from nice
questions
of
literary analysis
: Eerdmans
suggestion
that,
in
J, Jacob
conceived the
project
of
going
down to
Egypt
"
auf
eigene
Faust"
(Komp. 65, 70) being
Ho. Gu. The
cl., however,
is best
regarded
as a doublet of the
preced
ing-,
in which case MT is
preferable. 3. fpv
2
]
(Hi + 6 d5eX<6j
vfAuv,
$v
d-n-edoffde els
Aiyvwrov (as
v.
4
). VJSD]
dfr om.
4a.
(5r
A
om.
entirely. 5.
03 3
ya
irr-^w] (cf. 3i
35
)
is E s variant to nxyrrVx
(6
6
34
7
J). n;np]
In
Ju.
6
4
17
the word
signifies
means of subsistence
;
in 2 Ch.
I4
12
perhaps
preservation
of life
;
and so here if the
pointing
be
right.
Ba.
plausibly
emends
,T.n?, preserver
of life
(i
Sa. 2
6
).
6.
Tspi trin]
Ex.
34" (J ?). 7.
no^s
1
?
nvnn]
The want of an
obj.
after nn is harsh
(cf. 47
20
5o
20
).
The
omission of the S
(M*.$JX
Ols. Ba.
al.) improves
the
grammar,
but the sense
remains
unsatisfying (v.s.).
8. UN . . .
jm]
That the words are used in
their Heb. sense
(
father* . . . lord
)
is not to be
questioned
;
in
spite
of
the fact that
Brugsch
has
compared
two
Egyptian
titles,
identical in form
but
altogether
different in
meaning (see
Dri. DB
y
ii.
774
;
Str.
p. 157 f.).
488 JOSEPH
REVEALS HIMSELF
(E, j)
contrary
to
every
natural view of the situation. We
may
therefore be
prepared
to find traces of the dual narrative in
these vv. 10. On the land
of
Goshen,
see the footnote. be
near to
me]
The clause is not inconsistent with the
preceding
;
for,
as
compared
with
Canaan,
Goshen was
certainly
near
to where
Joseph
dwelt. Nevertheless it is best
regarded
as
a variant from
E,
continued in
lla
. It is
only
in
J
that the
Israelites are
represented
as
dwelling
in Goshen.
12-15-
The close of
Joseph
s
speech,
followed
by
his affectionate
embrace,
and the free converse of the brethren.
13
and
14
(J)
are
respectively parallel
to
9
and
15
(E).
16-20. Pharaoh s invitation.
This,
as
already
ex
plained,
is
peculiar
to E. It is
just possible
(though hardly
probable)
that in this source
Joseph
s invitation
(
9
~
n
)
extended
only
to his
father,
while the idea of
transplanting
the whole
family
emanated from the
king.
l6a. Cf. v.
2
. 18. the best
10.
\v\\
ffic
Tfoen
Apaplas (as 46^).
The name is
peculiar
to
J (46-*-
29.4
47
i. 4. 6. 27
^
Ex gi
8
fBty
;
P has land of Ramses
(47",
cf. Ex. i
11
I2
37
,
Nu.
33
5
)
;
while E uses no
geographical designation.
That P and
J
mean the same
locality
is
intrinsically probable (though
Naville con
siders that the land of Ramses was a
larger
area than
Goshen),
and is
confirmed
by
recent excavations. The
city
of Pithom
(see
on
46
s8
)
has
been identified
by
Naville with the modern Tell
el-Maskhuta,
12 m. W
of
Ismailia,
in Wadl
Tumilat,
a
long
and narrow
valley leading
"
straight
from the heart of the Delta to a break in the chain of the Bitter
Lakes,"
and therefore
marking
a weak
spot
in the natural defences of
Egypt
(Erman, LAE,
525 f.).
In the same
region, though
not
quite
so far
E,
excavations at the
village
of
Soft
el-Henneh have established its
identity
with
Pa-soft (also
called on local inscrs.
Kes),
which is stated to have
been the
capital
of the 2oth Nome of Lower
Egypt.
A rare name of
this nome is Kesem
;
and it is at least a
plausible conjecture
that this is
the same as the biblical
ftpa (IY<re/i)
;
and if so the situation of Goshen is
fixed as a
part
of W. Tumilat
surrounding
Saft el-Henneh. A confirma
tion of this
may
be found in the
Apa/3ta
of
(5r,
for this in Graeco-Roman
times
(Ptol.
iv.
5, 53)
was the name of one of the
23
nomes of the
Delta,
whose
capital
$a.Kov<rffa
(cf.
Strabo,
XVII. i.
26)
has
long
been
conjectured
to be the ancient
Kes,
preceded by
the art.
pa.
See
Naville,
Land
of
Goshen,
etc.
(Fifth
Memoir of
EEF, 1887), 15 if.,
20
;
Store
City of
Pithom,
etc.
(
4
i9O3), 46.
;
Spiegelberg, Aufenth.
etc.
52;
Miiller in
EB, 17586.;
and Griffith in
BD,
ii.
232
f. II.
^a]
cf.
5o
?a
(E). BnirrjB]
lest thou
come to want
(tit.
be
dispossessed )
;
cf.
Ju. I4
15
,
Pr. 2O
13
23
21
3O
9
.
17. jyo]
aTr.
\7. (Aram.);
ct.
DDJ?,
44" (J). Tjn]
Ex.
22*,
Nu. 2O
4> 8t
11
(E),
Ps.
78
48
f.
18.
310]
=
best
things,
as vv.
20- 23
2j
10
,
2 Ki. 8
9
;
(5
XLV.
10-23
489
of
the land
(v.i.)
. . . the
fat of
the
land]
The
expressions
are not
altogether inapplicable
to Goshen
(W. Tumilat),
which was rendered fertile
by
a
canal,
and is still
spoken
of
as the best
pasture-land
in
Egypt (Robinson,
BR>
i.
53 {.).
But since E never mentions a
separate
location in
Goshen,
there is no need to force that sense
upon
them
;
the
meaning
is
general
: the best of
everything
that
Egypt
can afford
(v.t.).
Ip.
The
opening
words
(v.i.)
throw some doubt on the
originality
of the v.
;
and there
certainly
seems no more
reason for
ascribing
it to
J (Gu.)
than to E. The
baggage-
waggon ( "7JW)
is said to have been introduced into
Egypt
from
Canaan,
with its Semitic name
(Eg. *agol)
:
Erman, LAE^
491.*
20. Let not
your eye
pity\
The
phrase
is
Deuteronomic,
and seems a
very strong
one for concern about household
implements. According
to
J (
lob- llb
46*-
32
) they brought
all
they possessed,
which,
if
they
were
half-nomads,
would
be
possible
without
waggons.
21-28. The brethren return to Canaan. 22. Presents
of
expensive
clothes are a common mark of
courtesy
in the
East: cf.
Ju. i4
12f- 19
,
2 Ki.
5
5- 22f
-._
changes of raiment]
such
as were substituted for
ordinary clothing
on festal occasions
(see
on
27
15
). Benjamin
receives
five
such suits : see on
43
34
.
23. of
the best
(produce) of Egypt]
A munificent return
TUV
ayaduv.
For the best
part,
P uses 3B
p
(47
6* ai
). 19.
nnto
nrm]
The
pass,
is awkward in
itself,
and has no
syntactic
connexion
with the
following-
iffy
nw
(hence
&
inserts
^jL*j|]
r^o])-
Di. Kit.
emend crux
ni$
nni
;
Ba. n^rme nw ,-intn
(after
fflr Si> 5 liretXcu raOra
;
cf.
F)
;
Gu.
nvv aflNI
: the first is best. But it is still difficult to understand the
extreme
emphasis
laid on this
point
;
and a
suspicion
remains that either
the whole v.
(Di.),
or the
introduction,
is due to a scribe who wished to
make it clear that the
waggons
were not sent without Pharaoh s
express
authority
: see on v.
21
.
21. VNIE"
iffyi]
The statement is
premature,
and furnishes an addi
tional indication that this
part
of the narrative has been worked over.
The
repeated Jivi
also
suggests
a doublet or
interpolation.
In
19 21
,
Di.
leaves to E
only
-pi
1
? ms on
1
?
jm
rn^jy
onV
jm
;
KS.
only
the second of
these
clauses,
the rest
being
redactional.
Tn
1
?
ms]
as
42
25
(E). 23.
rixi?] (so pointed only here)
: in like manner
(Ju.
8
8
). pis] (2
Ch. 1 1-
3
f)
from an Aram.
*J p?
=
feed. Of the three
nouns, 13,
on
1
?,
and
JITD,
(&
*
Cf.
Heyes,
Bib. u.
Aeg.
i.
251.
49O
THE SETTLEMENT IN EGYPT
(j,
E,
P)
for
Jacob
s modest
complimentary present
(43
11
).
corn and
bread and sustenance
for
the
journey\
cf. v.
20
.
24.
Do not
get
excited
by
the
way]
sc.,
with mutual
recriminations,
a
caution
suggested by 42
22
.
2528. Jacob
s
reception
of the
tidings.
26. his heart became
cold,
or
numb\
unable to take
in
the
startling intelligence,
as too
good
to be true.
27.
But
gradually,
as
they
rehearse the words
of Joseph,
and
show him the
waggons
as a
pledge
of his
power,
his
spirit
remved\
he recovered his wonted
energy
of
thought
and
action. 28. From
J.
It is
enough]
The father s heart is
indifferent to
Joseph
s
grandeur (
9- n
)
and
princely gifts
;
the fact that his son lives is sufficient consolation for all he
has endured
(cf.
46
30
).
The
psychology
of old
age
could not
be more
sympathetically
or
convincingly
treated.
XLVI. i-XLVII. 12. The Settlement
ofJacob
and his
Family
in
Egypt (J,
E,
P).
Jacob, encouraged by
a
night
vision at
Beersheba,
takes
his
departure
for
Egypt f
1
"
7
)
:
(here
is inserted a list of the
persons
who were
supposed
to
accompany
him,
8
~
27
).
He
sends
Judah
to announce his arrival to
Joseph,
who
proceeds
to Goshen and
tenderly
welcomes his father
(
28
-
30
). Having
instructed his brethren in the
part
he wishes them to
play
(
31
~
34
)> Joseph presents
five of them before
Pharaoh,
and
obtains
permission
for them to settle for a time in Goshen
(47
1
~
6
). Jacob
s interview with Pharaoh closes the account
of the
migration (
7
~
12
).
Sources. The narrative of
JE
is several times
interrupted by excerpts
from
P,
whose
peculiar style
and
viewpoint
can be
recognised
in
46
s 27
47
5- 6a- 7 n
(but
see the notes
below,
p. 439 ff.). Disregarding
these
vv.,
expresses only
en
1
?.
&
has
|;^Q^>>,
wine,
for on
1
?,
but
perhaps through
dittog.
of
! r
lQ-Kj,
asses,
24.
imn
"?N]
<&
M
dpytfeade,
3J
Ne
irascamini,
> iO
|Z P,
o
juonn
N
1
?
( quarrel ).
But the Heb. verb denotes
simply
agitation, by
whatever emotion
produced.
26.
KS]
In Arab, and
Syr.
the
/y/
means to be or
grow
cold,
in
Syr.,
also,
and
NH,
fig. grow
inactive, fail,
vanish
;
in OT the
prevailing
idea seems to be that
of numbness
(BOB)
;
cf. Hab. i
4
(of tor&k),
Ps.
38
9
. 28.
an]
As an ex
clamation
=
enough
!
;
cf. Ex.
Q
28
,
Nu. I6
3- 7
,
Dt. i
6
2* etc.
XLV.
24-XLVI. 3
491
we have a continuous
J
narrative
from46
28
-47
6
: note
^jnz",
29- 80
; Goshen,
28. 29. 34. i. 4. 6b .
tjie
leadership
of
Judah,
28
;
the
ignoring
of Pharaoh s
invitation
(45
17ff>
E)
;
"ixix
hy Ss3,
29
; cyan,
30
; uniyaD, injn,
34
.
46
1 5
is
in the main from
E,
as
appears
from the
nig-ht vision,
the form of
address,
2
; Jacob
s
implied hesitation,
3
(ct. 45
i>8
)
;
the name
Jacob,
2 - 6a
;
DM^N,
2
; "?N,
3.__ia
(^ync")
and
possibly
5b
belong-
to
J. 47
12
is
doubtful,
probably
E
(S^D,
as
45
11
).
See We.
Comp*
60 f.
;
Di. Ho. Gu. Pro.
54
f.
(who assigns 47
7
to E instead of P and
47
12
to
J).
1-7. Jacob
bids farewell to Canaan. i. came to Beer-
sheba]
There is in E no clear indication of where
Jacob
lived
after his return from Laban
(see
on
35
1
).
If at
Beersheba,
the
above clause is
redactional,
written on the
assumption
that
he started from Hebron
(37
14
J).
The
point
would be deter
mined if
5b
were the
original
continuation of
5a
,
for it is
absurd to
suppose
that the
waggons
were first
put
to use
in the middle of the
journey (We.).
But even
apart
from
that,
the natural view
undoubtedly
is that
Jacob
would
not start until his
misgivings
were removed in answer to
his
sacrifice,
and that
consequently
his
dwelling-place
at
this time w
r
as Beersheba. That he sacrificed at the last
patriarchal sanctuary
on the
way
is a much less
plausible
explanation.
the God
of
. . .
Isaac]
Isaac is
apparently
regarded
as the founder of the
sanctuary,
as in ch. 26
(J
h
)
;
an Elohistic
parallel
to that tradition
may
have existed
though
in 2i
31
(E
with
J
b
)
its consecration is attributed to
Abraham.
2-4.
The last of the
patriarchal theophanies.
Comp.
i2
lff
-,
where the
theophany
sanctions the
occupation
of
Canaan,
as this sanctions the
leaving
of it
(Di.)
;
and 26
2
,
where,
under circumstances similar to
Jacob
s,
Isaac is for
bidden to
go
down to
Egypt. 3.
the God
of thy
father]
As
elsewhere in
Genesis,
?X
denotes the local
numen,
who here
distinguishes
himself from other divine
beings,
a trace of
the
primitive polytheistic representation (cf. 3i
13
35
1
33
20
2i
33
i6
13
).
Fear
not,
etc.\
The
purpose
of the revelation is to
I. jnr
1N3]
(3r here and v.
B
r6
<pptap
TOV
SpKov (see p. 326).
2.
The word has
crept
in from v.
1
through
an inadvertence of the redactor
or a later scribe :
"
God said to
Israel, Jacob
!
Jacob
! is a sentence
which no
original
writer would have
penned" (We.).
On the form of
the
v.,
see on 22
n
.
3. -TI-ID]
From
nnn,
the rare form of inf. const, of "fl
492
LIST OF
JACOB
S DESCENDANTS
(?)
remove the
misgiving
natural to an old man called to leave
his hearth and his altar. The
thought
is confined to E
(ct.
45
28
J). -for
. . .
nation]
The
words,
if
genuine,
should
follow the immediate
grounds
of comfort in v.
4
.
They
are
probably
to be
regarded (with
KS. Gu.
al.)
as an
expansion
of the same character as
i3
14ff-
22
15ff-
28
U
etc.
4.
/ will
go
down with
thee\
So in
3i
13
the *El of Bethel is with
Jacob
in
Mesopotamia. bring
thee
up\
The reference must be to the
Exodus
(Ex. 3
8
6
8
etc.),
not to
Jacob
s burial in Canaan
(47
29f-
5O
5fft
). lay
his hand
upon
thine
eyes]
i.e.,
close them
after death
;
for classical
parallels,
cf. Horn. //. xi.
453,
Od.
xi.
426,
xxiv.
296; Eurip.
Phcen.
1451
f.,
Hec.
430; Virg.
Aen.
ix.
487,
etc.
(Kn-Di.).
6,
7.
P s
summary
of the
migration
(v.i.).
8-27.
A list of
Jacob
s immediate descendants. The
passage professes
to
give
the names of those who went down
with
Jacob
to
Egypt,
but is in
reality
a list of the
leading
clans of the Israelite
tribes,
closely corresponding
to Nu. 26
5ff
-.
These
traditionally
numbered
seventy (cf.
the
70 elders,
Ex.
24
1 - 9
,
Nu. ii
16
). Closely
connected with this was an
other
tradition,
that the number of the Israelites at the
settlement in
Egypt
was
70 (Dt.
io
22
).
In the more careful
statement of Bx. i
5
(P),
this means all the descendants of
Jacob
at the time:
i.e.,
it includes
Joseph (and presumably
his
sons, though they
were in
Egypt already)
and,
of
course,
excludes
Jacob
himself. In the mind of the writer of the
present passage
these two traditional schemes
appear
to
have
got
mixed
up
and confused. As it
stands,
it is neither an
accurate enumeration of
Jacob
s descendants
(for
the number
70
includes
Jacob
and excludes Er and
Onan),
nor a list of
those who
accompanied
him to
Egypt (for
it embraces
Joseph
and his sons : see on
26f
-).
When cleared of certain obvious
accretions
(mil 3PJP
8
J
12b<x
5
15ay
J
VH331
15b
;
Wl O^P
26
and the
whole of
27
except
the last word
DtyHD
),
we find as its nucleus
verbs, peculiar
to E : see G-K.
69
m*
;
Ho. Hex.
190.
4.
r6y
DJ]
See on
27
33
3i
15
. (S e/s rAos.
5.
apy
2
]
<&
om.
njns]
ffi
Iwcn;^. 6,
7-
Cf. I2
5
3i
18
36
6
(P).
Further marks of P :
KOI, cnn,
WIN
ijni
(if-
w-
35
12
),
and the
redundant
phraseology.
XLVI.
4-10
493
a list of
Jacob
s sons and
grandsons, originally compiled
without reference to the
migration
to
Egypt,
on the basis
of some such census-list as Nu. 26
5ff-
That the section
belongs
in
general
to the
Priestly
strata of the Pent,
is seen from its
incompatibility
with the narrative
(and particularly
the
chronology)
of
JE
;
from its
correspondence
with Nu. 26
5ff
-,
Ex. 6
14ffg
;
and
from
literary
indications
(niD*
nSro,
8
[cf. 25" 36]
;
DIN
pa,
15
; ,
15- 18- 22-
25-27 .
-p>
^
N
^ 26^
As
regards
its relation to the main document of
P,
three views are
possible
:
(i)
That the list was
originally
drawn
up by
P,
and afterwards accommodated to the tradition of
JE by
a later editor
(No.
Di.
al.).
This
implies
the
perfectly
tenable
assumption
that P did
not
accept
the tradition as to the death of Er and
Onan,
or that of
Benjamin
s extreme
youth
at the time of the
migration
;
but also the
less
probable
view that he numbered the sons of
Joseph amongst
those
who went down to
Egypt. (2)
That the
interpolations
are due to
P,
who thus turned an older list of
Jacob
s children into an enumeration of
those who
accompanied
him to
Egypt (Dri.).
The
only
serious
objec
tion to this
theory
is that it makes P
(in opposition
to Ex. i
5
)
reckon
Jacob
as one of the
70.
It is nevertheless the most
acceptable
solution.
(3)
That the whole section was inserted
by
a late editor of the school of
P
(We.
Kue. Gu.
al.).
Even on this
hypothesis,
the
original
list will
have had
nothing
to do with the
migration
to
Egypt.
The
discrepancy
in the
computation
lies in the first section
(
8
~
15
).
The
33
of v.
15
was in
the
original
list the true number of the sons of Leah. The
interpolator,
whoever he
was,
had to exclude Er and Onan
;
to make
up
for this he
inserts Dinah
(
15a
),
and reckons
Jacob
amongst
the sons of Leah ! An
other
sign
of artificial
manipulation
of the
figures appears
in the
pro
portions
between the number of children
assigned
to each wife : Leah
32, Zilpah
16,
Rachel
14,
Bilhah
7 (in
all
69);
each concubine-wife
receiving just
half as
many
children as her mistress. The text of r
presents
some
important
variations
(v.t.).
8a.
The
heading
is identical with Ex. i
la
,
except
the
words V331
Spy
i
which are
obviously interpolated (see
intro
ductory note). 8b-l5-
The sons of Leah: viz.
four
sons of
Reuben
(v.
9
),
six of Simeon
(
10
),
three of Levi
(
n
), five
sons
and two
grandsons
of
Judah (
iz
),four
sons of Issachar
(
13
),
and three of Zebulun
(
u
). 15. thirty-three
is thus the correct
number of
sons,
grandsons,
and
great-grandsons
of
Jacob by
Leah.
To
preserve
this number intact with the omission of
Er and
Onan,
the
interpolator
was
obliged
to add
Dinah,
and to include
Jacob
himself
(see below).
9. Exactly
as Ex. 6
14
,
Nu. 26
M
-.
"pan
is also a Midianite tribe
(25
4
)
;
the Reubenites
occupied
Midianite
territory (Jos. i3
21
). jn*n]
and
ma]
also
Judahite
clans
(see
v.
12
and
Jos. 7
1
).
10.
(=
Ex. 6
15
).
Nu. 26
T2ff-
494
LIST OF
JACOB
S DESCENDANTS
(p)
omits IHN and reads NIDJ for ^KiD
,
and nil for in*.
"ins]
The name of
Ephron
s father in
23
8
. the son
of
the
Canaanitess] representing
a clan
of
notoriously impure
stock. II.
(=
Ex. 6
16
).
12. As Nu. 26
20f>
. The
note on the death of Er and Onan is an
interpolation (see above).
pixn] (see
on v.
9
)
was a town in
Judah (Jos. i5
25
). Sion]
JUA SKIDD
;
(Or
le/toi^X. 13. (=
Nu. 26
23f
-). yVin]
Cf. the
judge
of the same
name,
son
of
HKIB,
of the tribe of Issachar
(Ju.
lo
1
). ni9]
AU.&
nwa,
as i Ch.
7
1
,
Ju.
lo
1
.
av]
jjj. and (Hi
( Iao-oi;/3[0])
read 3it5" as Nu. 26 : Wi. connects
with Yaub-ilu under the ist
Babylonian dynasty (GI,
ii. 68
3
). 14. (Nu.
26
26
). pS*
a Zebulunite
judge
in
Ju.
i2
n
.
15.
inn nn nxi and vnjai
are
glosses.
l6-l8. The sons of
Zilpah (Leah
s
handmaid)
: seven
sons of Gad
(
16
), four
sons,
one
daughter,
and two
grandsons
of Asher
(
17
)
: sixteen in all
(
18
).
16.
(As
Nu. 26
I5fir
-,
with textual
differences). jvs*]
Atxffi
ps*
3
as Nu.
26
15
.
p*N]
-"
pyasx,
fflr
6a<ro^af,
stands for J1K in Nu. 26
16
.
17.
me?
,
a
variant of the
following
"W
(?),
does not
appear
in Nu. 26
441
-. The two
grandsons
"an and ^H 3^D have been connected with the
ffabiri
and the
(chief)
Milkili of the Amarna Tablets
(Jast. JBL,
xi. 1
20).
IQ-22.
The sons of Rachel : two of
Joseph (
20
)
and ten of
Benjamin (
21
),
in all
fourteen.
2O.
"i
1
?; }]
(5r + utoL But the rel. cl.
|N
"iB*x was
probably
added
by
the
glossator,
in which case the D J3 of (5r is
superfluous.
(5
adds,
in
partial
agreement
with Nu. 26
29ff-
,
five names as sons and
grandsons
of
Manasseh and
Ephraim.
21. In (fix
only
the first three names are sons
of
Benjamin,
the next six
being
sons,
and the last a
grandson,
of Bela.
Still another
grouping
is found in Nu. 26
38
-
40
.
i:n] (6r XefySwp)
: cf. Sheba
the Bichrite, in 2 Sa. 2O
1
: in Nu. 26 "on is an
Ephraimite. NI:]
omitted
in Nu.
26,
is the clan of Ehud
(Ju. 3
15
)
and Shimei
(2
Sa. i6
s
).
For the
two names B *ni
^nx,
Nu. 26
38f-
has
DTnN,
for D
SD,
cnst? or
DSII?,
and for
c
sn,
D2?n
(see Gray,
HPN,
35). joyj
and TIN are sons of
yba
in Nu. 26
40
.
22.
I
1
?
]
MSS w.(&
m
1
? .
23-25.
The sons of Bilhah
(Rachel
s
maid):
one of Dan
(
23
,
in
spite
of
^3), and/^w^of Naphtali (
24
)
: seven in all.
23. jn]
So Nu. 26
42
,
where for own we find Dnw.
24.
(as
Nu. 26
48f<
).
oW]
juj. Di
1
?^
(as
i Ch.
7
13
),
<&
26,
27.
The final summations.
The
original computation (70 =33+16+14
+
7)
included Er and
Onan,
but excluded Dinah and
Jacob.
The
secondary figure
66
(= 32+
16+ n
+
7)
excludes Er and
Onan,
and
Joseph
and his two
sons,
but includes
Dinah. To make
up
the
original 70
it was
necessary
to reckon not
only
the
family
of
Joseph (3),
but
Jacob
himself.
<&,
with its
5
additional
XLVI.
11-31
495
descendants of
Joseph (see
on v.
20
),
makes the total
75 (so
Ac.
7
14
),
but
inadvertently
substitutes
tvvta,
instead of
eirrd,
for the D Jsy of MT
27
,
overlooking-
the fact that both
Jacob
and
Joseph
have to be reckoned
in the
75.
26. IDT
N*\j 35",
Ex. i
6
.
27.
nV
]
JUA inb\
28-30.
The
meeting-
of
Jacob
and
Joseph.
28. to
direct
before
him to
Goshen]
The Heb. here
gives
no toler
able sense. The
meaning
cannot be that
Judah
was to
guide
the travellers to
Goshen,
for he is sent
straight
to
Joseph ;
and for the idea that
Joseph
was to
give
the needful instruc
tions for their
reception
in Goshen
(Di.),
the
expression
would
be
extremely
harsh. The
only
natural
purpose
of
Judah
s
mission was to
bring Joseph
to meet his father
;
and the
least difficult course is to read
(with
Vns.
v.i.)
: to
appear
before
him in
Goshen^
which had
already
been indicated
by
Joseph
as the
goal
of the
journey (45
10
). 2p.
went
up\
Goshen
lying
somewhat
higher
than the
Nile-valley. 30.
The v.
prepares
us for the death-bed scenes
(47
29ff>
),
which
in
JE
must have taken
place
soon
after,
not as in P at an
interval of
17 years.
XLVI.
3I-XLVII.
12.
Joseph
obtains Pharaoh s
permission
for his brethren to settle in Goshen.
31-34 (J).
He
prepares
his brethren for an introduction to
Pharaoh,
in the
expectation
that
by laying
stress on their
herdsmen s
calling they may
have the desirable frontier dis-
28.
jrninSj
juudEr
?
j&
nixnnS
(We. nnn/),
which is confirmed
by
OM in
the next v. There is no need to take the v;sS in a
temporal
sense.
The construction is
pregnant,
but otherwise
unobjectionable
;
the tone
of
superiority
assumed
by
Jacob
towards
Joseph
is
hardly
a serious
difficulty.
Ba. thinks that the
a\ivo.vrriGo.i
of (5r
implies
a
reading"
n
lK^gn^
(
to
meet")
;
but the
Niph.
of
mp
would rather mean to come
upon
un
expectedly (Dt.
22
6
,
2 Sa. i8
9
). jt?J HJ^J]
(Or icad
Hp&uv
ir6\iv e/s
yyv
Pa/ueo crTj. Heroopolis
has been shown
by
the excavations of Naville
(Store City of
Pithcm,
etc.
4
, 5
ff.
;
cf. Gillett
\i\JSBL,
Dec.
1886,
p. 696.)
to be Pithom
(Ex.
i
11
),
now Tell el-Maskhuta
(see p. 488 above).
The
Bohairic
Vn. substitutes Pethorn for the
"Rp&uv
of <&. (5r thus makes
the
meeting-
take
place
at the frontier town in the W. Tumilat towards
the desert
(so
v.
29
).
The
reading
is
noteworthy textually
as
containing
1
P s name for Goshen.
ixm]
jjjJS&
NTT
(better). 29.
-ny
vimrSj;]
ffi
K\(tvdfjt.<f
TTLOVL
(var. irXeiovi).
The
Tiy
is
strange
;
but cf. Ps.
84
5
(Ru.
i
14
is not in
point). 30. TJB]
& + 33.
31.
van
rrrWi]
(Er
om.,
perhaps rightly.
496
THE SETTLEMENT IN EGYPT
(j, P)
trict of Goshen
assigned
to them. It is evident that in
J
the
migration
was resolved on without the
invitation,
or
perhaps
the
knowledge,
of the
king. 32. forthey
were
cattle-breeders]
a more
comprehensive category
than
shepherds.
Gu. thinks
that the
representation
made to Pharaoh cannot have been
strictly
true,
or
Joseph
would not have made such a
point
of it
;
*
and we must at least
suppose
that he advises them
to
emphasise
that side of their life which was most
likely
to
gain
the end in view.
Unfortunately,
while he bids them
say they
are
cattle-breeders,
they actually
describe them
selves as
shepherds (47
3
),
and
yet
Pharaoh would make them
cattle-overseers
(47
6b
).
Some confusion of the two terms
may
be
suspected,
but as the text
stands,
nothing
can be
made of the distinction.
34.
that
ye may dwell,
etc.]
What
motive in the mind of the
king
is
appealed
to is not
quite
clear. If the last clause
for every shepherd,
etc. be
genuine,
it was the
Egyptian
abhorrence of the class to
which
they belonged.
But such a
feeling
would be more
likely
to exclude them from
Egypt altogether
than to
procure
their admission to the best
pasture-land
in the
country,
where Pharaoh s herds were
kept
(47
6b
).
Moreover,
while
there is evidence that swine-herds
(Her.
ii.
47)
and cow
herds
(Erman,
LAE,
439 f.)
were looked down on
by
the
Egyptians,
the statement that
shepherds
were held in
special
abhorrence has not been confirmed
;
and the clause
(
34b
^)
is
probably
an
interpolation suggested by 43
32
.
See,
further,
on
47
3ff
-. XLVII.
I-5a,
6b
(J).
Pharaoh
grants
the
request.
I. and behold . . .
Goshen]
It is evident that in
this narrative
Joseph
relies on the
fait accompli
to
procure
a favourable
response
from Pharaoh. The idea that Pharaoh
decided such matters in
person may
be naive
(Gu.)
;
it is
certainly
a curious restriction of the absolute
authority
else
where
assigned
to
Joseph.
2. he had taken
five,
etc.]
On the
32.
vn
3] regarded
as a
gloss by
Di. KS. Ho. Gu. al.
34. ]vi]
(Sir
nyi]
ju*
(FSC)
jn.
2.
n*pD]
=
*from the
totality
of,
as
*
So Eerdmans
( Vorgeschichte
Israels,
42
;
Exp., Aug. 1908, p. 124^),
who draws the conclusion
that,
as the Israelites here
represent
them
selves as
nomads, they
cannot have
really
been so !
XLVI.
32-xLvn.
6
497
significance
of the
number,
see on
43
34
.
3> 4-
The antici
pated question (46
33
)
is answered in accordance with
Joseph
s
instructions, though
the
phraseology
differs
by
the substitu
tion of
I&&
in for
njpp
HWK. It is
possible
that the
repeated
VUDK l
is due to the omission between
3
and
4
of a further
question by
Pharaoh as to the reasons for their
coming
to
Egypt (so
Ba.
Gu.).
The whole leads
up
to a
straight
forward
request
for a
temporary
domicile in Goshen
;
and
the
point may
be
simply
that as herdsmen
they
had
brought
their means of subsistence with
them,
and needed
nothing
but
grazing
land,
which must have been obtainable in
spite
of the famine. There is no hint of
any
aversion to the
strangers
or their manner of life. 6b. Let them
dwell,
etc.}
is the continuation of
5a
in
Q&
(v.t.),
whose
arrangement
of
these vv. is
obviously
more
original
than that of MT. As
an additional
favour,
Pharaoh offers to take
any capable
members of the
family
into his service as cattle
superintend
ents
pJpp l)^ ),
an office
frequently
mentioned in the monu
ments as one of
high dignity (Erman,
LAE,
94
f., 108,
143).
The
breeding
of cattle was carried to
great perfection
in
ancient
Egypt (ib. 436 ff.).
The admission of
pastoral
tribes within the frontier of
Egypt
is an
incident twice
represented
in
Eg-,
inscrs. of the
period
here
supposed.
Under Hor-em-heb of the i8th
dynasty,
some barbarians have a definite
district
assigned
to them
by
a
high
officer
;
and reference has
already
been made
(p. 437)
to the Edomite nomads who in the time of
Merenptah
were allowed to
pass
the fortifications and feed their flocks in "the
great pasture-land
of Pharaoh
"
probably
this
very
Wadl Tumilat
where Goshen was
(see
A TLO
2
, 393
;
Dri.
372).
5,
6a,
7-II. Jacob
before Pharaoh
(P). 5.
The text of
(JK
(v.i.) supplies
the
following opening
to P s account
(con
tinuing 46
7
)
: And
Jacob
and his sons came to
Egypt
to
Joseph
;
and Pharaoh
king of Egypt
heard it
(
5a
),
and Pharaoh said to
Joseph,
etc. It is
plain
that
6b
continues this conversation
and not that between Pharaoh and the five brethren. 6a.
Here Pharaoh himself selects the best
[part]
of
the land for
i Ki. i2
31
,
Ezk.
33
2
(otherwise
Gn.
ig
4
).
np
1
?] (plup.)
jum +
iay.
3. vn]
uxdjJrJSCJ
IDT
TIN.
njn]
jux
jn
(as 46
s4
). 5,
6. The
overlapping
of
J
and P
at this
point
can be
proved
and corrected from (IK. After
fe
(omitting-
32
498 JOSEPH
S AGRARIAN POLICY
the Hebrew
family
to dwell in
(see
v.
11
). 7. Joseph
intro
duces his father to
Pharaoh,
an
impressive
and
dignified
scene.
blessed],
i.e. saluted on
entering (cf.
i Sa.
i3
10
,
2 Ki.
4
29
,
2 Sa.
i3
25
ig
40
),
but
recorded,
no
doubt,
with a
sense that "the less is blessed of the better"
(Heb. 7
7
).
p. few
and
evil\
The
expression
shows that P must have
recorded
Jacob
s
long-
exile with Laban and his
protracted
sorrow for the loss of
Joseph
;
it is still more
interesting
as
showing
that that w
T
riter could conceive a
good
man s life as
spent
in
adversity
and affliction. II. the land
of Rdmses\
The name
only
here and
ffi
of
46
28
(see
on
45
10
),
so called
from the
city
built
by
Ramses n.
(Ex.
i
11
)
and named
after him the house of
Ramses,
in the E of the Delta
(Erman,
LAE,
48).
The situation is still uncertain
;
Naville
(Goshen, 20)
was inclined to
identify
it with Saft el-Henneh
(see p. 488)
;
but Petrie now claims to have discovered its
site at Tel
er-Retabeh,
in the middle of W.
Tumilat,
8 m. W
of Pithom
(Hyksos
and Israelite
Cities,
1906, p.
28
ff.)
12.
Probably
from E
||
27a
(J).
XLVII.
13-27. Joseph
s
Agrarian Policy (J ?).
Joseph
is here
represented
as
taking advantage
of the
great
famine to revolutionize the
system
of land-tenure in
TEN
1
?)
(5r reads
6b
;
then
?j\6ov
5 eh
AtyvrrTOv irp6s Iw<rr70 Ia/ctb/3
Kal ol viol
CU
fiKovatv ^apail) /3affi\ef>s AiyvTrrov (
=
rj3l
3py
^DV
^K HD ISD 1N3 1
l"?D nyiB
yean)
;
then
5a
(repeated)
5b- 6a- 7ff
\ It will
hardly
be
disputed
that the text of (5 is here the
original,
and that P s narrative com
mences with the additional sentences
quoted
above. The editor of MT
felt the doublet to be too
glaring-
;
he therefore omitted these two sen
tences
;
and then
by transposition
worked the two accounts into a
single
scene. A further
phase
is
represented by
Hex.
Syr.,
where
5b
and
6a
are
omitted. We have here an instructive
example
of the
complex process
by
which the sources were
gradually
worked into a smooth
narrative,
and
one which deserves the attention of those writers who ridicule the minute
and intricate
operations
which the critical
theory
finds it
necessary
to
attribute to the redactors. 6b.
-eh
nyr
ONI]
See G-K. 120 e. The
ff n of
juu. is
certainly
not
preferable (Ba.).
II. ao
D] v.,
Ex. 22
4
,
i Sa.
i5
9- 15
t-
The identification of
pn
D with the land of Ramses
probably
rests
on a
misunderstanding
of E s NH 31:0
(see
on
45
1S
),
and a combination
of
it with
J
s
J^-i.
12.
*pn] apparently including
here the women : cf.
5O
21
.
XLVII.
7-17
499
Egypt
for the benefit of the crown. In one
year
the famish
ing people
have exhausted their
money
and
parted
with their
live-stock,
in
exchange
for bread
;
in the next
they
forfeit
their lands and their
personal
freedom. Thus
by
a bold
stroke of
statesmanship private property
in land
(except
in
the case of the
priests)
is abolished
throughout Egypt,
and
the entire
population
reduced to the
position
of
serfs,
paying
a land-tax of 20
per
cent,
per
annum to the
king.
Source. The section
13
"
26
,
dealing
as it does with matters
purely
Egyptian
and without interest for the national
history
of
Israel,
occupies
an anomalous
position among
the
Joseph-narratives,
and cannot be con
fidently assigned
to either of the main documents
(We. Comp.
2
6i).
Lin
guistic
indications are on the whole in favour of
J
:
133,
13
;
nioj tfS
.Tm,
19
(42
2
43
8
)
; HIT,
24
(43
34
)
; npan njpz jn
n:po,
I7
(26")
;
rya
jn NKD,
(see
Gu.
and
Di.).
But there are also traces of E s diction :
prn,
20
; nan, nn,
]5f>
(29
21
30
1
, differing
from n
3- 4 - 7
) (Di. Ho.);
besides some
peculiar
ex
pressions very
unusual in Pent. :
nnV,
13
; CSK,
15f-
;
DW
(Qal),
19
; *n,
a
(Di.).
It is
possible
that Ho.
(251 f.)
and Pro.
(54 f.)
are
right
in think
ing
the
passage composite
;
but no
satisfactory analysis
can be effected.
That it is out of
place
in its
present
connexion is
generally
admitted,
but that it finds a more suitable
position
between chs.
41
and
42 (Di.
Gu.
al.)
is not at all obvious. It is not
improbable
that a
piece
of so
peculiar
a character is a later addition to the
original cycle
of
Joseph-
legends,
and
belongs
neither to
J
nor E. V.
27
appears
to be from
P,
with
glosses (see
the
notes).
13, 14. Joseph
takes
up
all the
money
in
Egypt
and
Canaan. Canaan is bracketed with
Egypt
as far as v.
15
,
after which the situation is
purely Egyptian.
It is natural
to
suppose
that the references to Canaan are
interpolated
(Ho. Gu.);
but
considering
the close
political
relations of
the two
countries,
it would be rash to assume this too
easily. 15-17-
The live-stock is next exhausted.
horses]
See on I2
16
. 18-22. The
people
surrender their lands and
persons
for bread. This is the decisive stroke of
Joseph
s
statecraft,
making
a return to the old conditions
impossible ;
13. n^ni]
fjj. xWii. The
*J
nn
1
? is Aram. &TT.
X?y. ~rmV, languish.
It
is one of several rare
expressions
which occur in. this section.
14. D^OS?]
dS
+ oSi Sm
(v.
12
). 15. DrN]
The vb.
only
here
(and
v.
16
)
in Pent. : else
where
poetic (Is.
i6
4
29
20
,
Ps.
77
9
t) ^co]
*"
H
03-"1
}
&
13SD3
(so
v.
1R
).
16.
DD*:]
JuudRU +
Dn^>. 17. *?n3] Only
here in the sense of sustain
[with
food]
; elsewhere,
if the
^/
be the
same,
it means lead
(to watering-
5OO JOSEPH
S AGRARIAN POLICY
and it is
noteworthy
that
(as
if to relieve
Joseph
of the
odium)
the
proposal
is
represented
as
coming
from the
people
themselves.
18. that
year
. . . the second
year]
Not
the first and second
years
of the famine
(for
we can
hardly
suppose
that the
money
and cattle were exhausted in a
single year),
but
simply
two successive
years. 19. buy
us
and our
land]
The
only
basis of
personal independence
in a
state like ancient
Egypt being
the
possession
of
land,
the
peasants
know that in
parting
with their land
they
sacrifice
their freedom as well.
give
seed,
etc.]
A
temporary provision
(see
v.
24
)
for the time of
famine,
or
perhaps
for the first
sowing
after it was over
(Ho.).
It is in
any
case most
natural to
suppose
that these drastic
changes
took
place
towards the end of the
7 years.
21. and the
people
he re
duced to
bondmen]
Read so with
Vns.,
v.i.
(Kn.
Di. De.
al.).
The MT : he
brought
them over to the cities
appears
to
mean that he
brought
the rural
population
to the cities
where the
corn-magazines
were
(41
35 - 48
)
;
but the
emphasis
on the
obj.
leads us to
expect
a
parallelism
to the
appropria
tion of the land in v.
20
(Di.).
A universal redistribution of
the inhabitants
((,
Tu.
al.)
could not be
expressed by
the
words,
and
would, moreover,
be a senseless measure. 22.
The
priests
property
was
exempted,
because
they
had a
statutory provision
of
food,
and did not need to sell their
lands. So the writer
explains
a
privilege
which existed in
his
day (see p. 501 below). Comp. Erman, LAE,
129,
where Ramses HI. is said to have
given 185,000
sacks of
corn
annually
to the
temples. 23-26.
Institution of the
land-tax.
23.
Here is seed
foryou]
The
gift
is not to be re
peated
;
hence the incident
naturally belongs
to the end of
the famine.
24.
a
fifth part]
According
to Oriental
ideas,
place, goal, etc.)
: see
p. 414.
18. DK
3] may
be rendered
equally
well
(with ffi) that,
if
(protasis
to INBO N
1
?),
or with
& but
[sondern] (De.
Ho.). 19.
unDiN DJ urnx
DJ]
(5r avoids the bold
zeugma,
and substitutes
/ecu
i) yrj pr)/j.<j}0rj,
as at the end of the v.
rrnji]
(2r
iW
<rirtpu[j.ev (jno! ?).
21.
ony
1
?
-ray,-!]
MT is
supported by 5J,
while JJUL?& read D
-oy
1
?
rnyn,
as does the loose
paraphrase
of U.
23. NH] Only
Ezk. i6
43
and Aram.
Dn. a
43
.
24. nNinm]
It seems
necessary
here to take n as a noun of
action : at the
bringings
in
(<
De.
Di.), though
elsewhere it
always
XLVII.
18-27
501
and
considering
the
fertility
of
Egypt,
the
impost
is not
excessive
;
a much
higher
percentage being frequently
exacted under Eastern
governments
(cf.
i Mac. io
30
,
and
the authorities cited
by
Di.
p.
444).
On the severities of
taxation under the New
Empire,
see
LAE,
122.
25.
The
people gratefully accept
the terms. 26. The
arrangement
is fixed
by
administrative
decree,
and survives to the time
of the writer.
27. (P, v.i.)
is the conclusion of the settle
ment of Israel in
Egypt (v.
11
).
The
system
of land-tenure reflected in vv.
13 26
is
supposed by
Erman
to have
actually
arisen
through
the extermination of the old landed
aristocracy
which followed the
expulsion
of the
Hyksos
and the
founding
of the New
Empire (LAE,
102
f.).
The same writer thus sums
up
what
is known or surmised of social conditions under the New
Empire
:
"
The
landed
property
was
partly
in the hands of the
state,
partly
in those of
the
priesthood
;
it was tilled
by peasant-serfs
;
there seem to have been
no
private
estates
belonging
to the
nobility,
at
any
rate not under the
igth dynasty.
The lower orders consisted
mostly
of serfs and
foreign
slaves
;
the
higher,
of officials in the service of the state and of the
temples" (ib. 129).
The
peculiar privileges
of the
priests (and soldiers)
are attested
by
Diod. i.
73
f.;
Herod, ii. 168
(but
cf. ii.
141):
the latter
says
that
every priest
and warrior
possessed
12
Apovpat
of land tax-free.
Of the amount of the land-tax
(one fifth)
there
appears
to be no inde
pendent
confirmation. The interest of the biblical account is
setiologi-
cal. The Hebrews were
impressed by
the vast difference between the
land-tenure of
Egypt
and that under which
they
themselves lived
;
and
sought
an
explanation
of the abnormal
agrarian
conditions
(Erman)
prevailing
in the
Nile-valley.
Whether the
explanation
here
given
rests
on
any Egyptian
tradition,
or is due to the national
imagination
of
Israel, working
on material
supplied by
the
story
of
Joseph,
remains as
yet
uncertain
(see
Gu.
410 f.).
The close connexion between
Egypt
and Palestine in the matter of
food-supply
is illustrated
by
the Amarna
letters,
where a
powerful
minister named Yanhamu is
frequently
mentioned as
holding
a
position
somewhat
corresponding
to that of
Joseph.
Yanhamu,
whose name
suggests
Semitic
extraction,
was
governor
of an unknown
province
means increase or
produce.
To omit 3
(with (5r)
does not
yield
a
natural construction.
na^K^]
Ba.
happily
emends
oaj Ssk).
ossa
1
?
^K^I]
Better omitted with <&. 26. s^on
1
?]
(3r
aten^.
ebh is not
found,
and the
expression
is
very
awkward. A
good
sense
might
be obtained
by
transposing
njns
1
?
tfsn^ (with
(3r
A>
ah
)
;
but whether that is the
original
text
is
very
doubtful.
27.
The v. is
usually
divided between
J
and P
;
but
hv^v* is no sure
sign
of
J,
since it denotes the nation. The
only
charac
teristic of
J
is
J5fJ p*o,
which
may
be
very
well excised as a
gloss
: the
rest
may
then
quite suitably
be
assigned
to P
(cf.
into,
nani
mfl).
5O2
JACOB
ON HIS DEATH-BED
(j,
E,
P)
called
Yarimuta,
which some have tried
(but
on the slenderest
grounds)
to
identify
with the biblical Goshen
(Wi. Forschungen,
iii.
215
; Je.
A
FLO,
39i
3
).
The references
imply
that he had control of the state-
granaries ;
and
complaints
are made of the
difficulty
of
procuring
supplies
from the
high-handed
official
;
in
particular,
it is
alleged
that
the
people
have had to
part
with their sons and their
daughters,
and
the
very
woodwork of their
houses,
in return for corn
(see Knudtzon,
El-Amarna
Tafeln, p. 407).
That this historic
figure
is the
original
of some features in the
portrait
of
Joseph (a
combination first
suggested
by Marquart,
and
approved by
Wi. Che.
Je. al.)is
conceivable
enough
;
thoug-h
definite
points
of contact are
very restricted,
and the historical
background
of Yanhamu s
activity
has
completely
faded from the bio
graphy
of
Joseph.
An
equally striking,
and
equally unconvincing
1
,
parallel
is
pointed
out
by
Eerdmans
( Vorgeschichte
Israels, 68)
from a much later
period
the end of the
igth dynasty,
when,
according-
to the
Papyrus Harris,
Arisu
(I-ir-STv),
a
Syrian,
"in
years
of
scarcity"
which followed "the
abundant
years
of the
past,"
"
made the whole land
tributary
to himself
alone"
(see Petrie,
Hist. iii.
134).
The resemblance vanishes on closer
inspection.
Arisu is
simply
a
Syrian
chief, who,
in a time of
anarchy,
gets
the
upper
hand in
Egypt by
the
help
of his
companions, oppresses
the
people,
and
engag-es
in a crusade
against
the native
religion.
To
say
that
"
the circumstances of this time
correspond
in all
respects
[ganz
und
gar]
to the statements of the
Joseph-stories,"
is a manifest
exaggeration.
XLVII. 28 XLVIII. 22.
-Jacob
s last Interview with
Joseph (J,
E,
P).
The death-bed scenes of
Jacob
are described in
great
detail
by
all three
narrators,
because of the
importance
of
the
dying-
utterances of the last ancestor of all Israel.
There are four main incidents :
(i) Jacob
s
charge
to
Joseph
with
regard
to his burial
(
28
~
31
)
;
(2)
the
blessing
of
Joseph
and his two sons
(48)
;
(3)
Jacob
s oracles on the future
of all the tribes
(49
1
"
28
)
;
and
(4)
his instructions
regard
ing
his burial in
Machpelah
(
29
~
33
).
The first two
may
be
conveniently
treated
together.
Sources. The
triple
thread of narrative is shown
by
the three
begin
nings
:
47
28
(P), 47
2y
(J),
and
48* (E).
To P
belong 47
28
4
8
3
-
6
: note the
chronology
and
syntax
of
47
28
,
the connexion, of
48
3f<
with
35
6a> 11< 12
;
ns?
W, *;
mini
man,
4
;
D
oy
Snp,
4
; o^iy nrnx*,
4
;
I
Sin,
6
.
Equally
decisive are
the indications of
J
in
47
29 31
; SNIB",
- 9- 31
;
i;n ntfi;D
QK,
29
;
iJi
-]T
NJ D
#,
29
(24
2
)
;
nDNi
non,
2y
(24
49
32
11
) ;
najroy
TOD:?,
30
. The
analysis
of
48
- 2- 8 22
is more
doubtful :
formerly
the
passage
was treated as a
unity
and
assigned
to
XLVII. 28-XLVIII. 2
503
E
(Hupf.
,
We.
Comp.
z
6i
f.,
Dri.
al.),
but the evidences of double recension
are too numerous to be overlooked.
(See Budde, ZATW,
iii.
56 ff.)
Thus,
while
apy,
2a
,
and D
rr?N,
9- " 15 - 20f
-,
and
noxn,
22
,
point
to
E, hx~\v\
2b. s. iof. isf. 21
f
ancj
vj;xrr,
14
, point
to
J.
A clue to the
analysis
is
supplied
by (a)
the double
presentation
of Manasseh and
Ephraim,
lob
II
13
(s^ri)
;
and
(b)
the obvious intrusion of
15- 16
between
14
and
17
.
13- 14- I7 19
hang
together
and are from
J ;
15
links on to
12
,
and
13f-
presuppose
10a
.
Taking
note of the finer
criteria,
the
analysis
works out somewhat as follows :
J?
_ 1. 2. 8. 9. lOJx 11. 12. 15. 16.
ZUiipyb.
21. 22 ."
J
_ 2b
(?).
lOa. 13. 14. 17-19. 20a
a
faQ j, 1nn
\ .
deleting
VNIB" in
2b
?)
- 8- 11<21
as a redactional
explication.
So in
general
Di. KS. Ho. Gu.
;
also
Pro., who, however,
places
21 - 22
before
7
in E s
narrative. The source of
7
is difficult to determine
;
usually
it has been
assigned
to P or
R,
but
by
Gu. and Pro. to E
(see
the
notes).
28-31. Joseph promises
to
bury Jacob
in Canaan.
28
(P).
Jacob
s
age
at the time of his death
;
cf.
47. 29-31
(J). Comp.
the
parallel
in
P,
49
29
~
32
.
29.
On the form of
oath,
see on
24
2
.
3-
^e with
my
fathers}
i.e.,
in She 61
(see
on
25
8
)
;
cf. Dt.
3i
16
,
i Ki. 2
10
etc. in their
burying-
place]
But in
5o
5
(also J) Jacob speaks
of
"my grave
which
I have
digged
for
myself."
The latter is no doubt the
original
tradition,
and the text here must have been modified
in accordance with the
theory
of P
4g
30f-
(We.). 31.
bowed
over the head
of
the
bed]
An act of
worship, expressing
gratitude
to God for the fulfilment of his last wish
(cf.
i Ki.
i
47
).
Ho. s
conjecture (based
on i Sa.
ig
13
),
that there was
an
image
at the
top
of the
bed,
is a
possible, though pre
carious, explanation
of the
origin
of the custom. The
mistaken
rendering
of
(&
(v.i.) may
have arisen from the
fact that the oath over the staff was an
Egyptian formality
(Spiegelberg,
Recueil des
Travaux,
xxv.
184
ff.
;
cf.
EB,
4779
1
>
Sayce, Contemp.
Rev.
y
Aug. 1907, 260).
XLVIII.
Adoption
and
blessing
of
Joseph
s two
sons.
I,
2. The introduction to all that follows : from
29.
nioS
mpn]
Cf. Dt.
3i
14
(J),
i Ki. 2
1
.
30. nnsen]
must be taken as
protasis
to anNcw
(Str.
Ho. Gu.
al.). cmapa]
Kit.
maps,
to resolve the
contradiction
spoken
of
supra.
But where intentional
manipulation
of the
text is to be
suspected,
small emendations are of little avail.
31. neon]
ffi
rfc pdjSSou avrov,
&
CTlf^Q-K*
(= *nt?D)
;
cf. Heb. n
21
. Other Vns. follow
MT,
which is
undoubtedly right
: see
48
2
49
33
.
I.
-iD*n]
So i Sa. i6
4
ig
22
. The
pi.
nDN 1 is more usual in such cases
(G-K. 144 (P}
: we
might
also
point
as
Niph.
TCK.M
(Jos.
2
2
).
At end of
v. add with &
npy^N
KTI. 2.
in]
Better
ii;i.
2b is
usually assigned
504
JACOB
ON HIS DEATH-BED
(j,
E,
P)
E.~too& his two
sons.]
It seems
implied
in v.
8
that
Jacob
had not
yet
seen the
lads,
so soon did his last illness follow
his arrival in
Egypt. 3-6.
P s brief account of the
adoption
of
Ephraim
and Manasseh. Di. thinks the vv. have been
transferred from their
original
connexion with
49
28b
,
where
they
were
spoken
in
presence
of all the brethren.
3, 4.
The
reference is to the revelation at Luz
(35
nf>
),
where the
promise
of a numerous
offspring
was
coupled
with the
possession
of Canaan. On the
phraseology,
see above.
5.
And
now]
In view of these
promises
he elevates
Ephraim
and Manasseh to the status of full
tribes,
to share with his
own sons in the future
partition
of the land.
Ephraim
and
Manasseh]
The order is the
only
hint that
Ephraim
was the
leading
tribe
(cf.
v.
20
E)
;
but it is not that
usually
observed
by
P
(see
Nu. 26
28ff-
34
23f
-, Jos. 14*
io
4
ly
1
;
otherwise Nu. i
10
).
as Reuben and
Simeon]
The two oldest are chosen for
comparison.
6. Later-born sons of
Joseph
(none
such,
however,
are
anywhere mentioned)
are to be called
by
the
name
of
their
brethren,
etcJ\
i.e.>
are to be counted as
Ephraimites
and Manassites.
7-
The
presence
of
Joseph
reminds the
dying patriarch
of the dark
day
on which he
buried Rachel on the
way
to
Ephrath.
The
expressions
reproduce
those of
35
16
~
20
.
V^]
to
my
sorrow
\
lit.
(
as a
trouble) upon
me
(cf. 33
13
).
The notice one of the most
pathetic things
in Genesis is
very
loosely
connected with what
precedes,
and must in its
original setting
have led
up
to
something
which has been
displaced
in the redaction.
But it is difficult to find a suitable connexion for the v. in the extant
portions
of
any
of the three sources. In P
(to
which the word
}?5
at first
sight
seems to
point),
De. Di. al. would
put
it
immediately
before
[nnjn]
*]DNJ
"JN in
49
29
;
but that view relieves no
difficulty,
and leads nowhere.
A more natural
position
in that document
might
be after the mention of
the burial of Leah in
49
31
(v.
32
maybe
an
interpolation)
;
but the form of
the v. is not favourable to that
assumption,
and no
good
reason can be
to
J
because of ^Nitr. But the cl. comes
very naturally
after
^
;
and as
there are three other cases of confusion between the two names in this
ch.
(
8- u- 21
),
the name is not decisive.
4.
ONDJ;
"?np]
28
3
;
cf.
35".
lyi)
1
?]
r
i
1
?!
I
1
?. cViy
nmK] ly
8
.
7. f?5]
juu.(5ir +
D-JX,
as in
every
other case where
the name occurs
(see
on
25
20
).
That the difference is
documentary,
and
points
to E rather than
P,
is a hazardous
assumption (Gu.)
;
and to
substitute
pn,
for the sake of accommodation to
J (Bruston, Ba.),
is
quite
XLVIII.
3-14
505
imagined
for the
transposition. (See
Bu.
ZATW,
iii.
67 f.)
Bruston
(in
ZATW)
vii.
208) puts
forward the attractive
suggestion (adopted by
KS. Ba. Gu. Pro.
al.)
that the v. introduced a
request
to be buried in
the same
grave
as Rachel. Such a wish is
evidently impossible
in P
;
and Bruston
(followed
with some hesitation
by
Ba.
KS.) accordingly
found a
place
for it
(with
the
necessary
alterations of
text)
between
47^
and
so
(]): against
this
5o
5- u
seem decisive. Gu. and Pro.
assign
it to
E,
the latter
placing
it after v.
22
,
which is
certainly
its most suitable
position
in E. But is the idea after all
any
more conceivable in E than
in P? The writer who recorded the
request,
whoever he
may
have
been,
must have
supposed
that it was fulfilled
;
and it is not
just likely
that
any
writer should have believed that
Jacob
was buried in the
grave
traditionally
known as Rachel s. No
satisfactory
solution can be
given.
Hupf.
and Schr. consider the v. redactional
;
so
Bu.,
who thinks it was
inserted to correct P s
original
statement that Rachel was buried in
Machpelah (see
on
49
31
).
8, p.
E s narrative is resumed. Observe that
Jacob
sees the
boys (who
are
quite young
children
[4i
50
]),
whereas
in
10a
(J)
he could not see.
pb
is
usually assigned
to
J,
but
for no
very convincing
reason.
lob,
II
(E).
Ihad not
thought^
etc.}
The words are
charged
with
deep religious feeling:
gratitude
to the God in whose name he is to bless the
lads,
and whose marvellous
goodness
had
brought
his clouded life
to a
happy
end. 12
(E). from
between his
(Jacob s) knees}
There must be a reference to some rite of
adoption
not de
scribed,
which
being completed, Joseph
removes the children
and
prostrates himself
to receive the
blessing (continued
in
15
).
I0a, 13, 14 (J).
Whether this is a second interview in
J,
or
a continuation of that in
47
29
~
31
,
does not
appear
;
in either
case
something
has been omitted. I0a. See on
27*. 13
f.
The
crossing (v.i.)
of
Jacob
s hands has a weird effect : the
blind man is
guided by
a
supernatural impulse,
which moves
unerringly
in the line of
destiny.
The
right
hand
conveys
arbitrary.
Sm]
( +
17
^n)p
<rov
(so jux).
8. nW
D]
jux^ + nV.
9.
TDN i
2
]
<& +
IoKt6j8. Drnto] (B-D. p. 80).
On the
pausal seghol,
see G-K.
29 q,
60 d. u.
run]
G-K.
75(cf. 31
28
).
vi^s]
Lit. had not
judged
;
only
here
=
opine.
12.
innsri]
juu&Jci have the
pi.
VBN
1
?] hardly
makes sense.
Rd. with <Kj$ O:N
i
1
?.
14.
irD
-n*]
JUA ins. v.
"?3^]
&
p
D
anx,
deriving
from
*J
hiw,
be
prudent (whose
Piel does not
occur)
;
but (5r
tva\\d^,
U
commutans,
& vlX_KK-,
OP ns. These Vns.
may
be
guessing
at the
sense
;
but most moderns
appeal
to Ar.
Sa&ala,
a
secondary
meaning
of
which is to
plait
two locks of hair
together
and bind them to the other
506
JACOB
ON HIS DEATH-BED
(j,
E,
P)
the richer
blessing. 15,
16. The
Blessing (E).
The three
fold invocation of the
Deity
reminds us of the Aaronic bene
diction
(Nu.
6
24ff
-),
which has some resemblance to a feature
of
Babylonian liturgies (seeje.
Holle und
Paradies,
30):
"in
such cases the
polytheist
names all the
gods
he
worships,
the ancient monotheist all the names and attributes of the
God he knows"
(Gu.). before
whom . . .
walked]
cf.
ly
1
.
who
shepherded me]
Cf.
4Q
24
,
Ps.
23!
28
9
,
Is.
4O
11
. The
image
is
appropriate
in the mouth of the
master-shepherd
Jacob (Di.).
16. the
Angel
. . .
evil]
The
passages
in
Jacob
s
life where an
angel
or
angels
intervene
(28
llff-
3i
n
32
2f
-)
all
belong
to the source E
;
they
are
not, however,
specially
connected with deliverances from evil
;
and the substitution
of
*
angel
for God is not
explained.
let
my
name be
named in
them]
Let them be known as sons of
Jacob,
and
reckoned
among
the tribes of Israel.
17-19. Continuing
14
(J). Joseph
thinks his father had counted on the elder
being
on his left
(Joseph
s
right)
hand,
and will now correct his
mistake.
19.
But
Jacob, speaking
under
inspiration,
de
clares his action to be
significant.
the
fulness of
the
nations]
A
peculiar expression
for
populousness.
Cf. Dt.
33
17
( myriads
of
Ephraim
;
thousands of Manasseh
).
20.
The clause And he blessed them that
day\
is
(if
not redac-
tional)
the conclusion of
J
s account : the words of
blessing
are not
given.
The rest of the v. concludes the
blessing
of
E
(is
f
-).
By
thee
(( you]
shall Israel
bless]
The formula
must have been in actual
use,
and is said to be still current
amongst Jews (Str.).
he
put
E.
before M.]
If the words are
original (E), they
call attention to the fact that in the bene
diction
Ephraim
had been named
first,
and find in that
slight
locks. In
spite
of the
philological equivalence,
Dri. is
justly sceptical
of so remote an
analogy.
-naar! ntfjo
3]
<& om.
15. f]DvnN]
ffir
DHN]
wrongly,
the
original
connexion
being
with
12b
.
niyo] (Nu.
22
30
f)
ever
since I was. (OrSF
from
my youth ("nyaD ?).
16. For
IK^Dn,
JUUL reads
jtai.
19. D"?IKI]
but for all that
(cf.
28
19
).
2O.
-p]
ffi Daa.
TH?;]
<5F&
31?! (Niph.
;
see on I2
3
).
The most natural form would be
Hithpa.
yon
. 22. ION
D3t5>]
dE
^iKi/j-a ^aiperov, Aq.
&fjiov
tva. For inx instead of
inx,
see G-K.
130
. On
^ns
in the sense of
mountain-slope (v.s,),
see Nu.
34", Jos. 158 [Is.
ii
14
?],
etc.
XLVIII.
I5-XLIX
507
circumstance an
augury
of the future
pre-eminence
of
Ephr.
(Gu.).
21,
22.
Closing
words to
Joseph (E).
21. A
pre
diction of the return to
Canaan,
in terms
very
similar to
5o
24
(also E).
The
explicit anticipations
of the Exodus are
probably
all from this document
(i5
16
[?]
46* so
24
).
22. one
shoulder]
The word
D3K
may very
well
(like
the
synonymous
*)na)
have had in common
speech
the
secondary
sense of
*
mountain-slope, though
no instance occurs in OT. At all
events there is no reasonable doubt that the reference is to
the
city
of
Shechem,
standing
on the
slope
of
Gerizim,
the
most
important
centre of Israelite
power
in
early
times
(see
p. 416),
and consecrated
by
the
possession
of
Joseph
s tomb
(Jos. 24
32
).
The
peculiar
value of the
gift
in
Jacob
s
eyes
is
that the
conquest
was a
trophy
of his warlike
prowess,
a
tradition which has left no trace whatever
except
in this v.
(see below).
With
my
sword and "with
my
bow]
Contrast
Jos. 24
12
.
Vv.
21< M
stand in no
organic
connexion with each
other,
or with what
precedes.
V.
22
,
in
particular,
not
only presupposes
a version of the
capture
of Shechem different from
any
found elsewhere
*
(see p. 422 above),
but is out of
harmony
with the situation in which the words are assumed
to have been uttered. For it is
scarcely
credible that
Jacob
should have
referred thus to a
conquest
which he had
subsequently
lost,
and which
would have to be recovered
by
force of arms before the
bequest
could
take effect. But
further,
the
expression
above
thy
brethren
naturally
implies
that the
portions
of the other sons had been allotted
by Jacob
before his death. The
verse,
in
short,
seems to
carry
us back to a
phase
of the national tradition which
ignored
the
sojourn
in
Egypt,
and
repre
sented
Jacob
as a warlike hero who had effected
permanent conquests
in
Palestine,
and died there after
dividing
the land
amongst
his children.
The situation would thus be
parallel
to the so-called
Blessing
of
Jacob
in ch.
49,
which is also
independent of,
though
not
quite incompatible with,
the final recension of the
patriarchal history
and the
migration
to
Egypt.
For the first statement of this
theory,
see
Meyer,
INS,
227, 414
f.
XLIX. i-28a. The
Blessing ofJacob.
This
important
and difficult section one of the oldest
pieces
of Hebrew
poetry
which we
possess
consists of a
*
Attempts
to
bring
the notice into line with the recorded
history, by
inserting
K
1
? before :nm and
"ne-pa (as Jos. 24
12
) (Kue.),
or
by taking
nnp
1
? as a
fut.-pf. (Tu.
De. Str.
al.),
are
obviously unsatisfactory.
508
THE BLESSING OF
JACOB
series of oracles
describing
the characters and fortunes of
the twelve tribes of
Israel,
as unfolded
during
the
age
of the
Judges
and under the
early monarchy.
That it was com
posed
from the first in the name of
Jacob appears
clearly
from
internal indications
(vv.
3f- 9-
[18]- 26
)
;
but that it was
actually
uttered
by
the
patriarch
on his death-bed to his assembled
sons is a
hypothesis
which several considerations combine to
render incredible. In the first
place,
the outlook of the
poem
is bounded
(as
we shall afterwards
see) by
a
particular
historical
situation,
removed
by many
centuries from the
supposed
time of utterance. No reason can be
imagined
why
the vista of the future disclosed to
Jacob
should
open
during
the settlement of the tribes in
Canaan,
and
suddenly
close at the
reign
of David or Solomon
;
why
trivial incidents
like the maritime location of Zebulun
(v.
13
),
or the
*
royal
dainties
produced by
Asher
(
20
),
or even the loss of tribal
independence by
Issachar
(
15
),
etc.,
should be dwelt
upon
to the
exclusion of events of far
greater
national and
religious
importance,
such as the
Exodus,
the mission of
Moses,
the
leadership
of
Joshua,
or the
spiritual prerogatives
of the
tribe of Levi. It is obvious that the document as a whole
has historic
significance only
when
regarded
as a
production
of the
age
to which it refers. The
analogy
of OT
prophecy,
which has been
appealed to,
furnishes no instance of detailed
prevision
of a remote
future,
unrelated to the moral issues
of the
speaker
s
present.
In the next
place,
the
poem
is
animated
by
a
strong
national sentiment such as could not
have existed in the lifetime of
Jacob,
while there is a com
plete
absence of the
family feeling
which would
naturally
find
expression
in the circumstances to which it is
assigned,
and
which,
in
fact,
is
very conspicuous
in the
prose
accounts
of
Jacob
s last
days.
The
subjects
of the oracles are not
Jacob
s sons as
individuals,
but the tribes called
by
their
names
(see
28a
)
;
nor is there
any
allusion to incidents in the
personal history
of
Jacob
and his sons
except
in the sections
on Reuben and on Simeon and
Levi,
and even there a tribal
interpretation
is more natural.
Finally,
the
speaker
is not
Jacob
the individual
patriarch,
but
(as
is clear from vv.
6- 7b- 16
)
XLIX. I-28A
509
Jacob
as
representing
the ideal
unity
of Israel
(see
Kohler,
p. 8f.).
All these facts
point
to the
following
conclusion
(which
is that of the
great majority
of modern
interpreters)
:
the
poem
is a series of vaticinia ex
eventu^
reflecting
the
conditions and
aspirations
of the
period
that saw the consoli
dation of the Hebrew
nationality.
The examination of the
separate
oracles will show that some
(e.g.
those on Issachar
and
Dan)
are
certainly pre-monarchic
;
and that indeed all
may
be so
except
the
blessing
on
Judah,
which
presupposes
the establishment of the Davidic
kingdom.
The
process
of
composition
must therefore have been a
protracted
one
;
the
poem may
be
supposed
to have existed as a traditional
document whose
origin
dates from the
early days
of the
Israelite
occupation
of
Palestine,
and which underwent
successive modifications and
expansions
before it took final
shape
in the hands of a
Judasan poet
of the
age
of David or
Solomon. The
conception
of
Jacob
as the
speaker belongs
to the
original
intention of the
poem ;
the oracles
express
the verdict of the collective consciousness of Israel on the
conduct and
destiny
of the various
tribes,
an idea
finely sug
gested by putting
them in the mouth of the heroic ancestor
of the nation.
Ultimately
the
song
was
incorporated
in the
patriarchal tradition,
probably by
the
Yahwist,
who found a
suitable
setting
for it
amongst
the
dying
utterances of
Jacob.
Literary
Parallels. Before
proceeding"
to consider the more intricate
problems arising
1
out of the
passage,
it will be useful to
compare
it with
(i)
the
Song-
of Deborah
(Ju. 5),
and
(2)
the
Blessing
of Moses
(Dt. 33).
-
i. The former is like an instantaneous
photograph
: it exhibits the
attitude and
disposition
of the tribes in a
single
crisis of the national
history.
It resembles Gen.
49
in the
strong feeling
1
of national
unity
which
pervades
it,
and in the
mingling
of blame and commendation. It
reveals, however,
a
very
different historical
background.
The chief
differences are : the entire
ignoring
of the southern tribes
Judah, Simeon,
and Levi
;
the
praise
bestowed on Issachar
;
the substitution of Gilead
for Gad
;
and the division of the
unity
of
Joseph
into its constituents
Ephraim
and Machir
(
=
Manasseh).
The
importance
of these and other
divergences
for the determination of the relative dates of the two
documents is
obvious,
although
the evidence is
frequently
of a kind
which makes it
very
difficult to form a confident
judgement.
2. The
Blessing
of Moses shows
signs (especially
in the section on
Joseph)
of
5IO
THE BLESSING OF
JACOB
literary dependence
on Gn.
49
;
it is therefore a later
composition,
written
very probably
in North Israel after the division of the
kingdom
(see
Dri. Deut.
388).
It is
distinguished
from the
Blessing
of
Jacob
by
its uniform tone of
benediction,
and its
strongly religious point
of view
as contrasted with the secular and warlike
spirit
of Gn.
49.
Simeon is
passed
over in
silence,
while his brother Levi is the
subject
of an
enthusiastic
eulogium
;
Judah
is
briefly
commended in a
prayer
to
Yahwe
;
the
separation
of
Ephraim
and Manasseh is
recognised
in an
appendix
to the
blessing
on
Joseph.
All these indications
point
more or
less
decisively
to a situation
considerably
later than that
presupposed
by
the oracles of
Jacob.
Date and
Unity of
the Poem. That the
song
is not a
perfect literary
unity
is
suggested
first of all
by
the
seemingly complex
structure of the
sections on Dan
(two independent oracles)
and
Judah (with
three
exordiums in vv.
8> 9> 10
).
We
find, further,
that a double motive runs
through
the
series, viz.,
(i) etymological play
on the name of the tribe
(Judah,
Zebulun?, Dan, Gad, Asher?),
and
(2)
tribal emblems
(chiefly
animal) (Judah,
Issachar, Dan,
Naphtali, Joseph, Benjamin)
: one or
other of these can be detected in each oracle
except
those on Reuben
and Simeon-Levi. It
is,
of
course,
not certain that these are character
istic of two
independent groups
of oracles
;
but the fact that both are
represented
in the
sayings
on
Judah
and
Dan,
while neither
appears
in
those on Reuben and
Simeon-Levi,
does confirm the
impression
of
composition
and
diversity
of
origin.
The decisive
consideration,
however,
is that no
single period
of
history
can be found which satisfies
all the indications of date drawn from the several oracles. Those on
Reuben, Simeon,
and Levi refer to events which
belong
to a remote
past,
and were in all
probability composed
before the
Song
of
Deborah,
while these events were still fresh in the national
memory
;
those on
Issachar, Dan,
and
Benjamin
could
hardly
have
originated
after the
establishment of the
monarchy
;
while the
blessing
of
Judah clearly
presupposes
the existence of the Davidic
kingdom,
and must have been
written not earlier than the time of David or Solomon. A still later
date is
assigned by
most critics since We.
(Comp? 320)
to the
blessing
on
Joseph,
which is
generally
considered to refer to the
kingdom
of
North Israel and to the Aramaean wars under the
dynasties
of Omri
and
Jehu.
It is
argued
in the notes below that the
passage
is
susceptible
of a different
interpretation
from that
adopted by
the
majority
of
scholars,
and
may,
in
fact,
be one of the oldest
parts
of the
poem.
As for the rest of the
oracles,
their character is such that it
seems
quite impossible
to decide whether
they originated
before or after
the
founding
of the
kingdom.
In
any
case we
hardly get
much
beyond
a broad
chronological
division into
pre-Davidic
and
post-Davidic
oracles
;
but at the same time that distinction is so
clearly
marked as
to exclude
absolutely
the
hypothesis
of
unity
of
authorship.
It has been
supposed by
some writers
(Renan,
Kue.
al.)
that the
poem
consists of
a number of
fugitive
oracles which had circulated
independently
among
the
tribes,
and were
ultimately
collected and
put
in the mouth of
Jacob.
But,
apart
from the
general objection
that characterisation of one tribe
XLIX. I-28A
51
I
by
the rest
already implies
a central
point
of
view,
the
inadequacy
of
the
theory
is seen when we observe that all the
longer passages
(Reuben,
Simeon-Levi, Judah, Joseph)
assume that
Jacob
is the
speaker,
while the shorter
pieces
are too
slight
in content to have
any signifi
cance
except
in relation to the whole. An intermediate
position
is
represented by
Land,
who
distinguished
six
stages
in the
growth
of the
song
:
(i)
A
primary poem, consisting
of the two
tristichs,
vv.
8
and
8
,
written at the time of David s victories over the
Philistines,
and cele
brating
the
passing
of the
hegemony
from Reuben to
Judah
: to this v.
4
was afterwards added as an
appendix. (2)
A second
poem
on
Judah,
Dan,
and Issachar
(vv.
9< 17- 14f-
:
distichs), describing
under animal
figures
the condition of these tribes
during
the
peaceful
interval of
David s
reign
in Hebron : to which was
appended
later the v. on
Benjamin C
27
). (3)
The Shiloh oracle
(vv.
10 12
), dating
from the same
period. (4)
The decastich on Simeon and Levi
(vv.
5 7
),
from the time of
the later
Judges. (5)
The
blessing
of
Joseph (
22
-
26
),
a northern
poem
from about the time of Deborah.
(6)
The five distichs on
Zebulun,
Dan, Gad, Asher,
and
Naphtali (in
that order: vv.
13- 16- 19- 20- 21
),
com
memorating
the
victory
of Deborah and Barak over the Canaanites.
The
theory
rests on dubious
interpretations,
involves
improbable
historical
combinations,
and is
altogether
too intricate to command
assent
;
but it is
noteworthy
nevertheless as
perhaps
the first elaborate
attempt
to solve the
problem
of the date and
integrity
of the
poem,
and
to do
justice
to the finer lines of structure that can be discovered in it.
On the
whole, however,
the
theory
of the traditional document
(v.s.),
altered and
supplemented
as it was handed down from one
generation
to
another,
while
sufficiently
elastic,
seems the one that best satisfies all
the
requirements
of the
problem (so
Gu.
420 f.).
The order in which the tribes are enumerated
appears
to be
partly
genealogical, partly geographical.
The six Leah-tribes come
first,
and in the order of birth as
given
in chs.
29
f.,
save that Zebulun and
Issachar
change places.
Then follow the four concubine or
hybrid
tribes
;
but the order is that neither of birth nor of the
mothers,
the two
Zilpah-tribes,
Gad and
Asher, coming
between the Bilhah
tribes,
Dan
and
Naphtali.
The
Rachel-tribes,
Joseph
and
Benjamin,
stand last.
Geographically,
we
may distinguish
a southern
group (Reuben, Simeon,
Levi, Judah),
a northern
(Zebulun, Issachar,
Dan
?,
Gad
[trans-
Jordanic], Asher, Naphtali),
and a central
group (Joseph, Benjamin).
The
general agreement
of the two classifications shows that the
genealogical
scheme itself reflects the tribal affinities and historical
antecedents
by
which the
geographical
distribution of the tribes in
Palestine was in
part
determined. The
suggestion
of Peters
(Early
Heb.
Story,
61
ff.),
that the
ages
of
Jacob
s children
represent approxi
mately
the order in which the
respective
tribes obtained a
permanent
footing
in
Canaan,
is a
plausible one,
and
probably
contains an
element
of truth
; although
the
attempt
to reconstruct the
history
of the invasion
and
conquest
on such
precarious
data can lead to no secure results. It
is clear at all events that neither the
genealogical
nor the
geographical
principle
furnishes a
complete explanation
of the
arrangement
in Gn.
512
THE BLESSING OF
JACOB
49
;
and we have to bear in mind the
possibility
that this ancient
document
may
have
preserved
an older tradition as to the
grouping-
and
relations of the tribes than that which is
given
in the
prose leg-ends
(chs. 29. 30).
On the
question
whether a
sojourn
in
Egypt
is
pre
supposed
between the utterance and the fulfilment of the
predictions,
the
poem naturally
throws no direct
light.
It is not
improbable
that in
this
respect
it stands on the same
plane
as
48
22
(34. 38),
and traces the
conquest
of Palestine back to
Jacob
himself.
Metrical Form. See
Sievers,
Metrische
Studien,
\.
404 ff.,
ii.
I52ff.,
361
ff. The
poem (vv.
2 27
)
exhibits
throughout
a
clearly
marked
metrical
structure,
the unit
being-
the trimeter
distich,
with
frequent
parallelism
between the two members. The lines which do not
conform to this
type (vv.
7b- 13b- 18
,
and
esp.
2
*b-26)
are so few that
interpolation
or
corruption
of text
may reasonably
be
suspected
;
although
our
knowledg-e
of the laws of Hebrew
poetry
does not
entitle us to
say
that an occasional variation of
rhythm
is in itself
inadmissible.
Source. Since the
poem
is older than
any
of the Pentateuchal
documents,
the
only question
that arises is the
relatively unimportant
one of the
stage
of
compilation
at which it was
incorporated
in the
narrative of Gen. Of the
primary sources,
E and P are excluded
;
the former because of the
degradation
of
Reuben,
which is nowhere
recognised by
E
;
and the latter
by
the
general tendency
of that
work,
and its
suppression
of discreditable incidents in the
story
of
the
patriarchs.
The
passag-e
is in
perfect harmony
with the
repre
sentation of
J,
and
may
without
difficulty
be
assigned
to that docu
ment,
as is done
by
the
majority
of critics. At the same
time,
the
absence of
literary
connexion with the narrative leaves a considerable
margin
of
uncertainty
;
and it is
just
as
easy
to
suppose
that the in
sertion took
place
in the combined narrative
JE,
perhaps by
the same
hand which inserted the
Blessing
of Moses in Deut.
(see
We.
Comp.
2
62).
That it was introduced
during-
the final redaction of the Pent, is less
probable,
especially
if
28b
(T3 i)
was the
original
continuation of
lb
in P
(see
on v.
1
).
Monographs
on the
Song
:
Diestel,
Der
Segen Jakob
s in Genes, xlix.
historisch erlautert
(1853);
Land,
Disputatio
de carmine
Jacobi (1858);
Kohler,
Der
Segen Jakob
s mit besonderer
Berilcksichtigung
der alien
Versionen und des Midrasch historisch-kritisch untersucht und erkliirt
(1867);
cf. also
Meier,
Geschichte der
poetischen
National Literatur der
Ifebraer(i8^6),pp. 109-113; Peters, JSJ3L, 1886,
pp. 99-116;
and see
the
copious
reff. in Tu. or Di.
I,
2. Introduction. The
poem
begins
with a
preamble
(v.
2
)
from the hand of the writer who
composed
or collected
the oracles and
put
them in the mouth of
Jacob.
lb
is a
prose
introduction,
supplied
probably by
the editor who
incorporated
the
Song
in the narrative of
J
or
JE;
while
la
appears
to be a
fragment
of P divorced from its
original
XLIX.
i,
2
513
connexion with
28ab^
by
R
JFP
. ib. that I
may
make
known,
etc.}
The
poem
is
expressly
characterised as a
prophecy (not,
however,
as a
blessing
[as
28b
]),
which it
obviously
is as
ascribed to
Jacob, though
the
singer
s real
standpoint
is
contemporary
or
retrospective (p. 508 above).
in the
after
days\
The furthest horizon of the
speaker
s vision
(v.i.).
2.
A trimeter
distich,
exhibiting
the
prevalent
metrical
scheme of the
poem
:
Assemble,
ye
sons of
Jacob,
And hearken to Israel
your
father !
With the call to
attention,
cf.
4
23
,
Dt.
32
1
,
Is. i
10
28
U
,
etc. Whether in the mind of the
poet
Israel is the literal
or the ideal father of the nation
may
be doubtful : cf. v.
7
,
and
p. 509
above.
3, 4.
Reuben.
8
Reuben !
My
first-born art thou :
My strength
and best of
my vigour.
Exceeding
in
pride
and
exceeding
in
fury,
4
Impetuous
as
water,
thou
may
st not excel.
For thou wentest
up
to
thy
father s bed
;
There thou
profanedst
r
thel couch. . . .
The
original presents
both obscurities and niceties not
reflected in the translation
;
but the
general
sense is
clear.
As the
first-born,
Reuben is endowed with a
superabundant
vitality,
which is the cause at once of his
pre-eminence
and
of his
undoing
: his
energy degenerates
into licentious
I. D DM
nnnxa]
The
phrase
occurs
13
times in Heb. OT
(Nu. 24",
Dt.
4
30
3
1
29
,
Is. 2
2
, Jer.
2
3
20
3
o
24
4
8
47
49
39
,
Ezk.
3
8
16
,
Hos.
3
5
,
Mic,
4
1
,
Dn.
io
14
f),
and its Aram,
equivalent
in Dn. 2
28
. In the
prophets
it is used
technically
of the advent of the Messianic
age
;
here and elsewhere
(Nu. 24
14
etc.)
it has the
general
sense of the remote future
(like
Ass.
afyrat
timi :
KAT^,
143).
That the
eschutolog
ical sense is
primary,
and
the other an imitation of
prophetic style (Gu.),
cannot be
proved
;
and
there is no
justification
for
deleting
either the
phrase
itself
(Staerk,
ZATWy
xi.
247
ft
.),
or the whole clause in which it occurs
(Land).
2.
The
repetition
of
ij?D5?i
is
against
the rules of
parallelism.
We
may
either omit the word in
2a
(Gu. Sie.),
or
vary
the
expression (iTtrpni,
ivmni)
in
2b
(C,
Ba.
). Metrically,
either
expedient
would be
admissible,
but the former is much easier. In (Ex
8
- al
dKovcrare is used
thrice.
33
514
THE BLESSING OF
JACOB
passion,
which
impels
him to the crime that draws down
the curse. As a characterisation of the
tribe,
this will
mean that Reuben had a double share of the frenetic
Bedouin
nature,
and wore out his
strength
in fierce warfare
with
neighbouring
tribes. If the
outrage
on his father s
honour
(v.
4
)
have historic
significance (see below),
it must
denote some attack on the
unity
of Israel which the collective
conscience of the nation condemned. It is to be noted that
the recollection of the event has
already
assumed the
legendary
form,
and must therefore reach back to a time
considerably
earlier than the date of the
poem (Gu.). 3b, 4a.
exceeding
. . .
excel]
No
English
word
brings
out the
precise
force of the
original,
where the
\J
"in
11
occurs three
times in a sense
hovering
between exceed and excel.
The idea of excess
being
native to the
root,
the
renderings
pride
and
fury
are
perhaps preferable
to
dignity
and
power,
3C
as well as
4
being
understood sens-u
malo,
as a
censure of Reuben.
4b.
Then . . . went
up\
A
corrupt
text :
3a.
JiN n
Ki(Dt.
2i
17
,
cf. Ps.
78
B1
io5
36
)]
Not
dpxv
rtnvwv
pov
(QK6),
still less
principium
doloris mei
(U
from
JIN,
trouble
;
so
Aq. S.) ;
but
best
part
of
my virility (<&Eo).
On
rrfftn,
see
p.
12
;
p*
as Hos. i2
4
.
3b.
<&
ffK\ripbs fapeadau
Kal
<r/c\?7pds avdad^s ;
3J
prior
in
donis,
-major
in
imperio.
irv
(abst. pro concr.) might
mean excess
(Aq. S.),
or
superi
ority (F),
or remnant
(j$
;
so
Peters,
p. 100)
: whether it is here used in
a
good
sense or a bad
(for
the
latter,
cf. Pr.
ly
7
) depends
on the
meaning
assigned
to the next two words.
nxs?]
Lit.
lifting ((& Aq. S9<5>),
several times means exaltation
;
but in Hab. i
7
it has
distinctly
the
sense of
arrogance,
the idea
preferred
above. To read
HN^,
*
turbulence
(Gu.),
is
unnecessary,
and
nty,
destruction
(Peters), gives
a
wrong
turn to the
thought,
tjj]
Pausal for
iy,
power,
but the sense of
fury
is
supported by
v.
7
,
Is.
25
3
.
4.
inin
ins]
r
^i^/3ptcras
u?s
vSwp,
Aq. 0a.[j.pevffas
. . .
Tre/HO-creiVflS
;
S.
UTrep^ecras
. . . OVK
tvy
U
effusus
es sicut
agua,
non crescas
;
5 -d)Z.
(j (
^^
^_
|
The
comparison
to water is
ambiguous
;
and it is doubtful if we
may
introduce the simile of water
boiling
over
(2(Br
and
many moderns).
The
image may
be that of a wild
rushing
torrent,
a fit emblem of the
unbridled
passion
which was Reuben s characteristic
(so &). ins]
.tu
mriD.
Though
the other Vns. also have 2nd
pers.
we cannot assume that
they
read so
;
and the
analogy
of v.
3
leads us to
expect
another abst.
pro
concr. The noun is &TT.
Xe-y.
;
the
ptcp.
occurs
Ju. 9
4
,
Zeph. 3
4
,
with
the sense reckless or
irresponsible (cf.
rmns, Jer. 23
32
).
In Arab, the
/y/
means be
insolent,
in Aram. be lascivious : the common idea
is
XLIX.
3, 4
515
for various
suggestions,
v.i. Gu. s trans. Then I
profaned
the couch which he
ascended,
at least softens the harsh
change
from 2nd
pers.
to
3rd.
The
birthright
of Reuben must rest on some
early ascendancy
or
prowess
of the tribe which has left no traces in
history.
Its choice of a
settlement
E of the
Jordan (Nu. 32, etc.),
shows an attachment to nomadic
habits,
and
perhaps
an unfitness for the advance to civilised life which
the
majority
of the tribes had to make. In the
Song
of
Deborah,
Reuben
is still an
important
tribe,
but one that had lost enthusiasm for the
national cause
(Ju. 5
1M
-).
In the
Blessing
of Moses it still
survives,
but
is
apparently
on the
verge
of extinction
(Dt. 33
6
).
It was doubtless
exhausted
by struggles
like those with the
Hagarenes (i
Ch.
5
10- 18ff>
),
but
especially
with the
Moabites,
who
eventually occupied
most of its
territory (cf.
Nu
32^, Jos. I3
16ff<
with Is.
15, Jer. 48 pass.,
and Moabite
Stone).
The incident to which the downfall of Reuben is here traced
(4a0b)
j s connected with the
fragmentary
notice of
35
22
,
and is
variously
interpreted: (i) According
to Rob. Sm. .O/
2
,
log
2
,
Steuer. Einw.
16,
Ho.,
it records the fact that Reuben had misused its
power
as the
leading
tribe to assail the
independence
of a weaker member of the
confederation
(Bilhah,
or one of the
Bilhah-tribes),
a rather hazardous
speculation.
(2)
Another
theory,
not
necessarily
inconsistent with the
former
(see
Rob. Sm.
I.e.),
finds a reference to the
persistence
in Reuben
of an old Semitic custom of
marriage
with the wives or concubines of a
(deceased!)
father
(Di.,Sta.
GVI,
i.
151 f.),
which the
general
moral
sense of Israel had
outgrown.
In this case we must
suppose
that
49
4
contains the
germ
of the
legend
of which
35
22
,
with its
particular
mention of
Bilhah,
is a later
phase. (3)
It is
probable
that the
form
of
the
legend
has been
partly
determined
by
a
mythological motive,
to
which a
striking parallel
is found in the
story
of Phoenix and
Amyntor
(//.
ix.
447
ff. :
quoted
above,
p. 427).
Metrical Structure. The oracle is
better divided as above into three
distichs,
than
(with MT)
into two
tristichs
(so
Land,
who
assigns
each to a
separate author).
The trimeter
measure
is
easily
traced
throughout (except
1.
3) by following
the Heb.
accents,
supplying Maqqeph
after 3 and tx in v.
4
. Line
3 may
be
scanned
uu I u I u
(Siev.).
perhaps
uncontrollableness
(ut s.\ "irnrrW]
For the
pausal a,
see
G-K.
53
n,
and cf. Ru. 2
14
.
4b.
No
very acceptable rendering
of this
difficult clause has been
proposed.
If we follow the
accentuation,
yiK
is
obj.
of
n"?y,
and nSy yur
a detached sentence : Then thou actedst
profanely.
He went
up
to
my
bed
;
but
apart
from the harsh
change
of
person,
this is
inadmissible,
because SWi is never used
intransitively.
To read
p by,
with <& is
perhaps
a too facile emendation
;
and to omit
nSy
with Iff is forbidden
by rhythm.
On the whole it is best
(with Gu.)
to
point fl^Vn,
and take nby
as a rel. cl.
(v.s.).
Other
suggestions
are:
n^y
Hi*
n
(Land)
; nnS? *y\v
(Geig. Kit.)
;
T))
1
"
(Ba.);
but all these
are,
for one reason or
another,
objectionable.
5l6
THE BLESSING OF
JACOB
5-7.
Simeon and Levi.
6
Simeon and Levi brothers !
Weapons
of ruth are their
daggers {?).
8
Into their council
my
soul would not
enter,
In their
assembly my
mind would not
join
:
For in their
anger they slaughter
men,
And in their
gloating they
disable oxen.
7
Accursed be their wrath for it is
fierce,
And their
rage
for it is cruel 1
I will divide them in
Jacob,
And scatter them in Israel.
5a.
brothers]
Hardly o/xoyi/w/xot (schol.
in
Field)
=
true
brother-spirits (Tu. al.),
or associates in a common enter
prise.
The
epithet
is
probably
a survival from an old
tradition in which S. and L. were the
only
sons
of Leah
(see 34
1- 25
;
cf.
Mey.
INS,
286
1
,
426).
It is
universally
assumed that that incident the treacherous attack on
Shechem is the
ground
of the curse here
pronounced
;
but
the terms of the oracle are
perfectly general
and in
part
unsuited to the
supposed
circumstances
;
and it seems to me
to be the habitual character of the tribes which is
denounced,
and not
any particular
action.
5^-
The transl. is
doubtful,
5b.
(5r truj/erAea-ai dSiitlav t
aircrews
avruv
(OL.
consummaverunt
iniquitatem
adinventionis
suce) ; Aq.
ffKeutj
dSi/day
dvaer/ca0ai [OLVT&V~\
3J vasa
iniquitatis
bellantia
[Je.
arma
eorum\\
&
IL.O53 P(^
tpOTJ-jL^D
;
E ton:
my
pnnumn
yua ;
3P xvr aiano"? nraj? urM
[ JND]
pnnijniene
N.
^]
So
Aq.
F&CJ
;
but
jum(Er2r
o
^5
:
they accomplished.
crvmDD]
As to the cons,
text,
that of
dSc cannot be
certainly
restored
;
Kethib
is
supported by Aq.
S
(
rhp,?
: cf. Ezk. i6
3
2i
w
29^), by
J
(from ^
133,
see
IEz.),
and
probably
U.
The textual tradition must
therefore be
accepted
as
fairly
reliable. Of the
many
Heb.
etymologies
proposed
(see
Di.
459),
the most
plausible
are those which derive from
*y
TO,
or
(reading
"iDp)
from
*/
ma,
to
dig.
No
>/
113,
dig,
is
actually
found, though
it
might perhaps
be assumed as a
by-form
of ms : this
would
give
the
meaning digging
instrument
(cf. gladio confodere),
which Vollers
(ZA
t
xiv.
355)
tries to
support
from Ass. The
^
ma
means in Ar. to turn or wheel round
;
hence Di.
conj.
that
.rjrp may
be a curved knife or sabre. Some
weapon
suits the
context,
but what
exactly
it is must remain uncertain. How far the
exegesis
has been
influenced
by
the resemblance to the Gr.
/idxeupa (R. Johanan [d. 279
A.D.],
cited in Ber. R.
99
; Ra.)
we cannot tell. Ba. and Gu. take the
word to be
n-j^p,
the former
rendering plots (fr.
Ar.
makara,
to
plot
)
XLIX.
5-7
517
owing- partly
to
uncertainty
of
text,
and
partly
to the
obscurity
of the air.
A.cy.
rnaip
(v.i.).
The
rendering
above
gives
a
good
sense,
and Ba. s
objection,
that
daggers
are
necessarily implements
of
violence,
has no force. 6a. council
. . .
assembly]
The tribal
gatherings,
in which deeds of
violence were
planned,
and
sanguinary exploits gloated
over.
The distich
expresses vividly
the
thought
that the true ethos
of Israel was not
represented
in these
bloody-minded gather
ings.
6b. men . . .
oxen]
The nouns are
collectives.
slaughter
. .
.
hough]
Perfects of
experience.
The latter
operation (disable by cutting
the sinew of the
hind-leg)
was
occasionally performed by
Israelites on horses
(Jos.
n
6- 9
,
2 Sa. 8
4
)
;
to do it to a domestic animal was
evidently
con
sidered inhuman. No such
atrocity
is recorded of the
assault on Shechem
(see 34
28
).* 7b.
in
Jacob
. . . in
Israel]
The
speaker
is
plainly
not the individual
patriarch,
nor the
Almighty (Land),
but the
personified
nation.
and the latter
pits (cf.
rn?p,
Zeph.
2
9
)
;
but neither
nrnrjp
oaq
&3
(Ba.)
nor
DiTrh?p
ocm
"?? [ knavery
and violence are their
pits ]
(Gu.)
is so
good
as the
ordinary interpretation.
Ba., however,
rightly
observes that
Drn?p
yields
a better metre than Drrri
(so Siev.).
6a.
nas]
Read with
(5r H3?,
my
liver,
the seat of mental affections in La. a
11
(cf.
Ps. i6
9
30
18
57
9
io8
2
: MT
lias)
: cf.
kabittu, Gemiith,
in Ass.
inn]
joi irv.
Since
132
is
masc.,
rd.
iir. 6b.
p*i]
self-will,
wantonness
;
cf. Neh.
9
24-
",
Est. i
8
9
6
etc.
ngy]
On certain difficulties in the
usage
of the
word,
see
Batten, ZATW,
xxviii.
189 ff.,
where it is
argued
that the
sense is
general
make useless.
*)i] Aq.
SUJ52T
read
"V)a>, wall,
perhaps
to avoid the
supposed
contradiction with
34
28f>
. Hence the
correct
ravpov
of (5r is instanced in Mechilta as a
change
made
by
the
LXX translators
(see p. 14). 7. iviN, Dirayi]
jux
TIN,
Drram.
?{/]
Here
pausal
form of
iy
(ct.
v.
8
).
*
Zimmern
(ZA,
vii. 162
f.)
finds in
6b
a reminiscence of the mutilation
of the celestial Bull
by Gilgames"
and Eabani in the Bab.
Gilgameg-Epic.
Simeon and
Levi,
like
Gilgamei
and
Eabani, represent
the Gemini of
the Zodiac
;
and it is
pointed
out that the Bull in the heavens is
r^-ro^os,
i.e.
only
its fore-half
appears
as a constellation.
The E> N then corre
sponds
to the
tyrant
Humbaba,
who was slain
by Gilgames"
and Eabani
;
and
Jacob
s curse answers to the curse of IStar on the two heroes for
mutilating
the Bull. Whatever truth there
may
be in this
mythological
interpretation,
it does not relieve us of the
necessity
of
finding
a historical
explanation
of the incidents.
510
THE BLESSING OF
JACOB
The
dispersion
of these two tribes must have taken
place
at a
very
early period
of the national
history.
As
regards
Simeon,
it is doubtful
if it ever existed as a
separate geographical
unit. P is
only
able to
assign
to it an inheritance
scooped
out of the
territory
of
Judah (cf.
Jos.
1
9
1 9
with
!^26-32.
42.
see aj so j Qh
^28-33).
an(j SO-called Simeonite
cities are
assigned
to
Judah
as
early
as the time of David
(i
Sa.
27*
30
30
,
2 Sa.
24? ;
cf. i Ki.
ig
3
).
In the
Blessing
of Moses it is
passed
over in silence. Traces of its
dispersion may
be found in such Simeonite
names as Shime
i, Shaul,
Yamin in other tribes
(Rob.
Sm.
JPh.
ix.
96)
;
and we
may
assume that the tribe had
disappeared
before the establish
ment of the
monarchy (see
Steuer.
70 ff.; Meyer,
INS, 75 ff.). Very
dulerent was the fate of Levi. Like
Simeon,
it lost its
independence
and,
as a secular
tribe,
ceased to exist. But its scattered members had
a
spiritual
bond of
unity
in the
possession
of the Mosaic tradition and
the sacred lot
(Dt. 33
8ff
"),
in virtue of which it secured a
privileged
position
in the Israelite sanctuaries
(Ju. 17 f.),
and was
eventually
re
constituted on a sacerdotal basis. The contrast between this
passage,
where Levi is the
subject
of a
curse,
and Dt.
33,
where its
prerogatives
are celebrated with
enthusiasm,
depends
on the distinction
just
indi
cated : here Levi is the secular
tribe,
destroyed by
its own
ferocity,
whose
religious importance
has not
yet emerged
; there,
it is the
Priestly
tribe, which,
although
scattered,
yet
holds the sacra and the Torah of
the
Yahwe-religion (We. Comp.
%
136 ff.).
The Metre is
regular, except
that in the last two lines the trimeters are
replaced by
a
binary couplet.
That is no sufficient reason for
deleting
them as an
interpolation
(Siev.).
8-12.
Judah.
8
Judah
! Thee shall
thy
brethren
praise
Thy
hand on the neck of
thy
foes
Bow down to thee shall
thy
father s sons.
*
A lion s
whelp
is
Judah,
From the
prey, my
son,
thou rt
gone up
!
He
crouched,
he couched like a
lion,
And an old lion who shall arouse him?
M
Departs
not the
sceptre
from
Judah,
Nor staff from between his
feet,
Until . . . come. . . .
(?),
And to him the
peoples obey.
11
Binding
his ass to the
vine,
And his foal to the choicest vine!
He washes his raiment in
wine,
And his clothes in the blood of the
grape
!
12
With
eyes
made dull
by
wine,
And teeth whitened with milk !
XLIX. 8-10
519
8.
Thee]
The
emphasis
on the
pron.
(see
G-K.
135 e)
is
explained by
the contrast to the
preceding
oracles : at
last the
singer
comes to a tribe which he can
unreservedly
praise.
Nowhere else does the
poem
breathe such
glowing
enthusiasm and such elevation of
feeling
as here. The
glories
of
Judah
are celebrated in four
aspects: (i)
as the
premier
tribe of
Israel,
8
;
(2)
as the
puissant
and victorious lion-
tribe,
9
;
(3)
as the bearer
(in
some
sense)
of the Messianic
hope,
]0
;
(4)
as
lavishly
endowed with the
blessings
of
nature,
llf
-.
^
7]
], ^]
The same fanciful
etymology
as in
2g
85
.
thy
hand . . .
foes]
The
image
seems to be that of
a defeated
enemy, caught by
the
(back
of
the)
neck in his
flight,
and crushed
(Ex.
2
3
27
,
Ps. i8
41
, Jb.
i6
12
). thy
breth
ren . .
thy father
s
sons]
The other
tribes,
who
acknowledge
the
primacy
of
Judah. p.
A vivid
picture
of the
growth
of
Judah
s
power;
to be
compared
with the beautiful
lyric,
Ezk. i
9
2
-
9
. a lion s
whelp]
So Dt.
33
22
(of Dan).
The
image naturally suggests
the
*
mighty youth
of the
tribe,
as
its full
development
is
represented by
the
lion,
and old lion
of the
following
lines. Hence the cl.
rppy ^"i^P
is rendered
by
some
(Gu. al.)
: On
prey, my son,
thou hast
grown up
(been reared),
which is
perhaps justified by
Ezk.
ig
3
. But
it is better to understand it of the lion s
ascent,
after a
raid,
to his mountain
fastness,
where he rests in unassailable
security (
9b
).
he
crouches,
etc.]
So
(of
Israel as a
whole)
Nu.
24.
I0a.
Judah
s
political pre-eminence. sceptre
. . .
staff]
The latter word
(Ppnp) might
be used
personally
=
8.
TV]
juu.(5r TT.
9. p&D]
(& &K
/SXaoroO, taking-
the word as in
8",
Ezk.
i7
9
. N D
1
?]
(&
ffKijfjLvos,
&
H$|? |5CL*i.
The common
rendering
lioness is based on
Arab.,
but it is
by
no means certain that in Hcb.
the word denotes
specially
the female. It is never construed as fern.
;
and in Ezk.
ig
2
the
pointing N;?
1
?
shows that the Massoretes considered
*raS as masc. loa. ear and
ppno
are found
together
in
Ju. 5
14
,
where
ppno (II
BQ
WD)
has the
personal
sense of commander. But in Nu. 2i
18
,
Ps. 6o
9
[=io8
9
]
it denotes the commander s
staff;
and since viv is
always
the
instrument,
the
impersonal
sense is to be
preferred
here :
hence the
&px.
wv f s
wrong,
and the
personal renderings
of no in
all Vns. at least doubtful. vSn
pns]
ju vSji
pao,
from between his
banners, gives
no sense. (50F
interpret
after Dt. 28" from his
520
THE BLESSING OF
JACOB
prescriber
[of laws] (ffiUS
OJ
al
-)
but
c
?^
is never so
used,
and
parallelism requires
that
PpnD
should be under
stood of the commander s
staff (Nu.
2i
18
,
Ps. 6o
9
=
io8
9
).
from
between his
feet\
The chieftain is conceived as seated
with his wand of office held
upright
in front of him. The
Bedouin sheikhs and headmen of
villages
are said still to
carry
such
insignia
of
authority.
The
question
arises whether the emblems denote
(a) kingly authority,
or
(b) military leadership
of the other
tribes,
or
merely (c)
tribal auto
nomy.
Dri.
(JPh.
xiv.
26)
decides for
(a),
because
(i)
B3t?,
without
qualification, suggests
a
royal sceptre
;
(2)
the last
phrase presents
the
picture
of a
king
seated on a throne
; (3)
the word nnnss" in
8b
most
naturally expresses
the
homage
due to a
king (cf. 37 ).
But in favour
of
(c)
it
might
be
urged (i)
that
ppnD
never has this
meaning,
and
(2)
that 3K> is the word for tribe
(e.g.
vv.
16- 28
),
and,
if the
passage
be
early,
is
likely
to be used as the
symbol
of tribal
independence.
The
idea of
military hegemony (b)
is in no
way suggested, apart
from the
connexion with v.
8
,
which is dubious. The
point
has an
important
bearing
on the
exegesis
of the next cl. If
(a)
be
right,
the Davidic
monarchy
is
presupposed,
and
lob
assigns
a term to its continuance
;
whereas,
if
(c)
be
right,
10b
is
possibly (not necessarily)
a
prophecy
of David and his
dynasty.
See, further,
the note at the end of this
verse.
I0b.
The
logical
relation of the two halves of the v. is
clear : the state of
things
described
by
10a
shall endure until
thighs
;
and hence 2T from his sons
sons,
3TJ from his seed. lob.
TO.
diroKfL/jLeva ai)ry [vars. $
TCI,
V
d7r<5/cemu . . .
etc.];
& ,._(JI Ol-55
^.So
J)
oA
; U
donee
ueniat
qui
mittendus est
(reading
n?^
: cf.
SiXwdyCi
(5 tpntivetieTou
ATreo"-
raXfj-tvos), Jn. g
7
) ;
3T xnia^o KM n*?m NrpB>a /vn
ny NO^y ny
;
$P rr n
pi
ny
i:n
vyi
KH^D NsSc. This last curious
rendering (
the
youngest
of his
sons
)
is followed
by
Kimchi and others
;
and
apparently
rests on a
misunderstanding
of
nn;^ (
afterbirth
)
in Dt. 28"
(C
KHJD
Tyi).
-*?
iy]
Only
here with
impf.
With
pf.
(26
18
4i
49
,
2 Sa.
23)
it
always
marks a
limit in the
past (
until
)
;
but
~iy
alone sometimes means
while,
both
with
pf.
and
impf. (i
Sa.
I4
19
,
Ps.
i4i
10
),
and so
-?
ny
(Ca.
i
12
),
xV
ny
(Pr.
8
26
),
and ^ nt^N
iy
(Ec.
I2
1 - 2- 6
)
: see
BDB,
p. 725
a. The transl. as
long
as is thus
perhaps
not
altogether impossible, though very improbable.
nW]
MSS and JJLX n
1
?^,
probably
the
original
text. The
scriptio plena may
have no better foundation than the common
Jewish interpretation
i
1
? ?
,
his
son,
an
impossible etymology,
since there is no such word as ^V
in
Heb.,
and the two forms which
appear
to have
suggested
it
(viz.,
NH
^y
foetus and
T^>
=
<
afterbirth
[Dt.
28
57
t])
are
obviously super
ficial and fallacious
analogies.
The Mass, vocalisation is therefore
XLIX. i OB
52
t
something happens
which shall
inaugurate
a still more
glorious
future. Whether this event be the advent of a
person
an ideal Ruler who shall take the
sceptre
out of
Judah
s
hands,
or a crisis in the fortunes of
Judah
which
shall raise that tribe to the
height
of its
destiny,
is a
question
on which no final
opinion
can be
expressed (see
below).
and to
hiin\
Either
Judah,
or the
predicted
Ruler,
according
to the
interpretation
of
lobct
. obedience
of
peoples]
Universal
dominion, which, however,
need not be understood
absolutely.
The crux of the
passage
is thus
lob
a
: rb*v NU-O
iy. For a fuller
statement of the various
interpretations
than is here
possible,
see
Werliin,
De laudibus
Judce, 1838 (not seen)
;
Dri.
JPh.
xiv. 1-28
(and
open
to
question,
and we are free to
try any pronunciation
of the Kethib
r\7V which
promises
a solution of the
exegetical
riddle with which we
are confronted. In
spite
of the
unanimity
of the
Vns.,
the
pointing
nW is
suspicious
for the reasons
given above,
the
presence
of B* in
an
early
document,
and the want of a
subj.
in the relative sentence.
On the other
hand,
the
attempts
to connect the word with
*J nVe>,
be
quiet,
are all more or less dubious,
(a)
There is no
complete parallel
in Heb. to a noun like
rP?T
from a n"
1
? root. If it be of the
type qttdl,
the
regular
form would be
i^tf ;
although
Kon.
(ii. p. 147) argues
that
as we find n:?3
alongside
of
\?2,
so we
might
have a
rtVtf
alongside
of
i^T.
Again,
if 6 be an
apocopated
form of the nominal termination
on,
the
A^
would
naturally
be not nW but
l
re>
(in
Arab.
=
flow,
whence
sell,
a torrent
)
or W. It is true there are a few
examples
of
wwapocopated
nouns of this
type
from n"
1
? verbs
(}i*!p, pn
N
[Ezk.
40?], jvin
[Gn. 3
16
t
prob.
an error for the
reg. ji -in,
Hos.
9",
Ru.
4
13
t]) ;
and the
possibility
of
deriving
the form in 6 from a root of this
kind cannot be
absolutely
excluded
(cf.
rnjN
with
1^3**). (6)
But even
if these
philological
difficulties could be
removed,
there remains the
objection
that n?
(as
contrasted with
oW)
is in OT at most a
negative
word, denoting
mere
tranquillity
rather than full and
positive prosperity,
and is often used of the careless
worldly
ease of the
ungodly.
For all
these reasons it is difficult to
acquiesce
in the view that
r6?>
can be a
designation
of the Messiah as the
Peaceful
or the
Pacifier
;
while to
change
the
pointing
and render till
tranquillity (n^)
come,
is
exposed
to the additional
objection
that the i
1
?]
of the
following
line is left
without an antecedent.
nnp ] (Pr. 3O
17
f) Dag. forte
dirimens. The
*J
appears
in Ar.
ivakiha,
be obedient
;
Sab.
npi.
That a vb.
(l^JJi??, ^i?!?)
would be more natural
(Ba.)
is not
apparent
;
the vbs. in @TJ
para
phrase
the sense
given
above. The
*J
was
evidently
not understood
by
(59
(-TrpovSoKia),
TS
(expectatio}, Aq. (trwrrTjyita),
<>
V
OHCQJ all of which
probably
derived from
*J nip
CAq.
from
^/ nip,
II. :
BDB).
522
THE BLESSING OF
JACOB
more
briefly
Gen.
410-415);
Posnanski,
Schilo Ein
Beitrag
zur Gesch-
ichte der Messiaslehre : i Theil :
Ausleg.
von Gn.
^<?
10
im Altert. bis zum
Ende des
MA, 1904
;
Di.
462
ff. The
renderings grammatically
admis
sible fall into two
groups, (i.)
Those which adhere to the text,
rec.,
taking
r6 t? as nom.
pr. (a)
Until Shiloh come
(Shiloh,
a name of the
Messiah),
the most obvious of all
translations,
first became current in
versions and comm. of the i6th
cent.,
largely through
the influence of
Seb. Minister
(1534). Although
the Messianic
acceptation
of the
passage
prevailed
in
Jewish
circles from the earliest
times,
it attached itself
either to the
reading nVf (ii. below)
or to the
rendering
his son
(Sn?),
or
(later
and more
rarely)
to
i
1
?
T
( gifts
to him
).
The earliest trace
(if
not the actual
origin)
of Shiloh as a
personal
name is found in the
following passage
of the Talmud
(Sank. 986)
: vhx
ND^y
"ITN vh m nox
~\y
"IDNJ&? IDS? nV ty "IDN N TJ? t *m IDS? no n t^D
1
? -IDK
pnv
2m n^D
1
? noi< VNID^I in
1
?
nW N3 3
(the
words are
repeated
in Echo,
Rabba,
with the addition
3 n3
rhvi)
:
"
Rab
said,
The world was created
only
for the sake of David
;
but Samuel
said,
For the sake of Moses
;
but R. Yohanan
said,
For the
sake of the Messiah. What is his name ? Those of the school of R.
Shela
say,
Shiloh is his
name,
as it is
said,
Until Shiloh come.
"
The
sequel
of the
quotation
is: "Those of the school of R. Yannai
say,
Yinn6n is his
name,
as it is said
(Ps. 72"),
Let his name be for
ever,
before the sun let his name be
perpetuated (]W).
Those of the school of
R. Haninah
say,
Haninah is his
name,
as it is said
(Jer.
i6
13
),
For I
will
give you
no favour
(nraq).
And some
say
Menahem is his
name,
as
as it is said
(La.
i
16
),
For comforter
(Qn:D)
and restorer of
my
soul is far
from me. And our Rabbis
say,
The
leprous
one of the school of Rabbi
is his
name,
as it is said
(Is. 53*), Surely
our sicknesses he hath
borne,
and our
pains
he hath carried
them, though
we did esteem him stricken
(sc.
with
leprosy),
smitten of
God,
and afflicted." Now there is
nothing
here to
suggest
that Shiloh was
already
a current
designation
of the
Messiah
any
more
than, e.g.,
the verb
ju
in Ps.
72"
can have been a
Messianic title.
Yet,
as Dri.
says,
it is "in this doubtful
company
that
Shiloh is first cited as a name of the
Messiah, though
we do not learn
how the word was
read,
or what it was
imagined
to
signify."
Sub
sequently
Shiloh as a
personal
name
appears
in lists of Messianic titles
of the nth cent.
(Posn. 40),
and it is so used
(alongside
of the
interpre
tation
iW) by
Samuel of Russia
(1124). Partly
from this lack of
traditional
authority,
and
partly
from the
impossibility
of
finding
a
significant etymology
for the word
(v.i.},
this
explanation
is now
universally
abandoned.
(b)
Until he
[Judah]
come to Shiloh
(Herder,
Ew. De. Di.
[hesitatingly] al.).
This is
grammatically unexceptionable
(cf.
i Sa.
4
12
),
and has in its favour the fact that nW
(i
1
??,
iW
[orig.
Ji^T]) everywhere
in OT is the name of the central
Ephraimite sanctuary
in the
age
of the
Judges (Jos.
i8
lff
-,
i Sa.
1-4 etc.).
At the
great
gathering
of the tribes at
Shiloh,
where the final
partition
of the land
took
place (Jos. i8f.), Judah
is
imagined
to have laid down the
military
leadership
which had
belonged
to it
during
the wars of
conquest
;
so
that the
prophecy
marks the termination of that troubled
period
of the
national life. But all this is unhistorical. The account in
Jos.
18
belongs
XLIX. IOB
523
to the later idealisation of the
conquest
of Canaan
;
there is no evidence
that
Judah
ever went to
Shiloh,
and none of a
military hegemony
of that
tribe over the
others,
or of a
subjugation
of
peoples (
I0b
0),
until the time
of
David,
by
which time Shiloh had ceased to be the central
sanctuary.
Even if
(with Di.)
we abandon the reference to
Jos. 18,
and take the
sense to be
merely
that
Judah
will remain in full warlike
activity
till
it has
conquered
its own
territory,
it is difficult to see
(as
Di. himself
acknowledges)
how that consummation could be
expressed by
a
coming
to Shiloh.
(t-)
The translation As
long
as one comes to
Shiloh,
i.e. for
ever(Hitz. Tu.), gives
a sense to 3
iy
which is
barely
defensible.
(ii.)
Those which follow the text
underlying
all ancient Vns.
except U,
viz.
rfa&
= \
(
? -IB>N.
(a)
Until he comes to that which is his
(Orelli, Br.)
involves an
improbable
use of the ace.
;
and it is not
easy
to see how
Judah
s
coming
to his own could be the
signal
for the cessation of
any
prerogatives previously enjoyed by
him.
(b)
Until that which is his shall
come is a
legitimate rendering
;
but the
thought
is
open
to the same
objection
as ii.
(a). (c).
The most
noteworthy
of this
group
of inter
pretations
is : Until he come whose
[it is],
sc. the
sceptre,
the
kingdom,
the
right,
etc.
;
i.e. the Messiah. This has the
support
not
only
of
nearly
all
Vns.,
but of Ezk. 2i
32
(where, however,
the
subj.
assort is ex
pressed).
The omission of the
subj.
is a serious
syntactic difficulty
;
and
this,
added to the
questionable
use of ~w in an
early
and
Judaean
passage,
makes this
widely accepted interpretation extremely pre
carious. The first
objection
would be removed if
(after
a
suggestion
of We.
[see Comp.
z
320])
we could delete the
following
I
1
?! as a
gloss,
and read Until he come whose is the
obedience,
etc. But metrical
considerations
preclude
this,
as well as the more drastic excision of
rhv as a
gloss
on i*?i
(ib. 321).
Of
conjectural
emendations the
only
one that calls for notice is that of Ba.
(followed by Gressmann),
who
reads
nT^D
: Until his ruler
(i.e.
the
Messiah)
come.
With
regard
to the
general scope
of the
v.,
the
question recurs,
whether the term fixed
by
lob
is historic or ideal
; whether,
in other
words,
it is a
prophecy
of the Davidic
kingdom
or of a future Messiah,
(i)
The
tendency
of recent scholars has been to
regard
v.
10
as
Messianic,
but
interpolated (We.
Sta. Di. Ho. Dri.
al.),
on the double
ground
that
it breaks the connexion between
9
and
n
,
and that the idea of a
personal
Messiah is not older than the 8th cent. But
(apart
from the
question
whether the
subj.
in
llf-
be
Judah
or the
Messiah)
the connexion between
9
and
n
is in
any
case not so obvious as to
justify
the removal of
10
;
and
the
assumption
that the
figure
of the Messiah is a creation of the
literary Prophets
is based more on our
ignorance
of the
early religious
conceptions
of the Israelites than on
positive
evidence.
(2) Accordingly,
Gu.
(followed by Gressmann,
Ursprung
d.
Isr.-Jiid. Eschatologie, 263)
finds in the
passage proof
of a
pre-prophetic eschatology,
which looked
forward to the advent of a Ruler who should found a
world-empire,
the
point
of the oracle
being
that till that
great
event
Judah
s dominion
should not
pass away.
It is
difficult, however,
to believe that the
climax of a
blessing
on
Judah
is the
expectation
of a world-ruler who
takes the
sceptre
out of
Judah
s hands
;
and
though
a reference to a
524
THE BLESSING OF
JACOB
Messianic tradition is
quite conceivable,
it is
probable
that it is here
already applied
to the Davidic
monarchy. (3)
It seems to
me, therefore,
that
justice
is done to the terms and the tenor of the oracle if we
reg-ard
it as a
prophecy
of David and his
dynasty,
a vaticinium ex
eventu,
like
all the other oracles in the
chapter.
The
meaning-
would be that
Judah
shall retain its tribal
independence (see
on
10a
) against
all adversaries
until its
great
hero makes it the centre of a
powerful kingdom,
and
imposes
his
sovereignty
on the
neighbouring- peoples.
As for the
enigmatic nW,
we
may,
of
course,
adopt
the
reading- iW,
which is as
appropriate
on this view as on the
directly
Messianic
interpretation.
But if the oracle rests on an
early eschatolog-ical tradition,
it is
just
possible
that rhy is a
cryptic designation
of the
expected Ruler,
which
was
applied by
the
poet
to the
person
of David. Bennett
(p. 397)
calls
attention to the resemblance with nW in ch.
38 ;
and it is a wonder that
those who
recognise mythical
elements in the
story
of
Judah
and Tamar
have not
thought
of
identifying
the nW of our
passage
with
Judah
s
third
son,
of whose
destiny
the
story
leaves us in
ignorance.
Is it
possible
that this connexion was in the minds of the
Jewish
authorities
(v.i.)
t
who render nS p his
youngest
son ?
(see Posnanski, 36
3
).
II,
12. As
usually
understood,
the vv.
give
a
highly
coloured
picture
of
Judaean
life after the
conquest,
in a land
where vines are so common that
they
are used for
tethering
the
ass,
and wine so abundant that
garments
are washed in
it. As a
description
of the vine-culture for which
Judah
was
famous,
the
hyperbole
is
perhaps
extreme
;
and Gressmann
(I.e. 287)
takes the
subject
to be not the
personified tribe,
but the Rulsr of v.
10
,
the vv.
being
a
prediction
of the
ideal
felicity
to be introduced
by
his
reign.
Whether this
be the
original
sense of the
passage
or not is hard to decide
;
but Gr. is doubtless
right
in
thinking
that it
supplied
the
imagery
for the well-known
picture
of the Messianic
king
in
Zee.
9
9
. 12.
ffirU
take the
adjs.
as
comparatives
:
*
brighter
than wine
(v.i.)
. . . whiter than milk : but this is less
natural.
II.
nox]
with archaic
case-ending
: cf. ja
below,
and
perhaps
"
in v.
12
.
njnfr]
&TT.
\ey.
=
p-i.K ,
Is.
5
2
, Jer.
2
21
[pty,
Is. i6
8
] ;
probably
from
the red colour of the best
grapes. nmo]
JUUL
nniDD,
covering (Ex.
2i
10
etc.).
TKQ
( *J nip ?)
does not occur elsewhere. 12.
^3n]
In Pr.
23
29
rn^?3
CTJ?
means dulness of
eyes,
the effect of excessive
drinking.
This is
the
only
sense
justified by etymology (Ass.
akAlu,
be
gloomy
;
Ar.
hakala, IV,
be confused : see
BDB,
s.v.
SDH),
and must be retained
here,
although,
of
course,
it does not
imply reproach, any
more than 12^
in
43
34
. (5
x
a
po7rof[o/], glad-eyed
;
and
similarly
XLIX.
11-14
5
2
5
The section on
Judah
lacks the
unity
of the first two
oracles,
and is
very probably composed
of
strophes
of diverse
origin
and date. V.
8
opens
with a
play
on the
name,
like w.
16< 19
,
while v.
9
starts afresh with
an animal
comparison,
like w.
14> 17 ^
(see
Introd.
Note,
p. 510).
The
impression
of
discontinuity
is
partly
confirmed
by
the
poetic
form
;
v.
8
being"
an
irregular
tristich,
and the remainder a series of
7 perfect
trimeter distichs. The dekastich
10
~
12
seems distinct from what
precedes
(note
the
repetition
of the name in
10
),
but is itself a
unity.
The
proposal
to remove v.
i(1
as a late Messianic
interpolation,
and to make v.
11
the con
tinuation of v.
9
,
does not commend itself
;
and the excision of the third
line in v.
10
(Meier, Fripp) merely
avoids an
exegetical difficulty by
sacrificing
the
strophic arrangement.
13-15.
Zebulun and Issachar.
13
Zebulun shall dwell
by
the shore of the
sea,
And . . . shore of
ships (?),
And his flank is on Zidon.
K
Issachar is a
bony
ass
Crouching
between the
panniers (?)
:
15
And he saw that rest was
good,
And that the land was sweet
;
So he bent his shoulder to
bear,
And became a
labouring drudge.
13.
shall
dwell]
An allusion to the
etymology
in
3O
20
. It
is
plausibly conjectured
that
|3^
has been substituted
by
mistake for the
original
73.F
(Gu. al.).
The second and
third lines are
unintelligible,
and the text is
probably corrupt.
The
comparison
of Zebulun to a recumbent
animal,
with
4
itself
(mn*!)
towards the
sea-coast,
and its hind
-parts
towards Zidon
(Di.
Gu.
al.),
is
unsatisfying
and almost
grotesque.
Dt.
33
19b
shows that it is the
advantageousness
of Zebulun s
geographical position
which is here celebrated.
Zidon\
may
be a name for
Phoenicia,
in whose commercial
pursuits
it has been surmised that Zebulun became more and
more involved
(Sta.
GVI,
i.
171). 14.
bony]
i.e.
strong-
13.
D<D
f]in] Ju. 5
17
;
cf. D n
n,
Dt. i
7
, Jos. 9
1
, Jer. 47?,
Ezk.
25
16
f
:
]in
is
never found with
any
other
gen. except
in the next line. in
Kim]
One
is
tempted
to construe
prosaically
thus : And that a shore for
ships,
with its flank on Zidon
;
but this would entail elision of
h,
to the
detriment of the
rhythm
:
besides,
the
repetition
of
*pn
and the
unique
combination mtf n are
suspicious.
Ba. reads TIV for
^in
1
?
(after Ju. 5
17
),
and deletes the last line.
hy]
jjuL&F^C
-1
iy.
14.
DIJ
ion]
JUUL 0"u
n,
ass
526
THE BLESSING OF
JACOB
limbed. Issachar had
strength enough,
but
preferred
ease
to exertion.
D^nss
tsn]
The common
interpretation
*
sheep-
pens
has no
appropriateness
here,
and
may
be a
conjecture
based on
Ju. 5
16
.
Equally
unsuitable are the
renderings
of
the old Vns.
(
boundaries,
etc.),
and the
fire-places
or
ash-heaps
which the Heb.
etymology
would
suggest.
The form is
dual,
and one
naturally
thinks of the
*
panniers
carried
by
the ass
(v.i.). 15.
nfrijp]
A technical term for
the
settled,
as contrasted with the
nomadic,
life
(Gu.).
a
labouring drudge]
Lit. became a
toiling labour-gang
;
cf.
Jos.
i6
10
.
D)D
is a
levy
raised under the
system
of forced
labour
(corvee).
That a Heb. tribe should submit to this
indignity
was a shameful reversal of the normal relations
between Israel and the Canaanites
(Jos.
i6
10
i7
13
[=
Ju.
i
28
],
J
U> j30.
33.
35).
The two northern Leah-tribes found a settlement in Lower
Galilee,
where
they mingled
with the Canaanite inhabitants.
According
to
Jos.
lo,
10 16
,
Zebulun
occupied
the hills north of the Great
Plain,
being
cut off
from the sea both
by
Asher and
by
the
strip
of Phoenician coast. We
must therefore
suppose
that the tribal boundaries fluctuated
greatly
in
early
times,
and that at the date of the
poem
Zebulun had access at
some
point
to the sea. The almost identical
description
on
Ju. 5"
is
considered
by
Gu. to have been transferred from Zebulun to
Asher,
a
view
which,
if it can be
substantiated,
affords a reliable criterion of the
relative dates of the two oracles. The district of Issachar seems to
have been between the Great Plain and the
Jordan,
including
the Vale
of
Jezreel,
a
position
in which it was
peculiarly
difficult for a Hebrew
tribe to maintain its
independence.
The tribe is not even mentioned in
the
survey
of
Ju. i,
as if it had ceased to be
part
of Israel. Yet both it
and Zebulun had
played
a
gallant part
in the wars of the
Judges (Ju.
46.
10
5
i4. is
535
5i5)
The absence of
any
allusion to these
exploits
lends
colour to the view that this
part
of the
poem
is of older date than the
Song
of Deborah.
of
sojourners
(unless
Q
lJ
be an
adj.
fr.
D~u).
(5r rb Ka\bv
iredv/j.i)(Tev
(=rDi_3 norj:
Ginsb. Introd.
p. 254);
<&
|;JQJ^|
!r-^Hi> Aq.
and TS
support
on the whole MT. D ns?Dn
p] Ju. 5
16
t,
but cf. Ps. 68
14
. The
three
pass,
are somehow
interrelated,
although
no sense will suit them
all. Vns.
mostly
render
territories,
or
something equivalent,
both
here and in
Ju.
But the
diyo,uias
of (& in
Ju.
(see Schleusner)
is note
worthy,
and shows that the
rendering
above has some show of
authority.
So the late Gr.-Ven.
7?/u(j!>6/ma.
For the
rest,
see Moore on
Ju. 5
16
.
15.
210]
JULJ. mio.
-iny
DQ
1
?]
(Hr
avyp yewpybs (Ginsb. I.e.).
On
DD,
see
DBD,
and
Moore, Jud. p. 47.
XLIX.
15-18
527
16-21.
Dan,
Gad,
Asher,
and
Naphtali.
18
Dan shall
judge
his
people,
As one of the tribes of Israel.
17
Be Dan a
serpent
on the
way,
A horned snake on the
path,
That bites the hoofs of the
horse,
And the rider tumbles backwards !
18
[I
wait for
thy
salvation,
Yahwe
!]
19
Gad raiders shall raid
him,
But he shall raid their rear !
20
Asher his bread shall be
fat,
And he shall
yield
dainties for
king
s.
w
Naphtali
is a
branching
terebinth
(?)
Producing comely tops (?).
l6. Dan . . .
judge\
See on
3o
6
. his
people]
Not
Israel,
but his own tribesmen. The
meaning
is not that Dan will
produce
a
judge (Samson)
as well as the other tribes
(2T
J
),
nor that he will
champion
the national cause
(Ew.
De. Di.
al.);
but that he will
successfully
assert an
equal
status
with the other tribes. Note that in
Ju.
i8
2- " 19
the Danites
are
spoken
of as a clan
*
(nnsjpp). 17.
The little
snake,
concealed
by
the
wayside, may
unhorse the rider as effectu
ally
as a
fully
armed
antagonist
:
by
such
insidious,
but
not
ignoble,
warfare Dan in
spite
of his weakness
may
succeed.
IB
11
??
1
]
air.
Xey.
is
probably
the cerastes
cornutus,
whose habits are here
accurately
described
(see
Dri.,
and
Tristram, NHB>
274).
18. An
interpolation, marking (as
nearly
as
possible)
the middle of the
poem (so
Ols. Ba.
Siev.
al.).
The
attempts
to defend its
genuineness
as a
sigh
of exhaustion on
Jacob
s
part,
or an utterance of the nation s
dependence
on Yahwe s
help
in such
unequal
conflicts as
those
predicted
for
Dan,
are
inept.
Dan was one of the
weakest of the
tribes,
and
perhaps
the latest to secure a
permanent
settlement
(Ju.
I
34f>
,
Jos. ig
47
,
Ju. 18).
Its
migration northward,
and
conquest
of
Laish,
must have
17. JEW]
<Br
ivKa-O-fiufvos,
taking
the air.
\ey.
as an
adj.
Sfl
i]
Ba.
(after
5
528
THE BLESSING OF
JACOB
taken
place early
in what is known as the
Judges period
;
and is
apparently presupposed
here and in
Ju. 5
17
.
19.
Strictly
:
*
A
marauding
band shall attack
him,
but he shall
attack their heel
(rdg.
Q^P^,
v.i.);
i.e.^
press upon
them in
their
flight.
The marauders are the warlike
peoples
to the
E,
specially
the Ammonites
(i
Ch.
5
18ff
-,
Ju. iof.),
who at a
later time
dispossessed
the tribe
(Jer. 49!).
As
yet, however,
Gad maintains its martial character
(cf.
i Ch. i2
8
~
15
),
and
more than holds its own. 20. Asher settled in the fertile
strip along
the
coast,
N of Carmel. The name occurs as a
designation
of Western Galilee in
Eg.
inscrs. of the time of
Seti and Ramses n.
(see
Miiller, AE,
236 ff.). -faf\ Probably
an allusion to the oil
(Dt. 33
24
)
for which the
region was,
and still
is,
famous.
royal
dainties]
fit for the tables of
Phoenician
kings (cf.
Ezk.
ay
17
).
21. The verse on
Naphtali
is
ambiguous.
Instead of
flJJK,
hind,
many
moderns read
ry
X
(
a
spreading
terebinth
).
The
following
cl. :
giving
fair
speeches,
suits neither
image;
on the one view it is
proposed
to read
yielding goodly
lambs
(^N),
on the other
producing goodly
shoots
("P.^).
No certain conclusion
can be arrived at.
19. nj]
The name is here
(otherwise
than
30")
connected with
iru,
band
(i
Sa.
3O
8 - 5- 23
,
i Ki. n
24
,
2 Ki.
5
2
6
23
etc.),
and with
*J
iu,
assail
(Hab. 3,
Ps.
94
21
t). spy]
Rd.
cripy, taking-
the n from the
beginning-
of v.
20
. 2O.
I^ND]
Read with (GrJSU
TON.
n:Dtr]
JLU.
JDK
.
21.
nrhv
n^x]
So
Aq.
"S
(Jer. Qu.}.
S
and &
probably
had the same
text,
but render a swift
messenger.
On
Jerome
s
ager irrigmts (Qu.)
and its Rabbinical
parallels,
see
Rahmer,
Die hebr. Traditionen t n den
Werken des Hier.
p. 55.
05
<rr^\e%os
seems to
imply
nVx
;
but Ba.
dissents.
jmn]
After either nW or
nW,
rwu would be better.
npn]
words,
is
unsuitable,
and caused > and <J to
change
the
metaphor
to that of a
messenger.
An allusion to the
eloquence
of the tribe is
out of
place
in the connexion. The
reading
npN, topmost boughs/
has but doubtful
support
in Is.
17 (see
the
comm.).
nsx, lamb,
is
not
Heb.,
but is found in Ass. Phcen. Aram, and Ar. (5r tv T<
-yep^uctTi
is traced
by
Ba. to
1??;
but?
12^]
&ir.
Xey.
Ba.
argues ingeniously,
but
unconvincingly,
that
rr);x belongs
to v.
22
,
and that the ms of that v.
stood
originally
in
21
. His amended text reads :
rns vnsj
Naphtali
is a
branching"
vine,
n?
njnan That
yieldeth comely fruit.
XLIX.
1922
529
22-26.
Joseph.
22
A fruitful
boug-h (?)
is
Joseph
A fruitful
boug-h by
a well
(?).
28
And . . . dealt
bitterly
with
him,
And the archers harassed him
sorely.
84
Yet his bow abode
unmoved,
And nimble were the arms of his hands.
Through
the hands of the
Mighty
One of
Jacob,
Through
the
r
name
n
of the
Shepherd
of the
Israel-Stone,
*>
Through thy
father s God
may
he
help
thee !
And El Shaddai
may
he bless thee 1
Blessing
s of heaven
above,
Blessings
of T6hom
r n
beneath,
Blessings
of breast and
womb,
Blessings
of ...
(?),
Blessings
of the eternal fountains
1
,
r
Produce^ of the
everlasting
hills
Be on the head of
Joseph,
And on the crown of the consecrated one of his brethren.
The section is full of
obscurities,
and the text
frequently quite
un
translatable. Its
integrity
has
naturally
not
passed unquestioned.
We
may distinguish
four
stages
in the
unfolding-
of the theme :
(i)
The
opening
tristich
(
22
), celebrating (as
far as can be made
out)
the
populous-
ness and
prosperity
of the central double-tribe.
(2) Joseph
s contest
with the archers
(
23- 24a
). (3)
A fourfold invocation of the
Deity (
24b
***?). (4)
The
blessing proper (26*yfl>- ),
which
closely
resembles the
corresponding part
of the
Blessing"
of Moses
(Dt. 33
]3
"
16
),
the two
being
1
probably
variants of a common
original. Meyer (I1VS,
282
ff.) accepts
(i), (2),
and
(4)
as
genuine,
but
rejects (3)
as a later
addition,
which has
displaced
the
original
transition from the conflict to the
blessing-. Fripp
(ZATW,
xxi. 262
ff.)
would remove
(3)
and
(4) (**-&),
which he holds to
have been inserted
by
an
Ephraimite
editor from Dt.
33
: Ho. seems in
the main to
agree.
Sievers also
(II. 362) questions
the
g-enuineness
of
24b-26
on metrical
grounds.
But we
may
admit the northern
origin
of
some of the
vv.,
and the resemblance to Dt.
33,
and even a difference
of
metre,
and still hold that the whole
belongs
to the earliest
literary
recension of the
Song
to which we have access. The warm enthusiasm
of the
eulogy,
and the
generous recognition
of
Joseph
s services to the
national
cause,
are no doubt remarkable in a
Judsean
document
;
but
such a tone is not
unintelligible
in the time of
David,
when the
unity
of
the
empire
had to be maintained
by
a
friendly
and
conciliatory
attitude
to the
high-spirited
central tribes.
22. On the
ordinary
but
highly questionable rendering
1
,
22. ms
p] }3
is const, st. : the
rhythmic
accent forbids the usual
shortening
of the vowel with
Maqqeph (72).
rns]
Contracted from
nns,
34
53O
THE BLESSING OF
JACOB
the
image
is that of a
young
1
thriving
vine
planted
by
a
fountain and thus well
supplied
with w
T
ater,
whose tendrils
extend over the wall. a
fruitful
boitgli\
Or A
young
fruit-
tree : lit.
*
son of a fruitful
[tree
or vine
].
There is
probably
an
etymological
allusion to
Ephraim
(rns
= rras
:
We.). 23, 24.
The
figure
is
abruptly changed: Joseph
is
now
represented
as beset
by troops
of
archers,
whose attack
he
repels.
dealt
bitterly
. .
.]
The
following
word
}2HJ
re
quires
some amendment of text
(v.t.). 24.
abode
unmoved]
or constant. Taken with the next
line,
this
suggests
a
fine
picture
:
the bow held
steadily
in
position,
while the
hand that
discharges
the arrows in
quick
succession moves
nimbly
to and fro
(Gu.).
The
expressions, however,
are
peculiar,
and a different
reading
of the second line
given
in
fruitful
(Is. if 32
12
,
Ezk. i
9
10
,
Ps. I28
3
),
or
nnb,
with archaic fern.
termination.
-TINS,
bough (Ezk. if 3i
5 6
), might
be
thought of,
but
would be
hardly
suitable as
gen.
after
p.
Down to
j
y the Vns. have
substantially
the same text. Tit?
by myx
nun]
defies
explanation.
Lit.
filice
discurrerunt
super
murtim
(3J).
But Iran
=
tendrils,
has no
analogy
;
iyx
means march* or
stride,
but not extend
;
and the discord of
number is harsh
(notwithstanding
G-K.
145
).
The Vns. reveal
early corruption
of the
text,
without
suggesting anything
better. (Er uf6s
JJ.QV
veurraros
(=
jai
Ty$
33) TTpbs fj
dvdarpe^ov (
=
31KJ
by,).
&
ji-*_JLO
"Jin
~ o .r>\rm
]^>
. Vnm
(?
TW
nbi
n
-iyo
[;#).
Zimmern s zodiacal
theory,
which identifies
Joseph
with the
sign Taurus,
finds two
tempting
points
of contact in the consonantal text:
reading rn^
=
rn^,
juvenca,
at the
beginning,
and
"her, ox,"
at the end. But the reconstruction of
the text on these
lines,
with the
help
of Dt.
33" (see ZA,
vii.
i64ff.
;
ATLO*, 399),
has no title to
respect: against
it see Ba.
p.
116.
23.
13T]
From
*J
nm,
a
by-form
of
nan,* shoot,
with intrans.
pf. (G-K.
67 m).
The
simple pf.
between two consec.
impfs. being suspicious,
the least
change
demanded is ia*n. juu.(3r
(eXoiSopow)
and U
(jurgati
sunt}
read
inzn;},
strove with him. Parallelism
suggests
a noun
as
subj.
to
op.
;
we
might
read D
3i,
bowmen
(Jer. so
-9
),
or
(since
the line is too
short) n^j5
ah
(ai
20
). 243.
<&
KO!
a-vverpiSrj /i6rd
Kpd-
rovt ret r6a aurwv
[
=
DJ;i^p jn
N3
IJBW]. nrni]
S A^SCH
2^1.
The
sense abide for DB
1
is
justified by
Lv. i2
4
,
i Ki. 22
1
,
Ps.
I25
1
,
and
nothing
is
gained by departing
from MT.
fn
s
N3]
Lit. as a
permanent
one
(} essentice). itn]
2 Sa. 6
16
f.
fir Ka.1
e\60rj,
o
may represent
nifl i
(see Ba.). [Cr 07;]
VT
yn]
is a hard
But see above on 2I
20
.
XLIX.
23-26
531
some Vns. is
approved by
several scholars
(v.t.). Strong
One
of Jacob]
A
poetic
title of
Yahwe,
recurring-
Is.
^.g
26
6o
16
,
Ps.
i32
2- 5
,
and
(with
Israel for
Jacob)
Is. i
24
.
See,
further,
the footnote below.
Through
the
name]
C$?p,
the
reading
of and
J, though
not
entirely satisfactory,
is at
least
preferable
to the
meaningless
DBfo
of MT. the
Shepherd
of
the
Israel-Stone}
A second
designation
of Yahwe as the
Guardian of the Stone of
Israel,
either the sacred stone of
Bethel,
or
(better)
that of Shechem
(Jos.
2
4
2nf
-),
which was
the
religious
rendezvous of the tribes in
early
times
(see
p. 416):
so
Luther, INS,
284*
. Both text and translation
are, however,
uncertain
(v.t.). 25,
26. The construction is
ambiguous
: it is not clear whether the lines
beginning
with
Blessings
are a series of accusatives
depending
on the
;1?W
of
25a
( may
he bless thee with
blessings, etc.),
or
subjects
to
,ri
njT1
in
26b
. The second view is
adopted
above
;
but the
ambiguity may
be an intentional refinement.
25a<x{3.
*El
Shaddai]
For the
reading,
v.t.;
and see on
17*.
25aySb,
combination,
but
perhaps
not too bold.
24!). T3NJ
occurs
only
in the
pass,
cited above. It is
reasonably suspected
that the Mass,
changed
the
punctuation
to avoid association of ideas with
v;w, bull,
the
idolatrous emblem of Yahwe in N Israel. Whether the name as
applied
to Yahwe be
really
a survival of the
bull-worship
of Bethel and
Dan is another
question
;
V2K
(strong)
is an
epithet
of men
(Ju. 5--,
Jb.
2
4
22
34
20
, Je. 46
15
,
i Sa. 2i
8
etc.),
and horses
(Jer.
8
16
47
3
50")
much
more often than of bulls
(Ps.
22
13
68
31
5o
13
,
Is.
34
7
),
and
might
have
been transferred to Yahwe in its
adj.
sense. On the other
hand,
the
parallelism
with
*
Stone of Israel in the next line favours the idea that
the title is derived from the cult of the Bull at
Bethel,
which
may
have
had a more ancient
significance
than an
image
of Yahwe
(cf. Mey. flVS,
282
ff.; Luther, ZATW,
xxi.
70 ff.).
The further inference
(No.
Lut.
Mey.)
that
Jacob
was the
deity originally worshipped
in the bull is
perhaps
too adventurous.
D^p]
So ffirU
;
but JSC osto. hxw
px]
Cf.
&"
TIX,
2 Sa.
23
3
,
Is.
3O
29
;
also
"itj;n
N,
i Sa.
4
1
5
1
7
12
. The translation above
agrees
with J5 ;
MT
puts
njn
in
apposition
with K
(so 3J)
;
(Sr KeWev
6 /taTtcr)wras
I0y>.
omits
px,
and
may
have read
"\iy
(Ba.).
The line is too
long
for the
metre,
but
px
is the one word that should not be omitted.
25.
"pnn
i . . .
Tiiyi]
Cf. Ps.
69
33
,
and see Ew.
347
a.
TIKI]
Read
with .ux(3r
(6
0eds 6
^ifo),
> ^Ki :
though
Htf> alone
(Nu. 24
4- lfi
)
would be
suitable in an ancient
poem. n*:n] Metrically necessary
in Dt.
33
13
,
but
here redundant ;
probably,
therefore,
a
gloss
from the other recension
(Siev.).
26. ~iy
"tin nann
Sj; in33
T3
x
]
There are two
stages
of
corruption,
532
THE BLESSING OF
JACOB
26a. The
blessings, arranged
in three
parallel couplets,
the
first
referring
to the
fertility
of the soil.
Blessings of
heaven
above]
Rain and
dew,
the cause of
fertility (so
Dt.
33
13
em.).
Tehom . . .
beneath]
The subterranean
flood,
whence
springs
and rivers are fed : see on i
2
.
Blessings of
breasts
and
womb]
Contr. the terrible
imprecation,
Hos.
g
u
. 26a.
Passing
over the first four words as
absolutely unintelligible
(v.t.)j
we come to the third
pair
of
blessings:
. . .
of
the
eternal mountains . . .
of
the
everlasting
hills
(Dt. 33
15
,
Hab.
3
6
)]
In what sense the mountains were conceived as
a source of
blessing
is not
clear, perhaps
as abodes of
deity;
cf. the dew of Hermon
(Ps. I33
3
).
The word
rendered
produce
is uncertain
;
we should
expect blessings,
as
ffi actually
reads
(v.i.).
26b. Be on the
head]
as in
benediction the hand is laid on the head
(48
14
)
: cf. Pr. io
6
II
26
>
_vnN
TT3]
So Dt.
33
16
. The
TT3
is either the Nazirite
one consecrated to God
by
a vow
involving
unshorn
hair
(Ju.
i3
5 - 7
etc.)
or the
prince (so only
La.
4
7
).
For the
rendering
crowned one there are no
examples.
The
second
interpretation
is that
usually adopted by
recent
scholars
;
some
explaining
it of the Northern
monarchy,
of
one
remediable,
the other not. The last line is to be restored with
(Sr ~ii!
Y]D
r>3*n, blessings
of the eternal mountains
(Dt. 33
15
,
Hab.
3
6
).
But the first three
words,
though represented by
all
Vns.,
must be
wrong
;
for to
put
nonn under the
regimen
of
hy
destroys
the
parallelism,
and the vb. nria cuts off
p
nn from its
subj.
What is
obviously required
is a line
parallel
to ami ons? mna. Gu. s
suggested
emendation, though
far from
satisfying,
is the best that can be
proposed
:
Syj
n^l
38
3N ima
=
Blessings
of
father, yea,
man and child.
73*]
juuuffi +
IDNi,
suggested
no doubt
by
the
previous
line.
"Tin]
UJoCPJ render
my progenitors,
by
an
impossible
derivation from
*J
mn,
be
pregnant.
rnxn]
EV
utmost bound
(so
De.,
fr.
^/
n.xn or mn
;
see
BDB),
has no real
philo
logical
or traditional
justification.
If the text were
reliable,
it
might
be
the common word
desire,
from
/
m*
(<5
curs-
TLTSQpl),
in the sense of
desirable
things.
With some hesitation I follow above Ols. Gu.
al.,
reading
/worm after Dt.
33".
But (Sr
B
n:na has
great weight (all
the
greater
that the translator has lost the thread of the
thought),
and
ought
perhaps
to be
preferred.
TU]
is not
necessarily
a derivative from the
noun
"in, diadem,
=
the crowned one
;
more
probably
it comes from
the vb.
directly,
ITJ
=
dedicate
(cf. TU)
which admits various shades
of
meaning.
Of the Vns. <&W
represent
the idea of
*
prince
or
ruler,
E
the
separated
one,
IS Saad. the
Nazirite,
&
the crown
XLIX.
26, 27
533
which the
Joseph-tribes
were the chief
part
;
though
others
think it
merely
ascribes to
Joseph
a
position
of
princely
superiority
to his brethren. The other view is taken
by
Sellin
(Beitr.
ii.
i,
132 ff.)
and
Gu.,
who conceive the ancient
Nazirite as a man like
Samson,
dedicated to
single-handed
warfare
against
the foes of Israel
(cf.
Schw.
Kriegsalter-
thiimer,
101
ff.),
and hold that
Joseph
is so
designated
as
being
the foremost
champion
of the national cause. The
interpretation
is
certainly plausible ;
but it derives no
support
from the word
If^iJ (||K>K">),
which is never used in connexion
with the
Nazirite,
and is
quite
common in other connexions
(see
Dt.
33
20
).
The
opinion confidently
entertained
by many
scholars
(see
We.
321),
that the
Blessing
of
Joseph presupposes
the divided
kingdom,
rests
partly
on this
expression,
and
partly
on the allusion to an arduous
struggle
in
23f>
. But it is clear that neither indication is at all decisive.
If
Tij
could mean
only
crowned
one,
we should no doubt find ourselves
in the time of the dual
monarchy.
In
point
of
fact,
it never denotes the
king,
and
only
once
princes
;
and we have no
right
to
deny
that its
import
is
adequately explained by
the
leadership
which fell to the house
of
Joseph
in the
conquest
of Canaan
(Ju.
I
22H<
). Similarly,
the archers
of v.
23
might
be the Aramaeans of
Damascus,
in which case
Joseph
would
be a name for the Northern
kingdom
as a whole
;
but
they may
as well
be the Midianites
(Ju. 6ff.)
or other marauders who attacked central
Israel between the settlement and the
founding
of the
monarchy,
and
whose
repeated
and
irritating
incursions would
admirably
suit the terms
of the
description.
The
general
considerations which
plead
for an
early
date are :
(i)
The
analogy
of the rest of the
poem,
some
parts
of which
are
earlier,
and none
demonstrably
later,
than the
age
of David or
Solomon.
(2)
The
incorporation
of the
blessing
in a
Judsean
work is
improbable
at a time when Israel was a rival
kingdom. (3) Although
Joseph
sometimes stands for the Northern
kingdom,
it can
hardly
do so
here in an enumeration of the tribes.
Consequently
it takes us back to
the time when
Joseph
was still a
single
tribe,
or when at least the
separation
of
Ephraim
and Manasseh was not
clearly recognised
: the
addition in Dt.
33
17b
is instructive in this
regard (see Gu.,
and
Sellin,
Lc.
134).
27. Benjamin.
27
Benjamin
is a
ravening
wolf:
In the
morning
he devours the
prey,
And at eve divides the
spoil.
27. rjlB
3NT] Descriptive impf.,
see Dav.
44,
E.
3, 142.
On
pausaJ
ft,
see G-K.
29 u.^]
=
booty,
Is.
33
"
3
,
Zeph. 3
8
[?
Is.
9
5
] ;
<& ZTL.
534
THE BLESSING OF
JACOB
Benjamin
is
praised
for its
predatory instincts,
and its
unflagging
zest for war. The
early history
contains a
good
deal to
justify
the
comparison
: its
fight
with Moab
(Ju.
3
15ff
-),
its share in the
struggle
with the Canaanites
(Ju. 5
U
),
its
desperate
stand
against
united Israel
(Ju. 19 f.);
it was
famous for its skill in
slinging
and
archery (Ju.
2O
16
,
i Ch.
8
40
I2
2
,
2 Ch.
i4
7
i7
17
).
But a
special
reference to the short
lived
reign
of Saul is
probable
: the
dividing
of
spoil
reminds
us of the
king
who clothed the
daughters
of Israel with
scarlet and ornaments
(2
Sa. i
24
).
The contrast between
this
description
and the
conception
of
Benjamin
in the
Joseph-stories
is an instructive
example
of how tribal
characteristics were obscured in the
biographical types
evolved
by
the
popular imagination.
2Saba
(to arrsN)
is the
subscription
to the
poem
;
the re
mainder of the v.
belongs
to
P,
and
probably
continued
la
in
that source. the tribes
of
Israel,
twelve in
number]
The
division into 12 tribes is an artificial
scheme,
whose
origin
is uncertain
(see
Luther, ZATW,
xxi.
33
ff.
; Peters, Early
Heb.
Story^ 55 ff.).
It obtained also
amongst
the
Edomites,
Ishmaelites,
and other
peoples
;
and in Israel
betrays
its
theoretic character
by
the different
ways
in which the number
was made
up,
of which the oldest is
probably
that followed
in the
Song
of
Jacob.
In Dt.
33,
Simeon is
omitted,
and
Joseph
divided into
Ephraim
and Manasseh
;
in P
(Nu. 2)
Joseph
is
again
divided,
to the exclusion not of
Simeon,
but
of Levi.
The
recently
revived
theory
of a connexion between the
original
sayings
of the
Blessing
and the
signs
of the Zodiac calls for a brief
notice at this
point.
The most
striking correspondences
were set forth
by
Zimmern in
ZA^
vii.
(189.2),
161 ff.
; viz.,
Simeon and Levi
=
Gemini
(see p. 517)
; Judah
=
Leo,
with the
king-star Regulus
on its breast
(f
3
r"?j-i)
;
and
Joseph
=
Taurus. This last
comparison,
it is
true,
rests on
Dt.
33
rather than Gn.
49,
and is
only imported
into this
passage by
a
violent reconstruction of v.
22
(p. 530).
Other
possible
combinations
mentioned
by
Zimmern are Issachar
=
Aselli
(in Cancer),
Dan
=
Serpens
(N
of
Libra), Benjamin
=
Lupus (S
of
Scorpio),
and
Naphtali
=
Aries
28. ^KV
Tans?]
(Sr
viol
Iafcw/3.
?
IS N
N]
Such a construction is
impossible.
We must either omit the rel.
(Vns.)
or read K"N B"N
(Ols.
DC. KS. Gu.
al.).
XLIX. 28-L. 26
535
(reading
^N
for
nW).
Stucken
(MVAG, 1902, i66ff.),
after a laboured
proof
that Reuben
corresponds
to Behemoth
(hippopotamus),
an old
constellation now
represented by Aquarius, completed
the circle after a
fashion,
with the
necessary
addition of Dinah
=
Virgo
as the
missing-
sign
;
and his results are
adopted by Jeremias
(ATLO
2
,
395 ff.).
A
somewhat different
arrangement
is
given by
Winckler in A
OF,
iii.
465
ff.
These
conjectures,
however,
add little to the evidence for the
theory,
which must in the main be
judged by
the seven coincidences
pointed
out
in Zimmern s article. That these amount to a
demonstration of the
theory
cannot be affirmed
;
but
they
seem to me to
go
far to show that
it contains an element of truth. It is
hardly
accidental that in each series
we have one double
sign (Gemini, Simeon-Levi)
and one female
personi
fication
(Virgo, Dinah),
and that all the animal names
occurring
in the
Song (lion, ass, serpent,
ram
?,
ox
?, wolf)
can be more or less
plausibly
identified with constellations either in the Zodiac or
sufficiently
near it to
have been counted as Zodiacal
signs
in
early
times. The
incompleteness
of the
correspondence
is
fairly explained by
two facts :
first,
that the
poem
has
undergone many changes
in the course of its
transmission,
and no
longer preserves
the
original
form and order of the oracles
;
and
second,
that while the twelve-fold division of the
ecliptic goes
back to
the remotest
antiquity,
the traditional names of the twelve
signs
cannot
all be traced to the ancient
Babylonian astronomy.
It
may
be added
that there is no
primafacie objection
to combinations of this sort. The
theory
does not mean that the sons of
Jacob
are the
earthly
counterparts
of the Zodiacal
constellations,
and
nothing
more. All that is
implied
is
that an
attempt
was made to discover
points
of resemblance between the
fortunes and characteristics of the twelve tribes on the one
hand,
and
the
astro-mythological system
on the other. Such
combinations were
necessarily arbitrary,
and it
might readily happen
that some were too
unreal to live in the
popular memory.
Where the
correspondence
is
plausible,
we
may expect
to find that the characterisation of the tribe
has been
partly
accommodated to the
conceptions suggested by
the
comparison
;
and
great
caution will have to be observed in
separating
the bare historical facts from the
mythological
allusions with which
they
are embellished. In the
present
state of the
question,
it
may
be
safely
said that the historical
interpretation
must take
precedence.
The
Zodiacal
theory
will have to be reckoned with in the
interpretation
of
the
Song
;
but it has as
yet
furnished no
trustworthy
ckie either to the
explanation
of obscure
details,
or to the restoration of the text.
XLIX. 28b-L. 26. The Death and Burial
ofJacob
;
and the Death
ofJoseph (P, J, E).
Jacob charges
his sons to
bury
him in the
family sepulchre
at
Machpelah,
and
expires
(
28b
~
33
).
Joseph
causes the
body
to be embalmed
; and,
accompanied by
his brethren and an
imposing cortege, conveys
it to its last
resting-place
in
53$
BURIAL OF
JACOB
(jE, P)
Canaan
(5O
1
"
14
).
He
pacifies
and reassures his
brethren,
who fear his
vengeance
now that their father is
gone (
15-21
).
He dies in a
good
old
age,
after
exacting
an oath that his
bones shall be carried
up
from
Egypt
when the time of
deliverance comes
(
22
~
26
).
Sources.
49
28b
0"
33
belongs
to
P,
with the
possible exceptions
of
32
(a
g-loss),
and the clause
33a
^
;
note the reference to ch.
23
and the identical
phraseology
of the two
passages
;
also the
expressions j/u, rnnx,
JDNJ
VDJT^N
(bis).
In ch.
50,
vv.
12- 13
are from P
(Machpelah,
etc. : note also
that the suff. in VJ3 refers back to
49
33
).
Vv.
1 11 - 14
are
mainly J (Sme> ,
a
;
j?a
jn
NKD,
4
;
}2>3,
8
; jjHD.n,
n
: note the reference
[
5fl
]
to
Joseph
s oath
[47
29
-
31
])
;
and
15 2(5
E
(c<n^,
"- ^ 24. 25 .
i,^
21
r^n ^2]
. ,
3N Q,^
nnnn?
]9
[30
2
]i:
the resemblance to
45-
7
;
and the backward reference in Ex.
i3
19
,
Jos. 24
32
).
The
analysis might stop
here
(Di.
We. Dri.
al.)
;
but a
variant in
10
(
lob
II
10a
/3),
and the double name of the
place
of burial
suggest
that there
may
be two accounts of the funeral
(see
KS. An.
242).
Ho.
Gu.
Pro., however,
seem to me to
go
too far in the
attempt
to establish
a material difference of
representation (e.g.,
that in E s account
Joseph
s
brethren did not
go up
with him to the
burial).
Traces of
J
in
16
"
26
are
equally insignificant (see
the
notes).
28b-33- Jacob
s
charge
to his sons.
28bP. The
sequel
to
la
in P. Note the close formal
parallel
to 28*
(P)
:
And . . . called . . . andblessed . . . and
charged
. . . and
said . . . each with a
special
blessing\
v.i.
2p, 30.
See on
ch.
23. 31.
Abraham and Sarah his
wife] 25 23
19
. The
burying-place
of Isaac
(35
29
)
is not elsewhere
specified ;
and
the burials of Rebekah and Leah are not recorded at all.
On the
possibility
that the notice of Rachel s burial
(48
7
)
stood here
originally,
see
p. 504
f.
32.
Probably
a
gloss
(v.i.).
33.
drew
up
his
feet
into the
bed]
The clause
may
have been inserted from
J
;
cf.
48
2b
. As in the case of all
the
patriarchs except Joseph,
the actual account of the death
is left to P.
L.
1-14.
The burial of
Jacob.
i. The forms in which
29.
oniK
un]
<&
om.
-ey^N]
Read
sirW
(cf.
33
)
: see on
25
8
.
30.
For
on
mBa,
(5r has
simply
nSisaon,
and for the
following
ms-n,
myon.
31.
Trap]
(&
rnj3,
At the end of the v. Bu. would add ^nrnNi as P s
original
statement
(ZATW,
iii.
82). 32.
The v. has no
syntactic
connexion with
the
preceding,
the construction is cumbrous in the
extreme,
and the
notice
superfluous
after
30b
. It should
probably
be deleted as a
marginal
variant to
30b
(so
De.
Gu.). rupa]
(& D3.
XLIX. 28-L.
9
537
Joseph
s
grief expressed
itself were doubtless
conventional,
though they
are not elsewhere alluded to in OT. 2. The
Egyptian practice
of
embalming originated
in ideas with
which the Hebrew mind had no
sympathy,
the belief that
the ka or
ghostly
double of the man
might
at
any
time re
turn to take
possession
of the
body,
which
consequently
had
at all costs to be
preserved (Erman,
LAE,
307).
In the cases
of
Jacob
and
Joseph (v.
26
),
it is
merely
an
expedient
for
pre
serving
the
body
till the burial could take
place.
On the
various methods
employed,
see Herod, ii.
86-88;
Diod. i.
91
;
and
Budge,
The
Mummy, i6ofF.,
177
ff. the
physicians]
In
Egypt
the embalmers formed a
special profession. 3. forty
days
. . .
seventy
days]
The
process
of
embalming occupied,
according
to
Diod.,
over
30 days, according
to
Herod., 70
days
;
exact data from the monuments are not
yet
available
(Erman, 315, 319^
;
Budge, 179).
The
mourning
for Aaron
and Moses lasted
30 days (Nu.
2O
29
,
Dt.
34
8
)
;
the
Egyp
tians
(who
are here
expressly mentioned)
are said to have
mourned for a
king 72 days (Diod.
i.
72). 4-6. Joseph
seeks Pharaoh s
permission
to absent himself from
Egypt.
Why
he needed the court to intercede for him in such a
matter does not
appear. 5a.
Cf.
47
29ff>
. have
digged\
The
rendering
have
purchased
is
possible,
but much less
probable (cf.
2 Ch. i6
u
).
The confused notice Ac.
7
16
might
suggest
a tradition that
Jacob
s
grave
was in the
plot
of
ground
he
bought
near Shechem
(33
19
E),
which is the view
maintained
by
Bruston
(ZATW,
vii. 202
ff.).
On
any
view
the contradiction to
47
30
remains.
7~9-
The funeral
pro
cession is described with
empressement
as a mark of the
almost
royal
honours bestowed on the
patriarch.
Such
pro
cessions are
frequently depicted
on
Egyptian
tombs :
Erman,
2.
Bin]
v.
26
,
Ca. 2
13
f. Apparently
a Semitic
N/, meaning
in Arab, be
come
mature, applied
in Heb. Aram, and Arab, to the
process
of em
balming-. 3.
D
Bjn]
#TT.
\ey. ;
abstr.
pi.
=
embalming-. 4. 1JV33]
The
fern,
only
here,
for
?|.
The suff.
prob. gen. obj. (weeping-for Jacob).
*tmai]
Add with (
^. 5. ^jr^n]
JUUL^
A-
al -
+
me ^s
1
?.- no 3jx
njn]
(K om.
The
phrase
occurs in E
48
21
,
and
(without nan) so
24
.
nns]
(5F&J
have
digged
;
have
purchased,
C
rnpipN^
have
prepared.
The first
sense
preponderates
in
usage (the second,
Dt. 2
fi
,
Hos.
3
2
, Jb.
6
27
4O
so
t),
538
BURIAL OF
JACOB
(jE, P)
320
f.
; Ball, Lightfrom
the
East,
119
f.
horsemen, however,
never
appear
in them: "We have no
representations
of
Egyptians
on horseback
;
and were it not for a few
literary
allusions,
we should not know that the
subjects
of the
Pharaoh knew how to ride"
(Erman,
LAE,
492 f.).
10,
II.
The
mourning
at the
grave.
Goren
ha-Atad\
*
the
threshing-
floor of the bramble
;
the
locality
is unknown
(v.t.).
II.
Abel
Mizraini\
one of several
place-names compounded
with
bij
=
<
meadow
(Nu. 33
49
, Ju.
n
33
,
2 Sa. 2o
15
,
2 Ch. i6
4
)
;
here
interpreted
as
EH>
?
? ^N,
mourning
of
Egypt.
The
real name meadow of
Egypt may
have commemorated
some incident of the
Egyptian occupation
of Palestine
;
but
the situation is unknown. The record of the actual
burying
in
J
and E has not been
preserved.
It is difficult to
say
whether Goren ha-Atad and Abel Mizraim are
two different
places,
or two names for one
place. Jerome (OS, 85
15flr
)
identifies the former with
Bethagla (=
Ain
Hagla,
or Kasr
Hagla,
S of
Jericho [Buhl, GP, 180]),
but on what
authority
we do not know. The
conjecture
that it was in the
neighbourhood
of Rachel s
grave depends
entirely
on a dubious
interpretation
of
48
7
. Since there
appears
to be a
doublet in v.
10
(
10a
/3
II
lob
),
it is natural to
suppose
that one name
belong-.s
to
J
and the other to
E,
and therefore there is no
great presumption
that
the localities are identical
(
NH an in
n
may
be a
gloss). According
to
the
present
text,
both were E of the
Jordan (
10a llb
)
;
but such a state
ment if found in one document would
readily
be transferred
by
a re
dactor to the other
;
and all we can be
reasonably
confident of is that
one or other was across the
Jordan,
for it is almost inconceivable that
prn
yu
should be an
interpolation
in both cases. Since it is to be as
sumed that in
J
and E the
place
of
mourning-
was also the
place
of
burial,
and since the
theory
of a de"tour round the Dead Sea and the E
of
Jordan
to arrive at
any spot
in W. Palestine is too
extravagant
to
have arisen from a fanciful
etymology,
it would seem to follow
that,
according
to at least one
tradition, Jacob
s
grave
was shown at some
now unknown
place
E of the
Jordan (Meyer,
INS,
280
f.). Meyer
s in
ference that
Jacob
was
originally
a
transjordanic
hero, is, however,
a
doubtful one
;
for the East is dotted with
graves
of historic
personages
in
impossible places,
and we have no assurance that tradition was more
reliable in ancient times.
and is here to be
preferred. ntcnx]
AJU. + 3y
3n nrto. 10.
IBN]
The word
for bramble in
Jotham
s
parable
from
Gerizim, Ju. Q
14*1
(only
Ps.
58
again).
Can there be an allusion to the
threshing-floor
of this
passage
at Shechem ? II. n&Nn
J3]
Possibly
a
gloss
from v.
10
. If
so,
TOP
(jxt
IDS
), referring
to
pj
(whose
gender
is
uncertain),
must have been substi-
L. 10-22
539
12, 13.
The account of the actual burial
(from P).
It is
significant
that here the
Egyptians
take no
part
in the ob
sequies
: the final redactor
may
have assumed that
they
were left behind at the
mourning place
E of the
Jordan.
See further on
49
29ff
-.
14 (J).
The return to
Egypt.
15-21. Joseph
removes his brethren s fears. The
vv. contain a variation of the theme of
45
5ff>
(Gu.),
as if to
emphasize
the lesson of the whole
story,
that out of a base
intent God
brought good
to His
people. 15.
saw]
i.e.
4
realised,
took in the full
significance
of the fact
(cf. 3O
1
).
If it were meant that
they
learned for the first time that
their father was
dead,
the inference would
surely
be not
merely
that the brethren had not been
present
at the funeral
(Gu.),
but that E had not recorded it at all.
16,
17. They
send a
message
to
Joseph, recalling
a
dying request
of their
father
(not
elsewhere
mentioned).
the servants
of
the
God
of thy
father}
Religion
is a
stronger plea
than even
kinship
(Gu.).
18.
Cf.
44
16
. The v.
may
have been inserted
from
J (v.i.). Ip.
am 1 in Gods
stead?} (so
2
)
: to
judge
and
punish
at
my pleasure.
20. Cf.
45
5> 7- 8
. 21. The continu
ance of the famine seems
presupposed,
in
opposition
to the
chronology
of P
(47
28
).
22-26.
Joseph
s old
age
and death. 22. a hundred and
ten
years}
Cf.
Jos. 24
29
. It is
hardly
a mere
coincidence,
but
tuted for
mpon
or
(so
F&J, Gu.).
12. i
1
?
van]
The stiff, find no suitable
antecedents nearer than
49
33
,
the last
excerpt
from P. en*
"IPND]
(&
E
-
al -
/cai
t-Oatyav
avrbv ^/ce?.
13. mty]
(& rb <jTn
]\auovt
and so
again
for mtP.vnK.
14.
V3M
nn]
($r om.
15. unS]
Cond. sent, with
suppressed apodosis,
G-K.
159 _v.
16.
iisn]
(& KO.I
irapeytvovro,
and
&
QJDj-QO,
seem to have read
^ai,
which if
correct would make the excision of v.
18
from E almost
imperative (see
on the
v.).
But the sense of
my,
to
commission,
is
justified by
Ex. 6
13
,
Jer. 27
4
,
Est.
3
12
etc.
;
and ma would not
properly
be followed
by
nCN
1
?.
17.
NJN]
a
strong- particle
of
entreaty
;
in Pent,
only
Ex.
32
81
.- 18.
vjc
1
?
DJ]
(r om. For ID
TI,
Ba.
(after Vatke)
reads 133
1,
which would
g-ive
point
to the
following
CJ. But the
change
is not
necessary
: is
1
?"! would
mean
they
went
away only
if
they
had
previously
been
present.
That
certainly
seems
implied
in
17b
(apart
from the
reading
of
(5*j$
in
16
)
;
and
hence there is much to be said for
assigning
v.
18
to
J
(Di.
Ho.
Pro.).
iQb.
(&
reads TOU
yap
Oeov
ytb dpi.
20. O
n^x]
juu ni :
(EJ5U
also have
the
copula.
21.
nnyi]
(EJ fltrev 8 CU TO?S. 22.
ivm]
(GJ Ka.1 ol
<i8t\(j)oi
avrov
540
DEATH OF
JOSEPH
(E)
rather an instance of the
Egyptian
affinities of the
narrative,
that no
years
is at least three times
spoken
of as an ideal
lifetime in
Egyptian writings (Stern,
Z.
Aeg. Spr., 1873, 75 f.).
23. Joseph
lived to see his
great-grandchildren by
both
his
sons,
another token of a life crowned with
blessing (Ps.
i28
6
,
Pr.
i3
22
17 etc.).
The
expressions
used of
Ephraim
s
descendants are somewhat difficult
(v.i.). Mcikir\
the most
powerful
clan of
Manasseh,
in the
Song
of Deborah
(Ju. 5
14
)
numbered
among
the tribes of
Israel,
and
possibly
therefore
an older unit than Manasseh itself
(see Meyer,
INS,
507,
516 f.).
The
expression
born on
Joseph
s knees
implies
the
adoption
of Machir s sons
by Joseph (see
on
3o
3
), though
the
action does not seem to have
any
tribal
significance. 24,
25. Joseph predicts
the Exodus
(as
did
Jacob, 48
21
),
and
directs his bones to be carried to Canaan. For the fulfil
ment of the
wish,
see Ex.
i3
19
, Jos. 24
32
. his brethren are
here the Israelites as a whole
(v.
25
).
26. The death of
Joseph.
in a
coffin]
or
mummy-case,
the wooden inner
shell,
shaped
like the
mummy,
which was
placed
in the stone
sarcophagus (see
Erman, LAE,
315
f.
; Ball, Lightfrom
the
East)
121).
A
mythological
allusion to the
*
coffin of Osiris
(Volter, 55)
is not to be
thought
of.
This coffin in
Egypt,
"
remarks
Delitzsch,
"is the
coffin of all Israel s
spiritual
satisfaction in
Egypt."
Gu.
shows sounder
judgement
and truer
insight
when he bids us
admire the restful close of the
narrative,
and the forward
glance
to the eventful
story
of the Exodus.
/ecu Tracra
i)
TravoiKta.
23.
tPlffv
33]
jux iff D 33 : so
ffiSCJ. DT;T
means
1
great-grandchildren (Ex. 34
7
)
;
hence v 33
ought
to mean
great-
great-grandchildren (not,
of
course,
of
Ephraim,
but of
Joseph
in
Ephraim
s
line).
But there
being
no reason
why
the descent should be
carried further in the line of
Ephraim
than in that of
Manasseh,
we
must understand
great-grandchildren,
whether we read with
jux,
or
take ff 33 as
appositional gen. (see Di.). o^y]
JJUL D
a,
in the
days
of,
a bad correction
(Ba.), supported by
no other Vn.
24.
j/35?3]
debs rots
iro.Tpa.ffLv -rjfj.ui>. 25
end. Add with Heb. MSS juxiJ$U
with
you.
26.
n*"i]
MX cm. See on
24
s
*.
INDEXES.
I. ENGLISH.
ABEL, 103
ff.
Abel
Mizraim,
538.
Abida, 351.
Abima
el,
221.
Abimelech, 3i6ff., 325
ff.,
363
ff.
Abt-rdmuy 292.
Abraham,
his
religious signifi
cance,
xxvi f.
;
his
migration,
xxi, xxviif., 238, 242
ff.
;
as
Mahdi, xxviii, 247
;
legend of,
xliv, 241
f.
;
covenants
with,
276
ff.
, 289
ff.
;
name
of,
244,
292
f.
;
death
of, 341, 351
f.
Abram, name, xxv, 292.
Field
of, xxv, 244.
Accusative of
condition, 77,
282,
474-
of
definition, 29.
after
passive,
220.
of
place, 376.
of
time,
260.
Adah,
1
18, 429
f.
Adapa
and the
South-wind,
myth
of,
92.
Adbe
el,
353.
Adullam,
450.
Aetiological
motive in
myth
and
legend,
xif., 70, 95, 140,332,
362.
Agriculture, 84, 87,
106, no,
185,
365.
Ahuzzath,
367.
Ai, 247.
Akan,
434.
Akbor, 436.
Akkad,
210.
Almodad,
221.
Amalek,
263, 431.
Amorite,
215, 263, 265, 282,
503.
Amraphel, 257.
Anachronisms, v, xviii, 116,
149,
26
5
2
7
2
>
3
J
6, 364* 4
J
9 463-
Anamim,
212.
Angel
of
God,
323, 342, 376.
ofYahwe,
286 f.
Angels, 31, 36, 141
f.
Anthropomorphism,
instances
of,
7 37, 5
1
, 129, 149, 154, 172,
300, 328, 411.
Apriw, xvi,
2i8f.
Aram, 206,
333
f.
Aram-naharaim,
342.
Aramaeans, xxiii,
334, 356, 358,
403
f.
Aran
( Oren), 434.
Ararat,
166.
Archaisms, 29, 272, 306, 399.
Ariok, 258.
Arki,
216.
Arpakshad, 205, 231.
Article,
anomalous
pointing
of,
163
;
with
const., 348, 395.
Arvad,
216.
Asenath,
471.
Asher, xviii, 388, 528.
Ashkenaz,
197.
Ashter6th-Karnaim, 260,
262.
Ashur, 351, 354.
Asshur, 211,
350.
Asshurim, 350.
541
542
INDEXES I. ENGLISH
Avith,
435.
Ayyah, 434.
Ba al
Hanan,
436.
Babel, 210,
227.
Babel-legends,
228 f.
Basemath,
430.
Bdellium,
60.
"Bear
upon knees," 386.
Beena
marriagfe, 70, 384.
Be"er
Lahay
Roi, 288, 347
f.,
352.
Beersheba,
325 ff., 331, 366 f.,
491.
Beker, 494.
Bela, 259, 435.
Benjamin, 426, 534.
Ben-
oni,
426.
Bered,
288.
Berossus
(quoted), 41
f.
,
132, 137.
Bethel,
247, 377 ff.,
423 ff.,
446.
Bethu
el,
333.
Betyl, 380.
Bilhah, 386.
Bilhan,
434.
Blessing-, 38, 498.
Blessing
of
Jacob,
507
ff.
;
Mono
graphs
on,
512.
Blood,
crying
for
vengeance, 170,
447. 477-
Blood-revenge,
no, ii2ff.,
374.
Books, "traditional," xxx,
509,
5"-
Bozrah,
435.
BSz,
333.
Cain, 100, 102,
121 f.
Cain-legend, origin
of,
in ff.
Camel,
249
f.,
345.
Canaan,
182
ff.,
187,
201,
245.
Case-endings (old), 29, 117!"., 267,
399> 5
2
4-
Chaldaeans, 237, 333.
Chaos, 14, 16, 19, 43, 46.
Chedorla
omer,
258.
Cherubim, 89
f.
Chronology,
xivf.,
134 ff.,
167
f.,
233
f-
Circumcision, 296 f., 420.
Cities of the
Plain,
destruction of
the, 310
ff.
Cohort, form with vav
consec.,
45-
Concubine-slave, xvii,
285.
Cosmogonies, 6ff.,
18
;
Babyl
onian, ix, 20, 41
ff.
; Etruscan,
50
; Indian,
46
; Persian,
19,
50; Phoenician,
46, 48
ff.
Covenants, divine,
171 ff.,
280
ff.,
290
ff.; human,
325
ff.,
367
f.,
400
ff.
; -feast,
367, 401 ;
idea
of, 283 f.,
297
f.
; sign of,
172,
294, 297.
"
Covering
of the
Eyes," 319.
Cult-legends, xif., Ix,
379, 411.
Cup (in divination), 483.
"
Cut off"
(from people, etc.), 294.
Damascius
(quoted), 42.
Dan, 266,
387, 527.
Dead
Sea, vii,
252, 264, 273
f.
Deborah,
425.
Dedan, 204, 350.
Deluge
traditions,
174
ff.;
origin
of,
i8of.
;
Babylonian, i75ff. ;
Greek,
179
f.
; Indian,
179;
Phoenician, 180;
Phrygian,
1 80
;
Syrian,
180.
Diklah,
221.
Dinah,
389, 421.
Dinhabah,
435.
Dioscuri,
302, 312.
Dish-an, -on,
434.
Divine Names in
Genesis, xxxvff.,
xlviii f.
Dodanim,
199.
Dothan,
446
f.
Dreams, 316, 376, 394, 397, 445,
460 ff.,
465
ff.
interpretation of, 461, 466.
Dumah,
353.
Eabani
(legend of), 91 ff.,
517.
Eden,
57.
site
of,
62 ff.
Edom, Edomites,
356, 362, 373, 437.
Egypt,
river
of,
283.
Egyptian
domination in
Palestine,
xvi, xviii,
538.
influence on
Joseph-story, 442.
INDEXES I. ENGLISH
543
Elani, Elamites, 204
f.,
257
ff.,
272,
276.
lath
( E16th),
262, 436.
Eldaah, 351.
Eliezer, 279.
Eliphaz, 431.
Elishah, 198.
Elohistic source of
Genesis,
xxxvi ff.
characteristics of
style,
etc.,
xlvii ff.
;
age
of,
lii ff.
Elon,
494.
El-Paran,
261.
Embalming", 537.
Emfm, 263.
Enoch-legend, 132.
Enosh,
126.
Enuma
ells, 9, 43
ff.
Envy
of the
Gods,
75, 87, 94,
229.
Ephah, 351.
Epher, 351.
Ephraim, 471, 504, 530, 540.
Ephrath, 426.
Eponyms,
xxf., xxv, 189
f.,
265.
Erech,
210.
Esau, 359
ff.,
405
ff
-, 4
28 ff-
Esek, 366.
Ethnographic
idea in
legend,
xii,
xixff.,
1
86,
356, 403, 41
if.,
427, 450.
Etymological
motive in
legends,
xiii,
220.
Eudemos
(quoted), 49.
Euhemerism, 147.
Eve, 86,
102
;
and the
Serpent,
85
f. See nin.
Exodus,
date
of,
xv.
Family, genealogical
division
of,
194; patriarchal type
of, 189;
religious solidarity
of, 152.
Fig
leaves,
76, 93.
Firmament,
21 f.
Five
(occurrence
of no. in matters
Egyptian), 483.
Flood. See
Deluge.
Flood-narrative
analysed, 147
ff.
Fragmentary hypothesis,
xxxii,
xxxvii.
Gad, 387, 528.
Gaham,
334.
Gematria,
266.
Genealogies,
artificial character
of, 231.
Genealogy, Cainite, 98 ; Sethite,
99
f.
;
relation of Cainite and
Sethite,
i38f. ;
Edomite,
428
ff.
;
Shemite, 23
1
;
of
Ishmael,
352
f.
;
of
Keturah,
350
;
of
Nahor,
332
ff.
;
of
Terah, 235
ff.
Genesis,
Book of.
Title,
ii f.
canonical
position of,
i.
scope of,
ii.
nature of tradition
in,
iii
ff.,
xxxii.
structure and
composition of,
xxxii ff.
ruling
idea
of,
xxxiii.
sources
of,
xxxiv ff.
Gera, 494.
Gerar,
217, 315, 325, 364, 366.
Gihon,
61.
Gilead, 402
f.
GilgameS Epic, 91, I75ff., 209, 517.
Girgashite,
216.
Golden
age, 35, 73, 87, 92, 159.
Gomer, 196.
Good and
evil,
knowledge of,
95.
Goren ha-
Atad,
538.
Goshen, 488, 495, 497
f.
Granaries
(State), 472.
Habiri, xvi, xxii,
187, 218, 265.
Hadoram,
221.
Hadramaut,
221.
Hagar, 284
ff.
,
322
ff.
name,
286.
Haggada, 28,
33, 237, 245.
Ham,
262.
Ham, 182,
195.
Hamath,
217.
Hammurabi, xiv, xxii, xxvii,
257 f.,
335-
Code
of, xvii, xviii, xix,
285,
454> 455. 459-
Hamor, 416, 421.
Hanok, 117, 351, 493.
Haran, 236.
544
INDEXES 1. ENGLISH
Harran, 238.
Havilah, 59, 65,
202.
Hazez6n-Tamar, 263.
Hazd, 333.
"
Head,"
to "lift
up," 462
f.
Hebrews,
187, 217, 265, 458, 462
f.
Hesperides, 94.
Hezron,
494.
Hiddekel,
61.
Historicity
of ch.
14,
xviiif., 271
ff.
History
and
leg-end compared,
iiif.
Hittites, xvi, 2i4f., 336, 368.
Hivvite,
216.
Hobah, 267.
Horite, 263, 433, 437.
Hul,
206.
Husham, 435.
Image
of
God,
31
f.
Immortality,
88, 92, 95, 132.
Imperative, expressing
conse
quence, 243.
,, ,,
a
determination,
476.
Imperfect
consec.
expressing para
doxical
consequence, 307.
descriptive, 533.
Incubation, 376.
Infinitive absolute used as
juss.,
294
;
expressing irony, 398
;
after its
verb,
307.
Infinitive,
gerundial, 87.
Intoxication, 183, 482.
Irad,
1
17.
Isaac, name, 321
;
birth
of, 321
;
sacrifice
of,
327
ff.
;
marriage
of, 339 ff., 358
;
death
of, 428.
Fear
of,
399, 402.
Ishmael, 287, 352.
Ishmaelites,
448.
Israel, name, 409
f.
Israel-Stone,
Shepherd of, 531.
Issachar, 389, 525
f.
Jabal, 115,
1 20.
Jabbok, 407.
Jacob, name,
360
;
history
of,
355-
428
;
leg
ends
regarding, 356
;
as tribal
eponym,
xxiv,
356
f.
;
grave
of,
538
;
as
transjordanic
hero, 538.
Jacob,
Strong-
One
of, 531.
Japheth, 1836., 195,
208.
Javan, 198.
Jerusalem, 268, 328.
Joseph,
name
of, 389
f.
;
story
of,
438
-
528 ;
elements in
Joseph
-
legend, 441
f.
;
as
diviner, 484
;
his
agrarian
policy, 498
ff.
;
parallel fig
ures in
history, 501
f.
;
blessing on,
529
ff.
;
death
of,
540.
Jubal,
120.
Jubilee
-
periods (Klostermann
s
theory of), 233
f.
Judah,
name
of, 386, 519; separa
tion from his
brethren,
450
f.
;
his
leadership
in
J, Ivi,
443,
495,
etc.
blessing on,
518-525.
Jussive
of
purpose, 227.
unapocopated,
22.
Justification
by faith,
28o
Kadesh,
262.
Kadmonites,
284.
Kalneh,
210.
Kaphtorim, 213.
Kasluhim,
213.
Kedar, 352.
Kedeshah,
454.
Kelah, 211,
354.
Kemu
el,
333.
Kenan, 131.
Kenaz,
431.
Kenites,
113, 284.
Kenizzites,
284.
Keturah,
349
f.
KSzib,
451.
Kid,
as
gift, 453.
Kiryath-
Arba
,
335.
Kittim,
199.
Korah,
432.
Koran, 140,
166.
Kudur-lagamar, 258
f.
Kush,
61, 65,
200,
207.
INDEXES 1. ENGLISH
545
Lamech, 117, 133.
Song- of,
1 20 ff.
sons
of,
1
20, 123.
Land-tenure in
Egypt, 501.
Leah, 383, 385, 387
ff.,
420, 493
f.,
516.
Legend,
idealisation
of,
xiii.
Legendary aspects
of
Genesis,
v ff.
Lehabim, 213.
Letushim,
351.
Levi,
386, 420, 518.
Levirate
marriage, 452.
Libation, 424.
Lit.
minusc.,
40.
Liver,
as seat of mental
affection,
Si?-
Lot, 236.
Lotan, 313, 433.
Lud, Ludim, 206,
2 12.
Luz, 378
f.
Maakah,
334.
Madai,
197.
Magic, 96.
Magog, 197.
Mahalal
el, 131.
Mahanaim,
405.
Makir, 540.
Makpelah, 337
f.
Mamre, 254, 265.
Manahath, 432
f.
Manasseh,
471, 504, 540.
Marduk,
209
f.
Mash,
207.
Masrekah,
435.
Massa,
353.
Mutriarchate, 102, 344.
.Vlazzebah, 1,
378
f.,
401, 416, 424.
Medan, 350.
Media, Medes, 197.
Mehetab
el,
436.
Melkizedek, 267
ff.
Meshech, 199.
Messianic
applications, 79 ff.,
521
ff.
Methuselah, 132
f.
Mibsam, 353.
Mibzar, 436.
Midian, Midianites,
350, 448.
35
Mishma,
353.
Mizpah, 401
ff.
Mizraim, 201,
285.
Mizzah,
431.
Mochos
(quoted), 49.
Mohar, xviii,
379, 346, 383 f.,
395,
419.
Monotheism, ix, 6,
25, 48, 72, 178,
269, 301.
Moreh,
245
f.
Moriah,
land
of, 328
f.
Mourning- rites,
335, 374, 449, 537.
Musri-theory, 201, 249, 285, 472.
Myth
and
legend distinguished,
viii
f.,
xxv.
Na
amah,
120.
Nahor, 232.
Names,
68
;
popular
etymology of,
xiii f.
naming
of child
by mother,
105 f.,
3
J
4> 3
8
5-
naming
of child
by father, 296.
person
and
name,
127.
proper
n.
compounded
with
participle, 131.
Naphish, 353.
Naphtali, 387, 527
f.
Naphtuhim, 213.
Nebayoth, 352.
Negeb, 248.
Nephilim, 140, 145
C
Nile, 465.
Nimrod, 207.
Nineveh,
21 1.
Noah,
133, 151 ff.,
174, iSiff.,
195.
Nod,
iii.
Nomadic
life,
in.
Numbers
(sacred),
8,
39, 98, 326,
483-
Oath, 345.
by g-enital organs, 341.
by king
s
life,
476.
Obal,
221.
Oholibamah, 430.
Olive, 156.
On, 470.
Onam,
434.
54^
INDEXES I. ENGLISH
Ophir,
222.
Oratio
obliqua
without
?,
248.
Paddan
Aram, Ixiv,
358, 425.
Paradise. See Eden.
Paradise
Legend, origin
and
significance
of,
90
ff.
Paran,
324.
Parenthesis, 14, 34,
Passive of
Qal, 345.
Pathrusim,
213.
Patriarchal
tradition,
background
of,
xivff.
local centre
of,
Iv.
Patriarchs as
individuals,
xxiii ff.
as
deities,
xxiv f.
as
eponymous
ancestors,
xx f.
Peleg,
220,
232.
Peniel,
410
ff.
Pe"6, 436.
Peoples,
Table
of,
iSyff.
Perez,
456.
Perfect of
certainty, 172,462.
of
confidence, 388.
of
experience,
120, 517.
of instant
action, 172, 337.
modal use
of,
321.
with sense of
plupf., 283.
Philistines, 213, 327, 363
ff.
Philo
Byblius (quoted), 48, 66,
105,
123
f-
Pikoi, 325.
Pildash, 333.
Pishon, 59.
Pithom, 488, 495.
Plural of
eminence, 318, 396.
of
species, 321.
Polytheism,
traces
of, 160, 303,
318, 424, 491.
Potiphar, 457, 471.
Prayer, 305, 358
f.,
406.
Priestly
code in
Genesis,
Ivii ff.
chronology
of,
135.
characteristics
of,
Ix ff.
literary style
of, Ixiiff., n,
149.
geographical
horizon
of,
191
ff.
Prophet,
li,
317.
Prophetic guilds,
xxxi.
Protevangelium^
81,
97.
Puncta
extraordinaria, 413, 446.
Punic Tabella
devotionts,
85.
Put,
201.
Rachel,
383, 386, 388 f., 426 f.,
504
f.
grave
of,
426.
Rainbow in
mythology, 172
f.
Ra
mah, 203.
Ramses,
land
of,
498.
Reclining
at
table, 300.
Rehob6th, 366, 436.
Resen,
211.
Re
u,
232.
Re u
61, 431.
Reuben,
386, 388, 427, 515.
Re
umah,
333.
Rtphath, 197.
Sabaeans,
203, 350.
Sabbath,
35
f.,
38
f.
Sabtah,
202.
Sabtekah,
203.
Sacrifice,
105, 157.
child and
animal,
331
f.
essence
of, 330.
patriarchal, 1, Ix,
491.
Salem,
268
Sanchuniathon
(quoted), 48, 71
f.,
123, 140.
Sanctuaries,
origin
of, xii, 246.
as
repositories
of
tradition, xxxi,
4 5-
Sarah,
237, 248 ff., 284 ff., 295,
300 ff,
315
ff.,
335.
Seba,
202.
Seed of
woman,
80 ff.
Se
ir, 262, 360, 412, 414, 430, 437.
Serpent,
in
Paradise,
72
f., 93
f.
-worship,
81.
SerAg, 232.
Seth,
125 f.,
131, 139.
Shammah,
431.
Sheba, 202, 203,
222,
350.
Shechem,
246, 421, 507.
Shelah,
451, 524.
Sheleph,
221.
Shem,
195, 269.
Shemites,
2i7ff., 231
ff.
She61,
352, 449.
INDEXES I. ENGLISH
547
Shepherd,
ideal,
398.
Shiloh, xxxi,
522
f.
Shin
ar, 210,
225.
Shobal, 433.
"
Short stories" of
Genesis,
xxviii f.
Shfiah, 350.
Shftr, 286,
315^, 353
f.
Siddim,
260.
Signet-ring, 454, 469.
Simeon, 386, 420, 518.
Sin,
97, 129, 317.
Sinite,
216.
Sinuhe,
Tale
of, xvi,
xviu
Sitnah, 366.
"
Sons of
God," 141
f.
"
Speak
over the
heart,"
419.
Spirit
of
God, 17
f.,
469.
Stone-worship, 380, 531.
Story-tellers, professional,
xxxi.
Sukkoth,
415.
Supplementary Hypothesis,
xxxii,
xxxvii.
Taboos, 66,
398, 410, 454.
"Tale of the two
brothers," 69,
459-
Tamar,
451.
Tarshish,
198.
Tebah,
334.
Tel-Amarna
Tablets,
92, 187,
201,
4*3> 5
01 f-
Te-ma,
353.
Teaman, 431.
Terah,
232.
Teraphim, 396, 423.
Tid
al,
259.
Tikkfine
Sopherim, 304, 345.
Timna, 433.
Timnah,
453.
Tlras, 199.
Tithe,
379.
Togarmah, 197.
Tola,
494.
Tolecloth, xxxiiif.,
396*"., 174, 231,
358, 428.
Book
of, 40, 130, 236, 428 f.,
443-
Totem
clan-names, 232, 383, 386.
Tradition,
historical value
of, vii,
xiii ff.
Tree of
Life, 88,
90, 94.
of
Knowledge
of Good and
Evil,
94
f.
Tubal, 120,
199.
Tubal-Cain,
115, ngf.
Twin-births, xvii,
103, 359.
Ur, 229, 236.
Usoos, xi,
124, 360.
Uz, 206,
333.
IJzal,
221.
Vav cons, in subord.
clause,
369.
Veil,
348, 454.
Volkssage,
iv.
Vow,
378
f.
Women
(no religious standing
in
OT), 169.
Word of
God,
7.
of
Jahwe, 277
f.
World-egg, 18,
49
f.
Ya
akob-el, xvi, xviii, 360, 390.
Yahwistic
source,
xxxiv ff.
;
a com
posite work, xlivff., iff.,
240
f.
;
characteristics
of,
xlvii ff.
;
date
of,
lii ff.
;
place
of
origin,
Iv.
Ya
lam, 432.
Yanhamu,
441, 501
f.
Ye
ish,
Ye
fish,
431.
Yerah,
221.
Yered, 131.
Yfe-ffir, 353.
Yidlaph, 333.
Yishbak, 350.
Yiskah, 238.
Yithran, 434.
Yob, 494.
Yobab, 222,
435.
Yoktan,
220.
Y6seph-el,
xvi, 389.
Zebulun, 389, 525
f.
Zemarf, 217.
Zerah, 431, 456.
548
INDEXES II. HEBREW
Zib
6n,
434.
Zid6n,
215, 525.
Zikkurat, 226,
228
f., 377, 380.
Zillah,
118.
Zimran,
350.
Z6ar,
252 f.,
257, 309.
Zodiac,
signs
of, 22, 26,
44, 65,
90, 133, 146,
181.
Zodiacal
theory
of the
tribes,
445 5i7> 530, 534
f-
Zohar,
494.
Zuzim,
263.
II. HEBREW
.
53
-
296,
476.
470.
55-
DTK,
56, 66, 68,
83, 125, 130.
-iit,
56.
359.
(
=
consent
), 420.
225.
inx, 465.
D D n
mn,
513.
N,
20O.
"?N, 398, 491
; o^ny
SK, 327
;
}v"?y
SN,
270
;
Ni
*?K, 289 ;
nd
W, 290
f.
,
481.
D
n"?N,
xxxv fF.
;
art.
with, 131, 159;
D DBTI
.nW,
342.
*>8(-7)
=
^n, 3>7 309 3
6
4-
n
fo 3
6
7-
nj>K, n^x, 245.
fi^K, |iW, 245, 424.
I^N, 432.
n
?^
353-
IDN
(
=
speak ), 107.
-*7N
TDK, 316.
nnn?K, 477.
W13K,
126.
?
p
i 73-
nyx
and
, 69.
VN, 3
26-
-HN
(
=
with
),
IO2.
nx
(
=
sign ), 25, 103,
no, 112,
172.
^,
various uses
of, 30, 149, 169, 226,
3
8
3 530.
npxii, 214.
nona,
29.
5, 481.
mra,
367.
362.
,
271, 467.
344-
,
225.
nn?, 163, 276, 283
f.
,
367
;
a
(o pn) jnj,
171
;
a
^a,
266.
inn
(/>/.),
281.
Ti33,
146, 207.
??, 4
8
3-
Spa,
281.
ia, 316.
o:ia,
259.
jina, 78.
Va, 401.
T3,
160.
n
^f 443-
D
HTH, 388.
,
278
f.
, 23
f., 24.
nan, 225.
^?
n
i 103.
Kin
(irn),
60.
279.
nagq, 310.
]
=
namely, 481.
"ft* 237.
p (termination),
306.
INDEXES II. HEBREW
549
550
INDEXES II. HEBREW
], 381
INDEXES II. HEBREW
551
, 183.
> 3
8
5-
224
f.
237-
295.
524.
asrel., 144, 521, 523,
tf
5
20-
,
474-
^, 36
f.
, 143-
b,
60.
, 262,
267.
, 79.
,
330.
, 520
ff.
, 474-
540.
195.
226
,
364.
nnsp,
285.
|^
9
y,
527.
n
i^ 344-
ptf, 27
f.
BT,
469-
ns?,
126.
mxn
we,
pe,
,
532.
i6of.
inn, 16,
50.
17, 23, 44
f.,
48, 164, 532.
xxxiiif.,
39, 174, 235;
358.
,
336.
369-
,
159.
283.
28.
, 68,
281.
, 82,
107.
The
International Critical
Commentary
VOLUMES NOW READY
Numbers.
By
the Rev. G. BUCHANAN
GRAY, D.D.,
Professor of
Hebrew,
Mansfield
College,
Oxford.
"Most Bible readers have the
impression
that Numbers is a dull
book
only
relieved
by
the
brilliancy
of the Balaam
chapters
and some
snatches of old Hebrew
songs, but,
as Prof.
Gray
shows with admirable
skill and
insight,
its historical and
religious
value is not that which lies
on the surface. Prof.
Gray
s
Commentary
is
distinguished by
fine
scholarship
and
sanity
of
judgment;
it is
impossible
to commend it too
warmly." Saturday
Review
(London).
Crown 8vo.
$3.00
net.
Deuteronomy. By
the Rev. S. R.
DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., Regius
Professor of
Hebrew,
and Canon of Christ
Church,
Oxford.
"It is a
pleasure
to see at last a
really
critical Old Testament com
mentary
in
English upon
a
portion
of the
Pentateuch,
and
especially
one of such merit. This I find
superior
to
any
other
Commentary
in
any language upon Deuteronomy."
Professor E. L.
CURTIS,
of Yale
University.
Crown 8vo.
$3.00
net.
Judges. By
Rev. GEORGE FOOT
MOORE, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of
Theology
in Harvard
University.
"The work is done in an
atmosphere
of
scholarly
interest and in
difference to
dogmatism
and
controversy,
which is at least
refreshing.
... It is a noble introduction to the moral
forces,
ideas and influences
that controlled the
period
of the
Judges,
and a model of what a
historical
commentary,
with a
practical
end in
view,
should be."
The
Independent.
Crown 8vo.
$3.00
net.
The Books Of Samuel.
By
Rev. HENRY PRESERVED
SMITH, D.D.,
Professor of Old Testament Literature and
History
of
Religion,
Meadville,
Pa.
"
Professor Smith s
Commentary
will for some time be the standard
work on
Samuel,
and we
heartily congratulate
him on
scholarly
work
so
faithfully accomplished."
The Athenaum.
Crown 8vo.
$3.00
net.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
VOLUMES NOW READY
The Book Of PsalmS.
By
CHARLES AUGUSTUS
BRIGGS, D.D.,
D.Litt.,
Graduate Professor of
Theological Encyclopaedia
and
Symbolics,
Union
Theological Seminary,
New
York,
and EMILIE GRACE
BRIGGS,
B.D.
"
Christian
scholarship
seems here to have reached the
highest
level
yet
attained in
study
of the book which in
religious importance
stands next
to the
Gospels.
His work
upon
it is not
likely
to be excelled in
learning,
both massive and
minute, by any
volume of the International
Series,
to
which it
belongs."
The Outlook.
2 Volumes. Crown 8vo.
Price, $3.00
each net.
By
the Rev. CRAWFORD H.
TOY, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of
Hebrew in Harvard
University.
"
This volume has the same characteristics of
thoroughness
and
pains
taking scholarship
as the
preceding
issues of the series. In the critical
treatment of the
text,
in
noting
the various
readings
and the force of
the words in the
original Hebrew,
it leaves
nothing
to be desired.
Crown 8vo.
$3.00
net.
AmOS and Hosea.
By
WILLIAM RAINEY
HARPER, Ph.D., LL.D.,
late Professor of Semitic
Languages
and Literature and President of the
University
of
Chicago.
"
He has
gone,
with characteristic
minuteness,
not
only
into the
analysis
and discussion of each
point, endeavoring
in
every
case to be
thoroughly
exhaustive,
but also into the
history
of
exegesis
and discussion.
Nothing
at all
worthy
of consideration has been
passed by.
The
consequence
is
that when one
carefully
studies what has been
brought together
in this
volume,
either
upon
some
passage
of the two
prophets
treated,
or
upon
some
question
of critical or
antiquarian importance
in the
introductory
portion
of the
volume,
one feels that he has obtained an
adequately
exhaustive view of the
subject."
The Interior.
Crown 8vo.
$3.00
net.
Esther.
By
L. B.
PATON, Ph.D.,
Professor of
Hebrew,
Hartford
Theological Seminary.
This
scholarly
and critical
commentary
on the Book of Esther
presents
in full the remarkable additions to the Massoretic text and the varia
tions in the various versions
beginning
with the Greek translation and
continuing through
the
Vulgate
and Peshitto down to the Talmud and
Targums.
These are not
given
in full in
any
other
commentary, yet
they
are
very important
both for the
history
of the text and the
history
of the
exegesis.
Crown 8vo.
$2.25
net
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
VOLUMES NOW READY
By
GEORGE A.
BARTON, Ph.D.,
Professor of Biblical
Literature, Bryn
Mawr
College,
Pa.
"It is a relief to find a commentator on Ecclesiastes who is not en
deavoring
to defend some new
theory.
This
volume,
in the International
Commentary series,
treats the book in a
scholarly
and sensible
fashion,
presenting
the conclusions of earlier scholars
together
with the author s
own,
and
providing
thus all the information that
any
student needs."
The
Congregationalist.
Crown 8vo.
$2.25
net.
St. Matthew.
By
the Rev. WILLOUGHBY C.
ALLEN, M.A.,
Fellow
of Exeter
College,
Oxford.
"As a
microscopic
and
practically
exhaustive
study
and itemized state
ment of the
probable
or
possible
sources of the
Synoptic Gospels
and
of their
relations,
one to
another,
this work has not been
surpassed.
I doubt if it has been
equaled.
And the author is not
by any
means
lacking
in
spiritual insight."
The Methodist Review
(Nashville).
Crown 8vo.
$3.00
net.
St. Mark.
By
the Rev. E. P.
GOULD, D.D.,
sometime Professor of New
Testament
Exegesis,
P. E.
Divinity School, Philadelphia.
"
The whole
make-up
is that of a
thoroughly helpful,
instructive critical
study
of the
Word,
surpassing anything
of the kind ever
attempted
in
the
English language,
and to students and
clergymen knowing
the
proper
use of a
commentary
it will
prove
an invaluable aid."
The Lutheran
Quarterly.
Crown 8vo.
$2.50
net.
ut. JLllke.
By
the Rev. ALFRED
PLUMMER, D.D.,
sometime Master of
University College,
Durham.
"
We are
pleased
with the
thoroughness
and scientific
accuracy
of the
interpretations.
... It seems to us that the
prevailing
characteristic of
the book is common
sense,
fortified
by learning
and
piety."
The Herald and
Presbyter.
Crown 8vo.
$3.00
net.
Romans.
By
the Rev. WILLIAM
SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret
Professor of
Divinity,
and Canon of Christ
Church, Oxford,
and the Rev.
A. C.
HEADLAM, M.A., D.D., Principal
of
Kings College,
London.
"
We do not hesitate to commend this as the best
commentary
on Romans
yet
written in
English.
It will do much to
popularize
this admirable
and much needed
series,
by showing
that it is
possible
to be critical and
scholarly
and at the same time devout and
spiritual,
and
intelligible
to
plain
Bible readers." The Church Standard.
Crown 8vo.
$3.00
net.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
VOLUMES NOW READY
Ephesians
and Colossians.
By
the Rev. T. K.
ABBOTT, D.D.,
D.Litt.,
formerly
Professor of Biblical
Greek,
now of
Hebrew,
Trinity
Col
lege,
Dublin.
"An able and
independent piece
of
exegesis,
and one that none of us can
afford to be without. It is the work of a man who has made himself
master of this theme. His
exegetical perceptions
are
keen,
and we are
especially grateful
for his
strong
defense of the
integrity
and
apostolicity
of these two
great
monuments of Pauline
teaching."
The
Expositor.
Crown 8vo.
$2.50
net.
Philippians
and Philemon.
By
Rev. MARVIN R.
VINCENT, D.D.,
Professor of Biblical Literature in Union
Theological Seminary,
New York.
"
Professor Vincent s
Commentary appears
to me not less admirable for
its
literary
merit than for its
scholarship
and its clear and
discriminating
discussions of the contents of these
Epistles."
Dr. GEORGE P. FISHER.
Crown 8vo.
$2.00
net.
St. Peter and St. Jude.
By
the Rev. CHARLES
BIGG, D.D.,
sometime
Regius
Professor of Ecclesiastical
History
in the
University,
New York.
"
The careful and
thorough
student will find here a vast amount of in
formation most
helpful
to him in his studies and researches. The inter
national Critical
Commentary,
to which it
belongs,
will
prove
a
great
boon to students and ministers." The Canadian
Congregationalist.
Crown ftvo.
$.50
net.
By
the Rev.
JOHN SKINNER, D.D., Principal
and Professor of
Old Testament
Language
and
Literature, College
of
Presbyterian
Church
f
England, Cambridge, England.
Crown 8vo.
$3.00
net
(Postage additional).
The Books of Chronicles.
By
the Rev. EDWARD L.
CURTIS,
Ph.D., D.D.,
Professor of
Hebrew,
Yale
University,
and Rev. ALBERT A.
MADSEN,
Ph.D.
Crown 8vo.
$3.00
net
(Postage additional).
The International
Theological Library
EDITORS PREFACE
THEOLOGY
has made
great
and
rapid
advances
in recent
years.
New lines of
investigation
have
been
opened up,
fresh
light
has been cast
upon
many subjects
of the
deepest
interest,
and the historical
method has been
applied
with
important
results. This
has
prepared
the
way
for a
Library
of
Theological
Science,
and has created the demand for it. It has also
made it at once
opportune
and
practicable
now to se
cure the services of
specialists
in the different
depart
ments of
Theology,
and to associate them in an enter-
prise
which will furnish a record of
Theological
inquiry up
to date.
This
Library
is
designed
to cover the whole field of
Christian
Theology.
Each volume is to be
complete
in
itself, while,
at the same
time,
it will form
part
of a
carefully planned
whole. One of the Editors is to
pre
pare
a volume of
Theological Encyclopasdia
which will
give
the
history
and literature of each
department,
as
well as of
Theology
as a whole.
THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY
The
Library
is intended to form a series of Text-
Books for Students of
Theology.
The
Authors, therefore,
aim.
at conciseness and com-
pactness
of statement. At the same
time,
they
have in
view that
large
and
increasing
class of
students,
in other
departments
of
inquiry,
who desire to have a
systematic
and
thorough exposition
of
Theological
Science. Tech
nical matters will therefore be thrown into the form of
notes,
and the text will be made as readable and attract
ive as
possible.
The
Library
is international and interconfessional. It
will be conducted in a catholic
spirit,
and in the
interests of
Theology
as a science.
Its aim will be to
give
full and
impartial
statements
both of the results of
Theological
Science and of he
questions
which are still at issue in the different
departments.
The Authors will be scholars of
recognized reputation
in the several branches of
study assigned
to them.
They
will be associated with each other and with the Editors
in the effort to
provide
a series of volumes
which
may
adequately represent
the
present
condition
of investi
gation,
and indicate the
way
for further
progress.
CHARLES
A. BRIGGS
STEWART
D. F. SALMOND
THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY
ARRANGEMENT
OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS
THEOLOGICAL
ENCYCLOPEDIA.
By
CHARLES A.
BRIGOS, D.D.,
D.Litt.,
Professor of
Theological Encyclopaedia
and
Symbolics,
Union
Theological Seminary,
New York.
AN INTRODUCTION
TO THE LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTA
MENT.
By
S. R.
DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt.,
Regius
Professor of Hebrew
and Canon of Christ
Church,
Oxford.
[Revised
and
Enlarged
Edition,
CANON AND TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
By
FRANCIS
CRAWFORD
BURKITT, M.A.,
Norrisian Professor of
Divinity, University
of
Cambridge.
OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY.
By
HENRY PRESERVED
SMITH, D.D.,
Professor of Old Testament
Literature, Meadville,
Pa.
[Now Ready.
CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
By
FRANCIS
BROWN, D.D., LL.D., D.Litt.,
President and Professor of
Hebrew,
Union
Theological Seminary,
New York.
THEOLOGY OF THE OLD
TESTAMENT.
By
A. B.
DAVIDSON,
D.D., LL.D.,
sometime Professor of
Hebrew,
New
College, Edinburgh.
[Now
Ready.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTA
MENT.
By
Rev.
JAMES MOFFATT, B.D.,
Minister United Free
Church,
Dundonald, Scotland.
CANON AND TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
By
CASPAR REN
GREGORY, D.D., LL.D,
Professor of New Testament
Exegesis
in the
University
of
Leipzig.
[Now Ready.
THE LIFE OF CHRIST.
By
WILLIAM
SANDAY, D.D.,
LL.D.,
Lady
Margaret
Professor of
Divinity
and Canon of Christ
Church,
Oxford.
A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE.
By
ARTHUR C
MCGIFFERT, D.D.,
Professor of Church
History,
Union Theo
logical
Seminary,
New York.
[Now Ready.
CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT.
By
FRANK C.
PORTER, D.D.,
Professor of Biblical
Theology,
Yale
University,
New
Haven,
Conn.
THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
By
GEORGE B.
STEVENS,
D.
D.,
sometime Professor of
Systematic Theology,
Yale
University,
New
Haven,
Conn.
[Now
Ready.
BIBLICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY.
By
G. BUCHANAN
GRAY, D.D.,
Professor
of
Hebrew,
Mansfield
College,
Oxford.
THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC CHURCH.
By
ROBERT
RAINY, D.D.,
LL.D.,
sometime
Principal
of New
College, Edinburgh. [Now Ready.
THE
EARLY LATIN
CHURCH.
[Author
to be announced later
THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY
THE LATER LATIN CHURCH.
[Author
to be announced later.
THE GREEK AND EASTERN CHURCHES.
By
W. F.
ADENEY, D.D.,
Principal
of
Independent College,
Manchester.
[Now Ready.
THE REFORMATION.
By
T. M.
LINDSAY, D.D.,
Principal
of the United
Free
College, Glasgow. [2
vols. Now
Ready.
CHRISTIANITY IN LATIN COUNTRIES SINCE THE COUNCIL OF
TRENT.
By
PAUL
SABATIER,
D.Litt.
SYMBOLICS.
By
CHARLES A.
BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt.,
Professor of
Theological Encyclopaedia
and
Symbolics,
Union
Theological Seminary,
New York.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
By
G. P.
FlSHER, D.D.,
LL.D
,
sometime Professor of Ecclesiastical
History,
Yale
University,
New
Haven,
Conn.
[Revised
and
Enlarged
Edition.
CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS.
By
A. V. G.
Allen, D.D.,
sometime
Professor of Ecclesiastical
History,
Protestant
Episcopal Divinity
School,
Cambridge,
Mass.
[Now Ready.
PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION.
By
ROBERT
FLINT, D.D., LL.D.,
some-
time Professor of
Divinity
in the
Unirersity
of
Edinburgh.
THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS.
By
GEORGE F.
MOORE, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor in Harvard
University.
APOLOGETICS.
By
A. B.
BRUCE, D.D.,
sometime Professor of New
Testament
Exegesis,
Free Church
College, Glasgow.
[Revised
and
Enlarged
Edition.
THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRIN E OF GOD.
By
WlLLIAM N.
CLARKE,
D.
D.,
Professor of
Systematic Theology,
Hamilton
Theological Seminary.
[Now Ready.
THE DOCTRINE OF MAN.
By
WILLIAM P.
PATERSON, D.D.,
Professor
of
Divinity, University
of
Edinburgh.
THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST.
By
H. R.
MACKINTOSH, Ph.D.,
Professor
of
Systematic
Theology,
New
College, Edinburgh.
THE CHRISTIAN
DOCTRINE OF SALVATION.
By
GEORGE B. STE
VENS, D.D.,
sometime Professor of
Systematic Theology,
Yale
University.
[Now Ready.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE.
By
WILLIAM ADAMS
BROWN, D.D.,
Professor of
Systematic Theology,
Union
Theological
Seminary,
New York.
CHRISTIAN ETHICS.
By
NEWMAN
SMYTH, D.D.,
Pastor of
Congrega
tional
Church,
New Haven.
[Revised
and
Enlarged
Edition.
THE CHRISTIAN
PASTOR
AND THE WORKING CHURCH.
By
WASHINGTON
GLADDEN, D.D.,
Pastor of
Congregational
Church, Columbus,
Ohio. [Now Ready.
THE CHRISTIAN PREACHER.
The Rev. A. E.
GARVIE, M.A., D.D.,
Principal
of New
College,
London,
England.
RABBINICAL LITERATURE.
By
S. ScHECHTER, M.A.,
President of
the
Jewish Theological Seminary,
New York
City.
tSF
OTHER VOLUMES
WILL BE ANNOUNCED LATER.
The International
Theological Library
VOLUMES NOW READY
An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testa
ment.
By
Professor S. R.
DRIVER, D.D.,
D.Litt.
"As a whole there is
probably
no book in the
English Language equal
to this Introduction to the Literature of the Old
Testament,
for the
student who desires to understand what the modern criticism thinks
about the Bible." Dr. LYMAN
ABBOTT,
in The Outlook.
Crown 8vo.
$2.50
net*
A
History
of
Christianity
in the
Apostolic Age.
By
ARTHUR C.
MCGIFFERT, Ph.D.,
D.D.
"
The
clearness, self-consistency,
and force of the whole
impression
of
Apostolic Christianity
with which we leave this book
goes
far to
guar
antee its
permanent
value and success." The
Expositor.
Crown 8vo.
$2.50
net.
Christian Ethics.
By
NEWMAN
SMYTH,
D.D.
"As this book is the
latest,
so it is the fullest and most attractive treat
ment of the
subject
that we are familiar with. Patient and exhaustive
in its method of
inquiry,
and
stimulating
and
suggestive
in the
topic
it
handles,
we are confident that it will be a
help
to the task of the moral
understanding
and
interpretation
of human life." The
Living
Church.
Crown 8vo.
$2.50
net.
Apologetics ; or, Christianity Defensively
Stated.
By
ALEXANDER BALMAIN
BRUCE,
D.D.
"
We have not for a
long
time taken a book in hand that is more
stimulating
to faith. . . . Without
commenting
further,
we
repeat
that
this volume is the
ablest,
most
scholarly,
most
advanced,
and
sharpest
defence of
Christianity
that has ever been written. No
theological
library
should be without it." Zion s Herald.
Crown 8vo.
$2.50
net.
Old Testament
History.
BY HENRY PRESERVED
SMITH,
D.D.
"
Prof. Smith
has, by
his
comprehensive
and vitalized
history,
laid all who
care for the Old Testament under
great obligations."
The
Independent.
Crown 8vo.
$2.50
ne.l.
THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY
VOLUMES NOW READY
The Ancient Catholic Church.
By
ROBERT
RAINY, D.D.,
LL.D.
"As a
comprehensive
work on the formative
stage
of the Church s ex
perience
the volume will
easily
find its
place
in the front rank
among
books on the
subject composed
in the
English language."
The Interior.
Crown 8vo.
$2.50
net.
The Reformation in
Germany. By
THOMAS M.
LINDSAY,
M.A.,
D.D.
Crown 8vo.
$2.50
net.
The Reformation in Lands
Beyond Germany. By
THOMAS
M.
LINDSAY,
D.D.
"
Together
these two volumes will at once take their
place
as the clas
sical
English History
of the Reformation." The
Expository
Times.
"
The
good
ba^nce of material which he has attained
by
a
self-denying
exclusion,
as well as
by
much research and inclusion of fresh
material,
makes the work a real addition to our materials for
study."
The
Congregationalist.
Crown 8vo.
$2.50
net.
Canon and Text of the New Testament.
By
CASPER RENE
GREGORY, D.D.,
LL.D.
"
The book is a
treasury
of
learning,
and its fairness in
dealing
with the
matter in hand is admirable. From first to
last,
the
purpose
of the
author is not to show
upon
how
slight
basis our confidence in the can-
onicity
of the New Testament is
based,
but rather
upon
how solid a
foundation our confidence rests." Journal and
Messenger.
Crown 8vo.
$2.50
net.
The Greek and Eastern Churches.
By
WALTER F.
ADENEY,
M.A.,
D.D.
"
It seems to me an excellent and jnost useful
piece
of work. I do
not know
anything
in
English
which covers the same
ground
and
am sure Dr.
Adeney
has
put
us all in his debt
by
his
scholarly,
well-
balanced and
judicious
treatment."
Prof.
William Adams Brown.
Crown 8vo.
$2.50
net.
The Christian Doctrine of God. By
WILLIAM
N.CLARKE,
D.D.
Crown
8vo.
$2.50
net.
Postage
Additional,
THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY
VOLUMES NOW READY
The
Theology
of the New Testament.
By
GEORGE B.
STEVENS, D.D.,
LL.D.
"
It is a fine
example
of
painstaking, discriminating, impartial
research
and statement." r/HJ
Congregationalism
Crown 8vo.
$2.50
net.
History
of Christian Doctrine.
By
GEORGE p.
FISHER,
D.D.,
LL.D.
"
It is
only just
to
say
that Dr. Fisher has
produced
the best
History
of Doctrine that we have in
English."
The New York
Evangelist.
Crown 8vo.
$2.50
net.
The Christian Pastor and the
Working
Church.
By
WASHINGTON
GLADDEN, D.D.,
LL.D.
"A
comprehensive, inspiring
and
helpful guide
to a
busy pastor.
One
finds in it a multitude of
practical suggestions
for the
development
of
the
spiritual
and
working
life of the
Church,
and the answer to
many
problems
that are a constant
perplexity
to the faithful minister."
The Christian
Intelligencer.
Crown 8vo.
$2.50
net.
Christian Institutions.
By
ALEXANDER V. B.
ALLEN,
D.D.
"
Professor Allen s Christian Institutions
may
be
regarded
as the most
important permanent
contribution which the Protestant
Episcopal
Church of the United States has
yet
made to
general theological
thought."
The American Journal
of Theology.
Crown 8vo.
$2.50
net.
The
Theology
of the Old Testament.
By
A. B.
DAVIDSON,
D.D., LL.D.,
D.Litt.
"
We
hope every clergyman
will not rest content until he has
procured
and studied this most admirable and useful book.
Every really
useful
question relating
to man his
nature,
his
fall,
and his
redemption,
his
present
life or
grace,
his life after
death,
his future
life,
is
treated of." The Canadian Churchman.
Crown 8vo.
$2.50
net.
The Christian Doctrine of Salvation.
By
GEORGE B.
STEVENS, D.D.,
LL.D.
"
Professor Stevens has
performed
a task of
great importance,
certain to
exert wide and
helpful
influence in
settling
the minds of men. He has
treated the
subject historically
and has
given
to Christ the first
place
in
interpreting
his own mission."
Congregationalist
and Christian World.
Crown 8vo.
$2.50
net.
BS
1235
Skinner
.35
I.C.C.
on
Genesis
unaccess.
copy
1.
DATE ISSUED TO