{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_77363/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_77363","id":"gutenberg_77363","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/77363","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Genesis -- Commentaries"],"text":"A\n CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL\n COMMENTARY\n ON\n GENESIS\n\n\n\n\n \u250c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2510\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Transcriber\u2019s Notes \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Punctuation has been standardized. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Most of the non-common abbreviations used to save space in \u2502\n \u2502 printing have been expanded to the non-abbreviated form for \u2502\n \u2502 easier reading. Abbreviations without clear meanings have \u2502\n \u2502 been left unchanged. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Non-printable characteristics have been given the following \u2502\n \u2502 Italic text: --> _text_ \u2502\n \u2502 bold text: --> =text=. \u2502\n \u2502 subscripts --> x_{3} \u2502\n \u2502 superscripts --> x{th} \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 This book was written in a period when many words had \u2502\n \u2502 not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have \u2502\n \u2502 multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in \u2502\n \u2502 the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated \u2502\n \u2502 with a Transcriber\u2019s Note. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Index references have not been checked for accuracy. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 The symbol \u2018\u2021\u2019 indicates the description in parenthesis has \u2502\n \u2502 been added to an illustration. This may be needed if there \u2502\n \u2502 is no caption or if the caption does not describe the image \u2502\n \u2502 adequately. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript \u2502\n \u2502 number and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which \u2502\n \u2502 they appear. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Transcriber\u2019s Notes are used when making corrections to the \u2502\n \u2502 text or to provide additional information for the modern \u2502\n \u2502 reader. These notes are identified by \u2666\u2660\u2665\u2663 symbols in the \u2502\n \u2502 text and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which \u2502\n \u2502 they appear. \u2502\n \u2514\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2518\n\n\n\n\n The International Critical Commentary\n on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments\n\n\n UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF\n\n THE REV. SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D.\n _Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford_\n\n THE REV. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.\n _Late Master of University College, Durham_\n\n AND\n\n THE REV. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D.\n _Professor of Theological Encyclop\u00e6dia and Symbolics\n Union Theological Seminary, New York_\n\n\n\n\n The International\n Critical Commentary\n\n On the Holy Scriptures of the\n Old and New Testaments\n\n\n EDITORS\u2019 PREFACE\n\nTHERE are now before the public many Commentaries, written by British\nand American divines, of a popular or homiletical character. _The\nCambridge Bible for Schools_, the _Handbooks for Bible Classes and\nPrivate Students_, _The Speaker\u2019s Commentary_, _The Popular Commentary_\n(Schaff), _The Expositor\u2019s Bible_, and other similar series, have\ntheir special place and importance. But they do not enter into the\nfield of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such series of\nCommentaries as the _Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten\nTestament_; De Wette\u2019s _Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum\nNeuen Testament_; Meyer\u2019s _Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar_; Keil and\nDelitzsch\u2019s _Biblischer Commentar \u00fcber das Alte Testament_; Lange\u2019s\n_Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk_; Nowack\u2019s _Handkommentar zum\nAlten Testament_; Holtzmann\u2019s _Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament_\nSeveral of these have been translated, edited, and in some cases\nenlarged and adapted, for the English-speaking public; others are\nin process of translation. But no corresponding series by British or\nAmerican divines has hitherto been produced. The way has been prepared\nby special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott, Kalisch, Lightfoot,\nPerowne, Westcott, and others; and the time has come, in the judgment\nof the projectors of this enterprise, when it is practicable to\ncombine British and American scholars in the production of a critical,\ncomprehensive Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical\nscholarship, and in a measure lead its van.\n\nMessrs. Charles Scribner\u2019s Sons of New York, and Messrs. T. & T. Clark\nof Edinburgh, propose to publish such a series of Commentaries on the\nOld and New Testaments, under the editorship of Prof. C. A. BRIGGS,\nD.D., D.Litt., in America, and of Prof. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt.,\nfor the Old Testament, and the Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., for the New\nTestament, in Great Britain.\n\nThe Commentaries will be international and inter-confessional, and\nwill be free from polemical and ecclesiastical bias. They will be based\nupon a thorough critical study of the original texts of the Bible,\nand upon critical methods of interpretation. They are designed chiefly\nfor students and clergymen, and will be written in a compact style.\nEach book will be preceded by an Introduction, stating the results\nof criticism upon it, and discussing impartially the questions still\nremaining open. The details of criticism will appear in their proper\nplace in the body of the Commentary. Each section of the Text will be\nintroduced with a paraphrase, or summary of contents. Technical details\nof textual and philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept distinct\nfrom matter of a more general character; and in the Old Testament the\nexegetical notes will be arranged, as far as possible, so as to be\nserviceable to students not acquainted with Hebrew. The History of\nInterpretation of the Books will be dealt with, when necessary, in the\nIntroductions, with critical notices of the most important literature\nof the subject. Historical and Arch\u00e6ological questions, as well\nas questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the plan of the\nCommentaries, but not Practical or Homiletical Exegesis. The Volumes\nwill constitute a uniform series.\n\n\n\n\n The International Critical Commentary\n\n\n ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS\n\n THE OLD TESTAMENT\n\n=GENESIS.= The Rev. JOHN SKINNER, D.D., Principal and Professor of Old\nTestament Language and Literature, College of Presbyterian Church of\nEngland, Cambridge, England. [_Now Ready._\n\n=EXODUS.= The Rev. A. R. S. KENNEDY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew,\nUniversity of Edinburgh.\n\n=LEVITICUS.= J. F. STENNING, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford.\n\n=NUMBERS.= The Rev. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew,\nMansfield College, Oxford. [_Now Ready._\n\n=DEUTERONOMY.= The Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor\nof Hebrew, Oxford. [_Now Ready._\n\n=JOSHUA.= The Rev. GEORGE ADAM SMITH, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew,\nUnited Free Church College, Glasgow.\n\n=JUDGES.= The Rev. GEORGE MOORE, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Theology,\nHarvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [_Now Ready._\n\n=SAMUEL.= The Rev. H. P. SMITH, D.D., Professor of Old Testament\nLiterature and History of Religion, Meadville, Pa. [_Now Ready._\n\n=KINGS.= The Rev. FRANCIS BROWN, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D., President and\nProfessor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union Theological Seminary,\nNew York City.\n\n=CHRONICLES.= The Rev. EDWARD L. CURTIS, D.D., Professor of Hebrew,\nYale University, New Haven, Conn. [_Now Ready._\n\n=EZRA AND NEHEMIAH.= The Rev. L. W. BATTEN, Ph.D., D.D., Rector of\nSt. Mark\u2019s Church, New York City, sometime Professor of Hebrew, P. E.\nDivinity School, Philadelphia.\n\n=PSALMS.= The Rev. CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt., Graduate\nProfessor of Theological Encyclop\u00e6dia and Symbolics, Union Theological\nSeminary, New York. [_2 volumes. Now Ready._\n\n=PROVERBS.= The Rev. C. H. TOY, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew,\nHarvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [_Now Ready._\n\n=JOB.= The Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor of\nHebrew, Oxford.\n\n=ISAIAH.= Chapters I\u2012XXXIX. The Rev. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D., Professor\nof Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford.\n\n=ISAIAH.= Chapters XL\u2012LXVI. The Rev. A. S. PEAKE, M.A., D.D., Dean of\nthe Theological Faculty of the Victoria University and Professor of\nBiblical Exegesis in the University of Manchester, England.\n\n=JEREMIAH.= The Rev. A. F. KIRKPATRICK, D.D., Dean of Ely, sometime\nRegius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge, England.\n\n=EZEKIEL.= The Rev. G. A. COOKE, M.A., Oriel Professor of the\nInterpretation of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford, and the Rev.\nCHARLES F. BURNEY, D.Litt., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. John\u2019s\nCollege, Oxford.\n\n=DANIEL.= The Rev. JOHN P. PETERS, Ph.D., D.D., sometime Professor\nof Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St.\nMichael\u2019s Church, New York City.\n\n=AMOS AND HOSEA.= W. R. HARPER, Ph.D., LL.D., sometime President of\nthe University of Chicago, Illinois. [_Now Ready._\n\n=MICAH TO HAGGAI.= Prof. JOHN P. SMITH, University of Chicago; Prof.\nCHARLES P. FAGNANI, D.D., Union Theological Seminary, New York;\nW. HAYES WARD, D.D., LL.D., Editor of _The Independent_, New York;\nProf. JULIUS A. BEWER, Union Theological Seminary, New York, and Prof.\nH. G. MITCHELL, D.D., Boston University.\n\n=ZECHARIAH TO JONAH.= Prof. H. G. MITCHELL, D.D., Prof. JOHN P. SMITH\nand Prof. J. A. BEWER.\n\n=ESTHER.= The Rev. L. B. PATON, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Hartford\nTheological Seminary. [_Now Ready._\n\n=ECCLESIASTES.= Prof. GEORGE A. BARTON, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical\nLiterature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. [_Now Ready._\n\n=RUTH, SONG OF SONGS AND LAMENTATIONS.= Rev. CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D.,\nD.Litt., Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclop\u00e6dia and Symbolics,\nUnion Theological Seminary, New York.\n\n\n THE NEW TESTAMENT\n\n=ST. MATTHEW.= The Rev. WILLOUGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer\nin Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. [_Now Ready._\n\n=ST. MARK.= Rev. E. P. GOULD, D.D., sometime Professor of New Testament\nLiterature, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. [_Now Ready._\n\n=ST. LUKE.= The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., sometime Master of\nUniversity College, Durham. [_Now Ready._\n\n=ST. JOHN.= The Very Rev. JOHN HENRY BERNARD, D.D., Dean of St.\nPatrick\u2019s and Lecturer in Divinity, University of Dublin.\n\n=HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS.= The Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D.,\nLady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and the Rev. WILLOUGHBY\nC. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Divinity and Hebrew, Exeter\nCollege, Oxford.\n\n=ACTS.= The Rev. C. H. TURNER, D.D., Fellow of Magdalen College,\nOxford, and the Rev. H. N. BATE, M.A., Examining Chaplain to the\nBishop of London.\n\n=ROMANS.= The Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret\nProfessor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and the\nRev. A. C. HEADLAM, M.A., D.D., Principal of King\u2019s College, London.\n [_Now Ready._\n\n=CORINTHIANS.= The Right Rev. ARCHBISHOP ROBERTSON, D.D., LL.D., Lord\nBishop of Exeter, the Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., and DAWSON WALKER,\nD.D., Theological Tutor in the University of Durham.\n\n=GALATIANS.= The Rev. ERNEST D. BURTON, D.D., Professor of New\nTestament Literature, University of Chicago.\n\n=EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS.= The Rev. T. K. ABBOTT, B.D., D.Litt.,\nsometime Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin, now\nLibrarian of the same. [_Now Ready._\n\n=PHILIPPIANS AND PHILEMON.= The Rev. MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D., Professor\nof Biblical Literature, Union Theological Seminary, New York City.\n [_Now Ready._\n\n=THESSALONIANS.= The Rev. JAMES E. FRAME, M.A., Professor of Biblical\nTheology, Union Theological Seminary, New York.\n\n=THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.= The Rev. WALTER LOCK, D.D., Warden of Keble\nCollege and Professor of Exegesis, Oxford.\n\n=HEBREWS.= The Rev. A. NAIRNE, M.A., Professor of Hebrew in King\u2019s\nCollege, London.\n\n=ST. JAMES.= The Rev. JAMES H. ROPES, D.D., Bussey Professor of New\nTestament Criticism in Harvard University.\n\n=PETER AND JUDE.= The Rev. CHARLES BIGG, D.D., sometime Regius\nProfessor of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.\n [_Now Ready._\n\n=THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN.= The Rev. E. A. BROOKE, B.D., Fellow and\nDivinity Lecturer in King\u2019s College, Cambridge.\n\n=REVELATION.= The Rev. ROBERT H. CHARLES, M.A., D.D., sometime\nProfessor of Biblical Greek in the University of Dublin.\n\n\n\n\n GENESIS\n\n JOHN SKINNER, D.D.\n\n\n\n\n THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY\n\n\n A\n CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL\n COMMENTARY\n ON\n GENESIS\n\n\n BY\n\n JOHN SKINNER, D.D., HONORARY M.A. (CAMBRIDGE)\n\n PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF\n OLD TESTAMENT LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE,\n WESTMINSTER COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE\n\n\n NEW YORK\n CHARLES SCRIBNER\u2019S SONS\n 1910\n\n\n\n\n TO\n MY WIFE\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE.\n\n\nIt is a little over six years since I was entrusted by the Editors\nof \u201cThe International Critical Commentary\u201d with the preparation of\nthe volume on Genesis. During that time there has been no important\naddition to the number of commentaries either in English or in German.\nThe English reader still finds his best guidance in Spurrell\u2019s valuable\n_Notes_ on the text, Bennett\u2019s compressed but suggestive exposition\nin the _Century Bible_, and Driver\u2019s thorough and masterly work in the\nfirst volume of the _Westminster Commentaries_; all of which were in\nexistence when I commenced my task. While no one of these books will\nbe superseded by the present publication, there was still room for a\ncommentary on the more elaborate scale of the \u201cInternational\u201d series;\nand it has been my aim, in accordance with the programme of that series,\nto supply the fuller treatment of critical, exegetical, literary, and\narch\u00e6ological questions, which the present state of scholarship demands.\n\nThe most recent German commentaries, those of Holzinger and Gunkel,\nhad both appeared before 1904; and I need not say that to both, but\nespecially to the latter, I have been greatly indebted. Every student\nmust have felt that Gunkel\u2019s work, with its \u00e6sthetic appreciation of\nthe genius of the narratives, its wider historical horizons, and its\nilluminating use of mythological and folklore parallels, has breathed a\nnew spirit into the investigation of Genesis, whose influence no writer\non the subject can hope or wish to escape. The last-mentioned feature\nis considerably emphasised in the third edition, the first part of\nwhich (1909) was published just too late to be utilised for this volume.\nThat I have not neglected the older standard commentaries of Tuch,\nDelitzsch, and Dillmann, or less comprehensive expositions like that of\nStrack, will be apparent from the frequent acknowledgments in the notes.\nThe same remark applies to many books of a more general kind (mostly\ncited in the list of \u201cAbbreviations\u201d), which have helped to elucidate\nspecial points of exegesis.\n\nThe problems which invest the interpretation of Genesis are, indeed,\ntoo varied and far-reaching to be satisfactorily treated within\nthe compass of a single volume. The old controversies as to the\ncompatibility of the earlier chapters with the conclusions of modern\nscience are no longer, to my mind, a living issue; and I have not\nthought it necessary to occupy much space with their discussion. Those\nwho are of a different opinion may be referred to the pages of Dr.\nDriver, where they will find these matters handled with convincing\nforce and clearness. Rather more attention has been given to the recent\nreaction against the critical analysis of the Pentateuch, although I am\nvery far from thinking that that movement, either in its conservative\nor its more radical manifestation, is likely to undo the scholarly work\nof the last hundred and fifty years. At all events, my own belief in\nthe essential soundness of the prevalent hypothesis has been confirmed\nby the renewed examination of the text of Genesis which my present\nundertaking required. It will probably appear to some that the analysis\nis pushed further than is warranted, and that duplicates are discovered\nwhere common sense would have suggested an easy reconciliation. That is\na perfectly fair line of criticism, provided the whole problem be kept\nin view. It has to be remembered that the analytic process is a chain\nwhich is a good deal stronger than its weakest link, that it starts\nfrom cases where diversity of authorship is almost incontrovertible,\nand moves on to others where it is less certain; and it is surely\nevident that when the composition of sources is once established,\nthe slightest differences of representation or language assume a\nsignificance which they might not have apart from that presumption.\nThat the analysis is frequently tentative and precarious is fully\nacknowledged; and the danger of basing conclusions on insufficient data\nof this kind is one that I have sought to avoid. On the more momentous\nquestion of the historical or legendary character of the book, or\nthe relation of the one element to the other, opinion is likely to be\ndivided for some time to come. Several competent Assyriologists appear\nto cherish the conviction that we are on the eve of fresh discoveries\nwhich will vindicate the accuracy of at least the patriarchal\ntraditions in a way that will cause the utmost astonishment to some\nwho pay too little heed to the findings of arch\u00e6ological experts. It\nis naturally difficult to estimate the worth of such an anticipation;\nand it is advisable to keep an open mind. Yet even here it is possible\nto adopt a position which will not be readily undermined. Whatever\ntriumphs may be in store for the arch\u00e6ologist,\u2015\u2015though he should prove\nthat Noah and Abraham and Jacob and Joseph are all real historical\npersonages,\u2015\u2015he will hardly succeed in dispelling the atmosphere of\nmythical imagination, of legend, of poetic idealisation, which are the\nlife and soul of the narratives of Genesis. It will still be necessary,\nif we are to retain our faith in the inspiration of this part of\nScripture, to recognise that the Divine Spirit has enshrined a part of\nHis Revelation to men in such forms as these. It is only by a frank\nacceptance of this truth that the Book of Genesis can be made a means\nof religious edification to the educated mind of our age.\n\nAs regards the form of the commentary, I have endeavoured to include\nin the large print enough to enable the reader to pick up rapidly\nthe general sense of a passage; although the exigencies of space have\ncompelled me to employ small type to a much larger extent than was\nideally desirable. In the arrangement of footnotes I have reverted\nto the plan adopted in the earliest volume of the series (Driver\u2019s\n_Deuteronomy_), by putting all the textual, grammatical, and\nphilological material bearing on a particular verse in consecutive\nnotes running concurrently with the main text. It is possible that in\nsome cases a slight embarrassment may result from the presence of a\ndouble set of footnotes; but I think that this disadvantage will be\nmore than compensated to the reader by the convenience of having the\nwhole explanation of a verse under his eye at one place, instead of\nhaving to perform the difficult operation of keeping two or three pages\nopen at once.\n\nIn conclusion, I have to express my thanks, first of all, to two\nfriends by whose generous assistance my labour has been considerably\nlightened: to Miss E. I. M. Boyd, M.A., who has rendered me the\ngreatest service in collecting material from books, and to the Rev.\nJ. G. Morton, M.A., who has corrected the proofs, verified all the\nscriptural references, and compiled the Index. My last word of all\nmust be an acknowledgment of profound and grateful obligation to Dr.\nDriver, the English Editor of the series, for his unfailing interest\nand encouragement during the progress of the work, and for numerous\ncriticisms and suggestions, especially on points of philology and\narch\u00e6ology, to which in nearly every instance I have been able to give\neffect.\n\n JOHN SKINNER.\n CAMBRIDGE,\n _April 1910_.\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS.\n\n\n \u25cb LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS\n\n \u25cb INTRODUCTION\n\n \u25cb \u00a7 1. _Introductory: Canonical Position of the Book\u2015\u2015its general\n Scope\u2015\u2015and Title_\n\n\n _A._ NATURE OF THE TRADITION.\n\n \u25cb \u00a7 2. _History or Legend?_\n\n \u25cb \u00a7 3. _Myth and Legend\u2015\u2015Foreign Myths\u2015\u2015Types of mythical Motive_\n\n \u25cb \u00a7 4. _Historical Value of the Tradition_\n\n \u25cb \u00a7 5. _Preservation and Collection of the Traditions_\n\n\n _B._ STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK.\n\n \u25cb \u00a7 6. _Plan and Divisions_\n\n \u25cb \u00a7 7. _The Sources of Genesis_\n\n \u25cb \u00a7 8. _The collective Authorship of Yahwist and Elohist_\n\n \u25cb \u00a7 9. _Characteristics of Yahwist and Elohist\u2015\u2015their Relation to\n Literary Prophecy_\n\n \u25cb \u00a7 10. _Date and Place of Origin\u2015\u2015Redaction of Jehovist_\n\n \u25cb \u00a7 11. _The Priestly Code and the Final Redaction_\n\n \u25cb COMMENTARY\n\n\n EXTENDED NOTES:\u2015\u2015\n\n \u25cb The Divine Image in Man\n\n \u25cb The Hebrew and Babylonian Sabbath\n\n \u25cb Babylonian and other Cosmogonies\n\n \u25cb The Site of Eden\n\n \u25cb The \u2018Protevangelium\u2019\n\n \u25cb The Cherubim\n\n \u25cb Origin and Significance of the Paradise Legend\n\n \u25cb Origin of the Cain Legend\n\n \u25cb The Cainite Genealogy\n\n \u25cb The Chronology of Chapter 5, etc.\n\n \u25cb The Deluge Tradition\n\n \u25cb Noah\u2019s Curse and Blessing\n\n \u25cb The Babel Legend\n\n \u25cb Chronology of 11\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\n\n \u25cb Historic Value of Chapter 14\n\n \u25cb Circumcision\n\n \u25cb The Covenant-Idea in Priestly-Code\n\n \u25cb Destruction of the Cities of the Plain\n\n \u25cb The Sacrifice of Isaac\n\n \u25cb The Treaty of Gilead and its historical Setting\n\n \u25cb The Legend of Peniel\n\n \u25cb The Sack of Shechem\n\n \u25cb The Edomite Genealogies\n\n \u25cb The Degradation of Reuben\n\n \u25cb The Fate of Simeon and Levi\n\n \u25cb The \u201cShiloh\u201d Prophecy of 49\u00b9\u2070\n\n \u25cb The Zodiacal Theory of the Twelve Tribes\n\n\n INDEX\u2015\u2015\n\n \u25cb I. English\n\n \u25cb II. Hebrew\n\n\n\n\n ABBREVIATIONS.\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 Most Abbreviations have been replaced in the text with the\n full name or title for easier reading.\n\n\n 1. SOURCES (see pages xxxiv ff.), TEXTS, AND VERSIONS.\n\n E Elohist, or Elohistic Narrative.\n\n J Yahwist, or Yahwistic Narrative.\n\n JE Jehovist, or the combined narrative of Yahwist and\n Elohist.\n\n P or PC The Priestly Code.\n\n P\u1d4d The historical kernel or framework of Priestly-Code\n (see page lvii).\n\n R\u1d31 Redactors within the schools of Elohist, Yahwist, and\n R\u1d36 Priestly-Code, respectively.\n R\u1d3e\n\n R\u1d36\u1d31 The Compiler of the composite work Jehovist.\n\n R\u1d36\u1d31\u1d3e The Final Redactor of the Pentateuch.\n\n EV[V] English Version[s] (Authorised or Revised).\n\n _Jub._ _The Book of Jubilees._\n\n MT Massoretic Text.\n\n OT Old Testament.\n\n Aq. Greek Translation of Aquila.\n\n \u0398 Greek Translation of Theodotion.\n\n \u03a3 Greek Translation of Symmachus.\n\n Gr.-Ven. Codex \u2018Gr\u00e6cus Venetus\u2019 (14th or 15th century.).\n\n \u24bc The Greek (Septuagint) Version of the Old Testament\n (edited by A. E. Brooke and N. M\u2018Lean, Cambridge, 1906).\n\n \u24bc\u1d38 Lucianic recension of the LXX, edited by Lagarde,\n _Librorum Veteris Testamenti canonicorum pars prior\n Gr\u00e6ce_, etc. (1883).\n\n \u24bc\u1d2c\u1d2e\u1d31\u1d39 \u1d49\u1d57\u1d9c\u1427 Codices of LXX (see Brooke and M\u2018Lean, page v.).\n\n \u24c1 Old Latin Version.\n\n \u24c8 The Syriac Version (Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5).\n\n \u214f The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch (Walton\u2019s\n \u2018London Polyglott\u2019).\n\n \u24c9\u1d3c The Targum of Onkelos [2nd century A.D.] (edited by\n Berliner, 1884).\n\n \u24c9\u1d36 The Targum of Jonathan [8th century A.D.] (edited by\n Ginsburger, 1903).\n\n \u24cb The Vulgate.\n\n\n 2. COMMENTARIES.\n\n Ayles Herbert Henry Baker Ayles, _A critical Commentary on\n Genesis ii. 4\u2012iii. 25_ (1904).\n\n Ba[ll] Charles James Ball, _The Book of Genesis: Critical\n Edition of the Hebrew Text printed in colours\n exhibiting the composite structure of the book, with\n Notes_ (1896). See _SBOT_.\n\n Ben[nett] William Henry Bennett, _Genesis_ (Century Bible).\n\n Calv[in] _Mosis Libri V cum Johannis Calvini Commentariis.\n Genesis seorsum_, etc. (1563).\n\n De[litzsch] Franz Delitzsch, _Neuer Commentar \u00fcber die Genesis_\n (5th edition, 1887).\n\n Di[llmann] _Die Genesis. Von der dritten Auflage an erkl\u00e4rt\n von August Dillmann_ (6th edition, 1892). The work\n embodies frequent extracts from earlier editions\n by Knobel: these are referred to below as\n \u201cKnobel-Dillmann\u201d\n\n Dr[iver] _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_,\n by Samuel Rolles Driver (7th edition, 1909).\n\n Gu[nkel] _Genesis \u00fcbersetzt und erkl\u00e4rt_, von Hermann Gunkel\n (2nd edition, 1902).\n\n Ho[lzinger] _Genesis erkl\u00e4rt_, von Heinrich Holzinger (1898).\n\n IEz. Abraham Ibn Ezra (\u2020 _circa_ 1167).\n\n Jer[ome], Jerome (\u2020 420), _Qu\u00e6stiones sive Traditiones\n _Qu._ hebraic\u00e6 in Genesim_.\n\n Kn[obel] August Wilhelm Knobel.\n\n Kn.-Di. See Dillmann.\n\n Ra[shi] Rabbi Shelomoh Yi\u1e93\u1e25a\u1e33i (\u2020 1105).\n\n Spurrell George James Spurrell, _Notes on the Text of the\n Book of Genesis_ (2nd edition, 1896).\n\n Str[ack] _Die Genesis \u00fcbersetzt und ausgelegt_, von Hermann\n Leberecht Strack (2nd edition, 1905).\n\n Tu[ch] Friedrich Tuch, _Commentar \u00fcber die Genesis_ (2nd\n edition, 1871).\n\n\n 3. WORKS OF REFERENCE AND GENERAL LITERATURE.\n\n Barth, _ES_ Jakob Barth, _Etymologische Studien zum semitischen\n insbesondere zum hebraischen Lexicon_ (1893).\n\n Barth, _NB_ _Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen_\n (1889\u201291).\n\n Barton, _SO_ George Aaron Barton, _A Sketch of Semitic Origins_\n (1902).\n\n B.-D. Seligmann Baer and Franz Delitzsch, _Liber Genesis_\n (1869). The Massoretic Text, with Appendices.\n\n BDB Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles\n Augustus Briggs, _A Hebrew and English Lexicon of\n the Old Testament_ (1891\u2012 ).\n\n Benz[inger], Immanuel Benzinger, _Hebr\u00e4ische Arch\u00e4ologie_ (2nd\n _Arch._\u00b2 edition, 1907).\n\n _Ber. R._ The Midrash _Bereshith Rabba_ (translated into German\n by August W\u00fcnsche, 1881).\n\n Bochart, Samuel Bochartus, _Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum opus\n _Hieroz._ de animalibus Sacr\u00e6 Scriptur\u00e6_ (edited by Rosenm\u00fcller,\n 1793\u201296).\n\n Bu[dde], Karl Budde, _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ (1883).\n _Urg._\n\n Buhl, _GP_ Frants Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_ (1896).\n\n Buhl _Geschichte der Edomiter_ (1893).\n\n Burck[hardt] John Lewis Burckhardt, _Notes on the Bedouins and\n Wah\u00e1bys_.\n\n _Travels in Syria and the Holy Land._\n\n Che[yne], Thomas Kelly Cheyne, _Traditions and Beliefs of\n _TB[A]I_ Ancient Israel_ (1907).\n\n _CIS_ _Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum_ (1881\u2012 ).\n\n Cook, _Gl._ Stanley Arthur Cook, _A Glossary of the Aramaic\n Inscriptions_ (1898).\n\n Cooke, _NSI_ George Albert Cooke, _A Textbook of North-Semitic\n Inscriptions_ (1903).\n\n Co[rnill], Carl Heinrich Cornill, _Einleitung in das Alte\n _Einl._ Testament_ (see page xl, note).\n\n Co[rnill], _History of the People of Israel_ (Translated, 1898).\n _Hist._\n\n Curtiss, _PSR_ Samuel Ives Curtiss, _Primitive Semitic Religion\n to-day_ (1902).\n\n Dav[idson] Andrew Bruce Davidson, _Hebrew Syntax_.\n\n Dav[idson] _The Theology of the Old Testament_ (1904).\n _OTTh._\n\n _DB_ _A Dictionary of the Bible_, edited by James Hastings\n (1898\u20121902).\n\n Del[itzsch], Friedrich Delitzsch, _Assyrisches Handw\u00f6rterbuch_\n _Hwb._ (1896).\n\n Del[itzsch], _Wo lag das Paradies? Eine biblisch-assyriologische\n _Par._ Studie_ (1881).\n\n Del[itzsch], _Prolegomena eines neuen hebr\u00e4isch-aram\u00e4ischen\n _Prol._ W\u00f6rterbuchs zum Alten Testament_ (1886).\n\n Del[itzsch] See _BA_ below.\n\n Doughty, _AD_ Charles Montagu Doughty, _Travels in Arabia Deserta_\n (1888).\n\n Dri[ver], Samuel Rolles Driver, _An Introduction to the\n _LOT_ Literature of the Old Testament_ (Revised edition,\n 1910).\n\n Dri[ver], _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_\n _Sam._ (1890).\n\n Dri[ver], _T._ _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ (3rd\n edition, 1892).\n\n _EB_ _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, edited by Thomas Kelly Cheyne\n and John Sutherland Black (1899\u20121903).\n\n _EBL_ See Hilprecht.\n\n Ee[rdmans] Bernardus Dirk Eerdmans, _A lttestamentliche\n Studien_:\n i. _Die Komposition der Genesis._\n ii. _Die Vorgeschichte Israels._\n\n Erman, _LAE_ Adolf Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_ (translated by\n Helen Mary Tirard, 1894).\n\n Erman, _Hdbk._ _A Handbook of Egyptian Religion_ (translated by\n Agnes Sophia Griffith, 1907).\n\n Ew[ald], _Gr._ Heinrich Ewald, _Ausf\u00fchrliches Lehrbuch der\n hebr\u00e4ischen Sprache des alten Bundes_ (8th edition,\n 1870).\n\n Ew[ald], _HI_ _History of Israel_ [English translation, 1871].\n\n Ew[ald], _Ant._ _Antiquities of Israel_ [English translation, 1876].\n\n Field Frederick Field, _Origenis Hexaplorum qu\u00e6 supersunt;\n sive Veterum Interpretum Gr\u00e6corum in totum Vetus\n Testamentum Fragmenta_ (1875).\n\n Frazer, _AAO_ James George Frazer, _Adonis Attis Osiris: Studies\n in the history of Oriental Religion_ (1906).\n\n Frazer, _GB_ _The Golden Bough; a Study in Magic and Religion_\n (2nd edition, 1900).\n\n Frazer _Folklore in the Old Testament_ (1907).\n\n v. Gall, August Freiherr von Gall, _Altisraelitische\n _CSt._ Kultst\u00e4tten_ (1898).\n\n G.-B. Wilhelm Gesenius\u2019 _Hebr\u00e4isches und aram\u00e4isches\n Handw\u00f6rterbuch \u00fcber das Alte Testament_ (14th\n edition by Buhl, 1905).\n\n Geiger, Abraham Geiger, _Urschrift und Uebersetzungen\n _Urschr._ der Bibel in ihrer Abh\u00e4ngigkeit von der innern\n Entwickelung des Judenthums_ (1857).\n\n Ges[enius], Wilhelm Gesenius, _Thesaurus philologicus criticus\n _Th._ Lingu\u00e6 Hebr\u00e6\u00e6 et Chald\u00e6\u00e6 Veteris Testamenti_\n (1829\u201258).\n\n G.-K. Wilhelm Gesenius\u2019 _Hebr\u00e4ische Grammatik_, v\u00f6llig\n umgearbeitet von Emil Kautzsch (26th edition, 1896)\n [English translation, 1898].\n\n Glaser, Eduard Glaser, _Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie\n _Skizze_ Arabiens_, ii. (1890).\n\n Gordon, _ETG_ Alexander Reid Gordon, _The Early Traditions of\n Genesis_ (1907).\n\n Gray, _HPN_ George Buchanan Gray, _Studies in Hebrew Proper\n Names_ (1896).\n\n Gu[nkel], Hermann Gunkel, _Sch\u00f6pfung und Chaos in Urzeit und\n _Sch\u00f6pf._ Endzeit_ (1895).\n\n Guthe, _GI_ Hermann Guthe, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_ (1899).\n\n Harrison, Jane Ellen Harrison, _Prolegomena to the study of\n _Prol._ Greek Religion_ (2nd edition, 1908).\n\n Hilprecht, Hermann Vollrat Hilprecht, _Explorations in Bible\n _EBL_ Lands during the 19th century_ [with the co-operation\n of Benzinger, Hommel, Jensen, and Steindorff] (1903).\n\n Ho[lzinger], Heinrich Holzinger, _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_\n _Einl._ or (1893).\n _Hex._\n\n Hom[mel], _AA_ Fritz Hommel, _Aufs\u00e4tze und Abhandlungen\n arabistischsemitologischen Inhalts_ (i\u2012iii, 1892\u2012 ).\n\n Hom[mel], _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the\n _AHT_ Monuments_ (1897).\n\n Hom[mel], _Die altorientalischen Denkm\u00e4ler und das Alte\n _AOD_ Testament_ (1902).\n\n Hom[mel], _Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens_ (1885).\n _Gesch._\n\n Hom[mel], _S\u00fcd-arabische Chrestomathie_ (1893).\n _SA Chrest._\n\n Hupf[eld], Hermann Hupfeld, _Die Quellen der Genesis und die\n _Qu._ Art ihrer Zusammensetzung_ (1853).\n\n Jastrow, _RBA_ Morris Jastrow, _The Religion of Babylonia and\n Assyria_ (1898).\n\n _JE_ _The Jewish Encyclop\u00e6dia._\n\n Je[remias], Alfred Jeremias, _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des\n _ATLO_\u00b2 alten Orients_ (2nd edition, 1906).\n\n Jen[sen], Peter Jensen, _Die Kosmologie der Babylonier_ (1890).\n _Kosm._\n\n _KAT_\u00b2 _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_, by\n Schrader (2nd edition, 1883).\n\n _KAT_\u00b3 _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament._ Third\n edition, by Zimmern and Winckler (1902).\n\n Kent, _SOT_ Charles Foster Kent, _Narratives of the Beginnings\n of Hebrew History_ [Students\u2019 Old Testament] (1904).\n\n _KIB_ _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, edited by Eberhard\n Schrader (1889\u2012 ).\n\n Kit[tel], _BH_ Rudolf Kittel, _Biblia Hebraica_ (Genesis) (1905).\n\n Kit[tel], _GH_ _Geschichte der Hebr\u00e4er_ (1888\u201292).\n\n K\u00f6n[ig], Friedrich Eduard K\u00f6nig, _Historisch-kritisches\n _Lgb._ Lehrgeb\u00e4ude der hebr\u00e4ischen Sprache_ (2 volumes,\n 1881\u201295).\n\n K\u00f6n[ig], _S_ _Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebr\u00e4ischen\n Sprache_ (1897).\n\n KS Emil Kautzsch and Albert Socin, _Die Genesis mit\n a\u00fcsserer Unterscheidung der Quellenschriften_.\n\n Kue[nen], Abraham Kuenen, _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_ (see\n _Ges. Abh._ page xl, _note_).\n\n Kue[nen], _Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan\n _Ond._ en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds_\n (see page xl, _note_).\n\n Lag[arde], Paul Anton de Lagarde, _Ank\u00fcndigung einer neuen\n _Ank._ Ausgabe der griech. Uebersezung des Alte Testament_\n (1882).\n\n Lag[arde], _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_ (1866).\n _Ges. Abh._\n\n Lag[arde], _Mittheilungen_, i\u2012iv (1884\u201291).\n _Mitth._\n\n Lag[arde] _Orientalia_, 1, 2 (1879\u201280).\n\n Lag[arde], _Semitica_, 1, 2 (1878).\n _Sem._\n\n Lag[arde], _Symmicta_, 2 parts (1877\u201280).\n _Symm._\n\n Lag[arde], _Onomastica Sacra_ (1870).\n _OS_\n\n Lane, _Lex._ Edward William Lane, _An Arabic-English Lexicon_\n (1863\u201293).\n\n Lane, _ME_ _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern\n Egyptians_ (5th edition, 1860).\n\n Len[ormant], Fran\u00e7ois Lenormant, _Les Origines de l\u2019histoire_,\n _Or._ (i\u2012iii, 1880\u201284).\n\n Levy, Jacob Levy, _Chald\u00e4isches W\u00f6rterbuch \u00fcber die\n _Ch. Wb._ Targumim und Midraschim_ (3rd edition, 1881).\n\n Lidz[barski], Mark Lidzbarski, _Handbuch der nordsemitischen\n _Hb._ or Epigraphik_ (1898).\n _NSEpigr._\n\n Lu[ther], _INS_ See Meyer, _INS_.\n\n Marquart Josef Marquart, _Fundamente israelitischer und\n j\u00fcdischer Geschichte_ (1896).\n\n Meyer, _Entst._ Eduard Meyer, _Die Entstehung des Judenthums_ (1896).\n\n Meyer, _GA\u00b9_ _Geschichte des Alterthums_ (Band i. 1884).\n\n Meyer, _GA\u00b2_ _Geschichte des Alterthums_ (2nd edition, 1909).\n\n Meyer, _INS_ _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, von Eduard\n Meyer, mit Beitr\u00e4gen von Bernhard Luther (1906).\n\n M\u00fcller, _AE_ Wilhelm Max M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa nach\n alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_ (1893).\n\n Nestle, _MM_ Eberhard Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_ (1893).\n\n N\u00f6[ldeke], Theodor N\u00f6ldeke, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur semitischen\n _Beitr._ Sprachwissenschaft_ (1904).\n\n N\u00f6[ldeke], _Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_\n _Unters._ (1869).\n\n _OH_ _Oxford Hexateuch_ = Carpenter and Harford-Battersby,\n _The Hexateuch_ (see page xl, _note_).\n\n Oehler, _ATTh_ Gustav Friedrich Oehler, _Theologie des Alten\n Testaments_ (3rd edition, 1891).\n\n Ols. Justus Olshausen.\n\n Orr, _POT_ James Orr, _The Problem of the Old Testament_ (1906).\n\n _OS_ See Lagarde.\n\n P[ayne] Robert Payne Smith, _Thesaurus Syriacus_ (1879, 1901).\n Sm[ith], _Thes._\n\n Petrie William Flinders Petrie, _A History of Egypt_.\n\n Pro[cksch] Otto Procksch, _Das nordhebr\u00e4ische Sagenbuch: die\n Elohimquelle_ (1906).\n\n Riehm, _Hdwb._ Eduard Carl August Riehm, _Handw\u00f6rterbuch des\n biblischen Altertums_ (2nd edition, 1893\u201294).\n\n Robinson, _BR_ Edward Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_\n (2nd edition, 3 volumes, 1856).\n\n Sayce, _EHH_ Archibald Henry Sayce, _The Early History of the\n Hebrews_ (1897).\n\n Sayce, _HCM_ _The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the\n Monuments_ (2nd edition, 1894).\n\n _SBOT_ _The Sacred Books of the Old Testament, a critical\n edition of the Hebrew Text printed in Colours_,\n under the editorial direction of Paul Haupt.\n\n Schenkel, _BL_ Daniel Schenkel, _Bibel-Lexicon_ (1869\u201275).\n\n Schr[ader], Eberhard Schrader, _Keilinschriften und\n _KGF_ Geschichtsforschung_ (1878).\n\n Schr[ader] See _KAT_ and _KIB_ above.\n\n Schultz, Hermann Schultz, _Old Testament Theology_ (English\n _OTTh_ translation, 1892).\n\n Sch\u00fcrer, _GJV_ Emil Sch\u00fcrer, _Geschichte des j\u00fcdischen Volkes im\n Zeitalter Jesu Christi_ (3rd and 4th editions,\n 1898\u20121901).\n\n Schw[ally] Friedrich Schwally, _Das Leben nach dem Tode_ (1892).\n\n _Semitische Kriegsaltert\u00fcmer_, i. (1901).\n\n Smend, _ATRG_ Rudolf Smend, _Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen\n Religionsgeschichte_ (2nd edition, 1899).\n\n GASm[ith], George Adam Smith, _Historical Geography of the Holy\n _HG_ Land_ (1895).\n\n Rob. Smith, William Robertson Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in\n _KM_\u00b2 Early Arabia_ (2nd edition, 1903).\n\n Rob. Smith, _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_ (2nd\n _OTJC_\u00b2 edition, 1892).\n\n Rob. Smith, _The Prophets of Israel_ (2nd edition, 1895).\n _Pr._\u00b2\n\n Rob. Smith, _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_ (2nd\n _RS_\u00b2 edition, 1894).\n\n Spiegelberg Wilhelm Spiegelberg, _Aegyptologische Randglossen\n zum Alten Testament_ (1904).\n\n _Der Aufenthalt Israels in Aegypten im Lichte der\n aegyptischen Monumente_ (3rd edition, 1904).\n\n Sta[de] Bernhard Stade, _Ausgew\u00e4hlte akademische Reden und\n Abhandlungen_ (1899).\n\n Sta[de], _BTh_ _Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments_, i. (1905).\n\n Sta[de], _GVI_ _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_ (1887\u201289).\n\n Steuern[agel], Carl Steuernagel, _Die Einwanderung der\n _Einw._ israelitischen St\u00e4mme in Kanaan_ (1901).\n\n TA Tel-Amarna Tablets [_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,\n v; Knudtzon, _Die el-Amarna Tafeln_ (1908\u2012 )].\n\n Thomson, _LB_ William McClure Thomson, _The Land and the Book_\n (3 volumes, 1881\u201286).\n\n Tiele, Cornelis Petrus Tiele, _Geschichte der Religion im\n _Gesch._ Altertum_, i. (German edition, 1896).\n\n Tristram, Henry Baker Tristram, _The Natural History of the\n _NHB_ Bible_ (9th edition, 1898).\n\n We[llhausen], Julius Wellhausen, _Die Composition des Hexateuchs\n _Comp._\u00b2 und der historischen B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\n (2nd edition, 1889).\n\n We[llhausen], _De gentibus et familiis Jud\u00e6is qu\u00e6 1 Chronicles\n _De gent._ 2. 4 enumerantur_ (1870).\n\n We[llhausen], _Reste arabischen Heidentums_ (2nd edition, 1897).\n _Heid._\n\n We[llhausen], _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_ (6th edition,\n _Prol._\u2076 1905).\n\n We[llhausen] _Skizzen und Vorarbeiten._\n\n We[llhausen], _Der Text der B\u00fccher Samuelis_ (1871).\n _TBS_\n\n Wi[nckler], Hugo Winckler, _Altorientalische Forschungen_\n _AOF_ (1893- ).\n\n Wi[nckler], _Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen_ (1892).\n _ATU_\n\n Wi[nckler], _Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens_ (1892).\n _GBA_\n\n Wi[nckler], _Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_ (i. ii.,\n _GI_ 1895, 1900).\n\n Wi[nckler] See _KAT_\u00b3 above.\n\n Zunz, _GdV_ Leopold Zunz, _Die gottesdienstlichen Vortr\u00e4ge der\n Juden_ (2nd edition, 1892).\n\n\n 4. PERIODICALS, ETC.\n\n _AJSL_ _American Journal of Semitic Languages and\n Literatures_ (continuing _Hebraica_).\n\n _AJTh_ _American Journal of Theology_ (1897\u2012 ).\n\n _ARW_ _Archiv f\u00fcr Religionswissenschaft._\n\n _BA_ _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Assyriologie und semitischen\n Sprachwissenschaft_, herausgegeben von Friedrich\n Delitzsch und Paul Haupt (1890\u2012 ).\n\n _BS_ _Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review_\n (1844\u2012 ).\n\n _Deutsche Litteraturzeitung_ (1880\u2012 ).\n\n _Exp._ _The Expositor._\n\n _ET_ _The Expository Times._\n\n _GGA_ _G\u00f6ttingische gelehrte Anzeigen_ (1753\u2014 ).\n\n _GGN_ _Nachrichten der k\u00f6nigl. Gesellschaft der\n Wissenschaften zu G\u00f6ttingen._\n\n _Hebr._ _Hebr\u00e4ica_ (1884\u201295). See _AJSL_.\n\n _JBBW_ [Ewald\u2019s] _Jahrb\u00fccher der biblischen Wissenschaft_\n (1849\u20121865).\n\n _J[S]BL_ _Journal of_ [the Society of] _Biblical Literature\n and Exegesis_ (1881\u2012 ).\n\n _JPh_ _The Journal of Philology_ (1872\u2012 ).\n\n _JQR_ _The Jewish Quarterly Review._\n\n _JRAS_ _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great\n Britain and Ireland_ (1834\u2012 ).\n\n _JTS_ _The Journal of Theological Studies_ (1900\u2012 ).\n\n _Lit[erarisches] Zentralbl[att f\u00fcr Deutschland]_\n (1850\u2012 ).\n\n _M[B]BA_ _Monatsberichte der K\u00f6niglich-Preussischen Akadamie\n der Wissenschaften zu Berlin._ Continued in\n _Sitzungsberichte der K\u00f6niglich-Preussischen Akadamie\n der Wissenschaften zu Berlin_ (1881\u2012 ).\n\n _MVAG_ _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_\n (1896\u2012 ).\n\n _NKZ_ _Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift_ (1890\u2012 ).\n\n _OLz_ _Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ (1898\u2012 ).\n\n _PAOS_ _Proceedings [Journal] of the American Oriental\n Society_ (1851\u2012 ).\n\n _PEFS_ Palestine Exploration Fund: _Quarterly Statements._\n\n _PSBA_ _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology_\n (1878\u2012 ).\n\n _SBBA_ See _MBBA_ above.\n\n _SK_ _Theologische Studien und Kritiken_ (1828\u2012 ).\n\n _ThLz_ _Theologische Litteraturzeitung_ (1876\u2012 ).\n\n _ThT_ _Theologisch Tijdschrift_ (1867\u2012 ).\n\n _TSBA_ _Transactions of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology._\n\n _ZA_ _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_ (1886\u2012 ).\n\n _ZATW_ _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_\n (1881\u2012 ).\n\n _ZDMG_ _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen\n Gesellschaft_ (1845\u2012 ).\n\n _ZDPV_ _Zeitschrift des deutschen Pal\u00e4stina-Vereins_\n (1878\u2012 ).\n\n _ZKF_ _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Keilschriftsforschung_ (1884\u201285).\n\n _ZVP_ _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr V\u00f6lkerpsychologie und\n Sprachwissenschaft_ (1860\u2012 ).\n\n\n 5. OTHER SIGNS AND CONTRACTIONS.\n\n NH \u2018New Hebrew\u2019: the language of the Mishnah, Midrashim,\n and parts of the Talmud.\n\n _v.i._ _vide infra_ Used in references from commentary to\n footnotes, and _vice vers\u00e2_.\n _v.s._ _vide supra_\n\n * Frequently used to indicate that a section is of\n composite authorship.\n\n \u2020 After Old Testament references means that all\n occurrences of the word or usage in question are\n cited.\n\n \u221a Root or stem.\n\n\u200e \u05f3 Sign of abbreviation in Hebrew words.\n\n\u200e \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e = \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u200e = \u2018and so on\u2019: used when a Hebrew citation\n is incomplete.\n\n\n\n\n INTRODUCTION.\n\n\n \u00a7 1. _Introductory: Canonical position of the book\n \u2015\u2015its general scope\u2015\u2015and title._\n\nThe Book of Genesis (on the title see at the end of this \u00a7) forms the\nopening section of a comprehensive historical work which, in the Hebrew\nBible, extends from the creation of the world to the middle of the\nBabylonian Exile (2 Kings 25\u00b3\u2070). The tripartite division of the Jewish\nCanon has severed the later portion of this work (Joshua\u2012Kings), under\nthe title of the \u201cFormer Prophets\u201d (\u05d4\u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e), from the earlier\nportion (Genesis\u2012Deuteronomy), which constitutes the Law (\u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4\u200e),\u2015\u2015a\nseemingly artificial bisection which results from the T\u00f4r\u0101h having\nattained canonical authority soon after its completion in the time of\nEzra and Nehemiah, while the canonicity of the Prophetical scriptures\nwas not recognised till some centuries later.\u00b9 How soon the division\nof the T\u00f4r\u0101h into its five books (\u05d7\u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d5\u05de\u05e9\u05d9 \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4\u200e: \u2018the five fifths of the\nLaw\u2019) was introduced we do not know for certain; but it is undoubtedly\nancient, and in all probability is due to the final redactors of the\nPentateuch.\u00b2 In the case of Genesis, at all events, the division is\nobviously appropriate. Four centuries of complete silence lie between\nits close and the beginning of Exodus, where we enter on the history\nof a nation as contrasted with that of a family; and its prevailing\ncharacter of _individual biography_ suggests that its traditions are of\na different quality, and have a different origin, from the _national_\ntraditions preserved in Exodus and the succeeding books. Be that as it\nmay, Genesis is a unique and well-rounded whole; and there is no book\nof the Pentateuch, except Deuteronomy, which so readily lends itself to\nmonographic treatment.\n\n \u00b9 See Ryle, _Canon of the Old Testament_, chapters iv. v.;\n Wildeboer, _Origin of the Canon of the Old Testament_\u00b2, 27\n ff., 101 ff.; Buhl, _Kanon und Text des Alten Testaments_,\n 8 f.; Budde, article \u2018Canon,\u2019 in _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, and\n Woods, \u2018Old Testament Canon,\u2019 in _A Dictionary of the Bible_.\n\n \u00b2 Kuenen, _Onderzoek_, i. pages 7, 331. The earliest external\n evidence of the fivefold division is Philo, _De Abrahamo_,\n _initial_ (\u03a4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f21\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u0393\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f23\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9, \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb.); Josephus, _Against Apion_ i. 39. It is found, however,\n in _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ and LXX, and\n seems to have served as a model for the similar division of\n the Psalter. That it follows natural lines of cleavage is\n shown by Kuenen (_ll.cc._); and there is no reason to doubt\n that it is as old as the canonisation of the T\u00f4r\u0101h.\n\nGenesis may thus be described as the Book of Hebrew Origins. It is a\npeculiarity of the Pentateuch that it is Law-book and history in one:\nwhile its main purpose is legislative, the laws are set in a framework\nof narrative, and so, as it were, are woven into the texture of the\nnation\u2019s life. Genesis contains a minimum of legislation; but its\nnarrative is the indispensable prelude to that account of Israel\u2019s\nformative period in which the fundamental institutions of the theocracy\nare embedded. It is a collection of traditions regarding the immediate\nancestors of the Hebrew nation (chapters 12\u201250), showing how they were\ngradually isolated from other nations and became a separate people; and\nat the same time how they were related to those tribes and races most\nnearly connected with them. But this is preceded (in chapters 1\u201211) by\nan account of the origin of the world, the beginnings of human history\nand civilisation, and the distribution of the various races of mankind.\nThe whole thus converges steadily on the line of descent from which\nIsrael sprang, and which determined its providential position among\nthe nations of the world. It is significant, as already observed, that\nthe narrative stops short just at the point where family history ceases\nwith the death of Joseph, to give place after a long interval to the\nhistory of the nation.\n\n _The Title._\u2015\u2015The name \u2018Genesis\u2019 comes to us through the\n Vulgate from the LXX, where the usual superscription is simply\n \u0393\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (LXX{EM, most cursives}), rarely \u1f21 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (LXX\u2077\u00b2),\n a contraction of \u0393\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 (LXX\u1d2c \u00b9\u00b2\u00b9). An interesting\n variation in one cursives. (129)\u2015\u2015\u1f21 \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd (compare\n 2\u2074 5\u00b9)\u00b9\u2015\u2015might tempt one to fancy that the scribe had in view\n the series of _T\u00f4l\u0115d\u00f4th_ (see page xxxiv), and regarded the book\n as the book of origins in the wide sense expressed above. But\n there is no doubt that the current Greek title is derived from\n the opening theme of the book, the creation of the world.\u00b2\u2015\u2015So\n also in Syriac (_sephr\u00e5 dabr\u012bth\u00e5_), Theodore of Mopsuestia (\u1f21\n \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), and occasionally among the Rabbis (\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4\u200e).\u2015\u2015The common\n Jewish designation is \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea\u200e, after the first word of the book\n (Origen, in Eusebius _Church History_, vi. 25; Jerome, _Prologus\n Galeatus_, and _Questions on Genesis_); less usual is \u05d7\u05d5\u05de\u05e9 \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df\u200e,\n \u2018the first fifth.\u2019\u2015\u2015Only a curious interest attaches to the\n unofficial appellation \u05e1\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u200e (based on 2 Samuel 1\u00b9\u2078) or \u05e1\u05f3 \u05d4\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200e\n (the patriarchs) see Carpzov, _Introductio in libros canonicos\n bibliorum Veteris Testamenti_ page 55; Delitzsch, 10.\n\n \u00b9 _Cambridge Septuagint_, page 1.\n\n \u00b2 See the quotation from Philo on page i above; and compare\n Pseudo-Athanasius _De synposis scriptur\u00e6 sacr\u00e6_ 5.\n\n\n\n\n _A._ NATURE OF THE TRADITION.\n\n\n \u00a7 2. _History or Legend?_\n\nThe first question that arises with regard to these \u2018origins\u2019 is\nwhether they are in the main of the nature of history or of legend,\n\u2015\u2015whether (to use the expressive German terms) they are _Geschichte_,\nthings that happened, or _Sage_, things said. There are certain broad\ndifferences between these two kinds of narrative which may assist us to\ndetermine to which class the traditions of Genesis belong.\n\nHistory in the technical sense is an authentic record of actual events\nbased on documents contemporary, or nearly contemporary, with the\nfacts narrated. It concerns itself with affairs of state and of public\ninterest,\u2015\u2015with the actions of kings and statesmen, civil and foreign\nwars, national disasters and successes, and such like. If it deals\nwith contemporary incidents, it consciously aims at transmitting to\nposterity as accurate a reflexion as possible of the real course of\nevents, in their causal sequence, and their relations to time and place.\nIf written at a distance from the events, it seeks to recover from\ncontemporary authorities an exact knowledge of these circumstances,\nand of the character and motives of the leading personages of the\naction.\u2015\u2015That the Israelites, from a very early period, knew how to\nwrite history in this sense, we see from the story of David\u2019s court\nin 2 Samuel and the beginning of 1 Kings. There we have a graphic and\ncircumstantial narrative of the struggles for the succession to the\nthrone, free from bias or exaggeration, and told with a convincing\nrealism which conveys the impression of first-hand information derived\nfrom the evidence of eye-witnesses. As a specimen of pure historical\nliterature (as distinguished from mere annals or chronicles) there is\nnothing equal to it in antiquity, till we come down to the works of\nHerodotus and Thucydides in Greece.\n\nQuite different from historical writing of this kind is the _Volkssage_,\n\u2015\u2015the mass of popular narrative _talk_ about the past, which exists in\nmore or less profusion amongst all races in the world. Every nation, as\nit emerges into historical consciousness, finds itself in possession of\na store of traditional material of this kind, either circulating among\nthe common people, or woven by poets and singers into a picture of a\nlegendary heroic age. Such legends, though they survive the dawn of\nauthentic history, belong essentially to a pre-literary and uncritical\nstage of society, when the popular imagination works freely on dim\nreminiscences of the great events and personalities of the past,\nproducing an amalgam in which tradition and phantasy are inseparably\nmingled. Ultimately they are themselves reduced to writing, and give\nrise to a species of literature which is frequently mistaken for\nhistory, but whose true character will usually disclose itself to a\npatient and sympathetic examination. While legend is not history, it\nhas in some respects a value greater than history. For it reveals the\nsoul of a people, its instinctive selection of the types of character\nwhich represent its moral aspirations, its conception of its own place\nand mission in the world; and also, to some indeterminate extent,\nthe impact on its inner life of the momentous historic experiences in\nwhich it first woke up to the consciousness of a national existence and\ndestiny.\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 Compare Gordon, _Early Traditions_, 84: \u201cAs a real expression\n of the living spirit of the nation, a people\u2019s myths are the\n mirror of its religious and moral ideals, aspirations, and\n imaginations.\u201d\n\nIn raising the question to which department of literature the\nnarratives of Genesis are to be referred, we approach a subject beset\nby difficulty, but one which cannot be avoided. We are not entitled to\nassume _a priori_ that Israel is an exception to the general rule that\na legendary age forms the ideal background of history: whether it be\nso or not must be determined on the evidence of its records. Should it\nprove to be no exception, we shall not assign to its legends a lower\nsignificance as an expression of the national spirit than to the heroic\nlegends of the Greek or Teutonic races. It is no question of the truth\nor religious value of the book that we are called to discuss, but only\nof the kind of truth and the particular mode of revelation which we are\nto find in it. One of the strangest theological prepossessions is that\nwhich identifies revealed truth with matter-of-fact accuracy either in\nscience or in history. Legend is after all a species of poetry, and it\nis hard to see why a revelation which has freely availed itself of so\nmany other kinds of poetry\u2015\u2015fable, allegory, parable\u2015\u2015should disdain\nthat form of it which is the most influential of all in the life of\na primitive people. As a vehicle of religious ideas, poetic narrative\npossesses obvious advantages over literal history; and the spirit of\nreligion, deeply implanted in the heart of a people, will so permeate\nand fashion its legendary lore as to make it a plastic expression of\nthe imperishable truths which have come to it through its experience\nof God.\n\n The legendary aspect of the Genesis traditions appears in\n such characteristics as these: (1) The narratives are the\n literary deposit of an oral tradition which, if it rests on\n any substratum of historic fact, must have been carried down\n through many centuries. Few will seriously maintain that the\n patriarchs prepared written memoranda for the information of\n their descendants; and the narrators nowhere profess their\n indebtedness to such records. Hebrew historians freely refer to\n written authorities where they used them (Kings, Chronicles);\n but no instance of this practice occurs in Genesis. Now oral\n tradition is the natural vehicle of popular legend, as writing\n is of history. And all experience shows that apart from written\n records there is no exact knowledge of a remote past. Making\n every allowance for the superior retentiveness of the Oriental\n memory, it is still impossible to suppose that an accurate\n recollection of bygone incidents should have survived twenty\n generations or more of oral transmission. N\u00f6ldeke, indeed, has\n shown that the historical memory of the pre-Islamic Arabs was so\n defective that all knowledge of great nations like the Nabat\u00e6ans\n and Thamudites had been lost within two or three centuries.\u00b9 (2)\n The literary quality of the narratives stamps them as products\n of the artistic imagination. The very picturesqueness and\n truth to life which are sometimes appealed to in proof of their\n historicity are, on the contrary, characteristic marks of legend\n (Dillmann, 218). We may assume that the scene at the well of\n \u1e24arran (chapte 24) actually took place; but that the description\n owes its graphic power to a reproduction of the exact words\n spoken and the precise actions performed on the occasion\n cannot be supposed; it is due to the revivifying work of\n the imagination of successive narrators. But imagination,\n uncontrolled by the critical faculty, does not confine itself to\n restoring the original colours of a faded picture; it introduces\n new colours, insensibly modifying the picture till it becomes\n impossible to tell how much belongs to the real situation and\n how much to later fancy. The clearest proof of this is the\n existence of parallel narratives of an event which can only\n have happened once, but which emerges in tradition in forms so\n diverse that they may even pass for separate incidents (12\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\n \u2225 20\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 \u2225 26\u2076 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427; 16. \u2225 21\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427; 15. \u2225 17, etc.).\u2015\u2015(3) The\n subject-matter of the tradition is of the kind congenial to\n the folk-tale all the world over, and altogether different\n from transactions on the stage of history. The proper theme of\n history, as has been said, is great public and political events;\n but legend delights in _genre_ pictures, private and personal\n affairs, trivial anecdotes of domestic and everyday life, and so\n forth,\u2015\u2015matters which interest the common people and come home\n to their daily experience. That most of the stories of Genesis\n are of this description needs no proof; and the fact is very\n instructive.\u00b2 A real history of the patriarchal period would\n have to tell of migrations of peoples, of religious movements,\n probably of wars of invasion and conquest; and accordingly\n most modern attempts to vindicate the historicity of Genesis\n proceed by way of translating the narratives into such terms\n as these. But this is to confess that the narratives themselves\n are not history. They have been simplified and idealised to suit\n the taste of an unsophisticated audience; and in the process\n the strictly historic element, down to a bare residuum, has\n evaporated. The single passage which preserves the ostensible\n appearance of history in this respect is chapter 14; and\n that chapter, which in any case stands outside the circle\n of patriarchal tradition, has difficulties of its own which\n cannot be dealt with here (see page 271 ff.).\u2015\u2015(4) The final\n test\u2015\u2015though to any one who has learned to appreciate the spirit\n of the narratives it must seem almost brutal to apply it\u2015\u2015is the\n hard matter-of-fact test of self-consistency and credibility.\n It is not difficult to show that Genesis relates incredibilities\n which no reasonable appeal to miracle will suffice to remove.\n With respect to the origin of the world, the antiquity of man\n on the earth, the distribution and relations of peoples, the\n beginnings of civilisation, etc., its statements are at variance\n with the scientific knowledge of our time;\u00b3 and no person of\n educated intelligence accepts them in their plain natural sense.\n We know that angels do not cohabit with mortal women, that the\n Flood did not cover the highest mountains of the world, that\n the ark could not have accommodated all the species of animals\n then existing, that the Euphrates and Tigris have not a common\n source, that the Dead Sea was not first formed in the time of\n Abraham, etc. There is admittedly a great difference in respect\n of credibility between the prim\u00e6val (chapters 1\u201211) and the\n patriarchal (12\u201250) traditions. But even the latter, when taken\n as a whole, yields many impossible situations. Sarah was more\n than sixty-five years old when Abraham feared that her beauty\n might endanger his life in Egypt; she was over ninety when the\n same fear seized him in Gerar. Abraham at the age of ninety-nine\n laughs at the idea of having a son; yet forty years later\n he marries and begets children. Both Midian and Ishmael were\n grand-uncles of Joseph; but their descendants appear as tribes\n trading with Egypt in his boyhood. Amalek was a grandson of\n Esau; yet the Amalekites are settled in the Negeb in the time\n of Abraham. \u2074\u2015\u2015It is a thankless task to multiply such examples.\n The contradictions and violations of probability and scientific\n possibility are intelligible, and not at all disquieting, in a\n collection of legends; but they preclude the supposition that\n Genesis is literal history.\n\n \u00b9 _Amalekiter_, page 25 f.\n\n \u00b2 Compare Winckler, _Abraham als Babylonier_, 7.\n\n \u00b3 See Driver, _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and\n Notes_, XXXI ff. 19 ff.\n\n \u2074 See Reuss, _Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften Alten\n Testaments_\u00b2, 167 f.\n\nIt is not implied in what has been said that the tradition is destitute\nof historical value. History, legendary history, legend, myth, form a\ndescending scale, with decreasing emphasis on the historical element,\nand the lines between the first three are vague and fluctuating. In\nwhat proportions they are combined in Genesis it may be impossible to\ndetermine with certainty. But there are three ways in which a tradition\nmainly legendary may yield solid historical results. In the first place,\na legend may embody a more or less exact recollection of the fact in\nwhich it originated. In the second place, a legend, though unhistorical\nin form, may furnish material from which history can be extracted.\nThirdly, the collateral evidence of arch\u00e6ology may bring to light a\ncorrespondence which gives a historical significance to the legend. How\nfar any of these lines can be followed to a successful issue in the\ncase of Genesis, we shall consider later (\u00a7 4), after we have examined\nthe obviously legendary motives which enter into the tradition.\nMeanwhile the previous discussion will have served its purpose if\nany readers have been led to perceive that the religious teaching of\nGenesis lies precisely in that legendary element whose existence is\nhere maintained. Our chief task is to discover the meaning of the\nlegends as they stand, being assured that from the nature of the case\nthese religious ideas were operative forces in the life of ancient\nIsrael. It is a suicidal error in exegesis to suppose that the\npermanent value of the book lies in the residuum of historic fact that\nunderlies the poetic and imaginative form of the narratives.\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 On various points dealt with in this paragraph, see the\n admirable statement of A. R. Gordon, _Early Traditions of\n Genesis_, pages 76\u201292.\n\n\n \u00a7 3. _Myth and legend\u2015\u2015Foreign myths\n \u2015\u2015Types of mythical motive._\n\n1. Are there myths in Genesis, as well as legends? On this question\nthere has been all the variety of opinion that might be expected.\nSome writers, starting with the theory that mythology is a necessary\nphase of primitive thinking, have found in the Old Testament abundant\nconfirmation of their thesis.\u00b9 The more prevalent view has been that\nthe mythop\u0153ic tendency was suppressed in Israel by the genius of\nits religion, and that mythology in the true sense is unknown in its\nliterature. Others have taken up an intermediate position, denying\nthat the Hebrew mind produced myths of its own, but admitting that it\nborrowed and adapted those of other peoples. For all practical purposes,\nthe last view seems to be very near the truth.\n\n \u00b9 Goldziher, _Der Mythos bei den Hebr\u00e4ern_ (1876).\n\n For attempts to discriminate between myth and legend, see\n Tuch, pages I\u2012XV; Gunkel, page XVII; H\u00f6ffding, _Philosophy\n of Religion_ (Engish translation), 199 ff.; Gordon, 77 ff.;\n Procksch, _Das nordhebr\u00e4ische Sagenbuch_, I. etc.\u2015\u2015The\n practically important distinction is that the legend does,\n and the myth does not, start from the plane of historic fact.\n The myth is properly a story of the gods, originating in an\n impression produced on the primitive mind by the more imposing\n phenomena of nature, while legend attaches itself to the\n personages and movements of real history. Thus the Flood-story\n is a legend if Noah be a historical figure, and the kernel of\n the narrative an actual event; it is a myth if it be based on\n observation of a solar phenomenon, and Noah a representative\n of the sun-god (see page 180 f.). But the utility of this\n distinction is largely neutralised by a universal tendency\n to transfer mythical traits from gods to real men (Sargon of\n Agad\u00e9, Moses, Alexander, Charlemagne, etc.); so that the most\n indubitable traces of mythology will not of themselves warrant\n the conclusion that the hero is not a historical personage.\n \u2015\u2015Gordon differentiates between spontaneous (nature) myths\n and reflective (\u00e6tiological) myths; and, while recognising the\n existence of the latter in Genesis, considers that the former\n type is hardly represented in the Old Testament at all. The\n distinction is important, though it may be doubted if \u00e6tiology\n is ever a primary impulse to the formation of myths, and as a\n parasitic development it appears to attach itself indifferently\n to myth and legend. Hence there is a large class of narratives\n which it is difficult to label either as mythical or as\n legendary, but in which the \u00e6tiological or some similar motive\n is prominent (see page xi ff.).\n\n2. The influence of foreign mythology is most apparent in the primitive\ntraditions of chapters 1\u201211. The discovery of the Babylonian versions\nof the Creation- and Deluge-traditions has put it beyond reasonable\ndoubt that these are the originals from which the biblical accounts\nhave been derived (pages 45 ff., 177 f.). A similar relation obtains\nbetween the antediluvian genealogy of chapter 5 and Berossus\u2019s list of\nthe ten Babylonian kings who reigned before the Flood (page 137 f.).\nThe story of Paradise has its nearest analogies in Iranian mythology;\nbut there are faint Babylonian echoes which suggest that it belonged to\nthe common mythological heritage of the East (page 90 ff.). Both here\nand in chapter 4 a few isolated coincidences with Ph\u0153nician tradition\nmay point to the Canaanite civilisation as the medium through which\nsuch myths came to the knowledge of the Israelites.\u2015\u2015All these (as\nwell as the story of the Tower of Babel) were originally genuine\nmyths\u2015\u2015stories of the gods; and if they no longer deserve that\nappellation, it is because the spirit of Hebrew monotheism has\nexorcised the polytheistic notions of deity, apart from which true\nmythology cannot survive. The few passages where the old heathen\nconception of godhead still appears (1\u00b2\u2076 3\u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2074 6\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 11\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), only\nserve to show how completely the religious beliefs of Israel have\ntransformed and purified the crude speculations of pagan theology,\nand adapted them to the ideas of an ethical and monotheistic faith.\n\n The naturalisation of Babylonian myths in Israel is conceivable\n in a variety of ways; and the question is perhaps more\n interesting as an illustration of two rival tendencies in\n criticism than for its possibilities of actual solution. The\n tendency of the literary school of critics has been to explain\n the process by the direct use of Babylonian documents, and\n to bring it down to near the dates of our written Pentateuch\n sources.\u00b9 Largely through the influence of Gunkel, a different\n view has come to prevail, viz., that we are to think rather\n of a gradual process of assimilation to the religious ideas\n of Israel in the course of oral transmission, the myths having\n first passed into Canaanite tradition as the result (immediate\n or remote) of the Babylonian supremacy prior to the Tell-Amarna\n period, and thence to the Israelites.\u00b2 The strongest argument\n for this theory is that the biblical versions, both of the\n Creation and the Flood, give evidence of having passed through\n several stages in Hebrew tradition. Apart from that, the\n considerations urged in support of either theory do not\n seem to me conclusive. There are no recognisable traces of a\n specifically Canaanite medium having been interposed between the\n Babylonian originals and the Hebrew accounts of the Creation and\n the Flood, such as we may surmise in the case of the Paradise\n myth. It is open to argue against Gunkel that if the process\n had been as protracted as he says, the divergence would be much\n greater than it actually is. Again, we cannot well set limits to\n the deliberate manipulation of Babylonian material by a Hebrew\n writer; and the assumption that such a writer in the later\n period would have been repelled by the gross polytheism of the\n Babylonian legends, and refused to have anything to do with\n them, is a little gratuitous. On the other hand, it is unsafe to\n assert with Stade that the myths could not have been assimilated\n by Israelite theology before the belief in Yahwe\u2019s sole deity\n had been firmly established by the teaching of the prophets.\n Monotheism had roots in Hebrew antiquity extending much further\n back than the age of written prophecy, and the present form of\n the legends is more intelligible as the product of an earlier\n phase of religion than that of the literary prophets. But when\n we consider the innumerable channels through which myths may\n wander from one centre to another, we shall hardly expect to\n be able to determine the precise channel, or the approximate\n date, of this infusion of Babylonian elements into the religious\n tradition of Israel.\n\n \u00b9 See Budde, _Die biblische Urgeschichte_, 1883), 515 f.;\n Kuenen, _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, xviii. (1884), 167\n ff.; Kosters, _i.b._ xix. (1885), 325 ff., 344; Stade,\n _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, (1895),\n 159 f., (1903), 175 ff.\n\n \u00b2 _Sch\u00f6pfung und Chaos_ (1895), 143 ff.; _Genesis_\u00b2 (1902),\n 64 f. Compare Driver, _The Book of Genesis with Introduction\n and Notes_, 31.\n\n It is remarkable that while the patriarchal legends exhibit\n no traces of Babylonian mythology, they contain a few examples\n of mythical narrative to which analogies are found in other\n quarters. The visit of the angels to Abraham (see page 302 f.),\n and the destruction of Sodom (page 311 f.), are incidents of\n obviously mythical origin (stories of the gods); and to both,\n classical and other parallels exist. The account of the births\n of Esau and Jacob embodies a mythological motive (page 359),\n which is repeated in the case of Zera\u1e25 and Pere\u1e93 (chapter 38).\n The whole story of Jacob and Esau presents several points of\n contact with that of the brothers Hypsouranios (\u0160amem-rum)\n and Us\u014dos in the Ph\u0153nician mythology (Us\u014dos = Esau: see pages\n 360, 124). There appears also to be a Homeric variant of the\n incest of Reuben (page 427). These phenomena are among the most\n perplexing which we encounter in the study of Hebrew tradition.\u00b9\n We can as yet scarcely conjecture the hidden source from which\n such widely ramified traditions have sprung, though we may not\n on that account ignore the existence of the problem. It would be\n at all events a groundless anticipation that the facts will lead\n us to resolve the patriarchs into mythological abstractions.\n They are rather to be explained by the tendency already referred\n to (page ix), to mingle myth with legend by transferring\n mythical incidents to historic personages.\n\n \u00b9 See Gunkel, _Genesis \u00fcbersetzt und erkl\u00e4rt_, page LVI.\n\n3. It remains, before we go on to consider the historical elements\nof the tradition, to classify the leading types of mythical, or\nsemi-mythical (page ix), motive which appear in the narratives of\nGenesis. It will be seen that while they undoubtedly detract from the\nliteral historicity of the records, they represent points of view which\nare of the greatest historical interest, and are absolutely essential\nto the right interpretation of the legends.\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 The enumeration, which is not quite exhaustive, is taken,\n with some simplification, from Gunkel, _Genesis \u00fcbersetzt\n und erkl\u00e4rt_, page XVIII ff.\n\n (a) The most comprehensive category is that of _\u00e6tiological_ or\n _explanatory_ myths; _i.e._, those which explain some familiar\n fact of experience by a story of the olden time. Both the\n questions asked and the answers returned are frequently of the\n most na\u00efve and childlike description: they have, as Gunkel,\n _Genesis \u00fcbersetzt und erkl\u00e4rt_ has said, all the charm which\n belongs to the artless but profound reasoning of an intelligent\n child. The classical example is the story of Paradise and the\n Fall in chapters 2, 3, which contains one explicit instance of\n \u00e6tiology (2\u00b2\u2074: why a man cleaves to his wife), and implicitly a\n great many more: why we wear clothes and detest snakes, why the\n serpent crawls on his belly, why the peasant has to drudge in\n the fields, and the woman to endure the pangs of travail, etc.\n (page 95). Similarly, the account of creation explains why there\n are so many kinds of plants and animals, why man is lord of them\n all, why the sun shines by day and the moon by night, etc.; why\n the Sabbath is kept. The Flood-story tells us the meaning of\n the rainbow, and of the regular recurrence of the seasons: the\n Babel-myth accounts for the existing diversities of language\n amongst men. Pure examples of \u00e6tiology are practically confined\n to the first eleven chapters; but the same general idea pervades\n the patriarchal history, specialised under the headings which\n follow.\n\n (b) The commonest class of all, especially in the patriarchal\n narratives, is what may be called _ethnographic_ legends. It\n is an obvious feature of the narratives that the heroes of them\n are frequently personifications of tribes and peoples, whose\n character and history and mutual relationships are exhibited\n under the guise of individual biography. Thus the pre-natal\n struggle of Jacob and Esau prefigures the rivalry of \u2018two\n nations\u2019 (25\u00b2\u00b3); the monuments set up by Jacob and Laban mark\n the frontier between Israelites and Aram\u00e6ans (31\u2074\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427); Ishmael\n is the prototype of the wild Bedouin (16\u00b9\u00b2), and Cain of some\n ferocious nomad-tribe; Jacob and his twelve sons represent the\n unity of Israel and its division into twelve tribes; and so on.\n This mode of thinking was not peculiar to Israel (compare the\n Hellen, Dorus, Xuthus, Aeolus, Ach\u00e6us, Ion, of the Greeks);\u00b9 but\n it is one specially natural to the Semites from their habit of\n speaking of peoples as _sons_ (_i.e._ members) of the collective\n entity denoted by the tribal or national name (sons of Israel,\n of Ammon, of Ishmael, etc.), whence arose the notion that these\n entities were the real progenitors of the peoples so designated.\n That in some cases the representation was correct need not be\n doubted; for there are known examples, both among the Arabs and\n other races in a similar stage of social development, of tribes\n named after a famous ancestor or leader of real historic memory.\n But that this is the case with all eponymous persons\u2015\u2015_e.g._\n that there were really such men as Jerahmeel, Midian, Aram,\n Sheba, Amalek, and the rest\u2015\u2015is quite incredible; and, moreover,\n it is never true that the fortunes of a tribe are an exact copy\n of the personal experiences of its reputed ancestor, even if\n he existed. We must therefore treat these legends as symbolic\n representations of the ethnological affinities between different\n tribes or peoples, and (to a less extent) of the historic\n experiences of these peoples. There is a great danger of driving\n this interpretation too far, by assigning an ethnological value\n to details of the legend which never had any such significance;\n but to this matter we shall have occasion to return at a later\n point (see page xix ff.).\n\n \u00b9 See Driver, _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_\n 112; Gordon, _The Early Traditions of Genesis_, 88.\n\n (c) Next in importance to these ethnographic legends are the\n _cult_-legends. A considerable proportion of the patriarchal\n narratives are designed to explain the sacredness of the\n principal national sanctuaries, while a few contain notices of\n the origin of particular ritual customs (circumcision, chapter\n 17 [but compare Exodus 4\u00b2\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427]; the abstinence from eating the\n sciatic nerve, 32\u00b3\u00b3). To the former class belong such incidents\n as Hagar at Lahairoi (16), Abraham at the oak of Mamre (18),\n his planting of the tamarisk at Beersheba (21\u00b3\u00b3), Jacob at\n Bethel\u2015\u2015with the reason for anointing the sacred stone, and the\n institution of the tithe\u2015\u2015(28\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), and at Peniel (32\u00b2\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427);\n and many more. The general idea is that the places were hallowed\n by an appearance of the deity in the patriarchal period, or\n at least by the performance of an act of worship (erection of\n an altar, etc.) by one of the ancestors of Israel. In reality\n the sanctity of these spots was in many cases of immemorial\n antiquity, being rooted in the most primitive forms of Semitic\n religion; and at times the narrative suffers it to appear that\n the place was holy before the visit of the patriarch (see on\n 12\u2076). It is probable that inauguration-legends had grown up at\n the chief sanctuaries while they were still in the possession\n of the Canaanites. We cannot tell how far such legends were\n transferred to the Hebrew ancestors, and how far the traditions\n are of native Israelite growth.\n\n (d) Of much less interest to us is the _etymological_ motive\n which so frequently appears as a side issue in legends of\n wider scope. \u2666Speculation on the meaning and origin of names\n is fascinating to all primitive peoples; and in default of a\n scientific philology the most fantastic explanations are readily\n accepted. That it was so in ancient Israel could be easily\n shown from the etymologies of Genesis. Here, again, it is just\n conceivable that the explanation given may occasionally be\n correct (though there is hardly a case in which it is plausible);\n but in the majority of cases the real meaning of the name stands\n out in palpable contradiction to the alleged account of its\n origin. Moreover, it is not uncommon to find the same name\n explained in two different ways (many of Jacob\u2019s sons, chapter\n 30), or to have as many as three suggestions of its historic\n origin (Ishmael, 16\u00b9\u00b9 17\u00b2\u2070 21\u00b9\u2077; Isaac, 17\u00b9\u2077 18\u00b9\u00b2 21\u2079). To claim\n literal accuracy for incidents of this kind is manifestly futile.\n\n \u2666 \u201cSpeculalation\u201d replaced with \u201cSpeculation\u201d\n\n (e) There is yet another element which, though not mythical or\n legendary, belongs to the imaginative side of the legends, and\n has to be taken account of in interpreting them. This is the\n element of _poetic idealisation_. Whenever a character enters\n the world of legend, whether through the gate of history or\n through that of ethnographic personification, it is apt to be\n conceived as a type; and as the story passes from mouth to mouth\n the typical features are emphasised, while those which have\n no such significance tend to be effaced or forgotten. Then\n the dramatic instinct comes into play\u2015\u2015the artistic desire\n to perfect the story as a lifelike picture of human nature in\n interesting situations and action. To see how far this process\n may be carried, we have but to compare the conception of Jacob\u2019s\n sons in the Blessing of Jacob (chapter 49) with their appearance\n in the younger narratives of Joseph and his brethren. In the\n former case the sons are tribal personifications, and the\n characters attributed to them are those of the tribes they\n represent. In the latter, these characteristics have almost\n entirely disappeared, and the central interest is now the pathos\n and tragedy of Hebrew family life. Most of the brothers are\n without character or individuality; but the accursed Reuben\n and Simeon are respected members of the family, and the \u2018wolf\u2019\n Benjamin has become a helpless child whom the father will hardly\n let go from his side. This, no doubt, is the supreme instance\n of romantic or \u2018novelistic\u2019 treatment which the book contains;\n but the same idealising tendency is at work elsewhere, and must\n constantly be allowed for in endeavouring to reach the historic\n or ethnographic basis from which the legends start.\n\n\n \u00a7 4. _Historical value of the tradition._\n\nIt has already been remarked (page vii) that there are three chief ways\nin which an oral, and therefore legendary, tradition may yield solid\nhistorical results: _first_, through the retention in the popular\nmemory of the impression caused by real events and personalities;\n_secondly_, by the recovery of historic (mainly ethnographic) material\nfrom the biographic form of the tradition; and _thirdly_, through\nthe confirmation of contemporary \u2018arch\u00e6ological\u2019 evidence. It will be\nconvenient to start with the last of these, and consider what is known\nabout\u2015\u2015\n\n1. _The historical background of the patriarchal traditions._\u2015\u2015The\nperiod covered by the patriarchal narratives\u00b9 may be defined very\nroughly as the first half of the second millennium (2000\u20121500) B.C.\nThe upper limit depends on the generally accepted assumption, based\n(somewhat insecurely, as it seems to us) on chapter 14, that Abraham\nwas contemporary with \u1e2aammurabi, the 6th king of the first Babylonian\ndynasty. The date of \u1e2aammurabi is probably _circa_ 2100 B.C.\u00b2 The\nlower limit is determined by the Exodus, which is usually assigned\n(as it must be if Exodus 1\u00b9\u00b9 is genuine) to the reign of Merneptah of\nthe Nineteenth Egyptian dynasty (_circa_ 1234\u20121214 B.C.). Allowing a\nsufficient period for the sojourn of Israel in Egypt, we come back to\nabout the middle of the millennium as the approximate time when the\nfamily left Palestine for that country. The Hebrew chronology assigns\nnearly the same date as above to Abraham, but a much earlier one for\nthe Exodus (_circa_ 1490), and reduces the residence of the patriarchs\nin Canaan to 215 years; since, however, the chronological system rests\non artificial calculations (see pages 135 f., 234), we cannot restrict\nour survey to the narrow limits which it assigns to the patriarchal\nperiod in Palestine. Indeed, the chronological uncertainties are so\nnumerous that it is desirable to embrace an even wider field than the\nfive centuries mentioned above.\u00b3\n\n \u00b9 The discussion in this section is confined to the patriarchal\n tradition, because it is only with regard to it that the\n question of essential historicity arises. Every one admits\n that the pre-historic chapters (1\u201211) stand on a different\n footing, and there are few who would claim for them the\n authority of a continuous tradition.\n\n \u00b2 The date here assigned to \u1e2aammurabi is based on the recent\n investigations of Thureau-Dangin (_Journal des Savants_\n [1908], 190 ff.; _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, xxi. [1908],\n 176 ff.), and Ungnad (_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_\n [1908], 13 ff.); with whom Poebel (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\n Assyriologie_, xxi. 162 ff.) is in substantial agreement.\n The higher estimates which formerly prevailed depended\n on the natural assumption that the first three dynasties\n of the Royal Lists (first published in 1880 and 1884)\n reigned _consecutively_ in Babylon. But in 1907, L. W. King\n (_Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings_) published\n new material, which showed conclusively that the Second\n dynasty, ruling over the \u2018Country of the Sea,\u2019 was at\n least partly, if not wholly, contemporaneous with the First\n and Third dynasties in Babylon. King himself and Meyer\n (_Geschichte des Alterthums_\u00b2, I. ii. 339 ff. [1909]) hold\n that the Third (Ka\u0161\u0161ite) dynasty followed immediately on the\n First; and that consequently the previous estimates of the\n chronology of the First dynasty have to be reduced by the\n total duration of the Second dynasty (368 years according\n to List A). The scholars cited at the head of this note\n consider, on the other hand, that the contemporaneousness\n was only partial, and that there was an interval of 176\n years between the close of the First dynasty and the\n accession of the Third. The chief _data_ are these: King\u2019s\n new chronicle has proved beyond dispute (1) that Ilima-ilu,\n the founder of the Second dynasty, was contemporary with\n Samsu-iluna and Abi-e\u0161u\u2019, the 7th and 8th kings of the First\n dynasty; and (2) that Ea-g\u00e2mil, the last king of the Second\n dynasty, was an older contemporary of a certain Ka\u0161\u0161ite\n (king?), Ka\u0161tilia\u0161. Now, Ka\u0161tilia\u0161 is the name of the\n 3rd king of the Ka\u0161\u0161ite dynasty; and the question is whether\n this Ka\u0161tilia\u0161 is to be identified with the contemporary\n of Ea-g\u00e2mil. Thureau-Dangin, etc., answer in the\n affirmative, with the result stated above. King opposes the\n identification, and thinks the close of the Second dynasty\n coincides with a gap in the list of Ka\u0161\u0161ite kings (8th\n to 15th), where the name of Ka\u0161tilia\u0161 may have stood.\n Meyer accepts the synchronism of Ea-g\u00e2mil with the third\n Ka\u0161\u0161ite king; but gets rid of the interregnum by a somewhat\n arbitrary reduction of the duration of the Second dynasty\n to about 200 years. For fuller information, the reader is\n referred to the lucid note in Driver, _The Book of Genesis\n with Introduction and Notes_\u2077 XXVII. ff. (with lists).\u2015\u2015King\n believes that his date for \u1e2aammurabi (_circa_ 1958\u20121916)\n facilitates the identification of that monarch with the\n Amraphel of Genesis 14 (see page 257 f. below), by bringing\n the interval between Abraham and the Exodus into nearer\n accord with the biblical data; but in view of the artificial\n character of the biblical chronology (_v.s._), it is\n doubtful if any weight whatever can be allowed to this\n consideration.\n\n \u00b3 Thus the Exodus is sometimes (in defiance of Exodus 1\u00b9\u00b9) put\n back to _circa_ 1450 B.C. (Hommel, _The Expository Times._,\n x. [1899], 210 ff.; Orr, _The Problem of the Old Testament_,\n 422 ff.); while Eerdmans would bring it down to _circa_ 1125\n B.C. (_Vorgeschichte Israels_, 74; _The Expositor_ 1908,\n September, 204). Joseph is by some (Marquart, Winckler,\n al.) identified with a minister of Amenophis IV. (_circa_\n 1380\u20121360), by Eerdmans, _Alttestamentliche Studien_ with\n a Semitic ruler at the very end of the Nineteenth dynasty\n (_circa_ 1205). See page 501 f.\n\nIn the opinion of a growing and influential school of writers, this\nperiod of history has been so illumined by recent discoveries that\nit is no longer possible to doubt the essential historicity of the\npatriarchal tradition.\u00b9 It is admitted that no external evidence has\ncome to light of the existence of such persons as Abraham, Isaac,\nJacob, and Joseph, or even (with the partial exception of Joseph) of\nmen playing parts at all corresponding to theirs. But it is maintained\nthat contemporary documents reveal a set of conditions into which\nthe patriarchal narratives fit perfectly, and which are so different\nfrom those prevailing under the monarchy that the situation could not\npossibly have been imagined by an Israelite of that later age. Now,\nthat recent arch\u00e6ology has thrown a flood of light on the period in\nquestion, is beyond all doubt. It has proved that Palestinian culture\nand religion were saturated by Babylonian influences long before the\nsupposed date of Abraham; that from that date downwards intercourse\nwith Egypt was frequent and easy; and that the country was more than\nonce subjected to Egyptian conquest and authority. It has given us a\nmost interesting glimpse from about 2000 B.C. of the natural products\nof Canaan, and the manner of life of its inhabitants (Tale of Sinuhe).\nAt a later time (Tell-Amarna letters) it shows the Egyptian dominion\nthreatened by the advance of Hittites from the north, and by the\nincursion of a body of nomadic marauders called \u1e2aabiri (see page 218).\nIt tells us that Jakob-el (and Joseph-el?) was the name of a place in\nCanaan in the first half of the 15th century (pages 360, 389 f.), and\nthat Israel was a tribe living in Palestine about 1200 B.C.; also that\nHebrews (\u201bApriw) were a foreign population in Egypt from the time of\nRamses II. to that of Ramses IV. (Heyes, _Bibel und \u00c4gypten: Abraham\nund seine Nachkommen in \u00c4gypten_ 146 ff.; Eerdmans, _Alttestamentliche\nStudien_ 52 ff.; _The Expositor_ _l.c._ 197). All this is of the\nutmost value; and _if_ the patriarchs lived in this age, then this\nis the background against which we have to set their biographies.\nBut the real question is whether there is such a correspondence\nbetween the biographies and their background that the former would\nbe unintelligible if transplanted to other and later surroundings.\nWe should gladly welcome any evidence that this is the case; but\nit seems to us that the remarkable thing about these narratives is\njust the absence of background and their general compatibility with\nthe universal conditions of ancient Eastern life.\u00b2 The case for\nthe historicity of the tradition, based on correspondences with\ncontemporary evidence from the period in question, appears to us to\nbe greatly overstated.\n\n \u00b9 Jeremias, _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten\n Orients_\u00b2, 365: \u201cWir haben gezeigt, dass das Milieu\n der V\u00e4tergeschichten in allen Einzelheiten zu den\n altorientalischen Kulturverh\u00e4ltnissen stimmt, die uns die\n Denkm\u00e4ler f\u00fcr die in Betracht kommenden Zeit bezeugen.\u201d\n\n \u00b2 A striking illustration of this washing out of historical\n background is the contrast between the Genesis narratives\n and the Egyptian Tale of Sinuhe, from which Jeremias, (_Das\n Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 298 ff.)\n quotes at length in demonstration of their verisimilitude.\n While the latter is full of detailed information about the\n people among whom the writer lived, the former (except in\n chapters 14. 34. 38) have hardly any allusions (24\u00b3 37 \u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427)\n to the aboriginal population of Palestine proper. Luther\n (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 156 f.) even\n maintains that the original Yahwist conceived Canaan as at\n this time an uninhabited country! Without going so far as\n that, we cannot but regard the fact as an indication of the\n process of abstraction which the narratives have undergone\n in the course of oral transmission. Would they appeal to\n the heart of the world as they do if they retained, to\n the extent sometimes alleged, the signature of an obsolete\n civilisation?\n\n The line of argument that claims most careful attention is to\n the following effect: Certain legal customs presupposed by the\n patriarchal stories are now known to have prevailed (in Babylon)\n in the age of \u1e2aammurabi; these customs had entirely ceased in\n Israel under the monarchy; consequently the narratives could not\n have been invented by legend-writers of that period (Jeremias,\n _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 355 ff.). The\n strongest case is the truly remarkable parallel supplied by Code\n of \u1e2aammurabi 146 to the position of Hagar as concubine-slave\n in chapter 16 (below, page 285). Here everything turns on the\n probability that this usage was unknown in Israel in the regal\n period; and it is surely pressing the _argumentum ex silentio_\n too far to assert confidently that if it had been known it would\n certainly have been mentioned in the later literature. We must\n remember that Genesis contains almost the only pictures of\n intimate family life in the Old Testament, and that it refers\n to many things not mentioned later simply because there was\n no occasion to speak of them. Were twin-births peculiar to the\n \u2666patriarchal period because two are mentioned in Genesis and\n none at all in the rest of the Old Testament? The fact that\n the custom of the concubine-slave has persisted in Mohammedan\n countries down to modern times, should warn us against such\n sweeping negations.\u2015\u2015Again, we learn (_ib._ 358) that the\n simultaneous marriage with two sisters was permitted by ancient\n Babylonian law, but was proscribed in Hebrew legislation as\n incestuous. Yes, but the law in question (Leviticus 18\u00b9\u2078) is\n late; and does not its enactment in the Priestly-Code rather\n imply that the practice against which it is directed survived\n in Israel till the close of the monarchy?\u2015\u2015The distinction\n between the _m\u014dhar_, or purchase price of a wife, and the gift\n to the bride (_ib._), should not be cited: the _m\u014dhar_ is an\n institution everywhere prevailing in early pastoral societies;\n it is known to Hebrew jurisprudence (Exodus 22\u00b9\u2076); its\n name is not old Babylonian; and even its transmutation into\n personal service is in accordance with Arab practice (page 383\n below).\u00b9\u2015\u2015In short, it does not appear that the examples given\n differ from another class of usages, \u201cdie nicht spezifisch\n altbabylonisch sind, sondern auch sp\u00e4tern bez. intergentilen\n Rechtszust\u00e4nden entsprechen, die aber ... wenigstens teilweise\n eine interessante Beleuchtung durch den Code \u1e2aammurabi erfahren.\u201d\n The \u201cinteressante Beleuchtung\u201d will be freely admitted.\n\n \u2666 \u201cpatriarchial\u201d replaced with \u201cpatriarchal\u201d\n\n \u00b9 See S. A. Cook, _Cambridge Biblical Essays_, 79 f.\n\n Still less has the new knowledge of the _political_\n circumstances of Palestine contributed to the direct elucidation\n of the patriarchal tradition, although it has brought to\n light certain facts which have to be taken into account in\n interpreting that tradition. The complete silence of the\n narratives as to the protracted Egyptian dominion over the\n country is very remarkable, and only to be explained by a\n fading of the actual situation from the popular memory during\n the course of oral transmission. The existence of Philistines\n in the time of Abraham is, so far as arch\u00e6ology can inform\n us, a positive anachronism. On the whole it must be said that\n arch\u00e6ology has in this region created more problems than it\n has solved. The occurrence of the name Ya\u1e33ob-el in the time of\n Thothmes III., of Asher under Seti I. and Ramses II., and of\n Israel under Merneptah; the appearance of Hebrews (\u1e2aabiri?)\n in Palestine in the 15th century, and in Egypt (\u201bApriw?) from\n Ramses II. to Ramses IV., present so many difficulties to\n the adjustment of the patriarchal figures to their original\n background. We do not seem as yet to be in sight of a historical\n construction which shall enable us to bring these conflicting\n data into line with an intelligible rendering of the Hebrew\n tradition.\n\n It is considerations such as these that give so keen an edge\n to the controversy about the genuineness of chapter 14. That\n is the only section of Genesis which seems to set the figure of\n Abraham in the framework of world history. If it be a historical\n document, then we have a fixed centre round which the Abrahamic\n traditions, and possibly those of the other patriarchs as well,\n will group themselves; if it be but a late imitation of history,\n we are cast adrift, with nothing to guide us except an uncertain\n and artificial scheme of chronology. For an attempt to estimate\n the force of the arguments on either side we must refer to the\n commentary below (page 271 ff.). Here, however, it is in point\n to observe that even if the complete historicity of chapter 14\n were established, it would take us but a little way towards the\n authentication of the patriarchal traditions as a whole. For\n that episode confessedly occupies a place entirely unique in\n the records of the patriarchs; and all the marks of contemporary\n authorship which it is held to present are so many proofs that\n the remaining narratives are of a different character, and lack\n that particular kind of attestation. The coexistence of oral\n traditions and historic notices relating to the same individual\n proves that the former rest on a basis of fact; but it does not\n warrant the inference that the oral tradition is accurate in\n detail, or even that it faithfully reflects the circumstances\n of the period with which it deals. And to us the Abraham of oral\n tradition is a far more important religious personality than\n Abram the Hebrew, the hero of the exploit recorded in chapter 14.\n\n2. _Ethnological theories._\u2015\u2015The negative conclusion expressed above\n(page xvii f.) as to the value of ancient Babylonian analogies to the\npatriarchal tradition, depends partly on the assumption of the school\nof writers whose views were under consideration: viz., that the\nnarratives are a transcript of actual family life in that remote\nage, and therefore susceptible of illustration from private law as we\nfind it embodied in the Code of \u1e2aammurabi. It makes, however, little\ndifference if for family relations we substitute those of clans and\npeoples to one another, and treat the individuals as representatives\nof the tribes to which Israel traced its origin. We shall then find\nthe real historic content of the legends in migratory movements,\ntribal divisions and fusions, and general ethnological phenomena, which\npopular tradition has disguised as personal biographies. This is the\nline of interpretation which has mostly prevailed in critical circles\nsince Ewald;\u00b9 and it has given rise to an extraordinary variety of\ntheories. In itself (as in the hands of Ewald) it is not necessarily\ninconsistent with belief in the individual existence of the patriarchs;\nthough its more extreme exponents do not recognise this as credible.\nThe theories in question fall into two groups: those which regard the\nnarratives as ideal projections into the past of relations subsisting,\nor conceptions formed, after the final settlement in Canaan;\u00b2 and those\nwhich try to extract from them a real history of the period before\nthe Exodus. Since the former class deny a solid tradition of any kind\nbehind the patriarchal story, we may here pass them over, and confine\nour attention to those which do allow a certain substratum of truth in\nthe pictures of the pre-Exodus period.\n\n \u00b9 _History of Israel_ i. 363, 382, etc.\n\n \u00b2 So Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_\u2076 319 ff.\n [English translation 318 ff.], _Israelitische und j\u00fcdische\n Geschichte_ 11 ff.; Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_,\n i. 145 ff., _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche\n Wissenschaft_, i. 112 ff., 347 ff.\n\n As a specimen of this class of theories, neither better nor\n worse than others that might be chosen, we may take that of\n Cornill. According to him, Abraham was a real person, who headed\n a migration from Mesopotamia to Canaan about 1500 B.C. Through\n the successive separations of Moab, Ammon, and Edom, the main\n body of immigrants was so reduced that it might have been\n submerged, but for the arrival of a fresh contingent from\n Mesopotamia under the name Jacob (the names, except Abraham\u2019s,\n are all tribal or national). This reinforcement consisted\n of four groups, of which the Leah-group was the oldest and\n strongest. The tribe of Joseph then aimed at the hegemony, but\n was overpowered by the other tribes, and forced to retire to\n Egypt. The Bilhah-group, thus deprived of its natural support,\n was assailed by the Leah-tribes led by Reuben; but the attempt\n was foiled, and Reuben lost his birthright. Subsequently the\n whole of the tribes were driven to seek shelter in Egypt, when\n Joseph took a noble revenge by allowing them to settle by its\n side in the frontier province of Egypt (_History of Israel_,\n 29 ff.).\n\nIt will be seen that the construction hangs mainly on two leading\nideas: _tribal affinities_ typified by various phases of the marriage\nrelation; and _migrations_. As regards the first, we have seen (page\nxii) that there is a true principle at the root of the method. It\nsprings from the personification of a tribe under the name of an\nindividual, male or female; and we have admitted that many names in\nGenesis have this significance, and probably no other. If, then, two\neponymous ancestors (Jacob and Esau) are represented as twin brothers,\nwe may be sure that the peoples in question were conscious of an\nextremely close affinity. If a male eponym is married to a female,\nwe may presume (though with less confidence) that the two tribes were\namalgamated. Or, if one clan is spoken of as a wife and another as\na concubine, we may reasonably conclude that the latter was somehow\ninferior to the former. But beyond a few simple analogies of this\nkind (each of which, moreover, requires to be tested by the inherent\nprobabilities of the case) the method ceases to be reliable; and the\nattempt to apply it to all the complex family relationships of the\npatriarchs only lands us in confusion.\u00b9\u2015\u2015The idea of _migration_ is\nstill less trustworthy. Certainly not every journey recorded in Genesis\n(_e.g._ that of Joseph from Hebron to Shechem and Dothan, 37\u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427:\n_pace_ Steuernagel) can be explained as a migratory movement. Even when\nthe ethnological background is apparent, the movements of tribes may be\nnecessary corollaries of the assumed relationships between them (_e.g._\nJacob\u2019s journey to \u1e24arran: page 357); and it will be difficult to draw\nthe line between these and real migrations. The case of Abraham is no\ndoubt a strong one; for if his figure has any ethnological significance\nat all, his exodus from \u1e24arran (or Ur) can hardly be interpreted\notherwise than as a migration of Hebrew tribes from that region. We\ncannot feel the same certainty with regard to Joseph\u2019s being carried\ndown to Egypt; it seems to us altogether doubtful if this be rightly\nunderstood as an enforced movement of the tribe of Joseph to Egypt in\nadvance of the rest (see page 441).\n\n \u00b9 Guthe (_Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, 1\u20126) has formulated\n a set of five rules which he thinks can be used (with\n tact!) in retranslating the genealogical phraseology into\n historical terms. There is probably not one of them which\n is capable of rigorous and universal application. Thus, the\n marriage of Jacob to Leah and Rachel does not necessarily\n imply that Jacob was a tribe which successively absorbed\n the two clans so named: it is just as likely that the union\n of Leah and Rachel with one another _produced_ the entity\n called Jacob.\n\nBut it is when we pass from genealogies and marriages and journeys\nto pictorial narrative that the breakdown of the ethnological method\nbecomes complete. The obvious truth is that no tribal relationship can\nsupply an adequate motive for the wealth of detail that meets us in the\nrichly coloured patriarchal legends; and the theory stultifies itself\nby assigning ethnological significance to incidents which originally\nhad no such meaning. It will have been noticed that Cornill utilises a\nfew biographical touches to fill in his scheme (the youthful ambition\nof Joseph; his sale into Egypt, etc.), and every other theorist does\nthe same. Each writer selects those incidents which fit into his own\nsystem, and neglects those which would \u2666embarrass it. Each system has\nsome plausible and attractive features; but each, to avoid absurdity,\nhas to exercise a judicious restraint on the consistent extension of\nits principles. The consequence is endless diversity in detail, and no\nagreement even in general outline.\u00b9\n\n \u2666 \u201cembarass\u201d replaced with \u201cembarrass\u201d\n\n \u00b9 Luther (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,\n 1901, 36 ff.) gives a conspectus of four leading theories\n (Wellhausen, Stade, Gunkel, Cornill), with the purpose of\n showing that the consistent application of the method would\n speedily lead to absurd results (46). He would undoubtedly\n have passed no different verdict on later combinations,\n such as those of Steuernagel, _Die Einwanderung der\n israelitischen St\u00e4mme in Kanaan_; Peters, _Early Hebrew\n Story_, 45 ff.; Procksch, _Das nordhebr\u00e4ische Sagenbuch: die\n Elohimquelle_, 330 ff. etc.\u2015\u2015What Grote has written about\n the allegorical interpretation of the Greek legends might\n be applied word for word to these theories: \u201cThe theorist\n who adopts this course of explanation finds that after one\n or two simple and obvious steps, the way is no longer open,\n and he is forced to clear a way for himself by gratuitous\n refinements and conjectures\u201d (_History of Greece_, edition,\n 1888, page 2).\n\n It is evident that such constructions will never reach any\n satisfactory result unless they find some point of support in\n the history of the period as gathered from contemporary sources.\n The second millennium B.C. is thought to have witnessed one\n great movement of Semitic tribes to the north, viz., the Aram\u00e6an.\n About the middle of the millennium we find the first notices of\n the Aram\u00e6ans as nomads in what is now the Syro-Arabian desert.\n Shortly afterwards the \u1e2aabiri make their appearance in Palestine.\n It is a natural conjecture that these were branches of the\n same migration, and it has been surmised that we have here the\n explanation of the tradition which affirms the common descent\n of Hebrews and Aram\u00e6ans. The question then arises whether we can\n connect this fact with the patriarchal tradition, and if so with\n what stratum of that tradition. Isaac and Joseph are out of the\n reckoning, because neither is ever brought into contact with the\n Aram\u00e6ans; Rebekah is too insignificant. Abraham is excluded by\n the chronology, unless (with Cornhill) we bring down his date\n to _circa_ 1500, or (with Steuernagel) regard his migration as\n a traditional duplicate of Jacob\u2019s return from Laban. But if\n Jacob is suggested, we encounter the difficulty that Jacob must\n have been settled in Canaan some generations before the age of\n the \u1e2aabiri. In the case of Abraham there may be a conflation\n of two traditions,\u2015\u2015one tracing his nativity to \u1e24arran and the\n other to Ur; and it is conceivable that he is the symbol of two\n migrations, one of which might be identified with the arrival\n of the \u1e2aabiri, and the other might have taken place as early as\n the age of \u1e2aammurabi. But these are speculations no whit more\n reliable than any of those dealt with above; and it has to be\n confessed that as yet arch\u00e6ology has furnished no sure basis for\n the reconstruction of the patriarchal history. It is permissible\n to hope that further discoveries may bring to light facts which\n shall enable us to decide more definitely than is possible at\n present how far that history can be explained on ethnological\n lines.\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 To the whole class of theories considered above (those which\n try to go behind the Exodus), Luther (_l.c._ 44 f.) objects\n that they demand a continuous occupation of Palestine\n from the time when the legends were formed. He hints at\n a solution, which has been adopted in principle by Meyer\n (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 127 ff., 415,\n 433), and which if verified would relieve some difficulties,\n arch\u00e6ological and other. It is that two independent\n accounts of the origin of the nation are preserved: the\n Genesis-tradition, carrying the ancestry of the people back\n to the Aram\u00e6ans, and the Exodus-tradition, which traces the\n origin of the nation no further than Moses and the Exodus.\n There are indications that in an earlier phase of the\n patriarchal tradition the definitive conquest of Canaan was\n carried back to Jacob and his sons (chapters 34. 38. 48\u00b2\u00b2);\n on Meyer\u2019s view this does not necessarily imply that the\n narratives refer to a time subsequent to Joshua. A kernel\n of history may be recognised in both strands of tradition,\n on the assumption (not in itself a violent one) that only\n a section of Israel was in Egypt, and came out under Moses,\n while the rest remained in Palestine. The extension of the\n Exodus-tradition to the whole people was a natural effect of\n the consolidation of the nation; and this again might give\n rise to the story of Jacob\u2019s migration to Egypt, with all\n his sons.\n\n3. _The patriarchs as individuals._\u2015\u2015We come, in the last place,\nto consider the probability that the oral tradition, through its\nown inherent tenacity of recollection, may have retained some true\nimpression of the events to which it refers. After what has been\nsaid, it is vain to expect that a picture true in every detail\nwill be recoverable from popular tales current in the earliest ages\nof the monarchy. The course of oral tradition has been too long,\nthe disturbing influences to which it has been exposed have been\ntoo numerous and varied, and the subsidiary motives which have\ngrafted themselves on to it too clearly discernible, to admit of the\nsupposition that more than a _substantial nucleus_ of historic fact\ncan have been preserved in the national memory of Israel. It is not,\nhowever, unreasonable to believe that such a historical nucleus exists;\nand that with care we may disentangle from the mass of legendary\naccretions some elements of actual reminiscence of the prehistoric\nmovements which determined the subsequent development of the national\nlife.\u00b9 It is true that in this region we have as a rule only subjective\nimpressions to guide us; but in the absence of external criteria a\nsubjective judgement has its value, and one in favour of the historic\norigin of the tradition is at least as valid as another to the contrary\neffect.\u2015\u2015The two points on which attention now falls to be concentrated\nare: (a) the personalities of the patriarchs; and (b) the religious\nsignificance of the tradition.\n\n \u00b9 Compare Winckler, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte\n Testament_\u00b3, 204: \u201cEs ist n\u00e4mlich immer wahrscheinlicher,\n dass ein grosses f\u00fcr die Entwicklung des Volkes massgebend\n gewordenes Ereigniss in seiner Geschlossenheit dem\n Ged\u00e4chtniss besser erhalten bleibt als die Einzelheiten\n seines Herganges.\u201d\n\n(a) It is a tolerably safe general maxim that tradition does not invent\nnames, or persons. We have on any view to account for the entrance of\nsuch figures as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph into the imagination\nof the Israelites; and amongst possible avenues of entrance we must\ncertainly count it as one, that they were real men, who lived and were\nremembered. What other explanations can be given? The idea that they\nwere native creations of Hebrew mythology (Goldziher) has, for the\npresent at least, fallen into disrepute; and there remain but two\ntheories as alternatives to the historic reality of the patriarchs:\nviz., that they were originally personified tribes, or that they were\noriginally Canaanite deities.\n\n The conception of the patriarchs as tribal eponyms, we have\n already seen to be admissible, though not proved. The idea\n that they were Canaanite deities is not perhaps one that can\n be dismissed as transparently absurd. If the Israelites, on\n entering Canaan, found Abraham worshipped at Hebron, Isaac at\n Beersheba, Jacob at Bethel, and Joseph at Shechem, and if they\n adopted the cult of these deities, they might come to regard\n themselves as their children; and in course of time the gods\n might be transformed into human ancestors around whom the\n national legend might crystallise. At the same time the theory\n is destitute of proof; and the burden of proof lies on those\n who maintain it. Neither the fact (if it be a fact) that the\n patriarchs were objects of worship at the shrines where their\n graves were shown, nor the presence of mythical traits in their\n biographies, proves them to have been superhuman beings.\u2015\u2015The\n discussion turns largely on the evidence of the patriarchal\n _names_; but this, too, is indecisive. The name Israel is\n national, and in so far as it is applied to an individual it is\n a case of eponymous personification. Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph\n (assuming these to be contractions of _Yi\u1e93\u1e25a\u1e33-el_, etc.) are\n also most naturally explained as tribal designations. Meyer,\n after long vacillation, has come to the conclusion that they are\n divine names (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 249 ff.);\n but the arguments which formerly convinced him that they are\n tribal seem to us more cogent than those to which he now gives\n the preference. That names of this type frequently denote tribes\n is a fact; that they may denote deities is only a hypothesis.\n That they may also denote individuals (_Ya\u1e33ub-ilu_, _Ya\u0161up-ilu_)\n is true; but that only establishes a possibility, hardly a\n probability; for it is more likely that the individual was\n named after his tribe than that the tribe got its name from an\n individual.\u2015\u2015The name Abram stands by itself. It represents no\n ethnological entity, and occurs historically only as the name\n of an individual; and though it is capable of being interpreted\n in a sense appropriate to deity, all analogy is in favour of\n explaining it as a theophorous human name. The solitary allusion\n to the biblical Abram in the monuments\u2015\u2015the mention of the\n \u2018Field of Abram\u2019 in Shishak\u2019s inscription (see page 244)\u2015\u2015is\n entirely consistent with this acceptation.\u2015\u2015It is probably a\n mistake to insist on carrying through any exclusive theory of\n the patriarchal personalities. If we have proved that Abram was\n a historical individual, we have not thereby proved that Isaac\n and Jacob were so also; and if we succeed in resolving the\n latter into tribal eponyms, it will not follow that Abraham\n falls under the same category.\n\nThere is thus a justification for the tendency of many writers to\nput Abraham on a different plane from the other patriarchs, and\nto concentrate the discussion of the historicity of the tradition\nmainly on his person. An important element in the case is the clearly\nconceived type of _character_ which he represents. No doubt the\ncharacter has been idealised in accordance with the conceptions\nof a later age; but the impression remains that there must have\nbeen something in the actual Abraham which gave a direction to the\nidealisation. It is this perception more than anything else which\ninvests the figure of Abraham with the significance which it has\npossessed for devout minds in all ages, and which still resists the\nattempt to dissolve him into a creation of religious phantasy. If\nthere be any truth in the description of legend as a form of narrative\nconserving the impression of a great personality on his age, we may\nventure, in spite of the lack of decisive evidence, to regard him as a\nhistoric personage, however dim the surroundings of his life may be.\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 Compare H\u00f6ffding, _Philosophy of Religion_ 199 ff.: \u201cIts\n essence [that of legend] consists in the idea of a wonderful\n personality who has made a deep impression on human\n life\u2015\u2015who excited admiration, furnished an example, and\n opened new paths. Under the influence of memory, a strong\n expansion of feeling takes place: this in turn gives rise\n to a need for intuition and explanation, to satisfy which\n a process of picture-making is set in motion.... In legends\n ... the central interest is in the subject-matter, in the\n centripetal power, which depends on an intensification\n of memory rather than on any na\u00efve personification and\n colouring....\u201d\n\n(b) It is of little consequence to know whether a man called Abraham\nlived about 2000 B.C., and led a caravan from Ur or \u1e24arran to Palestine,\nand defeated a great army from the east. One of the evil effects of the\ncontroversial treatment of such questions is to diffuse the impression\nthat a great religious value attaches to discussions of this kind.\nWhat it really concerns us to know is the spiritual significance of\nthe events, and of the mission of Abraham in particular. And it is\nonly when we take this point of view that we do justice to the spirit\nof the Hebrew tradition. It is obvious that the central idea of the\npatriarchal tradition is the conviction in the mind of Israel that as\na nation it originated in a great religious movement, that the divine\ncall which summoned Abraham from his home and kindred, and made him\na stranger and sojourner on the earth, imported a new era in God\u2019s\ndealings with mankind, and gave Israel its mission in the world (Isaiah\n41\u2078 \u1da0\u1427). Is this conception historically credible?\n\nSome attempts to find historic points of contact for this view of\nAbraham\u2019s significance for religion will be looked at presently; but\ntheir contribution to the elucidation of the biblical narrative seems\nto us disappointing in the extreme. Nor can we unreservedly assent to\nthe common argument that the mission of Moses would be unintelligible\napart from that of Abraham. It is true, Moses is said to have appealed\nto the God of the fathers; and if that be a literally exact statement,\nMoses built on the foundation laid by Abraham. But that the distinctive\ninstitutions and ideas of the Yahwe-religion could not have originated\nwith Moses just as well as with Abraham, is more than we have a right\nto affirm. In short, positive proof, such as would satisfy the canons\nof historical criticism, of the work of Abraham is not available.\nWhat we can say is, in the first place, that if he had the importance\nassigned to him, the fact is just of the kind that might be expected\nto impress itself indelibly on a tradition dating from the time of\nthe event. We have in it the influence of a great personality, giving\nbirth to the collective consciousness of a nation; and this fact is of\na nature to evoke that centripetal \u2018intensification of memory\u2019 which\nH\u00f6ffding emphasises as the distinguishing mark and the preserving salt\nof legend as contrasted with myth. In the second place, the appearance\nof a prophetic personality, such as Abraham is represented to have\nbeen, is a phenomenon with many analogies in the history of religion.\nThe ethical and spiritual idea of God which is at the foundation of the\nreligion of Israel could only enter the world through a personal organ\nof divine revelation; and nothing forbids us to see in Abraham the\nfirst of that long series of prophets through whom God has communicated\nto mankind a saving knowledge of Himself. The keynote of Abraham\u2019s\npiety is _faith_ in the unseen,\u2015\u2015faith in the divine impulse which\ndrove him forth to a land which he was never to possess; and faith\nin the future of the religion which he thus founded. He moves before\nus on the page of Scripture as the man through whom faith, the living\nprinciple of true religion, first became a force in human affairs. It\nis difficult to think that so powerful a conception has grown out of\nnothing. As we read the story, we may well trust the instinct which\ntells us that here we are face to face with a decisive act of the\nliving God in history, and an act whose essential significance was\nnever lost in Israelite tradition.\n\n The significance of the Abrahamic migration in relation to the\n general movements of religious thought in the East is the theme\n of Winckler\u2019s interesting pamphlet, _Abraham als Babylonier,\n Joseph als Aegypter_ (1903). The elevation of Babylon, in the\n reign of \u1e2aammurabi, to be the first city of the empire, and the\n centre of Babylonian culture, meant, we are told, a revolution\n in religion, inasmuch as it involved the deposition of Sin,\n the old moon-god, from the supreme place in the pantheon in\n favour of the \u2018Deliverer Marduk,\u2019 the tutelary deity of Babylon.\n Abraham, a contemporary, and an adherent of the older faith,\n opposed the reformation; and, after vainly seeking support\n for his protest at Ur and \u1e24arran, the two great centres of\n the worship of Sin, migrated to Canaan, beyond the limits of\n \u1e2aammurabi\u2019s empire, to worship God after his fashion. How much\n truth is contained in these brilliant generalisations it is\n difficult for an ordinary man to say. In spite of the ingenuity\n and breadth of conception with which the theory is worked\n out, it is not unfair to suggest that it rests mostly on a\n combination of things that are not in the Bible with things\n that are not in the monuments. Indeed, the only positive point\n of contact between the two data of the problem is the certainly\n remarkable fact that tradition does connect Abraham with two\n chief centres of the Babylonian moon-worship. But what we\n chiefly desiderate is some evidence that the worship of the\n moon-god had greater affinities with monotheism than the worship\n of Marduk, the god of the vernal sun. [The attempt to connect\n Joseph with the abortive monotheistic reform of Chuenaten\n (Amenophis IV.) is destitute of plausibility.]\u2015\u2015To a similar\n effect Jeremias, _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten\n Orients_\u00b2, 327 ff.: \u201cA reform movement of protest against the\n religious degeneration of the ruling classes\u201d was the motive of\n the migration (333), perhaps connected with the introduction of\n a new astronomical era, the Taurus-epoch (which, by the way, had\n commenced nearly 1000 years before! compare 66). The movement\n assumed the form of a migration\u2015\u2015a Hegira\u2015\u2015under Abraham as\n Mahdi, who preached his doctrine as he went, made converts\n in \u1e24arran, Egypt, Gerar, Damascus, and elsewhere, finally\n establishing the worship of Yahwe at the sanctuaries of\n Palestine. This is to write a new Abrahamic legend, considerably\n different from the old.\n\n\n \u00a7 5. _Preservation and collection of the traditions._\n\nIn all popular narration the natural unit is the short story, which\ndoes not too severely tax the attention of a simple audience, and which\nretains its outline and features unchanged as it passes from mouth\nto mouth.\u00b9 A large part of the Book of Genesis consists of narratives\nof this description,\u2015\u2015single tales, of varying length but mostly very\nshort, each complete in itself, with a clear beginning and a satisfying\nconclusion. As we read the book, unities of this kind detach themselves\nfrom their context, and round themselves into independent wholes; and\nit is only by studying them in their isolation, and each in its own\nlight, that we can fully appreciate their charm and understand, in some\nmeasure, the circumstances of their origin. The older stratum of the\nprim\u00e6val history, and of the history of Abraham, is almost entirely\ncomposed of single incidents of this kind: think of the story of the\nFall, of Cain and Abel, of Noah\u2019s drunkenness, of the Tower of Babel;\nand again of Abraham in Egypt, of the flight or expulsion of Hagar, of\nthe sacrifice of Isaac, etc., etc. When we pass the middle of the book,\nthe mode of narration begins to change. The biography of Jacob is much\nmore a consecutive narrative than that of Abraham; but even here the\nseparate scenes stand out in their original distinctness of outline\n(_e.g._ the transference of the birthright, Jacob at Bethel, the\nmeeting with Rachel at the well, the wrestling at Peniel, the outrage\non Dinah, etc.). It is not till we come to the history of Joseph that\nthe principle of biographical continuity gains the upper hand. Joseph\u2019s\nstory is, indeed, made up of a number of incidents; but they are made\nto merge into one another, so that each derives its interest from its\nrelation to the whole, and ends (except the last) on a note of suspense\nand expectation rather than of rest. This no doubt is due to the\ngreater popularity and more frequent repetition of the stories of Jacob\nand Joseph; but at the same time it bears witness to a considerable\ndevelopment of the art of story-telling, and one in which we cannot but\ndetect some degree of professional aptitude and activity.\n\n \u00b9 Compare Gunkel, _Genesis \u00fcbersetzt und erkl\u00e4rt_ page XXXII,\n to whose fine appreciation of the \u201cKunstform der Sagen\u201d this\n \u00a7 is greatly indebted.\n\nThe short stories of Genesis, even those of the most elementary type,\nare exquisite works of art, almost as unique and perfect in their own\nkind as the parables of our Lord are in theirs. They are certainly not\nrandom productions of fireside gossip, but bear the unmistakable stamp\nof individual genius (Gunkel, _Genesis \u00fcbersetzt und erkl\u00e4rt_ page xxx).\nNow, between the inception of the legends (which is already at some\ndistance from the traditional facts) and the written form in which\nthey lie before us, there stretches an interval which is perhaps in\nsome instances to be measured by centuries. Hence two questions arise:\n(1) What was the fate of the stories during this interval? Were they\ncast adrift on the stream of popular talk,\u2015\u2015with nothing to secure\ntheir preservation save the perfection of their original form,\u2015\u2015and\nafterwards collected from the lips of the people? Or were they taken\nin hand from the first by a special class of men who made it their\nbusiness to conserve the integrity of the narratives, and under whose\nauspices the mass of traditional material was gradually welded into its\npresent shape? And (2), how is this whole process of transmission and\nconsolidation related to the use of writing? Was the work of collecting\nand systematising the traditions primarily a literary one, or had it\nalready commenced at the stage of oral narration?\n\nTo such questions, of course, no final answers can be given. (1) It\nis not possible to discriminate accurately between the modifications\nwhich a narrative would undergo through constant repetition, and\nchanges deliberately made by responsible persons. On the whole, the\nbalance of presumption seems to us to incline towards the hypothesis\nof professional oversight of some sort, exercised from a very early\ntime. On this assumption, too, we can best understand the formation\nof legendary cycles; for it is evident that no effective grouping of\ntradition could take place in the course of promiscuous popular recital.\n(2) As to the use of writing, it is natural to suppose that it came\nin first of all as an aid to the memory of the narrator, and that as\na knowledge of literature extended the practice of oral recitation\ngradually died out, and left the written record in sole possession of\nthe field. In this way we may imagine that books would be formed, which\nwould be handed down from father to son, annotated, expanded, revised,\nand copied; and so collections resembling our oldest pentateuchal\ndocuments might come into existence.\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 See Gilbert Murray, _Rise of the Greek Epic_, page 92 ff.\n\nHere we come upon one important fact which affords some guidance in\nthe midst of these speculations. The bulk of the Genesis-tradition\nlies before us in two closely parallel and practically contemporaneous\nrecensions (see page xliii ff. below). Since there is every reason to\nbelieve that these recensions were made independently of each other,\nit follows that the early traditions had been codified, and a sort\nof national epos had taken shape, prior to the compilation of these\ndocuments. When we find, further, that each of them contains evidence\nof earlier collections and older strata of tradition, we must assume\na very considerable period of time to have elapsed between the\nformation of a fixed corpus of tradition and the composition of Yahwist\nand Elohist. Beyond this, however, we are in the region of vaguest\nconjecture. We cannot tell for certain what kind of authority had\npresided over the combination of the legends, nor whether it was first\ndone in the oral or the literary stage of translation. We may think of\nthe priesthoods of the leading sanctuaries as the natural custodians of\nthe tradition:\u00b9 the sanctuaries were at least the obvious repositories\nof the cult-legends pertaining to them. But we cannot indicate any\nsanctuary of such outstanding national importance as to be plausibly\nregarded as the centre of a national epic.\u00b2 Or we may assign a\nconspicuous share in the work to the prophetic guilds which, in the\ntime of Samuel, were _foci_ of enthusiasm for the national cause, and\nmight conceivably have devoted themselves to the propagation of the\nnational tradition. Or, finally, we may assume, with Gunkel, _Genesis\n\u00fcbersetzt und erkl\u00e4rt_, that there existed in Israel, as among the\nArabs, guilds of professional story-tellers, exercising their vocation\nat public festivals and such like gatherings, for the entertainment\nand instruction of the people. The one certainty is that a considerable\ntime must be allowed for the complex mental activities which lie behind\nour earliest literary sources. It is true that the rise of a national\nepos presupposes a strongly developed consciousness of national unity;\nbut in Israel the national ideal was much older than its realisation\nin the form of a state, and therefore we have no reason for placing the\nunification of the traditions later than the founding of the monarchy.\nFrom the age of Samuel at least all the essential conditions were\npresent; and a lower limit than that will hardly meet the requirements\nof the case.\n\n \u00b9 Compare Stade, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche\n Wissenschaft_, i. 347 ff.\n\n \u00b2 Procksch, _Das nordhebr\u00e4ische Sagenbuch: die Elohimquelle_,\n however (392 f.), suggests Shiloh as the place where the\n national legend was developed.\n\n We may here refer to a matter of great importance in its bearing\n on the possibility of accurate oral transmission of the legends:\n viz. the recent effort of Sievers (_Metrische Studien_, ii.,\n 1904\u20125) to resolve the whole of Genesis into verse. If his\n theory should be established, it would not merely furnish the\n most potent instrument of literary analysis conceivable, but it\n would render credible a very high degree of verbal exactitude\n during the period of unwritten tradition. The work of Sievers\n is viewed with qualified approval both by Gunkel, _Genesis\n \u00fcbersetzt und erkl\u00e4rt_ (page xxix f.) and Procksch, _Das\n nordhebr\u00e4ische Sagenbuch: die Elohimquelle_ (210 ff.), and it is\n certain to evoke interesting discussion. The present writer, who\n is anything but a \u2018Metriker von Fach,\u2019 does not feel competent\n to pronounce an opinion on its merits. Neither reading aloud,\n nor counting of syllables, has convinced him that the scansion\n holds, or that Hebrew rhythm in general is so rigorously exact\n as the system demands. The prejudice against divorcing poetic\n form from poetic feeling and diction (of the latter there\n is no trace in what have been considered the prose parts of\n Genesis) is not lightly to be overcome; and the frequent want\n of coincidence between breaks in sense and pauses in rhythm\n disturbs the mind, besides violating what used to be thought\n a fundamental feature of Hebrew poetry. Grave misgivings are\n also raised by the question whether the Massoretic theory of\n the syllable is (as Sievers assumes) a reliable guide to the\n pronunciation and rhythm of the early Hebrew language. It seems\n therefore hazardous to apply the method to the solution of\n literary problems, whether by emendation of the text, or by\n disentanglement of sources.\n\n\n\n\n B. STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK.\n\n\n \u00a7 6. _Plan and Divisions._\n\nThat the Book of Genesis forms a literary unity has been a commonplace\nof criticism since the maiden work of Ewald\u00b9 put an end to the\nFragmentary Hypothesis of Geddes and Vater. The ruling idea of the\nbook, as has already been briefly indicated (page ii), is to show\nhow Israel, the people of God, attained its historical position among\nthe nations of the world; in particular, how its peculiar relation to\nGod was rooted in the moral greatness and piety of its three common\nancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and how through God\u2019s promise\nto them it had secured an exclusive right to the soil of Canaan.\u00b2 This\npurpose, however, appears less in the details of the history (which\nare obviously governed by a variety of interests) than in the scope and\narrangement of the work as a whole, especially in the \u2018framework\u2019 which\nknits it together, and reveals the plan to which the entire narrative\nis accommodated. The method consistently followed is the progressive\nisolation of the main line of Israel\u2019s descent by brief genealogical\nsummaries of the collateral branches of the human family which diverge\nfrom it at successive points.\n\n \u00b9 _Die Komposition der Genesis, kritisch untersucht_\n (1823).\u2015\u2015In that essay Ewald fell into the natural error of\n confusing unity of plan with unity of authorship,\u2015\u2015an error,\n however, which he retracted eight years later (_Theologische\n Studien und Kritiken_, 1831, 595 ff.), in favour of a\n theory (virtually identical with the so-called Supplementary\n Hypothesis) which did full justice to the unity and\n skilful disposition of the book, while recognising it to\n be the result of an amalgamation of several documents. The\n distinction has never since been lost sight of; and all\n subsequent theories of the composition of Genesis have\n endeavoured to reconcile the assumption of a diversity of\n sources with the indisputable fact of a clearly designed\n arrangement of the material. The view which is generally\n held does so in this way: three main documents, following\n substantially the same historical order, are held to\n have been combined by one or more redactors; one of these\n documents, being little more than an epitome of the history,\n was specially fitted to supply a framework into which the\n rest of the narrative could be fitted, and was selected\n by the redactor for this purpose; hence the plan which we\n discover in the book is really the design of one particular\n writer. It is obvious that such a conception quite\n adequately explains all the literary unity which the Book\n of Genesis exhibits.\n\n \u00b2 See Tuch, _Commentar \u00fcber die Genesis_ XVI ff.\n\n A clue to the main divisions of the book is thus furnished by\n the editor\u2019s practice of inserting the collateral genealogies\n (_T\u00f4l\u0115d\u00f4th_) at the close of the principal sections (11\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b3\u2070;\n 25\u00b9\u00b2\u207b\u00b9\u2078; 36).\u00b9 This yields a natural and convenient division\n into four approximately equal parts, namely:\n\n I. The Prim\u00e6val History of mankind: i.\u2012xi.\u00b2\n II. The History of Abraham: xii. 1\u2012xxv. 18.\n III. The History of Jacob: xxv. 19\u2012xxxvi. 43.\n IV. The Story of Joseph and his brethren: xxxvii.\u2012l.\n\n A detailed analysis of the contents is given at the commencement\n of the various sections.\n\n \u00b9 The genealogies of 4\u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427 and 22\u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2074 do not count:\n these are not _T\u00f4l\u0115d\u00f4th_, and do not belong to the document\n used as a framework. Chapter 10 (the Table of peoples) would\n naturally stand at the close of a section; but it had to be\n displaced from its proper position before 11\u00b9\u2070 to find room\n for the story of the Dispersion (11\u00b9\u207b\u2079). It may be said,\n however, that the _T\u00f4l\u0115d\u00f4th_ of Adam (chapter 5) should mark\n a main division; and that is probably correct, though for\n practical purposes it is better to ignore the subdivision\n and treat the prim\u00e6val history as one section.\n\n \u00b2 Strictly speaking, the first part ends perhaps at 11\u00b2\u2077 or \u00b3\u2070;\n but the actual division of chapters has its recommendation,\n and it is not worth while to depart from it.\n\n It is commonly held by writers on Genesis that the editor has\n marked the headings of the various sections by the formula\n\u200e \u200f[\u05d5\u05b4]\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4 \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b0\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u200e, which occurs eleven times in the book: 2\u2074\u1d43 5\u00b9 \u00b9 6\u2079\n 10\u00b9 11\u00b9\u2070 11\u00b2\u2077 25\u00b9\u00b2 25\u00b9\u2079 36\u00b9 36\u2079 37\u00b2. Transposing 2\u2074\u1d43 to the\n beginning, and disregarding 36\u2079 (both arbitrary proceedings),\n we obtain ten parts; and these are actually adopted by Franz\n Delitzsch, _Neuer Commentar \u00fcber die Genesis_ as the divisions\n of his commentary. But the scheme is of no practical utility,\n \u2015\u2015for it is idle to speak of 11\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2076 or 25\u00b9\u00b2\u207b\u00b9\u2078 as sections\n of Genesis on the same footing as 25\u00b9\u2079\u201235\u00b2\u2079 or 37\u00b2\u201250\u00b2\u2076; and\n theoretically it is open to serious objection. Here it will\n suffice to point out the incongruity that, while the histories\n of Noah and Isaac fall under their own _T\u00f4l\u0115d\u00f4th_, those of\n Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph fall under the _T\u00f4l\u0115d\u00f4th_ of their\n respective fathers. See, further, page 40 f.\n\n\u200e \u00b9 \u05d6\u05b8\u05d4 \u05e1\u05b5\u05e4\u05b6\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea.\n\n\n \u00a7 7. _The Sources of Genesis._\n\nThe Book of Genesis has always been the strategic position of\nPentateuchal literary criticism. It was the examination of this book\nthat led Astruc, in 1753,\u00b9 to the important discovery which was the\nfirst positive achievement in this department of research. Having\nnoticed the significant alternation of the divine names in different\nsections of the book, and having convinced himself that the phenomenon\ncould not be explained otherwise than as due to the literary habit of\ntwo writers, Astruc proceeded to divide the bulk of Genesis into two\ndocuments, one distinguished by the use of the name \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, and the other\nby the use of \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05b9\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4\u200e; while a series of fragmentary passages where this\ncriterion failed him brought the total number of his _m\u00e9moires_ up to\ntwelve. Subsequent investigations served to emphasise the magnitude\nof this discovery, which Eichhorn\u00b2 speedily put on a broader basis\nby a characterisation of the style, contents, and spirit of the two\ndocuments. Neither Astruc nor Eichhorn carried the analysis further\nthan Exodus 2,\u2015\u2015partly because they were influenced by the traditional\nopinion (afterwards abandoned by Eichhorn) of Mosaic authorship,\nand did not expect to find traces of composition in the history\ncontemporaneous with Moses. We shall see presently that there is a\ndeeper reason why this particular clue to the analysis could not at\nfirst be traced beyond the early chapters of Exodus.\n\n \u00b9 _Conjectures sur les m\u00e9moires originaux, dont il paro\u00eet que\n Moyse s\u2019est servi pour composer le livre de la Gen\u00e8se._\n\n \u00b2 _Einleitung in das Alte Testament_, 1780\u20123 (1st edition).\n\n While the earlier attempts to discredit Astruc\u2019s discovery took\n the direction of showing that the use of the two divine names is\n determined by a difference of meaning which made the one or the\n other more suitable in a particular connexion, the more recent\n opposition entrenches itself mostly behind the uncertainties\n of the text, and maintains that the Versions (especially LXX)\n show the Massoretic Text to be so unreliable that no analysis\n of documents can be based on its data: see Klostermann,\n _Der Pentateuch_ (1893), page 20 ff.; Dahse, _Archiv f\u00fcr\n Religionswissenschaft._, vi. (1903), 305 ff.; Redpath, _American\n Journal of Theology_, viii. (1904), 286 ff.; Eerdmans, _Die\n Komposition der Genesis_ (1908), 34 ff.; Wiener, _Bibliotheca\n Sacra and Theological Review_ (1909), 119 ff.\u2015\u2015It cannot be\n denied that the facts adduced by these writers import an element\n of uncertainty into the analysis, _so far as it depends on\n the criterion of the divine names_; but the significance of\n the facts is greatly overrated, and the alternative theories\n propounded to account for the textual phenomena are improbable\n in the extreme. (1) So far as I have observed, no attention is\n paid to what is surely a very important factor of the problem,\n the _proportion_ of divergences to agreements as between LXX\n and Massoretic Text. In Genesis the divine name occurs in one or\n other form about 340 times (in Massoretic Text, \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e 143 times +\n\u200e \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e 177 times + \u05d9\u05f3 \u05d0\u05f3\u200e 20 times). The total deviations registered\n by Redpath (296 ff.) number 50; according to Eerdmans (34 f.)\n they are 49; _i.e._ little more than one-seventh of the whole.\n Is it so certain that that degree of divergence invalidates\n a documentary analysis founded on so much larger a field of\n undisputed readings? (2) In spite of the confident assertions of\n Dahse (309) and Wiener (131 f.) there is not a single instance\n in which LXX is \u2018demonstrably\u2019 right against Massoretic Text.\n It is readily conceded that it is probably right in a few cases;\n but there are two general presumptions in favour of the superior\n fidelity of the Massoretic tradition. Not only (a) is the\n chance of purely clerical confusion between \u03ba\u0305\u03c2 and \u03b8\u0305\u03c2 greater\n than between \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e and \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, or even between \u05d9\u05f3\u200e and \u05d0\u05f3\u200e, and (b) a\n change of divine names more apt to occur in _translation_ than\n in _transcription_, but (c) the distinction between a proper\n name \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e and a generic \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e is much less likely to have been\n overlooked in copying than that between two appellatives \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\n and \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. An instructive example is 4\u00b2\u2076, where LXX \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2\n is \u2018demonstrably\u2019 wrong. (3) In the present state of textual\n criticism it is impossible to determine in particular cases what\n is the original reading. We can only proceed by the imperfect\n method of averages. Now it is significant that while in Genesis\n LXX substitutes \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 for \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e 21 times, and \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 19 times\n (40 in all), there are only 4 cases of \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 and 6 of \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\n \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 for \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (10 in all: the proportions being very much the\n same for the whole Pentateuch). LXX thus reveals a decided (and\n very natural) preference for the ordinary Greek \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 over the\n less familiar \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. Dahse urges (page 308) that Massoretic\n Text betrays an equally marked preference for \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, and has\n frequently substituted it for \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e; but that is much less\n intelligible. For although the pronunciation of \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e as \u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05b9\u05e0\u05b8\u05d9\u200e might\n have removed the fear of the Tetragrammaton,\u2015\u2015and that would be\n a very good reason for leaving \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e where it was,\u2015\u2015it suggests no\n motive at all for inserting it where it was not. There is force,\n however, in Gray\u2019s remark on a particular case (_A Critical and\n Exegetical Commentary on Numbers_ page 311), that \u201cwherever [\u1f41]\n \u03ba\u0305\u03c2 appears in LXX it deserves attention as a possible indication\n of the original text.\u201d (4) The documentary theory furnishes\n a better explanation of the alternation of the names than any\n other that has been propounded. Redpath\u2019s hypothesis of a double\n recension of the Pentateuch, one mainly Yahwistic and the other\n wholly (?) Elohistic, of which one was used only where the other\n was illegible, would explain anything, and therefore explains\n nothing; least of all does it explain the frequent coincidence\n of hypothetical illegibility with actual changes of style,\n phraseology, and standpoint. Dahse (following out a hint of\n Klostermann) accounts for the phenomena of Massoretic Text (and\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_) by the desire to\n preserve uniformity within the limits of each several pericope\n of the Synagogue lectionary; but why some pericopes should be\n Yahwistic and others Elohistic, it is not easy to conceive. He\n admits that his view cannot be carried through in detail; yet\n it is just of the kind which, if true, ought to be verifiable\n in detail. One has but to read consecutively the first three\n chapters of Genesis, and observe how the sudden change in the\n divine name coincides with a new vocabulary, representation,\n and spiritual atmosphere, in order to feel how paltry all such\n artificial explanations are in comparison with the hypothesis\n that the names are distinctive of different documents. The\n experience repeats itself, not perhaps quite so convincingly,\n again and again throughout the book; and though there are cases\n where the change of manner is not obvious, still the theory\n is vindicated in a sufficient number of instances to be worth\n carrying through, even at the expense of a somewhat complicated\n analysis, and a very few demands (see page xlviii f.) on the\n services of a redactor to resolve isolated problems. (5) It was\n frankly admitted by Kuenen long ago (see _Historisch-critisch\n Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des\n Ouden Verbonds_ i. pages 59, 62) that the test of the divine\n names is not _by itself_ a sufficient criterion of source or\n authorship, and that critics might sometimes err through a\n too exclusive reliance on this one phenomenon.\u00b9 Nevertheless\n the opinion can be maintained that the Massoretic Text is far\n superior to the Versions, and that its use of the names is a\n valuable clue to the separation of documents. Truth is sometimes\n stranger than fiction; and, however surprising it may appear\n to some, we can reconcile our minds to the belief that the\n Massoretic Text does reproduce with substantial accuracy the\n characteristics of the original autographs. At present that\n assumption can only be tested by the success or failure of the\n analysis based on it. It is idle to speculate on what would\n have happened if Astruc and his successors had been compelled\n to operate with LXX instead of Massoretic Text; but it is a\n rational surmise that in that case criticism would still have\n arrived, by a more laborious route, at very much the positions\n it occupies to-day.\n\n \u00b9 It should be clearly understood that as regards Priestly-Code\n and Yahwist the distinction of divine names is but one\n of many marks of diverse authorship (see Driver _An\n Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament_\u2078, 131\n ff., where more than _fifty_ such distinguishing criteria\n are given), and that after Exodus 6, where this particular\n criterion disappears, the difference is quite as obvious as\n before. As regards Yahwist and Elohist, the analysis, though\n sometimes dependent on the divine names alone, is _generally_\n based on other differences as well.\n\nThe next great step towards the modern documentary theory of the\nPentateuch was Hupfeld\u2019s\u00b9 demonstration that \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e is not peculiar to\none document, but to two; so that under the name Elohist two different\nwriters had previously been confused. It is obvious, of course, that\nin this inquiry the divine names afford no guidance; yet by observing\nfiner marks of style, and the connexion of the narrative, Hupfeld\nsucceeded in proving to the ultimate satisfaction of all critics that\nthere was a second Elohistic source (now called Elohist), closely\nparallel and akin to the Yahwistic (Yahwist), and that both Yahwist and\nElohist had once been independent consecutive narratives. An important\npart of the work was a more accurate delimitation of the first Elohist\n(now called the Priestly Code: Priestly-Code), whose outlines were\nthen first drawn with a clearness to which later investigation has had\nlittle to add.\u00b2\n\n \u00b9 _Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung_\n (1853). Hupfeld\u2019s discovery had partly been anticipated\n by Ilgen (_Urkunden des ersten Buchs von Moses_ [1798]).\n Between Eichhorn and Hupfeld, criticism had passed through\n two well-defined phases: the Fragmentary Hypothesis (see\n page xxxii f. above) and the Supplementary Hypothesis, of\n which the classical exposition is Tuch\u2019s fine commentary\n on Genesis (1858; reissued by Arnold in 1871). The latter\n theory rested partly on a prejudice\u2015\u2015that the framework of\n the Pentateuch was necessarily supplied by its oldest source;\n partly on the misapprehension which Hupfeld dispelled;\n and partly on the truth that Yahwistic sections are so\n interlaced with Elohistic that the former could plausibly\n be regarded as on the whole supplementary to the latter.\n Though Tuch\u2019s commentary did not appear till 1858, the theory\n had really received its death-blow from Hupfeld five years\n before.\n\n \u00b2 See N\u00f6ldeke, _Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_,\n 1869, pages 1\u2012144. It is worthy of mention here that this\n great scholar, after long resisting the theory of the\n late origin of Priestly-Code, has at last declared his\n acceptance of the position of Wellhausen (see _Zeitschrift\n f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, 1908, 203).\n\n Though Hupfeld\u2019s work was confined to Genesis, it had results of\n the utmost consequence for the criticism of the Pentateuch as a\n whole. In particular, it brought to light a fact which at once\n explains why Genesis presents a simpler problem to analysis than\n the rest of the Pentateuch, and furnishes a final proof that\n the avoidance of \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e by two of the sources was not accidental,\n but arose from a theory of religious development held and\n expressed by both writers. For both Priestly-Code (Exodus\n 6\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) and Elohist (Exodus 3\u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) connect the revelation of\n the Tetragrammaton with the mission of Moses; while the former\n states emphatically that God was not known by that name to the\n patriarchs.\u00b9 Consistency demanded that these writers should use\n the generic name for Deity up to this point; while Yahwist, who\n was bound by no such theory, could use \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e from the first.\u00b2 From\n Exodus 6 onwards Priestly-Code regularly uses \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e; Elohist\u2019s\n usage fluctuates between \u05d0\u05f3\u200e and \u05d9\u05f3\u200e (perhaps a sign of different\n strata within the document), so that the criterion no longer\n yields a sure clue to the analysis.\n\n \u00b9 A curious attempt to turn the edge of this argument will\n be found in the article of H. M. Wiener referred to above\n (_Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review_, 1909, 158 ff.).\n\n \u00b2 For a partial exception, see on 4\u00b2\u2076.\n\nIt does not lie within the scope of this Introduction to trace the\nextension of these lines of cleavage through the other books of the\nHexateuch; and of the reflex results of the criticism of the later\nbooks on that of Genesis only two can here be mentioned. One is the\nrecognition of the unique position and character of Deuteronomy in\nthe Pentateuch, and the dating of its promulgation in the eighteenth\nyear of Josiah.\u00b9 Although this has hardly any direct influence on the\ncriticism of Genesis, it is an important landmark in the Pentateuch\nproblem, as furnishing a fixed date by reference to which the age of\nthe other documents can partly be determined. The other point is the\nquestion of the date of Priestly-Code. The preconception in favour\nof the antiquity of this document (based for the most part on the\nfact that it really forms the framework of the Pentateuch) was nearly\nuniversal among scholars down to the publication of Wellhausen\u2019s\n_Geschichte Israels_, i., in 1878; but it had already been shown to\nbe groundless by Graff\u00b2 and Kuenen in 1866\u201269.\n\n \u00b9 De Wette, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament_\n (1806\u20127); Riehm, _Gesetzgebung Mose\u2019s im Lande Moab_ (1854);\n al.\n\n \u00b2 _Die geschichtliche B\u00fccher des Alte Testaments_ (1866). Graf\n did not at first see it necessary to abandon the earlier\n date of the _narratives_ of Priestly-Code; for an account\n of his subsequent change of opinion in correspondence with\n Kuenen, as well as the anticipations of his final theory\n by Vatke, Reuss, and others, we must refer to Kuenen _An\n Historico-Critical Inquiry Into the Origin and Composition\n of the Hexateuch_ xix ff., or Holzinger\u2019s _Einleitung in den\n Hexateuch_, especially page 64 ff.\n\n This revolutionary change was brought about by a comparison of\n the layers of legislation in the later Pentateuch books with\n one another, and with the stages of Israel\u2019s religious history\n as revealed in the earlier historical books; from which it\n appeared that the laws belonging to Priestly-Code were later\n than Deuteronomy, and that their codification took place during\n and after, and their promulgation after, the Exile. There\n was hesitation at first in extending this conclusion to the\n _narratives_ of Priestly-Code, especially those of them in\n Genesis and Exodus 1\u201211. But when the problem was fairly\n faced, it was perceived, not only that Priestly-Code in Genesis\n presented no obstacle to the theory, but that in many respects\n its narrative was more intelligible as the latest than as the\n oldest stratum of the book.\n\nThe chief positions at which literary criticism has arrived with regard\nto Genesis are, therefore, briefly these: (1) The oldest sources are\nYahwist and Elohist, closely parallel documents, both dating from the\nbest period of Hebrew literature, but distinguished from each other by\ntheir use of the divine name, by slight idiosyncrasies of style, and\nby quite perceptible differences of representation. (2) These sources\nwere combined into a composite narrative (Jehovist) by a redactor\n(Redactor\u1d36\u1d49\u02b0\u1d52\u1d5b\u2071\u02e2\u1d57), whose hand can be detected in several patches of\na literary complexion differing from either of his authorities. He has\ndone his work so deftly that it is frequently difficult, and sometimes\nimpossible, to sunder the documents. It is generally held that this\nredaction took place before the composition of Deuteronomy, so that\na third stage in the history of the Pentateuch would be represented\nby the symbols Jehovist + Deuteronomy. (3) The remaining source\nPriestly-Code is a product of the Exilic or post-Exilic age, though it\nembodies older material. Originally an independent work, its formal and\nschematic character fitted it to be the framework of the Pentateuchal\nnarrative; and this has determined the procedure of the final redactor\n(Redactor\u1d3e\u1d49\u207f\u1d57\u1d43\u1d57\u1d49\u1d58\u1d9c\u02b0), by whom excerpts from Jehovist have been used to\nfill up the skeleton outline which Priestly-Code gave of the primitive\nand patriarchal history.\n\nThe above statement will, it is hoped, suffice to put the reader in\npossession of the main points of the critical position occupied in the\nCommentary. The evidence by which they are supported will partly be\ngiven in the next four \u00a7\u00a7; but, for a full discussion of the numerous\nquestions involved, we must here refer to works specially devoted to\nthe subject.\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 The following may be mentioned: Kuenen, _Historisch-critisch\n onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken\n des Ouden Verbonds_\u00b2, i. (1885) [English translation,\n _The Hexateuch_ (1886)]; and _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_\n (translated into German by Budde); Wellhausen, _Composition\n des Hexateuchs_, etc. (\u00b21889); and _Prolegomena zur\n Geschichte Israels_ (\u20761905) [English translation 1885];\n Westphal, _Les Sources du Pentateuch_ (1888, 1892); Reuss,\n _Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments_ (\u00b21890);\n Robertson Smith, _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_\n (\u00b21892); Driver, _Introduction to the Literature of the Old\n Testament_ (\u20781909); Holzinger, _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_\n (1893); Cornill, _Einleitung in das Alte Testament_ (\u20761908);\n K\u00f6nig, _Einleitung in das Alte Testament_ (1893); Carpenter\n and Harford-Battersby, _Composition of the Hexateuch_ (1902)\n [= volume i. of _The Hexateuch_ (1900)].\n\n Some idea of the extent to which conservative opinion has been\n modified by criticism, may be gathered from the concessions made\n by Professor Orr, whose book, _The Problem of the Old Testament_,\n deservedly ranks as the ablest assault on the critical theory\n of the Pentateuch that has recently appeared in English. Dr.\n Orr admits (a) that Astruc was right in dividing a considerable\n part of Genesis into Elohistic and Yahwistic sections; (b) that\n Eichhorn\u2019s characterisation of the style of the two documents\n has, in the main, \u2018stood the test of time\u2019; (c) that Hupfeld\u2019s\n observation of a difference in the Elohistic sections of Genesis\n \u2018in substance corresponds with facts\u2019; and (d) that even Graf\n and Wellhausen \u2018mark an advance,\u2019 in making Priestly-Code a\n relatively later stratum of Genesis than Jehovist (pages 196\u2012201).\n When we see so many defences evacuated one after another, we\n begin to wonder what is left to fight about, and how a theory\n which was cradled in infidelity, and has the vice of its origin\n clinging to all its subsequent developments (Orr, 195 f.), is\n going to be prevented from doing its deadly work of spreading\n havoc over the \u2018believing view\u2019 of the Old Testament. Dr.\n Orr thinks to stem the torrent by adopting two relatively\n conservative positions from Klostermann. (1) The first is the\n denial of the distinction between Yahwist and Elohist (216 ff.).\n As soon as Hupfeld had effected the separation of Elohist from\n Priestly-Code, it ought to have been perceived, he seems to\n suggest, that the sections thus disentangled are really parts\n of Yahwist (217). And yet, even to Dr. Orr, the matter is not\n quite so simple as this, and he makes another concession. The\n distinction in the divine names remains; and so he is driven\n to admit that Yahwist and Elohist were, not indeed independent\n works, but different literary recensions of one and the same\n old work (229). What is meant by two versions in circulation\n alongside of each other, which never had currency as separate\n documents, is a point on which Dr. Orr owes his readers some\n explanation; if there were two recensions they certainly existed\n separately; and he cannot possibly know how far their agreement\n extended. The issue between him and his critical opponents\n is, nevertheless, perfectly clear: they hold that Yahwist and\n Elohist are independent recensions of a common body of tradition,\n while he maintains that they were recensions of a single\n document, differing in nothing but the use of \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e or \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e. What\n reasons, then, hinder us from deserting the critical view, and\n coming over to the side of Dr. Orr? In the _first_ place, the\n difference between Yahwist and Elohist is _not_ confined to\n the divine names. The linguistic evidence is very much clearer\n than Dr. Orr represents; and differences of conception, though\n slight, are real. It is all very well to quote from candid and\n truth-loving opponents admissions of the close resemblance of the\n narratives, and the difficulty and uncertainty of the analysis,\n in particular instances, and to suggest that these admissions\n amount to a throwing up of the case; but no man with an\n independent grasp of the subject will be imposed on by so cheap\n a device. In the _second_ place, Yahwist and Elohist consist\n largely of duplicate narratives of the same event. It is true,\n this argument is lost on Dr. Orr, who has no difficulty in\n conceiving that Abraham twice told the same lie about his wife,\n and that his son Isaac followed his example, with very similar\n results in the three cases. But he will hardly affect to be\n surprised that other men take a more natural view,\u00b9 and regard\n the stories as traditional variations of the same theme.\u2015\u2015(2)\n The second position is that Priestly-Code was never a distinct\n or self-subsisting document, but only a \u201cframework\u201d enclosing\n the contents of Jehovist (341\u2012377). Again we have to ask what Dr.\n Orr means by a \u2018framework,\u2019 which, in his own words, \u201chas also,\n at certain points, its original, and, in parts, considerable\n contributions to bring to the history\u201d (272); and how he can\n possibly tell that these original and considerable contributions\n did not come from an independent work. The facts that it is now\n closely interwoven with Jehovist, and that there are gaps in\n its narrative (even if these gaps were more considerable than\n there is any reason to suppose), prove nothing except that it\n has passed through the hands of a redactor. That its history\n presupposes a knowledge of Jehovist, and is too meagre to be\n intelligible apart from it, is amply explained by the critical\n view that the author wished to concentrate attention on the\n great religious turning-points in the history (the Creation,\n the Flood, the Covenant with Abraham, the Blessing of Jacob by\n Isaac, the origin of the name Israel, the Settlement in Egypt,\n etc.), and dismissed the rest with a bare chronological epitome.\n When we add that on all these points, as well as others,\n the \u2018original and considerable contributions\u2019 are (Dr. Orr\u2019s\n protestations notwithstanding) radically divergent from the\n older tradition, we have every proof that could be desired\n that Priestly-Code was an independent document, and not a mere\n supplementary expansion of an earlier compilation (see, further,\n page lvii ff. below). But now, supposing Dr. Orr to have made\n good his contentions, what advantage has he gained? So far as\n we can see, none whatever! He does indeed go on to assert a\n preference for the term \u2018collaboration\u2019 as expressing the \u2018kind\n and manner of the activity which brought the Pentateuchal books\n into their present shape\u2019 (375).\u00b2 But that preference might just\n as easily have been exercised on the full literary results of\n the critical theory. And Dr. Orr deceives himself if he imagines\n that that flimsy hypothesis will either neutralise the force\n of the arguments that have carried criticism past the barren\n eccentricities of Klostermann, or save what he chooses to\n consider the \u2018essential Mosaicity\u2019 of the Pentateuch.\n\n \u00b9 So even Sayce, _Early History of the Hebrews_ (1897), 62 f.,\n 64 f.\n\n \u00b2 It is a grave injustice to Dillmann to associate his name,\n however remotely, with this theory of \u2018collaboration\u2019 (527).\n What Dillmann is speaking of in the words cited is simply\n the question whether the three documents, Priestly-Code,\n Elohist, and Yahwist, were combined by a single redaction,\n or whether two of them were first put together and\n afterwards united with the third. Dr. Orr, on the other\n hand, is thinking of \u201cthe labours of _original composers_,\n working with a common aim and towards a common end\u201d (375).\n If everything beyond this is conjectural (376), there is\n nothing but conjecture in the whole construction.\n\n Professor Eerdmans of Leiden, in a series of recent publications,\n has announced his secession from the Graf-Wellhausen school,\n and commenced to lay down the programme of a new era in Old\n Testament criticism (_Hibbert Journal_ vii. [1909], 813 ff.).\n His _Komposition der Genesis_ (1908) gives a foretaste of his\n literary method; and certainly the procedure is drastic enough.\n The divine names are absolutely misleading as a criterion\n of authorship; and the distinction between Priestly-Code and\n Jehovist goes overboard along with that between Yahwist and\n Elohist. Criticism is thus thrown back into its original chaos,\n out of which Eerdmans proceeds to evoke a new kosmos. His\n one positive principle is the recognition of a polytheistic\n background behind the traditions, which has been obscured in\n various degrees by the later monotheistic interpretation. By\n the help of this principle, he distinguishes four stages in the\n development of the tradition. (1) The first is represented by\n remnants of the original undiluted polytheism, where Yahwe does\n not appear at all; _e.g._ 35\u00b9\u207b\u2077; the Israel-recension of the\n Joseph-stories; the groundwork of chapters 1. 20. 28\u00b9\u207b\u2079 6\u2079\u20129\u00b9\u2077.\n (2) Legends which recognise Yahwe as one among many gods; 4.\n 9\u00b9\u2078\u207b\u00b2\u2077 22. 27. 28\u00b9\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u00b2 29. 30. 31. 39. (3) In the third stage,\n polytheistic legends are transferred to Yahwe as the only God:\n 2. 3. 6\u00b9\u207b\u2078 7\u00b9\u207b\u2075 8\u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u00b2 11\u00b9\u207b\u2079 16. 18. 19. 24. 25\u00b9\u2079\u207b\u00b3\u2074 26. (4)\n Late additions of purely monotheistic complexion: 15\u00b9\u207b\u2076 17.\n 35\u2079\u207b\u00b9\u2075 48\u00b3\u207b\u2076. Now, we are quite prepared to find traces of all\n these stages of religion in the Genesis-narratives, if they\n can be proved; and, indeed, all of them except the second are\n recognised by recent critics. But while any serious attempt to\n determine the age of the legends from their contents rather than\n from their literary features is to be welcomed, it is difficult\n to perceive the distinctions on which Eerdmans\u2019s classification\n is based, or to admit that, for example, chapter 17 is one\n whit more monotheistic than 20 or 27, or 24. In any case, on\n Eerdmans\u2019s own showing, the classification affords no clue to\n the composition and history of the book. In order to get a start,\n he has to fall back on the acknowledged _literary_ distinction\n between a Jacob-recension and an Israel-recension of the\n Joseph-narratives (on this see page 439 below). Since the former\n begins \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05ea\u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1\u200e, it is considered to have formed part of a\n comprehensive history of the patriarchs, commencing with Adam\n (5\u00b9), set in a framework of _T\u00f4l\u0115d\u00f4th_. This is the groundwork\n of Genesis. It is destitute of monotheistic colouring (it\n contains, however, legends of all the first three classes!),\n Yahwe being to the compiler simply one of the gods; and must\n therefore have originated before the Exile: a lower limit is\n 700 B.C. This collection was soon enlarged by the addition of\n legends not less ancient than its own; and by the insertion\n of the Israel-recension, which is as polytheistic in character\n as the _T\u00f4l\u0115d\u00f4th_-collection! The monotheistic manipulation\n of the work set in after Deuteronomy; but how many editions it\n went through we cannot tell for certain. The last thorough-going\n reviser was the author of chapter 17; but additions were made\n even later than that, etc. etc. A more bewildering hypothesis\n it has never been our lot to examine; and we cannot pretend to\n believe that it contains the rudiments of a successful analysis.\n There is much to be learned from Eerdmans\u2019s work, which is full\n of acute observations and sound reasoning in detail; but as\n a theory of the composition of Genesis it seems to us utterly\n at fault. What with Winckler and Jerome, and Cheyne, and now\n Eerdmans, Old Testament scholars have a good many new eras\n dawning on them just now. Whether any of them will shine unto\n the perfect day, time will show.\n\n\n \u00a7 8. _The collective authorship of Yahwist and Elohist._\n\nIn Yahwist and Elohist we have, according to what has been said above,\nthe two oldest written recensions of a tradition which had at one time\nexisted in the oral form. When we compare the two documents, the first\nthing that strikes us is their close correspondence in outline and\ncontents. The only important difference is that Elohist\u2019s narrative\ndoes not seem to have embraced the primitive period, but to have\ncommenced with Abraham. But from the point where Elohist strikes into\nthe current of the history (at chapter 20, with a few earlier traces in\nchapter 15), there are few incidents in the one document to which the\nother does not contain a parallel.\u00b9. What is much more remarkable, and\nindeed surprising, is that the _manner_ of narration changes in the two\ndocuments _pari passu_. Thus the transition from the loose connexion\nof the Abraham legends to the more consecutive biography of Jacob,\nand then to the artistic unity of the Joseph-stories (see page\nxxviii f.), is equally noticeable in Yahwist and in Elohist. It is\nthis extraordinarily close parallelism, both in matter and form, which\nproves that both documents drew from a common body of tradition, and\neven suggests that that tradition had already been partly reduced to\nwriting.\u00b2\n\n \u00b9 The precise extent to which this is true depends, of course,\n on the validity of the finer processes of analysis, with\n regard to which there is room for difference of opinion. On\n the analysis followed in the commentary, the only episodes\n in Elohist to which there is no trace of a parallel in\n Yahwist, after chapter 15, are: the sacrifice of Isaac, 22;\n Esau\u2019s selling of his birthright, 25\u00b2\u2079\u207b\u00b3\u2074 (?); the theophany\n of Mahanaim, 32\u00b2\u1427 \u00b3; the purchase of land at Shechem, 33\u00b9\u2078\u207b\u00b2\u2070;\n and the various incidents in 35\u00b9\u207b\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2074\u207b\u00b2\u2070. Those peculiar to\n Yahwist are: the theophany at Mamre, 18; the destruction of\n Sodom, 19\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u2078; Lot and his daughters, 19\u00b3\u2070\u207b\u00b3\u2078; the birth of\n Jacob and Esau, 25\u00b2\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u2078; the Isaac-narratives, 26; Jacob\u2019s\n meeting with Rachel, 29\u00b2\u207b\u00b9\u2074; Reuben and the love-apples,\n 30\u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427; the incest of Reuben, 35\u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1d43; Judah and Tamar,\n 38; Joseph\u2019s temptation, 39\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u2070; the cup in Benjamin\u2019s\n sack, 44; Joseph\u2019s agrarian policy, 47\u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b2\u2076 (?); and the\n genealogies of 22\u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2074 25\u00b9\u207b\u2076.\n\n \u00b2 One is almost tempted to go further, and say that the\n facts can be best explained by the hypothesis of literary\n dependence of one document on the other (so Luther _Die\n Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 169: \u201cElohist steht\n v\u00f6llig in seinem [Yahwist\u2019s] Banne\u201d). But the present writer\n is convinced from repeated examination, that the differences\n are not of a kind that can be accounted for in this way (see\n Procksch, 305 f.).\n\nHere we come back, from the side of analysis, to a question which\nwas left unsettled in \u00a7 5; the question, namely, of the process by\nwhich the oral tradition was consolidated and reduced to writing. It\nhas been shown with great probability that both Yahwist and Elohist\nare _composite documents_, in which minor legendary cycles have\nbeen incorporated, and different strata of tradition are embedded.\nThis presupposes a development of the tradition within the circle\nrepresented by each document, and leads eventually to the theory\nadvocated by most recent critics, that the symbols Yahwist and Elohist\nmust be taken to express, not two individual writers but two _schools_,\n_i.e._, two series of narrators, animated by common conceptions,\nfollowing a common literary method, and transmitting a common form of\nthe tradition from one generation to another.\n\n The phenomena which suggest this hypothesis are fully described\n in the body of the commentary, and need only be recapitulated\n here. In Yahwist, composite structure has been most clearly made\n out in the Prim\u00e6val History (chapters 1\u201211), where at least two,\n and probably more, strands of narrative can be distinguished\n (pages 1\u20124). Gunkel seems to have shown that in 12\u201225 two\n cycles of Abraham-legends have been interwoven (page 240);\n also that in 25 ff. the Jacob-Esau and the Jacob-Laban legends\n were originally independent of each other: this last, however,\n applies to Yahwist and Elohist alike, so that the fusion had\n probably taken place in the common tradition which lies behind\n both. Further, chapters 34 and 38 (pages 418, 450) belong to an\n older stratum of tradition than the main narrative; and the same\n might be said of chapter 49 (page 512), which may very plausibly\n be regarded as a traditional poem of the \u2018school\u2019 of Yahwist,\n and the oldest extant specimen of its _repertoire_.\u2015\u2015With regard\n to Elohist, the proof of composite authorship lies chiefly in\n the Books of Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua; in Genesis, however,\n we have imperfectly assimilated fragments of a more ancient\n tradition in 34 (? if Elohist be a component there), 35\u00b9\u207b\u2077 48\u00b2\u00b2\n and perhaps some other passages.\u2015\u2015The important fact is that\n these passages exhibit all the literary peculiarities of the\n main source to which they are assigned; at least, no linguistic\n _differenti\u00e6_ of any consequence have yet been discovered.\u00b9 The\n problem is to frame a theory which shall do justice at once to\n their material incongruities and their literary homogeneity.\n\n \u00b9 The only exception would be Sievers\u2019 metrical analysis,\n which leads to results far more complicated than can be\n justified by other indications (see page xxxi f.).\n\nWhile the fact of collective authorship of some kind is now generally\nrecognised, there is no agreement as to the interpretation which\nbest explains all the phenomena. Some scholars are impressed (and the\nimpression is certainly very intelligible) by the unity of conception\nand standpoint and mode of treatment which characterise the two\ncollections, and maintain that (in the case of Yahwist especially) the\nstamp of a powerful and original personality is too obvious to leave\nmuch play for the activity of a \u2018school.\u2019\u00b9 It is very difficult to\nhold the balance even between the claims of unity and complexity in the\ndocuments; but the theory of single authorship may easily be pressed\ntoo far. If we could get through with only a Yahwist\u00b9 and Yahwist\u00b2,\nElohist\u00b9, Elohist\u00b2 etc.,\u2015\u2015_i.e._, with the theory of one main document\nsupplemented by a few later additions,\u2015\u2015it would be absurd to speak\nof \u2018schools.\u2019 And even if the case were considerably more complicated,\nit might still be possible to rest satisfied (as a majority of critics\ndo) with the idea of _literary_ schools, manipulating written documents\nunder the influence of tendencies and principles which had become\ntraditional within special circles. Gunkel goes, however, much further\nwith his conception of Yahwist and Elohist as first of all guilds of\noral narrators, whose stories gradually took written shape within their\nrespective circles, and were ultimately put together in the collections\nas we now have them. The theory, while not necessarily excluding the\naction of an outstanding personality in shaping either the oral or\nthe literary phase of the tradition, has the advantage of suggesting\na medium in which the traditional material might have assumed its\nspecifically Yahwistic or Elohistic form before being incorporated in\nthe main document of the school. It is at all events a satisfactory\nworking hypothesis; and that is all that can be looked for in so\nobscure a region of investigation. Whether it is altogether so\nartificial and unnatural as Professor Orr would have us believe, the\nreader must judge for himself.\n\n \u00b9 See the lengthy excursus of Luther in _Die Israeliten und\n ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 107\u2012170, where the thesis is upheld\n that the Yahwist (_i.e._ Yahwist\u00b9) is not a stage in the\n natural process of remodelling the tradition; that he does\n not mean merely to retail the old stories as he found them,\n but writes his book with the conscious purpose of enforcing\n certain ideas and convictions which often run contrary to\n the prevailing tendencies of his age (108). Luther seems\n to simplify the problem too much by excluding the prim\u00e6val\n tradition from consideration (108), and ignoring the\n distribution of the Yahwistic material over the various\n stages of the redaction (155). It makes a considerable\n difference to the theory if (as seems to be the case) the\n sections which Luther assigns to Yahwist\u00b2 (_e.g._ chapters\n 34, 38, 19) really represent older phases of tradition than\n the main document; for if they existed in their Yahwistic\n colouring prior to the compilation of Yahwist\u00b9, there must\n have been a Yahwistic circle of some kind to preserve them;\n and even if they received their literary stamp at a later\n time, there must still have been something of the nature\n of a school to impress the Yahwistic character so strongly\n upon them. His conception of the Yahwist as an Ephraimite,\n a detached and sympathetic adherent of the prophetic and\n Rechabite movement of the 9th century, an opponent of the\n cultus, and an upholder of the nomadic ideal against the\n drift of the old tradition, seems to go far beyond the\n evidence adduced, and, indeed, to be hardly reconcilable\n with the religious tone and spirit of the narratives.\u2015\u2015To\n a similar effect writes Procksch, _Sagenbuch_, 284\u2012308;\n although he does justice to the composite structure of the\n document Yahwist, and describes it in terms which throw a\n shade of uncertainty on the alleged unity of authorship.\n When we read of an \u201ceinheitlichen Grundstock, auf den\n wie in einen Stamm \u2666Geschichten ganz anderer Herkunft\n gewissermassen aufgepropft sind, jetzt eng damit verwachsen\n durch die massgebenden Ideen\u201d (294 f.), we cannot help\n asking where these branches grew before they were engrafted\n on their present stem. If we are right in distinguishing\n a strand of narrative in which Yahwe was used from the\n beginning, and another in which it was introduced in the\n time of Enosh, it is not easy to account for their fusion on\n any theory which does not allow a relative independence to\n the two conceptions.\n\n \u2666 \u201cGeschicten\u201d replaced with \u201cGeschichten\u201d\n\n\n \u00a7 9. _Characteristics of Yahwist and Elohist\n \u2015\u2015their relation to Literary Prophecy._\n\nIt is not the purpose of this section to give an exhaustive\ncharacterisation of the literary or general features of the two older\ndocuments of Genesis. If Yahwist and Elohist are to be regarded as, in\nthe main, recensions of a common body of oral tradition, and if they\nare the work of schools rather than of individuals, it is obvious that\nthe search for characteristic differences loses much of its interest;\nand in point of fact the attempt to delineate two well-defined literary\ntypes is apt to be defeated by the widely contrasted features which\nhave to find a place in one and the same picture. Our object here\nis simply to specify some outstanding differences which justify the\nseparation of sources, and which may assist us later to determine the\nrelative ages of the two documents.\n\nYahwist presents, on the whole, a more uniform literary texture than\nElohist. It is generally allowed to contain the best examples of pure\nnarrative style in the Old Testament; and in Genesis it rarely, if\never, falls below the highest level. But while Elohist hardly attains\nthe same perfection of form, there are whole passages, especially\nin the more ample narratives, in which it is difficult to assign to\nthe one a superiority over the other. Yahwist excels in picturesque\n\u2018objectivity\u2019 of description,\u2015\u2015in the power to paint a scene with few\nstrokes, and in the delineation of life and character: his dialogues,\nin particular, are inimitable \u201cfor the delicacy and truthfulness with\nwhich character and emotions find expression in them\u201d (compare Genesis\n44\u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427).\u00b9 Elohist, on the other hand, frequently strikes a deeper\nvein of subjective feeling, especially of pathos; as in the account\nof Isaac\u2019s sacrifice (22), of the expulsion of Hagar (21\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), the\ndismay of Isaac and the tears of Esau on the discovery of Jacob\u2019s fraud\n(27\u00b3\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), Jacob\u2019s lifelong grief for Rachel (48\u2077), or his tenderness\ntowards Joseph\u2019s children (48\u00b9\u2074).\u00b2 But here again no absolute\ndistinction can be drawn; in the history of Joseph, _e.g._, the vein\nof pathos is perhaps more marked in Yahwist than in Elohist. Where\nparallels are sufficiently distinct to show a tendency, it is found\nin several instances that Yahwist\u2019s objectivity of treatment has\nsucceeded in preserving the archaic spirit of a legend which in Elohist\nis transformed by the more refined sentiment of a later age. The best\nexample is Yahwist\u2019s picture of Hagar, the intractable, indomitable\nBedawi woman (chapater 16), as contrasted with Elohist\u2019s modernised\nversion of the incident (21\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), with its affecting picture of the\nmother and child all but perishing in the desert. So again, Elohist\n(chapter 20) introduces an extenuation of Abraham\u2019s falsehood about\nhis wife which is absent from the older narrative of Yahwist (12\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427).\n\n \u00b9 Driver, _An Introduction to the Literature of the Old\n Testament_, page 119.\n\n \u00b2 Compare Gunkel, page LXXVII.\n\nIt is not surprising, considering the immense variety of material\ncomprised in both documents, that the palpable literary differences\nreduce themselves for the most part to a preference for particular\nphrases and turns of expression in the one recension or the other.\nThe most important case is, of course, the distinctive use (in the\npre-Mosaic period) of Yahwe in Yahwist and Elohim in Elohist.\u00b9 But\nround this are grouped a number of smaller linguistic differences which,\nwhen they occur in any degree of profusion in a consecutive passage,\nenable us to assign it with confidence to one or other of the sources.\n\n \u00b9 This, it is true, is more than a mere matter of phraseology;\n in the case of Elohist, it is the application of a theory\n of religious development which connected the revelation of\n the name Yahwe with the mission of Moses (Exodus 3\u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2075).\n It is now generally held that the original Elohist continued\n to use Elohim after the revelation to Moses, and that\n the occurrences of Yahwe in the later history belong to\n secondary strata of the document. On either view the choice\n of the general name of deity is difficult to account for.\n Procksch regards it as due to the influence of the great\n monotheistic movement headed by Elijah; but that is not\n probable. The inspiring motive of Elijah\u2019s crusade was\n precisely jealousy for _Yahwe_, the national God of Israel.\n Gunkel, on the other hand, thinks it arose from the fact\n that the legends were largely of Canaanite and polytheistic\n origin; and it is certainly the case that in the patriarchal\n history Elohist contains several strong traces of a\n polytheistic basis of the narratives (28\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 32\u00b2\u1427 \u00b3 35\u2077\n etc.). But that Elohim had a monotheistic sense to the mind\n of the Elohistic writers is not to be doubted (against\n Eerdmans).\n\n _The divine names._\u2015\u2015While the possibility of error in the\n Massoretic textual tradition is fully recognised, cases of\n inadvertence in the use of \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e and \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e are in Genesis singularly\n few. In Elohist contexts, \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e occurs 22\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2074 \u1d47\u2071\u02e2 28\u00b2\u00b9 31\u2074\u2079, where\n its presence seems due to the intentional action of a redactor.\n Yahwist has \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (a) in 3\u00b9\u207b\u2075 4\u00b2\u2075 (a special case: see pages 2,\n 53); (b) where the contrast between the divine and the human is\n to be emphasised, 32\u00b2\u2079; (c) in conversations with, or references\n to, heathen (real or supposed), 9\u00b2\u2077 39\u2079 41\u00b3\u00b2\u1d47\u1427 \u00b3\u2078 43\u00b2\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u2079\n 44\u00b9\u2076; there are also (d) some doubtful examples which are very\n probably to be assigned to Elohist, 33\u2075\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9 42\u00b2\u2078. It is only\n in the last group (if even there), with the possible addition\n (see page 155) of 8\u00b9, that redactional alteration or scribal\n error need be suspected.\n\n For _the inhabitants of Canaan_, Yahwist uses \u05db\u05e0\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u200e, 10\u00b9\u2078\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u2079 12\u2076\n (? Redactor), 24\u00b3\u1427 \u00b3\u2077 50\u00b9\u00b9 + (with \u05e4\u05e8\u05d6\u05d9\u200e, 13\u2077 (Redactor?) 34\u00b3\u2070);\n Elohist \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u200e, 15\u00b9\u2076 48\u00b2\u00b2 +.\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 The cross (+) means that the usage is continued in the other\n books of the Hexateuch.\n\n For the name _Jacob_, Yahwist substitutes _Israel_ after 35\u00b2\u00b2\n (except 46\u2075\u1d47); Elohist consistently uses _Jacob_ (except 46\u00b2\n 48\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9 [50\u00b2\u2075?]).\n\n The following are selected lists of expressions (in Genesis)\n highly characteristic of Yahwist and Elohist respectively:\n\n Yahwist: \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u200e and \u05d5\u05e9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u200e in genealogies: the former, 4\u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9\n 10\u00b2\u00b9 11\u00b2\u2079 22\u00b2\u00b9; the latter, 4\u00b2\u00b9 10\u00b2\u2075 (compare 22\u00b2\u00b9 25\u00b2\u2076\n 38\u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015\u05d6\u05b0\u05e7\u05bb\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (in connexion with a late-born child), 21\u00b2\u1d43\u1427 \u2077\n\u200e 24\u00b3\u2076 37\u00b3 44\u00b2\u2070.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d7\u05df\u200e, 6\u2078 18\u00b3 19\u00b9\u2079 30\u00b2\u2077 32\u2076 33\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u2075 34\u00b9\u00b9 39\u2074\n 47\u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2079 50\u2074 +.\u2015\u2015\u05d8\u05e8\u05dd\u200e (without \u05d1\u200e), 2\u2075 19\u2074 24\u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u2074\u2075 +.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05d3\u05e2\u200e (in sexual\n sense), 4\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u2075 19\u2075\u1427 \u2078 24\u00b9\u2076 38\u00b2\u2076 (also in Priestly-Code).\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05dc\u05d3\u200e\n (= \u2018beget\u2019), 4\u00b9\u2078 10\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2076 22\u00b2\u00b3 25\u00b3.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05e9\u200e, 24\u00b2\u00b3\u1427 \u2074\u00b2\u1427 \u2074\u2079 28\u00b9\u2076\n 39\u2074\u1427 \u2075\u1427 \u2078 42\u00b2 43\u2074\u1427 \u2077 44\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u2076 47\u2076\u1d47 + (42\u00b9 Elohist?).\u2015\u2015Derivatives\n of \u221a \u05e2\u05e6\u05d1\u200e, \u26663\u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2077 5\u00b2\u2079 6\u2076 45\u2075\u1d43.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05e4\u05e2\u05dd\u200e, 2\u00b2\u00b3 18\u00b3\u00b2 29\u2074\u1427 \u00b3\u2075 30\u00b2\u2070\u1d47\n\u200e 46\u00b3\u2070 +.\u2015\u2015\u05e6\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u200e, \u05e6\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4\u200e (for the younger of two brothers or sisters),\n 19\u00b3\u00b9\u1427 \u00b3\u2074\u1427 \u00b3\u2075\u1427 \u00b3\u2078 25\u00b2\u00b3 29\u00b2\u2076 43\u00b3\u00b3 48\u00b9\u2074.\u2015\u2015\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e9\u05dd \u05d9\u05f3\u200e, 4\u00b2\u2076 12\u2078 13\u2074 21\u00b3\u00b3\n\u200e 26\u00b2\u2075 +.\u2015\u2015\u05e8\u05d5\u05e5 \u05dc\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea\u200e, 18\u00b2 [19\u00b9] 24\u00b9\u2077 29\u00b9\u00b3 33\u2074.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05e4\u05d7\u05d4\u200e, 12\u00b9\u2076 16\u00b9\u1427 \u2075\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u2078\n 24\u00b3\u2075 30\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u2074\u00b3 32\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3 33\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u1427 \u2076 (20\u00b9\u2074 30\u00b9\u2078 Redactor: also\n common in Priestly-Code); see on \u05d0\u05de\u05d4\u200e below.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05e9\u05e7\u05d9\u05e3\u200e, 18\u00b9\u2076 19\u00b2\u2078\n\u200e 26\u2078 +.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05e2\u05d8\u200e with following genitive, 18\u2074 24\u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u2074\u00b3 43\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\n 44\u00b2\u2075.\u2015\u2015_Particles_: \u05d1\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u200e, 3\u00b9\u2077 8\u00b2\u00b9 12\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2076 18\u00b2\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2079\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9\u1427 \u00b3\u00b2 21\u00b3\u2070\n 26\u00b2\u2074 27\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9 46\u00b3\u2074.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05d9\u05be\u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05db\u05df\u200e, 18\u2075 19\u2078 33\u00b9\u2070 38\u00b2\u2076 +.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d1\u05dc\u05ea\u05d9\u200e, 3\u00b9\u00b9\n 4\u00b9\u2075 19\u00b2\u00b9 38\u2079 + (in Elohist and Priestly-Code once each).\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05d0\u200e, in\n Yahwist about 40 times, in Elohist about 6 times (in Genesis).\n\n \u2666 duplicate reference \u201c16.\u201d removed\n\n Elohist: \u05d0\u05de\u05d4\u200e, 20\u00b9\u2077 21\u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3 30\u00b3 31\u00b3\u00b3 + (see \u05e9\u05e4\u05d7\u05d4\u200e above).\u2015\u2015\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u200e\n and \u05e7\u05d8\u05df\u200e (\u2018elder\u2019 and \u2018younger\u2019), 29\u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2078 42\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b3\u00b2\u1427 \u00b3\u2074\n (compare 41\u2075\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05dc\u05db\u05dc\u200e, 45\u00b9\u00b9 47\u00b9\u00b2 50\u00b2\u00b9.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05e9\u05db\u05e8\u05ea\u200e, 29\u00b9\u2075 31\u2077\u1427 \u2074\u00b9.\u2015\u2015A\n very characteristic idiom of Elohist is the vocative (sometimes\n doubled: 22\u00b9\u00b9 46\u00b2, Exodus 3\u2074, [1 Samuel 3\u2074 LXX] +) with the\n answer \u05d4\u05e0\u05e0\u05d9\u200e: 22\u00b9\u1427 \u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9 27\u00b9\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u2078 31\u00b9\u00b9 37\u00b9\u00b3 46\u00b2 +.\u2015\u2015Elohist is\n further distinguished by a number of rare or archaic words or\n phrases: \u05d0\u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u200e, 20\u00b9\u00b2 + Joshua 7\u00b2\u2070; \u05d3\u05d2\u05d4\u200e, 48\u00b9\u2076 +; \u05d6\u05d1\u05d3\u200e, 30\u00b2\u2070; \u05d7\u05de\u05ea\u200e,\n\u200e 21\u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2079 +; \u05d8\u05d7\u05d4\u200e, 21\u00b9\u2076 +; \u05db\u05df\u200e (\u2018honest\u2019), 42\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9\u1427 \u00b3\u00b3\u1427 \u00b3\u2074;\n\u200e \u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 31\u2077\u1427 \u2074\u00b9 +; \u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05e0\u05db\u05d3\u200e, 21\u00b2\u00b3 (compare Isaiah 14\u00b2\u00b2, Job 18\u00b9\u2079 +); \u05e2\u05e7\u05d3\u200e,\n\u200e 22\u2079 +; \u05e4\u05dc\u05dc\u200e, 48\u00b9\u00b9; \u05e4\u05ea\u05e8\u200e, 40\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 41\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 +; \u05e4\u05ea\u05e8\u05d5\u05df\u200e, 40\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 41\u00b9\u00b9 +; \u05e6\u05e0\u05d5\u05dd\u200e,\n\u200e 41\u00b2\u00b3; \u05e7\u05e9\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4\u200e, 33\u00b9\u2079 + Joshua 24\u00b3\u00b2 [Job 42\u00b9\u00b9] +; by a partiality for\n rare infinitive forms (31\u00b2\u2078 46\u00b3 50\u00b2\u2070 48\u00b9\u00b9 +), and the occasional\n use of long forms of the nominal suffix (21\u00b2\u2079 [31\u2076] 41\u00b2\u00b9 42\u00b3\u2076).\n\nThe religious and theological conceptions of the two documents are in\nthe main identical, though a certain difference of standpoint appears\nin one or two features. Both evince towards the popular cultus an\nattitude of friendly toleration, with a disposition to ignore its\ncruder aspects; and this tendency is carried somewhat further in\nYahwist than in Elohist. Thus, while neither countenances the Asherah,\nor sacred pole, Elohist alludes, without offence, to the Ma\u1e93\u1e93ebah,\nor sacred pillar (28\u00b9\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2 31\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u2074\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 35\u00b2\u2070); whereas Yahwist nowhere\nallows to the ma\u1e93\u1e93ebah a legitimate function in the worship of Yahwe.\nA very singular circumstance is that while both frequently record the\nerection of altars by the patriarchs, they are remarkably reticent\nas to the actual offering of sacrifice: Elohist refers to it only\ntwice (22. 46\u00b9), and Yahwist never at all in the patriarchal history\n(contrast 4\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 8\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427). It is difficult to imagine that the omission\nis other than accidental: the idea that it indicates an indifference\n(Gunkel), or a conscious opposition (Luther), to the cultus, can hardly\nbe entertained; for after all the altar had no use or significance\nexcept as a means of sacrifice.\u2015\u2015The most striking diversity appears\nin the representation of the Deity, and especially of the manner of His\nrevelation to men. The antique form of the theophany, in which Yahwe\n(or the Angel of Yahwe) appears visibly in human form, and in broad\ndaylight, is peculiar to Yahwist (chapters 16. 18. 19), and corresponds\nto the highly anthropomorphic language which is observed in other parts\nof the document (chapters 2. 3. 7. 8. 11\u2075\u1427 \u2077). Elohist, on the contrary,\nrecords no daylight theophanies, but prefers the least sensible forms\nof revelation,\u2015\u2015the dream or night-vision (15\u00b9 20\u00b3\u1427 \u2076 21\u00b9\u00b2 [compare \u00b9\u2074]\n22\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 28\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 31\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2074 46\u00b2),\u00b9 or the voice of the angel from heaven\n(21\u00b9\u2077). In this respect Elohist undoubtedly represents a more advanced\nstage of theological reflexion than Yahwist.\u2015\u2015The national feeling in\nboth sources is buoyant and hopeful: the \u2018scheue heidnische Stimmung,\u2019\nthe sombre and melancholy view of life which marks the prim\u00e6val history\nof Yahwist disappears absolutely when the history of the immediate\nancestors of Israel is reached. The strongly pessimistic strain which\nsome writers note as characteristic of Elohist finds no expression\nwhatever in Genesis; and so far as it exists at all (Joshua 24), it\nbelongs to secondary strata of the document, with which we are not here\nconcerned.\n\n \u00b9 We do not include the dreams of the Joseph-stories, which\n seem to stand on a somewhat different footing (page 345).\n Nocturnal revelations occur, however, in Yahwist (26\u00b2\u2074 28\u00b9\u00b3),\n but whether in the oldest parts of the document is not quite\n certain.\n\nHere we touch on a question of great importance, and one fortunately\ncapable of being brought to a definite issue: viz., the relation of\nYahwist and Elohist to the literary prophecy of the 8th and following\ncenturies. It is usual to speak of the combined Jehovist as the\n_Prophetical_ narrative of the Pentateuch, in distinction from\nPriestly-Code, the _Priestly_ narrative; and in so far as the name\nis employed (as, _e.g._, by Driver _An Introduction to the Literature\nof the Old Testament_\u2078, 117) to emphasise that contrast, it is\nsufficiently appropriate. As used, however, by many writers, it carries\nthe implication that the documents\u2015\u2015or that one to which the epithet\nis applied\u2015\u2015show unmistakable traces of the influence of the later\nprophets from Amos downwards. That view seems to us entirely erroneous.\nIt is undoubtedly the case that both Yahwist and Elohist are pervaded\nby ideas and convictions which they share in common with the writing\nprophets: such as, the monotheistic conception of God, the ethical\nview of His providential government, and perhaps a conscious opposition\nto certain emblems of popular cultus (asheras, ma\u1e93\u1e93ebas, teraphim,\netc.). But that these and similar principles were first enunciated\nby the prophets of the 8th century, we have no reason to suppose.\nNor does the fact that Abraham, as a man of God, is called _N\u0101b\u00ee\u2019_\n(20\u2077, compare Deuteronomy 34\u00b9\u2070) necessarily imply that the figure of\nan Amos or an Isaiah was before the mind of the writers. We must bear\nin mind that the 9th century witnessed a powerful prophetic movement\nwhich, commencing in Northern Israel, extended into Judah; and that\nany prophetic influences discoverable in Genesis are as likely to have\ncome from the impulse of that movement as from the later development\nwhich is so much better known to us. But in truth it is questionable\nif any prophetic impulse at all, other than those inherent in the\nreligion from its foundation by Moses, is necessary to account for the\nreligious tone of the narratives of Genesis. The decisive fact is that\nthe really distinctive ideas of written prophecy find no echo in those\nparts of Yahwist and Elohist with which we have to do. These are: the\npresentiment of the impending overthrow of the Israelitish nationality,\ntogether with the perception of its moral necessity, the polemic\nagainst foreign deities, the denunciation of prevalent oppression and\nsocial wrong, and the absolute repudiation of cultus as a means of\nrecovering Yahwe\u2019s favour. Not only are these conceptions absent from\nour documents, but it is difficult to conceive that they should have\nbeen in the air in the age when the documents were composed. For,\nthough it is true that very different religious ideas may exist side\nby side in the same community, it is scarcely credible that Yahwist and\nElohist could have maintained their confident hope for the future of\nthe nation intact against the tremendous arraignment of prophecy. This\nconsideration gains in force from the fact that the secondary strata\nof Elohist, and the redactional additions to Jehovist, which do come\nwithin the sweep of the later prophetic movement, clearly show that the\ncircles from which these writings emanated were sensitively responsive\nto the sterner message of the prophets.\n\n\n \u00a7 10. _Date and place of origin\u2015\u2015Redaction of Jehovist._\n\nOn the relative age of Yahwist and Elohist, there exists at present no\nconsensus of critical opinion. Down to the appearance of Wellhausen\u2019s\n_Geschichte Israels_ in 1878, scholars were practically unanimous\nin assigning the priority to Elohist.\u00b9 Since then, the opposite view\nhas been strongly maintained by the leading exponents of the Grafian\ntheory,\u00b2 although a number of critics still adhere to the older\nposition.\u00b3 The reason for this divergence of opinion lies not in the\npaucity of points of comparison, but partly in the subjective nature\nof the evidence, and partly in the fact that such indications as exist\npoint in opposite directions.\n\n \u00b9 Hupfeld, Schrader, N\u00f6ldeke, Reuss, al.\n\n \u00b2 Wellhausen, Kuenen, Stade, Meyer; so Luther, Procksch, al.\n\n \u00b3 Dillmann, Kittel, K\u00f6nig, Winckler al.\n\n To take a few examples from Genesis: Chapter 16\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2074 (Yahwist)\n produces an impression of greater antiquity than the parallel\n 21\u2079\u207b\u00b9\u2079 (Elohist); Yahwist\u2019s explanation of the name Issachar,\n with its story of the love-apples (30\u00b9\u2074\u207b\u00b9\u2076), is more primitive\n than that of Elohist (30\u00b9\u2077); Yahwist (30\u00b2\u2078\u207b\u2074\u00b3) attributes the\n increase of Jacob\u2019s flocks to his own cunning, whereas Elohist\n (31\u2074\u207b\u00b9\u00b3) attributes it to the divine blessing. On the other hand,\n Elohist\u2019s recension of the Bethel-theophany (28\u00b9\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 \u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) is\n obviously more antique than Yahwist\u2019s (\u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2076); and in the Joseph\n narratives the leadership of Reuben (Elohist) is an element\n of the original tradition which Yahwist has altered in favour\n of Judah. A peculiarly instructive case is 12\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0 (Yahwist)\n \u2225 20 (Elohist) \u2225 26\u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 (Yahwist), where it seems to us (though\n Kuenen and others take a different view) that Gunkel is clearly\n right in holding that Yahwist has preserved both the oldest and\n the youngest form of the legend, and that Elohist represents an\n intermediate stage.\n\nThis result is not surprising when we understand that Yahwist and\nElohist are not individual writers, but guilds or schools, whose\nliterary activity may have extended over several generations, and who\ndrew on a store of unwritten tradition which had been in process of\ncodification for generations before that. This consideration forbids us\nalso to argue too confidently from observed differences of theological\nstandpoint between the two documents. It is beyond doubt that Elohist,\nwith its comparative freedom from anthropomorphisms and sensible\ntheophanies, with its more spiritual conception of revelation, and\nits greater sensitiveness to ethical blemishes on the character of\nthe patriarchs (page xlviii), occupies, on the whole, a higher level\nof reflexion than Yahwist; but we cannot tell how far such differences\nare due to the general social _milieu_ in which the writers lived, and\nhow far to esoteric tendencies of the circles to which they belonged.\nAll that can safely be affirmed is that, while Elohist has occasionally\npreserved the more ancient form of the tradition, there is a strong\npresumption that Yahwist as a whole is the earlier document.\n\nIn attempting to determine the absolute dates of Yahwist and Elohist,\nwe have a fixed point of departure in the fact that both are earlier\nthan the age of written prophecy (page li f.); in other words, 750\nB.C. is the _terminus ad quem_ for the composition of either. If it be\nthe case that 37\u2078 in Elohist presupposes the monarchy of the house of\nJoseph, the _terminus a quo_ for that document would be the disruption\nof the kingdom, _circa_ 930 (compare Deuteronomy 33\u2077); and indeed no\none proposes to fix it higher. Between these limits, there is little to\nguide us to a more precise determination. General considerations, such\nas the tone of political feeling, the advanced conception of God, and\ntraces of the influence of 9th-century prophecy, seem to us to point to\nthe later part of the period, and in particular to the brilliant reign\nof Jeroboam II. (785\u2012745), as the most likely time of composition.\u00b9 In\nYahwist there is no unequivocal allusion to the divided kingdom; and\nnothing absolutely prevents us from putting its date as early as the\nreign of Solomon. The sense of national solidarity and of confidence\nin Israel\u2019s destiny is even more marked than in Elohist; and it has\nbeen questioned, not without reason, whether such feelings could have\nanimated the breast of a Jud\u00e6an in the dark days that followed the\ndissolution of Solomon\u2019s empire.\u00b2 That argument is not greatly to be\ntrusted: although the loss of the northern provinces was keenly felt\nin Judah (Isaiah 7\u00b9\u2077), yet the writings of Isaiah show that there was\nplenty of flamboyant patriotism there in the 8th century, and we cannot\ntell how far in the intervening period religious idealism was able\nto overcome the depression natural to a feeble and dependent state,\nand keep alive the sense of unity and the hope of reunion with the\nlarger Israel of the north. In any case, it is improbable that Yahwist\nand Elohist are separated by an interval of two centuries; if Elohist\nbelongs to the first half of the 8th century, Yahwist will hardly be\nearlier than the 9th.\u00b3\n\n \u00b9 So Procksch (178 ff.), who points out a number of indications\n that appear to converge on that period of history.\n Wellhausen, Kuenen, Stade, Holzinger agree; Reuss, Dillmann,\n Kittel place it in the 9th century.\n\n \u00b2 Procksch. 286 ff.\n\n \u00b3 So Wellhausen, Kuenen, Stade, Kittel, Gunkel al.\n\n Specific historical allusions which have been thought to\n indicate a more definite date for Yahwist (or Elohist) prove\n on examination to be unreliable. If 31\u2074\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 49\u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 contained\n references to the wars between Israel and Aram under Omri and\n his successors, it would be necessary to bring the date of\n both documents down to that time; but Gunkel has shown that\n interpretation to be improbable.\u2015\u201527\u2074\u2070\u1d47 presupposes the revolt\n of Edom from Judah (_circa_ 840); but that prosaic half-verse is\n probably an addition to the poetic passage in which it occurs,\n and therefore goes to show that the blessing itself is earlier,\n instead of later, than the middle of the 9th century.\u2015\u2015The curse\n on Canaan (9\u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) does not necessarily assume the definite\n subjugation of the Canaanites by Israel; and if it did, would\n only prove a date not earlier than Solomon.\u2015\u2015Other arguments,\n such as the omission of Asshur and the inclusion of Kela\u1e25 and\n Nineveh in the list of Assyrian cities in 10\u00b9\u00b9 etc., are still\n less conclusive.\n\nWhile it is thus impossible to assign a definite date to Yahwist and\nElohist, there are fairly solid grounds for the now generally accepted\nview that the former is of Jud\u00e6an and the latter of Ephraimite origin.\nOnly, it must be premised that the body of patriarchal tradition which\nlies behind both documents is native to northern, or rather central,\nIsrael, and must have taken shape there.\u00b9 The favourite wife of\nJacob is not Leah but Rachel, the mother of Joseph (Ephraim-Manasseh)\nand Benjamin; and Joseph himself is the brightest figure in\nall the patriarchal gallery. The sacred places common to both\nrecensions\u2015\u2015Shechem, Bethel, Mahanaim, Peniel, Beersheba\u2015\u2015are, except\nthe last, all in Israelite territory; and Beersheba, though belonging\ngeographically to Judah, was for some unknown reason a favourite resort\nof pilgrims from the northern kingdom (Amos 5\u2075 8\u00b9\u2074, 1 Kings 19\u00b3).\u2015\u2015It\nis when we look at the divergence between the two sources that\nthe evidence of the Ephraimite origin of Elohist and the Jud\u00e6an of\nYahwist becomes consistent and clear. Whereas Elohist never evinces\nthe slightest interest in any sanctuary except those mentioned above,\nYahwist makes Hebron the scene of his most remarkable theophany,\nand thus indelibly associates its sanctity with the name of Abraham.\nIt is true that he also ascribes to Abraham the founding of the\nnorthern sanctuaries, Shechem and Bethel (12\u2077\u1427 \u2078); but we can hardly\nfail to detect something perfunctory in his description, as compared\nwith Elohist\u2019s impressive narrative of Jacob\u2019s dream at Bethel\n(28\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u00b2), or his own twofold account of the founding of\nBeersheba (chapters 21. 26). It is Elohist alone who records the place\nof Rachel\u2019s grave (35\u00b9\u2079), of those of Rebekah\u2019s nurse Deborah (\u2078), of\nJoseph (Joshua 24\u00b3\u00b2), and Joshua (\u00b3\u2070),\u2015\u2015all in the northern territory.\nThe sections peculiar to Yahwist (page xliii) are nearly all of local\nJud\u00e6an interest: in 18 the scene is Hebron; 19\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u2078 is a legend of the\nDead Sea basin; 19\u00b3\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 deals with the origin of the neighbouring\npeoples of Moab and Ammon; 38 is based on the internal tribal history\nof Judah (and is not, as has been supposed, charged with animosity\ntowards that tribe: see page 455). Finally, while Joseph\u2019s place of\nhonour was too firmly established to be challenged, it is Yahwist\nwho, in defiance of the older tradition, transfers the birthright\nand the hegemony from Reuben to Judah (49\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 35\u00b2\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427, the Joseph\nnarratives).\u2015\u2015These indications make it at least relatively probable\nthat in Yahwist we have a Jud\u00e6an recension of the patriarchal tradition,\nwhile Elohist took its shape in the northern kingdom.\n\n \u00b9 Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_\u2076 317. It is\n the neglect of this fact that has mainly led to the belief\n that Yahwist, like Elohist, is of Ephraimite origin (Kuenen,\n Reuss, Schrader, Fripp, Luther, al.).\n\nThe composite work Jehovist is the result of a redactional operation,\nwhich was completed before the other components (\u2666D and Priestly-Code)\nwere incorporated in the Pentateuch.\u00b9 The redactors (Redactor\u1d36\u1d49\u02b0\u1d52\u1d5b\u2071\u02e2\u1d57)\nhave done their work (in Genesis) with consummate skill and care,\nand have produced a consecutive narrative whose strands it is often\ndifficult to unravel. They have left traces of their hand in a few\nharmonising touches, designed to remove a discrepancy between Yahwist\nand Elohist (16\u2079 \u1da0\u1427 28\u00b2\u00b9\u1d47? 31\u2074\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 \u207d\u1d56\u1d43\u02e2\u02e2\u2071\u1d50\u207e 39\u00b9 41\u2075\u2070? 46\u00b9 50\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1427):\nsome of these, however, may be later glosses. Of greater interest\nare a number of short additions, of similar import and complexion but\noccurring both in Yahwist and Elohist, which may, not with certainty\nbut with great probability, be assigned to these editors (13\u00b9\u2074\u207b\u00b9\u2077\n18\u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b9\u2079 22\u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b9\u2078 26\u00b3\u1d47\u207b\u2075 28\u00b9\u2074 32\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b9\u00b3 46\u00b3\u1d47{\u03b2}): to this redaction we are\ndisposed also to attribute a thorough revision of chapter 15. In these\npassages we seem to detect a note of tremulous anxiety regarding the\nnational future of Israel and its tenure of the land of Canaan, which\nis at variance with the optimistic outlook of the original sources,\nand suggests that the writers are living under the shadow of impending\nexile. A slight trace of Deuteronomic phraseology in 18\u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 and\n26\u00b3\u1d47 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 confirms the impression that the redaction took place at some\ntime between the publication of Deuteronomy and the Exile.\n\n \u2666 Abbreviation \u201cD\u201d undefined in forward or text; probably\n Deuteronomy.\n\n \u00b9 So N\u00f6ldeke, Wellhausen, and most; against Hupfeld, Dillmann,\n al.\n\n\n \u00a7 11. _The Priestly Code and the Final Redaction._\n\nIt is fortunately not necessary to discuss in this place all the\nintricate questions connected with the history and structure of the\nPriests\u2019 Code. The Code as a whole is, even more obviously than Yahwist\nor Elohist, the production of a school,\u2015\u2015in this case a school of\njuristic writers, whose main task was to systematise the mass of\nritual regulations which had accumulated in the hands of the Jerusalem\npriesthood, and to develop a theory of religion which grew out of them.\nEvidence of stratification appears chiefly in the legislative portions\nof the middle Pentateuch, where several minor codes are amalgamated,\nand overlaid with considerable accretions of later material. Here,\nhowever, we have to do only with the great historical work which forms\nat once the kernel of the Code and the framework of the Pentateuch, the\ndocument distinguished by Wellhausen as Q (_Quatuor foederum liber_),\nby Kuenen as Priestly-Code\u00b2, by others as Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1.\u00b9\nAlthough this groundwork shows traces of compilation from pre-existing\nmaterial (see pages 8, 35, 40, 130, 169, 428 f., etc.), it nevertheless\nbears the impress of a single mind, and must be treated as a unity.\n\n \u00b9 Kuenen\u2019s Priestly-Code\u00b9 is the so-called Law of Holiness\n (Priestly-Code\u02b0), which is older than the date usually\n assigned to Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1.\n\n No critical operation is easier or more certain than the\n separation of this work, down even to very small fragments,\n from the context in which it is embedded. When this is done, and\n the fragments pieced together, we have before us, almost in its\n original integrity, an independent document, which is a _source_,\n as well as the framework, of Genesis. We have seen (page xli)\n that the opposite opinion is maintained by Klostermann and Orr,\n who hold that Priestly-Code is merely a supplementing redactor\n of, or \u2018collaborator\u2019 with, Jehovist. But two facts combine to\n render this hypothesis absolutely untenable. (1) The fragments\n form a consecutive history, in which the _lacun\u00e6_ are very few\n and unimportant, and those which occur are easily explicable\n as the result of the redactional process. The precise state\n of the case is as follows: In the prim\u00e6val history no _hiatus_\n whatever can be detected. Dr. Orr\u2019s assertion (_The Problem of\n the Old Testament_, 348 f.) that Priestly-Code\u2019s account of the\n Flood _must_ have contained the episodes of the birds and the\n sacrifice, because both are in the Babylonian version, will\n be worth considering when he has made it probable either that\n Priestly-Code had ever read the Babylonian story, or that, if\n he had, he would have wished to reproduce it intact. As matter\n of fact, neither is in the least degree probable; and, as we\n shall see presently, Noah\u2019s sacrifice is an incident which\n Priestly-Code would certainly have suppressed if he had known\n of it.\u2015\u2015In the history of Abraham there is again no reason\n to suspect any omission. Here is a literal translation of the\n _disjecta membra_ of Priestly-Code\u2019s epitome of the biography\n of Abraham, with no connexions supplied, and only one verse\n transposed (19\u00b2\u2079): 12\u2074\u1d47 \u201cNow Abram was 75 years old when he went\n out from \u1e24arran. \u2075 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his\n brother\u2019s son, and all their possessions which they had acquired,\n and all the souls whom they had procured; and they went out to\n go to the land of Canaan, and they came to the land of Canaan.\n 13\u2076 And the land could not bear them so that they might dwell\n together, for their possessions were great, and they were not\n able to dwell together. \u00b9\u00b9\u1d47 So they separated from one another:\n \u00b9\u00b2\u1d43\u1d47 Abram dwelt in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelt in the\n cities of the Oval. 19\u00b2\u2079 And when God destroyed the cities\n of the Oval, God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot away from\n the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in\n which Lot dwelt.\u2015\u201516\u00b9 Now Sarai, Abram\u2019s wife, had borne him no\n children. \u00b3 So Sarai, Abram\u2019s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her\n maid, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and\n gave her to Abram her husband for a wife to him. \u00b9\u2075 And Hagar\n bore to Abram a son, and Abram called the name of his son whom\n Hagar bore to him Ishmael. \u00b9\u2076 And Abram was 86 years old when\n Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram.\u2015\u201517\u00b9 And when Abram was 99 years\n old, _Yahwe_ appeared to Abram, and said to him,\u201d etc. Here\n follows the account of the covenant with Abraham, the change\n of his name and that of Sarai, the institution of circumcision,\n and the announcement of the birth of Isaac to Sarah (chapter\n 17).\u2015\u2015The narrative is resumed in 21\u00b9\u1d47 \u201cAnd _Yahwe_ did to\n Sarah as he had spoken, \u00b2\u1d47 at the appointed time which God had\n mentioned. \u00b3 And Abraham called the name of his son who was born\n to him, whom Sarah bore to him, Isaac. \u2074 And Abraham circumcised\n Isaac his son when he was 8 days old, as God had commanded him.\n \u2075 And Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac his son was born\n to him.\u2015\u201523\u00b9 And the life of Sarah was 127 years; \u00b2 and Sarah\n died in Kiryath Arba, that is Hebron, in the land of Canaan.\u201d\n This introduces the story of the purchase of Machpelah as a\n burying-place (chapter 23), and this brings us to\u2015\u201525\u2077 \u201cAnd\n these are the days of the years of the life of Abraham which he\n lived: 175 years; \u2078 and he expired. And Abraham died in a good\n old age, an old man and full [of years], and was gathered to his\n father\u2019s kin. \u2079 And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the\n cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar, the\n Hittite, which is opposite Mamre: \u00b9\u2070 the field which Abraham\n bought from the sons of Heth: there was Abraham buried, and\n Sarah his wife.\u2015\u2015\u00b9\u00b9 And after the death of Abraham, God blessed\n Isaac his son.\u201d The reader can judge for himself whether\n a narrative so continuous as this, every isolated sentence\n of which has been detached from its context by unmistakable\n criteria of the style of Priestly-Code, is likely to have been\n produced by the casual additions of a mere supplementer of an\n older work. And if he objects to the transposition of 19\u00b2\u2079,\n let him note at the same time how utterly meaningless in its\n present position that verse is, considered as a supplement to\n 19\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u2078.\u2015\u2015In the sections on Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, there\n are undoubtedly omissions which _we_ can only supply from\n Jehovist; and if we were to judge from these parts alone, the\n supplementary theory would be more plausible than it is. We\n miss, _e.g._, accounts of the birth of Jacob and Esau, of Jacob\u2019s\n arrival in Paddan Aram, of his marriage to Leah and Rachel,\n of the birth of Joseph, of his slavery and elevation in Egypt,\n his reconciliation with his brethren, and perhaps some other\n particulars. Even here, however, the theory is absolutely\n negatived by the contradictions to Jehovist which will be\n specified immediately. Dr. Orr\u2019s argument on this point (_The\n Problem of the Old Testament_, 343 ff.) really assumes that\n the account of Jehovist is the _only_ way in which the gaps of\n Priestly-Code could be filled up; but the examination of the\n story of Abraham has shown that that is not the case. The facts\n are fully explained by the supposition that a short epitome\n of the history, similar to that of the history of Abraham, has\n been abridged in the redaction, by the excision of a very few\n sentences, in favour of the fuller narrative of Jehovist.\u2015\u2015(2)\n The second fact which makes Dr. Orr\u2019s hypothesis untenable is\n this, that in almost every instance where Priestly-Code expands\n into circumstantial narration it gives a representation of the\n events which is distinctly at variance with the older documents.\n The difference between Priestly-Code\u2019s cosmogony and Yahwist\u2019s\n account of the Creation is such that it is ludicrous to speak\n of the one as a supplement or a \u2018framework\u2019 to the other; and\n the two Flood stories are hardly less irreconcilable (see page\n 148). In the life of Abraham, we have two parallel accounts\n of the covenant with Abraham in chapter 15 (Jehovist) and 17\n (Priestly-Code); and it is evident that the one supersedes and\n excludes the other. Again, Priestly-Code\u2019s reason for Jacob\u2019s\n journey to Mesopotamia (28\u00b9\u207b\u2079) is quite inconsistent with\n that given by Jehovist in chapter 27 (page 374 f.); and his\n conception of Isaac\u2019s blessing as a transmission of the blessing\n originally bestowed on Abraham (28\u2074) is far removed from\n the idea which forms the motive of chapter 27. In Jehovist,\n Esau takes up his abode in Seir before Jacob\u2019s return from\n Mesopotamia (32\u00b3); in Priestly-Code he does not leave Canaan\n till after the burial of Isaac (35\u2076). Priestly-Code\u2019s account\n of the enmity between Joseph and his brethren is unfortunately\n truncated, but enough is preserved to show that it differed\n essentially from that of Jehovist (see page 444). It is\n difficult to make out where Jacob was buried according to\n Yahwist and Elohist, but it certainly was not at Machpelah,\n as in Priestly-Code (see page 538 f.). And so on. Everywhere\n we see a tendency in Priestly-Code to suppress or minimise\n discords in the patriarchal households. It is inconceivable\n that a supplementer should thus contradict his original at\n every turn, and at the same time leave it to tell its own story.\n When we find that the passages of an opposite tenor to Jehovist\n form parts of a practically complete narrative, we cannot\n avoid the conclusion that Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1 is an independent\n document, which has been preserved almost entire in our\n present Book of Genesis. The question then arises whether these\n discrepancies spring from a divergent tradition followed by\n Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1 or from a deliberate re-writing of the\n history as told by Jehovist, under the influence of certain\n theological ideals and principles, which we now proceed to\n consider.\n\nThe central theme and objective of Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1 is the\ninstitution of the Israelitish theocracy, whose symbol is the\nTabernacle, erected, after its heavenly antitype, by Moses at Mount\nSinai. For this event the whole previous history of mankind is a\npreparation. The Mosaic dispensation is the last of four world-ages:\nfrom the Creation to the Flood, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to\nMoses, and from Moses onwards. Each period is inaugurated by a divine\nrevelation, and the last two by the disclosure of a new name of God: El\nShaddai to Abraham (17\u00b9), and Yahwe to Moses (Exodus 6\u00b3). Each period,\nalso, is marked by the institution of some permanent element of the\ntheocratic constitution, the Levitical system being conceived as a\npyramid rising in four stages: the Sabbath (2\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427); permission of the\nslaughter of animals, coupled with a restriction on the use of the\nblood (9\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427); circumcision (17); and, lastly, the fully developed\nMosaic ritual. Not till the last stage is reached is sacrificial\nworship of the Deity authorised. Accordingly neither altars nor\nsacrifices are ever mentioned in the pre-Mosaic history; and even the\ndistinction between clean and unclean animals is supposed to be unknown\nat the time of the Flood. It is particularly noteworthy that the\nprofane, as distinct from the sacrificial, slaughter of animals, which\neven the Deuteronomic law treats as an innovation, is here carried back\nto the covenant with Noah.\n\nBeneath this imposing historical scheme, with its ruling idea of a\nprogressive unfolding of God\u2019s will to men, we discover a theory of\nreligion which, more than anything else, expresses the spirit of the\nPriestly school to which the author of Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1 belonged.\nThe exclusive emphasis on the formal or _institutional_ aspect of\nreligion, which is the natural proclivity of a sacerdotal caste,\nappears in Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1 in a very pronounced fashion. Religion\nis resolved into a series of positive enactments on the part of God,\nand observance of these on the part of man. The old cult-legends (page\nxii f.), which traced the origin of existing ritual usages to historic\nincidents in the lives of the fathers, are swept away; and every\npractice to which a religious value is attached is referred to a direct\ncommand of God. In the deeper problems of religion, on the other hand,\nsuch as the origin of evil, the writer evinces no interest; and of\npersonal piety\u2015\u2015the disposition of the heart towards God\u2015\u2015his narrative\nhardly furnishes an illustration. In both respects he represents a\ntheology at once more abstract and shallower than that of Yahwist\nor Elohist, whose more imaginative treatment of religious questions\nshows a true apprehension of the deeper aspects of the spiritual life\n(chapter 3. 6\u2075 8\u00b2\u00b9 18\u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 45\u2078 etc.), and succeeds in depicting the\npersonal religion of the patriarchs as a genuine experience of inward\nfellowship with God (compare 22. 24\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 32\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 48\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1427 etc.). It would\nbe unfair to charge the author of Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1 with indifference\nto the need for vital godliness, for he lacks the power of delineating\ncharacter and emotion in any relation of life; but his defects are\nnone the less characteristic of the type of mind that produced the\ncolourless digest of history, which suffices to set forth the dominant\nideas of the Priestly theology.\n\nAnother characteristic distinction between Jehovist and Priestly-Code\nis seen in the enhanced _transcendentalism_ of the latter\u2019s conception\nof Deity. Anthropomorphic, and still more anthropopathic, expressions\nare studiously avoided (an exception is Genesis 2\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427: compare Exodus\n31\u00b9\u2077\u1d47); revelation takes the form of simple _speech_; angels, dreams,\nand visions are never alluded to. Theophanies are mentioned, but not\ndescribed; God is said to \u2018appear\u2019 to men, and to \u2018go up from them\u2019\n(Genesis 17\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427 35\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3 48\u00b3, Exodus 6\u00b3), but the manner of His\nappearance is nowhere indicated save in the supreme manifestation\nat Sinai (Exodus 24\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 34\u00b2\u2079\u1d47 40\u00b3\u2074 \u1da0\u1427). It is true that a similar\ninconcreteness often characterises the theophanies of Yahwist and\nElohist, and the later strata of these documents exhibit a decided\napproximation to the abstract conceptions of Priestly-Code. But a\ncomparison of the parallels chapter 17 with 15, or 35\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 with 28\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427,\nmakes it clear that Priestly-Code\u2019s departure from the older tradition\nsprings from a deliberate intention to exclude sensuous imagery from\nthe representation of Godhead.\n\n It remains to consider, in the light of these facts,\n Priestly-Code\u2019s attitude to the traditional history of the\n patriarchs. In the first place, it is clear that he accepts the\n main outline of the history as fixed in tradition. But whether\n he knew that tradition from other sources than Yahwist and\n Elohist, is a question not so easily answered. For the primitive\n period, _direct_ dependence on Yahwist is improbable, because\n of the marked diversity in the accounts of the Creation and the\n Flood: here Priestly-Code seems to have followed a tradition\n closely akin to, but not identical with, that of Yahwist. In\n the history of the patriarchs there seems no reason to suppose\n that he had any other authorities than Yahwist and Elohist. The\n general course of events is the same, and differences of detail\n are all explicable from the known tendencies of the Code. But\n the important facts are that nearly the whole of the history,\n both primitive and patriarchal, is reduced to a meagre summary,\n with little save a chronological significance, and that the\n points where the narrative becomes diffuse and circumstantial\n are (with one exception) precisely those which introduce a\n new religious dispensation: viz. the Creation, the Flood, the\n Abrahamic covenant, and the Exodus. The single exception is the\n purchase of Machpelah (chapter 23), an event which doubtless\n owes its prominence to its connexion with the promise of the\n land to Abraham and his seed. For the rest, a certain emphasis\n naturally lies on outstanding events, like the origin of\n the name Israel (35\u2079 \u1da0\u1427), or the settlement of Jacob\u2019s family\n in Egypt (47\u2075\u207b\u00b9\u00b9); and the author lingers with interest on\n the transmission of the patriarchal blessing and promise\n from Isaac to Jacob (28\u00b3 35\u00b9\u00b2), and from Jacob to his sons\n (48\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427). But these are practically all the incidents to which\n Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1 attaches any sort of significance of\n their own; and even these derive much of their importance from\n their relation to the chronological scheme into which they are\n fitted.\u2015\u2015Hence to say that Priestly-Code\u2019s epitome would be\n \u2018unintelligible\u2019 apart from Jehovist, is to confuse his point of\n view with our own. It is perfectly true that from Priestly-Code\n alone we should know very little of the characters of the\n patriarchs, of the motives which governed their actions, or\n of the connexion between one event and another. But these\n are matters which Priestly-Code had no interest in making\n \u2018intelligible.\u2019 He is concerned solely with events, not with\n causes or motives. The individual is sufficiently described when\n we are told whose son he was, how long he lived, what children\n he begot, and such like. He is but a link in the generations\n that fill up the history; and even where he is the recipient of\n a divine revelation, his selection for that privilege depends on\n his place in the divine scheme of chronology, rather than on any\n personal endowment or providential training.\n\nThe _style_ of Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1 can be characterised without the\nreserves and qualifications which were necessary in speaking of the\ndifference between Yahwist and Elohist (page xlvii f.); there is\nno better illustration of the dictum _le style c\u2019est l\u2019homme_ than\nin this remarkable document. Speaking broadly, the style reflects\nthe qualities of the legal mind, in its stereotyped terminology,\nits aim at precise and exhaustive statement, its monotonous\nrepetitions, and its general determination to leave no loophole for\nmisinterpretation or misunderstanding. The jurist\u2019s love of order and\nmethod appears in a great facility in the construction of schemes and\nschedules\u2015\u2015genealogical tables, systematic enumerations, etc.\u2015\u2015as well\nas in the carefully planned disposition of the narrative as a whole. It\nis necessary to read the whole work consecutively in order to realise\nthe full effect of the laboured diffuseness, the dry lucidity and\nprosaic monotony of this characteristic product of the Priestly school\nof writers. On the other hand, the style is markedly deficient in the\nhigher elements of literature. Though capable at times of rising to an\nimpressive dignity (as in Genesis 1. 47\u2077\u207b\u00b9\u00b9), it is apt to degenerate\ninto a tedious and meaningless iteration of set phrases and rigid\nformul\u00e6 (see Numbers 7). The power of picturesque description, or\ndramatic delineation of life and character, is absent: the writer\u2019s\nimagination is of the mechanical type, which cannot realise an object\nwithout the help of exact quantitative specification or measurement.\nEven in chapter 23, which is perhaps the most lifelike narrative in\nthe Code, the characteristic formalism asserts itself in the measured\nperiodic movement of the action, and the recurrent use of standing\nexpressions from the opening to the close. That such a style might\nbecome the property of a school we see from the case of Ezekiel,\nwhose writings show strong affinities with Priestly-Code; but of all\nthe Priestly documents, Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1 is the one in which the\nliterary bent of the school is best exemplified, and (it may be added)\nis seen to most advantage.\n\n The following selection (from Driver, _An Introduction to the\n Literature of the Old Testament_\u2078, 131 ff.) of distinctive\n expressions of Priestly-Code, occurring in Genesis, will give a\n sufficient idea of the stylistic peculiarity of the book, and\n also of its linguistic affinities with the later literature, but\n especially with the Book of Ezekiel.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e as the name of God, uniformly in Genesis, except 17\u00b9\n 21\u00b9\u1d47.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05d9\u05df\u200e, \u2018kind\u2019: 1\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2075 6\u00b2\u2070 7\u00b9\u2074 (Leviticus 11,\n Deuteronomy 14; only again Ezekiel 47\u00b9\u2070).\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e8\u05b7\u05e5\u200e, \u2018to swarm\u2019:\n 1\u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9 7\u00b2\u00b9 8\u00b9\u2077 9\u2077 +\u00b9 (outside of Priestly-Code only Psalms\n 105\u00b3\u2070, Ezekiel 47\u2079).\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5\u200e, \u2018swarming things\u2019: 1\u00b2\u2070 7\u00b2\u00b9 + (only in\n Priestly-Code and Deuteronomy 14\u00b9\u2079).\u2015\u2015\u05e4\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4\u200e: 1\u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2078 8\u00b9\u2077 9\u00b9\u1427 \u2077\n 17\u00b2\u2070 28\u00b3 35\u00b9\u00b9 47\u00b2\u2077 48\u2074 (Exodus 1\u2077, Leviticus 26\u2079; elsewhere only\n Jeremiah 3\u00b9\u2076 [inverted], 23\u00b3, Ezekiel 36\u00b9\u00b9).\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05d4\u200e: 1\u00b2\u2079\u1427 \u00b3\u2070 6\u00b2\u00b9\n 9\u00b3 + (elsewhere only in Ezekiel (10 times), and (as infinitive)\n Jeremiah 12\u2079).\u2015\u2015\u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea\u200e: 10\u00b3\u00b2 25\u00b9\u00b3 + (elsewhere 1 Chronicles\n 5\u2077 7\u00b2\u1427 \u2074\u1427 \u2079 8\u00b2\u2078 9\u2079\u1427 \u00b3\u2074 26\u00b3\u00b9). The phrase \u200f[\u05d5]\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea\u200e occurs in\n Priestly-Code 10 times in Genesis (see page xxxiv), and in\n Numbers 3\u00b9; elsewhere only Ruth 4\u00b9\u2078, 1 Chronicles 1\u00b2\u2079.\u2015\u2015\u05d2\u05d5\u05e2\u200e:\n 6\u00b9\u2077 7\u00b2\u00b9 25\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2077 35\u00b2\u2079 49\u00b2\u00b3 + (elsewhere poetical: Zechariah 13\u2078,\n Psalms 88\u00b9\u2076 104\u00b2\u2079, Lamentations 1\u00b9\u2079, and 8 times in Job).\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05bc\u05da\u05b8\u200e,\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05da\u05b8\u200e, etc. (appended to enumerations): 6\u00b9\u2078 7\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3 8\u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2078 9\u2078 28\u2074\n 46\u2076\u1427 \u2077 +.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05db\u05dd\u200e, etc. (after \u2018seed\u2019): 9\u2079 17\u2077\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u2079 35\u00b9\u00b2\n\u200e 48\u2074 +.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05e6\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\u200e: 7\u00b9\u00b3 17\u00b2\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u2076 +; only in Priestly-Code and\n Ezekiel 2\u00b3 24\u00b2 40\u00b9 (Joshua 10\u00b2\u2077 redactional).\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd\u200e\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd\u200e:\n 8\u00b9\u2079 10\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9 36\u2074\u2070 + (very often in Priestly-Code: elsewhere\n only Numbers 11\u00b9\u2070 [Jehovist], 1 Samuel 10\u00b2\u00b9, 1 Chronicles 5\u2077 6\u2074\u2077\u1427\n\u200e \u2074\u2078).\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd\u200e: 9\u00b9\u2076 17\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2079 +, only in Priestly-Code.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05de\u05d0\u05d3 \u05de\u05d0\u05d3\u200e:\n 17\u00b2\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2070 + Exodus 1\u2077; elsewhere only Ezekiel 9\u2079 16\u00b9\u00b3.\u2015\u2015\u05e8\u05db\u05d5\u05e9\u200e: 12\u2075\n 13\u2076 31\u00b9\u2078 36\u2077 46\u2076 +; elsewhere Genesis 14\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9 15\u00b9\u2074; and\n 15 times in Chronicles, Ezra, Daniel.\u2015\u2015\u05e8\u05b8\u05db\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1\u200e: 12\u2075 31\u00b9\u2078 36\u2076 46\u2076\n\u200e +.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u200e (= \u2018person\u2019): 12\u2075 36\u2076 46\u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2077 +; \u201cmuch more\n frequent in Priestly-Code than elsewhere.\u201d\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05db\u05dd\u200e\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d3\u05e8\u05ea\u05dd\u200e: 17\u2077\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\n + 36 times (only in Priestly-Code).\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05d2\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200e: 17\u2078 28\u2074 36\u2077 37\u00b9 47\u2079\n + Exodus 6\u2074; elsewhere Ezekiel 20\u00b3\u2078, Psalms 55\u00b9\u2076 119\u2075\u2074, Job\n\u200e 18\u00b9\u2079 +.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d7\u05d6\u05d4\u200e: 17\u2078 23\u2074\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2070 36\u2074\u00b3 47\u00b9\u00b9 48\u2074 49\u00b3\u2070 50\u00b9\u00b3 +. Often in\n Ezekiel (44\u00b2\u2078 45\u2075\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u2077\u1427 \u2078 46\u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2078 48\u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2); elsewhere Psalms\n 2\u2078, 1 Chronicles 7\u00b2\u2078 9\u00b2 [= Nehemiah 11\u00b3], 2 Chronicles 11\u00b9\u2074 31\u00b9\n\u200e +.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05e7\u05e0\u05d4\u200e: 17\u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u2077 23\u00b9\u2078 + (confined to Priestly-Code except\n Jeremiah 32\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2076).\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (= \u2018father\u2019s kin\u2019): 17\u00b9\u2074 25\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2077\n 35\u00b2\u2079 49\u00b3\u00b3 + (also Ezekiel 18\u00b9\u2078; elsewhere Judges 5\u00b9\u2074?, Hosea\n\u200e 10\u00b9\u2074 +).\u2015\u2015\u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u200e: 23\u2074 + 10 times (also 1 Kings 17\u00b9?, 1 Chronicles\n 29\u00b9\u2075, Psalms 39\u00b9\u00b3).\u2015\u2015\u05e7\u05e0\u05d5\u05df\u200e: 31\u00b9\u2078 [34\u00b2\u00b3] 36\u2076 + (outside of\n Priestly-Code, only Ezekiel 38\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0; Proverbs 4\u2077, Psalms 104\u00b2\u2074\n 105\u00b2\u00b9).\n\n \u00b9 As on page xlix, the cross (+) indicates that further\n examples are found in the rest of the Pentateuch. It should\n be expressly said, however, that the + frequently covers\n a considerable number of cases; and that a _selection_ of\n phrases, such as is here given, does not fully represent\n the strength of the linguistic argument, as set forth in\n the more exhaustive lists of Driver (_l.c._) or the _Oxford\n Hexateuch_ (volume i. pages 208\u2012221).\n\n In the choice of synonymous expressions, Priestly-Code exhibits\n an exclusive preference for \u05d4\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05d3\u200e in the sense of \u2018beget\u2019 over \u05d9\u05dc\u05d3\u200e\n (in the genealogies of Yahwist), and for the form \u05d0\u05e0\u05d9\u200e of the 1st\n person pronoun (\u05d0\u05e0\u05db\u05d9\u200e only in Genesis 23\u2074).\n\n Geographical designations peculiar to Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1 are:\n _Kiryath-\u2019Arba\u201b_ (for Hebron) 23\u00b2 35\u00b2\u2077 +; _Machpelah_, 23\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2079\n 25\u2079 49\u00b3\u2070 50\u00b9\u00b3 +; _Paddan-Aram_, 25\u00b2\u2070 28\u00b2\u1427 \u2075\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u2077 31\u00b9\u2078 33\u00b9\u2078 35\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2076\n 46\u00b9\u2075 +.\u2015\u2015To these may be added \u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05db\u05e0\u05e2\u05df\u200e, 11\u00b3\u00b9 12\u2075 13\u00b9\u00b2 16\u00b3 17\u2078\n 23\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2079 31\u00b9\u2078 33\u00b9\u2078 35\u2076 37\u00b9 +; the expression is found in\n Jehovist only in the Joseph-section (chapters 42, 44, 45, 47).\n Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1 has \u05db\u05e0\u05e2\u05df\u200e without \u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200e only in \u05d1\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05db\u05e0\u05e2\u05df\u200e (28\u00b9 36\u00b2).\n\n In view of all these and similar peculiarities (for the list\n is by no means exhaustive), the attempt to obliterate the\n linguistic and stylistic distinction between Priestly-Code and\n Jehovist (Eerdmans) is surely a retrograde step in criticism.\n\nThe _date_ of the composition of Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1 lies between the\npromulgation of the Deuteronomic law (621 B.C.), and the post-Exilic\nreformation under Ezra and Nehemiah (444). It is later than Deuteronomy,\nbecause it assumes without question the centralisation of worship\nat one sanctuary, which in Deuteronomy is only held up as an ideal\nto be realised by a radical reform of established usage. A nearer\ndetermination of date depends on questions of the internal analysis\nof Priestly-Code which are too complex to be entered on here. That the\nCode as a whole is later than Ezekiel is proved by the fact that the\ndivision between priests and Levites, which is unknown to the writer\nof Deuteronomy, and of which we find the origin and justification in\nEzekiel 44\u2076\u207b\u00b9\u2076, is presupposed as already established (Numbers 3. 4.\n8, etc.). It is possible, however, that that distinction belongs to\na stratum of the legislation not included in Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1;\nin which case Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1 might very well be earlier than\nEzekiel, or even than the Exile. The question does not greatly concern\nus here. For the understanding of Genesis, it is enough to know that\nPriestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1, both in its theological conceptions and its\nattitude towards the national tradition, represents a phase of thought\nmuch later than Yahwist and Elohist.\n\n The view that Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1 was written before the Exile\n (in the end of the 7th century) is advocated by Procksch (_l.c._\n 319 ff.), who reduces this part of Priestly-Code to narrower\n limits than most critics have done. He regards it as an\n essentially historical work, of considerable literary merit,\n embracing hardly any direct legislation except perhaps the\n Law of Holiness (Priestly-Code\u02b0), and recognising the priestly\n status of the entire tribe of Levi, just as in Deuteronomy\n (Numbers 17\u00b9\u2076\u207b\u00b2\u2074 and Priestly-Code\u02b0 in its original form). If\n that fact could be established, it would go far to show that the\n document is older than Ezekiel. It is admitted both by Kuenen\n and Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_\u2076 116) that\n the disparity of priests and Levites is accentuated in the later\n strata of Priestly-Code as compared with Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1,\n but that it is not recognised in Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1 is not\n clear. As to _pre-Exilic_ origin, the positive arguments\n advanced by Procksch are not very cogent; and it is doubtful\n whether, even on his own ground, he has demonstrated more than\n the _possibility_ of so early a date. In Genesis, the only fact\n which points in that direction is one not mentioned by Procksch:\n viz. that the priestly Table of Nations in chapter 10 bears\n internal evidence of having been drawn up some considerable\n time before the 5th century B.C. (page 191 below); but that may\n be sufficiently explained by the assumption that the author of\n Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1 made use of pre-existing documents in the\n preparation of his work.\n\nThe last distinguishable stage in the formation of the Pentateuch is\nthe amalgamation of Priestly-Code with the older documents,\u2015\u2015in Genesis\nthe amalgamation of Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1 with Jehovist. That this\nprocess has left traces in the present text is quite certain _a priori_;\nthough it is naturally difficult to distinguish redactional changes of\nthis kind from later explanatory glosses and modifications (compare 6\u2077\n7\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3 10\u00b2\u2074 27\u2074\u2076 etc.). The aim of the redactor was, in general, to\npreserve the _ipsissima verba_ of his sources as far as was consistent\nwith the production of a complete and harmonious narrative; but he\nappears to have made it a rule to find a place for every fragment of\nPriestly-Code that could possibly be retained. It is not improbable\nthat this rule was uniformly observed by him, and that the slight\n_lacun\u00e6_ which occur in Priestly-Code after chapter 25 are due to\nthe activity of later scribes in smoothing away redundancies and\nunevennesses from the narrative. That such changes might take place\nafter the completion of the Pentateuch we see from 47\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, where LXX\nhas preserved a text in which the dovetailing of sources is much more\nobvious than in Massoretic Text.\u2015\u2015If the lawbook read by Ezra before\nthe congregation as the basis of the covenant (Nehemiah 8\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) was the\nentire Pentateuch (excepting late additions),\u00b9 the redaction must have\nbeen effected before 444 B.C., and in all probability the redactor was\nEzra himself. On the other hand, if (as seems to the present writer\nmore probable) Ezra\u2019s lawbook was only the Priestly Code, or part of\nit (Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1 + Priestly-Code\u02b0),\u00b2 then the final redaction\nis brought down to a later period, the _terminus ad quem_ being the\nborrowing of the Jewish Pentateuch by the Samaritan community. That\nevent is usually assigned, though on somewhat precarious grounds, to\nNehemiah\u2019s second term of office in Jud\u00e6a (_circa_ 432 B.C.).\n\n \u00b9 So Wellhausen, Dillmann, Kittel al.\n\n \u00b2 So Cornill, Holzinger al.\n\nOf far greater interest and significance than the date or manner\nof this final redaction, is the fact that it was called for by the\nreligious feeling of post-Exilic Judaism. Nothing else would have\nbrought about the combination of elements so discordant as the na\u00efve\nlegendary narratives of Jehovist and the systematised history of the\nPriestly Code. We can hardly doubt that the spirit of the Priestly\ntheology is antipathetic to the older recension of the tradition, or\nthat, if the tendencies represented by the Code had prevailed, the\nstories which are to us the most precious and edifying parts of the\nBook of Genesis would have found no place in an authoritative record\nof God\u2019s revelation of Himself to the fathers. But this is not the\nonly instance in which the spiritual insight of the Church has judged\nmore wisely than the learning of the schools. We know that deeper\ninfluences than the legalism and institutionalism of Priestly-Code\u2019s\nmanifesto\u2015\u2015necessary as these were in their place\u2015\u2015were at work in the\npost-Exilic community: the individualism of Jeremiah, the universalism\nof the second Isaiah, the devotion and lyric fervour of the psalmists,\nand the daring reflexion of the writer of Job. And to these we may\nsurely add the vein of childlike piety which turned aside from the\nabstractions and formulas of the Priestly document, to find its\nnutriment in the immortal stories through which God spoke to the heart\nthen, as He speaks to ours to-day.\n\n\n\n\n COMMENTARY.\n\n\n\n\n THE PRIM\u00c6VAL HISTORY.\n\n\n CHAPTERS I\u2012XI.\n\n It has been shown in the Introduction (page xxxiii) that the\n most obvious division of the book of Genesis is into four nearly\n equal parts, of which the first (chapters 1\u201211) deals with the\n Creation of the world, and the history of primitive mankind\n prior to the call of Abraham. These chapters are composed of\n excerpts from two of the main sources of the Pentateuch, the\n Priestly Code, and the Yahwistic document. Attempts have been\n made from time to time (_e.g._ by Schrader, Dillmann, and\n more recently Winckler) to trace the hand of the Elohist in\n chapters 1\u201211; but the closest examination has failed to produce\n any substantial evidence that Elohist is represented in the\n Primitive History at all. By the great majority of critics the\n non-Priestly traditions in this part of Genesis are assigned to\n the Yahwistic cycle: that is to say, they are held to have been\n collected and arranged by the school of rhapsodists to whose\n literary activity we owe the document known as Yahwist.\n\n To the Priests\u2019 Code, whose constituents can here be isolated\n with great certainty and precision, belong: 1. The Cosmogony\n (1\u00b9\u20122\u2074\u1d43); 2. The List of Patriarchs from Adam to Noah (5); 3.\n An account of the Flood (6\u2079\u20129\u00b2\u2079*); 4. A Table of Peoples (10*);\n 5. The Genealogies of Shem (11\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2076), and Terah (11\u00b2\u2077\u207b\u00b3\u00b2*),\n ending with Abraham. There is no reason to suppose either that\n the original Priestly-Code contained more than this, or, on\n the other hand, that Priestly-Code was written to supplement\n the older tradition, and to be read along with it. It is in\n accordance with the purpose and tendency of the document\n that the only events recorded in detail\u2015\u2015the Creation and the\n Flood\u2015\u2015are those which inaugurate two successive World-ages\n or Dispensations, and are associated with the origin of two\n fundamental observances of Judaism\u2015\u2015the Sabbath (2\u00b3), and the\n sanctity of the blood (9\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427).\n\n * The asterisk denotes that the passages so marked are\n interspersed with extracts from another source. The detailed\n analysis will be found in the commentary on the various\n sections.\n\n In marked contrast to the formalism of this meagre epitome\n is the rich variety of life and incident which characterises\n the Yahwistic sections, viz.: 1. The Creation and Fall of Man\n (2\u2074\u1d47\u20123\u00b2\u2074); 2. Cain and Abel (4\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2076); 3. The Genealogy of Cain\n (4\u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u2074); 4. A fragmentary Sethite Genealogy (4\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427 ... 5\u00b2\u2079 ...);\n 5. The marriages with divine beings (6\u00b9\u207b\u2074); 6. An account of\n the Flood (6\u2075\u20128\u00b2\u00b2*); 7. Noah\u2019s Curse and Blessing (9\u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2077);\n 8. A Table of Peoples (10*); 9. The Tower of Babel (11\u00b9\u207b\u2079);\n 10. A fragment of the Genealogy of Tera\u1e25 (11\u00b2\u2078\u207b\u00b3\u2070). Here we\n have a whole gallery of varied and graphic pictures, each\n complete in itself and essentially independent of the rest,\n arranged in a loosely chronological order, and with perhaps a\n certain unity of conception, in so far as they illustrate the\n increasing wickedness that accompanied the progress of mankind\n in civilisation. Even the genealogies are not (like those of\n Priestly-Code) bare lists of names and figures, but preserve\n incidental notices of new social or religious developments\n associated with particular personages (4\u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2076 5\u00b2\u2079),\n besides other allusions to a more ancient mythology from which\n the names have been drawn (4\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427).\n\n _Composition of Yahwist._\u2015\u2015That a narrative composed of so\n many separate and originally independent legends should present\n discrepancies and discontinuities is not surprising, and is\n certainly by itself no proof of literary diversity. At the same\n time there are many indications that Yahwist is a composite work,\n based on older collections of Hebrew traditions, whose outlines\n can still be dimly traced. (1) The existence of two parallel\n genealogies (Cainite and Sethite) at once suggests a conflate\n tradition. The impression is raised almost to certainty when we\n find that both are derived from a common original (page 138 f.).\n (2) The Cainite genealogy is incompatible with the Deluge\n tradition. The shepherds, musicians, and smiths, whose origin is\n traced to the last three members of the genealogy, are obviously\n not those of a bygone race which perished in the Flood, but\n those known to the author and his contemporaries (page 115 f.).\n (3) Similarly, the Table of Nations and the story of the\n Confusion of Tongues imply mutually exclusive explanations of\n the diversities of language and nationality: in one case the\n division proceeds slowly and naturally on genealogical lines, in\n the other it takes place by a sudden interposition of almighty\n power. (4) There is evidence that the story of the Fall was\n transmitted in two recensions (page 52 f.). If Gunkel be right,\n the same is true of Yahwist\u2019s Table of Peoples, and of the\n account of the Dispersion; but there the analysis is less\n convincing. (5) In 4\u00b2\u2076 we read that Enosh introduced the worship\n of Yahwe. The analogy of Exodus 6\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427 (Priestly-Code) affords\n a certain presumption that the author of such a statement will\n have avoided the name \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e up to this point; and as a matter\n of fact \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e occurs immediately before in verse \u00b2\u2075. It is true\n that the usage is observed in no earlier Yahwistic passage\n except 3\u00b9\u207b\u2075, where other explanations might be thought of. But\n throughout chapters 2 and 3 we find the very unusual compound\n name \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, and it is a plausible conjecture that one recension\n of the Paradise story was distinguished by the use of Elohim,\n and that Yahwe was inserted by a harmonising Yahwistic editor\n (so Budde, Gunkel, al.: see page 53).\n\n To what precise extent these phenomena are due to documentary\n differences is a question that requires to be handled with the\n utmost caution and discrimination. It is conceivable that a\n single author should have compiled a narrative from a number\n of detached legends which he reported just as he found them,\n regardless of their internal consistency. Nevertheless, there\n seems sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that (as\n Wellhausen has said) we have to do not merely with _aggregates_\n but with _sequences_; although to unravel perfectly the various\n strands of narrative may be a task for ever beyond the resources\n of literary criticism. Here it will suffice to indicate the\n principal theories.\u2015\u2015(a) Wellhausen (_Die Composition des\n Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2\n 9\u201214) seems to have been the first to perceive that 4\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2076\u1d43 is a\n late expansion based (as he supposed) on 4\u00b9\u2076\u207b\u00b2\u2074 and on chapters\n 2, 3; that originally chapters 2\u20124 existed not only without\n 4\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2076\u1d43, but also without 4\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427 and 5\u00b2\u2079; and that chapters 2. 3.\n 4\u00b9\u2076\u207b\u00b2\u2074 11\u00b9\u207b\u2079 form a connexion to which the story of the Flood\n is entirely foreign and irrelevant.\u2015\u2015(b) The analysis was\n pushed many steps further by Budde (_Biblische Urgeschichte_,\n passim), who, after a most exhaustive and elaborate examination,\n arrived at the following theory: the primary document (Yahwist\u00b9)\n consisted of 2\u2074\u1d47\u207b\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2076\u207b\u00b2\u2075 3\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9 6\u00b3 3\u00b2\u00b3 4\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u1d47{\u03b2}\u1427 \u00b9\u2076\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u2074\n 6\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u1427 \u2074 10\u2079 11\u00b9\u207b\u2079 9\u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2077. This was recast by Yahwist\u00b2\n (substituting \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e for \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e down to 4\u00b2\u2076), whose narrative\n contained a Cosmogony (but no Paradise story), the Sethite\n genealogy, the Flood-legend, the Table of Nations, and a\n seven-membered Shemite genealogy. These two recensions were then\n amalgamated by Yahwist\u00b3, who inserted dislocated passages of\n Yahwist\u00b9 in the connexion of Yahwist\u00b2, and added 4\u00b9\u207b\u2075 5\u00b2\u2079 etc.\n Yahwist\u00b2 attained the dignity of a standard official document,\n and is the authority followed by Priestly-Code at a later time.\n The astonishing acumen and thoroughness which characterise\n Budde\u2019s work have had a great influence on critical opinion,\n yet his ingenious transpositions and reconstructions of the\n text seem too subtle and arbitrary to satisfy any but a slavish\n disciple. One feels that he has worked on too narrow a basis by\n confining his attention to successive overworkings of the same\n literary tradition, and not making sufficient allowance for the\n simultaneous existence of relatively independent forms.\u2015\u2015(c)\n Stade (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,\n xiv. 274 ff. [= _Ausgew\u00e4hlte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_\n 244\u2012251]) distinguishes three main strata: (1) chapters 2. 3.\n 11\u00b9\u207b\u2079; (2) 4\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u00b2 9\u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2077 10\u2079? 6\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2?; (3) the Flood-legend,\n added later to the other two, by a redactor who also compiled a\n Sethite genealogy (4\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427 ... 5\u00b2\u2079 ...) and inserted the story\n of Cain and Abel, and the Song of Lamech (4\u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015(d) Gunkel\n (_Genesis \u00fcbersetzt und erkl\u00e4rt_\u00b2 1 ff.) proceeds on somewhat\n different lines from his predecessors. He refuses in principle\n to admit incongruity as a criterion of source, and relies on\n certain verses which bear the character of connecting links\n between different sections. The most important is 5\u00b2\u2079 (belonging\n to the Sethite genealogy), where we read: \u201cThis (Noah) shall\n comfort us from our labour and from the toil of our hands on\n account of the ground which Yahwe has cursed.\u201d Here there is an\n unmistakable reference backward to 3\u00b9\u2077, and forward to 9\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427.\n Thus we obtain a faultless sequence, forming the core of a\n document where \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e was not used till 4\u00b2\u2076, and hence called\n Yahwist\u1d49, consisting of: one recension of the Paradise story;\n the (complete) Sethite genealogy; and Noah\u2019s discovery of\n wine. From this sequence are excluded obviously: the second\n recension of the Paradise story; the Cainite genealogy; and (as\n Gunkel thinks) the Flood-legend, where Noah appears in quite a\n different character: these belong to a second document (Yahwist\u02b2).\n Again, 9\u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1427 form a connecting link between the Flood and the\n Table of Nations; but Gunkel distinguishes two Yahwistic strata\n in the Table of Nations and assigns one to each of his documents:\n similarly with the section on the Tower of Babel. The legend of\n Cain and Abel is regarded (with Wellhausen, Budde, Stade, al.)\n as an editorial expansion.\n\n In this commentary the analysis of Gunkel is adopted in the\n main; but with the following reservations: (1) The account of\n the Flood cannot be naturally assigned to Yahwist\u02b2, because of\n its admitted incompatibility with the assumption of the Cainite\n genealogy (see above). Gunkel, indeed, refuses to take such\n inconsistencies into account; but in that case there is no\n reason for giving the Flood to Yahwist\u02b2 rather than to Yahwist\u1d49.\n There is no presumption whatever that only two documents are\n in evidence; and the chapters in question show peculiarities\n of language which justify the assumption of a separate source\n (Stade), say Yahwist\u1d48. (2) With the Flood passage goes the\n Yahwistic Table of Peoples (9\u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1427). The arguments for two\n Yahwists in chapter 10 are hardly decisive; and Yahwist\u1d49 at\n all events had no apparent motive for attaching an ethnographic\n survey to the name of Noah. (3) Gunkel\u2019s analysis of 11\u00b9\u207b\u2079\n appears on the whole to be sound; but even so there is no ground\n for identifying the two components with Yahwist\u1d49 and Yahwist\u02b2\n respectively. On the contrary, the tone of both recensions has\n a striking affinity with that of Yahwist\u02b2: note especially (with\n Wellhausen) the close resemblance in form and substance between\n 11\u2076 and 3\u00b2\u00b2. Thus:\n\n Yahwist\u02b2 = 3\u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2074 4\u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u2074 6\u00b9\u207b\u2074 11\u00b9\u207b\u2079;\n Yahwist\u1d49 = 22\u2074\u1d47\u20123\u00b9\u2079*\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3 4\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427 ... 5\u00b2\u2079 ... 9\u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2077;\n Yahwist\u1d48 = 6\u2075\u20128\u00b2\u00b2* 9\u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1427 10*;\n Yahwist\u02b3 = 4\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2076*.\n\n Such constructions, it need hardly be added, are in the highest\n degree precarious and uncertain; and can only be regarded as\n tentative explanations of problems for which it is probable that\n no final solution will be found.\n\n\n I. 1\u2012II. 3.\n _Creation of the World in Six Days:\n Institution of the Sabbath._\n\nA short Introduction describing the prim\u00e6val chaos (1\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2) is followed\nby an account of the creation of the world in six days, by a series of\neight divine fiats, viz.: (1) the creation of light, and the separation\nof light from darkness, \u00b3\u207b\u2075; (2) the division of the chaotic waters\ninto two masses, one above and the other below the \u2018firmament,\u2019 \u2076\u207b\u2078;\n(3) the separation of land and sea through the collecting of the lower\nwaters into \u201cone place,\u201d \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2070; (4) the clothing of the earth with its\nmantle of vegetation, \u00b9\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u00b3; (5) the formation of the heavenly bodies,\n\u00b9\u2074\u207b\u00b9\u2079; (6) the peopling of sea and air with fishes and birds, \u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u00b3;\n(7) the production of land animals, \u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2075; and (8) the creation of man,\n\u00b2\u2076\u207b\u00b3\u00b9. Finally, the Creator is represented as resting from His works on\nthe seventh day; and this becomes the sanction of the Jewish ordinance\nof the weekly Sabbath rest (2\u00b9\u207b\u00b3).\n\n_Character of the Record._\u2015\u2015It is evident even from this bare outline\nof its contents that the opening section of Genesis is not a scientific\naccount of the actual process through which the universe originated.\nIt is a world unknown to science whose origin is here described,\u2015\u2015the\nworld of antique imagination, composed of a solid expanse of earth,\nsurrounded by and resting on a world-ocean, and surmounted by a vault\ncalled the \u2018firmament,\u2019 above which again are the waters of a heavenly\nocean from which the rain descends on the earth (see on verses \u2076\u207b\u2078).\u00b9\nThat the writer believed this to be the true view of the universe,\nand that the narrative expresses his conception of how it actually\ncame into being, we have, indeed, no reason to doubt (Wellhausen,\n_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_\u2076 296). But the fundamental\ndifference of standpoint just indicated shows that whatever the\nsignificance of the record may be, it is not a revelation of physical\nfact which can be brought into line with the results of modern science.\nThe key to its interpretation must be found elsewhere.\n\n \u00b9 The fact referred to above seems to me to impose an absolute\n veto on the attempt to harmonise the teaching of the chapter\n with scientific theory. It may be useful, however, to\n specify one or two outstanding difficulties of detail.\n (1) It is recognised by all recent harmonists that the\n definition of \u2018day\u2019 as \u2018geological period\u2019 is essential\n to their theory: it is exegetically indefensible. (2)\n The creation of sun and moon _after_ the earth, after the\n alternation of day and night, and even after the appearance\n of plant-life, are so many scientific impossibilities. (3)\n Pal\u00e6ontology shows that the origin of vegetable life, if\n it did not actually follow that of animal life, certainly\n did not _precede_ it by an interval corresponding to two\n \u2018days.\u2019 (4) The order in which the various living forms are\n created, the manner in which they are grouped, and their\n whole development compressed into special periods, are all\n opposed to geological evidence. For a thorough and impartial\n discussion of these questions see Driver, _Genesis_, 19\u201226.\n It is there shown conclusively, not only that the modern\n attempts at reconciliation fail, but (what is more important)\n that the point at issue is not one of science, but simply\n of _exegesis_. The facts of science are not in dispute; the\n only question is whether the language of Genesis will bear\n the construction which the harmonising scientists find it\n necessary to put upon it.\n\nIn order to understand the true character of the narrative, we must\ncompare it with the _cosmogonies_ which form an integral part of all\nthe higher religions of antiquity. The demand for some rational theory\nof the origin of the world as known or conceived is one that emerges\nat a very early stage of culture; and the efforts of the human mind in\nthis direction are observed to follow certain common lines of thought,\nwhich point to the existence of a cosmological tradition exerting a\nwidespread influence over ancient speculation on the structure of the\nuniverse. There is ample evidence, as will be shown later (below, page\n45 ff.), that the Hebrew thinkers were influenced by such a tradition;\nand in this fact we find a clue to the inner meaning of the narrative\nbefore us. The tradition was plastic, and therefore capable of being\nmoulded in accordance with the genius of a particular religion; at the\nsame time, being a tradition, it retained a residuum of unassimilated\nmaterial derived from the common stock of cosmological speculation\ncurrent in the East. What happened in the case of the biblical\ncosmogony is this: that during a long development within the sphere of\nHebrew religion it was gradually stripped of its cruder mythological\nelements, and transformed into a vehicle for the spiritual ideas which\nwere the peculiar heritage of Israel. It is to the depth and purity of\nthese ideas that the narrative mainly owes that character of sobriety\nand sublimity which has led many to regard it as the primitive revealed\ncosmogony, of which all others are grotesque and fantastic variations\n(Dillmann, page 10).\n\nThe religious significance of this cosmogony lies, therefore, in the\nfact that in it the monotheistic principle of the Old Testament has\nobtained classical expression. The great idea of God, first proclaimed\nin all its breadth and fulness by the second Isaiah during the Exile,\nis here embodied in a detailed account of the genesis of the universe,\nwhich lays hold of the imagination as no abstract statement of the\nprinciple could ever do. The central doctrine is that the world is\n_created_,\u2015\u2015that it originates in the will of God, a personal Being\ntranscending the universe and existing independently of it. The pagan\nnotion of a Theogony\u2015\u2015a generation of the gods from the elementary\nworld-matter\u2015\u2015is entirely banished. It is, indeed, doubtful if the\nrepresentation goes so far as a _creatio ex nihilo_, or whether a\npre-existent chaotic material is postulated (see on verse \u00b9); it\nis certain at least that the _kosmos_, the ordered world with which\nalone man has to do, is wholly the product of divine intelligence\nand volition. The spirituality of the First Cause of all things, and\nHis absolute sovereignty over the material He employs, are further\nemphasised in the idea of the _word_ of God\u2015\u2015the effortless expression\nof His thought and purpose\u2015\u2015as the agency through which each successive\neffect is produced; and also in the recurrent refrain which affirms\nthat the original creation in each of its parts was \u2018good,\u2019 and as a\nwhole \u2018very good\u2019 (verse \u00b3\u00b9), _i.e._ that it perfectly reflected the\ndivine thought which called it into existence. The traces of mythology\nand anthropomorphism which occur in the body of the narrative belong\nto the traditional material on which the author operated, and do\nnot affect his own theological standpoint, which is defined by the\ndoctrines just enumerated. When to these we add the doctrine of man,\nas made in the likeness of God, and marked out as the crown and goal\nof creation, we have a body of religious truth which distinguishes the\ncosmogony of Genesis from all similar compositions, and entitles it to\nrank among the most important documents of revealed religion.\n\n _The Framework._\u2015\u2015The most noteworthy literary feature of the\n record is the use of a set of stereotyped formul\u00e6, by which the\n separate acts of creation are reduced as far as possible to a\n common expression. The structure of this \u2018framework\u2019 (as it may\n be called) is less uniform than might be expected, and is much\n more regular in LXX than in Massoretic Text. It is impossible to\n decide how far the irregularities are due to the original writer,\n and how far to errors of transmission. Besides the possibility\n of accident, we have to allow on the one hand for the natural\n tendency of copyists to rectify apparent anomalies, and on\n the other hand for deliberate omissions, intended to bring out\n Sacred numbers in the occurrences of the several formul\u00e6.\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 A familiar instance is the \u2018ten sayings\u2019 of _Pir\u1e33\u00ea \u2019Ab\u00f4th_,\n\u200e 5, 1: \u05d1\u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05de\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05e0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd\u200e, where the number 10 is arrived at\n by adding to the 8 fiats the two other occurrences of \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e\n in Massoretic Text (verses\u00b2\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u2079).\n\n The facts are of some importance, and may be summarised here:\n (a) The fiat (_And God said, Let_ ...) introduces (both in\n Massoretic Text and LXX) each of the eight works of creation\n (verses\u00b3\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2076). (b) _And it was so_ occurs\n literally 6 times in Massoretic Text, but virtually 7 times:\n _i.e._ in connection with all the works except the sixth\n (verses\u207d\u00b3\u207e\u1427 \u2077\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b3\u2070); in LXX also in verse \u00b2\u2070. (c)\n The execution of the fiat (_And God made_ ...\u2015\u2015with variations)\n is likewise recorded 6 times in Massoretic Text and 7 times\n in LXX (verses\u2077\u1427 \u207d\u2079\u207e\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2077). (d) The sentence of\n divine approval (_And God saw that it was good_) is pronounced\n over each work except the second (in LXX there also), though\n in the last instance with a significant variation: see\n verses\u2074\u1427 \u207d\u2078\u207e\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9. (e) The naming of the objects\n created (_And God called_ ...) is peculiar to the three acts of\n separation (verses\u2075\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2070). (f) _And God blessed_ ... (3 times)\n is said of the sixth and eighth works and of the Sabbath day\n (verses\u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2078 2\u00b3). (g) The division into days is marked by the\n closing formula, _And it was evening, etc._, which, of course,\n occurs 6 times (verses\u2075\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9), being omitted after the\n third and seventh works.\n\n The occurrence of the \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05db\u05df\u200e _before_ the execution of the fiat\n produces a redundancy which may be concealed but is not removed\n by substituting _so_ for _and_ in the translation (_So God made_,\n etc.). When we observe further that in 5 cases out of the 6 (in\n LXX 5 out of 7) the execution is described as a _work_, that\n the correspondence between fiat and fulfilment is often far\n from complete, and finally that 2\u00b2\u1d43 seems a duplicate of 2\u00b9, the\n question arises whether all these circumstances do not point to\n a literary manipulation, in which the conception of creation as\n a series of _fiats_ has been superimposed on another conception\n of it as a series of _works_. The observation does not carry us\n very far, since no analysis of sources can be founded on it; but\n it is perhaps a slight indication of what is otherwise probable,\n viz. that the cosmogony was not the free composition of a single\n mind, but reached its final form through the successive efforts\n of many writers (see below).\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 See, now, Stade _Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments_\n i. 349 and Schwally in _Archiv f\u00fcr Religionswissenschaft._,\n ix. 159\u2012175, which have appeared since the above paragraph\n was written. Both writers point out the twofold conception\n of the creation which runs through the chapter; and Schwally\n makes out a strong case for the composition of the passage\n from two distinct recensions of the cosmogony.\n\n _The Seven Days\u2019 Scheme._\u2015\u2015The distribution of the eight\n works over six days has appeared to many critics (Ilgen,\n Ewald, Schrader, Wellhausen, Dillmann, Budde, Gunkel, al.) a\n modification introduced in the interest of the Sabbath law, and\n at variance with the original intention of the cosmogony. Before\n entering on that question, it must be pointed out that the\n adjustment of days to works proceeds upon a clear principle, and\n results in a symmetrical arrangement. Its effect is to divide\n the creative process into two stages, each embracing four works\n and occupying three days, the last day of each series having two\n works assigned to it. There is, moreover, a remarkable, though\n not perfect, parallelism between the two great divisions. Thus\n the _first_ day is marked by the creation of light, and the\n _fourth_ by the creation of the heavenly bodies, which are\n expressly designated \u2018light-bearers\u2019; on the _second_ day the\n waters which afterwards formed the seas are isolated and the\n space between heaven and earth is formed, and so the _fifth_\n day witnesses the peopling of these regions with their living\n denizens (fishes and fowls); on the _third_ day the dry land\n emerges, and on the _sixth_ terrestrial animals and man are\n created. And it is hardly accidental that the second work of\n the _third_ day (trees and grasses) corresponds to the last\n appointment of the _sixth_ day, by which these products are\n assigned as the food of men and animals. Broadly speaking,\n therefore, we may say that \u201cthe first three days are days of\n preparation, the next three are days of accomplishment\u201d (Driver\n _Genesis_ 2). Now whether this arrangement belongs to the\n original conception of the cosmogony, or at what stage it was\n introduced, are questions very difficult to answer. Nothing at\n all resembling it has as yet been found in Babylonian documents;\n for the division into seven tablets of the _Enuma eli\u0161_ series\n has no relation to the seven days of the biblical account.\u00b9 If\n therefore a Babylonian origin is assumed, it seems reasonable to\n hold that the scheme of days is a Hebrew addition; and in that\n case it is hard to believe that it can have been introduced\n without a primary reference to the distinctively Israelitish\n institution of the weekly Sabbath. It then only remains to\n inquire whether we can go behind the present seven days\u2019 scheme,\n and discover in the narrative evidence of an earlier arrangement\n which either ignored the seven days altogether, or had them in a\n form different from what we now find.\n\n \u00b9 See below, page 43 ff. On the other hand there are Persian\n and Etruscan analogies; see page 50.\n\n The latter position is maintained by Wellhausen (_Die\n Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des Alten\n Testaments_\u00b2 187 ff.), who holds that the scheme of days is a\n secondary addition to the framework as it came from the hand\n of its Priestly author (Q). In the original cosmogony of Q a\n division into seven days was recognised, but in a different form\n from what now obtains; it was moreover not carried through in\n detail, but merely indicated by the statement of 2\u00b2 that God\n finished His work on the seventh day. The key to the primary\n arrangement he finds in the formula of approval, the absence\n of which after the second work he explains by the consideration\n that the separation of the upper waters from the lower and of\n the lower from the dry land form really but one work, and were\n so regarded by Q. Thus the seven works of creation were (1)\n separation of light from darkness; (2) separation of waters\n (\u2076\u207b\u00b9\u2070); (3) creation of plants; (4) luminaries; (5) fish\n and fowl; (6) land animals; (7) man. The statement that God\n finished His work on the seventh day Wellhausen considers to\n be inconsistent with a six days\u2019 creation, and also with the\n view that the seventh was a day of rest; hence in chapter 2, he\n deletes \u00b2\u1d47 and \u00b3\u1d47, and reads simply: \u201cand God finished His work\n which He made on the seventh day, and God blessed the seventh\n day and sanctified it.\u201d\u2015\u2015This theory has been subjected to a\n searching criticism by Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 487\n ff.; compare also Dillmann 15), who rightly protests against\n the subsuming of the creation of heaven and that of land and sea\n under one rubric as a \u2018separation of waters,\u2019 and gets rid of\n the difficulty presented by 2\u00b2\u1d43 by reading _sixth_ instead of\n _seventh_ (see on the verse). Budde urges further that the idea\n of the Sabbath as a day on which work might be done is one not\n likely to have been entertained in the circles from which the\n Priestly Code emanated,\u00b9 and also (on the ground of Exodus 20\u00b9\u00b9)\n that the conception of a creation in six days followed by a\n divine Sabbath rest must have existed in Israel long before\n the age of that document.\u2015\u2015It is to be observed that part of\n Budde\u2019s argument (which as a whole seems to me valid against\n the specific form of the theory advanced by Wellhausen) only\n pushes the real question a step further back; and Budde himself,\n while denying that the seven days\u2019 scheme is secondary to\n Priestly-Code, agrees with Ewald, Dillmann, and many others\n in thinking that there was an earlier Hebrew version of the\n cosmogony in which that scheme did not exist.\n\n \u00b9 See Jerome\u2019s polemical note, in _Qu\u00e6stiones sive Traditiones\n hebraic\u00e6 in Genesim_, _ad loc._\n\n The improbability that a disposition of the cosmogony in eight\n works should have obtained currency in Hebrew circles without an\n attempt to bring it into some relation with a sacred number has\n been urged in favour of the originality of the present setting\n (Holzinger, 23 f.). That argument might be turned the other\n way; for the very fact that the number 8 has been retained\n in spite of its apparent arbitrariness suggests that it had\n some traditional authority behind it. Other objections to the\n originality of the present scheme are: (a) the juxtaposition of\n two entirely dissimilar works under the third day; (b) the\n separation of two closely related works on the second and third\n days; (c)\u2003the alternation of day and night introduced before the\n existence of the planets by which their sequence is regulated\n (thus far Dillmann 15), and (d) the unnatural order of the\n fourth and fifth works (plants before heavenly bodies). These\n objections are not all of equal weight; and explanations more\n or less plausible have been given of all of them. But on the\n whole the evidence seems to warrant the conclusions: that\n the series of works and the series of days are fundamentally\n incongruous, that the latter has been superimposed on the\n former during the Hebrew development of the cosmogony, that\n this change is responsible for some of the irregularities of\n the disposition, and that it was introduced certainly not later\n than Priestly-Code, and in all probability long before his time.\n\n _Source and Style._\u2015\u2015As has been already hinted, the section\n belongs to the Priestly Code (Priestly-Code). This is the\n unanimous opinion of all critics who accept the documentary\n analysis of the Hexateuch, and it is abundantly proved both by\n characteristic words and phrases, and general features of style.\n Expressions characteristic of Priestly-Code are (besides the\n divine name \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e): \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u200e (see on verse\u00b9), \u05d6\u05db\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e0\u05e7\u05d1\u05d4\u200e \u00b2\u2077, \u05d7\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 [\u05d7\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05f3]\u200e\n\u200e \u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b3\u2070, \u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05d4\u200e \u00b2\u2079\u1427 \u00b3\u2070, \u05de\u05d9\u05df\u200e \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2075, \u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05d4\u200e \u00b9\u2070, \u05e4\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4\u200e \u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2078,\n\u200e \u05e8\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05e9\u05c2\u200e, \u05e8\u05b6\u05de\u05b6\u05e9\u05c2\u200e \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2078\u1427 \u00b3\u2070, \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e8\u05b7\u05e5\u200e, \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5\u200e \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9, and \u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea\u200e in\n 2\u2074\u1d43.\u2015\u2015Compare the lists in Dillmann, page 1; Gunkel, page 107,\n and _Oxford Hexateuch_, i. 208\u2012220; and for details see the\n Commentary below.\u2015\u2015Of even greater value as a criterion of\n authorship is the unmistakable literary manner of the Priestly\n historian. The orderly disposition of material, the strict\n adherence to a carefully thought out plan, the monotonous\n repetition of set phraseology, the aim at exact classification\n and definition, and generally the subordination of the concrete\n to the formal elements of composition: these are all features of\n the \u2018juristic\u2019 style cultivated by this school of writers,\u2015\u2015\u201cit\n is the same spirit that has shaped Genesis 1 and Genesis 5\u201d\n (Gunkel).\u2015\u2015On the artistic merits of the passage very diverse\n judgments have been pronounced. Gunkel, whose estimate is on\n the whole disparaging, complains of a lack of poetic enthusiasm\n and picturesqueness of conception, poorly compensated for by a\n marked predilection for method and order. It is hardly fair to\n judge a prose writer by the requirements of poetry; and even\n a critic so little partial to Priestly-Code as Wellhausen is\n impressed by \u201cthe majestic repose and sustained grandeur\u201d of the\n narrative, especially of its incomparable exordium (_Prolegomena\n zur Geschichte Israels_\u2076 297). To deny to a writer capable\n of producing this impression all sense of literary effect is\n unreasonable; and it is perhaps near the truth to say that\n though the style of Priestly-Code may, in technical descriptions\n or enumerations, degenerate into a pedantic mannerism (see an\n extreme case in Numbers 7), he has found here a subject suited\n to his genius, and one which he handles with consummate skill.\n It is a bold thing to desiderate a treatment more worthy of\n the theme, or more impressive in effect, than we find in the\n severely chiselled outlines and stately cadences of the first\n chapter of Genesis.\n\n In speaking of the style of Priestly-Code it has to be borne\n in mind that we are dealing with the literary tradition of a\n school rather than with the idiosyncrasy of an individual. It\n has, indeed, often been asserted that this particular passage\n is obviously the composition \u2018at one heat\u2019 of a single writer;\n but that is improbable. If the cosmogony rests ultimately on\n a Babylonian model, it \u201cmust have passed through a long period\n of naturalisation in Israel, and of gradual assimilation to\n the spirit of Israel\u2019s religion before it could have reached\n its present form\u201d (Driver, _Genesis_ 31). All, therefore, that\n is necessarily implied in what has just been said is that the\n _later stages_ of that process must have taken place under the\n auspices of the school of Priestly-Code, and that its work has\n entered very deeply into the substance of the composition.\u2015\u2015Of\n the earlier stages we can say little except that traces of them\n remain in those elements which do not agree with the ruling\n ideas of the last editors. Budde has sought to prove that the\n story had passed through the school of Yahwist before being\n adopted by that of Priestly-Code; that it was in fact the form\n into which the cosmogony had been thrown by the writer called\n Yahwist\u00b2. Of direct evidence for that hypothesis (such as\n would be supplied by allusions to Genesis 1 in other parts of\n Yahwist\u00b2) there is none: it is an inference deduced mainly from\n these premises: (1) that the creation story shows traces of\n overworking which presuppose the existence of an older Hebrew\n recension; (2) that in all other sections of the prehistoric\n tradition Priestly-Code betrays his dependence on Yahwist\u00b2; and\n (3) that Yahwist\u00b2 in turn is markedly dependent on Babylonian\n sources (see _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 463\u2012496, and the\n summary on page 491 f.). Even if all these observations be\n well founded, it is obvious that they fall far short of a\n demonstration of Budde\u2019s thesis. It is a plausible conjecture\n so long as we assume that little was written beyond what we have\n direct or indirect evidence of (_ib._ 463\u00b9); but when we realise\n how little is known of the diffusion of literary activity in\n ancient Israel, the presumption that Yahwist\u00b2 was the particular\n writer who threw the Hebrew cosmogony into shape becomes very\n slender indeed.\n\n=1.= We are confronted at the outset by a troublesome question of\nsyntax which affects the sense of every member of verse \u00b9. While all\nancient versions and many moderns take the verse as a complete sentence,\nothers (following Rashi and Ibn Ezra) treat it as a temporal clause,\nsubordinate either to verse \u00b3 (Rashi, and so most) or verse \u00b2 (Ibn Ezra,\napparently). On the latter view the verse will read: _In the beginning\nof God\u2019s creating the heavens and the earth_: \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b5\u05d0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05ea\u200e being in the\nconstruct state, followed by a clause as genitive (compare Isaiah 29\u00b9,\nHosea 1\u00b2 etc.; and see Gesenius-Kautzsch, \u00a7 130 _d_; Davidson \u00a7 25).\nIn a note below reasons are given for preferring this construction to\nthe other; but a decision is difficult, and in dealing with verse \u00b9\nit is necessary to leave the alternative open.\u2015\u2015_In the beginning_]\nIf the clause be subordinate the reference of \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea\u200e is defined by what\nimmediately follows, and no further question arises. But if it be an\nindependent statement _beginning_ is used absolutely (as in John 1\u00b9),\nand two interpretations become possible: (a) that the verse asserts\nthe creation (_ex nihilo_) of the prim\u00e6val chaos described in verse \u00b2;\nor (b) that it summarises the whole creative process narrated in the\nchapter. The former view has prevailed in Jewish and Christian theology,\nand is still supported by the weighty authority of Wellhausen. But\n(1) it is not in accordance with the usage of \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea\u200e (see below); (2)\nit is not required by the word \u2018create,\u2019\u2015\u2015a created chaos is perhaps\na contradiction (Isaiah 45\u00b9\u2078 \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0\u05be\u05ea\u05b9\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc \u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc\u200e), and Wellhausen himself admits\nthat it is a remarkable conception; and (3) it is excluded by the\nobject of that verb: _the heavens and the earth_. For though that\nphrase is a Hebrew designation of the universe as a whole, it is only\nthe _organised_ universe, not the chaotic material out of which it\nwas formed, that can naturally be so designated. The appropriate name\nfor chaos is \u2018the earth\u2019 (verse \u00b2); the representation being a chaotic\nearth from which the heavens were afterwards made (\u2076 \u1da0\u1427). The verse\ntherefore (if an independent sentence at all) must be taken as an\nintroductory heading to the rest of the chapter.\u00b9\u2015\u2015_God created._]\nThe verb \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u200e contains the central idea of the passage. It is partly\nsynonymous with \u05e2\u05b8\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d4\u200e (compare verses \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2077 with \u00b2\u2075), but 2\u00b3 shows that\nit had a specific shade of meaning. The idea cannot be defined with\nprecision, but the following points are to be noted: (a) The most\nimportant fact is that it is used exclusively of _divine_ activity\u2015\u2015a\nrestriction to which perhaps no parallel can be found in other\nlanguages (see Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_\u2076 304).\n(b) The idea of _novelty_ (Isaiah 48\u2076 \u1da0\u1427 41\u00b2\u2070 65\u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1427, Jeremiah 31\u00b2\u00b9) or\n_extraordinariness_ (Exodus 34\u00b9\u2070, Numbers 16\u00b3\u2070 [Yahwist]) of result is\nfrequently implied, and it is noteworthy that this is the case in the\nonly two passages of certainly early date where the word occurs. (c) It\nis probable also that it contains the idea of _effortless_ production\n(such as befits the Almighty) by word or volition\u00b2 (Psalms 33\u2079). (d) It\nis obvious (from this chapter and many passages) that the sense stops\nshort of _creatio ex nihilo_,\u2015\u2015an idea first explicitly occurring in 2\nMaccabees 7\u00b2\u2078. At the same time the facts just stated, and the further\ncircumstance that the word is always used with accusative of product\nand never of material, constitute a long advance towards the full\ntheological doctrine, and make the word \u2018create\u2019 a suitable vehicle\nfor it.\n\n \u00b9 The view that verse \u00b9 describes an earlier creation of heaven\n and earth, which were reduced to chaos and then re-fashioned,\n needs no refutation.\n\n \u00b2 The same thought was associated by the Babylonians with their\n word _ban\u00fb_ (see philosophical note); but the association\n seems accidental; and its significance is exaggerated by\n Gunkel when he says \u201cthe idea of creation is that man may\n form with his hands, the god brings to pass through his\n word\u201d (_Sch\u00f6pfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ 23).\n _Ban\u00fb_ is quite synonymous with _ipis\u00fb_ (make), and is not\n restricted to the divine activity.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.=\u2015\u2015\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea\u200e] The form is probably contracted from \u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b5\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05ea\u200e (compare\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d0\u05b5\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u200e), and therefore not derived directly from \u05e8\u05b9\u05d0\u05e9\u05c1\u200e. It signifies\n primarily the _first_ (or _best_) part of a thing: Genesis 10\u00b9\u2070\n (\u2018nucleus\u2019), 49\u00b3 (\u2018first product\u2019), Deuteronomy 33\u00b2\u00b9, Amos 6\u2076\n etc. (On its ritual sense as the first part of crops, etc., see\n Gray\u2019s note, _Numbers_ 226 ff.). From this it easily glides into\n a temporal sense, as the _first stage_ of a process or series of\n events: Hosea 9\u00b9\u2070 (\u2018in its first stage\u2019), Deuteronomy 11\u00b9\u00b2 (of\n the year), Job 8\u2077 40\u00b9\u2079 (a man\u2019s life), Isaiah 46\u00b9\u2070 (starting\n point of a series), etc. Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte\n Israels_\u2076 386) has said that Deuteronomy 11\u00b9\u00b2 is the earliest\n instance of the temporal sense; but the distinction between\n \u2018first part\u2019 and \u2018temporal beginning\u2019 is so impalpable that not\n much importance can be attached to the remark. It is of more\n consequence to observe that at no period of the language does\n the temporal sense go beyond the definition already given,\n viz. the first stage of a process, either explicitly indicated\n or clearly implied. That being so, the prevalent determinate\n construction becomes intelligible. That in its ceremonial\n sense the word should be used absolutely was to be expected (so\n Leviticus 2\u00b9\u00b2 [Numbers 18\u00b9\u00b2] Nehemiah 12\u2074\u2074: with these may be\n taken also Deuteronomy 33\u00b2\u00b9). In its temporal applications it\n is always defined by genitive or suffix except in Isaiah. 46\u00b9\u2070,\n where the antithesis to \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u200e inevitably suggests the intervening\n series of which \u05e8\u05f3\u200e is the initial phase. It is therefore doubtful\n if \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05f3\u200e could be used of an absolute beginning detached from\n its sequel, or of an indefinite past, like \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4\u200e or \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05ea\u05bc\u05d7\u05dc\u05d4\u200e (see\n Isaiah 1\u00b2\u2076, Genesis 13\u00b3).\u2015\u2015This brings us to the question of\n syntax. Three constructions have been proposed: (a) verse \u00b9 an\n independent sentence (_all_ versions and the great majority of\n commentaries, including Calvin, Delitzsch, Tuch, Wellhausen,\n Driver). _In sense_ this construction (taking the verse as\n superscription) is entirely free from objection: it yields an\n easy syntax, and a simple and majestic opening. The absence\n of the article tells against it, but is by no means decisive.\n At most it is a matter of pointing, and the sporadic Greek\n transliterations \u0392\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b7\u03b8 (Field, _Origenis Hexaplorum qu\u00e6\n supersunt; sive Veterum Interpretum Gr\u00e6corum in totum Vetus\n Testamentum Fragmenta_), and \u0392\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03b8 (Lagarde, _Ank\u00fcndigung\n einer neuen Ausgabe der griech. Uebersezung des Alte Testament_\n 5), alongside of \u0392\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b8, may show that in ancient times the\n first word was sometimes read \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05f3\u200e. Even the Massoretic pointing\n does not necessarily imply that the word was meant as construct;\n\u200e \u05e8\u05f3\u200e is never found with articles, and Delitzsch has well pointed\n out that the stereotyped use or omission of articles with\n certain words is governed by a subtle linguistic sense which\n eludes our analysis (_e.g._ \u05de\u05b4\u05e7\u05b6\u05bc\u05d3\u05b6\u05dd\u200e, \u05de\u05b5\u05e8\u05b9\u05d0\u05e9\u05c1\u200e, \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d0\u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e: compare K\u00f6nig\n _Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebr\u00e4ischen Sprache_\n \u00a7 294 g). The construction seems to me, however, opposed to\n the essentially _relative_ idea of \u05e8\u05f3\u200e,\u2015\u2015its express reference to\n _that of which_ it is the beginning (see above). (b) verse \u00b9\n protasis: verse \u00b2 parenthesis: verse \u00b3 apodosis;\u2015\u2015_When God\n began to create ...\u2015\u2015now the earth was ...\u2015\u2015God said, Let\n there be light._ So Rashi, Ewald, Dillmann,\u00b9 Holzinger, Gunkel,\n al.\u2015\u2015practically all who reject (a). Although first appearing\n explicitly in Rashi (\u2020 1105), it has been argued that this\n represents the old Jewish tradition, and that (a) came in\n under the influence of LXX from a desire to exclude the idea\n of an eternal chaos preceding the creation.\u00b2 But the fact that\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 agrees with LXX militates against that opinion.\n The one objection to (b) is the \u2018verzweifelt geschmacklose\n Construction\u2019 (Wellhausen) which it involves. It is replied\n (Gunkel, al.) that such openings may have been a traditional\n feature of creation stories, being found in several Babylonian\n accounts, as well as in Genesis 2\u2074\u1d47\u207b\u2076. In any case a lengthy\n parenthesis is quite admissible in good prose style (see 1\n Samuel 3\u00b2\u1d43{\u03b2}\u207b\u00b3, with Driver _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the\n Books of Samuel_, _ad loc._), and may be safely assumed here\n if there be otherwise sufficient grounds for adopting it. The\n clause as genitive is perfectly regular, though it would be\n easy to substitute infinitive \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b9\u05d0\u200e (mentioned but not recommended\n by Rashi). (c) A third view, which perhaps deserves more\n consideration than it has received, is to take verse \u00b9 as\n protasis and verse \u00b2 as apodosis, \u2018_When God began to create the\n heavens and the earth, the earth was, etc._\u2019 (Abraham Ibn Ezra?\n but see Cheyne, in _Hebr\u00e4ica_ ii. 50). So far as sense goes\n the sequence is eminently satisfactory; the \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e of verse \u00b3 is\n more natural as a continuation of verse \u00b2 than of verse \u00b9. The\n question is whether the _form_ of verse \u00b2 permits its being\n construed as apodosis. The order of words (subject before\n predicate) is undoubtedly that proper to the circumstantial\n clause (Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in\n Hebrew_ \u00a7 157; Davidson \u00a7 138 (_c_)); but there is no\n absolute rule against an apodosis assuming this form after a\n time-determination (see Driver _A Treatise on the use of the\n Tenses in Hebrew_ \u00a7 78). Close parallels (for it is hard to\n see that the \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u200e makes any essential difference) are Genesis 7\u00b9\u2070\n (Yahwist), 22\u00b9 (Elohist), or (with imperfect), Leviticus 7\u00b9\u2076\u1d47\n (Priestly-Code). The construction is not appreciably harsher\n than in the analogous case of 2\u2075, where it has been freely\n adopted.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u200e] enters fully into Old Testament usage only on the\n eve of the Exile. Apart from three critically dubious passages\n (Amos 4\u00b9\u00b3, Isaiah 4\u2075, Jeremiah 31\u00b2\u00b9), its first emergence in\n prophecy is in Ezekiel (3 times); it is specially characteristic\n of II Isaiah (20 times), in Priestly-Code 10 times, and in other\n late passages 8 times. The proof of pre-exilic use rests on\n Exodus 34\u00b9\u2070, Numbers 16\u00b3\u2070 (Yahwist), Deuteronomy 4\u00b3\u00b2. There\n is no reason to doubt that it belongs to the early language;\n what can be fairly said is that at the Exile the thought of the\n divine creation of the world became prominent in the prophetic\n theology, and that for this reason the term which expressed it\n technically obtained a currency it had not previously enjoyed.\n The primary idea is uncertain. It is commonly regarded as the\n root of a Piel meaning \u2018cut,\u2019 hence \u2018form by cutting,\u2019 \u2018carve,\u2019\n \u2018fashion,\u2019 (Aramaic _bara\u02b8_, Ph\u0153nician \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u200e [_Corpus Inscriptionum\n Semiticarum_, i. 347\u2074]: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._; Lane,\n _A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament_ 197 b;\n Lidzbarski, _Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik_ 244\n [with ?]); but the evidence of the connexion is very slight. The\n only place where \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b5\u05d0\u200e could mean \u2018carve\u2019 is Ezekiel 21\u00b2\u2074 \u1d47\u2071\u02e2; and\n there the text is almost certainly corrupt (see Cornill, Toy,\n Kraetschmar, _ad loc._). Elsewhere it means \u2018cut down\u2019 (Ezekiel\n 23\u2074\u2077) or \u2018clear ground by hewing down trees\u2019 (Joshua 17\u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2078\n [Yahwist])\u2015\u2015a sense as remote as possible from fashion or make\n (Dillmann, Gesenius-Buhl _s.v._; Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur\n Geschichte Israels_\u2076 387). The Aramaic _bara\u2019a_ (used chiefly\n of creation of animate beings) is possibly borrowed from\n Hebrew. Native philologists connect it, very unnaturally, with\n _bari\u2019a_, \u2018be free\u2019; so that \u2018create\u2019 means to _liberate_ (from\n the clay, etc.) (Lane, 178 b, c): Dillmann\u2019s view is similar.\n Barth (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, iii. 58) has proposed to\n identify \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u200e (through mutation of liquids) with the Assyrian verb\n for \u2018create,\u2019 _ban\u016b_; but rejects the opinion that the latter is\n the common Semitic \u05d1\u05e0\u05d4\u200e \u2018build\u2019 (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte\n Testament_\u00b3, 498\u00b9), with which \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u200e alternates in Sab\u00e6an (M\u00fcller\n in _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_,\n xxxvii. 413, 415).\n\n \u00b9 Who, however, considers the present text to be the result of\n a redactional operation. Originally the place of verse \u00b9 was\n occupied by 2\u2074\u1d43 in its correct form: \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e.\n When this was transposed it was necessary to frame a new\n introduction, and in the hands of the editor it assumed the\n form of verse \u00b9 (similarly, Stade _Biblische Theologie des\n Alten Testaments_ i. 349). I am unable to adopt this widely\n accepted view of the original position of 2\u2074\u1d43 (see on the\n verse), and Dillmann\u2019s intricate hypothesis would seem to me\n an additional argument against it.\n\n \u00b2 See Geiger, _Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer\n Abh\u00e4ngigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums_\n 344, 439, 444. The _Mechilta_ (on Exodus 12\u2074\u2070: Winter and\n W\u00fcnsche\u2019s German translation, page 48) gives verse \u00b9 as one\n of thirteen instances of things \u2018written for King Ptolemy\u2019;\n and Geiger infers that the change was deliberately made for\n the reason mentioned. The reading alleged by _Mechilta_ is\n\u200e \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea\u200e, which gives the _sense_ but not the _order_ of\n LXX. The other variations given are only partly verified by\n our texts of LXX; see on 1\u00b2\u2076 \u1da0\u1427 2\u00b2 11\u2077 18\u00b9\u00b2 49\u2076.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=2. Description of Chaos.=\u2015\u2015It is perhaps impossible to unite the\nfeatures of the description in a single picture, but the constitutive\nelements of the notion of chaos appear to be Confusion (\u05ea\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d4\u05d5\u200e),\nDarkness, and Water (\u05ea\u05d4\u05d5\u05dd\u200e, \u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e). The weird effect of the language is\nvery impressive. On the syntax, see above.\u2015\u2015_waste and void_] The exact\nmeaning of this alliterative phrase\u2015\u2015_T\u014dh\u00fb w\u0101-B\u014dh\u00fb_\u2015\u2015is difficult to\nmake out. The words are nouns; the connotation of \u05ea\u05d4\u05d5\u200e ranges from the\nconcrete \u2018desert\u2019 to the abstract \u2018nonentity\u2019; while \u05d1\u05d4\u05d5\u200e possibly means\n\u2018emptiness\u2019 (_v.i._). The exegetical tendency has been to emphasise the\nlatter aspect, and approximate to the Greek notion of chaos as empty\nspace (Gunkel). But our safest guide is perhaps Jeremiah\u2019s vision of\nChaos-come-again (4\u00b2\u00b3\u207b\u00b2\u2076), which is simply that of a darkened and\ndevastated earth, from which life and order have fled. The idea here\nis probably similar, with this difference, that the distinction of land\nand sea is effaced, and the earth, which is the subject of the sentence,\nmust be understood as the amorphous watery mass in which the elements\nof the future land and sea were commingled.\u2015\u2015_Darkness_ (an almost\ninvariable feature of ancient conceptions of chaos) _was upon the face\nof the Deep_] The _Deep_ (\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd\u200e) is the subterranean ocean on which the\nearth rests (Genesis 7\u00b9\u00b9 8\u00b2 49\u00b2\u2075, Amos 7\u2074 etc.); which, therefore,\nbefore the earth was formed, lay bare and open to the superincumbent\ndarkness. In the Babylonian Creation-myth the primal chaos is\npersonified under the name _Ti\u2019\u0101mat_. The Hebrew narrative is free\nfrom mythological associations, and it is doubtful if even a trace\nof personification lingers in the name \u05ea\u05d4\u05d5\u05dd\u200e. In Babylonian, _ti\u2019\u0101matu_\nor _t\u0101mtu_ is a generic term for \u2018ocean\u2019; and it is conceivable that\nthis literal sense may be the origin of the Hebrew conception of\nthe Deep (see page 47).\u2015\u2015_The Spirit of God was brooding_] not, as\nhas sometimes been supposed, a _wind_ sent from God to dry up the\nwaters (Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2, Abraham Ibn Ezra, and a few moderns), but the\ndivine Spirit, figured as a bird brooding over its nest, and perhaps\nsymbolising an immanent principle of life and order in the as yet\nundeveloped chaos. Compare Milton, _Paradise Lost_, i. 19 ff., vii.\n233 ff. It is remarkable, however, if this be the idea, that no further\neffect is given to it in the sequel. (1) The idea of the Spirit as\nformative principle of the kosmos, while _in the line_ of the Old\nTestament doctrine that he is the source of life (Psalms 33\u2076 104\u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1427),\nyet goes much beyond the ordinary representation, and occurs only here\n(possibly Isaiah 40\u00b9\u00b3). (2) The image conveyed by the word _brooding_\n\u200e(\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b7\u05d7\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05ea\u200e) is generally considered to rest on the widespread cosmogonic\nspeculation of the world-egg (so even Delitzsch and Dillmann), in\nwhich the organised world was as it were hatched from the fluid chaos.\nIf so, we have here a fragment of mythology not vitally connected\nwith the main idea of the narrative, but introduced for the sake of\nits religious suggestiveness. In the source from which this myth was\nborrowed the brooding power might be a bird-like deity\u00b9 (Gunkel), or an\nabstract principle like the Greek \u1f1c\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2, the Ph\u0153nician \u03a0\u03cc\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, etc.: for\nthis the Hebrew writer, true to his monotheistic faith, substitutes the\nSpirit of God, and thereby transforms a \u201ccrude material representation\n... into a beautiful and suggestive figure\u201d (Driver _The Book of\nGenesis with Introduction and Notes_ 5).\n\n \u00b9 In Polynesian mythology the supreme god Tangaloa is\n often represented as a bird hovering over the waters\n (Waitz-Gerland, _Anthropologie der Naturv\u00f6lker_ vi. 241).\n\n The conceptions of chaos in antiquity fluctuate between that\n of empty space (Hesiod, Aristotle, Lucretius, etc.) and the\n \u2018rudis indigestaque moles\u2019 of Ovid (_Metamorphoses _ i. 7).\n The Babylonian representation embraces the elements of darkness\n and water, and there is no doubt that this is the central idea\n of the Genesis narrative. It is singular, however, that of the\n three clauses of verse \u00b2 only the second (which includes the two\n elements mentioned) exercises any influence on the subsequent\n description (for on any view the \u2018waters\u2019 of the third must\n be identical with the _T\u0115h\u00f4m_ of the second). It is possible,\n therefore, that the verse combines ideas drawn from diverse\n sources which are not capable of complete synthesis. Only\n on this supposition would it be possible to accept Gunkel\u2019s\n interpretation of the first clause as a description of empty\n space. In that case _the earth_ is probably not inclusive\n of, but contrasted with, _T\u0115h\u00f4m_: it denotes the space _now_\n occupied by the earth, which being empty leaves nothing but the\n deep and the darkness.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =2.= \u05ea\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d4\u05d5\u200e] LXX \u1f00\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03cd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2; Aquila \u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd; Symmachus \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd; Theodotion \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd (or\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd; Vulgate _inanis et vacua_; Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\n\u200e \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05e7\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0\u200e (\u2018desolate and empty\u2019); Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 2 Syriac words).\n The fragmentary Jerome Targum has a double translation: \u201cAnd the\n earth was \u05ea\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0\u200e, and (compare Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2) _desolate_ from\n the sons of men, and _empty_ of work.\u201d \u05ea\u05d4\u05d5\u200e occurs along with \u05d1\u05d4\u05d5\u200e\n in Jeremiah 4\u00b2\u00b3, Isaiah 34\u00b9\u00b9; \u05ea\u05d4\u05d5\u200e alone in 17 passages besides.\n The meaning varies between two extremes: (a) a (trackless)\n _desert_ (Job 12\u00b2\u2074 [= Psalms 107\u2074\u2070] 6\u00b9\u2078, Deuteronomy 32\u00b9\u2070), and\n (b) _unsubstantiality_ (\u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05de\u05de\u05e9\u200e, Abraham Ibn Ezra) or \u2018nonentity,\u2019\n a sense all but peculiar to II Isaiah (also 1 Samuel 12\u00b2\u00b9,\n and _perhaps_ Isaiah 29\u00b2\u00b9), but very frequent there. The primary\n idea is uncertain. It is perhaps easier on the whole to suppose\n that the abstract sense of \u2018formlessness,\u2019 or the like, gave\n rise to a poetic name for desert, than that the concrete\n \u2018desert\u2019 passed over into the abstract \u2018formlessness\u2019; but we\n have no assurance that either represents the actual development\n of the idea. It seems not improbable that the Old Testament\n usage is entirely based on the traditional description of the\n prim\u00e6val chaos, and that the word had no definite connotation\n in Hebrew, but was used to express any conception naturally\n associated with the idea of chaos\u2015\u2015\u2018formlessness,\u2019 \u2018confusion,\u2019\n \u2018unreality,\u2019 etc.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05d4\u05d5\u200e] (never found apart from \u05ea\u05d4\u05d5\u200e) may be\n connected with _bahiya_ = \u2018be empty\u2019; though Aramaic is hardly\n a safe guide in the case of a word with a long history behind\n it. The identification with \u0392\u03b1\u03b1\u03c5, the mother of the first man\n in Ph\u0153nician mythology (see page 49 f.), is probable.\u2015\u2015\u05ea\u05d4\u05d5\u05dd\u200e] is\n undoubtedly the philological equivalent of Babylonian _Ti\u2019\u0101mat_:\n a connexion with Aramaic _Tih\u0101mat_, the Red Sea littoral\n province (Hoffmann in _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche\n Wissenschaft_, iii. 118), is more dubious (see Lane, 320 b, c;\n Jensen, _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 560). In early\n Hebrew the word is rare, and always (with possible exception\n of Exodus 15\u2075\u1427 \u2078) denotes the subterranean ocean, which is the\n source from which earthly springs and fountains are fed (Genesis\n 49\u00b2\u2075, Deuteronomy 33\u00b9\u00b3, Amos 7\u2074, and so Deuteronomy 8\u2077, Genesis\n 7\u00b9\u00b9 8\u00b2 (Priestly-Code); compare Homer _Iliad_ xxi. 195), and\n is a remnant of the primal chaos (Genesis 1\u00b2, Psalms 104\u2076,\n Proverbs 8\u00b2\u2077). In later writings it is used of the sea (plural,\n seas), and even of torrents of water (Psalms 42\u2078); but, the\n passages being poetic, there is probably always to be detected\n a reference to the world-ocean, either as source of springs,\n or as specialised in earthly oceans (see Ezekiel 26\u00b9\u2079). Though\n the word is almost confined to poetry (except Genesis 1\u00b2\n 7\u00b9\u00b9 8\u00b2, Deuteronomy 8\u2077, Amos 7\u2074), the only clear cases of\n personification are Genesis 49\u00b2\u2075, Deuteronomy 33\u00b9\u00b3 (_T\u0115h\u00f4m_ that\n coucheth beneath). The invariable absence of the article (except\n with plural in Psalms 106\u2079, Isaiah 63\u00b9\u00b3) proves that it is a\n proper name, but _not_ that it is a personification (compare\n the case of \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u200e). On the other hand, it is noteworthy that \u05ea\u05d4\u05d5\u05dd\u200e,\n unlike most Hebrew names of fluids, is feminine, becoming\n occasionally masculine only in later times when its primary\n sense had been forgotten (compare Albrecht, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\n die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvi. 62): this might be\n due to an original female personification.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05e8\u05d7\u05e4\u05ea\u200e] Greek Versions\n and Vulgate express merely the idea of motion (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf,\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, _ferebatur_); Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05de\u05e0\u05e9\u05d1\u05d0\u200e (\u2018blow\u2019 or\n \u2018breathe\u2019); Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word). Jerome (_Qu\u00e6stiones sive\n Traditiones hebraic\u00e6 in Genesim_): \u201cincubabat sive confovebat in\n similitudinem volucris ova calore animantis.\u201d It is impossible\n to say whether \u2018brood\u2019 or \u2018hover\u2019 is the exact image here, or\n in Deuteronomy 32\u00b9\u00b9,\u2015\u2015the only other place where the Piel occurs\n (the Qal in Jeremiah 23\u2079 may be a separate root). The Syriac\n verb has great latitude of meaning; it describes, _e.g._, the\n action of Elisha in laying himself on the body of the dead\n child (2 Kings 4\u00b3\u2074); and is used of angels _hovering_ over the\n dying Virgin. It is also applied to a waving of the hands (or of\n fans) in certain ecclesiastical functions, etc. (see Payne Smith,\n _Thesaurus Syriacus_ 3886).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=3\u20125. First work: Creation of light.=\u2015\u2015_[And] God said_] On the\nconnexion, see above, pages 13 ff.; and on the significance of the\n_fiat_, page 7.\u2015\u2015_Let there be light_] The thought of light as the\nfirst creation, naturally suggested by the phenomenon of the dawn,\nappears in several cosmogonies; but is not expressed in any known form\nof the Babylonian legend. There the creator, being the sun-god, is\nin a manner identified with the primal element of the kosmos; and the\nantithesis of light and darkness is dramatised as a conflict between\nthe god and the Chaos monster. In Persian cosmogony also, light, as\nthe sphere in which Mazda dwells, is uncreated and eternal (Tiele,\n_Geschichte der Religion im Altertum_ ii. 295 f.). In Isaiah 45\u2077 both\nlight and darkness are creations of Yahwe, but that is certainly not\nthe idea here. Compare Milton\u2019s _Paradise Lost_, iii. 1 ff.:\n\n \u201cHail, holy Light! offspring of heaven first-born;\n Or, of the Eternal co-eternal beam,\u201d etc.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =3.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\u200e corresponds to the \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05db\u05df\u200e of subsequent acts.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=4.= _saw that the light was good_] The formula of approval does\nnot extend to the darkness, nor even to the coexistence of light\nand darkness, but is restricted to the light. \u201cGood\u201d expresses the\ncontrast of God\u2019s work to the chaos of which darkness is an element.\nGunkel goes too far in suggesting that the expression covers a \u2018strong\nanthropomorphism\u2019 (the possibility of failure, happily overcome). But\nhe rightly calls attention to the bright view of the world implied\nin the series of approving verdicts, as opposed to the pessimistic\nestimate which became common in later Judaism.\u2015\u2015_And God divided,\netc._]. To us these words merely suggest alternation in time; but\nHebrew conceives of a _spatial_ distinction of light and darkness, each\nin its own \u2018place\u2019 or abode (Job 38\u00b9\u2079 \u1da0\u1427). Even the separate days and\nnights of the year seem thought of as having independent and continuous\nexistence (Job 3\u2076).\n\n The Hebrew mind had thus no difficulty in thinking of the\n existence of light before the heavenly bodies. The sun and\n moon _rule_ the day and night, but light and darkness exist\n independently of them. It is a mistake, however, to compare\n this with the scientific hypothesis of a cosmical light diffused\n through the nebula from which the solar system was evolved.\n It is not merely light and darkness, but day and night, and\n even the alternation of evening and morning (verse \u2075), that\n are represented as existing before the creation of the sun.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =4.= \u05d4\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8 \u05db\u05d9 \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u200e] with attracted object: see Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 117 _h_; Davidson \u00a7 146.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=5.= _And God called, etc._] The name\u2015\u2015that by which the thing is\nsummoned into the field of thought\u2015\u2015belongs to the full existence of\nthe thing itself. So in the first line of the Babylonian account, \u201cthe\nheaven was not yet named\u201d means that it did not yet exist.\u2015\u2015_And it\nbecame evening, etc._] Simple as the words are, the sentence presents\nsome difficulty, which is not removed by the supposition that the\nwriter follows the Jewish custom of reckoning the day from sunset to\nsunset (Tuch, Gunkel, Bennett, etc.). The Jewish day may have begun\nat sunset, but it did not end at sunrise; and it is impossible to take\nthe words as meaning that the evening and morning _formed_ the first\n(second, etc.) day. Moreover, there could be no evening before the\nday on which light was created. The sentence must refer to the _close_\nof the first day with the first evening and the night that followed,\nleading the mind forward to the advent of a new day, and a new display\nof creative power (Delitzsch, Dillmann, Holzinger, al.). One must not\noverlook the majestic simplicity of the statement.\n\n The interpretation of \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd\u200e as _\u00e6on_, a favourite resource of\n harmonists of science and revelation, is opposed to the plain\n sense of the passage, and has no warrant in Hebrew usage (not\n even Psalms 90\u2074). It is true that the conception of successive\n creative periods, extending over vast spaces of time, is found\n in other cosmogonies (Delitzsch 55); but it springs in part\n from views of the world which are foreign to the Old Testament.\n To introduce that idea here not only destroys the analogy on\n which the sanction of the sabbath rests, but misconceives the\n character of the Priestly Code. If the writer had had \u00e6ons in\n his mind, he would hardly have missed the opportunity of stating\n how many millenniums each embraced.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =5.= \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd\u200e in popular parlance denotes the period between dawn and\n dark, and is so used in \u2075\u1d43. When it became necessary to deal\n with the 24-hours\u2019 day, it was most natural to connect the night\n with the _preceding_ period of light, reckoning, _i.e._, from\n sunrise to sunrise; and this is the prevailing usage of Old\n Testament (\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4\u200e). In post-exilic times we find traces of the\n reckoning from sunset to sunset in the phrase \u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd\u200e (\u03bd\u03c5\u03c7\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd),\n Isaiah 27\u00b3 34\u00b9\u2070, Esther 4\u00b9\u2076. Priestly-Code regularly employs the\n form \u2018day and night\u2019; and if Leviticus 23\u00b3\u00b2 can be cited as a\n case of the later reckoning, Exodus 12\u00b9\u2078 is as clearly in favour\n of the older (see Marti, _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 1036; K\u00f6nig,\n _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, lx.\n 605 ff.). There is therefore no presumption in favour of the\n less natural method in this passage.\u2015\u2015\u05e7\u05b8\u05ab\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u200e] _Mil\u201bel_, to avoid\n concurrence of two accented syllables.\u2015\u2015\u2666\u05dc\u05b7\u05ab\u05d9\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] (also _Mil\u201bel_)\n a reduplicated form (\u05dc\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05dc\u05b7\u05d9\u200e; compare Aramaic \u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05d0\u200e): see N\u00f6ldeke,\n _Mand\u00e4ische Grammatik_ \u00a7 109; Pr\u00e4torius, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die\n alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, iii. 218; K\u00f6nig ii. \u00a7 52 c.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd\n\u200e \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3\u200e] \u2018a first day,\u2019 or perhaps better \u2018one day.\u2019 On \u05d0\u05d4\u05d3\u200e as ordinal,\n see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\u00a7 98 _a_, 134 _p_; Davidson \u00a7 38, _R._ 1;\n but compare Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_\u2076 387.\n\n\u200e \u2666 \u201c\u05dc\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05ab\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e\u201d replaced with \u201c\u05dc\u05b7\u05ab\u05d9\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n=6\u20128. Second work: The firmament.=\u2015\u2015The second fiat calls into\nexistence a _firmament_, whose function is to divide the prim\u00e6val\nwaters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as\nthe theatre of further creative developments. The \u201cfirmament\u201d is the\ndome of heaven, which to the ancients was no optical illusion, but a\nmaterial structure, sometimes compared to an \u201cupper chamber\u201d (Psalms\n104\u00b9\u00b3, Amos 9\u2076) supported by \u201cpillars\u201d (Job 26\u00b9\u00b9), and resembling in\nits surface a \u201cmolten mirror\u201d (Job 37\u00b9\u2078). Above this are the heavenly\nwaters, from which the rain descends through \u201cwindows\u201d or \u201cdoors\u201d\n(Genesis 7\u00b9\u00b9 8\u00b2, 2 Kings 7\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2079) opened and shut by God at His pleasure\n(Psalms 78\u00b2\u00b3). The general idea of a forcible separation of heaven and\nearth is widely diffused; it is perhaps embodied in our word \u2018heaven\u2019\n(from _heave?_) and Old English \u2018lift.\u2019 A graphic illustration of\nit is found in Egyptian pictures, where the god Shu is seen holding\naloft, with outstretched arms, the dark star-spangled figure of the\nheaven-goddess, while the earth-god lies prostrate beneath (see\nJeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 7).\u00b9\nBut the special form in which it appears here is perhaps not fully\nintelligible apart from the Babylonian creation-myth, and the climatic\nphenomena on which it is based (see below, page 46).\n\n \u00b9 Compare also the Maori myth reported in Waitz, _Anthropologie\n der Naturv\u00f6lker_ vi. 245 ff.; Lang, _Custom and Myth_, 45 ff.\n\n Another interpretation of the firmament has recently been\n propounded (Winckler, _Himmels- und Weltbild der Babylonier_,\n 25 ff.; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 164,\n 174) which identifies it with the Babylonian _\u0161upuk \u0161am\u0113_, and\n explains both of the Zodiac. The view seems based on the highly\n artificial Babylonian theory of a point-for-point correspondence\n between heaven and earth, according to which the Zodiac\n represents a heavenly earth, the northern heavens a heavenly\n heaven (atmospheric), and the southern a heavenly ocean. But\n whatever be the truth about _\u0161upuk \u0161am\u0113_, such a restriction\n of the meaning of \u05e8\u05e7\u05d9\u05e2\u200e is inadmissible in Hebrew. In Psalms\n 19\u00b2, Daniel 12\u00b3 it might be possible; but even there it is\n unnecessary, and in almost every other case it is absolutely\n excluded. It is so emphatically in this chapter, where the\n firmament is _named_ heaven, and birds (whose flight is not\n restricted to 10\u00b0 on either side of the ecliptic) are said to\n fly \u2018in front of the firmament.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u200e=6.= \u05e8\u05b8\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u05e2\u05b7\u200e] (LXX \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, Vulgate _firmamentum_) a word found\n only in Ezekiel, Priestly-Code, Psalms 19\u00b2 150\u00b9, Daniel 12\u00b3. The\n absence of article shows that it is a _descriptive_ term, though\n the only parallels to such a use would be Ezekiel 1\u00b2\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427\n 10\u00b9 (compare Ph\u0153nician \u05de\u05e8\u05e7\u05e2\u200e = \u2018dish\u2019 [_Blechschale_]: _Corpus\n Inscriptionum Semiticarum_, i. 90\u00b9; see Lidzbarski 370, 421).\n The idea is _solidity_, not thinness or extension: the sense\n \u2018beat thin\u2019 belongs to the Piel (Exodus 39\u00b3 etc.); and this\n noun is formed from the Qal, which means either (intransitive)\n to \u2018stamp with the foot\u2019 (Ezekiel 6\u00b9\u00b9), or (transitive), \u2018stamp\n firm,\u2019 \u2018consolidate\u2019 (Isaiah 42\u2075 etc.). It is curious that the\n verb is used of the creation of the earth, never of heaven,\n except Job 37\u00b9\u2078.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9 \u05de\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dc\u200e] on participle expressing permanence,\n see Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_\n \u00a7 135, \u200e5.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05df\u05be\u05dc\u05b0\u200e: K\u00f6nig _Historisch-comparative Syntax der\n hebr\u00e4ischen Sprache_ \u00a7 319 n.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05d3\u05b5\u05bc\u05dc\u200e] LXX supplies as subject\n \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\u2015\u2015=7.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05db\u05df\u200e] transposed in LXX to end of verse \u2076, its\n normal position,\u2015\u2015if indeed it be not a gloss in both places\n (Wellhausen).\u2015\u2015=8.= LXX also inserts here the formula of\n approval: on its omission in Hebrew, see above, pages 8, 9.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=9, 10. Third work: Dry land and sea.=\u2015\u2015The shoreless lower ocean,\nwhich remained at the close of the second day, is now replaced by\nland and sea in their present configuration. The expressions used:\n_gathered together ... appear_\u2015\u2015seem to imply that the earth already\nexisted as a solid mass covered with water, as in Psalms 104\u2075\u1427 \u2076; but\nDillmann thinks the language not inconsistent with the idea of a muddy\nmixture of earth and water, as is most naturally suggested by verse \u00b2.\nHenceforth the only remains of the original chaos are the subterranean\nwaters (commonly called _T\u0115h\u00f4m_, but in Psalms 24\u00b2 \u2018sea\u2019 and \u2018streams\u2019),\nand the circumfluent ocean on which the heaven rests (Job 26\u00b9\u2070, Psalms\n139\u2079, Proverbs 8\u00b2\u2077), of which, however, earthly seas are parts.\n\n Wellhausen\u2019s argument, that verses \u2076\u207b\u00b9\u2070 are the account of a\n single work (above, page 9 f.), is partly anticipated by Abraham\n Ibn Ezra, who points out that what is here described is no true\n creation, but only a manifestation of what was before hidden and\n a gathering of what was dispersed. On the ground that earth and\n heaven were made on one day (2\u2074), he is driven to take \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e as\n pluperfect, and assign verses \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2070 to the second day. Some such\n idea may have dictated the omission of the formula of approval\n at the close of the second day\u2019s work.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =9.= \u05d9\u05b4\u05e7\u05b8\u05bc\u05d5\u05d5\u05bc\u200e] in this sense, only Jeremiah 3\u00b9\u2077. For \u05de\u05b8\u05e7\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd\u200e read with LXX\n\u200e \u05de\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05d5\u05b6\u05d4\u200e = \u2018gathering-place,\u2019 as in verse \u00b9\u2070. Nestle (_Marginalien\n und Materialien_, 3) needlessly suggests for the latter\n\u200e \u05de\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05e8\u05b6\u05d4\u200e, and for \u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05d5\u200e, \u05d9\u05b4\u05e7\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b4\u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea\u200e] not \u2018from under\u2019 but simply\n \u2018under\u2019 (see verse \u00b9\u2070); Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 119 _c_\u00b2.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05b0\u05ea\u05b5\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b6\u05d4\u200e]\n jussive unapocopated, as often near the principal pause;\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 109 _a_.\u2015\u2015At the end of the verse LXX adds:\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f70\u03c2\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f21 \u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03ac: _i.e._ \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05e7\u05b8\u05bc\u05d5\u05d5\u05bc \u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05de\u05b4\u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea \u05d4\u05b7\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd \u05d0\u05b6\u05dc\u05be\u05de\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05d5\u05b5\u05d9\u05d4\u05b6\u05dd \u05d5\u05b7\u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d4\u200e.\n The addition is adopted by Ball, and the plural \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd proves at\n least that it rests on a Hebrew original, \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 being singular\n in Greek (Wellhausen).\u2015\u2015=10.= \u05d9\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] the plural (compare Genesis\n 49\u00b9\u00b3, Deuteronomy 33\u00b9\u2079, Psalms 46\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427 [where it is construed\n as singular] 24\u00b2 etc.) is mostly poetic and late prose; it is\n probably not numerical, but plural of extension like \u05de\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e, \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e,\n and therefore to be rendered as singular.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=11\u201213. Fourth work: Creation of plants.=\u2015\u2015The appearing of the earth\nis followed on the same day, not inappropriately, by the origination\nof vegetable life. The earth itself is conceived as endowed with\nproductive power\u2015\u2015a recognition of the principle of development not\nto be explained as a mere imparting of the power of annual renewal\n(Dillmann); see to the contrary verse \u00b9\u00b2 compared with verse \u00b2\u2074.\u2015\u2015=11.=\n_Let the earth produce verdure_] \u05d3\u05b6\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d0\u200e means \u2018fresh young herbage,\u2019 and\nappears _here_ to include all plants in the earliest stages of their\ngrowth; hence the classification of flora is not _three_fold\u2015\u2015grass,\nherbs, trees (Dillmann, Driver, al.)\u2015\u2015but _two_fold, the generic \u05d3\u05e9\u05d0\u200e\nincluding the two kinds \u05e2\u05b5\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d1\u200e and \u05e2\u05b5\u05e5\u200e (Delitzsch, Gunkel, Holzinger, etc.).\nThe distinction is based on the methods of reproduction; the one kind\nproducing seed merely, the other fruit which contains the seed.\u2015\u2015The\nverse continues (amending with the help of LXX): _grass producing\nseed after its kind, and fruit-tree producing fruit in which_\n(_i.e._ the fruit) _is its_ (the tree\u2019s) _seed after its_ (the tree\u2019s)\n_kind_.\u2015\u2015_after its kind_] _v.i._\u2015\u2015_upon the earth_] comes in very\nawkwardly; it is difficult to find any suitable point of attachment\nexcept with the principal verb, which, however, is too remote.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e \u200e=11.= \u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05d3\u05b0\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d0 \u05d3\u05b6\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d0\u200e] literally \u2018vegetate vegetation,\u2019 the noun being\n accusative cognate with the verb.\u2015\u2015\u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05f3\u200e is \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd; on the\n pointing with _Metheg_ (Baer-Delitzsch page 74) see K\u00f6nig i.\n \u00a7 42, 7. Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word) must have read \u05ea\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u200e as verse\n\u200e \u00b9\u00b2.\u2015\u2015\u05d3\u05b6\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d0 \u05e2\u05b5\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d1\u200e] LXX (\u03b2\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c7\u03cc\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5) and Vulgate treat the words as\n in annexion, contrary to the accents and the usage of the terms.\n It is impossible to define them with scientific precision; and\n the twofold classification given above\u2015\u2015herb and tree\u2015\u2015is more\n or less precarious. It recurs, however, in Exodus 9\u00b2\u2075 10\u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\n (all Yahwist), and the reasons for rejecting the other are,\n first, the absence of \u05d5\u05b0\u200e before \u05e2\u05e9\u05d1\u200e; and, second, the syntactic\n consideration that \u05d3\u05e9\u05d0\u200e as cognate accusative may be presumed to\n define completely the action of the verb.\u2015\u2015\u05d3\u05e9\u05c1\u05d0\u200e denotes especially\n fresh juicy herbage\u00b9 (Proverbs 27\u00b2\u2075) and those grasses which\n never to appearance get beyond that stage. \u05e2\u05e9\u05d1\u200e, on the other\n hand (unlike \u05d3\u05bc\u05f3\u200e), is used of human food, and therefore includes\n cultivated plants (the cereals, etc.) (Psalms 104\u00b9\u2074).\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05e5\u200e]\n read \u05d5\u05b4\u05e2\u05b5\u05e5\u200e with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX\n Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, and 3 Hebrew MSS (Ball).\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u200e, \u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4\u05d5\u200e] On\n form of suffix see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 91 _d_. LXX in verse \u00b9\u00b9\n inserts the word after \u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\u200e (rendering strangely \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1,\u2015\u2015and so verse \u00b9\u00b2), and later in the verse (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1) transposes as indicated in the translation\n above.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05d9\u05df\u200e] a characteristic word of Priestly-Code, found\n elsewhere only in Deuteronomy 14\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2078 (from Leviticus\n 11), and (dubiously) Ezekiel 47\u00b9\u2070,\u2015\u2015everywhere with suffix. The\n etymology is uncertain. If connected with \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (form, likeness),\n the meaning would be \u2018form\u2019 (Latin, _species_); but in usage\n it seems to mean simply \u2018kind,\u2019 the singular suffix here\n being distributive: \u201caccording to its several kinds.\u201d In\n Syriac the corresponding word denotes a family or tribe. For\n another view, see Friedrich Delitzsch, _Prolegomena eines\n neuen hebr\u00e4isch-aram\u00e4ischen W\u00f6rterbuchs zum Alten Testament_\n 143 f.\u2015\u2015=12.= \u200e\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u200e\u200e] One is tempted to substitute the rare \u05d5\u05ea\u05d3\u05e9\u05d0\u200e\n as in verse \u00b9\u00b9 (so Ball).\u2015\u2015After \u05e2\u05e5\u200e LXX adds \u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u200e: Ball deletes the\n\u200e \u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u200e in verse \u00b9\u00b9.\n\n \u00b9 In Aramaic this sense is said to belong to _\u201bu\u0161b_, but Hebrew\n\u200e \u05e2\u05e9\u05c2\u05d1\u200e has no such restriction.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=14\u201219. Fifth work: The heavenly luminaries.=\u2015\u2015On the parallelism\nwith the first day\u2019s work see above, page 8 f. The verses describe\nonly the creation of sun and moon; the clause _and the stars_ in\nverse \u00b9\u2076 appears to be an addition (_v.i._). The whole conception\nis as unscientific (in the modern sense) as it could be\u2015\u2015(a) in its\ngeocentric standpoint, (b) in making the distinction of day and night\nprior to the sun, (c) in putting the creation of the vegetable world\nbefore that of the heavenly bodies. Its religious significance, however,\nis very great, inasmuch as it marks the advance of Hebrew thought from\nthe heathen notion of the stars to a pure monotheism. To the ancient\nworld, and the Babylonians in particular, the heavenly bodies were\nanimated beings, and the more conspicuous of them were associated or\nidentified with the gods. The idea of them as an animated host occurs\nin Hebrew poetry (Judges 5\u00b2\u2070, Isaiah 40\u00b2\u2076, Job 38\u2077 etc.); but here\nit is entirely eliminated, the heavenly bodies being reduced to mere\n_luminaries_, i.e. either embodiments of light or perhaps simply\n\u2018lamps\u2019 (_v.i._). It is possible, as Gunkel thinks, that a remnant\nof the old astrology lurks in the word _dominion_; but whereas\nin Babylonia the stars ruled over human affairs in general, their\ninfluence here is restricted to that which obviously depends on them,\nviz. the alternation of day and night, the festivals, etc. Compare\nJob 38\u00b3\u00b3, Psalms 136\u2077\u207b\u2079 (Jeremiah 31\u00b3\u2075). It is noteworthy that this\nis the only work of creation of which the purpose is elaborately\nspecified.\u2015\u2015_luminaries_ (\u05de\u05b0\u05d0[\u05d5\u05b9]\u05e8\u05b9\u05ea\u200e)] _i.e._ bearers or embodiments of\nlight. The word is used most frequently of the sevenfold light of\nthe tabernacle (Exodus 25\u2076 etc.); and to speak of it as expressing a\nmarkedly prosaic view of the subject (Gunkel) is misleading.\u2015\u2015_in the\nfirmament, etc._] moving in prescribed paths on its lower surface.\nThis, however, does not justify the interpretation of \u05e8\u05e7\u05d9\u05e2\u200e as the Zodiac\n(above, page 22).\u2015\u2015_to separate between the day, etc._]. Day and night\nare independent entities; but they are now put under the _rule_ of\nthe heavenly bodies, as their respective spheres of influence (Psalms\n121\u2076).\u2015\u2015_for signs and for seasons, etc._] \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e2\u05b2\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (seasons) appears never\n(certainly not in Priestly-Code) to be used of the natural seasons\nof the year (Hosea 2\u00b9\u00b9, Jeremiah 8\u2077 are figurative), but always of\na time conventionally agreed upon (see Exodus 9\u2075), or fixed by some\ncircumstance. The commonest application is to the _sacred seasons_ of\nthe ecclesiastical year, which are fixed by the moon (compare Psalms\n104\u00b9\u2079). If the natural seasons are excluded, this seems the only\npossible sense here; and Priestly-Code\u2019s predilection for matters\nof cultus makes the explanation plausible.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u05b9\u05ea\u200e (signs) is more\ndifficult, and none of the explanations given is entirely satisfactory\n(_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=16.= _for dominion over the day ... night_] in the sense\nexplained above; and so verse \u00b9\u2078.\u2015\u2015_and the stars_] Since the writer\nseems to avoid on principle the everyday names of the objects, and to\ndescribe them by their nature and the functions they serve, the clause\nis probably a gloss (but _v.i._). On the other hand, it would be too\nbold an expedient to supply an express naming of the planets after the\nanalogy of the first three works (Tuch).\n\n The laboured explanation of the purposes of the heavenly bodies\n is confused, and suggests overworking (Holzinger). The clauses\n which most excite suspicion are the two beginning with \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u200e (the\n difficult \u00b9\u2074\u1d47 and \u00b9\u2075\u1d43{\u03b1});\u2015\u2015note in particular the awkward\n repetition of \u05dc\u05de\u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e. The functions are stated with perfect\n clearness in \u00b9\u2076\u207b\u00b9\u2078: (a) to give light upon the earth, (b) to\n rule day and night, and (c) to separate light from darkness. I\n am disposed to think that \u00b9\u2074\u1d47 was introduced as an exposition\n of the idea of the verb \u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u200e, and that \u00b9\u2075\u1d43{\u03b1} was then added to\n restore the connexion. Not much importance can be attached to\n the insertions of LXX (_v.i._), which may be borrowed from verse\n \u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1427.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =14.= \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05de\u05d0\u05e8\u05ea\u200e] (\u2225 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\u200e in verse \u00b3). On the breach of concord, see\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 145 _o_; Davidson \u00a7 113 _b_.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\u200e] a late\n word, is used of heavenly bodies in Ezekiel 32\u2078, Psalms 74\u00b9\u2076;\n it never means \u2018lamp\u2019 exactly, but is often applied collectively\n to the seven-armed lampstand of the tabernacle; once it is used\n of the eyes (Proverbs 15\u00b3\u2070), and once of the divine countenance\n (Psalms 90\u2078).\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05e8\u05e7\u05d9\u05e2 \u05d4\u05e9\u05f3\u200e] the genitive is not partitive but\n explicative: Davidson \u00a7 24 (_a_).\u2015\u2015LXX inserts at this point:\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2,\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03af.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d0\u05ea\u05ea\u200e] In Jeremiah 10\u00b2 \u05d0\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e are astrological portents\n such as the heathen fear, and that is commonly taken as the\n meaning here, though it is not quite easy to believe the writer\n would have said the sun and moon were _made_ for this purpose.\u00b9\n If we take \u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u200e in its ordinary sense of \u2018token\u2019 or \u2018indication,\u2019\n we might suppose it defined by the words which follow. Tuch\n obtains a connexion by making the double \u05d5\u200e = _both ... and_\n (\u201cas signs, both for [sacred] seasons and for days and years\u201d):\n others by a _hendiadys_ (\u201csigns _of_ seasons\u201d). It would be less\n violent to render the first \u05d5\u200e _und zwar_ (_videlicet_): \u201cas signs,\n _and that_ for seasons,\u201d etc.; see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s._ \u05d5\u05b0\u200e\n 1. b, where some of the examples come, at any rate, very near the\n sense proposed. Olshausen arrives at the same sense by reading\n\u200e \u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05f3\u200e simply (_Monatsberichte der K\u00f6niglich-Preussischen Akadamie\n der Wissenschaften zu Berlin._, 1870, 380).\u2015\u2015=16.= \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05db\u05f3\u200e] Driver\n (_Hebrew_ ii. 33) renders \u201cand the lesser light, as also the\n stars, to rule,\u201d etc. The construction is not abnormal; but\n would the writer have said that the stars rule the night?\u2015\u2015=18.=\n\u200e \u05d5\u05bc\u05bd\u05dc\u05b0\u05d4\u05b7\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dc\u200e] On the comparative sheva see K\u00f6nig i. \u00a7 10, 6 e.\n\n \u00b9 The prophetic passages cited by Driver (_The Book of Genesis\n with Introduction and Notes_ 10\u00b9) all contemplate a reversal\n of the order of nature, and cannot safely be appealed to as\n illustrations of its normal functions.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=20\u201223. Sixth work: Aquatic and a\u00ebrial animals.=\u2015\u2015_Let the waters\nswarm with swarming things\u2015\u2015living creatures, and let fowl fly, etc._]\nThe conjunction of two distinct forms of life under one creative act\nhas led Gunkel to surmise that two originally separate works have been\ncombined in order to bring the whole within the scheme of six days.\nBennett (rendering _and fowl that may fly_) thinks the author was\nprobably influenced by some ancient tradition that birds as well\nas fishes were produced by the water (so Rashi and Abraham Ibn Ezra\non 2\u00b9\u2079). The conjecture is attractive, and the construction has the\nsupport of all Greek versions and Vulgate; but it is not certain that\nthe verb can mean \u201c_produce_ a swarm.\u201d More probably (in connexions\nlike the present: see Exodus 7\u00b2\u2078 [Yahwist] [English Version 8\u00b3],\nPsalms 105\u00b3\u2070) the sense is simply _teem with_, indicating the place\nor element in which the swarming creatures abound, in which case it\ncannot possibly govern \u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05e3\u200e as objective.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5\u200e has a sense something like\n\u2018vermin\u2019: _i.e._ it never denotes \u2018a swarm,\u2019 but is always used of the\ncreatures that appear in swarms (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e] literally, \u2018living\nsoul\u2019; used here collectively, and with the sense of \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u200e weakened, as\noften, to \u2018individual\u2019 or \u2018being\u2019 (contrast verse \u00b3\u2070 and see on 2\u2077).\nThe creation of the aquatic animals marks, according to Old Testament\nideas, the first appearance of life on the earth, for life is nowhere\npredicated of the vegetable kingdom.\u2015\u2015_over the earth in front of\nthe firmament_] _i.e._ in the atmosphere, for which Hebrew has no\nspecial name.\u2015\u2015=21.= _created_] indistinguishable from _made_ in\nverse \u00b2\u2075.\u2015\u2015_the great sea monsters_] The introduction of this new\ndetail in the execution of the fiat is remarkable. \u05d4\u05b7\u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e0\u05b4\u05dd\u200e here denotes\nactual marine animals; but this is almost the only passage where it\n_certainly_ bears that sense (Psalms 148\u2077). There are strong traces of\nmythology in the usage of the word: Isaiah 27\u00b9 51\u2079 (Gunkel _Sch\u00f6pfung\nund Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ 30\u201233), Psalms 74\u00b9\u00b3(?); and it may\nhave been originally the name of a class of legendary monsters like\nTi\u2019\u0101mat. The mythological interpretation lingered in Jewish exegetical\ntradition (see below).\u2015\u2015=22.= _And God blessed them, etc._] In\ncontrast with the plants, whose reproductive powers are included in\ntheir creation (verse \u00b9\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), these living beings are endowed with\nthe right of self-propagation by a separate act\u2015\u2015a benediction (see\nverse \u00b2\u2078). The distinction is natural.\u2015\u2015_be fruitful, etc._] \u201cThere is\nnothing to indicate that only a single pair of each kind was originally\nproduced\u201d (Bennett); the language rather suggests that whole species,\nin something like their present multitude, were created.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =20.= \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05e6\u05d5 ... \u05e9\u05e8\u05e5\u200e] On syntax see Davidson \u00a7 73, _R._ 2. The root\n has in Aramaic the sense of \u2018creep,\u2019 and there are many passages\n in Old Testament where that idea would be appropriate (Leviticus\n 11\u00b2\u2079\u1427 \u2074\u00b9\u207b\u2074\u00b3 etc.); hence Robertson Smith (_Lectures on the\n Religion of the Semites_\u00b2, 293), \u2018creeping vermin generally.\u2019\n But here and Genesis 8\u00b9\u2077 9\u2077, Exodus 1\u2077 7\u00b2\u2078, Psalms 105\u00b3\u2070 it\n can only mean \u2018teem\u2019 or \u2018swarm\u2019; and Driver (_Genesis_ 12) is\n probably right in extending that meaning to all the passages\n in Hebrew Genesis 1\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1427, Exodus 7\u00b2\u2078, Psalms 105\u00b3\u2070 are the only\n places where the construct with cognitive accusative appears;\n elsewhere the animals themselves are subject of the verb. The\n words, except in three passages, are peculiar to the vocabulary\n of Priestly-Code.\u2015\u2015But for the fact that \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8\u05b8\u05e5\u200e never means \u2018swarm,\u2019\n but always \u2018swarming thing,\u2019 it would be tempting to take it as\n construct state before \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d4\u200e (LXX, Aquila, Vulgate). As it is,\n\u200e \u05e0\u05f3 \u05d7\u05f3\u200e has all the awkwardness of a gloss (see 2\u00b9\u2079). The phrase is\n applied once to man, 2\u2077 (Yahwist); elsewhere to animals,\u2015\u2015mostly\n in Priestly-Code (Genesis 1\u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b3\u2070 9\u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2076, Leviticus\n 11\u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u2074\u2076 etc.).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05e3 \u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e4\u05e3\u200e] The order of words as in verse \u00b2\u00b2\n\u200e (\u05d5\u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05e3 \u05d9\u05e8\u05d1\u200e), due to emphasis on the new subject. The use of\n descriptive imperfect (LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion,\n Vulgate) is mostly poetic, and for reasons given above must here\n be refused.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u200e] = \u2018in front of\u2019: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s._\n\u200e \u05e4\u05e0\u05d4\u200e, II. 7, a,\u2015\u2015LXX inserts \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05db\u05df\u200e at the end of the verse.\u2015\u2015=21.=\n\u200e \u05d4\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05dd\u200e] It is naturally difficult to determine exactly how far\n the Hebrew usage of the word is coloured by mythology. The\n important point is that it represents a power hostile to God,\n not only in the passages cited above, but also in Job 7\u00b9\u00b2.\n There are resemblances in the Aramaic _tinn\u012bn_, a fabulous\n amphibious monster, appearing now on land and now in the sea\n (personification of the waterspout? _Lectures on the Religion of\n the Semites_\u00b2, 176), concerning which the Arabian cosmographers\n have many wonderful tales to relate (Mas\u201b\u016bd\u012b, i. 263, 266 ff.;\n Kazw\u012bn\u012b, Eth\u00e9\u2019s translation i. 270 ff.). Rashi, after explaining\n literally, adds by way of Haggada that these are \u2018Leviathan and\n his consort,\u2019 who were created male and female, but the female\n was killed and salted for the righteous in the coming age,\n because if they had multiplied the world would not have stood\n before them (compare Enoch 60\u2077\u207b\u2079, 4 Esdras 6\u2074\u2079\u207b\u2075\u00b2, _Bereshith\n Rabba_ chapter 7).\u00b9\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05d4\u05d7\u05f3\u200e Compare 9\u00b9\u2070, Leviticus 11\u00b9\u2070; \u05e0\u05f3\u200e\n though without article is really determined by \u05db\u05dc\u200e (but see\n Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ \u00a7 209\n\u200e (1)).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e9\u05e8\u05e6\u05d5\u200e] \u05d0\u05f3\u200e, accusative of definition, as \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5\u200e in verse\n\u200e \u00b2\u2070.\u2015\u2015=22.= \u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc \u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u200e] highly characteristic of Priestly-Code (only 3 times\n elsewhere).\n\n \u00b9 In Babylonian _tann\u00eenu_ is said to be a mythological\n designation of the earth (Jensen _Die Kosmologie der\n Babylonier_ 161; Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des\n alten Orients_\u00b2, 136\u2077; King, _The Seven Tablets of Creation_\n 109\u00b2\u2074); but that throws no light on Hebrew.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=24, 25. Seventh work: Terrestrial animals.=\u2015\u2015=24.= _Let the\nearth bring forth living creatures_] \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d4\u200e (again collectively) is\nhere a generic name for _land_ animals, being restricted by what\nprecedes\u2015\u2015\u2018living animals that spring from the earth.\u2019 Like the plants\n(verse \u00b9\u00b2), they are boldly said to be produced by the earth, their\nbodies being part of the earth\u2019s substance (2\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2079); this could not be\nsaid of fishes in relation to the water, and hence a different form\nof expression had to be employed in verse \u00b2\u2070.\u2015\u2015The classification of\nanimals (best arranged in verse \u00b2\u2075) is threefold: (1) wild animals,\n\u200e\u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05ea \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5\u200e (roughly, _carnivora_); (2) domesticated animals, \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d4\u05b5\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e\n(_herbivora_); (3) reptiles, \u05e8\u05b6\u05de\u05b6\u05e9\u05c2 \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, including perhaps creeping\ninsects and very small quadrupeds (see Driver _A Dictionary of the\nBible_, i. 518). A somewhat similar threefold division appears in\na Babylonian tablet\u2015\u2015\u2018cattle of the field, beasts of the field and\ncreatures of the city\u2019 (Jensen _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi.\n1, 42 f.; King, _The Seven Tablets of Creation_ 112 f.).\u2015\u2015=25.= _God\nsaw that it was good_] The formula distinctly marks the separation of\nthis work from the creation of man, which follows on the same day. The\nabsence of a benediction corresponding to verses \u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2078 is surprising,\nbut it is idle to speculate on the reason.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =24.= The distinctions noted above are not strictly observed\n throughout the Old Testament. \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4\u200e (from a root signifying \u2018be\n dumb\u2019\u2015\u2015Aramaic and Ethiopic) denotes collectively, _first_,\n animals as distinguished from man (Exodus 9\u00b9\u2079 etc.), but chiefly\n the larger mammals; _then_, domestic animals (the dumb creatures\n with which man has most to do), (Genesis 34\u00b2\u00b3 36\u2076 etc.). Of\n _wild_ animals specially it is seldom used alone (Deuteronomy\n 32\u00b2\u2074, Habakkuk 2\u00b9\u2077), but sometimes with an addition (\u05d0\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5\u200e, \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d3\u05b6\u05d4\u200e,\n\u200e \u05d9\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05e8\u200e) which marks the unusual reference. As a noun of unity,\n Nehemiah 2 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2074. See Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._\u2015\u2015\u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05ea\u05d5\u05b9 \u05d0\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5\u200e] an\n archaic phrase in which \u05d5\u05b9\u200e represents the old case ending of the\n nominative, _u_ or _um_ (Gesenius-Kautzsch, \u00a7 90 _n_). So Psalms\n\u200e 79\u00b2; \u05d7\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u200e in other combinations Isaiah 56\u2079, Zephaniah 2\u00b9\u2074, Psalms\n 104\u00b9\u00b9; Psalms 50\u00b9\u2070 104\u00b2\u2070. In sense it is exactly the same as the\n commoner \u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05ea \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5\u200e 1\u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b3\u2070 9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2070 etc.), and usually denotes _wild_\n animals, though sometimes animals in general (\u03b6\u1ff6\u03bf\u03bd).\u2015\u2015\u05e8\u05de\u05e9\u200e and \u05e9\u05e8\u05e5\u200e\n naturally overlap; but the first name is derived from the manner\n of movement, and the second from the tendency to swarm (Driver\n _l.c._).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=26\u201228. Eighth work: Creation of man.=\u2015\u2015As the narrative approaches its\nclimax, the style loses something of its terse rigidity, and reveals\na strain of poetic feeling which suggests that the passage is moulded\non an ancient creation hymn (Gunkel). The distinctive features of\nthis last work are: (a) instead of the simple jussive we have the\ncohortative of either self-deliberation or consultation with other\ndivine beings; (b) in contrast to the lower animals, which are made\neach after its kind or type, man is made in the image of God; (c) man\nis designated as the head of creation by being charged with the rule of\nthe earth and all the living creatures hitherto made.\u2015\u2015=26.= _Let us\nmake man_] The difficulty of the 1st person plural has always been felt.\n\n Amongst the Jews an attempt was made to get rid of it by\n reading \u05e0\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d4\u200e as participle Niphal\u2015\u2015a view the absurd grammatical\n consequences of which are trenchantly exposed by Abraham Ibn\n Ezra. The older Christian commentaries generally find in the\n expression an allusion to the Trinity (so even Calvin); but that\n doctrine is entirely unknown to the Old Testament, and cannot\n be implied here. In modern times it has sometimes been explained\n as plural of self-deliberation (Tuch), or after the analogy of\n the \u2018we\u2019 of royal edicts; but Dillmann has shown that neither is\n consistent with native Hebrew idiom. Dillmann himself regards it\n as based on the idea of God expressed by the plural \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, as \u2018the\n living personal synthesis of a fulness of powers and forces\u2019 (so\n Driver); but that philosophic rendering of the concept of deity\n appears to be foreign to the theology of the Old Testament.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =26.= \u05d1\u05e6\u05dc\u05de\u05e0\u05d5 \u05db\u05d3\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5\u200e] LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n _Mechilta_ (see above, page 14), gives as LXX\u2019s reading\n\u200e \u05d1\u05e6\u05dc\u05dd \u05d5\u05d1\u05d3\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u200e.\u2015\u2015On the \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u200e \u2018of a model,\u2019 compare Exodus 25\u2074\u2070;\n Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ III. 8.\u2015\u2015\u05e6\u05dc\u05dd\u200e] Assyrian _\u1e63almu_,\n the technical expression for the statue of a god (_Die\n Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 476\u00b3); Aramaic and\n Syrian \u05e6\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05d0\u200e, = \u2018image\u2019; the root is not _\u1e93alima_, \u2018be dark,\u2019\n but possibly _\u1e63alama_, \u2018cut off\u2019 (N\u00f6ldeke, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\n die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvii. 185 f.). The idea of\n \u2018pattern\u2019 or \u2018model\u2019 is confined to the Priestly-Code passages\n cited above; it stands intermediate between the concrete sense\n just noted (an artificial material reproduction: 1 Samuel 6\u2075\n etc.) and another still more abstract, viz. \u2018an unreal\n semblance\u2019 (Psalms 39\u2077 73\u00b2\u2070).\u2015\u2015\u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea\u200e is the abstract noun\n _resemblance_; but also used concretely (2 Chronicles 4\u00b3,\n like Syrian (\u2021 Syriac word); Aramaic _dumyat_ = \u2018effigy.\u2019 The\n\u200e \u05d5\u200e is radical (form \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05de\u05b0\u05d5\u05b7\u05ea\u200e, compare Aramaic); hence the ending \u05d5\u05bc\u05ea\u200e\n is no proof of Aramaic influence (Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur\n Geschichte Israels_\u2075 388); see Driver _The Journal of Philology_\n xi. 216.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d1\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200e] Insert \u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05ea\u200e with Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (_v.s._). Other\n versions agree with Massoretic Text.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe most natural and most widely accepted explanation is that God\nis here represented as taking counsel with divine beings other\nthan Himself, viz. the angels or host of heaven: compare 3\u00b2\u00b2 11\u2077,\nIsaiah 6\u2078, 1 Kings 22\u00b9\u2079\u207b\u00b2\u00b2 (so Philo, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra,\nDelitzsch, Holzinger, Gunkel, Bennett, al.). Dillmann objects to this\ninterpretation, _first_, that it ascribes to angels some share in\nthe creation of man, which is contrary to scriptural doctrine;\u00b9 and,\n_second_, that the very existence of angels is nowhere alluded to\nby Priestly-Code at all. There is force in these considerations; and\nprobably the ultimate explanation has to be sought in a pre-Israelite\nstage of the tradition (such as is represented by the Babylonian\naccount: see below, page 46), where a polytheistic view of man\u2019s\norigin found expression. This would naturally be replaced in a Hebrew\nrecension by the idea of a heavenly council of angels, as in 1 Kings\n22, Job 1, 38\u2077, Daniel 4\u00b9\u2074 7\u00b9\u2070 etc. That Priestly-Code retained the\nidea in spite of his silence as to the existence of angels is due to\nthe fact that it was decidedly less anthropomorphic than the statement\nthat man was made in the image of the one incomparable Deity.\u2015\u2015_in our\nimage, according to our likeness_] The general idea of likeness between\nGod and man frequently occurs in classical literature, and sometimes\nthe very term of this verse (\u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd, _ad imaginem_) is employed. To\nspeak of it, therefore, as \u201cthe distinctive feature of the Bible\ndoctrine concerning man\u201d is an exaggeration; although it is true that\nsuch expressions on the plane of heathenism import much less than in\nthe religion of Israel (Dillmann). The idea in this precise form is in\nthe Old Testament peculiar to Priestly-Code (5\u00b9\u1427 \u00b3 9\u2076); the conception,\nbut not the expression, appears in Psalms 8\u2076: later biblical examples\nare Sirach 17\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, Wisdom 2\u00b2\u00b3 (where the \u2018image\u2019 is equivalent to\nimmortality), 1 Corinthians 11\u2077, Colossians 3\u00b9\u2070, Ephesians 4\u00b2\u2074,\nJames 3\u2079.\n\n \u00b9 Compare Calvin: \u201cMinimam vero tam pr\u00e6clari operis partem\n Angelis adscribere abominandum sacrilegium est.\u201d\n\n The origin of the conception is probably to be found in the\n Babylonian mythology. Before proceeding to the creation of\n Ea-bani, Aruru forms a mental image (_zikru_: see Jensen\n _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 401 f.) of the God Anu\n (_ib._ 120, l. 33); and similarly, in the Descent of I\u0161tar, Ea\n forms a _zikru_ in his wise heart before creating A\u1e63\u016b\u0161unamir\n (_ib._ 86. l. 11). In both cases the reference is obviously\n to the bodily form of the created being. See, further, _Die\n Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3 506; _Das Alte\n Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 167.\n\n The patristic and other theological developments of the doctrine\n lie beyond the scope of this commentary;\u00b9 and it is sufficient\n to observe with regard to them\u2015\u2015(1) that the \u2018image\u2019 is not\n something peculiar to man\u2019s original state, and lost by the\n Fall; because Priestly-Code, who alone uses the expression,\n knows nothing of a Fall, and in 9\u2076 employs the term, without\n any restriction, of post-diluvian mankind. (2) The distinction\n between \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd (_imago_) and \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (_similitudo_)\u2015\u2015the former\n referring to the essence of human nature and the latter to\n its accidents or its endowments by grace\u2015\u2015has an apparent\n justification in LXX, which inserts \u03ba\u03b1\u03af between the two phrases\n (see below), and _never mentions the \u2018likeness\u2019 after_ 1\u00b2\u2076; so\n that it was possible to regard the latter as something belonging\n to the divine idea of man, but not actually conferred at his\n creation. The Hebrew affords no basis for such speculations:\n compare 5\u00b9\u1427 \u00b3 9\u2076.\u2015\u2015(3) The view that the divine image consists\n in dominion over the creatures (Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom,\n Socinians, etc.) is still defended by Holzinger; but it cannot\n be held without an almost inconceivable weakening of the figure,\n and is inconsistent with the sequel, where the rule over the\n creatures is, by a separate benediction, conferred on man,\n already made in the image of God. The truth is that the image\n marks the distinction between man and the animals, and so\n qualifies him for dominion: the latter is the consequence, not\n the essence, of the divine image (compare Psalms 8\u2076 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, Sirach\n 17\u00b2\u207b\u2074)\u2015\u2015(4) Does the image refer primarily to the spiritual\n nature or to the bodily form (upright attitude, etc.) of man?\n The idea of a corporeal resemblance seems free from objection\n on the level of Old Testament theology; and it is certainly\n strongly suggested by a comparison of 5\u00b3 with 5\u00b9. God is\n expressly said to have a \u2018form\u2019 which can be seen (\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e,\n Numbers 12\u2078, Psalms 17\u00b9\u2075); the Old Testament writers constantly\n attribute to Him bodily parts; and that they ever advanced to\n the conception of God as formless spirit would be difficult to\n prove. On the other hand, it may well be questioned if the idea\n of a spiritual _image_ was within the compass of Hebrew thought.\n Dillmann, while holding that the central idea is man\u2019s spiritual\n nature, admits a reference to the bodily form in so far as it is\n the expression and organ of mind, and inseparable from spiritual\n qualities.\u00b2 It might be truer to say that it denotes primarily\n the bodily form, but includes those spiritual attributes of\n which the former is the natural and self-evident symbol.\u00b3\u2015\u2015Note\n the striking parallel in Ovid, _Metamorphoses_ i. 76 ff.\n\n \u00b9 A good summary is given by Zapletal, _Alttestamentliches_,\n 1\u201215.\n\n \u00b2 So Augustine, _On Genesis against the Manichaeans_ 1. 17:\n \u201cIta intelligitur per animum maxime, attestante etiam erecta\n corporis forma, homo factus ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei.\u201d\n\n \u00b3 Compare Engert, _Die Weltsch\u00f6pfung_, 33.\n\n_Man_ (\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd\u200e) is here generic (the human race), not the proper name of\nan individual, as 5\u00b3. Although the great majority of commentaries take\nit for granted that a single pair is contemplated, there is nothing in\nthe narrative to bear out that view; and the analogy of the marine and\nland animals is against it on the whole (Tuch and Bennett).\u2015\u2015_fish of\nthe sea, etc._] The enumeration coincides with the classification of\nanimals already given, except that _the earth_ occurs where we should\nexpect _wild beast of the earth_. \u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05ea\u200e should undoubtedly be restored\nto the text on the authority of Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5.\u2015\u2015=27.= _in his image, in the\nimage of God, etc._] The repetition imparts a rhythmic movement to the\nlanguage, which may be a faint echo of an old hymn on the glory of man,\nlike Psalms 8 (Gunkel).\u2015\u2015_male and female_] The persistent idea that\nman as first created was bi-sexual and the sexes separated afterwards\n(mentioned by Rashi as a piece of Haggada, and recently revived by\nSchwally, _Archiv f\u00fcr Religionswissenschaft._, ix. 172 ff.), is far\nfrom the thought of the passage.\u2015\u2015=28.= A benediction is here again\nthe source of fertility, but this time also of dominion: Gunkel regards\nthis as another fragment of a hymn.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =27.= \u05d1\u05e6\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u200e] LXX omitted. The curious paraphrase of Symmachus\n appears to reflect the Ebionite tendency of that translator: \u1f10\u03bd\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u1ff3 \u1f44\u03c1\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd (Geiger, _J\u00fcdische\n Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Wissenschaft und Leben_, i. 40 f.). See, however,\n Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_, 3 f., who calls attention\n to the \u1f44\u03c1\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd in LXX of 1 Samuel 28\u00b9\u2074, and considers this word\n the source of the idea that the upright form of man is part of\n the divine image. But LXX in 1 Samuel probably misread \u05d6\u05e7\u05df\u200e as\n\u200e \u05d6\u05e7\u05e3\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u05d5\u05b9\u200e] _constructio ad formam_: \u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05dd\u200e _constructio ad sensum_,\n\u200e \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e being collective: see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 132 _g._\u2015\u2015\u05d6\u05db\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e0\u05e7\u05d1\u05d4\u200e]\n The phrase confined to Priestly-Code except Deuteronomy 4\u00b9\u2076; \u05e0\u05f3\u200e\n alone in Jeremiah 31\u00b2\u00b9 (a gloss?). Although the application\n to a single pair of individuals predominates in the Law, the\n collective sense is established by Genesis 7\u00b9\u2076, and is to be\n assumed in some other cases (Numbers 5\u00b3 etc.). On its etymology\n see Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus criticus Lingu\u00e6 Hebr\u00e6\u00e6 et\n Chald\u00e6\u00e6 Veteris Testamenti_, _s.v._, and (for a different view)\n Schwally, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,\n xi. 181 f.\u2015\u2015=28.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd\u200e] LXX \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd; perhaps original.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05db\u05d1\u05e9\u05bb\u05c1\u05d4\u05b8\u200e]\n The only instance of a verbal suffix in this chapter: a strong\n preference for expression of accusative by \u05d0\u05ea\u200e with suffix\n is characteristic of the style of Priestly-Code (Wellhausen\n _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_\u2076 389).\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05e8\u05de\u05e9\u05ea\u200e] participle\n with article = relative clause: see Davidson \u00a7 99, _R._ 1. The\n previous noun is defined by \u05db\u05dc\u200e, as in verse \u00b2\u00b9 (_The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ inserts the article).\u2015\u2015After \u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 read \u05d5\u05d1\u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4\u200e (so Ball). LXX has for the end of the verse:\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd [\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f11\u03c1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd]\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f11\u03c1\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=29\u201231.= The record of creation closes with another (tenth) divine\nutterance, which regulates in broad and general terms the relation of\nmen and animals to the vegetable world. The plants are destined for\nfood to man and beast. The passage is not wholly intelligible apart\nfrom 9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, from which we see that its point is the restriction on the\nuse of animal food, particularly on the part of man. In other words,\nthe first stage of the world\u2019s history\u2015\u2015that state of things which the\nCreator pronounced very good\u2015\u2015is a state of peace and harmony in the\nanimal world. This is Priestly-Code\u2019s substitute for the garden of Eden.\n\nA distinction is made between the food of man and that of animals:\nto the former (a) seeding plants (probably because the seed is\nimportant in cultivation, and in cereals is the part eaten), and\n(b) fruit-bearing trees; to the latter _all the greenness of herbage_,\n_i.e._ the succulent leafy parts. The statement is not exhaustive: no\nprovision is made for fishes, nor is there any mention of the use of\nsuch victuals as milk, honey, etc. Observe the difference from chapters\n2. 3, where man is made to live on fruit alone, and only as part of the\ncurse has herbs (\u05e2\u05e9\u05d1\u200e) assigned to him.\u2015\u2015=31.= The account closes with\nthe divine verdict of approval, which here covers a survey of all that\nhas been made, and rises to the superlative \u2018very good.\u2019\n\n Verses \u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1427 differ significantly in their phraseology from\n the preceding sections: thus \u05d6\u05b9\u05e8\u05b5\u05e2\u05b7\u200e instead of \u05de\u05b7\u05d6\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e2\u05b7\u200e (\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2);\n\u200e \u05d4\u05e2\u05e5 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d5 \u05e4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e2\u05e5 \u05d6\u05e8\u05e2 \u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\u200e instead of the far more elegant \u05e2\u05e5 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d5\u200e;\n the classification into beasts, birds, and reptiles (contrast\n\u200e \u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2075); \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d4\u200e of the inner principle of life instead of\n the living being as in \u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b2\u2074; \u05d9\u05e8\u05e7 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d1\u200e instead of \u05d3\u05e9\u05d0\u200e. These\n linguistic differences are sufficient to prove literary\n discontinuity of some kind. They have been pointed out by\n Kraetschmar (_Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament_ 103 f.),\n who adds the doubtful material argument that the prohibition\n of animal food to man nullifies the dominion promised to him in\n verses \u00b2\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2078. But his inference (partly endorsed by Holzinger)\n that the verses are a later addition to Priestly-Code does\n not commend itself; they are vitally connected with 9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, and\n must have formed part of the theory of the Priestly writer. The\n facts point rather to a distinction in the sources with which\n Priestly-Code worked,\u2015\u2015perhaps (as Gunkel thinks) the enrichment\n of the creation-story by the independent and widespread myth of\n the Golden Age when animals lived peaceably with one another\n and with men. The motives of this belief lie deep in the human\n heart\u2015\u2015horror of bloodshed, sympathy with the lower animals, the\n longing for harmony in the world, and the conviction that on the\n whole the course of things has been from good to worse\u2015\u2015all have\n contributed their share, and no scientific teaching can rob the\n idea of its poetic and ethical value.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =29.= \u05e0\u05ea\u05ea\u05d9\u200e] = \u2018I give\u2019; Davidson \u00a7 40 _b_; Driver _A Treatise\n on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ \u00a7 13.\u2015\u2015\u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\u200e (over Athnach)]\n wrongly omitted by LXX.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05d4\u200e] found only in Priestly-Code and\n Ezekiel, and always preceded by \u05dc\u05b0\u200e. It is strictly feminine\n infinitive, and perhaps always retains verbal force (see Driver\n _The Journal of Philology_ xi. 217). The ordinary cognate\n words for food are \u05d0\u05b9\u05db\u05b6\u05dc\u200e and \u05de\u05b7\u05bd\u05d0\u05b2\u05db\u05b8\u05dc\u200e.\u2015\u2015=30.= \u05d5\u05dc\u05db\u05dc \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e The construction\n is obscure. The natural interpretation is that \u00b3\u2070 expresses\n a contrast to \u00b2\u2079\u2015\u2015the one specifying the food of _man_, the\n other that of _animals_. To bring out this sense clearly it is\n necessary (with Ewald al.) to insert \u05e0\u05ea\u05ea\u05d9\u200e before \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d9\u05e8\u05e7\u200e. The text\n requires us to treat \u05dc\u05db\u05dd \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05d4\u200e in \u00b2\u2079 as a parenthesis (Dillmann)\n and \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d9\u05e8\u05e7\u200e as still under the regimen of the distant \u05e0\u05ea\u05ea\u05d9\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05de\u05b5\u05e9\u05c2\u200e]\n LXX \u1f11\u03c1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f15\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u2015\u2015assimilating.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1\u200e] here used in its\n primary sense of the _soul_ or animating principle (see later on\n 2\u2077), with a marked difference from verses \u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 \u00b2\u2074.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05e8\u05e7 \u05e2\u05e9\u05c2\u05d1\u200e] so\n\u200e 9\u00b3, = \u05d9\u05f3 \u05d3\u05b6\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d0\u200e Psalms 37\u00b2. \u05d9\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05e7\u200e (verdure) alone may include the foliage\n of trees (Exodus 10\u00b9\u2075); \u05d9\u05f3 \u05d4\u05b7\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c2\u05d3\u05b6\u05d4\u200e = \u2018grass\u2019 (Numbers 22\u2074). The\n word is rare (6 times); a still rarer form \u05d9\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05e7\u200e may sometimes be\n confounded with it (Isaiah 37\u00b2\u2077 = 2 Kings 17\u00b2\u2076?).\u2015\u2015=31.= \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e9\u05e9\u05d9\u200e]\n The article with the number appears here for the first time\n in the chapter. On the construction, see Driver _A Treatise on\n the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ \u00a7 209 (1), where it is treated\n as the beginning of a usage prevalent in post-biblical Hebrew,\n which often in a definite expression uses the article with the\n adjective alone (\u05db\u05e0\u05e1\u05ea \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u200e, etc.). Compare Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 126\n _w_ (with footnote); Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 465;\n Driver _The Journal of Philology_ xi. 229 f.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=II. 1\u20123. The rest of God.=\u2015\u2015The section contains but one idea,\nexpressed with unusual solemnity and copiousness of language,\u2015\u2015the\ninstitution of the Sabbath. It supplies an answer to the question,\nWhy is no work done on the last day of the week? (Gunkel). The answer\nlies in the fact that God Himself rested on that day from the work\nof creation, and bestowed on it a special blessing and sanctity.\u2015\u2015The\nwriter\u2019s idea of the Sabbath and its sanctity is almost too realistic\nfor the modern mind to grasp: it is not an institution which exists or\nceases with its observance by man; the divine rest is a fact as much\nas the divine working, and so the sanctity of the day is a fact whether\nman secures the benefit or not. There is little trace of the idea that\nthe Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath; it is an\nordinance of the kosmos like any other part of the creative operations,\nand is for the good of man in precisely the same sense as the whole\ncreation is subservient to his welfare.\n\n=1.= _And all their host_] The \u2018host of heaven\u2019 (\u05e6\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05d0 \u05d4\u05b7\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e) is frequently\nmentioned in the Old Testament, and denotes sometimes the heavenly\nbodies, especially as objects of worship (Deuteronomy 4\u00b9\u2079 etc.),\nsometimes the angels considered as an organised army (1 Kings 22\u00b9\u2079\netc.). The expression \u2018host of the earth\u2019 nowhere occurs; and it is\na question whether the plural suffix here is not to be explained as\na _denominatio a potiori_ (Holzinger), or as a species of attraction\n(Driver). If it has any special meaning as applied to the earth,\nit would be equivalent to what is elsewhere called \u05de\u05b0\u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200e (Isaiah\n6\u00b3 34\u00b9, Deuteronomy 33\u00b9\u2076 etc.)\u2015\u2015the _contents_ of the earth, and\nis most naturally limited to those things whose creation has just\nbeen described.\u00b9 In any case the verse yields little support to the\nview of Smend and Wellhausen, that in the name \u2018Yahwe of Hosts\u2019 the\nword denotes the complex of cosmical forces (Smend, _Lehrbuch der\nalttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte_ 201 ff.), or the demons\nin which these forces were personified (Wellhausen, _Die kleinen\nPropheten_ 77).\u2015\u2015=2.= _And God finished, etc._] The duplication of\nverse \u00b9 is harsh, and strongly suggests a composition of sources.\u2015\u2015_on\nthe seventh day_] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,\nPeshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 read _sixth day_ (so also _Jubilees_, ii. 16, and Jerome,\n_Qu\u00e6stiones sive Traditiones hebraic\u00e6 in Genesim_), which is accepted\nas the original text by many commentaries (Ilgen, Olshausen, Budde,\nal.).\u00b2 But _sixth_ is so much the easier reading that one must hesitate\nto give it the preference. To take the verb as pluperfect (Calvin al.)\nis grammatically impossible. On Wellhausen\u2019s explanation, see above,\npage 9 f. The only remaining course is to give a purely negative sense\nto the verb _finish_: _i.e._ \u2018desisted from,\u2019 \u2018did not continue\u2019\n(Abraham Ibn Ezra, Delitzsch, Dillmann, Driver, al.). The last view\nmay be accepted, in spite of the absence of convincing parallels.\u2015\u2015_and\nhe rested_] The idea of \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d1\u05b7\u05ea\u200e is essentially negative: cessation of work,\nnot relaxation (Driver): see below. Even so, the expression is strongly\nanthropomorphic, and warns us against exaggerating Priestly-Code\u2019s\naversion to such representations.\u00b3\u2015\u2015=3.= _blessed ... sanctified_] The\nday is blessed and sacred in itself and from the beginning; to say that\nthe remark is made in view of the future institution of the Sabbath\n(Driver), does not quite bring out the sense. Both verbs contain\nthe idea of selection and distinction (compare Sirach 36 [33] \u2077\u207b\u2079),\nbut they are not synonymous (Gunkel). A blessing is the effective\nutterance of a good wish; applied to things, it means their endowment\nwith permanently beneficial qualities (Genesis 27\u00b2\u2077, Exodus 23\u00b2\u2075,\nDeuteronomy 28\u00b9\u00b2). This is the case here: the Sabbath is a constant\nsource of well-being to the man who recognises its true nature and\npurpose. To _sanctify_ is to set apart from common things to holy uses,\nor to put in a special relation to God.\u2015\u2015_which God creatively made_]\nsee the footnote.\u2015\u2015Although no closing formula for the seventh day is\ngiven, it is contrary to the intention of the passage to think that\nthe rest of God means His work of providence as distinct from creation:\nit is plainly a rest of one day that is thought of. It is, of course,\na still greater absurdity to suppose an interval of twenty-four hours\nbetween the two modes of divine activity. The author did not think in\nour dogmatic categories at all.\n\n \u00b9 Compare Nehemiah 9\u2076 \u201cthe heavens, the heavens of the heavens,\n and all their host, the earth and all that is upon it, the\n seas and all that is in them.\u201d\n\n \u00b2 Expressly mentioned as LXX\u2019s reading in _Mechilta_: see\n above, page 14, and Geiger, _l.c._ 439.\n\n \u00b3 In another passage of Priestly-Code, Exodus 31\u00b9\u2077, the\n anthropomorphism is greatly intensified: \u201cGod rested and\n refreshed Himself\u201d (literally \u2018took breath\u2019).\u2015\u2015See Jastrow\n (_American Journal of Theology_ ii. 343 ff.), who thinks\n that God\u2019s \u2018resting\u2019 meant originally \u201cHis purification\n after His conquest of the forces hostile to the order of\n the world,\u201d and was a survival of the mythological idea of\n the appeasement of Marduk\u2019s anger against Ti\u2019\u0101mat. The verb\n there used is _n\u00e2\u1e2bu_, the equivalent of Hebrew \u05e0\u05d5\u05d7\u200e, used in\n Exodus 20\u00b9\u00b9.\n\n The origin of the Hebrew Sabbath, and its relation to Babylonian\n usages, raise questions too intricate to be fully discussed here\n (see Lotz, _Quaestiones de historia Sabbati_ [1883]; Jastrow,\n _American Journal of Theology_ ii. [1898], 312 ff.; _Die\n Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 592 ff.; Driver _A\n Dictionary of the Bible_, _s.v._, and _The Book of Genesis with\n Introduction and Notes_ 34; Stade _Biblische Theologie des Alten\n Testaments_ \u00a7 88, 2). The main facts, however, are these: (1)\n The name _\u0161ab[p]attu_ occurs some five or six times in cuneiform\n records; but of these only two are of material importance\n for the Sabbath problem, (a) In a syllabary (II R. 32, 16 a, b)\n _\u0161abattu_ is equated with _\u00fbm n\u00fb\u1e2b libbi_, which has been\n conclusively shown to mean \u2018day of the appeasement of the heart\n (of the deity),\u2019\u2015\u2015in the first instance, therefore, a day of\n propitiation or atonement (Jensen _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_,\n iv. 274 ff.; Jastrow _l.c._ 316 f.). (b) In a tablet discovered\n by Pinches in 1904, the name _\u0161apattu_ is applied to the\n fifteenth day of the month (as full-moon-day?) (Pinches\n _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology_, xxvi.\n 51 ff.; Zimmern, _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen\n Gesellschaft_, lviii. 199 ff., 458 ff.). (2) The only trace of a\n Babylonian _institution_ at all resembling the Hebrew Sabbath is\n the fact that in certain months of the year (Elul, Marche\u0161van,\n but possibly the rest as well) the 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th days,\n and also the 19th (probably as the 7 \u00d7 7th from the beginning of\n the previous month), had the character of _dies nefasti_ (\u2018lucky\n day, unlucky day\u2019), on which certain actions had to be avoided\n by important personages (king, priest, physician) (IV R. 32 f.,\n 33). Now, no evidence has ever been produced that these _dies\n nefasti_ bore the name _\u0161abattu_; and the likelihood that this\n was the case is distinctly lessened by the Pinches fragment,\n where the name is applied to the 15th day, but not to the 7th,\n although it also is mentioned on the tablet. The question,\n therefore, has assumed a new aspect; and Meinhold (_Sabbat und\n Woche im Alten Testament_ [1905], and more recently [1909],\n _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxix. 81\n ff.), developing a hint of Zimmern, has constructed an ingenious\n hypothesis on the assumption that in Babylonian _\u0161abattu_\n denotes the day of the full moon. He points to the close\n association of new-moon and Sabbath in nearly all the pre-exilic\n references (Amos 8\u2075, Hosea 2\u00b9\u00b3, Isaiah 1\u00b9\u00b3, 2 Kings 4\u00b2\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427);\n and concludes that in early Israel, as in Babylon, the Sabbath\n was the full-moon festival and nothing else. The institution\n of the weekly Sabbath he traces to a desire to compensate for\n the loss of the old lunar festivals, when these were abrogated\n by the Deuteronomic reformation. This innovation he attributes\n to Ezekiel; but steps towards it are found in the introduction\n of a weekly day of rest during harvest only (on the ground of\n Deuteronomy 16\u2079; compare Exodus 34\u00b2\u00b9), and in the establishment\n of the sabbatical year (Leviticus 25), which he considers to\n be older than the weekly Sabbath. The theory involves great\n improbabilities, and its net result seems to be to leave the\n actual Jewish Sabbath as we know it without any point of contact\n in Babylonian institutions. It is hard to suppose that there is\n no historical connexion between the Hebrew Sabbath and the _dies\n nefasti_ of the Babylonian calendar; and if such a connexion\n exists, the chief difficulties remain where they have long been\n felt to lie, viz., (a) in the substitution of a weekly cycle\n running continuously through the calendar for a division of\n each month into seven-day periods, probably regulated by the\n phases of the moon; and (b) in the transformation of a day of\n superstitious restrictions into a day of joy and rest. Of these\n changes, it must be confessed, no convincing explanation has\n yet been found. The established sanctity of the number seven,\n and the decay or suppression of the lunar feasts, might be\n contributory causes; but when the change took place, and whether\n it was directly due to Babylonian influence, or was a parallel\n development from a lunar observance more primitive than either,\n cannot at present be determined. See Hehn, _Siebenzahl und\n Sabbat bei den Babyloniern und im Alten Testament_, 91 ff.,\n especially 114 ff.; compare Gordon, _The Early Traditions of\n Genesis_, 216 ff.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05e6\u05d1\u05d0\u200e] Literally \u2018host\u2019 or \u2018army\u2019; then \u2018period of service\u2019\n (chiefly military), LXX \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 and Vulgate _ornatus_ look like\n a confusion with \u05e6\u05b0\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u200e. Used of the host of heaven, Deuteronomy\n 4\u00b9\u2079 17\u00b3, Isaiah 24\u00b2\u00b9 40\u00b2\u2076, where Vulgate has in the first case\n _astra_, in the others _militia_; LXX \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 in all.\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05db\u05dc\u200e]\n For the alleged negative sense of Piel (see above), examine\n Numbers 17\u00b2\u2075, or (with \u05de\u05df\u200e) 1 Samuel 10\u00b9\u00b3, Exodus 34\u00b3\u00b3 etc.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4\u200e]\n the word \u201cused regularly of the work or business forbidden on\n the Sabbath (Exodus 20\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2070 35\u00b2, Jeremiah 17\u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2074 al.)\u201d (Driver);\n or on holy convocations (Exodus 12\u00b9\u2076, Leviticus 16\u00b2\u2079 23\u00b2\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427,\n Numbers 29\u2077). It has the prevailing sense of regular occupation\n or business, as Genesis 39\u00b9\u00b9, Jonah 1\u2078.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u200e\u00b9] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, _The Book of\n Jubilees._, _Bereshith Rabba_ \u05d4\u05e9\u05e9\u05d9\u200e, given as LXX\u2019s reading\n in _Mechilta_ (compare page 14 above).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u200e] The omission of\n continued subject (\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e) might strengthen Wellhausen\u2019s contention\n that the clause is a gloss (see page 10 above): it occurs\n nowhere else in the passage except _possibly_ 1\u2077. The verb\n\u200e \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u200e (possibly connected with Aramaic _sabata_ = \u2018cut off,\u2019\n or Assyrian _\u0161ab\u0101tu_ = \u2018cease,\u2019 \u2018be completed\u2019: but see _Die\n Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 593 f.) appears in\n Old Testament in three quite distinct senses: (a) \u2018cease to\n be,\u2019 \u2018come to an end\u2019; (b) \u2018desist\u2019 (from work, etc.); (c) \u2018keep\n Sabbath\u2019 (denominative). Of the last there are four undoubted\n cases, all very late: Leviticus 25\u00b2 23\u00b3\u00b2 26\u00b3\u2074 \u1da0\u1427, 2 Chronicles\n 36\u00b2\u00b9. But there are five others where this meaning is at least\n possible: Genesis 2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b3, Exodus 16\u00b3\u2070 23\u00b9\u00b2 34\u00b2\u00b9 31\u00b9\u2077; and of\n these Exodus 23\u00b9\u00b2 34\u00b2\u00b9 are pre-exilic. Apart from these doubtful\n passages, the sense \u2018desist\u2019 (b) is found only in Hosea 7\u2074, Job\n 32\u00b9 (Qal); Exodus 5\u2075, Joshua 22\u00b2\u2075, Ezekiel 16\u2074\u00b9 34\u00b9\u2070 (Hiphil);\n of which Hosea 7\u2074 (a corrupt context) and Exodus 5\u2075, alone are\n _possibly_ pre-exilic. In all other occurrences (about 46 in\n all; 9 Qal, 4 Niphal, 33 Hiphil) the sense (a) \u2018come to an end\u2019\n obtains; and this usage prevails in all stages of the literature\n from Amos to Daniel; the pre-exilic examples being Genesis 8\u00b2\u00b2,\n Joshua 5\u00b9\u00b2(?) (Qal); Isaiah 17\u00b3 (Niphal); Amos 8\u2074, Hosea 1\u2074 2\u00b9\u00b3,\n Isaiah 16\u00b9\u2070(?) 30\u00b9\u00b9, Deuteronomy 32\u00b2\u2076, 2 Kings 23\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9, Jeremiah\n 7\u00b3\u2074 16\u2079 36\u00b2\u2079 (Hiphil). These statistics seem decisive against\n Hehn\u2019s view (_l.c._ 93 ff.) that \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d1\u05b7\u05ea\u200e is originally a denominative\n from \u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05ea\u200e. If all the uses are to be traced to a single\n root-idea, there can be no doubt that (b) is primary. But\n while a dependence of (a) on (b) is intelligible (compare the\n analogous case of \u05d7\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05dc\u200e), \u2018desist\u2019 from work, and \u2018come to an end\u2019\n are after all very different ideas; and, looking to the immense\n preponderance of the latter sense (a), especially in the early\n literature, it is worth considering whether the old Hebrew verb\n did not mean simply \u2018come to an end,\u2019 and whether the sense\n \u2018desist\u2019 was not imported into it under the influence of the\n denominative use (c) of which Exodus 23\u00b9\u00b2 34\u00b2\u00b9 might be early\n examples. [A somewhat similar view is now expressed by Meinhold\n (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, 1909, 100\n f.), except that he ignores the distinction between \u2018desist\u2019 and\n \u2018come to an end,\u2019 which seems to me important.]\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 ... \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u200e]\n The awkward construction is perhaps adopted because \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u200e could not\n directly govern the substantive \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4\u200e. LXX has \u1f24\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf ... \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=4a.= _These are the generations, etc._] The best sense that can be\ngiven to the expression is to refer the pronoun to what precedes,\nand render the noun by \u2018origin\u2019: \u2018This is the origin of,\u2019 etc. But\nit is doubtful if \u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea\u200e can bear any such meaning, and altogether the\nhalf-verse is in the last degree perplexing. It is in all probability\na redactional insertion.\n\n The formula (and indeed the whole phraseology) is characteristic\n of Priestly-Code; and in that document it invariably stands as\n introduction to the section following. But in this case the next\n section (2\u2074\u1d47\u20124\u00b2\u2076) belongs to Yahwist; and if we pass over the\n Yahwist passages to the next portion of Priestly-Code (chapter\n 5), the formula would collide with 5\u00b9, which is evidently the\n proper heading to what follows. Unless, therefore, we adopt the\n improbable hypothesis of Strack, that a part of Priestly-Code\u2019s\n narrative has been dropped, the attempt to treat 2\u2074\u1d43 in its\n present position as a superscription must be abandoned. On this\n ground most critics have embraced a view propounded by Ilgen,\n that the clause stood originally before 1\u00b9, as the heading\n of Priestly-Code\u2019s account of the creation.\u00b9 But this theory\n also is open to serious objection. It involves a meaning of\n\u200e \u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea\u200e which is contrary both to its etymology and the usage of\n Priestly-Code (see footnote). Whatever latitude of meaning be\n assigned to the word, it is the fact that in this formula it\n is always followed by genitive of the progenitor, never of the\n progeny: hence by analogy the phrase must describe that which\n is generated by the heavens and the earth, not the process by\n which they themselves are generated (so Lagarde, _Orientalia_\n ii. 38 ff., and Holzinger). And even if that difficulty could\n be overcome (see Lagarde), generation is a most unsuitable\n description of the process of creation _as conceived by\n Priestly-Code_. In short, neither as superscription nor as\n subscription can the sentence be accounted for as an integral\n part of the Priestly Code. There seems no way out of the\n difficulty but to assume with Holzinger that the formula in this\n place owes its origin to a mechanical imitation of the manner of\n Priestly-Code by a later hand. The insertion would be suggested\n by the observation that the formula divides the book of Genesis\n into definite sections; while the advantage of beginning a\n new section at this point would naturally occur to an editor\n who felt the need of sharply separating the two accounts\n of the creation, and regarded the second as in some way the\n continuation of the first. If that be so, he probably took\n\u200e \u05ea\u05f3\u200e in the sense of \u2018history\u2019 and referred \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4\u200e to what follows.\n The analogy of 5\u00b9, Numbers 3\u00b9 would suffice to justify the use\n of the formula before the \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd\u200e of \u2074\u1d47.\u2015\u2015It has been thought that\n LXX has preserved the original form of the text: viz. \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e1\u05e4\u05e8 \u05ea\u05f3 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e\n (compare 5\u00b9); the redactor having, \u201cbefore inserting a section\n from the other document, accidentally copied in the opening\n words of 5\u00b9, which were afterwards adapted to their present\n position\u201d (Bennett). That is improbable. It is more likely\n that LXX deliberately altered the text to correspond with 5\u00b9.\n See Field, _Origenis Hexaplorum qu\u00e6 supersunt; sive Veterum\n Interpretum Gr\u00e6corum in totum Vetus Testamentum Fragmenta_, _ad\n loc._; Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_, 4.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =4a.= \u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea\u200e] only in plural constructs or with suffix; and\n confined to Priestly-Code, Chronicles and Ruth 4\u00b9\u2078. Formed\n from Hiphil of \u05d9\u05dc\u05d3\u200e, it means properly \u2018begettings\u2019; not, however,\n as noun of action, but concretely (= \u2018progeny\u2019); and this is\n certainly the prevalent sense. The phrase \u05d0\u05f3 \u05ea\u05f3\u200e (only Priestly-Code\n [all in Genesis except Numbers 3\u00b9], 1 Chronicles 1\u00b2\u2079, Ruth 4\u00b9\u2078)\n means primarily \u201cThese are the descendants\u201d; but since a _list_\n of descendants is a genealogy, it is practically the same thing\n if we render, \u201cThis is the genealogical register.\u201d In the great\n majority of instances (Genesis [5\u00b9] 10\u00b9 11\u00b9\u2070 11\u00b2\u2077 25\u00b9\u00b2 36\u00b9\u1427 \u2079,\n 1 Chronicles 1\u00b2\u2079, Ruth 4\u00b9\u2078) this sense is entirely suitable;\n the addition of a few historical notices is not inconsistent\n with the idea of a genealogy, nor is the general character of\n these sections affected by it. There are just three cases where\n this meaning is inapplicable: Genesis 6\u2079 25\u00b9\u2079 37\u00b2. But it is\n noteworthy that, except in the last case, at least a fragment\n of a genealogy follows; and it is fair to inquire whether 37\u00b2\n may not have been originally followed by a genealogy (such as\n 35\u00b2\u00b2\u1d47\u207b\u00b2\u2076 or 46\u2078\u207b\u00b2\u2077 [see Hupfeld, _Die Quellen der Genesis und\n die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung_, 102\u2012109, 213\u2012216]) which was\n afterwards displaced in the course of redaction (see page 423,\n below). With that assumption we could explain every occurrence\n of the formula without having recourse to the unnatural view\n that the word may mean a \u201cfamily history\u201d (Gesenius-Buhl\n _s.v._), or \u201can account of a man and his descendants\u201d\n (Brown-Driver-Briggs). The natural hypothesis would then be\n that a series of \u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea\u200e formed one of the sources employed by\n Priestly-Code in compiling his work: the introduction of this\n genealogical document is preserved in 5\u00b9 (so Holzinger); the\n recurrent formula represents successive sections of it, and 2\u2074\u1d43\n is a redactional imitation. When it came to be amalgamated with\n the narrative material, some dislocations took place: hence the\n curious anomaly that a man\u2019s history sometimes appears under his\n own _T\u00f4l\u0115d\u00f4th_, sometimes under those of his father; and it is\n difficult otherwise to account for the omission of the formula\n before 12\u00b9 or for its insertion in 36\u2079. On the whole, this\n theory seems to explain the facts better than the ordinary\n view that the formula was devised by Priestly-Code to mark the\n divisions of the principal work.\u2015\u2015\u05d1{\u05d4}\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05dd\u200e] \u2018in their creation\u2019\n or \u2018when they were created.\u2019 If the _literal minuscule_ has\n critical significance (Tuch, Dillmann) the primary reading was\n infinitive Qal (\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05dd\u200e); and this requires to be supplemented by\n\u200e \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e as subject. It is in this form that Dillmann thinks the\n clause originally stood at the beginning of Genesis. (see on 1\u00b9).\n But the omission of \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e and the insertion of the \u05d4\u200e _minuscule_\n are no necessary consequences of the transposition of the\n sentence; and the small \u05d4\u200e may be merely an error in the\n archetypal MS, which has been mechanically repeated in all\n copies.\n\n \u00b9 On Dillmann\u2019s modification of this theory, see above on 1\u00b9.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n _Babylonian and other Cosmogonies._\n\n 1. The outlines of Babylonian cosmogony have long been known\n from two brief notices in Greek writers: (1) an extract from\n Berossus (3rd century B.C.) made by Alexander Polyhistor, and\n preserved by Syncellus from the lost Chronicle of Eusebius (lib.\n i.); and (2) a passage from the Neo-Platonic writer Damascius\n (6th century A.D.). From these it was apparent that the biblical\n account of creation is in its main conceptions Babylonian.\n The interest of the fragments has been partly enhanced, but\n partly superseded, since the discovery of the closely parallel\n \u2018Chald\u00e6an Genesis,\u2019 unearthed from the debris of Asshurbanipal\u2019s\n library at Nineveh by George Smith in 1873. It is therefore\n unnecessary to examine them in detail; but since the originals\n are not very accessible to English readers, they are here\n reprinted in full (with emendations after _Die Keilinschriften\n und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 488 ff.):\n\n (1) Berossus: \u0393\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\n \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c6\u03c5\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 [emphatic\n by Richt., codex \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03c6\u03c5\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2] \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf,\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 [corrected by von\n Gutschmid, codex \u03c4\u03b5], \u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u1f70, \u1f04\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u1fc6\u03bb\u03c5\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 [corrected by von Gutschmid, codex \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2], \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72\n \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f40\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7 \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 [\u1f61\u03c2? von\n Gutschmid] \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. \u0396\u03c9\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u1f70\u03c2\n \u1f30\u03c7\u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f44\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1,\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f30\u03c7\u03b8\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\n \u03a0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f30\u03c7\u03b8\u03cd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03c1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f44\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\n \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 [emphatic by von Gutschmid, codex\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1] \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u00b7 \u1f67\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\n \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0392\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bd\u03b1\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1 \u1f97\n \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f48\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1 [corrected by Scaliger, codex \u1f49\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1] \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\n \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b4\u03b1\u03ca\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u0398\u03b1\u03bc\u03c4\u03b5 [corrected by W. R. Smith, _Zeitschrift\n f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, vi. 339, codex \u0398\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8], \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f30\u03c3\u03cc\u03c8\u03b7\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7. \u039f\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u0392\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c7\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd,\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f25\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u1f25\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd,\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd [\u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd? von Gutschmid] \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad\n \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f51\u03b3\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b6\u03ce\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd [A]\u00b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5 [emphatic by von Gutschmid,\n codex \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72] \u0392\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f43\u03bd \u0394\u03af\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd. \u03a4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9,\n \u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0392\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd [emphatic by\n Gunkel, codex \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd] \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f11\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03c5\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0392\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2. \u03a4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03ac \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u0390\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 \u1f08\u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0392\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03c3\u1f78\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd [B]\u00b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1fe5\u03c5\u1f72\u03bd \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u1fc7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\u00b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n \u00b9 The sections commencing with [A] and [B] stand in the\n reverse order in the text. The transposition is due to\n von Gutschmid, and seems quite necessary to bring out any\n connected meaning, though there may remain a suspicion\n that the two accounts of the creation of man are variants,\n and that the second is interpolated. Jeremias _Das Alte\n Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 134, plausibly\n assigns the section from \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 to \u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 to another\n recension (restoring [B] to its place in the text).\n\n (2) Damascius: \u03a4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bf\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u0392\u03b1\u03b2\u03c5\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03a4\u03b1\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd,\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f08\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a4\u03b1\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f10\u03be \u1f67\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039c\u03c9\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n \u03bf\u1f36\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. \u1f18\u03ba \u03b4\u1f72\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f70\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u039b\u03b1\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd [codex \u0394\u03b1\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd] \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039b\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\n [codex \u0394\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd]. \u0395\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f56 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u039a\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd,\n \u1f10\u03be \u1f67\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f08\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f08\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u0394\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0392\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f43\u03bd \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.[B]\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 The Greek text of Berossus will be found in M\u00fcller,\n _Fragmenta Historicorum Gr\u00e6corum_ ii. 497 f.; that of\n Damascius in _Damascii philosophi de primis principiis_\n (edited by Kopp, 1826), cap. 125. For translations of both\n fragments, see _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3,\n 488 ff.; G. Smith, _Chaldean Genesis_ (edited by Sayce),\n pages 34 ff., 43 f. (from Cory, _Ancient Fragments_); Gunkel\n _Sch\u00f6pfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ 17 ff.; Nikel,\n _Genesis und Keilschriftforschung_ 24 f., 28.\n\n 2. The only cuneiform document which admits of close and\n continuous comparison with Genesis 1 is the great Creation Epos\n just referred to. Since the publication, in 1876, of the first\n fragments, many lacun\u00e6 have been filled up from subsequent\n discoveries, and several duplicates have been brought to light;\n and the series is seen to have consisted of seven Tablets,\n entitled, from the opening phrase, _Enuma eli\u0161_ (= \u2018When\n above\u2019).\u00b9 The actual tablets discovered are not of earlier\n date than the 7th century B.C., but there are strong reasons\n to believe that the originals of which these are copies are of\n much greater antiquity, and may go back to 2000 B.C., while the\n myth itself probably existed in writing in other forms centuries\n before that. Moreover, they represent the theory of creation on\n which the statements of Berossus and Damascius are based, and\n they have every claim to be regarded as the authorised version\n of the Babylonian cosmogony. It is here, therefore, if anywhere,\n that we must look for traces of Babylonian influences on the\n Hebrew conception of the origin of the world. The following\n outline of the contents of the tablets is based on King\u2019s\n analysis of the epic into five originally distinct parts (_The\n Seven Tablets of Creation_, page lxvii).\n\n \u00b9 The best collection and translation of the relevant texts in\n English is given in L. W. King\u2019s _Seven Tablets of Creation_,\n volume i. (1902); with which should be compared Jensen\n _Mythen und Epen_, in _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi.\n 1 (1900), and now (1909) Gressmann, _Altorientalische Texte\n und Bilder zum Alten Testament_, i. 4 ff. See also Jensen\n _Die Kosmologie der Babylonier_ (1890), 268\u2012301; Gunkel\n _Sch\u00f6pfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ (1894) 401\u2012420,\n and the summaries in _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte\n Testament_\u00b3, 492 ff.; Lukas, _Die Grundbegriffe in den\n Kosmogonien der alten V\u00f6lker_ (1893), 2 ff.; Jastrow _The\n Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ (1898) 410 ff.; Jeremias\n _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 132 ff.;\n _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, article CREATION.\n\n i. _The Theogony._\u2015\u2015The first twenty-one lines of Tablet I.\n contain a description of the prim\u00e6val chaos and the evolution of\n successive generations of deities:\n\n When in the height heaven was not named,\n And the earth beneath did not bear a name,\n And the prim\u00e6val Apsu,\u00b9 who begat them,\n And chaos, Ti\u2019\u0101mat,\u00b2 the mother of them both,\u2015\u2015\n Their waters were mingled together,\n * * * * *\n Then were created the gods in the midst of (heaven), etc.\n\n First La\u1e25mu and La\u1e25amu,\u00b3 then Ansar and Kisar,\u2074 and lastly (as\n we learn from Damascius, whose report is in accord with this\n part of the tablet, and may safely be used to make up a slight\n defect) the supreme triad of the Babylonian pantheon, Anu, Bel,\n and Ea.\u2075\n\n \u00b9 Damascius, \u1f08\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n \u00b2 Damascius \u03a4\u03b1\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5, Berossus \u0398\u03b1\u03bc\u03c4\u03b5 (emphatic, see above).\n\n \u00b3 Damascius \u039b\u03b1\u03c7\u03b7 and \u039b\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 (emphatic).\n\n \u2074 \u1f08\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 and \u039a\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7.\n\n \u2075 \u1f08\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f38\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (In-lil = Bel), and, \u1f08\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n ii. _The Subjugation of Apsu by Ea._\u2015\u2015The powers of chaos, Apsu,\n Tiamat, and a third being called Mummu (Damascius \u039c\u03c9\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2), take\n counsel together to \u2018destroy the way\u2019 of the heavenly deities.\n An illegible portion of Tablet I. must have told how Apsu and\n Mummu were vanquished by Ea, leaving Tiamat still unsubdued.\n In the latter part of the tablet the female monster is again\n incited to rebellion by a god called Kingu, whom she chooses as\n her consort, laying on his breast the \u2018Tables of Destiny\u2019 which\n the heavenly gods seek to recover. She draws to her side many of\n the old gods, and brings forth eleven kinds of monstrous beings\n to aid her in the fight.\n\n iii. _The conflict between Marduk and Tiamat._\u2015\u2015Tablets II. and\n III. are occupied with the consultations of the gods in view\n of this new peril, resulting in the choice of Marduk as their\n champion; and Tablet IV. gives a graphic description of the\n conflict that ensues. On the approach of the sun-god, mounted on\n his chariot and formidably armed, attended by a host of winds,\n Tiamat\u2019s helpers flee in terror, and she alone confronts the\n angry deity. Marduk entangles her in his net, sends a hurricane\n into her distended jaws, and finally despatches her by an arrow\n shot into her body.\n\n iv. _The account of creation_ commences near the end of Tablet\n IV. After subduing the helpers of Tiamat and taking the Tables\n of Destiny from Kingu, Marduk surveys the carcase, and \u2018devised\n a cunning plan\u2019:\n\n He split her up like a flat fish into two halves;\n One half of her he stablished as a covering for the heaven.\n He fixed a bolt, he stationed a watchman,\n And bade them not to let her waters come forth.\n He passed through the heavens, he surveyed the regions\n (thereof),\n And over against the Deep he set the dwelling of Nudimmud.\u00b9\n And the lord measured the structure of the Deep\n And he founded E-\u0161ara, a mansion like unto it.\n The mansion E-\u0161ara which he created as heaven,\n He caused Anu, Bel, and Ea in their districts to inhabit.\n\n \u00b9 Ea.\n\n Berossus says, what is no doubt implied here, that of the other\n half of Tiamat he made the earth; but whether this is meant by\n the founding of E-\u0161ara, or is to be looked for in a lost part\n of Tablet V., is a point in dispute (see Jensen _Die Kosmologie\n der Babylonier_ 185 ff., 195 ff.; and _Keilinschriftliche\n Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 344 f.). Tablet V. opens with the creation\n of the heavenly bodies:\n\n He made the stations for the great gods;\n The stars, their images, as the stars of the Zodiac, he\n fixed.\n He ordained the year and into sections he divided it;\n For the twelve months he fixed three stars.\n * * * * *\n The Moon-god he caused to shine forth, the night he entrusted\n to him.\n He appointed him, a being of the night, to determine the days;\n Every month without ceasing with the crown he covered(?) him,\n (saying,)\n \u201cAt the beginning of the month, when thou shinest upon the\n land,\n Thou commandest the horns to determine six days,\n And on the seventh day,\u201d etc. etc.\n\n The rest of Tablet V., where legible, contains nothing bearing\n on the present subject; but in Tablet VI. we come to the\n creation of man, which is recorded in a form corresponding to\n the account of Berossus:\n\n When Marduk heard the word of the gods,\n His heart prompted him, and he devised (a cunning plan).\n He opened his mouth and unto Ea (he spake),\n (That which) he had conceived in his heart he imparted (unto\n him):\n \u201cMy blood will I take and bone will I (fashion),\n I will make man, that man may ... (...)\n I will create man, who shall inhabit (the earth),\n That the service of the gods may be established,\u201d etc. etc.\n\n At the end of the tablet the gods assemble to sing the praises\n of Marduk; and the last tablet is filled with a\n\n v. _Hymn in honour of Marduk._\u2015\u2015From this we learn that to\n Marduk was ascribed the creation of vegetation and of the\n \u2018firm earth,\u2019 as well as those works which are described in\n the legible portions of Tablets IV.\u2012VI.\n\n How far, now, does this conception of creation correspond with\n the cosmogony of Genesis 1? (1) In both we find the general\n notion of a watery chaos, and an etymological equivalence in\n the names (_Ti\u2019\u0101mat_, _T\u0115h\u00f4m_) by which it is called. It is\n true that the Babylonian chaos is the subject of a double\n personification, Apsu representing the male, and Tiamat\n the female principle by whose union the gods are generated.\n According to Jensen (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, 559 f.),\n Apsu is the fresh, life-giving water which descends from heaven\n in the rain, while Tiamat is the \u2018stinking,\u2019 salt water of the\n ocean: in the beginning these were mingled (Tablet I. 5), and\n by the mixture the gods were produced. But in the subsequent\n narrative the r\u00f4le of Apsu is insignificant; and in the central\n episode, the conflict with Marduk, Tiamat alone represents the\n power of chaos, as in Hebrew _T\u0115h\u00f4m_.\u2015\u2015(2) In _Enuma eli\u0161_ the\n description of chaos is followed by a theogony, of which there\n is no trace in Genesis. The Babylonian theory is essentially\n monistic, the gods being conceived as emanating from a material\n chaos. Lukas, indeed (_l.c._ 14 ff., 24 ff.), has tried to show\n that they are represented as proceeding from a supreme spiritual\n principle, Anu. But while an independent origin of deity may be\n consistent with the opening lines of Tablet I., it is in direct\n opposition to the statement of Damascius, and is irreconcilable\n with the later parts of the series, where the gods are\n repeatedly spoken of as children of Apsu and Tiamat. The\n biblical conception, on the contrary, is probably dualistic\n (above, pages 7, 15), and at all events the supremacy of the\n spiritual principle (_Elohim_) is absolute. That a theogony\n must have originally stood between verses \u00b2 and \u00b3 of Genesis 1\n (Gunkel) is more than can be safely affirmed. Gunkel thinks it\n is the necessary sequel to the idea of the world-egg in the end\n of verse \u00b2. But he himself regards that idea as foreign to the\n main narrative; and if in the original source something must\n have come out of the egg, it is more likely to have been the\n world itself (as in the Ph\u0153nician and Indian cosmogonies) than\n a series of divine emanations.\u2015\u2015(3) Both accounts assume, but in\n very different ways, the existence of light before the creation\n of the heavenly bodies. In the Babylonian legend the assumption\n is disguised by the imagery of the myth: the fact that Marduk,\n the god of light, is himself the demiurge, explains the omission\n of light from the category of created things. In the biblical\n account that motive no longer operates, and accordingly light\n takes its place as the first creation of the Almighty.\u2015\u2015(4) A\n very important parallel is the conception of heaven as formed\n by a separation of the waters of the prim\u00e6val chaos. In _Enuma\n eli\u0161_ the _septum_ is formed from the body of Tiamat; in Genesis\n it is simply a _r\u0101k\u00ee\u201ba_\u2015\u2015a solid structure fashioned for the\n purpose. But the common idea is one that could hardly have been\n suggested except by the climatic conditions under which the\n Babylonian myth is thought to have originated. Jensen has shown,\n to the satisfaction of a great many writers, how the imagery of\n the Babylonian myth can be explained from the changes that pass\n over the face of nature in the lower Euphrates valley about the\n time of the vernal equinox (see _Die Kosmologie der Babylonier_\n 307 ff.; compare Gunkel _Sch\u00f6pfung und Chaos in Urzeit und\n Endzeit_ 24 ff.; Gordon). Chaos is an idealisation of the\n Babylonian winter, when the heavy rains and the overflow of the\n rivers have made the vast plain like a sea, when thick mists\n obscure the light, and the distinction between heaven and sea\n seems to be effaced. Marduk represents the spring sun, whose\n rays pierce the darkness and divide the waters, sending them\n partly upwards as clouds, and partly downwards to the sea,\n so that the dry land appears. The \u2018hurricane,\u2019 which plays so\n important a part in the destruction of the chaos-monster, is the\n spring winds that roll away the dense masses of vapour from the\n surface of the earth. If this be the natural basis of the myth\n of Marduk and Tiamat, it is evident that it must have originated\n in a marshy alluvial region, subject to annual inundations,\n like the Euphrates valley.\u2015\u2015(5) There is, again, a close\n correspondence between the accounts of the creation of the\n heavenly bodies (see page 21 f.). The Babylonian is much fuller,\n and more saturated with mythology: it mentions not only the\n moon but the signs of the Zodiac, the planet Jupiter, and the\n stars. But in the idea that the function of the luminaries is\n to regulate time, and in the destination of the moon to rule\n the night, we must recognise a striking resemblance between the\n two cosmogonies.\u2015\u2015(6) The last definite point of contact is the\n creation of man (page 30 f.). Here, however, the resemblance\n is slight, though the deliberative 1st person plural in Genesis\n 1\u00b2\u2076 is probably a reminiscence of a dialogue like that between\n Marduk and Ea in the _Enuma eli\u0161_ narrative.\u2015\u2015(7) With regard\n to the order of the works, it is evident that there cannot\n have been complete parallelism between the two accounts. In the\n tablets the creation of heaven is followed naturally by that of\n the stars. The arrangement of the remaining works, which must\n have been mentioned in lost parts of Tablets V. and VI., is,\n of course, uncertain; but the statement of Berossus suggests\n that the creation of land animals followed instead of preceding\n that of man. At the same time it is very significant that the\n separate works themselves, apart from their order: Firmament,\n Luminaries, Earth, Plants, Animals, Men,\u2015\u2015are practically\n identical in the two documents: there is even a fragment\n (possibly belonging to the series) which alludes to the creation\n of marine animals as a distinct class (King, _The Seven Tablets\n of Creation_, lix, lxxxvi). Gordon (_Early Traditions of\n Genesis_) holds that the differences of arrangement can be\n reduced to the single transposition of heavenly bodies and\n plants (see his table, page 51).\n\n In view of these parallels, it seems impossible to doubt that\n the cosmogony of Genesis 1 rests on a conception of the process\n of creation fundamentally identical with that of the _Enuma\n eli\u0161_ tablets.\n\n 3. There is, however, another recension of the Babylonian\n creation story from which the fight of the sun-god with chaos is\n absent, and which for that reason possesses a certain importance\n for our present purpose. It occurs as the introduction to a\n bilingual magical text, first published by Pinches in 1891.\u00b9\n Once upon a time, it tells us, there were no temples for the\n gods, no plants, no houses or cities, no human inhabitants:\n\n The Deep had not been created, Eridu had not been built;\n Of the holy house, the house of the gods, the habitation had\n not been made.\n All lands were sea (_t\u0101mtu_).\n\n Then arose a \u2018movement in the sea\u2019; the most ancient shrines\n and cities of Babylonia were made, and divine beings created\n to inhabit them. Then\n\n Marduk laid a reed\u00b9 on the face of the waters;\n He formed dust and poured it out beside the reed,\n That he might cause the gods to dwell in the habitation\n of their heart\u2019s desire.\n He formed mankind; the goddess Aruru together with him\n created the seed of mankind.\n\n \u00b9 So King; but Jeremias \u2018a reed-hurdle\u2019 (_Rohrgeflecht_);\n while Jensen renders: \u2018Marduk placed a canopy in front\n of the waters, He created earth and heaped it up against\n the canopy\u2019\u2015\u2015a reference to the firmament (so _Die\n Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3).\n\n Next he formed beasts, the rivers, grasses, various kinds of\n animals, etc.; then, having \u2018laid in a dam by the side of the\n sea,\u2019 he made reeds and trees, houses and cities, and the great\n Babylonian sanctuaries. The whole description is extremely\n obscure, and the translations vary widely. The main interest\n of the fragment lies in its non-legendary, matter-of-fact\n representation of the prim\u00e6val condition of things, and of\n the process of world-building. Of special correspondences\n with Genesis 1 there are perhaps but two: (a) the impersonal\n conception of chaos implied in the appellative sense of _t\u0101mtu_\n (_T\u0115h\u00f4m_) for the sea; (b) the comparison of the firmament to\n a canopy, if that be the right interpretation of the phrase.\n In the order of the creation of living beings it resembles more\n the account in Genesis 2; but from that account it is sharply\n distinguished by its assumption of a watery chaos in contrast\n to the arid waste of Genesis 2\u2075. It is therefore inadmissible\n to regard this text as a more illuminating parallel to Genesis 1\n than the _Enuma eli\u0161_ tablets. The most that can be said is that\n it suggests the possibility that in Babylonia there may have\n existed recensions of the creation story in which the mythical\n motive of a conflict between the creator and the chaos-monster\n played no part, and that the biblical narrative goes back\n directly to one of these. But when we consider that the Tiamat\n myth appears in both the Greek accounts of Babylonian cosmogony,\n that echoes of it are found in other ancient cosmogonies,\n and that in these cases its imagery is modified in accordance\n with the religious ideas of the various races, the greater\n probability is that the cosmogony of Genesis 1 is directly\n derived from it, and that the elimination of its mythical\n and polytheistic elements is due to the influence of the\n pure ethical monotheism of the Old Testament.\u2015\u2015Gunkel in\n his _Sch\u00f6pfung und Chaos_ was the first to call attention\n to possible survivals of the creation myth in Hebrew poetry.\n We find allusions to a conflict between Yahwe and a monster\n personified under various names (Rahab, the Dragon, Leviathan,\n etc.\u2015\u2015but never _T\u0115h\u00f4m_); and no explanation of them is so\n natural as that which traces them to the idea of a struggle\n between Yahwe and the power of chaos, preceding (as in the\n Babylonian myth) the creation of the world. The passages,\n however, are late; and we cannot be sure that they do not\n express a literary interest in foreign mythology rather than\n a survival of a native Hebrew myth.\u00b2\n\n \u00b9 _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain\n and Ireland_, 1891, 393 ff.; translated in King, _The\n Seven Tablets of Creation_, 131 ff.; _Keilinschriftliche\n Bibliothek_, 39 ff.; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des\n alten Orients_\u00b2, 129 ff.; _Texte und Bilder_, i. 27 f.;\n Sayce, _Early Israel_, 336 f. Compare the summary in _Die\n Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 498.\n\n \u00b2 The chief texts are Isaiah 51\u2079 \u1da0\u1427, Psalms 89\u2078\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, Job\n 26\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427 (Rahab); Psalms 74\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, Isaiah 27\u00b9 (Leviathan); Job\n 7\u00b9\u00b2 (the Dragon), etc. See the discussion in _Sch\u00f6pfung und\n Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ 30\u2012111; and the criticisms of\n Cheyne _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, i. 950 f., and Nikel, pages\n 90\u201299.\n\n 4. The Ph\u0153nician cosmogony, of which the three extant recensions\n are given below,\u00b9 hardly presents any instructive points of\n comparison with Genesis 1. It contains, however, in each of\n its recensions, the idea of the world-egg\u2015\u2015a very widespread\n cosmological speculation to which no Babylonian analogies have\n been found, but which is supposed to underlie the last clause of\n Genesis 1\u00b2. In Sanchuniathon, the union of \u2018gloomy, breath-like\n Air\u2019 with \u2018turbid dark Chaos\u2019 produces a miry watery mixture\n called \u039c\u03c9\u03c4, in which all things originate, and first of all\n certain living beings named \u2018watchers of heaven\u2019 (\u05e6\u05b9\u05e4\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e). These\n appear to be the constellations, and it is said that they are\n \u2018shaped _like the form of an egg_,\u2019 i.e., probably, are arranged\n in the sky in that form. In Eudemos, the first principles are\n \u03a7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03a0\u03cc\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, and \u1f48\u03bc\u03af\u03c7\u03bb\u03b7: the two latter give birth to \u1f08\u03ae\u03c1 and\n \u0391\u1f54\u03c1\u03b1, and from the union of these again proceeds \u2018an _egg_.\u2019\n More striking is the expression of the idea in Mochos. Here\n the union of \u0391\u1f30\u03b8\u03ae\u03c1 and \u1f08\u03ae\u03c1 produces \u039f\u1f50\u03bb\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 (\u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd\u200e), from which\n proceed \u03a7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u2018the first opener,\u2019 and then \u2018an _egg_.\u2019 It is\n afterwards explained that the egg is the heaven, and that when\n it is split in two (? by \u03a7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2) the one half forms the heaven\n and the other the earth. It may introduce consistency into these\n representations if we suppose that in the process of evolution\n the prim\u00e6val chaos (which is coextensive with the future\n heaven and earth) assumes the shape of an egg, and that this is\n afterwards divided into two parts, corresponding to the heaven\n and the earth. The function of \u03a7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 is thus analogous to\n the act of Marduk in cleaving the body of Tiamat in two. But\n obviously all this throws remarkably little light on Genesis\n 1\u00b2.\u2015\u2015Another supposed point of contact is the resemblance\n between the name \u0392\u03b1\u03b1\u03c5 and the Hebrew \u05d1\u05b9\u05bc\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u200e. In Sanchuniathon\n \u0392\u03b1\u03b1\u03c5 is explained as night, and is said to be the wife of the\n Kolpia-wind, and mother of \u0391\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd and \u03a0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, the first pair\n of mortals. It is evident that there is much confusion in this\n part of the extract; and it is not unreasonably conjectured that\n \u0391\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd and \u03a0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 were really the first pair of emanations,\n and Kolpia and Baau the chaotic principles from which they\n spring; so that they may be the cosmological equivalents of T\u014dh\u00fb\n and B\u014dh\u00fb in Genesis. There is a strong probability that the name\n \u0392\u03b1\u03b1\u03c5 is connected with Bau, a Babylonian mother-goddess (see\n _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 161); but\n the evidence is too slight to enable us to say that specifically\n Ph\u0153nician influences are traceable in Genesis 1\u00b2.\n\n \u00b9 Eusebius _Pr\u00e6paratio Evangelica_ i. 10 (edited by Heinichen,\n page 37 ff.; compare Orelli, _Sanchoniathonis Berytii Quae\n Feruntur Fragmenta_ [1826]), gives the following account\n of the cosmogony of Sanchuniathon (a Ph\u0153nician writer of\n unknown date, and even of uncertain historicity) taken from\n Philo Byblius:\n\n \u201c\u03a4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b6\u03bf\u03c6\u03ce\u03b4\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b7,\n \u1f22 \u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b6\u03bf\u03c6\u03ce\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03b2\u1ff6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2. \u03a4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2. \u1f4d\u03c4\u03b5\n \u03b4\u03ad, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f20\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\n \u03c3\u03cd\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f21 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u1f74 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u03a0\u03cc\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2. \u0391\u1f55\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\n \u1f01\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u039c\u03ce\u03c4. \u03a4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03cc \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c2\n \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f30\u03bb\u03cd\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72, \u1f51\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ce\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03af\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c3\u1fc6\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd. \u1f2e\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\n \u03b6\u1ff6\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03be \u1f67\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b6\u1ff6\u03b1 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\n \u0396\u03c9\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u1f76\u03bd [\u0396\u03c9\u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bc] \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 [+ \u1f60\u03bf\u1fe6, see Orr] \u03c3\u03c7\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u03b5 \u039c\u1f7c\u03c4\n \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7, \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u201d ... \u201c\u039a\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c7\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03ad\u03c6\u03b7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03b4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03b8\u03b7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b4\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u00b7 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\n \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u1f76, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03b1 \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f26\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f14\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u1fc3 \u1f04\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b5\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u1fc6\u03bb\u03c5.\u201d ... \u1f19\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u1f7c\u03bd, \u039d\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0392\u03bf\u03c1\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u00b7 \u201c\u1f08\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03af \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\n \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f00\u03c6\u2019 \u1f67\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31\n \u1f11\u03c0\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03bf\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd.\u201d \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u00b7 \u201c\u0391\u1f57\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f45\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bc\u03af\u1fb3.\n \u0395\u1f36\u03c4\u03ac \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0392\u03ac\u03b1\u03c5, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bd\u03cd\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u0391\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.\u201d ... [the sequel on page\n 124 below].\n\n The other versions are from Eudemos (a pupil of Aristotle)\n and a native writer M\u014dchos: they are preserved in the\n following passage of Damascius (cap. 125; edited by Kopp,\n page 385):\n\n \u03a3\u03b9\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03b1 (_i.e._ Eudemos) \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03cc\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f48\u03bc\u03af\u03c7\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd. \u03a0\u03cc\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u1f72\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f48\u03bc\u03af\u03c7\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f08\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0391\u1f54\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd,\n \u1f08\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u0391\u1f54\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03be\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b6\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1. \u03a0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03ba\n \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f66\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd [read \u1f60\u1f78\u03bd] \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. \u1f69\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03be\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u0395\u1f50\u03b4\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u1ff6\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u0391\u1f30\u03b8\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u1f74\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f31\n \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03b1\u1f57\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03be \u1f67\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u039f\u1f50\u03bb\u03c9\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2,\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03bf\u1f36\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u00b7 \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f57 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03a7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03c9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b3\u03ad\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f60\u03cc\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b3\u03ad\u03b1 \u03a7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03c9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd,\n \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u1f05\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd\n \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u039b\u03af\u03c8 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039d\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039f\u1f50\u03bb\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u00b7 \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039f\u1f50\u03bb\u03c9\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, \u03a7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03c9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, \u1f21 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f60\u1f78\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n \u1f10\u03be \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1fe5\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1fc6, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n 5. A division of creation into six stages, in an order similar\n to that of Genesis 1, appears in the late book of the Bundehesh\n (the Parsee Genesis), where the periods are connected with the\n six annual festivals called Gahanbars, so as to form a creative\n year, parallel to the week of Genesis 1. The order is: 1. Heaven;\n 2. Water; 3. Earth; 4. Plants; 5. Animals; 6. Men. We miss from\n the enumeration: Light, which in Zoroastrianism is an uncreated\n element; and the Heavenly bodies, which are said to belong\n to an earlier creation (Tiele, _Geschichte der Religion im\n Altertum_, ii. 296). The late date of the Bundehesh leaves\n room, of course, for the suspicion of biblical influence; but\n it is thought by some that the same order can be traced in\n a passage of the younger Avesta, and that it may belong to\n ancient Iranian tradition (Tiele, _l.c._, and _Archiv f\u00fcr\n Religionswissenschaft._, vi. 244 ff.; Caland, _Theologisch\n Tijdschrift_, xxiii. 179 ff.).\u2015\u2015The most remarkable of all\n known parallels to the six days\u2019 scheme of Genesis is found\n in a cosmogony attributed to the ancient Etruscans by Suidas\n (_Lexicon_, _s.v._ \u03a4\u03c5\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1). Here the creation is said to have\n been accomplished in six periods of 1000 years, in the following\n order: 1. Heaven and Earth; 2. the Firmament; 3. Sea and Water;\n 4. Sun and Moon; 5. Souls of Animals; 6. Man (see K. O. M\u00fcller,\n _Die Etrusker_, ii. 38; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten\n Orients_\u00b2, 154 f.). Suidas, however, lived not earlier than the\n 10th century A.D., and though his information may have been\n derived from ancient sources, we cannot be sure that his account\n is not coloured by knowledge of the Hebrew cosmogony.\n\n\n\n\n II. 4b\u2012III. 24.\n _The Creation and Fall of Man_\n (Yahwist).\n\n\nThe passage forms a complete and closely articulated narrative,\u00b9 of\nwhich the leading motive is man\u2019s loss of his original innocence and\nhappiness through eating forbidden fruit, and his consequent expulsion\nfrom the garden of Eden. The account of creation in 2\u2074\u1d47 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 had\nprimarily, perhaps, an independent interest; yet it contains little\nthat is not directly subservient to the main theme developed in chapter\n3. It is scarcely to be called a cosmogony, for the making of \u2018earth\nand heaven\u2019 (2\u2074\u1d47) is assumed without being described; the narrative\nsprings from an early phase of thought which was interested in\nthe beginnings of human life and history, but had not advanced to\nspeculation on the origin of heaven and earth (compare Frankenberg\nin Gunkel\u00b2 24). From chapter 1 it differs fundamentally both in its\nconception of the primal condition of the world as an arid, waterless\nwaste (2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427: contrast 1\u00b2), and in the order of creative works: viz.\nMan (\u2077), Trees (\u2079), Animals (\u00b9\u2078\u207b\u00b2\u2070), Woman (\u00b2\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u00b3). Alike in this\narrangement and in the supplementary features\u2015\u2015the garden (\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427),\nthe miraculous trees (\u2079\u1d47), the appointments regarding man\u2019s position\nin the world (\u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b9\u2077), and the remarkable omissions (plants, fishes,\netc.)\u2015\u2015it is governed by the main episode to which it leads up (chapter\n3), with its account of the temptation by the serpent (\u00b9\u207b\u2075), the\ntransgression (\u2076\u1427 \u2077), the inquest (\u2078\u207b\u00b9\u00b3), the sentences (\u00b9\u2074\u207b\u00b9\u2079), and\nthe expulsion from Eden (\u00b2\u00b2\u207b\u00b2\u2074).\n\n \u00b9 Compare especially 2\u2074\u1d47{\u03b2} with 3\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3; 2\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2076 \u1da0\u1427 with\n 3\u00b9\u207b\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2; 2\u2078\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u2075 with 3\u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427; 2\u00b9\u2079 with 3\u00b9\u1d43\u1427 \u00b9\u2074; 2\u00b2\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u00b3\n with 3\u00b9\u00b2; (2\u00b2\u2074 with 3\u00b9\u2076\u1d47); 2\u00b2\u2075} with 3\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1427.\n\n The story thus summarised is one of the most charming idylls\n in literature: chapter 3 is justly described by Gunkel as the\n \u2018pearl of Genesis.\u2019 Its literary and \u00e6sthetic character is best\n appreciated by comparison with chapter 1. Instead of the formal\n precision, the schematic disposition, the stereotyped diction,\n the aim at scientific classification, which distinguish the\n great cosmogony, we have here a narrative marked by childlike\n simplicity of conception, exuberant though pure imagination,\n and a captivating freedom of style. Instead of lifting God far\n above man and nature, this writer revels in the most exquisite\n anthropomorphisms; he does not shrink from speaking of God as\n walking in His garden in the cool of the day (3\u2078), or making\n experiments for the welfare of His first creature (2\u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), or\n arriving at a knowledge of man\u2019s sin by a searching examination\n (3\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), etc. While the purely mythological phase of thought\n has long been outgrown, a mythical background everywhere\n appears; the happy garden of God, the magic trees, the speaking\n serpent, the Cherubim and Flaming Sword, are all emblems derived\n from a more ancient religious tradition. Yet in depth of moral\n and religious insight the passage is unsurpassed in the Old\n Testament. We have but to think of its delicate handling of\n the question of sex, its profound psychology of temptation and\n conscience, and its serious view of sin, in order to realise\n the educative influence of revealed religion in the life of\n ancient Israel. It has to be added that we detect here the first\n note of that sombre, almost melancholy, outlook on human life\n which pervades the older stratum of Genesis 1\u201211. Compare the\n characterisation in Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte\n Israels_\u2076 302 ff.; Gunkel page 22 ff.\n\n _Source._\u2015\u2015The features just noted, together with the use of\n the divine name \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, show beyond doubt that the passage belongs\n to the Yahwistic cycle of narratives (Yahwist). Expressions\n characteristic of this document are found in \u05e7\u05d3\u05de\u05ea\u200e 2\u00b9\u2074, \u05d4\u05e4\u05e2\u05dd\u200e 2\u00b2\u00b3,\n\u200e \u05de\u05d4\u05be\u05d6\u05d0\u05ea\u200e 3\u00b9\u00b3, \u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8\u200e 3\u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2077, \u05e2\u05e6\u05d1\u05d5\u05df\u200e 3\u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2077, \u05d1\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u200e 3\u00b9\u2077; and (in contrast to\n Priestly-Code) \u05d9\u05e6\u05e8\u200e, \u2018create,\u2019 instead of \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u200e, \u05d7\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05d3\u05d4\u200e instead of \u05d7\u05f3\n\u200e \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200e, \u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05ea \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd\u200e instead of \u05e8\u05d5\u05d7 \u05d7\u05f3\u200e (see on 7\u00b2\u00b2); and the constant use\n of accusative suffix to the verb.\n\n _Traces of Composition._\u2015\u2015That the literary unity of the\n narrative is not perfect there are several indications, more or\n less decisive. (1) The geographical section 2\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b9\u2074 is regarded\n by most critics (since Ewald) as a later insertion, on the\n grounds that it is out of keeping with the simplicity of the\n main narrative, and seriously interrupts its sequence. The\n question is whether it be merely an isolated interpolation,\n or an extract from a parallel recension. If the latter be in\n evidence, we know too little of its character to say that 2\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b9\u2074\n could not have belonged to it. At all events the objections\n urged would apply only to \u00b9\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2074; and there is much to be said,\n on this assumption, for retaining \u00b9\u2070 (or at least \u00b9\u2070\u1d43) as a\n parallel to verse \u2076 (Holzinger).\u2015\u2015(2) A more difficult problem\n is the confusion regarding the two trees on which the fate of\n man depends, a point to which attention was first directed by\n Budde. According to 2\u2079\u1d47 the tree of life and the tree of the\n knowledge of good and evil grew together in the midst of the\n garden, and in 2\u00b9\u2077 the second alone is made the test of the\n man\u2019s obedience. But chapter 3 (down to verse \u00b2\u00b9) knows of only\n one tree in the midst of the garden, and that obviously (though\n it is never so named) the tree of knowledge. The tree of life\n plays no part in the story except in 3\u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2074, and its sudden\n introduction there only creates fresh embarrassment; for if this\n tree also was forbidden, the writer\u2019s silence about it in 2\u00b9\u2077\n 3\u00b3 is inexplicable; and if it was not forbidden, can we suppose\n that in the author\u2019s intention the boon of immortality was\n placed freely within man\u2019s reach during the period of his\n probation? So far as the main narrative is concerned, the tree\n of life is an irrelevance; and we shall see immediately that the\n part where it does enter into the story is precisely the part\n where signs of redaction or dual authorship accumulate.\u2015\u2015(3)\n The clearest indication of a double recension is found in the\n twofold account of the expulsion from Eden: 3\u00b2\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u2074. Here \u00b2\u00b2\n and \u00b2\u2074 clearly hang together; \u00b2\u2070 and \u00b2\u00b9 are as clearly out\n of their proper position; hence \u00b2\u00b3 may have been the original\n continuation of \u00b9\u2079, to which it forms a natural sequel. There\n is thus some reason to believe that in this instance, at any\n rate, the \u2018tree of life\u2019 is not from the hand of the chief\n narrator.\u2015\u2015(4) Other and less certain duplicates are: 2\u2076 \u2225\n 2\u00b9\u2070 \u207d\u00b9\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2074\u207e (see above), \u2078\u1d43 \u2225 \u2079\u1d43 (the planting of the garden);\n and \u2078\u1d47 \u00b9\u2075\u1d43 (the placing of man in it); 2\u00b2\u00b3 \u2225 3\u00b2\u2070 (the naming of\n the woman).\u2015\u2015(5) Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 232 ff.)\n was the first to suggest that the double name \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (which\n is all but peculiar to this section) has arisen through\n amalgamation of sources. His theory in its broader aspects has\n been stated on page 3, above; it is enough here to point out its\n bearing on the compound name in Genesis 2 f. It is assumed that\n two closely parallel accounts existed, one of which (Yahwist\u1d49)\n employed only \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, the other (Yahwist\u02b2) only \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e. When these\n were combined the editor harmonised them by adding \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e to \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e\n everywhere in Yahwist\u02b2, and prefixing \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e to \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e everywhere\n in Yahwist\u1d49 except in the colloquy between the serpent and\n the woman (3\u00b9\u207b\u2075), where the general name was felt to be more\n appropriate.\u00b9 The reasoning is precarious; but if it be sound,\n it follows that 3\u00b9\u207b\u2075 must be assigned to Yahwist\u1d49; and since\n these verses are part of the main narrative (that which speaks\n only of the tree of knowledge), there remain for Yahwist\u02b2 only\n 3\u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2074, and possibly some variants and glosses in the earlier\n part of the narrative.\u2015\u2015On the whole, the facts seem to warrant\n these conclusions: of the Paradise story two recensions existed;\n in one, the only tree mentioned was the tree of the knowledge of\n good and evil, while the other certainly contained the tree of\n life (so van Doorninck, _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, xxxix. 225 f.)\n and possibly both trees;\u00b2 the former supplied the basis of our\n present narrative, and is practically complete, while the second\n is so fragmentary that all attempt to reconstruct even its main\n outlines must be abandoned as hopeless.\n\n \u00b9 So Gunkel. A still more complete explanation of this\n particular point would be afforded by the somewhat intricate\n original hypothesis of Budde. He suggested that the primary\n narrative (Yahwist\u00b9) in which \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e was regularly used,\n except in 3\u00b9\u207b\u2075, was re-written and supplemented by Yahwist\u00b2\n who substituted \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e for \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e; the two narratives were\n subsequently amalgamated in rather mechanical fashion by\n Yahwist\u00b3, with the result that wherever the divine names\n differed both were retained, and where the documents agreed\n\u200e \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e alone appears (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 233 f.).\n Later in the volume (471 ff.) the hypothesis is withdrawn in\n favour of the view that Yahwist\u00b2 contained no Paradise story\n at all.\u2015\u2015A similar explanation is given by van Doorninck\n (_l.c._ 239), who thinks the retention of \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e in 3\u00b9\u207b\u2075 was\n due to the redactor\u2019s desire to avoid the imputation of\n falsehood to Yahwe!\n\n \u00b2 The point here depends on the degree of similarity assumed\n to have obtained between the two recensions. Gunkel, who\n assumes that the resemblance was very close, holds that\n in Yahwist\u02b2 probably both trees were concerned in the fall\n of man. But the text gives no indication that in Yahwist\u02b2\n the knowledge of good and evil was attained by eating the\n fruit of a tree: other ways of procuring unlawful knowledge\n are conceivable; and it is therefore possible that in this\n version the tree of life alone occupied a position analogous\n to that of the tree of knowledge in the other (see, further,\n Gressmann, _Archiv f\u00fcr Religionswissenschaft._, x. 355 f.).\n\n\n 4b\u20127.\n The creation of man.\n\nOn the somewhat involved construction of the section, see the\nfootnote.\u2015\u2015=4b.= _At the time when Yahwe Elohim made, etc._] The double\nname \u05d9\u05b7\u05d4\u05b0\u05d5\u05b6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, which is all but peculiar to Genesis 2 f., is probably\nto be explained as a result of redactional operations (_v.i._), rather\nthan (with Reuss, Ayles, al.) as a feature of the isolated source from\nwhich these two chapters were taken.\u2015\u2015_earth and heaven_] The unusual\norder (which is reversed by _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,\nLXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5) appears again only in Psalms 148\u00b9\u00b3.\u2015\u2015=5.= _there was\nas yet no bush, etc._] Or (on Dillmann\u2019s construction) _while as yet\nthere was no, etc._ The rare word \u05e9\u05b4\u05c2\u05d9\u05d7\u05b7\u200e denotes elsewhere (21\u00b9\u2075 [Elohist],\nJob. 30\u2074\u1427 \u2077) a desert shrub (so Syrian, Arabic); but a wider sense is\nattested by Assyrian and Ph\u0153nician. It is difficult to say whether\nhere it means wild as opposed to cultivated plants (Hupfeld, Gunkel),\nor perennials as opposed to annuals (Holzinger).\u2015\u2015For the earth\u2019s\nbarrenness two reasons are assigned: (1) the absence of rain, and (2)\nthe lack of cultivation. In the East, however, the essence of husbandry\nis irrigation; hence the two conditions of fertility correspond broadly\nto the Arabian (and Talmudic) contrast between land watered by the\nBaal and that watered by human labour (Robinson, Smend, _Lectures on\nthe Religion of the Semites_\u00b2, 96 ff.).\u2015\u2015_to till the ground_] This,\ntherefore, is man\u2019s original destiny, though afterwards it is imposed\non him as a curse,\u2015\u2015an indication of the fusion of variant traditions.\n\u200e\u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, both here and verse \u2076, has probably the restricted sense of\n\u2018soil,\u2019 \u2018arable land\u2019 (compare 4\u00b9\u2074).\u2015\u2015=6.= _but a flood_ (or _mist_,\n_v.i._) _used to come up_ (periodically)] \u201cThe idea of the author\nappears to be that the ground was rendered capable of cultivation by\nthe overflow of some great river\u201d (Ayles).\n\n It is certainly difficult to imagine any other purpose to be\n served by the \u2018flood\u2019 than to induce fertility, for we can\n hardly attribute to the writer the trivial idea that it had\n simply the effect of moistening the soil for the formation of\n man, etc. (Rashi, al., compare Gunkel, Cheyne, _Traditions and\n Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 87). But this appears to neutralise\n \u2075\u1d47{\u03b1}, since rain is no longer an indispensable condition\n of vegetation. Holzinger, accordingly, proposes to remove \u2076\n and to treat it as a variant of \u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b9\u2074. The meaning might be,\n however, that the flood, when supplemented by human labour,\n was sufficient to fertilise the _\u2019\u0103d\u0101m\u0101h_, but had, of course,\n no effect on the steppes, which were dependent on rain. The\n difficulty is not removed if we render \u2018mist\u2019; and the brevity\n of the narrative leaves other questions unanswered; such as,\n When was rain first sent on the earth? At what stage are we to\n place the creation of the cereals? etc.\n\n If the above explanation be correct, there is a confusion of\n two points of view which throws an interesting light on the\n origin of the story. The rain is suggested by experience of\n a dry country, like Palestine. The flood, on the other hand,\n is a reminiscence of the entirely different state of things\n in an alluvial country like the Euphrates valley, where\n husbandry depends on artificial irrigation assisted by periodic\n inundations. While, therefore, there may be a Babylonian basis\n to the myth, it must have taken its present shape in some drier\n region, presumably in Palestine. To say that it \u201cdescribes ...\n the phenomena witnessed by the first colonists of Babylonia,\u201d\n involves more than \u2018mythic exaggeration\u2019 (Cheyne _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n Biblica_, 949).\n\n * * * * *\n\n =4b\u20127.= The sudden change of style and language shows that\n the transition to the Yahwistic document takes place at the\n middle of verse \u2074. The construction presents the same syntactic\n ambiguity as 1\u00b9\u207b\u00b3 (see the note there); except, of course, that\n there can be no question of taking \u2074\u1d47 as an independent sentence.\n We may also set aside the conjecture (Wellhausen _Prolegomena\n zur Geschichte Israels_\u2076 297 f.; Kautzsch-Socin, al.) that\n the clause is the conclusion of a lost sentence of Yahwist, as\n inconsistent with the natural position of the time determination\n in Hebrew. \u2074\u1d47 must therefore be joined as protasis to what\n follows; and the question is whether the apodosis commences at \u2075\n (Tuch, Strack, Driver, al.), or (with \u2075 \u1da0\u1427 as a parenthesis) at \u2077\n (Dillmann, Gunkel, al.). In syntax either view is admissible;\n but the first yields the better sense. The state of things\n described in \u2075 \u1da0\u1427 evidently lasted some time; hence it is\n not correct to say that Yahwe made man at the time when He\n made heaven and earth: to connect \u2077 directly with \u2074\u1d47 is \u201cto\n identify a _period_ (verse \u2076) with a _point_ (verse \u2077) of\n time\u201d (Spurrell).\u2015\u2015On the form of apodosis, see again Driver\n _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ \u00a7 78.\u2015\u2015=4.= \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd\u200e\n always emphasises contemporaneousness of two events (compare\n 2\u00b9\u2077 3\u2075); the indefiniteness lies in the substantive, which often\n covers a space of time (= \u2018when\u2019: Exodus 6\u00b2\u2078 32\u00b3\u2074, Jeremiah\n 11\u2074 etc.).\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] in Hexateuch only Exodus 9\u00b3\u2070; elsewhere 2\n Samuel 7\u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2075, Jonah 4\u2076, Psalms 72\u00b9\u2078 84\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2, 1 Chronicles 17\u00b9\u2076,\n 2 Chronicles 6\u2074\u00b9. LXX uses the expression frequently up to 9\u00b9\u00b2,\n but its usage is not uniform even in chapters 2. 3. The double\n name has sometimes been explained by the supposition that an\n editor added \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e to the original \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e in order to smooth the\n transition from Priestly-Code to Yahwist, or as a hint to the\n Synagogue reader to substitute \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e for \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e; but that is scarcely\n satisfactory. A more adequate solution is afforded by the theory\n of Budde and Gunkel, on which see page 53. Barton and Cheyne\n (_Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 99 f.) take it\n as a compound of the same type as _Melek-A\u0161tart_, etc., an\n utterly improbable suggestion.\u2015\u2015=5.= \u05e9\u05d9\u05d7\u200e is probably the same as\n Assyrian _\u0161i\u1e2btu_, from \u221a = \u2018grow high\u2019 (Delitzsch _Assyrisches\n Handw\u00f6rterbuch_), and hence might include trees, as rendered by\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum.\u2015\u2015On \u05e2\u05e9\u05d1\u200e, see on 1\u00b9\u00b9. The genitive \u05d4\u05e9\u05d3\u05d4\u200e, common\n to both, denotes open country, as opposed sometimes to cities\n or houses, sometimes to enclosed cultivated land (Delitzsch,\n 96).\u2015\u2015On \u05d8\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05dd\u200e with imperfect, see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 107 _c_;\n Driver, _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ \u00a7 27 \u03b2.\n The rendering \u2018before\u2019 (LXX [one of the deviations mentioned\n in Mechilta\u2015\u2015see on 1\u00b9] Vulgate) would imply \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d8\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05dd\u200e, and is\n wrong.\u2015\u2015=6.= \u05d0\u05b5\u05d3\u200e] LXX \u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae Aquila \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, Vulgate _fons_,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word), Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05e2\u05e0\u05e0\u05d0\u200e. Cheyne conjecture \u05d9\u05b0\u05d0\u05b9\u05e8\u200e;\n others \u05e2\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05df\u200e (after versions). The word has no etymology in Hebrew,\n and the only other occurrence (Job 36\u00b2\u2077) is even more obscure\n than this. \u2018Cloud\u2019 (Targum) or \u2018mist\u2019 is a natural guess, and it\n is doubtful if it be anything better. The meaning \u2018flood\u2019 comes\n from Assyrian _ed\u00fb_, applied to the annual overflow of a river\n (Delitzsch _Assyrisches Handw\u00f6rterbuch_),\u2015\u2015note the frequent\n imperfect. Gunkel thinks it a technical semi-mythological term\n of the same order as _T\u0115h\u00f4m_, with which Rashi seems to connect\n it; while Abraham Ibn Ezra interprets \u2018cloud,\u2019 but confounds\n the word with \u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05d3\u200e, \u2018calamity\u2019 (Zephaniah 1\u00b9\u2075); so Aquila, who\n renders the latter by \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 in Proverbs 1\u00b2\u2076, Job 30\u00b9\u00b2 (see\n _Bereshith Rabba_ \u00a7 13).\u2015\u2015On the tenses, see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\n 112 _e_; Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_\n \u00a7 113, 4 (\u03b2).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=7.= _Yahwe El\u014dh\u00eem moulded man_] The verb \u05d9\u05b8\u05e6\u05b7\u05e8\u200e (avoided by Priestly-Code)\nis used, in the participle, of the potter; and that figure underlies\nthe representation. An Egyptian picture shows the god Chnum forming\nhuman beings on the potter\u2019s disc (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte\ndes alten Orients_\u00b2, 146).\u2015\u2015The idea of man as made of clay or earth\nappears in Babylonian; but is indeed universal, and pervades the\nwhole Old Testament.\u2015\u2015_breath of life_] Omit the article. The phrase\nrecurs only 7\u00b2\u00b2 (Yahwist), where it denotes the animal life, and there\nis no reason for supposing another meaning here. \u201cSubscribere eorum\nsententi\u00e6 non dubito qui de animali hominis vita locum hunc exponunt\u201d\n(Calvin).\u2015\u2015_man became a living being_] \u05e0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1\u200e here is not a constituent\nof human nature, but denotes the personality as a whole.\n\n The verse has commonly been treated as a _locus classicus_ of\n Old Testament anthropology, and as determining the relations\n of the three elements of human nature\u2015\u2015flesh, soul, spirit\u2015\u2015to\n one another. It is supposed to teach that the soul (\u05e0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1\u200e) arises\n through the union of the universal life-principle (\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u200e) with the\n material frame (\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u200e): compare _e.g._ Gr\u00fcneisen, _Ahnenkultus_, 34\n f. No such ideas are expressed: neither \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8\u200e nor \u05e8\u05d5\u05d7\u200e is mentioned,\n while \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05c1\u200e is not applied to a separate element of man\u2019s being,\n but to the whole man in possession of vital powers. \u201cAll that\n seems in question here is just the giving of vitality to man.\n There seems no allusion to man\u2019s immaterial being, to his\n spiritual element.... Vitality is communicated by God, and he\n is here represented as communicating it by breathing into man\u2019s\n nostrils that breath which is the sign of life\u201d (Davidson, _The\n Theology of the Old Testament_ 194). At the same time, the fact\n that God imparts his own breath to man, marks the dignity of man\n above the animals: it is Yahwist\u2019s equivalent for the \u2018image of\n God.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =7.= \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd ... \u05d0\u05d3\u05de\u05d4\u200e] Both words are of uncertain etymology. The\n old derivation from the verb \u2018be red\u2019 (... \u03c0\u03c5\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03cc\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03ae\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\n \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c5\u1fe4\u1fe5\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9: Josephus _Antiquities\n of the Jews_ i. 34) is generally abandoned, but none better\n has been found to replace it (recent theories in Dillmann\n 53 f.). According to N\u00f6ldeke (_Zeitschrift der deutschen\n morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 722), \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e appears in Arabic\n as _\u2019\u0101n\u0101m_ (compare Haupt, _ib._ lxi. 194). Friedrich Delitzsch\u2019s\n view, that both words embody the idea of tillage, seems (as\n Dillmann says) to rest on the ambiguity of the German _bauen_;\n but it is very near the thought of this passage: man is made\n from the soil, lives by its cultivation, and returns to it at\n death.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05e4\u05e8\u200e] Accusative of material, Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 117 _hh_.\n Gunkel regards it as a variant to \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05de\u05d4\u200e from Yahwist\u02b2.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d4\u200e]\n This appears to be the only place where the phrase is applied\n to man; elsewhere to animals (1\u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u2074 etc.). \u05e0\u05f3\u200e, primarily\n \u2018breath,\u2019 denotes usually the vital principle (with various mental\n connotations), and ultimately the whole being thus animated\u2015\u2015the\n person. The last is the only sense consistent with the structure\n of the sentence here.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n 8\u201217.\n The garden of Eden.\n\nThat the planting of the garden was subsequent to the creation of man\nis the undoubted meaning of the writer; the rendering _plantaverat_\n(Vulgate: so Abraham Ibn Ezra) is grammatically impossible, and is\nconnected with a misconception of \u05de\u05e7\u05d3\u05dd\u200e below.\u2015\u2015_a garden in Eden_] This\nis perhaps the only place where Eden (as a geographical designation) is\ndistinguished from the garden (compare 2\u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u2075 3\u00b2\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u2074 4\u00b9\u2076, Isaiah 51\u00b3,\nEzekiel 28\u00b9\u00b3 31\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2078 36\u00b3\u2075, Joel 2\u00b3, Sirach 40\u00b2\u2077). The common phrase\n\u200e\u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05df \u05e2\u05b5\u05d3\u05b6\u05df\u200e would suggest to a Hebrew the idea \u2018garden of delight,\u2019 as it is\nrendered by LXX (often) and Vulgate (_v.i._). There is no probability\nthat the proper name was actually coined in this sense. It is derived\nby the younger Delitzsch and Schrader from Babylonian _edinu_, \u2018plain,\u2019\n\u2018steppe,\u2019 or \u2018desert\u2019 (Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 80; _Die\nKeilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b2, 26 f.; _Die Keilinschriften\nund das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 539); but it is a somewhat precarious\ninference that the garden was conceived as an oasis in the midst of\na desert (Holzinger).\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b4\u05e7\u05b6\u05bc\u05d3\u05b6\u05dd\u200e] \u2018_in the_ (far) _East_\u2019; _i.e._ from the\nPalestinian standpoint of the author; not, of course, to be identified\nwith any other \u05e2\u05b6\u05d3\u05b6\u05df\u200e within the geographical horizon of the Israelites\n(see 2 Kings 19\u00b9\u00b2 [= Isaiah 37\u00b9\u00b2], Ezekiel 27\u00b2\u00b3, Amos 1\u2075).\n\n Besides the passages cited above, the idea of a divine garden\n appears also in Genesis 13\u00b9\u2070, Ezekiel 31\u2078. Usually it is a mere\n symbol of luxuriant fertility, especially in respect of its\n lordly trees (Ezekiel 31\u2078 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2078); but in Ezekiel 28\u00b9\u00b3 it\n is mentioned as the residence of a semi-divine being. Most of\n the allusions are explicable as based on Genesis 2 f.; but the\n imagery of Ezekiel 28 reveals a highly mythological conception\n of which few traces remain in the present narrative. If the\n idea be primitive Semitic (and \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05df\u200e is common to all the leading\n dialects), it may originate in the sacred grove (_Hima_) \u201cwhere\n water and verdure are united, where the fruits of the sacred\n trees are _taboo_, and the wild animals are _\u2019an\u012bs_, _i.e._ on\n good terms with man, because they may not be frightened away\u201d\n (Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_\u2076 303\u00b2; compare\n _Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 141; Barton, _A Sketch of Semitic\n Origins_\u00b9, 96). In early times such spots of natural fertility\n were the haunts of the gods or supernatural beings (_Lectures\n on the Religion of the Semites_\u00b2, 102 ff.). But from the wide\n diffusion of the myth, and the facts pointed out on page 93 f.\n below, it is plain that the conception has been enriched by\n material from different quarters, and had passed through a\n mythological phase before it came into the hands of the biblical\n writers. Such sacred groves were common in Babylonia, and\n mythological idealisations of them enter largely into the\n religious literature (see _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des\n alten Orients_\u00b2, 195 ff.).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =8.= \u05d2\u05df\u200e] LXX \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 (compare \u05e4\u05e8\u05d3\u05e1\u200e, Canticles 4\u00b9\u00b3, Ecclesiastes\n 2\u2075, Nehemiah 2\u2078: probably from Persian), and so Vulgate,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b5\u05d3\u05b6\u05df\u200e] is regularly treated as a proper noun by\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, by Vulgate only 4\u00b9\u2076 (everywhere\n else as appellative: _voluptas, delici\u00e6_). LXX has \u1f18\u03b4\u03b5\u03bc\n only in 2\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2070 4\u00b9\u2076; elsewhere \u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03ae[\u03c2], except Isaiah 51\u00b3\n (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2).\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05e7\u05d3\u05dd\u200e] Literally \u2018in front\u2019 (on the \u05de\u05df\u200e see K\u00f6nig\n _Historisch-kritisches Lehrgeb\u00e4ude der hebr\u00e4ischen Sprache_\n ii. page 318; Brown-Driver-Briggs, 578\u1d47): in the history\n books it always means \u2018east\u2019 or \u2018eastward\u2019; but in prophets\n and Psalms it usually has temporal sense (\u2018of old\u2019); and so\n it is misunderstood here by all versions except LXX (Vulgate\n _in principio_, etc.).\u2015\u2015=9.= \u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05e2\u05e5\u200e] Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 127\n\u200e _b_.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u200e] The use of article with infitive construct is very\n rare (Davidson \u00a7 19), but is explained by the frequent use of\n\u200e \u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u200e as abstract noun. Otherwise the construction is regular, \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d5\u05e8\u05e2\u200e\n being accusative, not genitive of object.\u2015\u2015Budde (_Die biblische\n Urgeschichte_ 51 f.) objects to the splitting up of the compound\n object by the secondary predicate \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05da \u05d4\u05d2\u05df\u200e, and thinks the original\n text must have been \u05d5\u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05da \u05d4\u05d2\u05df \u05e2\u05e5 \u05d4\u05d3\u05e2\u05d7 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e; thus finding a confirmation of\n the theory that the primary narrative knew of only one tree, and\n that the tree of knowledge (page 52; so Ball, Holzinger, Gunkel,\n al.). In view of the instances examined by Driver in _Hebraica_,\n ii. 33, it is doubtful if the grammatical argument can be\n sustained; but if it had any force it ought certainly to lead\n to the excision of the second member rather than of the first\n (Kuenen _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, 1884, 136; van Doorninck,\n _ib._, 1905, 225 f.; Eerdmans, _ib._ 494 ff.). A more important\n point is the absence of \u05d0\u05ea\u200e before the definite object. The\n writer\u2019s use of this participle is very discriminating; and\n its omission suggests that \u2079\u1d47 is really a nominal clause, as\n rendered above. If we were to indulge in analysis of sources,\n we might put \u2079\u1d47 (in whole or in part) after \u2078\u1d43, and assign it to\n that secondary stratum of narrative which undoubtedly spoke of a\n tree of life (3\u00b2\u00b2).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=9.= _all sorts of trees ... food_] The primitive vegetation is\nconceived as consisting solely of trees, on whose fruit man was to\nsubsist; the appearance of herbs is a result of the curse pronounced\non the ground (3\u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015_and the tree of life_ (was) _in the midst_]\nOn Budde\u2019s strictures on the form of the sentence, _v.i._ The intricate\nquestion of the two trees must be reserved for separate discussion\n(pages 52 f., 94); for the present form of the story both are\nindispensable. The tree of life, whose fruit confers immortality (3\u00b2\u00b2;\ncompare Proverbs 3\u00b9\u2078 11\u00b3\u2070 13\u00b9\u00b2 15\u2074; further, Ezekiel 47\u00b9\u00b2, Revelation\n22\u00b2), is a widely diffused idea (see Dillmann 49; W\u00fcnsche, _Die Sagen\nvom Lebensbaum und Lebenswasser_). The tree of knowledge is a more\nrefined conception; its property of communicating knowledge of good\nand evil is, however, magical, like that of the other; a connexion\nwith oracular trees (Lenormant, _Les Origines de l\u2019histoire_ i. 85 f.;\nBaudissin, _Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte_ ii. 227) is\nnot so probable. As to what is meant by \u2018knowing good and evil,\u2019 see\npage 95 ff.\n\n The primitive Semitic tree of life is plausibly supposed by\n Barton (_A Sketch of Semitic Origins_\u00b9, 92 f.) to have been\n the date-palm; and this corresponds to the sacred palm in\n the sanctuary of Ea at Eridu (IV R. 15*), and also to the\n conventionalised sacred tree of the seals and palace-reliefs,\n which is considered to be a palm combined with some species of\n conifer. Compare also the sacred cedar in the cedar forest of\n _Gilgamesh_, _Tablets_ IV. V. For these and other Babylonian\n parallels, see _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2,\n 195 ff.\n\n=10.= _a river issued_ (or _issues_) _from Eden_] The language does not\nnecessarily imply that the fountain-head was outside the garden (Driver,\nBennett); the verb \u05d9\u05b8\u05e6\u05b8\u05d0\u200e is used of the rise of a stream at its source\n(Exodus 17\u2076, Numbers 20\u00b9\u00b9, Judges 15\u00b9\u2079, Ezekiel 47\u00b9, Zechariah 14\u2078,\nJoel 4\u00b9\u2078). Whether the participle expresses past or present time cannot\nbe determined.\u2015\u2015_from thence it divides itself_] The river issues from\nthe garden as a single stream, then divides into four branches, which\nare the four great rivers of the world. The site of Paradise, therefore,\nis at the common source of the four rivers in question (page 62\u201266\nbelow). That is the plain meaning of the verse, however inconsistent it\nmay be with physical geography.\u2015\u2015=11.= _P\u00ee\u0161\u00f4n_] The name occurs (along\nwith Tigris, Euphrates, Jordan, and Gihon) in Sirach 24\u00b2\u2075, but nowhere\nelse in Old Testament. That it was not a familiar name to the Hebrews\nis shown by the topographical description which follows. On the various\nspeculative identifications, see Delitzsch and Dillmann, and page 64 f.\nbelow.\u2015\u2015_the whole land of \u1e24\u0103v\u00eel\u0101h_] The phraseology indicates that the\nname is used with some vagueness, and considerable latitude. In 10\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u2079\n25\u00b9\u2078 etc., \u1e24avilah seems to be a district of Arabia (see page 202);\nbut we cannot be sure that it bears the same meaning in the mythically\ncoloured geography of this passage.\u2015\u2015=12.= Two other products of the\nregion are specified; but neither helps to an identification of the\nlocality.\u2015\u2015_b\u0115d\u014dla\u1e25_] a substance well known to the Israelites (Numbers\n11\u2077), is undoubtedly the fragrant but bitter gum called by the Greeks\n\u03b2\u03b4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd or \u03b2\u03b4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1. Pliny (_Naturalis Historia_, xii. 35 f.) says\nthe best kind grew in Bactriana, but adds that it was found also in\nArabia, India, Media, and Babylonia.\u2015\u2015_the \u0161\u014dham stone_] A highly\nesteemed gem (Job 28\u00b9\u2076), suitable for engraving (Exodus 28\u2079 etc.),\none of the precious stones of Eden (Ezekiel 28\u00b9\u00b3), and apparently\nused in architecture (1 Chronicles 29\u00b2). From the Greek equivalents\nit is generally supposed to be either the onyx or the beryl (_v.i._).\nAccording to Pliny, the latter was obtained from India, the former\nfrom India and Arabia (_Naturalis Historia_, xxxvii. 76, 86).\u2015\u2015=13.=\n_G\u00ee\u1e25\u00f4n_] The name of a well on the East of Jerusalem (the Virgin\u2019s\nspring: 1 Kings 1\u00b3\u00b3 etc.), which Abraham Ibn Ezra strangely takes to\nbe meant here. In Jewish and Christian tradition it was persistently\nidentified with the Nile (Sirach 24\u00b2\u2077; LXX of Jeremiah 2\u00b9\u2078 [where \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d7\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u200e\nis translated \u0393\u03b7\u03ce\u03bd]; Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 39, and\nthe Fathers generally). The great difficulty of that view is that the\nNile was as well known to the Hebrews as the Euphrates, and no reason\nappears either for the mysterious designation, or the vague description\nappended to the name.\u2015\u2015_land of K\u00fb\u0161_] Usually Ethiopia; but see on\n10\u2076.\u2015\u2015=14.= _\u1e24idde\u1e33el_] is certainly the Tigris, though the name occurs\nonly once again (Daniel 10\u2074).\u2015\u2015_in front of \u2019A\u0161\u0161\u00fbr_] Either between\nit and the spectator, or to the east of it: the latter view is adopted\nby nearly all commentaries; but the parallels are indecisive, and\nthe point is not absolutely settled. Geographically the former would\nbe more correct, since the centre of the Assyrian Empire lay East of\nthe Tigris. The second view can be maintained only if \u05d0\u05b7\u05e9\u05bc\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e be the city\nwhich was the ancient capital of the Empire, now _\u1e32al\u201bat \u0160er\u1e33\u0101t_ on the\nWest bank of the river. But that city was replaced as capital by Kal\u1e2bi\nas early as 1300 B.C., and is never mentioned in Old Testament. It\nis at least premature to find in this circumstance a conclusive proof\nthat the Paradise legend had wandered to Palestine before 1300 B.C.\n(Gressmann, _Archiv f\u00fcr Religionswissenschaft._, x. 347).\u2015\u2015_Euphrates_]\nThe name (\u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05ea\u200e) needed no explanation to a Hebrew reader: it is the \u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u05b8\u05e8\u200e\n_par excellence_ of the Old Testament (Isaiah 8\u2077 and often).\n\n _The site of Eden._\u2015\u2015If the explanation given above of verse\n \u00b9\u2070 be correct,\u2015\u2015and it is the only sense which the words will\n naturally bear,\u2015\u2015it is obvious that a real locality answering\n to the description of Eden exists and has existed nowhere on\n the face of the earth. The Euphrates and Tigris are not and\n never were branches of a single stream; and the idea that two\n other great rivers sprang from the same source places the whole\n representation outside the sphere of real geographical knowledge.\n In \u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b9\u2074, in short, we have to do with a semi-mythical geography,\n which the Hebrews no doubt believed to correspond with fact,\n but which is based neither on accurate knowledge of the region\n in question, nor on authentic tradition handed down from the\n ancestors of the human race. Nevertheless, the question where\n the Hebrew imagination located Paradise is one of great interest;\n and many of the proposed solutions are of value, not only for\n the light they have thrown on the details of \u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b9\u2074, but also for\n the questions they raise as to the origin and character of the\n Paradise-myth. This is true both of those which deny, and of\n those which admit, the presence of a mythical element in the\n geography of \u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b9\u2074.\n\n 1. Several recent theories seek an exact determination of the\n locality of Paradise, and of all the data of \u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b9\u2074, at the cost\n of a somewhat unnatural exegesis of verse \u00b9\u2070. That of Friedrich\n Delitzsch (_Wo lag das Paradies?_, 1881) is based partly on\n the fact that North of Babylon (in the vicinity of Bagdad) the\n Euphrates and Tigris approach within some twenty miles of each\n other, the Euphrates from its higher level discharging water\n through canals into the Tigris, which might thus be regarded\n as an offshoot of it. The _land_ of Eden is the plain (_edinu_)\n between the two rivers from Tekrit (on the Tigris: nearly a\n hundred miles North of Bagdad) and \u201bAna (on the Euphrates) to\n the Persian Gulf; the _garden_ being one specially favoured\n region from the so-called \u2018isthmus\u2019 to a little South of\n Babylon. The _river_ of verse \u00b9\u2070 is the Euphrates; Pishon is\n the Pallakopas canal, branching off from the Euphrates on the\n right a little above Babylon and running nearly parallel with\n it to the Persian Gulf; Gi\u1e25on is the _Sha\u1e6d\u1e6d en-Nil_, another\n canal running East of the Euphrates from near Babylon and\n rejoining the parent river opposite Ur; \u1e24idde\u1e33el and Euphrates\n are, of course, the lower courses of the Tigris and Euphrates\n respectively, the former regarded as replenished through the\n canal system from the latter. \u1e24avilah is part of the great\n Syrian desert lying West and South of the Euphrates; and Kush\n is a name for northern and middle Babylonia, derived from the\n Ka\u0161\u0161ite dynasty that once ruled there. In spite of the learning\n and ingenuity with which this theory has been worked out, it\n cannot clear itself of an air of artificiality at variance with\n the simplicity of the passage it seeks to explain. That the\n Euphrates should be at once the undivided Paradise-stream and\n one of the \u2018heads\u2019 into which it breaks up is a glaring anomaly;\n while verse \u00b9\u2074 shows that the narrator had distinctly before\n his mind the upper course of the Tigris opposite Assur, and\n is therefore not likely to have spoken of it as an effluent\n of the Euphrates. The objection that the theory confuses\n rivers and canals is fairly met by the argument that the\n Babylonian equivalent of \u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u05b8\u05e8\u200e is used of canals, and also by\n the consideration that both the canals mentioned were probably\n ancient river-beds; but the _order_ in which the rivers are\n named tells heavily against the identifications. Moreover, the\n expression \u2018the _whole_ land of \u1e24avilah\u2019 seems to imply a much\n larger tract of the earth\u2019s surface than the small section of\n desert enclosed by the Pallakopas; and to speak of the _whole_\n of northern Babylonia as \u2018surrounded\u2019 by the _Sha\u1e6d\u1e6d en-Nil_ is\n an abuse of language.\u2015\u2015According to Sayce _The Higher Criticism\n and the Verdict of the Monuments_, 95 ff.; _A Dictionary of the\n Bible_, i. 643 f.), the garden of Eden is the sacred garden of\n Ea at Eridu; and the river which waters it is the Persian Gulf,\n on the shore of which Eridu formerly stood. The four branches\n are, in addition to Euphrates and Tigris (which in ancient times\n entered the Gulf separately), the Pallakopas and the Choaspes\n (now the _Kerkha_), the sacred river of the Persians, from whose\n waters alone their kings were allowed to drink (Herodotus i.\n 188). Besides the difficulty of supposing that the writer of\n verse \u00b9\u2070 meant to trace the streams _upwards_ towards their\n source above the garden, the theory does not account for the\n order in which the rivers are given; for the Pallakopas is West\n of Euphrates, while the Choaspes is East of the Tigris.\u00b9 Further,\n although the description of the Persian Gulf as a \u2018river\u2019 is\n fully justified by its Babylonian designation as _N\u00e2r Marratum_\n (\u2018Bitter River\u2019), it has yet to be made probable that either\n Babylonians or Israelites would have thought of a garden as\n watered by \u2018bitter\u2019 (_i.e._ salt) water.\u2015\u2015These objections\n apply with equal force to the theory of Hommel (_Aufs\u00e4tze und\n Abhandlungen arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts_, iii. 1, page\n 281 ff., etc., _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated\n by the Monuments_, 314 ff.), who agrees with Sayce in placing\n Paradise at Eridu, in making the single stream the Persian Gulf,\n and one of the four branches the Euphrates. But the three other\n branches, Pishon, Gi\u1e25on, and \u1e24idde\u1e33el, he identifies with three\n North Arabian w\u0101d\u012bs,\u2015\u2015Wadi Daw\u0101sir, Wadi Rumm\u0101, and Wadi Sirh\u0101n\n (the last the \u2018w\u0101d\u012b of Di\u1e33lah\u2019 = _\u1e2bad-de\u1e33el_ [see on verse \u00b9\u2074\n above], the name having been afterwards _transferred_ to the\n Tigris).\n\n \u00b9 This objection is avoided by the modified theory of Dawson,\n who identifies Pishon with the Karun, still further East\n than the Kerkha. But that removes it from all connexion with\n \u1e24avilah, which is one of the recommendations of Sayce\u2019s view.\n\n 2. Since none of the above theories furnishes a satisfactory\n solution of the problem, we may as well go back to what appears\n the natural interpretation of verse \u00b9\u2070, and take along with\n it the utopian conception of four great rivers issuing from a\n single source. The site of Paradise is then determined by the\n imaginary common source of the two known rivers, Euphrates and\n Tigris. As a matter of fact, the western arm of the Euphrates\n and the eastern arm of the Tigris do rise sufficiently near each\n other to make the supposition of a common source possible to\n ancient cosmography; and there is no difficulty in believing\n that the passage locates the garden in the unexplored mountains\n of Armenia. The difficulty is to find the Pishon and the\n Gi\u1e25on. To seek them amongst the smaller rivers of Armenia and\n Trans-Caucasia is a hopeless quest; for a knowledge of these\n rivers would imply a knowledge of the country, which must have\n dispelled the notion of a common source. Van Doorninck has\n suggested the Leontes and Orontes (_Theologisch Tijdschrift_,\n xxxix. 236), but a Hebrew writer must surely have known that\n these rivers rose much nearer home than the Euphrates and Tigris.\n There is more to be said for the opinion that they represent the\n two great Indian rivers, Ganges and Indus, whose sources must\n have been even more mysterious than those of the Euphrates and\n Tigris, and might very well be supposed to lie in the unknown\n region from Armenia to Turkestan.\u00b9 The attraction of this view\n is that it embraces all rivers of the first magnitude that can\n have been known in western Asia (for, as we shall see, even the\n Nile is not absolutely excluded); and it is no valid objection\n to say that the Indian rivers were beyond the horizon of the\n Israelites, since we do not know from what quarter the myth\n had travelled before it reached Palestine. Yet I find no modern\n writer of note who accepts the theory in its completeness.\n Delitzsch and Dillmann identify the Pishon with the Indus, but\n follow the traditional identification of Gi\u1e25on with the Nile\n (see page 61 above). But if the biblical narrator believed the\n Nile to rise with Euphrates and Tigris, it is extremely likely\n that he regarded its upper waters as the Indus, as Alexander\n the Great did in his time;\u00b2 and we might then fall back on\n the old identification of Pishon with the Ganges.\u00b3 But it\n must be admitted that the names \u1e24avilah and Kush are a serious\n difficulty to this class of theories. The latter, indeed, may\n retain its usual Old Testament meaning if Gi\u1e25on be the upper\n Nile, either as a continuation of the Indus or a separate river;\n but if it be the Indus alone, Kush must be the country of the\n Ka\u0161\u0161ites, conceived as extending indefinitely East of Babylonia.\n \u1e24avilah has to be taken as a name for India considered as an\n extension of North-east Arabia, an interpretation which finds\n no support in the Old Testament. At the same time, as Dillmann\n observes, the language employed (\u2018the whole land of \u1e24avilah\u2019)\n suggests some more spacious region than a limited district\n of Arabia; and from the nature of the passage we can have no\n certainty that the word is connected with the \u1e24avilah of Genesis\n 10.\u2015\u2015An interesting and independent theory, based on ancient\n Babylonian geographical documents, has been propounded by Haupt.\n The common source of the four rivers is supposed to have been\n a large (imaginary) basin of water in North Mesopotamia: the\n Euphrates and Tigris lose themselves in marshes; the Pishon\n (suggested by the Kerkha) is conceived as continued in the _N\u00e2r\n Marratum_ (Persian Gulf) and the Red Sea, and so \u2018encompasses\u2019\n the whole of \u1e24avilah (Arabia); beyond this there was supposed\n to be land, through which the Gi\u1e25on (suggested by the Karun) was\n supposed to reach Kush (Ethiopia), whence it flowed northwards\n as the Nile. The theory perhaps combines more of the biblical\n data in an intelligible way than any other that has been\n proposed; and it seems to agree with those just considered in\n placing the site of Eden at the common source of the rivers, to\n the North of Mesopotamia.\u2074\n\n \u00b9 Strabo reports the belief of the ancients that all Indian\n rivers rise in the Caucasus (XV. 1. 13). The fact that in\n medi\u00e6val Arabian geographers _\u01e6ei\u1e2bun_ is a proper name of\n the Oxus and the Cilician Pyramus, and an appellative of\n the Araxes and the Ganges, might seem at first sight to have\n a bearing on the question at issue; but its importance is\n discounted by the possibility that the usage is based on\n this passage, due to Jewish and Christian influences in the\n Middle Ages.\n\n \u00b2 From the presence in both of crocodiles: Arrian, _Anabasis_\n vi. 1, 2 f.; compare Strabo, XV. 1. 25, and the similar\n notion about the Nile and Euphrates in Pausanias, ii. 5. 2.\n\n \u00b3 Josephus and most of the Fathers. Strangely enough, there\n seems to be no suggestion of the Indus earlier than Kosmas\n Indicopleustes (ii. 131). Is this because the identity of\n Nile and Indus was a fixed idea?\n\n \u2074 The summary is taken from Driver, page 59 f.; the original\n article, in _Ueber Land und Meer_, 1894\u201295, I have not been\n able to consult.\n\n 3. It seems probable that the resources of philology and\n scientific geography are well-nigh exhausted by theories such\n as have been described above, and that further advance towards\n a solution of the problem of Paradise will be along the line of\n comparative mythology. Discussions precisely similar to those\n we have examined are maintained with regard to the Iranian\n cosmography\u2015\u2015whether, _e.g._, the stream Ran\u1e25a be the Oxus\n or the Yaxartes or the Indus; the truth being that Ran\u1e25a is a\n mythical celestial stream, for which various earthly equivalents\n might be named (see Tiele, _Geschichte der Religion im Altertum_\n ii. 291 f.). If we knew more of the diffusion and history of\n cosmological ideas in ancient religions, we should probably find\n additional reason to believe that Genesis 2\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b9\u2074 is but one of\n many attempts to localise on earth a representation which is\n essentially mythical. Gunkel (\u00b933, \u00b231), adopting a suggestion\n of Stucken, supposes the original Paradise to have been at the\n North pole of the heavens (the summit of the mountain of the\n gods: compare Ezekiel 28\u00b9\u2074), and the river to be the Milky Way,\n branching out\u2015\u2015[but does it?]\u2015\u2015into four arms (there is some\n indication that the two arms between Scorpio and Capricornus\n were regarded in Babylonia as the heavenly counterparts of\n Euphrates and Tigris: see _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte\n Testament_\u00b3, 528). It is not meant, of course, that this was\n the idea in the mind of the biblical writer, but only that the\n conception of the mysterious river of Paradise with its four\n branches _originated_ in mythological speculation of this kind.\n If this be the case, we need not be surprised if it should prove\n impossible to identify Pishon and Gi\u1e25on with any known rivers:\n on the other hand, the mention of the well-known Tigris and\n Euphrates clearly shows that the form of the myth preserved\n in Genesis 2\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b9\u2074 located the earthly Paradise in the unknown\n northerly region whence these rivers flowed. And the conclusion\n is almost inevitable that the myth took shape in a land watered\n by these two rivers,\u2015\u2015in Babylonia or Mesopotamia (see Gressmann,\n _Archiv f\u00fcr Religionswissenschaft._, x. 346 f.).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =10.= \u05d9\u05e4\u05e8\u05d3\u200e] Frequently imperfect? So Driver, _A Treatise\n on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ \u00a7\u00a7 30 \u03b1, 113, 4 \u03b2;\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 107 _d_ (\u2018always taking place afresh\u2019),\n Davidson \u00a7 54 (_b_). That seems hardly natural. Is it possible\n that for once \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05dd\u200e could have the effect of \u05d0\u05b8\u05d6\u200e in transporting\n the mind to a point whence a new development takes place?\n (Davidson \u00a7 45, _R._ 2).\u2015\u2015\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] Not \u2018sources\u2019 but \u2018branches\u2019; as\n Arabic _ra\u2019s en- nahr_ (as distinct from _ra\u2019s el-\u201bain_) means\n the point of divergence of two streams (Wetzstein, quoted by\n Delitzsch, page 82). So Assyrian _r\u00ee\u0161 n\u00e2ri_ or _r\u00ee\u0161 n\u00e2r_, of the\n point of divergence (_Ausgangsort_) of a canal (Delitzsch _Wo\n lag das Paradies?_ 98, 191).\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05d4\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3\u200e] See on 1\u2075.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e1\u05d1\u05d1\u200e] On\n the determination of predicate, Davidson \u00a7 19, _R._ 3; compare\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 126 _k_ (so verse \u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d7\u05d5\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4\u200e] If the\n article be genuine, it shows that the name was significant\n (\u2018sandland,\u2019 from \u05d7\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u200e?); but everywhere else it is wanting, and\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ omits it here.\u2015\u2015=12.=\n\u200e \u05d5\u05bc\u05bd\u05d6\u05b2\u05d4\u05d1\u200e] On metheg and hataf-pathach, see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\u00a7 10\n _g_, 16 _e_, _f_; K\u00f6nig i. \u00a7 10, 6 _e_ \u03b4 (compare 1\u00b9\u2078).\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b4\u05d5\u05d0\u200e]\n The first instance of this _Qr\u00ea perpetuum_ of the Pentateuch,\n where the regular \u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05d0\u200e is found only Genesis 14\u00b2 20\u2075 38\u00b2\u2075,\n Leviticus 2\u00b9\u2075 11\u00b3\u2079 13\u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9 16\u00b3\u00b9 21\u2079, Numbers 5\u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427. K\u00f6nig\n (_Historisch-kritisches Lehrgeb\u00e4ude der hebr\u00e4ischen Sprache_ i.\n page 124 ff.) almost alone amongst modern scholars still holds\n to the opinion that the epicene consonantal form is genuinely\n archaic; but the verdict of philology and of Hexateuch criticism\n seems decisive against that view. It must be a graphic error of\n some scribe or school of scribes: whether proceeding from the\n original _script definition_ \u05d4\u05b4\u05d0\u200e or not does not much matter (see\n Driver and White\u2019s note on Leviticus 1\u00b9\u00b3 in _The Sacred Books of\n the Old Testament_, page 25 f.).\u2015\u2015\u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_ + \u05de\u05b0\u05d0\u05b9\u05d3\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d1\u05d3\u05dc\u05d7\u200e] Of the ancient versions LXX\n alone has misunderstood the word, rendering here \u1f41 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\n (red garnet), and in Numbers 11\u2077 (the only other occurrence)\n \u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word) can only be a clerical\n error. That it is _not_ a gem is proved by the absence of\n\u200e \u05d0\u05d1\u05df\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d1\u05df \u05d4\u05e9\u05d4\u05dd\u200e] LXX \u1f41 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (leek-green stone); other\n Greek versions \u1f44\u03bd\u03c5\u03be, and so Vulgate (_onychinus_); Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021\n Syriac word), Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05dc\u05d0\u200e. Philology has as yet thrown no\n light on the word, though a connexion with Babylonian _s\u00e2mtu_\n is probable. Myres (_Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 4808 f.) makes the\n interesting suggestion that it originally denoted malachite,\n which is at once _striped_ and _green_, and that after malachite\n ceased to be valued tradition wavered between the onyx (striped)\n and the beryl (green). Petrie, on the other hand (_A Dictionary\n of the Bible_, iv. 620), thinks that in early times it was green\n felspar, afterwards confused with the beryl. It is at least\n noteworthy that Jensen (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi.\n 1, 405) is led on independent grounds to identify _s\u00e2mtu_ with\n malachite. But is malachite found in any region that could be\n plausibly identified with \u1e24avilah?\u2015\u2015=13.= \u05d2\u05d9\u05d7\u05d5\u05df\u200e] Probably from \u221a \u05d2\u05d9\u05d7\u200e\n (Job 38\u2078 40\u00b2\u00b3) = \u2018bursting forth.\u2019\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dd\u200e] LXX omitted.\u2015\u2015\u05d7\u05d3\u05e7\u05dc\u200e]\n Babylonian _Idigla_, _Diglat_, Aramaic \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d2\u05b0\u05dc\u05b7\u05ea\u200e and (\u2021 Syriac word),\n Arabic _Di\u01e7lat_; then Old Persian _Tigr\u00e2_, Pehlevi _Digrat_,\n Greek \u03a4\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 and \u03a4\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2. The Persian _Tigr\u00e2_ was explained by\n a popular etymology as \u2018arrow-swift\u2019 (Strabo); and similarly it\n was believed that the Hebrews saw in their name a compound of \u05d7\u05b7\u05d3\u200e,\n \u2018sharp,\u2019 and \u05e7\u05b7\u05dc\u200e, \u2018swift,\u2019\u2015\u2015a view given by Rashi, and mentioned\n with some scorn by Abraham Ibn Ezra. Hommel\u2019s derivation (_The\n Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 315)\n from _\u1e2badd_, \u2018w\u0101d\u012b,\u2019 and \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05e7\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (= \u2018w\u0101d\u012b of Di\u1e33lah,\u2019 Genesis 10\u00b2\u2077),\n is of interest only in connexion with his peculiar theory of the\n site of Paradise.\u2015\u2015\u05e7\u05d3\u05de\u05ea\u200e] Rendered \u2018in front\u2019 by LXX (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9),\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word) and Vulgate (_contra_); as \u2018eastward\u2019\n by Aquila, Symmachus (\u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2) and Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 (\u05dc\u05de\u05d3\u05e0\u05d7\u05d0\u200e).\n This last is also the view of Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, and\n of most moderns. But see N\u00f6ldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen\n morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xxxiii. 532, where the sense\n \u2018eastward\u2019 is decisively rejected. The other examples are 4\u00b9\u2076,\n 1 Samuel 13\u2075, Ezekiel 39\u00b9\u00b9\u2020.\u2015\u2015\u05e4\u05e8\u05ea\u200e] Babylonian _Pur\u00e2tu_, Old\n Persian _Ufr\u00e2tu_, whence Greek \u0395\u1f50\u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=15.= _to till it and to guard it_] To reject this clause (Budde),\nor the second member (Dillmann), as inconsistent with 3 \u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1da0 are\narbitrary expedients. The ideal existence for man is not idle enjoyment,\nbut easy and pleasant work; \u201cthe highest aspiration of the Eastern\npeasant\u201d (Gunkel) being to keep a garden. The question from what the\ngarden had to be protected is one that should not be pressed.\u2015\u2015=16 f.=\nThe belief that man lived originally on the natural fruit of trees\n(observe the difference from 1\u00b2\u2079) was widespread in antiquity, and\nappears in Ph\u0153nician mythology.\u00b9 Here, however, the point lies rather\nin the restriction than the permission,\u2015\u2015in the imposition of a _taboo_\non one particular tree.\u2015\u2015For the words _of the knowledge of good and\nevil_ it has been proposed to substitute \u201cwhich is in the midst of the\ngarden\u201d (as 3\u00b3), on the ground that the revelation of the mysterious\nproperty of the tree was the essence of the serpent\u2019s temptation and\nmust not be anticipated (3\u2075) (Budde, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). But the\nnarrative ought not to be subjected to such rigorous logical tests; and,\nafter all, there still remained something for the serpent to disclose,\nviz. that such knowledge put man on an equality with God.\u2015\u2015_in the\nday ... die_] The threat was not fulfilled; but its force is not to\nbe weakened by such considerations as that man from that time became\nmortal (Jerome, al.), or that he entered on the experience of miseries\nand hardships which are the prelude of dissolution (Calvin, al.). The\nsimple explanation is that God, having regard to the circumstances of\nthe temptation, changed His purpose and modified the penalty.\n\n \u00b9 Eusebius _Pr\u00e6paratio Evangelica_ i. 10 (from Philo Byblius):\n \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03bd.\n\n =15.= The verse is either a resumption of \u2078\u1d47 after the insertion\n of \u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b9\u2074, or a duplicate from a parallel document. It is too\n original to be a gloss; and since there was no motive for\n making an interpolation at \u2078\u1d47, the excision of \u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b9\u2074 seems to\n lead necessarily to the conclusion that two sources have been\n combined.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e] LXX + \u1f43\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd (as verse \u2078).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05e0\u05bc\u05d9\u05d7\u05d4\u05d5\u200e] On\n the two Hiphils of \u05e0\u05d5\u05d7\u200e and their distinction in meaning, see\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 72 _ee_, and the Lexicon.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05d3\u05df\u200e] LXX\u1d38\u1d58\u1d9c\u2071\u1d43\u207f\n and most cursives render \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2: LXX\u1d2c and uncials omit the\n word.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e] Since \u05d2\u05df\u200e is nowhere feminine, it is better to point\n\u200e \u05dc\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05b9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u05b9\u05d4\u200e (see Albrecht, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche\n Wissenschaft_, xvi. 53).\u2015\u2015=16.= \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e] LXX \u1f08\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc, Vulgate _ei_.\n Except in verse \u00b9\u2078, the word is regularly, but wrongly,\n treated as a proper noun by these two versions from this point\n onwards.\u2015\u2015=17.= \u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05ea\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u200e] Symmachus \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u1fc3. In LXX the verbs\n of this verse are all plural (as 3\u00b3\u1427 \u2074).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n 18\u201225.\n Creation of animals and woman.\n\nThe Creator, taking pity on the solitude of the man, resolves to\nprovide him with a suitable companion. The na\u00efvet\u00e9 of the conception is\nextraordinary. Not only did man exist before the beasts, but the whole\nanimal creation is the result of an unsuccessful experiment to find a\nmate for him. Of the revolting idea that man lived for a time in sexual\nintercourse with the beasts (see page 91), there is not a trace.\u2015\u2015=18.=\n_a helper_] The writer seems to be thinking (as in 2\u2075), not of the\noriginal, but of the present familiar conditions of human life.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b6\u05d2\u05b0\u05d3\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e]\n(only here) literaly \u2018as in front of him,\u2019 _i.e._ _corresponding to\nhim_.\u2015\u2015=19.= The meaning cannot be that the animals had already been\ncreated, and are now brought to be named (Calvin, al. and recently\nDelitzsch, Stade): such a sense is excluded by grammar (see Driver\n_A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ \u00a7 76, _Obsolete_), and\nmisses the point of the passage.\u2015\u2015_to see what he would call it_] To\nwatch its effect on him, and (eventually) to see if he would recognise\nin it the associate he needed,\u2015\u2015as one watches the effect of a new\nexperience on a little child.\u2015\u2015_whatever the man should call it,\nthat_ (was to be) _its name_] The spontaneous ejaculation of the first\nman becomes to his posterity a name: such is the origin of (Hebrew)\nnames.\u2015\u2015The words \u05e0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e are incapable of construction, and are to be\nomitted as an explanatory gloss (Ewald, al.).\u2015\u2015=20.= The classification\nof animals is carried a step further than in \u00b9\u2079 (domestic and wild\nanimals being distinguished), but is still simpler than in chapter 1.\nFishes and \u2018creeping things\u2019 are frankly omitted as inappropriate to\nthe situation.\u2015\u2015=21.= It has appeared that no fresh creation \u2018from\nthe ground\u2019 can provide a fit companion for man: from his own body,\ntherefore, must his future associate be taken.\u2015\u2015\u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d3\u05b5\u05bc\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] is a hypnotic\ntrance, induced by supernatural agency (compare Duhm on Isaiah 29\u00b9\u2070).\nThe purpose here is to produce an\u00e6sthesia, with perhaps the additional\nidea that the divine working cannot take place under human observation\n(Dillmann, Gunkel).\u2015\u2015_one of his ribs_] A part of his frame that\n(it was thought) could easily be spared. There is doubtless a deeper\nsignificance in the representation: it suggests \u201cthe moral and social\nrelation of the sexes to each other, the dependence of woman upon man,\nher close relationship to him, and the foundation existing in nature\nfor ... the feelings with which each should naturally regard the\nother\u201d (Driver). The Arabs use similarly a word for \u2018rib,\u2019 saying\n_h\u016ba liz\u1e33\u012b_ or _h\u016ba biliz\u1e33\u012b_ for \u2018he is my bosom companion.\u2019 On the\nother hand, the notion that the first human being was androgynous,\nand afterwards separated into man and woman (see Schwally _Archiv f\u00fcr\nReligionswissenschaft._, ix. 172 ff.), finds no countenance in the\npassage.\u2015\u2015=22.= _built up the rib ... into a woman_] So in the Egyptian\n\u201cTale of the two brothers,\u201d the god Chnum \u2018built\u2019 a wife for his\nfavourite Batau, the hieroglyphic determinative showing that the\noperation was actually likened to the building of a wall (see Wiedemann,\n_A Dictionary of the Bible_, Sup. 180).\u2015\u2015=23.= By a flash of intuition\nthe man divines that the fair creature now brought to him is part of\nhimself, and names her accordingly. There is a poetic ring and rhythm\nin the exclamation that breaks from him.\u2015\u2015_This at last_] Literally,\n\u2018This, this time\u2019 (_v.i._): note the thrice repeated \u05d6\u05b9\u05d0\u05ea\u200e.\u2015\u2015_bone of\nmy bones, etc._] The expressions originate in the primitive notion of\nkinship as resting on \u201cparticipation in a common mass of flesh, blood,\nand bones\u201d (William Robertson Smith _Lectures on the Religion of the\nSemites_\u00b2, 273 f.: compare _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_\u00b2, 175\nf.), so that all the members of a kindred group are parts of the same\nsubstance, whether acquired by heredity or assimilated in the processes\nof nourishment (compare 29\u00b9\u2074 37\u00b2\u2077, Judges 9\u00b2, 2 Samuel 5\u00b9 19\u00b9\u00b3). The\ncase before us, where the material identity is expressed in the manner\nof woman\u2019s creation, is unique.\u2015\u2015_shall be called Woman_] English is\nfortunate in being able to reproduce this assonance (_\u2019\u00ce\u0161_, _\u2019I\u0161\u0161\u0101_)\nwithout straining language: other translations are driven to _tours\nde force_ (_e.g._ Jerome _Virago_; Luther, _M\u00e4nnin_). Whether even in\nHebrew it is more than an assonance is doubtful (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=24.= An\n\u00e6tiological observation of the narrator: _This is why a man leaves ...\nand cleaves ... and they become, etc._] It is not a prophecy from the\nstandpoint of the narrative; nor a recommendation of monogamic marriage\n(as applied in Matthew 19\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, Mark 10\u2076 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, 1 Corinthians 6\u00b9\u2076,\nEphesians 5\u00b3\u00b9); it is an answer to the question, What is the meaning of\nthat universal instinct which impels a man to separate from his parents\nand cling to his wife? It is strange that the man\u2019s attachment to the\nwoman is explained here, and the woman\u2019s to the man only in 3\u00b9\u2076.\n\n It has been imagined that the verse presupposes the primitive\n custom called _beena_ marriage, or that modification of it in\n which the husband parts from his own kindred for good, and\n goes to live with his wife\u2019s kin (so Gunkel: compare _Kinship\n and Marriage in Early Arabia_\u00b2, 87, 207); and other instances\n are alleged in the patriarchal history. But this would imply\n an almost incredible antiquity for the present form of the\n narrative; and, moreover, the dominion of the man over the wife\n assumed in 3\u00b9\u2076\u1d47 is inconsistent with the conditions of _beena_\n marriage. Compare Benzinger _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 2675: \u201cThe\n phrase ... may be an old saying dating from remote times when\n the husband went to the house (tent) of the wife and joined her\n clan. Still the passage may be merely the narrator\u2019s remark;\n and even if it should be an old proverb we cannot be sure that\n it really carries us so far back in antiquity.\u201d\u2015\u2015See, however,\n Gressmann, _Archiv f\u00fcr Religionswissenschaft._, x. 353\u00b9; van\n Doorninck, _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, xxxix. 238 (who assigns\n 2\u00b2\u2074 and 3\u00b9\u2076 to different recensions).\n\n_one flesh_] If the view just mentioned could be maintained, this\nphrase might be equivalent to \u2018one clan\u2019 (Leviticus 25\u2074\u2079); for \u201cboth in\nHebrew and Arabic \u2018flesh\u2019 is synonymous with \u2018clan\u2019 or kindred group\u201d\n(_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_\u00b2, 274). More probably it\nrefers simply to the _connubium_.\u2015\u2015=25.= _naked ... not ashamed_] The\nremark is not merely an anticipation of the account given later of\nthe origin of clothing (3\u2077, compare \u00b2\u00b9). It calls attention to the\ndifference between the original and the actual condition of man as\nconceived by the writer. The consciousness of sex is the result of\neating the tree: before then our first parents had the innocence of\nchildren, who are often seen naked in the East (Doughty, _Travels in\nArabia Deserta_, ii. 475).\n\n Verse \u00b2\u2075 is a transition verse, leading over to the main theme\n to which all that goes before is but the prelude. How long the\n state of primitive innocence lasted, the writer is at no pains\n to inform us. This indifference to the non-essential is as\n characteristic of the popular tale as its graphic wealth of\n detail in features of real interest. The omission afforded\n an opportunity for the exercise of later Midrashic ingenuity;\n _Jubilees_ iii. 15 fixes the period at seven years, while R.\n Eliezer (_Bereshith Rabba_) finds that it did not last six hours.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =18.= \u05d0\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4\u200e] May be cohortative (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 75 _l_);\n LXX, Vulgate render as 1st person plural (as 1\u00b2\u2076).\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8\u200e]\n (usually \u2018succour\u2019) = \u2018helper\u2019 (_abstractum pro concreto_)\n is used elsewhere chiefly of God (Deuteronomy 33\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u2076, Psalms\n 33\u00b2\u2070 115\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 etc.); possible exceptions are Ezekiel 12\u00b9\u2074\n (if text right), Hosea 13\u2079 (if emended with Wellhausen): see\n Brown-Driver-Briggs.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05e0\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u200e] LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd (but verse \u00b2\u2070 \u1f45\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7); Aquila \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6; Symmachus \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6;\n Vulgate _similis sibi_ (_ejus_, verse \u00b2\u2070); Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac\n word); Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05db\u05e7\u05d9\u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05bc\u200e.\u2015\u2015=19.= _The Samaritan Recension of\n the Pentateuch_, LXX insert \u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05d3\u200e after \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015Omission of \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u200e before\n\u200e \u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d7\u05d9\u05ea\u200e is remarkable in this chapter (see on verse \u2079), and is\n rectified by _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\n\u200e \u05d7\u05d9\u05d4\u200e] The only construction possible would be to take \u05dc\u05d5\u200e as _dative\n ethical_, and \u05e0\u05f3 \u05d7\u05f3\u200e as direct object to \u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u200e; but that is contrary\n to the writer\u2019s usage, and yields a jejune sense. Even if (with\n Rashi) we transpose and read \u2018every living thing which the man\n called [by a name], that was its name,\u2019 the discord of gender\n would be fatal, to say nothing of the addition of \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015=20.=\n\u200e \u05d5\u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05e3\u200e] Read with MSS LXX, Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f \u05d5\u05dc\u05db\u05dc\u05b9\u05be\u05e2\u05d5\u05e3\u200e\n (Ball).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd\u200e] Here the Massoretic takes Adam as a proper name.\n Delitzsch, al. explain it as generic = \u2018for a human being\u2019\n (Gunkel); Olshausen emends \u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e. The truth is that the Massoretic\n loses no opportunity presented by the _Keth\u00eeb_ of treating\n\u200e \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e as _noun proper_. Point \u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05bd\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u200e] Tuch, al. take God as\n subject; but it may be passive expressed by indefinite subject\n (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 144 _d_, _e_) = \u2018there was not found.\u2019\u2015\u2015=21.=\n\u200e \u05ea\u05e8\u05d3\u05de\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u1f14\u03ba\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd; Aquila \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd; Symmachus \u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n (\u2021 Syriac word) (\u2018tranquillity\u2019); Vulgate _sopor_; Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\n and some Greek versions (Field) have \u2018sleep\u2019 simply. The\n examples of its use (15\u00b9\u00b2, 1 Samuel 26\u00b9\u00b2, Isaiah 29\u00b9\u2070, Job\n 4\u00b9\u00b3 33\u00b9\u2075, Proverbs 19\u00b9\u2075\u2020), all except the last, confirm Duhm\u2019s\n view that hypnotic sleep is indicated. It is true that in the\n verb (Niphal) that sense is less marked.\u2015\u2015=23.= \u05d6\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e4\u05e2\u05dd\u200e] The\n construction rendered above takes \u05d6\u05d0\u05ea\u200e as subject of the sentence\n and \u05d4\u05e4\u05e2\u05dd\u200e = \u2018this time,\u2019 the article having full demonstrative\n force, as in 29\u00b3\u2074 \u1da0\u1427 30\u00b2\u2070 46\u00b3\u2070, Exodus 9\u00b2\u2077 (so LXX, Symmachus,\n Theodotion, Vulgate; Delitzsch, Dillmann, Gunkel, al.). The\n accents, however, unite the words in one phrase \u2018this time,\u2019\n after the rather important analogy of \u05d6\u05b6\u05d4 \u05e4\u05b7\u05e2\u05b2\u05de\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e (27\u00b3\u2076 43\u00b9\u2070), leaving\n the subject unexpressed. This sense is followed by Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5,\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, and advocated by Stade (_Zeitschrift\n f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvii. 210 ff.); but\n it seems less acceptable than the other.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u200e, \u05d0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05d4\u200e] The old\n derivation of these words from a common \u221a \u05d0\u05e0\u05e9\u05c1\u200e is generally\n abandoned, \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u200e being assigned to a hypothetical \u221a \u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u200e = \u2018be\n strong\u2019 (Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus criticus Lingu\u00e6 Hebr\u00e6\u00e6\n et Chald\u00e6\u00e6 Veteris Testamenti_). Arabic and Aramaic, indeed,\n show quite clearly that the \u221a seen in the plural \u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (and in\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b1\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u05e9\u05c1\u200e) and that of (\u05d0\u05b4\u05e0\u05b0\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d4) \u05d0\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05d4\u200e are only apparently identical, the one\n having _s_ where the other has _\u1e6f_. The masculine and feminine\n are therefore etymologically distinct, and nothing remains but a\n very strong assonance. The question whether we are to postulate\n a third \u221a for the singular \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u200e does not greatly concern us\n here; the arguments will be found in Brown-Driver-Briggs,\n _s.v._ See N\u00f6ldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen\n Gesellschaft_, xl. 740 (\u201cAber \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u200e m\u00f6chte ich doch bei \u05d0\u05e0\u05e9\u05c1\u200e\n lassen\u201d). In imitation of the assonance, Symmachus has \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2,\n Vulgate _Virago_. Theodotion \u03bb\u1fc6\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2, represents \u05d0\u05b6\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c2\u05d0\u200e, \u2018I will\n take\u2019: a curious blunder which is fully elucidated by the\n quotation from Origen given in Field, page 15\u00b3\u00b2.\u2015\u2015For \u05de\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u200e,\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\n read \u05de\u05b5\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d4\u05bc\u200e, which is by no means an improvement.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05bd\u05e7\u05b3\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4\u05be\u05d6\u05bc\u05d0\u05ea\u200e]\n See Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\u00a7 10 _h_, 20 _c_.\u2015\u2015=24.= \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] Add \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9\u05d4\u05b6\u05dd\u200e\n with LXX, Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f and New Testament\n citations. _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ has \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4\n\u200e \u05de\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd\u200e, referring to the offspring.\u2015\u2015=25.= \u05e2\u05b2\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] \u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd\u200e \u2018naked,\u2019 to\n be carefully distinguished from \u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd\u200e (\u221a \u05e2\u05e8\u05dd\u200e) \u2018crafty,\u2019 in 3\u00b9, is\n either a by-form of \u05e2\u05b5\u05d9\u05e8\u05b9\u05dd\u200e (\u221a \u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e = \u2018be bare\u2019) in 3\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1427, or (more\n probably) a different formation from \u221a \u05e2\u05e8\u05d4\u200e (\u2018be bare\u2019). See\n Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.vv._\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05ea\u05d1\u05e9\u05e9\u05d5\u200e] The Hithpael (only here)\n probably expresses reciprocity (\u2018ashamed before one another\u2019);\n the imperfect is frequentative.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n III. 1\u20127.\n The temptation.\n\nAttention is at once directed to the quarter where the possibility of\nevil already lurked amidst the happiness of Eden\u2015\u2015the preternatural\nsubtlety of the serpent: _But the serpent was wily_] The wisdom of\nthe serpent was proverbial in antiquity (Matthew 10\u00b9\u2076: see Bochart,\n_Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacr\u00e6 Scriptur\u00e6_\niii. 246 ff.), a belief probably founded less on observation of the\ncreature\u2019s actual qualities than on the general idea of its divine\nor demonic nature: \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f11\u03c1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n(Sanchuniathon, in Eusebius _Pr\u00e6paratio Evangelica_ i. 10). Hence\nthe epithet \u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd\u200e might be used of it _sensu bono_ (\u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2), though\nthe context here makes it certain that the bad sense (\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2) is\nintended (see below).\u2015\u2015_beyond any beast, etc._] The serpent, therefore,\nbelongs to the category of \u2018beasts of the field,\u2019 and is a creature of\nYahwe; and an effort seems to be made to maintain this view throughout\nthe narrative (verse \u00b9\u2074). At the same time it is a being possessing\nsupernatural knowledge, with the power of speech, and animated by\nhostility towards God. It is this last feature which causes some\nperplexity. To say that the thoughts which it instils into the mind\nof the woman were on the serpent\u2019s part not evil, but only extremely\nsagacious, and became sin first in the human consciousness (so\nMerx, Dillmann, al.), is hardly in accordance with the spirit of the\nnarrative. It is more probable that behind the sober description of the\nserpent as a mere creature of Yahwe, there was an earlier form of the\nlegend in which he figured as a god or a demon.\n\nThe ascription of supernatural characters to the serpent\npresents little difficulty even to the modern mind. The\nmarvellous agility of the snake, in spite of the absence\nof visible motor organs, its stealthy movements, its rapid\ndeath-dealing stroke, and its mysterious power of fascinating\nother animals and even men, sufficiently account for the\nsuperstitious regard of which it has been the object amongst\nall peoples.\u00b9 Accordingly, among the Arabs every snake is the\nabode of a spirit, sometimes bad and sometimes good, so that\n_\u01e7\u0101nn_ and _\u0121\u016bl_ and even _Shait\u0101n_ are given as designations\nof the serpent (Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 152 f.;\ncompare William Robertson Smith _Lectures on the Religion of the\nSemites_\u00b2, 120\u00b9, 129 f., 442).\u00b2 What is more surprising to us is\nthe fact that in the sphere of religion the serpent was usually\nworshipped as a _good_ demon. Traces of this conception can be\ndetected in the narrative before us. The demonic character of\nthe serpent appears in his possession of occult divine knowledge\nof the properties of the tree in the middle of the garden, and\nin his use of that knowledge to seduce man from his allegiance\nto his Creator. The enmity between the race of men and the race\nof serpents is explained as a punishment for his successful\ntemptation; originally he must have been represented as a being\nhostile, indeed, to God, but friendly to the woman, who tells\nher the truth which the Deity withheld from man (see Gressman\n_l.c._ 357). All this belongs to the background of heathen\nmythology from which the materials of the narrative were drawn;\nand it is the incomplete elimination of the mythological element,\nunder the influence of a monotheistic and ethical religion,\nwhich makes the function of the serpent in Genesis 3 so\ndifficult to understand. In later Jewish theology the difficulty\nwas solved, as is well known, by the doctrine that the serpent\nof Eden was the mouthpiece or impersonation of the devil. The\nidea appears first in Alexandrian Judaism in Wisdom 2\u00b2\u2074 (\u2018by\nthe envy of the devil, death entered into the world\u2019): possibly\nearlier is the allusion in _Enoch_ lxix. 6, where the seduction\nof Eve is ascribed to a Satan called Gadreel. Compare _Secrets\nof Enoch_ xxxi. 3 ff., _Psalms of Solomon_ 4\u2079; also _Bereshith\nRabba_ 29, the name \u05e0\u05b8\u05d7\u05b8\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d4\u05b7\u05e7\u05b7\u05bc\u05d3\u05b0\u05de\u05b9\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e (_Sifr\u00ea_ 138 b), and in the New\nTestament, John 8\u2074\u2074, 2 Corinthians 11\u00b3, Romans 16\u00b2\u2070, Apocalypse\n12\u2079 20\u00b2 (see Whitehouse, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iv. 408\nff.). Similarly in Persian mythology the serpent Dah\u00e2ka, to whose\npower Yima, the ruler of the golden age, succumbs, is a creature\nand incarnation of the evil spirit Angro-Mainyo (_Vend._ i. 8,\nxxii. 5, 6, 24; _Ya\u00e7na_ ix. 27; compare Dillmann 70). The Jewish\nand Christian doctrine is a natural and legitimate extension\nof the teaching of Genesis 3, when the problem of evil came to\nbe apprehended in its real magnitude; but it is foreign to the\nthought of the writer, although it cannot be denied that it\nmay have some affinity with the mythological background of his\nnarrative. The religious teaching of the passage knows nothing\nof an evil principle _external_ to the serpent, but regards\nhimself as the subject of whatever occult powers he displays: he\nis simply a creature of Yahwe distinguished from the rest by his\nsuperior subtlety. The Yahwistic author does not speculate on\nthe ultimate origin of evil; it was enough for his purpose to\nhave so analysed the process of temptation that the beginning of\nsin could be assigned to a source which is neither in the nature\nof man nor in God. The personality of the Satan (the Adversary)\ndoes not appear in the Old Testament till after the Exile\n(Zechariah, Job, Chronicles).\n\n \u00b9 Compare the interesting sequel to the sentence from\n Sanchuniathon quoted above: ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b4\u03cc\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f43 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9, \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f22 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f14\u03be\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f10\u03be \u1f67\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1f70 \u03b6\u03ce\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n \u1f11\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f41\u03c1\u03bc\u1f70\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u1f43 \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03bd\u03b5\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f54\u03be\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c6\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5.... \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb. (Orelli, page 44).\n\n \u00b2 Compare N\u00f6ldeke _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr V\u00f6lkerpsychologie\n und Sprachwissenschaft_, i. 413: \u201cDas geheimnissvolle,\n d\u00e4monische Wesen der Schlange, das sie vor allen gr\u00f6sseren\n Thieren auszeichnet, die t\u00fcckische, verderbenbringende\n Natur vieler Arten, konnte in dem einfachen semitischen\n Hirten leicht den Glauben erzeugen, in ihr wohne etwas\n G\u00f6ttliches, den Menschen Bannendes und Bezauberndes. So\n finden wir die Schlange im Eingang des alten Testaments, so\n ist sie im Alterthum, wie noch jetzt, ein Hauptgegenstand\n orientalischer Zauberei. So glaubte auch der Araber, die\n Schlange (wie einige andere sch\u00e4dliche Thiere) sei kein\n gew\u00f6hnliches Gesch\u00f6pf, sondern ein Dschinn, ein Geist. Schon\n die Sprache dr\u00fcckt dies dadurch aus, dass sie mit _D\u017e\u0101nn_,\n einem Worte welches mit _D\u017einn_ eng verwandt ist, eine\n Schlangenart bezeichnet, etc.\u201d\n\nThe serpent shows his subtlety by addressing his first temptation\nto the more mobile temperament of the woman (Rashi, al.), and by the\nskilful _innuendo_ with which he at once invites conversation and masks\nhis ultimate design.\u2015\u2015_Ay, and so God has said, etc.!_] Something like\nthis seems to be the force of \u05d0\u05b7\u05e3 \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e (_v.i._). It is a half-interrogative,\nhalf-reflective exclamation, as if the serpent had brooded long over\nthe paradox, and had been driven to an unwelcome conclusion.\u2015\u2015_Ye\nshall not eat of any tree_] The range of the prohibition is purposely\nexaggerated in order to provoke inquiry and criticism. The use of the\nname \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e is commonly explained by the analogy of other passages of\nYahwist, where the name \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e is avoided in conversation with heathen\n(39\u2079 etc.), or when the contrast between the divine and the human\nis reflected upon (32\u00b2\u2079). But Yahwist\u2019s usage in such cases is not\nuniform, and it is doubtful what is the true explanation here (see\npage 53).\u2015\u2015=2, 3.= The woman\u2019s first experience of falsehood leads to\nan eager repudiation of the serpent\u2019s intentional calumny, in which\nshe emphasises the generosity of the divine rule, but unconsciously\nintensifies the stringency of the prohibition by adding the words:\n_nor shall ye touch it_] A Jewish legend says that the serpent took\nadvantage of this innocent and immaterial variation by forcing her to\ntouch the fruit, and then arguing that as death had not followed the\ntouch, so it would not follow the eating (_Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi).\nEqually futile inferences have been drawn by modern commentaries,\nand the surmise that the clause is redactional (Budde _Die biblische\nUrgeschichte_ 241) is hypercritical.\u2015\u2015_the tree ... midst_] See page\n66 f.\u2015\u2015=4.= _Ye shall assuredly not die_] On the syntax, _v.i._ The\nserpent thus advances to an open challenge of the divine veracity, and\nthence to the imputation of an unworthy motive for the command, viz.\na jealous fear on God\u2019s part lest they should become His equals.\u2015\u2015=5.=\n_But God knoweth, etc._] And therefore has falsely threatened you\nwith death. The gratuitous insinuation reveals the main purpose of the\ntempter, to sow the seeds of distrust towards God in the mind of the\nwoman.\u2015\u2015_your eyes shall be opened_] The expression denotes a sudden\nacquisition of new powers of perception through supernatural influence\n(21\u00b9\u2079, Numbers 22\u00b3\u00b9, 2 Kings 6\u00b9\u2077).\u2015\u2015_as gods_] or \u2018divine beings,\u2019\nrather than \u2018as God\u2019: the rendering \u2018as angels\u2019 (Abraham Ibn Ezra)\nexpresses the idea with substantial accuracy. The likeness to divinity\nactually acquired is not equality with Yahwe (see Gunkel on verse\n\u00b2\u00b2).\u2015\u2015_knowing good and evil_] See page 95 ff.\u2015\u2015\u201cThe facts are all, in\nthe view of the narrator, correctly stated by the serpent; he has truly\nrepresented the mysterious virtue of the tree; knowledge really confers\nequality with God (3\u00b2\u00b2); and it is also true that death does not\nimmediately follow the act of eating. But at the same time the serpent\ninsinuates a certain construction of these facts: God is envious,\ninasmuch as He grudges the highest good to man:\u2015\u2015\u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, an\nantique sentiment familiar to us from the Greeks\u201d (Gunkel).\u2015\u2015=6.= The\nspiritual part of the temptation is now accomplished, and the serpent\nis silent, leaving the fascination of sense to do the rest. The woman\nlooks on the tree with new eyes; she observes how attractive to taste\nand sight its fruit seems, and how desirable _for obtaining insight_\n(so most) or _to contemplate_ (LXX, Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5; so Tuch,\nGesenius, Delitzsch, Gunkel, al.). The second translation is the more\nsuitable\u2015\u2015for how could she tell by sight that the fruit would impart\nwisdom?\u2015\u2015although the verb is not elsewhere used in Hebrew for mere\nlooking (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015_gave also to her husband_] \u201cThe process in the\nman\u2019s case was no doubt the same as that just described, the woman\ntaking the place of the serpent\u201d (Bennett). That Adam sinned with his\neyes open in order not to be separated from his wife has been a common\nidea both among Jews and Christians (_Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi, Abraham\nIbn Ezra, Milton, etc.), but is not true to the intention of the\nnarrative.\u2015\u2015=7.= _the eyes ... opened_] The prediction of the serpent\nis so far fulfilled; but the change fills them with guilty fear and\nshame.\u2015\u2015_they knew that they were naked_] The new sense of shame\nis spoken of as a sort of _Werthurtheil_ passed by the awakened\nintelligence on the empirical fact of being unclothed. A connexion\nbetween sexual shame and sin (Dillmann) is not suggested by the passage,\nand is besides not true to experience. But to infer from this single\neffect that the forbidden fruit had aphrodisiac properties (see Barton,\n_A Sketch of Semitic Origins_\u00b9, 93 ff.; Gressmann, page 356) is a still\ngreater perversion of the author\u2019s meaning; he merely gives this as an\nexample of the new range of knowledge acquired by eating of the tree.\nIt is the kind of knowledge which comes with maturity to all,\u2015\u2015the\ntransition \u201cfrom the innocence of childhood into the knowledge which\nbelongs to adult age\u201d (Driver).\u2015\u2015_foliage of the fig-tree_] To the\nquestion, Why fig-leaves in particular? the natural answer is that\nthese, if not very suitable for the purpose, were yet the most suitable\nthat the flora of Palestine could suggest (Dillmann, Driver, Bennett,\nal.). An allusion to the so-called fig-tree of Paradise, a native of\nIndia (probably the plantain), is on every ground improbable;\u2015\u2015\u201cein\ngeradezu philisterhafter Einfall\u201d (Budde). For allegorical\ninterpretations of the fig-leaves, see Lagarde, _Mittheilungen_\ni. 73 ff., who adds a very original and fantastic one of his own.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05d7\u05e9 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4\u200e] The usual order of words when a new subject is\n introduced, Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 142 _d_; Davidson \u00a7 105.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05dd\u200e]\n LXX \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, Aquila, Theodotion \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, Symmachus\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 Vulgate _callidior_. The good sense (which appears\n to be secondary, compare Arabic _\u201barama_ = \u2018be ill-natured\u2019) is\n confined to Proverbs; elsewhere (Job 5\u00b9\u00b2 15\u2075) it means \u2018crafty,\u2019\n \u2018wily.\u2019 The same distinction is observed in all forms of the \u221a\n except that in Job 5\u00b9\u00b3 \u05e2\u05b9\u05e8\u05b6\u05dd\u200e has the good sense. The resemblance\n to \u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e in 2\u00b2\u2075 is perhaps accidental.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 +\n\u200e \u05d4\u05e0\u05d7\u05e9\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05e3 \u05db\u05d9\u200e] as a compound particple generally means \u2018much more\n (or less),\u2019 \u2018not to mention,\u2019 etc., as in 1 Samuel 14\u00b3\u2070, 1 Kings\n 8\u00b2\u2077, Proverbs 11\u00b3\u00b9 etc. In some cases the simple \u05d0\u05e3\u200e has this\n sense, and the \u05db\u05d9\u200e (= \u2018when,\u2019 \u2018if\u2019) introduces the following\n clause (1 Samuel 23\u00b3, 2 Samuel 4\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1427 etc.). It would be easy\n to retain this sense in verse \u00b9 (\u2018How much more _when_ God\n has said,\u2019 etc.), if we might assume with many commentaries\n that some previous conversation had taken place; but that is\n an unwarrantable assumption. The rendering on which Driver\n (Brown-Driver-Briggs) bases the ordinary meaning of \u05d0\u05e3 \u05db\u05d9\u200e\u2015\u2015\u2018_\u2019Tis\n indeed that_\u2019\u2015\u2015requires but a slight interrogative inflexion of\n the voice to yield the shade of meaning given above: \u2018So it is\n the case that God,\u2019 etc.? The versions all express a question:\n LXX \u03c4\u03af \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9, Aquila \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9, Symmachus \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03af, Vulgate _cur_,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word), Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d1\u05e7\u05d5\u05e9\u05d8\u05d0\u200e (= \u2018really\u2019?).\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d0\n\u200e ... \u05de\u05db\u05dc\u200e] = \u2018not of any\u2019: Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 152 _b_.\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05de\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u200e]\n LXX \u05de\u05b4\u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05dc\u200e, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05de\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05db\u05dc\u200e.\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05d5\u05de\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u200e] Not \u2018concerning the tree.\u2019\n There is an _anakolouthon_ at \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, and the emphatically\n placed \u05de\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u200e is resumed by \u200e\u05de\u05de\u05e0\u05d5\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05e2\u05e5\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of\n the Pentateuch_ + \u05d4\u05b7\u05d6\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05ea\u05de\u05ea\u05d5\u05df\u200e] On the ending, see Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7\u00a7 47 _m_, 72 _u_.\u2015\u2015=4.= \u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05ea\u05de\u05ea\u05d5\u05df\u200e] On the unusual order, see\n Davidson \u00a7 86 (_b_); Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 113 _v_. It is often\n explained as a negation of the threat in 2\u00b9\u2077, adopting the same\n form of words; but the phrase had not been used by the woman,\n and the exact words are _not_ repeated. More probably its effect\n is to concentrate the emphasis on the negative participle rather\n than on the verbal idea (compare Amos 9\u2078, Psalms 49\u2078).\u2015\u2015=5.=\n\u200e \u05db\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03af, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05db\u05e8\u05d1\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05df\u200e.\u2015\u2015=6.= \u05d4\u05e2\u05e5\u200e\u00b2] LXX Vulgate\n omitted.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d4\u05e9\u05db\u05d9\u05dc\u200e] LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, Vulgate _adspectu_, and\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word) all take the verb as verb of sight;\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05dc\u05d0\u05e1\u05ea\u05db\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d4\u200e is indeterminate (see Levy, _Chald\u00e4isches\n W\u00f6rterbuch \u00fcber die Targumim und Midraschim_ 163 a). In Old\n Testament the word is used of mental _vision_ (insight, or\n attentive consideration: Deuteronomy 32\u00b2\u2079, Psalms 41\u00b2, Proverbs\n 21\u00b9\u00b2 etc.); in New Hebrew and Aramaic it means \u2018to look at,\u2019\n but only in Hithpael (Ithp.). On the other view the Hiph. is\n intransitive (= \u2018for acquiring wisdom\u2019: Psalms 94\u2078) rather\n than causative (= \u2018to impart wisdom\u2019: Psalms 32\u2078 etc.).\u2015\u2015Gunkel\n considers the clause \u05d5\u05e0\u05d7\u05de\u05d3 \u05d4\u05e2\u05e5 \u05dc\u05d4\u05f3\u200e a variant from another\n source.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05ea\u05e7\u05d7\u200e] LXX\u1d38\u1d58\u1d9c\u2071\u1d43\u207f + \u05d4\u05d0\u05e9\u05c1\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_, LXX \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05d5\u200e.\u2015\u2015=7.= \u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] See on 2\u00b2\u2075.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4\u200e]\n collectively; but some MSS and _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ have \u05e2\u05b2\u05dc\u05b5\u05d9\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n 8\u201213.\n The inquest.\n\nThus far the narrative has dealt with what may be called the\nnatural (magical) effects of the eating of the tree\u2015\u2015the access of\nenlightenment, and the disturbance thus introduced into the relations\nof the guilty pair to each other. The ethical aspect of the offence\ncomes to light in their first interview with Yahwe; and this is\ndelineated with a skill hardly surpassed in the account of the\ntemptation itself.\u2015\u2015=8.= _they heard the sound_] \u05e7\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u200e used of footsteps,\nas 2 Samuel 5\u00b2\u2074, 1 Kings 14\u2076, 2 Kings 6\u00b3\u00b2: compare Ezekiel 3\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427, Joel\n2\u2075.\u2015\u2015_of Yahwe God as He walked_] The verb is used (Leviticus 26\u00b9\u00b2,\nDeuteronomy 23\u00b9\u2075, 2 Samuel 7\u2076) of Yahwe\u2019s majestic marching in the\nmidst of Israel; but it mars the simplicity of the representation if\n(with Delitzsch) we introduce that idea here.\u2015\u2015_in the cool_ (literally\n\u2018at the breeze\u2019) _of the day_] _i.e._ towards evening, when in Eastern\nlands a refreshing wind springs up (compare Canticles 2\u00b9\u2077 4\u2076: but\n_v.i._), and the master, who has kept his house or tent during the\n\u2018heat of the day\u2019 (18\u00b9), can walk abroad with comfort (24\u2076\u00b3). Such,\nwe are led to understand, was Yahwe\u2019s daily practice; and the man and\nwoman had been wont to meet Him with the glad confidence of innocence.\nBut on this occasion they _hid themselves, etc._\u2015\u2015=9.= _Where art\nthou?_] (compare 4\u2079). The question expresses ignorance; it is not\nomniscience that the writer wishes to illustrate, but the more\nimpressive attribute of sagacity.\u2015\u2015=10.= _I feared ... naked_] With\nthe instinctive cunning of a bad conscience, the man hopes to escape\ncomplete exposure by acknowledging part of the truth; he alleges\nnakedness as the ground of his fear, putting fear and shame in a false\ncausal connexion (Holzinger).\u2015\u2015=11.= _Hast thou eaten, etc.?_] All\nunwittingly he has disclosed his guilty secret: he has shown himself\npossessed of a knowledge which could only have been acquired in one\nway.\u2015\u2015=12.= The man cannot even yet bring himself to make a clean\nbreast of it; but with a quaint mixture of cowardice and effrontery\nhe throws the blame directly on the woman, and indirectly on God who\ngave her to him.\u2015\u2015=13.= The woman in like manner exculpates herself by\npleading (truly enough) that she had been deceived by the serpent.\u2015\u2015The\nwhole situation is now laid bare, and nothing remains but to pronounce\nsentence. No question is put to the serpent, because his evil motive\nis understood: he has acted just as might have been expected of him.\nCalvin says, \u201cthe _beast_ had no sense of sin, and the _devil_ no hope\nof pardon.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =8.= \u05de\u05ea\u05d4\u05dc\u05da\u200e] accusative of condition: Davidson \u00a7 70 (_a_).\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05e8\u05d5\u05d7 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd\u200e]\n LXX \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd, Vulgate _ad auram post meridiem_, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n (\u2021 Syriac phrase), Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05dc\u05de\u05e0\u05d7 \u05d9\u05d5\u05de\u05d0\u200e. On this use of \u05dc\u05b0\u200e\n (= \u2018towards\u2019), see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ 6 a; and compare\n 8\u00b9\u00b9 17\u00b2\u00b9, Isaiah 7\u00b9\u2075, Job 24\u00b9\u2074. With \u05e8\u05d5\u05d7\u200e compare Arabic _raw\u0101\u1e25_\n = _tempus vespertinum_. Jewish exegesis (_Bereshith Rabba_)\n and Calvin suppose the morning (sea) breeze to be meant, as is\n probably the case in Canticles 2\u00b9\u2077 4\u2076, and would seem more in\n accordance with Palestinian conditions. But it is manifestly\n improbable here.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05e5\u200e] collectively, as often. LXX\u1d38\u1d58\u1d9c\u2071\u1d43\u207f\n omitted.\u2015\u2015=9.= \u05d0\u05d9\u05db\u05d4\u200e] Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 100 _o_. LXX supplies\n \u2018Adam\u2019 before, and Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 after, the interrogative.\u2015\u2015=10.=\n\u200e \u05e9\u05c1\u05de\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u200e] LXX + \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (as verse \u2078).\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05dc\u05d1\u05dc\u05ea\u05d9\u200e] See\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 114 _s_.\u2015\u2015Before \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd LXX has \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5.\u2015\u2015=13.= \u05de\u05d4\u05be\u05d6\u05d0\u05ea\u200e] So commonly with \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4\u200e; with other verbs \u05de\u05d4\u05be\u05d6\u05d4\u200e\n (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 136 _c_; Davidson \u00a7 7 (_c_)).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n 14\u201219.\n Significance of the Fall.\n\nThis section contains the key to the significance of the story of the\nFall. It is the first example of a frequently recurring motive of the\nGenesis narratives, the idea, viz., that the more perplexing facts in\nthe history of men and peoples are the working out of a doom or \u2018weird\u2019\npronounced of old under divine inspiration, or (as in this case) by\nthe Almighty Himself: see 4\u00b9\u2075 8\u00b2\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0 9\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 16\u00b9\u00b2 27\u00b2\u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 \u00b3\u2079 \u1da0\u1427 48\u00b9\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427,\nchapter 49; compare Numbers 23 f., Deuteronomy 33. Here certain\nfixed adverse conditions of the universal human lot are traced back\nto a prim\u00e6val curse uttered by Yahwe in consequence of man\u2019s first\ntransgression. See, further, page 95 below.\u2015\u2015The form of the oracles is\npoetic; but the structure is irregular, and no definite metrical scheme\ncan be made out.\n\n=14, 15. The curse on the serpent= is legible, partly in its degraded\nform and habits (\u00b9\u2074), and partly in the deadly feud between it and\nthe human race (\u00b9\u2075).\u2015\u2015=14.= _on thy belly, etc._] The assumption\nundoubtedly is that originally the serpent moved erect, but not\nnecessarily that its organism was changed (_e.g._ by cutting off its\nlegs, etc. _Rabbis_). As a matter of fact most snakes have the power\nof erecting a considerable part of their bodies; and in mythological\nrepresentations the serpent often appears in the upright position\n(Bennett). The idea probably is that this was its original posture:\nhow it was maintained was perhaps not reflected upon.\u2015\u2015_dust shalt\nthou eat_] Compare Micah 7\u00b9\u2077, Isaiah 65\u00b2\u2075. It is a prosaic explanation\nto say that the serpent, crawling on the ground, inadvertently\nswallows a good deal of dust (Bochart _Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum\nopus de animalibus Sacr\u00e6 Scriptur\u00e6_ iii. 245; Dillmann, al.); and\na mere metaphor for humiliation (like Assyrian _ti-ka-lu ip-ra_;\n_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, v. 232 f.) is too weak a sense for\nthis passage. Probably it is a piece of ancient superstition, like the\nArabian notion that the _\u01e7inn_ eat dirt (Wellhausen _Reste arabischen\nHeidentums_ 150).\u2015\u2015_all the days of thy life_] i.e. _each_ serpent as\nlong as it lives, and the _race_ of serpents as long as it lasts. It\nis not so certain as most commentaries seem to think that these words\nexclude the demonic character of the serpent. It is true that the\npunishment of a morally irresponsible agent was recognised in Hebrew\njurisprudence (9\u2075, Exodus 21\u00b2\u2078 \u1da0\u1427, Leviticus 20\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1427). But it is quite\npossible that here (as in verse \u00b9\u2075) the archetypal serpent is conceived\nas re-embodied in all his progeny, as acting and suffering in each\nmember of the species.\u2015\u2015=15.= The serpent\u2019s attempt to establish unholy\nfellowship with the woman is punished by implacable and undying enmity\nbetween them.\u00b9\u2015\u2015_thy seed and her seed_] The whole brood of serpents,\nand the whole race of men.\u2015\u2015_He shall bruise thee on the head, etc._]\nIn the first clause the subject (\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u200e) is the \u2018seed\u2019 of the woman\nindividualised (or collectively), in the second (\u05d0\u05b7\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e) it is the serpent\nhimself, acting through his \u2018seed.\u2019 The current reading of Vulgate\n(_ipsa_) may have been prompted by a feeling that the proper antithesis\nto the serpent is the woman herself. The general meaning of the\nsentence is clear: in the war between men and serpents the former\nwill crush the head of the foe, while the latter can only wound in the\nheel. The difficulty is in the verb \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e3\u200e, which in the sense \u2018bruise\u2019\nis inappropriate to the serpent\u2019s mode of attack. We may speak of\na serpent _striking_ a man (as in Latin _feriri a serpente_), but\nhardly of _bruising_. Hence many commentaries (following LXX al.) take\nthe verb as a by-form of \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d0\u05b7\u05e3\u200e (strictly \u2018pant\u2019), in the sense of \u2018be\neager for,\u2019 \u2018aim at\u2019 (Gesenius, Ewald, Dillmann, al.); while others\n(Gunkel al.) suppose that by paronomasia the word means \u2018bruise\u2019 in\nthe first clause, and \u2018aim at\u2019 in the second. But it may be questioned\nwhether this idea is not even less suitable than the other (Driver).\nA perfectly satisfactory interpretation cannot be given (_v.i._).\n\n \u00b9 \u201cFit enim arcano natur\u00e6 sensu ut ab ipsis abhorreat\n homo\u201d (Calvin). Compare (with Bochart _Hierozoicon, sive\n bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacr\u00e6 Scriptur\u00e6_ iii. 250)\n \u201cquam dudum dixeras te odisse \u00e6que atque angues\u201d (Plautus,\n _Mercator_ 4); and \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f44\u03c6\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1 (Theocritus _Idyll_ 15).\n\n The Messianic interpretation of the \u2018seed of the woman\u2019\n appears in Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f and Targum Jerome, where the verse\n is explained of the Jewish community and its victory over the\n devil \u201cin the days of King Messiah.\u201d The reference to the person\n of Christ was taught by Iren\u00e6us, but was never so generally\n accepted in the Church as the kindred idea that the serpent\n is the instrument of Satan. Medi\u00e6val exegetes, relying on the\n _ipsa_ of the Vulgate, applied the expression directly to the\n Virgin Mary; and even Luther, while rejecting this reference,\n recognised an allusion to the virgin birth of Christ. In\n Protestant theology this view gave way to the more reasonable\n view of Calvin, that the passage is a promise of victory over\n the devil to mankind, united in Christ its divine Head. That\n even this goes beyond the original meaning of the verse is\n admitted by most modern expositors; and indeed it is doubtful if,\n from the standpoint of strict historical exegesis, the passage\n can be regarded as in any sense a _Protevangelium_. Dillmann\n (with whom Driver substantially agrees) finds in the words\n the idea of man\u2019s vocation to ceaseless moral warfare with the\n \u2018serpent-brood\u2019 of sinful thoughts, and an implicit promise of\n the ultimate destruction of the evil power. That interpretation,\n however, is open to several objections. (1) A message of\n hope and encouragement in the midst of a series of curses and\n punishments is not to be assumed unless it be clearly implied in\n the language. It would be out of harmony with the tone not only\n of the Paradise story, but of the Yahwistic sections of chapters\n 1\u201211 as a whole: it is not till we come to the patriarchal\n history that the \u201cnote of promise and of hope\u201d is firmly struck.\n (2) To the mind of the narrator, the serpent is no more a symbol\n of the power of evil or of temptation than he is an incarnation\n of the devil. He is himself an evil creature, perhaps a demonic\n creature transmitting his demonic character to his progeny, but\n there is no hint that he represents a principle of evil apart\n from himself. (3) No victory is promised to either party, but\n only perpetual warfare between them: the order of the clauses\n making it specially hard to suppose that the victory of man\n was contemplated. Dillmann admits that no such assurance is\n expressed; but finds it in the general tenor of the passage: \u201ca\n conflict ordained by God cannot be without prospect of success.\u201d\n But that is really to beg the whole question in dispute. If\n it be said that the words, being part of the sentence on the\n serpent, must mean that he is ultimately to be defeated, it\n may be answered that the curse on the serpent is the enmity\n established between him and the human race, and that the feud\n between them is simply the manifestation and proof of that\n antagonism.\u2015\u2015It is thus possible that in its primary intention\n the oracle reflects the protest of ethical religion against the\n unnatural fascination of snake-worship. It is psychologically\n true that the instinctive feelings which lie at the root of the\n worship of serpents are closely akin to the hatred and loathing\n which the repulsive reptile excites in the healthy human mind;\n and the transformation of a once sacred animal into an object\n of aversion is a not infrequent phenomenon in the history\n of religion (see Gressman _l.c._ 360). The essence of the\n temptation is that the serpent-demon has tampered with the\n religious instinct in man by posing as his good genius, and\n insinuating distrust of the goodness of God; and his punishment\n is to find himself at eternal war with the race whom he has\n seduced from their allegiance to their Creator. And that\n is very much the light in which serpent-worship must have\n appeared to a believer in the holy and righteous God of the\n Old Testament.\u2015\u2015The conjecture of Gunkel, that originally the\n \u2018seed of the woman\u2019 and the \u2018seed of the serpent\u2019 may have been\n mythological personages (compare _Das Alte Testament im Lichte\n des alten Orients_\u00b2, 217 f.), even if confirmed by Assyriology,\n would have little bearing on the thought of the biblical narrator.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =14.= \u05de\u05db\u05dc\u200e] On this use of \u05de\u05df\u200e (= _e numero_), see Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 119 _w_, and compare Exodus 19\u2075, Deuteronomy 14\u00b2 33\u00b2\u2074,\n Judges 5\u00b2\u2074 etc. Stade\u2019s argument (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die\n alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvii. 209) for deleting \u05de\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u200e,\n on the ground that the serpent belongs to the category of\n\u200e \u05d7\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05d3\u05d4\u200e but not to \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4\u200e, is logical, but hardly convincing.\u2015\u2015\u05d2\u05d7\u05d5\u05df\u200e]\n Probably from \u221a \u05d2\u05d7\u05df\u200e (Aramaic) = \u2018curve\u2019 or \u2018bend\u2019 (Delitzsch,\n Brown-Driver-Briggs), occurs again only Leviticus 11\u2074\u00b2, of\n reptiles. Vulgate renders _pectus_, LXX combines \u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 and\n \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1.\u2015\u2015=15.= \u05d6\u05b6\u05e8\u05b7\u05e2\u200e] in the sense of \u2018offspring,\u2019 is nearly always\n collective. In a few cases where it is used of an individual\n child (4\u00b2\u2075{?} 21\u00b9\u00b3, 1 Samuel 1\u00b9\u00b9) it denotes the immediate\n offspring as the pledge of posterity, never a remote descendant\n (see N\u00f6ldeke _Archiv f\u00fcr Religionswissenschaft._, viii. 164\n ff.). The Messianic application therefore is not justified in\n grammar.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u200e] the rendering _ipsa_ (Vulgate) is said not to be\n found in the Fathers before Ambrose and Augustine (Zapletal,\n _ATliches_, 19). Jerome at all events knew that _ipse_ should\n be read.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05e4\u05da ... \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05e4\u05e0\u05d5\u200e] The form \u05e9\u05d5\u05e3\u200e recurs only Job 9\u00b9\u2077, Psalms\n 139\u00b9\u00b9, and, in both, text and meaning are doubtful. In Aramaic\n and New Hebrew the \u221a (\u05e2\u05f4\u05d5\u200e or \u05e2\u05f4\u05e2\u200e) has the primary sense of \u2018rub,\u2019\n hence \u2018wear down by rubbing\u2019 = \u2018crush\u2019; in Syriac it also means\n to crawl. There are a few examples of a tendency of \u05e2\u05f4\u05d5\u200e verbs to\n strengthen themselves by insertion of \u05d0\u200e (K\u00f6nig i. 439), and it\n is often supposed that in certain passages (Ezekiel 36\u00b3, Amos\n 2\u2077 8\u2074, Psalms 56\u00b2\u1427 \u00b3 57\u2074) \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05e3\u200e is disguised under the by-form \u05e9\u05c1\u05d0\u05e3\u200e.\n But the only places where the assumption is at all necessary are\n Amos 2\u2077 8\u2074, where the \u05d0\u200e may be simply _mater lectionis_ for the\n _\u00e2_ of the participle (compare \u05d5\u05b0\u05e7\u05b8\u05d0\u05dd\u200e, Hosea 10\u00b9\u2074); in the other\n cases the proper sense of \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d0\u05b7\u05e3\u200e \u2018pant\u2019 or metaphor \u2018long for\u2019)\n suffices. The reverse process (substitution of \u05e9\u05d5\u05e3\u200e for \u05e9\u05d0\u05e3\u200e) is\n much less likely; and the only possible instance would be Job\n 9\u00b9\u2077, which is too uncertain to count for anything. There is\n thus not much ground for supposing a confusion in this verse;\n and Delitzsch points out that verbs of hostile _endeavour_,\n as distinct from hostile achievement \u05d4\u05db\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, \u05e8\u05e6\u05d7\u200e, etc.), are never\n construed with double accusative. The gain in sense is so\n doubtful that it is better to adhere to the meaning \u2018crush.\u2019\n The old versions felt the difficulty and ambiguity. The idea of\n crushing is represented by Aquila \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9, Symmachus \u03b8\u03bb\u03af\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9,\n LXX\u1d9c\u1d52\u1d48\u1d49\u02e3 \u1d9c\u1d52\u2071\u02e2\u02e1\u2071\u207f\u2071\u1d43\u207f\u1d58\u02e2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9 (see Field) and Jerome (_Qu\u00e6stiones\n sive Traditiones hebraic\u00e6 in Genesim_) _conterere_; \u2018pant\n after\u2019 by LXX\u1d2c \u1d43\u02e1\u1427 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9[\u03c2] (if not a mistake for \u03c4\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9[\u03c2] or\n \u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9[\u03c2]). A double sense is given by Vulgate _conteret ...\n insidiaberis_, and perhaps Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac phrase); while\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 paraphrases: \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d0 \u05d3\u05db\u05d9\u05e8 \u05de\u05d4 \u05d3\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05ea \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05dc\u05e7\u05d3\u05de\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05ea\u05d4\u05d9 \u05e0\u05d8\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05d0\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=16. The doom of the woman=: consisting in the hardships incident to\nher sex, and social position in the East. The pains of childbirth,\nand the desire which makes her the willing slave of the man, impressed\nthe ancient mind as at once mysterious and unnatural; therefore to\nbe accounted for by a curse imposed on woman from the beginning.\u2015\u2015_I\nwill multiply, etc._] More strictly, \u2018I will cause thee to have much\nsuffering and pregnancy\u2019 (see Davidson \u00a7 3, _R._ (2)). It is, of course,\nnot an intensification of pain to which she is already subject that is\nmeant.\u2015\u2015For \u05d4\u05b5\u05e8\u05b9\u05e0\u05b7\u05da\u05b0\u200e, LXX read some word meaning \u2018groaning\u2019 (_v.i._); but to\nprefer this reading on the ground that Hebrew women esteemed frequent\npregnancy a blessing (Gunkel) makes a too general statement. It is\nbetter (with Holzinger) to assume a _hendiadys_: \u2018the pain of thy\nconception\u2019 (as in the explanatory clause which follows).\u2015\u2015_in pain\n... children_] The pangs of childbirth are proverbial in Old Testament\nfor the extremity of human anguish (Isaiah 21\u00b3 13\u2078, Micah 4\u2079, Psalms\n48\u2076, and often: Exodus 1\u00b9\u2079 cannot be cited to the contrary).\u2015\u2015_to\nthy husband ... desire_] It is quite unnecessary to give up the rare\nbut expressive \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e of the Hebrew for the weaker \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e of LXX, etc.\n(_v.i._). It is not, however, implied that the woman\u2019s sexual desire is\nstronger than the man\u2019s (Knobel, Gunkel); the point rather is that by\nthe instincts of her nature she shall be bound to the hard conditions\nof her lot, both the ever-recurring pains of child-bearing, and\nsubjection to the man.\u2015\u2015_while he_ (on his part) _shall rule over\nthee_] The idea of tyrannous exercise of power does not lie in the\nverb; but it means that the woman is wholly subject to the man, and so\nliable to the arbitrary treatment sanctioned by the marriage customs\nof the East. It is noteworthy that to the writer this is not the ideal\nrelation of the sexes (compare 2\u00b9\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3). There is here certainly no\ntrace of the matriarchate or of polyandry (see on 2\u00b2\u2074).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =16.= \u05d0\u05dc\u200e] Read \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05dc\u05be\u200e, with _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4\u200e] So 16\u00b9\u2070 22\u00b9\u2077. On the\n irregular form of infinitive absolute, see Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 75 ff.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05e6\u05d1\u05d5\u05df\u200e] (3\u00b9\u2077) 5\u00b2\u2079\u2020 [Yahwist]). LXX \u03bb\u03cd\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2 (= \u05e2\u05b7\u05e6\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u05b5\u05da\u05b0\u200e\n\u200e ?).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d4\u05e8\u05e0\u05da\u200e] (\u221a \u05d4\u05e8\u05d4\u200e): _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_\n\u200e \u05d5\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5\u05e0\u05da\u200e (Ruth 4\u00b9\u00b3, Hosea 9\u00b9\u00b9). Olshausen (_Monatsberichte der\n K\u00f6niglich-Preussischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin._,\n 1870, 380) conjecture \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5\u05e0\u05da\u200e, to avoid the harsh use of \u05d5\u05b0\u200e. LXX\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 probably = \u05d4\u05d2\u05d9\u05d5\u05e0\u05da\u200e\u200e; \u05d9\u05b0\u05d2\u05d5\u05b9\u05e0\u05b7\u05da\u05b0\u200e (\u2018sorrow\u2019) has also been\n suggested (Gunkel); and \u05e6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05ea\u05b5\u05da\u05b0\u200e (Dillmann, Holzinger, al.). The\n other versions follow Massoretic Text.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05e2\u05e6\u05d1\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d1\u05e2\u05e6\u05d1\u05d5\u05df\u200e; LXX likewise repeats \u1f10\u03bd\n \u03bb\u03cd\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2.\u2015\u2015\u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05e7\u05d4\u200e] Probably connected with Arabic _\u0161au\u1e33_, \u2018ardent\n desire\u2019 (Rahlfs \u201c\u05e2\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e _und_ \u05e2\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05d5\u200e,\u201d page 71); compare \u05e9\u05e7\u05e7\u200e, Isaiah 29\u2078,\n Psalms 107\u2079. Aquila \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, Symmachus \u1f41\u03c1\u03bc\u03ae. Although it\n recurs only 4\u2077 and Canticles 7\u00b9\u00b9, it is found in New Hebrew\n and should not be suspected. LXX \u1f21 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 and Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n (\u2021 Syriac word) point to the reading \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05ea\u05b5\u05da\u05b0\u200e, preferred by many,\n and defended by Nestle (_Marginalien und Materialien_, 6) as\n a technical expression for the relation here indicated, on the\n basis of LXX\u2019s text of 2 Samuel 17\u00b3. His parallel between the\n _return_ of the woman to her source (the man) and the return\n of the man to _his_ source (the ground, verse \u00b9\u2079) is perhaps\n fanciful.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=17\u201219. The man\u2019s sentence.=\u2015\u2015The hard, unremitting toil of the\nhusbandman, wringing a bare subsistence from the grudging and\nintractable ground, is the standing evidence of a divine curse,\nresting, not, indeed, on man himself, but on the earth for his sake.\nOriginally, it had provided him with all kinds of fruit good for\nfood,\u2015\u2015and this is the ideal state of things; now it yields nothing\nspontaneously but thorns and briars; bread to eat can only be extorted\nin the sweat of the brow,\u2015\u2015and this is a curse: formerly man had been a\ngardener, now he is a _fella\u1e25_. It does not appear that death itself is\npart of the curse. The name death is avoided; and the fact is referred\nto as part of the natural order of things,\u2015\u2015the inevitable \u2018return\u2019 of\nman to the ground whence he was taken. The question whether man would\nhave lived for ever if he had not sinned is one to which the narrative\nfurnishes no answer (Gunkel).\u2015\u2015=17.= _And to the man_] _v.i._ The\nsentence is introduced by a formal recital of the offence.\u2015\u2015_Cursed is\nthe ground_] As exceptional fertility was ascribed to a divine blessing\n(27\u00b2\u2078 etc.), and exceptional barrenness to a curse (Isaiah 24\u2076,\nJeremiah 23\u00b9\u2070), so the relative unproductiveness of the whole earth in\ncomparison with man\u2019s expectations and ideals is here regarded as the\npermanent effect of a curse.\u2015\u2015_in suffering_ (bodily fatigue and mental\nanxiety) _shalt thou eat_ [of] _it_] See 5\u00b2\u2079. The \u2018laborious work\u2019\nof the husbandman is referred to in Sirach 7\u00b9\u2075; but this is not the\nprevailing feeling of the Old Testament; and the remark of Knobel, that\n\u201cagriculture was to the Hebrew a divine institution, but at the same\ntime a heavy burden,\u201d needs qualification. It is well to be reminded\nthat \u201cancient Israel did not live constantly in the joy of the harvest\nfestival\u201d (Gunkel); but none the less it would be a mistake to suppose\nthat it lived habitually in the mood of this passage.\u2015\u2015=18.= _the herb\nof the field_] See on 1\u00b9\u00b9. The creation of this order of vegetation\nhas not been recorded by Yahwist. Are we to suppose that it comes into\nexistence simply in consequence of the earth\u2019s diminished productivity\ncaused by the curse? It seems implied at all events that the earth\nwill not yield even this, except under the compulsion of human labour\n(see 2\u2075).\u2015\u2015=19.= _in the sweat of thy brow, etc._] A more expressive\nrepetition of the thought of \u00b9\u2077\u1d47{\u03b2}. The phrase _eat bread_ may\nmean \u2018earn a livelihood\u2019 (Amos 7\u00b9\u00b2), but here it must be understood\nliterally as the immediate reward of man\u2019s toil.\u2015\u2015_till thou return,\netc._] hardly means more than \u2018all the days of thy life\u2019 (in verse \u00b9\u2077).\nIt is not a threat of death as the punishment of sin, and we have no\nright to say (with Dillmann) that verses \u00b9\u2076\u207b\u00b9\u2079 are simply an expansion\nof the sentence of 2\u00b9\u2077. That man was by nature immortal is not taught\nin this passage; and since the Tree of Life in verse \u00b2\u00b2 belongs\nto another recension, there is no evidence that the main narrative\nregarded even endless life as within man\u2019s reach. The connexion of the\nclosing words is rather with 2\u2077: man was taken from the ground, and\nin the natural course will return to it again.\u2015\u2015_and to dust, etc._]\nCompare Job 10\u2079 34\u00b9\u2075, Psalms 90\u00b3 146\u2074, Ecclesiastes 3\u00b2\u2070 12\u2077 etc.: \u1f10\u03ba\n\u03b3\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1.\n\n The arrangement of the clauses in \u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b9\u2079 is not very natural,\n and the repeated variations of the same idea have suggested\n the hypothesis of textual corruption or fusion of sources. In\n _Jubilees_ iii. 25 the passage is quoted in an abridged form,\n the line \u2018Cursed ... sake\u2019 being immediately followed by \u2018Thorns\n ... to thee,\u2019 and \u00b9\u2078\u1d47, being omitted. This is, of course, a\n much smoother reading, and leaves out nothing essential; but \u00b9\u2077\u1d47\n is guaranteed by 5\u00b2\u2079. Holzinger rejects \u00b9\u2078\u1d47, and to avoid the\n repetition of \u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u200e proposes \u05ea\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05e0\u05d4\u200e instead of \u05ea\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05e0\u05d4\u200e in \u00b9\u2077. Gunkel\n is satisfied with verse \u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1427 as they stand, but assigns \u00b9\u2079\u1d43{\u03b1}\n (to \u05dc\u05d7\u05dd\u200e) and \u00b9\u2079\u1d47 to another source (Yahwist\u02b2), as doublets\n respectively of \u00b9\u2077\u1d47{\u03b2} and \u00b9\u2079\u1d43{\u03b2}. This is perhaps on the whole\n the most satisfactory analysis.\u2015\u2015The poetic structure of the\n verses, which might be expected to clear up a question of this\n kind, is too obscure to afford any guidance. Sievers, _e.g._\n (II. 10 f.) finds nothing, except in verse \u00b9\u2079, to distinguish\n the rhythm from that of the narrative in which it is embedded,\n and all attempts at strophic arrangement are only tentative.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =17.= Point \u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e; there is no conceivable reason why \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e should\n be a proper name here (compare 2\u00b2\u2070 3\u00b2\u00b9).\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 ... \u05de\u05de\u05e0\u05d5\u200e] LXX\n reads \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 (see verse \u00b9\u00b9) \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03c2.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05da\u200e] LXX (\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5), Symmachus, Vulgate\n read \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05d1\u05b8\u05d3\u05b6\u05da\u05b8\u200e, Theodotion \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 (\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e2\u05b8\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b0\u05da\u05b8\u200e). The phrase\n is characteristic of Yahwist; out of 22 instances in the\n Hexateuch, only about 3 can be assigned to Elohist (none to\n Priestly-Code).\u2015\u2015\u05ea\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05e0\u05d4\u200e] The government of direct accusative seems\n harsh, but is not unexampled: see Jeremiah 36\u00b9\u2076.\u2015\u2015=18.= LXX\n omits initial \u05d5\u05b0\u200e: so Vulgate _Jubilees_.\u2015\u2015\u05e7\u05d5\u05e5 \u05d5\u05d3\u05e8\u05d3\u05e8\u200e] Hosea 10\u2078; \u05d3\u05e8\u05d3\u05e8\u200e\n occurs nowhere else in Old Testament. It is still used in Syria\n (_dard\u0101r_) as a general name for thistles.\u2015\u2015=19.= \u05d6\u05e2\u05d4\u200e] (\u221a \u05d9\u05d6\u05e2\u200e,\n _wa\u1e0fa\u201ba_) is \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd; compare \u05d9\u05b8\u05d6\u05b7\u05e2\u200e, Ezekiel 44\u00b9\u2078.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d7\u05dd\u200e] LXX\n _Jubilees_ \u05dc\u05d7\u05de\u05da\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n 20\u201224.\n The expulsion from Eden.\n\n=20.= The naming of the woman can hardly have come in between the\nsentence and its execution, or before there was any experience of\nmotherhood to suggest it. The attempts to connect the notice with the\nmention of child-bearing in \u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1427 (Delitzsch al.), or with the thought\nof mortality in \u00b9\u2079 (Knobel), are forced. The most suitable position in\nthe present text would be before (so _Jubilees_ iii. 33) or after 4\u00b9;\nand accordingly some regard it as a misplaced gloss in explanation of\nthat verse. But when we consider (a) that the name _\u1e24avv\u0101h_ must in any\ncase be traditional, (b) that it is a proper name, whereas \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd\u200e remains\nappellative throughout, and (c) that in the following verses there\nare unambiguous traces of a second recension of the Paradise story,\nit is reasonable to suppose that verse \u00b2\u2070 comes from that recension,\nand is a parallel to the naming of the woman in 2\u00b2\u00b3, whether it stands\nhere in the original order or not. The fact that the name Eve has been\npreserved, while there is no distinctive name for the man, suggests\nthat \u05d7\u05d5\u05d4\u200e is a survival from a more primitive theory of human origins in\nwhich the first mother represented the unity of the race.\u2015\u2015_the mother\nof every living thing_] According to this derivation, \u05d7\u05b7\u05d5\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e would seem\nto denote first the idea of life, and then the source of life\u2015\u2015the\nmother.\u00b9 But the form \u05d7\u05d5\u05d4\u200e is not Hebrew, and the real meaning of the\nword is not settled by the etymology here given (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u200e commonly\nincludes all animals (8\u00b2\u00b9 etc.), but is here restricted to mankind\n(as Psalms 143\u00b2, Job 30\u00b2\u00b3). Compare however, \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, \u2018Lady of\nwild things,\u2019 a Greek epithet of the Earth-mother (Miss Harrison,\n_Prolegomena to the study of Greek Religion_ 264).\u2015\u2015=21.= Another\ndetached notice describing the origin of clothing. It is, of course,\nnot inconsistent with verse \u2077, but neither can it be said to be the\nnecessary sequel to that verse; most probably it is a parallel from\nanother source.\u2015\u2015_coats of skin_] \u201cThe simplest and most primitive kind\nof clothing in practical use\u201d (Driver).\n\n \u00b9 So Baethgen, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte C\u00f6lestins_ 148,\n who appends the note: \u201cIm holsteinischen Plattdeutsch\n ist \u2018Dat Leben\u2019 euphemistischer Ausdruck f\u00fcr das pudendum\n muliebre\u201d\u2015\u2015a meaning by the way which also attaches to\n Arabic _\u1e25ayy_ (Lane, _An Arabic-English Lexicon_ 681 b).\n\n An interesting question arises as to the connexion between this\n method of clothing and the loss of pristine innocence. That\n it exhibits God\u2019s continued care for man even after the Fall\n (Dillmann al.) may be true as regards the present form of the\n legend; but that is hardly the original conception. In the\n Ph\u0153nician legend of Us\u014dos, the invention is connected with the\n hunting of wild animals, and this again with the institution of\n sacrifice: ... \u1f43\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ba\u03ad\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f67\u03bd \u1f34\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f57\u03c1\u03b5 ... \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u1f67\u03bd \u1f24\u03b3\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5\n \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd (_Pr\u00e6paratio Evangelica_ i. 10; Orelli, page 17 f.).\n Since sacrifice and the use of animal food were inseparably\n associated in Semitic antiquity, it may be assumed that this is\n conceived as the first departure from the Golden Age, when men\n lived on the spontaneous fruits of the earth. Similarly, William\n Robertson Smith (_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_\u00b2, 306\n ff.) found in the verse the Yahwistic theory of the introduction\n of the sacrifice of _domestic_ animals, which thus coincided, as\n in Greek legend, with the transition from the state of innocence\n to the life of agriculture.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =20.= \u05d7\u05d5\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u0395\u1f55\u03b1 [\u0395\u1f54\u03b1] (in 4\u00b9), Aquila \u0391\u1f56\u03b1, Vulgate _Heva_,\n Jerome _Eva_ (English _Eve_); in this verse LXX translates\n \u0396\u03c9\u03ae, Symmachus \u0396\u03c9\u03bf\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. The similarity of the name to the\n Aramaic word for \u2018serpent\u2019 (\u05d7\u05b7\u05d5\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u200e, \u05d7\u05b4\u05d5\u05b0\u05d9\u05b8\u05d0\u200e, Syriac (\u2021 Syriac word),\n Syro-Palestinian (\u2021 Syriac word) [Matthew 7\u00b9\u2070]); (compare Arabic\n _\u1e25ayyat_ from _\u1e25auyat_ [N\u00f6ldeke]) has always been noticed, and\n is accepted by several modern scholars as a real etymological\n equivalence (N\u00f6ldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen\n Gesellschaft_, xlii. 487; Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_,\n i. 633; Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 154). The\n ancient idea was that Eve was so named because she had done the\n serpent\u2019s work in tempting Adam (_Bereshith Rabba_; Philo, _De\n Agricultura No\u00eb_, 21; Clement of Alexandria _Protrepticus_ ii.\n 12. 1). Quite recently the philological equation has acquired\n fresh significance from the discovery of the name \u05d7\u05d5\u05ea\u200e on a leaden\n Punic _tabella devotionis_ (described by Lidzbarski _Ephemeris_,\n i. 26 ff.; see Cooke, _A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions_,\n 135), of which the first line reads: \u201cO Lady _\u1e24VT_, goddess,\n queen...!\u201d Lidzbarski sees in this mythological personage a\n goddess of the under-world, and as such a serpent-deity; and\n identifies her with the biblical \u1e24avvah. \u1e24avvah would thus be a\n \u2018depotentiated\u2019 deity, whose prototype was a Ph\u0153nician goddess\n of the Under-world, worshipped in the form of a serpent, and\n bearing the title of \u2018Mother of all living\u2019 (see Gressman _l.c._\n 359 f.). Precarious as such combinations may seem, there is no\n objection in principle to an explanation of the name \u1e24avvah on\n these lines. Besides the \u1e24ivvites of the Old Testament (who\n were probably a serpent-tribe), Wellhausen cites examples of\n Semitic princely families that traced their genealogy back to\n a serpent. The substitution of human for animal ancestry, and\n the transference of the animal name to the human ancestor, are\n phenomena frequently observed in the transition from a lower to\n a higher stage of religion. If the change took place while a law\n of female descent still prevailed, the ancestry would naturally\n be traced to a woman (or goddess); and when the law of male\n kinship was introduced she would as naturally be identified with\n the wife of the first man. It need hardly be said that all this,\n while possibly throwing some light on the mythical background\n of the biblical narrative, is quite apart from the religious\n significance of the story of the Fall in itself.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05dd \u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d7\u05d9\u200e] William\n Robertson Smith renders \u2018mother of every _\u1e25ayy_,\u2019\u2015\u2015_\u1e25ayy_ being\n the Arabic word which originally denoted a group of female\n kinship. Thus \u201cEve is the personification of the bond of kinship\n (conceived as exclusively mother-kinship), just as Adam is\n simply \u2018man,\u2019 _i.e._ the personification of mankind\u201d (_Kinship\n and Marriage in Early Arabia_\u00b2, 208). The interpretation has\n found no support.\u2015\u2015=21.= Point \u05dc\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd\u200e, as in verse \u00b9\u2077.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=22\u201224. The actual expulsion.=\u2015\u2015=22.= _Behold ... one of us_] This\nis no \u2018ironica exprobatio\u2019 (Calvin al.), but a serious admission that\nman has snatched a divine prerogative not meant for him. The feeling\nexpressed (compare 11\u2076) is akin to what the Greeks called the \u2018envy of\nthe gods,\u2019 and more remotely to the Old Testament attribute of the zeal\nor jealousy of Yahwe,\u2015\u2015His resentment of all action that encroaches\non His divinity (see page 97). In verse \u2075 the same words are put in\nthe mouth of the serpent with a distinct imputation of envy to God;\nand it is perhaps improbable that the writer of that verse would\nhave justified the serpent\u2019s insinuation, even in form, by a divine\nutterance. There are several indications (_e.g._ the phrase \u2018like\none of us\u2019) that the secondary recension to which verse \u00b2\u00b2 belongs\nrepresents a cruder form of the legend than does the main narrative;\nand it is possible that it retains more of the characteristically pagan\nfeeling of the envy of the gods.\u2015\u2015_in respect of knowing, etc._] Man\nhas not attained complete equality with God, but only God-likeness\nin this one respect. Gressman\u2019s contention that the verse is\nself-contradictory (man has become like a god, and yet lacks the\nimmortality of a god) is therefore unfounded.\u2015\u2015_And now, etc._] There\nremains another divine attribute which man will be prompt to seize,\nviz. immortality: to prevent his thus attaining complete likeness to\nGod he must be debarred from the Tree of Life. The expression _put\nforth his hand_ suggests that a single partaking of the fruit would\nhave conferred eternal life (Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 52);\nand at least implies that it would have been an easy thing to do. The\nquestion why man had not as yet done so is not impertinent (Delitzsch),\nbut inevitable; so momentous an issue could not have been left to\nchance in a continuous narrative. The obvious solution is that in this\nrecension the Tree of Life was a (or _the_) forbidden tree, that man in\nhis first innocence had respected the injunction, but that now when he\nknows the virtue of the tree he will not refrain from eating. It is to\nbe observed that it is only in this part of the story that the idea of\nimmortality is introduced, and that not as an essential endowment of\nhuman nature, but as contingent on an act which would be as efficacious\nafter the Fall as before it.\u2015\u2015On the _aposiopesis_ at the end of the\nverse, _v.i._\u2015\u2015=23= is clearly a doublet of \u00b2\u2074; and the latter is the\nnatural continuation of \u00b2\u00b2. Verse \u00b2\u00b3 is a fitting conclusion to the\nmain narrative, in which it probably followed immediately on verse\n\u00b9\u2079.\u2015\u2015=24.= _He drove out the man and made [him] dwell on the east of\n... [and stationed] the Cherubim, etc._] This is the reading of LXX\n(_v.i._), and it gives a more natural construction than Massoretic\nText, which omits the words in brackets. On either view the assumption\nis that the first abode of mankind was east of the garden. There is no\nreason to suppose that the verse represents a different tradition as to\nthe site of Eden from 2\u2078 or 2\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427. It is not said in 2\u2078 that it was\nin the _extreme_ east, or in 2\u00b9\u2070 that it was in the extreme north; nor\nis it here implied that it was further west than Palestine. The account\nof the early migration of the race in 11\u00b2 is quite consistent with the\nsupposition that mankind entered the Euphrates valley from a region\nstill further east.\u2015\u2015_the Cherubim and the revolving sword-flame_]\nLiterally \u2018the flame of the whirling sword.\u2019 It has usually been\nassumed that the sword was in the hand of one of the cherubim;\nbut probably it was an independent symbol, and a representation of\nthe lightning. Some light may be thrown on it by an inscription of\nTiglath-pileser I. (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 36 f.), where\nthe king says that when he destroyed the fortress of \u1e2aunusa he made \u2018a\nlightning of bronze.\u2019 The emblem appears to be otherwise unknown, but\nthe allusion suggests a parallel to the \u2018flaming sword\u2019 of this passage.\n\n =The Cherubim.=\u2015\u2015See the notes of Dillmann, Gunkel, Driver;\n _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 529 f., 631 ff.;\n Cheyne in _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 741 ff.; Jeremias _Das Alte\n Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 218; Haupt, _The Sacred\n Books of the Old Testament_, _Numbers_, 46; _Polychrome Bible_,\n 181 f.; Furtw\u00e4ngler, in Roscher\u2019s _Ausf\u00fchrliches Lexikon der\n griechischen und r\u00f6mischen Mythologie_ article GRYPS.\u2015\u2015The\n derivation of the word is uncertain. The old theory of a\n connexion with \u03b3\u03c1\u03cd\u03c8 (_Greif_, griffin, etc.) is not devoid of\n plausibility, but lacks proof. The often quoted statement of\n Lenormant (_Les Origines de l\u2019histoire_ i. 118), that _kirubu_\n occurs on an amulet in the de Clercq collection as a name of\n the winged bulls of Assyrian palaces, seems to be definitely\n disproved (see Jeremias 218).\u2015\u2015A great part of the Old Testament\n symbolism could be explained from the hypothesis that the\n Cherubim were originally wind-demons, like the Harpies of\n Greek mythology (Harrison, _Prolegomena to the study of Greek\n Religion_ 178 ff.). The most suggestive analogy to this verse\n is perhaps to be found in the winged genii often depicted by\n the side of the tree of life in Babylonian art. These figures\n are usually human in form with human heads, but sometimes\n combine the human form with an eagle\u2019s head, and occasionally\n the human head with an animal body. They are shown in the act\n of fecundating the date-palm by transferring the pollen of the\n male tree to the flower of the female; and hence it has been\n conjectured that they are personifications of the winds, by\n whose agency the fertilisation of the palm is effected in nature\n (Tylor, _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology_, xii.\n 383 ff.). Starting with this clue, we can readily explain (1)\n the function of the Cherub as the living chariot of Yahwe, or\n bearer of the Theophany, in Psalms 18\u00b9\u00b9 (2 Samuel 22\u00b9\u00b9). It is\n a personification of the storm-wind on which Yahwe rides, just\n as the Babylonian storm-god Z\u00fb was figured as a bird-deity.\n The theory that it was a personification of the thunder-cloud\n is a mere conjecture based on Psalms 18\u00b9\u00b9 \u1da0, and has no\n more intrinsic probability than that here suggested. (2) The\n association of the winged figures with the Tree of Life in\n Babylonian art would naturally lead to the belief that the\n Cherubim were denizens of Paradise (Ezekiel 28\u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2076), and\n guardians of the Tree (as in this passage). (3) Thence they came\n to be viewed as guardians of sacred things and places generally,\n like the composite figures placed at the entrances of Assyrian\n temples and palaces to prevent the approach of evil spirits. To\n this category belong probably in the first instance the colossal\n Cherubim of Solomon\u2019s temple (1 Kings 6\u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 8\u2076 \u1da0\u1427), and the\n miniatures on the lid of the ark in the Tabernacle (Exodus\n 25\u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 etc.); but a trace of the primary conception appears\n in the alternation of cherubim and _palm-trees_ in the temple\n decoration (1 Kings 6\u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, Ezekiel 41\u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427;; see, further, 1\n Kings 7\u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, Exodus 26\u00b9\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9). (4) The most difficult embodiment\n of the idea is found in the Cherubim of Ezekiel\u2019s visions\u2015\u2015four\n composite creatures combining the features of the ox, the\n lion, the man, and the eagle (Ezekiel 1\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 10\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427). These may\n represent primarily the \u2018four winds of heaven\u2019; but the complex\n symbolism of the _Merk\u0101b\u0101h_ shows that they have some deeper\n cosmic significance. Gunkel (page 20) thinks that an older form\n of the representation is preserved in Apocalypse 4\u2076 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, where\n the four animal types are kept distinct. These he connects\n with the four constellations of the Zodiac which mark the four\n quarters of the heavens: Taurus, Leo, Scorpio (in the earliest\n astronomy a scorpion-_man_), and Aquila (near Aquarius). See\n _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 631 f.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =22.= \u05db\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3\u200e] Construct before preposition; Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 130 _a_.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b4\u05de\u05b6\u05bc\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u200e] The so-called oriental punctuation (which\n distinguishes 1st plural from 3rd singular masculine suffix)\n has \u05de\u05b4\u05de\u05b5\u05bc\u05e0\u05bf\u05d5\u05bc\u200e, \u2018from us\u2019 (Baer-Delitzsch page 81). Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\n\u200e (\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u05de\u05d0 \u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4\u200e) and Symmachus (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c6\u2019 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6) treat the form\n as 3rd singular: compare Rashi\u2019s paraphrase: \u201calone below, as\n I am alone above.\u201d\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u200e] \u2018in [respect of] knowing\u2019: gerundial\n infinitive; Davidson \u00a7 93; Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 114 _o_; Driver\n _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ \u00a7 205.\u2015\u2015The\n pregnant use of \u05e4\u05b6\u05bc\u05df\u05be\u200e (= \u2018I fear lest\u2019) is common (Genesis 19\u00b9\u2079\n 26\u2079 38\u00b9\u00b9 44\u00b3\u2074, Exodus 13\u00b9\u2077 etc.). Here it is more natural to\n assume an _anakolouthon_, the clause depending on a cohortative,\n converted in verse \u00b2\u00b3 into a historic tense.\u2015\u2015\u05d2\u05dd\u200e] LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n omit.\u2015\u2015=24.= LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f08\u03b4\u1f70\u03bc \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff4\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03b2\u1f76\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb.\n\u200e = \u05d5\u05d9\u05d2\u05e8\u05e9 \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05db\u05df \u05de\u05e7\u05d3\u05dd \u05dc\u05d2\u05df \u05e2\u05d3\u05df \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05db\u05e8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e. Ball rightly adopts this\n text, inserting \u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u05d5\u05b9\u200e after \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05db\u05df\u200e, against Yahwist\u2019s usage. There is\n no need to supply any pronoun object whatever: see 2\u00b9\u2079 18\u2077 38\u00b9\u2078,\n 1 Samuel 19\u00b9\u00b3 etc. For the first three words Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 has simply\n (\u2021 Syriac word), and for \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05db\u05df\u200e (\u2021 Syriac word) (with the cherubim,\n etc., as object).\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05de\u05ea\u05d4\u05e4\u05db\u05ea\u200e] Hithpael in the sense of \u2018revolve,\u2019\n Judges 7\u00b9\u00b3, Job 37\u00b9\u00b2; in Job 38\u00b9\u2074 it means \u2018be transformed.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n _The Origin and Significance of the Paradise Legend._\n\n 1. _Ethnic parallels._\u2015\u2015The Babylonian version of the Fall of\n man (if any such existed) has not yet been discovered. There\n is in the British Museum a much-debated seal-cylinder which\n is often cited as evidence that a legend very similar to the\n biblical narrative was current in Babylonia. It shows two\n completely clothed figures seated on either side of a tree,\n and each stretching out a hand toward its fruit, while a\n crooked line on the left of the picture is supposed to exhibit\n the serpent.\u00b9 The engraving no doubt represents some legend\n connected with the tree of life; but even if we knew that it\n illustrates the first temptation, the _story_ is still wanting;\n and the details of the picture show that it can have had very\n little resemblance to Genesis 3.\u2015\u2015The most that can be claimed\n is that there are certain remote parallels to particular\n features or ideas of Genesis 2\u2074\u20123\u00b2\u2074, which are yet sufficiently\n close to suggest that the ultimate source of the biblical\n narrative is to be sought in the Babylonian mythology. Attention\n should be directed to the following:\u2015\u2015\n\n \u00b9 Reproduced in Smith\u2019s _Chaldean Genesis_, 88; Delitzsch\n _Babel und Bibel_ (M\u2018Cormack\u2019s translation, page 48); _Das\n Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 203, etc.\n Jeremias has satisfied himself that the zigzag line _is_\n a snake, but is equally convinced that the snake cannot be\n tempting a man and a woman to eat the fruit.\n\n (a) The _account of Creation_ in 2\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 has undoubted\n resemblances to the Babylonian document described on page 47 f.,\n though they are hardly such as to prove dependence. Each starts\n with a vision of chaos, and in both the prior existence of\n heaven and earth seems to be assumed; although the Babylonian\n chaos is a waste of waters, while that of Genesis 2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427 is based\n rather on the idea of a waterless desert (see page 56 above).\n The _order_ of creation, though not the same, is alike in its\n promiscuous and unscientific character: in the Babylonian we\n have a hopeless medley\u2015\u2015mankind, beasts of the field, living\n things of the field, Tigris and Euphrates, verdure of the\n field, grass, marshes, reeds, wild-cow, ewe, sheep of the\n fold, orchards, forests, houses, and cities, etc. etc.\u2015\u2015but no\n separate creation of woman.\u2015\u2015The creation of _man_ from earth\n moistened by the blood of a god, in another document, may be\n instanced as a distant parallel to 2\u2077 (pages 42, 45).\n\n (b) The _legend of Eabani_, embedded in the Gilgame\u0161-Epic\n (Tablet I. Column ii. line 33 ff.: _Keilinschriftliche\n Bibliothek_, vi. 1, page 120 ff.), seems to present us (it has\n been thought) with a \u2018type of primitive man.\u2019 Eabani, created as\n a rival to Gilgame\u0161 by the goddess Aruru from a lump of clay, is\n a being of gigantic strength who is found associating with the\n wild animals, living their life, and foiling all the devices\n of the huntsman. Eager to capture him, Gilgame\u0161 sends with the\n huntsman a harlot, by whose attractions he hopes to lure Eabani\n from his savagery. Eabani yields to her charms, and is led, a\n willing captive, to the life of civilisation:\n\n When she speaks to him, her speech pleases him,\n One who knows his heart he seeks, a friend.\n\n But later in the epic, the harlot appears as the cause of his\n sorrows, and Eabani curses her with all his heart. Apart from\n its present setting, and considered as an independent bit of\n folk-lore, it cannot be denied that the story has a certain\n resemblance to Genesis 2\u00b9\u2078\u207b\u00b2\u2074. Only, we may be sure that if\n the idea of sexual intercourse with the beasts be implied in\n the picture of Eabani, the moral purity of the Hebrew writer\n never stooped so low (see Jastrow, _American Journal of Semitic\n Languages and Literatures_, xv. 198 ff.; Stade, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\n die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxiii. 174 f.).\n\n (c) Far more instructive affinities with the inner motive\n of the story of the Fall are found in the myth of _Adapa and\n the South-wind_, discovered amongst the Tel-Amarna Tablets,\n and therefore known in Palestine in the 15th century B.C.\n (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 92\u2012101). Adapa, the\n son of the god Ea, is endowed by him with the fulness of divine\n wisdom, but denied the gift of immortality:\n\n \u201cWisdom I gave him, immortality I gave him not.\u201d\n\n While plying the trade of a fisherman on the Persian Gulf, the\n south-wind overwhelms his bark, and in revenge Adapa breaks\n the wings of the south-wind. For this offence he is summoned by\n Anu to appear before the assembly of the gods in heaven; and Ea\n instructs him how to appease the anger of Anu. Then the gods,\n disconcerted by finding a mortal in possession of their secrets,\n resolve to make the best of it, and to admit him fully into\n their society, by conferring on him immortality. They offer\n him food of life that he may eat, and water of life that he may\n drink. But Adapa had previously been deceived by Ea, who did\n not wish him to become immortal. Ea had said that what would\n be offered to him would be food and water of death, and had\n strictly cautioned him to refuse. He did refuse, and so missed\n immortal life. Anu laments over his infatuated refusal:\n\n \u201cWhy, Adapa! Wherefore hast thou not eaten,\n not drunken, so that\n Thou wilt not live...?\u201d \u201cEa, my lord,\n Commanded, \u2018Eat not and drink not!\u2019\u201d\n \u201cTake him and bring him back to his earth!\u201d\n\n This looks almost like a travesty of the leading ideas of\n Genesis 3; yet the common features are very striking. In both\n we have the idea that wisdom and immortality combined constitute\n equality with deity; in both we have a man securing the first\n and missing the second; and in both the man is counselled in\n opposite directions by supernatural voices, and acts on that\n advice which is contrary to his interest. There is, of course,\n the vital difference that while Yahwe forbids both wisdom and\n immortality to man, Ea confers the first (and thus far plays\n the part of the biblical serpent) but withholds the second, and\n Anu is ready to bestow both. Still, it is not too much to expect\n that a story like this will throw light on the mythological\n antecedents of the Genesis narrative, if not directly on that\n narrative itself (see below, page 94).\n\n What is true of Babylonian affinities holds good in a lesser\n degree of the ancient mythologies as a whole: everywhere we find\n echoes of the Paradise myth, but nowhere a story which forms\n an exact parallel to Genesis 2. 3. The Gr\u00e6co-Roman traditions\n told of a \u2018golden age,\u2019 lost through the increasing sinfulness\n of the race,\u2015\u2015an age when the earth freely yielded its fruits,\n and men lived in a happiness undisturbed by toil or care or sin\n (Hesiod, _Opera et Dies_, 90\u201292, 109\u2012120; Ovid, _Metamorphoses_\n i. 89\u2012112, etc.); but they knew nothing of a sudden fall. Indian\n and Persian mythologies told, in addition, of sacred mountains\n where the gods dwelt, with bright gold and flashing gems, and\n miraculous trees conferring immortality, and every imaginable\n blessing; and we have seen that similar representations\n were current in Babylonia. The nearest approach to definite\n counterparts of the biblical narrative are found in Iranian\n legends, where we read of Meshia and Meshiane, who lived at\n first on fruits, but who, tempted by Ahriman, denied the good\n god, lost their innocence, and practised all kinds of wickedness;\n or of Yima, the ruler of the golden age, under whom there was\n neither sickness nor death, nor hunger nor thirst, until (in one\n tradition) he gave way to pride, and fell under the dominion of\n the evil serpent Dahaka (see Dillmann page 47 ff.). But these\n echoes are too faint and distant to enable us to determine the\n quarter whence the original impulse proceeded, or where the myth\n assumed the form in which it appears in Genesis. For answers\n to these questions we are dependent mainly on the uncertain\n indications of the biblical narrative itself. Some features (the\n name _\u1e24avvah_ [page 85 f.], and elements of chapter 4) seem to\n point to Ph\u0153nicia as the quarter whence this stratum of myth\n entered the religion of Israel; others (the Paradise-geography)\n point rather to Babylonia, or at least Mesopotamia. In the\n present state of our knowledge it is a plausible conjecture\n that the myth has travelled from Babylonia, and reached\n Israel through the Ph\u0153nicians or the Canaanites (Wellhausen\n _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_\u2076 307; Gressman _Archiv f\u00fcr\n Religionswissenschaft._, x. 345 ff.; compare Bevan, _The Journal\n of Theological Studies_, iv. 500 f.). A similar conclusion\n might be drawn from the contradiction in the idea of chaos, if\n the explanation given above of 2\u2076 be correct: it looks as if\n the cosmogony of an alluvial region had been modified through\n transference to a dry climate (see page 56). The fig-leaves of\n 3\u2077 are certainly not Babylonian; though a single detail of that\n kind cannot settle the question of origin. But until further\n light comes from the monuments, all speculations on this subject\n are very much in the air.\n\n 2. _The mythical substratum of the narrative._\u2015\u2015The strongest\n evidence of the non-Israelite origin of the story of the\n Fall is furnished by the biblical account itself, in the many\n mythological conceptions, of which traces still remain in\n Genesis. \u201cThe narrative,\u201d as Driver says, \u201ccontains features\n which have unmistakable counterparts in the religious traditions\n of other nations; and some of these, though they have been\n accommodated to the spirit of Israel\u2019s religion, carry\n indications that they are not native to it\u201d (_The Book of\n Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 51). Amongst the features\n which are at variance with the standpoint of Hebrew religion we\n may put first of all the fact that the abode of Yahwe is placed,\n not in Canaan or at Mount Sinai, but in the far East. The\n strictly mythological background of the story emerges chiefly\n in the conceptions of the garden of the gods (see page 57 f.),\n the trees of life and of knowledge (page 59), the serpent (page\n 72 f.), Eve (page 85 f.), and the Cherubim (page 89 f.). It\n is true, as has been shown, that each of these conceptions is\n rooted in the most primitive ideas of Semitic religion; but it\n is equally true that they have passed through a mythological\n development for which the religion of Israel gave no opportunity.\n Thus the association of trees and serpents in Semitic folk-lore\n is illustrated by an Arabian story, which tells how, when an\n untrodden thicket was burned down, the spirits of the trees made\n their escape in the shape of white serpents (_Lectures on the\n Religion of the Semites_\u00b2, 133); but it is quite clear that a\n long interval separates that primitive superstition from the\n ideas that invest the serpent and the tree in this passage.\n If proof were needed, it would be found in the suggestive\n combinations of the serpent and the tree in Babylonian and\n Ph\u0153nician art; or in the fabled garden of the Hesperides, with\n its golden fruit guarded by a dragon, always figured in artistic\n representations as a huge snake coiled round the trunk of\n the tree (compare Lenormant, _Les Origines de l\u2019Histoire_, i.\n 93 f.: see the illustrations in Roscher, _Ausf\u00fchrliches Lexikon\n der griechischen und r\u00f6mischen Mythologie_ 2599 f.). How the\n various elements were combined in the particular myth which lies\n immediately behind the biblical narrative, it is impossible to\n say; but the myth of Adapa suggests at least some elements of a\n possible construction, which cannot be very far from the truth.\n Obviously we have to do with a polytheistic legend, in which\n rivalries and jealousies between the different deities are\n almost a matter of course. The serpent is himself a demon; and\n his readiness to initiate man in the knowledge of the mysterious\n virtue of the forbidden tree means that he is at variance\n with the other gods, or at least with the particular god who\n had imposed the prohibition. The intention of the command\n was to prevent man from sharing the life of the gods; and the\n serpent-demon, posing as the good genius of man, defeats that\n intention by revealing to man the truth (similarly Gunkel 30).\n To the original heathen myth we may also attribute the idea of\n the envy of the gods, which the biblical narrator hardly avoids,\n and the note of weariness and melancholy, the sombre view\n of life,\u2015\u2015the \u2018scheue heidnische Stimmung,\u2019\u2015\u2015which is the\n ground-tone of the passage.\n\n It is impossible to determine what, in the original myth, was\n the nature of the tree (or trees) which man was forbidden to eat.\n Gressman (_l.c._ 351 ff.) finds in the passage traces of three\n primitive conceptions: (1) the tree of the knowledge of good\n and evil, whose fruit imparts the knowledge of magic,\u2015\u2015the only\n knowledge of which it can be said that it makes man at once the\n equal and the rival of the deity; (2) the tree of knowledge,\n whose fruit excites the sexual appetite and destroys childlike\n innocence (3\u2077); (3) the tree of life, whose fruit confers\n immortality (3\u00b2\u00b2). The question is immensely complicated by the\n existence of two recensions, which do not seem so hopelessly\n inseparable as Gressman thinks. In the main recension we have\n the tree of knowledge, of which man eats to his hurt, but no\n hint of a tree of life. In the secondary recension there is\n the tree of life (of which man does not eat), and _apparently_\n the tree of knowledge of which he had eaten; but this depends\n on the word \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dd\u200e in 3\u00b2\u00b2, which is wanting in LXX, and may be an\n interpolation. Again, the statement that knowledge of good and\n evil really amounts to equality with God, is found only in the\n second recension; in the other it is doubtful if the actual\n effect of eating the fruit was not a cruel disappointment of\n the hope held out by the serpent. How far we are entitled to\n read the ideas of the one into the other is a question we cannot\n answer. Eerdmans\u2019 ingenious but improbable theory (_Theologisch\n Tijdschrift_, xxxix. 504 ff.) need not here be discussed. What\n is meant by knowledge of good and evil in the final form of the\n narrative will be considered under the next head.\n\n 3. _The religious ideas of the passage._\u2015\u2015Out of such crude\n and seemingly unpromising material the religion of revelation\n has fashioned the immortal allegory before us. We have now\n to inquire what are the religious and moral truths under the\n influence of which the narrative assumed its present form,\n distinguishing as far as possible the ideas which it originally\n conveyed from those which it suggested to more advanced\n theological speculation.\n\n (1) We observe, in the first place, that the \u00e6tiological motive\n is strongly marked throughout. The story gives an explanation of\n many of the facts of universal experience,\u2015\u2015the bond between man\n and wife (2\u00b2\u2074), the sense of shame which accompanies adolescence\n (3\u2077), the use of clothing (3\u00b2\u00b9), the instinctive antipathy to\n serpents (3\u00b9\u2075). But chiefly it seeks the key to the darker side\n of human existence as seen in a simple agricultural state of\n society,\u2015\u2015the hard toil of the husbandman, the birth-pangs of\n the woman, and her subjection to the man. These are evils which\n the author feels to be contrary to the ideal of human nature,\n and to the intention of a good God. They are results of a curse\n justly incurred by transgression, a curse pronounced before\n history began, and shadowing, rather than crushing, human life\n always and everywhere. It is doubtful if death be included in\n the effects of the curse. In verse \u00b9\u2079 it is spoken of as the\n natural fate of a being made from the earth; in verse \u00b2\u00b2 it\n follows from being excluded from the tree of life. Man was\n capable of immortality, but not by nature immortal; and God did\n not mean that he should attain immortality. The death threatened\n in 2\u00b9\u2077 is immediate death; and to assume that the death which\n actually ensues is the exaction of that deferred penalty, is\n perhaps to go beyond the intention of the writer. Nor does it\n appear that the narrative seeks to account for the origin of\n sin. It describes what was, no doubt, the first sin; but it\n describe it as something intelligible, not needing explanation,\n not a mystery like the instinct of shame or the possession of\n knowledge, which are produced by eating the fruit of the tree.\n\n (2) Amongst other things which distinguish man\u2019s present from\n his original state, is the possession of a certain kind of\n knowledge which was acquired by eating the forbidden fruit. This\n brings us to the most difficult question which the narrative\n presents: what is meant by the knowledge of good and evil?\u00b9\n Keeping in mind the possibility that the two recensions may\n represent different conceptions, our data are these: In 3\u00b2\u00b2\n knowledge of good and evil is an attainment which (a) implies\n equality with God, (b) was forbidden to man, (c) is actually\n secured by man. In the leading narrative (b) certainly holds\n good (2\u00b9\u2077), but (a) and (c) are doubtful. Did the serpent speak\n truth when he said that knowledge of good and evil would make\n man like God? Did man actually attain such knowledge? Was the\n perception of nakedness a first flash of the new divine insight\n which man had coveted, or was it a bitter disenchantment and\n mockery of the hopes inspired by the serpent\u2019s words? It is\n only the habit of reading the ideas of 3\u00b2\u00b2 into the story of the\n temptation which makes these questions seem superfluous. Let us\n consider how far the various interpretations enable us to answer\n them.\u2015\u2015i. The suggestion that magical knowledge is meant may be\n set aside as inadequate to either form of the biblical narrative:\n magic is not godlike knowledge, nor is it the universal property\n of humanity.\u2015\u2015ii. The usual explanation identifies the knowledge\n of good and evil with the moral sense, the faculty of discerning\n between right and wrong. This view is ably defended by Budde\n (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 69 ff.), and is not to be lightly\n dismissed, but yet raises serious difficulties. Could it be\n said that God meant to withhold from man the power of moral\n discernment? Does not the prohibition itself presuppose that man\n already knew that obedience was right and disobedience sinful?\n We have no right to say that the restriction was only temporary,\n and that God would in other ways have bestowed on man the gift\n of conscience; the narrative suggests nothing of the sort.\u2015\u2015iii.\n Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_\u2076 299 ff.) holds\n that the knowledge in question is insight into the secrets of\n nature, and intelligence to manipulate them for human ends;\n and this as a quality not so much of the individual as of\n the race,\u2015\u2015the knowledge which is the principle of human\n civilisation. It is the faculty which we see at work in the\n invention of clothing (3\u00b2\u00b9 ?), in the founding of cities (4\u00b9\u2077),\n in the discovery of the arts and crafts (4\u00b9\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), and in the\n building of the tower (11\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427). The undertone of condemnation\n of the cultural achievements of humanity which runs through\n the Yahwistic sections of chapters 1\u201211 makes it probable that\n the writer traced their root to the knowledge acquired by the\n first transgression; and of such knowledge it might be said\n that it made man like God, and that God willed to withhold it\n permanently from His creatures.\u2015\u2015iv. Against this view Gunkel\n (11 f., 25 f.) urges somewhat ineptly that the myth does not\n speak of arts and aptitudes which are learned by education,\n but of a kind of knowledge which comes by nature, of which the\n instinct of sex is a typical illustration. Knowledge of good and\n evil is simply the enlargement of capacity and experience which\n belongs to mature age,\u2015\u2015ripeness of judgment, reason,\u2015\u2015including\n moral discernment, but not identical with it.\u2015\u2015The difference\n between the last two explanations is not great; and possibly\n both are true. Wellhausen\u2019s seems to me the only view that does\n justice to the thought of 3\u00b2\u00b2; and if 4\u00b9\u2076 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 and 11\u00b9\u207b\u2079 be the\n continuation of this version of the Fall, the theory has much\n to recommend it. On the other hand, Gunkel\u2019s acceptation may be\n truer to the teaching of 3\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427. Man\u2019s primitive state was one\n of childlike innocence and purity; and the knowledge which he\n obtained by disobedience is the knowledge of life and of the\n world which distinguishes the grown man from the child. If it\n be objected that such knowledge is a good thing, which God could\n not have forbidden to man, we may be content to fall back on\n the paradox of Christ\u2019s idea of childhood: \u201cExcept ye turn, and\n become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the\n kingdom of heaven.\u201d\n\n \u00b9 In Old Testament usage, knowledge of good and evil marks\n the difference between adulthood and childhood (Deuteronomy\n 1\u00b3\u2079, Isaiah 7\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1427)), or second childhood (2 Samuel 19\u00b3\u2076);\n it also denotes (with different verbs) judicial discernment\n of right and wrong (2 Samuel 14\u00b9\u2077, 1 Kings 3\u2079), which is\n an intellectual function, quite distinct from the working\n of the conscience. The antithesis of good and evil may, of\n course, be ethical (Amos 5\u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1427, Isaiah 5\u00b2\u2070 etc.); but it\n may also be merely the contrast of pleasant and painful,\n or wholesome and hurtful (2 Samuel 19\u00b3\u2076). Hence the phrase\n comes to stand for the whole range of experience,\u2015\u2015\u201ca\n comprehensive designation of things by their two polar\n attributes, according to which they interest man for his\n weal or hurt\u201d: compare 2 Samuel 14\u00b9\u2077 with \u00b2\u2070 \u2018all things\n that are in earth\u2019 (Genesis 24\u2075\u2070 31\u00b2\u2074). Wellhausen maintains\n that the non-ethical sense is fundamental, the expressions\n being transferred to virtue and vice only in so far as their\n consequences are advantageous or the reverse. Knowledge of\n good and evil may thus mean knowledge in general,\u2015\u2015knowing\n one thing from another.\n\n (3) The next point that claims attention is the author\u2019s\n conception of sin. Formally, sin is represented as an act\n of disobedience to a positive command, imposed as a test of\n fidelity; an act, therefore, which implies disloyalty to God,\n and a want of the trust and confidence due from man to his\n Maker. But the essence of the transgression lies deeper: God\n had a reason for imposing the command, and man had a motive\n for disobeying it; and the reason and motive are unambiguously\n indicated. Man was tempted by the desire to be as God, and Yahwe\n does not will that man should be as God. Sin is thus in the\n last instance presumption,\u2015\u2015an overstepping of the limits of\n creaturehood, and an encroachment on the prerogatives of Deity.\n It is true that the offence is invested with every circumstance\n of extenuation,\u2015\u2015inexperience, the absence of evil intention,\n the suddenness of the temptation, and the superior subtlety\n of the serpent; but sin it was nevertheless, and was justly\n followed by punishment.\u2015\u2015How far the passage foreshadows\n a doctrine of hereditary sin, it is impossible to say. The\n consequences of the transgression, both privative and positive,\n are undoubtedly transmitted from the first pair to their\n posterity; but whether the sinful tendency itself is regarded as\n having become hereditary in the race, there is not evidence to\n show.\n\n (4) Lastly, what view of God does the narrative present? It\n has already been pointed out that 3\u00b2\u00b2 borders hard on the pagan\n notion of the \u2018envy\u2019 of the godhead, a notion difficult to\n reconcile with the conceptions of Old Testament religion. But\n of that idea there is no trace in the main narrative of the\n temptation and the Fall, except in the lying insinuation of the\n serpent: the writer himself does not thus \u2018charge God foolishly.\u2019\n His religious attitude is one of reverent submission to the\n limitations imposed on human life by a sovereign Will, which\n is determined to maintain inviolate the distinction between the\n divine and the human. The attribute most conspicuously displayed\n is closely akin to what the prophets called the \u2018holiness\u2019 of\n God, as illustrated, _e.g._, in Isaiah 2\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427. After all, the\n world is God\u2019s world and not man\u2019s, and the Almighty is just,\n as well as holy, when He frustrates the impious aspiration of\n humanity after an independent footing and sphere of action in\n the universe. The God of Genesis 3 is no arbitrary heathen deity,\n dreading lest the sceptre of the universe should be snatched\n from his hand by the soaring ambition of the race of men;\n but a Being infinitely exalted above the world, stern in His\n displeasure at sin, and terrible in His justice; yet benignant\n and compassionate, slow to anger, and \u2018repenting Him of the\n evil.\u2019 Through an intensely anthropomorphic medium we discern\n the features of the God of the prophets and the Old Testament;\n nay, in the analogy of human fatherhood which underlies the\n description, we can trace the lineaments of the God and Father\n of Jesus Christ. That is the real _Protevangelium_ which lies in\n the passage: the fact that God tempers judgment with mercy, the\n faith that man, though he has forfeited innocence and happiness,\n is not cut off from fellowship with his Creator.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n _Beginnings of History and Civilisation._\n\n\n _Critical Analysis._\u2015\u2015Chapter 4 consists of three easily\n separable sections: (a) the story of Cain and Abel (\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2076), (b)\n a Cainite genealogy (\u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u2074),\u00b9 and (c) a fragment of a Sethite\n genealogy (\u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2076). As they lie before us, these are woven into\n a consecutive history of antediluvian mankind, with a semblance\n of unity sufficient to satisfy the older generation of critics.\u00b2\n Closer examination seems to show that the chapter is composite,\n and that the superficial continuity conceals a series of\n critical problems of great intricacy.\n\n \u00b9 Wellhausen unites verse \u00b9\u2076\u1d47 with \u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u2074.\n\n \u00b2 _e.g._ Hupfeld, _Quellen_, 126 ff.\n\n 1. We have first to determine the character and extent of the\n Cainite genealogy. It is probable that the first link occurs\n in verse \u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, and has to be disentangled from the Cain legend\n (so Wellhausen, Budde); whether it can have included the whole\n of that legend is a point to be considered later (page 100). We\n have thus a list of Adam\u2019s descendants through Cain, continued\n in a single line for seven generations, after which it branches\n into three, and then ceases. It has no explicit sequel in\n Genesis; the sacred number 7 marks it as complete in itself; and\n the attempts of some scholars to remodel it in accordance with\n its supposed original place in the history are to be distrusted.\n Its main purpose is to record the origin of various arts and\n industries of civilised life; and apart from the history of Cain\n there is nothing whatever to indicate that it deals with a race\n of sinners, as distinct from the godly line of Seth. That this\n genealogy belongs to Yahwist has hardly been questioned except\n by Dillmann, who argues with some hesitation for assigning it\n to Elohist, chiefly on the ground of its discordance with verses\n \u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2076. Budde (page 220 ff.) has shown that the stylistic criteria\n point decidedly (if not quite unequivocally) to Yahwist;\u00b9 and\n in the absence of any certain trace of Elohist in chapters\n 1\u201211, the strong presumption is that the genealogy represents a\n stratum of the former document. The question then arises whether\n it be the original continuation of chapter 3. An _essential_\n connexion cannot, from the nature of the case, be affirmed.\n The primitive genealogies are composed of desiccated legends,\n in which each member is originally independent of the rest;\n and we are not entitled to assume that an account of the Fall\n necessarily attached itself to the person of the first man. If\n it were certain that 3\u00b2\u2070 is an integral part of one recension\n of the Paradise story, it might reasonably be concluded that\n that recension was continued in 4\u00b9, and then in 4\u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u2074. In the\n absence of complete certainty on that point the larger question\n must be left in suspense; there is, however, no difficulty in\n supposing that in the earliest written collection of Hebrew\n traditions the genealogy was preceded by a history of the Fall\n in a version partly preserved in chapter 3. The presumption that\n this was the case would, of course, be immensely strengthened if\n we could suppose it to be the intention of the original writer\n to describe not merely the progress of culture, but also the\n rapid development of sin (so Wellhausen).\n\n\u200e \u00b9 \u05d9\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05d3\u200e = \u2018beget,\u2019 \u00b9\u2078; \u05d2\u05dd \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u200e, \u00b2\u00b2 (_in genealogies_, confined to\n Yahwist, 10\u00b2\u00b9 19\u00b3\u2078 22\u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u2074 4\u00b2\u2076); \u05d5\u05e9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u200e, \u00b2\u00b9 (compare 10\u00b2\u2075);\n compare \u00b9\u2079 with 10\u00b2\u2075 etc. (Budde _l.c._).\n\n 2. The fragmentary genealogy of verses \u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2076 corresponds, so\n far as it goes, with the Sethite genealogy of Priestly-Code\n in chapter 5. It will be shown later (page 138 f.) that the\n lists of 4\u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u2074 and 5 go back to a common original; and if the\n discrepancy had been merely between Yahwist and Priestly-Code,\n the obvious conclusion would be that these two documents had\n followed different traditional variants of the ancient genealogy.\n But how are we to account for the fact that the first three\n names of Priestly-Code\u2019s list occur also in the connexion\n of Yahwist? There are four possible solutions. (1) It is\n conceivable that Yahwist, not perceiving the ultimate identity\n of the two genealogies, incorporated both in his document\n (compare Ewald _Jahrb\u00fccher der biblischen Wissenschaft_, vi.\n page 4); and that the final redactor (Redactor\u1d3e\u02b3\u2071\u1d49\u02e2\u1d57\u02e1\u02b8\u207b\u1d9c\u1d52\u1d48\u1d49)\n then curtailed the second list in view of chapter 5. This\n hypothesis is on various grounds improbable. It assumes (see\n \u00b2\u2075\u1d47) the murder of Abel by Cain as an original constituent\n of Yahwist\u2019s narrative; now that story takes for granted\n that the worship of Yahwe was practised from the beginning,\n whereas \u00b2\u2076\u1d47 explicitly states that it was only introduced\n in the third generation. (2) It has not unnaturally been\n conjectured that verse \u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427 are entirely redactional (Ewald,\n Schrader, al.); _i.e._, that they were inserted by an editor\n (Redactor\u1d3e\u02b3\u2071\u1d49\u02e2\u1d57\u02e1\u02b8\u207b\u1d9c\u1d52\u1d48\u1d49) to establish a connexion between the\n genealogy of Yahwist and that of Priestly-Code. In favour of\n this view the use of \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e (as a proper name) and of \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e has been\n cited; but again the statement of \u00b2\u2076\u1d47 presents an insurmountable\n difficulty. Priestly-Code has his own definite theory of\n the introduction of the name \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e (see Exodus 6\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), and it\n is incredible that any editor influenced by him should have\n invented the gratuitous statement that the name was in use from\n the time of Enosh. (3) A third view is that verses \u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2076 stood\n originally before verse \u00b9 (or before verse \u00b9\u2077), so that the\n father of Cain and Abel (or of Cain alone) was not Adam but\n Enosh; and that the redactor who made the transposition is\n responsible also for some changes on verse \u00b2\u2075 to adapt it to its\n new setting (so Stade) (see on the verse). That is, no doubt, a\n plausible solution (admitted as possible by Dillmann), although\n it involves operations on the structure of the genealogy\n too drastic and precarious to be readily assented to. It is\n difficult also to imagine any sufficient motive for the supposed\n transposition. That it was made to find a connexion for the\n (secondary) story of Cain and Abel is a forced suggestion. The\n tendency of a redactor must have been to keep that story as\n far from the beginning as possible, and that the traditional\n data should have been deliberately altered so as to make it\n the opening scene of human history is hardly intelligible. (4)\n There remains the hypothesis that the two genealogies belong\n to separate strata within the Yahwistic tradition, which had\n been amalgamated by a redactor of that school (Redactor\u1d36\u1d43\u02b0\u02b7\u2071\u02e2\u1d57)\n prior to the incorporation of Priestly-Code; and that the second\n list was curtailed by Redactor\u1d3e\u02b3\u2071\u1d49\u02e2\u1d57\u02e1\u02b8\u207b\u1d9c\u1d52\u1d48\u1d49 because of its\n substantial identity with that of the Priestly Code in chapter 5.\n The harmonistic glossing of verse \u00b2\u2075 is an inevitable assumption\n of any theory except (1) and (2); it must have taken place after\n the insertion of the Cain and Abel episode; and on the view we\n are now considering it must be attributed to Redactor\u1d36\u1d43\u02b0\u02b7\u2071\u02e2\u1d57.\n In other respects the solution is free from difficulty. The\n recognition of the complex character of the source called\n Yahwist is forced on us by many lines of proof; and it will\n probably be found that this view of the genealogies yields a\n valuable clue to the structure of the non-Priestly sections of\n chapters 2\u201211 (see pages 3, 134). One important consequence may\n here be noted. Eve\u2019s use of the name \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, and the subsequent\n notice of the introduction of the name \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, suggest that this\n writer had previously avoided the latter title of God (as\n Elohist and Priestly-Code previously to Exodus 3\u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 and Exodus\n 6\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427). Hence, if it be the case that one recension of the\n Paradise story was characterised by the exclusive use of \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e\n (see page 53), 4\u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2076 will naturally be regarded as the sequel\n to that recension.\n\n 3. There remains the Cain and Abel narrative of verses \u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2076.\n That it belongs to Yahwist in the wider sense is undisputed,\u00b9\n but its precise affinities within the Yahwistic cycle are\n exceedingly perplexing. If the theory mentioned at the end of\n the last paragraph is correct, the consistent use of the name\n\u200e \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e\u00b2 would show that it was unknown to the author of verses\n \u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2076 and of that form of the Paradise story presupposed by\n these verses. Is it, then, a primary element of the genealogy\n in which it is embedded? It certainly contains notices\u2015\u2015such\n as the introduction of agriculture and (perhaps) the origin of\n sacrifice\u2015\u2015in keeping with the idea of the genealogy; but the\n length and amplitude of the narration would be without parallel\n in a genealogy; and (what is more decisive) there is an obvious\n incongruity between the Cain of the legend, doomed to a fugitive\n unsettled existence, and the Cain of the genealogy (verse \u00b9\u2077),\n who as the first city-builder inaugurates the highest type of\n stable civilised life.\u00b3 Still more complicated are the relations\n of the passage to the history of the Fall in chapter 3. On the\n one hand, a series of material incongruities seem to show that\n the two narratives are unconnected: the assumption of an already\n existing population on the earth could hardly have been made\n by the author of chapter 3; the free choice of occupation by\n the two brothers, and Yahwe\u2019s preference for the shepherd\u2019s\n sacrifice, ignore the representation (3\u00b9\u2079) that husbandry is\n the destined lot of the race; and the curse on Cain is recorded\n in terms which betray no consciousness of a primal curse resting\n on the ground. It is true, on the other hand, that the literary\n form of 4\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2076 contains striking reminiscences of that of chapter\n 3. The most surprising of these (4\u2077\u1d47 \u2225 3\u00b9\u2076\u1d47) may be set down to\n textual corruption (see the note on the verse); but there are\n several other turns of expression which recall the language of\n the earlier narrative: compare 4\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9 with 3\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2077. In both\n we have the same sequence of sin, investigation and punishment\n (in the form of a curse), the same dramatic dialogue, and\n the same power of psychological analysis. But whether these\n resemblances are such as to prove identity of authorship\n is a question that cannot be confidently answered. There\n is an indistinctness of conception in 4\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2076 which contrasts\n unfavourably with the convincing lucidity of chapter 3, as\n if the writer\u2019s touch were less delicate, or his gift of\n imaginative delineation more restricted. Such impressions are\n too subjective to be greatly trusted; but, taken along with\n the material differences already enumerated, they confirm the\n opinion that the literary connexion between chapter 3 and 4\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\n is due to conscious or unconscious imitation of one writer by\n another.\u2015\u2015On the whole, the evidence points to the following\n conclusion: The story of Cain and Abel existed as a popular\n legend entirely independent of the traditions regarding the\n infancy of the race, and having no vital relation to any part\n of its present literary environment. It was incorporated in\n the Yahwistic document by a writer familiar with the narrative\n of the Fall, who identified the Cain of the legend with the\n son of the first man, and linked the story to his name in the\n genealogy. How much of the original genealogy has been preserved\n it is impossible to say: any notices that belonged to it have\n certainly been rewritten, and cannot now be isolated; but verse\n \u00b9 (birth of Cain) may with reasonable probability be assigned\n to it (so Budde), possibly also \u00b2\u1d47{\u03b2} (Cain\u2019s occupation), and\n \u00b3\u1d47 (Cain\u2019s sacrifice).\u2015\u2015Other important questions will be best\n considered in connexion with the original significance of the\n legend (page 111 ff.).\n\n \u00b9 Compare \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, \u00b9\u1427 \u00b3\u1427 \u2074\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2076; \u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8\u200e, \u00b9\u00b9; \u05dc\u05d1\u05dc\u05ea\u05d9\u200e, \u00b9\u2075; and\n obsolete the resemblances to chapter 3 noted below: the\n naming of the child by the mother.\n\n \u00b2 This uniformity of usage is not, however, observed in\n LXX. In LXX\u1d2c \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 occurs twice (\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3), \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 5 times\n (\u00b9\u1427 \u2074\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u2076), and \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 3 times (\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2075) (for\n variants, see Cambridge LXX).\n\n \u00b3 Even if we adopt Budde\u2019s emendation of verse \u00b9\u2077, and make\n Enoch the city-founder (see on the verse), it still remains\n improbable that that r\u00f4le should be assigned to the son of a\n wandering nomad.\n\n\n IV. 1\u201216.\n _Cain and Abel._\n\nEve bears to her husband two sons, Cain and Abel; the first becomes\na tiller of the ground, and the second a keeper of sheep (\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2). Each\noffers to Yahwe the sacrifice appropriate to his calling; but only\nthe shepherd\u2019s offering is accepted, and Cain is filled with morose\njealousy and hatred of Abel (\u00b3\u207b\u2075). Though warned by Yahwe (\u2076 \u1da0\u1427), he\nyields to his evil passion and slays his brother (\u2078). Yahwe pronounces\nhim accursed from the fertile ground, which will no longer yield\nits substance to him, and he is condemned to the wandering life of\nthe desert (\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b9\u00b2). As a mitigation of his lot, Yahwe appoints him a\nsign which protects him from indiscriminate vengeance (\u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1427); and he\ndeparts into the land of Nod, east of Eden (\u00b9\u2076).\n\n=1\u20125. Birth of Cain and Abel: their occupation, and sacrifice.=\u2015\u2015=1.=\nOn the naming of the child by the _mother_, see Benzinger, _Hebr\u00e4ische\nArch\u00e4ologie_\u00b2 116. It is peculiar to the oldest strata (Yahwist and\nElohist) of the Hexateuch, and is not quite consistently observed even\nthere (4\u00b2\u2076 5\u00b2\u2079 25\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427, Exodus 2\u00b2\u00b2): it may therefore be a relic of the\nmatriarchate which was giving place to the later custom of naming by\nthe father (Priestly-Code) at the time when these traditions were\ntaking shape.\u2015\u2015The difficult sentence \u05e7\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05d9\u05b7\u05d4\u05b0\u05d5\u05b6\u05d4\u200e connects the name \u05e7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05df\u200e\nwith the verb \u05e7\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e. But \u05e7\u05e0\u05d4\u200e has two meanings in Hebrew: (a) to (create,\nor) produce, and (b) to acquire; and it is not easy to determine which\nis intended here.\n\n The second idea would seem more suitable in the present\n connexion, but it leads to a forced and doubtful construction\n of the last two words, (a) To render \u05d0\u05b5\u05ea\u200e \u2018with the help of\u2019\n (Dillmann and most) is against all analogy. It is admitted\n that \u05d0\u05ea\u200e itself nowhere has this sense (in 49\u00b2\u2075 the true reading\n is \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e, and Micah 3\u2078 is at least doubtful); and the few cases\n in which the synonym \u05e2\u05b4\u05dd\u200e can be so translated are not really\n parallel. Both in 1 Samuel 14\u2074\u2075 and Daniel 11\u00b3\u2079, the \u05e2\u05dd\u200e denotes\n association _in the same act_, and therefore does not go beyond\n the sense \u2018along with.\u2019 The analogy does not hold in this verse\n if the verb means \u2018acquire\u2019; Eve could not say that she had\n _acquired_ a man along with Yahwe. (b) We may, of course, assume\n an error in the text and read \u05de\u05b5\u05d0\u05b5\u05ea\u200e = \u2018from\u2019 (Budde al. after\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2). (c) The idea that \u05d0\u05ea\u200e is the sign of accusative\n (Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, al.), and that Eve imagined she had given\n birth to the divine \u2018seed\u2019 promised in 3\u00b9\u2075 (Luther, al.) may be\n disregarded as a piece of antiquated dogmatic exegesis.\u2015\u2015If we\n adopt the other meaning of \u05e7\u05e0\u05d4\u200e, the construction is perfectly\n natural: _I have created_ (or _produced_) _a man with_ (the\n co-operation of) _Yahwe_ (compare Rashi: \u201cWhen he created me\n and my husband he created us alone, but in this case we are\n associated with him\u201d). A strikingly similar phrase in the\n bilingual Babylonian account of Creation (above, page 47)\n suggests that the language here may be more deeply tinged with\n mythology than has been generally suspected. We read that \u201cAruru,\n together with him [Marduk], created (the) seed of mankind\u201d:\n _Aruru z\u00ed-\u00edr a-m\u00ed-lu-ti it-ti-\u0161u ib-ta-nu_ (_Keilinschriftliche\n Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 40 f.; King, _The Seven Tablets of Creation_\n i. 134 f.). Aruru, a form of I\u0161tar, is a mother-goddess of the\n Babylonians (see _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3,\n 430), _i.e._, a deified ancestress, and therefore so far the\n counterpart of the Hebrew \u05d7\u05b7\u05d5\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e (see on 3\u00b2\u2070). The exclamation\n certainly gains in significance if we suppose it to have\n survived from a more mythological phase of tradition, in which\n \u1e24awwah was not a mortal wife and mother, but a creative deity\n taking part with the supreme god in the production of man.\n See Cheyne, _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 104,\n who thinks it \u201cpsychologically probable that Eve congratulated\n herself on having \u2018created\u2019 a man.\u201d\u2015\u2015That \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u200e is not elsewhere\n used of a man-child is not a serious objection to any\n interpretation (compare \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05e8\u200e in Job 3\u00b3); though the thought\n readily occurs that the etymology would be more appropriate to\n the name \u05d0\u05b1\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u05e9\u05c1\u200e (4\u00b2\u2076) than to \u05e7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05df\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05d5\u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d9\u05d3\u05e2\u200e] A pluperfect sense (Rashi) being unsuitable,\n the peculiar order of words is difficult to explain; see on\n 3\u00b9, and compare 21\u00b9. Stade (_Ausgew\u00e4hlte akademische Reden\n und Abhandlungen_ 239) regards it as a proof of editorial\n manipulation.\u2015\u2015The euphemistic use of \u05d9\u05d3\u05e2\u200e is peculiar to Yahwist\n in the Hexateuch (7 times): Numbers 31\u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2078\u1427 \u00b3\u2075 (Priestly-Code:\n compare Judges 21\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2) are somewhat different. Elsewhere\n Judges 11\u00b3\u2079 19\u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2075, 1 Samuel 1\u00b9\u2079, 1 Kings 1\u2074,\u2015\u2015all in the\n older historiography, and some perhaps from the literary school\n of Yahwist.\u2015\u2015\u05e7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05df\u200e] \u221a \u05e7\u05d9\u05df\u200e (Arabic _\u1e33\u0101na_). In Arabic _\u1e33ain_ means\n \u2018smith\u2019; = Syrian (\u2021 Syriac word), \u2018worker in metal\u2019 (see 4\u00b2\u00b2\n 5\u2079). N\u00f6ldeke\u2019s remark, that in Arabic _\u1e33ain_ several words are\n combined, is perhaps equally true of Hebrew \u05e7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05df\u200e (_Encyclop\u00e6dia\n Biblica_, 130). Many critics (Wellhausen, Budde, Stade,\n Holzinger, al.) take the name as eponym of the \u1e32enites (\u05e7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05df\u200e, \u05e7\u05b7\u05d9\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e):\n see page 113 below.\u2015\u2015\u05e7\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] All versions express the idea of\n \u2018acquiring\u2019 (\u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd, _possedi_, etc.). The sense \u2018create\u2019\n or \u2018originate,\u2019 though apparently confined to Hebrew and\n subordinate even there, is established by Deuteronomy 32\u2076,\n Proverbs 8\u00b2\u00b2, Psalms 139\u00b9\u00b3, Genesis 14\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05ea\u200e] Of the\n versions Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 alone can be thought to have read \u05de\u05b5\u05d0\u05b5\u05ea\u200e\n\u200e (\u05de\u05df \u05e7\u05d3\u05dd\u200e); one anonymous Greek translation (see Field) took the\n word as _notional accusative_ (\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd); the rest vary\n greatly in rendering (as was to be expected from the difficulty\n of the phrase), but there is no reason to suppose they had\n a different text: LXX \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, Symmachus \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03ba., \u1f41 \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1.\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a3\u03cd\u03c1.: \u1f10\u03bd \u03b8., Vulgate _per Deum_, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word).\n Conjectures: Marti (_Lit. Centralbl._, 1897, xx. 641) and\n Zeydner (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,\n xviii. 120): \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d0\u05b9\u05ea \u05d9\u05b7\u05d4\u05b0\u05d5\u05b6\u05d4\u200e = \u2018the man of the Jahwe sign\u2019 (verse \u00b9\u2075);\n Gunkel \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d0\u05b8\u05ea\u05b0\u05d0\u05b7\u05d5\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4\u200e = \u2018man whom I desire.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\n=2.= _And again she bare, etc._] The omission of the verb \u05d4\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e is not to\nbe pressed as implying that the brothers were twins, although that may\nvery well be the meaning. The Old Testament contains no certain trace\nof the widespread superstitions regarding twin-births.\u2015\u2015The sons betake\nthemselves to the two fundamental pursuits of settled life: the elder\nto agriculture, the younger to the rearing of small cattle (sheep and\ngoats). The previous story of the Fall, in which Adam, as representing\nthe race, is condemned to husbandry, seems to be ignored (Gunkel).\n\n The absence of an etymology of \u05d4\u05b6\u05d1\u05b6\u05dc\u200e is remarkable (but compare\n verse \u00b9\u2077), and hardly to be accounted for by the supposition\n that the name was only coined afterwards in token of his brief,\n fleeting existence (Dillmann). The word (= \u2018breath\u2019) might\n suggest that to a Hebrew reader, but the original sense is\n unknown. Gunkel regards it as the proper name of an extinct\n tribe or people; Ewald, Wellhausen, al. take it to be a variant\n of \u05d9\u05b8\u05d1\u05b8\u05dc\u200e, the father of nomadic shepherds (4\u00b2\u2070); and Cheyne has\n ingeniously combined both names with a group of Semitic words\n denoting domestic animals and those who take charge of them\n (_e.g._ Syrian (\u2021 Syriac word) = \u2018herd\u2019; Arabic _\u2019abb\u0101l_ =\n \u2018camel-herd,\u2019 etc.): the meaning would then be \u2018herdsman\u2019\n (_Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, i. 6). The conjecture is retracted in\n _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, in the interests of\n Yera\u1e25me\u2019el.\n\n=3.= _An offering_] \u05de\u05b4\u05e0\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, literally a present or tribute (32\u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 33\u00b9\u2070\n43\u00b9\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, 1 Samuel 10\u00b2\u2077 etc.): see below. The use of this word shows\nthat the \u2018gift-theory\u2019 of sacrifice (_Lectures on the Religion of the\nSemites_\u00b2, 392 ff.) was fully established in the age when the narrative\noriginated.\u2015\u2015_of the fruit of the ground_] \u201cFruit in its natural state\nwas offered at Carthage, and was probably admitted by the Hebrews in\nancient times.\u201d \u201cThe Carthaginian fruit-offering consisted of a branch\nbearing fruit, ... it seems to be clear that the fruit was offered at\nthe altar, ... and this, no doubt, is the original sense of the Hebrew\nrite also\u201d (_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_\u00b2, 221 and _note_\n3). Cain\u2019s offering is thus analogous to the first-fruits (\u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e:\nExodus 23\u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2079 34\u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2076, Numbers 13\u00b2\u2070 etc.) of Hebrew ritual; and it\nis arbitrary to suppose that his fault lay in not selecting the best of\nwhat he had for God.\u2015\u2015=4.= Abel\u2019s offering consisted of _the firstlings\nof his flock, namely_ (see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 154 _a_, _N._ 1 (_b_))\n_of their fat-pieces_] compare Numbers 18\u00b9\u2077. Certain fat portions of\nthe victim were in ancient ritual reserved for the deity, and might not\nbe eaten (1 Samuel 2\u00b9\u2076 etc.: for Levitical details, see Driver-White,\n_Leviticus_, _Polychrome Bible_, pages 4, 65).\u2015\u2015=4b, 5a.= How did Yahwe\nsignify His acceptance of the one offering and rejection of the other?\nIt is commonly answered (in accordance with Leviticus 9\u00b2\u2074, 1 Kings 18\u00b3\u2078\netc.), that fire descended from heaven and consumed Abel\u2019s offering\n(Theodotion, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Delitzsch, al.). Others (Dillmann,\nGunkel) think more vaguely of some technical sign, _e.g._ the manner\nin which the smoke ascended (Ewald, Strack); while Calvin supposes that\nCain inferred the truth from the subsequent course of God\u2019s providence.\nBut these conjectures overlook the strong anthropomorphism of the\ndescription: one might as well ask how Adam knew that he was expelled\nfrom the garden (3\u00b2\u2074). Perhaps the likeliest analogy is the acceptance\nof Gideon\u2019s sacrifice by the Angel of Yahwe (Judges 6\u00b2\u00b9).\u2015\u2015_Why_ was\nthe one sacrifice accepted and not the other? The distinction must\nlie either (a) in the disposition of the brothers (so nearly all\ncommmentaries), or (b) in the material of the sacrifice (Tuch). In\nfavour of (a) it is pointed out that in each case the personality\nof the worshipper is mentioned before the gift. But since the reason\nis not stated, it must be presumed to be one which the first hearers\nwould understand for themselves; and they could hardly understand that\nCain, apart from his occupation and sacrifice, was less acceptable\nto God than Abel. On the other hand, they would readily perceive that\nthe material of Cain\u2019s offering was not in accordance with primitive\nSemitic ideas of sacrifice (see _Lectures on the Religion of the\nSemites_\u00b2, Lecture VIII.).\n\n From the fact that the altar is not expressly mentioned, it\n has been inferred that sacrifice is here regarded as belonging\n to the established order of things (Stade al.). But the whole\n manner of the narration suggests rather that the incident is\n conceived as the initiation of sacrifice,\u2015\u2015the first spontaneous\n expression of religious feeling in cultus.\u00b9 If that impression\n be sound, it follows also that the narrative proceeds on a\n _theory_ of sacrifice: the idea, viz., that animal sacrifice\n alone is acceptable to Yahwe. It is true that we cannot go\n back to a stage of Hebrew ritual when vegetable offerings were\n excluded; but such sacrifices must have been introduced after\n the adoption of agricultural life; and it is quite conceivable\n that in the early days of the settlement in Canaan the view was\n maintained among the Israelites that the animal offerings of\n their nomadic religion were superior to the vegetable offerings\n made to the Canaanite Baals. Behind this may lie (as Gunkel\n thinks) the idea that pastoral life as a whole is more pleasing\n to Yahwe than husbandry.\n\n \u00b9 It may be a mere coincidence that in Philo Byblius the\n institution of animal sacrifice occurs in a legend of\n two brothers who quarrelled (_Pr\u00e6paratio Evangelica_\n i. 10). Kittel (_Studien zur hebr\u00e4ischen Arch\u00e4ologie und\n Religionsgeschichte_ 103\u00b9) suggests that our narrative\n may go back to a time prior to the introduction of the\n fire-offering and the altar.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =3.= \u05de\u05e7\u05e5 \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] _After some time_, which may be longer (1 Samuel 29\u00b3)\n or shorter (24\u2075\u2075). To take \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e in the definite sense of \u2018year\u2019\n (1 Samuel 1\u00b2\u00b9 2\u00b9\u2079 20\u2076 etc.) is unnecessary, though not altogether\n unnatural (Abraham Ibn Ezra al.).\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b5\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05d0\u200e] the ritual use is well\n established: Leviticus 2\u00b2\u1427 \u2078, Isaiah 1\u00b9\u00b3, Jeremiah 17\u00b2\u2076 etc.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b4\u05e0\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e:\n Arabic _min\u1e25at_ = \u2018gift,\u2019 \u2018loan\u2019: \u221a _mana\u1e25a._\u00b9 On the uses of\n the word, see Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 587b.\n In sacrificial terminology there are perhaps three senses to be\n distinguished: (1) Sacrifice in general, conceived as a tribute\n or propitiatory present to the deity, Numbers 16\u00b9\u2075, Judges 6\u00b9\u2078,\n 1 Samuel 2\u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u2079 26\u00b9\u2079, Isaiah 1\u00b9\u00b3, Zephaniah 3\u00b9\u2070, Psalms 96\u2078 etc.\n (2) The conjunction of \u05de\u05e0\u05d7\u05d4\u200e and \u05d6\u05b6\u05d1\u05b7\u05d7\u200e 1 Samuel 2\u00b2\u2079 3\u00b9\u2074, Isaiah 19\u00b2\u00b9,\n Amos 5\u00b2\u2075 etc.) may show that it denotes vegetable as distinct\n from animal oblations (see _Lectures on the Religion of the\n Semites_\u00b2, 217, 236). (3) In Priestly-Code and late writings\n generally it is restricted to cereal offerings: Exodus 30\u2079,\n Numbers 18\u2079 etc. Whether the wider or the more restricted\n meaning be the older it is difficult to say.\u2015\u2015=4.= \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b5\u05bd\u05d7\u05b6\u05dc\u05b0\u05d1\u05b5\u05bf\u05d4\u05b6\u05df\u200e]\n On Metheg, see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 16 _d_. We might point as\n singular of the noun (\u05d7\u05b6\u05dc\u05b0\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d4\u05b6\u05df\u200e, Leviticus 8\u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2075; Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 91 _c_); but _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_\n has _scriptio plena_ of the plural \u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05dc\u05d1\u05d9\u05d4\u05df\u200e\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05e2\u200e] LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\n (in verse \u2075 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03bd); Aquila \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03b7; Symmachus \u1f10\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7;\n Theodotion \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd (see above); \u1f41 \u03a3\u03cd\u03c1. \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd; Vulgate\n _respexit_; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word); Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05ea \u05e8\u05e2\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e7\u05d3\u05dd \u05d9\u05d9\u200e.\n There is no _exact_ parallel to the meaning here; the nearest\n is Exodus 5\u2079 (\u2018_look away_ [from their tasks] _to_\u2019 idle\n words).\u2015\u2015=5.= \u05d7\u05e8\u05d4\u200e] in Hebrew always of _mental_ heat (anger);\n LXX wrongly \u1f10\u03bb\u03cd\u03c0\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd; so Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5. On impersonal construct, see\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 144 _b_; compare 18\u00b3\u2070\u1427 \u00b3\u00b2 31\u00b3\u2076 34\u2077, Numbers\n 16\u00b9\u2075 etc. The word is not used by Priestly-Code.\u2015\u2015For \u05e0\u05e4\u05dc\u200e,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 has (\u2021 Syriac word) (literally \u2018became black\u2019).\n\n \u00b9 Some, however, derive it from \u05e0\u05d7\u05d4\u200e = \u2018direct\u2019; and Hommel\n (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the\n Monuments_, 322) cites a Sab\u00e6an inscription where\n _tana\u1e25\u1e25ayat_ (V conjecture) is used of offering a sacrifice\n (see Lagrange, _\u00c9tudes_, 250). If this be correct, what was\n said above about the \u2018gift theory\u2019 would fall to the ground.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=5b.= Cain\u2019s feeling is a mixture of anger (_it became very hot to_\nhim) and dejection (_his face fell_: compare Job 29\u00b2\u2074, Jeremiah 3\u00b9\u00b2).\nThis does not imply that his previous state of mind had been bad\n(Dillmann al.). In tracing Cain\u2019s sin to a disturbance of his religious\nrelation to God, the narrator shows his profound knowledge of the human\nheart.\n\n=6\u201212. Warning, murder, and sentence.=\u2015\u2015=7.= The point of the\nremonstrance obviously is that the cause of Cain\u2019s dissatisfaction\nlies in himself, but whether in his general temper or in his defective\nsacrifice can no longer be made out. Every attempt to extract a meaning\nfrom the verse is more or less of a _tour de force_, and it is nearly\ncertain that the obscurity is due to deep-seated textual corruption\n(_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=8=. _And Cain said_] \u05d0\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05e8\u200e never being quite synonymous with\n\u200e\u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e, the sentence is incomplete: the missing words, _Let us go to the\nfield_, must be supplied from versions; see below (so Ewald, Dillmann,\nDriver, al.). That Cain, as a first step towards reconciliation,\ncommunicated to Abel the warning he had just received (Tuch al.),\nis perhaps possible grammatically, but psychologically is altogether\nimprobable.\u2015\u2015_the field_] the open country (see on 2\u2075), where they were\nsafe from observation (1 Kings 11\u00b2\u2079).\u2015\u2015=9.= Yahwe opens the inquisition,\nas in 3\u2079, with a question, which Cain, unlike Adam, answers with a\ndefiant repudiation of responsibility. It is impossible to doubt that\nhere the writer has the earlier scene before his mind, and consciously\ndepicts a terrible advance in the power of sin.\u2015\u2015=10=. _Hark! Thy\nbrother\u2019s blood is crying to me, etc._] \u05e6\u05b8\u05e2\u05b7\u05e7\u200e denotes strictly the cry\nfor help, and specially for redress or vengeance (Exodus 22\u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2076,\nJudges 4\u00b3, Psalms 107 \u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2078). The idea that blood exposed on the ground\nthus clamours for vengeance is persistently vivid in the Old Testament\n(Job 16\u00b9\u2078, Isaiah 26\u00b2\u00b9, Ezekiel 24\u2077\u1427 \u2078, 2 Kings 9\u00b2\u2076): see _Lectures on\nthe Religion of the Semites_\u00b2, 417\u2075. In this passage we have more than\na mere metaphor, for it is the blood which is represented as drawing\nYahwe\u2019s attention to the crime of Cain.\u2015\u2015=11.= _And now cursed art\nthou from_ (off) _the ground_] _i.e._, not the earth\u2019s surface, but\nthe cultivated ground (compare verse \u00b9\u2074, and see on 2\u2075). To restrict\nit to the soil of Palestine (Wellhausen, Stade, Holzinger) goes beyond\nthe necessities of the case.\u2015\u2015_which has opened her mouth, etc._] a\npersonification of the ground similar to that of Sheol in Isaiah 5\u00b9\u2074\n(compare Numbers 16\u00b3\u00b2). The idea cannot be that the earth is a monster\ngreedy of blood; it seems rather akin to the primitive superstition\nof a physical infection or poisoning of the soil, and through it of\nthe murderer, by the shed blood (see Miss Harrison, _Prolegomena to\nthe study of Greek Religion_, 219 ff.). The ordinary Old Testament\nconception is that the blood remains _uncovered_ (compare Euripides\n_Electra_, 318 f.). The relation of the two notions is obscure.\u2015\u2015=12.=\nThe curse \u2018from off the ground\u2019 has two sides: (1) The ground will _no\nlonger yield its strength_ (Job 31\u00b3\u2079) to the murderer, so that even if\nhe wished he will be unable to resume his husbandry; and (2) he is to\nbe a _vagrant and wanderer in the earth_. The second is the negative\nconsequence of the first, and need not be regarded as a separate curse,\nor a symbol of the inward unrest which springs from a guilty conscience.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =7.= The difficulties of the present text are \u201cthe curt and\n ambiguous expression \u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05d0\u05b5\u05ea\u200e; further, the use of \u05d7\u05b7\u05d8\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05ea\u200e as masculine,\n then the whole tenor of the sentence, _If thou doest not\n well..._; finally, the exact and yet incongruous parallelism of\n the second half-verse with 3\u00b9\u2076\u201d (Olshausen _Monatsberichte der\n K\u00f6niglich-Preussischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin._,\n 1870, 380).\u2015\u2015As regards \u2077\u1d43, the main lines of interpretation are\n these: (1) The infinitive \u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05d0\u05b5\u05ea\u200e may be complementary to \u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05d8\u05d9\u05d1\u200e as a\n _relative_ verb (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 120, 1), in which case \u05e9\u05c2\u05f3\u200e\n must have the sense of \u2018offer\u2019 sacrifice (compare 43\u00b3\u2074, Ezekiel\n 20\u00b3\u00b9). So (a) LXX \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b3\u03ba\u1fc3\u03c2, \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03bb\u1fc3\u03c2,\n \u1f25\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2; \u1f21\u03c3\u03cd\u03c7\u03b1\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd (reading \u05dc\u05b0\u05e0\u05b7\u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u200e for \u05dc\u05b7\u05e4\u05b6\u05bc\u05ea\u05b7\u05d7\u200e, and pointing the next\n two words \u05d7\u05b8\u05d8\u05b8\u05d0\u05ea\u05b8 \u05e8\u05b0\u05d1\u05b7\u05e5\u200e) = \u2018Is it not so\u2015\u2015if thou offerest rightly, but\n dost not cut in pieces rightly, thou hast sinned? Be still!\u2019 Ball\n strangely follows this fantastic rendering, seemingly oblivious\n of the fact that \u05e0\u05b7\u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u200e (compare Exodus 29\u00b9\u2077, Leviticus 1\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2,\n 1 Kings 18\u00b2\u00b3\u1427 \u00b3\u00b3 etc.)\u2015\u2015for which he needlessly substitutes\n\u200e \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e (15\u00b9\u2070)\u2015\u2015has no sense as applied to a fruit-offering.\u2015\u2015(b)\n Somewhat similar is a view approved by Budde as \u201cv\u00f6llig\n befriedigend\u201d (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 204 f.): \u2018Whether\n thou make thine offering costly or not, at the door,\u2019 etc.\n [\u2018Whether thou offerest _correctly_ or not,\u2019 would be the safer\n rendering].\u2015\u2015(2) The infinitive may be taken as compressed\n apodosis, and \u05ea\u05bc\u05f3\u200e as an independent verb = \u2018do well\u2019 (as often). \u200e\n\u200e \u05e9\u05c2\u05f3\u200e might then express the idea of (a) _elevation of countenance_ \u200e\n\u200e (= \u05e9\u05c2\u05f3 \u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e: compare Job 11\u00b9\u2075 22\u00b2\u2076): \u2018If thou doest well, shall there\n not be lifting up?\u2019 etc. (so Tuch, Ewald, Delitzsch, Dillmann,\n Driver, al.); or (b) _acceptance_ (\u05e9\u05c2\u05f3 \u05e4\u05f3\u200e as Genesis 19\u00b2\u00b9, 2 Kings\n 3\u00b9\u2074, Malachi 1\u2078\u1427 \u2079): so Aquila (\u1f00\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2), Theodotion (\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd),\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word), Vulgate (_recipies_); or (c)\n _forgiveness_ (as Genesis 50\u00b9\u2077, Exodus 32\u00b3\u00b2): so Symmachus\n (\u1f00\u03c6\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9), Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2, Jerome, and recently Holzinger. Of these\n renderings 2 (a) or 1 (b) are perhaps the most satisfying, though\n both are cumbered with the unnatural metaphor of sin as a wild\n beast couching at the door (of what?), and the harsh discord of\n gender. The latter is not fairly to be got rid of by taking \u05e8\u05b9\u05d1\u05b5\u05e5\u200e\n as a noun (\u2018sin is at the door, a lurker\u2019: Ewald al.), though\n no doubt it might be removed by a change of text. Of the image\n itself the best explanation would be that of Holzinger, who\n regards \u05e8\u05b8\u05d1\u05b7\u05e5\u200e as a technical expression for unforgiven sin (compare\n Deuteronomy 29\u00b9\u2079). Jewish interpreters explain it of the evil\n impulse in man (\u05d9\u05b5\u05e6\u05b6\u05e8 \u05d4\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05e2\u200e), and most Christians similarly of the\n overmastering or seductive power of sin; \u2077\u1d47 being regarded as a\n summons to Cain to subdue his evil passions.\u2015\u2015=7b= reads smoothly\n enough by itself, but connects badly with what precedes. The\n antecedent to the pronoun suffix is usually taken to be Sin\n personified as a wild beast, or less commonly (Calvin al.) Abel,\n the object of Cain\u2019s envy. The word \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e is equally unsuitable,\n whether it be understood of the wild beast\u2019s eagerness for its\n prey or the deference due from a younger brother to an older;\n and the alternative \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e of LXX and Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (see on 3\u00b9\u2076) is no\n better. The verbal resemblance to 3\u00b9\u2076\u1d47 is itself suspicious;\n a facetious parody of the language of a predecessor is not\n to be attributed to any early writer. It is more likely that\n the erroneous words were afterwards adjusted to their present\n context: in Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 the suffix are actually reversed (\u2021 Syriac\n phrase).\u2015\u2015The paraphrase of Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 affords no help,\n and the textual confusion is probably irremediable; tentative\n emendations like those of Gunkel (page 38) are of no avail.\n Cheyne _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 105, would\n remove verse \u2077 as a gloss, and make \u2078\u1d43 (reading \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u200e) Cain\u2019s\n answer to verse \u2076.\n\n\u200e =8.= \u05d0\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05e8\u200e, in the sense of \u2018speak,\u2019 \u2018converse\u2019 (2 Chronicles 32\u00b2\u2074),\n is excessively rare and late: the only instance in early Hebrew\n is apparently Exodus 19\u00b2\u2075, where the context has been broken by\n a change of document. It might mean \u2018mention\u2019 (as 43\u00b2\u2077 etc.),\n but in that case the object must be indicated. Usually it is\n followed, like English \u2018say,\u2019 by the actual words spoken. Hence\n\u200e \u05e0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d4\u05b7\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c2\u05d3\u05b6\u05d4\u200e is to be supplied with _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Vulgate, but _not_ Aquila (Tuch,\n Delitzsch: see the scholia in Field): a _Pisqa_ in some Hebrew\n MSS, though not recognised by the Massoretic, supports this\n view of the text. To emend \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b9\u05e8\u200e (Olshausen al.) or \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05b6\u05e8\u200e, \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b5\u05bc\u05de\u05b7\u05e8\u200e\n (Gesenius-Kautzsch) is less satisfactory.\u2015\u2015=9.= \u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d0\u05b7\u05d9\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015=10.= On the interjectional\n use of \u05e7\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u200e, see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 146 _b_; N\u00f6ldeke _Mand\u00e4ische\n Grammatik_ page 482.\u2015\u2015\u05e6\u05b9\u05e2\u05b2\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ \u05e6\u05e2\u05e7\u200e, agreeing with \u05e7\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u200e (?).\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8 ... \u05de\u05b4\u05df\u200e] pregnant\n construct, Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 119 _x, y, ff._ This sense of \u05de\u05b4\u05df\u200e\n is more accurately expressed by \u05de\u05b5\u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u200e in verse \u00b9\u2074, but is quite\n common (compare especially 27\u00b3\u2079). Other renderings, as _from_\n (indicating the direction from which the curse comes) or\n _by_, are less appropriate; and the comparison _more than_ is\n impossible.\u2015\u2015=12.= \u05ea\u05b9\u05e1\u05b5\u05e3\u200e] jussive form with \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0\u200e (Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 109 _d_, _h_; Davidson \u00a7\u00a7 63, _R._ 3, 66, _R._ 6); followed\n by infinitive without \u05dc\u200e (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 114 _m_).\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05b8\u05e2 \u05d5\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05d3\u200e]\n an alliteration, as in 1\u00b2. Best rendered in anonymous Greek\n versions (Field): \u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd; Vulgate _vagus\n et profugus_; LXX (incorrectly) \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=13\u201216. Mitigation of Cain\u2019s punishment.=\u2015\u2015=13.= _My punishment is\ntoo great to be borne_] So the plea of Cain is understood by all\nmodern authorities. The older rendering: _my guilt is too great to be\nforgiven_ (which is in some ways preferable), is abandoned because the\nsequel shows that Cain\u2019s reflexions run on the thought of suffering\nand not of sin; see below.\u2015\u2015=14=. _from Thy face I shall be hidden_]\nThis anguished cry of Cain has received scant sympathy at the hands\nof commentaries (except Gunkel). Like that of Esau in 27\u00b3\u2074, it reveals\nhim as one who had blindly striven for a spiritual good,\u2015\u2015as a man\nnot wholly bad who had sought the favour of God with the passionate\ndetermination of an ill-regulated nature and missed it: one to whom\nbanishment from the divine presence is a distinct ingredient in his\ncup of misery.\u2015\u2015_every one that findeth me, etc._] The object of Cain\u2019s\ndread is hardly the vengeance of the slain man\u2019s kinsmen (so nearly all\ncommentaries); but rather the lawless state of things in the desert,\nwhere any one\u2019s life may be taken with impunity (Gunkel). That the\nwords imply a diffusion of the human race is an incongruity on either\nview, and is one of many indications that the Cain of the original\nstory was not the son of the first man.\n\n This expostulation of Cain, with its rapid grasp of the\n situation, lights up some aspects of the historic background of\n the legend. (1) It is assumed that Yahwe\u2019s presence is confined\n to the cultivated land; in other words, that He is the God of\n settled life, agricultural and pastoral. To conclude, however,\n that He is the God of Canaan in particular (compare 1 Samuel\n 26\u00b9\u2079), is perhaps an over-hasty inference. (2) The reign of\n right is coextensive with Yahwe\u2019s sphere of influence: the outer\n desert is the abode of lawlessness; justice does not exist, and\n human life is cheap. That Cain, the convicted murderer, should\n use this plea will not appear strange if we remember the\n conditions under which such narratives arose.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =13.= On \u05e2\u05b8\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e (\u221a _\u0121awa\u02b8_ = \u2018go astray\u2019: Driver _Notes on\n the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_ 134 f.) in the\n sense of _punishment_ of sin, see the passages cited in\n Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ 3. \u05e0\u05e9\u05d0 \u05e2\u05f3\u200e, in the sense of \u2018bear\n guilt,\u2019 seems peculiar to Priestly-Code and Ezekiel; elsewhere\n it means to \u2018pardon iniquity\u2019 (Exodus 34\u2077, Numbers 14\u00b9\u2078, Hosea\n 14\u00b3, Micah 7\u00b9\u2078, Psalms 32\u2075). This consideration is not decisive;\n but there is something to be said for the consensus of ancient\n versions (LXX \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9; Vulgate _veniam merear_, etc.) in favour\n of the second interpretation, which might be retained without\n detriment to the sense if the sentence could be read as a\n question.\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] instead of suffix is unlike Yahwist. In the\n next verse \u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u05d5\u05b9\u200e after infinitive was necessary to avoid confusion\n between subject and object.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=15.= What follows must be understood as a divinely appointed\namelioration of Cain\u2019s lot: although he is not restored to\nthe amenities of civilised life, Yahwe grants him a special\nprotection, suited to his vagrant existence, against indiscriminate\nhomicide.\u2015\u2015_Whoso kills \u1e32ayin_ (or \u2018whenever any one kills \u1e32\u2019), _it_\n(the murder) _shall be avenged sevenfold_] by the slaughter of seven\nmembers of the murderer\u2019s clan. See below.\u2015\u2015_appointed a sign for\n\u1e32ayin_] or _set a mark on \u1e32_. The former is the more obvious rendering\nof the words; but the latter has analogies, and is demanded by the\ncontext.\n\n The idea that the sign is a pledge given once for all of the\n truth of Yahwe\u2019s promise, after the analogy of the prophetic\n\u200e \u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u200e, is certainly consistent with the phrase \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd ... \u05dc\u05b0\u200e: compare\n _e.g._ Exodus 15\u00b2\u2075, Joshua 24\u00b2\u2075 with Exodus 10\u00b2 etc. So some\n authorities in _Bereshith Rabba_, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Tuch, al.\n But Exodus 4\u00b9\u00b9\u1d43 proves that it may also be something attached\n to the person of Cain (Calvin, _Bereshith Rabba_, Delitzsch, and\n most); and that \u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u200e may denote a mark appears from Exodus 13\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2076\n etc. Since the sign is to serve as a warning to all and sundry\n who might attempt the life of Cain, it is obvious that the\n second view alone meets the requirements of the case: we must\n think of something about Cain, visible to all the world, marking\n him out as one whose death would be avenged sevenfold. Its\n purpose is protective and not penal: that it brands him as a\n murderer is a natural but mistaken idea.\u2015\u2015It is to be observed\n that in this part of the narrative _\u1e32ayin_ is no longer a\n personal but a collective name. The clause \u05db\u05b8\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05b9\u05e8\u05b5\u05d2 \u05e7\u05f3\u200e (not \u05de\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d9\u05b7\u05bd\u05d4\u05b2\u05e8\u05b9\u05d2\u200e, or\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05f3\u200e) has frequentative force (examples below), implying that the\n act might be repeated many times on members of the tribe \u1e32ayin:\n similarly the sevenfold vengeance assumes a kin-circle to which\n the murderer belongs. See, further, page 112.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =15.= \u05dc\u05b8\u05db\u05b5\u05df\u200e] \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 (LXX, Symmachus, Theodotion) implies \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 \u05db\u05b5\u05df\u200e:\n so Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Vulgate; but this would require to be followed by\n\u200e \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05b9\u05e8\u05b5\u05d2 \u05e7\u05f3\u200e] see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 116 _w_; compare Exodus 12\u00b9\u2075,\n Numbers 35\u00b3\u2070, 1 Samuel 2\u00b9\u00b3 3\u00b9\u00b9 etc.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05bb\u05e7\u05b7\u05bc\u05ddh] The subject might be\n\u200e \u05e7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05df\u200e (as verse \u00b2\u2074) or (more probably) impersonal (Exodus 21\u00b2\u00b9),\n certainly not the murderer of Cain.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d1\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05ea\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e] = \u20187 times\u2019:\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 134 _r_. Versions: LXX \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9; Aquila \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9; Symmachus \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9; Theodotion \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9; Vulgate\n _septuplum punietur_; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac phrase); Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\n\u200e \u05dc\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05d0 \u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d9\u05ea\u05e4\u05e8\u05e2 \u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\u200e (hence the idea that Cain was killed by Lamech\n the 7th from Adam [see on verse \u00b2\u2074]).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=16.= _and dwelt in the land of N\u00f4d_] The verb \u05d9\u05b8\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d1\u200e is not necessarily\ninconsistent with nomadic life, as Stade alleges (see Genesis\n13\u00b9\u00b2, 1 Chronicles 5\u00b9\u2070 etc.). It is uncertain whether the name \u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u05d3\u200e is\ntraditional (Wellhausen, Gunkel), or was coined from the participle\n\u200e\u05e0\u05b8\u05d3\u200e = \u2018land of wandering\u2019 (so most); at all events it cannot be\ngeographically identified. If the last words \u05e7\u05d3\u05de\u05ea \u05e2\u05d3\u05df\u200e belong to\nthe original narrative, it would be natural to regard \u1e32ayin as\nrepresentative of the nomads of Central Asia (Knobel al.); but the\nphrase may have been added by a redactor to bring the episode into\nconnexion with the account of the Fall.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =16.= \u05e0\u05d5\u05d3\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05e0\u05d3\u200e, LXX \u039d\u03b1\u03ca\u03b4\n\u200e (\u05e0\u05d9\u05d3\u200e ?) with variants (see Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_,\n page 9).\u2015\u2015Symmachus, Theodotion, Vulgate (_habitavit profugus in\n terra_) [Targum?] take the word as a participle; but the order\n of words forbids this.\u2015\u2015\u05e7\u05d3\u05de\u05ea\u200e] see on 2\u00b9\u2074. \u2018In front of Eden\u2019 and\n \u2018East of Eden\u2019 would here be the same thing (3\u00b2\u2074).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n _The Origin of the Cain Legend._\n\n The exposition of 4\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2076 would be incomplete without some account\n of recent speculations regarding the historical or ethnological\n situation out of which the legend arose. The tendency of opinion\n has been to affirm with increasing distinctness the view that\n the narrative \u201cembodies the old Hebrew conception of the lawless\n nomad life, where only the blood-feud prevents the wanderer\n in the desert from falling a victim to the first man who meets\n him.\u201d\u00b9 A subordinate point, on which undue stress is commonly\n laid, is the identity of Cain with the nomadic tribe of the\n \u1e32enites. These ideas, first propounded by Ewald,\u00b2 adopted by\n Wellhausen,\u00b3 and (in part) by William Robertson Smith,\u2074 have\n been worked up by Stade, in his instructive essay on \u2018The sign\n of Cain,\u2019\u2075 into a complete theory, in which what may be called\n the nomadic motive is treated as the clue to the significance\n of every characteristic feature of the popular legend lying at\n the basis of the narrative. Although the questions involved are\n too numerous to be fully dealt with here, it is necessary to\n consider those points in the argument which bear more directly\n on the original meaning of verses \u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2076.\n\n \u00b9 Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_\u00b2, 251.\n\n \u00b2 _Jahrb\u00fccher der biblischen Wissenschaft_, vi. 5 ff.\n\n \u00b3 _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher\n des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 10 f.\n\n \u2074 _l.c._\n\n \u2075 _Ausgew\u00e4hlte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_, 229\u201273.\n\n 1. That the figure of Cain represents some phase of nomadic\n life may be regarded as certain. We have seen (page 110) that\n in verse \u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 the name Cain has a collective sense; and every\n descriptive touch in these closing verses is characteristic\n of desert life. His expulsion from the \u05d0\u05d3\u05de\u05d4\u200e and the phrase \u05e0\u05e2 \u05d5\u05e0\u05d3\u200e,\n express (though not by any means necessarily,\u2015\u2015see below) the\n fundamental fact that his descendants are doomed to wander\n in the uncultivated regions beyond the pale of civilisation.\n The vengeance which protects him is the self-acting law of\n blood-revenge,\u2015\u2015that \u2018salutary institution\u2019 which, in the opinion\n of Burckhardt, has done more than anything else to preserve\n the Bedouin tribes from mutual extermination.\u00b9 The sign which\n Yahwe puts on him is most naturally explained as the \u201c_shar\u1e6d_\n or tribal mark which every man bore in his person, and without\n which the ancient form of blood-feud, as the affair of a whole\n stock and not of near relations alone, could hardly have been\n worked.\u201d\u00b2 And the fact that this kind of existence is traced to\n the operation of a hereditary curse embodies the feeling of a\n settled agricultural or pastoral community with regard to the\n turbulent and poverty-stricken life of the desert.\n\n \u00b9 _Bedouins and Wahabys_, 148.\u2015\u2015The meaning is that the\n certainty of retaliation acts as a check on the warlike\n tribesmen, and renders their fiercest conflicts nearly\n bloodless.\n\n \u00b2 Smith, _l.c._\u2015\u2015It may be explained that at present the\n kindred group for the purpose of the blood-feud consists\n of all those whose lineage goes back to a common ancestor\n in the fifth generation. There are still certain tribes,\n however, who are greatly feared because they are said to\n \u2018strike sideways\u2019; _i.e._ they retaliate upon any member\n of the murderer\u2019s tribe whether innocent or guilty. See\n Burckhardt 149 ff., 320 f.\n\n 2. While this is true, the narrative cannot be regarded as\n expressing reprobation of every form of nomadism known to the\n Hebrews. A disparaging estimate of Bedouin life as a whole is,\n no doubt, conceivable on the part of the settled Israelites\n (compare Genesis 16\u00b9\u00b2); but Cain is hardly the symbol of that\n estimate. (1) The ordinary Bedouin could not be described as\n \u2018fugitives and vagabonds in the earth\u2019: their movements are\n restricted to definite areas of the desert, and are hardly less\n monotonous than the routine of husbandry.\u00b9 (2) The full Bedouin\n are breeders of camels, the half-nomads of sheep and goats; and\n both live mainly on the produce of their flocks and herds (see\n Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 303 ff.). But to\n suppose Cain to exemplify the latter mode of life is inconsistent\n with the narrative, for sheep-rearing is the distinctive\n profession of Abel; and it is hardly conceivable that Hebrew\n legend was so ignorant of the proud spirit of the full Bedouin\n as to describe them as degraded agriculturists. If Cain be the\n type of any permanent occupation at all, it must be one lower\n than agriculture and pasturage; _i.e._ he must stand for some of\n those rude tribes which subsist by hunting or robbery. (3) It is\n unlikely that a rule of sevenfold revenge was generally observed\n amongst Semitic nomads in Old Testament times. Among the modern\n Arabs the law of the blood-feud is a life for a life: it is\n only under circumstances of extreme provocation that a twofold\n revenge is permissible. We are, therefore, led to think of Cain\n as the impersonation of an inferior race of nomads, maintaining\n a miserable existence by the chase, and practising a peculiarly\n ferocious form of blood-feud.\u2015\u2015The view thus suggested of the\n fate of Cain finds a partial illustration in the picture given\n by Burckhardt and Doughty of a group of low-caste tribes called\n Solubba or Sleyb. These people live partly by hunting, partly by\n coarse smith-work and other gipsy labour in the Arab encampments;\n they are forbidden by their patriarch to be cattle-keepers,\n and have no property save a few asses; they are excluded from\n fellowship and intermarriage with the regular Bedouin, though on\n friendly terms with them; and they are the only tribes that are\n free of the Arabian deserts to travel where they will, ranging\n practically over the whole peninsula from Syria to Yemen. It\n is, perhaps, of less significance that they sometimes speak of\n themselves as decayed Bedouin, and point out the ruins of the\n villages where their ancestors dwelt as owners of camels and\n flocks.\u00b2 The name \u05e7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05df\u200e, signifying \u2018smith\u2019 (page 102), would be a\n suitable eponym for such degraded nomads. The one point in which\n the analogy absolutely fails is that tribes so circumstanced\n could not afford to practise the stringent rule of blood-revenge\n indicated by verse \u00b9\u2075.\u2015\u2015It thus appears that the known conditions\n of Arabian nomadism present no exact parallel to the figure of\n Cain. To carry back the origin of the legend to pre-historic\n times would destroy the _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_ of Stade\u2019s hypothesis,\n which seeks to deduce everything from definite historical\n relations: at the same time it may be the only course by which\n the theory can be freed from certain inconsistencies with which\n it is encumbered.\u00b3\n\n \u00b9 N\u00f6ldeke _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 130.\n\n \u00b2 Burckhardt 14 f.; Doughty, _Arabia Deserta_, i. 280 ff.\n\n \u00b3 An interesting parallel might be found in the account given\n by Merker (_Die Masai_, page 306 ff.) of the smiths (_ol\n kononi_) among the Masai of East Africa. Apart from the\n question of the origin of the Masai, it is quite possible\n that these African nomads present a truer picture of the\n conditions of primitive Semitic life than the Arabs of the\n present day. See also Andree, _Ethnographische Parallelen\n und Vergleiche_ (1878), 156 ff.\n\n 3. The kernel of Stade\u2019s argument is the attractive combination\n of Cain the fratricide with the eponymous ancestor of the\n \u1e32enites.\u00b9 In historical times the \u1e32enites appear to have been\n pastoral nomads (Exodus 2\u00b9\u2076 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 3\u00b9) frequenting the deserts south\n of Judah (1 Samuel 27\u00b9\u2070 30\u00b2\u2079), and (in some of their branches)\n clinging tenaciously to their ancestral manner of life (Judges\n 4\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2077 5\u00b2\u2074, Jeremiah 35\u2077 compared with 1 Chronicles 2\u2075\u2075). From\n the fact that they are found associated now with Israel (Judges\n 1\u00b9\u2076 etc.), now with Amale\u1e33 (Numbers 24\u00b2\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, 1 Samuel 15\u2076), and\n now with Midian (Numbers 10\u00b2\u2079), Stade infers that they were a\n numerically weak tribe of the second rank; and from the name,\n that they were smiths. The latter character, however, would\n imply that they were pariahs, and of that there is no evidence\n whatever. Nor is there any indication that the \u1e32enites exercised\n a more rigorous blood-feud than other Semites: indeed, it seems\n an inconsistency in Stade\u2019s position that he regards the \u1e32enites\n as at once distinguished by reckless bravery in the vindication\n of the tribal honour, and at the same time too feeble to maintain\n their independence without the aid of stronger tribes. There\n is, in short, nothing to show that the \u1e32enites were anything\n but typical Bedouin; and all the objections to associating Cain\n with the higher levels of nomadism apply with full force to his\n identification with this particular tribe. When we consider,\n further, that the \u1e32enites are nearly everywhere on friendly\n terms with Israel, and that they seem to have cherished the most\n ardent attachment to Yahwism, it becomes almost incredible that\n they should have been conceived as resting under a special curse.\n\n \u00b9 The tribe is called \u05e7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05df\u200e in Numbers 24\u00b2\u00b2, Judges 4\u00b9\u00b9; elsewhere\n the gentilic \u05e7\u05b5\u05d9\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e is used (in 1 Chronicles 2\u2075\u2075 \u05e7\u05b5\u05d9\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e).\n\n 4. It is very doubtful if any form of the nomadic or \u1e32enite\n theory can account for the rise of the legend as a whole. The\n evidence on which it rests is drawn almost exclusively from\n verses \u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2076. Stade justifies his extension of the theory to\n the incident of the murder by the analogy of those temporary\n alliances between Bedouin and peasants in which the settled\n society purchases immunity from extortion by the payment of\n a fixed tribute to the nomads (compare 1 Samuel 25\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427). This\n relation is spoken of as a brotherhood, the tributary party\n figuring as the _sister_ of the Bedouin tribe. The murder of\n Abel is thus resolved into the massacre of a settled pastoral\n people by a Bedouin tribe which had been on terms of formal\n friendship with it. But the analogy is hardly convincing. It\n would amount to this: that certain nomads were punished for a\n crime by being transformed into nomads: the fact that Cain was\n previously a husbandman is left unexplained.\u2015\u2015Gunkel, with more\n consistency, finds in the narrative a vague reminiscence of an\n actual (prehistoric) event,\u2015\u2015the extermination of a pastoral\n tribe by a neighbouring agricultural tribe, in consequence of\n which the latter were driven from their settlements and lived\n as outlaws in the wilderness. Such changes of fortune must\n have been common in early times on the border-land between\n civilisation and savagery;\u00b9 and Gunkel\u2019s view has the advantage\n over Stade\u2019s that it makes a difference of sacrificial ritual\n an intelligible factor in the quarrel (see page 105 f.). But the\n process of extracting history from legend is always precarious;\n and in this case the motive of _individual_ blood-guilt appears\n too prominent to be regarded as a secondary interest of the\n narrative.\n\n \u00b9 Instances in Merker, _Die Masai_, pages 3, 7, 8, 14, 328,\n etc.\n\n The truth is that in the present form of the story the figure of\n Cain represents a fusion of several distinct types, of which it\n is difficult to single out any one as the central idea of the\n legend. (1) He is the originator of agriculture (verse \u00b2). (2)\n He is the founder of sacrifice, and (as the foil to his brother\n Abel) exhibits the idea that vegetable offerings alone are not\n acceptable to Yahwe (see on verse \u00b3). (3) He is the individual\n murderer (or rather shedder of kindred blood) pursued by the\n curse, like the Orestes, Alcm\u00e6on, Bellerophon, etc., of Greek\n legend (verse \u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427). Up to verse \u00b9\u00b2 that motive not only is\n sufficient, but is the only one naturally suggested to the mind:\n the expression \u05e0\u05b8\u05e2 \u05d5\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05d3\u200e being merely the negative aspect of the curse\n which drives him from the ground.\u00b9 (4) Lastly, in verses \u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2076\n he is the representative of the nomad tribes of the desert, as\n viewed from the standpoint of settled and orderly civilisation.\n Ewald pointed out the significant circumstance, that at the\n beginning of the \u2018second age\u2019 of the world\u2019s history we find\n the counterparts of Abel and Cain in the shepherd Jabal and\n the smith Tubal-Cain (verse \u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427). It seems probable that some\n connexion exists between the two pairs of brothers: in other\n words, that the story of Cain and Abel embodies a variation\n of the tradition which assigned the origin of cattle-breeding\n and metal-working to two sons of Lamech. But to resolve the\n composite legend into its primary elements, and assign each to\n its original source, is a task obviously beyond the resources of\n criticism.\n\n \u00b9 For a Semitic parallel to this conception of Cain, compare\n Doughty\u2019s description of the wretched Harb Bedouin who had\n accidentally slain his antagonist in a wrestling match:\n \u201cNone accused Aly; nevertheless the _mesquin_ fled for\n his life; and he has gone ever since thus armed, lest\n the kindred of the deceased finding him should kill him.\u201d\n (_Travels in Arabia Deserta_ ii. 293, cited by Stade).\n\n\n IV. 17\u201224.\n _The line of Cain._\n\nThis genealogy, unlike that of Priestly-Code in chapter 5, is not\na mere list of names, but is compiled with the view of showing the\norigin of the principal arts and institutions of civilised life.\u00b9\nThese are: Husbandry (verse \u00b2; see above), city-life (\u00b9\u2077), [polygamy\n(\u00b9\u2079) ?], pastoral nomadism, music and metal-working (\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427). The\nSong of Lamech (\u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427) may signalise an appalling development of the\nspirit of blood-revenge, which could hardly be considered an advance\nin culture; but the connexion of these verses with the genealogy\nis doubtful.\u2015\u2015It has commonly been held that the passage involves a\npessimistic estimate of human civilisation, as a record of progressive\ndegeneracy and increasing alienation from God. That is probably true of\nthe compiler who placed the section after the account of the Fall, and\nincorporated the Song of Lamech, which could hardly fail to strike the\nHebrew mind as an exhibition of human depravity. In itself, however,\nthe genealogy contains no moral judgment on the facts recorded. The\nnames have no sinister significance; polygamy (though a declension\nfrom the ideal of 2\u00b2\u2074) is not generally condemned in the Old Testament\n(Deuteronomy 21\u00b9\u2075); and even the song of Lamech (which is older than\nthe genealogy) implies no condemnation of the reckless and bloodthirsty\nvalour which it celebrates.\u2015\u2015The institutions enumerated are clearly\nthose existing in the writer\u2019s own day; hence the passage does\nnot contemplate a rupture of the continuity of development by a\ncataclysm like the Flood. That the representation involves a series of\nanachronisms, and is not historical, requires no proof (see Driver _The\nBook of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 68).\u2015\u2015On the relation of\nthe section to other parts of the chapter, see page 98 above: on some\nfurther critical questions, see the concluding Note (page 122 ff.).\n\n \u00b9 Gunkel, however (page 47), considers the arch\u00e6ological\n notices to be insertions in the genealogy, and treats them\n as of a piece with the similar notices in 2\u00b9\u2075 3\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3.\n\n=17. Enoch and the building of the first city.=\u2015\u2015The question where\nCain got his wife is duly answered in _Jubilees_ iv. 1, 9: she was his\nsister, and her name was _\u201b\u00c2w\u00e2n_. For other traditions, see Marmorstein,\n\u2018_Die Namen der Schwestern Kains und Abels_,\u2019 etc., _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\ndie alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxv. 141 ff.\u2015\u2015_and he became a\ncity-builder_] So the clause is rightly rendered by Delitzsch, Budde,\nHolzinger, Gunkel, al. (compare 21\u00b2\u2070\u1d47, Judges 16\u00b2\u00b9, 2 Kings 15\u2075). The\nidea that he happened to be engaged in the building of a city when\nhis son was born would probably have been expressed otherwise, and is\nitself a little unnatural.\n\n That \u05e7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05df\u200e is the subject of \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u200e only appears from the phrase\n\u200e \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dd \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u200e towards the end. Budde (120 ff.) conjectures that the\n original text was \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u200e, making Enoch himself the builder of\n the city called after him (so Holzinger). The emendation is\n plausible: it avoids the ascription to Cain of _two_ steps in\n civilisation\u2015\u2015agriculture and city-building; and it satisfies\n a natural expectation that after the mention of Enoch we should\n hear what _he_ became, not what his father became after his\n birth,\u2015\u2015especially when the subject of the immediately preceding\n verbs is Cain\u2019s wife. But the difficulty of accounting for the\n present text is a serious objection, the motive suggested by\n Budde (123) being far-fetched and improbable.\u2015\u2015The incongruity\n between this notice and verses \u00b9\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2076 has already been mentioned\n (page 100). Lenormant\u2019s examples of the mythical connexion of\n city-building with fratricide (_Les Origines de l\u2019histoire_\u00b2,\n i. 141 ff.) are not to the point; the difficulty is not that\n the first city was founded by a murderer, but by a nomad. More\n relevant would be the instances of cities originating in hordes\n of outlaws, collected by Frazer, as parallels to the peopling\n of Rome (_Fort. Rev._ 1899, April, 650\u20124). But the anomaly is\n wholly due to composition of sources: the Cain of the genealogy\n was neither a nomad nor a fratricide. It has been proposed\n (Holzinger, Gunkel) to remove \u00b9\u2077\u1d47 as an addition to the\n genealogy, on the ground that no intelligent writer would\n put city-building before cattle-rearing; but the Ph\u0153nician\n tradition is full of such anachronisms, and shows how little they\n influenced the reasoning of ancient genealogists.\u2015\u2015The name \u200e\u05d7\u05b2\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u05da\u05b0\u200e\n occurs (besides 5\u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, 1 Chronicles 1\u00b3) as that of a Midianite\n tribe in 25\u2074 (1 Chronicles 1\u00b3\u00b3), and of a Reubenite clan in\n 46\u2079 (Exodus 6\u00b9\u2074, Numbers 26\u2075, 1 Chronicles 5\u00b3). It is also\n said that \u05d7\u05e0\u05da\u200e is a Sab\u00e6an tribal name (Gesenius-Buhl\u00b9\u00b2 _s.v._),\u00b9\n which has some importance in view of the fact that \u05e7\u05b5\u05d9\u05e0\u05b8\u05df\u200e (5\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427)\n is the name of a Sab\u00e6an deity. As the name of a city, the word\n would suggest to the Hebrew mind the thought of \u2018initiation\u2019\n (_v.i._). The city \u05d7\u05e0\u05d5\u05da\u200e cannot be identified. The older\n conjectures are given by Dillmann (page 99); Sayce (_Zeitschrift\n f\u00fcr Keilschriftsforschung_, ii. 404; _Hibbert Lectures_, 185)\n and Cheyne (_Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 624; but see now _Traditions\n and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 106) connect it with _Unuk_, the\n ideographic name of the ancient Babylonian city of Erech.\n\n \u00b9 Omitted in 13th edition.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =17.= On \u05d5\u05d9\u05d3\u05e2\u200e, see on verse \u00b9.\u2015\u2015The verb \u05d7\u05b8\u05e0\u05b7\u05da\u05b0\u200e appears from Arabic\n _\u1e25anaka_ to be a denominative from _\u1e25anak_ (Hebrew \u05d7\u05b5\u05da\u05b0\u200e), and\n means to rub the palate of a new-born child with chewed dates:\n hence tropically \u2018to initiate\u2019 (Lane, _s.v._; Wellhausen _Reste\n arabischen Heidentums_ 173). In Hebrew it means to \u2018dedicate\u2019\n or \u2018inaugurate\u2019 a house, etc. (Deuteronomy 20\u2075, 1 Kings 8\u2076\u00b3:\n compare \u05d7\u05b2\u05e0\u05bb\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, Numbers 7\u00b9\u00b9, Nehemiah 12\u00b2\u2077 etc.); and also to\n \u2018teach\u2019 (Proverbs 22\u2076). See, further, on 5\u00b9\u2078.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=18.= The next four generations are a blank so far as any advance in\ncivilisation is concerned. The only question of general interest is the\nrelation of the names to those of chapter 5.\n\n On the first three names, see especially Lagarde, _Orientalia_,\n ii. 33\u201238; Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 123\u20129.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u05b8\u05d3\u200e] LXX\n \u0393\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b4 (= \u05e2\u05b5\u05d9\u05d3\u05b8\u05d3\u200e), Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u05b8\u05e8\u200e (the latter supported by Philo),\n corresponds to \u05d9\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05d3\u200e in 5\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427. The initial guttural, and the want\n of a Hebrew etymology, would seem to indicate \u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u05d3\u200e as the older\n form which has been Hebraized in \u05d9\u05e8\u05d3\u200e; but the conclusion is not\n certain. If the root be connected with Arabic _\u201barada_ (which\n is doubtful in view of LXX\u2019s \u0393), the idea might be either\n \u2018fugitive\u2019 (Dillmann al.), or \u2018strength, hardness, courage\u2019\n (Budde). Sayce (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Keilschriftsforschung_, ii.\n 404) suggests an identification with the Chaldean city _Eridu_;\n Holzinger with \u05e2\u05b2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d3\u200e in the Negeb (Judges 1\u00b9\u2076 etc.).\u2015\u2015The next two\n names are probably (but not certainly: see Gray, _Studies in\n Hebrew Proper Names_, 164 f.) compounds with \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e. The first is\n given by Massoretic Text in two forms, \u05de\u05b0\u05d7\u05d5\u05bc\u05d9\u05b8\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e and \u05de\u05b0\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc[\u05d9]\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e. The\n variants of LXX are reducible to three types, \u039c\u03b1\u03b9\u03b7\u03bb (\u05de\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d0\u05dc\u200e),\n \u039c\u03b1\u03bf\u03c5\u03b9\u03b7\u03bb (\u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05dc\u200e), \u039c\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b7\u03bb (= \u05de\u05d4\u05dc\u05dc\u05d0\u05dc\u200e, 5\u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427). Lagarde considers\n the last original, though the first is the best attested.\n Adopting this form, we may (with Budde) point the Hebrew \u05de\u05b7\u05d7\u05b0\u05d9\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e\n or \u05de\u05b0\u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e = \u2018God makes me live\u2019: so virtually Philo \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b6\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6,\n and Jerome _ex vita Deus_ (cited by Lagarde). Both Massoretic\n forms undoubtedly imply a bad sense: \u2018destroyed (or smitten)\n of God\u2019 (though the form is absolutely un-Hebraic, see Driver\n _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_ 14).\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b0\u05ea\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e is\n now commonly explained by Assyrian _mutu-\u0161a-ili_, \u2018Man of God,\u2019\u00b9\n though the relative \u0161a presents a difficulty (Gray, _l.c._).\n The true LXX reading is \u039c\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1 (= \u05de\u05b0\u05ea\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dc\u05b7\u05d7\u200e, 5\u00b2\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427); \u039c\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b7\u03bb\n occurs as a correction in some MSS\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05b6\u05de\u05b6\u05da\u05b0\u200e] again inexplicable from\n Hebrew or even Arabic. Sayce (_Hibbert Lectures_ 186) and Hommel\n connect it with _Lamga_, a Babylonian name of the moon-god,\n naturalised in South Arabia.\u00b2\n\n \u00b9 Lenormant _Les Origines de l\u2019histoire_\u00b2 i. 262 f., Dillmann,\n Budde, al. Cheyne _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 625. It does not\n appear that _mutu-\u0161a-ili_ occurs as an _actual_ name.\n\n \u00b2 Hommel, _Die altisraelitische \u00fcberlieferung in\n inschriftlicher beleuchtung_ 117 n.: \u201cLamga ist ein\n babylonischer Beiname des Sin; daraus machten die Sab\u00e4er,\n mit volksetymologischer Anlehnung an ihr Verbum lamaka\n (wahrsch. gl\u00e4nzen), einen Plural Alm\u00e2ku.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n =18.= On accusative \u05d0\u05b5\u05ea\u200e with passive see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 116\n _a_, _b_.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05d3\u200e in the sense of \u2018beget\u2019 is a sure mark of the\n style of Yahwist (see Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_\n\u200e 99).\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b0\u05ea\u05d5\u05bc\u200e] archaic nominative case (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 90 _o_)\n of an old Semitic word (also Egyptian according to Erman) \u05de\u05b5\u05ea\u200e =\n \u2018man\u2019 (male, husband, etc.): compare Gesenius-Buhl _s.v._\n\n * * * * *\n\n=19. The two wives of Lamech.=\u2015\u2015No judgment is passed on Lamech\u2019s\nbigamy, and probably none was intended. The notice may be due simply\nto the fact that the names of the wives happened to be preserved in the\nsong afterwards quoted.\n\n Of the two female names by far the most attractive explanation\n is that of Ewald (_Jahrb\u00fccher der biblischen Wissenschaft_,\n vi. 17), that \u05e2\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4\u200e means Dawn (Arabic _\u0121ad\u2071\u207f_, but LXX has \u1f08\u03b4\u03b1),\n and \u05e6\u05b4\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e (feminie of \u05e6\u05b5\u05dc\u200e) Shadow,\u2015\u2015a relic of some nature-myth\n (compare Lenormant _Les Origines de l\u2019histoire_\u00b2 183 f.).\n Others (Holzinger) take them as actual proper names of inferior\n stocks incorporated in the tribe Lamech; pointing out that \u05e2\u05d3\u05d4\u200e\n recurs in 36\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 as a Canaanite clan amalgamated with Esau. This\n ethnographic theory, however, has very little foothold in the\n passage. For other explanations, see Dillmann page 100.\n\n=20\u201222. The sons of Lamech and their occupations.=\u2015\u2015At this point the\ngenealogy breaks up into three branches, introducing (as Ewald thinks)\na second age of the world. But since it is nowhere continued, all\nwe can say is that the three sons represent three permanent social\ndivisions, and (we must suppose) three modes of life that had some\nspecial interest for the authors of the genealogy. On the significance\nof this division, see at the close.\u2015\u2015=20.= _Y\u0101b\u0101l_, son of \u201bAdah,\n_became the father_ (_i.e._ originator: Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05e8\u05b7\u05d1\u200e) _of tent- and\ncattle-dwellers_ (_v.i._); _i.e._ of nomadic shepherds. \u05de\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05e0\u05b6\u05d4\u200e, however,\nis a wider term than \u05e6\u05d0\u05df\u200e (verse \u00b2), including all kinds of cattle,\nand even camels and asses (Exodus 9\u00b3). The whole Bedouin life is thus\nassigned to Jabal as its progenitor.\u2015\u2015=21.= _Y\u00fbb\u0101l_, also a son of\n\u201bAdah, is the father of _all who handle lyre and pipe_; the oldest\nand simplest musical instruments. These two occupations, representing\nthe bright side of human existence, have \u201bAdah (the Dawn?) as their\nmother; recalling the classical association of shepherds with music\n(see Lenormant i. 207).\u2015\u2015=22.= Equally suggestive is the combination\nof _T\u00fbbal-\u1e33\u00e1yin_, the smith, and _Na\u201b\u0103m\u0101h_ (\u2018pleasant\u2019), as children\nof the dark \u1e92illah; compare the union of Heph\u00e6stos and Aphrodite in\nGreek mythology (Dillmann al.).\u2015\u2015The opening words of \u1d43{\u03b2} are corrupt.\nWe should expect: _he became the father of every artificer in brass\nand iron_ (see footnote). The persistent idea that Tubal-cain was the\ninventor of weapons, _Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi, and most, which has led\nto a questionable interpretation of the Song, has no foundation. He is\nsimply the metal-worker, an occupation regarded by primitive peoples as\na species of black-art,\u00b9 and by Semitic nomads held in contempt.\n\n \u00b9 See Andree, _Ethnographische Parallelen und Vergleiche_\n (1878), 157.\n\n On the names in these verses see the interesting discussion\n of Lenormant _Les Origines de l\u2019histoire_\u00b2 i. 192 ff.\u2015\u2015The\n alliterations, _Y\u0101b\u0101l_\u2015\u2015_Y\u00fbb\u0101l_\u2015\u2015_T\u00fbbal_, are a feature of\n legendary genealogies: compare Arabic Hab\u00eel and \u1e32ab\u00eel, Shidd\u00eed\n and Shadd\u00e2d, M\u00e2lik and Milk\u00e2n, etc. (Lenormant. 192). \u05d9\u05d1\u05dc\u200e\n (LXX \u1f38\u03c9\u03b2\u03b5\u03bb -\u03b7\u03bb) and \u05d9\u05d5\u05d1\u05dc\u200e (\u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb) both suggest \u05d9\u05b9\u05d1\u05b5\u05dc\u200e (Hebrew and\n Ph\u0153nician), which means primarily \u2018ram,\u2019 then \u2018ram\u2019s horn\u2019 as\n a musical instrument (Exodus 19\u00b9\u00b3), and finally \u2018joyous music\u2019\n (in the designation of the year of Jubilee). On a supposed\n connexion of \u05d9\u05d1\u05dc\u200e with \u05d4\u05b6\u05d1\u05b6\u05dc\u200e in the sense of \u2018herdsman,\u2019 see above,\n page 103.\u2015\u2015\u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b7\u05dc\u200e is a Japhetic people famous in antiquity for\n metal-working (see on 10\u00b2); and it is generally held that their\n _heros eponymus_ supplies the name of the founder of metallurgy\n here; but the equation is doubtful. A still more precarious\n combination with a word for smith (_tum\u0101\u0301l_, _dubalanza_, etc.)\n in Somali and other East African dialects, has been propounded\n by Merker (_Die Masai_, 306). The compound \u05ea\u05d5\u05d1\u05dc \u05e7\u05d9\u05df\u200e (written in\n Oriental MSS as one word) may mean either \u2018Tubal [the] smith\u2019\n (in which case \u05e7\u05d9\u05df\u200e [we should expect \u05d4\u05e7\u05d9\u05df\u200e] is probably a gloss), or\n \u2018Tubal of (the family of) Cain.\u2019\u00b9 LXX has simply \u0398\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u03bb; but see\n the footnote. Tuch and others adduce the analogy of the \u03a4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c7\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2,\n the first workers in iron and brass, and the makers of Saturn\u2019s\n scythe (Strabo, XIV. ii. 7); and the pair of brothers who,\n in the Ph\u0153nician legend, were \u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (LXX \u039d\u03bf\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1) seems to have been a mythological\n personage of some importance. A goddess of that name is known\n to have been worshipped by the Ph\u0153nicians.\u00b2 In Jewish tradition\n she figures as the wife of Noah (_Bereshith Rabba_), as a demon,\n and also as a sort of St. Cecilia, a patroness of _vocal_ music\n (Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f: compare Lagarde _Onomastica Sacra_, 180, 56:\n \u039d\u03bf\u03b5\u03bc\u1f76\u03bd \u03c8\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03bd\u1ff3 [Nestle, _Marginalien und\n Materialien_, 10]).\n\n \u00b9 So Ewald, who thinks the \u05e7\u05d9\u05df\u200e belongs to each of the three\n names.\n\n \u00b2 Lenormant 200 f.; Tiele, _Geschichte der Religion im\n Altertum_ i. 265; Baethgen, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte\n C\u00f6lestins_ 150.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =20.= \u05d9\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d1 \u05d0\u05b9\u05d4\u05b6\u05dc \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05e0\u05b6\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd, perhaps\n reading \u05d0\u05d4\u05dc\u05d9 \u05de\u05e7\u05e0\u05d4\u200e as in 2 Chronicles 14\u00b9\u2075 (so Ball). Vulgate\n (_atque pastorum_) takes \u05de\u05b7\u05e7\u05b0\u05e0\u05b6\u05d4\u200e as a participle; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 inserts\n (\u2021 Syriac word), and Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u200e, before \u2018cattle\u2019;\n similarly Kuenen proposed \u05d5\u05e7\u05e0\u05d4 \u05de\u05e7\u05e0\u05d4\u200e. The zeugma is somewhat hard,\n but is retained by most commentaries for the sake of conformity\n with verse \u00b2\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427; Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 117 _bb_, 118 _g_.\u2015\u2015=21.=\n\u200e \u05d5\u05b0\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dd \u05d0\u05b8\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] compare 10\u00b2\u2075 (Yahwist) (1 Chronicles 7\u00b9\u2076).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e] LXX\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b9\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05b0\u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u05d2\u05b8\u05d1\u200e] Vulgate _cithara et\n organo_; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word); Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05db\u05e0\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d1\u05d5\u05d1\u05d0\u200e\n\u200e (\u2225 \u05e0\u05d1\u05dc\u05d0\u200e). See Benzinger, _Hebr\u00e4ische Arch\u00e4ologie_\u00b2, 237\u2012246;\n Wellhausen _Psalms_ (_Polychrome Bible_), 219 f., 222 f.; Riehm,\n _Handw\u00f6rterbuch des biblischen Altertums_ 1043 ff. The \u05db\u05e0\u05d5\u05e8\u200e is\n certainly a stringed instrument, played with the hand (1 Samuel\n 16\u00b2\u00b3 etc.), probably the lyre (Greek \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1). The \u05e2\u05d5\u05d2\u05d1\u200e (associated\n with the \u05db\u05e0\u05d5\u05e8\u200e in Job 21\u00b9\u00b2 30\u00b3\u00b9: elsewhere only Psalms 150\u2074) is\n some kind of wind instrument (Vulgate, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2),\u2015\u2015a flute\n or reed-pipe, perhaps the Pan\u2019s pipe (\u03c3\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03be).\u2015\u2015=22.= \u05d2\u05dd \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u200e]\n _in genealogies_ (as here, 4\u00b2\u2076 10\u00b2\u00b9 19\u00b3\u2078 22\u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u2074 [Judges 8\u00b3\u00b9])\n is characteristic of Yahwist.\u2015\u2015\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1\u05dc \u05e7\u05d9\u05df\u200e] LXX \u0398\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f26\u03bd. Other\n versions have the compound name, and on the whole it is probable\n that \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f26\u03bd is a corruption of \u039a\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd, although the next clause\n has \u0398\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u03bb alone.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05b9\u05d8\u05b5\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e] LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c3\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5, Vulgate _qui fuit malleator et faber in cuncta\n opera aer. et f_; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac phrase); Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\n\u200e \u05e8\u05d1\u05d4\u05d5\u05df \u05d3\u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05d3\u05e2\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05d3\u05ea \u05e0\u05f3 \u05d5\u05d1\u05f3\u200e. To get any kind of sense from Massoretic Text,\n it is necessary either (a) to take \u05dc\u05b9\u05d8\u05b5\u05e9\u05bc\u05c1\u200e (\u2018sharpener\u2019 or \u2018hammerer\u2019)\n in the sense of \u2018instructor\u2019; or (b) take \u05d7\u05b9\u05e8\u05b5\u05e9\u05c1\u200e as neuter (\u2018a\n hammerer of every cutting implement of,\u2019 etc.); or (c) adopt the\n quaint construction (mentioned by Budde 138): \u2018a hammerer of all\n (sorts of things),\u2015\u2015a (successful) artificer in bronze,\u2019 etc.!\n All these are unsatisfactory; and neither the omission of \u05db\u05dc\u200e\n with LXX (Dillmann), nor the insertion of \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u200e before it yields\n a tolerable text. Budde\u2019s emendation (139 ff.) \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05dc\u05de\u05da \u05d7\u05b9\u05e8\u05b5\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e [for\n\u200e \u05e7\u05d9\u05df\u200e] is much too drastic, and stands or falls with his utterly\n improbable theory that Lamech and not Tubal-cain was originally\n designated as the inventor of weapons. The error must lie in\n the words \u05e7\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d8\u05e9\u200e, for which we should expect, \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u200e (Olshausen,\n Ball). The difficulty is to account for the present text: it\n is easy to say that \u05dc\u05d8\u05e9\u200e and \u05e7\u05d9\u05df\u200e are glosses, but there is nothing\n in the verse to require a gloss, and neither of these words\n would naturally have been used by a Hebrew writer for that\n purpose.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05e8\u05b0\u05d6\u05b8\u05dc\u200e] The Semitic words for \u2018iron\u2019 (Assyrian _parzillu_,\n Aramaic \u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d6\u05b8\u05dc\u200e (\u2021 Syriac word), Arabic _farzil_) have no Semitic\n etymology, and are probably borrowed from a foreign tongue. On\n the antiquity of iron in West Asia, see Ridgeway, _Early Age of\n Greece_ i. 616 ff.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=23, 24. The song of Lamech.=\u2015\u2015A complete poem in three distichs,\nbreathing the fierce implacable spirit of revenge that forms the\nchief part of the Bedouin\u2019s code of honour. It is almost universally\nassumed (since Herder) that it commemorates the invention of weapons\nby Tubal-cain, and is accordingly spoken of as Lamech\u2019s \u2018Sword Song.\u2019\nBut the contents of the song furnish no hint of such an occasion\n(Wellhausen); and the position in which it stands makes its connexion\nwith the genealogy dubious. On that point see, further, below. It is\nnecessary to study it independently, as a part of the ancient legend\nof Lamech which may have supplied some of the material that has been\nworked into the genealogy.\u2015\u2015The verses may be rendered:\n\n \u00b2\u00b3Adah and Zillah, hear my voice!\n Wives of Lamech, attend to my word!\n For I kill a man for a wound to me,\n And a boy for a scar.\n \u00b2\u2074For Cain takes vengeance seven times,\n But Lamech seventy times and seven!\n\n=23a.= Holzinger raises the question whether the words \u2018Adah and\nZillah\u2019 belong to the song or the prose introduction; and decides\n(with Vulgate) for the latter view, on the ground that in the remaining\nverses the second member is shorter than the first (which is not the\ncase). The exordium of the song might then read:\n\n Hear my voice, ye women of Lamech!\n Attend to my word!\u2015\u2015\n\nthe address being not to the wives of an individual chieftain, but\nto the females of the tribe collectively. It appears to me that the\nalteration destroys the balance of clauses, and mars the metrical\neffect: besides, strict syntax would require the repetition of the\n\u200e\u05dc\u05b0\u200e\u200e.\u2015\u2015=23b.= The meaning is that (the tribe?) Lamech habitually avenges\nthe slightest personal injury by the death of man or child of the\ntribe to which the assailant belongs. According to the principle of the\nblood-feud, \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u200e and \u05d9\u05b6\u05dc\u05b6\u05d3\u200e (\u05d9\u05f3\u200e is not a fighting \u2018youth,\u2019\u2015\u2015a sense it rarely\nbears: 1 Kings 12\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, Daniel 1\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427,\u2015\u2015but an innocent man-child [Budde,\nHolzinger]) are not the actual perpetrators of the outrage, but any\nmembers of the same clan. The parallelism therefore is not to be taken\nliterally, as if Lamech selected a victim proportionate to the hurt\nhe had received.\u2015\u2015=24.= Cain is mentioned as a tribe noted for the\nfierceness of its vendetta (7 times); but the vengeance of Lamech knows\nno limit (70 and 7 times).\n\n The Song has two points of connexion with the genealogy: the\n names of the two wives, and the allusion to Cain. The first\n would disappear if Holzinger\u2019s division of \u00b2\u00b3\u1d43 were accepted;\n but since the ordinary view seems preferable, the coincidence\n in the names goes to show that the song was known to the authors\n of the genealogy and utilised in its construction. With regard\n to the second, Gunkel rightly observes that glorying over an\n _ancestor_ is utterly opposed to the spirit of antiquity; the\n Cain referred to must be a rival contemporary tribe, whose\n grim vengeance was proverbial. The comparison, therefore,\n tells decidedly against the unity of the passage, and perhaps\n points (as Stade thinks) to a connection between the song\n and the legendary cycle from which the Cain story of \u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\n emanated.\u2015\u2015The temper of the song is not the primitive ferocity\n of \u201ca savage of the stone-age dancing over the corpse of his\n victim, brandishing his flint tomahawk,\u201d etc. (Lenormant);\n its real character was first divined by Wellhausen, who, after\n pointing out the baselessness of the notion that it has to do\n with the invention of weapons, describes it as \u201ceine gar keiner\n besonderen Veranlassung bed\u00fcrftige Prahlerei eines Stammes\n (Stammvaters) gegen den anderen. Und wie die Araber sich\n besonders gern ihren Weibern gegen\u00fcber als grosse Eisenfresser\n r\u00fchmen, so macht es hier auch Lamech\u201d (_Die Composition des\n Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2\n 305). On this view the question whether it be a song of triumph\n or of menace does not arise; as expressing the permanent\n temper and habitual practice of a tribe, it refers alike to\n the past and the future. The sense of the passage was strangely\n misconceived by some early Fathers (perhaps by LXX, Vulgate),\n who regarded it as an utterance of remorse for an isolated\n murder committed by Lamech. The rendering of Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 is\n based on the idea (maintained by Kalisch) that Lamech\u2019s purpose\n was to represent his homicide as justifiable and himself as\n guiltless: \u2018I have not slain a man on whose account I bear guilt,\n nor wounded a youth for whose sake my seed shall be cut off.\n When 7 generations were suspended for Cain, shall there not be\n for Lamech his son 70 and 7?\u2019 Hence arose the fantastic Jewish\n legend that the persons killed by Lamech were his ancestor Cain\n and his own son Tubal-cain (Rashi al.; compare Jerome _Epistula\n Hieronymi ad Damasum papam_, 125).\u00b9\u2015\u2015The metrical structure of\n the poem is investigated by Sievers in _Metrische Studien_, i.\n 404 f., and ii. 12 f., 247 f. According to the earlier and more\n successful analysis, the song consists of a double tetrameter,\n followed by two double trimeters. Sievers\u2019 later view is\n vitiated by an attempt to fit the poem into the supposed\n metrical scheme of the genealogy, and necessitates the excision\n of \u05e2\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e6\u05dc\u05d4\u200e as a gloss.\n\n \u00b9 See, further, Lenormant _Les Origines de l\u2019histoire_ i.\n 186 ff.\n\n Apart from verse \u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427, the most remarkable feature of the\n genealogy is the division of classes represented by the three\n sons of Lamech. It is difficult to understand the prominence\n given to this classification of mankind into herdsmen, musicians,\n and smiths, or to imagine a point of view from which it would\n appear the natural climax of human development. Several recent\n scholars have sought a clue in the social conditions of the\n Arabian desert, where the three occupations may be said to\n cover the whole area of ordinary life. Jabal, the first-born\n son, stands for the full-blooded Bedouin with their flocks\n and herds,\u00b9\u2015\u2015the _\u00e9lite_ of all nomadic-living men, and the\n \u2018flower of human culture\u2019 (Budde 146). The two younger sons\n symbolise the two avocations to which the pure nomad will not\n condescend, but which are yet indispensable to his existence\n or enjoyment\u2015\u2015smith-work and music (Stade 232). The obvious\n inference is that the genealogy originated among a nomadic\n people, presumably the Hebrews before the settlement in\n Canaan (Budde); though Holzinger considers that it embodies a\n specifically \u1e32enite tradition in which the eponymous hero Cain\n appears as the ancestor of the race (so Gordon, _The Early\n Traditions of Genesis_, 188 ff.).\u2015\u2015Plausible as this theory is\n at first sight, it is burdened with many improbabilities. If\n the early Semitic nomads traced their ancestry to (peasants\n and) city-dwellers, they must have had very different ideas from\n their successors the Bedouin of the present day.\u00b2 Moreover, the\n circumstances of the Arabian peninsula present a very incomplete\n parallel to the classes of verses \u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u00b2. Though the smiths form\n a distinct caste, there is no evidence that a caste of musicians\n ever existed among the Arabs; and the Bedouin contempt for\n professional musicians is altogether foreign to the sense of the\n verses, which certainly imply no disparaging estimate of Jubal\u2019s\n art. And once more, as Stade himself insists, the outlook of the\n genealogy is world-wide. Jabal is the prototype of all nomadic\n herdsmen everywhere, Jubal of all musicians, and Tubal (the\n Tibareni?) of all metallurgists.\u2015\u2015It is much more probable that\n the genealogy is projected from the standpoint of a settled,\n civilised, and mainly agricultural community. If (with Budde)\n we include verses \u00b2 and \u00b9\u2077\u1d47, and regard it as a record of human\n progress, the order of development is natural: husbandmen,\n city-dwellers, wanderers [?] (shepherds, musicians, and smiths).\n The three sons of Lamech represent not the highest stage of\n social evolution, but three picturesque modes of life, which\n strike the peasant as interesting and ornamental, but by no\n means essential to the framework of society.\u2015\u2015This conclusion is\n on the whole confirmed by the striking family likeness between\n the Cainite genealogy and the legendary Ph\u0153nician history\n preserved by Eusebius from Philo Byblius, and said to be based\n on an ancient native work by Sanchuniathon. Philo\u2019s confused and\n often inconsistent account is naturally much richer in mythical\n detail than the Hebrew tradition; but the general idea is the\n same: in each case we have a genealogical list of the legendary\n heroes to whom the discovery of the various arts and occupations\n is attributed. Whether the biblical or the Ph\u0153nician tradition\n is the more original may be doubtful; in any case \u201cit is\n difficult,\u201d as Driver says, \u201cnot to think that the Hebrew and\n Ph\u0153nician representations spring from a common Canaanite cycle\n of tradition, which in its turn may have derived at least some\n of its elements from Babylonia\u201d (_The Book of Genesis with\n Introduction and Notes_ page 74).\u00b3\n\n \u00b9 But against this view, see page 112 above, and Meyer, _Die\n Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 303 ff.\n\n \u00b2 Holzinger evades this objection by deleting verse \u00b9\u2077\u1d47,\n and reducing the genealogy to a bare list of names; but\n why should the \u1e32enites have interposed a whole series of\n generations between their eponymous ancestor and the origin\n of their own nomadic life?\n\n \u00b3 Compare Eusebius _Pr\u00e6paratio Evangelica_ i. 10 (edited\n by Heinichen, page 39 ff.). The Greek text is printed in\n M\u00fcller\u2019s _Fragmenta Historicorum Gr\u00e6corum_ iii. 566 f.\n French translations are given by Lenormant _Les Origines\n de l\u2019histoire_ i. 536 ff., and Lagrange, _\u00c9tudes sur les\n Religions Semitiques_\u00b9, 362 ff. (the latter with a copious\n commentary and critical introduction).\u2015\u2015The passage in\n Eusebius is much too long to be quoted in full, but the\n following extracts will give some idea of its contents\n and its points of similarity with Genesis: Of the two\n protoplasts \u0391\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd and \u03a0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, it is recorded \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03bd.\u2015\u2015The second pair,\n \u0393\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and \u0393\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03ac, dwelt in Ph\u0153nicia, and inaugurated the\n worship of the sun.\u2015\u2015Of the race of \u0391\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd and \u03a0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 were\n born three mortal children, \u03a6\u1ff6\u03c2, \u03a0\u1fe6\u03c1, and \u03a6\u03bb\u03cc\u03be: \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03be\u03cd\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f57\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03bd.\u2015\u2015Then\n followed a race of giants, of whom was born [\u03a3\u03b1]\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\n\u200e (= \u05e9\u05c1\u05de\u05d9 \u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u05dd\u200e) \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f59 \u03c8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, who founded Tyre. Of him we\n read: \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03b2\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03c1\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03bd \u039f\u1f54\u03c3\u03c9\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f43\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ba\u03ad\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f67\u03bd \u1f34\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f57\u03c1\u03b5 ...\n \u0394\u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039f\u1f54\u03c3\u03c9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 ...\n \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u1f67\u03bd \u1f24\u03b3\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd.\u2015\u2015The further\n history of invention names (a) \u1f08\u03b3\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 and \u1f09\u03bb\u03b9\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n \u1f01\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2; (b) ... \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f67\u03bd \u03b8\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u1f7c\u03c1\n \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c3\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1ff3\u03b4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; (c) \u03a4\u03b5\u03c7\u03bd\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n and \u0393\u03ae\u03ca\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c7\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd: \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd; (d) \u1f08\u03b3\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 and \u1f08\u03b3\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (or \u1f08\u03b3\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2):\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ae\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1\u00b7 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03af;\n (e) \u1f0c\u03bc\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and \u039c\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2: \u03bf\u1f33 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2;\n (f) \u039c\u03b9\u03c3\u03ce\u03c1 (\u05de\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u200e) and \u03a3\u03c5\u03b4\u03cd\u03ba (\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u200e): \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f01\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u03b5\u1f57\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. (g) Of \u039c\u03b9\u03c3\u03ce\u03c1 was born \u03a4\u03ac\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4, \u1f43\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f57\u03c1\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ae\u03bd; and (h) of \u03a3\u03c5\u03b4\u03cd\u03ba, the \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9: \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9,\n \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76, \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f57\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\u2015\u2015After them came others \u03bf\u1f33 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03b2\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f57\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f34\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1ff3\u03b4\u03ac\u03c2.\u2015\u2015It\n is impossible to doubt that some traditional elements have\n been preserved in this extraordinary medley of euhemerism\n and arch\u00e6ology, however unfavourably it may contrast with\n the simplicity of the biblical record.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =23.= The Introduction of the song is imitated in Isaiah\n 28\u00b3\u00b2 32\u2079; compare also Deuteronomy 32\u00b9. The words \u05d4\u05b6\u05bd\u05d0\u05b1\u05d6\u05d9\u05df\u200e and\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e are almost exclusively poetical.\u2015\u2015On the form \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05df\u200e, see\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 46 _f_.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05d2\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e is perfect of experience\n (Davidson \u00a7 40 (_c_); Driver _A Treatise on the use of the\n Tenses in Hebrew_ \u00a7 12), rather than of single completed\n action, or of certainty (Abraham Ibn Ezra, Delitzsch, Budde,\n al.).\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e is not recitative, but gives the reason for the call to\n attention.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05b0\u05e4\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, \u05dc\u05b0\u05d7\u05b7\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] On this use of \u05dc\u05b0\u200e see Brown-Driver-Briggs,\n _s.v._ 5, f.: LXX \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 [\u03bc\u03ce\u03bb\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1] \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u03af; Vulgate _in vulnus\n [livorem] meum._\u2015\u2015=24.= \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e] again introducing the reason, which,\n however, \u201clies not in the words immediately after \u05db\u05d9\u200e, but in the\n second part of the sentence\u201d (Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ 3, c):\n compare Deuteronomy 18\u00b9\u2074, Jeremiah 30\u00b9\u00b9.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05bb\u05e7\u05bc\u05dd\u200e on accusative, see\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 29 _g_. The Niphal \u05d9\u05b4\u05e7\u05b9\u05bc\u05dd\u200e would yield a better\n sense: \u2018avenges himself\u2019 (Budde, Dillmann, Holzinger).\n\n\n IV. 25, 26.\n _Fragmentary Sethite Genealogy._\n\nThe verses are the beginning of a Yahwistic genealogy (see above,\npage 99), of which another fragment has fortunately been preserved in\n5\u00b2\u2079 (Noah). Since it is thus seen to have contained the three names\n(Seth, Enos, Noah) peculiar to the genealogy of Priestly-Code, it\nmay be assumed that the two lists were in substantial agreement, each\nconsisting of ten generations. That that of Yahwist was not a dry list\nof names and numbers appears, however, from every item of it that has\nsurvived. The preservation of 4\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427 is no doubt due to the important\nnotice of the introduction of Yahwe-worship (\u00b2\u2076\u1d47), the redactor having\njudged it more expedient in this instance to retain Yahwist\u2019s statement\nintact. The circumstance shows on how slight a matter far-reaching\ncritical speculations may hang. But for this apparently arbitrary\ndecision of the redactor, the existence of a Sethite genealogy in\nYahwist would hardly have been suspected; and the whole analysis of the\nYahwist document into its component strata might have run a different\ncourse.\n\n=25.= _And Adam knew, etc._] see on verse \u00b9. That \u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05e2\u200e denotes properly\nthe _initiation_ of the conjugal relation (Budde) is very doubtful:\nsee 38\u00b2\u2076, 1 Samuel 1\u00b9\u2079.\u2015\u2015_And she called_] see again on verse \u00b9.\u2015\u2015_God\nhas appointed me seed_] (the remainder of the verse is probably an\ninterpolation). Compare 3\u00b9\u2075. Eve\u2019s use of \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e is not \u2018surprising\u2019\n(Dillmann); it only proves that the section is not from the same source\nas verse \u00b9. On the other hand, it harmonises with the fact that in\n3\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e is used in dialogue. It is at least a plausible inference\nthat both passages come from one narrator, who systematically avoided\nthe name \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e up to 4\u00b2\u2076 (see page 100).\n\n The verse in its present form undoubtedly presupposes a\n knowledge of the Cain and Abel narrative of 4\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2076; but it\n is doubtful if the allusions to the two older brothers can\n be accepted as original (see Budde 154\u2012159). Some of Budde\u2019s\n arguments are strained; but it is important to observe that the\n word \u05e2\u05d5\u05d3\u200e is wanting in LXX, and that the addition of \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d7\u05ea \u05d4\u05d1\u05dc\u200e\n destroys the sense of the preceding utterance, the idea of\n _substitution_ being quite foreign to the connotation of the\n verb \u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05ea\u200e. The following clause \u05db\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d2\u05d5 \u05e7\u05d9\u05df\u200e reads awkwardly in the\n mouth of Eve (who would naturally have said \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05f3 \u05e7\u05f3\u200e), and is\n entirely superfluous on the part of the narrator. The excision\n of these suspicious elements leaves a sentence complete in\n itself, and exactly corresponding in form to the naming of\n Cain in verse \u00b9: \u05e9\u05ea \u05dc\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\u200e, \u2018God has appointed me seed\u2019 (_i.e._\n posterity). There is an obvious reference to 3\u00b9\u2075, where both the\n significant words \u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05ea\u200e and \u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\u200e occur. But this explanation really\n implies that Seth was the first-born son (according to this\n writer), and is unintelligible of one who was regarded as a\n substitute for another. How completely the mind of the glossator\n is preoccupied by the thought of substitution is further\n shown by the fact that he does not indicate in what sense\n Cain has ceased to be the \u2018seed\u2019 of Eve.\u2015\u2015As a Hebrew word\n (with equivalents in Ph\u0153nician, Arabic, Syrian, Jewish-Aramaic:\n compare N\u00f6ldeke _Mand\u00e4ische Grammatik_ page 98) \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05ea\u200e would mean\n \u2018foundation\u2019 (not _Setzling_, still less _Ersatz_); but its\n real etymology is, of course, unknown. Hommel\u2019s attempt (_Die\n altorientalischen Denkm\u00e4ler und das Alte Testament_, page 26 ff.)\n to establish a connexion with the second name in the list of\n Berossus (below, page 137) involves too many doubtful equations,\n and even if successful would throw no light on the name. In\n Numbers 24\u00b9\u2077 \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05ea\u200e appears to be a synonym for Moab; but the text\n is doubtful (Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_,\n 219). The late Gnostic identification of Seth with the Messiah\n may be based on the Messianic interpretation of 3\u00b9\u2075, and does\n not necessarily imply a Babylonian parallel.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =25.= \u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd\u200e] here for the first time unambiguously a proper name.\n There is no reason to suspect the text: the transition from the\n generic to the individual sense is made by Priestly-Code only in\n 5\u00b9\u207b\u00b3, and is just as likely to have been made by Yahwist.\u2015\u2015LXX\n reads \u0395\u1f55\u03b1\u03bd in place of \u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05d3\u200e; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 has both words.\u2015\u2015Before\n\u200e \u05d5\u05ea\u05dc\u05d3\u200e LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 insert \u200e\u05d5\u05b7\u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05d4\u05b7\u05e8\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05ea\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_ \u200e\u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e] LXX \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1; so Vulgate and even\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=26.= On the name \u05d0\u05b1\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u05e9\u05c1\u200e (= _Man_, and therefore in all probability the\n_first_ member of an older genealogy), see below.\u2015\u2015_Then men began to\ncall, etc._] Better (with LXX, etc., _v.i._): _He was the first to call\non the name of Yahwe_ (compare 9\u00b2\u2070 10\u2078), _i.e._ he was the founder of\nthe worship of Yahwe; compare 12\u2078 13\u2074 21\u00b3\u00b3 26\u00b2\u2075 (all Yahwist). What\nhistoric reminiscence (if any) lies behind this remarkable statement\nwe cannot conjecture; but its significance is not correctly expressed\nwhen it is limited to the institution of formal public worship on the\npart of a religious community (Delitzsch); and the idea that it is\nconnected with a growing sense of the distinction between the human\nand the divine (Ewald, Delitzsch, al.) is a baseless fancy. It means\nthat \u2019En\u00f4\u0161 was the first to invoke the Deity under this name; and\nit is interesting chiefly as a reflexion, emanating from the school\nof Yahwist, on the origin of the specifically Israelite name of God.\nThe conception is more ingenuous than that of Elohist (Exodus 3\u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2075)\nor Priestly-Code (6\u00b3), who base the name on express revelation, and\nconnect it with the foundation of the Hebrew nationality.\n\n The expression \u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e9\u05dd \u05d9\u05f3\u200e (literally \u2018call by [means of] the name\n of Yahwe\u2019) denotes the essential act in worship, the invocation\n (or rather _evocation_) of the Deity by the solemn utterance\n of His name. It rests on the widespread primitive idea that a\n real bond exists between the person and his name, such that the\n pronunciation of the latter exerts a mystic influence on the\n former.\u00b9 The best illustration is 1 Kings 18\u00b2\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, where the\n test proposed by Elijah is _which name_\u2015\u2015Baal or Yahwe\u2015\u2015will\n evoke a manifestation of divine energy.\u2015\u2015The cosmopolitan\n diffusion of the name \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, from the Babylonian or Egyptian\n pantheon, though often asserted,\u00b2 and in itself not incredible,\n has not been proved. The association with the name of Eno\u0161 might\n be explained by the supposition that the old genealogy of which\n Eno\u0161 was the first link had been preserved in some ancient\n centre of Yahwe-worship (Sinai? or Kadesh?).\n\n \u00b9 See Giesebrecht, _Die alttestamentliche Sch\u00e4tzung des\n Gottesnamens und ihre religiongeschichtliche Grundlage_,\n especially page 25 ff., 98 ff.\n\n \u00b2 W. M. M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa nach alt\u00e4gyptischen\n Denkm\u00e4lern_, pages 239, 312; Delitzsch _Babel und Bibel_\n [translated by M\u2018Cormack] page 61 f.; Bezold, _Die\n Babylonisch-Assyrischen Keilinschriften Und Ihre Bedeutung\n F\u00fcr Das Alte Testament_ etc. page 31 ff.; Oppert,\n _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, xvii. 291 ff.; Daiches,\n _ib._ xxii. (1908), 125 ff.; Algyogyi-Hirsch, _Zeitschrift\n f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxiii. 355 ff.;\n Stade _Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments_ i. 29;\n Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_\u00b2, i. (2te H\u00e4lfte), 545 f.\n Compare, further, Rogers, _Religion of Babylonia and\n Assyria_ (1908), page 89 ff.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =26.= \u05d2\u05dd \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u200e] (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 135 _h_) LXX omitted.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b1\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u05e9\u05c1\u200e]\n like \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e, properly a collective: En\u00f4\u0161 is a personification of\n mankind. The word is rare and mostly poetic in Hebrew (especially\n Job, Psalms); but is common in other Semitic dialects (Arabic,\n Aramaic, Nabatean, Palmyren, Sabaean, Assyrian). Nestle\u2019s opinion\n (_Marginalien und Materialien_, 6 f.), that it is in Hebrew\n an artificial formation from \u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, and that the genealogy\n is consequently late, has no sort of probability; the only\n \u2018artificiality\u2019 in Hebrew is the occasional individual use.\n There is a presumption, however, that the genealogy originated\n among a people to whom \u05d0\u05e0\u05d5\u05e9\u200e or its equivalent was the ordinary\n name for mankind (Aram\u00e6an or Arabian).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d6 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d7\u05dc\u200e] so Aquila,\n Symmachus; _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d0\u05d6 \u05d4\u05d7\u05dc\u200e;\n LXX \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f24\u03bb\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd (from \u221a \u05d9\u05d7\u05dc\u200e) implies either \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d7\u05dc\u200e or \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d4\u05f3\u200e; so\n Vulgate (_iste coepit_) and _Jubilees_ iv. 12; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 has\n (\u2021 Syriac phrase). The true text is that read by LXX, etc.;\n and if the alteration of Massoretic Text was intentional\n (which is possible), we may safely restore \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05b5\u05d7\u05b5\u05dc\u200e after 10\u2078.\n The Jewish exegesis takes \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u05dc\u200e in the sense \u2018was profaned,\u2019 and\n finds in the verse a notice of the introduction of idolatry\n (Jerome _Qu\u00e6stiones sive Traditiones hebraic\u00e6 in Genesim_,\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, Rashi, al.),\u2015\u2015although the construction\n is absolutely ungrammatical (Abraham Ibn Ezra).\u2015\u2015After \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e LXX\n adds carelessly \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER V.\n _The Ante-Diluvian Patriarchs_\n (Priestly-Code).\n\n\nIn the Priestly Code the interval between the Creation (1\u00b9\u20122\u2074\u1d43) and\nthe Flood (6\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) is bridged by this list of ten patriarchs, with its\nchronological scheme fixing the duration of the period (in Massoretic\nText) at 1656 years. The _names_ are traditional, as is shown by a\ncomparison of the first three with 4\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427, and of numbers 4\u20129 with\n4\u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427. It has, indeed, been held that the names of the Cainite\ngenealogy were intentionally modified by the author of Priestly-Code,\nin order to suggest certain views as to the character of the patriarchs.\nBut that is at best a doubtful hypothesis, and could only apply to\nthree or four of the number. It is quite probable that if we had the\ncontinuation of Yahwist\u2019s Sethite genealogy, its names would be found\nto correspond closely with those of chapter 5.\u2015\u2015The _chronology_,\non the other hand, is based on an artificial system, the invention\nof which may be assigned either to Priestly-Code or to some later\nchronologist (see page 136 below).\u2015\u2015What is thoroughly characteristic\nof Priestly-Code is the _framework_ in which the details are set.\nIt consists of (a) the age of each patriarch at the birth of his\nfirst-born, (b) the length of his remaining life (with the statement\nthat he begat other children), and (c) his age at death.\u00b9 The stiff\nprecision and severity of the style, the strict adherence to set\nformul\u00e6, and the monotonous iteration of them, constitute a somewhat\npronounced example of the literary tendencies of the Priestly school\nof writers.\n\n \u00b9 Only in the cases of Adam (verse \u00b3), Enoch (\u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2074) and\n Lamech (\u00b2\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u2079) are slight and easily explicable deviations\n from the stereotyped form admitted. The section on Noah is,\n of course, incomplete.\n\n The distinctive phraseology of Priestly-Code (\u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u200e, \u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea\u200e, \u05d6\u05b8\u05db\u05b8\u05e8\n\u200e \u05d5\u05bc\u05e0\u05b0\u05e7\u05b5\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e) is seen most clearly in verse \u00b9\u1d47\u1427 \u00b2, which, however, may be\n partly composed of glosses based on 1\u00b2\u2076 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 (see on the verses).\n Note also \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b0\u05d3\u05b9\u05ea\u200e (\u00b9\u1d43), \u05e6\u05b6\u05dc\u05b6\u05dd\u200e, \u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea\u200e (\u00b3), \u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u200e (throughout), \u05d4\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05d4\u05b7\u05dc\u05b5\u05bc\u05da\u05b0 \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e\n (\u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2074,, compare 6\u2079); the syntax of the numerals (which, though\n not peculiar to Priestly-Code, is a mark of late style: see\n Gesenius-Kautzsch, \u00a7 134 _i_; Davidson \u00a7 37, _R._ 3); the naming\n of the child by the father (\u00b3).\u2015\u2015The one verse which stands out\n in marked contrast to its environment is \u00b2\u2079, which is shown by\n the occurrence of the name \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e and the allusion to 3\u00b9\u2077 to be an\n extract from Yahwist, and in all probability a fragment of the\n genealogy whose first links are preserved in 4\u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2076.\n\n\u201cThe aim of the writer is by means of these particulars to give a\npicture of the increasing population of the earth, as also of the\nduration of the first period of its history, as conceived by him, and\nof the longevity which was a current element in the Hebrew conception\nof primitive times\u201d (Driver _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and\nNotes_ page 75). With regard to the extreme longevity attributed to the\nearly patriarchs, it must be frankly recognised that the statements are\nmeant to be understood literally, and that the author had in his view\nactual individuals. The attempts to save the historicity of the record\nby supposing (a) that the names are those of peoples or dynasties, or\n(b) that many links of the genealogy have been omitted, or (c) that the\nword \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e denotes a space of time much shorter than twelve months (see\nDillmann 107), are now universally discredited. The text admits of no\nsuch interpretation. It is true that \u201cthe study of science precludes\nthe possibility of such figures being literally correct\u201d; but \u201cthe\ncomparative study of literature leads us to expect exaggerated\nstatements in any work incorporating the primitive traditions of a\npeople\u201d (Ryle, quoted by Driver page 75).\n\nThe author of Priestly-Code knows nothing of the Fall, and offers no\nexplanation of the \u2018violence\u2019 and \u2018corruption\u2019 with which the earth is\nfilled when the narrative is resumed (6\u00b9\u00b2). It is doubtful whether he\nassumes a progressive deterioration of the race, or a sudden outbreak\nof wickedness on the eve of the Flood; in either case he thinks it\nunnecessary to propound any theory to account for it. The fact reminds\nus how little _dogmatic_ importance was attached to the story of\nthe Fall in Old Testament times. The Priestly writers may have been\nrepelled by the anthropomorphism, and indifferent to the human pathos\nand profound moral psychology, of Genesis 3; they may also have thought\nthat the presence of sin needs no explanation, being sufficiently\naccounted for by the known tendencies of human nature.\n\n Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 93\u2012103) has endeavoured\n to show that the genealogy itself contains a cryptic theory\n of degeneration, according to which the first five generations\n were righteous, and the last five (commencing with Jered [=\n \u2018descent\u2019], but excepting Enoch and Noah) were wicked. His\n chief arguments are (a) that the names have been manipulated\n by Priestly-Code in the interest of such a theory, and (b) that\n the Samaritan chronology (which Budde takes to be the original:\n see below, page 135 f.) admits of the conclusion that Jered,\n Methuselah, and Lamech perished in the Flood.\u00b9 Budde supports\n his thesis with close and acute reasoning; but the facts are\n susceptible of different interpretations, and it is not probable\n that a writer with so definite a theory to inculcate should have\n been at such pains to conceal it. At all events it remains true\n that no explanation is given of the introduction of evil into\n the world.\n\n \u00b9 The more rapid decrease of life (in _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_) after Mahalalel ought not to be counted\n as an additional argument; because it is a necessary\n corollary from the date fixed for the Flood.\n\n\n 1, 2.\n Introduction.\n\nConsisting of a superscription (\u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2076), followed by an account of the\ncreation and naming of Adam (\u00b9\u1d47\u1427 \u00b2).\u2015\u2015=1a.= _This is the book of the\ngenerations of Adam_] See the critical note below; and on the meaning\nof \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b0\u05d3\u05b9\u05ea\u200e, see on 2\u2074\u1d43.\u2015\u2015=1b.= _When God created Man_ (or _Adam_) _he made\nhim in the likeness of God_] a statement introduced in view of the\ntransmission of the divine image from Adam to Seth (verse \u00b3). On this\nand the following clauses see, further, 1\u00b2\u2076 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015=2.= _And called\ntheir name Adam_] _v.i._\n\n The verses show signs of editorial manipulation. In \u00b9\u1d43 \u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd\u200e is\n presumably a proper name (as in \u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), in \u00b2 it is certainly\n generic (note the plural suffix), while in \u00b9\u1d47 it is impossible\n to say which sense is intended. The confusion seems due to\n an attempt to describe the creation of the first man in terms\n borrowed almost literally from 1\u00b2\u2076 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, where \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e is generic.\n Since the only new statement is _and he called their name Adam_,\n we may suppose the writer\u2019s aim to have been to explain how \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e,\n from being a generic term, came to be a proper name. But he has\n no clear perception of the relation; and so, instead of starting\n with the generic sense and leading up to the individual, he\n resolves the individual into the generic, and awkwardly resumes\n the proper name in verse \u00b3. An original author would hardly\n have expressed himself so clumsily. Holzinger observes that the\n heading \u05d6\u05d4 \u05e1\u05e4\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05ea \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e reads like the title of a _book_, suggesting\n that the chapter is the opening section of an older genealogical\n work used by Priestly-Code as the skeleton of his history; and\n the fuller formula, as compared with the usual \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05ea\u200e, at least\n justifies the assumption that this is the first occurrence of\n the heading. Dillmann\u2019s opinion, that it is a combination of\n the superscription of Yahwist\u2019s Sethite genealogy with that of\n Priestly-Code, is utterly improbable. On the whole, the facts\n point to an amalgamation of two sources, the first using \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e as a\n designation of the race, and the other as the name of the first\n man.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =1.= For \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e LXX has 1\u00ba \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd, 2\u00ba \u1f08\u03b4\u03ac\u03bc; Vulgate conversely 1\u00ba\n _Adam_, 2\u00ba _hominem_.\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b8\u05dd\u200e] LXX\u1d38\u1d58\u1d9c\u2071\u1d43\u207f \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n 3\u20125.\n Adam.\n\nAdam _begat [a son] in his likeness, etc._] (see on 1\u00b2\u2076): implying, no\ndoubt, a transmission of the divine image (verse \u00b9) from Adam to all\nhis posterity.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =3.= \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b6\u05d3\u200e] inserted \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05df\u200e as object (Olshausen al.). \u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u200e confined\n to Priestly-Code in Pentateuch; Yahwist, and older writers\n generally, using \u05d9\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05d3\u200e both for \u2018beget\u2019 and \u2018bear.\u2019\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d3\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea\u05d5\u05b9 \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e6\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u200e]\n LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74 \u03bd\u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\u2015\u2015avoiding\n \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (see the note on 1\u00b2\u2076).\u2015\u2015=4.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d9\u05de\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e] LXX\u1d38\u1d58\u1d9c\u2071\u1d43\u207f\n inserted \u1f03\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5, as in verse \u2075. Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 reads \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e (but\n see Ball\u2019s note) as in verses \u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2070 etc. But verses \u00b3\u207b\u2075 contain\n several deviations from the regular formula: note \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d7\u05d9\u200e in verse\n \u2075, and the order of numerals (hundreds before tens). The reverse\n order is observed elsewhere in the chapter.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n 6\u201220.\n Seth to Jered.\n\nThe sections on =Seth=, =Eno\u0161=, =\u1e32enan=, =Mahalalel,= and =Yered=\nrigidly observe the prescribed form, and call for no detailed comment,\nexcept as regards the names.\n\n =6\u20128.= _\u0160\u0113th_: compare 4\u00b2\u2075. For the Jewish, Gnostic, and\n Mohammedan legends about this patriarch, see Lenormant _Les\n Origines de l\u2019histoire_\u00b2 217\u2012220, and Charles, _Book of\n Jubilees_, 33 ff.\u2015\u2015=9\u201211.= _\u2019\u0114n\u00f4\u0161_: see on 4\u00b2\u2076.\u2015\u2015=12\u201214.=\n _\u1e32\u00ean\u0101n_ is obviously a fuller form of _\u1e32\u00e1yin_ in the parallel\n genealogy of 4\u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427; and possibly, like it, means \u2018smith\u2019 or\n \u2018artificer\u2019 (compare Syrian (\u2021 Syriac word): see on 4\u00b9). Whether\n the longer or the shorter form is the more ancient, we have no\n means of judging. It is important to note that \u05e7\u05d9\u05e0\u05df\u200e or \u05e7\u05e0\u05df\u200e is the\n name of a Sab\u00e6an deity, occurring several times in inscriptions:\n see Mordtmann, _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen\n Gesellschaft_, xxxi. 86; Baethgen, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte\n C\u00f6lestins_ 127 f., 152.\u2015\u2015=15\u201217.= _Mah\u0103lal\u2019\u0113l_ (= \u2018Praise of\n God\u2019) is a compound with the \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u05de\u05b7\u05bd\u05d4\u05b2\u05dc\u05b8\u05dc\u200e (Proverbs 27\u00b2\u00b9).\n But there the versions read the participle; and so LXX must have\n done here: \u039c\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b7\u03bb = \u05de\u05b0\u05d4\u05b7\u05dc\u05b6\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e, _i.e._ \u2018Praising God.\u2019 Proper names\n compounded with a participle are rare and late in Old Testament\n (see Driver _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_\n 14\u00b2; Gray, _Studies in Hebrew Proper Names_, 201), but are\n common in Assyrian. Nestle\u2019s inference that the genealogy must\n be late (_Marginalien und Materialien_, 7 f.) is not certain,\n because the word might have been borrowed, or first borrowed\n and then hebraized: Hommel conjectures (not very plausibly) that\n it is a corruption of _Amil-Ar\u00fbru_ in the list of Berossus (see\n _Die altorientalischen Denkm\u00e4ler und das Alte Testament_, 29). \u05de\u05f3\u200e\n is found as a personal or family name in Nehemiah 11\u2074.\u2015\u2015=18\u201220.=\n _Y\u00e9red_ (1 Chronicles 4\u00b9\u2078) would signify in Hebrew \u2018Descent\u2019;\n hence the Jewish legend that in his days the angels descended to\n the earth (_The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 6\u00b2):\n compare _Jubilees_ iv. 15; _Enoch_ vi. 6, cvi. 13. On Budde\u2019s\n interpretation, see page 129 above. The question whether \u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u05b8\u05d3\u200e or\n\u200e \u05d9\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05d3\u200e be the older form must be left open. Hommel (30) traces both\n to an original Babylonian _\u201bI-yarad_ = \u2018descent of fire.\u2019\n\n\n 21\u201224.\n Enoch.\n\nThe account of =Enoch= contains three extraordinary features: (a) The\ntwice repeated \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05ea\u05b0\u05d4\u05b7\u05dc\u05b5\u05bc\u05da\u05b0 \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e. In the Old Testament such an expression\n(used also of Noah, 6\u2079) signifies intimate companionship (1 Samuel\n25\u00b9\u2075), and here denotes a fellowship with God morally and religiously\nperfect (compare Micah 6\u2078, Malachi 2\u2076 [\u05d4\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05da\u05b0\u200e]), hardly differing from the\ncommoner \u2018walk _before_ God\u2019 (17\u00b9 24\u2074\u2070) or \u2018_after_ God\u2019 (Deuteronomy\n13\u2075, 1 Kings 14\u2078). We shall see, however, that originally it included\nthe idea of initiation into divine mysteries. (b) Instead of the\nusual \u05d5\u05b5\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05b9\u05ea\u200e we read \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05e0\u05b6\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc \u05db\u05bc\u05d9\u05be\u05dc\u05b8\u05e7\u05b7\u05d7 \u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u05d5\u05b9 \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e; _i.e._ he was mysteriously translated\n\u2018so as not to see death\u2019 (Hebrews 11\u2075). Though the influence of this\nnarrative on the idea of immortality in later ages is not to be denied\n(compare Psalms 49\u00b9\u2076 73\u00b2\u2074), it is hardly correct to speak of it as\ncontaining a presentiment of that idea. The immortality of exceptional\nmen of God like Enoch and Elijah suggested no inference as to the\ndestiny of ordinary mortals, any more than did similar beliefs among\nother nations (Gunkel). (c) His life is much the shortest of the\nante-diluvian patriarchs. It has long been surmised that the duration\nof his life (365 years) is connected with the number of days in the\nsolar year; and the conjecture has been remarkably verified by the\nBabylonian parallel mentioned below.\n\n The extraordinary developments of the Enoch-legend in later\n Judaism (see below) could never have grown out of this passage\n alone; everything goes to show that the record has a mythological\n basis, which must have continued to be a living tradition\n in Jewish circles in the time of the Apocalyptic writers. A\n clue to the mystery that invests the figure of Enoch has been\n discovered in Babylonian literature. The 7th name in the list\n of Berossus is Evedoranchus (see _Die Keilinschriften und das\n Alte Testament_\u00b3, 532),\u2015\u2015a corruption (it seems certain) of\n Enmeduranki, who is mentioned in a ritual tablet from the\n library of Asshurbanipal (K 2486 + K 4364: translated in _Die\n Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 533 f.) as king of\n Sippar (city of \u0160ama\u0161, the sun-god), and founder of a hereditary\n guild of priestly diviners. This mythical personage is described\n as a \u2018favourite of Anu, Bel [and Ea],\u2019 and is said to have been\n received into the fellowship of \u0160ama\u0161 and Ramman, to have been\n initiated into the mysteries of heaven and earth, and instructed\n in certain arts of divination which he handed down to his\n son. The points of contact with the notice in Genesis are (1)\n the special relation of Enmeduranki to the sun-god (compare\n the 365 of verse \u00b2\u00b3); and (2) his peculiar intimacy with the\n gods (\u2018walked with God\u2019): there is, however, no mention of a\n translation. His initiation into the secrets of heaven and earth\n is the germ of the later view of Enoch as the patron of esoteric\n knowledge, and the author of Apocalyptic books. In Sirach 44\u00b9\u2076\n he is already spoken of as \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d3\u05e2\u05ea \u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d3\u05d5\u05e8\u200e. Compare _Jubilees_ iv.\n 17 ff. (with Charles\u2019s note _ad loc._); and see Lenormant _Les\n Origines de l\u2019histoire_\u00b2 223; Charles, _Book of Enoch_ (1893),\n _passim_.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =22.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4\u05dc\u05da\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX \u03b5\u1f50\u03b7\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 (LXX\u1d38\u1d58\u1d9c\u2071\u1d43\u207f adds \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f14\u03b6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f18\u03bd\u03c9\u03c7), Symmachus \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac phrase),\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d4\u05dc\u05d9\u05da \u05d1\u05d3\u05d7\u05dc\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d9\u05d9\u200e: Aquila and Vulgate render literally.\n The article before \u05d0\u05f3\u200e is unusual in Priestly-Code (see 6\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9).\n The phrase must have been taken from a traditional source, and\n may retain an unobserved trace of the original polytheism (\u2018with\n the gods\u2019).\u2015\u2015=23.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u200e] Read \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u200e (MSS, _The Samaritan Recension of\n the Pentateuch_, LXX, etc.).\u2015\u2015=24.= \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05e0\u05d5\u200e] indicating mysterious\n disappearance (37\u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1427 42\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b3\u00b2\u1427 \u00b3\u2079 [Elohist] 1 Kings 20\u2074\u2070); see\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 152 _m_.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05e7\u05d7\u200e] LXX \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, Vulgate _tulit_,\n but Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d0\u05de\u05d9\u05ea\u200e. The verb became, as Duhm (on Psalms 49\u00b9\u2076)\n thinks, a technical expression for translation to a higher\n existence; compare 2 Kings 2\u00b9\u2070, Psalms 49\u00b9\u2076 73\u00b2\u2074. The Rabbinical\n exegesis (Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2, _Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi) understood it\n of removal by death, implying an unfavourable judgment on Enoch\n which may be due in part to the reaction of legalism against the\n Apocalyptic influence.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n 25\u201232.\n Methuselah to Noah.\n\n =25\u201227.= _Methuselah._\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b0\u05ea\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dc\u05b7\u05d7\u200e commonly explained as \u2018man of the\n dart (or weapon),\u2019 hence tropically \u2018man of violence,\u2019 which\n Budde (99) regards as a deliberate variation of \u05de\u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05d0\u05dc\u200e (4\u00b9\u2078)\n intended to suggest the wickedness of the later generations\n before the Flood (see above, page 129). Lenormant (247) took\n it as a designation of Saggitarius, the 9th sign of the Zodiac;\n according to Hommel, it means \u2018sein Mann ist das Geschoss\u2019 (!),\n and is connected with the planet Mars.\u00b9 If the 8th name in\n the list of Berossus be rightly rendered \u2018man of Sin (the\n moon-god),\u2019\u00b2 a more probable view would be that \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dc\u05b7\u05d7\u200e is a divine\n proper name. Hommel, indeed, at one time regarded it as a\n corruption of _\u0161arra\u1e2bu_, said to be an ancient name of the\n moon-god\u00b3 (compare Cheyne, _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 625, 4412).\n\n \u00b9 _Die altorientalischen Denkm\u00e4ler und das Alte Testament_\n [1902], 29. Here _Amemphsinus_ is resolved into _Amel-Nisin_:\n formerly (_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical\n Arch\u00e6ology_, xv. [1892\u20123] 245) Hommel propounded the view\n now advocated by Zimmern (see next note).\n\n \u00b2 Zimmern, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 532.\n\n \u00b3 _Aufs\u00e4tze und Abhandlungen arabistisch-semitologischen\n Inhalts_ ii. [1900] 222. Cheyne (_l.c._) relies on the fact\n that _\u0161ar\u1e2bu_ (\u2018all-powerful\u2019) is an epithet of various gods\n (Delitzsch _Handw\u00f6rterbuch des biblischen Altertums_ 690 a).\n\n * * * * *\n\n =27.= After \u05de\u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05d7\u200e LXX inserts \u1f03\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd (compare verse \u2075).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=29.= An extract from Yahwist, preserving an oracle uttered by Lamech\non the birth of Noah.\u2015\u2015_This_ (\u05d6\u05b6\u05d4\u200e; compare \u05d6\u05b9\u05d0\u05ea\u200e in 2\u00b2\u00b3) _shall bring us\ncomfort from our labour, and from the toil of our hands_ [proceeding]\n_from the ground, etc._] The utterance seems to breathe the same\nmelancholy and sombre view of life which we recognise in the Paradise\nnarrative; and Dillmann rightly calls attention to the contrast in\ncharacter between the Lamech of this verse and the truculent bravo of\n4\u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427.\n\n There is an obvious reference backwards to 3\u00b9\u2077 (compare \u05e2\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e,\n\u200e \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b5\u05bd\u05e8\u05b2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc\u200e). The forward reference cannot be to the Flood (which\n certainly brought no comfort to the generation for whom Lamech\n spoke), but to Noah\u2019s discovery of vine-culture: 9\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 (Budde\n 306 ff. al.). This is true even if the hero of the Flood and\n the discoverer of wine were traditionally one person; but the\n connexion becomes doubly significant in view of the evidence\n that the two figures were distinct, and belong to different\n strata of the Yahwist document. Dillmann\u2019s objection, that\n a biblical writer would not speak of wine as a comfort under\n the divine curse, has little force: see Judges 9\u00b9\u00b3, Psalms\n 104\u00b9\u2075.\u2015\u2015In virtue of its threefold connexion with the story of\n the Fall, the Sethite genealogy of Yahwist, and the incident\n of 9\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, the verse has considerable critical importance. It\n furnishes a clue to the disentanglement of a strand of Yahwistic\n narrative in which these sections formed successive stages.\u2015\u2015The\n fragment is undoubtedly rhythmic, and has assonances which\n suggest rhyme; but nothing definite can be said of its metrical\n structure (perhaps 3 short lines of 3 pulses each).\n\n =28\u201231.= _Lamech._\u2015\u2015The scheme is here interrupted by the\n insertion of verse.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =29.= \u05d9\u05b0\u05e0\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05de\u05b5\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u200e] LXX \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2: hence Ball, Kittel \u05d9\u05b0\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05d4\u05b5\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u200e.\n The emendation is attractive on two grounds: (a) it yields an\n easier construction with the following \u05de\u05df\u200e; and (b) a more correct\n etymology of the name \u05e0\u05b9\u05d7\u200e. The harshness of the etymology was felt\n by Jewish authorities (_Bereshith Rabba_ \u00a7 25; compare Rashi);\n and Wellhausen (_De gentibus et familiis Jud\u00e6is qu\u00e6 1 Chronicles\n 2. 4 enumerantur_ 38\u00b3) boldly suggested that \u05e0\u05b9\u05d7\u200e in this verse\n is a contracted writing of \u05e0\u05b9\u05d7\u05b8\u05dd\u200e = \u2018comforter.\u2019\u2015\u2015Whether \u05e0\u05b9\u05d7\u05b7\u200e (always\n written defectively) be really connected with \u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u200e = \u2018rest\u2019 is\n very uncertain. If a Hebrew name, it will naturally signify\n \u2018rest,\u2019 but we cannot assume that a name presumably so ancient\n is to be explained from the Hebrew lexicon. The views mentioned\n by Dillmann (page 116) are very questionable. Goldziher\n (_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_,\n xxiv. 207 ff.) shows that in medi\u00e6val times it was explained by\n Arab writers from Arabic _n\u0101\u1e25a_, \u2018to wail\u2019; but that is utterly\n improbable.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u200e] Some MSS and _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ have \u05de\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e9\u05b5\u05c2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u200e (plural); so LXX, etc.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=32.= The abnormal age of Noah at the birth of his first-born is\nexplained by the consideration that his age at the Flood was a fixed\ndatum (7\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9), as was also the fact that no grandchildren of Noah\nwere saved in the ark. The chronologist, therefore, had to assign an\nexcessive lateness _either_ to the birth of Shem, _or_ to the birth of\nShem\u2019s first-born.\n\n I. _The Chronology of Chapter 5._\u2015\u2015In this chapter we have\n the first instance of systematic divergence between the three\n chief recensions, the Hebrew, the Samaritan, and the LXX. The\n differences are best exhibited in tabular form as follows (after\n Holzinger):\n\n FB = Age at birth of first-born\n Ad = Years lived after birth of first-born\n Tot = Total age\n\n Samaritan Year (A.M.)\n Massoretic. (Jubilees). LXX. of Death.\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500 \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500 \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500 \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n FB Ad Tot FB Ad Tot FB Ad Tot MT. Sam. LXX.\n\n 1. Adam 130 800 930 130 800 930 230 700 930 930 930 930\n 2. Seth 105 807 912 105 807 912 205 707 912 1042 1042 1142\n 3. Enos 90 815 905 90 815 905 190 715 905 1140 1140 1340\n 4. Kenan 70 840 910 70 840 910 170 740 910 1235 1235 1535\n 5. Mahalalel 65 830 895 65 830 895 165 730 895 1290 1290 1690\n 6. Jered 162 800 962 62 785 847 162 800 962 1422 1307 1922\n 7. Enoch 65 300 365 65 300 365 165 200 365 987 887 1487\n 8. Methuselah 187 782 969 67 653 720 167\u00b9 802\u00b9 969 1656 1307 2256\n 9. Lamech 182 595 777 53 600 653 188 565 753 1651 1307 2207\n 10. Noah 500 500 500\n Till Flood 100 100 100\n\n Year of Flood 1656 1307 2242\n\n \u00b9 So LXX\u1d38\u1d58\u1d9c\u2071\u1d43\u207f. LXX\u1d2c and other MSS have 187:782; but this is a\n later correction.\n\n These differences are certainly not accidental. They are due to\n carefully constructed artificial systems of chronology; and the\n business of criticism is first to ascertain the principles on\n which the various schemes are based, and then to determine which\n of them represents the original chronology of the Priestly Code.\n That problem has never been satisfactorily solved; and all that\n can be done here is to indicate the more important lines of\n investigation along which the solution has been sought.\n\n 1. Commencing with the Massoretic Text, we may notice (a) the\n remarkable relation discovered by Oppert\u00b9 between the figures of\n the biblical account and those of the list of Berossus (see the\n next note). The Chaldean chronology reckons from the Creation to\n the Flood 432,000 years, the Massoretic Text 1656 years. These\n are in the ratio (as nearly as possible) of 5 solar years (of\n 365\u00bc days) to 1 week. We might, therefore, suppose the Hebrew\n chronologist to have started from the Babylonian system, and\n to have reduced it by treating each _lustrum_ (5 years) as the\n equivalent of a Hebrew week. Whether this result be more than\n a very striking coincidence it is perhaps impossible to say.\n (b) A widely accepted hypothesis is that of von Gutschmid,\u00b2\n who pointed out that, according to the Massoretic chronology,\n the period from the Creation to the Exodus is 2666 years:\u00b3\n _i.e._ 26\u2154 generations of 100 years, or \u2154 of a world-cycle of\n 4000 years. The subdivisions of the period also show signs of\n calculation: the duration of the Egyptian sojourn was probably\n traditional; half as long (215 years) is assigned to the sojourn\n of the patriarchs in Canaan: from the Flood to the birth of\n Abraham, and from the latter event to the descent into Egypt\n are two equal periods of 290 years each, leaving 1656 years from\n the Creation to the Flood. (c) A more intricate theory has been\n propounded by Bousset (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche\n Wissenschaft_, xx. 136\u2012147). Working on lines marked out by\n Kuenen (_Abhandlungen_, translated by Budde, 108 ff.), he shows,\n from a comparison of 4 Esdra 9\u00b3\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 10\u2074\u2075 \u1da0\u1427, Josephus _Antiquities\n of the Jews_ viii. 61 f., x. 147 f., and _Assumption of Moses_,\n 1\u00b2 10\u00b9\u00b2, that a chronological computation current in Jewish\n circles placed the establishment of the Temple ritual in A.M.\n 3001, the Exodus in 2501, the migration of Abraham in 2071;\n and divided this last interval into an Ante-diluvian and\n Post-diluvian period in the ratio of 4 : 1 (1656 : 414 years).\n Further, that this system differed from Massoretic Text only in\n the following particulars: For the birth year of Terah (Genesis\n 11\u00b2\u2074) it substituted (with LXX and _The Samaritan Recension of\n the Pentateuch_) 79 for 29; with the same authorities it assumed\n 215 (instead of 430) years as the duration of the Egyptian\n sojourn (Exodus 12\u2074\u2070); and, finally, it dated the dedication of\n the Temple 20 years after its foundation (as 1 Kings 6\u00b9 LXX).\n For the details of the scheme, see the article cited above.\n\n \u00b9 _Nachrichten der k\u00f6nigl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften\n zu G\u00f6ttingen._, 1877, 201\u2012223; also his article in _Jewish\n Encyclop\u00e6dia_ iv. 66 f.\n\n \u00b2 See N\u00f6ldeke _Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_\n 111 ff.; Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_\u2076\n 308.\n\n \u00b3 Made up as follows:\u2015\u20151656 + 290 (Flood to birth of Abraham:\n see the Table on page 233) + 100 (birth of Isaac: Genesis\n 21\u2075) + 60 (birth of Jacob: 25\u00b2\u2076) + 130 (age of Jacob at\n Descent to Egypt: 47\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2078) + 430 (sojourn in Egypt: Exodus\n 12\u2074\u2070) = 2666.\u2015\u2015The number of generations from Adam to Aaron\n is actually 26, the odd \u2154 stands for Eleazar, who was of\n mature age at the time of the Exodus.\n\n These results, impressive as they are, really settle nothing as\n to the priority of the Massoretic Text. It would obviously be\n illegitimate to conclude that of b and c one must be right and\n the other wrong, or that that which is preferred must be the\n original system of Priestly-Code. The natural inference is that\n both were actually in use in the first century A.D., and that\n consequently the text was in a fluid condition at that time. A\n presumption in favour of Massoretic Text would be established\n only if it could be shown that the numbers of _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ and LXX are either dependent on\n Massoretic Text, or involve no chronological scheme at all.\n\n 2. The Samaritan version has 1307 years from the Creation to\n the Flood. It has been pointed out that if we add the 2 years\n of Genesis 11\u00b9\u2070, we obtain from the Creation to the birth\n of Arpachshad 187 \u00d7 7 years; and it is pretty obvious that\n this reckoning by year-weeks was in the mind of the writer of\n _Jubilees_ (see page 233 f.). It is worth noting also that if we\n assume Massoretic Text of Exodus 12\u2074\u2070 to be the original reading\n (as the form of the sentence renders almost certain), we find\n that _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ counts from\n the Creation to the entrance into Canaan 3007 years.\u00b9 The odd\n 7 is embarrassing; but if we neglect it (see Bousset, 146) we\n obtain a series of round numbers whose relations can hardly\n be accidental. The entire period was to be divided into three\n decreasing parts (1300 + 940 + 760 = 3000) by the Flood and the\n birth of Abraham; and of these the second exceeds the third by\n 180 years, and the first exceeds the second by (2 \u00d7 180 =) 360.\n Shem was born in 1200 A.M., and Jacob in 2400. Since the work\n of Priestly-Code closed with the settlement in Canaan, is it\n not possible that this was his original chronological period;\n and that the systems of Massoretic Text (as explained by von\n Gutschmid and Bousset) are due to redactional changes intended\n to adapt the figures to a wider historical survey? A somewhat\n important objection to the originality of _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ is, however, the disparity between\n chapter 5 and 11\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0 with regard to the ages at the birth of\n the first-born.\n\n \u00b9 1307 + 940 (see page 233) + 290 (as before) + 430 + 40\n = 3007\u00b7\n\n 3. A connexion between LXX and _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ is suggested by the fact that the first period of\n LXX (2242) is practically equivalent to the first two of _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ (1300 + 940 = 2240),\n though it does not appear on which side the dependence is.\n Most critics have been content to say that the LXX figures are\n enhancements of those of Massoretic Text in order to bring the\n biblical chronology somewhat nearer the stupendous systems of\n Egypt or Chald\u00e6a. That is not probable; though it does not seem\n possible to discover any distinctive principle of calculation\n in LXX. Klostermann (_Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift_, v. 208\u2012247\n [= _Der Pentateuch_ (1907) 1\u201241]), who defends the priority of\n LXX, finds in it a reckoning by jubilee periods of 49 years;\n but his results, which are sufficiently ingenious, are attained\n by rather violent and arbitrary handling of the data. Thus, in\n order to adjust the ante-diluvian list to his theory, he has\n to reject the 600 years from the birth of Noah to the Flood,\n and substitute the 120 years of Genesis 6\u00b3! This reduces the\n reckoning of LXX to 1762 years, and, adding 2 years for the\n Flood, we obtain 1764 = 3 \u00d7 12 \u00d7 49.\n\n See, further, on 11\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 (page 234 f.).\n\n II. _The Ten Ante-diluvian Kings of Berossus._\u2015\u2015The number\n _ten_ occurs with singular persistency in the traditions of\n many peoples\u00b9 as that of the kings or patriarchs who reigned or\n lived in the mythical age which preceded the dawn of history.\n The Babylonian form of this tradition is as yet known only from\n a passage of Berossus extracted by Apollodorus and Abydenus;\u00b2\n although there are allusions to it in the inscriptions which\n encourage the hope that the cuneiform original may yet be\n discovered.\u00b3 Meanwhile, the general reliability of Berossus\n is such, that scholars are naturally disposed to attach\n considerable importance to any correspondence that can be made\n out between his list and the names in Genesis 5. A detailed\n analysis was first published by Hommel in 1893,\u2074 another was\n given by Sayce in 1899.\u2075 The first-named writer has subsequently\n abandoned some of his earlier proposals,\u2076 substituting others\n which are equally tentative; and while some of his combinations\n are regarded as highly problematical, others have been widely\n approved.\u2077\n\n \u00b9 Babylonians, Persians, Indians, Ph\u0153nicians, Egyptians,\n Chinese, etc. See L\u00fcken, _Die Traditionen des\n Menschengeschlechts oder die Uroffenbarung Gottes unter\n den Heiden_, 146 ff.; Lenormant _Les Origines de l\u2019histoire_\n i. 224 ff.\n\n \u00b2 Preserved by Eus. _Chronicon_ [edited by Sch\u0153ne] i. 7 ff.,\n 31 f. See M\u00fcller, _Fragmenta Historicorum Gr\u00e6corum_ ii.\n 499 f.\n\n \u00b3 See Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten\n Orients_\u00b2, 221 f.\n\n \u2074 _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology_, xv.\n 243\u2012246.\n\n \u2075 _The Expositor Times_, 1899, 353.\n\n \u2076 _Die altorientalischen Denkm\u00e4ler und das Alte Testament_\n [1902], 23 ff.\n\n \u2077 See Zimmern, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u2078,\n 531 ff.; Driver _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and\n Notes_ 50 f.; Nikel, _Genesis und Keilschriftforschung_ 164\n ff.\n\n The names of the Kings before the Flood in Berossus are:\n 1. \u1f0c\u03bb\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, 2. \u1f08\u03bb\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, 3. \u1f08\u03bc\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd [\u1f08\u03bc\u03af\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2], 4. \u1f08\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd,\n 5. \u039c\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 [\u039c\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2], 6. \u0394\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 [\u0394\u03ac\u03c9\u03c2], 7. \u0395\u1f50\u03b5\u03b4\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2,\n 8. \u1f08\u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, 9. \u1f68\u03c4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 [Read \u1f68\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2], 10. \u039e\u03af\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. Of\n the suggested Babylonian equivalents put forward by Hommel, the\n following are accepted as fairly well established by Jeremias\n and (with the exception of number 1) by Zimmern: 1. _Aruru_ (see\n page 102), 2. _Adapa_ (page 126), 3. _Amelu_ (= Man), 4. _Ummanu_\n (= \u2018workman\u2019), 7. _Enmeduranki_ (page 132), 8. _Amel-Sin_ (page\n 133), 9. _Ubar-Tutu_ (named as father of Ut-Napi\u0161tim), and\n 10. _\u1e2aasisatra_, or _Atra\u1e2basis_ (= \u2018the superlatively Wise,\u2019\u2015\u2015a\n title applied to Ut-Napi\u0161tim, the hero of the Deluge). On\n comparing this selected list with the Hebrew genealogy, it\n is evident that, as Zimmern remarks, the Hebrew _name_ is in\n no case borrowed directly from the Babylonian. In two cases,\n however, there seems to be a connexion which might be explained\n by a _translation_ from the one language into the other: viz. 3.\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b1\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u05e9\u05c1\u200e (= Man), and 4. \u05e7\u05b5\u05d9\u05e0\u05b8\u05df\u200e (= \u2018workman\u2019); while 8 is in both series\n a compound of which the first element means \u2018Man.\u2019 The parallel\n between 7. \u05d7\u05b2\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u05da\u05b0\u200e \u2225 _Enmeduranki_, has already been noted (page 132);\n and the 10th name is in both cases that of the hero of the Flood.\n Slight as these coincidences are, it is a mistake to minimise\n their significance. When we have two parallel lists of equal\n length, each terminating with the hero of the Flood, each having\n the name for \u2018man\u2019 in the 3rd place and a special favourite of\n the gods in the 7th, it is too much to ask us to dismiss the\n correspondence as fortuitous. The historical connexion between\n the two traditions is still obscure, and is complicated by the\n double genealogy of chapter 4; but that a connexion exists it\n seems unreasonable to deny.\n\n III. _Relation of the Sethite and Cainite Genealogies._\u2015\u2015The\n substantial identity of the names in Genesis 4\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2078 with\n numbers 3\u20129 of chapter 5 seems to have been first pointed out\n by Buttmann (_Mythologus_, i. 170 ff.) in 1828, and is now\n universally recognised by scholars. A glance at the following\n table shows that each name in the Cainite series corresponds to\n a name in the other, which is either absolutely the same, or is\n the same in meaning, or varies but slightly in form:\n\n Illustration: (\u2021 Sethite versus Cainite Genealogy)\n\n While these resemblances undoubtedly point to some common\n original, the variations are not such as can be naturally\n accounted for by direct borrowing of the one list from the other.\n The facts that each list is composed of a perfect number, and\n that with the last member the single stem divides into three\n branches, rather imply that both forms were firmly established\n in tradition before being incorporated in the biblical documents.\n If we had to do merely with the Hebrew tradition, the easiest\n supposition would perhaps be that the Cainite genealogy and the\n kernel of the Sethite are variants of a single original which\n might have reached Israel through different channels;\u00b9 that the\n latter had been expanded by the addition of two names at the\n beginning and one at the end, so as to bring it into line with\n the story of the Flood, and the Babylonian genealogy with which\n it was linked. The difficulty of this hypothesis arises from\n the curious circumstance that in the Berossian list of kings,\n just as in the Sethite list of patriarchs, the name for \u2018Man\u2019\n occupies the _third_ place. It is extremely unlikely that such\n a coincidence should be accidental; and the question comes\n to be whether the Assyriologists or the biblical critics can\n produce the most convincing explanation of it. Now Hommel (_Die\n altorientalischen Denkm\u00e4ler und das Alte Testament_, 26 ff.)\n argues that if the word for Man is preceded by two others, these\n others must have been names of superhuman beings; and he thinks\n that his interpretation of the Babylonian names bears out this\n anticipation. The first, _Aruru_, is the creative earth-goddess,\n and the second, _Adapa_ (= Marduk) is a sort of Logos or\n Demiurge\u2015\u2015a being intermediate between gods and men, who bears\n elsewhere the title _zir amiluti_ (\u2018seed of mankind\u2019) but is\n not himself a man.\u00b2 And the same thing must, he considers, hold\n good of Adam and Seth: Adam should be read \u05d0\u05b1\u05d3\u05b9\u05dd\u200e, a personification\n of the earth, and Seth is a mysterious semi-divine personality\n who was regarded even in Jewish tradition as an incarnation of\n the Messiah. If these somewhat hazardous combinations be sound,\n then, of course, the inference must be accepted that the Sethite\n genealogy is dependent on the Babylonian original of Berossus,\n and the Cainite can be nothing but a mutilated version of it. It\n is just conceivable, however, that the Babylonian list is itself\n a secondary modification of a more primitive genealogy, which\n passed independently into Hebrew tradition.\u00b3\n\n \u00b9 Hommel\u2019s view (_Die altorientalischen Denkm\u00e4ler und das Alte\n Testament_, 29 f.) is that the primary list was Chaldean,\n that the Sethite list most nearly represents this original,\n and that the Cainite springs from a modification of it under\n Babylonian influence. It would be quite as plausible to\n suggest that the Cainite form came through Ph\u0153nicia (see the\n notes on Jabal, Tubal, and Na\u201bamah), and the Sethite from\n Arabia (Enos, Kenan, Hanokh [?], Methuselah).\n\n \u00b2 But against this interpretation of the phrase, see Jensen\n _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 362.\n\n \u00b3 Thus, it might be conjectured that the original equivalent\n of _Aruru_ was not Adam but _\u1e24avvah_, as earth and\n mother-goddess (see pages 85 f., 102), and that this name\n stood at the head of the list. That in the process of\n eliminating the mythological element \u1e24avvah should in one\n version become the wife, in another remain the mother, of\n the first man (Adam or Eno\u0161), is perfectly intelligible;\n and an amalgamation of these views would account for the\n duplication of Adam-Enos in 4\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427 5. The insertion of\n a link (Seth-Adapa) between the divine ancestress and\n the first man is a difficulty; but it might be due to a\n survival of the old Semitic conception of mother and son\n as associated deities (William Robertson Smith _Kinship and\n Marriage in Early Arabia_\u00b2, 298 ff.). It is obvious that\n no great importance can be attached to such guesses, which\n necessarily carry us back far beyond the range of authentic\n tradition.\n\n\n\n\n VI. 1\u20124.\n _The Origin of the N\u0115ph\u00eel\u00eem._\n\n\nThis obscure and obviously fragmentary narrative relates how in the\ninfancy of the human race marriage alliances were believed to have been\nformed by supernatural beings with mortal women (verses \u00b9\u1427 \u00b2); and how\nfrom these unnatural unions there arose a race of heroes or demi-gods\n(verse \u2074), who must have figured largely in Hebrew folklore. It is\nimplied, though not expressly said, that the existence of such beings,\nintermediate between the divine and the human, introduced an element\nof disorder into the Creation which had to be checked by the special\ninterposition of Yahwe (verse \u00b3).\n\n The fragment belongs to the class of \u00e6tiological myths. The\n belief in N\u0115ph\u00eel\u00eem is proved only by Numbers 13\u00b3\u00b3 (Elohist?);\n but it is there seen to have been associated with a more widely\n attested tradition of a race of giants surviving into historic\n times, especially among the aboriginal populations of Canaan\n (Deuteronomy 1\u00b2\u2078 2\u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9 9\u00b2, Joshua 15\u00b9\u2074, Amos 2\u2079 etc.).\n The question was naturally asked how such beings came to exist,\n and the passage before us supplied the answer. But while the\n \u00e6tiological motive may explain the retention of the fragment\n in Genesis, it is not to be supposed that the myth originated\n solely in this reflexion. Its pagan colouring is too pronounced\n to permit of its being dissociated from two notions prevalent\n in antiquity and familiar to us from Greek and Latin literature:\n viz. (1) that among the early inhabitants of the earth were men\n of gigantic stature;\u00b9 and (2) that marriages of the gods with\n mortals were not only possible but common in the heroic age.\u00b2\n Similar ideas were current among other peoples. The \u1e32oran has\n frequent references to the peoples of \u201bsons of Godal races noted\n for their giant stature and their daring impiety, to whom were\n attributed the erection of lofty buildings and the excavation\n of rock-dwellings, and who were believed to have been destroyed\n by a divine judgment.\u00b3 The legend appears also in the Ph\u0153nician\n traditions of Sanchuniathon, where it is followed by an obscure\n allusion to promiscuous sexual intercourse which appears to have\n some remote connexion with Genesis 6\u00b2.\u2074\n\n \u00b9 Homer _Iliad_ v. 302 f.; Herodotus i. 68; Pausanias i. 35.\n 5 f., viii. 29. 3; 32. 4; Lucretius ii. 1151; Virgil\n _Aeneid_ xii. 900; Pliny, _Natural History_, vii. 73 ff. etc.\n Compare Lenormant _Les Origines de l\u2019histoire_\u00b2 i. 350 ff.\n\n \u00b2 Homer _Iliad_ xii. 23: \u1f21\u03bc\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd; Plato,\n _Cratylus_, 33: \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 [_sc._ \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f25\u03c1\u03c9\u03b5\u03c2] \u03b4\u03ae\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c2 (text uncertain):\n see Jowett, i. 341.\n\n \u00b3 _Surah_ vii, xv, xxvi, xli, xlvi, lxxxix: see Sale,\n _Preliminary Discourse_ \u00a7 1.\n\n \u2074 Eusebius _Pr\u00e6paratio Evangelica_ i. 10 (see page 124 above):\n \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u0391\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f56\u03b8\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03a6\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a6\u03bb\u03cc\u03be ... \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 _\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2_ ...\n \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd, \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f59\u03c8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7\n \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd\n \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f10[\u03bd]\u03c4\u03cd\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd.\n\n That the _source_ is Yahwist is not disputed.\u00b9 Dillmann, indeed,\n following Schrader (_Einleitung in das Alte Testament_ 276),\n thinks it an extract from Elohist which had passed through the\n hands of Yahwist; but borrowing by the original Yahwist from\n the other source is impossible, and the only positive trace of\n Elohist would be the word \u05e0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, which in Numbers 13\u00b3\u00b3 is by some\n critics assigned to Elohist. That argument would at most prove\n overworking, and it is too slight to be considered.\u2015\u2015The precise\n position of the fragment among the Yahwistic traditions cannot\n be determined. The introductory clause \u201cwhen mankind began to\n multiply,\u201d etc., suggests that it was closely preceded by an\n account of the creation of man. There is, however, no reason\n why it should not have followed a genealogy like that of 4\u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u2074\n or 4\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427 (against Holzinger), though certainly not that of\n Priestly-Code in chapter 5. The idea that it is a parallel\n to the story of the Fall in chapter 3 (Schrader, Dillmann,\n Wellhausen, Schultz) has little plausibility, though it\n would be equally rash to affirm that it _presupposes_ such an\n account.\u2015\u2015The disconnectedness of the narrative is probably\n due to drastic abridgment either by the original writer or\n later editors, to whom its crudely mythological character was\n objectionable, and who were interested in retaining no more than\n was needful to account for the origin of the giants.\n\n \u00b9 The literary indications are not absolutely decisive (except\n\u200e \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, verse \u00b3); but the following expressions, as well as the\n structure of the sentences (in verse \u00b9 \u1da0\u1427), are, on the whole,\n characteristic of Yahwist: \u05d4\u05b5\u05d7\u05b5\u05dc\u200e, \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u05be\u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d4\u05b8\u05bd\u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (\u00b9), \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05e5\u200e, \u05d4\u05b8\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d2\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u200e (\u2074):\n see Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 6 ff., 39 A.\n\n There remains the question whether the passage was from the\n first an introduction to the story of the Deluge. That it has\n been so regarded from a very early time is a natural result of\n its present position. But careful examination fails to confirm\n that impression. The passage contains nothing to suggest the\n Flood as its sequel, except on the supposition (which we shall\n see to be improbable) that the 120 years of verse \u00b3 refer to an\n impending judgment on the whole human race. Even if that view\n were more plausible than it is, it would still be remarkable\n that the story of the Flood makes no reference to the expiry of\n the allotted term; nor to any such incident as is here recorded.\n The critical probability, therefore, is that 6\u00b9\u207b\u2074 belongs to a\n stratum of Yahwist which knows nothing of a flood (page 2 ff.).\n The Babylonian Flood-legend also is free from any allusion\n to giants, or mingling of gods and men. O. Gruppe, however\n (_Philologus_, Neue Folge, i. 93 ff.; _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die\n alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, ix. 134 ff.), claims to\n have recovered from Greek sources a Ph\u0153nician legend of\n intermarriages between deities and mortals, which presents some\n striking affinities with Genesis 6\u00b9\u207b\u2074, and which leads up to an\n account of the Flood. Of the soundness of Gruppe\u2019s combinations\n I am unable to judge; but he himself admits that the Flood is a\n late importation into Greek mythology, and indeed he instances\n the passage before us as the earliest literary trace of\n the hypothetical Ph\u0153nician legend. Even, therefore, if his\n speculations be valid, it would have to be considered whether\n the later form of the myth may not have been determined partly\n by Jewish influence, and whether the connexion between the\n divine intermarriages and the Flood does not simply reproduce\n the sequence of events given in Genesis. That this is not\n inconceivable is shown by the fact that on late Phrygian coins\n the biblical name \u039d\u03a9 appears as that of the hero of the Deluge\n (see page 180 below).\n\n=1, 2.= The sense of these verses is perfectly clear. The _sons of\nGod_ (\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e) are everywhere in Old Testament members (but probably\ninferior members) of the divine order, or (using the word with some\nfreedom) _angels_ (_v.i._).\n\n \u201cThe angels are not called \u2018sons of God\u2019 as if they had actually\n derived their nature from Him as a child from its father; nor\n in a less exact way, because though created they have received a\n nature similar to God\u2019s, being spirits; nor yet as if on account\n of their steadfast holiness they had been adopted into the\n family of God. These ideas are not found here. The name _Elohim_\n or _sons_ (_i.e._ members of the race) _of the Elohim_ is a name\n given directly to angels in contrast with men ... the name is\n given to God and angels in common; He is Elohim pre-eminently,\n they are Elohim in an inferior sense\u201d (Davidson, _Job_,\n _Cambridge Bible_, page 6).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9 \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e] peculiar to Yahwist in Hexateuch; 26\u2078 27\u00b9 43\u00b2\u00b9\n 44\u00b2\u2074, Exodus 1\u00b2\u00b9 13\u00b9\u2075, Joshua 17\u00b9\u00b3. See Budde 6. The apodosis\n commences with verse \u00b2.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b5\u05d7\u05b5\u05dc\u200e] see Holzinger _Einleitung in den\n Hexateuch_ 97.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05de\u05d4\u200e] see _Oxford Hexateuch_ i. 187.\u2015\u2015=2.=\n\u200e \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 [\u05d4]\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] Job 1\u2076 2\u00b9 38\u2077, [Daniel 3\u00b2\u2075]; compare \u05d1\u05f3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, Psalms 29\u00b9\n 89\u2077. In all these places the superhuman character of the beings\n denoted is evident,\u2015\u2015\u2018belonging to the category of the gods.\u2019 On\n this Semitic use of \u05d1\u05df\u200e, see William Robertson Smith _Kinship and\n Marriage in Early Arabia_\u00b2, 17; _The Prophets of Israel_\u00b2 85,\n 389 f. (1) The phrase is so understood by LXX (\u03bf\u1f31 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 [also\n \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1f76] \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6), Theodotion, _Jubilees_ v. 1, Enoch vi. 2 ff.\n (Jude \u2076, 2 Peter 2\u2074), Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 73;\n Fathers down to Cyprian and Lactantius, and nearly all moderns.\n [Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 transliterates (\u2021 Syriac phrase) as in Job 1\u2076 2\u00b9.]\n (2) Amongst the Jews this view was early displaced by another,\n according to which the \u2018sons of the gods\u2019 are members of\n aristocratic families in distinction from women of humble rank:\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f (\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e8\u05d1\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u200e), Symmachus (\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd),\n _Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra [Aquila (\u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd) is explained by Jeremias as \u2018_deos_ intelligens _sanctos_\n sive _angelos_\u2019]. So Spinoza, Herder, al. (3) The prevalent\n Christian interpretation (on the rise of which see Charles\u2019s\n valuable Note, _Book of Jubilees_ 33 ff.) has been to take the\n phrase in an ethical sense as denoting pious men of the line\n of Seth: Julius Africanus, most Fathers, Luther, Calvin, al.:\n still maintained by Strack. Against both these last explanations\n it is decisive that \u05d1\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e cannot have a narrower reference in\n verse \u00b2 than in verse \u00b9; and that consequently \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05f3\u200e cannot denote\n a section of mankind. For other arguments, see Lenormant, _Les\n Origines de l\u2019histoire_\u00b2 291 ff.; the Commentary of Delitzsch\n (146 ff.), Dillmann (119 f.), or Driver (82 f.). On the\n eccentric theory of Stuart Poole, that the sons of God were\n a wicked pre-Adamite race, see Lenormant 304 ff.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05d7\u05d5 ... \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd\u200e]\n = \u2018marry\u2019: 4\u00b9\u2079 11\u00b2\u2079 25\u00b9 36\u00b2 etc.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05db\u05bc\u05dc \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u200e] \u2018_consisting of_ all\n whom,\u2019\u2015\u2015the rare \u05de\u05df\u200e _of explication_; Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._\n 3b (e); compare Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 119 _w_\u00b2: Genesis 7\u00b2\u00b2 9\u00b9\u2070.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn an earlier polytheistic recension of the myth, they were perhaps\ncalled \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e simply. It is only a desire to save the credibility\nof the record as literal history, that has prompted the untenable\ninterpretations mentioned in the note below.\u2015\u2015=2.= These superhuman\nbeings, attracted by the beauty of _the daughters of men_ (_i.e._\nmortal women) _took to themselves as wives_ (strictly implying\npermanent marriages, but this must not be pressed) _whomsoever they\nchose_. No sin is imputed to mankind or to their daughters in these\nrelations. The guilt is wholly on the side of the angels; and consists\npartly, perhaps, in sensuality, partly in high-handed disregard of the\nrights of God\u2019s lower creatures.\u2015\u2015It is to be noted, in contrast with\nanalogous heathen myths, that the divine element is exclusively\nmasculine.\n\n=3.= A divine sentence on the human race, imposing a limit on the\nterm of man\u2019s life.\u2015\u2015_My spirit shall not_ [... _in_?] _man for ever_;\n[...?] _he is flesh, and his days shall be 120 years_.\n\n A complete exegesis of these words is impossible, owing first to\n the obscurity of certain leading expressions (see the footnote),\n and second to the want of explicit connexion with what precedes.\n The record has evidently undergone serious mutilation. The\n original narrative must have contained a statement of the effects\n on human life produced by the superhuman alliances,\u2015\u2015and that\n opens up a wide field of speculation;\u00b9\u2015\u2015and possibly also an\n account of the judgment on the sons of God, the really guilty\n parties in the transaction. In default of this guidance, all\n that can be done is to determine as nearly as possible the\n general sense of the verse, assuming the text to be fairly\n complete, and a real connexion to exist with verses \u00b9\u1427 \u00b2.\u2015\u2015(i.)\n Everything turns on the meaning of the word \u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u200e, of which four\n interpretations have been given: (1) That \u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u200e is the Spirit\n of Yahwe as an _ethical_ principle, striving against and\n \u2018judging\u2019 the prevalent corruption of men (as in Isaiah 63\u00b9\u2070);\n so Symmachus, Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, Luther, al. There is nothing\n to suggest that view except the particular acceptation of the\n verb \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05df\u200e associated with it, and it is now practically abandoned.\n (2) Even less admissible is the conception of Klostermann, who\n understands \u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u200e subjectively of the divine feeling (_Gem\u00fct_)\n excited by human sin\u00b2 (similarly Rashi). (3) The commonest view\n in modern times (see Dillmann) has been that \u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u200e is the divine\n principle of _life_ implanted in man at creation, the tenor of\n the decree being that this shall not \u2018abide\u2019\u00b3 in man eternally\n or indefinitely, but only in such measure as to admit a\n maximum life of 120 years. There are two difficulties in this\n interpretation: (a) It has no connexion with what precedes, for\n everything the verse contains would be quite as intelligible\n apart from the marriages with the angels as in relation to\n them.\u2074 (b) The following words \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e9\u05c2\u05e8\u200e have no meaning: as a\n reason for the withdrawal of the animating spirit they involve\n a _hysteron proteron_; and as an independent statement they are\n (on the supposition) not true, man as actually constituted being\n both flesh and spirit (2\u2077). (4) The most probable sense is that\n given by Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der\n historischen B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 305 ff.), viz. that\n\u200e \u05e8\u05d5\u05d7\u200e is the divine substance common to Yahwe and the angels, in\n contrast to \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u200e, which is the element proper to human nature\n (compare Isaiah 31\u00b3): so Holzinger, Gunkel. The idea will then\n be that the mingling of the divine and human substances brought\n about by illicit sexual unions has introduced a disorder into\n the creation which Yahwe cannot suffer to \u2018abide\u2019 permanently,\n but resolves to end by an exercise of His supreme power.\u2015\u2015(ii.)\n We have next to consider whether the 120 years, taken in its\n natural sense of the duration of individual life (_v.i._), be\n consistent with the conclusion just reached. Wellhausen himself\n thinks that it is not: the fusion of the divine and human\n elements would be propagated _in the race_, and could not be\n checked by a shortening of the lives of individuals. The context\n requires an announcement of the annihilation of the race, and\n the last clause of the verse must be a mistaken gloss on the\n first. If this argument were sound it would certainly supply a\n strong reason _either_ for revising Wellhausen\u2019s acceptation of\n \u00b3\u1d43, _or_ for understanding \u00b3\u1d47 as an announcement of the Flood.\n But a shortening of the term of life, though not a logical\n corollary from the sin of the angels, might nevertheless be a\n judicial sentence upon it. It would ensure the extinction of the\n giants within a measurable time; and indirectly impose a limit\n on the new intellectual powers which we may suppose to have\n accrued to mankind at large through union with angelic beings.\u2075\n In view of the defective character of the narrative, it would be\n unwise to press the antagonism of the two clauses so as to put a\n strain on the interpretation of either.\n\n \u00b9 Compare Cheyne\u2019s imaginary restoration in _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n Biblica_, 3391, with the reconstructed Ph\u0153nician myth of\n Gruppe in _Philologus_, 1889, i. 100 ff.\n\n \u00b2 Reading \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 \u05d9\u05b4\u05d3\u05b9\u05bc\u05dd \u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05d9\u200e, \u2018shall not restrain itself\u2019 (literally \u2018be\n silent\u2019). See _Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift_, 1894, 234 ff.\n (= _Der Pentateuch_ [1907] 28 ff.).\n\n \u00b3 On this traditional rendering of \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05df\u200e, see the footnote, page\n 143.\n\n \u2074 Budde\u2019s argument that the verse is detachable from its\n present context is, therefore, perfectly sound; although his\n attempt to find a place for it after 3\u00b2\u00b9 is not so successful\n (see page 3 above).\n\n \u2075 Just as in 3\u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2074 man is allowed to retain the gift of\n illicitly obtained knowledge, but is foiled by being denied\n the boon of immortality. The same point of view appears in\n 11\u00b9\u207b\u2079: in each case the ruling motive is the divine jealousy\n of human greatness; and man\u2019s pride is humbled by a subtle\n and indirect exercise of the power of God.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =3.= \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e] There are two traditional\n interpretations: (a) \u2018abide\u2019: so LXX (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u1fc3), Vulgate,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2; (b) \u2018judge\u2019 (Symmachus \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6: so\n Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f). The former is perhaps nothing more than a\n plausible guess at the meaning, though a variant text has been\n suspected (\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u05df\u200e, \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05e8\u200e, \u05d9\u05b4\u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e, etc.). The latter traces the form to\n the \u221a \u05d3\u05d9\u05df\u200e; but the etymology is doubtful, since that \u221a shows no\n trace of medial \u05d5\u200e in Hebrew (N\u00f6ldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen\n morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xxxvii. 533 f.); and to call\n it a jussive or intransitive form is an abuse of grammatical\n language (see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 71 _r_). A Jewish derivation,\n mentioned by Abraham Ibn Ezra and Calvin, connects the verb with\n\u200e \u05e0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05df\u200e, \u2018sheath\u2019 (1 Chronicles 21\u00b2\u2077),\u2015\u2015the body being compared to\n the sheath of the spirit. The Arabic _d\u0101na_ (medial _w_) = \u2018be\n humbled\u2019 or \u2018degraded,\u2019 yields but a tolerable sense (Tuch,\n Ewald, al.); the Egyptian Arabic _d\u0101na_, which means \u2018to do\n a thing continually\u2019 (Socin; see Gesenius-Buhl _s.v._), would\n suit the context well, but can hardly be the same word. Vollers\n (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, xiv. 349 ff.) derives it from\n\u200e \u221a \u05d3\u05e0\u05df\u200e, Assyrian _dan\u00e2nu_ = \u2018be powerful\u2019; the idea being that\n the life-giving spirit shall no longer have the same force\n as formerly, etc. It would be still better if the verb could\n be taken as a denominative from Assyrian _din\u00e2nu_, \u2018bodily\n appearance,\u2019 with the sense \u201cshall not be embodied in man for\n ever.\u201d\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd\u200e] LXX \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, whence Klostermann\n restores \u05d1\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d4\u05b7\u05d6\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4\u200e\u00b9 = \u2018this humanity,\u2019 as distinguished from\n that originally created,\u2015\u2015an impossible exegesis, whose\n sole advantage is that it gives a meaning to the \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dd\u200e in \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dd\u200e\n (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd\u200e\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05b9\u05d0\u200e (thus separated)] here = \u2018not ... for ever,\u2019\n as Jeremiah 3\u00b9\u00b2, Lamentations 3\u00b3\u00b9; elsewhere (Psalms 15\u2075 etc.)\n the phrase means \u2018never.\u2019\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd\u200e] so pointed in the majority of\n MSS, is infinitive construct of \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d2\u05b7\u05d2\u200e, \u2018err,\u2019 with suffix. This\n sense is adopted by many (Tuch, Ewald, Budde, Holzinger, al.),\n but it can hardly be right. If we refer the suffix to \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd\u200e, the\n _enallage numeri_ (\u2018through _their_ erring _he_ is flesh\u2019) would\n be harsh, and the idea expressed unsuitable. If we refer it\n to the angels, we can avoid an absurdity only by disregarding\n the accents and joining the word with what precedes: \u2018shall\n not (abide?) in man for ever on account of their (the angels\u2019)\n erring; he is flesh, and,\u2019 etc. The sentence is doubly bad in\n point of style: the first member is overloaded at the end by\n the emphatic word; and the second opens awkwardly without a\n connecting participle. Moreover, it is questionable if the\n idea of \u05e9\u05c1\u05d2\u05d2\u200e (inadvertent transgression) is appropriate in the\n connexion. Margoliouth (_Expositor_, 1898, ii. 33 ff.) explains\n the obscure word by Aethiopian _sheg\u0101_ = \u2018body\u2019; but the\n proposed rendering, \u2018inasmuch as their body (or substance) is\n flesh,\u2019 is not grammatically admissible. The correct Massoretic\n reading is \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dd\u200e (_i.e._ \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dd\u200e + \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u200e + \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u200e) = _inasmuch as he too_. The\n objections to this are (a) that the relative \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u200e is never found\n in Pentateuch, and is very rare in the older literature (Judges\n 5\u2077 6\u00b9\u2077 7\u00b9\u00b2 8\u00b2\u2076), while compounds like \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05f3h do not appear before\n Ecclesiastes (_e.g._ 2\u00b9\u2076); and (b) that the \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dd\u200e has no force,\n there being nothing which serves as a contrast to \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u200e. Wellhausen\n observes that \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05f3\u200e must represent a causal particle and possibly\n nothing more. The old translators, LXX (\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2)\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Vulgate, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 seem to have been of the same\n opinion; and it is noticeable that none of them attempt to\n reproduce the \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dd\u200e. The conjectures of Olshausen (\u05dc\u05b8\u05d1\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dd\u200e), Cheyne\n\u200e (\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u200e), and others are all beside the mark.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e] The\n only natural reference is to the (maximum) term of human life\n (so Josephus, Tuch, Ewald, and most since), a man\u2019s \u05d9\u05b8\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e being\n a standing expression for his lifetime, reckoning from his\n birth (see chapter 5. 35\u00b2\u2078, Isaiah 65\u00b2\u2070 etc.). The older view\n (Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, Jerome, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Calvin,\n al.: so Delitzsch, Klostermann), that the clause indicates the\n interval that was to elapse before the Flood, was naturally\n suggested by the present position of the passage, and\n was supported by the consideration that greater ages were\n subsequently attained by many of the patriarchs. But these\n statements belong to Priestly-Code, and decide nothing as to\n the meaning of the words in Yahwist.\n\n \u00b9 Already proposed by Egli (cited by Budde).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=4.= _The N\u0115ph\u00eel\u00eem were_ (or _arose_) _in the earth in those days_]\nWho were the \u05e0\u05b0\u05e4\u05b4\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e? The name recurs only in Numbers 13\u00b3\u00b3, where\nwe learn that they were conceived as beings of gigantic stature,\nwhose descendants survived till the days of Moses and Joshua.\nThe circumstantial form of the sentence here (compare 12\u2076 13\u2077) is\nmisleading, for the writer cannot have meant that the \u05e0\u05f3\u200e existed\nin those days apart from the alliances with the angels, and that\nthe result of the latter were the \u05d2\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (Lenormant, al.). The idea\nundoubtedly is that this race _arose_ at that time in consequence\nof the union of the divine \u2018spirit\u2019 with human \u2018flesh.\u2019\u2015\u2015_and also\nafterwards whenever_ (LXX \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd) _the sons of the gods came in ... and\nthey_ (the women) _bore unto them_] That is to say, the production of\nNeph\u00eel\u00eem was not confined to the remote period indicated by verse \u00b9 \u1da0\u1427,\nbut was continued in after ages through visits of angels to mortal\nwives,\u2015\u2015a conception which certainly betrays the hand of a glossator.\nIt is perhaps enough to remove \u05d5\u05b0\u05d2\u05b7\u05dd \u05d0\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9\u05be\u05db\u05b5\u05df\u200e as an interpolation, and\nconnect the \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8\u200e with \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05b8\u05d4\u05b5\u05dd\u200e; though even then the phrasing is odd\n(_v.i._).\u2015\u2015_Those are the heroes_ (\u05d4\u05b7\u05d2\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e) _that were of old, the men\nof fame_] (\u05d0\u05b7\u05e0\u05b0\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d9 \u05d4\u05b7\u05e9\u05b5\u05bc\u05c1\u05dd\u200e, compare Numbers 16\u00b2). \u05d4\u05b5\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e has for its antecedent\nnot \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8\u200e as objective to \u05d9\u05b8\u05bd\u05dc\u05b0\u05d3\u05d5\u05bc\u200e (Wellhausen), but \u05d4\u05b7\u05e0\u05b0\u05bc\u05e4\u05b4\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e. There is a touch\nof euhemerism in the notice (Wellhausen), the archaic and mythological\n\u200e\u05e0\u05b0\u05e4\u05b4\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e\u200e being identified with the more human \u05d2\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e who were renowned in\nHebrew story.\n\n It is probable that the legend of the Neph\u00eel\u00eem had a wider\n circulation in Hebrew tradition than could be gathered from its\n curt handling by the editors of the Hexateuch. In Ezekiel 32 we\n meet with the weird conception of a mighty antique race who are\n the original denizens of Sheol, where they lie in state with\n their swords under their heads, and are roused to a transient\n interest in the newcomers who disturb their majestic repose. If\n Cornill\u2019s correction of verse \u00b2\u2077 (\u05d2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e0\u05b0\u05e4\u05b4\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd\u200e) be sound, these\n are to be identified with the Neph\u00eel\u00eem of our passage; and the\n picture throws light on two points left obscure in Genesis:\n viz., the character of the prim\u00e6val giants, and the punishment\n meted out to them. Ezekiel dwells on their haughty violence and\n warlike prowess, and plainly intimates that for their crimes\n they were consigned to Sheol, where, however, they enjoy a kind\n of aristocratic dignity among the Shades. It would almost seem\n as if the whole conception had been suggested by the supposed\n discoveries of prehistoric skeletons of great stature, buried\n with their arms beside them, like those recorded by Pausanias\n (i. 35. 5 f., viii. 29. 3, 32. 4) and other ancient writers\n (see William Robertson Smith in Driver A critical and exegetical\n commentary on Deuteronomy 40 f.).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =4.= \u05d4\u05b7\u05e0\u05b0\u05bc\u05e4\u05b4\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2; Aquila \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2; Symmachus\n \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b2\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word); Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05d0\u200e. The\n etymology is uncertain (see Dillmann 123). There is no allusion\n to a \u2018fall\u2019 (\u221a \u05e0\u05b8\u05e4\u05b7\u05dc\u200e) of angels from heaven (Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f,\n Jerome\u00b9, Rashi), or to a \u2018fall\u2019 of the world through their\n action (_Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi). A connexion with \u05e0\u05b5\u05e4\u05b6\u05dc\u200e,\n \u2018abortive birth\u2019 (from \u05e0\u05b8\u05e4\u05b7\u05dc\u200e, \u2018fall dead\u2019), is not improbable\n (Schwally, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,\n xviii. 144 ff.). An attractive emendation of Cornill (\u05e0\u05b0\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05b5\u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd\u200e)\n in Ezekiel 32\u00b2\u2077 not only yields a striking resemblance to this\n verse, but supports the idea that the \u05e0\u05f3\u200e (like the \u05e8\u05b0\u05e4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e) were\n associated with the notion of Sheol.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9 \u05db\u05df \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u200e] cannot mean\n \u2018after\u2019 (as conjunction), which would require a perfect to\n follow, but only \u2018afterwards, when.\u2019 On any view, \u05d9\u05b8\u05d1\u05b9\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u200e; and \u05d5\u05b0\u05d9\u05b8\u05dc\u05b0\u05d3\u05d5\u05bc\u200e are\n frequentative tenses.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d0\u05dc\u200e] (as euphemism) is characteristic of\n Jehovist (especially Yahwist) in Hexateuch (Budde 39, _Anm._).\n Compare William Robertson Smith _Kinship and Marriage in Early\n Arabia_\u00b2, 198 ff.\u2015\u2015\u05d7\u05b7\u05d2\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] literally \u2018mighty ones\u2019 (Aquila \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03af;\n Vulgate _potentes_; LXX, Symmachus, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 do\n not distinguish from \u05e0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e). The word is thoroughly naturalised\n in Hebrew speech, and nearly always in a good sense. But passages\n like Ezekiel 32\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 show that it had another aspect, akin to\n Arabic _\u01e7abb\u0101r_ (proud, audacious, tyrannical). The Arabic and\n Syrian equivalents are used as names of the constellation Orion\n (Lane, _An Arabic-English Lexicon_ i. 375 _a_; Robert Payne\n Smith _Thesaurus Syriacus_ 646).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd\u200e] compare \u05e2\u05b7\u05dd \u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd\u200e, Ezekiel\n 26\u00b2\u2070, probably an allusion to a wicked ancient race thrust down\n to Sheol.\u2015\u2015The whole verse has the appearance of a series of\n antiquarian glosses; and all that can be strictly inferred\n from it is that there was some traditional association of\n the Neph\u00eel\u00eem with the incident recorded in verse \u00b9 \u1da0\u1427. At the\n same time we may reasonably hold that the kernel of the verse\n reproduces in a hesitating and broken fashion the essential\n thought of the original myth. The writer apparently shrinks\n from the direct statement that the Neph\u00eel\u00eem were the offspring\n of the marriages of verses \u00b9\u1427 \u00b2, and tantalises the curiosity\n of his readers with the cautious affirmation that such beings\n then existed. A later hand then introduced a reminder that\n they existed \u2018afterwards\u2019 as well.\u2015\u2015Budde, who omits verse \u00b3,\n restores the original connexion with verse \u00b9 \u1da0\u1427 as follows: [\u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4\n\u200e \u05db\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8] \u05d9\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd ... [\u05d5\u05db\u05df] \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e0\u05e4\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d4\u05dd\u200e. Some such excellent\n sentence may very well have stood in the original; but it was\n precisely this perspicuity of narration which the editor wished\n to avoid.\n\n \u00b9 \u201cEt angelis et sanctorum liberis, convenit nomen cadentium.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\n VI. 5\u2012IX. 29.\n _Noah and the Flood._\n\n\n _Analysis of the Flood-Narrative._\u2015\u2015The section on the Flood\n (6\u2075\u20129\u00b9\u2077) is, as has often been observed, the first example in\n Genesis of a truly composite narrative; _i.e._, one in which the\n compiler \u201cinstead of excerpting the entire account from a single\n source, has interwoven it out of excerpts taken alternatively\n from Yahwist and Priestly-Code, preserving in the process\n many duplicates, as well as leaving unaltered many striking\n differences of representation and phraseology\u201d (Driver 85).\n The resolution of the compound narrative into its constituent\n elements in this case is justly reckoned amongst the most\n brilliant achievements of purely literary criticism, and affords\n a particularly instructive lesson in the art of documentary\n analysis (compare the interesting exposition by Gunkel\u00b2 121 ff.).\n Here it must suffice to give the results of the process, along\n with a summary of the criteria by which the critical operation\n is guided and justified. The division generally accepted by\n recent critics is as follows:\n\n Yahwist Priestly-Code\n 6\u2075\u207b\u2078\n \u2079\u207b\u00b2\u00b2\n 7\u00b9\u207b\u2075\n \u2076\n \u2077\u1427 (\u2078\u1427 \u2079)\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\n \u00b9\u00b9\n \u00b9\u00b2\n \u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2076\u1d43\n \u00b9\u2076\u1d47\n \u00b9\u2077\u1d43\n \u00b9\u2077\u1d47\n \u00b9\u2078\u207b\u00b2\u00b9\n \u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3\n 7\u00b2\u2074 8\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u1d43\n \u00b2\u1d47\u1427 \u00b3\u1d43\n \u00b3\u1d47\u207b\u2075\n \u2076\u207b\u00b9\u00b2\n \u00b9\u00b3\u1d43\n \u00b9\u00b3\u1d47\n \u00b9\u2074\u207b\u00b9\u2079\n \u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u00b2\n 9\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2077\n\n The minuti\u00e6 of glosses, transpositions, etc., are left to be\n dealt with in the Notes. Neglecting these, the scheme as given\n above represents the results of Budde (to whom the finishing\n touches are due: _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 248 ff.) Gunkel\n and Holzinger. Dillmann agrees absolutely, except that he\n assigns 7\u00b9\u2077 wholly to Yahwist, and 7\u00b2\u00b3\u1d47 to Priestly-Code; and\n Wellhausen, except with regard to 7\u00b9\u2077 (Yahwist) 8\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3, which\n are both assigned entirely to Priestly-Code. The divergences\n of Kuenen and Cornill are almost equally slight; and indeed\n the main outlines of the analysis were fixed by the researches\n of Hupfeld, N\u00f6ldeke, and Schrader.\u2015\u2015This remarkable consensus\n of critical opinion has been arrived at by four chief lines\n of evidence: (1) _Linguistic._ The key to the whole process\n is, of course, the distinction between the divine names\n\u200e \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e (6\u2075\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u2077\u1427 \u2078 7\u00b9\u1427 \u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2076\u1d47 8\u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9) and \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (6\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\n 7\u00b9\u2076\u1d43 8\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2075 9\u00b9\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2077). Besides this, a number of\n characteristic expressions differentiate the two sources. Thus\n Yahwist\u2019s \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e9\u05ea\u05d5\u200e (7\u00b2) answers to Priestly-Code\u2019s \u05d6\u05db\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e0\u05e7\u05d1\u05d4\u200e\u00b9 (6\u00b9\u2079\n\u200e 7\u207d\u2079\u207e\u1427 \u00b9\u2076); \u05de\u05d7\u05d4\u200e (6\u2077 7\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3) to \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d7\u05b5\u05ea\u200e and \u05d4\u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05ea\u200e (6\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2077 9\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2075); \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u200e\n (7\u00b2\u00b2) to \u05d2\u05b8\u05d5\u05b7\u05e2\u200e\u00b9 (6\u00b9\u2077 7\u00b2\u00b9); \u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd\u200e (7\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3) to \u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d1\u05e9\u05e8\u200e\u00b9 (6\u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2077 7\u00b2\u00b9\n and often); \u05e7\u05dc\u200e (8\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9) and \u05e9\u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u200e (7\u00b3\u1d43) to \u05d7\u05e1\u05e8\u200e (8\u2075); \u05d7\u05e8\u05d1\u200e (8\u00b9\u00b3\u1d47) to \u05d9\u05d1\u05e9\u200e\n (8\u00b9\u2074) [but see on 8\u00b9\u00b3\u1d47]; \u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05ea \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (8\u00b2\u00b2) to \u05e8\u05d5\u05d7 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (6\u00b9\u2077); \u05dc\u05b0\u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u200e (7\u00b3)\n to \u05dc\u05b0\u05d4\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u200e (6\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2070); \u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05da\u200e (7\u00b9) to the specific enumerations of 6\u00b9\u2078\n 7\u207d\u2077\u207e\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3 8\u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2078. (Compare the list in Holzinger _Genesis erkl\u00e4rt_\n page 68).\u2015\u2015(2) _Diversity of representation._ In Yahwist clean\n and unclean animals are distinguished, the former entering the\n ark by sevens and the latter in pairs (7\u00b2, compare 8\u00b2\u2070); in\n Priestly-Code one pair of every kind without distinction is\n admitted (6\u00b9\u2079 \u1da0\u1427 7\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1427). According to Yahwist, the cause of\n the Flood is a forty-days\u2019 rain which is to commence seven days\n after the command to enter the ark (7\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2 8\u00b2\u1d47\u1427 \u2076)\u2015\u2015the latter\n passage showing that the waters began to subside after the 40\n days. In Priestly-Code we have (7\u00b9\u00b9 8\u00b2\u1d43) a different conception\n of the cause of the Flood; and, in 7\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u2074 8\u00b3\u1d47\u1427 \u2074\u1427 \u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1d43\u1427 \u00b9\u2074,\n a chronological scheme according to which the waters increase\n for 150 days, and the entire duration of the Flood is one\n year (see page 167 ff.).\u2015\u2015(3) _Duplicates._ The following\n are obviously parallels from the two documents: 6\u2075\u207b\u2078 \u2225 6\u00b9\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u00b3\n (occasion of the Flood); 7\u00b9\u207b\u2075 \u2225 6\u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u00b2 (command to enter the\n ark, and announcement of the Flood); 7\u2077 \u2225 7\u00b9\u00b3 (entering of the\n ark); 7\u00b9\u2070 \u2225 7\u00b9\u00b9 (coming of the Flood); 7\u00b9\u2077\u1d47 \u2225 7\u00b9\u2078 (increase of\n the waters: floating of the ark); 7\u00b2\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427 \u2225 7\u00b2\u00b9 (destruction of\n terrestrial life); 8\u00b2\u1d47\u1427 \u00b3\u1d43 \u2225 8\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427 (abatement of the Flood); 8\u00b9\u00b3\u1d47\n \u2225 8\u00b9\u00b3\u1d43\u1427 \u00b9\u2074 (drying of the earth); 8\u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u00b2 \u2225 9\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 (promise that\n the Flood shall not recur).\u2015\u2015(4) The final confirmation of\n the theory is that the two series of passages form two all but\n continuous narratives, which exhibit the distinctive features\n of the two great sources of the primitive history, Yahwist\n and Priestly-Code. The Yahwist sections are a graphic popular\n tale, appealing to the imagination rather than to the reasoning\n faculties. The aim of the writer, one would say, was to\n bring the cosmopolitan (Babylonian) Flood-legend within the\n comprehension of a native of Palestine. The Deluge is ascribed\n to a familiar cause, the rain; only, the rain lasts for an\n unusual time, 40 days. The picturesque incident of the dove\n (see 8\u2079) reveals the touch of descriptive genius which so often\n breaks forth from this document. The boldest anthropomorphisms\n are freely introduced into the conception of God (6\u2076 \u1da0\u1427 7\u00b9\u2076\u1d47\n 8\u00b2\u00b9); and the religious institutions of the author\u2019s time\n are unhesitatingly assumed for the age of Noah.\u2015\u2015Still more\n pronounced are the characteristics of Priestly-Code in the\n other account. The vivid details which are the life and charm\n of the older narrative have all disappeared; and if the sign\n of the rainbow (9\u00b9\u00b2\u207b\u00b9\u2077) is retained, its \u00e6sthetic beauty has\n evaporated. For the rest, everything is formal, precise, and\n calculated,\u2015\u2015the size of the ark, the number of the persons and\n the classification of the animals in it, the exact duration of\n the Flood in its various stages, etc.: if these mathematical\n determinations are removed, there is little story left. The real\n interest of the writer is in the new departure in God\u2019s dealings\n with the world, of which the Flood was the occasion,\u2015\u2015the\n modification of the original constitution of nature, 9\u00b9\u207b\u2077, and\n the establishment of the first of the three great covenants,\n 9\u2078\u207b\u00b9\u2077. The connexion of the former passage with Genesis 1 is\n unmistakably evident. Very significant are the omission of\n Noah\u2019s sacrifice, and the ignoring of the laws of cleanness and\n uncleanness amongst animals.\u00b2\n\n \u00b9 Phrases characteristic of the style of Priestly-Code\n generally.\n\n \u00b2 Traces of Priestly-Code\u2019s general vocabulary are very\n numerous. Besides some of those (marked by \u00b9) already\n enumerated in contrast to Yahwist, we have \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b0\u05d3\u05b9\u05ea\u200e (6\u2079); \u05d3\u05b9\u05bc\u05e8\u05b9\u05ea\u200e\n\u200e (6\u2079 9\u00b9\u00b2); \u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u200e (6\u00b9\u2070); \u05d4\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u200e (6\u00b9\u2078 9\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2077) and \u05e0\u05ea\u05df \u05d1\u05f3\u200e (9\u00b9\u00b2);\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b4\u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u200e in enumerations (6\u00b9\u2078 7\u00b9\u00b3 8\u00b9\u2076 etc.); \u05de\u05d9\u05df\u200e (6\u00b2\u2070 7\u00b9\u2074); \u05e8\u05b6\u05de\u05b6\u05e9\u05c2\u200e, \u05e8\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05e9\u05c2\u200e\n\u200e (6\u00b2\u2070 7\u207d\u2078\u207e\u1427 \u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9 8\u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2079 9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b3); \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5\u200e, \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e8\u05b7\u05e5\u200e (7\u00b2\u00b9 8\u00b9\u2077 9\u2077); \u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05db\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e\n\u200e (6\u00b2\u00b9 9\u00b3); \u05d1\u05e2\u05e6\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\u200e (7\u00b9\u00b3); \u05de\u05d0\u05d3 \u05de\u05d0\u05d3\u200e (7\u00b9\u2079); \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u200e of specification\n\u200e (7\u00b2\u00b9 8\u00b9\u2077 9\u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2076); \u05e4\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4\u200e (8\u00b9\u2077 9\u00b9\u1427 \u2077); \u05dc\u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d7\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd\u200e (8\u00b9\u2079); \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\n\u200e \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd\u200e (9\u00b9\u2076).\u2015\u2015Of the style of Yahwist the positive indications\n are fewer: \u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d7\u05df\u200e (6\u2078); \u05de\u05d7\u05d4\u200e in the sense \u2018destroy\u2019 (6\u2077 7\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3)\n [see Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 101]; \u05e2\u05e6\u05d1\u200e\n\u200e (6\u2076); \u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05de\u05d4\u200e (7\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3 8\u2078\u1427 \u207d{?} \u00b9\u00b3 \u1d38\u02e3\u02e3\u207e); \u05d1\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u200e (8\u00b2\u00b9). See the\n commentaries of Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel, etc.\n\n The success of the critical process is due to the care and\n skill with which the Redactor (Redactor\u1d36\u1d43\u02b0\u02b7\u2071\u02e2\u1d57\u207a\u1d3e\u02b3\u2071\u1d49\u02e2\u1d57\u02e1\u02b8\u207b\u1d9c\u1d52\u1d48\u1d49)\n has performed his task. His object evidently was to produce a\n synthetic history of the Flood without sacrificing a scrap of\n information that could with any plausibility be utilised for\n his narrative. The sequence of Priestly-Code he appears to have\n preserved intact, allowing neither omissions nor transpositions.\n Of Yahwist he has preserved quite enough to show that it was\n originally a complete and independent narrative; but it was\n naturally impracticable to handle it as carefully as the main\n document. Yet it is doubtful if there are any actual lacun\u00e6\n except (a) the account of the building of the ark (between 6\u2078\n and 7\u00b9), and (b) the notice of the exit from it (between 8\u00b9\u00b3\u1d47\n and \u00b2\u2070). The middle part of the document, however, has been\n broken up into minute fragments, and these have been placed in\n position where they would least disturb the flow of narration.\n Some slight transpositions have been made, and a number of\n glosses have been introduced; but how far these last are due\n to the Redactor himself and how far to subsequent editors, we\n cannot tell (for details see the notes). Duplicates are freely\n admitted, and small discrepancies are disregarded; the only\n serious discrepancy (that of the chronology) is ingeniously\n surmounted by making Yahwist\u2019s 40 days count twice, once as a\n stage of the increase of the Flood (7\u00b9\u00b2) and once as a phase\n of its decrease (8\u2076).\u00b9 This compound narrative is not destitute\n of interest; but for the understanding of the ideas underlying\n the literature the primary documents are obviously of first\n importance. We shall therefore treat them separately.\n\n \u00b9 The supposition of Hupfeld and Lenormant (_Les Origines de\n l\u2019histoire_ i. 415), that the double period occurred in the\n original Yahwist, has no foundation.\n\n\n _The Flood according to Yahwist._\n\n=VI. 5\u20128. The occasion of the Flood=:\u2015\u2015Yahwe\u2019s experience of the\ndeep-seated and incurable sinfulness of human nature. It is unnecessary\nto suppose that a description of the deterioration of the race has\nbeen omitted, or displaced by 6\u00b9\u207b\u2074 (Holzinger). The ground of the\npessimistic estimate of human nature so forcibly expressed in verse \u2075\nis rather the whole course of man\u2019s development as hitherto related,\nwhich is the working out of the sinful knowledge acquired by the Fall.\nThe fratricide of Cain, the song of Lamech, the marriages with the\nangels, are incidents which, if not all before the mind of the writer\nof the Flood-story, at least reveal the gloomy view of the early\nhistory which characterises the Yahwistic tradition.\u2015\u2015=5.= _the whole\nbent_ (literally \u2018formation\u2019) _of the thoughts of his heart_] It is\ndifficult to say whether \u05d9\u05b5\u05e6\u05b6\u05e8\u200e is more properly the \u2018form\u2019 impressed _on_\nthe mind (the disposition or character), or \u2018that which is formed\u2019 _by_\nthe mind (imagination and purpose\u2015\u2015_Sinnen und Trachten_): compare 8\u00b2\u00b9,\nDeuteronomy 31\u00b2\u00b9, Isaiah 26\u00b3 (Psalms 103\u00b9\u2074?), 1 Chronicles 28\u2079 29\u00b9\u2078;\n_v.i._\u2015\u2015=6.= The anthropopathy which attributes to Yahwe regret (\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7\u05b6\u05dd\u200e)\nand vexation (\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05ea\u05b0\u05e2\u05b7\u05e6\u05b5\u05bc\u05d1\u200e) because He had created man is unusually strong.\nAlthough in the sense of mere change of purpose, the former is often\nascribed to God (Exodus 32\u00b9\u2074, Jeremiah 18\u2077\u1427 \u2078 26\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3, Joel 2\u00b9\u00b3, Jonah\n3\u00b9\u2070 etc.), the cases are few where divine regret for accomplished\naction is expressed (1 Samuel 15\u00b9\u00b9). The whole representation was felt\nto be inadequate (Numbers 23\u00b9\u2079, 1 Samuel 15\u00b9\u00b9); yet it continued to be\nused as inseparable from the religious view of history as the personal\nagency of Yahwe.\u2015\u2015=7.= God\u2019s resolve to _blot out_ (\u05de\u05b8\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e) the race: not\nas yet communicated to Noah, but expressed in monologue.\u2015\u2015=8.= _But\nNoah had found favour, etc._] doubtless on account of his piety; but\nsee on 7\u00b9. The Yahwistic narrative must have contained some previous\nnotice of Noah, probably at the end of a genealogy.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =5.= \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e LXX \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 (so verse \u2078).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d9\u05e6\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e] LXX loosely:\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (\u05d9\u05b9\u05e6\u05b5\u05e8\u200e?) \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03ac; Vulgate _cuncta cogitatio_. Another Greek rendering\n (\u1f41 \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1., see Field, _ad loc._) is \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8.; but in 8\u00b2\u00b9\n the same translator has \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1. \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8. On the later\n Jewish theologoumenon of the \u05d9\u05e6\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e8\u05e2\u200e (the evil impulse in man, also\n called \u05d9\u05e6\u05e8\u200e simply) which is based on this passage, and by Jewish\n commentaries (Rashi on 8\u00b2\u00b9) is found here; see Taylor, _Sayings\n of Jewish Fathers_\u00b2, 37, 148 ff.; Frank C. Porter, _Biblical\n and Semitic Studies; critical and historical essays by the\n members of the Semitic and Biblical faculty of Yale University_\n (1901), 93 ff.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd\u200e] \u2018continually\u2019; see Brown-Driver-Briggs,\n 400 b.\u2015\u2015=6.= \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 (so verse \u2077).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05e2\u05e6\u05d1\u200e] Genesis 34\u2077;\n compare Isaiah 63\u00b9\u2070 (Piel). Rashi softens the anthropomorphism\n by making the impending destruction of the creatures the\n immediate object of the divine grief.\u2015\u2015=7.= \u05d0\u05de\u05d7\u05d4\u200e] compare\n 7\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3. In the full sense of \u2018exterminate\u2019 (as distinct from\n \u2018obliterate\u2019 [name, memory, etc.]) the verb is peculiar to\n Yahwist\u2019s account of the Flood; contrast Numbers 5\u00b2\u00b3 34\u00b9\u00b9\n (Priestly-Code).\u2015\u2015The verse is strongly interpolated. The\n clauses \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9\u200e and \u05de\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd ... \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e are in the style of Priestly-Code\n (compare 6\u00b2\u2070 7\u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9 8\u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2079 9\u00b2 etc.); and the latter is, besides,\n an illogical specification of \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e. They are redactional glosses,\n the original text being \u05d0\u05de\u05d7\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05de\u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05de\u05d4 \u05db\u05d9 \u05e0\u05d7\u05de\u05ea\u05d9 \u05db\u05d9 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (Budde\n 249 ff.; Dillmann 125).\u2015\u2015=8.= \u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d7\u05df \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u200e] characteristic of, though\n not absolutely confined to, Yahwist: 19\u00b9\u2079 32\u2076 33\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2075 34\u00b9\u00b9 39\u2074\n 47\u00b2\u2075 etc. (Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 97 f.).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=VII. 1\u20125. Announcement of the Flood.=\u2015\u2015The section is an almost exact\nparallel to 6\u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u00b2 (Priestly-Code). Verse \u00b9 presupposes in Yahwist a\ndescription of the building of the ark, which the redactor has omitted\nin favour of the elaborate account of Priestly-Code. Not till the\nwork is finished does Yahwe reveal to Noah the purpose it is to serve:\nverse \u2074 is obviously the first intimation that has been given of the\napproaching deluge. The building of the ark in implicit obedience to\nthe divine command is thus a great test and proof of Noah\u2019s faith;\ncompare Hebrews 11\u2077.\u2015\u2015=1.= _Thou and all thy house_] Yahwist\u2019s\nbrevity is here far more expressive than the formal enumerations of\nPriestly-Code (6\u00b9\u2078 7\u00b9\u00b3 8\u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2078). The principle involved is the religious\nsolidarity of the family; its members are saved for the righteousness\nof its head (compare 19\u00b9\u00b2).\u2015\u2015_thee have I seen (to be) righteous_\n\u200e(\u05e6\u05b7\u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e7\u200e, see on 6\u2079)] Budde and others take this to be a judgement based on\nNoah\u2019s obedience in building the ark; but that is hardly correct. The\nverb is not \u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u200e but \u05e8\u05d0\u05d4\u200e, which has precisely the same force as the \u05d5\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u200e\nof 6\u2075. Compare also 6\u2078.\u2015\u2015=2.= _clean_ (\u05d8\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u200e) means, practically, fit\nfor sacrifice and human food; the technical antithesis is \u05d8\u05b8\u05de\u05b5\u05d0\u200e, which,\nhowever, is here avoided, whether purposely (Delitzsch 174) or not it\nis impossible to say. The distinction is not, as was once supposed (see\nTuch), a proof of Yahwist\u2019s interest in Levitical matters, but, on the\ncontrary, of the na\u00efvet\u00e9 of his religious conceptions. He regards it as\nrooted in the nature of things, and cannot imagine a time when it was\nnot observed. His view is nearer the historical truth than the theory\nof Priestly-Code, who traces the distinction to the positive enactments\nof the Sinaitic legislation (Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14), and\nconsequently ignores it here. The same difference of standpoint appears\nwith regard to sacrifice, altars, etc.: see 4\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427 8\u00b2\u2070 12\u2077 etc.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d1\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05d4\n\u200e\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d1\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05d4\u200e\u200e] _by sevens_ (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 134 _q_); _i.e._ \u20187 (individuals)\nof each kind\u2019 (Delitzsch, Stade, al.), rather than \u20187 pairs\u2019\n(_Bereshith Rabba_, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Dillmann, Gunkel, al.),\u2015\u2015in\nspite of the following \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e9\u05ea\u05d5\u200e. It is a plausible conjecture (Rashi,\nDelitzsch, Strack) that the odd individual was a male destined for\nsacrifice (8\u00b2\u2070).\u2015\u2015=3a= presents an impure text (_v.i._), and must\neither be removed as a gloss (Kuenen, Budde, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.)\nor supplemented with LXX (Ball, Bennett).\u2015\u2015=3b.= _to keep seed alive,\netc._] reads better as the continuation of \u00b2 than of \u00b3\u1d43.\u2015\u2015=4.= With\ngreat rhetorical effect, the reason for all these preparations\u2015\u2015the\ncoming of the Flood\u2015\u2015is reserved to the end. Yahwist knows no other\nphysical cause of the Deluge than the 40 days\u2019 rain (compare verse\n\u00b9\u00b2).\u2015\u2015=5.= Compare 6\u00b2\u00b2 (Priestly-Code).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n\u200e \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e; LXX \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\u2015\u2015\u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u200e] predicate accusative; Davidson \u00a7\n 76.\u2015\u2015=2.= For \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,\n LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Vulgate read \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e,\u2015\u2015probably correctly.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\n\u200e \u05d5\u05d0\u05e9\u05ea\u05d5\u200e (_bis_)] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d6\u05db\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e0\u05e7\u05d1\u05d4\u200e,\n assimilating Yahwist to Priestly-Code.\u2015\u2015=3a.= The distinction to\n be expected between clean and unclean birds is made imperfectly\n by _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ and Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5,\n which insert \u05d4\u05d8\u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u200e after \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e; and fully by LXX, which goes\n further and adds the words \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f04\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u1fc6\u03bb\u03c5. Ball accepts this, thinking\n the omission in Massoretic Text due to homoioteleuton. But\n the phrase \u05d6\u05db\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e0\u05e7\u05d1\u05d4\u200e shows that \u00b3\u1d43 has been manipulated; and it\n is on the whole more likely that it is entirely redactional.\n Birds _may_ be included in the \u05d4\u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4\u200e of verse \u00b2; though Budde\u2019s\n parallels (Exodus 8\u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427 9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2075, Jeremiah 32\u2074\u00b3 33\u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2 36\u00b2\u2079,\n Psalms 36\u2077) are not quite convincing.\u2015\u2015=3b.= \u05dc\u05b0\u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u200e] Priestly-Code\n uses Hiphil (6\u00b9\u2079 \u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015\u05d6\u05b6\u05e8\u05b7\u05e2\u200e] as Jeremiah 31\u00b2\u2077.\u2015\u2015=4.= \u05dc\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] On\n\u200e \u05dc\u05b0\u200e as denoting the _close_ of a term (compare verse \u00b9\u2070), see\n Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ =6b.=\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05e7\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd\u200e] a rare word (only 7\u00b2\u00b3,\n Deuteronomy 11\u2076), meaning \u2018that which subsists\u2019 (\u221a \u05e7\u05d5\u05dd\u200e). LXX\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1 (other examples in Field, \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd), Vulgate\n _substantia_, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac phrase). On the form see Barth,\n _Die Nominalbildung in den Semitischen Sprachen_ 181; K\u00f6nig ii.\n 146; Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 85 _d_.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=7\u201210, 12, 16b, 17b, 22, 23.\u2015\u2015Entrance into the ark and description of\nthe Flood.=\u2015\u2015Yahwist\u2019s narrative has here been taken to pieces by the\nRedactor, who has fitted the fragments into a new connexion supplied\nby the combined accounts of Yahwist and Priestly-Code. The operation\nhas been performed with such care and skill that it is still possible\nto restore the original order and recover a succinct and consecutive\nnarrative, of which little if anything appears to be lost. The sequence\nof events is as follows: At the end of the seven days, the Flood comes\n(verse \u00b9\u2070); Noah enters the ark (\u2077) and Yahwe shuts him in (\u00b9\u2076\u1d47). Forty\ndays\u2019 rain ensues (\u00b9\u00b2), and the waters rise and float the ark (\u00b9\u2077\u1d47).\nAll life on the earth\u2019s surface is extinguished; only Noah and those in\nthe ark survive (\u00b2\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427).\n\n The rearrangement here adopted (\u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2076\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2077\u1d47\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3) is\n due mainly to the acute criticism of Budde (_Die biblische\n Urgeschichte_ 258 ff.), who has probably added the last\n refinements to a protracted process of literary investigation.\n Some points (_e.g._ the transposition of verses \u2077 and \u00b9\u2070) are,\n of course, more or less doubtful; others (_e.g._ \u00b9\u2076\u1d47) are seen\n to be necessary as soon as the components of Yahwist have been\n isolated. The most difficult thing is to clear the text of the\n glosses which inevitably accompanied the work of redaction; but\n this also has been accomplished with a considerable degree of\n certainty and agreement amongst recent commentaries. The most\n extensive interpolations are part of verse \u2077, the whole of\n verses \u2078 and \u2079, and part of \u00b2\u00b3. For details see the footnote.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =7.= \u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b4\u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e] The enumeration is in the manner of Priestly-Code\n (obsolete also \u05d0\u05b4\u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e); the words either replace \u05d5\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u200e (as verse \u00b9),\n or are a pure insertion;\u2015\u2015in either case redactional.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05d9 \u05d4\u05de\u05d1\u05d5\u05dc\u200e]\n so 7\u00b9\u2070 (Yahwist), 9\u00b9\u00b9 (Priestly-Code) (contrast \u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05bc\u05f3 \u05de\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e, 6\u00b9\u2077\n\u200e 7\u2076).\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b7\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u200e] LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2; Vulgate _diluvium_; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 and\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d8\u05d5\u05e4\u05e0\u05d0\u200e (Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05e2\u05e0\u05d0\u200e). The word has usually\n been derived from \u05d9\u05d1\u05dc\u200e, \u2018streaming\u2019 (see Gesenius _Thesaurus\n philologicus criticus Lingu\u00e6 Hebr\u00e6\u00e6 et Chald\u00e6\u00e6 Veteris\n Testamenti_, Dillmann); but is more probably a foreign word\n without Hebrew etymology (see N\u00f6ldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen\n morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 732). Delitzsch (_Wo lag das\n Paradies?_ 156) proposed the derivation from Assyrian _nab\u00e2lu_,\n \u2018destroy,\u2019 which is accepted by K\u00f6nig (ii. 153), Ball (page 53),\n and others. The Babylonian technical equivalent is _ab\u00fbbu_,\n which denotes both a \u2018light-flood\u2019 and a \u2018water-flood\u2019: the\n double sense has been thought to explain Priestly-Code\u2019s addition\n of \u05de\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e to the word (see on 6\u00b9\u2077). A transformation of the one name\n into the other is, however, difficult to understand (see _Die\n Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 495\u00b9, 546\u00b2). In Psalms\n\u200e 29\u00b9\u2070 \u05de\u05d1\u05d5\u05dc\u200e appears to be used in a general sense without a historic\n reference to the Noachic Deluge (see Duhm, _ad loc._). \u2015\u2015=8, 9=\n present a mixed text. The distinction of clean and unclean\n points to Yahwist; but all other features (\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e [though a\n reading \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e seems attested by _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_, Vulgate, Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, and MSS of LXX]; \u05d6\u05db\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e0\u05e7\u05d1\u05d4\u200e;\n the undiscriminated \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e; the categorical enumeration [to\n which LXX adds the birds at the beginning of verse \u2078]) to\n Priestly-Code. In Priestly-Code the verses are not wanted,\n because they are a duplicate of \u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2076: they must therefore be\n assigned to an interpolator (Budde al.).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=10.= _At the end of the 7 days_ (compare verse \u2074)] The interval (we\nmay suppose) was occupied in assembling the animals and provisioning\nthe ark.\u2015\u2015_the waters of the Flood_] \u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05b7\u05bc\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u200e, a technical name for the\nDeluge, common to both sources (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=7.= Noah enters the ark\n_on account of the ... Flood_: hence verse \u2077 presupposes verse \u00b9\u2070.\nThe same order of events is found in Priestly-Code (\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3) and in the\nBabylonian legend: \u201cwhen the lords of the darkness send at evening\na (grimy?) rain, enter into the ship and close thy door\u201d (1. 88\nf.).\u2015\u2015=16b= (which must in any case follow immediately on verse \u2077)\ncontains a fine anthropomorphism, which (in spite of the Babylonian\nparallel just cited) it is a pity to spoil by deleting \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e and making\nNoah the implicit subject (Klostermann _Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift_,\ni. 717).\u2015\u2015=12.= _forty days and forty nights_] This determination,\nwhich in Yahwist expresses the entire duration of the Flood, seems to\nhave been treated by Redactor as merely a stage in the increase of the\nwaters (compare 8\u2076). It obviously breaks the connexion of Priestly-Code.\nThe Babylonian deluge lasted only six days and nights (1. 128).\u2015\u2015=17b.=\nParallel to \u00b9\u2078 (Priestly-Code).\u2015\u2015=22, 23.= A singularly effective\ndescription of the effect of the Flood, which is evidently conceived\nas universal.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =10.= On the construction of the sentence, see Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 164 _a_, and on verse \u2076 below.\u2015\u2015=12.= \u05d2\u05b6\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dd\u200e] (\u221a _\u01e7asuma_ = \u2018be\n massive\u2019) commonly used of the heavy winter rain (Ezra 10\u2079,\n Canticles 2\u00b9\u00b9): see George Adam Smith _Historical Geography\n of the Holy Land_, 64.\u2015\u2015=16b.= \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 + \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03b9\u03b2\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\u2015\u2015=17b.= Since \u00b9\u2078 belongs to Priestly-Code (\u05d5\u05d9\u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u200e, \u05de\u05d0\u05d3\u200e),\n its duplicate \u00b9\u2077\u1d47 must be from Yahwist, where it forms a natural\n continuation of \u00b9\u00b2. \u00b9\u2077\u1d43, on the other hand (in spite of the 40\n days), must be assigned to Priestly-Code (see page 164).\u2015\u2015=22.=\n\u200e \u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05ea \u05e8\u05d5\u05d7 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] is an unexampled combination, arising from confusion\n of a phrase of Yahwist (\u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05ea \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 2\u2077) with one of Priestly-Code\n\u200e (\u05e8\u05d5\u05d7 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 6\u00b9\u2077 7\u00b9\u2075). The verse being from Yahwist (compare \u05d7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e\n instead of \u05d9\u05b7\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d4\u200e; \u05de\u05ea\u05d5\u200e instead of \u05d5\u05d9\u05d2\u05d5\u05e2\u200e, \u00b2\u00b9), \u05e8\u05d5\u05d7\u200e is naturally the word\n to be deleted.\u2015\u2015=23a= as a whole is Yahwist (\u05de\u05d7\u05d4\u200e, \u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd\u200e, \u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05de\u05d4\u200e);\n but the clause \u05de\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd ... \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e seems again (compare 6\u2077) to be\n redactional, and the three words following must disappear with\n it. \u00b2\u00b3\u1d47 might be assigned with almost equal propriety to Yahwist\n or to Priestly-Code.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05de\u05b7\u05bf\u05d7\u200e] (apocopated imperfect Qal) is a better\n attested Massoretic reading than \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05de\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u200e (Niphal). It is easier,\n however, to change the pointing (to Niphal) than to supply\n\u200e \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e as subject, and the sense is at least as good.\u2015\u2015Gunkel\u2019s\n rearrangement (\u00b2\u00b3\u1d43{\u03b1}\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3\u1d47) is a distinct improvement: of the\n two homologous sentences, that without \u05d5\u05b0\u200e naturally stands second.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=VIII. (1b?), 2b, 3a, (4?), 6\u201212, 13b. Subsidence of the waters.=\u2015\u2015The\nrain from heaven having ceased, the Flood gradually abates. [The ark\nsettles on some high mountain; and] Noah, ignorant of his whereabouts\nand unable to see around, sends out first a raven and then a dove to\nascertain the condition of the earth.\n\n The continuity of Yahwist\u2019s narrative has again been disturbed\n by the redaction. Verse \u2076\u1d43, which in its present position has\n no point of attachment in Yahwist, probably stood originally\n before \u00b2\u1d47, where it refers to the 40 days\u2019 duration of the Flood\n (Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen\n B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 5). It was removed by Redactor\n so as to make up part of the interval between the emergence of\n the mountain-tops and the drying of the ground.\u2015\u2015There are two\n small points in which a modification of the generally accepted\n division of sources might be suggested. (1) \u00b9\u1d47 (the wind causing\n the abatement of the waters) is, on account of \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, assigned\n to Priestly-Code. But the order \u00b9\u1d47\u1427 \u00b2\u1d43 is unnatural, and\n transpositions in Priestly-Code do not seem to have been\n admitted. The idea is more in accord with Yahwist\u2019s conception\n of the Flood than with Priestly-Code\u2019s; and but for the name\n\u200e \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e the half-verse might very well be assigned to Yahwist,\n and inserted between \u00b2\u1d47 and \u00b3\u1d43. (2) Verse \u2074 is also almost\n universally regarded as Priestly-Code\u2019s (see Budde 269 f.).\n But this leaves a lacuna in Yahwist between \u00b3\u1d43 and \u2076\u1d47, where a\n notice of the landing of the ark must have stood: on the other\n hand, \u2075\u1d47 makes it extremely doubtful if Priestly-Code thought\n of the ark as stranded on a mountain at all. The only objection\n to assigning \u2074 to Yahwist is the chronology: if we may suppose\n the chronological scheme to have been added or retouched by a\n later hand (see page 168), there is a great deal to be said for\n the view of Hupfeld and Reuss that the remainder of the verse\n belongs to Yahwist.\u00b9\u2015\u2015The opening passage would then read as\n follows:\n\n \u00b9 It may be noted that in _Jubilees_ v. 28 no date is given\n for the landing of the ark.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =3a.= \u05d4\u05dc\u05d5\u05da \u05d5\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u200e] Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 113 _u_. LXX has misunderstood\n the idiom both here and in verse \u2077.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=6a.= _At the end of 40 days_, =2b.= _the rain from heaven was\nrestrained_; =1b.= _and Yahwe (?) caused a wind to pass over the\nearth, and the waters abated._ =3a.= _And the waters went on decreasing\nfrom off the earth_, =4.= _and the ark rested on the mountains of\nArarat_.\u2015\u2015On the landing-place of the ark, see page 166 below.\n\n=6b\u201212.= The episode of the sending out of the birds appears in many\nforms of the Deluge-tradition; notably in the Babylonian. It is here\nrelated as an illustration of Noah\u2019s wisdom (Gunkel). Tuch quotes from\nPliny, vi. 83 (on the Indians): \u201csiderum in navigando nulla observatio;\nseptentrio non cernitur; sed volucres secum vehunt, emittentes s\u00e6pius,\nmeatumque earum terram petentium comitantur.\u201d\u2015\u2015=7.= _He sent out a\nraven_] The purpose of the action is not stated till verse \u2078; partly\nfor this reason, partly because the threefold experiment with the dove\nis complete and more natural, the genuineness of the verse has been\nquestioned (Wellhausen, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). Dahse, _Zeitschrift\nf\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxviii. 5 f., calls attention\nto the fact that in LXX\u1d39 the verse is marked with the obelus. The\nBabylonian account has three experiments, but with different birds\n(dove, swallow, raven).\u2015\u2015=8.= _And he sent out a dove_] perhaps\nimmediately; see LXX below. But if verse \u2077 be a later insertion,\nwe must supply _and he waited 7 days_ (see verse \u00b9\u2070).\u2015\u2015=9.= The\ndescription of the return and admission of the dove is unsurpassed\neven in the Yahwistic document for tenderness and beauty of\nimagination.\u2015\u2015=10.= _Seven other days_] implying a similar statement\nbefore either verse \u2077 or verse \u2078.\u2015\u2015=11.= _a freshly plucked olive\nleaf_] The olive does not grow at great altitudes, and was said to\nflourish even under water (Tuch). But it is probable that some\nforgotten mythological significance attaches to the symbol in the\nFlood-legend (see Gunkel page 60). Compare the classical notices of\nthe olive branch as an emblem of peace: Virgil, _Aeneid_, viii. 116\n(_Paciferaeque manu ramum pr\u00e6tendit oliv\u00e6_); Livy, xxiv. 30, xxix.\n16.\u2015\u2015=12.= The third time the dove returns no more; and then at\nlast\u2015\u2015=13b.= Noah ventures to remove the _covering_ of the ark, and\nsees that the earth is dry.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =7.= \u05d4\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1\u200e] on the article see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 126 _r_; but\n compare Smith\u2019s note, _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_\u00b2,\n 126.\u2015\u2015LXX here supplies \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f30\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1, as in\n verse \u2078.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u200e] LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f51 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd; so Vulgate,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (accepted by Ball): see on \u00b3\u1d43.\u2015\u2015=8.= \u05de\u05b5\u05d0\u05b4\u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e] LXX \u1f40\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c9\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (= \u05d0\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5\u200e); assuming that both birds were sent forth on\n the same day.\u2015\u2015=10.= \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7\u05b6\u05dc\u200e] compare \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7\u05b6\u05dc\u200e, verse \u00b9\u00b2 (_The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ has \u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05dc\u200e both times). Both forms are\n incorrect: read in each case \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05d9\u05b7\u05d7\u05b5\u05dc\u200e (Budde, Dillmann, al.).\u2015\u2015=13b.=\n\u200e \u05de\u05b4\u05db\u05b0\u05e1\u05b5\u05d4\u200e] possibly described in Yahwist\u2019s account of the building\n of the ark. Elsewhere only of the covering of the Tabernacle\n (Priestly-Code); but compare \u05de\u05b0\u05db\u05b7\u05e1\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, Ezekiel 27\u2077.\u2015\u2015\u05d7\u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u200e] LXX ins.\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=20\u201222. Noah\u2019s sacrifice.=\u2015\u2015Yahwist\u2019s account of the leaving of the\nark has been suppressed. Noah\u2019s first act is to offer a sacrifice, not\nof thanksgiving but (as verse \u00b2\u00b9 shows) of propitiation: its effect is\nto move the Deity to gracious thoughts towards the new humanity. The\nresemblance to the Babylonian parallel is here particularly close and\ninstructive (see page 177): the incident appears also in the Greek\nand Indian legends.\u2015\u2015=20.= _an altar_] Literally \u2018slaughtering-place.\u2019\nThe sacrificial institution is carried back by Yahwist to the remotest\nantiquity (see on 4\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427 7\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427), but this is the first mention of\nthe altar, and also of sacrifice by fire: see page 105 above.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b9\u05dc\u05b9\u05ea\u200e]\n_holocausts_,\u2015\u2015that form of sacrifice which was wholly consumed on the\naltar, and which was naturally resorted to on occasions of peculiar\nsolemnity (_e.g._ 2 Samuel 24\u00b2\u2075).\u2015\u2015=21.= _smelled the soothing odour_]\n\u200e\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9\u05d7\u05b7 \u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05d7\u05b9\u05d7\u05b7\u200e\u200e (\u03ba\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b7, _nidor_)\u00b9 becomes a technical term of the Levitical\nritual, and is never mentioned elsewhere except in Priestly-Code and\nEzekiel. This, Gunkel points out, is the only place where Yahwe is\nactually described as _smelling_ the sacrifice; but compare 1 Samuel\n26\u00b9\u2079. It is probably a refinement of the crude eud\u00e6monism of the\nBabylonian story (see page 177 below); and it is doubtful how far\nit elucidates primitive Hebrew ideas of the effect of sacrifice.\nThat \u201cthe pleasing odour is not the motive but merely the occasion of\nthis gracious purpose\u201d (Knobel), may be sound theology, but it hardly\nexpresses the idea of the passage.\u2015\u2015=21b= is a monologue (\u05d0\u05b6\u05dc\u05be\u05dc\u05b4\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e).\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05d9\u05b5\u05e6\u05b6\u05e8\n\u200e\u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e (see on 6\u2075) may be understood either as epexegetical of \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8 \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd\u200e (a\nreason why Yahwe _might_ be moved to curse the ground, though he will\nnot [Holzinger]), or as the ground of the promise _not_ to visit the\nearth with a flood any more. The latter is by far the more probable.\nThe emphasis is on \u05de\u05b4\u05e0\u05b0\u05bc\u05e2\u05bb\u05e8\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5\u200e, _from his youth_; the innate sinfulness of man\nconstitutes an appeal to the divine clemency, since it cannot be cured\nby an undiscriminating judgement like the Flood, which arrests all\nprogress toward better things (compare Isaiah 54\u2079).\u2015\u2015=22.= The pledge\nof Yahwe\u2019s patience with humanity is the regularity of the course of\nnature, in which good and bad men are treated alike (Matthew 5\u2074\u2075). A\ndivision of the year into six seasons (Rashi), or even into two halves\n(Delitzsch), is not intended; the order of nature is simply indicated\nby a series of contrasts, whose alternation is never more to be\ninterrupted by a catastrophe like the Flood. This assurance closes\nYahwist\u2019s account of the Deluge. It rests on an interior resolve of\nYahwe; whereas in Priestly-Code it assumes the form of a \u2018covenant\u2019\n(9\u00b9\u00b9),\u2015\u2015a striking instance of the development of religious ideas in\nthe direction of legalism: compare Jeremiah 31\u00b3\u2075 \u1da0\u1427 33\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427.\n\n \u00b9 _Iliad_ i. 317: \u03ba\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b7 \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f37\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f11\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c0\u03bd\u1ff7;\n compare Ovid _Metamorphoses_ xii. 153.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =20.= \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7.\u2015\u2015=21.= \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 (_bis_).\u2015\u2015\u05e8\u05d9\u05d7\n\u200e \u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d7\u05d7\u200e] Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac phrase)\u2015\u2015conflate?\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05b0\u05e7\u05b7\u05dc\u05b5\u05bc\u05dc\u200e] a different\n verb from that used in 3\u00b9\u2077 4\u00b9\u00b9 5\u00b2\u2079 (\u05d0\u05e8\u05e8\u200e). Holzinger points out\n that Piel of \u05e7\u05dc\u05dc\u200e is never used with God as subject (compare\n Genesis 12\u00b3); and for this and other reasons regards \u00b2\u00b9\u1d43 as\n an unskilful attempt to link the Noah of the Flood with the\n prophecy of 5\u00b2\u2079. But \u00b2\u00b9\u1d43 can only refer to the Flood, while\n the curse of 5\u00b2\u2079 belongs to the past: moreover, an interpolator\n would have been careful to use the same verb. The sense given\n to \u05e7\u05b4\u05dc\u05b5\u05bc\u05dc\u200e is fully justified by the usage of Pual (Psalms 37\u00b2\u00b2,\n Job 24\u00b9\u2078, Isaiah 65\u00b2\u2070).\u2015\u2015\u200e\u05d1\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8] LXX \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1, as 3\u00b9\u2077.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e6\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e]\n LXX \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f14\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb. See on\n\u200e 6\u2075.\u2015\u2015=22.= \u05e2\u05b9\u05d3\u200e] LXX omitted; Ball, \u05e2\u05b7\u05d3\u200e\u2015\u2015.\u05d9\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u200e] \u2018come to an end\u2019:\n see on 2\u00b2.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n _The Flood according to Priestly-Code._\n\n=VI. 9\u201212. Noah\u2019s piety; The corruption of the earth.=\u2015\u2015=9.= _This is\nthe genealogy of Noah_] The formula is usually taken as the heading\nof the section of Priestly-Code dealing with the Flood; but see on\n9\u00b2\u2078 \u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015Noah is characterised as _righteous_ (\u05e6\u05b7\u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e7\u200e) and _faultless_\n\u200e(\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e): on the construction _v.i._ There is perhaps a correspondence\nbetween these two epithets and the description of the state of the\nworld which follows; \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u200e being opposed to the \u2018violence,\u2019 and \u05ea\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e\nto the \u2018corruption\u2019 of verse \u00b9\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427. \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u200e, a forensic term, denotes one\nwhose conduct is unimpeachable before a judge; \u05ea\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e is sacerdotal in\nits associations (Exodus 12\u2075, Leviticus 1\u00b3 etc.), meaning \u2018free from\ndefect,\u2019 _integer_ (compare 17\u00b9).\u2015\u2015_in his generations_ (_v.i._)]\n_i.e._ alone among his contemporaries (compare 7\u00b9). That Noah\u2019s\nrighteousness was only relative to the standard of his age is not\nimplied.\u00b9\u2015\u2015_walked with God_] see on 5\u00b2\u00b2. The expression receives a\nfuller significance from the Babylonian legend, where Ut-napi\u0161tim, like\nthe Biblical Enoch, is translated to the society of the gods (page 177\nbelow).\u2015\u2015=11 f.= \u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05e0\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4 \u05e0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d7\u05b8\u05ea\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] is the intentional antithesis to the \u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05e0\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d8\u05d5\u05b9\u05d1 \u05de\u05b0\u05d0\u05b9\u05d3\u200e\nof 1\u00b3\u00b9 (Delitzsch).\u2015\u2015_All flesh had corrupted its way_] had violated\nthe divinely-appointed order of creation. The result is _violence_\n\u200e(\u05d7\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05e1\u200e, LXX \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1)\u2015\u2015ruthless outrage perpetrated by the strong on the\nweak. A \u201cnature red in tooth and claw with ravin\u201d is the picture which\nrises before the mind of the writer; although, as has been already\nremarked (page 129), the narrative of Priestly-Code contains no\nexplanation of the change which had thus passed over the face of the\nworld.\n\n \u00b9 So Jerome: \u201cut ostenderet non juxta justitiam consummatam,\n sed juxta generationis su\u00e6 eum justum fuisse justitiam.\u201d\n\n The fundamental idea of verse \u00b9\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427 is the disappearance of the\n Golden Age, or the rupture of the concord of the animal world\n established by the decree of 1\u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1427. The lower animals contribute\n their share to the general \u2018corruption\u2019 by transgressing the\n regulation of 1\u00b3\u2070, and commencing to prey upon each other and\n to attack man (see 9\u2075): so Rashi. To restrict \u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d1\u05e9\u05e8\u200e to mankind\n (Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2, Tuch, Strack, Driver, Bennett al.) is therefore\n unnecessary and unwarranted. The phrase properly denotes \u2018all\n living beings,\u2019 and is so used in 8 out of the 13 occurrences in\n Priestly-Code\u2019s account of the Flood (Driver _ad loc._). In 6\u00b9\u2079\n 7\u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2076 8\u00b9\u2077 it means animals apart from man; but that in the same\n connexion it should also mean mankind apart from animals is not\n to be expected, and could only be allowed on clear evidence.\u2015\u2015The\n difference of standpoint between Priestly-Code and Yahwist (6\u2075)\n on this matter is characteristic.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =9.= \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7 \u05ea\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] (so Job 12\u2074). The asyndeton is harsh; but it is\n hardly safe to remedy it on the authority of _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ (\u05d5\u05ea\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e) and Vulgate, against LXX.\n To remove \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u200e as a gloss from Yahwist (7\u00b9) (Ball) is too bold.\n Perhaps the sentence should be broken up into two clauses, one\n nominal and the other verbal: \u2018Noah was a righteous man; perfect\n was he,\u2019 etc.\u2015\u2015The forensic sense of \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u200e given above may not\n be the original: see S. A. Cook, _The Journal of Theological\n Studies_, ix. 632\u00b9, who adduces some evidence that it meant what\n was \u2018due\u2019 among a definite social group, and between it and its\n gods.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d3\u05b9\u05e8\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] LXX \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. The feminine plural is\n highly characteristic of Priestly-Code (Holzinger _Einleitung\n in den Hexateuch_ 341); but apparently always as a _real_ plural\n (series of generations): contrast the solitary use of singular\n in Priestly-Code, Exodus 1\u2076. Here, accordingly, it seems fair\n to understand it, not of the individual contemporaries of\n Noah (Tuch, Wellhausen, Holzinger, al.), but of the successive\n generations covered by his lifetime. The resemblance to \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7 \u05d1\u05d3\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\u200e\n (7\u00b9) is adduced by Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte\n Israels_\u2076 390) as a proof of Priestly-Code\u2019s dependence\n on Yahwist.\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] One of the few instances of\n Priestly-Code\u2019s use of the article with \u05d0\u05f3\u200e\u2015\u2015=12.= \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX\n \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=13\u201216. Directions for building the ark.=\u2015\u2015=13.= Announcement in\ngeneral terms of some vast impending catastrophe, involving _the end\nof all flesh_ (all living beings, as verse \u00b9\u00b2).\u2015\u2015=14\u201216.= Description\nof the Ark.\u2015\u2015_An Ark_ (chest) _of gopher wood_] probably some resinous\nwood. In Hebrew \u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e is used only of Noah\u2019s ark and the vessel in which\nMoses was saved (Exodus 2\u00b3\u1427 \u2075); the name _ark_ comes to us through\nVulgate (_arca_), where, however, it is also applied to the ark of the\ntestimony (Exodus 25\u00b9\u2070 etc.). The Babylonian Flood-narrative has the\nordinary word for ship (_elippu_).\u2015\u2015The vessel is to consist internally\nof _cells_ (literally \u2018nests\u2019), and is to be coated inside and out with\n_bitumen_ (compare Exodus 2\u00b3). Somewhat similar details are given of\nthe ship of Ut-napi\u0161tim (page 176). Asphalt is still lavishly applied\nin the construction of the rude boats used for the transport of naphtha\non the Euphrates (see Cernik, quoted by Suess, _The Face of the Earth_,\n27).\u2015\u2015=15.= Assuming that the _cubit_ is the ordinary Hebrew cubit\nof six handbreadths (about 18 inches: see Kennedy, _A Dictionary of\nthe Bible_, iv. 909), the dimensions of the ark are such as modern\nshipbuilding has only recently exceeded (see Bennett 140); though it\nis probably to be assumed that it was rectangular in plan and sections.\nThat a vessel of these proportions would float, and hold a great\ndeal (though it would not carry cannon!), it hardly needed the famous\nexperiment of the Dutchman Peter Janson in 1609\u201221 to prove (see\nMichaelis, _Orientalische und exegetische Bibliothek_ xviii. 27\nf.).\u2015\u2015=16.= The details here are very confused and mostly obscure. The\nword \u05e6\u05b9\u05d4\u05b7\u05e8\u200e (\u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd) is generally rendered \u2018light\u2019 or \u2018opening\nfor light,\u2019\u2015\u2015either a single (square) aperture (Tuch), or \u201ca kind of\ncasement running round the sides of the ark (except where interrupted\nby the beams supporting the roof) a little below the roof\u201d (Driver, so\nDelitzsch, Dillmann, al.). Exegetical tradition is in favour of this\nview; but the material arguments for it (see Dillmann 141) are weak,\nand its etymological basis is doubtful (_v.i._). Others (Ewald, Gunkel,\nGesenius-Buhl al.) take it to mean the _roof_ (literally \u2018back\u2019:\nArabic _\u1e93ahr_).\u00b9 The clause _and to a cubit thou shalt finish it above_\nis unintelligible as it stands: some suggestions are given in the\nfootnote.\u2015\u2015The _door_ of the ark is to be _in its_ (longer?) _side_;\nand the cells inside are to be arranged in three stories. The ship\nof Ut-napi\u0161tim appears to have had six decks, divided into nine\ncompartments (lines 61\u201263).\n\n \u00b9 According to Jensen (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi.\n 1, 487), the Babylonian ark had a dome-shaped roof (_mu\u1e2b\u1e2bu_).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =13.= \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05b0\u05e4\u05b8\u05e0\u05b7\u05d9\u200e] not (as Esther 9\u00b9\u00b9) \u2018has come to my knowledge,\u2019\n but \u2018has entered into my purpose.\u2019 This is better than (with\n Dillmann) to take \u05e7\u05b5\u05e5 \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u200e absolutely (as Amos 8\u00b2), and \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u200e as\n \u2018according to my purpose.\u2019\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b4\u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9\u05d4\u05b6\u05dd\u200e] _through them_; Exodus 8\u00b2\u2070 9\u00b9\u00b9,\n Judges 6\u2076 etc.\u2015\u2015[\u05de\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u05b8\u05dd] \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200e LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd; Vulgate _cum\n terra_; so Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f. As Olshausen says,\n we should expect \u05de\u05b5\u05e2\u05b7\u05dc \u05d4\u05f3\u200e (\u05de\u05b5\u05d0\u05b5\u05ea\u200e [Graetz] is unsuitable). But the error\n probably lies deeper. Ball emends \u05de\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05dd \u05d5\u05b4\u05d0\u05b5\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05f3\u200e; Budde \u05de\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05d7\u05b8\u05dd \u05db\u05d9 [\u05d4\u05dd]\n\u200e \u05de\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u05b4\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05f3\u200e; Gunkel \u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd \u05de\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u05b4\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u200e. Eerdmans (_Alttestamentliche\n Studien_, i. 29) finds a proof of original polytheism. He\n reads \u05d4\u05b4\u05e0\u05b6\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc \u05de\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u05b4\u05dd \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e: \u201cwe [the gods] are about to destroy the\n earth.\u201d\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u03ba\u03b9\u03b2\u03c9\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2; \u2666Targum \u05ea\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea\u05d0\u200e. The word\n is the Egyptian _\u1e6deb(t)_ = \u2018chest,\u2019 \u2018sarcophagus\u2019 (\u03b8\u03af\u03b2\u03b9\u03c2, \u03b8\u03af\u03b2\u03b7,\n in LXX of Exodus 2\u00b3\u1427 \u2075): see Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus\n criticus Lingu\u00e6 Hebr\u00e6\u00e6 et Chald\u00e6\u00e6 Veteris Testamenti_; Erman,\n _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xlvi.\n 123. Jensen (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, iv. 272 f.), while\n admitting the Egyptian etymology, suggests a connexion with\n the Assyrian _ilippu \u1e6d\u00ed-bi-tum_ (a kind of ship). I am informed\n by Dr. C. H. W. Johns that while the word is written as the\n determinative for \u2018ship,\u2019 it is not certain that it was\n pronounced _elippu_. He thinks it possible that it covers the\n word _tab\u00fb_, found in the phrase _ta-bi-e B\u00eal il\u00e2ni Marduk_\n (Delitzsch _Assyrisches Handw\u00f6rterbuch_ 699 a), which he is\n inclined to explain of the processional barques of the gods. If\n this conjecture be correct, we may have here the Babylonian\n original of Hebrew \u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e. See _Cambridge Biblical Essays_\n (1909), page 37 ff.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b2\u05e6\u05b5\u05d9\u05be\u05d2\u05b9\u05e4\u05b6\u05e8\u200e] The old translators were evidently\n at a loss: LXX (\u1f10\u03ba) \u03be\u03cd\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd; Vulgate _(de) lignis\n l\u00e6vigatis_; Jerome _ligna bituminata_: the word being \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be\n \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. Lagarde (_Semitica_ i. 64 f.; _Symmicta_ ii. 93 f.)\n considered it a mistaken contraction from \u05d2\u05b8\u05e4\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u200e (brimstone),\n or rather a foreign word of the same form which meant\n originally \u2018pine-wood.\u2019 Others (Bochart, al.) suppose it to\n contain the root of \u03ba\u03c5\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, \u2018cypress,\u2019 a wood used by the\n Ph\u0153nicians in shipbuilding, and by the Egyptians for sarcophagi\n (Delitzsch).\u2015\u2015\u05e7\u05b4\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] Lagarde\u2019s conjecture, \u05e7\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e7\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (_Onomastica\n Sacra_\u00b9, ii. 95), has been happily confirmed from Philo,\n _Quaestiones in Genesis_ ii. 3 (_loculos loculos_: see Budde\n 255), and from a Palestinian Syriac Lectionary (Nestle, cited by\n Holzinger). On the idiom, see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 123 _e_.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05e4\u05b6\u05e8\u200e]\n also \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, = \u2018bitumen\u2019 (LXX, Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5,\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2), Arabic _\u1e33ufr_, Aramaic \u05db\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d0 Assyrian _kupru_\n (used in the Babylonian Flood-story). The native Hebrew word\n for \u2018bitumen\u2019 is \u05d7\u05b5\u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u200e (11\u00b3 14\u00b9\u2070, Exodus 2\u00b3).\u2015\u2015=15.= \u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc\u200e] LXX\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b8\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05b7\u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015=16.= \u05e6\u05b9\u05d4\u05b7\u05e8\u200e] LXX \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd (reading \u05e6\u05b9\u05d1\u05b5\u05e8\u200e?); all other\n versions express the idea of _light_ (Aquila \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd,\n Symmachus \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03c2, Vulgate _fenestram_, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac\n word), \u2018windows,\u2019 Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u200e). They connected it (as\n Aquila shows) with \u05e6\u05b8\u05bd\u05d4\u05b3\u05e8\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e, \u2018noon day\u2019; but _if_ \u05e6\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200e means properly\n \u2018summit\u2019 (see Gesenius-Buhl; Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v. _),\n there seems nothing in Hebrew to connect the root with the\n idea of light. The meaning \u2018back\u2019 is supported by Arabic\n _\u1e93ahr_.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05d0\u05de\u05d4 \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05db\u05b7\u05dc\u05b6\u05bc\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05de\u05dc\u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4\u200e] The suffix may refer either to the \u05e6\u05d4\u05e8\u200e\n (whose gender is unknown: compare K\u00f6nig _Historisch-comparative\n Syntax der hebr\u00e4ischen Sprache_ page 163) or to the \u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e: the\n latter is certainly most natural after \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e. The prevalent\n explanation\u2015\u2015that the cubit indicates either the breadth of the\n light-opening, or its distance below the roof (see Dillmann)\u2015\u2015is\n mere guess-work. Budde (following Wellhausen) removes the first\n three words to the end of the verse, rendering: \u201cand according\n to the cubit thou shalt finish it (the ark)\u201d: Dillmann objects\n that this would require \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05de\u05d4\u200e. Ball reads \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05dc\u05be\u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b0\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05bc \u05ea\u05b0\u05db\u05b7\u05e1\u05b6\u05bc\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05de\u05dc\u05f3\u200e, \u201cand for\n its (the ark\u2019s) whole length thou shalt cover it above\u201d; Gunkel:\n\u200e \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05d0\u05f3 \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05d2\u05bb\u05dc\u05b6\u05bc\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u201cand on a pivot (see Isaiah 6\u2074) thou shalt make it (the\n roof) revolve,\u201d\u2015\u2015a doubtful suggestion.\n\n \u2666 duplicate word \u201cTargum\u201d removed\n\n * * * * *\n\n=17\u201222. The purpose of the ark.=\u2015\u2015Gunkel thinks that verse \u00b9\u2077\ncommences a second communication to Noah; and that in the source from\nwhich Priestly-Code drew, the construction of the ark was recorded\nbefore its purpose was revealed (as in the parallel account of Yahwist:\nsee on 7\u00b9). That, of course, is possible; but that Priestly-Code\nslurred over the proof of Noah\u2019s faith because he had no interest in\n_personal_ religion can hardly be supposed. There is really nothing\nto suggest that \u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 are not the continuation of \u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2076.\u2015\u2015=17.=\n_Behold I am about to bring the Flood_] \u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05b7\u05bc\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u200e: see above on 7\u2077\n(Yahwist), and in the Note below.\u2015\u2015=18.= _I will establish my covenant,\netc._] anticipating 9\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427. Delitzsch and Gunkel distinguish the two\ncovenants, taking that here referred to as a special pledge to Noah\nof safety in the coming judgement; but that is contrary to the usage\nof Priestly-Code, to whom the \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u200e is always a solemn and permanent\nembodiment of the divine will, and never a mere occasional provision\n(Kraetzschmar, _Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament_ 197 f.).\nThe entering of the ark is therefore not the condition to be fulfilled\nby Noah _under_ the covenant, but the condition which makes the\nestablishment of the promised covenant possible (Holzinger).\u2015\u2015_Thou\nand thy sons, etc._] The enumeration is never omitted by Priestly-Code\nexcept in 8\u00b9; compare 7\u00b9\u00b3 8\u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2078: contrast Yahwist in 7\u00b9.\u2015\u2015=19 f.= One\npair of each species of animals (fishes naturally excepted) is to be\ntaken into the ark. The distinction of clean and unclean kinds belongs\non the theory of Priestly-Code to a later dispensation\u2015\u2015=20.= The\nclassification (which is repeated with slight variations in 7\u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9 8\u00b9\u2079\n9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b9\u2070) here omits wild beasts (\u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e): _v.i._ on verse \u00b9\u2079.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05b8\u05d1\u05b9\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u200e does not\nnecessarily imply that the animals came of themselves (Rashi, Abraham\nIbn Ezra, al.), any more than \u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05d0\u200e (verse \u00b9\u2079) necessarily means that\nNoah had to catch them.\u2015\u2015=21.= _all food which is_ (or _may be_)\n_eaten_] according to the prescriptions of 1\u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015=22.= _so did\nhe_] the pleonastic sentence is peculiar to Priestly-Code; compare\nespecially Exodus 40\u00b9\u2076 (also Exodus 7\u2076 12\u00b2\u2078\u1427 \u2075\u2070 39\u00b3\u00b2\u1427 \u2074\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427, Numbers 1\u2075\u2074,\nand often).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =17.= \u05d5\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e0\u05e0\u05d9\u200e] compare Driver _The Journal of Philology_ xi.\n\u200e 226.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05de\u05d1\u05d5\u05dc \u05de\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e (compare 7\u2076)] The \u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e is certainly superfluous\n grammatically, but \u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200e is necessary to the completeness\n of the sentence. LXX omits \u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e in 7\u2076, and inserts it in\n 9\u00b9\u00b9\u1d47 (Priestly-Code). Whether it be an explanatory gloss of\n the unfamiliar \u05de\u05d1\u05d5\u05dc\u200e (so most), or a peculiar case of nominal\n apposition (see Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in\n Hebrew_ \u00a7 188), it is difficult to decide: on the idea that it\n is meant to distinguish the water-flood from the light-flood,\n see above, page 154. The pointing \u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd\u200e (Michaelis al.) is\n objectionable on various grounds: for one thing, Priestly-Code\n never speaks of the Flood as coming \u2018from the sea.\u2019 Yahwist\u2019s\n phrase is \u05de\u05d9 \u05d4\u05de\u05d1\u05d5\u05dc\u200e: 7\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2070; compare 9\u00b9\u00b9\u1d43 (Priestly-Code).\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05b0\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d7\u05b5\u05ea\u200e]\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, \u05dc\u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05ea\u200e; but elision\n of \u05d4\u200e in Hiphil is unusual: some Samaritan MSS have \u05dc\u05d7\u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05ea\u200e\n (Ball).\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05b4\u05d2\u05b0\u05d5\u05b7\u05e2\u200e] \u2018expire,\u2019\u2015\u2015peculiar to Priestly-Code in Hexateuch.\n (compare 7\u00b2\u00b9 25\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2077 35\u00b2\u2079 49\u00b3\u00b3,\u2015\u201512 total in all); elsewhere\n only in poetry (Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_\n\u200e 341).\u2015\u2015=19.= \u05d4\u05b8\u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u200e] (on anomalous pointing of article, see\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 35 _f_ (1)). _The Samaritan Recension of\n the Pentateuch_ reads \u05d4\u05d7\u05d9\u05d4\u200e as in 8\u00b9\u2077; and so LXX, which takes\n the word in the limited sense of wild animals, reading [\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f11\u03c1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd] \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd] (see 7\u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9 8\u00b9\u2079).\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05c1\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e as\n in 7\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2075. So also verse \u00b2\u2070.\u2015\u2015=20.= \u05de\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05e8\u05de\u05e9\u200e] Inserted \u05d5\u05b0\u200e with _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Vulgate,\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2; the \u05d5\u05b0\u200e is necessary to the sense.\u2015\u2015LXX has \u05db\u05dc\u200e\n before each class, but Massoretic Text rightly confines it to\n the heterogeneous \u05e8\u05de\u05e9\u200e (Holzinger). For \u05e8\u05de\u05e9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05de\u05d4\u200e, _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX have \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e8\u05de\u05e9 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d0\u05f3\u200e.\u2015\u2015=21.= \u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05d4\u200e]\n see on 1\u00b2\u2079.\u2015\u2015=22.= \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=VII. 6, 11, 13\u201217a. Commencement of the Flood.=\u2015\u2015These verses\n(omitting \u00b9\u2076\u1d47 [Yahwist]) appear to form an uninterrupted section of\nthe Priestly narrative, following immediately on 6\u00b2\u00b2.\u2015\u2015=6.= Date of the\nFlood by the year of Noah\u2019s life. The number 600 is a Babylonian _ner_;\nit has been thought that the statement rests ultimately on a Babylonian\ntradition.\u2015\u2015=11.= This remarkably precise date introduces a sort\nof diary of the Flood, which is carried through to the end: see\nbelow, page 167 f. Verse \u2076, though consistent with \u00b9\u00b9, is certainly\nrendered superfluous by it; and it is not improbable that we have\nhere to do with a fusion of authorities within the Priestly tradition\n(page 168).\u2015\u2015_the fountains of the Great Deep_] (\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd \u05e8\u05b7\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e: see on 1\u00b2).\nOutbursts of subterranean water are a frequent accompaniment of seismic\ndisturbances in the alluvial districts of great rivers (Suess, 31\u201233);\nand a knowledge of this physical fact must have suggested the feature\nhere expressed. In accordance with ancient ideas, however, it is\nconceived as an eruption of the subterranean ocean on which the earth\nwas believed to rest (see page 17). At the same time _the windows\nof heaven were opened_] allowing the waters of the heavenly ocean\nto mingle with the lower. The Flood is thus a partial undoing of\nthe work of creation; although we cannot be certain that the Hebrew\nwriter looked on it from that point of view. Contrast this grandiose\ncosmological conception with the simple representation of Yahwist, who\nsees nothing in the Flood but the result of excessive rain.\n\n Gunkel was the first to point out the poetic character and\n structure of \u00b9\u00b9\u1d47: note the phrase \u05ea\u05d4\u05d5\u05dd \u05e8\u05d1\u05d4\u200e (Amos 7\u2074, Isaiah 51\u00b9\u2070,\n Psalms 36\u2077), and the _parallelismus membrorum_. He considers the\n words a fragment of an older version of the legend which (like\n the Babylonian) was written in poetry. A similar fragment is\n found in 8\u00b2.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =6.= On the syntax of the time-relation, see Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 164 _a_.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e] see 6\u00b9\u2077.\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05d1\u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4\u200e] \u2018in the year of 600\n years\u2019; compare Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 134 _o_.\u2015\u2015For \u201817th day\u2019\n LXX has \u201827th\u2019; see page 167 below.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b2\u05e8\u05bb\u05d1\u05b9\u05bc\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] 8\u00b2, Malachi 3\u00b9\u2070,\n\u200e = \u05d0\u05f3 \u05d1\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 2 Kings 7\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2079 = \u05de\u05b4\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd\u200e, Isaiah 24\u00b9\u2078. Apart from these\n phrases the word \u05d0\u05f3\u200e is rare, and denotes a latticed opening,\n Hosea 13\u00b3, Isaiah 60\u2078, Ecclesiastes 12\u00b3. Here it can only\n mean \u2018sluices\u2019; the \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 of LXX \u201cunites the senses of\n waterfalls, trap-doors, and sluices\u201d (Delitzsch).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=13.= _On that very day_] continuing verse \u00b9\u00b9. The idea that all the\nanimals entered the ark on one day (Yahwist allows a week) has been\ninstanced as an example of Priestly-Code\u2019s love of the marvellous\n(Holzinger, Gunkel).\u2015\u2015=14\u201216.= See on 6\u00b9\u2079 \u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015=17a.= _the Flood\ncame upon the earth_] as a result of the upheaval, verse \u00b9\u00b9.\u2015\u2015The\nwords _forty days_ are a gloss based on 7\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2 (_v.i._); the Redactor\ntreating Yahwist\u2019s forty days as an episode in the longer chronology:\nsee on verse \u00b9\u00b2 (Yahwist).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =13.= \u05d1\u05e2\u05e6\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\u200e] 17\u00b2\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u2076, Exodus 12\u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u2074\u00b9\u1427 \u2075\u00b9, Leviticus\n 23\u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u2079\u1427 \u00b3\u2070, Deuteronomy 32\u2074\u2078, Joshua 5\u00b9\u00b9 (all\n Priestly-Code); Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_\n\u200e 346.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05dc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05ea\u200e] irregular gender: Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 97 _c_.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b4\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd\u200e]\n Better as LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05d0\u05b4\u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e (8\u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2078).\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05d4\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e] distinguishing\n wild beasts from domestic (compare verse \u00b2\u00b9); see on 6\u00b9\u2079.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05dc \u05e6\u05e4\u05d5\u05e8\n\u200e \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e] LXX omitted. Compare Ezekiel 17\u00b2\u00b3 39\u2074.\u2015\u2015=17a.= \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd\u200e] Budde\n (264) ingeniously suggests that the last three consonants of the\n gloss ([\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2]\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e) represent the genuine \u05de\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e of Priestly-Code (6\u00b9\u2077\n 7\u2076). LXX adds \u05d5\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4\u200e. The half-verse cannot be assigned to\n Yahwist, because it would be a mere repetition of verse \u00b9\u00b2.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=18\u201221, 24. Magnitude and effect of the Flood.=\u2015\u2015While Yahwist confines\nhimself to what is essential\u2015\u2015the extinction of life\u2015\u2015and leaves\nthe universality of the Flood to be inferred, Priestly-Code not only\nasserts its universality, but so to speak proves it, by giving the\nexact height of the waters above the highest mountains.\u2015\u2015=18, 19.=\n_prevailed_] \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b7\u05e8\u200e, literally \u2018be strong\u2019 (LXX \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9, Aquila\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7). The Flood is conceived as a contest between the water\nand the dry land.\u2015\u2015=20.= _fifteen cubits_] is just half the depth of\nthe ark. The statement is commonly explained in the light of 8\u2074: when\nthe Flood was at its height the ark (immersed to half its depth, and\ntherefore drawing fifteen cubits of water) was just over one of the\nhighest mountains; so that on the very slightest abatement of the water\nit grounded! The explanation is plausible enough (on the assumption\nthat 8\u2074 belongs to Priestly-Code); but it is quite as likely that the\nchoice of the number is purely arbitrary.\u2015\u2015=24.= _150 days_] the period\nof \u2018prevalence\u2019 of the Flood, reckoned from the outbreak (verse \u00b9\u00b9):\nsee page 168.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =19.= \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05db\u05bb\u05e1\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u200e] LXX \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05db\u05b7\u05e1\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u200e, with \u05de\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e as subject (better). So verse\n\u200e \u00b2\u2070.\u2015\u2015=20.= \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u200e] LXX \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u200e (\u1f51\u03c8\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7), is preferable to Massoretic Text\n (compare Psalms 103\u00b9\u00b9).\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b6\u05d4\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX (and Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5) add \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f51\u03c8\u03b7\u03bb\u03ac as\n in \u00b9\u2079.\u2015\u2015=21.= \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e] here distinguished from \u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d1\u05e9\u05e8\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=VIII. 1, 2a, 3b\u20125, 13a, 14. Abatement of the Flood.=\u2015\u2015The judgement\nbeing complete, God remembers the survivors in mercy. The Flood has\nno sooner reached its maximum than it begins to abate (\u00b3\u1d47), and the\nsuccessive stages of the subsidence are chronicled with the precision\nof a calendar.\u2015\u2015=1.= _remembered_] in mercy, as 19\u00b2\u2079 30\u00b2\u00b2 etc. The\ninclusion of the animals in the kindly thought of the Almighty is a\ntouch of nature in Priestly-Code which should not be overlooked.\u2015\u2015=1b.=\nThe mention of the wind ought certainly to follow the arrest of the\ncause of the Deluge (\u00b2\u1d43). It is said in defence of the present order\nthat the sending of the wind and the stopping of the elemental waters\nare regarded as simultaneous (Dillmann); but that does not quite meet\nthe difficulty. See, further, page 155 above.\u2015\u2015=3b.= _at the end of the\n150 days_] (7\u00b2\u2074). See the footnote.\u2015\u2015=4.= The resting of the ark.\u2015\u2015_on\n(one of) the mountains of \u2019\u0102r\u0101r\u0101\u1e6d_] which are probably named as the\nhighest known to the Hebrews at the time of writing; just as one form\nof the Indian legend names the Himalayas, and the Greek, Parnassus.\nArara\u1e6d (Assyrian _Urar\u1e6du_) is the North-east part of Armenia; compare\n2 Kings 19\u00b3\u2077 = Isaiah 37\u00b3\u2078, Jeremiah 51\u00b2\u2077. The name _Mount_ Arara\u1e6d,\ntraditionally applied to the highest peak (Massis, Agridagh: _c._ 17,\n000 feet) of the Armenian mountains, rests on a misunderstanding of\nthis passage.\n\n The traditions regarding the landing-place of the ark are fully\n discussed by Lenormant _Les Origines de l\u2019histoire_\u00b2 ii. 1 ff.:\n compare Tuch 133\u2012136; N\u00f6ldeke _Untersuchungen zur Kritik des\n Alte Testament_ 145 ff.\u2015\u2015The district called Arara\u1e6d or Urar\u1e6du\n is properly that named in Armenian _Ayrarat_, and is probably\n identical with the country of the Alarodians of Herodotus iii.\n 94, vii. 79. It is the province of Armenia lying North-east of\n Lake Van, including the fertile plain watered by the Araxes, on\n the right (South-west) side of which river Mt. Massis rises.\u00b9\n Another tradition, represented by Berossus (page 177 below) and\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05e7\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05d3\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u200e\u00b2, locates the mountain in Kurdistan,\n viz. at \u01e6ebel \u01e6\u00fbd\u00ee, which is a striking mountain South-west of\n Lake Van, commanding a wide view over the Mesopotamian plain.\n This view is adopted in the Koran (Surah xi. 46), and has\n become traditional among the Moslems.\u2015\u2015The \u2018mountain of Ni\u1e63ir\u2019\n of the cuneiform legend lies still further south, probably\n in one of the ranges between the Lower Zab and the next\n tributary to the South, the Adhem (Rad\u00e2nu) (Streck, _Zeitschrift\n f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, xv. 272). Tiele and Kosters, however\n (_Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 289), identify it with Elburz, the\n sacred mountain of the Iranians (South of the Caspian Sea); and\n find a trace of this name in the \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u1f44\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n \u0392\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd indicated as the mountain of the ark by Nicolaus\n Damascenus (Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 95).\u2015\u2015What\n the original Hebrew tradition was, it is impossible to say. The\n writers just named conjecture that it was identical with the\n Babylonian, Arara\u1e6d being here a corruption of _Hara haraiti_\n (the ancient Iranian name of Elburz), which was afterwards\n confused with the land of Urar\u1e6du. N\u00f6ldeke and Holzinger think\n it probable that Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 and Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 preserve the oldest\n name (\u1e32ardu), and that Arara\u1e6d is a correction made when it was\n discovered that the northern mountains are in reality higher\n than those of Kurdistan.\n\n \u00b9 \u201cArarat regio in Armenia campestris est, per quam Araxes\n fluit, incredibilis ubertatis, ad radices Tauri montis, qui\n usque illuc extenditur.\u201d Jerome on Isaiah 37\u00b3\u2078.\n\n \u00b2 Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f has both \u05e7\u05e8\u05d3\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0\u200e and \u05d0\u05e8\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0\u200e, as has Berossus.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =1.= The addition of LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f11\u03c1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd is here very much in place.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u200e] The \u221a is rare\n and late: Numbers 17\u00b2\u2070 (Priestly-Code), Jeremiah 5\u00b2\u2076, Esther 2\u00b9\n\u200e 7\u00b9\u2070.\u2015\u2015=3b.= \u05de\u05e7\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d7\u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] Read \u05de\u05e7\u05e5 \u05d4\u05d7\u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (Strack, Holzinger, Gunkel).\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05de\u05e7\u05e5 \u05d7\u05f3\u200e.\u2015\u2015=4.= For 17th\n LXX has 27th (7\u00b9\u00b9).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=5.= _the tops of the mountains_] _i.e._ (as usually explained) the\nother (lower) mountains. The natural interpretation would be that\nthe statement is made absolutely, from the viewpoint of an imaginary\nspectator; in which case it is irreconcilable with verse \u2074 (compare\nHupfeld _Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung_\n16 f.).\u2015\u2015=13a, 14.= On New Year\u2019s day the earth\u2019s surface was\nuncovered, though still moist; but not till the 27th of the 2nd month\nwas it _dry_ (_arefacta_: compare Jeremiah 50\u00b3\u2078).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =5.= \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d4\u05dc\u05d5\u05da \u05d5\u05d7\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u200e] \u2018went on decreasing\u2019 (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\n 113 _u_); less idiomatic than \u00b3\u1d43 (Yahwist).\u2015\u2015_Tenth_] LXX\n _eleventh_.\u2015\u2015=13a.= After \u05e9\u05e0\u05d4\u200e LXX adds \u05dc\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9 \u05e0\u05d7\u200e (7\u00b9\u00b9).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=15\u201219. Exit from the ark: blessing on the animals.=\u2015\u2015=17b.= A renewal\nof the benediction of 1\u00b2\u00b2, which had been forfeited by the excesses\nbefore the Flood. The corresponding blessing on man is reserved\nfor 9\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015=19.= The animals leave the ark _according to their\nfamilies_,\u2015\u2015an example of Priestly-Code\u2019s love of order.\n\n The _Chronology of the Flood_ presents a number of intricate\n though unimportant problems.\u2015\u2015The Dates, according to Massoretic\n Text and LXX,\u00b9 are as follows:\n\n 1. Commencement of Flood, 600th year, 2nd month, 17th day\n (LXX 27th)\n\n 2. Climax (resting of ark), 600th year, 7th month, 17th day\n (LXX 27th)\n\n 3. Mountain tops visible, 600th year, 10th (LXX 11th) month,\n 1st day\n\n 4. Waters dried up 601st year, 1st month, 1st day\n\n 5. Earth dry 601st year, 2nd month, 27th day\n\n \u00b9 _Jubilees_ v. 23\u201232 (compare vi. 25 f.) adds several dates,\n but otherwise agrees with Massoretic Text, except that it\n makes the Flood commence on the 27th, gives no date for the\n resting of the ark, and puts the drying of the earth on the\n 17th, and the opening of the ark on the 27th day of the 2nd\n month.\n\n The chief points are these: (a) In LXX the duration of the Flood\n is exactly 12 months; and since the 5 months between (1) and\n (2) amount to 150 days (7\u00b2\u2074 8\u00b3), the basis of reckoning is\n presumably the Egyptian _solar_ year (12 months of 30 days + 5\n intercalated days). The 2 months\u2019 interval between (3) and (4)\n also agrees, to a day, with the 40 + 21 days of 8\u2076\u207b\u00b9\u00b2 (Yahwist).\n In Massoretic Text the total duration is 12 months + 10 days;\n hence the reckoning appears to be by _lunar_ months of _c._ 29\u00bd\n days, making up a solar year of 364 days.\u00b9\u2015\u2015(b) The Massoretic\n scheme, however, produces a discrepancy with the 150 days; for\n 5 lunar months fall short of that period by two or three days.\n Either the original reckoning was by solar months (as in LXX),\n or (what is more probable) the 150 days belong to an older\n computation independent of the Calendar.\u00b2 It has been surmised\n that this points to a 10 months\u2019 duration of the Flood (150\n days\u2019 increase + 150 days\u2019 subsidence); and (Ewald, Dillmann)\n that a trace of this system remains in the 74 days\u2019 interval\n between (2) and (3), which amounts to about one-half of the\n period of subsidence.\u2015\u2015(c) Of the separate data of the Calendar\n no satisfactory explanation has yet been given. The only date\n that bears its significance on its face is the disappearance of\n the waters on the 1st day of the year; and even this is confused\n by the trivial and irrelevant distinction between the drying up\n of the waters and the drying of the earth. Why the Flood began\n and ended in the 2nd month, and on the 17th or 27th day, remains,\n in spite of all conjectures, a mystery.\u00b3 (d) The question\n whether the months are counted from the old Hebrew New Year\n in the autumn, or, according to the post-Exilic (Babylonian)\n calendar, from the spring, has been discussed from the earliest\n times, and generally decided in favour of the former view\n (_Jubilees_, Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 80,\n Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, Rashi, and most).\u2074 The arguments on one side\n or the other have little weight. If the second autumn month\n (Marche\u0161wan) is a suitable time for the commencement of the\n Flood, because it inaugurates the rainy season in Palestine\n and Babylonia, it is for the same reason eminently unsuitable\n for its close. Priestly-Code elsewhere follows the Babylonian\n calendar, and there is no reason to suppose he departs from\n his usual procedure here (so Tuch, Gunkel, al.).\u2015\u2015(e) The only\n issue of real interest is how much of the chronology is to\n be attributed to the original Priestly Code. If there be two\n discordant systems in the record, the 150 days might be the\n reckoning of Priestly-Code, and the Calendar a later adjustment\n (Dillmann); or, again, the 150 days might be traditional, and\n the Calendar the work of Priestly-Code himself (Gunkel). On\n the former (the more probable) assumption the further question\n arises whether the additions were made before or after the\n amalgamation of Yahwist and Priestly-Code. The evidence is not\n decisive; but the divergences of LXX from Massoretic Text seem\n to prove that the chronology was still in process of development\n after the formation of the Canon.\u2015\u2015See Dahse, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\n die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxviii. 7 ff., where it is\n shewn that a group of Greek MSS agree closely with _Jubilees_,\n and argued (but unconvincingly) that the original reckoning\n was a solar year, beginning and ending with the 27th of the\n 2nd month.\n\n \u00b9 So _Jubilees_ vi. 32. Compare Charles\u2019s Notes, pages 54 f.\n and 56 f.\n\n \u00b2 That it is a later redactional addition (Holzinger) is much\n less likely.\n\n \u00b3 King (_The Journal of Theological Studies_, v. 204 f.) points\n out the probability that in the triennial cycle of Synagogue\n readings the Parasha containing the Flood-story fell to be\n read _about_ the 17th Iyyar. This might conceivably have\n suggested the starting-point of the Calendar (but if so it\n would bring down the latter to a somewhat late period), or\n a modification of an original 27th (LXX), which, however,\n would itself require explanation.\n\n \u2074 See Delitzsch 175 f., 183, 184; Dillmann 129 f.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =15.= \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\u2015\u2015=17.= _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 read \u05d5\u05b0\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05d7\u05d9\u05d4\u200e; so verse \u00b9\u2079.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u200e]\n Why Qr\u00ea substitutes in this solitary instance \u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05e6\u05b5\u05d0\u200e is not clear:\n see K\u00f6nig i. page 641.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05bc\u05e4\u05b8\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc \u05d5\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u200e] LXX \u05d5\u05bc\u05e4\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc \u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u200e (Improved), omitting\n the previous \u05d5\u05e9\u05e8\u05e6\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200e. This is perhaps the better text: see on\n 9\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 Vulgate reads the whole as Improved.\u2015\u2015=19.= \u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05e8\u05de\u05e9\u2015\u2015\u05e8\u05de\u05e9\u200e]\n LXX (better) \u05d5\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05e3 \u05d5\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e8\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c2 \u05d4\u05e8\u05b9\u05de\u05b5\u05e9\u05c2\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d7\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd\u200e] (Jeremiah 15\u00b3);\n the plural of \u05de\u05d9\u05df\u200e (Priestly-Code\u2019s word in chapter 1) is not in\n use (Holzinger).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=IX. 1\u20127. The new world-order.=\u2015\u2015The religious significance of the\nFlood to the mind of the Priestly writers appears in this and the\nfollowing sections. It marks the introduction of a new and less ideal\nage of history, which is that under which mankind now lives. The\noriginal harmonious order of nature, in which all forms of slaughter\nwere prohibited, had been violated by both men and animals before the\nFlood (see on 6\u00b9\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427). This is now replaced by a new constitution, in\nwhich the slaughter of animals for human food is legalised; and only\ntwo restrictions are imposed on the bloodthirsty instincts of the\ndegenerate creatures: (1) Man may not eat the \u2018life\u2019 of an animal, and\n(2) human blood may not be shed with impunity either by man or beast.\n\n The Rabbinical theologians were true to the spirit of\n the passage when they formulated the idea of the \u2018Noachic\n commandments,\u2019 binding on men generally, and therefore required\n of the \u2018proselytes of the gate\u2019; though they increased their\n number. See Sch\u00fcrer, iii. 128 f.\n\n Verses \u00b9\u207b\u2077, both in substance and expression (compare \u05dc\u05db\u05dd \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05d4\u200e,\n\u200e \u05e0\u05ea\u05ea\u05d9 \u05dc\u05db\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05db\u05dc\u200e, and especially \u05d9\u05e8\u05e7 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d1\u200e), form a pendant to 1\u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1427 We\n have seen (page 35) that these verses are supplementary to the\n cosmogony; and the same is true of the present section in\n relation to the story of the Flood. It does not appear to be\n an integral part of the Deluge tradition; and has no parallel\n (as verses \u2078\u207b\u00b9\u2076 have) in Yahwist or the Babylonian narrative\n (Gunkel). But that neither this nor 1\u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1427 is a secondary addition\n to Priestly-Code is clear from the phraseology here, which is\n moulded as obviously on 1\u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2077 \u1da0\u1427 as on 1\u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1427. To treat 9\u2074\u207b\u2076\n as a later insertion (Holzinger) is arbitrary. On the contrary,\n the two passages represent the characteristic contribution of\n Priestly-Code to the ancient traditions.\n\n=1.= An almost verbal repetition of 1\u00b2\u2078. The wives of Noah and his\nsons are not mentioned, women having no religious standing in the Old\nTestament (so verse \u2078). It is perhaps also significant that here (in\ncontrast to 1\u00b2\u00b2) the animals are excluded from the blessing (though\nnot from the covenant\u2015\u2015verses \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015=2.= Man\u2019s \u2018dominion\u2019\nover the animals is re-established, but now in the form of _fear_ and\n_dread_ (compare Deuteronomy 11\u00b2\u2075) towards him on their part.\u2015\u2015_into\nyour hand they are given_] conveying the power of life and death\n(Leviticus 26\u00b2\u2075, Deuteronomy 19\u00b9\u00b2 etc.).\u2015\u2015=3.= The central injunction:\nremoval of the prohibition of animal food.\u2015\u2015_moving thing that is\nalive_] an unusually vague definition of animal life.\u2015\u2015Observe\nPriestly-Code\u2019s resolute ignoring of the distinction between clean\nand unclean animals.\u2015\u2015=4.= The first restriction. Abstention from\neating blood, or flesh from which the blood has not been drained, is\na fundamental principle of the Levitical legislation (Leviticus 7\u00b2\u2077\n17\u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u2074); and though to our minds a purely ceremonial precept, is\nconstantly classed with moral laws (Ezekiel 33\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427 etc.). The theory\non which the prohibition rests is repeatedly stated (Leviticus 17\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2074,\nDeuteronomy 12\u00b2\u00b3): the blood is the life, and the life is sacred, and\nmust be restored to God before the flesh can be eaten. Such mystic\nviews of the blood are primitive and widespread; and amongst some races\nformed a motive not for abstinence, but for drinking it.\u00b9 All the same\nit is unnecessary to go deeper in search of a reason for the ancient\nHebrew horror of eating with the blood (1 Samuel 14\u00b3\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\u00b2).\u2015\u2015=5, 6.=\nThe second restriction: sanctity of human life. \u2018Life\u2019 is expressed\nalternately by \u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd\u200e and \u05e0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1\u200e.\u2015\u2015On \u05dc\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05ea\u05d9\u05db\u05dd\u200e, _v.i._\u2015\u2015_I will require_] exact\nan account of, or equivalent for (42\u00b2\u00b2, Ezekiel 33\u2076, Psalms 9\u00b9\u00b3 etc.).\nThat God is the avenger of blood is to Yahwist (chapter 4) a truth of\nnature; to Priestly-Code it rests on a positive enactment.\u2015\u2015_from the\nhand of every beast_] see Exodus 21\u00b2\u2078 \u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015=6a= is remarkable for its\nassonances and the perfect symmetry of the two members: \u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05e4\u05b5\u05da\u05b0 \u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05dd \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd | \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd\n\u200e\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05d5\u05b9 \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05e4\u05b5\u05da\u05b0\u200e\u200e. It is possibly an ancient judicial formula which had become\nproverbial (Gunkel). The \u2666Targum (_v.i._) read into the text the\nidea of judicial procedure; others (Tuch, al.) suppose the law of\nblood-revenge to be contemplated. In reality the manner of execution\nis left quite indefinite.\u2015\u2015=6b.= The reason for the higher value set on\nthe life of man. On the _image of God_ see on 1\u00b2\u2076 \u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015=7.= The section\ncloses, as it began, with the note of benediction.\n\n \u00b9 See _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_\u00b2, 234 f.;\n Frazer, _The Golden Bough_\u00b2, i. 133 f., 352 f.; Kennedy,\n _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 1544.\n\n \u00b2 It has been thought that the offence warned against is the\n barbarous African custom of eating portions of animals still\n alive (Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, Rashi, Delitzsch, al.); but that is a\n mistake.\n\n \u2666 duplicate word \u201cTargum\u201d removed\n\n * * * * *\n\n =1.= LXX adds at end \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2, as 1\u00b2\u2078.\u2015\u2015=2.=\n\u200e \u05d1\u05db\u05dc\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d1\u05db\u05dc\u200e] LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05d5\u05d1\u05db\u05dc\u200e (_bis_). The \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u200e cannot be that of\n specification (7\u00b2\u00b9 8\u00b9\u2077 9\u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u2076 etc.), since no comprehensive\n category precedes; yet it is harsh to take it as continuing\n the sense of \u05e2\u05dc\u200e (LXX), and not altogether natural to render\n \u2018along with\u2019 (Dillmann).\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05b4\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ LXX \u05e0\u05b0\u05ea\u05b7\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05d5\u200e:\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05e0\u05ea\u05ea\u05d9 \u05dc\u05db\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05db\u05dc\u200e] seems a slavish repetition\n from 1\u00b2\u2079. We should at least expect the article, which _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ (\u05d4\u05db\u05dc\u200e) supplies.\u2015\u2015=4.=\n\u200e \u05d3\u05de\u05d5\u200e is an explanatory apposition (if not a gloss) to \u05d1\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05d5\u200e; but\n LXX renders \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2, and Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac phrase),\n Symmachus (\u03bf\u1f57 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc7 \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6) as a relative clause.\u2015\u2015=5.=\n\u200e \u05d5\u05d0\u05da\u200e is suspicious after the preceding \u05d0\u05da\u200e. _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_ (\u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d3\u05de\u05db\u05dd\u200e) omits.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05ea\u05d9\u05db\u05dd\u200e] usually taken as\n circumscription of genitive, emphasising the suffix: \u2018_your_\n blood, your own\u2019\u2015\u2015in contrast with the animals. It is better to\n render \u2018according to your persons,\u2019 _i.e._ individually;\u2015\u2015\u201cdem\n eloh. Sprachgebrauch entspricht distributive Fassung des \u05dc\u200e doch\n am besten\u201d (Delitzsch).\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] \u2018from the hand of one man\n that of another.\u2019 The full expression would be \u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u200e\n (Olshausen); but all languages use breviloquence in the\n expression of reciprocity. The construction is hardly more\n difficult than in 15\u00b9\u2070 42\u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b3\u2075; and an exact parallel occurs\n in Zechariah 7\u00b9\u2070. See Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 139 _c_; Budde 283 ff.\n The \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u200e of _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5,\n Vulgate makes nonsense; LXX omits the previous \u05d5\u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e. It would\n be better to move the Athnach so as to commence a new clause\n with \u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u200e.\u2015\u2015=6.= \u05d1\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e] Vulgate omitted; Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d1\u05e1\u05d4\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05e8 \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0\u200e:\n Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f is still more explicit.\u2015\u2015=7.= \u05d5\u05e8\u05d1\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d4\u200e] Vulgate _et\n implete eam_ (as verse \u00b9). Read \u05d5\u05e8\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d4\u200e after 1\u00b2\u2078 (Nestle in Ball).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=8\u201217. The Covenant and its Sign.=\u2015\u2015In Priestly-Code as in Yahwist\n(8\u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u00b2) the story of the Flood closes with an assurance that the world\nshall never again be visited by such a catastrophe; and in both the\npromise is absolute, not contingent on the behaviour of the creatures.\nIn Priestly-Code it takes the form of a covenant between God and all\nflesh,\u2015\u2015the first of two covenants by which (according to this writer)\nthe relations of the Almighty to His creatures are regulated. On the\ncontent and scope of this Noachic covenant, see the concluding note,\npage 173 f.\u2015\u2015=9.= _establish my covenant_] in fulfilment of 6\u00b9\u2078.\nPriestly-Code\u2019s formula for the inauguration of the covenant is always\n\u200e\u05d4\u05b5\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u200e or \u05e0\u05b8\u05ea\u05b7\u05df \u05d1\u05bc\u05f3\u200e (17\u00b2, Numbers 25\u00b9\u00b2) instead of the more ancient and\ntechnical \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05ea \u05d1\u05bc\u05f3\u200e.\u2015\u2015=11.= The essence of the covenant is that the earth\nshall never be devastated by a Flood. Whether its idea be exhausted\nby this assurance is a difficult question, on which see page 173\nbelow.\u2015\u2015=12\u201217.= The sign of the covenant. \u201cIn times when contracts\nwere not reduced to writing, it was customary, on the occasion of\nsolemn vows, promises, and other \u2018covenant\u2019 transactions, to appoint\na sign, that the parties might at the proper time be reminded of the\ncovenant, and a breach of its observance be averted. Examples in common\nlife: Genesis 21\u00b3\u2070, compare 38\u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1427\u201d (Gunkel).\u00b9 Here the sign is a\nnatural phenomenon\u2015\u2015the rainbow; and the question is naturally asked\nwhether the rainbow is conceived as not having existed before (so\nAbraham Ibn Ezra, Tuch). That is the most obvious assumption, though\nnot perhaps inevitable. That the laws of the refraction and reflection\nof light on which the rainbow depends actually existed before the\ntime of Noah is a matter of which the writer may very well have been\nignorant.\u2015\u2015For the rest, the image hardly appears here in its original\nform. The brilliant spectacle of the upturned bow against the dark\nbackground of the retreating storm naturally appeals to man as a token\nof peace and good-will from the god who has placed it there; but of\nthis thought the passage contains no trace: the bow is set in the cloud\nby God to remind Himself of the promise He has given. It would seem as\nif Priestly-Code, while retaining the anthropomorphism of the primitive\nconception, has sacrificed its primary significance to his abstract\ntheory of the covenant with its accompanying sign. On the mythological\norigin of the symbol, see below.\u2015\u2015=14\u201216.= Explanation of the\nsign.\u2015\u2015\u00b9\u2074\u1d47 continues \u00b9\u2074\u1d43: _and (when) the bow appears in the cloud_;\nthe apodosis commencing with \u00b9\u2075 (against Delitzsch).\u2015\u2015The bow seems\nconceived as lodged once for all in the cloud (so Abraham Ibn Ezra),\nto appear at the right moment for recalling the covenant to the mind\nof God.\u2015\u2015=16.= _an everlasting covenant_] so 17\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2079, Exodus 31\u00b9\u2076,\nLeviticus 24\u2078, Numbers 18\u00b9\u2079 25\u00b9\u00b3 (all Priestly-Code).\n\n \u00b9 Hence both of Priestly-Code\u2019s covenants are confirmed by a\n sign: the Abrahamic covenant by circumcision, and this by\n the rainbow.\n\n The idealisation of the rainbow occurs in many mythologies. To\n the Indians it was the battle-bow of Indra, laid aside after his\n contest with the demons; among the Arabs \u201cKuzah shoots arrows\n from his bow, and then hangs it up in the clouds\u201d (Wellhausen\n _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_\u2076 311); by Homer it was\n personified as \u1f3e\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, the radiant messenger of the Olympians\n (_Iliad_ ii. 786, iii. 121; compare Ovid _Metamorphoses_ i. 270\n f.), but also regarded as a portent of war and storm (xi. 27 f.,\n xvii. 547 ff.). In the Icelandic Eddas it is the bridge between\n heaven and earth. A further stage of idealisation is perhaps\n found in the Babylonian Creation-myth, where Marduk\u2019s bow,\n which he had used against Tiamat, is set in the heavens as a\n constellation. (See Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des\n alten Orients_\u00b2, 248; Dillmann 155 f.; Gunkel 138 f.; Driver\n 99).\u2015\u2015These examples go far to prove a mythological origin of\n the symbolism of this passage. It springs from the imagery of\n the thunderstorm; the lightnings are Yahwe\u2019s arrows; when the\n storm is over, His bow (compare Habakkuk 3\u2079\u207b\u00b9\u00b9, Psalms 7\u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427)\n is laid aside and appears in the sky as a sign that His anger\n is pacified. The connexion with the Flood-legend (of which there\n are several examples, though no Babylonian parallel has yet\n been discovered) would thus be a later, though still ancient,\n adaptation. The rainbow is only once again mentioned in Old\n Testament (Ezekiel 1\u00b2\u2078 \u05d4\u05e7\u05e9\u05ea \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e2\u05e0\u05df \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d2\u05e9\u05dd\u200e: but see Sirach\n 43\u00b9\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427 50\u2077), and it is pointed out (by Wellhausen, al.) that\n elsewhere \u05e7\u05b6\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05ea\u200e always denotes the bow as a weapon, never an arc\n of a circle.\n\n With regard to the covenant itself, the most important question\n theologically is whether it includes the regulations of\n verses \u00b9\u207b\u2076, or is confined to the unconditional promise that\n there shall no more be a flood. For the latter view there is\n undoubtedly much to be said (see Valeton, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\n die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xii. 3 f.). Verses \u00b9\u207b\u2077\n and \u2078\u207b\u00b9\u2077 are certainly distinct addresses, and possibly of\n different origin (page 169); and while the first says nothing\n of a covenant, the second makes no reference to the preceding\n stipulations. Then, the sign of the covenant is a fact\n independent of human action; and it is undoubtedly the meaning\n of the author that the promise stands sure whether the precepts\n of \u00b9\u207b\u2077 be observed or not. On the other hand, it is difficult\n to believe that Priestly-Code, to whom the \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u200e means so much,\n should have dignified by that name the negative assurance of\n verse \u00b9\u00b9. In the case of the Abrahamic covenant, the \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u200e marks\n a new ordering of the relations between God and the world, and\n is capable of being observed or violated by those with whom\n it is established. Analogy, therefore, is so far in favour of\n including the ordinances of \u00b9\u207b\u2077 in the terms of the covenant\n (so Isaiah 24\u2075 \u1da0\u1427). Kraetzschmar (_Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten\n Testament_ 192 ff.) solves the difficulty by the supposition\n that the idea of verses \u2078\u207b\u00b9\u2077 is borrowed by Priestly-Code from\n Yahwist, and represents the notion of the covenant characteristic\n of that document. It is much simpler to recognise the existence\n of different tendencies within the priestly school; and we\n have seen that there are independent reasons for regarding\n verses \u00b9\u207b\u2077 as supplementary to the Deluge tradition followed\n by Priestly-Code. If that be the case, it is probable that\n these verses were inserted by the priestly author with the\n intention of bringing under the Noachic \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u200e those elementary\n religious obligations which he regarded as universally binding\n on mankind.\u2015\u2015On the conception of the \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u200e in Yahwist and\n Priestly-Code, see chapters 15 and 17.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =10.= \u05de\u05db\u05dc\u200e] \u2018as many as\u2019; see on 6\u00b2.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05db\u05dc \u05d7\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200e] LXX omitted.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05dc\u200e]\n perhaps = \u2018in short\u2019: compare 23\u00b9\u2070, see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\n 143 _e_. The sense of \u05d7\u05f3 \u05d4\u05f3\u200e = \u2018animals\u2019 in general, immediately\n after the same expression in the sense of \u2018wild animals,\u2019 makes\n the phrase suspicious (Holzinger).\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05de\u05d1\u05d5\u05dc\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d4\u05de\u05d1\u05d5\u05dc\u200e; LXX adds \u05de\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05e9\u05d7\u05ea\u200e] _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05dc\u05d4\u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05ea\u200e; so verse \u00b9\u2075.\u2015\u2015=12.=\n\u200e \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 + (with Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5) \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05e0\u05d7\u200e.\u2015\u2015=13.= \u05e0\u05ea\u05ea\u05d9\u200e] hardly\n historic perfect (\u2018I have set\u2019), but either perfect of instant\n action (\u2018I do set\u2019), or perfect of certainty (\u2018I will set\u2019); see\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 106 _i_, _m_, _n_.\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05d1\u05e2\u05e0\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e2\u05e0\u05df\u200e] literally\n \u2018when I cloud with cloud\u2019; see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\u00a7 52 _d_ and\n 117 _r_.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05e7\u05e9\u05ea\u200e] LXX, Vulgate \u05e7\u05e9\u05ea\u05d9\u200e; so LXX in verse \u00b9\u2076.\u2015\u2015=15.=\n\u200e \u05d7\u05d9\u05d4\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05d4\u05d7\u05d9\u05d4\n\u200e \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05ea\u05db\u05dd\u200e (compare verse \u00b9\u00b2).\u2015\u2015=16.= \u05dc\u05b4\u05d6\u05b0\u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05e8\u200e Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\n\u200e \u05dc\u05b0\u05d6\u05b5\u05db\u05b6\u05e8\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=28, 29. The death of Noah.=\n\n The form of these verses is exactly that of the genealogy,\n chapter 5; while they are at the same time the conclusion of\n the \u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05ea \u05e0\u05d7\u200e (6\u2079). How much was included under that rubric? Does\n it cover the whole of Priestly-Code\u2019s narrative of the Flood (so\n that \u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05ea\u200e is practically equivalent to \u2018biography\u2019), or does it\n refer merely to the account of his immediate descendants in 6\u00b9\u2070?\n The conjecture may be hazarded that 6\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2070 7\u2076 9\u00b2\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u2079 formed a\n section of the original book of \u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05ea\u200e, and that into this skeleton\n the full narrative of the Flood was inserted by one of the\n priestly writers (see the notes on 2\u2074\u1d43). The relation of the\n assumed genealogy to that of chapter 5 would be precisely that\n of the \u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05ea\u200e of Terah (11\u00b2\u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) to the \u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05ea\u200e of Shem (11\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2076). In\n each case the second genealogy is extremely short; further, it\n opens by repeating the last link of the previous genealogy (in\n each case the birth of three sons, 5\u00b3\u00b2 6\u00b9\u2070); and, finally, the\n second genealogy is interspersed with brief historical notices.\n It may, of course, be held that the whole history of Abraham\n belongs to the \u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05ea\u200e of Terah; that is the accepted view, and\n the reasons for disputing it are those mentioned on page 40 f.\n Fortunately the question is of no great importance.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =29.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u200e, Hebrew MSS (London Polyglott) and _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n _The Deluge Tradition._\n\n 1. Next to cosmogonies, flood-legends present perhaps the most\n interesting and perplexing problem in comparative mythology. The\n wide, though curiously unequal, distribution of these stories,\n and the frequent occurrence of detailed resemblances to the\n biblical narrative, have long attracted attention, and were not\n unnaturally accepted as independent evidence of the strictly\n historical character of the latter.\u00b9 On the question of the\n universality of the Deluge\u00b2 they have, of course, no immediate\n bearing, though they frequently assert it; for it could never\n be supposed that the mere occurrence of a legend in a remote\n part of the globe proved that the Flood had been there. The\n utmost that could be claimed is that there had been a deluge\n coextensive with the primitive seat of mankind; and that the\n memory of the cataclysm was carried with them by the various\n branches of the race in their dispersion. But even that position,\n which is still maintained by some competent writers, is attended\n by difficulties which are almost insuperable. The scientific\n evidence for the antiquity of man all over the world shows that\n such an event (if it ever occurred) must have taken place many\n thousands of years before the date assigned to Noah; and that\n the tradition should have been preserved for so long a time\n among savage peoples without the aid of writing is incredible.\n The most reasonable line of explanation (though it cannot here\n be followed out in detail) is that the great majority of the\n legends preserve the recollection of local catastrophes, such as\n inundations, tidal waves, seismic floods accompanied by cyclones,\n etc., of which many historical examples are on record; while\n in a considerable number of cases these local legends have been\n combined with features due either to the diffusion of Babylonian\n culture or to the direct influence of the Bible through\n Christian missionaries.\u00b3 In this note we shall confine our\n attention to the group of legends most closely affiliated to\n the Babylonian tradition.\n\n \u00b9 Andree (_Die Flutsagen ethnographisch betrachtet_, 1891),\n who has collected between eighty and ninety such stories\n (of which he recognises forty-three as original and genuine,\n and twenty-six as influenced by the Babylonian) points out,\n _e.g._, that they are absent in Arabia, in northern and\n central Asia, in China and Japan, are hardly found anywhere\n in Europe (except Greece) or Africa, while the most numerous\n and remarkable instances come from the American continent\n (page 125 f.). The enumeration, however, must not be\n considered as closed: Naville (_Proceedings of the Society\n of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology_, 1904, 251\u2012257, 287\u2012294) claims to\n have found fresh proof of an Egyptian tradition in a text\n of the Book of the Dead, containing the following words:\n \u201cAnd further I (the god Tum) am going to deface all I have\n done; this earth will become water (or an ocean) through an\n inundation, as it was at the beginning\u201d (_l.c._ page 289).\n\n \u00b2 On the overwhelming geological and other difficulties of\n such a hypothesis, see Driver 99 f.\n\n \u00b3 See Andree, _l.c._ 143 ff.; Suess, _The Face of the Earth_,\n i. 18\u201272 _passim_ Compare the discussion by Woods in _A\n Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 17 ff.; and Driver _The Book\n of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 101 ff.\u2015\u2015Lenormant,\n who once maintained the independence of the legends as\n witnesses to a primitive tradition, afterwards expressed\n himself with more reserve, and conceded the possibility that\n the Mexican and Polynesian myths might be distant echoes of\n a central legend, emanating ultimately from Babylonia (_Les\n Origines de l\u2019histoire_\u00b2 i. 471 f., 488 ff.).\n\n 2. Of the Babylonian story the most complete version is\n contained in the eleventh Tablet of the Gilgame\u0161 Epic.\u00b9 Gilgame\u0161\n has arrived at the Isles of the Blessed to inquire of his\n ancestor Utnapi\u0161tim how he had been received into the society\n of the gods. The answer is the long and exceedingly graphic\n description of the Flood which occupies the bulk of the\n Tablet. The hero relates how, while he dwelt at \u0160urippak on\n the Euphrates, it was resolved by the gods in council to send\n the Flood (_ab\u00fbbu_) on the earth. Ea, who had been present at\n the council, resolved to save his favourite Utnapi\u0161tim; and\n contrived without overt breach of confidence to convey to him\n a warning of the impending danger, commanding him to build a\n ship (_elippu_) of definite dimensions for the saving of his\n life. The \u2018superlatively clever one\u2019 (_Atra-\u1e25asis_, a name of\n Utnapi\u0161tim) understood the message and promised to obey; and was\n furnished with a misleading pretext to offer his fellow-citizens\n for his extraordinary proceedings. The account of the\n building of the ship (line 48 ff.) is even more obscure than\n Genesis 6\u00b9\u2074\u207b\u00b9\u2076: it is enough to say that it was divided into\n compartments and was freely smeared with bitumen. The lading\n of the vessel, and the embarking of the family and dependants\n of Utnapi\u0161tim (including artizans), with domestic and wild\n animals, are then described (line 81 ff.); and last of all, in\n the evening, on the appearance of a sign predicted by \u0160ama\u0161 the\n sun-god, Utnapi\u0161tim himself enters the ship, shuts his door,\n and hands over the command to the steersman, Puzur-Bel (90 ff.).\n On the following morning the storm (magnificently described in\n lines 97 ff.) broke; and it raged for six days and nights, till\n all mankind were destroyed, and the very gods fled to the heaven\n of Anu and \u201ccowered in terror like a dog.\u201d\n\n \u00b9 Discovered by G. Smith, in 1872, among the ruins of\n Asshurbanipal\u2019s library; published 1873\u20124; and often\n translated since. See _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte\n Testament_\u00b2, 55 ff.; Jensen _Die Kosmologie der Babylonier_,\n 368 ff.; Zimmern in Gunkel\u2019s _Sch\u00f6pfung und Chaos in\n Urzeit und Endzeit_, 423 ff.; Jensen _Keilinschriftliche\n Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 116 ff. (the translation followed\n below); Ball _Light from the East_, 35 ff.; Jeremias _Das\n Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 228 ff.;\n and the abridgments in Jastrow _The Religion of Babylonia\n and Assyria_\u00b9, 493 ff.; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte\n Testament_\u00b3, 545 ff.; _Texte und Bilder_, i. 50 ff.\n\n \u201cWhen the seventh day came, the hurricane,\n the Flood, the battle-storm was stilled,\n Which had fought like a (host?) of men.\n The sea became calm, the tempest was still,\n the Flood ceased.\n When I saw the day, no voice was heard,\n And the whole of mankind was turned to clay.\n When the daylight came, I prayed,\n I opened a window and the light fell on my face,\n I knelt, I sat, and wept,\n On my nostrils my tears ran down.\n I looked on the spaces in the realm of the sea;\n After twelve double-hours an island stood out.\n At Nisir\u00b2 the ship had arrived.\n The mountain of Nisir stayed the ship....\u201d\n (line 130\u2012142).\n\n \u00b2 See page 166.\n\n This brings us to the incident of the birds (146\u2012155):\n\n \u201cWhen the seventh day\u00b3 came\n I brought out a dove and let it go.\n The dove went forth and came back:\n Because it had not whereon to stand it returned.\n I brought forth a swallow and let it go.\n The swallow went forth and came back:\n Because it had not whereon to stand it returned.\n I brought forth a raven and let it go.\n The raven went forth and saw the decrease of the waters,\n It ate, it ... it croaked, but returned not again.\u201d\n\n \u00b3 From the landing.\n\n On this Utnapi\u0161tim released all the animals; and, leaving the\n ship, offered a sacrifice:\n\n \u201cThe gods smelt the savour,\n The gods smelt the goodly savour\n The gods gathered like flies over the sacrificer\u201d\n (160 ff.).\n\n The deities then begin to quarrel, I\u0161tar and Ea reproaching Bel\n for his thoughtlessness in destroying mankind indiscriminately,\n and Bel accusing Ea of having connived at the escape of\n Utnapi\u0161tim. Finally, Bel is appeased; and entering the ship\n blesses the hero and his wife:\n\n \u201c\u2018Formerly Utnapi\u0161tim was a man;\n But now shall Utnapi\u0161tim and his wife be like to us\n the gods:\n Utnapi\u0161tim shall dwell far hence at the mouth of the\n streams.\u2019\n Then they took me, and far away at the mouth of the\n streams they made me dwell\u201d (202 ff.).\u2074\n\n \u2074 Two fragments of another recension of the Flood-legend,\n in which the hero is regularly named Atra-\u1e25asis, have also\n been deciphered. One of them, being dated in the reign of\n Ammizaduga (_circa_ 1980 B.C.), is important as proving that\n this recension had been reduced to writing at so early a\n time; but it is too mutilated to add anything substantial\n to our knowledge of the history of the tradition (see\n _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, 288\u2012291). The other is a\n mere scrap of twelve lines, containing Ea\u2019s instructions\n to Atra-\u1e25asis regarding the building and entering of the\n ark, and the latter\u2019s promise to comply (_Keilinschriftliche\n Bibliothek_, 256\u2012259). See _Die Keilinschriften und das\n Alte Testament_\u00b3, 551 f.\u2015\u2015The extracts from Berossus\n preserved by Eusebius present the Babylonian story in a form\n substantially agreeing with that of the Gilgame\u0161 Tablets,\n though with some important variations in detail. See\n Eusebius _Chronicon_ i. (edited by Schoene, columns 19\u201224,\n 32\u201234: compare M\u00fcller, _Fragmenta Historicorum Gr\u00e6corum_ ii.\n 501 ff.).\n\n 3. The dependence of the biblical narrative on this ancient\n Babylonian legend hardly requires detailed proof. It is somewhat\n more obvious in the Yahwistic recension than in the Priestly;\n but there is enough in the common substratum of the two accounts\n to show that the Hebrew tradition as a whole was derived from\n Babylonia. Thus both Yahwist and Priestly-Code agree with the\n Babylonian story in the general conception of the Flood as a\n divine visitation, its universality (so far as the human race is\n concerned), the warnings conveyed to a favoured individual, and\n the final pacification of the deity who had caused the Deluge.\n Yahwist agrees with Babylonia in the following particulars: the\n entry of the hero into the ark _after_ the premonitory rain;\n the shutting of the door; the prominence of the number 7; the\n episode of the birds; the sacrifice; and the effect of its\n \u2018savour\u2019 on the gods. Priestly-Code has also its peculiar\n correspondences (though some of these may have been in Yahwist\n originally): _e.g._ the precise instructions for building the\n ark; the mention of bitumen (a distinctively Babylonian touch);\n the grounding of the ark on a mountain; the blessing on the\n survivors.\u00b9 By the side of this close and marked parallelism,\n the material differences on which Nickel (page 185) lays\n stress\u2015\u2015viz. as to (a) the chronology, (b) the landing-place\n of the ark, (c) the _details_ of the sending out of the birds,\n (d) the sign of the rainbow (absent in Babylonian), and (e) the\n name of the hero\u2015\u2015sink into insignificance. They are, indeed,\n sufficient to disprove immediate literary contact between\n the Hebrew writers and the Gilgame\u0161 Tablets; but they do not\n weaken the presumption that the story had taken the shape known\n to us in Babylonia before it passed into the possession of\n the Israelites. And since we have seen (page 177) that the\n Babylonian legend was already reduced to writing about the time\n usually assigned to the Abrahamic migration, it is impossible\n to suppose that the Hebrew oral tradition had preserved an\n independent recollection of the historical occurrence which\n may be assumed as the basis of fact underlying the Deluge\n tradition.\u2015\u2015The _differences_ between the two narratives are\n on this account all the more instructive. While the Genesis\n narratives are written in prose, and reveal at most occasional\n traces of a poetic original (8\u00b2\u00b2 in Yahwist, 7\u00b9\u00b9\u1d47 8\u00b2\u1d43 in\n Priestly-Code), the Babylonian epic is genuine poetry, which\n appeals to a modern reader in spite of the strangeness of its\n antique sentiment and imagery. Reflecting the feelings of the\n principal actor in the scene, it possesses a human interest and\n pathos of which only a few touches appear in Yahwist, and none\n at all in Priestly-Code. The difference here is not wholly due\n to the elimination of the mythological element by the biblical\n writers: it is characteristic of the Hebrew popular tale that it\n shuns the \u2018fine frenzy\u2019 of the poet, and finds its appropriate\n vehicle in the unaffected simplicity of prose recitation. In\n this we have an additional indication that the story was not\n drawn directly from a Babylonian source, but was taken from\n the lips of the common people; although in Priestly-Code it\n has been elaborated under the influence of the religious theory\n of history peculiar to that document (page lx f.). The most\n important divergences are naturally those which spring from\n the religion of the Old Testament\u2015\u2015its ethical spirit, and its\n monotheistic conception of God. The ethical motive, which is\n but feebly developed in the Babylonian account, obtains clear\n recognition in the hands of the Hebrew writers: the Flood is a\n divine judgement on human corruption; and the one family saved\n is saved on account of the righteousness of its head. More\n pervasive still is the influence of the monotheistic idea.\n The gods of the Babylonian version are vindictive, capricious,\n divided in counsel, false to each other and to men; the writer\n speaks of them with little reverence, and appears to indulge\n in flashes of Homeric satire at their expense. Over against\n this picturesque variety of deities we have in Genesis the one\n almighty and righteous God,\u2015\u2015a Being capable of anger and pity,\n and even change of purpose, but holy and just in His dealings\n with men. It is possible that this transformation supplies\n the key to some subtle affinities between the two streams\n of tradition. Thus in the Babylonian version the fact that\n the command to build the ark precedes the announcement of\n the Flood, is explained by the consideration that Ea cannot\n explicitly divulge the purpose of the gods; whereas in Yahwist\n it becomes a test of the obedience of Noah (Gunkel page 66).\n Which representation is older can scarcely be doubted. It is\n true, at all events, that the Babylonian parallel serves as a\n \u201cmeasure of the unique grandeur of the idea of God in Israel,\n which was powerful enough to purify and transform in such a\n manner the most uncongenial and repugnant features\u201d of the pagan\n myth (_ib._); and, further, that \u201cthe Flood-story of Genesis\n retains to this day the power to waken the conscience of the\n world, and was written by the biblical narrator with this\n p\u00e6dagogic and ethical purpose\u201d (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte\n des alten Orients_\u00b2, page 252).\n\n \u00b9 See more fully Driver, page 106.\n\n 4. Of other ancient legends in which some traces of the Chaldean\n influence may be suspected, only a very brief account can\n here be given. The _Indian_ story, to which there is a single\n allusion in the Vedas, is first fully recorded in the \u00c7atapatha\n Br\u0101hma\u1e47a, i. 8. 1\u201210.\u00b9 It relates how Manu, the first man,\n found one day in the water with which he performed his morning\n ablution a small fish, which begged him to take care of it till\n it should attain its full growth, and then put it in the sea.\n Manu did so, and in gratitude for its deliverance the fish\n warned him of the year in which the Flood would come, promising,\n if he would build a ship, to return at the appointed time and\n save him. When the Flood came the fish appeared with it; Manu\n attached the cable of his ship to the fish\u2019s horn, and was thus\n towed to the mountain of the north, where he landed, and whence\n he gradually descended as the waters fell. In a year\u2019s time a\n woman came to him, announcing herself as his daughter, produced\n from the offerings he had cast into the water; and from this\n pair the human race sprang. In a later form of the tradition\n (Mah\u0101bh\u0101rata, iii. 187. 2 ff.),\u00b2 the Babylonian affinities are\n somewhat more obvious; but even in the oldest version they are\n not altogether negligible, especially when we remember that\n the fish (which in the Mah\u0101bh\u0101rata is an incarnation of Brahma)\n was the symbol of the god Ea.\u00b3\u2015\u2015The _Greeks_ had several\n Flood-legends, of which the most widely diffused was that of\n Deukalion, best known from the account of Apollodorus (i. 7. 2\n ff.).\u2074 Zeus, resolved to destroy the brazen race, sends a heavy\n rain, which floods the greater part of Greece, and drowns all\n men except a few who escape to the mountain tops. But Deukalion,\n on the advice of his father Prometheus, had prepared a chest,\n loaded it with provisions, and taken refuge in it with his\n wife Pyrrha. After 9 days and nights they land on Parnassus;\n Deukalion sacrifices to Zeus and prays for a new race of\n men: these are produced from stones which he and his wife, at\n the command of the god, throw over their shoulders. The incident\n of the ark seems here incongruous, since other human beings were\n saved without it. It is perhaps an indication of the amalgamation\n of a foreign element with local Deluge traditions.\u2015\u2015A _Syrian_\n tradition, with some surprising resemblances to Priestly-Code\n in Genesis, has been preserved by the Pseudo-Lucian (_De dea\n Syra_, 12, 13). The wickedness of men had become so great that\n they had to be destroyed. The fountains of the earth and the\n flood-gates of heaven were opened simultaneously; the whole\n world was submerged, and all men perished. Only the pious\n Deukalion-Sisuthros\u2075 was saved with his family in a great chest,\n into which as he entered all sorts of animals crowded. When the\n water had disappeared, Deukalion opened the ark, erected altars,\n and founded the sanctuary of Derketo at Hierapolis. The hole\n in the earth which swallowed up the Flood was shown under the\n temple, and was seen by the writer, who thought it not quite\n big enough for the purpose. In Usener\u2019s opinion we have here\n the Chaldean legend localised at a Syrian sanctuary, there being\n nothing Greek about it except the name Deukalion.\u2015\u2015A _Phrygian_\n localisation of the Semitic tradition is attested by the epithet\n \u03ba\u03b9\u03b2\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 applied to the Phrygian Apameia (Kelainai) from the\n time of Augustus (Strabo, xii. 8. 13, etc.); and still more\n remarkably by bronze coins of that city dating from the reign\n of Septimius Severus. On these an open chest is represented,\n bearing the inscription \u039d\u03a9\u0395, in which are seen the figures of\n the hero and his wife; a dove is perched on the lid of the ark,\n and another is flying with a twig in its claws. To the left\n the same two human figures are seen standing in the attitude\n of prayer.\u2076 The late date of these coins makes the hypothesis\n of direct Jewish, or even Christian, influence extremely\n probable.\u2015\u2015The existence of a _Ph\u0153nician_ tradition is inferred\n by Usener (248 ff.) from the discovery in Etruria and Sardinia\n of bronze models of ships with various kinds of animals standing\n in them: one of them is said to date from the 7th century B.C.\n There is no extant written record of the Ph\u0153nician legend:\n on Gruppe\u2019s reconstruction from the statements of Greek\n mythographers see above, page 141.\n\n \u00b9 Translated by Eggeling, _Sacred Books of the East_,\n xii. 216 ff. See Usener, _Die Sintfluthsagen_\n (_Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen_, iii.), 25 ff.\n\n \u00b2 Translated by Protap Chandra Roy (Calcutta, 1884), iii.\n 552 ff. See Usener, 29 ff.\n\n \u00b3 Usener, however (240 ff.), maintains the entire independence\n of the Indian and Semitic legends.\n\n \u2074 The earliest allusion is Pindar, _Olympian_ 9. 41 ff.\n Compare Ovid, _Metamorphoses_ i. 244\u2012415; Pausanias i. 40.\n 1, x. 6. 2, etc. The incident of the dove (in a peculiar\n modification) appears only in Plutarch _De sollertia\n animalium_ 13.\u2015\u2015Usener, 31 ff., 244 ff.\n\n \u2075 Text \u0394\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a3\u03ba\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03b1, which Buttmann (_Mythologus_,\n i. 192) ingeniously emended to \u0394\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03b1\u2015\u2015a\n modification of the \u03a3\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 of Abydenus.\n\n \u2076 See the reproductions in Usener, 45, and Jeremias _Das Alte\n Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b9, 131, \u00b2235.\n\n 5. There remains the question of the origin of this widespread\n and evidently very popular conception of a universal Deluge.\n That it embodies a common primitive tradition of an historic\n event we have already seen to be improbable. If we suppose the\n original story to have been elaborated in Babylonia, and to have\n spread thence to other peoples, it may still be doubtful whether\n we have to do \u201cwith a legend based upon facts\u201d or \u201cwith a myth\n which has assumed the form of a history.\u201d The mythical theory\n has been most fully worked out by Usener, who finds the germ\n of the story in the favourite mythological image of \u201cthe god\n in the chest,\u201d representing the voyage of the sun-god across\n the heavenly ocean: similar explanations were independently\n propounded by Cheyne (_Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 1063 f.) and\n Zimmern (_ib._ 1058 f.; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte\n Testament_\u00b3, 555). Of a somewhat different order is the\n astrological theory advocated by Jeremias (249 ff.). The\n Babylonian astronomers were aware that in the course of ages\n the spring equinox must traverse the watery (southern) region\n of the Zodiac: this, on their system, signified a submergence\n of the whole universe in water; and the Deluge-myth symbolises\n the safe passage of the vernal sun-god through that part of the\n ecliptic.\u2015\u2015Whatever truth there may be in these theories, it is\n certain that they do not account for the concrete features of\n the Chaldean legend; and if (as can hardly be denied) mythical\n motives are present, it seems just as likely that they were\n grafted on to a historic tradition as that the history is merely\n the garb in which a solar or astral myth arrayed itself. The\n most natural explanation of the Babylonian narrative is after\n all that it is based on the vague reminiscence of some memorable\n and devastating flood in the Euphrates valley, as to the\n physical possibility of which, it may suffice to quote the\n (perhaps too literal) description of an eminent geologist: \u201cIn\n the course of a seismic period of some duration the water of\n the Persian Gulf was repeatedly driven by earthquake shocks over\n the plain at the mouth of the Euphrates. Warned by these floods,\n a prudent man, \u1e24as\u00ees-adra, _i.e._ the god-fearing philosopher,\n builds a ship for the rescue of his family, and caulks it with\n pitch, as is still the custom on the Euphrates. The movements\n of the earth increase; he flees with his family to the ship; the\n subterranean water bursts forth from the fissured plain; a great\n diminution in atmospheric pressure, indicated by fearful storm\n and rain, probably a true cyclone, approaches from the Persian\n Gulf, and accompanies the most violent manifestations of the\n seismic force. The sea sweeps in a devastating flood over the\n plain, raises the rescuing vessel, washes it far inland, and\n leaves it stranded on one of those Miocene foot-hills which\n bound the plain of the Tigris on the north and north-east below\n the confluence of the Little Zab\u201d (Eduard Suess, _The Face of\n the Earth_, i. 72). See, however, the criticism of Sollas, _The\n Age of the Earth_, 316.\n\n\n IX. 18\u201227.\n _Noah as Vine-grower: His Curse and Blessing_\n (Yahwist).\n\nNoah is here introduced in an entirely new character, as the discoverer\nof the culture of the vine; and the first victim to immoderate\nindulgence in its fruit. This leads on to an account of the shameless\nbehaviour of his youngest son, and the modesty and filial feeling of\nthe two elder; in consequence of which Noah pronounces a curse on\nCanaan and blessings on Shem and Japheth.\u2015\u2015The Noah of verses \u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2077\nalmost certainly comes from a different cycle of tradition from\nthe righteous and blameless patriarch who is the hero of the Flood.\nThe incident, indeed, cannot, without violating all probability, be\nharmonised with the Flood-narrative at all. In the latter, Noah\u2019s sons\nare married men who take their wives into the ark (so expressly in\nPriestly-Code, but the same must be presumed for Yahwist); here, on\nthe contrary, they are represented as minors living in the \u2018tent\u2019 with\ntheir father; and the conduct of the youngest is obviously conceived\nas an exhibition of juvenile depravity (so Dillmann, Budde, al.).\nThe presumption, therefore, is that verses \u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2077 belong to a stratum\nof Yahwist which knew nothing of the Flood; and this conclusion is\nconfirmed by an examination of the structure of the passage.\n\n First of all, we observe that in verse \u00b2\u2074 the offender is the\n _youngest_ son of Noah, and in verse \u00b2\u2075 is named Canaan; while\n Shem and Japheth are referred to as his _brothers_. True, in\n verse \u00b2\u00b2 the misdeed is attributed to \u2018Ham the father of Canaan\u2019;\n but the words \u05d7\u05b8\u05dd \u05d0\u05b2\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u200e have all the appearance of a gloss intended\n to cover the transition from \u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1427 to \u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427; and the clause \u05d5\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05dd \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b2\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9 \u05db\u05b0\u05e0\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05df\u200e in \u00b9\u2078\u1d47 can have no other purpose. Now \u00b9\u2078\u1d43 is the close of\n Yahwist\u2019s\u00b9 account of the Flood; and \u00b9\u2079 points forward either\n to Yahwist\u2019s list of Nations (chapter 10), or to the dispersion\n of the Tower of Babel. Verses \u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2077 interrupt this connexion,\n and must accordingly be assigned to a separate source. That\n that source is, however, still Yahwistic, is shown partly by\n the language (\u05d9\u05b7\u05d4\u05b0\u05d5\u05b6\u05d4\u200e, verse \u00b2\u2076 [in spite of \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e in verse \u00b2\u2077]; and\n\u200e \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7\u05b6\u05dc\u200e, verse \u00b2\u2070); and more especially by the connexion with 5\u00b2\u2079\n (see pages 3, 133 f.). It is clear, therefore, that a redactor\n (Redactor\u1d36\u1d43\u02b0\u02b7\u2071\u02e2\u1d57) has here combined two Yahwistic documents, and\n sought to reduce the contradiction by the glosses in \u00b9\u2078\u1d47 and \u00b2\u00b2.\n\n \u00b9 Compare \u05e0\u05b8\u05bd\u05e4\u05b0\u05e6\u05b8\u05d4\u200e with 10\u00b9\u2078 11\u2074\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u2079; and \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5\u200e (= the population\n of the earth) with 11\u00b9\u1427 \u2079 (Budde); \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05dc\u05b9\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9\u05be\u05e0\u05b9\u05d7\u05b7\u200e with 10\u00b2\u2079 22\u00b2\u00b3\n 25\u2074 (Holzinger).\n\n=18, 19.= Connecting verses (see above).\u2015\u2015Noah\u2019s sons are here for the\nfirst time named in Yahwist, in harmony, however, with the repeated\nnotices of Priestly-Code (5\u00b3\u00b2 6\u00b9\u2070 7\u00b9\u00b3). On the names see on chapter 10\n(page 195 f.).\u2015\u2015=20.= _Noah the husbandman was the first who planted a\nvineyard_]\u2015\u2015a fresh advance in human civilisation. The allusion to Noah\nas _the_ husbandman is perplexing. If the text be right (_v.i._), it\nimplies a previous account of him as addicted to (perhaps the inventor\nof) agriculture, which now in his hands advances to the more refined\nstage of vine-growing. See the note on page 185.\n\n Amongst other peoples this discovery was frequently attributed\n to a god (Dionysus among the Greeks, Osiris among the Egyptians),\n intoxication being regarded as a divine inspiration. The\n orgiastic character of the religion of the Canaanites makes it\n probable that the same view prevailed amongst them; and it has\n even been suggested that the Noah of this passage was originally\n a Canaanitish wine-god (see Niebuhr, _Geschichte des ebr\u00e4ischen\n Zeitalters_, 36 ff.). The native religion of Israel (like that\n of Mohammed) viewed this form of indulgence with abhorrence; and\n under strong religious enthusiasm the use of fermented drinks\n was entirely avoided (the Nazirites, Samson, the Rechabites).\n This feeling is reflected in the narrative before us, where\n Noah is represented as experiencing in his own person the\n full degradation to which his discovery had opened the way. It\n exhibits the repugnance of a healthy-minded race towards the\n excesses of a debased civilisation.\u2015\u2015Since the vine is said to\n be indigenous to Armenia and Pontus (see Delitzsch, Dillmann),\n it has naturally been proposed to connect the story with the\n landing of the ark in Ararat. But we have seen that the passage\n has nothing to do with the Deluge-tradition; and it is more\n probable that it is an independent legend, originating amidst\n Palestinian surroundings.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =19.= \u05e0\u05e4\u05e6\u05d4 \u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200e] \u2018the whole (population of the) earth was\n scattered.\u2019 For the construction compare 10\u2075.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05b8\u05bd\u05e4\u05b0\u05e6\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] hardly\n contracted Niphal from \u221a \u05e4\u05e6\u05e5\u200e [= \u05e4\u05d5\u05e5\u200e] (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 67\n _dd_); but from \u221a \u05e0\u05e4\u05e5\u200e, whether this be a secondary formation\n from \u221a \u05e4\u05d5\u05e5\u200e (Gesenius-Buhl\u00b9\u2074 465 f.), or an independent word\n (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 659). Compare 1 Samuel 13\u00b9\u00b9, Isaiah\n\u200e 11\u00b9\u00b2 33\u00b3.\u2015\u2015=20.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05dc \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e] compare 4\u00b2\u2076 6\u00b9 10\u2078 11\u2076 44\u00b9\u00b2 (Yahwist)\n 41\u2075\u2074 (Elohist). The rendering \u2018Noah commenced as a husbandman\u2019\n (Davidson \u00a7 83, _R._ 2) is impossible on account of the article\n (contrast 1 Samuel 3\u00b2): to insert \u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u200e (Ball) does not get\n rid of the difficulty. The construction with \u05d5\u200e construct,\n instead of infinitive, is very unusual (Ezra 3\u2078); hence Cheyne\n (_Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 3426\u00b2), following Kuenen (_Theologisch\n Tijdschrift_, xviii. 147), proposes \u05dc\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05e8\u05e9\u05c1\u200e for \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u200e: \u2018Noah was the\n first to plough the ground.\u2019 That reading would be fatal to\n any connexion of the section with Genesis 3, unless we suppose\n a distinction between \u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u200e (manual tillage) and \u05d7\u05e8\u05e9\u05c1\u200e. Strangely\n enough, Rashi (on 5\u00b2\u2079) repeats the Haggadic tradition that Noah\n invented the ploughshare; but this is probably a conjecture\n based on a comparison of 3\u00b9\u2077 with 5\u00b2\u2079.\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 So Mr. Abrahams, in a private communication.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=21.= _uncovered himself_] the same result of drunkenness in Habakkuk\n2\u00b9\u2075, Lamentations 4\u00b2\u00b9.\u2015\u2015=22.= There is no reason to think (with\nHolzinger and Gunkel) that Canaan was guilty of any worse sin than the\n_Schadenfreude_ implied in the words. Hebrew morality called for the\nutmost delicacy in such matters, like that evinced by Shem and Japheth\nin verse \u00b2\u00b3\u2015\u2015=24.= \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9 \u05d4\u05b7\u05e7\u05b8\u05bc\u05d8\u05b8\u05df\u200e cannot mean \u2018his _younger_ son\u2019 (LXX, Vulgate)\n(_i.e._ as compared with Shem); still less \u2018his contemptible son\u2019\n(Rashi); or Ham\u2019s youngest (Abraham Ibn Ezra). The conclusion is not\nto be evaded that the writer follows a peculiar genealogical scheme in\nwhich Canaan is the youngest son of Noah.\u2015\u2015=25\u201227.= Noah\u2019s curse and\nblessings must be presumed to have been legible in the destinies of\nhis reputed descendants at the time when the legend took shape (compare\n27\u00b2\u2078 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b3\u2079 \u1da0\u1427 49) (on the fulfilment see the concluding note, page 186\nf.). The dominant feature is the curse on Canaan, which not only stands\nfirst, but is repeated in the blessings on the two brothers.\u2015\u2015=25.= The\ndescendants of Canaan are doomed to perpetual enslavement to the other\ntwo branches of the human family.\u2015\u2015_a servant of servants_] means\n\u2018the meanest slave\u2019 (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 133 _i_).\u2015\u2015_to his brethren_]\nnot the other members of the Hamitic race, but (as is clear from the\nfollowing verses) to Shem and Japheth.\u2015\u2015=26.= _Blessed be Yahwe the\nGod of Shem_] The idea thus expressed is not satisfactory. To \u2018bless\u2019\nYahwe means no more than to praise Him; and an ascription of praise to\nYahwe is only in an oblique sense a blessing on Shem, inasmuch as it\nassumes a religious primacy of the Shemites in having Yahwe for their\nGod. Budde (294 f.) proposed to omit \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b5\u05d9\u200e and read \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05da\u05b0 \u05d9\u05b7\u05d4\u05b0\u05d5\u05b6\u05d4 \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dd\u200e: _Blessed\nof Yahwe be Shem_ (compare 24\u00b3\u00b9 26\u00b2\u2079 [both Yahwist]). Dillmann\u2019s\nobjection, that this does not express wherein the blessing consists,\napplies with quite as much force to the received text. Perhaps a\nbetter emendation is that of Graetz \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b5\u05da\u05b0 \u05d9\u05f3 \u05d0\u05b8\u05bd\u05d4\u05b3\u05dc\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u200e (\u05d9\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8\u05b5\u05da\u05b0\u200e would be still more\nacceptable): _[May] Yahwe bless the tents of Shem_; see the next\nverse.\u2015\u2015=27.= _May God expand_ (\u05d9\u05b7\u05e4\u05b0\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u200e) _Yepheth_: a play on the name (\u05d9\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05ea\u200e).\nThe use of the generic \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e implies that the proper name \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e was the\npeculiar property of the Shemites.\u2015\u2015_and may he dwell_] or _that he\nmay dwell_. The subject can hardly be God (_Jubilees_, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2,\n_Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, N\u00f6ldeke, al.), which\nwould convey no blessing to Japheth; the wish refers most naturally\nto Japheth, though it is impossible to decide whether the expression\n\u2018dwell in the tents of\u2019 denotes friendly intercourse (so most) or\nforcible dispossession (Gunkel). For the latter sense compare Psalms\n78\u2075\u2075, 1 Chronicles 5\u00b9\u2070.\u2015\u2015A Messianic reference to the ingathering\nof the Gentiles into the Jewish or Christian fold (Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f,\nFathers, Delitzsch, al.) is foreign to the thought of the passage:\nsee further below.\n\n The question of the origin and significance of this remarkable\n narrative has to be approached from two distinct points of\n view.\u2015\u2015I. In one aspect it is a culture-myth, of which the\n central motive is the discovery of wine. Here, however, it\n is necessary to distinguish between the original idea of the\n story and its significance in the connexion of the Yahwistic\n document. Read in its own light, as an independent fragment\n of tradition, the incident signalises the transition from\n nomadic to agricultural life. Noah, the first husbandman and\n vine-grower, is a tent-dweller (verse \u00b2\u00b9); and this mode of life\n is continued by his oldest and favoured son Shem (\u00b2\u2077). Further,\n the identification of husbandry and vine culture points to a\n situation in which the simpler forms of agriculture had been\n supplemented by the cultivation of the grape. Such a situation\n existed in Palestine when it was occupied by the Hebrews. The\n sons of the desert who then served themselves heirs by conquest\n to the Canaanitish civilisation escaped the protracted evolution\n of vine-growing from primitive tillage, and stepped into the\n possession of the farm and the vineyard at once. From this point\n of view the story of Noah\u2019s drunkenness expresses the healthy\n recoil of primitive Semitic morality from the licentious habits\n engendered by a civilisation of which a salient feature was\n the enjoyment and abuse of wine. Canaan is the prototype of the\n population which had succumbed to these enervating influences,\n and is doomed by its vices to enslavement at the hands of\n hardier and more virtuous races.\u2015\u2015In the setting in which it\n is placed by the Yahwist the incident acquires a profounder\n and more tragic significance. The key to this secondary\n interpretation is the prophecy of Lamech in 5\u00b2\u2079, which brings it\n into close connexion with the account of the Fall in chapter 3\n (page 133). Noah\u2019s discovery is there represented as an advance\n or refinement on the tillage of the ground to which man was\n sentenced in consequence of his first transgression. And the\n oracle of Lamech appears to show that the invention of wine is\n conceived as a _relief from the curse_. How far it is looked\n on as a divinely approved mode of alleviating the monotony of\n toil is hard to decide. The moderate use of wine is certainly\n not condemned in the Old Testament: on the other hand, it is\n impossible to doubt that the light in which Noah is exhibited,\n and the subsequent behaviour of his youngest son, are meant to\n convey an emphatic warning against the moral dangers attending\n this new step in human development, and the degeneration to\n which it may lead.\n\n II. In the narrative, however, the cultural motive is crossed\n by an ethnographic problem, which is still more difficult to\n unravel. Who are the peoples represented by the names Shem,\n Japheth, and Canaan? Three points may be regarded as settled:\n that Shem is that family to which the Hebrews reckoned\n themselves; that Canaan stands for the pre-Israelitish\n inhabitants of Palestine; and that the servitude of Canaan to\n Shem at least _includes_ the subjugation of the Canaanites by\n Israel in the early days of the monarchy. Beyond this everything\n is uncertain. The older view, which explains Shem and Japheth\n in terms of the Table of Nations (chapter 10),\u2015\u2015_i.e._ as\n corresponding roughly to what we call the Semitic and Aryan\n races,\u2015\u2015has always had difficulty in discovering a historic\n situation combining Japhetic dominion over the Canaanites with\n a dwelling of Japheth in the tents of Shem.\u00b9 To understand the\n latter of an ideal brotherhood or religious bond between the two\n races brings us no nearer a solution, unless we take the passage\n as a prophecy of the diffusion of Christianity; and even then\n it fails to satisfy the expressions of the text (Dillmann, who\n explains the figure as expressing the more kindly feeling of the\n Hebrew towards these races, as compared with the Canaanites).\u2015\u2015A\n number of critics, starting from the assumption that the oracles\n reflect the circumstances and aspirations of the age when\n the Yahwistic document originated, take Shem as simply a name\n for Israel, and identify Japheth either with the Philistines\n (Wellhausen, Meyer) or the Ph\u0153nicians (Budde, Stade, Holzinger).\n But that the Hebrews should have wished for an enlargement of\n the Philistines at their own expense is incredible; and as for\n the Ph\u0153nicians, though their colonial expansion might have been\n viewed with complacency in Israel, there is no proof that an\n occupation of Israelitish territory on their part either took\n place, or would have been approved by the national sentiment\n under the monarchy. The alienation of a portion of Galilee to\n the Tyrians (1 Kings 9\u00b9\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u00b3) (Budde) is an event little likely\n to have been idealised in Hebrew legend. The difficulties of\n this theory are so great that Bertholet has proposed to recast\n the narrative with the omission of Japheth, leaving Shem and\n Canaan as types of the racial antipathy between the Hebrews and\n Canaanites: the figure of Japheth, and the blessing on him, he\n supposes to have been introduced after the time of Alexander\n the Great, as an expression of the friendly feeling of the Jews\n for their Hellenic conquerors.\u00b2\u2015\u2015Gunkel\u2019s explanation, which\n is put forward with all reserve, breaks ground in an opposite\n direction. Canaan, he suggests, may here represent the great wave\n of Semitic migration which (according to some recent theories)\n had swept over the whole of Western Asia (_circa_ 2250 B.C.),\n leaving its traces in Babylonia, in Ph\u0153nicia, perhaps even in\n Asia Minor,\u00b3 and of which the later Canaanites of Palestine were\n the sediment. Shem is the Hebr\u00e6o-Aramaic family, which appears\n on the stage of history after 1500 B.C., and no doubt took\n possession of territory previously occupied by Canaanites. It\n is here represented as still in the nomadic condition. Japheth\n stands for the Hittites, who in that age were moving down from\n the north, and establishing their power partly at the cost of\n both Canaanites and Arameans. This theory hardly explains the\n peculiar contempt and hatred expressed towards Canaan; and\n it is a somewhat serious objection to it that in 10\u00b9\u2075 (which\n Gunkel assigns to the same source as 9\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) Heth is the _son_\n of Canaan. A better defined background would be the struggle\n for the mastery of Syria in the 14th century B.C.\u2074 If, as many\n Assyriologists think probable, the \u1e24abiri of the Tel-Amarna\n Letters be the \u05e2\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e of the Old Testament,\u2015\u2015_i.e._ the original\n Hebrew stock to which Israel belonged,\u2015\u2015it would be natural to\n find in Shem the representative of these invaders; for in 10\u00b2\u00b9\n (Yahwist) Shem is described as \u2018the father of all the sons of\n Eber.\u2019 Japheth would then be one or other of the peoples who,\n in concert with the \u1e24abiri, were then seeking a foothold in the\n country, possibly the Suti or the Amurri, less probably (for\n the reason mentioned above) the Hittites.\u2015\u2015These surmises must\n be taken for what they are worth. Further light on that remote\n period of history may yet clear up the circumstances in which\n the story of Noah and his sons originated; but unless the names\n Shem and Japheth should be actually discovered in some historic\n connexion, the happiest conjectures can never effect a solution\n of the problem.\n\n \u00b9 As regards the former, the expulsion of Ph\u0153nician colonists\n from the Mediterranean coasts and Asia Minor by the Greeks\n (Dillmann) could never have been described as enslavement\n (see Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_\u00b9, i. 311 f.); and the\n capture of Tyre by Alexander, the Roman conquest of Carthage,\n etc. (Delitzsch), are events certainly beyond the horizon of\n the writer,\u2015\u2015unless, indeed, we adopt Bertholet\u2019s suggestion\n (see above), that verse \u00b2\u2077 is very late. For the latter,\n Dillmann hints at an absorption of Japhetic peoples in the\n Semitic world-empires; but that would rather be a dwelling\n of Shem in the tents of Japheth.\n\n \u00b2 See Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der\n historischen B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_ 14 f.; Budde\n _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 325 ff.; Stade _Geschichte des\n Volkes Israel_, i. 109; Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_\u00b9,\n i. p. 214; Bertholet, _Die stellung der Israeliten und der\n Juden zu den fremden_, 76 f. Meyer\u2019s later theory (_Die\n Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 220 f.), that Japheth (=\n Egyptian _Kefti_?) stands for the whole body of northern\n invaders in the 12th century, to whom the Philistines\n belonged, does not diminish the improbability that such a\n prophecy should have originated under the monarchy.\n\n \u00b3 See Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_\u00b9, i. page 212 ff.;\n Winckler _Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, i. 37,\n 130, 134; Peiser, _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, iv. page\n viii.\n\n \u2074 Already suggested by Bennett (page 158), who, however, is\n inclined to identify the \u1e24abiri with Japheth.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =22.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05d2\u05b5\u05bc\u05d3\u200e] LXX prefered \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03ce\u03bd.\u2015\u2015=23.= \u05d4\u05b7\u05e9\u05b5\u05bc\u05c1\u05de\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] On the article,\n see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 126 _r_. That it was _the_ \u05e9\u05c2\u05f3\u200e which\n Canaan had previously taken away, and that this notice was\n deliberately omitted by Yahwist (Gunkel), is certainly not to\n be inferred. The \u05e9\u05c2\u05f3\u200e is the upper garment, which was also used\n for sleeping in (Exodus 22\u00b2\u2076 etc.).\u2015\u2015=24.= \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e7\u05b6\u05e5\u200e] on the irregular\n seghol, see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 70 _n_.\u2015\u2015=26.= \u05dc\u05b8\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u200e may stand\n either for \u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u05b6\u05dd\u200e (collective) or \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e: see Note 3 in Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 103 _f_. The latter is the more natural here. Olshausen\n (_Monatsberichte der K\u00f6niglich-Preussischen Akadamie der\n Wissenschaften zu Berlin._, June 1870, 382) proposed to omit\n \u00b2\u2076\u1d47, substituting \u00b2\u2077\u1d43{\u03b2} (\u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05db\u05df\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05dd\u200e), and retain \u00b2\u2077\u1d47 with reflexive\n of plural suffix to \u05d0\u05b6\u05d7\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5\u200e. LXX has \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 in \u00b2\u2076\u1d47 and \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd in\n\u200e \u00b2\u2077\u1d47.\u2015\u2015=27.= \u05d9\u05b7\u05e4\u05b0\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u200e] LXX \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, Vulgate _dilatet_, etc. The \u221a \u05e4\u05ea\u05d4\u200e\n in the sense \u2018be spacious\u2019 is extremely rare in Hebrew (Proverbs\n 20\u00b9\u2079 [?24\u00b2\u2078]), and the accepted rendering not beyond challenge.\n N\u00f6ldeke (_Bibel-Lexicon_, iii. 191) denies the geographical\n sense, and explains the word from the frequent Semitic figure\n of spaciousness for prosperity. This would almost require us to\n take the subject of the following clause to be God (_v.s._).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER X.\n _The Table of Peoples_\n (Priestly-Code and Yahwist).\n\n\nIn its present form, the chapter is a redactional composition, in which\nare interwoven two (if not three) successive attempts to classify the\nknown peoples of the world, and to exhibit their origin and mutual\nrelationships in the form of a genealogical tree.\n\n _Analysis._\u2015\u2015The separation of the two main sources is due\n to the lucid and convincing analysis of Wellhausen (_Die\n Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des\n Alten Testaments_\u00b2 6 ff.). The hand of Priestly-Code is easily\n recognised in the superscription (\u00b9\u1d43 \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4 \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b0\u05d3\u05b9\u05ea\u200e), and the methodical\n uniformity of the tripartite scheme, with its recurrent opening\n and closing formul\u00e6. The headings of the three sections are: \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9\n\u200e \u05d9\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05ea\u200e (\u00b2), \u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d7\u05b8\u05dd\u200e (\u2076), and \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dd\u200e (\u00b2\u00b2); the respective conclusions are\n found in \u2075\u1427 (mutilated) \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9, verse \u00b3\u00b2 being a final summary.\n This framework, however, contains several continuous sections\n which obviously belong to Yahwist. (a) \u2078\u207b\u00b9\u00b2; the account of\n Nimrod (who is not even mentioned by Priestly-Code among the\n sons of Kush) stands out both in character and style in strong\n contrast to Priestly-Code: note also \u05d9\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05d3\u200e; instead of \u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u200e (\u2078),\n\u200e \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e (\u2079). (b) \u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427: the sons of Mizraim (_verb_ \u05d9\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05d3\u200e). (c) \u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b9\u2079:\n the Canaanites (\u05d9\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05d3\u200e). (d) \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2075\u207b\u00b3\u2070: the Shemites (\u05d9\u05bb\u05dc\u05b7\u05bc\u05d3\u200e \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2075;\n\u200e \u05d9\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05d3\u200e \u00b2\u2076).\u2015\u2015Duplication of sources is further proved by the twofold\n introduction to Shem (\u00b2\u00b9 \u2225 \u00b2\u00b2), and the discrepancy between \u2077\n and \u00b2\u2078 \u1da0\u1427 regarding \u05d7\u05b2\u05d5\u05b4\u05d9\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e and \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d1\u05b8\u05d0\u200e. The documents, therefore, assort\n themselves as follows:\n\n Priestly-Code: \u00b9\u1d43; \u00b2\u207b\u2075; \u2076 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b2\u2070; \u00b2\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9; \u00b3\u00b2.\n Yahwist: \u00b9\u1d47 (?); \u2078\u207b\u00b9\u00b2; \u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427; \u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b9\u2079; \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2075\u207b\u00b3\u2070.\n\n Verses \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2076\u207b\u00b9\u2078\u1d43 and \u00b2\u2074 are regarded by Wellhausen and most\n subsequent writers as interpolations: see the notes. The\n framework of Priestly-Code is made the basis of the Table;\n and so far as appears that document has been preserved in its\n original order. In Yahwist the genealogy of Shem (\u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2075\u207b\u00b3\u2070)\n is probably complete; that of Ham (\u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) is certainly\n curtailed; while every trace of Japheth has been obliterated\n (see, however, page 208). Whether the Yahwistic fragments stand\n in their original order, we have no means of determining.\n\n The analysis has been carried a step further by Gunkel (\u00b2 74 f.),\n who first raised the question of the unity of the Yahwistic\n Table, and its connexion with the two recensions of Yahwist\n which appear in chapter 9. He agrees with Wellhausen, Dillmann,\n al. that 9\u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1427 forms the transition from the story of the Flood\n to a list of nations which is partly represented in chapter 10;\n 10\u00b9\u1d47 being the immediate continuation of 9\u00b9\u2079 in that recension\n of Yahwist (Jehovist\u1d36\u1d43\u02b0\u02b7\u2071\u02e2\u1d57). But he tries to show that\n 9\u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2077 was also followed by a Table of Nations, and that\n to it most of the Yahwistic fragments in chapter 10 belong\n (\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2075\u207b\u00b2\u2079 = Jehovist\u1d31\u02e1\u1d52\u02b0\u2071\u02e2\u1d57). This conclusion is\n reached by a somewhat subtle examination of verse \u00b2\u00b9 and verses\n \u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b9\u2079. In verse \u00b2\u00b9 Shem is the \u2018elder brother of Japheth,\u2019 which\n seems to imply that Japheth was the _second_ son of Noah as in\n 9\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427; hence we may surmise that the third son was not Ham but\n Canaan. This is confirmed by the apparent contradiction between\n \u00b9\u2075 and \u00b9\u2078\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u2079. In \u00b9\u2079 the northern limit of the Canaanites is\n \u1e92idon, whereas in \u00b9\u2075 Canaan includes the \u1e24ittites, and has\n therefore the wider geographical sense which Gunkel postulates\n for 9\u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2077 (see page 186 above). He also calls attention to\n the difference in language between the eponymous \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05df\u200e in \u00b9\u2075 and\n the gentilic \u05d4\u05b7\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e in \u00b9\u2078\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u2079, and considers that this was a\n characteristic distinction of the two documents. From these\n premises the further dissection of the Table follows easily\n enough. Verses \u2078\u207b\u00b9\u00b2 may be assigned to Jehovist\u1d31\u02e1\u1d52\u02b0\u2071\u02e2\u1d57 because\n of the peculiar use of \u05d4\u05b5\u05d7\u05b5\u05dc\u200e in \u2078 (compare 9\u00b2\u2070 4\u00b2\u2076). verse \u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427\n must in any case be Jehovist\u1d36\u1d43\u02b0\u02b7\u2071\u02e2\u1d57, because it is inconceivable\n that Egypt should ever have been thought of as a son of Canaan;\n \u00b2\u2075\u207b\u00b2\u2079 follow \u00b2\u00b9 (Jehovist\u1d31\u02e1\u1d52\u02b0\u2071\u02e2\u1d57). Verse \u00b3\u2070 is assigned to\n Jehovist\u1d36\u1d43\u02b0\u02b7\u2071\u02e2\u1d57 solely on account of its resemblance to \u00b9\u2079. It\n cannot be denied that these arguments (which are put forward\n with reserve) have considerable cumulative force; and the theory\n may be correct. At the same time it must be remembered (1) that\n the distinction between a wider and a narrower geographical\n conception of Canaan remains a brilliant speculation, which is\n not absolutely required either by 9\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 or 10\u00b9\u2075; and (2) that\n there is nothing to show that the story of Noah, the vine-grower,\n was followed by a Table of Nations at all. A genealogy connecting\n Shem with Abraham was no doubt included in that document; but a\n writer who knows nothing of the Flood, and to whom Noah was not\n the head of a new humanity, had no obvious motive for attaching\n an ethnographic survey to the name of that patriarch. Further\n criticism may be reserved for the notes.\n\nThe names in the Table are throughout eponymous: that is to say,\neach nation is represented by an imaginary personage bearing its\nname, who is called into existence for the purpose of expressing\nits unity, but is at the same time conceived as its real progenitor.\nFrom this it was an easy step to translate the supposed affinities\nof the various peoples into the family relations of father, son,\nbrother, etc., between the eponymous ancestors; while the origin\nof the existing ethnic groups was held to be accounted for by the\nexpansion and partition of the family. This vivid and concrete mode of\nrepresentation, though it was prevalent in antiquity, was inevitably\nsuggested by one of the commonest idioms of Semitic speech, according\nto which the individual members of a tribe or people were spoken of as\n\u2018sons\u2019 or \u2018daughters\u2019 of the collective entity to which they belonged.\nIt may be added that (as in the case of the Arabian tribal genealogies)\nthe usage could only have sprung up in an age when the patriarchal\ntype of the family and the rule of male descent were firmly established\n(see William Robertson Smith _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_\u00b2,\n3 ff.).\n\n That this is the principle on which the Tables are constructed\n appears from a slight examination of the names, and is\n universally admitted. With the exception of Nimrod, all the\n names that can be identified are those of peoples and tribes\n (Madai, Sheba, Dedan, etc.) or countries (Mi\u1e93raim, \u1e24avilah,\n etc.\u2015\u2015in most cases it is impossible to say whether land or\n people is meant) or cities (Zidon); some are _gentilicia_\n (Jebusite, \u1e24ivvite, etc.); and some are actually retained\n in the plural (Rodanim, Ludim, etc.). Where the distinctions\n between national and geographical designations, between singular,\n plural, and collective names, are thus effaced, the only common\n denominator to which the terms can be reduced is that of the\n eponymous ancestor. It was the universal custom of antiquity in\n such matters to invent a legendary founder of a city or state;\u00b9\n and it is idle to imagine any other explanation of the names\n before us.\u2015\u2015It is, of course, another question how far the\n Hebrew ethnographers believed in the analogy on which their\n system rested, and how far they used it simply as a convenient\n method of expressing racial or political relations. When a\n writer speaks of Lydians, Lybians, Philistines, etc., as \u2018sons\u2019\n of Egypt, or \u2018the Jebusite,\u2019 \u2018the Amorite,\u2019 \u2018the Arvadite\u2019 as\n \u2018sons\u2019 of Canaan, it is difficult to think, _e.g._, that he\n believed the Lydians to be descended from a man named \u2018Lydians\u2019\n\u200e (\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e), or the Amorites from one called \u2018the Amorite\u2019 (\u05d4\u05b8\u05bd\u05d0\u05b1\u05de\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e); and\n we may begin to suspect that the whole system of eponyms is a\n conventional symbolism which was as transparent to its authors\n as it is to us.\u00b2 That, however, would be a hasty and probably\n mistaken inference. The instances cited are exceptional,\u2015\u2015they\n occur mostly in two groups, of which one (\u00b9\u2076 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) is interpolated,\n and the other (\u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427) may very well be secondary too; and over\n against them we have to set not only the names of Noah, Shem,\n etc., but also Nimrod, who is certainly an individual hero,\n and yet is said to have been \u2018begotten\u2019 by the eponymous Kush\n (Gunkel). The bulk of the names lend themselves to the one view\n as readily as to the other; but on the whole it is safer to\n assume that, in the mind of the genealogist, they stand for real\n individuals, from whom the different nations were believed to be\n descended.\n\n \u00b9 \u201cAn exactly parallel instance ... is afforded by the ancient\n Greeks. The general name of the Greeks was Hellenes; the\n principal subdivisions were the Dorians, the \u00c6olians, the\n Ionians, and the Ach\u00e6ans; and accordingly the Greeks traced\n their descent from a supposed eponymous ancestor Hellen, who\n had three sons, Dorus and Aeolus, the supposed ancestors of\n the Dorians and \u00c6olians, and Xuthus, from whose two sons,\n Ion and Ach\u00e6us, the Ionians and Ach\u00e6ans were respectively\n supposed to be descended\u201d (Driver 112).\n\n \u00b2 See Guthe, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, 1 ff.\n\nThe geographical horizon of the Table is very restricted; but is\nconsiderably wider in Priestly-Code than in Yahwist.\u00b9 Yahwist\u2019s survey\nextends from the Hittites and Ph\u0153nicians in the North to Egypt and\nsouthern Arabia in the South; on the Elohist he knows Babylonia and\nAssyria and perhaps the Ka\u0161\u0161i, and on the West the Libyans and the\nsouth coast of Asia Minor.\u00b2 Priestly-Code includes in addition Asia\nMinor, Armenia, and Media on the North and North-east, Elam on the\nEast, Nubia in the South, and the whole Mediterranean coast on the\nWest. The world outside these limits is ignored, for the simple reason\nthat the writers were not aware of its existence. But even within the\narea thus circumscribed there are remarkable omissions, some of which\ndefy reasonable explanation.\n\n \u00b9 Judging, that is, from the extracts of Yahwist that are\n preserved.\n\n \u00b2 _Kaphtorim_ (verse \u00b9\u2074): according to others the island of\n Crete.\n\n The nearer neighbours and kinsmen of Israel (Moabites,\n Ishmaelites, Edomites, etc.) are naturally reserved for the\n times when they broke off from the parent stem. It would appear,\n further, that as a rule only contemporary peoples are included\n in the lists; extinct races and nationalities like the Rephaim,\n Zuzim, etc., and possibly the Amalekites, being deliberately\n passed over; while, of course, peoples that had not yet played\n any important part in history are ignored. None of these\n considerations, however, accounts for the apparent omission\n of the Babylonians in Priestly-Code,\u2015\u2015a fact which has perhaps\n never been thoroughly explained (see page 205).\n\n From what has just been said it ought to be possible to form\n some conclusion as to the age in which the lists were drawn\n up. For Priestly-Code the _terminus a quo_ is the 8th century,\n when the Cimmerian and Scythian hordes (\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427) first make their\n appearance south of the Caucasus: the absence of the Min\u00e6ans\n among the Arabian peoples, if it has any significance, would\n point to the same period (see page 203). A lower limit may with\n less certainty be found in the circumstance that the names \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05dd\u200e\n and \u05e2\u05b2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d1\u200e, \u05e2\u05b2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u200e (Persians and Arabs, first mentioned in Jeremiah\n and Ezekiel) do not occur. It would follow that the Priestly\n List is pre-exilic, and represents, not the viewpoint of the\n Priestly-Code (5th century), but one perhaps two centuries\n earlier (so Gunkel). Hommel\u2019s opinion (_Aufs\u00e4tze und Abhandlungen\n arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts_ 314 ff.), that the Table\n contains the earliest ethnological ideas of the Hebrews fresh\n from Arabia, and that its \u201cGrundstock\u201d goes back to Mosaic\n times and even the 3rd millennium B.C., is reached by arbitrary\n excisions and alterations of the names, and by unwarranted\n inferences from those which are left\u00b9 (see Jeremias _Das Alte\n Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 252).\u2015\u2015The lists of\n Yahwist, on the other hand, yield no definite indications of\n date. The South Arabian tribes (\u00b2\u2075\u207b\u00b3\u2070) might have been known\n as early as the age of Solomon (Brown, _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_,\n ii. 1699),\u2015\u2015they might even have been known earlier,\u2015\u2015but\n that does not tell us when they were systematically tabulated.\n The (interpolated) list of Canaanites (\u00b9\u2076\u207b\u00b9\u2078) is assigned by\n Jeremias (_l.c._ 256) to the age of Tiglath-pileser III.; but\n since a considerable percentage of the names occurs in the\n Tel-Amarna letters (_v.i._), the grounds of that determination\n are not apparent. With regard to the section on Nimrod (\u2078\u207b\u00b9\u00b2),\n all that can fairly be said is that it is probably later than\n the Ka\u0161\u0161ite conquest of Babylonia: how much later, we cannot\n tell. On the attempt to deduce a date from the description of\n the Assyrian cities, see page 212.\u2015\u2015There are, besides, two\n special sources of error which import an element of uncertainty\n into all these investigations. (a) Since only two names (\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d1\u05b8\u05d0\u200e\n and \u05d7\u05b2\u05d5\u05b4\u05d9\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e) are really duplicated in Priestly-Code and Yahwist,\u00b2\n we may suppose that the redactor has as a general practice\n omitted names from one source which he gives in the other; and\n we cannot be quite sure whether the omission has been made in\n Priestly-Code or in Yahwist. (b) According to Jewish tradition,\n the total number of names is 70; and again the suspicion arises\n that names may have been added or deleted so as to bring out\n that result.\u00b3\n\n \u00b9 It has often been pointed out that there is a remarkable\n agreement between the geographical horizon of Priestly-Code\n in Genesis 10 and that of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Of the\n 34 names of nations in Priestly-Code\u2019s Table, 22 occur\n in Ezekiel and 14 in the _book_ of Jeremiah; it has to\n be remembered, however, that a large part of the book of\n Jeremiah is later than that prophet. Ezekiel has perhaps\n 6 names which might have been expected in Priestly-Code\n if they had been known (\u05e2\u05b2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d1\u200e, \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u05e7\u05d5\u05b9\u05e2\u05b7\u200e, \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05b9\u05e2\u05b7\u200e, \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05e1\u200e, \u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e7\u05d5\u05b9\u05d3\u200e), and\n Jeremiah (book) has 5 (\u05e2\u05b2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d1\u05b4[\u05d9]\u200e, \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05d3\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05e1\u200e, \u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e7\u05d5\u05b9\u05d3\u200e, \u05de\u05b4\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e). The\n statistics certainly do not bear out the assertion that\n Priestly-Code compiled his list from these two books between\n 538 and 526 B.C. (see Dillmann page 166); they rather\n suggest that while the general outlook was similar, the\n knowledge of the outer world was in some directions more\n precise in the time of Ezekiel than in the Table.\n\n\u200e \u00b2 \u05d0\u05b7\u05e9\u05bc\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e, \u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u200e, \u05de\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05e8\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e and \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05df\u200e do not count, because they are so\n introduced that the two documents supplement one another.\n\n \u00b3 For the official enumeration see Zunz, _Die\n gottesdienstlichen Vortr\u00e4ge der Juden_\u00b2, 207; Steinschneider,\n _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_,\n iv. 150 f.; Krauss, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche\n Wissenschaft_, 1899, 6 (1900, 38 ff.); compare Pozna\u0144ski,\n _ib._ 1904, 302.\n\nThe threefold division of mankind is a feature common to Priestly-Code\nand Yahwist, and to both recensions of Yahwist if there were two\n(above, page 188 f.). It is probable, also, though not certain, that\neach of the Tables placed the groups in the reverse order of birth:\nJapheth\u2015\u2015Ham\u2015\u2015Shem; or Canaan\u2015\u2015Japheth\u2015\u2015Shem (see verse \u00b2\u00b9). The basis\nof the classification may not have been ethnological in any sense;\nit may have been originally suggested by the tradition that Noah had\njust three sons, in accordance with a frequently observed tendency to\nclose a genealogy with three names (4\u00b9\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 5\u00b3\u00b2 11\u00b2\u2076 etc.). Still, the\nclassification must follow some ethnographic principle, and we have\nto consider what that principle is. The more obvious distinctions of\n_colour_, _language_, and _race_ are easily seen to be inapplicable.\n\n The ancient Egyptian division of foreigners into Negroes\n (black), Asiatics (light brown), and Libyans (white) is as much\n geographical as chromatic (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 32);\n but in any case the survey of Genesis 10 excludes the true\n negroes, and differences of colour amongst the peoples included\n could not have been sufficiently marked to form a basis of\n classification. It is certainly noteworthy that the Egyptian\n monuments represent the Egyptians, K\u014d\u0161, Punt, and Ph\u0153nicians\n (Priestly-Code\u2019s Hamites) as dark brown (Dillmann 167); but the\n characteristic was not shared by the offshoots of Kush in Arabia;\n and a colour line between Shem and Japheth could never have been\n drawn.\u2015\u2015The test of _language_ also breaks down. The perception\n of linguistic affinities on a wide scale is a modern scientific\n attainment, beyond the apprehension of an antique people, to\n whom as a rule all foreign tongues were alike \u2018barbarous.\u2019 So\n we find that the most of Priestly-Code\u2019s Hamites (the Canaanites\n and nearly all the Kushites) are Semitic-speaking peoples,\n while the language of Elam among the sons of Shem belongs to an\n entirely different family; and Greek was certainly not spoken\n in the regions assigned to sons of Javan.\u2015\u2015Of _race_, except\n in so far as it is evidenced by language, modern science knows\n very little; and attempts have been made to show that where\n the linguistic criterion fails the Table follows authentic\n ethnological traditions: _e.g._ that the Canaanites came from\n the Red Sea coast and were really related to the Cushites; or\n that Babylonia was actually colonised from central Africa, etc.\n But none of these speculations can be substantiated; and the\n theory that true racial affinity is the main principle of the\n Table has to be abandoned. Thus, while most of the Japhetic\n peoples are Indo-European, and nearly all the Shemitic are\n Semites in the modern sense, the correspondence is no closer\n than follows necessarily from the geographic arrangement to be\n described presently. The Hamitic group, on the other hand, is\n destitute alike of linguistic and ethnological unity.\u2015\u2015Similarly,\n when Yahwist assigns Ph\u0153nicians and Hittites (perhaps also\n Egyptians) to one ethnic group, it is plain that he is not\n guided by a sound ethnological tradition. His Shemites are,\n indeed, all of Semitic speech; what his Japhetic peoples may\n have been we cannot conjecture (see page 188).\n\nSo far as Priestly-Code is concerned, the main principle is undoubtedly\n_geographical_: Japheth representing the North and West, Ham the South,\nand Shem the East. Canaan is the solitary exception, which proves\nthe rule (see pge 201 f.). The same law appears (so far as can be\nascertained) to govern the distribution of the subordinate groups;\nalthough too many of the names are uncertain to make this absolutely\nclear. There is very little ground for the statement that the\ngeographical idea is disturbed here and there by considerations of\na historical or political order.\n\n The exact delimitation of the three regions is, of course,\n more or less arbitrary: Media _might_ have been reckoned to\n the Eastern group, or Elam to the Southern; but the actual\n arrangement is just as natural, and there is no need to\n postulate the influence of ethnology in the one case or of\n political relations in the other. L\u00fbd would be a glaring\n exception if the Lydians of Asia Minor were meant, but that is\n probably not the case (page 206). The Mediterranean coasts and\n islands are appropriately enough assigned to Javan, the most\n westerly of the sons of Japheth. It can only be the assumption\n that Shem represents a _middle zone_ between North and South\n that makes the position of Kitt\u00eem appear anomalous to Dillmann.\n Even if the island of Cyprus be meant (which, however, is\n doubtful; page 199), it must, on the view here taken, be\n assigned to Japheth. It is true that in Yahwist traces of\n politico-historical grouping do appear (\u05d0\u05b7\u05e9\u05bc\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e and \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05dc\u200e in \u2078\u207b\u00b9\u00b2;\n\u200e \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e4\u05ea\u05b9\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e in \u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015As to the order within the principal\n groups (of Priestly-Code), it is impossible to lay down any\n strict rule. Jensen (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, x. 326)\n holds that it always proceeds from the remoter to the nearer\n nations; but though that may be true in the main, it cannot\n be rigorously carried through, nor can it be safely used as an\n argument for or against a particular identification.\n\nThe defects of the Table, from the standpoint of modern ethnology,\nare now sufficiently apparent. As a scientific account of the origin\nof the races of mankind, it is disqualified by its assumption that\nnations are formed through the expansion and genealogical division\nof families; and still more by the erroneous idea that the historic\npeoples of the old world were fixed within three or at most four\ngenerations from the common ancestor of the race. History shows that\nnationalities are for the most part political units, formed by the\ndissolution and re-combination of older peoples and tribes; and it\nis known that the great nations of antiquity were preceded by a long\nsuccession of social aggregates, whose very names have perished.\nWhether a single family has ever, under any circumstances, increased\nuntil it became a tribe and then a nation, is an abstract question\nwhich it is idle to discuss: it is enough that the nations here\nenumerated did not arise in that way, but through a process analogous\nto that by which the English nation was welded together out of the\nheterogeneous elements of which it is known to be composed.\u2015\u2015As a\nhistorical document, on the other hand, the chapter is of the highest\nimportance: first, as the most systematic record of the political\ngeography of the Hebrews at different stages of their history; and\nsecond, as expressing the profound consciousness of the unity of\nmankind, and the religious primacy of Israel, by which the Old\nTestament writers were animated. Its insertion at this point, where\nit forms the transition from primitive tradition to the history of the\nchosen people, has a significance, as well as a literary propriety,\nwhich cannot be mistaken (Dillmann 164; Gunkel 77; Driver 114).\n\n The Table is repeated in 1 Chronicles 1\u2074\u207b\u00b2\u00b3 with various\n omissions and textual variations. The list is still further\n abridged in LXX of 1 Chronicles, which omits \u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2078\u1d43 and all\n names after Arpachshad in \u00b2\u00b2.\u2015\u2015On the extensive literature on\n the chapter, see especially the commentaries of Tuch (159 f.)\n and Dillmann (170 f.). See also the map at the end of _Das Alte\n Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_.\n\n\n _The Table of Priestly-Code._\n\n=1a. Superscription.=\u2015\u2015_Sh\u0113m_, _\u1e24\u0101m_, and _Yepheth_] compare 5\u00b3\u00b2\n(Priestly-Code), 9\u00b9\u2078 (Yahwist).\n\n On the original sense of the names only vague conjectures can\n be reported. \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dd\u200e is supposed by some to be the Hebrew word for\n \u2018name,\u2019 applied by the Israelites to themselves in the first\n instance as \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dd\u200e = \u2018men of name\u2019 or \u2018distinction\u2019\u2015\u2015the titled\n or noble race (compare \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2): \u201cperhaps nothing more than\n the ruling caste in opposition to the aborigines.\u201d So Wellhausen\n (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher\n des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 14), who compares the name \u2018Aryan,\u2019\n and contrasts \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d1\u05dc\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dd\u200e (Job 30\u2078); compare Budde _Die biblische\n Urgeschichte_ 328 f.; al. Gunkel (73) mentions a speculation of\n Jensen that \u05e9\u05c1\u05dd\u200e is the Babylonian _\u0161umu_, in the sense of \u2018eldest\n son,\u2019 who perpetuates the father\u2019s _name_.\n\n\u200e \u05d7\u05b8\u05dd\u200e must, at a certain stage of tradition, have supplanted the\n earlier \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05df\u200e as the name of Noah\u2019s third son (page 182). The\n change is easily explicable from the extension of geographical\n knowledge, which made it impossible any longer to regard the\n father of the Canaanites as the ancestor of one-third of the\n human race; but the origin of the name has still to be accounted\n for. As a Hebrew word it might mean \u2018hot\u2019 (Joshua 9\u00b9\u00b2, Job 37\u00b9\u2077):\n hence it has been taken to denote the hot lands of the south\n (Lepsius, al.; compare _Jubilees_ viii. 30: \u201cthe land of Ham is\n hot\u201d). Again, since in some late Psalms (78\u2075\u00b9 105\u00b2\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u2077 106\u00b2\u00b2)\n\u200e \u05d7\u05dd\u200e is a poetic designation of Egypt, it has been plausibly\n connected with the native _keme_ or _chemi_ = \u2018black,\u2019 with\n reference to the black soil of the Nile valley (Bochart, Ebers,\n Budde, 323 ff.).\u00b9 A less probable theory is that of Glaser,\n cited by Hommel (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated\n by the Monuments_, 48), who identifies it with Egyptian _\u201bamu_,\n a collective name for the neighbouring Semitic nomads, derived\n by M\u00fcller (_Asien und Europa nach alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_,\n 123 ff.) from their distinctive primitive weapon, the boomerang.\n\n \u00b9 Compare the rare word \u05d7\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd\u200e, \u2018black,\u2019 30\u00b3\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\n\n\u200e \u05d9\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05ea\u200e is connected in 9\u00b2\u2077 with \u221a \u05e4\u05ea\u05d4\u200e, and no better etymology\n has been proposed. Cheyne (_Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, ii. 2330)\n compares the theophorous personal name _Yapti-\u201bAddu_ in\n Tel-Amarna Tablets, and thinks it a modification of \u05d9\u05b4\u05e4\u05b0\u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u05be\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e,\n \u2018God opens.\u2019 But the form \u05e4\u05ea\u05d4\u200e (_pit\u00fb_) with the probable\n sense of \u2018open\u2019 also occurs in the Tablet (_Keilinschriftliche\n Bibliothek_, v. 290 [last line]). The derivation from \u221a \u05d9\u05e4\u05d4\u200e\n (beautiful), favoured by Budde (358 ff.), in allusion to\n the beauty of the Ph\u0153nician cities, is very improbable.\n The resemblance to the Greek _Iapetos_ was pointed out by\n Buttmann, and is undoubtedly striking. \u1f38\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 was the father of\n Prometheus, and therefore (through Deukalion) of post-diluvian\n mankind. The identification is approved by Weizs\u00e4cker (Roscher\u2019s\n _Ausf\u00fchrliches Lexikon der griechischen und r\u00f6mischen Mythologie_\n ii. 55 ff.), who holds that \u1f38\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, having no Greek etymology,\n may be borrowed from the Semites (compare Lenormant ii. 173\u2012193).\n See, further, Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 221.\n\n A curiously complicated astro-mythical solution is advanced by\n Winckler in _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_,\n vi. 170 ff.\n\n=2\u20125. The Japhetic or Northern Peoples=: fourteen in number, chiefly\nconcentrated in Asia Minor and Armenia, but extending on either side\nto the Caspian and the shores of the Atlantic. It will be seen that\nthough the enumeration is not ethnological in principle, yet most of\nthe peoples named do belong to the same great Indo-Germanic family.\n\n =Japheth.=\n\n 1. Gomer.\n 2. Ashkenaz.\n 3. Riphath.\n 4. Togarmah.\n 5. Magog.\n 6. Madai.\n 7. Javan.\n 8. Elishah.\n 9. Tarshish.\n 10. Kittim.\n 11. Rodanim.\n 12. Tubal.\n 13. Meshech.\n 14. Tiras.\n\n\u200e (1) \u05d2\u05b9\u05bc\u05de\u05b6\u05e8\u200e (LXX \u0393\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1): named along with Togarmah as a confederate\n of Gog in Ezekiel 38\u2076, is identified with the Galatians by\n Joshua, but is really the _Gamir_ of the Assyrian inscription,\n the Cimmerians of the Greeks. The earliest reference to the\n \u039a\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 (_Odyssey_ xi. 13 ff.) reveals them as a northern\n people, dwelling on the shores of the Northern Sea. Their\n irruption into Asia Minor, by way of the Caucasus, is\n circumstantially narrated by Herodotus (i. 15, 103, iv. 11 f.),\n whose account is in its main features confirmed by the Assyrian\n monuments. There the _Gimirrai_ first appear towards the end of\n the reign of Sargon, attacking the old kingdom of Urar\u1e6du (see\n Johns, _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology_, xvii.\n 223 f., 226). Thence they seem to have moved westwards into Asia\n Minor, where (in the reign of Sennacherib) they overthrew the\n Phrygian Empire, and later (under Asshur-bani-pal, _circa_ 657)\n the Lydian Empire of Gyges (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii.\n 173\u20127). This last effort seems to have exhausted their strength,\n and soon afterwards they vanish from history.\u00b9 A trace of their\n shortlived ascendancy remained in _Gamir_, the Armenian name\n for Cappadocia;\u00b2 but the probability is that the land was named\n after the people, and not _vice vers\u00e2_; and it is not safe to\n assume that by \u05d2\u05b9\u05bc\u05de\u05b6\u05e8\u200e Priestly-Code meant Cappadocia. It is more\n likely that the name is primarily ethnic, and denotes the common\n stock of which the three following peoples were branches.\n\n \u00b9 Compare Winckler _Altorientalische Forschungen_, i. 484\u2012496;\n _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 76 f.,\n 101 ff.; Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten\n Orients_\u00b2, 253.\n\n \u00b2 Compare Eusebius _Chronicon_, _Armenian translation_ (edited\n by Aucher) i. page 95\u00b2 (_Gimmeri_ = Cappadocians), and ii.\n page 12 (\u0393\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1, \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f57 \u039a\u03b1\u03c0\u03c0\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2).\n\n\u200e (2) \u05d0\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b7\u05d6\u200e (\u1f08\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b6): Jeremiah 51\u00b2\u2077, after Ararat and Minni.\u00b9\n It has been usual (Bochart, al.) to connect the name with the\n Ascania of _Iliad_ ii. 863, xiii. 793; and to suppose this\n was a region of Phrygia and Bithynia indicated by a river,\n two lakes, and other localities bearing the old name.\u00b2 Recent\n Assyriologists, however, find in it the _A\u0161guza_\u00b3 of the\n monuments,\u2015\u2015a branch of the Indo-Germanic invaders who settled\n in the vicinity of lake Urumia, and are probably identical with\n the Scythians of Herodotus i. 103, 106. Since they are first\n mentioned by Esarhaddon, they might readily appear to a Hebrew\n writer to be a younger people than the Cimmerians. See Winckler\n _ll.cc._; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2,\n 259 f.\n\n \u00b9 Assyrian _Mannai_, between lakes Van and Urumia, mentioned\n along with A\u0161guza in _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii.\n 129, 147.\n\n \u00b2 Lagarde (_Gesammelte Abhandlungen_ 254) instances Ashken as\n an Armenian proper name; and the inscription \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u1f0c\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 on\n Gr\u00e6co-Phrygian coins.\n\n \u00b3 Whether the Hebrew word is a clerical error for \u05d0\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d6\u200e\n (Winckler, Jeremias), or the Assyrian, a modification of\n _A\u0161gunza_, the Assyriologists may decide (see Schmidt,\n _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, iv. 4330 f.).\n\n\u200e (3) \u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e4\u05b7\u05ea\u200e (\u1fec\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03b8, \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03b8: but 1 Chronicles 1\u2076 \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e4\u05b7\u05ea\u200e): otherwise\n unknown. According to Josephus, it denotes the Paphlagonians.\n Bochart and Lagarde (_Gesammelte Abhandlungen_ 255) put it\n further west, near the Bosphorus, on the ground of a remote\n resemblance in name to the river \u1fec\u03ae\u03b2\u03b1\u03b6 and the district \u1fec\u03b7\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1.\n Cheyne (_Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 4114) favours the transposition\n of Halevy (\u05e4\u05d9\u05e8\u05ea\u200e), and compares _Bit Buruta\u0161_, mentioned by Sargon\n along with the Mu\u0161ki and Tabali (Schrader _Keilinschriften und\n Geschichtsforschung_, 176).\n\n\u200e (4) \u05ea\u05b9\u05bc\u05d2\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (\u0398\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1, \u0398\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1) = \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05ea\u05d5\u05d2\u05e8\u05de\u05d4\u200e, Ezekiel 38\u2076 27\u00b9\u2074: in the\n latter passage as a region exporting horses and mules. Josephus\n identifies with the Phrygians. The name is traditionally\n associated with Armenia, Thorgom being regarded as the mythical\n ancestor of the Armenians; but that legend is probably derived\n from LXX of this passage (Lagarde _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_ 255\n ff.; _Symmicta_ i. 105). The suggested Assyriological equivalent\n _Til-Garimmu_ (Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 246; _Das Alte\n Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 260; al.), a city on\n the frontier of the Tabali mentioned by Sargon and Sennacherib,\n is not convincing; even though the _Til-_ should be a fictitious\n Assyrian etymology (Lenormant _Les Origines de l\u2019histoire_\u00b2 ii.\n 410).\n\n\u200e (5) \u05de\u05b8\u05d2\u05d5\u05b9\u05d2\u200e (\u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3): Ezekiel 38\u00b2 39\u2076. The generally accepted\n identification with the Scythians dates from Joshua and Jeremiah,\n but perhaps reflects only a vague impression that the name is a\n comprehensive designation of the barbarous races of the north,\n somewhat like the _Umman-manda_ of the Assyrians. In one of\n the Tel-Amarna letters (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, v. 5),\n a land _Ga-ga_ is alluded to in a similar manner. But how the\n author differentiated Magog from the Cimmerians and Medes, etc.,\n does not appear. The name \u05de\u05d2\u05d5\u05d2\u200e is altogether obscure. That it\n is derived from \u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d2\u200e = Gyges, king of Lydia (Meyer _Geschichte\n des Alterthums_\u00b9, i. page 558), is most improbable; and the\n suggestion that it is a corruption of Assyrian _M\u00e2t G\u00f4g_ (_M\u00e2t\n Gagaia_),\u00b9 must also be received with some caution.\n\n \u00b9 Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 246 f.; Streck, _Zeitschrift\n f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, 321; Sayce, _The Higher Criticism and the\n Verdict of the Monuments_\u00b2, 125.\n\n\u200e (6) \u05de\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05d9\u200e (\u039c\u03b1\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9): the common Hebrew name for Media and the Medes;\n 2 Kings 17\u2076 18\u00b9\u00b9, Isaiah 13\u00b9\u2077 21\u00b2, Jeremiah 25\u00b2\u2075 51\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2078, Esther\n 1\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1427 10\u00b2, Daniel 8\u00b2\u2070 9\u00b9 [11\u00b9] (Assyrian _Madai_). The\n formation of the Median Empire must have taken place about the\n middle of the 7th century, but the existence of the people in\n their later seats (East of the Zagros mountains and South of\n the Caspian Sea) appears to be traceable in the monuments back\n to the 9th century. They are thus the earliest branch of the\n Aryan family to make their mark in Asiatic history. See Meyer\n _Geschichte des Alterthums_\u00b9, i. \u00a7 422 ff.; _Die Keilinschriften\n und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 100 ff.; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte\n des alten Orients_\u00b2, 254.\n\n\u200e (7) \u05d9\u05b8\u05d5\u05b8\u05df\u200e (\u1f38\u03c9\u03c5\u03b1\u03bd) is the Greek \u1f38\u03ac\u03dd\u03c9\u03bd-\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, and denotes primarily\n the Greek settlements in Asia Minor, which were mainly Ionian:\n Ezekiel 27\u00b9\u00b3, Isaiah 66\u00b9\u2079. After Alexander the Great it was\n extended to the Hellenes generally: Joel 4\u2076, Zechariah 9\u00b9\u00b3,\n Daniel 8\u00b2\u00b9 10\u00b2\u2070 11\u00b2. In Assyrian _Yamanai_ is said to be used\n but once (by Sargon, _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 43);\n but the Persian _Yauna_ occurs, with the same double reference,\n from the time of Darius (compare \u00c6schylus _The Persians_ 176,\n 562). Whether the word here includes the European Greeks cannot\n be positively determined.\u00b9\u2015\u2015The \u2018sons\u2019 of Javan are (verse \u2074) to\n be sought along the Mediterranean, and probably at spots known\n to the Hebrew as commercial colonies of the Ph\u0153nicians (on which\n see Meyer _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 3736 f.). Very few of them,\n however, can be confidently identified.\n\n \u00b9 Against the theory of a second \u05d9\u05b8\u05d5\u05b8\u05df\u200e in Arabia (which in any\n case would not affect the interpretation of this passage),\n see Stade _Ausgew\u00e4hlte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_\n 125\u2012142. Compare, further, _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des\n alten Orients_\u00b2, 255.\n\n\u200e (8) \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d4\u200e (\u1f18\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1, \u1f18\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1) is mentioned only in Ezekiel 27\u2077\n\u200e (\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9 \u05d0\u05f3\u200e) as a place supplying Tyre with purple. The older\n verbal identifications with the \u0391\u1f30\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 (Josephus, Jerome; so\n Delitzsch), \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c2 (Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f), \u1f28\u03bb\u03af\u03c2, etc., are valueless;\n and modern opinion is greatly divided. Some favour Carthage,\n because of _Elissa_, the name of the legendary foundress of the\n city (Stade, Winckler, Jeremias, al.); others (Dillmann al.)\n southern Italy with Sicily.\u00b9 The most attractive solution is\n that first proposed by Conder (Palestine Exploration Fund:\n _Quarterly Statements._, 1892, 45; compare 1904, 170), and\n widely accepted, that the _Ala\u0161ia_ of the Tel-Amarna Tablets\n is meant (see _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, v. 80\u201292). This\n is now generally recognised as the name of Cyprus, of which\n the Tyrian purple was a product:\u00b2 see below on \u05db\u05ea\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e. Jensen now\n (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 507) places \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05d4\u200e beyond\n the Pillars of Hercules on the African coast, and connects it\n with the Elysium of the Greeks.\n\n \u00b9 Compare Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 on Ezekiel 27\u2077 \u05de\u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05ea \u05d0\u05d9\u05d8\u05dc\u05d9\u05d0\u200e; and Eusebius\n _Chronicon_, _Armenian translation_ ii. page 13: \u1f18\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u1f70, \u1f10\u03be\n \u03bf\u1f57 \u03a3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03af + et Athenienses [Armenian].\n\n \u00b2 See M\u00fcller, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, x. 257 ff.;\n _Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ iii. 288 ff.; Jensen\n _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, 379 f.; Jastrow _A\n Dictionary of the Bible_, v. 80 b.\n\n\u200e (9) \u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u200e (\u0398\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) is identified (since Bochart) with \u03a4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03c2\n (Tartesos), the Ph\u0153nician mining and trading station in the\n South of Spain;\u00b9 and no other theory is nearly so plausible.\n The Old Testament Tarshish was rich in minerals (Jeremiah 10\u2079,\n Ezekiel 27\u00b9\u00b2), was a Tyrian colony (Isaiah 23\u00b9\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2070), and a\n remote coast-land reached by sea (Isaiah 66\u00b9\u2079, Jonah 1\u00b3 4\u00b2,\n Psalms 72\u00b9\u2070); and to distinguish the Tarshish of these passages\n from that of Genesis 10 (Delitzsch, Jastrow, al.), or to\n consider the latter a doublet of \u05ea\u05d9\u05e8\u05e1\u200e (Cheyne, M\u00fcller), are but\n counsels of despair. The chief rival theory is Tarsus in Cilicia\n (Josephus, Jerome, al.); but this in Semitic is \u05ea\u05e8\u05d6\u200e (_Tarzi_).\n Compare Winckler _Altorientalische Forschungen_, i. 445 f.;\n M\u00fcller, _Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ iii. 291.\n\n \u00b9 Herodotus i. 163, iv. 152; Strabo, iii. 151; Pliny\n _Naturalis Historia_, iii. 7, iv. 120, etc.\n\n\u200e (10) \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (\u039a\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, \u039a\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9)] compare Jeremiah 2\u00b9\u2070, Ezekiel 27\u2076,\n Isaiah 23\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2, Daniel 11\u00b3\u2070, 1 Maccabees 1\u00b9 8\u2075, Numbers 24\u00b2\u2074.\n Against the prevalent view that it denotes primarily the island\n of Cyprus, so called from its chief city \u039a\u03af\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (Larnaka),\n Winckler (_Altorientalische Forschungen_, ii. 422\u00b9; compare\n _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 128) argues that\n neither the island nor its capital\u00b9 is so named in any ancient\n document, and that the older biblical references demand a site\n further West. The application to the Macedonians (1 Maccabees)\n he describes as one of those false identifications common in\n the Egypt of the Ptolemaic period. His argument is endorsed by\n M\u00fcller (_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ iii. 288) and Jeremias\n (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 261): they\n suggest South Italy, mainly on the authority of Daniel 11\u00b3\u2070. The\n question is obviously bound up with the identity of \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05d4\u200e\u2015\u2015Ala\u0161ia\n (_v.s._).\n\n \u00b9 The city, however, is called \u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u200e in Ph\u0153nician inscriptions\n and coins from the 4th century B.C. downwards; see Cooke,\n _A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions_, pages 56, 66?,\n 78, 352.\n\n\u200e (11) \u05d3\u05b9\u05bc\u05d3\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e or \u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05d3\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_\n LXX [\u1fec\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9] and 1 Chronicles 1\u2077)] a name omitted by Josephus.\n If LXX be right, the Rhodians are doubtless meant (compare\n _Iliad_ ii. 654 f.): the singular is perhaps disguised in\n the corrupt \u05d3\u05d3\u05df\u200e of Ezekiel 27\u00b9\u2075 (compare LXX). The Massoretic\n Text has been explained of the Dardanians (Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f,\n Delitzsch, al.), \u201cproperly a people of Asia Minor, not far from\n the Lycians\u201d (Cheyne _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 1123). Winckler\n (_l.c._) proposes \u05d3\u05e8\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, the Dorians; and M\u00fcller \u05d3(\u05d5)\u05e0\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, Egyptian\n _Da-n\u00f4-na_ = Tel-Amarna Tablets, _Da-nu-na_ (_Keilinschriftliche\n Bibliothek_, v. 277), on the West coast of Asia Minor.\n\n\u200e (12) \u05ea\u05bb\u05bc\u05d1\u05b7\u05dc\u200e (\u0398\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u03bb)] and\n\n\u200e (13) \u05de\u05b6\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05da\u05b0\u200e (\u039c\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c7)] are mentioned together in Ezekiel 27\u00b9\u00b3\n (as exporting slaves and copper), 32\u00b2\u2076 (a warlike people of\n antiquity), 38\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427 39\u00b9 (in the army of Gog), Isaiah 66\u00b9\u2079 (LXX);\n\u200e \u05de\u05e9\u05da\u200e alone in Psalms 120\u2075. Josephus arbitrarily identifies them\n with the Iberians and Cappadocians respectively; but since\n Bochart no one has questioned their identity with the \u03a4\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\n and \u039c\u03cc\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9, first mentioned in Herodotus iii. 94 as belonging\n to the 19th satrapy of Darius, and again (vii. 78) as furnishing\n a contingent to the host of Xerxes (compare Strabo, XI. ii. 14,\n 16). Equally obvious is their identity with the _Tabali_ and\n _Mu\u0161ki_ of the Assyrian Monuments, where the latter appear as\n early as Tiglath-pileser I. (_circa_ 1100), and the former under\n Shalmaneser II. (_circa_ 838),\u2015\u2015both as formidable military\n states. In Sargon\u2019s inscriptions they appear together;\u00b9 and\n during this whole period their territory evidently extended much\n further South and West than in Gr\u00e6co-Roman times. These stubborn\n little nationalities, which so tenaciously maintained their\n identity, are regarded by Winckler and Jeremias as remnants\n of the old Hittite population which were gradually driven\n (probably by the Cimmerian invasion) to the mountainous district\n South-east of the Black Sea.\n\n \u00b9 See _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 18 f., 64 f., 142 f.,\n ii. 40 f., 56 f.; and Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 250 f.\n\n\u200e (14) \u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e8\u05b8\u05e1\u200e (\u0398\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2)] not mentioned elsewhere, was almost\n unanimously taken by the ancients (Jerome, Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f,\n Jerome, etc.; and so Bochartus, al.) to be the Thracians\n (\u0398\u03c1\u1fb6\u03ba-\u03b5\u03c2); but the superficial resemblance vanishes when the\n nominative ending \u03c2 is removed. Tuch was the first to suggest\n the \u03a4\u03c5\u03c1\u03c3-\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03af, a race of Pelasgian pirates, who left many\n traces of their ancient prowess in the islands and coasts of the\n \u00c6gean, and who were doubtless identical with the E-_trus_-cans\n of Italy.\u00b9 This brilliant conjecture has since been confirmed by\n the discovery of the name _Turu\u0161a_ amongst the seafaring peoples\n who invaded Egypt in the reign of Merneptah (Meyer _Geschichte\n des Alterthums_\u00b9, i. \u00a7 260; W. M. M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa nach\n alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_, 356 ff.).\n\n \u00b9 Thucydides iv. 109; Herodotus i. 57, 94; Strabo, V. ii. 2,\n iii. 5: other references in Tuch _ad loc._\n\n * * * * *\n\n =5.= The subscription to the first division of the Table is not\n quite in order. We miss the formula \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e4\u05ea\u200e (compare verses \u00b2\u2070\u1427\n \u00b3\u00b9), which is here necessary to the sense, and must be inserted,\n not (with Wellhausen) at the beginning of the verse, but\n immediately before \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e6\u05ea\u05dd\u200e. The clause \u05de\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd\u200e is then seen to\n belong to verse \u2074, and to mean that the Mediterranean coasts\n were peopled from the four centres just named as occupied by\n sons of Javan. Although these places were probably all at one\n time Ph\u0153nician colonies, it is not to be inferred that the\n writer confused the Ionians with Ph\u0153nicians. He may be thinking\n of the native population of regions known to Israel through\n the Ph\u0153nicians, or of the Mycenean Greeks, whose colonising\n enterprise is now believed to be of earlier date than the\n Ph\u0153nician (Meyer _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 3736 f.).\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05e4\u05e8\u05d3\u05d5\u200e]\n construed like \u05e0\u05e4\u05e6\u05d4\u200e in 9\u00b9\u2079 (Yahwist); contrast 10\u00b3\u00b2.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d9\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd\u200e]\n only again Zephaniah 2\u00b9\u00b9. Should we read \u05d0\u05d9\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (Isaiah 11\u00b9\u00b9 24\u00b9\u2075,\n Esther 10\u00b9)? \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e (for \u05d0\u05b1\u05d5\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, perhaps from \u221a _\u2019awa\u02b8_, \u201cbetake oneself\u201d)\n seems to be a seafarer\u2019s word denoting the place one makes for\n (for shelter, etc.); hence both \u201ccoast\u201d and \u201cisland\u201d (the latter\n also in Ph\u0153nician). In Hebrew the plural came to be used of\n distant lands in general (Isaiah 41\u00b9\u1427 \u2075 42\u2074 51\u2075 etc., Jeremiah\n 31\u00b9\u2070 etc.)\n\n * * * * *\n\n=6, 7, 20. The Hamitic or Southern Group=: in Africa and South Arabia,\nbut including the Canaanites of Palestine.\n\n =\u1e24am.=\n\n 1. Kush.\n 5. \u1e62eba.\n 6. \u1e24avilah.\n 7. \u1e62abtah.\n 8. Ra\u201bmah.\n 10. Sheba.\n 11. Dedan.\n 9. \u1e62abtekah.\n 2. Mi\u1e93raim.\n 3. Pu\u1e6d.\n 4. Canaan.\n\n\u200e (1) \u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u200e (LXX \u03a7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, but elsewhere, \u0391\u1f30\u03b8\u03af\u03bf\u03c0-\u03b5\u03c2, -\u03af\u03b1)] the land\n and people South of Egypt (Nubia),\u2015\u2015the Ethiopians of the\n Greeks, the _K\u00f4\u0161_ of the Egyptian monuments:\u00b9 compare Isaiah\n 18\u00b9, Jeremiah 13\u00b2\u00b3, Ezekiel 29\u00b9\u2070, Zephaniah 3\u00b9\u2070 etc. Assyrian\n _Kusu_ occurs repeatedly in the same sense on inscriptions\n of Esarhaddon and Asshurbanipal; and only four passages of\n Esarhaddon are claimed by Winckler for the hypothesis of a south\n Arabian _Kusu_ (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3,\n 144). There is no reason to doubt that in this verse the African\n Kush is meant. That the \u2018sons\u2019 of Kush include Arabian peoples\n is quite naturally explained by the assumption that the writer\n believed these Arabs to be of African descent. As a matter of\n fact, intercourse, involving intermixture of blood, has at all\n times been common between the two shores of the Red Sea; and\n indeed the opinion that Africa was the original cradle of the\n Semites has still a measure of scientific support (see Barton,\n _A Sketch of Semitic Origins_\u00b9, 6 ff., 24).\u2015\u2015See, further, on\n verse \u2078 (page 207 f.).\n\n \u00b9 See Steindorff, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Assyriologie und semitischen\n Sprachwissenschaft_, i. 593 f.\n\n\u200e (2) \u05de\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05e8\u05b7\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (\u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd)] the Hebrew form of the common Semitic name\n of Egypt (Tel-Amarna Tablets, _Mi\u1e63\u1e63ari_, _Mi\u1e63ri_, _Ma\u0161ri_,\n _Mizirri_; Assyrian [from 8th and 7th century] _Mu\u1e63ur_;\n Babylonian _Mi\u1e63ir_; Syrian (\u2021 Syriac phrase); Arabic _Mi\u1e63r_).\n Etymology and meaning are uncertain: Hommel\u2019s suggestion\n (_Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens_ 530; compare Winckler\n _Altorientalische Forschungen_, i. 25) that it is an Assyrian\n appellative = \u2018frontier,\u2019 is little probable. The dual form of\n Hebrew is usually explained by the constant distinction in the\n native inscriptions between Upper and Lower Egypt, though \u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e is\n found in connexions (Isaiah 11\u00b9\u00b9, Jeremiah 44\u00b9\u2075) which limit it\n to Lower Egypt; and many scholars now deny that the termination\n is a real dual (Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_, i. \u00a7 42, An.;\n Jensen _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_,\n xlviii. 439).\u2015\u2015On the vexed question of a North Arabian _Mu\u1e63ri_,\n it is unnecessary to enter here. There may be passages of Old\n Testament where that view is plausible, but this is not one of\n them; and the idea of a wholesale confusion between Egypt and\n Arabia on the part of Old Testament writers is a nightmare which\n it is high time to be quit of.\n\n\u200e (3) \u05e4\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d8\u200e (\u03a6\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4, but elsewhere \u039b\u03b9\u03b2\u03c5\u03b5\u03c2)] mentioned 6 times\n (including LXX of Isaiah 66\u00b9\u2079) in Old Testament, as a warlike\n people furnishing auxiliaries to Egypt (Nahum 3\u2079, Jeremiah 46\u2079,\n Ezekiel 30\u2075) or Tyre (Ezekiel 27\u00b9\u2070) or the host of Gog (38\u2075),\n and frequently associated with \u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u200e and \u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3\u200e. The prevalent view\n has been that the Lybians, on the North coast of Africa West\n of Egypt, are meant (LXX, Josephus al.), although Nahum 3\u2079\n and probably Ezekiel 30\u2075 (LXX) show that the two peoples were\n distinguished. Another identification, first proposed by Ebers,\n has recently been strongly advocated: viz. with the _Pwnt_ of\n Egyptian monuments, comprising \u2018the whole African coast of the\n Red Sea\u2019 (W. M. M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa nach alt\u00e4gyptischen\n Denkm\u00e4lern_, 114 ff., and _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iv. 176\n f.; Jeremias 263 f.). The only serious objection to this theory\n is the order in which the name occurs, which suggests a place\n further north than Egypt (Jensen _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_,\n x. 325 ff.).\n\n\u200e (4) \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05df\u200e (\u03a7\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b1\u03bd)] the eponym of the pre-Israelitish inhabitants\n of Palestine, is primarily a geographical designation. The\n etymology is doubtful; but the sense \u2018lowland\u2019 has still the\n best claim to acceptance (see, however, Moore, _Proceedings\n [Journal] of the American Oriental Society_, 1890, lxvii ff.).\n In Egyptian monuments the name, in the form _pa-Ka-n-\u201bsand-land_\n is the article), is applied to the strip of coast from Ph\u0153nicia\n to the neighbourhood of Gaza; but the ethnographic derivative\n extends to the inhabitants of all Western Syria (M\u00fcller, _Asien\n und Europa nach alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_, 205 ff.). Similarly\n in Tel-Amarna Tablets _Kina\u1e2b\u1e2bi_, _Kina\u1e2bna_, etc., stand for\n Palestine proper (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3,\n 181), or (according to Jastrow _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 641)\n the northern part of the seacoast.\u2015\u2015The fact that Canaan, in\n spite of its geographical situation and the close affinity of\n its language with Hebrew, is reckoned to the Hamites is not to\n be explained by the tradition (Herodotus i. 1, vii. 89, etc.)\n that the Ph\u0153nicians came originally from the Red Sea; for that\n probably implies no more than that they were connected with the\n Babylonians (\u1f18\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03c1\u1f74 \u0398\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 = the Persian Gulf). Neither is it\n altogether natural to suppose that Canaan is thus placed because\n it had for a long time been a political dependency of Egypt: in\n that case, as Dillmann observes, we should have expected Canaan\n to figure as a son of Mizraim. The belief that Canaan and Israel\n belonged to entirely different branches of the human family\n is rooted in the circumstances that gave rise to the blessing\n and curse of Noah in chapter 9. When, with the extension of\n geographical knowledge, it became necessary to assign the\n Canaanites to a larger group (page 187 above), it was inevitable\n that they should find their place as remote from the Hebrews as\n possible.\n\n Of the descendants of Kush (verse \u2077) a large proportion\u2015\u2015all,\n indeed, that can be safely identified\u2015\u2015are found in Arabia.\n Whether this means that Kushites had crossed the Red Sea,\n or that Arabia and Africa were supposed to be a continuous\n continent, in which the Red Sea formed an inland lake (_Die\n Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 137, 144), it is\n perhaps impossible to decide.\n\n\u200e (5) \u05e1\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05d0\u200e (\u03a3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1)] Isaiah 43\u00b3 45\u00b9\u2074, Psalms 72\u00b9\u2070; usually taken\n to be Mer\u00f6e\u00b9 (between Berber and Khartoum). The tall stature\n attributed to the people in Isaiah 45\u00b9\u2074 (but compare 18\u00b2\u1427 \u2077) is\n in favour of this view; but it has nothing else to recommend it.\n Dillmann al. prefer the Saba referred to by Strabo (XVI. iv. 8,\n 10; compare Ptolemy, iv. 7. 7 f.) on the African side of the Red\n Sea (South of Suakim). Jeremias (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte\n des alten Orients_\u00b2, 265) considers the word as the more correct\n variant to \u05e9\u05c1\u05d1\u05d0\u200e (see below).\n\n \u00b9 Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ ii. 249. In i. 134 f. he\n seems to confuse \u05e1\u05d1\u05d0\u200e and \u05e9\u05c1\u05d1\u05d0\u200e.\n\n\u200e (6) \u05d7\u05b2\u05d5\u05b4\u05d9\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (\u0395\u1f51[\u03b5]\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1[\u03c4])] often (since Bochart) explained as\n \u2018sand-land\u2019 (from \u05d7\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u200e); named in verse \u00b2\u2079 (Yahwist) as a\n Jo\u1e33\u1e6danite people, and in 25\u00b9\u2078 (also Yahwist) as the eastern\n limit of the Ishmaelite Arabs. It seems impossible to harmonise\n these indications. The last is probably the most ancient, and\n points to a district in North Arabia, not too far to the East.\n We may conjecture that the name is derived from the large tract\n of loose red sand (_nef\u016bd_) which stretches North of Teima and\n South of el-\u01e6\u014df. This is precisely where we should look for the\n \u03a7\u03b1\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 whom Eratosthenes (Strabo, XVI. iv. 2) mentions\n (next to the Nabateans) as the second of three tribes on the\n route from Egypt to Babylon; and Pliny (vi. 157) gives Domata\n (= D\u00fbm\u0101h = el-\u01e6\u014df: see page 353) as a town of the _Avalit\u00e6_. The\n name might easily be extended to other sandy regions of Arabia,\n (perhaps especially to the great sand desert in the southern\n interior): of some more southerly district it must be used\n both here and verse \u00b2\u2079 (see Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre\n Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 325 f.). To distinguish further the Cushite from\n the Joktanite \u05d7\u05f3\u200e, and to identify the former with the \u1f08\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n etc., on the African coast near Bab-el-mandeb, is quite\n unnecessary. On the other hand, it is impossible to place either\n of these so far Nprth as the head of the Persian Gulf (Glaser)\n or the East-North-east part of the Syrian desert (Friedrich\n Delitzsch). Nothing can be made of Genesis 2\u00b9\u00b9; and in 1 Samuel\n 15\u2077 (the only other occurrence) the text is probably corrupt.\n\n\u200e (7) \u05e1\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e (\u03a3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1)] not identified. Possibly \u03a3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, Sabota,\n the capital of \u1e24a\u1e0dramaut (see on verse \u00b2\u2076) (Strabo, XVI. iv. 2;\n Pliny, _Naturalis Historia_, vi. 155, xii. 63),\u2015\u2015though in\n Sab\u00e6an this is written \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea\u200e (see Osiander, _Zeitschrift der\n deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xix. 253; Hommel\n _S\u00fcd-arabische Chrestomathie_ 119); or the \u03a3\u03ac\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1 of Ptolemy vi.\n 7. 30, an inland town lying (according to Glaser, 252) West of\n El-\u1e32a\u1e6d\u012bf.\n\n\u200e (8) \u05e8\u05b7\u05e2\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (\u1fec\u03b5\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 or \u1fec\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1)] coupled with \u05e9\u05c1\u05d1\u05d0\u200e (? and \u05d7\u05d5\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4\u200e) in\n Ezekiel 27\u00b2\u00b2 as a tribe trading in spices, precious stones,\n and gold. It is doubtless the \u05e8\u05e2\u05bf\u05de\u05d4\u200e (_Ra\u01e7mat_) of a Min\u00e6an\n inscription,\u00b9 which speaks of an attack by the hosts of Saba\n and \u1e24aul\u00e2n on a Min\u00e6an caravan _en route_ between Ma\u201b\u00e2n and\n Ra\u201bmat. This again may be connected with the \u1fec\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 of\n Strabo (XVI. iv. 24) North of \u1e24a\u1e0dramaut. The identification with\n the \u1fec\u03b5\u03b3[\u03b1]\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 (a seaport on the Persian Gulf) of Ptolemy\n vi. 7. 14 (Bochartus al.; so Glaser) is difficult because of its\n remoteness from Sheba and Dedan (_v.i._), and also because this\n appears on the inscription as _R\u01e7mt_ (Glaser, 252).\n\n \u00b9 Halevy, 535, 2 (given in Hommel _S\u00fcd-arabische Chrestomathie_\n 103) = Glaser, 1155: translated by M\u00fcller, _Zeitschrift der\n deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xxx. 121 f., and\n Hommel _Aufs\u00e4tze und Abhandlungen arabistisch-semitologischen\n Inhalts_, 322, _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated\n by the Monuments_, 249 f.\n\n\u200e (9) \u05e1\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05db\u05b8\u05d0\u200e (\u03a3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1)] unknown. \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03c5\u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03b7 in Carmania\u00b9 (Ptolemy. vi.\n 8. 7 f., 11) is unsuitable both geographically and phonetically.\n Jeremias suggests that the word is a duplicate of \u05e1\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e.\n\n \u00b9 Bochartus: so Glaser, ii. 252; but see his virtual\n withdrawal on page 404.\n\n\u200e (10) \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d1\u05b8\u05d0\u200e (\u03a3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1)] (properly, as inscriptions show, \u05e1\u05d1\u05d0\u200e: see Number\n 5 above) is assigned in verse \u00b2\u2079 to the Jo\u1e33\u1e6danites, and in 25\u00b3\n to the \u1e32etureans. It is the Old Testament name of the people\n known to the classical geographers as Sab\u00e6ans, the founders\n of a great commercial state in South-west Arabia, with its\n metropolis at _Marib_ (Mariaba), some 45 miles due East of San\u2019a,\n the present capital of Yemen (Strabo, XVI. iv. 2, 19; Pliny,\n _Naturalis Historia_, vi. 154 f., etc.). \u201cThey were the centre\n of an old South Arabian civilisation, regarding the former\n existence of which the Sab\u00e6an inscriptions and architectural\n monuments supply ample evidence\u201d (Dillmann 182). Their history\n is still obscure. The native inscriptions commence about 700\n B.C.; and, a little earlier, Sab\u00e6an princes (not kings)\u00b9 appear\n on Assyrian monuments as paying tribute to Tiglath-pileser IV.\n (B.C. 738) and Sargon (B.C. 715).\u00b2 It would seem that about that\n time (probably with the help of the Assyrians) they overthrew\n the older Min\u00e6an Empire, and established themselves on its\n ruins. Unlike their precursors, however, they do not appear\n to have consolidated their power in North Arabia, though their\n inscriptions have been found as far North as el-\u01e6\u014df. To the\n Hebrews, Sheba was a \u2018far country\u2019 (Jeremiah 6\u00b2\u2070, Joel 4\u2078),\n famous for gold, frankincense, and precious stones (1 Kings\n 10\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, Isaiah 60\u2076, Jeremiah 6\u00b2\u2070, Ezekiel 27\u00b2\u00b2, Psalms 72\u00b9\u2075):\n in all these passages, as well as Psalms 72\u00b9\u2070, Job 6\u00b9\u2079, the\n reference to the southern Sab\u00e6ans is clear. On the other hand,\n the association with Dedan (25\u00b3, Ezekiel 38\u00b9\u00b3 and here) favours\n a more northern locality; in Job 1\u00b9\u2075 they appear as Bedouin of\n the northern desert; and the Assyrian references appear to imply\n a northerly situation. Since it is undesirable to assume the\n existence of two separate peoples, it is tempting to suppose\n that the passage last quoted preserve the tradition of an\n earlier time, before the conquest of the Min\u00e6ans had led to a\n settlement in Yemen. Verse \u00b2\u2078 (Yahwist), however, presupposes\n the southern settlement.\u00b3\n\n \u00b9 It is important that neither in their own nor in the\n Assyrian inscriptions are the earliest rulers spoken of as\n _kings_.\n\n \u00b2 Compare _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 21, 55.\n\n \u00b3 See Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_\u00b9, i. \u00a7 403; Glaser,\n ii. 399 ff.; Sprenger, _Zeitschrift der deutschen\n morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xliv. 501 ff.; Margoliouth,\n _A Dictionary of the Bible_, i. 133, iv. 479 ff.; Hommel\n _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the\n Monuments_, 77 ff., and in _Explorations in Bible Lands\n during the 19th century_, 728 ff.; _Die Keilinschriften und\n das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 148 ff.; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte\n des alten Orients_\u00b2, 265.\n\n\u200e (11) \u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05d3\u05b8\u05df\u200e (\u0394\u03b1\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd, \u0394\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd; but elsewhere \u0394\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd, etc.)] a merchant\n tribe mentioned along with Sheba in 25\u00b3 (= 1 Chronicles 1\u00b3\u00b2)\n and Ezekiel 38\u00b9\u00b3; with Tema (the modern _Teima_, _c._ 230 miles\n North of Medina) in Isaiah 21\u00b9\u00b3, Jeremiah 25\u00b2\u00b3, and LXX of\n Genesis 25\u00b3; and in Jeremiah 49\u2078, Ezekiel 25\u00b9\u00b3 as a neighbour\n of Edom. All this points to a region in the North of Arabia; and\n as the only other reference (Ezekiel 27\u00b2\u2070)\u2015\u2015in 27\u00b9\u2075 the text is\n corrupt\u2015\u2015is consistent with this, there is no need to postulate\n another Dedan on the Persian Gulf (Bochartus al.) or anywhere\n else. Glaser (397) very suitably locates the Dedanites \u201cin the\n neighbourhood of Khaibar, el-Ola, El-Hi\u01e7r, extending perhaps\n beyond Teima,\u201d\u2015\u2015a region intersected by the trade-routes from\n all parts of Arabia (see the map in _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_,\n iv. 5160); and where the name is probably perpetuated in the\n ruins of Daidan, West of Teima (Dillmann). The name occurs both\n in Min\u00e6an and Sab\u00e6an inscriptions (Glaser, 397 ff.; M\u00fcller,\n _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xxx.\n 122), but not in the Greek or Roman geographers.\u2015\u2015The older\n tradition of Yahwist (25\u00b3) recognises a closer kinship of the\n Israelites with Sheba and Dedan, by making them sons of Jo\u1e33shan\n and descendants of Abraham through \u1e32eturah (_v. ad loc._). (An\n intermediate stage seems represented by 10\u00b2\u2075\u207b\u00b2\u2079, where South\n Arabia is assigned to the descendants of \u201bEber). Priestly-Code\n follows the steps of 25\u00b3 by bracketing the two tribes as sons of\n Ra\u201bmah: whether he knew them as comparatively recent offshoots\n of the Kushite stock is not so certain.\n\n=22, 23, 31. The Shemitic or Eastern Group.=\u2015\u2015With the doubtful\nexception of \u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3\u200e (see below) the nations here mentioned all lie on the\nEast of Palestine, and are probably arranged in geographical order from\nSouth-east to North-west, till they join hands with the Japhethites.\n\n =Shem.=\n\n 1. Elam.\n 2. Asshur.\n 3. Arpachshad.\n 4. Lud.\n 5. Aram.\n 6. U\u1e93.\n 7. \u1e24ul.\n 8. Gether.\n 9. Mash.\n\n\u200e (1) \u05e2\u05b5\u05d9\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd\u200e (\u0391\u1f30\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc)] Assyrian _Elamtu_,\u00b9 the name of \u201cthe great\n plain East of the lower Tigris and North of the Persian Gulf,\n together with the mountainous region enclosing it on the North\n and East\u201d (Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 320), corresponding\n to the later Elym\u00e4is or Susiana. The district round Susa was\n in very early times (after 3000 B.C.) inhabited by Semitic\n settlers ruled by viceroys of the Babylonian kings; about\n 2280 the Anzanite element (of a different race and speaking a\n different language) gained the upper hand, and even established\n a suzerainty over Babylonia. From that time onwards Elam was\n a powerful monarchy, playing an important part in the politics\n of the Euphrates valley, till it was finally destroyed by\n Assurbanipal.\u00b2 The reason for including this non-Semitic race\n among the sons of Shem is no doubt geographical or political.\n The other Old Testament references are Genesis 14\u00b9\u1427 \u2079, Isaiah\n 11\u00b9\u00b2 21\u00b2 22\u2076, Jeremiah 25\u00b2\u2075 49\u00b3\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, Ezekiel 32\u00b2\u2074, Daniel 8\u00b2.\n\n \u00b9 Commonly explained as \u2018highland\u2019 (Schrader, Delitzsch\n _Assyrisches Handw\u00f6rterbuch_ etc.), but according to Jensen\n (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, vi. 170\u00b2, xi. 351) =\n \u2018front-land,\u2019 _i.e._ \u2018East land.\u2019\n\n \u00b2 See the interesting historical sketch by Scheil, _Textes\n elamites-semitiques_ (1900), pages ix\u2012xv [= volume ii. of\n de Morgan, _Delegation en Perse: Memoires_]. Compare Sayce,\n _The Expository Times._, xiii. 65.\n\n\u200e (2) \u05d0\u05b7\u05e9\u05bc\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e] Assyria. See below on verse \u00b9\u00b9 (page 211).\n\n\u200e (3) \u05d0\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05db\u05b0\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d3\u200e (\u1f08\u03c1\u03c6\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03b4)] identified by Bochartus with the\n \u1f08\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c7\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 which Ptolemy (vi. 1. 2) describes as the province\n of Assyria next to Armenia,\u2015\u2015the mountainous region round\n the sources of the Upper Zab, between lakes Van and Urumia,\n still called in Kurdish _Alb\u00e2k_. This name appears in Assyrian\n as Arap\u1e2ba (Arba\u1e2ba, etc.),\u00b9 and on Egyptian monuments of the\n 18th dynasty as _\u2019Ararpa\u1e2ba_ (M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa nach\n alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_, 278 f.). Geographically nothing\n could be more suitable than this identification: the difficulty\n is that the last syllable \u05e9\u05c1\u05d3\u200e is left unaccounted for. Josephus\n recognised in the last three letters the name of the Chaldeans\n\u200e (\u05db\u05b6\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d3\u200e),\u00b2 and several attempts have been made to explain the\n first element of the word in accordance with this hint. (a) The\n best is perhaps that of Cheyne (_Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 318),\u00b3\n resolving the word into two proper names: \u05d0\u05e8\u05e4\u05da\u200e or \u05d0\u05e8\u05e4\u05d7\u200e (= Assyrian\n _Arba\u1e2ba_) and \u05db\u05b6\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d3\u200e,\u2015\u2015the latter here introducing a second trio\n of sons of Shem. On this view the Arpak\u0161ad of verse \u00b2\u2074 11\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\n must be an error (for \u05db\u05e9\u05c2\u05d3\u200e?) caused by the textual corruption\n here. (b) An older conjecture, approved by Gesenius (_Thesaurus\n philologicus criticus Lingu\u00e6 Hebr\u00e6\u00e6 et Chald\u00e6\u00e6 Veteris\n Testamenti_), Knobel, al., compares the \u05d0\u05e8\u05e4\u200e with Arabic _\u2019urfat_\n (= \u2018boundary\u2019),\u2074 Ethiopian _arfat_ (= \u2018wall\u2019); \u05d0\u05e8\u05e3 \u05db\u05e9\u05d3\u200e would thus\n be the \u2018wall (or boundary) of Kesed.\u2019 (c) Hommel _The Ancient\n Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 212, 294\u20128)\n takes the middle syllable _pa_ to be the Egyptian article,\n reading _\u2019Ur-pa-Kesed_ = Ur of the Chaldees (11\u00b2\u2078),\u2015\u2015an\n improbable suggestion. (d) Delitzsch. (_Wo lag das Paradies?_\n 255 f.) and Jensen (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, xv. 256)\n interpret the word as _arba-ki\u0161\u0101du_ = \u2018[Land of the] four\n quarters (or shores),\u2019 after the analogy of a common designation\n of Babylonia in royal titles.\u2015\u2015These theories are partly\n prompted by the observation that otherwise Chaldea is passed\n over in the Table of Priestly-Code,\u2015\u2015a surprising omission,\n no doubt, but perhaps susceptible of other explanations. The\n question is complicated by the mention of an Aramean Kesed\n in 22\u00b2\u00b2. The difficulty of identifying that tribe with the\n Chaldeans in the South of Babylonia is admitted by Driver (page\n 223); and if there was another Kesed near \u1e24arran, the fact must\n be taken account of in speculating about the meaning of Arpak\u0161ad.\n\n \u00b9 _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 177, 213, ii. 13, 89;\n compare Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 124 f.\n\n \u00b2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c6\u03b1\u03be\u03ac\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c6\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n \u1f60\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd: _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 144.\n\n \u00b3 A different conjecture in _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 3644;\n _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 178.\n\n \u2074 Note Tuch\u2019s objections, page 205.\n\n\u200e (4) \u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3\u200e (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05dc\u05d3\u200e, LXX\n \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4)] usually understood of the Lydians (Josephus, Bochartus,\n al.), but it has never been satisfactorily explained how a\n people in the extreme West of Asia Minor comes to be numbered\n among the Shemites. An African people, such as appears to\n be contemplated in verse \u00b9\u00b3, would be equally out of place\n here. A suggestion of Jensen\u2019s deserves consideration: that\n\u200e \u05dc\u05d5\u05d3\u200e is the _Lubdu_,\u2015\u2015a province lying \u201cbetween the upper\n Tigris and the Euphrates, North of Mt. Masius and its western\n extension,\u201d\u2015\u2015mentioned in _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i.\u20034\n (line 9 from below, read _Lu-up-di_), 177 (along with Arrap\u1e2ba),\n 199. See Winckler _Altorientalische Forschungen_, ii. 47; Streck,\n _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, xiv. 168; Jeremias 276. In the\n remaining references (Isaiah 66\u00b9\u2079, Jeremiah 46\u2079, Ezekiel 27\u00b9\u2070\n 30\u2075), the Lydians of Asia Minor might be meant,\u2015\u2015in the last\n three as mercenaries in the service of Egypt or Tyre.\n\n\u200e (5) \u05d0\u05b2\u05e8\u05b8\u05dd\u200e (\u1f08\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc, \u1f08\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd)] a collective designation of the Semitic\n peoples speaking \u2018Aramaic\u2019 dialects,\u00b9 so far as known to the\n Hebrews (N\u00f6ldeke _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 276 ff.). The actual\n diffusion of that family of Semites was wider than appears from\n the Old Testament, which uses the name only of the districts\n to the North-east of Palestine (Damascus especially) and\n Mesopotamia (Aram-Naharaim, Paddan-Aram): these, however,\n were really the chief centres of Aram\u00e6an culture and influence.\n In Assyrian the _Armaiu_ (_Aramu, Arimu, Arumu_) are first\n named by Tiglath-pileser I. (_circa_ 1100) as dwelling in\n the steppes of Mesopotamia (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,\n i. 33); and Shalmaneser II. (_circa_ 857) encountered them in\n the same region (_ib._ 165). But if Winckler be right (_Die\n Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 28 f., 36), they\n are referred to under the name _A\u1e2bl\u0101mi_ from a much earlier\n date (Tel-Amarna Tablets; Ramman-nirari I. [_circa_ 1325];\n A\u0161ur-r\u00ee\u0161-\u00ee\u0161i [_circa_ 1150]: see _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,\n v. 387, i. 5, 13). Hence Winckler regards the second half of\n the 2nd millennium B.C. as the period during which the Aram\u00e6an\n nomads became settled and civilised peoples in Mesopotamia and\n Syria.\n\n \u00b9 \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03a3\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u2015\u2015as Josephus correctly\n explains.\n\n In 1 Chronicles 1\u00b9\u2077 the words \u05d5\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05e8\u05dd\u200e (verse \u00b2\u00b3) are omitted, the\n four following names being treated as sons of Shem:\n\n\u200e (6) \u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u05e5\u200e (\u1f68\u03c2, \u039f\u1f50\u03b6)] is doubtless the same tribe which in 22\u00b2\u00b9 (\u1f68\u03be,\n \u1f68\u03b6) is classed as the firstborn of Na\u1e25or: therefore presumably\n somewhere North-east of Palestine in the direction of \u1e24arran.\n The conjectural identifications are hardly worth repeating.\n The other Biblical occurrences of the name are difficult to\n harmonise. The Uz of Job 1\u00b9 (\u0391\u1f50\u03c3\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2), and the \u1e24orite tribe\n mentioned in Genesis 36\u00b2\u2070, point to a South-east situation,\n bordering on or comprised in Edom; and this would also suit\n Lamentations 4\u00b2\u00b9, Jeremiah 25\u00b2\u2070 (\u05d4\u05b8\u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u05e5\u200e!), though in both these\n passages the reading is doubtful. It is suggested by William\n Robertson Smith (_Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_\u00b2, 61)\n and Wellhausen (_Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 146) that the name\n is identical with that of the Arabian god _\u201bAu\u1e0d_; and by the\n former scholar that the Old Testament \u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u05e5\u200e denotes a number\n of scattered tribes worshipping that deity (similarly Budde\n _Das Buch Hiob_ ix.\u2012xi.; but, on the other side, see N\u00f6ldeke\n _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xl.\n 183 f.).\n\n\u200e (7) \u05d7\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u200e (\u039f\u1f51\u03bb)] Delitzsch (_Wo lag das Paradies?_ 259) identifies\n with a district in the neighbourhood of Mt. Masius mentioned by\n Asshur-nasir-pal. The word (_\u1e25u-li-ia_), however, is there read\n by Peiser as an appellative = \u2018desert\u2019 (_Keilinschriftliche\n Bibliothek_, i. 86 f., 110 f.); and no other conjecture is even\n plausible.\n\n\u200e (8) \u05d2\u05b6\u05bc\u05ea\u05b6\u05e8\u200e is quite unknown.\n\n\u200e (9) \u05de\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1\u200e (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05de\u05e9\u05d0\u200e, LXX\n \u039c\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c7, in accord with 1 Chronicles 1\u00b9\u2077 Massoretic Text \u05de\u05b5\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05da\u05b0\u200e)]\n perhaps connected with Mons Masius,\u2015\u2015\u03c4\u1f78 \u039c\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 of Ptolemy\n (v. 18. 2) and Strabo (XI. xiv. 2),\u2015\u2015a mountain range North\n of Nisibis now called \u1e6c\u00fbr-\u201bAbd\u00een or \u1e32era\u01e7a Dagh (Bochartus,\n Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 259, Dillmann, al.). The\n uncertainty of the text and the fact that the Assyrian monuments\n use a different name render the identification precarious.\n Jensen (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 567) suggests\n the mountain _M\u0101\u0161u_ of Gilgame\u0161 IX. ii. 1 f., which he\n supposes to be Lebanon and Anti-Libanus. The _M\u00e2t Ma\u0161_ of\n _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 221, which has been adduced\n as a parallel, ought, it now appears, to be read _mad-bar_ (_Die\n Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 191\u00b2; compare Jensen\n _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, x. 364).\n\n=31, 32.= Priestly-Code\u2019s closing formula for the Shemites (\u00b3\u00b9); and\nhis subscription to the whole Table (\u00b3\u00b2).\n\n\n _The Table of Yahwist._\n\n=IX. 18a, X. 1b. Introduction.= See pages 182, 188.\n\n A slight discontinuity in verse \u00b9 makes it probable that \u00b9\u1d47\n is inserted from Yahwist. If so, it would stand most naturally\n after 9\u00b9\u2078\u1d43 (Dillmann), not after \u00b9\u2079. It seems to me that \u00b9\u2079\n is rather the Yahwistic parallel to 10\u00b3\u00b2 (Priestly-Code), and\n formed originally the conclusion of Yahwist\u2019s Table (compare the\n _closing_ formul\u00e6, 10\u00b2\u2079 22\u00b2\u00b3 25\u2074).\n\n=8\u201212. Nimrod and his empire.=\u2015\u2015The section deals with the foundation\nof the Babylonio-Assyrian Empire, whose legendary hero, Nimrod, is\ndescribed as a son of Kush (see below). Unlike the other names in the\nchapter, Nimrod is not a people, but an individual,\u2015\u2015a _Gibb\u00f4r_ or\ndespot, famous as the originator of the idea of the military state,\nbased on arbitrary force.\u2015\u2015=8.= The statement that _he was the first\nto become a Gibb\u00f4r on the earth_ implies a different conception from\n6\u2074. There, the Gibb\u00f4r\u00eem are identified with the semi-divine Neph\u00eel\u00eem:\nhere, the Gibb\u00f4r is a man, whose personal prowess and energy raise\nhim above the common level of humanity. The word expresses the idea of\nviolent, tyrannical power, like Arabic _\u01e7abb\u0101r_.\n\n If the \u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u200e of verse \u2076 \u1da0\u1427 be Ethiopia (see page 200 f.), it\n follows that in the view of the redactor the earliest dynasty\n in the Euphrates valley was founded by immigrants from Africa.\n That interpretation was accepted even by Tuch; but it is opposed\n to all we know of the early history of Babylonia, and it is\n extremely improbable that it represents a Hebrew tradition. The\n assumption of a South Arabian K\u00fbsh would relieve the difficulty;\n for it is generally agreed that the _Semitic_ population of\n Babylonia\u2015\u2015which goes back as far as monumental evidence carries\n us\u2015\u2015actually came from Arabia; but it is entirely opposed\n to the ethnography of Yahwist, who peoples South Arabia with\n descendants of Shem (\u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427). It is therefore not unlikely\n that, as many Assyriologists think,\u00b9 Yahwist\u2019s \u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u200e is quite\n independent of the Hamitic K\u00fbsh of Priestly-Code, and denotes\n the _Ka\u0161_ or _Ka\u0161\u0161u_, a people who conquered Babylonia in the\n 18th century, and set up a dynasty (the 3rd) which reigned there\n for 600 years\u00b2 (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3,\n 21). It is conceivable that in consequence of so prolonged a\n supremacy, Ka\u0161 might have become a name for Babylonia, and that\n Yahwist\u2019s knowledge of its history did not extend farther back\n than the Ka\u0161\u0161ite dynasty. Since there is no reason to suppose\n that Yahwist regarded Ka\u0161 as Hamitic, it is quite possible that\n the name belonged to his list of Japhetic peoples.\n\n \u00b9 See Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 51\u201255; Schrader _Die\n Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b2, 87 f.; Winckler\n _Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen_, 146 ff.; Jensen\n _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, vi. 340\u20122; Sayce, _The\n Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_\u00b2, 148\n ff., etc.\n\n \u00b2 Remnants of this conquering race are mentioned by\n Sennacherib (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 87). They\n are thought to be identical with the \u039a\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 of the Greeks\n (Strabo, XI. xiii. 6, XVI. i. 17 f.; Arrian, _Anabasis_ vii.\n 15; Diodorus, xvii. 111, xix. 19, etc.); and probably also\n with the \u039a\u03af\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 of Herodotus vii. 62, 86, etc. (compare v.\n 49, 52, vi. 119). Compare Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_\n 31, 124, 127 ff.; Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_\u00b9, \u00a7 129;\n Winckler _Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens_, 78 ff.;\n Schrader _Keilinschriften und Geschichtsforschung_, 176 f.;\n Oppert, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, iii. 421 ff.; Jensen\n _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_,\n l. 244 f., etc.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =8.= \u05e0\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b9\u05d3\u200e (\u039d\u03b5\u03b2\u03c1\u03c9\u03b4)] The Hebrew naturally connects the name with\n the \u221a \u05de\u05e8\u05d3\u200e = \u2018rebel\u2019 (Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, Rashi, al.): see below, page\n\u200e 209.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05b5\u05d7\u05b5\u05dc \u05dc\u05b4\u05f3\u200e] \u2018he was the first to become\u2019; see on 4\u00b2\u2076 9\u00b2\u2070.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=9.= Nimrod was not only a great tyrant and ruler of men, but _a\nhero of the chase_ (\u05d2\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8 \u05e6\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05d3\u200e). The verse breaks the connexion between \u2078\nand \u00b9\u2070, and is probably an interpolation (Dillmann al.); although, as\nDelitzsch remarks, the union of a passion for the chase with warlike\nprowess makes Nimrod a true prototype of the Assyrian monarchs,\u2015\u2015an\nobservation amply illustrated by the many hunting scenes sculptured on\nthe monuments.\u2015\u2015_Therefore it is said_] introducing a current proverb;\ncompare 1 Samuel 19\u00b2\u2074 with 10\u00b9\u00b2; Genesis 22\u00b9\u2074 etc. \u201cWhen the Hebrews\nwished to describe a man as being a great hunter, they spoke of him\nas \u2018like Nimrod\u2019\u201d (Driver).\u2015\u2015The expression \u05dc\u05b4\u05e4\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e doubtless belongs\nto the proverb: the precise meaning is obscure (_v.i._).\n\n A perfectly convincing Assyriological prototype of the figure\n of Nimrod has not as yet been discovered. The derivation of the\n name from Marduk, the tutelary deity of the city of Babylon,\n first propounded by Sayce, and adopted with modifications\n by Wellhausen,\u00b9 still commends itself to some Assyriologists\n (Pinches, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 552 f.; compare _Die\n Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 581); but the material\n points of contact between the two personages seem too vague\n to establish an instructive parallel. The identification with\n Nazi-Marutta\u0161, a late (_circa_ 1350) and apparently not very\n successful king of the Ka\u0161\u0161ite dynasty (Haupt, Hilprecht,\n Sayce, al.), is also unsatisfying: the supposition that that\n particular king was so well known in Palestine as to eclipse\n all his predecessors, and take rank as the founder of Babylonian\n civilisation, is improbable. The nearest analogy is that of\n Gilgame\u0161,\u00b2 the legendary tyrant of Erech (see verse \u00b9\u2070), whose\n adventures are recorded in the famous series of Tablets of which\n the Deluge story occupies the eleventh (see page 175 above,\n and _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 566 ff.).\n Gilgame\u0161 is a true Gibb\u00f4r\u2015\u2015\u201ctwo parts deity and one part\n humanity\u201d\u2015\u2015he builds the walls of Erech with forced labour, and\n his subjects groan under his tyranny, until they cry to Aruru\n to create a rival who might draw off some of his superabundant\n energy (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 117, 119). Among\n his exploits, and those of his companion Ea-bani, contests with\n beasts and monsters figure prominently; and he is supposed to\n be the hero so often represented on seals and palace-reliefs in\n victorious combat with a lion (see _Das Alte Testament im Lichte\n des alten Orients_\u00b2, 266 f.). It is true that the parallel\n is incomplete; and (what is more important) that the name\n Nimrod remains unexplained. The expectation that the phonetic\n reading of the ideographic _GI\u0160. \u1e6cU. BAR_ might prove to be the\n Babylonian equivalent of the Hebrew Nimrod, would seem to have\n been finally dispelled by the discovery (in 1890) of the correct\n pronunciation as Gilgame\u0161 (but see Jeremias _l.c._). Still,\n enough general resemblance remains to warrant the belief that\n the original of the biblical Nimrod belongs to the sphere of\n Babylonian mythology. A striking parallel to the visit of\n Gilgame\u0161 to his father Ut-napi\u0161tim occurs in a late Nimrod\n legend, preserved in the Syrian _Schatzh\u00f6hle_ (see Gunkel\n _Sch\u00f6pfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ 146\u00b2; Lidzbarski\n _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, vii. 15). On the theory which\n connects Nimrod with the constellation Orion, see Tuch _ad loc._;\n Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 395 f.; _Die Keilinschriften\n und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 581\u00b2; and on the late Jewish and\n Mohammedan legends generally, Seligsohn, _Jewish Encyclop\u00e6dia_,\n ix. 309 ff.\n\n \u00b9 Sayce (_Transactions of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology_,\n ii. 243 ff.) derived it from the Akkadian equivalent of\n Marduk, _Amar-ud_, from which he thought _Nimrudu_ would\n be a regular (Assyrian) Niphal form. Wellhausen (_Die\n Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher\n des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 309 f.) explains the \u05e0\u200e as an Aramaic\n imperfect preformative to the \u221a \u05de\u05e8\u05d3\u200e, a corruption from\n Mard-uk which took place among the Syrians of Mesopotamia,\n through whom the myth reached the Hebrews.\n\n \u00b2 So Smith-Sayce, _Chaldean Account of Genesis_ 176 ff.;\n Jeremias _Isdubar-Nimrod._\n\n * * * * *\n\n =9.= While Dillmann regards the verse as an interpolation from\n oral tradition, Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 390 ff.)\n assigns it to his Yahwist\u00b9, and finds a place for it between 6\u2074\n and 11\u00b9,\u2015\u2015a precarious suggestion.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e\u00b9] LXX + \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05b4\u05e4\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d9\u05f3\u200e]\n \u2018before Yahwe.\u2019 The phrase is variously explained: (1) \u2018unique,\u2019\n like \u05dc\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e in Jonah 3\u00b3 (Dillmann al.); (2) \u2018in the estimation\n of Yahwe\u2019 (compare 2 Kings 5\u00b9 etc.); (3) \u2018in despite of Yahwe\u2019\n (Budde); (4) \u2018with the assistance of Yahwe\u2019\u2015\u2015the name of some\n god of the chase having stood in the original myth (Gunkel);\n (5) \u2018in the constant presence of Yahwe\u2019\u2015\u2015an allusion to the\n constellation Orion (Holzinger). The last view is possible in \u2079\u1d47,\n but hardly in \u1d43, because of the \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4\u200e. A sober exegesis will prefer\n (1) or (2).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=10.= _The nucleus of his empire was Babylon ... in the land of\nShin\u201bar_] It is not said that Nimrod founded these four cities\n(contrast verse \u00b9\u00b9). The rise of the great cities of Babylonia was not\nonly much older than the Ka\u0161\u0161ite dynasty, but probably preceded the\nestablishment of any central government; and the peculiar form of the\nexpression here may be due to a recollection of that fact. Of the four\ncities, two can be absolutely identified; the third is known by name,\nbut cannot be located; and the last is altogether uncertain.\n\n\u200e \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05dc\u200e (\u0392\u03b1\u03b2\u03c5\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd)] the Hebrew form of the native _B\u0101b-ili_ = \u2018gate of\n God\u2019 or \u2018the gods\u2019 (though this may be only a popular etymology).\n The political supremacy of the city, whose origin is unknown,\n dates from the expulsion of the Elamites by \u1e24ammurabi, the\n sixth king of its first dynasty (_circa_ 2100 B.C.); and for\n 2000 years it remained the chief centre of ancient Oriental\n civilisation. Its ruins lie on the left bank of the Euphrates,\n about fifty miles due South of Baghdad.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05da\u05b0\u200e (\u1f48\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7)] the Babylonian _Uruk_ or _Arku_, now _Warka_, also on\n the Euphrates, about 100 miles South-east of Babylon. It was the\n city of Gilgame\u0161 (_v.s._).\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b7\u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05d3\u200e (\u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b4: compare \u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05de\u05b6\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05e7\u200e and \u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05de\u05b6\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05e7\u200e)] The name (_Akkad_) frequently\n occurs in the inscriptions, especially in the phrase \u2018\u0160umer and\n Akkad,\u2019 = South and North Babylonia. But a city of Akkad is also\n mentioned by Nebuchadnezzar I. (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,\n iii. 170 ff.), though its site is uncertain. Its identity with\n the Agad\u00e9 of Sargon I. (_circa_ 3800 B.C.), which was formerly\n suspected, is said to be confirmed by a recent decipherment.\n Delitzsch and Zimmern suppose that it was close to Sippar\n on the Euphrates, in the latitude of Baghdad (see _Wo lag\n das Paradies?_ 209 ff.; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte\n Testament_\u00b3, 422\u00b2, 423\u2078; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten\n Orients_\u00b2, 270).\n\n\u200e \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05d4\u200e (\u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7)] Not to be confused with the \u05db\u05dc\u05e0\u05d4\u200e of Amos 6\u00b2 (= \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u200e,\n Isaiah 10\u2079), which was in North Syria. The Babylonian Kalne has\n not yet been discovered. Delitzsch (_Wo lag das Paradies?_ 225)\n takes it to be the ideogram _Kul-unu_ (pronounced _Zirlahu_),\n of a city in the vicinity of Babylon. But Jensen (_Theologische\n Litteraturzeitung_ 1895, 510) asserts that the real\n pronunciation was _Kullab(a)_, and proposes to read so here\n\u200e (\u05db\u05bb\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e).\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05e0\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u200e (\u03a3\u03b5\u03bd[\u03bd]\u03b1\u03b1\u03c1)] apparently the old Hebrew name for Babylonia\n proper (11\u00b2 14\u00b9\u1427 \u2079, Joshua 7\u00b2\u00b9, Isaiah 11\u00b9\u00b9, Zechariah 5\u00b9\u00b9,\n Daniel 1\u00b2), afterwards \u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05db\u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200e or simply [\u05d0\u05f3] \u05d1\u05d1\u05dc\u200e. That it is the\n same as \u0160umer (_south_ Babylonia: _v.s._) is improbable. More\n plausible is the identification with the _\u0160an\u1e2bar_ of Tel-Amarna\n Tablets (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, v. 83) = Egyptian\n _Sangara_ (M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa nach alt\u00e4gyptischen\n Denkm\u00e4lern_, 279); though Winckler (_Altorientalische\n Forschungen_, i. 240, 399; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte\n Testament_\u00b3, 31) puts it North of the Taurus. _\u01e6ebel Sin\u01e7ar_ (\u1f41\n \u03a3\u03b9\u03b3\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2: Ptolemy v. 18. 2), West of Nineveh, is much too\n far north for the biblical Shin\u201bar, unless the name had wandered.\n\n=11, 12.= The colonisation of Assyria from Babylonia.\u2015\u2015_From that land\nhe_ (Nimrod, _v.i._) _went out to Assyria_]\u2015\u2015where he built four new\ncities. That the great Assyrian cities were not really built by one\nking or at one period is certain; nevertheless the statement has a\ncertain historic value, inasmuch as the whole religion, culture, and\npolitical organisation of Assyria were derived from the southern state.\nIt is also noteworthy that the rise of the Assyrian power dates from\nthe decline of Babylonia under the Ka\u0161\u0161ite kings (_Die Keilinschriften\nund das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 21). In Micah 5\u2075 Assyria is described as the\n\u2018land of Nimrod.\u2019\n\n That \u05d0\u05b7\u05e9\u05bc\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e is here the name of the land (along the Tigris, North\n of the Lower Zab), and not the ancient capital (now _\u1e32al\u201bat\n \u0160erk\u0101t_, about halfway between the mouths of the two Zabs), is\n plain from the context, and the contrast to \u05e9\u05e0\u05e2\u05e8\u200e in verse \u00b9\u2070.\n\n\u200e \u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e0\u05b0\u05d5\u05b5\u05d4\u200e] (Assyrian _Ninua_, _Nin\u00e2_, LXX \u039d\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03b7 [-\u03b9]) the foremost\n city of Assyria, was a royal residence from at the latest the\n time of A\u0161\u0161ur-bel-kalu, son of Tiglath-pileser I. (11th century);\n but did not apparently become the political capital till the\n reign of Sennacherib (Winckler _Geschichte Babyloniens und\n Assyriens_, 146). Its site is now marked by the ruined mounds of\n _Neb\u012b Y\u016bnus_ (with a village named _Nunia_) and _Kuyunji\u1e33_, both\n on the East side of the Tigris opposite Mosul (see Hilprecht\n _Explorations in Bible Lands during the 19th century_, 11,\n 88\u2012138).\n\n\u200e \u05e8\u05b0\u05d7\u05b9\u05d1\u05b9\u05ea \u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u200e (\u1fec\u03bf\u03c9\u03b2\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd)] has in Hebrew appellative significance\n = \u2018broad places of a city\u2019 (Vulgate _plateas civitatis_).\n A similar phrase on Assyrian monuments, _r\u00eabit Nin\u00e2_, is\n understood to mean \u2018suburb of Nineveh\u2019; and it has been supposed\n that \u05e8\u05f3 \u05e2\u05f3\u200e is a translation of this designation into Hebrew. As\n to the position of this \u2018suburb\u2019 authorities differ. Delitzsch\n (_Wo lag das Paradies?_ 260 f.) thinks it certain that it was on\n the North or North-east side of Nineveh, towards D\u00fbr-Sargon (the\n modern Khorsabad); and Johns (_Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, iv. 4029)\n even identifies it with the latter (compare _Keilinschriftliche\n Bibliothek_, ii. 47). Billerbeck, on the other hand, places it\n at Mosul on the opposite side of the Tigris, as a sort of _t\u00eate\n du pont_ (see _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2,\n 273). No _proper_ name at all resembling this is known in the\n neighbourhood of Nineveh.\n\n\u200e \u05db\u05b6\u05bc\u05dc\u05b7\u05d7\u200e (\u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7, \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7) is the Assyrian _Kal\u1e2bu_ or _Kala\u1e2b_, which\n excavations have proved to be the modern _Nimr\u00fbd_, at the mouth\n of the Upper Zab, 20 miles South of Nineveh (Hilprecht _l.c._\n 111 f.). Built by Shalmaneser I. (_circa_ 1300), it replaced\n A\u0161\u0161ur as the capital, but afterwards fell into decay, and\n was restored by A\u0161\u0161ur-nasir-pal (883\u201259) (_Keilinschriftliche\n Bibliothek_, i. 117). From that time till Sargon, it seems to\n have continued the royal residence.\n\n\u200e \u05e8\u05b6\u05e1\u05b6\u05df\u200e (\u0394\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bc, \u0394\u03b1\u03c3\u03b7, etc.)] Perhaps = _Ri\u0161-\u00eeni_ (\u2018fountain-head\u2019),\n an extremely common place-name in Semitic countries; but its\n site is unknown. A Syrian tradition placed it at the ruins of\n Khorsabad, \u2018a parasang above Nineveh,\u2019 where a _R\u0101s \u2019ul-\u201bAin_ is\n said still to be found (G. Hoffmann in Nestle, _Zeitschrift der\n deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, lviii. 158 ff.). This\n is doubtless the Ri\u0161-ini of Sennacherib (_Keilinschriftliche\n Bibliothek_, ii. 117); but its identity with \u05e8\u05e1\u05df\u200e is phonetically\n questionable, and topographically impossible, on account of the\n definition \u2018between Nineveh and Kela\u1e25.\u2019\n\n The clause \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05dc\u05d4\u200e is almost universally, but very improbably,\n taken to imply that the four places just enumerated had come to\n be regarded as a single city. Schrader (_Die Keilinschriften und\n das Alte Testament_\u00b2, 99 f.) is responsible for the statement\n that from the time of Sennacherib the name Nineveh was extended\n to include the whole complex of cities between the Zab and the\n Tigris; but more recent authorities assure us that the monuments\n contain no trace of such an idea (_Die Keilinschriften und das\n Alte Testament_\u00b3, 75\u2074; Gunkel\u00b2 78; compare Johns, _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n Biblica_, 3420). The fabulous dimensions given by Diodorus (ii.\n 3; compare Jonah 3\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427) must proceed on some such notion; and\n it is possible that that might have induced a late interpolator\n to insert the sentence here. But if the words be a gloss, it\n is more probable that it springs from the \u05d4\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u200e of Jonah 1\u00b2,\n which was put in the margin opposite \u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e0\u05b0\u05d5\u05b5\u05d4\u200e, and crept into the\n text in the wrong place (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten\n Orients_\u00b2, 273).\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 With the above hypothesis, Schrader\u2019s argument that, since\n Nineveh is here used in the restricted sense, the passage\n must be of earlier date than Sennacherib, falls to the\n ground. From the writer\u2019s silence regarding A\u0161\u0161ur, the\n ancient capital, it may safely be inferred that he lived\n after 1300; and from the omission of Sargon\u2019s new residence\n D\u00fbr-Sargon, it is _probable_ that he wrote before 722. But\n the latter argument is not decisive, since Kela\u1e25 and Nineveh\n (the only names that can be positively identified) were both\n flourishing cities down to the fall of the Empire.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =11.= \u05d9\u05b8\u05e6\u05b8\u05d0 \u05d0\u05b7\u05e9\u05bc\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e] \u2018he went out to Asshur\u2019 (so Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, Calvin,\n and all moderns). The rendering \u2018Asshur went out\u2019 (LXX, Vulgate,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2, Jerome, al.) is grammatically correct,\n and gives a good sense (compare Isaiah 23\u00b9\u00b3). But (1) \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea\u200e\n (verse \u00b9\u2070) requires an antithesis (see on 1\u00b9); and (2) in Micah\n 5\u2075 Nimrod is the hero of Assyria.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=13, 14.\u2015\u2015The sons of Mizraim.=\u2015\u2015These doubtless all represent parts\nor (supposed) dependencies of Egypt; although of the eight names not\nmore than two can be certainly identified.\u2015\u2015On \u05de\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05e8\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e = Egypt, see verse\n\u2076.\u2015\u2015Since Mizraim could hardly have been reckoned a son of Canaan, the\nsection (if documentary) must be an extract from that Yahwistic source\nto which 9\u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1427 belong (see page 188 f.).\n\n\u200e (1) \u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (\u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc: 1 Chronicles 1\u00b9\u00b9 \u05dc\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd\u200e)] Not the Lydians of\n Asia Minor (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2,\n 274), who can hardly be thought of in this connexion; but (if\n the text be correct) some unknown people of North-east Africa\n (see on verse \u00b2\u00b2, page 206). The prevalent view of recent\n scholars is that the word is a mistake for \u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, the Lybians.\n See Stade _Ausgew\u00e4hlte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_ 141;\n M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa nach alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_, 115\n f.; _Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_, v. 475; al.\n\n\u200e (2) \u05e2\u05b2\u05e0\u05b8\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e; LXX\n \u0391\u1f30\u03bd-[\u1f18\u03bd-]\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc[\u03bd])] M\u00fcller reads \u05db\u05e0\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e or (after LXX) \u05db\u05e0\u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd\u200e;\n _i.e._ the inhabitants of the Great Oasis of _Knmt_ in the\n Libyan desert (_W\u0101\u1e25\u0101t el-Kh\u0101ri\u01e7ah_).\u00b9 For older conjectures see\n Dillmann.\n\n \u00b9 _Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ v. 471 ff.\u2015\u2015It should be\n explained that this dissertation, frequently cited above,\n proceeds on the bold assumption that almost the best known\n name in the section (\u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05ea\u05b0\u05e8\u05bb\u05e1\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u00b9\u2074) is an interpolation. When\n this \u2018cuckoo\u2019s egg\u2019 is ejected, the author finds that the\n \u2018sons\u2019 of Egypt are all dependencies or foreign possessions,\n and are to be sought _outside_ the Nile valley. The theory\n does not seem to have found much favour from Egyptologists\n or others.\n\n\u200e (3) \u05dc\u05b0\u05d4\u05b8\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (\u039b\u03b1\u03b2\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc)] commonly supposed to be the Lybians, the\n\u200e ((\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d1) \u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e) of Nahum 3\u2079, Daniel 11\u2074\u00b3, 2 Chronicles 12\u00b3 16\u2078,\n [Ezekiel 30\u2075?]. M\u00fcller thinks it a variant of \u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (1).\n\n\u200e (4) \u05e0\u05b7\u05e4\u05b0\u05ea\u05bb\u05bc\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (\u039d\u03b5\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc)] M\u00fcller proposes \u05e4\u05ea\u05e0\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd = _P-to-n-\u201b\u1e25e_,\n \u2018cowland,\u2019\u2015\u2015the name of the Oasis of _Far\u0101fra_. But there is\n a strong presumption that, as the next name stands for Upper\n Egypt, this will be a designation of Lower Egypt. So Erman\n (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, x.\n 118 f.), who reads \u05e4\u05ea\u05de\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd\u200e = _p-t-ma\u1e25\u012b_, \u2018the north-land,\u2019\u2015\u2015at\n all periods the native name of Lower Egypt. More recently\n Spiegelberg (_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ ix. 276 ff.)\n recognises in it an old name of the Delta, and reads without\n textual change _Na-pat\u00fbh_ = \u2018the people of the Delta.\u2019\n\u200e\n\u200e (5) \u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05ea\u05b0\u05e8\u05bb\u05e1\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (\u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc)] the inhabitants of \u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05ea\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05e1\u200e (Isaiah 11\u00b9\u00b9,\n Jeremiah 44\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2075, Ezekiel 30\u00b9\u2074), _i.e._ Upper Egypt: _P-to-re\u0161i_\n = \u2018south-land\u2019 (Assyrian _paturisi_): see Erman, _l.c._\n\n\u200e (6) \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e1\u05b0\u05dc\u05bb\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (\u03a7\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b5\u03af\u03bc)] Doubtful conjectures in Dillmann. M\u00fcller\n restores with help of LXX \u05e0\u05e1\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, which he identifies with the\n \u039d\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 of Herodotus ii. 32, iv. 172, 182, 190,\u2015\u2015a powerful\n tribe of nomad Lybians, near the Oasis of Amon. Sayce has\n read the name _Kasluhat_ on the inscription of Ombos (see on\n _Kaphtorim_, below); _Man_, 1903, No. 77.\n\n\u200e (7) \u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (\u03a6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc)] The Philistines are here spoken of as\n an offshoot of the Kasl\u00fb\u1e25\u00eem,\u2015\u2015a statement scarcely intelligible\n in the light of other passages (Jeremiah 47\u2074, Amos 9\u2077; compare\n Deuteronomy 2\u00b2\u00b3), according to which the Philistines came from\n _Kapht\u014dr_. The clause \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05c1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05b8\u05bd\u05e6\u05b0\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05dd \u05e4\u05bc\u05f3\u200e is therefore in all probability\n a marginal gloss meant to come after \u05db\u05e4\u05ea\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015The Philistines are\n mentioned in the Egyptian monuments, under the name _Pura\u0161ati_,\n as the leading people in a great invasion of Syria in the reign\n of Ramses III. (_circa_ 1175 B.C.). The invaders came both by\n land and sea from the coasts of Asia Minor and the islands of\n the \u00c6gean; and the Philistines established themselves on the\n South coast of Palestine so firmly that, though nearly all\n traces of their language and civilisation have disappeared,\n their name has clung to the country ever since. See M\u00fcller,\n _Asien und Europa nach alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_, 387\u201290, and\n _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, v. 2 ff.;\n Moore, _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, iii. 3713 ff.\n\n\u200e (8) \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e4\u05b0\u05ea\u05b9\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (\u03a7\u03b1\u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc)] _Kapht\u014dr_ (Deuteronomy 2\u00b2\u00b3, Amos 9\u2077,\n Jeremiah 47\u2074) has usually been taken for the island of Crete\n (see Dillmann), mainly because of the repeated association of\n\u200e \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b5\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (Cretans?) with the Philistines and the Philistine territory\n (1 Samuel 30\u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2076, Ezekiel 25\u00b9\u2076, Zephaniah 2\u2075). There are\n convincing reasons for connecting it with _Keftiu_ (properly\n \u2018the country _behind_\u2019), an old Egyptian name for the \u2018lands of\n the Great Ring\u2019 (the Eastern Mediterranean), or the \u2018isles of\n the Great Green,\u2019 _i.e._ South-west Asia Minor, Rhodes, Crete,\n and the Mycenian lands beyond, to the North-west of Egypt (see\n M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa nach alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_, 337,\n 344\u201253, 387 ff.; and more fully H. R. Hall in _Annual of the\n British School at Athens_, 1901\u20122, pages 162\u20126). The precise\n phonetic equivalent _Kpt\u0101r_ has been found on a late mural\n decoration at Ombos (Sayce, _The Higher Criticism and the\n Verdict of the Monuments_\u2076, 173; _The Early History of the\n Hebrews_, 291; M\u00fcller, _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen\n Gesellschaft_, 1900, 5 ff.). \u201c_Keftiu_ is the old Egyptian name\n of Caphtor (Crete), _Keptar_ a Ptolemaic doublet of it, taken\n over when the original meaning of _Keftiu_ had been forgotten,\n and the name had been erroneously applied to Ph\u0153nicia\u201d (Hall,\n _Man_, November, 1903, No. 92, page 162 ff.). In _Orientalische\n Litteraturzeitung_, M. questions the originality of the name in\n this passage: so also Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des\n alten Orients_\u00b2, 275.\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 Verse \u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427 present so many peculiar features\u2015\u2015the regular\n use of the plural, the great preponderance of quadriliteral\n names, all vocalised alike\u2015\u2015that we can hardly help\n suspecting that they are a secondary addition to the Table,\n written from specially intimate acquaintance with the\n (later?) Egyptian geography.\n\n=15\u201219. The Canaanites.=\u2015\u2015The peoples assigned to the Canaanitish group\nare (1) the Ph\u0153nicians (\u05e6\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u05b9\u05df\u200e), (2) the \u1e24ittites (\u05d7\u05b5\u05ea\u200e), and (3) a number of\npetty communities perhaps summed up in the phrase \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05d7\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05d4\u05b7\u05bd\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b7\u05e2\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e in \u00b9\u2078\u1d47. It\nis surprising to find the great northern nation of the \u1e24ittites classed\nas a subdivision of the Canaanites. The writer may be supposed to have\nin view offshoots of that empire, which survived as small enclaves in\nPalestine proper; but that explanation does not account for the marked\nprominence given to \u1e24eth over the little Canaanite kingships. On the\nother hand, one hesitates to adopt Gunkel\u2019s theory that \u05db\u05e0\u05e2\u05df\u200e is here\nused in a wide geographical sense as embracing the main seats of the\n\u1e24ittite empire (page 187). There is evidence, however, of a strong\nsettlement of \u1e24ittites near \u1e24ermon (see below), and it is conceivable\nthat these were classed as Canaanites and so inserted here.\n\n Critically, the verses are difficult. Wellhausen (_Die\n Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des Alten\n Testaments_\u00b2 15) and others remove \u00b9\u2076\u207b\u00b9\u2078\u1d43 as a gloss: because\n (a) the boundaries laid down in \u00b9\u2079 are exceeded in \u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2078\u1d43, and\n (b) the mention of a _subsequent_ dispersion of Canaanites (\u00b9\u2078\u1d47)\n has no meaning after \u00b9\u2076\u207b\u00b9\u2078\u1d43. That is perhaps the most reasonable\n view to take; but even so \u00b9\u2078\u1d47 does not read quite naturally\n after \u00b9\u2075; and what could have induced a glossator to insert four\n of the most northerly Ph\u0153nician cities, passing by those best\n known to the Hebrews? Is it possible that the last five names\n were originally given as sons of Heth, and the previous four as\n sons of Zidon? \u00b9\u2078\u1d47 might mean that the Canaanite clans emanated\n from Ph\u0153nicia, and were _afterwards_ \u2018dispersed\u2019 over the region\n defined by \u00b9\u2079.\u2015\u2015The change from \u05db\u05e0\u05e2\u05df\u200e in \u00b9\u2075 to \u05d4\u05db\u05e0\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u200e in \u00b9\u2078\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u2079 is\n hardly sufficient to prove diversity of authorship (Gunkel).\n\n\u200e \u05e6\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u05b9\u05df\u200e] The oldest of the Ph\u0153nician cities; now \u1e62aid\u0101, nearly 30\n miles South of the promontory of Beir\u016bt. Here, however, the name\n is the eponym of the \u1e92idonians (\u05e6\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u05b9\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e), as the Ph\u0153nicians were\n frequently called, not only in the Old Testament (Judges 18\u2077 3\u00b3,\n 1 Kings 5\u00b2\u2070 16\u00b3\u00b9 etc.) and Homer (_Iliad_ vi. 290 f., etc.), but\n on the Assyrian monuments, and even by the Ph\u0153nicians themselves\n (Meyer _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, iv. 4504).\n\n\u200e \u05d7\u05b5\u05ea\u200e (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a7\u03b5\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd)] elsewhere only in the phrases \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d7\u05f3\u200e, \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05d7\u05f3\u200e\n (chapter 23 _passim_ 25\u00b9\u2070 27\u2074\u2076\u1d47 49\u00b3\u00b2 [all Priestly-Code]);\n other writers speak of \u05d7\u05b4\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9[\u05dd]\u200e. The \u1e24ittites (Egyptian _\u1e2aeta_,\n Assyrian _\u1e2aatti_) were a northern non-Semitic people, who under\n unknown circumstances established themselves in Cappadocia.\n They appear to have invaded Babylonia at the close of the First\n dynasty (_circa_ 1930 B.C.) (King, _Chronicles concerning early\n Babylonian kings_, page 72 f.). Not long after the time of\n Thothmes III. (1501\u20121447), they are found in North Syria. With\n the weakening of the Egyptian supremacy in the Tel-Amarna period,\n they pressed further South, occupying the Orontes valley, and\n threatening the Ph\u0153nician coast-cities. The indecisive campaigns\n of Ramses II. seem to have checked their southward movement.\n In Assyrian records they do not appear till the reign of\n Tiglath-pileser I. (_circa_ 1100), when they seem to have held\n the country from the Taurus and Orontes to the Euphrates, with\n Carchemish as one of their chief strongholds. After centuries\n of intermittent warfare, they were finally incorporated in\n the Assyrian Empire by Sargon II. (_circa_ 717). See Paton,\n _The Early History of Syria and Palestine_ 104 ff.\u2015\u2015The Old\n Testament allusions to the \u1e24ittites are extremely confusing,\n and cannot be fully discussed here: see on 15\u00b9\u2079\u207b\u00b2\u00b9 23\u00b3. Besides\n the Palestinian \u1e24ittites (whose connexion with the people just\n spoken of may be doubtful), there is mention of an extensive\n \u1e24ittite country to the North of Palestine (2 Samuel 24\u2076\n [LXX\u1d38\u1d58\u1d9c\u2071\u1d43\u207f], 1 Kings 10\u00b2\u2079, 2 Kings 7\u2076 al.). The most important\n fact for the present purpose is the definite location of\n \u1e24ittites in the Lebanon region, or at the foot of Hermon (Joshua\n 11\u00b3 [LXX\u1d2e\u1427 \u1d43\u02e1\u1427] and Judges 3\u00b3 [as amended by Meyer al.]), compare\n Judges 1\u00b2\u2076?). It does not appear what grounds Moore (_Judges_\n 82) has for the statement that these \u1e24ittites were Semitic.\n There is certainly no justification for treating (with Jastrow\n _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 2094) \u05d7\u05b5\u05ea\u200e in this verse as a gloss.\n\n The four names which follow are names of Canaanitish clans which\n constantly recur in enumerations of the aborigines of Palestine,\n and seldom elsewhere.\n\n\u200e (1) \u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e1\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] The clan settled in and around Jerusalem: Joshua 15\u2078\n 18\u00b2\u2078, Judges 19\u00b9\u2070, 2 Samuel 5\u2076\u207b\u2079 etc.\n\n\u200e (2) \u05d4\u05b8\u05bd\u05d0\u05b1\u05de\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] An important politico-geographical name in the\n Egyptian and cuneiform documents (Egyptian _Amor_, etc.,\n Assyrian _Amurru_). In the Tel-Amarna Tablets the \u2018land\n of Amurru\u2019 denotes the Lebanon region behind the Ph\u0153nician\n coast-territory. Its princes Abd-A\u0161irta and Aziru were then\n the most active enemies of the Egyptian authority in the\n north, conducting successful operations against several of\n the Ph\u0153nician cities. It has been supposed that subsequently\n to these events the Amorites pressed southwards, and founded\n kingdoms in Palestine both East and West of the Jordan (Numbers\n 21\u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, Joshua 24\u2078 etc.); though M\u00fcller has pointed out some\n difficulties in the way of that hypothesis (_Asien und Europa\n nach alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_, 230 f.).\u2015\u2015In the Old Testament\n there appears an occasional tendency to restrict the name\n to \u2018highlanders\u2019 (Numbers 13\u00b2\u2079, Deuteronomy 1\u2077), but this is\n more than neutralised by other passages (Judges 1\u00b3\u2074). The most\n significant fact is that Elohist (followed by D) employs the\n term to designate the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Palestine\n generally (compare Amos 2\u2079 \u1da0\u1427), whom Yahwist describes as\n Canaanites. Apart from the assumption of an actual Amorite\n domination, it is difficult to suggest an explanation of\n Elohist\u2019s usage, unless we can take it as a survival of the old\n Babylonian name Amurru (or at least its ideographic equivalent\n _MAR. TU_) for Palestine, Ph\u0153nicia and C\u0153le-Syria.\u2015\u2015See,\n further, M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa nach alt\u00e4gyptischen\n Denkm\u00e4lern_, 218 ff., 229 ff.; Winckler _Geschichte Israels\n in Einzeldarstellungen_, i. 51\u201254, _Die Keilinschriften und\n das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 178 ff.; Meyer _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die\n alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, i. 122 ff.; Wellhausen _Die\n Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des\n Alten Testaments_\u00b2 341; Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 344\n ff.; Driver _Deuteronomy_ 11 f., _Genesis_ 125 f.; Sayce, _A\n Dictionary of the Bible_, i. 84 f.; Paton, _The Early History of\n Syria and Palestine_ 25\u201246, 115 ff., 147 f.; Meyer _Geschichte\n des Alterthums_\u00b2, 1. ii. \u00a7 396.\n\n\u200e (3) \u05d4 \u05b7\u05d2\u05b4\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u200e] only mentioned in enumerations (15\u00b2\u00b9, Deuteronomy 7\u00b9,\n Joshua 3\u00b9\u2070 24\u00b9\u00b9, Nehemiah 9\u2078) without indication of locality.\n\u200e \u05d2\u05e8\u05d2\u05e9\u200e, \u05d2\u05e8\u05d2\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u05d2\u05d3\u05d2\u05e9\u05d9\u200e occur as proper names on Punic inscriptions.\n (Lidzbarski, _Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik_ 405\u2084,\n 622\u2084_{f.}, 673\u2083; _Ephemeris f\u00fcr semitische Epigraphik_ i. 36,\n 308). Ewald conjectured a connexion with New Testament \u0393\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1.\n\n\u200e (4) \u05d4\u05b7\u05d7\u05b4\u05d5\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0395\u1f51\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd)] a tribe of central Palestine, in the\n neighbourhood of Shechem (34\u00b2) and Gibeon (Joshua 9\u2077); in Judges\n 3\u00b3, where they are spoken of in the North, \u05d4\u05b7\u05d7\u05b4\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e should be read,\n and in Joshua 11\u00b3 Hittites and Hivvites should be transposed in\n accordance with LXX\u1d2e. The name has been explained by Gesenius\n (_Thesaurus philologicus criticus Lingu\u00e6 Hebr\u00e6\u00e6 et Chald\u00e6\u00e6\n Veteris Testamenti_) and others as meaning \u2018dwellers in \u05d7\u05b7\u05d5\u05b9\u05bc\u05ea\u200e\u2019\n (Bedouin encampments: compare Numbers 32\u2074\u00b9); but that is\n improbable in the case of a people long settled in Palestine\n (Moore). Wellhausen (_Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 154)\n more plausibly connects it with \u05d7\u05b7\u05d5\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e = \u2018serpent\u2019 (see on 3\u00b2\u2070),\n surmising that the Hivvites were a snake-clan. Compare Lagarde,\n _Onomastica Sacra_, 187, 174, line 97 (\u0395\u1f51\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n \u1f44\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2).\n\n The 5 remaining names are formed from names of _cities_, 4 in\n the extreme North of Ph\u0153nicia, and the last in C\u0153le-Syria.\n\n\u200e (5) \u05d4\u05b8\u05e2\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u200e (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d4\u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05e7\u05d9\u200e, LXX\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd)] is from the city \u1f0c\u03c1\u03ba\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039b\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u1ff3 (Josephus\n _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 138), the ruins of which, still\n bearing the name _Tell \u201bAr\u1e33a_, are found on the coast about\n 12 miles North-east of Tripolis. It is mentioned by Thothmes\n III. (in the form _\u201br-ka-n-tu_: see _Asien und Europa nach\n alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_, 247 f.), and in Tel-Amarna letters\n (_Irkata_: _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, v. 171, etc.); also\n by Shalmaneser II. (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 173;\n along with Arvad and Sianu, _below_), and Tiglath-pileser IV.\n (_ib._ ii. 29; along with \u1e62imirra and Sianu).\n\n\u200e (6) \u05d4\u05b7\u05e1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f09\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd)] inhabitants of \u05e1\u05b4\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05df\u200e\u200e, Assyrian _Sianu_\n (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, _ll.cc._). Jerome (_Qu\u00e6stiones\n sive Traditiones hebraic\u00e6 in Genesim_) says it was not far from\n \u201bAr\u1e33a, but adds that only the name remained in his day. The site\n is unknown: see Cooke, _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, iv. 4644 f.\n\n\u200e (7) \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05d5\u05b8\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u200e (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd)] \u2019Arwad (Ezekiel 27\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9) was the most\n northerly of the Ph\u0153nician cities, built on a small island\n (Strabo, XVI. ii. 13; _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 109)\n about 35 miles North of Tripolis (now _Ru\u0101d_). It is named\n frequently, in connexions which show its great importance in\n ancient times, in Egyptian inscriptions (_Asien und Europa nach\n alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_, 186 f.), on Tel-Amarna Tablets,\n and by Assyrian kings from Tiglath-pileser I. to Asshurbanipal\n (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b2, 104 f.;\n Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 281); see also Herodotus\n vii. 98.\n\n\u200e (8) \u05d4\u05b7\u05e6\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd)] Six miles South of Ru\u0101d, the modern\n village of _\u1e62umra_ preserves the name of this city: Egyptian\n _\u1e62amar_; Tel-Amarna Tablets _\u1e62umur_; Assyrian _\u1e62imirra_;\n Greek \u03a3\u03b9\u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1. See Strabo, XVI. ii. 12; _Asien und Europa nach\n alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_, 187; _Die Keilinschriften und das\n Alte Testament_\u00b2, 105; Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 281 f.\n\n\u200e (9) \u05d4\u05b7\u05d7\u05b2\u05de\u05b8\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9\u200e (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f09\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03af)] from the well-known \u1e24amath on the Orontes;\n now _\u1e24am\u0101_.\n\n The delimitation of the Canaanite boundary in verse \u00b9\u2079 is very\n obscure. It describes two sides of a triangle, from \u1e92idon on\n the North to Gaza or Gerar in the South-west; and from thence\n to a point near the South end of the Dead Sea. The terminus \u05dc\u05b6\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05e2\u200e\n (LXX \u0394\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1) is, however, unknown. The traditional identification\n (Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, Jerome) with \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03cc\u03b7, near the North end\n of the Dead Sea, is obviously unsuitable. Kittel, _Biblia\n Hebraica_ (very improbably), suggests \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05dc\u05b7\u05e2\u200e (14\u00b2). Wellhausen\n (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des\n Alten Testaments_\u00b2 15) reads \u05dc\u05b5\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d4\u200e or \u05dc\u05b5\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dd\u200e (Joshua 19\u2074\u2077 \u05dc\u05b6\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dd\u200e) = \u2018to\n Dan\u2019 (\u05dc\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05c1\u200e), the conventional _northern_ limit of Canaan,\u2015\u2015thus\n completing the East side of the triangle.\u2015\u2015Gerar were certainly\n further South than Gaza (see on 20\u00b9); hence we cannot read\n \u2018_as far as_ (_v.i._) Gerar, up to Gaza,\u2019 while the rendering\n \u2018_in the direction of_ Gerar, as far as Gaza,\u2019 would only be\n intelligible if Gerar were a better known locality than Gaza.\n Most probably \u05e2\u05b7\u05d3\u05be\u05e2\u05b7\u05d6\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e is a gloss (Gunkel al.).\u2015\u2015On the situation\n of Sodom, etc., see on chapter 19.\u2015\u2015On any construction of\n the verse the northern cities of \u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2078\u1d43 are excluded.\u2015\u2015_The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ has an entirely different\n text: \u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u05e8 \u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05d3 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d4\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05e0\u05d4\u05e8 \u05e4\u05e8\u05ea \u05d5\u05e2\u05d3 \u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d5\u05df\u200e,\u2015\u2015an amalgam of 15\u00b9\u2078 and\n Deuteronomy 11\u00b2\u2074.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =15.= \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05db\u05b9\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u200e] compare 22\u00b2\u00b9 (Yahwist).\u2015\u2015=18.= \u05d0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05e8\u200e] adverb of time, as\n 18\u2075 24\u2075\u2075 30\u00b2\u00b9 etc. = \u05d0\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9\u05be\u05db\u05b5\u05df\u200e: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 29 f.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05b8\u05e4\u05b9\u05e6\u05d5\u05bc\u200e]\n Niphal from \u221a \u05e4\u05d5\u05e5\u200e; see on 9\u00b9\u2079: compare 11\u2074\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u2079.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05d7\u05b9\u05ea \u05d4\u05b7\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] can\n hardly, even if the clause be a gloss, denote the Ph\u0153nician\n colonies on the Mediterranean (Brown, _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_,\n ii. 1698 f.).\u2015\u2015=19.= \u05d1\u05b9\u05bc\u05bd\u05d0\u05b2\u05db\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] \u2018as one comes\u2019 (see Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 144 _h_) might be taken as \u2018in the direction of\u2019 (so Dillmann,\n Driver, al.); but there does not appear to be any clear case in\n which the expression differs from \u05e2\u05b7\u05d3\u05be\u05d1\u05bc\u05bd\u05d5\u05b9\u05d0\u05b2\u05da\u05b8\u200e = \u2018as far as\u2019 (compare\n 10\u00b3\u2070 13\u00b9\u2070 25\u00b9\u2078 [all Yahwist], 1 Samuel 15\u2077 with Judges 6\u2074 11\u00b3\u00b3,\n 1 Samuel 17\u2075\u00b2, 2 Samuel 5\u00b2\u2075, 1 Kings 18\u2074\u2076).\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b7\u05d3\u05be\u05e2\u05b7\u05d6\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0393\u03ac\u03b6\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=21, 24, 25-30. The Shemites.=\u2015\u2015The genealogy of Shem in Yahwist\nresolves itself entirely into a classification of the peoples whose\norigin was traced to \u201bEber. These fall into two main branches:\nthe descendants of Peleg (who are not here enumerated), and the\nYo\u1e33\u1e6danites or South Arabian tribes. Shem is thus nothing more than\nthe representative of the unity of the widely scattered Hebraic\nstock: Shemite and \u2018Hebrew\u2019 are convertible terms. This recognition\nof the ethnological affinity of the northern and southern Semites is a\nremarkable contrast to Priestly-Code, who assigns the South Arabians to\n\u1e24am,\u2015\u2015the family with which Israel had least desire to be associated.\n\n\u200e \u05e2\u05b5\u05d1\u05b6\u05e8\u200e is the eponym of \u05e2\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (Hebrews), the name by which the\n Israelites are often designated in distinction from other\n peoples, down to the time of Saul\u00b9 (see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 2 b:\n the passages are cited in Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._). It is\n strange at first sight that while the \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u200e of verse \u00b2\u00b9 include\n all Shemites known to Yahwist, the gentilic word is historically\n restricted to Israelites. The difficulty is perhaps removed\n by the still disputed, but now widely accepted, theory that\n _\u1e2aabiri_ in the Tel-Amarna letters is the cuneiform equivalent\n of the Old Testament \u05e2\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e. The equation presents no philological\n difficulty: Assyrian _\u1e2b_ often represents a foreign \u05e2\u200e; and\n Eerdmans\u2019 statement (_Alttestamentliche Studien_, ii. 64), that\n the sign _\u1e2ba_ never stands for \u05e2\u05b4\u200e (if true) is worthless, for\n _\u1e2aa-za-\u1e33i-ya-u_ = \u05d7\u05b4\u05d6\u05e7\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u200e shows that Assyrian _a_ may become in the\n Old Testament _i_, and this is all that it is necessary to prove.\n The historical objections vanish if the \u1e2aabiri be identified,\n not with the Israelitish invaders after the Exodus, but with\n an earlier immigration of Semitic nomads into Palestine,\n amongst whom the ancestors of Israel were included. The chief\n uncertainty arises from the fact that the phonetic writing\n _\u1e2aa-bi-ri_ occurs only in a limited group of letters,\u2015\u2015those of\n \u201bAbd-\u1e2biba of Jerusalem (179, 180 [182], 183, 185). The ideogram\n _SA. GAS_ (\u2018robbers\u2019) in other letters is conjectured to\n have the same value, but this is not absolutely demonstrated.\n Assuming that Winckler and others are right in equating the two,\n the \u1e2aabiri are in evidence over the whole country, occasionally\n as auxiliaries of the Egyptian government, but chiefly as its\n foes. The inference is very plausible that they were the roving\n Bedouin element of the population, as opposed to the settled\n inhabitants,\u2015\u2015presumably a branch of the great Aram\u00e6an invasion\n which was then overflowing Mesopotamia and Syria (see above,\n page 206; compare Winckler _Altorientalische Forschungen_, iii.\n 90 ff., _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 196 ff.;\n Paton, _The Early History of Syria and Palestine_ 111 ff.).\n There is thus a strong probability that \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200e was originally\n the name of a group of tribes which invaded Palestine in\n the 15th century B.C., and that it was afterwards applied\n to the Israelites as the sole historic survivors of the\n immigrants.\u2015\u2015Etymologically, the word has usually been\n interpreted as meaning \u2018those from beyond\u2019 the river (compare\n\u200e \u05e2\u05b5\u05d1\u05b6\u05e8 \u05d4\u05b7\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05b8\u05e8\u200e, Joshua 24\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1427); and on that assumption, the river\n is certainly not the Tigris (Delitzsch), and almost certainly\n not the Jordan (Wellhausen, Kuenen, Stade), but (in accordance\n with prevailing tradition) _the_ \u05e0\u05d4\u05e8\u200e of the Old Testament, the\n Euphrates, \u2018beyond\u2019 which lay \u1e24arran, the city whence Abraham\n set out. Hommel\u2019s view (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as\n illustrated by the Monuments_, 252 ff.) has no probability\n (compare Driver 139\u00b2). The verb \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u200e, however, does not\n necessarily mean to \u2018cross\u2019 (a stream); it sometimes means\n simply to \u2018traverse\u2019 a region (Jeremiah 2\u2076); and in this\n sense Spiegelberg has recently (1907) revived an attractive\n conjecture of Goldziher (_Mythos_, page 66), that \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200e signifies\n \u2018wanderers\u2019\u2015\u2015nomads (_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ x.\n 618 ff.).\u00b2\n\n \u00b9 After 1 Samuel it occurs only Deuteronomy 15\u00b9\u00b2, Jeremiah\n 34\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2074, Jonah 1\u2079. But see the cogent criticisms of\n Weinheimer in _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche\n Wissenschaft_, 1909, 275 ff., who propounds the view\n that Hebrews and Israelites were distinct strata of the\n population.\n\n \u00b2 In Egyptian texts from Thothmes III. to Ramses IV., the\n word _\u201bApuriu_ (_\u201bApriu_) occurs as the name of a foreign\n population in Egypt; and had been identified by Chabas with\n the Hebrews of the Old Testament. The identification has\n been generally discarded, on grounds which seemed cogent;\n but has recently been revived by Hommel (_The Ancient Hebrew\n Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 259), and (with\n arguments which seem very convincing) by Heyes (_Bibel und\n \u00c4gypten: Abraham und seine Nachkommen in \u00c4gypten_, 1904, 146\n ff.). In view of the striking resemblance to _\u1e2aabiri_, and\n the new facts brought to light by the Tel-Amarna Tablets,\n the hypothesis certainly deserves to be reconsidered\n (compare Eerdmans, _l.c._ 52 ff., or _The Expositor_, 1909,\n ii. 197 ff.).\n\n=21.= _The father of all the sons of \u201b\u0112ber_] The writer has apparently\nborrowed a genealogical list of the descendants of Eber which he\nwas at a loss to connect with the name of Shem. Hence he avoids the\ndirect assertion that Shem begat Eber, and bridges over the gap by\nthe vague hint that Shem and Eber stand for the same ethnological\nabstraction.\u2015\u2015_the elder brother of Yepheth_] The Hebrew can mean\nnothing else (_v.i._). The difficulty is to account for the selection\nof Japheth for comparison with Shem, the oldest member of the family.\nUnless the clause be a gloss, the most obvious inference is that the\ngenealogy of Japheth had immediately preceded; whether because in the\nTable of Yahwist the sequence of age was broken (Budde 305 f.), or\nbecause Japheth was really counted the second son of Noah (Dillmann).\nThe most satisfactory solution is undoubtedly that of Gunkel, who\nfinds in the remark an indication that this Table followed the order:\nCanaan\u2015\u2015Japheth\u2015\u2015Shem (see page 188).\u2015\u2015=24= is an interpolation (based\non 11\u00b9\u00b2\u207b\u00b9\u2074) intended to harmonise Yahwist with Priestly-Code. It\ncannot be the continuation of \u00b2\u00b9 as it stands (since we have not been\ninformed who Arpak\u0161ad was), and still less in the form suggested below.\nIt is also obviously inconsistent with the plan of Priestly-Code\u2019s\nTable, which deals with nations and not with individual genealogies\n(note also \u05d9\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05d3\u200e instead of \u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u200e).\n\n * * * * *\n\n =21.= It is doubtful if the text is in order. First, it is\n extremely likely that the introduction to the section on Shem\n in. Yahwist would require modification to prevent contradiction\n with verse \u00b2\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427 (Priestly-Code). Then, the omission of the\n logical subject to \u05d9\u05bb\u05dc\u05b7\u05bc\u05d3\u200e is suspicious. The Pual of this verb never\n dispenses with the subject nor does the Hophal; the Niphal does\n so once (Genesis 17\u00b9\u2077 [Priestly-Code]); but there the ellipsis\n is explained by the emphasis which lies on the fact of birth.\n Further, a \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u200e is required as subject of the clause \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e. The\n impression is produced that originally \u05e2\u05b5\u05d1\u05b6\u05e8\u200e was expressly named\n as the son of Shem, and that the words \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e referred to him\n (perhaps \u05d5\u05dc\u05e9\u05dd \u05d9\u05bb\u05dc\u05b7\u05bc\u05d3 \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05e2\u0591\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e). Considering the importance of the\n name, the tautology is not too harsh. It would then be hardly\n possible to retain the clause \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e; and to delete it as a gloss\n (although it has been proposed by others: see _Oxford Hexateuch_)\n I admit to be difficult, just because of the obscurity of the\n expression.\u2015\u2015\u05d2\u05dd \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u200e] compare 4\u00b2\u2076.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d7\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e4\u05ea \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u200e] Vulgate correctly\n _fratre Yahwist majore_. The Massoretic accentuation perhaps\n favours the grammatically impossible rendering of LXX (\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1ff7\n \u1f38\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03b8 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2), Symmachus, al.; which implies that Japheth\n was the oldest of Noah\u2019s sons,\u2015\u2015a notion extorted from the\n chronology of 11\u00b9\u2070 coupled with 5\u00b3\u00b2 7\u00b9\u00b9 (see Rashi, Abraham\n Ibn Ezra). It is equally inadmissible (with Abraham Ibn Ezra)\n to take \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u200e absolutely (= Japheth the great). See Budde 304\n ff.\u2015\u2015=24.= \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05e9\u05dc\u05d7] LXX prefers \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05e7\u05d9\u05e0\u05df \u05d5\u05e7\u05d9\u05e0\u05df \u05d9\u05dc\u05d3\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=25.= The two sons of Eber represent the Northern and Southern\nSemites respectively, corresponding roughly to Aram\u00e6ans and Arabs: we\nmay compare with Jastrow (_A Dictionary of the Bible_, v. 82 a) the\ncustomary division of Arabia into _\u0160\u0101m_ (Syria) and _Yemen_. The older\nbranch, to which the Israelites belonged, is not traced in detail: we\nmay assume that a Yahwistic genealogy (\u2225 to 11\u00b9\u2076 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 [Priestly-Code])\nexisted, showing the descent of Abraham from Peleg; and from scattered\nnotices (19\u00b3\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 22\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 25\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 etc.) we can form an idea of the\nway in which the northern and central districts were peopled by that\nfamily of \u2018Hebrews.\u2019\u2015\u2015On \u05e4\u05b6\u05bc\u05dc\u05b6\u05d2\u200e, see below.\u2015\u2015_For in his days the earth\nwas divided_ (\u05e0\u05b4\u05e4\u05b0\u05dc\u05b0\u05d2\u05b8\u05d4\u200e)] a popular etymology naturally suggested by the\nroot, which in Hebrew (as in Aramaic, Arabic, etc.) expresses the\nidea of \u2018division\u2019 (compare the verb in Psalms 55\u00b9\u2070, Job 38\u00b2\u2075).\nThere is no very strong reason to suppose that the dispersion (\u05e4\u05dc\u05d5\u05d2\u05ea\u05d0\u200e,\nTargum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f etc.) of the Tower of Babel is referred to; it is\npossible that some other tradition regarding the distribution of\nnations is followed (_e.g._ _Jubilees_ viii. 8 ff.), or that the\nallusion is merely to the separation of the Yo\u1e33\u1e6danites from their\nnorthern kinsmen.\n\n\u200e \u05e4\u05b6\u05bc\u05dc\u05b6\u05d2\u200e (\u03a6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba, \u03a6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3, \u03a6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c7)] as a common noun means \u2018watercourse\u2019\n or artificial canal (Assyrian _palgu_): Isaiah 30\u00b2\u2075, Psalms\n 1\u00b3 65\u00b9\u2070, Job 29\u2076 etc. Hence it has been thought that the\n name originally denoted some region intersected by irrigating\n channels or canals, such as Babylonia itself. Of geographical\n identifications there are several which are sufficiently\n plausible: _Phalga_ in Mesopotamia, at the junction of the\n Chaboras and the Euphrates (Knobel); _\u2019el-Fal\u01e7_, a district\n in North-east Arabia near the head of the Persian Gulf\n (Lagarde _Orientalia_ ii. 50); _\u2019el-Afl\u0101\u01e7_ South of \u01e6ebel\n Tuwai\u1e33 in central Arabia (Hommel _Aufs\u00e4tze und Abhandlungen\n arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts_, 222\u00b2).\n\n\u200e \u05d9\u05b8\u05e7\u05b0\u05d8\u05b8\u05df\u200e (\u1f38\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd)] otherwise unknown, is derived by Fleischer\n (Goldziher _Der Mythos bei den Hebr\u00e4ern_, page 67) from \u221a\n _\u1e33a\u1e6dana_ = \u2018be settled.\u2019 The Arab genealogists identified him\n with _\u1e32a\u1e25t\u0101n_, the legendary ancestor of a real tribe, who was\n (or came to be) regarded as the founder of the Yemenite Arabs\n (Margoliouth, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 743). On the\n modern stock of \u2019el-\u1e32a\u1e25\u1e6dan, and its sinister reputation in the\n more northerly parts of the Peninsula, see Doughty, _Travels in\n Arabia Deserta_ i. 129, 229, 282, 343, 389, 418, ii. 39 ff., 437.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =25.= \u05d9\u05bb\u05dc\u05b7\u05bc\u05d3\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX \u05d9\u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u200e;\n but \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d1\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e is possibly accusative after passive, as 4\u00b9\u2078 etc.\n (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 121 _a_, _b_)\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] similarly 22\u00b2\u00b9\n (Yahwist).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=26\u201230.= The sons of Yo\u1e33\u1e6dan number 13, but in LXX (see on \u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05dc\u200e below)\nonly 12, which may be the original number. The few names that can be\nsatisfactorily identified (_Sheleph, \u1e24a\u1e93armaweth, Sheba, \u1e24avilah_)\npoint to South Arabia as the home of these tribes.\n\n\u200e (1) \u05d0\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05d3\u05b8\u05d3\u200e (\u1f18\u03bb\u03bc\u03c9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b4)] unknown. The \u05d0\u05dc\u200e is variously explained\n as the Arabic article (but this is not Sab\u00e6an), as _\u2019\u0112l_ =\n \u2018God, \u2019 and as _\u2019\u0101l_ = \u2018family\u2019; and \u05de\u05d5\u05d3\u05d3\u200e as a derivative of the\n verb for \u2018love\u2019 (_wadda_), equivalent to Hebrew \u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u200e (Winckler\n _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, vi. 169);\n compare Glaser, _Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens_,\n ii. 425; _A Dictionary of the Bible_, i. 67.\n\n\u200e (2) \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dc\u05b6\u05e3\u200e (\u03a3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c6)] A Yemenite tribe or district named on Sab\u00e6an\n inscriptions, and also by Arabic geographers: see Hommel\n _S\u00fcd-arabische Chrestomathie_ 70; Osiander in _Zeitschrift\n der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xi. 153 ff.,\n perhaps identical with the Salapeni of Roman writers. Cognate\n place-names are said to be still common in South Arabia (Glaser).\n\n\u200e (3) \u05d7\u05b2\u05e6\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05d5\u05b6\u05ea\u200e (\u1f09\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03c9\u03b8)] The modern province of _\u1e24a\u1e0dramaut_, on\n the South coast, East of Yemen. The name appears in Sab\u00e6an\n inscriptions of 5th and 6th centuries A.D., and is slightly\n disguised in the \u03a7\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03c9\u03c4\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 of Strabo (XVI. iv. 2), the\n _Chatramotit\u00e6_ of Pliny, vi. 154 (_Atramit\u00e6_, vi. 155, xii. 52?).\n\n\u200e (4) \u05d9\u05b6\u05e8\u05b7\u05d7\u200e (\u1f38\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4)] uncertain. The attempts at identification\n proceed on the appellative sense of the word (= \u2018moon\u2019), but are\n devoid of plausibility (see Dillmann).\n\n\u200e (5) \u05d4\u05b2\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b8\u05dd\u200e (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05e8\u05dd\u200e, LXX\n \u1f49\u03b4\u03bf\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1)] likewise unknown. A place called _Dauram_ close to\n \u1e62an\u201ba has been suggested: the name is found in Sab\u00e6an (Glaser,\n 426, 435).\n\n\u200e (6) \u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05d6\u05b8\u05dc\u200e (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d0\u05d9\u05d6\u05dc\u200e, LXX\n \u0391\u1f30\u03b6\u03b7\u03bb)] mentioned by Ezekiel (27\u00b9\u2079: read \u05de\u05b5\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05d6\u05b8\u05dc\u200e) as a place whence\n iron and spices were procured. It is commonly taken to be the\n same as _\u2019Az\u0101l_, which Arabic tradition declares to be the\n old name of \u1e62an\u2019a, now the capital of Yemen. Glaser (310, 427,\n 434, etc.) disputes the tradition, and locates \u2019\u00dbz\u0101l in the\n neighbourhood of Medina.\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 In view of the uncertainty of the last three names, it is\n worthy of attention that the account of Asshurbanipal\u2019s\n expedition against the Nabat\u00e6ans (_Keilinschriftliche\n Bibliothek_, ii. 221) mentions, in close conjunction, three\n places, _\u1e24urarina_, _Yarki_, and _Azalla_, which could not,\n of course, be as far South as Yemen, but might be as far as\n the region of Medina. In spite of the phonetic differences,\n the resemblance to Hadoram, Yera\u1e25, and \u2019\u00dbz\u0101l is noteworthy.\n See, however, Glaser, 273 ff., 309 ff.\n\n\u200e (7) \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05e7\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (\u0394\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1)] Probably the Arabic and Aramaic word (_da\u1e33al_,\n\u200e \u05d3\u05e7\u05dc\u05d0\u200e, (\u2021 Syriac word)) for \u2018date-palm,\u2019 and therefore the name of\n some noted palm-bearing oasis ofArabia. Glaser (_Mittheilungen\n der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1897, 438) and Hommel\n (_Aufs\u00e4tze und Abhandlungen ar abistisch-semitologischen\n Inhalts_, 282 f.) identify it with the \u03a6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd of Procopius,\n and the modern _\u01e6\u014df es-Sirh\u0101n_, 30\u00b0 North latitude (as far North\n as the head of the Red Sea).\n\n\u200e (8) \u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05d1\u05b8\u05dc\u200e (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ and\n 1 Chronicles 1\u00b2\u00b2 \u05e2\u05b5\u05d9\u05d1\u05b8\u05dc\u200e, LXX\u1d38\u1d58\u1d9c\u2071\u1d43\u207f \u0393\u03b1\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb)] supposed to be the\n word _\u201bAbil_, a frequent geographical name in Yemen (Glaser,\n 427). The name is omitted by many MSS of LXX, also by LXX\u1d2e in\n 1 Chronicles 1\u00b2\u00b2 (see Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_,\n 10), where some Hebrew MSS and Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 have \u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05dc\u200e.\n\n\u200e (9) \u05d0\u05b2\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05de\u05b8\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e (\u1f08\u03b2\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03b7\u03bb)] apparently a tribal name (= \u2018father is God\u2019),\n of genuine Sab\u00e6an formation (compare \u05d0\u05d1\u05de\u05e2\u05ea\u05bf\u05ea\u05e8\u200e, _Zeitschrift der\n deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xxxvii. 18), not\n hitherto identified.\n\n\u200e (10) \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d1\u05b8\u05d0\u200e] see on verse \u2077 (page 203). The general connexion\n suggests that the Sab\u00e6ans are already established in Yemen;\n although, if \u2019\u00dbz\u0101l be as far North as Medina, the inference\n is perhaps not quite certain.\n\n\u200e (11) \u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05e4\u05b4\u05e8\u200e (\u039f\u1f50\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1)] known to the Israelites as a gold-producing\n country (Isaiah 13\u00b9\u00b2, Psalms 45\u00b9\u2070, Job 22\u00b2\u2074 28\u00b9\u2076, 1 Chronicles\n 29\u2074 [Sirach 7\u00b9\u2078]), visited by the ships of Solomon and Hiram,\n which brought home not only gold and silver and precious stones,\n but almug-wood, ivory, apes and (?) peacocks (1 Kings 9\u00b2\u2078\n 10\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2; compare 22\u2074\u2079). Whether this familiarity with the name\n implies a clear notion of its geographical position may be\n questioned; but it can hardly be doubted that the author of\n the Yahwistic Table believed it to be in Arabia; and although\n no name at all resembling Ophir has as yet been discovered in\n Arabia, that remains the most probable view (see Glaser,\n _Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens_, ii. 357\u201283).\n Of other identifications the most important are: _Abhira_ in\n India, East of the mouths of the Indus (Lassen); (2) the Sofala\n coast (opposite Madagascar), behind which remains of extensive\n gold-diggings were discovered around Zimbabwe in 1871: the\n ruins, however, have now been proved to be of native African\n origin, and not older than the 14th or 15th century A.D. (see\n D. Randall-Maciver, _Medi\u00e6val Rhodesia_ [1906]); (3) _Apir_\n (originally _Hapir_), an old name for the ruling race in Elam,\n and for the coast of the Persian Gulf around Bushire (see Hommel\n _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_,\n 236\u2074; H\u00fcsing, _Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_, vi. 367 ff.;\n Jensen _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_,\n l. 246). If we could suppose the name transferred to the\n opposite (Arabian) coast of the gulf, this hypothesis would\n satisfy the condition required by this passage, and would agree\n in particular with Glaser\u2019s localisation. For a discussion of\n the various theories, see the excellent summary by Cheyne in\n _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, iii. 3513 ff.; Price, _A Dictionary of\n the Bible_, iii. 626 ff.; and Driver _The Book of Genesis with\n Introduction and Notes_\u00b2 XXVI. f., 131.\n\n\u200e (12) \u05d7\u05b2\u05d5\u05b4\u05d9\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] see page 202.\n\n\u200e (13) \u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05d1\u05b8\u05d1\u200e (\u1f38\u03c9\u03b2\u03b1\u03b2)] unknown. Halevy and Glaser (ii. 303) compare\n the Sab\u00e6an name _Yuhaibab_.\n\n The limits (probably from North to South) of the Yo\u1e33\u1e6danite\n territory are specified in verse \u00b3\u2070; but a satisfactory\n explanation is impossible owing to the uncertainty of the\n three names mentioned in it (Dillmann).\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b5\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d0\u200e (\u039c\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03b5) has been\n supposed to be _Mesene_ ((\u2021 Syriac word), _Mais\u0101n_), within the\n Delta of the Euphrates-Tigris (Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus\n criticus Lingu\u00e6 Hebr\u00e6\u00e6 et Chald\u00e6\u00e6 Veteris Testamenti_ 823;\n Tuch); but the antiquity of this name is not established.\n Dillmann, following LXX, reads \u05de\u05b7\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c2\u05d0\u200e (see on 25\u00b9\u2074) in North Arabia.\n This as northern limit would just include Di\u1e33lah, if Glaser\u2019s\n identification, given above, be correct.\u2015\u2015\u05e1\u05b0\u05e4\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (\u03a3\u03c9\u03c6\u03b7\u03c1\u03b1) is\n generally acknowledged to be _\u1e92af\u0101r_ in the South of Arabia.\n There were two places of the name: one in the interior of Yemen,\n North of Aden; the other (now pronounced _\u2019I\u1e63f\u0101r_ or _\u2019Isf\u0101r_)\n on the coast of Mahra, near Mirb\u0101t. The latter was the capital\n of the Himyarite kings (Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus\n criticus Lingu\u00e6 Hebr\u00e6\u00e6 et Chald\u00e6\u00e6 Veteris Testamenti_ 968;\n _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iv. 437; _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_,\n iv. 4370). Which of the two is here meant is a matter of little\n consequence.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b7\u05e8 \u05d4\u05b7\u05e7\u05b6\u05bc\u05d3\u05b6\u05dd\u200e] It is difficult to say whether this is\n an apposition to \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d1\u05b8\u05dd\u200e (Tuch al.), or a definition of \u05e1\u05e4\u05e8\u200e, or is\n a continuation of the line beyond \u05e1\u05e4\u05e8\u200e. On the first view the\n \u2018mountain\u2019 might be the highlands of central Arabia (_Ne\u01e7d_);\n the second is recommended by the fact that the _eastern_ \u1e92af\u0101r\n lies at the foot of a high mountain, well adapted to serve as\n a landmark. The third view is not assisted by rendering \u05d1\u05b9\u05bc\u05d0\u05b2\u05db\u05b8\u05d4\u200e \u2018in\n the direction of\u2019 (see on verse \u00b9\u2079); for in any case \u1e92af\u0101r must\n have been the terminus in a southern direction. The commonly\n received opinion is that \u05d4\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d3\u05dd\u200e is the name of the Frankincense\n Mountain between \u1e24a\u1e0dramaut and Mahra (see Dillmann).\n\n * * * * *\n\n =26.= Some MSS have \u05d7\u05e6\u05e8\u05be\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u200e, as if = \u2018court of death.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\n XI. 1\u20129.\n _The Tower of Babel_\n (Yahwist).\n\n\nA mythical or legendary account of the breaking up of the primitive\nunity of mankind into separate communities, distinguished and isolated\nby differences of language. The story reflects at the same time\nthe impression made on Semitic nomads by the imposing monuments of\nBabylonian civilisation. To such stupendous undertakings only an\nundivided humanity could have addressed itself; and the existing\ndisunitedness of the race is a divine judgement on the presumptuous\nimpiety which inspired these early manifestations of human genius and\nenterprise.\n\n Gunkel has apparently succeeded in disentangling two distinct\n but kindred legends, which are both Yahwistic (compare \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e,\n \u2666verses \u2075\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u2079), and have been blended with remarkable skill.\n One has crystallised round the name \u2018Babel,\u2019 and its leading\n motive is the \u201cconfusion\u201d of tongues; the other around the\n memory of some ruined tower, which tradition connected with\n the \u201cdispersion\u201d of the race. Gunkel\u2019s division will be best\n exhibited by the following continuous translations:\n\n \u2666 removed duplicate \u201c9\u201d\n\n A. The Babel-Recension: (\u00b9) _And B. The Tower-Recension: ... (\u00b2)\n it was, when all the earth had _And when they broke up from\n one speech and one vocabulary,_ the East, they found a plain in\n (\u00b3\u1d43) _that they said to one the land of Shin\u201bar, and settled\n another, Come! Let us make there._ [And they said, Let us\n bricks and burn them thoroughly._ build] (\u2074\u1d43{\u03b2}\u1d47) _a tower, with\n (\u2074\u1d43{\u03b1,\u202f\u03b3}) _And they said, Come! its top reaching to heaven, lest\n Let us build us a city, and make we disperse over the face of\n ourselves a name._ (\u2076\u1d43{\u03b1}) _And the whole earth._ (\u00b3\u1d47) _And they\n Yahwe said, Behold it is one had brick for stone and asphalt\n people, and all of one language._ for mortar._ (\u2075) _And Yahwe came\n (\u2077) _Come! Let us go down and down to see the tower which the\n confound there their language, sons of men had built._ [And\n so that they may not understand He said ...] (\u2076\u1d43{\u03b2}\u1d47) _and this\n one another\u2019s speech,_ (\u2078\u1d47) _and is but the beginning of their\n that they may cease to build the enterprise; and now nothing\n city._ (\u2079\u1d43) _Therefore is its will be impracticable to them\n name called \u2018Babel\u2019 (Confusion), which they purpose to do._ (8a)\n for there Yahwe confused the _So Yahwe scattered them over\n speech of the whole earth._ the face of the whole earth._\n [?Therefore the name of the tower\n was called \u2018P\u00ee\u1e93\u2019 (Dispersion),\n for] (\u2079\u1d47) _from thence Yahwe\n dispersed them over the face of\n the whole earth._\n\n It is extremely difficult to arrive at a final verdict on the\n soundness of this acute analysis; but on the whole it justifies\n itself by the readiness with which the various motives assort\n themselves in two parallel series. Its weak point is no doubt\n the awkward duplicate (\u2078\u1d43 \u2225 \u2079\u1d47) with which B closes. Gunkel\u2019s\n bold conjecture that between the two there was an etymological\n play on the name of the tower (\u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e5\u200e or \u05e4\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e5\u200e) certainly removes\n the objection; but the omission of so important an item of the\n tradition is itself a thing not easily accounted for.\u00b9 Against\n this, however, we have to set the following considerations: the\n absence of demonstrable lacun\u00e6 in A, and their infrequency even\n in B; the facts that only a single phrase (\u05d0\u05b8\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05b8\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05b0\u200e in verse \u2075)\n requires to be deleted as redactional, and there is only one\n transposition (\u00b3\u1d47); and the facility with which nearly all the\n numerous doublets (\u00b3\u1d43 \u2225 \u00b3\u1d47; \u2074\u1d43{\u03b3} \u2225 \u2074\u1d47; \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b6\u05d3\u200e (\u2075) \u2225 \u05e0\u05b5\u05bd\u05e8\u05b0\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (\u2077); \u2076\u1d43{\u03b1},\n {\u03b2} \u2225 \u2076\u1d43{\u03b3}\u1d47; \u2079\u1d43 \u2225 \u2078\u1d43 \u207a \u2079\u1d47) can be definitely assigned to the\n one recension or the other. In particular, it resolves the\n difficulty presented by the twofold descent of Yahwe in \u2075 and \u2077,\n from which far-reaching critical consequences had already been\n deduced (see the notes). There are perhaps some points of style,\n and some general differences of conception between the two\n strata, which go to confirm the hypothesis; but these also may\n be reserved for the notes.\n\n \u00b9 In _Jubilees_ x. 26, the name of the tower, as distinct from\n the city, is \u201cOverthrow\u201d (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae).\n\n The section, whether simple or composite, is independent of the\n Ethnographic Table of chapter 10, and is indeed fundamentally\n irreconcilable with it. There the origin of peoples is conceived\n as the result of the natural increase and partition of the\n family, and variety of speech as its inevitable concomitant\n (compare \u05dc\u05dc\u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05dd\u200e, etc., in Priestly-Code, 10\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9). Here, on\n the contrary, the division is caused by a sudden interposition\n of Yahwe; and it is almost impossible to think that either\n a confusion of tongues or a violent dispersion should follow\n genealogical lines of cleavage. It is plausible, therefore, to\n assign the passage to that section of Yahwist (if there be one)\n which has neither a Flood-tradition nor a Table of Nations (so\n Wellhausen, Budde, Stade, al.); although it must be said that\n the idea here is little less at variance with the classification\n by professions of 4\u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u00b2 than with chapter 10. The truth is that\n the inconsistency is not of such a kind as would necessarily\n hinder a collector of traditions from putting the two in\n historical sequence.\n\n\n 1\u20124.\n The Building of the City and the Tower.\n\n(Compare the translation given above.) =1, 2.= The expression\nsuggests that in A mankind is already spread far and wide over the\nearth, though forming one great nation (\u05e2\u05b7\u05dd\u200e, verse \u2076), united by\na common language. In B, on the other hand, it is still a body of\nnomads, moving all together in search of a habitation (verse \u00b2;\ncompare \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, verse \u2075).\u2015\u2015_broke up from the East_] _v.i._\u2015\u2015_a plain_]\nthe Euphrates-Tigris valley; where Babylon \u03ba\u03ad\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03af\u1ff3 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u1ff3\n(Herodotus i. 178).\u2015\u2015_the land of Shin\u201bar_] see on 10\u00b9\u2070.\u2015\u2015=3a.= With\ngreat na\u00efvet\u00e9, the (city-) legend describes first the invention of\nbricks, and then (verse \u2074) as an afterthought the project of building\nwith them. The bilingual Babylonian account of creation (see page\n47 above) speaks of a time when \u201cno brick was laid, no brick-mould\n(_nalbantu_) formed\u201d: see _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 38\nf., 360.\u2015\u2015=3b= shows that the legend has taken shape amongst a people\nfamiliar with stone-masonry. Compare the construction of the walls\nof Babylon as described by Herodotus (i. 179).\u00b9 The accuracy of the\nnotice is confirmed by the excavated remains of Babylonian houses and\ntemples (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 279)\u2015\u2015=4.=\n_With its top reaching to heaven_] The expression is not hyperbolical\n(as Deuteronomy 1\u00b2\u2078), but represents the serious purpose of the\nbuilders to raise their work to the height of the dwelling-place of\nthe gods (_Jubilees_ x. 19, etc.).\n\n \u00b9 Compare Josephus _Against Apion_ i. 139, 149; Diodorus.\n ii. 9; Pliny, _Naturalis Historia_, xxxv. 51.\n\n The most conspicuous feature of a Babylonian sanctuary was its\n _zikkurat_,\u2015\u2015a huge pyramidal tower rising, often in 7 terraces,\n from the centre of the temple-area, and crowned with a shrine\n at the top (Herodotus i. 181 f.: see Jastrow _The Religion of\n Babylonia and Assyria_, 615\u201222). These structures appear to\n have embodied a half-cosmical, half-religious symbolism: the\n 7 stories represented the 7 planetary deities as mediators\n between heaven and earth; the ascent of the tower was a\n meritorious approach to the gods; and the summit was regarded\n as the entrance to heaven (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte\n Testament_\u00b3, 616 f.; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten\n Orients_\u00b2, 52 f., 281 f.). Hence it is probably something more\n than mere hyperbole when it is said of these _zikkurats_ that\n the top was made to reach heaven (see page 228 f. below); and,\n on the other hand, the resemblance between the language of the\n inscriptions and that of Genesis is too striking to be dismissed\n as accidental. That the tower of Genesis 11 is a Babylonian\n _zikkurat_ is obvious on every ground; and we may readily\n suppose that a faint echo of the religious ideas just spoken of\n is preserved in the legend; although to the purer faith of the\n Hebrews it savoured only of human pride and presumption.\u2015\u2015The\n idea of storming heaven and making war on the gods, which\n is suggested by some late forms of the legend (compare Homer\n _Odyssey_ xi. 313 ff.), is no doubt foreign to the passage.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e 1. \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u200e is not verbal predicate to \u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200e, but merely introduces\n the circumstantial sentence, as in 15\u00b9\u2077 42\u00b3\u2075 etc. (Davidson \u00a7\n 141 and _R._\u00b9). Such a sentence is usually followed by \u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05e0\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, but\n see 1 Kings 13\u00b2\u2070. It may certainly be doubted if it could be\n followed by another \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u200e with infinitive clause (verse \u00b2); and\n this may be reckoned a point in favour of Gunkel\u2019s analysis.\u2015\u2015If\n there be any distinction between \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e4\u05b8\u05d4\u200e and \u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, the former may\n refer to the pronunciation and the latter to the vocabulary\n (Dillmann), or (Gunkel) \u05e9\u05f3\u200e to language as a whole, and \u05d3\u05f3\u200e to its\n individual elements.\u2015\u2015\u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05b2\u05d7\u05b8\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] \u2018a single set of vocables\u2019; LXX\n \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 (+ \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd = \u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05bb\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd\u200e, as verse \u2076). Elsewhere (27\u2074\u2074 29\u00b2\u2070 [with\n\u200e \u05d9\u05b8\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e]) \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200e means \u2018single\u2019 in the sense of \u2018few\u2019; in Ezekiel 37\u00b9\u2077\n the text is uncertain (see Cornill).\u2015\u2015On the juxtaposition of\n subject and predicate in the nominal sentence, see Davidson\n \u00a7 29 (_e_).\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b8\u05e1\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05dd \u05de\u05b4\u05e7\u05b6\u05bc\u05d3\u05b6\u05dd\u200e] rendered as above by LXX, Vulgate,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f. Nearly all moderns prefer \u2018as they\n wandered in the east\u2019 or \u2018eastward\u2019; justifying the translation\n by 13\u00b9\u00b9, which is the only place where \u05de\u05e7\u05d3\u05dd\u200e means \u2018eastward\u2019\n with a verb of motion. That \u05de\u05e7\u05f3\u200e _never_ means \u2018from the east\u2019\n is at least a hazardous assertion in view of Isaiah 2\u2076 9\u00b9\u00b9. \u05e0\u05e1\u05e2\u200e\n (compare Assyrian _nis\u00fb_, \u2018remove,\u2019 \u2018depart,\u2019 etc.) is a nomadic\n term, meaning \u2018pluck up [tent-pegs]\u2019 (Isaiah 33\u00b2\u2070); hence \u2018break\n up the camp\u2019 or \u2018start on a journey\u2019 (Genesis 33\u00b9\u00b2 35\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9\n 37\u00b9\u2077 etc.); and, with the _possible_ exception of Jeremiah 31\u00b2\u00b3\n (but _not_ Genesis 12\u2079), there is no case where this primary\n idea is lost sight of. Being essentially a verb of departure,\n it is more naturally followed by a determination of the\n starting-point than of the direction or the goal (but see 33\u00b9\u2077);\n and there is no difficulty whatever in the assumption that the\n cradle of the race was further East than Babylonia (see 2\u2078; and\n compare Stade _Ausgew\u00e4hlte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_\n 246, and _n._ 43).\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05e7\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] (Syrian (\u2021 Syriac word), Arabic\n _ba\u1e33\u201bat_) in usage, a wide, open valley, or plain (Deuteronomy\n 34\u00b3, Zechariah 12\u00b9\u00b9, Isaiah 40\u2074, etc.). The derivation from \u221a\n\u200e \u05d1\u05e7\u05e2\u200e, \u2018split,\u2019 is questioned by Barth (_Etymologische Studien\n zum semitischen insbesondere zum hebraischen Lexicon_, 2), but\n is probable nevertheless.\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05d4\u05b8\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] imperative of \u221a \u05d9\u05d4\u05d1\u200e, used\n interjectionally (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 69 _o_), as in verses\n \u2074\u1427 \u2077 38\u00b9\u2076, Exodus 1\u00b9\u2070 (all Yahwist), is given by Gunkel as a\n stylistic mark of the recension A (Jehovist\u1d31\u02e1\u1d52\u02b0\u2071\u02e2\u1d57?). Contrast\n the verbal use 29\u00b2\u00b9 30\u00b9 (both Elohist), 47\u00b9\u2075, and plural (\u05d4\u05b8\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u200e)\n 47\u00b9\u2076, Deuteronomy 1\u00b9\u00b3 32\u00b3, Joshua 18\u2074. On the whole, the two\n uses are characteristic of Yahwist and Elohist respectively; see\n Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 98 f.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05b4\u05dc\u05b0\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05b0\u05d1\u05b5\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] Exodus\n 5\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2074. So in Assyrian _lab\u00e2nu libittu_ (_Keilinschriftliche\n Bibliothek_, ii. 48, etc.), although _libittu_ is used only\n of the _un_burned, sun-dried brick. See N\u00f6ldeke _Zeitschrift\n der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xxxvi. 181;\n Hoffmann, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,\n ii. 70.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05e8\u05b5\u05e4\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] dative of product (Dillmann); \u05e9\u05c2\u05f3\u200e = \u2018burnt\n mass\u2019 (compare Deuteronomy 29\u00b2\u00b2, Jeremiah 51\u00b2\u2075).\u2015\u2015\u05d7\u05b5\u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u200e (14\u00b9\u2070,\n Exodus 2\u00b3)] the native Hebrew name for bitumen (see on\n\u200e 6\u00b9\u2074).\u2015\u2015\u05d7\u05b9\u05de\u05b6\u05e8\u200e] (note the play on words) is strictly \u2018clay,\u2019 used\n in Palestine as mortar.\u2015\u2015=4.= \u05d5\u05b0\u05e8\u05b9\u05d0\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05b9 \u05d1\u05b7\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e] \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u200e of contact, as in \u05e0\u05b8\u05d2\u05b7\u05e2 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u200e\n (Delitzsch).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05b0\u05e0\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d4\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dd\u200e] \u2018acquire lasting renown\u2019; compare 2\n Samuel 8\u00b9\u00b3, Jeremiah 32\u00b2\u2070, Nehemiah 9\u00b9\u2070. The suggestion that \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dd\u200e\n here has the sense of \u2018monument,\u2019 though defended by Delitzsch,\n Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 375\u00b2), al. (compare\n Siegfried-Stade _s.v._), has no sufficient justification in\n usage. In Isaiah 55\u00b9\u00b3 56\u2075 (compare 2 Samuel 18\u00b9\u2078), as well\n as the amended text of 2 Samuel 8\u00b9\u00b3 (see Driver _Notes on the\n Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_ 217 f.), the ordinary sense\n suffices.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05b8\u05e4\u05d5\u05bc\u05e5\u200e] the word, accusative to Gunkel, is distinctive\n of the recension B: compare verses \u2078\u1d43\u1427 \u2079\u1d47.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=4b.= _Lest we disperse_] The tower was to be at once a symbol of the\nunity of the race, and a centre and rallying-point, visible all over\nthe earth (Abraham Ibn Ezra). The idea is missed by LXX, Vulgate and\nTargum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, which render \u2018_ere_ we be dispersed.\u2019\n\n\n 5\u20129.\n Yahwe\u2019s Interposition.\n\nThe turning-point in the development of the story occurs at verses \u2075\u1427 \u2076,\nwhere the descent of Yahwe is _twice_ mentioned, in a way which shows\nsome discontinuity of narration.\u2015\u2015On heaven as the dwelling-place of\nYahwe, compare 28\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427, Exodus 19\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2070 34\u2075 24\u00b9\u2070, 1 Kings 22\u00b9\u2079, 2 Kings\n2\u00b9\u00b9; and with verse \u2075 compare 18\u00b2\u00b9, Exodus 3\u2078.\n\n On the assumption of the unity of the passage, the conclusion of\n Stade (_Ausgew\u00e4hlte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_ 274 ff.)\n seems unavoidable: that a highly dramatic polytheistic recension\n has here been toned down by the omission of some of its most\n characteristic incidents. In verse \u2075 the name Yahwe has been\n substituted for that of some envoy of the gods sent down to\n inspect the latest human enterprise; verse \u2076 is his report\n to the heavenly council on his return; and verse \u2077 the plan\n of action he recommends to his fellow immortals. The main\n objection to this ingenious solution is that it involves, almost\n necessarily, a process of conscious literary manipulation, such\n as no Hebrew writer is likely to have bestowed on a document\n so saturated with pagan theology as the supposed Babylonian\n original must have been. It is more natural to believe that the\n elimination of polytheistic representations was effected in the\n course of oral transmission, through the spontaneous action of\n the Hebrew mind controlled by its spiritual faith.\u2015\u2015On Gunkel\u2019s\n theory the difficulty disappears.\n\n=6.= _This is but the beginning, etc._] The reference is not merely to\nthe completion of the tower, but to other enterprises which might be\nundertaken in the future.\u2015\u2015=9.= _Babel_] LXX rightly \u03a3\u03cd\u03b3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2; _v.i._\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =6.=\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b5\u05df \u05e2\u05b7\u05dd \u05d0\u05b6\u05d7\u05b8\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e] incomplete interjectional sentence\n (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 147 _b_).\u2015\u2015\u05d6\u05b6\u05d4 \u05d4\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b4\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd \u05dc\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e9\u05c2\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u200e] literally\n \u2018this is their beginning to act.\u2019 On the pointing \u05d4\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05f3\u200e, see\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 67 _w_.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 \u05d9\u05b4\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e6\u05b5\u05e8\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05b8\u05bd\u05d6\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u200e] imitated in Job\n\u200e 42\u00b2.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05e6\u05e8\u200e] literally \u2018be inaccessible\u2019 (compare Isaiah 22\u00b9\u2070,\n Jeremiah 51\u2075\u00b3); hence \u2018impracticable.\u2019\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05b8\u05bd\u05d6\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u200e] contrast for \u05d9\u05b8\u05d6\u05b9\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u200e\n (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 67 _dd_).\u2015\u2015=7.= \u05e0\u05e8\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e] LXX retains the\n plural in spite of the alleged reading in _Mechilta_ \u05d0\u05e8\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc\u05d4\u200e\n (see page 14 above).\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05b8\u05bd\u05d1\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] (see last note): from \u221a \u05d1\u05dc\u05dc\u200e =\n \u2018mix\u2019 (not \u2018divide,\u2019 as Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 [(\u2021 Syriac word)]).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0\u200e]\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 165 _b_.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05c1\u05de\u05e2\u200e] = \u2018understand\u2019: 42\u00b2\u00b3,\n Deuteronomy 28\u2074\u2079, Isaiah 33\u00b9\u2079, Jeremiah 5\u00b9\u2075 etc.\u2015\u2015=8.= It is\n perhaps better, if a distinction of sources is recognised, to\n point \u05d5\u05b0\u05d9\u05b6\u05d7\u05b0\u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u200e (jussive of purpose: Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 109 _f_),\n continuing the direct address of \u2077\u1d47.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ prefers \u05d0\u05ea\u200e, and (with LXX) adds\n\u200e \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05de\u05d2\u05d3\u05dc\u200e.\u2015\u2015=9.= \u05e7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u200e] \u2018_one_ called\u2019 (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 144\n _d_).\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05dc\u200e] \u2018mxture\u2019 or \u2018confusion.\u2019 The name is obviously\n treated as a contraction from \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05dc\u05b0\u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05dc\u200e, a form not found in Hebrew,\n but occurring in Aramaic (compare Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 verse \u2079, and\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 verse \u2077) and Arabic. On the Babylonian etymology\n of the name, see 10\u00b9\u2070.\u2015\u2015=9b.=\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e] LXX + \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n _Origin and Diffusion of the Legends._\n\n 1. The double legend is a product of na\u00efve reflexion on such\n facts of experience as the disunity of mankind, its want of\n a common language, and its consequent inability to bend its\n united energies to the accomplishment of some enduring memorial\n of human greatness. The contrast between this condition of\n things and the ideal unity of the race at its origin haunted\n the mind with a sense of fate and discomfiture, and prompted\n the questions, When, and where, and for what reason, was this\n doom imposed on men? The answer naturally assumed the legendary\n form, the concrete features of the representation being supplied\n by two vivid impressions produced by the achievements of\n civilisation in its most ancient centre in Babylonia. On one\n hand the city of Babylon itself, with its mixture of languages,\n its cosmopolitan population, and its proud boast of antiquity,\n suggested the idea that here was the very fountainhead of the\n confusion of tongues; and this idea, wrapped up in a popular\n etymology of the name of the city, formed the nucleus of the\n first of the two legends contained in the passage. On the other\n hand, the spectacle of some ruined or unfinished Temple-tower\n (_zikkurat_), built by a vast expenditure of human toil,\n and reported to symbolise the ascent to heaven (page 226),\n appealed to the imagination of the nomads as a god-defying work,\n obviously intended to serve as a landmark and rallying-point\n for the whole human race. In each case mankind had measured\n its strength against the decree of the gods above; and the gods\n had taken their revenge by reducing mankind to the condition of\n impotent disunion in which it now is.\n\n It is evident that ideas of this order did not emanate from the\n official religion of Babylonia. They originated rather in the\n unsophisticated reasoning of nomadic Semites who had penetrated\n into the country, and formed their own notions about the wonders\n they beheld there: the etymology of the name Babel (= _Balb\u0113l_)\n suggests an Aram\u00e6an origin (Cheyne, Gunkel). The stories\n travelled from land to land, till they reached Israel, where,\n divested of their cruder polytheistic elements, they became the\n vehicle of an impressive lesson on the folly of human pride, and\n the supremacy of Yahwe in the affairs of men.\n\n It is of quite secondary interest to determine which of the\n numerous Babylonian _zikkurats_ gave rise to the legend of\n the Dispersion. The most famous of these edifices were those\n of E-sagil, the temple of Marduk in Babylon,\u00b9 and of E-zida,\n the temple of Nebo at Borsippa on the opposite bank of the\n river (see Tiele, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, ii. 179\u2012190).\n The former bore the (Sumerian) name _E-temen-an-ki_ (= \u2018house\n of the foundations of heaven and earth\u2019). It was restored\n by Nabo-polassar, who says that before him it had become\n \u201cdilapidated and ruined,\u201d and that he was commanded by Marduk to\n \u201clay its foundations firm in the breast of the underworld, and\n _make its top equal to heaven_\u201d (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,\n iii. 2. 5). The latter expression recurs in an inscription\n of Nebuchadnezzar (_Beitr\u00e4ge zur Assyriologie und semitischen\n Sprachwissenschaft_, iii. 548) with reference to the same\n _zikkurat_, and is thought by Gunkel (\u00b2 86) to have been\n characteristic of E-temen-an-ki; but that is doubtful, since\n similar language is used by Tiglath-pileser I. of the towers\n of the temple of Anu and Ramman, which had been allowed to\n fall gradually into disrepair for 641 years before his time\n (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 43). The _zikkurat_ of\n E-zida was called _E-ur-imin-an-ki_ (\u2018house of the seven stages\n (?) of heaven and earth\u2019); its restorer Nebuchadnezzar tells us,\n in an inscription found at its four corners, that it had been\n built by a former king, and raised to a height of 42 cubits;\n its top, however, had not been set up, and it had fallen into\n disrepair (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, iii. 2. 53, 55). The\n temple of Borsippa is entombed in _Birs Nimr\u00fbd_\u2015\u2015a huge ruined\n mound still rising 153 feet above the plain (see Hilprecht\n _Explorations in Bible Lands during the 19th century_, 13, 30\n f.)\u2015\u2015which local (and Jewish) tradition identifies with the\n tower of Genesis 11. This view has been accepted by many modern\n scholars (see _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, i. 412), by others it is\n rejected in favour of E-temen-an-ki, chiefly because E-zida was\n not _in_ but only near Babylon. But if the two narratives are\n separated, there is nothing to connect the tower specially with\n the _city_ of Babylon; and it would seem to be mainly a question\n which of the two was the more imposing ruin at the time when the\n legend originated. It is possible that neither was meant. At Uru\n (Ur of the Chaldees) there was a smaller _zikkurat_ (about 70\n feet high) of the moon-god Sin, dating from the time of Ur-bau\n (_circa_ 2700 B.C.) and his son Dungi, which Nabuna\u2019id tells\n us he rebuilt on the old foundation \u201cwith asphalt and bricks\u201d\n (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, iii. 2. 95; _Explorations in\n Bible Lands during the 19th century_, 173 ff.). The notice is\n interesting, because, according to one tradition, which is no\n doubt ancient, though it cannot be proved to be Yahwistic, this\n city was the starting-point of the Hebrew migration (see below,\n page 239). If it was believed that the ancestors of the Hebrews\n came from Ur, it may very well have been the _zikkurat_ of that\n place which figured in their tradition as the Tower of the\n Dispersion.\n\n \u00b9 On its recently discovered site, see Langdon, _The\n Expositor_, 1909, ii. page 91 ff.\n\n 2. In regard to its _religious content_, the narrative occupies\n the same standpoint as 3\u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2 and 6\u00b9\u207b\u00b3. Its central idea is\n the effort of the restless, scheming, soaring human mind to\n transcend its divinely appointed limitations: it \u201cemphasises\n Yahwe\u2019s supremacy over the world; it teaches how the\n self-exaltation of man is checked by God; and it shows how the\n distribution of mankind into nations, and diversity of language,\n are elements in His providential plan for the development and\n progress of humanity\u201d (Driver). The pagan notion of the envy of\n the gods,\u2015\u2015their fear lest human greatness should subvert the\n order of the world,\u2015\u2015no doubt emerges in a more pronounced form\n than in any other passage. Yet the essential conception is not\n mere paganism, but finds an obvious point of contact in one\n aspect of the prophetic theology: see Isaiah 2\u00b9\u00b2\u207b\u00b9\u2077. To say that\n the narrative is totally devoid of religious significance for\n us is therefore to depreciate the value for modern life of the\n Old Testament thought of God, as well as to evince a lack of\n sympathy with one of the profoundest instincts of early religion.\n Crude in form as the legend is, it embodies a truth of permanent\n validity\u2015\u2015the futility and emptiness of human effort divorced\n from the acknowledgment and service of God: h\u00e6c perpetua mundi\n dementia est, neglecto c\u0153lo immortalitatem qu\u00e6rere in terra, ubi\n nihil est non caducum et evanidum (Calvin).\n\n 3. _Parallels._\u2015\u2015No Babylonian version of the story has been\n discovered; and for the reason given above (page 226) it is\n extremely unlikely that anything resembling the biblical form\n of it will ever be found there.\u00b9 In Greek mythology there are\n dim traces of a legend ascribing the diversities of language\n to an act of the gods, whether as a punishment on the creatures\n for demanding the gift of immortality (Philo, _De Confusione\n Linguarum_), or without ethical motive, as in the 143rd fable\n of Hyginus.\u00b2 But while these myths are no doubt independent of\n Jewish influence, their resemblance to the Genesis narrative\n is too slight to suggest a common origin. It is only in the\n literature of the Hellenistic period that we find real parallels\n to the story of the Tower of Babel; and these agree so closely\n with the biblical account that it is extremely doubtful if they\n embody any separate tradition.\u00b3 The difference to which most\n importance is attached is naturally the polytheistic phraseology\n (\u2018the gods\u2019) employed by some of the writers named (Polyhistor,\n Abydenus); but the polytheism is only in the language, and is\n probably nothing more than conscious or unconscious Hellenising\n of the scriptural narrative. Other differences\u2015\u2015such as the\n identification of the tower-builders with the race of giants\n (the Neph\u00eel\u00eem of 6\u2074?), and the destruction of the tower by a\n storm\u2015\u2015are easily explicable as accretions to the legend of\n Genesis.\u2074 The remarkable Mexican legend of the pyramid of\n Cholula, cited by Jeremias from von Humboldt,\u2075 has a special\n interest on account of the unmistakable resemblance between the\n Mexican pyramids and the Babylonian _zikkurats_. If this fact\n could be accepted as proof of direct Babylonian influence, then\n no doubt the question of a Babylonian origin of the legend and\n its transmission through non-biblical channels would assume\n a new complexion. But the inference, however tempting, is not\n quite certain.\n\n \u00b9 The fragment (K 3657) translated in Smith-Sayce, _The\n Chaldean Account of Genesis_ 163 ff. (compare _The Higher\n Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_\u00b2, 153 f.), and\n supposed to contain obscure allusions to the building of a\n tower in Babylon, its overthrow by a god during the night,\n and a confusion of speech, has since been shown to contain\n nothing of the sort: see King, _Creation Tablets_, i. 219 f.;\n Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2,\n 286.\n\n \u00b2 \u201cSed postquam Mercurius sermones hominum interpretatus est\n ... id est nationes distribuit, tum discordia inter mortales\n esse c\u0153pit, _quod Jovi placitum non est_.\u201d\n\n \u00b3 Compare Sibylline Oracles iii. 98 ff. (Kautzsch, _Apokryphen\n und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments_, 187); Alexander\n Polyhistor (Eusebius _Chronicon_ i. 23 [edited by Schoene]);\n Abydenus (_ib._ i. 33); Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_\n i. 118; Eupolemos (Eusebius _Pr\u00e6paratio Evangelica_ ix. 17);\n and _Book of Jubilees_ x. 18\u201227. The lines of the Sibyl (iii.\n 99 f.) may be quoted as a typical example of this class of\n legends:\n\n \u1f41\u03bc\u03cc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f55\u03c8\u03bf\u03b8\u03b9 \u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\n \u1fe5\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u1f66\u03c1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u00b7\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1f54\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u0392\u03b1\u03b2\u03c5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f54\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u2019 \u1f14\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf.\n\n \u2074 So Gunkel\u00b2 88 f. On the other side, compare Gruppe,\n _Griechische Culte und Mythen_, i. 677 ff.; Stade\n _Ausgew\u00e4hlte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_ 277 f.;\n Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2,\n 383 ff.\n\n \u2075 _Vues des Cordilleres_ (Paris, 1810), 24, 32 ff.\n\n\n\n\n XI. 10\u201226.\n _The Genealogy of Shem_\n (Priestly-Code).\n\n\nAnother section of the _T\u00f4l\u0115d\u00f4th_, spanning the interval between the\nFlood and the birth of Abraham. It is the most carefully planned of\nPriestly-Code\u2019s genealogies next to chapter 5; with which it agrees\nin form, except that in Massoretic Text the framework is lightened by\nomitting the total duration of each patriarch\u2019s life. In _The Samaritan\nRecension of the Pentateuch_ this is consistently supplied; while LXX\nmerely adds to Massoretic Text the statement \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd. The number\nof generations in Massoretic Text is 9, but in LXX 10, corresponding\nwith chapter 5. Few of the names can be plausibly identified; these\nfew are mostly geographical, and point on the whole to North-west\nMesopotamia as the original home of the Hebrew race.\n\n In LXX the number 10 is made up by the addition of \u1e32\u00ean\u0101n\n between Arpak\u0161ad and Shela\u1e25 (so 10\u00b2\u2074). That this is a secondary\n alteration is almost certain, because (a) it is wanting in\n 1 Chronicles 1\u00b9\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u2074 LXX; (b) \u1e32\u00ean\u0101n already occurs in the former\n genealogy (5\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427); and (c) the figures simply duplicate those\n of Shela\u1e25. It has been proposed to count Noah as the first name\n (Budde 412 f.), or Abraham as the 10th (Tuch, Delitzsch); but\n neither expedient brings about the desired formal correspondence\n between the lists of chapter 5 and 11\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 An indication of\n the artificial character of these genealogies is found in the\n repetition of the name N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r, once as the father, and again\n as the son, of Tera\u1e25 (see Bosse, _Die chronologischen Systeme\n im Alten Testament und bei Josephus_, 7 ff.). It is not\n improbable that here, as in chapter 5 (corresponding with 4\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427),\n Priestly-Code has worked up an earlier Yahwistic genealogy,\n of which a fragment may have been preserved in verses \u00b2\u2078\u207b\u00b3\u2070.\n Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen\n B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 9, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte\n Israels_\u2076 313) has conjectured that it consisted of the 7 names\n left of Priestly-Code\u2019s list when Arpak\u0161ad and Shela\u1e25 (see on\n 10\u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2074) and the first N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r are omitted (Abraham counting as\n the 7th). But there is no proof that the Yahwistic genealogy\n lying behind chapter 5 was 7-membered; and Yahwist\u2019s parallel to\n 11\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 could not in any case be the continuation of 4\u00b9\u2076\u207b\u00b2\u00b2.\n\n\u200e =10.= \u05d0\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05db\u05b0\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d3\u200e] see on 10\u00b2\u00b2. He is here obviously the oldest son\n of Shem; which does not _necessarily_ involve a contradiction\n with chapter 10, the arrangement there being dictated by\n geographical considerations. Hommel (_Aufs\u00e4tze und Abhandlungen\n arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts_, 222\u00b9), maintaining his\n theory that Arpak\u0161ad = Ur-Kasd\u00eem, comes to the absurd conclusion\n that in the original list it was not the name of Shem\u2019s son,\n but of his birthplace: \u2018Shem _from_ Arpakshad\u2019!\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e0\u05b8\u05ea\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd \u05d0\u05b7\u05d4\u05b7\u05e8 \u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05b7\u05bc\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u200e] The\n discrepancy between this statement and the chronology of 5\u00b3\u00b2 7\u00b9\u00b9\n 9\u00b2\u2078 \u1da0\u1427 is not to be got rid of either by wire-drawn arithmetical\n calculations (Rashi al.), or by the assumption that in the other\n passages round numbers are used (Tuch, Delitzsch). The clause\n is evidently a gloss, introduced apparently for the purpose\n of making the birth of Arpak\u0161ad, rather than the Flood, the\n commencement of a new era. It fits in admirably with the scheme\n of the Book of Jubilees, which gives an integral number of\n year-weeks from the Creation to the birth of Arpak\u0161ad, and\n from the latter event to the birth of Abraham (see page 234\n below).\u2015\u2015=12.= \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dc\u05b7\u05d7\u200e (\u03a3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1)] probably the same word which forms a\n component of \u05de\u05b0\u05ea\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dc\u05b7\u05d7\u200e (5\u00b2\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), and therefore originally a divine\n name. This need not exclude a tribal or geographical sense, the\n name of a deity being frequently transferred to his worshippers\n or their territory. A place _\u1e62ala\u1e25_ or _Sala\u1e25_ in Mesopotamia\n is instanced by Knobel (Dillmann). Others regard it as a\n descriptive name = \u2018offshoot\u2019 or \u2018dismissal\u2019; but very\n improbably.\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05e2\u05b5\u05d1\u05b6\u05e8\u200e] see on 10\u00b2\u00b9.\u2015\u2015=16.= \u05e4\u05b6\u05bc\u05dc\u05b6\u05d2\u200e] 10\u00b2\u2075. Hommel\n (_l.c._) combines the two names and takes the compound as a\n notice of Shela\u1e25\u2019s birthplace: \u2018Shela\u1e25 _from_ Eber-peleg\u2019 =\n Eber-hann\u0101h\u0101r, the region West of the lower Euphrates (see\n pages 218, 220 above).\u2015\u2015=18.= \u05e8\u05b0\u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u200e (\u1fec\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c5)] unknown; certainly\n not (\u2021 Syriac word) (Edessa). It is possibly abbreviated from\n\u200e \u05e8\u05b0\u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e (36\u2074, Exodus 2\u00b9\u2078 etc.: so Hommel); and Mez considers it a\n divine name. An Aram\u00e6an tribe _Ru\u2019ua_ is frequently mentioned in\n Assyrian inscriptions as dwellers on the banks of the Euphrates\n and Tigris, in or near Babylonia (Delitzsch _Wo lag das\n Paradies?_ 238 ff.).\u2015\u2015=20.= \u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d2\u200e (\u03a3\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c7)] a well-known city and\n district about half-way between Carchemish and \u1e24arran, mentioned\n by Syrian and Arabic writers under the name _Saru\u01e7_. The name\n (_Saru\u01e7i_) also occurs several times in the census of the\n district round \u1e24arran (7th century B.C.), published by Johns\n under the title of _An Assyrian Domesday Book_: see pages 29,\n\u200e 30, 43, 48, 68.\u2015\u2015=22.= \u05e0\u05b8\u05d7\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u200e (\u039d\u03b1\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1)] is in Yahwist the brother of\n Abraham (22\u00b2\u2070; compare Joshua 24\u00b2); in Priestly-Code he is both\n the grandfather and the brother (11\u00b2\u2076). The name must have been\n that of an important Aram\u00e6an tribe settled in or around \u1e24arran\n (27\u2074\u00b3 28\u00b9\u2070 29\u2074). Johns compares the place-name _Til-Na\u1e25iri_ in\n the neighbourhood of Saru\u01e7i; also the personal names _Na\u1e25ir\u00ee_\n and _Na\u1e25ar\u00e2u_ found in Assyrian Deeds (_l.c._ 71; _Assyrian\n Deeds_, iii. 127; compare _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte\n Testament_\u00b3, 477 f.). As a divine name \u039d\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1 is mentioned along\n with other Aram\u00e6an deities on a Greek inscription from Carthage\n (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 477); and Jensen\n (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, xi. 300) has called attention\n to the theophorous name (\u2021 Syriac phrase) in the \u2018Doctrine of\n Addai,\u2019 as possibly a corruption of (\u2021 Syriac phrase).\u2015\u2015=24.=\n\u200e \u05ea\u05b6\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05d7\u200e (\u0398\u03b1\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b1)] is instanced by William Robertson Smith\u00b9 as a totem\n clan-name; (\u2021 Syriac word) (?) being the Syrian and _tur\u00e2\u1e25\u00fb_ the\n Assyrian word for \u2018wild goat.\u2019 Similarly Delitzsch (_Prolegomena\n eines neuen hebr\u00e4isch-aram\u00e4ischen W\u00f6rterbuchs zum Alten\n Testament_ 80), who also refers tentatively to _Til-\u0161a-tur\u00e2\u1e25i_,\n the name of a Mesopotamian town in the neighbourhood of \u1e24arran.\n Knobel compares a place _Tharrana_, South of Edessa (Dillmann);\n Jensen (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, vi. 70; _Hittiter und\n Armenier_, 150 ff. [especially 154]) is inclined to identify\n Tera\u1e25 with the Hittite and North Syrian god (or goddess)\n _Tar\u1e2bu_, \u03a4\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf, etc. (compare _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte\n Testament_\u00b3, 484).\u2015\u2015=26.= Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 reads 75 instead of 70.\n\n \u00b9 _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_\u00b9, 220 (afterwards\n abandoned). Compare N\u00f6ldeke, _Zeitschrift der deutschen\n morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 167 f.: \u201csicher\n unm\u00f6glich.\u201d\n\n _The Chronology._\u2015\u2015The following Table shows the variations\n of the three chief recensions (Massoretic Text, _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_, and LXX), together with the\n chronology of the Book of Jubilees, which for this period parts\n company with the Samaritan, and follows a system peculiar to\n itself (see page 134 ff. above):\n\n MT. \u2502 Sam. \u2502 LXX. \u2502 Jub.\n \u202f 1st \u2502 1st \u2502 1st \u2502 1st\n Son After \u2502 Son After Total \u2502 Son After \u2502 Son\n \u2500\u2500\u2500 \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500 \u2502 \u2500\u2500\u2500 \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500 \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500 \u2502 \u2500\u2500\u2500 \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500 \u2502 \u2500\u2500\u2500\n 1. Shem 100 500 \u2502 100 500 600 \u2502 100 500 \u2502 102?\n 2. Arpak\u0161ad 35 403 \u2502 135 303 438 \u2502 135 430 \u2502 66?\n \u039a\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd \u2502 130 \u2502 330 57 \u2502\n 3. Shela\u1e25 30 403 \u2502 130 303 433 \u2502 130 330 \u2502 71\n 4. Eber 34 430 \u2502 134 270 404 \u2502 134 370 \u2502 64\n 5. Peleg 30 209 \u2502 130 109 239 \u2502 130 \u2502\n \u2502 [L.\u2502 134] 209 \u2502 61\n 6. Reu 32 207 \u2502 132 107 239 \u2502 132 207 \u2502 59\n 7. Serug 30 200 \u2502 130 100 230 \u2502 130 200 \u2502 57\n 8. N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r 29 119 \u2502 79 69 148 \u2502 79 129 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 [L. 125] \u2502 62\n 9. Tera\u1e25 70 135 \u2502 70 75 145 \u2502 70 135 \u2502 70\n \u2500\u2500\u2500 \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500 \u2502\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500 \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500 \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500 \u2502\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500 \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500 \u2502 \u2500\u2500\u2500\n 390 \u25021040 \u25021170 \u2502 669\n From Flood \u2502 [L. 1174] \u2502\n (or birth \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n of Arp.) \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n to b. of \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Abr. 290 \u2502 940 \u25021070 \u2502 567\n\n The three versions plainly rest on a common basis, and it is\n not easy to decide in favour of the priority of any one of them.\n On the application to this period of the general chronological\n theories described on page 135 f. it is unnecessary to add much.\n Klostermann maintains his scheme of Jubilee-periods on the basis\n of LXX, (a) by allowing a year for the Flood; (b) by adopting\n the reading of Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, 75 instead of 70, in the case of Tera\u1e25;\n and (c) by following certain MSS which give 179 for 79 as the\n age of Na\u1e25or at the birth of Tera\u1e25. This makes from the Flood\n to the birth of Abraham 1176 years = 2 \u00d7 12 \u00d7 49. By an equally\n arbitrary combination of data of Massoretic Text and LXX a\n similar period of 1176 years is then made out from the birth\n of Abraham to the Dedication of the Temple.\u2015\u2015The seemingly\n eccentric scheme of _Jubilees_ shows clear indications of a\n reckoning by year-weeks. Since the birth of Arpak\u0161ad is said\n (vii. 18) to have occurred two years after the Flood, we may\n conclude that it was assigned to A.M. 1309, the 102nd year of\n Shem. This gives a period of 187 year-weeks from the Creation\n to the birth of Arpak\u0161ad, followed by another of 81 (567 \u00f7 7) to\n the birth of Abraham. We observe further that the earlier period\n embraces 11 generations with an average of exactly 17 year-weeks,\n and the later 9 generations with an average of exactly 9: _i.e._,\n as nearly as possible one-half: the author accordingly must\n have proceeded on the theory that after the Flood the age of\n paternity suddenly dropped to one-half of what it had formerly\n been.\n\n [It is possible that the key to the various systems has been\n discovered by A. Bosse, whose paper\u00b9 became known to me only\n while these sheets were passing through the press. His main\n results are as follows: (1) In Massoretic Text he finds two\n distinct chronological systems, (a) One reckons by generations\n of 40 years, its _termini_ being the birth of Shem and the end\n of the Exile. In the Shemite table, Tera\u1e25 is excluded entirely,\n and the two years between the Flood and the birth of Arpak\u0161ad\n are ignored. This gives: from the birth of Shem to that of\n Abraham 320 (8 \u00d7 40) years; thence to birth of Jacob 160\n (4 \u00d7 40); to Exodus 560 (14 \u00d7 40); to _founding_ of Temple\n 480 (12 \u00d7 40); to end of Exile 480: in all 2000 (50 \u00d7 40).\n This system is, of course, later than the Exile; but Bochartus\n concedes the probability that its middle section, with 1200\n (30 \u00d7 40) years from the birth of Abraham to the founding of the\n Temple, may be of earlier origin.\u2015\u2015(b) The other scheme, with\n which we are more immediately concerned, operates with a Great\n Month of 260 years (260 = the number of weeks in a five-years\u2019\n _lustrum_). Its period is a Great Year from the Creation to the\n _dedication_ of the Temple, and its reckoning includes Tera\u1e25 in\n the Shemite table, but excludes the 2 years of Arpak\u0161ad. This\n gives 1556 years to birth of Shem + 390 (birth of Abraham) + 75\n (migration of Abraham) + 215 (descent to Egypt) + 430 (Exodus)\n + 480 (founding of Temple) + 20 (_dedication_ of temple) = 3166.\n Now 3166 = 12 \u00d7 260 + 46. The odd 46 years are thus accounted\n for: the chronologist was accustomed to the Egyptian reckoning\n by months of 30 days, and a solar year of 365\u00bc days, requiring\n the interposition of 5\u00bc days each year; and the 46 years are\n the equivalent of these 5\u00bc days in the system here followed.\n (For, if 30 days = 260 years, then 5\u00bc days = (5\u00bc \u00d7 260) / 30 =\n (21 \u00d7 26) / (4 \u00d7 3) = (7 \u00d7 13) / 2 = 45\u00bd [say 46] _years_.) The\n first third of this Great Year ends with the birth of Noah 1056\n = 4 \u00d7 260 + 16 (\u2153 of 46). The second third _nearly_ coincides\n with the birth of Jacob; but here there is a discrepancy of\n 5 years, which Bochartus accounts for by the assumption that\n the figure of the older reckoning by generations has in the\n case of Jacob been allowed to remain in the text.\u2015\u2015(2) LXX\n reckons with a Great Month of 355 years (the number of days\n in the _lunar_ year), and a Great Year of 12 \u00d7 355 = 4260\n years from the Creation to the _founding_ of the Temple, made\n up as follows: 2142 + 1173\u00b2 + 75 + 215 + 215 + 440\u00b3 = 4260.\n Significant subdivisions cannot be traced.\u2015\u2015(3) _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ returns to the earlier Hebrew\n reckoning by generations, its _terminus ad quem_ being the\n measuring out of Gerizim, which, according to the _Samaritan\n Chronicle_ published by Neubauer, took place 13 years after\n the Conquest of Canaan. Thus we obtain 1207 + 1040 + 75 + 215\n + 215 + 42 (desert wandering)\u2074 + 13 (measurement of Gerizim)\n = 2807 = 70 \u00d7 40 + 7.\u2075\u2015\u2015(4) The Book of _Jubilees_ counts by\n Jubilee-periods of 49 years from the Creation to the Conquest\n of Palestine: 1309 + 567 + 75 + 459 (Exodus) + 40 (entrance to\n Canaan) = 2450 = 50 \u00d7 49.]\n\n \u00b9 _Die chronologischen Systeme im Alten Testament und\n bei Josephus_ (_Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen\n Gesellschaft_, 1908, 2).\n\n \u00b2 Allowing a year for the Flood, and two years between it and\n the birth of Arpak\u0161ad.\n\n \u00b3 See 1 Kings.6\u00b9 (LXX).\n\n \u2074 After Joshua 5\u2076 (LXX).\n\n \u2075 The odd 7 years still remain perplexing (see page 136). One\n cannot help surmising that the final 13 was _originally_\n intended to get rid of it, though the textual data do not\n enable us now to bring out a round number.\n\n\n\n\n XI. 27\u201232.\n _The Genealogy of Tera\u1e25_\n (Priestly-Code and Yahwist).\n\n\nThe verses are of mixed authorship; and form, both in Priestly-Code and\nYahwist, an introduction to the Patriarchal History. In Priestly-Code\n(\u00b2\u2077\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9\u1427 \u00b3\u00b2), genealogical framework encloses a notice of the migration\nof the Tera\u1e25ites from Ur-Kasd\u00eem to \u1e24arran, to which 12\u2074\u1d47\u1427 \u2075 may be the\nimmediate sequel. The insertion from Yahwist (\u00b2\u2078\u207b\u00b3\u2070) finds an equally\nsuitable continuation in 12\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, and is very probably the conclusion\nof Yahwist\u2019s lost Shemite genealogy. The suppression of the preceding\ncontext of Yahwist is peculiarly tantalising because of the uncertainty\nof the tradition which makes Ur-Kasd\u00eem the home of the ancestors of the\nHebrews (see concluding note, page 239).\n\n On the _analysis_, compare especially Budde _Die biblische\n Urgeschichte_ 414 ff.\u2015\u2015Verses \u00b2\u2077 and \u00b3\u00b2 belong quite obviously\n to Priestly-Code; and \u00b3\u00b9, from its diffuse style and close\n resemblance to Priestly-Code\u2019s regular manner in recording\n the patriarchal migrations (12\u2075 31\u00b9\u2078 36\u2076 46\u2076: see Hupfeld _Die\n Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung_ 19 f.),\n may be confidently assigned to the same source. \u00b2\u2078\u1d43 presents\n nothing distinctive of either document; but in \u00b2\u2078\u1d47 \u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05de\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05ea\u200e is\n peculiar to Jehovist (see the footnote on the verse). \u00b2\u2079 is\n Yahwist because presupposed in 22\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427; and its continuation\n (\u00b3\u2070) brings as an additional criterion the word \u05e2\u05b2\u05e7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (compare\n 25\u00b2\u00b9 29\u00b3\u00b9), which is never used by Priestly-Code.\u2015\u2015The extract\n from Yahwist is supplementary to Priestly-Code, and it might\n be argued that at least \u00b2\u2078\u1d43 was necessary in the latter source\n to explain why Lo\u1e6d and not Haran went with Tera\u1e25. Budde points\n out in answer (page 420) that with still greater urgency we\n desiderate an explanation of the fact that N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r was left behind:\n if the one fact is left unexplained, so _a fortiori_ might the\n other.\n\n The formula \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05ea\u05b9\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u200e does not occur again till 25\u00b9\u00b2; and it is\n very widely held that in verse \u00b2\u2077 it stands as the heading of\n the section of Priestly-Code dealing with the life of Abraham.\n That is wholly improbable. It is likely enough that a heading\n\u200e (\u05d0\u05f3 \u05ea\u05f3 \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd\u200e) has been somewhere omitted (so Wellhausen, Budde,\n Holzinger, al.); but the truth is that from this point onwards\n no consistent principle can be discovered in the use of the\n formula. The hypothesis that an originally independent book of\n T\u00f4led\u00f4th has been broken up and dislocated by the redaction,\n is as plausible a solution as any that can be thought of. See,\n further, on 25\u00b9\u2079.\n\n=27.= On the name _Abram_, see on 17\u2075; on _N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r_, verse \u00b2\u00b2\nabove.\u2015\u2015_Haran begat Lo\u1e6d_] A statement to the same effect must have\nbeen found in Yahwist (see 12\u2074\u1d43). Haran has no significance in the\ntradition except as expressing the relationship of L\u00f4\u1e6d, Milkah, and\nYi\u1e63kah within the Hebraic group.\n\n That \u05d4\u05e8\u05df\u200e is formed from \u05d7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05df\u200e (_v.i._) by a softening of the initial\n guttural (Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_\u2076 313)\n is an improbable conjecture (see Budde 443\u00b2). The name occurs\n elsewhere only in \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05f3\u200e (Numbers 32\u00b3\u2076: compare \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05dd\u200e, Joshua\n 13\u00b2\u2077)\u00b9 in the tribe of Gad: this has suggested the view that \u05d4\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05df\u200e\n was the name of a deity worshipped among the peoples represented\n by Lot (Mez: compare Winckler _Altorientalische Forschungen_,\n ii. 499).\u2015\u2015The name \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d8\u200e is also etymologically obscure (? Arabic\n _l\u0101\u1e6d_ = \u2018cleave to\u2019). A connexion with the \u1e24orite clan \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d8\u05b8\u05df\u200e in\n Genesis 36\u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2079 is probable.\n\n \u00b9 Though Winckler (_Altorientalische Forschungen_, ii. 499)\n contends that both names are corruptions of \u05d7\u05d5\u05e8\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e.\n\n=28.= The premature death of Haran (which became the nucleus of some\nfantastic Jewish legends) took place _in the land of his nativity_;\n_i.e._, according to the present text, _Ur of the Chaldees_, where\nhis grave was shown down to the time of Josephus (_Antiquities of the\nJews_ i. 151; Eusebius. _Onomasticon_, 285, 50 ff.).\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8 \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05d3\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (verse \u00b3\u00b9 15\u2077, Nehemiah 9\u2077: LXX \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd) is now\n almost universally identified with the ancient South Babylonian\n city of _Uru_, whose remains have been discovered in the mounds\n of _\u2019el-Mu\u1e33ayyar_, on the right bank of the Euphrates, about 25\n miles South-east from Erech and 125 from Babylon (see Hilprecht\n _Explorations in Bible Lands during the 19th century_, 172 ff.).\n The evidence for this view is very strong. Uru is the only city\n of the name known from Assyriology (although the addition of the\n genitive \u05db\u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200e suggests that others were known to the Israelites:\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 125 _h_): it was situated in the properly\n Chald\u00e6an territory, was a city of great importance and vast\n antiquity, and (like \u1e24arran, with which it is here connected)\n was a chief centre of the worship of the moon-god Sin (_Die\n Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b2, 129 ff.). The\n only circumstance that creates serious misgiving is that the\n prevalent tradition of Genesis points to the North-east as the\n direction whence the patriarchs migrated to Canaan (see below);\n and this has led to attempts to find a northern Ur connected\n probably with the Mesopotamian Chald\u00e6ans of 22\u00b2\u00b2 (see Kittel,\n _Geschichte Der Hebr\u00e4er_ i. 163 ff.). Syrian tradition\n identifies it with Edessa (_Urh\u00e5i_, _Urfa_). It is generally\n recognised, however, that these considerations are insufficient\n to invalidate the arguments in favour of Uru.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] = Babylonian\n _Ka\u0161du_, Assyrian _Kaldu_ (\u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b4-\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9), is the name of a group\n of Semitic tribes, distinguished from the Arabs and Aram\u00e6ans,\n who are found settled to the South-east of Babylonia, round the\n shore of the Persian Gulf. In the 11th century or earlier they\n are believed to have penetrated Babylonia, at first as roving,\n pastoral nomads (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3,\n 22 ff.), but ultimately giving their name to the country, and\n founding the dynasty of Nabopolassar.\u2015\u2015By the ancients \u05db\u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200e\n was rightly understood of Babylonia (Nicolaus of Damascus in\n Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 152; Eupolemos in Eusebius\n _Pr\u00e6paratio Evangelica_ ix. 17; Jerome, al.); but amongst the\n Jews \u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e came to be regarded as an appellative = \u2018fire\u2019 (_in igne\n Chald\u00e6orum_, which Jerome accepts, though he rejects the legends\n that were spun out of the etymology). This is the germ of the\n later Haggadic fables about the \u2018fire\u2019 in which Haran met an\n untimely fate, and the furnace into which Abraham was cast by\n order of Nimrod (_Jubilees_ xii. 12\u201214; Jerome _Qu\u00e6stiones sive\n Traditiones hebraic\u00e6 in Genesim_, _ad loc._; Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f,\n _Bereshith Rabba_ \u00a7 38, Rashi).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =28.= \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u05be\u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9\u200e] is _coram_ (LXX \u1f10\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u200e), rather than _ante_\n (Vulgate: so Tuch), or \u2018in the lifetime of\u2019 (Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n (\u2021 Syriac word)); compare Numbers 3\u2074: see Brown-Driver-Briggs\n and Gesenius-Buhl _s.v._ \u05d0\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5 \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b7\u05d3\u05b0\u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u2015\u2015.\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e so 24\u2077 (Yahwist), 31\u00b9\u00b3\n (Elohist); compare Jeremiah 22\u00b9\u2070 46\u00b9\u2076, Ezekiel 23\u00b9\u2075, Ruth 2\u00b9\u00b9. A\n commoner phrase in Pentateuch is \u05d0\u05e8\u05f3 \u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05f3\u200e, 12\u00b9 24\u2074 31\u00b3 32\u00b9\u2070, Numbers\n 10\u00b3\u2070 (all Yahwist). From the way in which the two expressions\n alternate, it is probable that they are equivalent; and since \u05de\u05f3\u200e\n alone certainly means \u2018kindred\u2019 (43\u2077 [Yahwist], compare Esther\n 2\u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u2070 8\u2076), it is better to render \u2018land of one\u2019s parentage\u2019\n than \u2018land in which one was born\u2019 [Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 here and 12\u00b9]\n (compare Budde 419\u00b2). Priestly-Code has the word, but only in\n the sense of \u2018progeny\u2019 (48\u2076, Leviticus 18\u2079 [H]).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=29.= While we are told that N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r\u2019s wife was his brother\u2019s daughter,\nit is surprising that nothing is said of the parentage of Sarai.\nAccording to Elohist (20\u00b9\u00b2), she was Abraham\u2019s half-sister; but this\ndoes not entitle us to suppose that words expressing this relationship\nhave been omitted from the text of Yahwist (Ewald). It would seem,\nhowever, that tradition represented marriage between near relations\nas the rule among the Tera\u1e25ites (20\u00b9\u00b2 24\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 29\u00b9\u2079).\n\n With regard to the names, \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05b7\u05d9\u200e seems to be an archaic form of\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e = \u2018princess\u2019 (see on 17\u00b9\u2075), while \u05de\u05b4\u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e means \u2018queen.\u2019 In\n Babylonian the relations are reversed, _\u0161arratu_ being the queen\n and _malkatu_ the princess. It cannot be a mere coincidence\n that these two names correspond to two personages belonging\n to the pantheon of \u1e24arran, where \u0160arratu was a title of the\n moon-goddess, the consort of Sin, and Malkatu a title of I\u0161tar,\n also worshipped there (Jensen _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, xi.\n 299 f.; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 364 f.).\n It is needless to say that these associations, if they existed,\n are forgotten in the Hebrew legend.\u2015\u2015If, as is not improbable,\n the tradition contains ethnographic reminiscences, verse \u00b2\u2078 \u1da0\u1427\n express (1) the dissolution of an older tribal group, Haran;\n (2) the survival of one of its subdivisions (Lo\u1e6d) through\n the protection of a stronger tribe; and (3) the absorption\n of another (Milkah) in a kindred stock.\u2015\u2015Of \u05d9\u05b4\u05e1\u05b0\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e nothing is\n known. The Rabbinical fiction that she is Sarah under another\n name (implied in Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 151;\n Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, Jerome, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, al.) is\n worthless. Ewald\u2019s conjecture that she was the wife of Lo\u1e6d is\n plausible, but baseless.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =29.= \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05e7\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u200e] singular, according to Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 146\n _f_.\u2015\u2015=30.= \u05e2\u05e7\u05e8\u05d4\u200e] as 25\u00b2\u00b9 29\u00b3\u00b9 (Yahwist); not in Priestly-Code\n (see 16\u00b9\u1d43).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05b8\u05dc\u05b8\u05d3\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d9\u05dc\u05d3\u200e.\n Only again as Keth\u00eeb of Or. MSS in 2 Samuel 6\u00b2\u00b3. It is possibly\n here a scribal error, which eventually influenced the other\n passages.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=31, 32.= The migration from Ur-Kasd\u00eem to Canaan is accomplished in\ntwo stages. Tera\u1e25, as patriarchal head of the family, conducts the\nexpedition as far as \u1e24arran, where he dies. The obvious implication is\nthat after his death the journey is resumed by Abram (12\u2075); although\n_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ alone gives a chronology\nconsistent with this view (_v. supra_). N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r, we are left to infer,\nremained behind in Ur-Kasd\u00eem; and in the subsequent narratives\nPriestly-Code (in opposition to Yahwist) seems carefully to avoid\nany suggestion of a connexion between N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r and the city of \u1e24arran.\n\n\u200e \u05d7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05df\u200e (with virtually doubled \u05e8\u200e: compare LXX \u03a7\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd; Greek \u039a\u03ac\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b1\u03b9;\n Latin _Carr\u00e6_, _Charra_; Assyrian _\u1e2aarr\u00e2nu_; Syrian and Arabic\n _\u1e24arr\u0101n_) was an important centre of the caravan trade in\n North-west Mesopotamia, 60 miles East of Carchemish, situated\n near the Bali\u1e2b, 70 miles due North from its confluence with\n the Euphrates. Though seldom mentioned in Old Testament (12\u2074 \u1da0\u1427\n [Priestly-Code], 27\u2074\u00b3 28\u00b9\u2070 29\u2074 [Yahwist], 2 Kings 19\u00b9\u00b2, Ezekiel\n 27\u00b2\u00b3\u2020), and now ruined, it was a city of great antiquity, and\n retained its commercial importance in classical and medi\u00e6val\n times. The name in Assyrian appears to be susceptible of\n several interpretations\u2015\u2015\u2018way,\u2019 \u2018caravan\u2019 (Tel-Amarna Tablets),\n \u2018joint-stock enterprise\u2019 (Delitzsch _Assyrisches Handw\u00f6rterbuch_\n _s.v._, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 29\u00b2)\u2015\u2015any\n one of which might denote its commercially advantageous position\n at the parting of the route to Damascus from the main highway\n between Nineveh and Carchemish. \u1e24arran was also (along with\n Ur) a chief seat of the worship of Sin, who had there a temple,\n _E-\u1e2bul-\u1e2bul_, described by Nabuna\u2019id as \u201cfrom remote days\u201d a\n \u201cdwelling of the joy of his (Sin\u2019s) heart\u201d (_Keilinschriftliche\n Bibliothek_, iii. 2. 97), and who was known in North-west\n Asia as the \u201cLord of \u1e24arran\u201d (Zinjirli inscription: compare\n Lidzbarski, _Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik_ 444,\n _An._). See, further, Mez, _Geschichte der Stadt \u1e24arr\u00e2n in\n Mesopotamien_; Tomkins, _Times of Abraham_, 55 ff. etc. This\n double connexion of Abraham with centres of lunar religion\n is the most plausible argument advanced by those who hold the\n mythical view of his figure as an impersonation of the moon-god.\n\n It will be observed that while both Priestly-Code and Yahwist\n (in the present text) make Ur-Kasd\u00eem the starting-point of the\n Abrahamic migration, Yahwist has no allusion to a journey from\n Ur to \u1e24arran. His language is perfectly consistent either (a)\n with a march directly from Ur to Canaan, or (b) with the view\n that the real starting-point was \u1e24arran, and that \u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8 \u05db\u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200e is\n here a gloss intended to harmonise Yahwist and Priestly-Code.\n Now, there is a group of passages in Yahwist which, taken\n together, unmistakably imply that Abraham was a native of \u1e24arran,\n and therefore started from thence to seek the promised land.\n In 24\u2074\u1427 \u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2070, the place of Abraham\u2019s nativity is Aram-Naharaim,\n and specially the \u2018city of N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r\u2019; while a comparison with 27\u2074\u00b3\n 28\u00b9\u2070 29\u2074 leaves no doubt that the \u2018city of N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r\u2019 was \u1e24arran.\n Priestly-Code, on the other hand, nowhere deviates from his\n theory of a double migration with a halt at \u1e24arran; and the\n persistency with which he dissociates Laban and Rebecca from\n N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r (25\u00b2\u2070 28\u00b2\u1427 \u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) is a proof that the omission of N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r\n from the party that left Ur was intentional (Budde 421 ff.).\n It is evident, then, that we have to do with a divergence in\n the patriarchal tradition; and the only uncertainty is with\n regard to the precise point where it comes in. The theory of\n Priestly-Code, though consistently maintained, is not natural;\n for (1) all the antecedents (11\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2076) point to Mesopotamia as\n the home of the patriarchs; and (2) the twofold migration, first\n from Ur and then from \u1e24arran, has itself the appearance of a\n compromise between two conflicting traditions. The simplest\n solution would be to suppose that both the references to\n Ur-Kasd\u00eem in Yahwist (11\u00b2\u2078 15\u2077) are interpolations, and that\n Priestly-Code had another tradition which he harmonised with\n that of Yahwist by the expedient just mentioned (so Wellhausen,\n Dillmann, Gunkel, Driver, al.). Budde holds that both traditions\n were represented in different strata of Yahwist (Yahwist\u00b9 \u1e24arran,\n Yahwist\u00b2 Ur), and tries to show that the latter is a probable\n concomitant of the Yahwistic account of the Flood. In that he\n can hardly be said to be successful; and he is influenced by the\n consideration that apart from such a discrepancy in his sources\n Priestly-Code could never have thought of the circuitous route\n from Ur to Canaan by way of \u1e24arran. That argument has little\n weight with those who are prepared to believe that Priestly-Code\n had other traditions at his disposal than those we happen to\n know from Yahwist and Elohist.\u00b9 In itself, the hypothesis of\n a dual tradition within the school of Yahwist is perfectly\n reasonable; but in this case, in spite of Budde\u2019s close\n reasoning, it appears insufficiently supported by other\n indications. The view of Wellhausen is on the whole the more\n acceptable.\n\n \u00b9 The suggestion has, of course, been made (Winckler\n _Altorientalische Forschungen_ i. 98 ff.; Paton, _The Early\n History of Syria and Palestine_ 42) that Elohist is the\n source of the Ur-Kasd\u00eem tradition; but in view of Joshua\n 24\u00b2 that is not probable.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =31.= \u05db\u05dc\u05ea\u05d5\u200e] \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e (Syrian (\u2021 Syriac word), Arabic _kannat_) means\n both \u2018spouse\u2019 and \u2018daughter-in-law\u2019: in Syrian and Arabic also\n \u2018sister-in-law,\u2019\u2015\u2015a fact adduced by William Robertson Smith as a\n relic of Baal polyandry (_Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_\u00b2,\n\u200e 161, 209\u00b9).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05e6\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05ea\u05dd\u200e] gives no sense. Read with _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2) Vulgate,\n\u200e \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e6\u05b5\u05d0 \u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05dd\u200e, or Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b5\u05bc\u05e6\u05b5\u05d0 \u05d0\u05b4\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015=32.= \u05d9\u05b0\u05de\u05b5\u05d9\u05be\u05ea\u05b6\u05e8\u05b7\u05d7\u200e] LXX + \u03a7\u03b1\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03ac\u03bd.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\n THE PATRIARCHAL HISTORY.\n\n\n\n\n ABRAHAM.\n\n\n CHAPTERS XII\u2012XXV. 18.\n\n _Critical Note._\u2015\u2015In this section of Genesis the broad lines\n of demarcation between Yahwist, Elohist, and Priestly-Code are\n so clear that there is seldom a serious diversity of opinion\n among critics. The real difficulties of the analysis concern the\n composition of the Yahwistic narrative, and the relation of its\n component parts to Elohist and Priestly-Code respectively. These\n questions have been brought to the front by the commentary of\n Gunkel, who has made it probable that the Yahwistic document\n contains two main strata, one (Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f) fixing Abraham\u2019s\n residence at Hebron, and the other (Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43) regarding\n him as a denizen of the Negeb.\n\n 1. The kernel of Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f is a cycle of legends in which\n the fortunes of Abraham and Lot are interlinked: viz. 12\u00b9\u207b\u2078;\n 13\u00b2\u1427 \u2075\u207b\u00b9\u2078; 18; 19\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u2078; 19\u00b3\u2070\u207b\u00b3\u2078. If these passages are read\n continuously, they form an orderly narrative, tracing the march\n of Abraham and Lot from \u1e24arran through Shechem to Bethel, where\n they separate; thence Abraham proceeds to Hebron, but is again\n brought into ideal contact with Lot by visits of angels to each\n in turn; this leads up to the salvation of Lot from the fate of\n Sodom, his flight to the mountains, and the origin of the two\n peoples supposed to be descended from him. In this sequence\n 12\u2079\u201213\u00b9 is (as will be more fully shown later) an interruption.\n Earlier critics had attempted to get rid of the discontinuity\n either by seeking a suitable connexion for 12\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 at a\n subsequent stage of Yahwist\u2019s narrative, or by treating it as\n a redactional expansion. But neither expedient is satisfactory,\n and the suggestion that it comes from a separate source is\n preferable on several grounds. Now 12\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 is distinguished\n from Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f, not only by the absence of Lot, but by the\n implication that Abraham\u2019s home was in the Negeb, and perhaps\n by a less idealised conception of the patriarch\u2019s character.\n These characteristics reappear in chapter 16, which, as breaking\n the connexion of chapter 18 with 13, is plausibly assigned\n to Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43. (To this source Gunkel also assigns the\n Yahwistic component of chapter 15; but that chapter shows so\n many signs of later elaboration that it can hardly have belonged\n to either of the primary sources.)\u2015\u2015After chapter 19, the hand\n of Yahwist appears in the accounts of Isaac\u2019s birth (21\u00b9\u207b\u2077*)\n and Abraham\u2019s treaty with Abimelech (21\u00b2\u00b2\u207b\u00b3\u2074*): the latter is\n probably Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43 (on account of the Negeb), while the\n former shows slight discrepancies with the prediction of chapter\n 18, which lead us (though with less confidence) to assign\n it also to Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43. With regard to chapter 24, it\n is impossible to say whether it belongs to Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f or\n Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43: we assign it provisionally to the latter.\u00b9 The\n bulk of the Yahwistic material may therefore be disposed in two\n parallel series as follows:\n\n Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f: 12\u00b9\u207b\u2078*; 13\u00b2\u207b\u00b9\u2078*; 18\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u00b2\u1d43\u1427 \u00b3\u00b3\u1d47; 19\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u2078;\n 19\u00b3\u2070\u207b\u00b3\u2078;\n\n Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43: 12\u2079\u201213\u00b9; 16; 21\u00b9\u207b\u2077*; 21\u00b2\u00b2\u207b\u00b3\u2074*; 24*.\u00b2\n\n The Yahwistic sections not yet dealt with are chapter 15*\n (see above); and the two genealogies, 22\u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2074 and 25\u00b9\u207b\u2076, both\n inserted by a Yahwistic editor from unknown sources. Other\n passages (13\u00b9\u2074\u207b\u00b9\u2077 18\u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1d47\u207b\u00b3\u00b3\u1d43 22\u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b9\u2078) which appear to\n have been added during the redaction (Redactor\u1d36\u1d43\u02b0\u02b7\u2071\u02e2\u1d57 or\n Redactor\u1d36\u1d49\u02b0\u1d52\u1d5b\u2071\u02e2\u1d57) will be examined in special notes _ad locc._\n\n \u00b9 Gunkel analyses 24 into two narratives, assigning one to\n each source. The question is discussed in the Note, pages\n 340 f., where the opinion is hazarded that the subordinate\n source may be Elohist, in which case the other would\n naturally be Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43.\n\n \u00b2 It is interesting to compare this result with the analysis\n of the Yahwistic portions of chapters 1\u201211 (pages 2\u20124). In\n each case Yahwist appears as a complex document, formed by\n the amalgamation of prior collections of traditions; and\n the question naturally arises whether any of the component\n narratives can be traced from the one period into the\n other. It is impossible to prove that this is the case;\n but certain affinities of thought and expression suggest\n that Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f in the biography of Abraham may be the\n continuation of Jehovist\u1d31\u02e1\u1d52\u02b0\u2071\u02e2\u1d57 in the primitive history.\n Both use the phrase \u2018call by the name of Yahwe\u2019 (4\u00b2\u2076 12\u2078\n [13\u2074], [but compare 21\u00b3\u00b3 (Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43))]); and the\n optimistic religious outlook expressed in the blessing of\n Noah (9\u00b2\u2076 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) is shared in a marked degree by the writer of\n Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f. Have we here fragments of a work whose theme\n was the history of the Yahwe-religion, from its commencement\n with Enosh to its establishment in the leading sanctuaries\n of Palestine by Abraham and Isaac? See 12\u2077 (Shechem), 12\u2078\n (Bethel), 13\u00b9\u2078 (Hebron), 26\u00b2\u2075 (Beersheba).\n\n 2. The hand of Elohist is recognised in the following sections:\n 15*; 20; 21\u00b9\u207b\u2077*; 21\u2078\u207b\u00b2\u00b9; 21\u00b2\u00b2\u207b\u00b3\u2074*; 22\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2079 (24*?). Gunkel has\n pointed out that where Yahwist and Elohist run parallel to one\n another, Elohist\u2019s \u2666affinities are always with Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43\n and never with Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f (compare the variants 12\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 \u2225 20;\n 16 \u2225 21\u2078\u207b\u00b2\u00b9; and the compositions in 21\u00b9\u207b\u2077 and 21\u00b2\u00b2\u207b\u00b3\u2074). This,\n of course, might be merely a consequence of the fact that\n Elohist, like Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43, makes the Negeb (Beersheba) the\n scene of Abraham\u2019s history. But it is remarkable that in chapter\n 26 we find unquestionable Yahwistic parallels to Elohist and\n Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43, with Isaac as hero instead of Abraham. These\n are probably to be attributed to the writer whom we have called\n Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f, who thus succeeded in preserving the Negeb\n traditions, while at the same time maintaining the theory that\n Abraham was the patron of Hebron, and Isaac of Beersheba.\n\n \u2666 \u201caffinites\u201d replaced with \u201caffinities\u201d\n\n Putting all the indications together, we are led to a tentative\n hypothesis regarding the formation of the Abrahamic legend,\n which has some value for the clearing of our ideas, though it\n must be held with great reserve. The tradition crystallised\n mainly at two great religious centres, Beersheba and Hebron. The\n Beersheba narratives took shape in two recensions, a Yahwistic\n and an Elohistic, of which (it may be added) the second is\n ethically and religiously on a higher level than the first.\n These were partly amalgamated, probably before the union of\n Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f and Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43 (see on chaapter 26). The\n Hebron tradition was naturally indifferent to the narratives\n which connected Abraham with the Negeb, or with its sanctuary\n Beersheba; hence the writer of Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f, who attaches\n himself to this tradition, excludes the Beersheba stories from\n his biography of Abraham, but finds a place for some of them in\n the history of Isaac.\n\n 3. The account of Priestly-Code (12\u2074\u1d47\u1427 \u2075 13\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1d43\u1d47{\u03b1};\n 16\u00b9\u1d43\u1427 \u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2075; 17; 19\u00b2\u2079; 21\u00b9\u1d47\u1427 \u00b2\u1d47\u207b\u2075; 23; 25\u2077\u207b\u00b9\u00b9\u1d43; 25\u00b9\u00b2\u207b\u00b9\u2077) consists\n mostly of a skeleton biography based on the older documents,\n and presupposing a knowledge of them. The sole _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_\n of such an outline is the chronological scheme into which the\n various incidents are fitted: that it fills some gaps in the\n history (birth of Ishmael, death of Abraham) is merely an\n accident of the redaction. Priestly-Code\u2019s affinities are\n chiefly with Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f, with whom he shares the idea that\n Hebron was the permanent residence of Abraham. Of the sections\n peculiar to Priestly-Code, chapter 17 is parallel to 15, and\n 25\u00b9\u00b2\u207b\u00b9\u2077 has probably replaced a lost Yahwistic genealogy of\n Ishmael. Chapter 23 stands alone as presumably an instance where\n Priestly-Code has preserved an altogether independent tradition.\n\n Chapter 14 cannot with any show of reason be assigned to any of\n the recognised sources of the Pentateuch, and has accordingly\n been omitted from the above survey. The question of its origin\n is discussed on pages 271 ff. below.\n\n\n CHAPTERS XII. XIII.\n _The migrations of Abram_\n (Yahwist and Priestly-Code).\n\nLeaving his home at the command of Yahwe, Abram enters Canaan and\nerects altars at Shechem and Bethel (12\u00b9\u207b\u2078). From Bethel he migrates\nto the Negeb, and thence, under stress of famine, to Egypt; where by\na false representation he enriches himself, but imperils his wife\u2019s\nhonour (12\u2079\u201213\u00b9). Laden with wealth, he returns to Bethel, where an\namicable separation from his nephew Lot leaves him in sole possession\nof the promise of the land (13\u00b2\u207b\u00b9\u2077). Abram journeys southward and\nsettles in Hebron (\u00b9\u2078).\n\n _Analysis._\u2015\u2015The slender thread of Priestly-Code\u2019s narrative is\n represented by 12\u2074\u1d47\u1427 \u2075 13\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1d43\u1d47{\u03b1}: note the date in 12\u2074\u1d47;\n the form of 12\u2075; \u05e8\u05b8\u05db\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1\u200e, \u05e8\u05b0\u05db\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u200e, 12\u2075 13\u2076; \u05e0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1\u200e, \u2018person,\u2019 12\u2075; \u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05e5 \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05df\u200e,\n\u200e 12\u2075 13\u00b9\u00b2; \u05e0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d0\u200e, 13\u2076; \u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d4\u05b7\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u200e, 13\u00b9\u00b2; and see on the verses below.\n These fragments form a continuous epitome of the events between\n the exodus from \u1e24arran and the parting of Abram and Lot. With\n a slight and inherently plausible transposition (12\u2075\u1427 \u2074\u1d47; Budde\n page 432) they might pass for the immediate continuation of 11\u00b3\u00b2,\n if we can suppose that the call of Abram was entirely omitted\n by Priestly-Code (see Gunkel 231).\u2015\u2015The rest of the passage\n is Yahwistic throughout: observe the consistent use of \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e;\n the reference to Paradise, 13\u00b9\u2070; the anticipation of chapter\n 19 in 13\u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3; and the following expressions: \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b6\u05d3\u05b6\u05ea\u200e, 12\u00b9;\n\u200e \u05e0\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b7\u05da\u05b0 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u200e, 12\u00b3; \u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05dc \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05d7\u05b9\u05ea \u05d4\u05b8\u05bd\u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 12\u00b3; \u05d4\u05b4\u05e0\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4 \u05e0\u05b8\u05d0\u200e, \u05e0\u05b8\u05d0\u200e, 12\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3 13\u2078\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2074; \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e,\n\u200e 12\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2076; \u05de\u05b7\u05d4\u05be\u05d6\u05b9\u05bc\u05d0\u05ea \u05e2\u05f3\u200e, 12\u00b9\u2078; \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d3\u05b5\u05bc\u05df\u200e, 13\u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9. It falls naturally\n into three sections: (a) 12\u00b9\u207b\u2074\u1d43\u1427 \u2076\u207b\u2078; (b) 12\u00b9\u2070\u201213\u00b9; (c)\n 13\u00b2\u1427 \u2075\u1427 \u2077\u207b\u00b9\u00b9\u1d43 \u00b9\u00b2\u1d47{\u03b2}\u207b\u00b9\u2078; 12\u2079 and 13\u00b3\u1427 \u2074 being redactional links\n (Redactor\u1d36\u1d43\u02b0\u02b7\u2071\u02e2\u1d57) uniting b to a on the one side and c on the\n other. The purely mechanical connexion of b with a and c was\n first shown by Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und\n der historischen B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 24 f.).\u00b9 The\n removal of b restores the direct and natural sequence of c upon\n a, and gets rid of the redactor\u2019s artificial theory of a double\n visit to Bethel with a series of aimless wanderings between. In\n the main narrative Abram\u2019s journey is continuously southward,\n from Shechem to Bethel (where the separation from Lot takes\n place), and thence to his permanent abode in Hebron. In the\n inserted episode (b), Abram simply moves down to Egypt from his\n home in the Negeb and back again.\u2015\u2015As to the _origin_ of 12\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2070,\n see page 251 below.\n\n \u00b9 So Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel.\n\n=XII. 1\u20128. The journey to Canaan and the promise of the Land.=\u2015\u2015=1.=\nThe opening verse strikes a note peculiarly characteristic of the\nstory of Abram\u2015\u2015the trial of faith. There is intentional pathos in\nthe lingering description of the things he is to leave: _thy land, thy\nkindred, and thy father\u2019s house_; and a corresponding significance in\nthe vagueness with which the goal is indicated: _to a land which I will\nshow thee_. Obedience under such conditions marks Abram as the hero\nof faith, and the ideal of Hebrew piety (Hebrews 11\u2078 \u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015=2, 3.= The\nblessings here promised express the aspirations of the age in which\nthe narrative originated, and reveal the people\u2019s consciousness of\nits exceptional destiny among the nations of the world. They breathe\nthe spirit of optimism which is on the whole characteristic of the\nYahwistic treatment of the _national_ legends, as contrasted with the\nprimitive and cosmopolitan mythology of chapters 2\u201211, whose sombre\ntone is only once (9\u00b2\u2076 \u1da0\u1427) relieved by a similar gleam of hope.\u2015\u2015_and\nwill make thy name great_] It has been noticed that the order in which\nthe names of the patriarchs emerge in the prophetic literature is the\nreverse of that in Genesis, and that Abraham is first mentioned in\nEzekiel 33\u00b2\u2074. The inference has been drawn that the figure of Abraham\nrepresents a late development of the patriarchal legends (compare\nWellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_\u2076 317 f.). But from this\npromise we may fairly conclude that even in the pre-prophetic period\nthe name of Abraham was famous in Israel, and that in this particular\nthe religious ideas of the people are not fully reflected in prophecy\n(1 Kings 18\u00b3\u2076 has also to be considered).\u2015\u2015The antiquity of the name\nis now placed beyond doubt by an arch\u00e6ological discovery made by Erman\nin 1888, but first published by Breasted in 1904. In the Karnak list\nof places conquered by Sheshonk I., the contemporary of Rehoboam, there\nis mentioned _pa-\u1e2bu-q-ru-\u2019a \u2019a- ba-ra-m_ = \u05d7\u05e7\u05dc \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05dd\u200e, \u2018Field of Abram.\u2019\nIt has not been identified; but from its place in the list it must\nhave been in the South of Palestine (see Breasted, _American Journal\nof Semitic Languages and Literatures_, xxi. 35 f.; and compare Meyer,\n_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 266).\u00b9\u2015\u2015_and be thou a\nblessing_ (compare Zechariah 8\u00b9\u00b3)] Rather: _and it_ (the name) _shall\nbe a blessing_ (point \u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b8\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, _v.i._) _i.e._ \u2018a name to bless by,\u2019 in the\nsense explained by \u00b3\u1d47.\u2015\u2015=3b= has generally been rendered _through thee\nshall all the families of the earth be blessed_] _i.e._ the blessings\nof true religion shall be mediated to the world through Abram and his\ndescendants (so all Versions; compare Sirach 44\u00b2\u00b9, Acts 3\u00b2\u2075, Galatians\n3\u2078). The better translation, however, is that of Rashi, adopted by\nmost modern commentaries: _by thee shall all ... bless themselves_]\nthe idea being that in invoking blessings on themselves or others they\nwill use such words as \u2018God make thee like Abram,\u2019 etc. (see 48\u00b2\u2070,\nIsaiah 65\u00b9\u2076, Psalms 72\u00b9\u2077; and the opposite, Jeremiah 29\u00b2\u00b2). \u201cSo the\nancient mind expressed its admiration of a man\u2019s prosperity\u201d (Gunkel).\nThe clause is thus an expansion of \u00b2\u1d47: the name of Abram will pass\ninto a formula of benediction, because he himself and his seed will be\nas it were blessedness incarnate. The exegetical question is discussed\nbelow.\u2015\u2015=4a.= The mention of Lot (see on 11\u00b2\u2077) establishes a literary\nconnexion with the Lot narratives of chapters 13. 19.\u2015\u2015=5.= is\nPriestly-Code\u2019s parallel to \u2074\u1d43 (_v.i._); the last sentence supplying\nan obvious gap in Yahwist\u2019s narrative.\u2015\u2015_and they came, etc._]. This\ntime (contrast 11\u00b3\u00b9) the goal is actually reached. On the probable\nroute from \u1e24arran to Canaan, see Driver 146, 300 ff.\u2015\u2015=6, 7.= Arrived\nat Shechem, Abram receives, through a theophany, the first intimation\nthat he has reached the goal of his pilgrimage, and proceeds to take\npossession of the land in the name of Yahwe by erecting altars for\nHis worship. It is, however, a singular fact, that in Yahwist there\nis no record of actual sacrifice by the patriarchs on such altars: see\npage l.\n\n \u00b9 See, further, pages 292 f. below.\n\n The original motive of this and similar legends is to explain\n the sacredness of the principal centres of cultus by definite\n manifestations of God to the patriarchs, or definite acts of\n worship on their part. The rule is that the legitimacy of a\n sanctuary for Israel is established by a theophany (Exodus 20\u00b2\u2074\n [Elohist]). The historic truth is that the sanctuaries were far\n older than the Hebrew immigration, and inherited their sanctity\n from lower forms of religion. That fact appears in verse \u2076\n in the use of the word \u05de\u05b8\u05e7\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd\u200e, which has there the technical\n sense of \u2018sacred place,\u2019 as in 22\u2074 28\u00b9\u00b9 35\u00b9 (LXX), Exodus 3\u2075,\n 1 Samuel 7\u00b9\u2076 (LXX \u1f21\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2), Jeremiah 7\u00b9\u00b2 (compare Arabic\n _ma\u1e33\u0101m_).\u2015\u2015Shechem is the first and most northerly of four\n sanctuaries\u2015\u2015the others being Bethel, Hebron (Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f),\n and Beersheba (Elohist, Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43)\u2015\u2015connected with the\n name of Abraham. The name (_Skmm_, with plural termination)\u00b9\n occurs in an Egyptian inscription as early as the 12th dynasty.\n It was an important place in the Tel-Amarna period (see\n Steuernagel, _Einwanderung_, 120 f.; Knudtzon, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur\n Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft_, iv. 127),\n and figures prominently in Old Testament legend and history.\n On its situation (the modern _N\u0101bul\u016bs_) between Mts. Ebal and\n Gerizim, see _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, iv. 4437 f.\u2015\u2015The \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b6\u05d4\u200e\n (= \u2018oracle-giving terebinth\u2019) was evidently an ancient\n sacred tree from which oracles were obtained, and therefore\n a survival of primitive tree-worship.\u00b2 Besides Deuteronomy\n 11\u00b3\u2070 (a difficult passage, see Driver _ad loc._, and von\n Gall, _Altisraelitische Kultst\u00e4tten_ 107 ff.), it seems to be\n mentioned as one of the sacra of Shechem under other names:\n\u200e \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b7\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, (a mere difference of pointing, _v.i._), Genesis 35\u2074,\n Joshua 24\u00b2\u2076; \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df \u05de\u05b0\u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05e0\u05b0\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (\u2018terebinth of soothsayers\u2019), Judges 9\u00b3\u2077;\n and \u05d0\u05f3 \u05de\u05bb\u05e6\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u200e (\u2018terebinth of the pillar\u2019 [\u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05b7\u05bc\u05e6\u05b5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e]) Judges 9\u2076. The tree\n is not said to have been planted by Abram (like the tamarisk of\n Beersheba, 21\u00b3\u00b3),\u2015\u2015an additional indication that Abram was not\n originally the patron or _wel\u012b_ of the shrine. The sacred stone\n under the tree (the \u05de\u05bb\u05e6\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u200e of Judges 9\u2076?) was believed to have\n been set up by Joshua (Joshua 24\u00b2\u2076). The sanctuary of Shechem\n was also associated with Jacob (33\u00b9\u2078 35\u2074), and especially with\n Joseph, who was buried there (Joshua 24\u00b3\u00b2), and whose grave is\n still shown near the village of Bal\u00e2\u1e6da (_ball\u00fb\u1e6d_ = \u2018oak\u2019): see\n von Gall, 117.\n\n \u00b9 It is possible that this (\u05e9\u05c1\u05db\u05de\u05dd\u200e) is the oldest form in Hebrew\n also; since LXX often has the plural \u03a3\u03af\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1 (33\u00b9\u2078 35\u2074\u1427 \u2075\n etc.).\n\n \u00b2 \u201cWhere a tree is connected with a _wel\u012b_ it was probably\n the original object of honour\u201d (Curtiss, _Primitive Semitic\n Religion to-day_\u00b9 91). On the obtaining of oracles from\n trees, see William Robertson Smith _Lectures on the Religion\n of the Semites_\u00b2, 195. Compare Judges 4\u2075, 2 Samuel 5\u00b2\u2074; and\n the oak of Zeus at Dodona.\u2015\u2015Duhm\u2019s brilliant generalisation\n (_Isaiah_\u00b9, 13 f.), that Abraham was traditionally\n associated with sacred trees, Isaac and Ishmael with sacred\n wells, and Jacob with sacred stones, though not literally\n accurate, has sufficient truth to be suggestive; and may\n possibly correspond to some vague impression of the popular\n mind in Israel.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05dc\u05b6\u05da\u05b0\u05be\u05dc\u05b0\u05da\u05b8\u200e (22\u00b2 [Elohist]; compare Canticles 2\u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3)] see\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 119 _s_.\u2015\u2015On \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b6\u05d3\u05b6\u05ea\u200e (LXX \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1)\n see 11\u00b2\u2078.\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05d5\u05b6\u05bd\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05b5\u05d4 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05db\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] imperative expressing consequence\n (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 110 _i_) is here questionable, because\n the preceding verbs are simple futures. The pointing as\n consecutive perfect (\u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b8\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4\u200e) was suggested by Giesebrecht\n (_Die Alttestamentliche Sch\u00e4tzung des Gottesnamens und ihre\n religionsgeschichtliche Grundlage_, 15); see Gunkel _ad v._\u2015\u2015=3.=\n\u200e \u05de\u05b0\u05e7\u05b7\u05dc\u05b6\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05da\u05b8\u200e] singular; but the plural of some MSS, _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u05be\u05b6\u05d9\u05da\u05b8\u200e),\n is more probable; compare 27\u00b2\u2079, Numbers 24\u2079.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05b0\u05e0\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b0\u05db\u05d5\u05bc \u05d1\u05b0\u05da\u05b8\u200e] LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03af, and so all versions. The rendering\n depends on the grammatical question whether the Niphal has\n passive or reflexive sense. This form of the verb does not\n occur except in the parallels 18\u00b9\u2078 (with \u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e) and 28\u00b9\u2074 (\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05da\u05b8\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05d6\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05e2\u05b2\u05da\u05b8\u200e).\n In 22\u00b9\u2078 26\u2074 it is replaced by Hithpael, which is, of course,\n reflexive, and must be translated \u2018bless themselves\u2019; the\n renderings \u2018feel themselves blessed\u2019 (Tuch, Kautzsch-Socin,\n Strack), or \u2018wish themselves blessed\u2019 (Delitzsch) are doubtful\n compromises. These passages, however, belong to secondary\n strata of Yahwist (as does also 18\u00b9\u2078, and perhaps 28\u00b9\u2074), and\n are not necessarily decisive of the sense of 12\u00b3. But it is\n significant that the Pual, which is the proper passive of \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05da\u05b0\u200e,\n is consistently avoided; and the presumption appears to be\n distinctly in favour of the sense given in the text above. The\n idea is well expressed by Rashi: \u05d5\u05d6\u05d4\u05d5 \u05e4\u05e9\u05d5\u05d8\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d1\u05e0\u05d5 \u05ea\u05d4\u05d0 \u05db\u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05db\u05dc \u05d5\u05e0\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d5 \u05d1\u05da\n\u200e \u05e9\u05d1\u05de\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d6\u05d4 \u05de\u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05d7 \u05d1\u05da \u05d9\u05d1\u05e8\u05da \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05dc\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d9\u05de\u05da \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d0\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05db\u05de\u05e0\u05e9\u05d4\u200e (Genesis 48\u00b2\u2070).\u2015\u2015=4.=\n\u200e \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b6\u05da\u05b0\u200e] Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word) (= \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u05e9\u05c2\u200e), adopted by Ball.\u2015\u2015=5.=\n The parallel to \u2074\u1d43 in the distinctive form (see on 11\u00b3\u00b9)\n and phraseology of Priestly-Code. The verb \u05e8\u05b8\u05db\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1\u200e is peculiar\n to Priestly-Code (31\u00b9\u2078 36\u2076 46\u2076); \u05e8\u05b0\u05db\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u200e is a word of the later\n language, found in Priestly-Code (7 times), in Genesis 14\n (5 times) and as a gloss in 15\u00b9\u2074; in Chronicles, Ezra, Daniel\n (15 times): see Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 347.\n It is supposed to denote primarily \u2018riding beasts,\u2019 like Hebrew\n\u200e \u05e8\u05b6\u05db\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1\u200e, Aramaic (\u2021 Syriac word), \u05e8\u05b4\u05db\u05b0\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d0\u200e Assyrian _ruku\u0161u_ (Haupt,\n _Hebraica_, iii. 110); then property in general.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1\u200e] in the\n sense of \u2018person\u2019 is also practically confined to Priestly-Code\n in Hexateuch (Holzinger 345).\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b8\u05e9\u05c2\u05d5\u05bc\u200e] = \u2018acquired,\u2019 as 31\u00b9,\n Deuteronomy 8\u00b9\u2077, Jeremiah 17\u00b9\u00b9 etc. The idea of \u2018proselytising\u2019\n (Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f) is rightly characterised by Rashi\n as Haggada.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05e5 \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05df\u200e] \u201cein fast sicheres Kennzeichen f\u00fcr\n Priestly-Code\u201d (Holzinger 340). In Jehovist \u05db\u05e0\u05e2\u05df\u200e appears never\n to be used in its geographical sense except in the story of\n Joseph (42. 44\u201247. 50\u2075) and Joshua 24\u00b3.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b9\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05df\u200e] LXX\u1d38\u1d58\u1d9c\u2071\u1d43\u207f\n omitted, probably from homoioteleuton.\u2015\u2015=6.= \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5\u200e\u00b9] so\n LXX\u1d38\u1d58\u1d9c\u2071\u1d43\u207f, but LXX\u1d2c\u1427 \u1d43\u02e1\u1427, read \u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b0\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05bc\u200e (13\u00b9\u2077).\u2015\u2015For \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b6\u05d4\u200e, Symmachus\n and Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 read \u05de\u05b7\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b5\u05d0\u200e. The _convallem illustrem_ of Vulgate\n is an amalgamation of LXX (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03c1\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f51\u03c8\u03b7\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd [\u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd\u200e?])\n and Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 (\u05de\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d9 \u05de\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4\u200e = \u2018plains of Moreh\u2019); the latter\n is probably accounted for by aversion to the idolatrous\n associations of the sacred tree. Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f has \u05de\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d3\u05d4\u05d5\u05d5 \u05de\u05d9\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u200e;\n on which see Levy, _Chald\u00e4isches W\u00f6rterbuch \u00fcber die Targumim\n und Midraschim_ 33. The absence of the article (contrast \u05d2\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05e2\u05b7\u05ea \u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e,\n Judges 7\u00b9) seems to show that the word is used as a proper\n noun\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e] unlike its Aramaic equivalents (\u2021 Syriac word), \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dc\u05b8\u05df\u200e),\n which mean tree in general, is never used generically, but\n always of particular (probably sacred) trees. In the versions\n \u2018oak\u2019 and \u2018terebinth\u2019 are used somewhat indiscriminately (see\n von Gall, _Altisraelitische Kultst\u00e4tten_ 24 ff.) for four Hebrew\n words: \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e, \u05d0\u05b7\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e, \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u05d0\u05b7\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, (only Joshua 24\u00b2\u2076). The theory has been\n advanced that the forms with _\u00ea_ are alone correct; that they\n are derivatives from \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e, \u2018god,\u2019 and denote originally the \u2018sacred\n tree\u2019 without distinction of species.\u00b9 The \u05d0\u05b7\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e of Genesis 35\u2078\n is called a palm in Judges 4\u2075, and \u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05dc\u05b4\u05dd\u200e (plural of \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e?) (Exodus\n 15\u00b2\u2077 etc.) derived its name from 70 palm-trees. But though the\n Massoretic tradition may not be uniformly reliable, \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e and \u05d0\u05b7\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e\n appear to be distinguished in Hosea 4\u00b9\u00b3, Isaiah 6\u00b9\u00b3 (Dillmann);\n and the existence of a form \u05d0\u05b7\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e is confirmed by _all\u00e2nu_, which\n is said to be an Assyrian tree-name (Gesenius-Buhl\u00b9\u2074 36 b).\n It is probable from Zechariah 11\u00b2, Ezekiel 27\u2076 etc., that\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b7\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e is the oak. With regard to the other names no convincing\n theory can be formed, but a connexion with \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e (_\u012dlu_) is at best\n precarious.\u2015\u2015=6b.= is probably a gloss: compare 13\u2077\u1d47.\u2015\u2015=7.= \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b9\u05bc\u05d0\u05de\u05b6\u05e8\u200e]\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 add \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b7\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] so 35\u00b9 (Elohist).\n\n \u00b9 Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_\u2076 234; Stade\n _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 455; von Gall, _l.c._;\n compare Schwally, _Theologische Litteraturzeitung_, 1899,\n 356.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=8.= Abram moved on, nomadic fashion, and _spread his tent_ (26\u00b2\u2075 33\u00b9\u2079\n35\u00b2\u00b9) near _Bethel_, about 20 miles from Shechem; there he built a\nsecond altar, and _called by the name of Yahwe_; see on 4\u00b2\u2076. Luther\u2019s\nrendering: \u2018predigte den Namen des Herrn,\u2019 is absolutely without\nexegetical warrant; and the whole notion of a monotheistic propaganda,\nof which Abram was the Mahdi (Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte\ndes alten Orients_\u00b2, 328), is a modern invention unsupported by a\nparticle of historical evidence. It is noticeable that no theophany is\nrecorded here, perhaps because the definite consecration of Bethel was\nascribed to Jacob (chapater 28).\u2015\u2015Here the parting from Lot took place\n(chapter 13).\n\n On Bethel (_Beit\u012bn_), see on 28\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 35\u2077; compare Joshua 7\u00b2.\n Dillmann distinguishes the site of Abram\u2019s altar (East of Bethel\n and West of \u201bAi) from that of Jacob\u2019s pillar, which he takes\n to have been at Bethel itself. The more natural view is that\n the local sanctuary lay East of the city (so Gunkel), perhaps\n at _Bur\u01e7 Beit\u012bn_, the traditional scene of Abram\u2019s encampment\n (George Adam Smith _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, i. 552).\u2015\u2015On the\n somewhat uncertain situation of \u05d4\u05b8\u05e2\u05b7\u05d9\u200e (always with article = \u05e2\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e,\n Nehemiah 11\u00b3\u00b9, 1 Chronicles 7\u00b2\u2078; and \u05e2\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05ea\u200e, Isaiah 10\u00b2\u2078), see Buhl,\n _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 177.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =8.= \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u05b0\u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05e7\u200e] introductory Hiphil as 26\u00b2\u00b2 (Yahwist).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=XII. 9\u2012XIII. 1.\u2015\u2015Abram in Egypt.=\u2015\u2015The first of three variants of\nwhat must have been a very popular story in ancient Israel (compare 20.\n26\u2076 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427). Whether the original hero was Abraham or Isaac we cannot tell;\nbut a comparison of the three parallels shows that certain primitive\nfeatures of the legend are most faithfully preserved in the passage\nbefore us: note the entire absence of the extenuating circumstances\nintroduced into the other accounts,\u2015\u2015the whole subject being treated\nwith a frank realism which seems to take us down to the bed-rock of\nHebrew folklore.\u2015\u2015=9.= _to the Negeb_] The \u2018dry\u2019 region between the\nJud\u00e6an highland and the wilderness of _et-T\u012bh_, extending from 10 or\n12 miles North of Beersheba to the neighbourhood of \u1e32adesh (_v.i._).\nIt is still a suitable pasture ground for camel-breeding Bedouin, and\nthe remains of buildings and irrigation works prove that it was once\nmuch more extensively cultivated than at present.\u2015\u2015=10.= _the famine\nwas severe_ (literally \u2018heavy\u2019)] emphasising the fact that the visit\nto Egypt was compulsory. The Nile valley, on account of its great\nfertility and its independence of the annual rainfall, was the natural\nresort of Asiatics in times of scarcity; and this under primitive\nconditions involved an actual sojourn in the country. The admission of\nSemites to the rich pastures of Egypt is both described and depicted\nin the monuments (see Guthe, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, 16).\u00b9\nThe purchase of corn for home consumption (42\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) was possible\nas a temporary expedient at a somewhat more advanced stage of\nculture.\u2015\u2015=11\u201213.= The speech of Abram to his wife is an instructive\nrevelation of social and moral sentiment in early Israel. The Hebrew\nwomen are fairer than all others, and are sure to be coveted by\nforeigners; but the marriage bond is so sacred that even a foreigner,\nin order to possess the wife, will kill the husband first. Hence the\ndilemma with which Abram is confronted: if Sarai is known as his wife,\nher life will be safe, but he will probably be slain; if she passes\nas his sister, her honour will be endangered, but his advantage will\nbe served. In such a case the true Hebrew wife will not hesitate to\nsacrifice herself for her husband: at the same time she is a free moral\nagent: Abram\u2019s proposal is not a command but a deferential request.\nLastly, it is assumed that in the circumstances lying is excusable.\nThere is no suggestion that either the untruthfulness or the selfish\ncowardice of the request was severely reprobated by the ethical code\nto which the narrative appealed.\u2015\u2015=14, 15.= The stratagem succeeds\nbeyond expectation. Sarai attracts the notice of the courtiers, and\nis brought into Pharaoh\u2019s harem. The incident is characteristic of\nOriental despotisms generally: Ebers (_\u00c4gypten und die B\u00fccher Moses_,\n262 f.) cites from the d\u2019Orbiney papyrus an example of the zeal\nof Egyptian officials in matters of this kind.\u2015\u2015=16.= _he treated\nAbram well, etc._] compare verse \u00b9\u00b3. This feature of the _reward_\nis a standing element of the tradition; but in chapter 20 it is\nonly bestowed after the misunderstanding has been cleared up, and in\n26\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 its connexion with the incident is loosened.\n\n \u00b9 Compare _Authority and Arch\u00e6ology_, page 59; _A Dictionary\n of the Bible_, ii. 531\u1d47 (note \u2021), 774\u1d47.\n\n The gifts enumerated constituted the riches of the patriarchs:\n 20\u00b9\u2074 24\u00b3\u2075 30\u2074\u00b3 32\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1427 (compare Job 1\u00b3 42\u00b9\u00b2), and were perhaps\n regarded by this narrator as the foundation of Abram\u2019s\n subsequent wealth. The animals mentioned were all known in\n ancient Egypt (Ebers, 265 ff.), except the camel, which is\n neither represented nor named in the monuments before the Greek\n period.\u00b9 This, M\u00fcller supposes, was due to a religious scruple;\n but, of course, the difficulty remains of thinking that a\n religiously unclean animal should have been bred in Egypt, or\n have been gifted by Pharaoh to Abram. The order also\u2015\u2015slaves\n between he-asses and she-asses\u2015\u2015is strange; the explanation\n (Holzinger, Gunkel) that the slaves were intermediate in value\n between these animals is jejune, and is, besides, contradicted\n by 24\u00b3\u2075 30\u2074\u00b3. It is possible that \u05d0\u05b2\u05ea\u05b9\u05e0\u05b9\u05ea \u05d5\u05bc\u05d2\u05b0\u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e has been added at\n the end by a glossator; but see 24\u00b3\u2075 30\u2074\u00b3, and compare _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ below.\n\n \u00b9 Compare Exodus 9\u00b3 (Yahwist); and see Sayce, _The Early\n History of the Hebrews_, 169 (the notice unhistorical);\n Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 493. Ebers\u2019 statement as\n to the name is corrected by M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa nach\n alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_, 142, _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_,\n i. 634.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =9.= \u05d4\u05b8\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05da\u05b0 \u05d5\u05b0\u05e0\u05b8\u05e1\u05d5\u05b9\u05e2\u05b7\u200e] Davidson \u00a7 86, _R._ 4; Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 113 _u_.\n The idea of continuous journeying lies not in \u05e0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e2\u200e (see on 11\u00b2),\n but in \u05d4\u05dc\u05d5\u05da\u200e (compare Judges 14\u2079).\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b7\u05e0\u05b6\u05bc\u05d2\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u1ff3: Aquila\n \u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5: Symmachus \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. The word, from a \u221a meaning \u2018dry,\u2019\n occurs as a proper name of South Palestine (_Ngb_) in a document\n of the reign of Thothmes III. (M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa nach\n alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_, 148; Meyer _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die\n alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, vi. 1). Its use to denote the\n South direction is rare in Jehovist, and apparently confined\n to later additions (13\u00b9\u2074 28\u00b9\u2074, Joshua 18\u2075). The geographical\n limits of the region can, of course, only be roughly determined,\n chiefly from the list of its cities in Joshua 15\u00b2\u00b9\u207b\u00b3\u00b2: on this,\n and its physical characteristics, see Cheyne _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n Biblica_, 3374 ff.; Palmer, _Desert of the Exodus_, ii. 351 f.\n\u200e (1871).\u2015\u2015=10.= \u05dc\u05b8\u05d2\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8 \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dd\u200e (Jeremiah 42\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427)] properly \u2018dwell as a\n client or protected guest\u2019 (\u05d2\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e = Arabic _\u01e7\u0101r_: compare _The Old\n Testament in the Jewish Church_\u00b2, 342\u00b9). The words, however,\n are often used in the wider sense of temporary sojourn (15\u00b9\u00b3,\n Jeremiah 14\u2078), and this may be the case here.\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05d4\u05b4\u05e0\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4\u05be\u05e0\u05b8\u05d0\u200e] 16\u00b2\n 18\u00b2\u2077\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9 19\u00b2\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2079 27\u00b2 (all Yahwist). The free use of \u05e0\u05b8\u05d0\u200e (_c._ 40\n times in Genesis) is very characteristic of Yahwist (Holzinger\n _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 110).\u2015\u2015=13.= \u05d0\u05b2\u05d7\u05b9\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b7\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u200e] _oratio\n obliqua_ without \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e, Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 157 _a_. LXX, on\n the contrary, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f74 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03af.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d2\u05b0\u05dc\u05b7\u05dc\u200e] In Hexateuch only\n 30\u00b2\u2077 39\u2075 (Yahwist) and 3 times in Deuteronomy: elsewhere 4\n times.\u2015\u2015=15.= \u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05e2\u05b9\u05d4\u200e] The title of all Egyptian kings mentioned in\n Old Testament except Shishak (1 Kings 14\u00b2\u2075) and Sev\u00e9 (2 Kings\n 17\u2074). It corresponds exactly to Egyptian _Per\u201bo_ (\u2018Great House\u2019),\n denoting originally the palace or court, and is not applied to\n the person of the king earlier than the 18th dynasty (Erman,\n _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 58; Griffith, _A Dictionary of the\n Bible_, iii. 819; M\u00fcller _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, iii. 3687).\n It is needless to go further in search of an etymology, though\n Renouf, _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology_,\n xv. 421, may be consulted. A confusion of the name here with the\n \u201cPir\u201bu king of Mu\u1e63uri\u201d mentioned by Sargon (_Keilinschriftliche\n Bibliothek_, ii. 55, etc.), is too readily suspected by Cheyne\n (_Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 3164, and _Traditions and Beliefs\n of Ancient Israel_, 223; compare Winckler _Mittheilungen der\n vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, iii. 2 ff.). Even supposing it\n proved that this is the proper name of a North Arabian prince,\n the narrative here must be much older than the time of Sargon;\n and it is inconceivable that the Hebrew designation for the\n kings of Egypt should have been determined by an isolated and\n accidental resemblance to a native word.\u2015\u2015=16.= After \u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e7\u05b8\u05e8\u200e _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ inserts \u05de\u05e7\u05e0\u05d4 \u05db\u05d1\u05d3 \u05de\u05d0\u05d3\u200e, and\n puts \u05d5\u05b7\u05e2\u05b2\u05d1\u05b8\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4\u05b8\u05d7\u05b9\u05ea\u200e before \u05d5\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05de\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=17.= The story reaches its climax. Yahwe interposes at the extreme\nmoment to save Sarai and avert calamity from the patriarchal house. It\nis noteworthy that Yahwe\u2019s intervention is here purely providential:\nin 20\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 it takes the form of a personal communication, while in\nthe attenuated version of 26\u2076 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 it has become superfluous and is\nomitted.\u2015\u2015_smote with great plagues_] severe bodily maladies; compare\n20\u00b9\u2077, Exodus 11\u00b9, Psalms 39\u00b9\u00b9 etc. How Pharaoh discovered the cause of\nhis sickness we are left to conjecture; Josephus (_Antiquities of the\nJews_ i. 164 f.) pretty nearly exhausts the possibilities of the case\nwhen he mentions sacrifice, inquiry at the priests, and interrogation\nof Sarai. Gunkel is probably right in suggesting that something\nhas been omitted between \u00b9\u2077 and \u00b9\u2078.\u2015\u2015=18, 19.= To the vigorous\nexpostulation of the Pharaoh, Abram is unable to reply. The narrator\nevidently feels that morally the heathen king is in the right; and\nthe zest with which the story was related was not quite so unalloyed\nby ethical reflexions as Gunkel (151) would have us believe. The idea\nof God, however, is imperfectly moralised; Yahwe\u2019s providence puts\nin the wrong the man who is justified at the bar of human conscience;\nHe is not here the absolutely righteous Being proclaimed by the\nprophets (Amos 3\u00b2).\u2015\u2015=20.= _Pharaoh gave men charge concerning Abram_]\n_i.e._ provided him with an escort (\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05dc\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u200e as 18\u00b9\u2076 31\u00b2\u2077). The thought of\nignominious expulsion is far from the writer\u2019s mind; the purpose of\nthe escort is to see that no further injury is done to the patriarch\nor his wife (Abraham Ibn Ezra), bringing fresh judgements on the\nrealm.\u2015\u2015=XIII. 1.= The narrative closes with the return of Abram to\nhis home in the Negeb (compare 12\u2079).\n\n _Source of 12\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2070._\u2015\u2015It has already been pointed out (page 242\n f.) that, though the section breaks the connexion of the main\n narrative, it is Yahwistic in style; and the question of its\n origin relates only to its place within the general cycle of\n Yahwistic tradition. Three views are possible: that it is (1)\n a secondary expansion of Yahwist by a later hand (Wellhausen);\n (2) a misplaced chapter of Yahwist\u2019s main narrative belonging\n properly to a subsequent stage of the history; or (3)\n an excerpt from a separate Yahwistic collection (Gunkel,\n [Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43]). To (1) and (2) there are distinct\n objections: (a) the style and moral tone of the narrative, which\n are those of racy popular legend, and produce the impression of\n great antiquity; (b) the absence from the character of Abram of\n those ideal features which are prominent in the main narrative,\n and which later ages tended to exaggerate (_e.g._ chapter 14);\n especially (c) the fact that the home of Abram is not at Hebron\n but in the Negeb. Gunkel\u2019s theory, which is not open to these\n objections, seems, therefore, to mark an advance in the analysis\n of Yahwist.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =17.= \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05e0\u05b7\u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u200e] The Piel only of smiting with disease: 2 Kings\n 15\u2075, 2 Chronicles 26\u00b2\u2070 (Pual Psalms 73\u2075).\u2015\u2015\u05d2\u05b0\u05bc\u05d3\u05b9\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX + \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u05b9\u200e] possibly a gloss from 20\u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1427 (Kautzsch-Socin\n al.); see on 2\u2079.\u2015\u2015=19.= \u05d5\u05b8\u05d0\u05b6\u05e7\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u200e] \u2018so that I took\u2019; Driver _A\n Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ \u00a7 74 \u03b1, \u00a7 116,\n _Obsolete_ 2.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05da\u05b8\u200e] LXX + \u05dc\u05b0\u05e4\u05b8\u05e0\u05b6\u05d9\u05da\u05b8\u200e.\u2015\u2015=20.= _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_, LXX add at the end \u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d8 \u05e2\u05b4\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e, as in Massoretic\n Text of 13\u00b9: the phrase is interpolated in both places.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=2\u201218. Separation of Abram and Lot.=\u2015\u2015=2, 5, 7.= The great wealth\nof the two patriarchs leads to bickering among their retainers. The\nsituation reflects the relations of tribes rather than of private\nfamilies, quarrels about pastures and watering-places being a common\nfeature of nomadic life and a frequent cause of separation: compare\n21\u00b2\u2075 26\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015=2.= _Silver and gold_] 24\u00b3\u2075 20\u00b9\u2076 23\u00b9\u2076.\u2015\u2015=5.= Lot\u2019s\nsubstance, on the other hand, is purely nomadic: _flocks, herds,\nand tents_. The last word appears to have the sense of \u2018people,\u2019\n\u2018families\u2019; compare Arabic _\u2019ahl_, Sab\u00e6an \u05d0\u05d4\u05dc\u200e (M\u00fcller, _Zeitschrift\nder deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xxxvii. 341; Hommel\n_S\u00fcd-arabische Chrestomathie_ 121).\u2015\u2015=3, 4.= A redactional addition\n(page 243), bringing the narrative back to Bethel, the traditional\nscene of the separation.\u2015\u2015=6.= Priestly-Code\u2019s account of the parting:\ncompare 36\u2077. It has often been noticed that he makes no mention of a\nquarrel; just as Yahwist says nothing of the straitness of the land\n(_v.i._)\u2015\u2015=8, 9.= The thought of strife between relatives (\u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e)\nis intolerable to Abram, who, though the older man, renounces his\nrights for the sake of an amicable settlement. The narrator has finely\nconceived the magnanimity which springs from fellowship with God. The\npeaceable disposition ascribed to the patriarchs is characteristic\nof the old narratives. Jacob substitutes guile for force, but Abraham\nand Isaac conquer by sheer reasonableness and conciliation.\u2015\u2015=10, 11a,\n12b\u03b2=. Lot\u2019s choice.\u2015\u2015_lifted up his eyes and saw, etc._] The _Bur\u01e7\nBeit\u012bn_ (page 247), a few minutes South-east from the village, is\ndescribed as \u201cone of the great view-points of Palestine\u201d (George Adam\nSmith _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 552), from which the Jordan valley and\nthe North end of the Dead Sea are clearly visible.\u2015\u2015_the whole Oval of\nthe Jordan_] compare Driver _A critical and exegetical commentary on\nDeuteronomy_ 421 f.\n\n\u200e \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d3\u05b5\u05bc\u05df\u200e (only here and 1 Kings 7\u2074\u2076 = 2 Chronicles 4\u00b9\u2077), or \u05d7\u05b7\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u200e\n simply (verse \u00b9\u00b2 19\u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2078 \u1da0\u1427, Deuteronomy 34\u00b3, 2 Samuel 18\u00b2\u00b3),\n is not (as Dillmann 230) the whole of the \u201bAr\u0101b\u0101h from the Lake\n of Galilee to the Dead Sea, but the expansion of the Jordan\n valley towards its South end, defined in Deuteronomy 34\u00b3 as\n \u2018the plain of Jericho\u2019 (see _Historical Geography of the Holy\n Land_, 505 ff.; Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 112).\n The northern limit is indeterminate; the southern depends on the\n site of Zoar (verse \u00b9\u2070), whether North or South of the Dead Sea.\n It is thus not quite certain whether the term includes the Dead\n Sea basin; and on this hangs the much more important question\n whether the writer conceives the Sea as non-existent at the time\n to which the narrative refers. That is certainly the impression\n produced by the language of verse \u00b9\u2070. Apart from the assumption\n of a radical transformation of the physical features of the\n region, the words _before Yahwe destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah_\n have no significance. As a mere note of time they would merely\n show the connexion of the story with chapter 19, and might very\n well be a gloss (Olshausen, Dillmann). See below, pages 273\n f.\u2015\u2015_\u1e92\u00f4\u201bar_ is the South limit of the _Kikk\u0101r_, and, if situated\n at the South end of the Lake (as is most probable), would not be\n seen from Bethel.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =3.= \u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05b7\u05e1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e2\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] simply \u2018by stages\u2019; not by the _same_ stages by which\n he had come (LXX, Vulgate, Rashi): compare Exodus 17\u00b9 40\u00b3\u2076\u1427 \u00b3\u2078\n etc.\u2015\u2015=5.= \u05d0\u05b9\u05d4\u05b8\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\u00a7 93 _r_, 23 _h_)] LXX\u1d2c\n \u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7, probably Greek corruption of \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af (so many MSS).\u2015\u2015=6.=\n\u200e \u05e0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d0\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05e0\u05e9\u05d0\u05d4\u200e\u2015\u2015better.\n Compare 36\u2077 (Priestly-Code).\u2015\u2015=6b\u03b2= is by some (Kautzsch-Socin,\n Holzinger) assigned to Yahwist, but on insufficient grounds\n (compare Hupfeld _Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer\n Zusammensetzung_ 21 f.)\u2015\u2015=7b.= \u05d9\u05e9\u05b5\u05bc\u05c1\u05d1\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of\n the Pentateuch_ \u05d9\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd\u200e\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b7\u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d6\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e] The name is coupled with \u05d4\u05b7\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e in 34\u00b3\u2070,\n Judges 1\u2074\u1427 \u2075 (Yahwist), and often appears in enumerations of the\n pre-Israelite inhabitants (15\u00b2\u2070 etc.). If, as is probable, it\n be connected with \u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d6\u05b4\u05d9\u200e (Deuteronomy 3\u2075, 1 Samuel 6\u00b9\u2078, Esther 9\u00b9\u2079),\n\u200e \u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d6\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u200e (Ezekiel 38\u00b9\u00b9, Zechariah 2\u2078, Esther 9\u00b9\u2079), it would mean\n \u2018hamlet-dwellers\u2019 as distinguished from Canaanites, occupying\n fortified cities (see on \u05d4\u05b7\u05d7\u05b4\u05d5\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e, 10\u00b9\u2077). That the Priestly-Code\n were remnants of a _pre_-Canaanite population is hardly to be\n inferred from the omission of the name in 10\u00b9\u2076 \u1da0\u1427, or from its\n association with the Rephaim in Joshua 17\u00b9\u2075: this last notice\n is wanting in LXX\u1d2c\u1d2e and is perhaps a gloss (Moore, _Judges_\n\u200e 17).\u2015\u2015=9.= \u05d4\u05b2\u05dc\u05b9\u05d0\u200e] LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05e0\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05df\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05bc\u05c2\u05de\u05b9\u05d0\u05dc\u200e\u200e] Ball suggests\n the pointing \u05d4\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05de\u05b0\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e, \u05d4\u05b5\u05d9\u05de\u05b5\u05d9\u05df\u200e (infinitives absolute). _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ reads \u05d0\u05dd \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4\n\u200e \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015=10.= \u05db\u05bb\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05bc\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_\n\u200e \u05db\u05dc\u05d5\u200e; LXX\u1d38\u1d58\u1d9c\u2071\u1d43\u207f omitted.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e7\u05b6\u05d4\u200e] in the sense of \u2018watered region\u2019\n only again Ezekiel 45\u00b9\u2075 (where the text is corrupt) and Sirach\n 39\u00b2\u00b3. Should we read \u05de\u05b8\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e?\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05b9\u05bc\u05bc\u05bd\u05d0\u05b2\u05db\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] see 10\u00b9\u2079.\u2015\u2015\u05e6\u05b9\u05e2\u05b7\u05e8\u200e] Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n (\u2021 Syriac word) = Tanis (\u05e6\u05b9\u05e2\u05b7\u05df\u200e) in Egypt (Numbers 13\u00b2\u00b2, Isaiah\n 19\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3 etc.), which is preferred by Ball, but is rather an\n error caused by the preceding \u05de\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05e8\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05de\u05b4\u05e7\u05b6\u05bc\u05d3\u05b6\u05dd\u200e (compare 11\u00b2)]\n LXX \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd, Vulgate _ab oriente_. But the only possible\n sense here is \u2018eastward\u2019; hence Stade (_Ausgew\u00e4hlte akademische\n Reden und Abhandlungen_, 292) and Gunkel emend to \u05e7\u05b5\u05d3\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015=11b=,\n in spite of its resemblance to \u2079\u1d43{\u03b2}, must be assigned to\n Priestly-Code, being necessary to the completeness of that\n account, and because it disturbs the connexion of \u00b9\u00b9\u1d43 with\n \u00b9\u00b2\u1d47{\u03b2}.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u2666_like the land of Egypt_] coming after _like the garden of Yahwe_\n(2\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b9\u2074; compare Isaiah 51\u00b3) it is an anti-climax, which might be\nexcused (as Dillmann thinks) because the first comparison was pitched\ntoo high. But the last half of the verse seems greatly overloaded, and\nit is not improbable that both \u05dc\u05b4\u05e4\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b2\u05de\u05b9\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e and \u05db\u05d0\u05f3 \u05de\u05f3\u200e are to be removed as\nglosses.\u2015\u2015On the luxuriant fertility and abundant water-supply of the\ndistrict, see _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 483 f.; Buhl,\n39; Seetzen, _Reisen_, i. 417.\u2015\u2015=11a.= _Lot departed eastward_] see\non 11\u00b2 and the footnote _infra_.\u2015\u2015=12b\u03b2=. The immediate continuation\n(in Yahwist) of \u00b9\u00b9\u1d43: _and moved his tent up to Sodom_] the intervening\nwords being from Priestly-Code (compare \u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d4\u05b7\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u200e instead of \u05db\u05bc\u05f3 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d3\u05b5\u05bc\u05df\u200e).\u2015\u2015=13.=\nThis notice of the sinfulness of Sodom is another anticipation of\nchapter 19; but it is introduced here with great effect as showing\nhow Lot had over-reached himself by his selfish conduct.\u2015\u2015=14\u201217.= The\npromise of the land is now confirmed to Abram.\u2015\u2015=14.= _Lift up thine\neyes, etc._] the contrast to Lot\u2019s self-interested glance (verse \u00b9\u2070),\nwhile Abram, by his magnanimous surrender of his claims, had\nunconsciously chosen the good part.\u2015\u2015=15.= It is very doubtful if the\n\u200e\u05e2\u05b7\u05d3 \u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd\u200e can be considered (with Dillmann) a new element of the promise as\ncompared with 12\u2077.\u2015\u2015=16.= _the dust of the earth_] 28\u00b9\u2074.\n\n \u2666 Probable missing text in book.\n\n This solemn assurance of the possession of the land (\u00b9\u2074\u207b\u00b9\u2077) is\n somewhat of a contrast to the simple promises of 12\u00b2\u1427 \u2077; and has\n affinities with a series of passages which appear to represent a\n later phase of religious reflexion (see on chapter 15, page 284).\n Other reasons are adduced for thinking that \u00b9\u2074\u207b\u00b9\u2077 are the work\n of a younger hand than the original Yahwist. (a) It is not the\n habit of Yahwist to cite divine oracles without a specification\n of the circumstances under which the theophany takes place\n (but see 12\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427). (b) The conception of Abram as wandering over\n the land is not that of Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f, who fixes his permanent\n dwelling-place at Hebron. (c) While Bethel commands a view of\n the Jordan valley, it affords no wide prospect of the land as\n a whole. Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der\n historischen B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 25 f.) admits that\n these \u2018general impressions\u2019 are not such as to procure universal\n assent. In point of fact they are rather overstated; and\n Dillmann\u2019s answers may satisfy those who refuse to carry\n critical operations further than is absolutely necessary.\n Nevertheless, Wellhausen\u2019s impression is probably correct, and\n has commended itself to Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.\u00b9\n The verses may be omitted not only without injury to the context,\n but with the obvious advantage of bringing out the reference\n of \u00b9\u2078 to \u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427. The redactor has rightly seized the point of the\n story, which is that by his selfish choice Lot left Abram the\n sole heir of Canaan.\n\n \u00b9 The only point on which it is impossible to follow\n Wellhausen is his assumption that Hebron is the fixed\n residence of Abram in _all_ strata of Yahwist, and that the\n notion of his migratory life arose from the amalgamation\n of Elohist (which puts Beersheba in the place of Hebron)\n with Yahwist. There was probably a whole cycle of Yahwistic\n legends, in which he is represented as living in the Negeb\n (see already on 12\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427). So far as mere literary criticism\n goes, there is no reason why the addition should not be\n prior to Redactor\u1d36\u1d49\u02b0\u1d52\u1d5b\u2071\u02e2\u1d57.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =16.= \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8\u200e] = \u2018so that\u2019 (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 166 _b_).\u2015\u2015=17.= LXX\n adds at end \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1,\u2015\u2015approved by Ball.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=18.= Abram moves his tent to the _terebinth(s) of Mamre_, in Hebron,\nand inaugurates the local sanctuary there. In the main narrative of\nYahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f the statement was immediately followed by chapter 18;\nand it is possible that the theophany recorded at the beginning of\nthat chapter is that which marked the place as holy (see on 12\u2077).\n\n The site of the tree (or trees, _v.i._) is not known. There was\n a Terebinth of Abraham about 15 stadia from Hebron, which was\n the scene of mixed heathen and Christian worship, suppressed\n by order of Constantine (Sozomen, _Ecclesiastical History_,\n ii. 4). Josephus (_War of the Jews_, iv. 533) mentions a very\n large terebinth said to have existed \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\n \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd, 6 stadia from the city. In spite of the discrepancy as to\n distance, it is probable that these are to be identified; and\n that the site was the _\u1e24ar\u0101m R\u0101met el-\u1e2aal\u012bl_, 2 miles North of\n Hebron. The difficulty in accepting this, the oldest accessible,\n tradition is that the distance is inconsistent with the\n statement that the sanctuary was _in_ Hebron. And if we suppose\n the ancient Hebron to have been at _er-R\u0101me_ in the vicinity of\n the _\u1e24ar\u0101m_, this conflicts with the tradition as to the cave of\n Machpelah, which has as good claims to be considered authentic.\n The present \u2018Oak of Abraham,\u2019 about 2 miles North-west, is as\n old as the 16th century. See Robinson, _Biblical Researches in\n Palestine_, i. 216; Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 160,\n 162; Baedeker, _Palestine and Syria: handbook for travellers_\u00b3\n 138, 142; Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 224 f.; von\n Gall, _Altisraelitische Kultst\u00e4tten_ 52.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =18.= \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b9\u05e0\u05b7\u05d9 \u05de\u05b7\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b5\u05d0\u200e (14\u00b9\u00b3 18\u00b9)] see on 12\u2076. LXX \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03c1\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u039c\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd.\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 also reads the singular, which may be right, though\n 18\u2074 cannot be cited in support of it. In Yahwist, Mamre is said\n to be _in_ Hebron, in Priestly-Code (where the tree is never\n mentioned) it is a name of Hebron, and in 14\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u2074 it becomes the\n name of an Amorite chief, the owner of the trees. So Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n here, as shown by the addition of (\u2021 Syriac word).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n CHAPTER XIV.\n _Abram\u2019s Victory over Four Kings._\n\nWhile Abram was at Hebron, a revolt of five petty kings in the Jordan\nvalley against their over-lord Chedorlaomer of Elam brought from the\nEast a great punitive expedition, in which no fewer than four powerful\nmonarchs took part. A successful campaign\u2015\u2015the course of which is\ntraced in detail\u2015\u2015ended in the complete defeat of the rebels in a\npitched battle in what is now the Dead Sea basin, followed by the\nsack of Sodom, and the capture of Lot (\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u00b2). Abram, with a handful\nof slaves, pursues the victorious allies to Dan, routs them in a\nnight attack, and rescues the captives, including Lot (\u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2076). On his\nhomeward journey he is met by Melchizedek, king of Salem, who blesses\nhim in the name of God Most High, and to whom he pays tithes (\u00b9\u2078\u207b\u00b2\u2070);\nand by the king of Sodom, whose offer of the spoil Abram rejects\nwith proud and almost disdainful magnanimity (\u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u2074).\u2015\u2015Such is\nin brief the content of this strange and perplexing chapter, in its\npresent form and setting. It is obvious that the first half is merely\nintroductory, and that the purpose of the whole is to illustrate\nthe singular dignity of Abram\u2019s position among the potentates of the\nearth. Essentially peaceful, yet ready on the call of duty to take\nthe field against overwhelming odds, disinterested and considerate\nof others in the hour of victory, reverential towards the name and\nrepresentative of the true God, he moves as a \u2018great prince\u2019 amongst\nhis contemporaries, combining the highest earthly success with a\ncertain detachment and unworldliness of character.\u2015\u2015Whether the picture\nbe historically true or not\u2015\u2015a question reserved for a concluding\nnote\u2015\u2015it is unfair to deny to it nobility of conception; and it is\nperhaps an exaggeration to assert that it stands in absolute and\nunrelieved opposition to all we elsewhere read of Abram. The story\ndoes not give the impression that Abram forfeits the character of\n\u2018Muslim and prophet\u2019 (Wellhausen) even when he assumes the r\u00f4le of\na warrior.\n\n _Literary character._\u2015\u2015Many features of the chapter show that\n it has had a peculiar literary history. (a) The _vocabulary_,\n though exhibiting sporadic affinities with Priestly-Code (\u05e8\u05b0\u05db\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u200e,\n\u200e \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9; \u05d9\u05b0\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05d9\u05b4\u05ea\u200e, \u00b9\u2074; \u05e0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1\u200e [= \u2018person\u2019], \u00b2\u00b9) or Elohist (\u05d4\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u200e,\n\u200e \u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3; \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05d9\u200e, \u00b2\u2074), contains several expressions which are either\n unique or rare (see the footnotes): \u05d7\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05da\u05b0\u200e, \u00b9\u2074; (\u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd);\n\u200e \u05d4\u05b5\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e7\u200e, \u00b9\u2074; \u05d4\u05b7\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05d8\u200e, \u00b9\u00b3; \u05e7\u05b9\u05e0\u05b6\u05d4\u200e, \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc \u05e2\u05b6\u05dc\u05b0\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e, \u00b9\u2078\u207b\u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2; \u05de\u05b4\u05d2\u05b5\u05bc\u05df\u200e, \u00b2\u2070; \u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05d3\u200e, \u2074.\u00b9\u2015\u2015(b) The\n numerous antiquarian _glosses_ and _archaic_ names, suggesting\n the use of an ancient document, have no parallel except in\n Deuteronomy 2\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u00b3 3\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u2074; and even these are not\n quite of the same character. (c) The _annalistic_ official style,\n specially noticeable in the introduction, may be genuine or\n simulated; in either case it marks the passage sharply off from\n the narratives by which it is surrounded.\u2015\u2015That the chapter\n as it stands cannot be assigned to any of the three sources of\n Genesis is now universally acknowledged, and need not be further\n argued here. Some writers postulate the existence of a literary\n kernel which may either (1) have originated in one of the\n schools Yahwist or Elohist,\u00b2 or (2) have passed through their\n hands.\u00b3 In neither form can the theory be made at all plausible.\n The treatment of documentary material supposed by (1) is\n unexampled in Genesis; and those who suggest it have to produce\n some sufficient reason why a narrative of (say) Elohist required\n to be so heavily glossed. As for (2), we have, to be sure, no\n experience of how Elohist or Yahwist would have edited an old\n cuneiform document if it had fallen into their hands,\u2015\u2015they\n were collectors of oral tradition, not manipulators of official\n records,\u2015\u2015but we may presume that if the story would not bear\n telling in the vivid style that went to the hearts of the\n people, these writers would have left it alone. The objections\n to Priestly-Code\u2019s authorship are equally strong, the style\n and subject being alike foreign to the well-marked character of\n the Priestly narration. Chapter xiv. is therefore an isolated\n boulder in the stratification of the Pentateuch, a fact which\n certainly invites examination of its origin, but is not in\n itself an evidence of high antiquity.\n\n \u00b9 The singularity of the passage appears to be reflected even\n in the translation of LXX, which has some unusual renderings:\n \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 for \u05e8\u05b0\u05db\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u200e, \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9 (nowhere else in Old Testament);\n \u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03be for \u05e2\u05b5\u05de\u05b6\u05e7\u200e, \u00b3 (not again in Pentateuch: twice in Joshua\n and 4 times in Book of Isaiah); \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 (\u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd) for\n\u200e \u05e2\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, \u00b9\u00b3,\u2015\u2015though this might be explained by the unexpected\n occurrence of the gentilic in this connexion (Aquila\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u0390\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2).\n\n \u00b2 So Dillmann, Kittel (_Geschichte der Hebr\u00e4er_, i. 124,\n 158 ff.), and (with reserve) Holzinger, all of whom think\n of Elohist as the most likely source.\n\n \u00b3 So Winckler _Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_,\n ii. 26\u201248, who holds that the original was a cuneiform\n document of legendary and mythical character, which was\n worked over first by Elohist and then by Yahwist (see below,\n page 272).\n\n=1\u20124. The revolt of the five kings.=\u2015\u2015=1.= The four names (see below)\ndo double duty,\u2015\u2015as genitve after \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05de\u05b5\u05d9\u200e and as subject to \u05e2\u05b8\u05e9\u05c2\u05d5\u05bc \u05de\u05f3\u200e\u2015\u2015a faulty\nsyntax which a good writer would have avoided (_v.i._). The suggestion\nthat the first two names are genitive and the last two subject,\u00b9 has\nthe advantage of putting _K\u0115dorl\u0101\u2018omer_, the head of the expedition\n(\u2074\u1427 \u2075\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2077), in the place of honour; but it is without warrant in\nthe Hebrew text; and besides, by excluding the first two kings from\nparticipation in the campaign (against \u2075\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2077), it necessitates a\nseries of changes too radical to be safely undertaken.\u2015\u2015=2.= The group\nof five cities (_Pentapolis_, Wisdom 10\u2076) is thought to be the result\nof an amalgamation of originally independent traditions.\n\n \u00b9 Winckler _Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_,\n ii. 27, 30; Peiser, _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen\n Gesellschaft_, 1897, 308 ff.; approved by Gunkel.\n\n In chapter 19, only Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned as\n destroyed (19\u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2078 [18\u00b2\u2070]; so 13\u00b9\u2070, Isaiah 1\u2079 \u1da0\u1427, Jeremiah 23\u00b9\u2074\n etc.) and Zoar (19\u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) as spared. Admah and \u1e92eboim are named\n alone in Hosea 11\u2078, in a manner hardly consistent with the idea\n that they were involved in the same catastrophe as Sodom and\n Gomorrah. The only passages besides this where the four are\n associated are 10\u00b9\u2079 and Deuteronomy 29\u00b2\u00b2, although \u2018neighbour\n cities\u2019 of Sodom and Gomorrah are referred to in Jeremiah\n 49\u00b9\u2078 50\u2074\u2070, Ezekiel 16\u2074\u2076 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427. If, as seems probable, there were\n two distinct legends, we cannot assume that in the original\n tradition Admah and \u1e92eboim were connected with the Dead Sea (see\n Cheyne _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 66 f.).\u2015\u2015The old name of Zoar, \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05dc\u05b7\u05e2\u200e\n (Destruction?), appears nowhere else.\n\n The four names in verse \u00b9 are undoubtedly historical, although\n the monumental evidence is less conclusive than is often\n represented. (1) \u05d0\u05b7\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05e4\u05b6\u05dc\u200e (\u1f08\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb) is thought to be a faulty\n transcription of _\u1e2aammurabi_ (_Ammurab[p]i_), the name of\n the 6th king of the first Babylonian dynasty, who put an end\n to the Elamite domination and united the whole country under\n his own sway (_circa_ 2100 B.C.).\u00b9 The final \u05dc\u200e presents a\n difficulty which has never been satisfactorily explained; but\n the equivalence is widely recognised by Assyriologists.\u00b2 It\n is, however, questioned by Jensen\u00b3, absolutely rejected by\n Bezold,\u2074 and pronounced \u2018problematical\u2019 by Meyer _Geschichte\n des Alterthums_\u00b2, I. ii. 551.\u2015\u2015(On \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05e0\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u200e, see 10\u00b9\u2070.)\u2015\u2015(2) \u05d0\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05da\u05b0\u200e\n (compare Daniel 2\u00b9\u2074, Judith 1\u2076), it seems, is now satisfactorily\n identified with _Eri-agu_, the Sumerian equivalent of _Arad-Sin_,\n a king of Larsa, who was succeeded by his more famous brother,\n R\u00eem-Sin, the ruler who was conquered by \u1e2aammurabi in the 31st\n year of the latter\u2019s reign (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte\n Testament_\u00b3, 16, 19). The two brothers, sons of the Elamite\n Kudurmabug, were first distinguished by Thureau-Dangin in 1907\n (_Die sumerischen und akkadischen K\u00f6nigsinschriften_ 210 f.;\n compare King, _Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings_,\n volume i. 68\u00b2; Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_\u00b2, I. ii. page\n 550 f.). Formerly the two names and persons were confused; and\n Schrader\u2019s attempt to identify R\u00eem-Sin with Arioch,\u2075 though\n accepted by many, was reasonably contested by the more cautious\n Assyriologists, _e.g._ Jensen (_Zeitschrift der deutschen\n morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, 1896, 247 ff.), Bezold (_op.\n cit._ 27, 56), and Zimmern (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte\n Testament_\u00b3, 367). The objections do not hold against the\n equation _Arioch_ = _Eriagu_ = _Arad-Sin_, provided Arad-Sin be\n kept distinct from R\u00eem-Sin. The discovery by Pinches\u2076 in 1892\n of the name _Eri-[E]aku_ or _Eri-Ekua_ stands on a somewhat\n different footing. The tablets on which these names occur are\n admittedly late (not earlier than the 4th century B.C.); the\n identity of the names with Eri-Aku is called in question by\n King; \u2077 who further points out that this Eri-Ekua is not styled\n a king, that there is nothing to connect him with Larsa, and\n that consequently we have no reason to suppose him the same as\n either of the well-known contemporaries of \u1e2aammurabi. The real\n significance of the discovery lies in the coincidence that on\n these same late fragments (and nowhere else) the two remaining\n names of the verse are _supposed_ to occur.\u2015\u2015(3) \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05d3\u05b8\u05e8\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05e2\u05b9\u05de\u05b6\u05e8\u200e\n (\u03a7\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1) unquestionably stands for _Kudur-lagamar_, a\n genuine Elamite proper name, containing the name of a known\n Elamite divinity _Lagamar_ (_Die Keilinschriften und das\n Alte Testament_\u00b3, 485), preceded by a word which appears\n as a component of theophorous Elamite names (_Kudur-mabug_,\n _Kudur-Nan\u1e2bundi_, etc.). It is extremely doubtful, however, if\n the actual name has yet been found outside of this chapter. The\n \u201csensational\u201d announcement of Scheil (1896), that he had read it\n (_Ku-dur-nu-u\u1e2b-ga-mar_) in a letter of \u1e2aammurabi to Sinidinnam,\n king of Larsa, has been disposed of by the brilliant refutation\n of King (_op. cit._ xxv\u2012xxxix. Compare also Delitzsch\n _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft_,\n iv. 90). There remains the prior discovery of the Pinches\n fragments, on which there is mentioned thrice a king of Elam\n whose name, it was thought, might be read _Kudur-la\u1e2b-mal_ or\n _Kudur-la\u1e2b-gu-mal_.\u2078 The first element (Kudur) is no doubt right,\n but the second is very widely questioned by Assyriologists.\u2079\n There is, moreover, nothing to show that the king in question,\n whatever his name, belonged to the age of \u1e2aammurabi.\u00b9\u2070 (4)\n\u200e \u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d3\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u200e (LXX\u1d31\u1d38 \u0398\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word)) was identified\n by Pinches with a \u201c_Tu-ud-\u1e2bul-a_, son of _Gaz_ ...,\u201d who is\n named once on the tablets already spoken of (see Schrader\n _Sitzungsberichte der K\u00f6niglich-Preussischen Akadamie der\n Wissenschaften zu Berlin_, 1895, xli. 961 ff.). The resemblance\n to Tid\u201bal is very close, and is naturally convincing to those\n who find \u2019Ariok and Kedorla\u201bomer in the same document; there is,\n however, no indication that _Tud\u1e2bula_ was a king, or that he was\n contemporary with \u1e2aammurabi and R\u00eem-Sin (King, _op. cit._).\u2015\u2015\u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e\n can hardly be the usual word for \u2018nations\u2019 (LXX, Vulgate,\n Targum), either as an indefinite expression (Tuch) or as a\n \u201cversch\u00e4mtes _et cetera_\u201d (Holzinger). We seem to require a\n proper name (Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 has (\u2021 Syriac word)); and many accept\n the suggestion of Rawlinson, that _Guti_ (a people North of the\n Upper Zab) should be read. Peiser (309) thinks that \u05de\u05b6\u05dc\u05b6\u05da\u05b0 \u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e is an\n attempt to render the common Babylonian title _\u0161ar ki\u0161\u0161ati_.\n\n \u00b9 See Introduction pages xiv f.\n\n \u00b2 See Schrader _Sitzungsberichte der K\u00f6niglich-Preussischen\n Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin_, 1887, xxxi. 600 ff.\n\n \u00b3 _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_,\n 1896, 252.\n\n \u2074 _Die Babylonisch-Assyrischen Keilinschriften_, etc., 1904,\n pages 26, 54.\n\n \u2075 _Sitzungsberichte der K\u00f6niglich-Preussischen Akadamie der\n Wissenschaften zu Berlin_, 1894, xv. 279 ff.\n\n \u2076 See his _Old Testament in the light_, etc., 223 ff.; compare\n Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the\n Monuments_, 181 ff.; and Sayce\u2019s amended translation in\n _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology_, 1906,\n 193 ff., 241 ff.; 1907, 7 ff.\n\n \u2077 _Letters and Inscriptions of \u1e2aammurabi_, i. page liii.\n Jensen, Peiser, and Bezold also pronounce against the\n identification.\n\n \u2078 This reading is questioned by King; see liv\u2012lvi, or the\n extract in Driver _Genesis_, _Addenda_ on page 157 _n_.\n Sayce now (_l.c._ page 194 ff.) proposes to read\n _Kudur-lakhkha-mal_; but the reading appears to be purely\n conjectural; and, unless it should be corroborated, nothing\n can be built upon it.\n\n \u2079 _e.g._ by King, Zimmern (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte\n Testament_\u00b3, 486\u00b9), Peiser (who reads it _Kudur-tur-bit_,\n _l.c._ 310), Jensen, Bezold, al.\n\n \u00b9\u2070 There is no doubt some difficulty in finding room for a\n king Kudur-lagamar alongside of Kudur-mabug (who, if not\n actually king of Elam, was certainly the over-lord of\n Arad-Sin and R\u00eem-Sin) in the time of \u1e2aammurabi; but in\n our ignorance of the situation that difficulty must not\n be pressed. It has, however, induced Langdon (Driver,\n _Genesis_\u2077, _Addenda_ xxxii.) to revive a conjecture of\n G. Smith, that Kudur-mabug and the Kudur-lagamar of this\n chapter are one and the same person. It does not appear that\n any fresh _facts_ have come to light to make the guess more\n convincing than it was when first propounded.\n\n The royal names in verse \u00b2 are of a different character from\n those of verse \u00b9. Several circumstances suggest that they are\n fictitious. Jewish exegesis gives a sinister interpretation to\n all four (Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, _Bereshith Rabba_ \u00a7 42, Rashi); and\n even modern scholars like Tuch and N\u00f6ldeke recognise in the\n first two a play on the words \u05e8\u05b7\u05e2\u200e (evil) and \u05e8\u05b6\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05e2\u200e (wickedness).\n And can it be accidental that they fall into two alliterative\n pairs, or that each king\u2019s name contains exactly as many letters\n as that of his city? On the other side, it may be urged (a)\n that the textual tradition is too uncertain to justify any\n conclusions based on the Hebrew (see the footnote); (b) the\n namelessness of the fifth king shows that the writer must have\n had traditional authority for the other four; and (c) _Sanibu_\n occurs as the name of an Ammonite king in an inscription of\n Tiglath-pileser IV. (Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 294,\n _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 21). These considerations\n do not remove the impression of artificiality which the list\n produces. Since the names are not repeated in verse \u2078, it is\n quite possible they are late insertions in the text, and, of\n course (on that view), unhistorical.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05dc\u05b7\u05e2\u200e is elsewhere a royal\n name (36\u00b3\u00b2).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05de\u05b5\u05d9\u200e] LXX \u1f10\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3; Vulgate _in illo tempore_, reading all\n the names in the nominative. LXX has the first in genitive and\n the rest nominative; LXX\u1d2c further inserts \u03ba\u03b1\u03af between the second\n and third. The reading of the Sixtine edition (first _two_ names\n in genitive coupled by \u03ba\u03b1\u03af), which is appealed to in support\n of Winckler\u2019s construction, has very little MS authority.\n \u201cI have little doubt that both in H. and P. 19 (which is a\n rather carelessly written MS) and in 135 the reading is due\n to a scribe\u2019s mistake, probably arising from misreading of a\n contracted termination and induced by the immediately preceding\n \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2. How it came into the Roman edition, I do not feel\n sure.\u201d\u00b9\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05dc\u05b7\u05e2\u200e] LXX \u0392\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1, etc.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05e0\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05d1\u200e] LXX \u03a3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b1\u03c1.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05de\u05b0\u05d0\u05b5\u05d1\u05b6\u05e8\u200e] LXX\n \u03a3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03c1, \u03a3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1 _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05e9\u05de\u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u200e\n (\u2018name has perished\u2019), Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word).\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05d0\u200e] the first\n of the 11 instances of this _Keth\u00eeb_ in Pentateuch (see on 2\u00b9\u00b2).\n\n \u00b9 Private communication from Mr. M\u2018Lean.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=3.= _all these_] not the kings from the East (Dillmann, Driver), but\n(see verse \u2074) those of the Pentapolis. That there should be any doubt\non the point is an indication of the weak style of the chapter. What\nexactly the verse means to say is not clear. The most probable sense\nis that the five cities _formed a league_] of the Vale of Siddim, and\ntherefore acted in concert. This is more natural than to suppose the\nstatement a premature mention of the preparations for battle in verse\n\u2078.\u2015\u2015_the Vale of Sidd\u00eem_] The name is peculiar to this narrative,\nand its meaning is unknown (_v.i._). The writer manifestly shares the\nbelief (13\u00b9\u2070) that what is now the Dead Sea was once dry land (see\npage 273 f. below).\u2015\u2015_The Sea of Salt_] one of the Old Testament names\nfor the Dead Sea (Numbers 34\u00b3, Deuteronomy 3\u00b9\u2077, Joshua 3\u00b9\u2076 15\u2075 etc.):\nsee Palestine Exploration Fund: _Quarterly Statements._, 1904, 64.\nWinckler\u2019s attempt to identify it with Lake \u1e24uleh is something of a\n_tour de force_ (_Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 36\nf.; compare 108 f.).\u2015\u2015=4.= _they rebelled_] by refusal of tribute\n(2 Kings 18\u2077 24\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2070 etc.). An Elamite dominion over Palestine in the\nearlier part of \u1e2aammurabi\u2019s reign is perfectly credible in the light\nof the monumental evidence (page 272). But the importance attributed\nin this connexion to the petty kings of the Pentapolis is one of the\nfeatures which excite suspicion of the historicity of the narrative.\nTo say that this is due to the writer\u2019s interest in Lot and Sodom is\nto concede that his conception of the situation is determined by other\ninfluences than authentic historical information.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =3.= \u05d7\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u200e] apparently a pregnant construct (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\n 119 _ee_) = \u2018came as confederates to\u2019; but this is rather harsh.\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b6\u05dc\u200e after \u05d7\u05d1\u05e8\u200e naturally refers to that to which one is joined\n (Exodus 26\u00b3; of a person, Sirach 12\u00b9\u2074): that being impossible\n here, \u05d7\u05d1\u05e8\u200e must be understood absolutely as Judges 20\u00b9\u00b9 (_vide_\n Moore or Budde _ad loc._) and the \u05d0\u05dc\u200e may have some vague local\n reference: \u2018all these had formed a confederacy at (?) the Vale\n of Siddim.\u2019\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b5\u05de\u05b6\u05e7 \u05d4\u05b7\u05e9\u05b5\u05bc\u05c1\u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f01\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd, apparently\n a conjecture from the context, Vulgate _vallem silvestrem_.\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 has \u05d7\u05e7\u05dc\u05d9\u05d0\u200e (from \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d3\u05b6\u05d4\u200e), Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f \u05e4\u05e8\u05d3\u05d9\u05e1\u05d9\u05d0\u200e; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n \u2018valley of the Sodomites\u2019: on the renderings of Aquila and\n Theodotion see Field\u2019s Note, page 30 f. It is evident the\n Versions did not understand the word. N\u00f6ldeke (_Untersuchungen\n zur Kritik des Alte Testament_ 160\u00b3), Renan (_History_ i. 116),\n Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_\u2075 105), Jeremias\n (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 351), al.\n think the true form is \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e: \u2018valley of demons.\u2019\u2015\u2015=4.= \u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05dc\u05e9\u05c1\u200e]\n Accusative of time (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 118 _i_); but _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d5\u05d1\u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u200e is better.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05e8\u05d3\u200e]\n rare in Hexateuch (Numbers 14\u2079, Joshua 22\u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2079\n [Priestly-Code]); and mostly late.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=5\u20127. The preliminary campaign.=\u2015\u2015One of the surprising things in the\nnarrative is the circuitous route by which the Eastern kings march\nagainst the rebels. We may assume that they had followed the usual\ntrack by Carchemish and Damascus: thence they advanced southwards on\nthe East of the Jordan; but then, instead of attacking the Pentapolis,\nthey pass it on their right, proceeding southward to the head of the\nGulf of A\u1e33aba. Then they turn North-west to \u1e32adesh, thence North-east\nto the Dead Sea depression; and only at the end of this long and\ndifficult journey do they join issue with their enemies in the vale\nof Siddim.\n\n In explanation, it has been suggested that the real object of\n the expedition was to secure command of the caravan routes in\n West Arabia, especially that leading through the Arabah from\n Syria to the Red Sea (see Tuch 257 ff.). It must be remembered,\n however, that this is the account, not of the first assertion\n of Elamite supremacy over these regions, but of the suppression\n of a revolt of not more than a few months\u2019 standing: hence it\n would be necessary to assume that all the peoples named were\n implicated in the rebellion. This is to go behind the plain\n meaning of the Hebrew narrator; and the verisimilitude of\n the description is certainly not enhanced by Hommel\u2019s wholly\n improbable speculation that the Pentapolis was the centre of\n an empire embracing the whole region East of the Jordan and the\n land of Edom (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by\n the Monuments_, 149). If there were any truth in theories of\n this kind, we should still have to conclude that the writer, for\n the sake of literary effect, had given a fictitious importance\n to the part played by the cities of the Jordan valley, and had\n so arranged the incidents as to make their defeat seem the\n climax of the campaign. (See N\u00f6ldeke, 163 f.)\n\n The general course of the campaign can be traced with sufficient\n certainty from the geographical names of \u2075\u207b\u2077; although it\n does not appear quite clearly whether these are conceived as\n the centres of the various nationalities or the battlefields\n in which they were defeated.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05e7\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05e0\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e (\u2018Astarte of the two\n horns\u2019:\u00b9 Eusebius _Pr\u00e6paratio Evangelica_ i. 10; or \u2018Astarte\n of the two-peaked mountain\u2019\u00b2) occurs as a compound name\n only here. A city _\u201bAst\u0101r\u00f4th_ of Bashan, the capital of\n Og\u2019s kingdom, is mentioned in Deuteronomy 1\u2074, Joshua 9\u00b9\u2070 12\u2074\n 13\u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9, 1 Chronicles 6\u2075\u2076 [= \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e2\u05b6\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, Joshua 21\u00b2\u2077]. _\u1e32arnaim_ is\n named (according to a probable emendation) in Amos 6\u00b9\u00b3, and in\n 1 Maccabees 5\u00b2\u2076\u1427 \u2074\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427, 2 Maccabees 12\u00b2\u00b9. It is uncertain whether\n these are two names for one place, or two adjacent places of\n which one was named after the other (\u201bAst\u0101r\u00f4th of [_i.e._ near]\n \u1e32arnaim); and the confusing statements of the _Onomastica Sacra_\n (84\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 86\u00b3\u00b2 108\u00b9\u2077 209\u2076\u00b9 268\u2079\u2078) throw little light on the\n question. The various sites that have been suggested\u2015\u2015Sheikh\n Sa\u2019d, Tell \u201bA\u0161tarah, Tell el-\u201bA\u0161\u201bari, and El-Muz\u00ear\u00eeb\u2015\u2015lie\n near the great road from Damascus to Mecca, about 20 miles\n East of the Lake of Tiberias (see Buhl, _Geographie des alten\n Palaestina_, 248 ff.; Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_, i.\n 166 f.; George Adam Smith in _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 335 f.).\n Wetzstein\u2019s identification with Bo\u1e93rah (regarded as a corruption\n of _Bostra_, and this of \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e2\u05b6\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, Joshua 21\u00b2\u2077), the capital of the\n \u1e2aaur\u00e2n, has been shown by N\u00f6ldeke (_Zeitschrift der deutschen\n morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xxix. 431\u00b9) to be philologically\n untenable.\u2015\u2015Of a place \u05d4\u05b8\u05dd\u200e nothing is known. It is a natural\n conjecture (Tuch al.) that it is the archaic name of _Rabbath_,\n the capital of _\u201bAmmon_; and Sayce (_The Higher Criticism and\n the Verdict of the Monuments_, 160 f.) thinks it must be\n explained as a retranscription from a cuneiform source of the\n word \u05e2\u05b7\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e. On the text _v.i._\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d5\u05b5\u05d4 \u05e7\u05b4\u05e8\u05b0\u05d9\u05b8\u05ea\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e is doubtless the Moabite\n or Reubenite city \u05e7\u05b4\u05e8\u05f3\u200e, mentioned in Jeremiah 48\u00b2\u00b3, Ezekiel 25\u2079,\n Numbers 32\u00b3\u2077, Joshua 13\u00b9\u2079 (_Onomastica Sacra_, \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc,\n \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1), the modern _\u1e32uraiy\u0101t_, East of the Dead Sea, a little\n South of the W\u0101d\u012b Zerka Ma\u201b\u012bn. \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d5\u05b5\u05d4\u200e (only here and verse \u00b9\u2077) is\n supposed to mean \u2018plain\u2019 (Syriac (\u2021 Syriac word)); but that is\n somewhat problematical.\u2015\u2015On the phrase \u05d4\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05dd \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u200e, see the footnote.\n While \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u200e alone may include the plateau to the West of the\n Arabah, the commoner \u05d4\u05b7\u05e8 \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u200e appears to be restricted to the\n mountainous region East of that gorge, now called _e\u0161-\u0160era\u201b_\n (see Buhl, _Geschichte der Edomiter_, 28 ff.).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05dc \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05e8\u05b8\u05df\u200e (_v.i._)\n is usually identified with \u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05dc\u05b7\u05ea\u200e (Deuteronomy 2\u2078, 2 Kings 14\u00b2\u00b2\n 16\u2076) or \u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u200e (1 Kings 9\u00b2\u2076, 2 Kings 16\u2076), at the head of the East\n arm of the Red Sea, which is supposed to derive its name from\n the groves of date-palms for which it was and is famous (see\n especially Tuch 264 f.). The grounds of the identification\n seem slender; and the evidence does not carry us further than\n Tuch\u2019s earlier view (251), that some oasis in the North of the\n desert is meant (see Cheyne _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 3584).\u00b3 The\n \u2018wilderness\u2019 is the often mentioned \u2018Wilderness of Paran\u2019 (21\u00b2\u00b9,\n Numbers 10\u00b9\u00b2 etc.), _i.e._ the desolate plateau of _et-T\u012bh_,\n stretching from the Arabah to the isthmus of Suez. There is\n obviously nothing in that definition to support the theory that\n _\u2019\u00cal-P\u00e2r\u0101n_ is the original name of the later _Elath_.\u2015\u2015\u05e7\u05b8\u05d3\u05b5\u05e9\u05c1\u200e\n (16\u00b9\u2074 20\u00b9 etc.), or \u05e7\u05f3 \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05e8\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05e2\u05b7\u200e (Numbers 34\u2074, Deuteronomy 1\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2079 2\u00b9\u2074).\n The controversy as to the situation of this important place\n has been practically settled since the appearance of Trumbull\u2019s\n _Kadesh-Barnea_ in 1884 (see Guthe, _Zeitschrift des deutschen\n Pal\u00e4stina-Vereins_, viii. 183 ff.). It is the spring now known\n as _\u201bAin \u1e32ad\u00ees_, at the head of the W\u0101d\u012b of the same name,\n \u201cnorthward of the desert proper,\u201d and about 50 miles South of\n Beersheba (see the description by Trumbull, _op. cit._ 272\u2012275).\n The distance in a straight line from Elath would be about 80\n miles, with a difficult ascent of 1500 feet. The alternative\n name \u05e2\u05b5\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d8\u200e (\u2018Well of Judgement\u2019) is found only here. Since \u05e7\u05b8\u05d3\u05b5\u05e9\u05c1\u200e\n means \u2018holy\u2019 and \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d8\u200e \u2018judicial decision,\u2019 it is a plausible\n conjecture of William Robertson Smith that the name refers to an\n ordeal involving the use of \u2018holy water\u2019 (Numbers 5\u00b9\u2077) from the\n sacred well (_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_\u00b2, 181).\n The sanctuary at Kadesh seems to have occupied a prominent\n place in the earliest Exodus tradition (Wellhausen _Prolegomena\n zur Geschichte Israels_\u2076 341 ff.); but there is no reason\n why the institution just alluded to should not be of much\n greater antiquity than the Mosaic age.\u2015\u2015\u05d7\u05b7\u05e6\u05b0\u05e6\u05b9\u05df \u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u200e is, according to\n 2 Chronicles 20\u00b2, _\u201b\u0112n-g\u0115d\u00ee_ (_\u201bAin \u01e6id\u012b_), about the middle of\n the West shore of the Dead Sea. A more unsuitable approach for\n an army to any part of the Dead Sea basin than the precipitous\n descent of nearly 2000 feet at this point, could hardly be\n imagined: see Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_,\n i. 503. It is not actually said that the army made the descent\n there: it might again have made a detour and reached its goal\n by a more practicable route. But certainly the conditions of\n this narrative would be better satisfied by _Kurnub_, on the\n road from Hebron to Elath, about 20 miles West-south-west of the\n South end of the Dead Sea. The identification, however, requires\n three steps, all of which involve uncertainties: (1) that \u05d7\u05f3 \u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u200e =\n the \u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u200e of Ezekiel 47\u00b9\u2079 48\u00b2\u2078; (2) that this is the _Thamara_ of\n _Onomastica Sacra_ (85\u00b3, 210\u2078\u2076), the \u0398\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c9 of Ptolemy xvi. 8;\n and (3) that the ruins of this are found at _Kurnub_. Compare\n _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 4890; Buhl, _Geographie des alten\n Palaestina_, 184.\n\n \u00b9 See M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa nach alt\u00e4gyptischen\n Denkm\u00e4lern_, 313; Macalister, Palestine Exploration Fund:\n _Quarterly Statements._, 1904, 15.\n\n \u00b2 Moore, _Journal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, xvi.\n 156 f.\n\n \u00b3 Trumbull places it at the oasis of _\u1e32ala\u201bat Na\u1e2bl_, in the\n middle of _et-T\u012bh_, on the \u1e2aa\u01e7\u01e7 route halfway between \u201bA\u1e33aba\n and Suez (_Kadesh-Barnea_, page 37).\n\n The six peoples named in verses \u2075\u207b\u2077 are the primitive races\n which, according to Hebrew tradition, formerly occupied the\n regions traversed by Chedorlaomer. (1) The \u05e8\u05b0\u05e4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e are spoken\n of as a giant race dwelling partly on the West (15\u00b2\u2070, Joshua\n 17\u00b9\u2075, 2 Samuel 21\u00b9\u2076, Isaiah 17\u2075), partly on the East, of the\n Jordan, especially in Bashan, where Og reigned as the last of\n the Rephaim (Deuteronomy 3\u00b9\u00b9, Joshua 12\u2074 etc.).\u2015\u2015(2) The \u05d6\u05d5\u05bc\u05d6\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e,\n only mentioned here, are probably the same as the Zamzumm\u00eem\n of Deuteronomy 2\u00b2\u2070, the aborigines of the Ammonite country.\n The equivalence of the two forms is considered by Sayce\n (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, iv. 393) and others to be\n explicable only by the Babylonian confusion of _m_ and _w_,\n and thus a proof that the narrative came ultimately from a\n cuneiform source.\u2015\u2015(3) \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] a kind of Rephaim, aborigines of\n Moab (Deuteronomy 2\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015(4) \u05d4\u05b7\u05d7\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] the race extirpated by the\n Edomites (36\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, Deuteronomy 2\u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2). The name has usually\n been understood to mean \u2018troglodytes\u2019 (see Driver _A critical\n and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy_ 38); but this is\n questioned by Jensen (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, x. 332 f.,\n 346 f.) and Hommel (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated\n by the Monuments_, 264\u00b2), who identify the word with _\u1e2aaru_,\n the Egyptian name for South-west Palestine.\u00b9\u2015\u2015(5) \u05d4\u05b8\u05e2\u05b2\u05de\u05b8\u05dc\u05b5\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] the\n Amalekite territory (\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d3\u05b6\u05d4\u200e), was in the Negeb, extending towards\n Egypt (Numbers 13\u00b2\u2079 14\u2074\u00b3\u1427 \u2074\u2075, 1 Samuel 27\u2078). In ancient tradition,\n Amalek was \u2018the firstling of peoples\u2019 (Numbers 24\u00b2\u2070), although,\n according to Genesis 36\u00b9\u00b2 its ancestor was a grandson of\n Esau.\u2015\u2015(6) \u05d4\u05b8\u05bd\u05d0\u05b1\u05de\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] see on 10\u00b9\u2076; and compare Deuteronomy 1\u2074\u2074,\n Judges 1\u00b3\u2076.\u2015\u2015While there can be no question of the absolute\n historicity of the last three names, the first three undoubtedly\n provoke speculation. Reph\u0101\u00eem is the name for _shades_ or\n _ghosts_; \u2019Em\u00eem probably means \u2018_terrible ones_\u2019; and Zamzumm\u00eem\n (if this be the same word as Z\u00fbz\u00eem), \u2018murmurers.\u2019 Schwally (_Das\n Leben nach dem Tode_, 64 f., and more fully _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\n die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xviii. 127 ff.) has given\n reasons to show that all three names originally denoted spirits\n of the dead, and afterwards came to be applied to an imaginary\n race of _extinct giants_, the supposed original inhabitants\n of the country (see also William Robertson Smith in Driver\n _A critical and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy_ 40). The\n tradition with regard to the Rephaim is too persistent to make\n this ingenious hypothesis altogether easy of acceptance. It\n is unfortunate that on a matter bearing so closely on the\n historicity of Genesis 14 the evidence is not more decisive.\n\n \u00b9 Compare M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa nach alt\u00e4gyptischen\n Denkm\u00e4lern_, 136 f., 148 ff.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =5.= \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05e8\u05b0\u05e4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] The article should be supplied, with _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_. LXX \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2; so Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5,\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b9\u05d7 \u05e7\u05f3\u200e The reading of the Sixtine and\n Aldine editions of LXX, \u1f08\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd, which even Dillmann\n adduces in favour of a distinction between the two cities, has,\n amongst the MSS used by the Cambridge editors, the support of\n only one late cursive, which Nestle maintains was copied from\n the Aldine edition. It is doubtless a conflation of \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd and\n the \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u039d\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd (? \u039a\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd) of LXX\u1d31\u1427 \u1d43\u02e1\u1427 (Nestle, _Zeitschrift des\n deutschen Pal\u00e4stina-Vereins_, xv. 256; compare Moore, _Journal\n of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, xvi. 155 f.).\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b7\u05d6\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d6\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e]\n LXX \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac = \u05e2\u05b4\u05d6\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d6\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e: so Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f.\n Symmachus has \u0396\u03bf\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd = \u05d6\u05b7\u05de\u05b0\u05d6\u05bb\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d4\u05b8\u05dd\u200e] LXX, Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n read \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05b6\u05dd\u200e (\u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, etc.). Some MSS of _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_ have \u05d1\u05d7\u05dd\u200e, which Jerome expressly says is\n the real reading of the Hebrew text.\u2015\u2015=6.= \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d4\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05dd\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Vulgate \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d4\u05b7\u05e8\u05b2\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9\u200e.\n Duplication of \u05e8\u200e is rare and doubtful (Psalms 30\u2078, Jeremiah 17\u00b3)\n in singular of this word, but common in construct plural. Buhl\n strikes out \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u200e as an explanatory gloss, retaining \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d4\u05b7\u05e8\u05b2\u05e8\u05b8\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05dc \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05e8\u05b8\u05df\u200e]\n LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 render \u2018terebinth of Paran,\u2019 and so virtually\n Vulgate, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, which have \u2018plain\u2019 (see on 12\u2076).\n If the ordinary theory, as given above, be correct, \u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05dc\u200e is used\n collectively in the sense of \u2018great tree\u2019 (here \u2018palms\u2019).\u2015\u2015=7.=\n For \u05e7\u05b8\u05d3\u05b5\u05e9\u05c1\u200e, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f (also Saadya) have \u05e8\u05e7\u05dd\u200e,\n apparently identifying it with Petra: see Tuch\u2019s Note, page 271\n f.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05d3\u05b5\u05d4\u200e] LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9\u200e, \u2018princes.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\n=8\u201212. The final battle, and capture of Lot.=\u2015\u2015=9.= _four kings\nagainst the five_] That the four Eastern kings should have been all\npresent in person (which is the obvious meaning of the narrator)\nis improbable enough; that they should count heads with the petty\nkinglets of the Pentapolis is an unreal and misleading estimate of\nthe opposing forces, due to a desire to magnify Abram\u2019s subsequent\nachievement.\u2015\u2015=10.= The vale of Siddim was at that time _wells upon\nwells of bitumen_] The notice is a proof of intelligent popular\nreasoning rather than of authentic information regarding actual facts.\nThe Dead Sea was noted in antiquity for the production of bitumen,\nmasses of which were found floating on the surface (Strabo, XVI. ii.\n42; Diodorus ii. 48, xix. 98; Pliny, vii. 65), as, indeed, they still\nare after earthquakes, but \u201conly in the southern part of the sea\u201d\n(Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, i. 518, ii. 189, 191).\nIt was a natural inference that the bottom of the sea was covered with\nasphalt wells, like those of Hit in Babylonia. Seetzen (i. 417) says\nthat the bitumen oozes from rocks round the sea, \u201cand that (_und zwar_)\nunder the surface of the water, as swimmers have felt and seen\u201d; and\nStrabo says it rose in bubbles like boiling water from the middle of\nthe deepest part.\u2015\u2015=11, 12.= Sodom and Gomorrah are sacked, and Lot is\ntaken captive. The account leaves much to be supplied by the\nimagination. The repetition of \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05e7\u05b0\u05d7\u05d5\u05bc\u200e and \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b5\u05bd\u05db\u05d5\u05bc\u200e in two consecutive sentences\nis a mark of inferior style; but the phrase \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05df\u05be\u05d0\u05b2\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05dd\u200e, which anticipates\nthe introduction of Abram in verse \u00b9\u00b3, is probably a gloss (_v.i._).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =10.= \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05bd\u05d0\u05b1\u05e8\u05b9\u05ea \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05bd\u05d0\u05b1\u05e8\u05b9\u05ea\u200e] On the nominal appositives and duplication, see\n Davidson \u00a7 29, _R._ 8; Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 123 _e_ (compare\n \u00a7 130 _e_). LXX\u1d38\u1d58\u1d9c\u2071\u1d43\u207f has the word but once.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05de\u05b9\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] better as\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b6\u05dc\u05b6\u05da\u05b0 \u05e2\u05f3\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b6\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] On\n the peculiar\u202f\u202f\u05b6\u200e, see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\u00a7 27 _q_, 90 _i_.\u2015\u2015=11.=\n\u200e \u05e8\u05b0\u05db\u05bb\u05e9\u05c1\u200e] LXX \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd (_i.e._ \u05e8\u05b6\u05db\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1\u200e); the confusion appears in \u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9, but\n nowhere else in the Old Testament.\u2015\u2015=12.= \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05df\u05be\u05d0\u05b2\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05dd\u200e] LXX inserts\n the words immediately after \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d8\u200e,\u2015\u2015an indication that they have\n been introduced from the margin. It is to be noted also that Lot\n is elsewhere called simply the \u2018brother\u2019 of Abram (\u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2076).\u2015\u2015The\n last clause is awkwardly placed; but considering the style\n of the chapter, we are not justified in treating it as an\n interpolation.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=13\u201216. Abram\u2019s pursuit and victory.=\u2015\u2015The homeward march of the\nvictorious army must have taken it very near Hebron,\u2015\u2015Engedi itself is\nonly about 17 miles off,\u2015\u2015but Abram had \u2018let the legions thunder past,\u2019\nuntil the intelligence reached him of his nephew\u2019s danger.\u2015\u2015=13.=\n_Abram the Hebrew_] is obviously meant as the first introduction\nof Abram in this narrative. The epithet is not _necessarily_ an\nanachronism, if we accept the view that the \u1e2aabiri of the Tel Amarna\nperiod were the nomadic ancestors of the Israelites (see on 10\u00b2\u00b9);\nthough it is difficult to believe that there were \u1e2aabiri in Palestine\nmore than 600 years earlier, in the time of \u1e2aammurabi (against Sellin,\n_Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift_, xvi. 936; compare Paton, _The Early\nHistory of Syria and Palestine_ 39 ff.). That, however, is the only\nsense in which Abram could be naturally described as a Hebrew in a\ncontemporary document; and the probability is that the term is used by\nan anachronistic extension of the later distinction between Israelites\nand foreigners.\u2015\u2015_Mamr\u0113\u2019 the Amorite_] see on 13\u00b9\u2078. In Yahwist (whose\nphraseology is here followed) \u05de\u05b7\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b5\u05d0\u200e is the name of the sacred tree or\ngrove; in Priestly-Code it is a synonym of Hebron; here it is the\npersonal name of the owner of the grove. In like manner _\u2019E\u0161k\u014dl_ is\na personal name derived from the valley of Eshcol (\u2018grape-cluster,\u2019\nNumbers 13\u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427); and _\u201bAn\u0113r_ may have a similar origin. The first\ntwo, at all events, are \u201c_heroes eponymi_ of the most unequivocal\ncharacter\u201d (N\u00f6ldeke _Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_\n166),\u2015\u2015a misconception of which no contemporary would have been\ncapable.\u00b9\u2015\u2015_the confederates of Abram_ (LXX \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9)] The expression\n\u200e\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05dc\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u200e\u200e does not recur; compare \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05dc\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e2\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, Nehemiah 6\u00b9\u2078. Kraetzschmar\u2019s\nview (_Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament_ 23 f.), that it\ndenotes the relation of patrons to client, is inherently improbable.\nThat these men joined Abram in his pursuit is not stated, but is\npresupposed in verse \u00b2\u2074,\u2015\u2015another example of the writer\u2019s laxity in\nnarration.\u2015\u2015=14.= As soon as Abram learns the fate of his _brother_\n(_i.e._ \u2018relative\u2019), he _called up his trained men_ (?: on \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b6\u05e7\u200e and \u05d7\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05db\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5\u200e,\n_v.i._) and gave chase.\u2015\u2015_three hundred and eighteen_] The number\ncannot be an arbitrary invention, and is not likely to be historical.\nIt is commonly explained as a piece of Jewish _Gematria_, 318 being\nthe numerical value of the letters of \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8\u200e (15\u00b2) (_Bereshith Rabba_\n\u00a7 43: see Nestle, _The Expository Times._, xvii. 44 f. [compare 139\nf.]). A _modern_ Gematria finds in it the number of the days of the\nmoon\u2019s visibility during the lunar year (Winckler _Geschichte Israels\nin Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 27).\u2015\u2015_to Dan_] Now Tell el-\u1e32\u0101\u1e0di, at\nthe foot of Hermon. This name originated in the period of the Judges\n(Joshua 19\u2074\u2077, Judges 18\u00b2\u2079); and it is singular that such a prolepsis\nshould occur in a document elsewhere so careful of the appearance of\nantiquity.\u2015\u2015=15.= _He divided himself_] _i.e._ (as usually understood)\ninto three bands,\u2015\u2015the favourite tactical man\u0153uvre in Hebrew warfare\n(Judges 7\u00b9\u2076, 1 Samuel 11\u00b9\u00b9 13\u00b9\u2077, Job 1\u00b9\u2077, 1 Maccabees 5\u00b3\u00b3): but see\nthe footnote.\u2015\u2015_smote them, and pursued them as far as Hobah_] Hobah\n(compare Judith 15\u2075) has been identified by Wetzstein with _Hoba_, _c._\n20 hours\u2019 journey North of Damascus. Sellin (934) takes it to be the\n_Ubi_ of the Tel-Amarna Tablets, the district in which Damascus was\nsituated (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, v. 139, 63; 146, 12). The\npursuit must in any case have been a long one, since Damascus itself is\nabout 15 hours from Dan. It is idle to pretend that Abram\u2019s victory was\nmerely a surprise attack on the rearguard, and the recovery of part of\nthe booty. A pursuit carried so far implies the rout of the main body\nof the enemy.\n\n \u00b9 Dillmann\u2019s remark (page 235), that \u201cit makes no difference\n whether Mamre or the (lord) of Mamre helped Abram,\u201d is hard\n to understand. If Mamre and Eshcol were really names of\n places, and the writer took them for names of individual\n men, the fact has the most important bearing on the question\n of the historicity of the record. The alternative theory,\n that the names were originally those of persons, and were\n afterwards transferred to the places owned or inhabited\n by them, will hardly bear examination. \u2018Grape-cluster\u2019 is\n a suitable name for a valley, but not for a man. And does\n any one suppose that Yahwist would have recorded Abram\u2019s\n settlement at Hebron in the terms of 13\u00b9\u2078, if he had been\n aware that Mamre was an individual living at the time?\n Yet the Yahwist\u2019s historical knowledge is far less open to\n suspicion than that of the writer of chapter 14.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =13.= \u05d4\u05b7\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05d8\u200e] Ezekiel 24\u00b2\u2076 33\u00b2\u00b9 (compare \u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05b7\u05bc\u05d2\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05d3\u200e, 2 Samuel 15\u00b9\u00b3). For\n the idiom, see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 126 _r_.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b8\u05e2\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] LXX \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u1fc3\n (only here), Aquila \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u0390\u03c4\u1fc3.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b8\u05e0\u05b5\u05e8\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_ \u05e2\u05e0\u05e8\u05dd\u200e, LXX \u0391\u1f50\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd.\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b6\u05e7\u200e] Literally \u2018emptied\n out,\u2019 used of the unsheathing of a sword (Exodus 15\u2079, Leviticus\n 26\u00b3\u00b3, Ezekiel 5\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2 etc.), but never with personal objective\n as here. Tuch cites the Arabic _\u01e7arrada_, which means both\n \u2018unsheath a sword\u2019 and \u2018detach a company from an army\u2019 (see\n Lane); but this is no real analogy, _The Samaritan Recension of\n the Pentateuch_ has \u05d1\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u05b6\u05e7\u200e = \u2018scrutinize\u2019 (Aramaic). LXX \u1f20\u03c1\u03af\u03b8\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\n (so Vulgate) and Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d6\u05e8\u05d9\u05d6\u200e (\u2018equip\u2019: so Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 and\n Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f) settle nothing, as they may be conjectural.\n Winckler (_Altorientalische Forschungen_, i. 102\u00b2) derives\n from Assyrian _di\u1e33u_ = \u2018call up troops\u2019; so Sellin, 937. Ball\n changes to \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05e4\u05b0\u05e7\u05b9\u05d3\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d7\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05db\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, LXX \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, Vulgate\n _expeditos_, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u2018young men.\u2019 The \u221a \u05d7\u05e0\u05da\u200e\n suggests the meaning \u2018initiated\u2019 (see on 4\u00b9\u2077), hence \u2018trained,\u2019\n \u2018experienced,\u2019 etc. Sellin (937) compares the word _\u1e2banakuka_\n = \u2018thy men,\u2019 found in one of the Ta\u201bannek tablets. If it comes\n direct from the ceremony of rubbing the palate of a new-born\n child (see page 116), it may have nothing to do with war,\n but denote simply those belonging to the household, the\n precise equivalent of \u05d9\u05b0\u05dc\u05b4\u05d3\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d1\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05ea\u200e. The latter phrase is found only\n in Priestly-Code (17\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u2077, Leviticus 22\u00b9\u00b9) and Jeremiah\n\u200e 2\u00b9\u2074.\u2015\u2015=15.= \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b8\u05dc\u05b5\u05e7\u200e] (compare 1 Kings 16\u00b2\u00b9). The sense given\n above is not altogether natural. Ball emends \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05d3\u05b0\u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e7\u200e. Winckler\n (_Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 27\u00b2)\n suggests a precarious Assyrian etymology, pointing as Piel, and\n rendering \u2018and he fell upon them by night\u2019: so Sellin.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05bc\u05c2\u05de\u05b9\u05d0\u05dc\u200e]\n Literally \u2018on the left.\u2019 The sense \u2018north\u2019 is rare: Joshua 19\u00b2\u2077\n (Priestly-Code), Ezekiel 16\u2074\u2076, Job 23\u2079.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=17, 18\u201220. Abram and Melki\u1e93ede\u1e33.=\u2015\u2015\u201cThe scene between Abram and\nMelki\u1e93ede\u1e33 is not without poetic charm: the two ideals (_Gr\u00f6sse_)\nwhich were afterwards to be so intimately united, the holy people and\nthe holy city, are here brought together for the first time: here for\nthe first time Israel receives the gift of its sanctuary\u201d (Gunkel 253).\n=17.= The scene of the meeting is \u05e2\u05b5\u05de\u05b6\u05e7 \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d5\u05b5\u05d4\u200e, interpreted as _the king\u2019s\nvale_. A place of this name is mentioned in 2 Samuel 18\u00b9\u2078 as the site\nof Absalom\u2019s pillar, which, according to Josephus (_Antiquities of\nthe Jews_ vii. 243), was two stadia from Jerusalem. The situation\nharmonises with the common view that \u0160alem is Jerusalem (see below);\nand other information does not exist.\u2015\u2015=18.= _Melk\u00ee\u1e93ede\u1e33, king of\n\u0160\u0101l\u0113m_, _etc._] The primitive combination of the kingly and priestly\noffices has been abundantly illustrated by Frazer from many quarters.\u00b9\nThe existence of such priest-kings in Canaan in very early times\nis perfectly credible, though not historically attested (compare\nthe _patesis_ of Babylonia). _\u0160\u0101l\u0113m_ is usually understood to be an\narchaic name for Jerusalem (Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 180;\nTargum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, Jerome [_Qu\u00e6stiones sive Traditiones hebraic\u00e6\nin Genesim_], Abraham Ibn Ezra al.), as in Psalms 76\u00b3, the only other\nplace where it occurs. The chief argument in favour of this view is\nthe typical significance attached to Melki\u1e93ede\u1e33 in Psalms 110\u2074, which\nis hardly intelligible except on the supposition that he was in a\nsense the ideal ancestor of the dynasty or hierarchy of Jerusalem.\n\n \u00b9 _Studies in the Kingship_, 29 ff. \u201cThe classical evidence\n points to the conclusion that in prehistoric ages, before the\n rise of the republican form of government, the various tribes\n or cities were ruled by kings, who discharged priestly duties\n and probably enjoyed a sacred character as descendants of\n deities\u201d (page 31).\n\n Whether the name was actually in use in ancient times, we do not\n know. The Tel Amarna Tablets have certainly proved that the name\n _Uru-Salim_ is of much greater antiquity than might have been\n gathered from the biblical statements (Judges 19\u00b9\u2070, 1 Chronicles\n 11\u2074); but the shortened form _Salem_ is as yet unattested. It\n has been suggested that the cuneiform _uru_ was misread as the\n determinative for \u2018city\u2019 (see Sellin, 941).\u2015\u2015The identifications\n with other places of the name which have been discovered\u2015\u2015_e.g._\n the Salim 8 Roman miles from Scythopolis (where, according\n to Jerome [_Epistola ad Evagrius Ponticus_], the ruins\n of Melki\u1e93ede\u1e33\u2019s palace were to be seen)\u2015\u2015have no claim to\n acceptance.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =17.= \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d5\u05b5\u05d4\u200e (without article) must apparently be a different word\n from that in verse \u2075. Hommel and Winckler emend \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9\u200e (_\u0161arr\u0113_, the\n Assyrian word for \u2018king\u2019).\u2015\u2015=18.= \u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05be\u05e6\u05b6\u05d3\u05b8\u05e7\u200e] usually explained as\n \u2018King of Righteousness\u2019 (Hebrews 7\u00b2), with _\u00ee_ as old genitive\n ending retained by the annexion; but more probably = \u2018My king\n is \u1e92id\u1e33,\u2019 \u1e92id\u1e33 being the name of a South Arabian and Ph\u0153nician\n deity (Baudissin, _Studien zur semitischen religionsgeschichte_\n i. 15; Baethgen, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte C\u00f6lestins_ 128). That\n \u1e92ede\u1e33 was an ancient name for Jerusalem (see Isaiah 1 \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2076,\n Jeremiah 31\u00b2\u00b3 50\u2077, Psalms 118\u00b9\u2079) there is no reason to believe.\n\n * * * * *\n\nOn the name \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc \u05e2\u05b6\u05dc\u05b0\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e (_God Most High_), see below, page 270 f.\u2015\u2015_bread\nand wine_] compare \u2018food and drink\u2019 (_akal\u00ee \u0161ikar\u00ee_) provided for an\narmy, etc., in the Tel-Amarna Tablets: _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,\n50\u00b2\u00b2 207\u00b9\u2076 209\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427 242\u00b9\u2076 (Sellin, 938).\u2015\u2015=19, 20.= The blessing of\nMelki\u1e93ede\u1e33 is poetic in form and partly in language; but in meaning it\nis a liturgical formula rather than a \u2018blessing\u2019 in the proper sense.\nIt lacks entirely the prophetic interpretation of concrete experiences\nwhich is the note of the antique blessing and curse (compare 3\u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\n4\u00b9\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427 9\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 27\u00b2\u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 \u00b3\u2079 \u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015_Creator of heaven and earth_] so LXX,\nVulgate. There is no reason to tone down the idea to that of mere\n_possession_ (Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2, al.); _v. infra_\u2015\u2015By payment of the tithe,\nAbram acknowledges the legitimacy of Melki\u1e93ede\u1e33\u2019s priesthood (Hebrews\n7\u2074), and the religious bond of a common monotheism uniting them; at\nthe same time the action was probably regarded as a precedent for the\npayment of tithes to the Jerusalem sanctuary for all time coming (so\nalready in _Jubilees_ xiii. 25\u201227: compare Genesis 28\u00b2\u00b2).\n\n The excision of the Melki\u1e93ede\u1e33 episode (see Winckler _Geschichte\n Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 29), which seems to\n break the connexion of verse \u00b2\u00b9 with verse \u00b9\u2077, is a temptingly\n facile operation; but it is doubtful if it be justified. The\n designation of Yahwe as \u2018God Most High\u2019 in the mouth of Abram\n (verse \u00b2\u00b2) is unintelligible apart from \u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1427. It may rather have\n been the writer\u2019s object to bring the three actors on one stage\n together in order to illustrate Abram\u2019s contrasted attitude\n to the sacred (Melki\u1e93ede\u1e33) and the secular (king of Sodom)\n authority.\u2015\u2015Hommel\u2019s ingenious and confident solution (_The\n Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_,\n 158 ff.), which gets rid of the king of Sodom altogether and\n resolves \u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u2074 wholly into an interview between Abram and\n Melki\u1e93ede\u1e33, is an extremely arbitrary piece of criticism.\n Sellin\u2019s view (page 939 f.), that verses \u00b9\u2078\u207b\u00b2\u2070 are original\n and \u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u2074 are \u2018Israelitische Wucherung,\u2019 is simpler and\n more plausible; but it has no more justification than any of\n the numerous other expedients which are necessary to save the\n essential historicity of the narrative.\n\n The mystery which invests the figure of Melki\u1e93ede\u1e33 has given\n rise to a great deal of speculation both in ancient and\n modern times. The Jewish idea that he was the patriarch Shem\n (Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, Talmud, al.) is thought to be a reaction\n against mystical interpretations prevalent in the school\n of Alexandria (where Philo identified him with the Logos),\n which, through Hebrews 7\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, exercised a certain influence on\n Christian theology (see Jerome, _Epistola ad Evagrius Ponticus_;\n compare _Jewish Encyclop\u00e6dia_, viii. 450). From a critical point\n of view the question of interest is whether Melki\u1e93ede\u1e33 belongs\n to the sphere of ancient tradition or is a fictitious personage,\n created to represent the claims of the post-Exilic priesthood\n in Jerusalem (Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der\n historischen B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 312). In opposition\n to the latter view, Gunkel rightly points out that Judaism\n is not likely to have invented as the prototype of the High\n Priesthood a Canaanitish priest-king, and that all possible\n pretensions of the Jerusalem hierarchy were covered by the\n figure of Aaron (253). It is more probable that Melki\u1e93ede\u1e33 is,\n if not a historical figure, at least a traditional figure of\n great antiquity, on whom the monarchy and hierarchy of Jerusalem\n based their dynastic and priestly rights.\u00b9 To the writer of\n Psalms 110, Melki\u1e93ede\u1e33 was \u201ca type, consecrated by antiquity,\n to which the ideal king of Israel, ruling on the same spot, must\n conform\u201d (Driver 167); and even if that Psalm be not pre-Exilic\n (as Gunkel supposes), but as late as the Maccab\u00e6an period, it\n is difficult to conceive that the type could have originated\n without some traditional basis.\u2015\u2015Some writers have sought a\n proof of the historical character of Melki\u1e93ede\u1e33 in a supposed\n parallel between the \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1, \u1f00\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, of Hebrews\n 7\u00b3 and a formula several times repeated in letters (Tel Amarna)\n of Abd\u1e2biba of Jerusalem to Amenophis IV.: \u201cNeither my father\n nor my mother set me in this place; the mighty arm of the king\n established me in my father\u2019s house.\u201d\u00b2 Abd\u1e2biba might have been a\n successor of Melki\u1e93ede\u1e33; and it is just conceivable that Hommel\n is right in his conjecture that a religious formula, associated\n with the head of the Jerusalem sanctuary, receives from Abd\u1e2biba\n a political turn, and is made use of to express his absolute\n dependence on the Egyptian king. But it must be observed that\n Abd\u1e2biba\u2019s language is perfectly intelligible in its diplomatic\n sense; its agreement with the words of the New Testament is only\n partial, and may be accidental; and it is free from the air of\n mystery which excites interest in the latter. This, however, is\n not to deny the probability that the writer to the Hebrews drew\n his conception partly from other sources than the verses in\n Genesis.\n\n \u00b9 Gunkel instances as a historical parallel the legal fiction\n by which the imperial prestige of the C\u00e6sars was transferred\n to Charlemagne and his successors.\u2015\u2015Josephus had the same\n view when he spoke of Melki\u1e93ede\u1e33 as \u03a7\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, and\n the first founder of Jerusalem (_War of the Jews_, vi. 438).\n\n \u00b2 Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the\n Monuments_, 155 ff.; Sayce, _Monuments_ 175; _The Early\n History of the Hebrews_, 28 f.; _Expository Times_, vii. 340\n ff., 478 ff., 565 f., viii. 43 f., 94 ff., 142 ff. (arts and\n letters by Sayce, Driver, and Hommel).\n\n _\u2019\u0112l \u2018Ely\u00f4n._\u2015\u2015\u2019El, the oldest Semitic appellative for God, was\n frequently differentiated according to particular aspects of the\n divine nature, or particular local or other relations entered\n into by the deity: hence arose compound names like \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc \u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u200e (17\u00b9),\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc \u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd\u200e (21\u00b3\u00b3), \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e (33\u00b2\u2070), \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05ea\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e (35\u2077), and \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc \u05e2\u05b6\u05dc\u05b0\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e (here\n and Psalms 78\u00b3\u2075).\u00b9 \u05e2\u05b6\u05dc\u05b0\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e (= \u2018upper,\u2019 \u2018highest\u2019) is not uncommonly\n used of God in the Old Testament, either alone (Numbers 24\u00b9\u2076,\n Deuteronomy 32\u2078, Psalms 18\u00b9\u2074 etc.) or in combinations with \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e\n or \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (Psalms 7\u00b9\u2078 (?), 47\u00b3 57\u00b3 etc.). That it was in actual use\n among the Canaanites is by no means incredible: the Ph\u0153nicians\n had a god \u1f18\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f5d\u03c8\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (Eusebius _Pr\u00e6paratio\n Evangelica_ i. 10, 11, 12); and there is nothing to forbid\n the supposition that the deity of the sanctuary of Jerusalem\n was worshipped under that name. On the other hand, there is\n nothing to prove it; and it is perhaps a more significant fact\n that the Maccabees were called \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f51\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 (Josephus\n _Antiquities of the Jews_ xvi. 163; _Assumption of Moses_,\n 6\u00b9]).\u00b2 This title, the frequent recurrence of \u05e2\u05b6\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e as a divine\n name in late Psalms, the name Salem in one such Psalm, and\n Melki\u1e93ede\u1e33 in (probably) another, make a group of coincidences\n which go to show that the Melki\u1e93ede\u1e33 legend was much in vogue\n about the time of the Maccabees.\n\n \u00b9 See Baethgen, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte C\u00f6lestins_ 291\n f.\u2015\u2015Compare, in classical religion, _Zeus Meilichios_,\n _-Xenios_, _Jupiter Terminus_, _-Latiaris_, etc.\n\n \u00b2 Siegfried, _Theologische Litteraturzeitung_, 1895, 304. On\n the late prevalence of the title, see also _A Dictionary\n of the Bible_, iii. 450, _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, i. 70\n (in and near Byblus), and Sch\u00fcrer, _Sitzungsberichte der\n K\u00f6niglich-Preussischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu\n Berlin_, 1897, page 200 ff.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =19.= \u05e7\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e has two senses in the Old Testament (if, indeed, there\n be not two distinct roots: see Gesenius-Buhl\u00b9\u2074 _s.v._): (a)\n \u2018create\u2019 or \u2018produce\u2019 (Psalms 139\u00b9\u00b3, Proverbs 8\u00b2\u00b2, Deuteronomy\n 32\u2076 [? Genesis 4\u00b9]); (b) \u2018purchase\u2019 or \u2018acquire by purchase\u2019\n (frequent). The idea of bare possession apart from purchase\n is hardly represented (? Isaiah 1\u00b3); and since the suggestion\n of purchase is here inadmissible, the sense \u2018create\u2019 must be\n accepted. That this meaning can be established only by late\n examples is certainly no objection so far as the present\n passage is concerned: see on 4\u00b9.\u2015\u2015=20.= After \u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05da\u05b0\u200e, LXX\u1d38\u1d58\u1d9c\u2071\u1d43\u207f\n inserts \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b4\u05d2\u05b5\u05bc\u05df\u200e] only Hosea 11\u2078, Isaiah 64\u2076 (LXX, etc.),\n Proverbs 4\u2079. The etymology is uncertain, but the view that it\n is a denominative from \u05de\u05b8\u05d2\u05b5\u05df\u200e, \u2018shield\u2019 (\u221a \u05d2\u05e0\u05df\u200e, Brown-Driver-Briggs)\n is hardly correct (see Barth, _Etymologische Studien zum\n semitischen insbesondere zum hebraischen Lexicon_, 4).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=17, 21\u201224. Abram and the king of Sodom.=\u2015\u2015The request of the king of\nSodom presupposes as the usual custom of war that Abram was entitled\nto the whole of the booty. Abram\u2019s lofty reply is the climax to which\nthe whole narrative leads up.\u2015\u2015=22.= _I lift up my hand_] the gesture\naccompanying an oath (Exodus 6\u2078, Numbers 14\u00b3\u2070, Deuteronomy 32\u2074\u2070,\nEzekiel 20\u00b2\u00b3, Daniel 12\u2077 etc.).\u2015\u2015_to Yahwe, \u2019El \u201bEly\u00f4n_] A recognition\nof religious affinity with Melki\u1e93ede\u1e33, as a fellow-worshipper of\nthe one true God. The \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, however, is probably an addition to the\ntext, wanting in LXX and Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 while _The Samaritan Recension of\nthe Pentateuch_ has \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015=23.= _lest thou shouldst say, etc._] An\nearlier writer (compare 12\u00b9\u2076) would perhaps not have understood this\nscruple: he would have attributed the enrichment of Abram to God, even\nif the medium was a heathen king.\u2015\u2015=24.= The condescending allowance\nfor the weakness of inferior natures is mentioned to enhance the\nimpression of Abram\u2019s generosity (Gunkel).\n\n _The Historic Value of Chapter 14._\u2015\u2015There are obvious reasons\n why this chapter should have come to be regarded in some\n quarters as a \u2018shibboleth\u2019 between two opposite schools of Old\n Testament criticism (Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as\n illustrated by the Monuments_, 165). The narrative is unique\n in this respect, that it sets the figure of Abraham in the\n framework of world-history. It is the case that certain features\n of this framework have been confirmed, or rendered credible,\n by recent Assyriological discoveries; and by those who look to\n arch\u00e6ological research to correct the aberrations of literary\n criticism, this fact is represented as not only demonstrating\n the historicity of the narrative as a whole, but as proving\n that the criticism which resolved it into a late Jewish romance\n must be vitiated by some radical fault of method. How far that\n sweeping conclusion is justified we have now to consider. The\n question raised is one of extreme difficulty, and is perhaps not\n yet ripe for final settlement. The attempt must be made, however,\n to review once more the chief points of the evidence, and to\n ascertain as fairly as possible the results to which it leads.\n\n The case for the historic trustworthiness of the story (or the\n antiquity of the source on which it is founded) rests on the\n following facts: (1) The occurrence of prehistoric names of\n places and peoples, some of which had become unintelligible\n to later readers, and required identification by explanatory\n glosses. Now the mere use of ancient and obsolete names is not\n in itself inconsistent with the fictitious character of the\n narrative. A writer who was projecting himself into a remote\n past would naturally introduce as many archaic names as he could\n find; and the substitution of such terms as Rephaim, Emim, Horim,\n etc., for the younger populations which occupied these regions,\n is no more than might be expected. Moreover, the force of the\n argument is weakened by the undoubted anachronism involved\n in the use of the name Dan (see on verse \u00b9\u2074). The presence of\n arch\u00e6ological glosses, however, cannot be disposed of in this\n way. To suppose that a writer deliberately introduced obsolete\n or fictitious names and glossed them, merely for the purpose of\n casting an air of antiquity over his narrative, is certainly a\n somewhat extreme hypothesis. It is fair to admit the presumption\n that he had really before him some traditional (perhaps\n documentary) material, though of what nature that material was\n it is impossible to determine.\u00b9\u2015\u2015(2) The general verisimilitude\n of the background of the story. It is proved beyond question\n that an Elamite supremacy over the West and Palestine existed\n before the year 2000 B.C.; consequently an expedition such as\n is here described is (broadly speaking) within the bounds of\n historic probability. Further, the state of things in Palestine\n presupposed by the record\u2015\u2015a number of petty kingships striving\n to maintain their independence, and entering into temporary\n alliances for that purpose\u2015\u2015harmonises with all we know of\n the political condition of the country before the Israelitish\n occupation, though it might be difficult to show that the\n writer\u2019s knowledge of the situation exceeds what would be\n acquired by the most cursory perusal of the story of the\n Conquest in the Book of Joshua.\u2015\u2015(3) The consideration most\n relied upon by apologetic writers is the proof obtained from\n Assyriology that the names in verse \u00b9 are historical. The\n evidence on this question has been given on page 257 ff., and\n need not be here recapitulated. We have seen that every one\n of the identifications is disputed by more than one competent\n Assyriologist (see, further, Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_\u00b2,\n I. ii. page 551 f.); and since only an expert is fully qualified\n to judge of the probabilities of the case, it is perhaps\n premature to regard the confirmation as assured. At the same\n time, it is quite clear that the names are not invented; and\n it is highly probable that they are those of contemporary kings\n who actually reigned over the countries assigned to them in\n this chapter. Their exact relations to one another are still\n undetermined, and in some respects difficult to imagine; but\n there is nothing in the situation which we may not expect to\n be cleared up by further discoveries. It would seem to follow\n that the author\u2019s information is derived ultimately either\n from a Babylonian source, or from records preserved amongst the\n Canaanites in Palestine. The presence of an element of authentic\n history in verse \u00b9 being thus admitted, we have to inquire how\n far this enters into the substance of the narrative.\n\n \u00b9 It is to be observed that in no single case is the\n correctness of the gloss attested by independent evidence\n (see verses \u00b2\u1427 \u00b3\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u2077\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2077). Those who maintain the existence\n of a cuneiform original have still to reckon with the theory\n of Winckler, who holds that the basis of the narrative is\n a Babylonian legend, which was brought into connexion with\n the story of Abraham by arbitrary identification of names\n whose primary significance was perhaps mythological. See\n _Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 28 ff. The\n question cannot be further discussed here.\n\n Before answering that question, we must look at the arguments\n advanced in favour of the late origin and fictitious character\n of the chapter. These are of two kinds: (1) The inherent\n improbability or incredibility of many of the incidents recorded.\n This line of criticism was most fully elaborated by N\u00f6ldeke in\n 1869 (_Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_, 156\u2012172):\n the following points may be selected as illustrations of the\n difficulties which the narrative presents. (a) The route said\n to have been traversed is, if not absolutely impracticable for\n a regular army, at least quite irreconcilable with the alleged\n object of the campaign,\u2015\u2015the chastisement of the Pentapolis.\n That the four kings should have passed the Dead Sea valley,\n leaving their principal enemies in their rear, and postponing a\n decisive engagement till the end of a circuitous and exhausting\n march, is a proceeding which would be impossible in real warfare,\n and could only have been imagined by a writer out of touch with\n the actualities of the situation (see the Notes on page 261).\n (b) It is difficult to resist the impression that some of\n the personal names\u2015\u2015especially _B\u0115ra\u201b_ and _Birsha\u201b_ (see on\n verse\u2002\u00b2), and _Mamre_ and _Eshcol_ (verse \u00b9\u00b3)\u2015\u2015are artificial\n formations, which reveal either the animus of the writer,\n or else (in the last two instances) a misapprehension of\n traditional data into which only a very late and ill-informed\n writer could have been betrayed. (c) The rout of Chedorlaomer\u2019s\n army by 318 untrained men is generally admitted to be incredible.\n It is no sufficient explanation to say that only a rearguard\n action may have taken place; the writer does not _mean_ that;\n and if his meaning misrepresents what actually took place,\n his account is at any rate not historical (see page 267).\n (d) It appears to be assumed in verse \u00b3 that the Dead Sea was\n formed subsequently to the events narrated. This idea seems\n to have been traditional in Israel (compare 13\u00b9\u2070), but it is\n nevertheless quite erroneous. Geological evidence proves that\n that amazing depression in the earth\u2019s surface had existed for\n ages before the advent of man on the earth, and formed, from the\n first, part of a great inland lake whose waters stood originally\n several hundred feet higher than the present level of the Dead\n Sea. It may, indeed, be urged that the vale of Siddim was not\n coextensive with the Dead Sea basin, but only with its shallow\n southern \u2018Lagoon\u2019 (South of _el-Lis\u0101n_), which by a partial\n subsidence of the ground might have been formed within historic\n times.\u00b9 But even if that were the true explanation, the manner\n of the statement is not that which would be used by a writer\n conversant with the facts.\u2015\u2015The improbabilities of the passage\n are not confined to the four points just mentioned, but are\n spread over the entire surface of the narrative; and while their\n force may be differently estimated by different minds, it\n is at least safe to say that they more than neutralise the\n impression of trustworthiness which the precise dates, numbers,\n and localities may at first produce.\u2015\u2015(2) The second class of\n considerations is derived from the spirit and tendency which\n characterise the representation, and reveal the standpoint\n of the writer. It would be easy to show that many of the\n improbabilities observed spring from a desire to enhance\n the greatness of Abraham\u2019s achievement; and indeed the whole\n tendency of the chapter is to set the figure of the patriarch in\n an ideal light, corresponding not to the realities of history,\n but to the imagination of some later age. Now the idealisation\n of the patriarchs is, of course, common to all stages of\n tradition; the question is to what period this ideal picture\n of Abraham may be most plausibly referred. The answer given by\n a number of critics is that it belongs to the later Judaism,\n and has its affinities \u201cwith Priestly-Code and the midrashic\n elements in Chronicles rather than with the older Israelite\n historians\u201d (Moore, _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, ii. 677). Criticism\n of this kind is necessarily subjective and speculative. At\n first sight it might appear that the conception of Abraham\n as a warlike hero is the mark of a warlike age, and therefore\n older than the more idyllic types delineated in the patriarchal\n legends. That judgement, however, fails to take account of the\n specific character of the narrative before us. It is a grandiose\n and lifeless description of military operations which are quite\n beyond the writer\u2019s range of conception; it contains no trace\n of the martial ardour of ancient times, and betrays considerable\n ignorance of the conditions of actual warfare; it is essentially\n the account of a Bedouin razzia magnified into a systematic\n campaign for the consolidation of empire. It has been fitly\n characterised as the product of a time which \u201cadmires military\n glory all the more because it can conduct no wars itself; and,\n having no warlike exploits to boast of in the present, revels\n in the mighty deeds of its ancestors. Such narratives tend in\n imagination towards the grotesque; the lack of the political\n experience which is to be acquired only in the life of the\n independent state produces a condition of mind which can no\n longer distinguish between the possible and the impossible. Thus\n the passage belongs to an age in which, in spite of a certain\n historical erudition, the historic sense of Judaism had sunk\n almost to zero\u201d (Gunkel 255).\n\n \u00b9 Compare Driver\u2019s elaborate Note, page 168 ff.; also Robinson,\n _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, ii. 187 f.; Gautier,\n _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 1043 f., 1046; Hull, _A Dictionary\n of the Bible_, i. 576\u1d47.\n\n It remains to consider the extent and origin of the historic\n element whose existence in the chapter we have been led to admit.\n Does it proceed from an ancient Canaanite record, which passed\n into the Hebrew tradition, to be gradually moulded into the\n form in which we now find it? Or did it come directly from\n an external source into the hands of a late author, who used\n it as the basis of a sort of historical romance? The former\n alternative is difficult to maintain if (as seems to be the case)\n the narrative stands outside the recognised literary sources\n of the Pentateuch.\u00b9 The most acceptable form of this theory\n is perhaps that presented by Sellin in the article to which\n reference has frequently been made in the preceding pages (_Neue\n kirchliche Zeitschrift_, xvi. 929\u2012951). The expedition, he\n thinks, may have taken place at any time between 2250 and 1750\n B.C.; and he allows a long period of oral transmission to have\n elapsed before the preparation of a cuneiform record about 1500.\n This document he supposes to have been deposited in the Temple\n archives of Jerusalem, and to have come into the possession of\n the Israelites through David\u2019s conquest of that city. He thus\n leaves room for a certain distortion of events in the primary\n document, and even for traces of mythological influence. The\n theory would gain immensely in plausibility if the alleged\n Canaanite parallels to the obscure expressions of verses \u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1427\n\u200e (\u05d7\u05dc\u05e7\u200e, \u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u200e, \u05d7\u05e0\u05d9\u05da\u200e) should prove to be relevant. At present, however,\n they are not known to be specifically Canaanite; and whatever be\n their value it does not appear that they tell more in favour of\n a Palestinian origin than of a cuneiform basis in general. The\n assumption that the document was deposited in the Temple is, of\n course, a pure hypothesis, on which nothing as to the antiquity\n or credibility of the narrative can be based.\n\n \u00b9 Page 256 above.\n\n On the other hand, the second alternative has definite support\n in a fact not sufficiently regarded by those who defend\n the authenticity of the chapter. It is significant that the\n cuneiform document in which three of the four royal names\n in verse \u00b9 are supposed to have been discovered is as late\n as the 4th or 3rd century B.C. Assuming the correctness of\n the identifications, we have here a positive proof that the\n period with which our story deals was a theme of poetic and\n legendary treatment in the age to which criticism is disposed\n approximately to assign the composition of Genesis 14. It shows\n that a cuneiform document is not necessarily a contemporary\n document, and need not contain an accurate transcript of fact.\n If we suppose such a document to have come into the possession\n of a Jew of the post-Exilic age, it would furnish just such\n a basis of quasi-historical material as would account for the\n blending of fact and fiction which the literary criticism of\n the chapter suggests. In any case the extent of the historical\n material remains undetermined. The names in verse \u00b9 are\n historical; some such expedition to the West as is here spoken\n of is possibly so; but everything else belongs to the region of\n conjecture. The particulars in which we are most interested\u2015\u2015the\n figures of Abram and Lot and Melki\u1e93ede\u1e33, the importance, the\n revolt, and even the existence, of the Cities of the _Kikk\u0101r_\n and, in short, all the details of the story\u2015\u2015are as yet\n unattested by any allusion in secular history.\n\n In conclusion, it should be noticed that there is no real\n antagonism between arch\u00e6ology and literary criticism in this\n matter. They deal with quite distinct aspects of the problem;\n and the fallacy lies in treating the chapter as a homogeneous\n and indivisible unity: it is like discussing whether the climate\n of Asia is hot or cold on conflicting evidence drawn from\n opposite extremes of the continent. Criticism claims to have\n shown that the narrative is full of improbabilities in detail\n which make it impossible to accept it as a reliable contemporary\n record of fact. All that the arch\u00e6ologist can pretend to have\n proved is that the general setting of the story is consistent\n with the political situation in the East as disclosed by the\n monuments; and that it contains data which cannot possibly be\n the fabrications of an unhistorical age. So much as this critics\n are perfectly prepared to admit. N\u00f6ldeke, who has stated the\n case against the authenticity of the chapter as strongly as any\n man, expressly declined to build an argument on the fact that\n nothing was then known of an Elamite dominion in the West, and\n allowed that the names of the four kings might be traditional\n (_op. cit._ 159 f.).\u00b9 Assyriology has hardly done more as yet\n than make good the possibilities thus conceded in advance. It\n is absurd to suppose that a theory can be overthrown by facts\n for which due allowance was made before they took rank as actual\n discoveries.\n\n \u00b9 The same admission was made by Wellhausen as long ago as\n 1889 (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen\n B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 310). In view of the\n persistent misrepresentations of critical opinion, it is not\n unnecessary to repeat once more that the historicity of the\n names in verse \u00b9 has not been denied by any leading critic\n (_e.g._ Ewald, N\u00f6ldeke, Dillmann, Wellhausen), even before\n the discoveries of later years.\u2015\u2015For an exposure of Sayce\u2019s\n extraordinary travesty of N\u00f6ldeke\u2019s arguments, the reader\n should consult Driver _The Book of Genesis with Introduction\n and Notes_\u2077, _Addenda_ to page 173.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =22.= \u05d4\u05b2\u05e8\u05b4\u05de\u05b9\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] On the perfect, Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 106 _i_.\u2015\u2015=23.=\n On the \u05d0\u05b4\u05dd\u200e of negative asseveration, \u00a7 149 _a_, _c_. The second\n\u200e \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b4\u05dd\u200e, which adds force to the negation, is not rendered by LXX\n or Vulgate.\u2015\u2015=24.= \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05d9\u200e literally \u2018not unto me!\u2019 (in Hexateuch\n only 41\u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u2074\u2074 [Elohist], Joshua 22\u00b9\u2079 [late]). LXX, Vulgate,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 seem to have read \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b2\u05d3\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e8\u05b7\u05e7\u200e as a compound\n prepositional phrase (= \u2018except\u2019).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n CHAPTER XV.\n _God\u2019s Covenant with Abram_\n (Jehovist).\n\nIn a prolonged interview with Yahwe, Abram\u2019s misgivings regarding the\nfulfilment of the divine promises are removed by solemn and explicit\nassurances, and by a symbolic act in which the Almighty binds Himself\nby the inviolable ceremonial of the _ber\u00eeth_.\u00b9 In the present form of\nthe chapter there is a clear division between the promise of a son and\nheir (\u00b9\u207b\u2076) and the promise of the land (\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u00b9), the latter alone being\nstrictly embraced in the scope of the covenant.\n\n \u00b9 \u201cDie Ber\u00eeth ist diejenige kultische Handlung, durch die in\n feierlicher Weise Verpflichtungen oder Abmachungen irgend\n welcher Art absolut bindend und unverbr\u00fcchlich gemacht\n wurden\u201d (Kraetzschmar, _Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten\n Testament_, 40 f.).\n\n _Analysis._\u2015\u2015See, besides the commentary, Wellhausen _Die\n Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des Alten\n Testaments_\u00b2 23 f.; Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 416\u00b9;\n Bacon, _Hebraica_, vii. 75 ff.; Kraetzschmar, _op. cit._ 58\n ff.\u2015\u2015The chapter shows unmistakable signs of composition, but\n the analysis is beset with peculiar, and perhaps insurmountable,\n difficulties. We may begin by examining the solution proposed by\n Gunkel. He assigns \u00b9\u1d43\u1427* \u1d47{\u03b3}\u1427 \u00b2\u1d43\u1427 \u00b3\u1d47\u1427 \u2074\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1d43{\u03b1}\u1427 \u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2078\u1d43\u1427\n \u1d47{\u03b1} to Yahwist; \u00b9\u1d47{\u03b1\u03b2}\u1427 \u00b3\u1d43\u1427 \u207d\u00b2\u1d47{?}\u207e \u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1d43{\u03b2}\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1d43\u1427 \u00b9\u2074 (to\n\u200e \u05d9\u05e6\u05d0\u05d5\u200e)\u1427 \u00b9\u2076 to Elohist; and \u2077\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u2074\u1d47{\u03b2}\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2078\u1d47{\u03b2}\u1427 \u00b9\u2079\u207b\u00b2\u00b9 to\n a redactor. On this analysis the Yahwist fragments form a\n consecutive and nearly complete narrative, the break at verse \u2077\n being caused by Redactor\u2019s insertion of \u2077 \u1da0\u1427 But (1) it is not\n so easy to get rid of \u2077 \u1da0\u1427 Verse \u2078 is, and \u2076 is not, a suitable\n point of contact for \u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427; and the omission of \u2077 \u1da0\u1427 would make\n the covenant a confirmation of the promise of an heir, whereas\n \u00b9\u2078 expressly restricts it to the possession of the land. And\n (2) the parts assigned to Yahwist contain no marks of the\n Yahwistic style except the name \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e; they present features not\n elsewhere observed in that document, and are coloured by ideas\n characteristic of the Deuteronomic age. The following points\n may be here noted: (a) the _prophetic_ character of the divine\n communication to Abram (\u00b9\u1427 \u2074); (b) the address \u05d0\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e (\u00b2\u1d43 [compare\n \u2078]); (c) the theological reflexion on the nature of Abram\u2019s\n righteousness (\u2076: compare Deuteronomy 6\u00b2\u2075 24\u00b9\u00b3); (d) the idea\n of the Abrahamic covenant (found only in redactional expansions\n of Jehovist, and common in Deuteronomy); to which may be added\n (e) the ideal boundaries of the land and the enumeration of\n its inhabitants (\u00b9\u2078\u1d47\u207b\u00b2\u00b9), both of which are Deuteronomistic\n (see on the verses below). The ceremonial of \u2079 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b9\u2077 is no\n proof of antiquity (compare Jeremiah 34\u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), and the symbolic\n representation of Yahwe\u2019s presence in \u00b9\u2077 is certainly not\n decisive against the late authorship of the piece (against\n Gunkel). It is difficult to escape the impression that the whole\n of this Yahwist narrative (including \u2077 \u1da0\u1427) is the composition of\n an editor who used the name \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, but whose affinities otherwise\n are with the school of Deuteronomy rather than with the early\n Yahwistic writers.\u2015\u2015This result, however, still leaves unsolved\n problems. (1) It fails to account for the obvious doublets in\n \u00b2\u1427 \u00b3. \u00b2\u1d47 and \u00b3\u1d43 are generally recognised as the first traces in\n the Hexateuch of the document Elohist, and \u2075 (a _night_ scene\n in contrast to \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2077) is naturally assigned to the same source.\n (2) With regard to \u207d\u00b9\u00b2{?}\u207e \u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2076, which most critics consider to\n be a redactional expansion of Yahwist, I incline to the opinion\n of Gunkel, that \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2076 form part of the sequel to the Elohist\n narrative recognised in \u00b3\u1d43\u1427 \u00b2\u1d47\u1427 \u2075 (note \u05d4\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u200e, verse \u00b9\u2076). (3) The\n renewed introduction of Yahwe in verse \u2077 forms a hiatus barely\n consistent with unity of authorship. The difficulty would be\n partly met by Bacon\u2019s suggestion that the proper position of\n the Yahwist material in \u00b9\u207b\u2076 is intermediate between 15\u00b9\u2078 and\n 16\u00b9. But though this ingenious theory removes one difficulty\n it creates others, and it leaves untouched what seems to me the\n chief element of the problem, the marks of lateness both in \u00b9\u207b\u2076\n and \u2077\u207b\u00b2\u00b9.\u2015\u2015The phenomena might be most fully explained by the\n assumption of an Elohistic basis, recast by a Jehovistic or\n Deuteronomic editor (probably Redactor\u1d36\u1d49\u02b0\u1d52\u1d5b\u2071\u02e2\u1d57), and afterwards\n combined with extracts from its own original; but so complex a\n hypothesis cannot be put forward with any confidence.\n\n=1\u20126. The promise of an heir= (Yahwist), =and a numerous posterity=\n(Elohist).\u2015\u2015=1.= The verse presupposes a situation of anxiety on the\npart of Abram, following on some meritorious action performed by him.\nIt is not certain that any definite set of circumstances was present\nto the mind of the writer, though the conditions are fairly well\nsatisfied by Abram\u2019s defenceless position amongst the Canaanites\nimmediately after his heroic obedience to the divine call (Gunkel).\nThe attempts to establish a connexion with the events of chapter\n14 (Jewish Commentary and a few moderns) are far-fetched and\nmisleading.\u2015\u2015_the word of Yahwe came_] On the formula _v.i._ The\nconception of Abram as a prophet has no parallel in Yahwist; and even\nElohist, though he speaks vaguely of Abram as a \u05e0\u05b8\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05d0\u200e (20\u2077, _q.v._),\ndoes not describe his intercourse with God in technical prophetic\nphraseology. The representation is not likely to have arisen before\nthe age of written prophecy.\u2015\u2015_in a vision_] probably a night-vision\n(see verse \u2075), in which case the expression must be attributed to\nElohist. The mediate character of revelation, as contrasted with\nthe directness of the older theophanies (_e.g._ chapter 18), is at\nall events characteristic of Elohist.\u2015\u2015_thy shield_] a figure for\nprotection common in later writings: Deuteronomy 33\u00b2\u2079, Psalms 3\u2074 7\u00b9\u00b9\noften, Proverbs 2\u2077 30\u2075.\u2015\u2015_thy reward_ [will be] _very great_] a new\nsentence (LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5), not (as Vulgate, English Version) a second\npredicate to \u05d0\u05b8\u05e0\u05b9\u05db\u05b4\u05d9\u200e\u2015\u2015=2.= _seeing I go hence childless_] So all versions,\ntaking \u05d4\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05da\u05b0\u200e in the sense of \u2018die\u2019 (Psalms 39\u00b9\u2074: compare Arabic _halaka_),\nthough the other sense (\u2018walk\u2019 = \u2018live\u2019) would be quite admissible.\nTo die childless and leave no name on earth (Numbers 27\u2074) is a fate\nso melancholy that even the assurance of present fellowship with God\nbrings no hope or joy.\u2015\u2015=2b= is absolutely unintelligible (_v.i._).\nThe versions agree in reading the names _Eliezer_ and _Damascus_, and\nalso (with the partial exception of LXX) in the general understanding\nthat the clause is a statement as to Abram\u2019s heir. This is probably\ncorrect; but the text is so corrupt that even the proper names are\ndoubtful, and there is only a presumption that the sense agrees with\n\u00b3\u1d47.\u2015\u2015=3.= In the absence of children or near relatives, the slave, as\na member of the family, might inherit (Stade _Geschichte des Volkes\nIsrael_, i. 391; Benzinger, _Hebr\u00e4ische Arch\u00e4ologie_\u00b2 113). \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05df\u05be\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05d9\u05b4\u05ea\u200e is a\nmember of the household, but not necessarily a home-born slave (\u05d9\u05b0\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05d9\u05b4\u05ea\u200e,\n14\u00b9\u2074).\u2015\u2015=5.= The promise of a numerous \u2018_seed_\u2019 (compare \u00b3\u1d43\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3) is\nElohist\u2019s parallel to the announcement of the birth of a bodily heir\nin Yahwist (verse \u2074).\u2015\u2015_the stars_] a favourite image of the later\neditors and Deuteronomy (22\u00b9\u2077 26\u2074, Exodus 32\u00b9\u00b3, Deuteronomy 1\u00b9\u2070 10\u00b2\u00b2\n28\u2076\u00b2).\u2015\u2015=6.= _counted it_ (his implicit trust in the character of\nYahwe) _as righteousness_] 1 Maccabees 2\u2075\u00b2. \u05e6\u05b0\u05d3\u05b8\u05e7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e is here neither\ninherent moral character, nor piety in the subjective sense, but a\nright relation to God conferred by a divine sentence of approval (see\nWellhausen _Psalms_, _The Sacred Books of the Old Testament_, 174).\n\n This remarkable anticipation of the Pauline doctrine of\n justification by faith (Romans 4\u00b3\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2, Galatians 3\u2076; compare\n James 2\u00b2\u00b3) must, of course, be understood in the light of Old\n Testament conceptions. The idea of righteousness as dependent on\n a divine judgment (\u05d7\u05b8\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d1\u200e) could only have arisen on the basis of\n legalism, while at the same time it points beyond it. It stands\n later in theological development than Deuteronomy 6\u00b2\u2075 24\u00b9\u00b3, and\n has its nearest analogies in Psalms 106\u00b3\u00b9 24\u2075. The reflexion is\n suggested by the question how Abram, who had no law to fulfil,\n was nevertheless \u2018righteous\u2019; and, finding the ground of his\n acceptance in an inward attitude towards God, it marks a real\n approximation to the Apostle\u2019s standpoint. Gunkel (161) well\n remarks that an early writer would have given, instead of this\n abstract proposition, a concrete illustration in which Abram\u2019s\n faith came to light.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8[\u05d9] \u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u200e] frequent in Elohist (22\u00b9 40\u00b9 48\u00b9, Joshua\n 24\u00b2\u2079), but also used by Yahwist (22\u00b2\u2070 39\u2077).\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b8\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d3\u05b0\u05d1\u05b7\u05e8\u05be\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e (compare\n verse \u2074)] not elsewhere in the Hexateuch; found occasionally in\n the older writings (1 Samuel 15\u00b9\u2070, 2 Samuel 24\u00b9\u00b9), but chiefly\n in later prophets and superscriptions: specially common in\n Jeremiah and Ezekiel\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05d6\u05b6\u05d4\u200e] Only Numbers 24\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2076, Ezekiel 13\u2077.\n The _word_ is thus not at all characteristic of Elohist, though\n the _idea_ of revelation through dreams and visions (\u05de\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e,\n Numbers 12\u2076; \u05de\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b9\u05ea \u05d4\u05b7\u05dc\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, Genesis 46\u00b2) undoubtedly is. Considering\n the many traces of late editing in the chapter, it is highly\n precarious to divide the phrases of verse \u00b9 between Yahwist\n and Elohist.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4\u200e (infinitive absolute) as predicate is unusual\n and late (Psalms 130\u2077, Ecclesiastes 11\u2078). _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4\u200e, \u2018I will multiply,\u2019 is perhaps\n preferable.\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05d0\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e] (compare \u2078) is common in the elevated\n style of prophecy (especially Ezekiel), but rare in the Psalms.\n In the historical books it occurs only as a vocative (except\n 1 Kings 2\u00b2\u2076): Joshua 7\u2077, Judges 6\u00b2\u00b2 16\u00b2\u2078,\u2015\u2015Deuteronomy 3\u00b2\u2074\n 9\u00b2\u2076, 2 Samuel 7\u00b9\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u2079, 1 Kings 8\u2075\u00b3. Of these the first\n three are possibly Yahwist; the rest are Deuteronomic.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d1\u05df\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8\u200e]\n LXX has \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u039c\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u0394\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2\n \u1f18\u03bb\u03b9\u03ad\u03b6\u03b5\u03c1,\u2015\u2015a meaningless sentence in the connexion, unless\n supplemented by \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5, as in some MSS of Philo\n (before \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2). Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 paraphrases: (\u2021 Syriac phrase) is a\n \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, which appears not to have been understood by\n any of the Versions. LXX treats it as the name of Eliezer\u2019s\n mother, Aquila (\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) as = \u05de\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e7\u05b6\u05d4\u200e; Theodotion, Vulgate,\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f give it the sense of \u2018steward,\u2019 which\n may be a mere conjecture like the \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 of Symmachus. Modern\n commentaries generally regard the word as a modification of\n\u200e \u05de\u05b6\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05da\u05b0\u200e (Job 28\u00b9\u2078?) with the sense of \u2018possession\u2019\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05df\u05be\u05de\u05b6\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05da\u05b0\u200e = \u2018son of\n possession\u2019 = \u2018possessor\u2019 or \u2018inheritor\u2019 (so Gesenius, Tuch,\n Kautzsch-Socin, Strack. al.); but this has neither philological\n justification nor traditional support. A \u221a \u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05e7\u200e (in spite of\n\u200e \u05de\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e7\u200e, Zephaniah 2\u2079) is extremely dubious. The last clause\n cannot be rendered either \u2018This is Eliezer of Damascus,\u2019\n or \u2018This is Damascus, namely Eliezer\u2019 (Delitzsch). Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n and Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 adopt the summary expedient of turning\n the substantive into an adjective, and reading \u2018Eliezer the\n Damascene\u2019 (similarly \u1f49 \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 in Field). It is difficult\n to imagine what Damascus can have to do here at all; and if a\n satisfactory sense for the previous words could be obtained,\n it would be plausible enough (with Hitzig, Tuch, Kautzsch-Socin,\n al.) to strike out [\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0] \u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05de\u05b6\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05e7\u200e as a stupid gloss on \u05de\u05b6\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e7\u200e. Ball\u2019s\n emendation, \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05e7 \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d4\u05bb\u05d0 \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05df\u05be\u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05de\u05b6\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05e7 \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05e2\u05b6\u05d6\u05b6\u05e8\u200e, \u2018and he who will possess my house\n is a Damascene\u2015\u2015Eliezer,\u2019 is plausible, but the singular \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05df\u05be\u200e with\n the name of a city is contrary to Hebrew idiom. Bewer (_Journal\n of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, 1908, part 2, 160 ff.) has\n proposed the reading\u2015\u2015ingenious but not convincing\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05e7\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\n\u200e \u05d6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b2\u05e2\u200e. \u00b2\u1d43 and \u00b3\u1d43 are parallels (note the double \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05f3\u200e), of which\n the former obviously belongs to Yahwist, the latter consequently\n to Elohist. Since \u00b3\u1d47 is Yahwist rather than Elohist (compare \u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b5\u05e9\u05c1\u200e\n with verse \u2074), it follows that \u00b3\u1d43\u1427 \u00b2\u1d47 must be transposed if the\n latter be Elohist\u2019s parallel to \u00b3\u1d47.\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05d9\u05e8\u05e9\u200e] in the sense of\n \u2018be heir to\u2019: compare 21\u00b9\u2070 (Elohist), 2 Samuel 14\u2077, Jeremiah\n 49\u00b9, Proverbs 30\u00b2\u00b3.\u2015\u2015=4.= \u05de\u05de\u05e2\u05d9\u05da\u05b8\u200e (LXX \u05de\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05bc\u05da\u05b8\u200e?)] of the father, 2\n Samuel 7\u00b9\u00b2 16\u00b9\u00b9, Isaiah 48\u00b9\u2079; of the mother, 25\u00b2\u00b3 (Yahwist),\n Isaiah 49\u00b9, Ruth 1\u00b9\u00b9, Psalms 71\u2076.\u2015\u2015=5.= \u05d4\u05d7\u05d5\u05e6\u05d4\u200e] in Yahwist, 19\u00b9\u2077\n 24\u00b2\u2079 39\u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2078 (Joshua 2\u00b9\u2079?); but also Deuteronomy 24\u00b9\u00b9 25\u2075\n etc.\u2015\u2015=6.= \u05d5\u05d4\u05d0\u05de\u05d9\u05df\u200e] (on the tense, see Driver _A Treatise on the use\n of the Tenses in Hebrew_ \u00a7 133; Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 112 _ss_):\n LXX, Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 add \u05d0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05dd\u200e. The construction with \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u200e is\n usual when the object of faith is God (Exodus 14\u00b3\u00b9, Numbers 14\u00b9\u00b9\n 20\u00b9\u00b2, Deuteronomy 1\u00b3\u00b2, 2 Kings 17\u00b9\u2074, 2 Chronicles 20\u00b2\u2070, Psalms\n 78\u00b3\u00b2, Jonah 3\u2075): \u05dc\u05b0\u200e only Deuteronomy 9\u00b2\u00b3, Isaiah 43\u00b9\u2070.\u2015\u2015\u05e6\u05b0\u05d3\u05b8\u05e7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e]\n second objective accusative. The change to \u05dc\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05f3\u200e (Psalms 106\u00b3\u00b9) is\n unnecessary.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=7\u201221. The covenant.=\u2015\u2015=7, 8.= The promise of the _land_, Abram\u2019s\nrequest for a pledge (contrast verse \u2076), and the self-introduction\nof Yahwe (which would be natural only at the commencement of an\ninterview), are marks of discontinuity difficult to reconcile with\nthe assumption of the unity of the narrative. Most critics accordingly\nrecommend the excision of the verses as an interpolation.\n\n So Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, Kraetzschmar, Gunkel, al. Their\n genuineness is maintained by Budde, Delitzsch, Bacon, Holzinger;\n Wellhausen thinks they have been at least worked over. The\n language certainly is hardly Yahwistic. The \u05d0\u05e0\u05d9\u200e (\u2077) is not a\n sufficient ground for rejection (see Budde 439); and although \u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\n\u200e \u05db\u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200e in a Yahwist-context may be suspicious, we have no right to\n assume that it did not occur in a stratum of Yahwistic tradition\n (see page 239 above). But \u05dc\u05ea\u05ea\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05e8\u05e9\u05ea\u05d4\u200e is a decidedly Deuteronomic\n phrase (see _Oxford Hexateuch_, i. 205): on \u05d0\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, see on\n verse \u00b2. On the theory of a late recension of the whole passage\n these linguistic difficulties would vanish; but the impression\n of a change of scene remains,\u2015\u2015an impression, however, which\n the interpolation theory does not altogether remove, since the\n transition from \u2076 to \u2079 is very abrupt. Bacon\u2019s transposition of\n the two sections of Yahwist is also unsatisfactory.\n\n=9, 10.= The preparations for the covenant ceremony; on which see\nbelow, page 283. Although not strictly sacrificial,\u00b9 the operation\nconforms to later Levitical usage in so far as the animals are all\nsuch as were allowed in sacrifice, and the birds are not divided\n(Leviticus 1\u00b9\u2077).\u2015\u2015_of three years old_] This is obviously the meaning\nof \u05de\u05b0\u05e9\u05bb\u05c1\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u200e here (compare 1 Samuel 1\u00b2\u2074 [LXX]: elsewhere = \u2018threefold,\u2019\nEzekiel 42\u2076, Ecclesiastes 4\u00b9\u00b2). Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2, which renders \u2018three\u2019\n(calves, etc.), is curiously enough the only version that misses the\nsense; and it is followed by _Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi, al. On the\nnumber _three_ in the Old Testament, see Stade, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\ndie alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxvi. 124 ff. [especially 127\nf.].\u2015\u2015=11.= The descent of the unclean birds of prey (\u05e2\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05d8\u200e), and Abram\u2019s\ndriving them away, is a sacrificial omen of the kind familiar to\nantiquity.\u00b2 The interpretation seems to follow in \u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2076 (Dillmann,\nGunkel).\u2015\u2015=12.= \u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d3\u05b5\u05bc\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (LXX \u1f14\u03ba\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) is the condition most favourable\nfor the reception of visions (see on 2\u00b2\u00b9).\u2015\u2015_a great horror_] caused\nby the approach of the deity (omit \u05d7\u05b2\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05db\u05b8\u05d4\u200e as a gloss). The text is mixed\n(see below), and the two representations belong, the one to Yahwist,\nand the other to Elohist (Gunkel). The scene is a vivid transcript of\nprimitive religious experience. The bloody ceremony just described was\nno perfunctory piece of symbolism; it touched the mind below the level\nof consciousness; and that impression (heightened in this case by the\ngrowing darkness) induced a susceptibility to psychical influences\nreadily culminating in ecstasy or vision.\u2015\u2015=13\u201216.= An oracle in which\nis unfolded the destiny of Abram\u2019s descendants to the 4th generation.\nIt is to be noted that the prediction relates to the fortunes of\nAbram\u2019s \u2018seed,\u2019 the mention of the land (\u00b9\u2076) being indirect and\nincidental. The passage may therefore be the continuation of the\nElohist-sections of \u00b9\u207b\u2076, on the understanding that in Elohist the\ncovenant had to do with the promise of a seed, and not with the\npossession of the land.\u2015\u2015=13.= _a sojourner_] (collective): see on\n12\u00b9\u2070.\u2015\u2015_400 years_] agreeing approximately with the 430 years of\nExodus 12\u2074\u2070 (Priestly-Code).\u2015\u2015=15= is a parenthesis, if not an\ninterpolation, reassuring Abram as to his own personal lot (see on\n25\u2078).\u2015\u2015=16.= _the fourth generation_] _e.g._ Levi, Kohath, Amram,\nAaron (or Moses) (Exodus 6\u00b9\u2076 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427). To the reckoning of a generation\nas 100 years (compare verse \u00b9\u00b3) doubtful classical parallels are cited\nby Knobel (Varro, _De Lingua Latina_ 6, 11; Ovid, _Metamorphoses_\nxii. 188, etc.).\u00b3\u2015\u2015_the guilt of the Amorites_] (the inhabitants of\nPalestine) is frequently dwelt upon in later writings (Deuteronomy\n9\u2075, 1 Kings 14\u00b2\u2074, Leviticus 18\u00b2\u2074 \u1da0\u1427 etc. etc.); but the parallels from\nJehovist cited by Knobel (Genesis 18\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 19\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 20\u00b9\u00b9) are of quite a\ndifferent character.\n\n \u00b9 So in the covenant between A\u0161ur-nir\u00e2ri and Mati\u2019ilu\n (_Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_,\n iii. 228 ff.), the victim is expressly said _not_ to be\n a sacrifice.\n\n \u00b2 Compare Virgil _Aeneid_ iii. 225 ff.\n\n \u00b3 Compare Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_\u2076\n 308 (English translation, page 308), who cites these verses\n as positive proof that the generation was reckoned as 100\n years (see page 135 above),\u2015\u2015a view which, of course, cannot\n be held unless verse \u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2076 are a unity.\n\n Verses \u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2076 are obviously out of place in Yahwist, because they\n _presuppose_ \u00b9\u2078 (the promise of the land). They are generally\n assigned to a redactor, although it is difficult to conceive\n a motive for their insertion. Dillmann\u2019s suggestion, that\n they were written to supply the interpretation of the omen of\n verse \u00b9\u00b9, goes a certain distance; but fails to explain why the\n interpretation ever came to be omitted. Since \u00b9\u00b9 is intimately\n connected with \u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2076, and at the same time has no influence on\n the account of Yahwist, the natural conclusion is that both\n \u00b9\u00b9 and \u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2076 are documentary, but that the document is not\n Yahwist but Elohist (so Gunkel). It will be necessary, however,\n to delete the phrases \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05db\u05bb\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u200e in \u00b9\u2074 and \u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05e7\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d9\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d8\u05d5\u05b9\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e in \u00b9\u2075 as\n characteristic of the style of Priestly-Code; perhaps also \u05d0\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05e2\n\u200e \u05de\u05b5\u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e in \u00b9\u00b3. The whole of \u00b9\u2075 may be removed with advantage\n to the sense.\u2015\u2015The text of \u00b9\u00b2 is not homogeneous, so that as a\n whole it cannot be linked either with \u00b9\u00b9 or with \u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427. \u05d5\u05b0\u05ea\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05d3\u05b5\u05bc\u05de\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e\n and \u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05e0\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05de\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e are doublets (note the repetition of \u05e0\u05e4\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc\u200e); and\n the poetic \u05d7\u05b2\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05db\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (only here in Pentateuch) is doubtless a gloss\n to \u05d0\u05d9\u05de\u05d4\u200e. The opening clause \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d4\u05b7\u05e9\u05bc\u05c1\u05f3 \u05dc\u05b8\u05d1\u05d5\u05b9\u05d0\u200e is presumably Yahwist (in\n Elohist it is already night in verse \u2075). Elohist\u2019s partiality\n for the visionary mode of revelation may be sufficient\n justification for assigning the \u05ea\u05e8\u05d3\u05de\u05d4\u200e to him and the \u05d0\u05d9\u05de\u05d4\u200e to\n Yahwist; but the choice is immaterial.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =9.= \u05d2\u05d5\u05d6\u05dc\u200e Deuteronomy 32\u00b9\u00b9\u2020 = young of the vulture; but here =\n \u2018young dove\u2019; Arabic _\u01e7auzal_; Syriac (\u2021 Syriac word).\u2015\u2015=10.=\n\u200e \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05d1\u05b7\u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e] a technical term; the verb only here; compare \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05ea\u05b6\u05e8\u200e, Jeremiah\n\u200e 34\u00b9\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2079\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05da\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u200e\n (infinitive absolute).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05ea\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e] compare 9\u2075; Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 139 _c_.\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05d4\u05b7\u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05d2\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX\u1d2c \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1; a\n conflation of \u05d4\u05e4\u05d2\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200e and \u05d4 \u05b7\u05d2\u05b0\u05bc\u05d6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (verse \u00b9\u2077).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05e9\u05b5\u05bc\u05c1\u05d1\u200e] Hiphil of \u05e0\u05e9\u05c1\u05d1\u200e\n only here in the sense of \u2018scare away\u2019: so Aquila (\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03cc\u03b2\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd)\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Vulgate. Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 read \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d1\u200e, which is less\n expressive; and LXX \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d1 \u05d0\u05b4\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd\u200e is quite inadmissible.\u2015\u2015=12.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0\u200e]\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 114 _i_; compare Joshua 2\u2075 (Yahwist).\u2015\u2015=13.=\n\u200e \u05d5\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5\u05dd\u200e] LXX phrase \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2; and apparently\n read \u05d5\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05d1\u05b0\u05d3\u05d5\u05bc \u05d1\u05b8\u05dd\u200e, avoiding the awkward interchange of subject and\n object.\u2015\u2015=16.= \u05d5\u05d3\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u200e] accusative of condition, \u2018as a fourth\n generation\u2019 (compare Jeremiah 31\u2078); Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 118 _q_.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=17.= _a smoking oven and a blazing torch_] the two together making\nan emblem of the theophany, akin to the pillar of cloud and fire of\nthe Exodus and Sinai narratives (compare Exodus 3\u00b2 19\u2079 13\u00b2\u00b9 etc.).\nThe _oven_ is therefore not a symbol of Gehenna reserved for the\nnations (Rashi).\u2015\u2015On the appearance of the \u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e, see the descriptions\nand illustrations in Riehm, _Handw\u00f6rterbuch des biblischen Altertums_\n178; Benzinger, _Hebr\u00e4ische Arch\u00e4ologie_\u00b2 65.\u2015\u2015_passed between these\npieces_] compare Jeremiah 34\u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1427 (the only other allusion).\n\n On this rite see Kraetzschmar, _op. cit._ 44 ff. Although\n attested by only one other Old Testament reference, its\n prevalence in antiquity is proved by many analogies in classical\n and other writers. Its original significance is hardly exhausted\n by the well-known passage in Livy (i. 24), where a fate similar\n to that of the victim is invoked on the violators of the\n covenant.\u00b9 This leaves unexplained the most characteristic\n feature,\u2015\u2015the passing between the pieces. William Robertson\n Smith surmises that the divided victim was eaten by the\n contracting parties, and that afterwards \u201cthe parties stood\n between the pieces, as a symbol that they were taken within the\n mystical life of the victim\u201d (_Lectures on the Religion of the\n Semites_\u00b2, 480 f.).\n\n \u00b9 \u201c... tum illo die, Juppiter, populum Romanum sic ferito,\n ut ego hunc porcum hic hodie feriam, tantoque magis\n ferito quanto magis potes pollesque.\u201d Compare _Iliad_\n iii. 298 ff. Precisely the same idea is expressed with\n great circumstantiality in an Assyrian covenant between\n A\u0161ur-nir\u00e2ri and the Syrian prince Mati\u2019ilu: see Peiser,\n _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, iii.\n 228 ff.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =17.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05d0\u05d4\u200e] perfect with sense of pluperfect\n (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 111 _g_).\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b2\u05dc\u05b8\u05d8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] only here and Ezekiel\n 12\u2076\u1427 \u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2. LXX \u03c6\u03bb\u1f78\u03be is certainly wrong (\u05dc\u05b6\u05d4\u05b8\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e? \u05dc\u05b7\u05d4\u05b7\u05d8\u200e?).\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b8\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05df\u200e]\n LXX, Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 read the particle, hence Ball emends\n\u200e \u05e2\u05b8\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05df\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b7\u05d2\u05b0\u05bc\u05d6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] the noun recurs only Psalms 136\u00b9\u00b3; but compare the\n analogous use of the verb 1 Kings 3\u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2076.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=18.= This ceremony constitutes a _Ber\u00eeth_, of which the one provision\nis the possession of \u2018the land.\u2019 A _Ber\u00eeth_ necessarily implies\ntwo or more parties; but it may happen that from the nature of the\ncase its stipulations are binding only on one. So here: Yahwe alone\npasses (symbolically) between the pieces, because He alone contracts\nobligation.\u2015\u2015The _land_ is described according to its ideal limits;\nit is generally thought, however, that the closing words, along with\n\u00b9\u2079\u207b\u00b2\u00b9, were added by a Deuteronomic editor, and that in the original\nYahwist the promise was restricted to Canaan proper.\n\n The \u05e0\u05b0\u05d4\u05b7\u05e8 \u05de\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05e8\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e (not, as elsewhere \u05e0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05dc \u05de\u05f3\u200e = W\u0101d\u012b el-Ar\u012bsh) must be the\n Nile (compare Joshua 13\u00b3, 1 Chronicles 13\u2075). On an old belief\n that the W\u0101d\u012b el-Ar\u012bsh was an arm of the Nile, see Tuch.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b7\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05b8\u05e8 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\n\u200e \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e] compare Deuteronomy 1\u2077 11\u00b2\u2074, Joshua 1\u2074. The boundary was\n never actually reached in the history of Israel (the notice in\n 1 Kings 5\u00b9\u1427 \u2074 is late and unhistorical).\u2015\u2015=19\u201221.= Such lists\n of pre-Israelite inhabitants are characteristic of Deuteronomy\n and Deuteronomic expansions of Jehovist. They usually contain 5\n or 6 or at most 7 names: here there are 10 (see Budde 344 ff.,\n and Driver\u2019s analysis, _A critical and exegetical commentary on\n Deuteronomy_ 97). The first three names appear in none of the\n other lists; and the same is true of the _R\u0115ph\u0101\u00eem_ in \u00b2\u2070. The\n _\u1e32enites_ (see page 113) and _\u1e32enizzites_ (36\u00b9\u00b9) are tribes of\n the Negeb, both partly incorporated in Judah: the _\u1e32admonites_\n (only here) are possibly identical with the \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e7\u05b6\u05d3\u05b6\u05dd\u200e (29\u00b9),\n the inhabitants of the eastern desert.\u2015\u2015The _\u1e24ivvites_, who\n regularly appear, are supplied here by _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_ (after _Girgashites_) and LXX (after\n _Canaanites_).\u2015\u2015On the _\u1e24ittites_, see page 215; and, further,\n on chapter 23 below.\n\n The idea of a covenant (or oath) of Yahwe to the patriarchs does\n not appear in the literature till the time of Jeremiah (11\u2075) and\n Deuteronomy (4\u00b3\u00b9 7\u00b9\u00b2 8\u00b9\u2078, 2 Kings 13\u00b2\u00b3 etc.): see Kraetzschmar,\n 61 ff. Of 31 passages in Jehovist where Kraetzschmar finds the\n conception (the list might be reduced), all but three (15\u00b9\u2078 12\u2077\n 24\u2077) are assigned to the Deuteronomic (Jehovistic) redaction\n (see Staerk, _Studien zur Religions- und Sprachgeschichte des\n alten Testaments_, i. 37 ff.); and of these three 12\u2077 is a mere\n promise without an oath, while in 24\u2077 the words \u05d5\u05b7\u05bd\u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05e0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05e2 \u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u200e have\n all the appearance of a gloss. It is, of course, quite possible\n that 15\u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1427 may be very ancient, and have formed the nucleus\n of the theological development of the covenant-idea in the age\n of Deuteronomy. But it is certainly not unreasonable to suppose\n that it emanates from the period when Israel\u2019s tenure of Canaan\n began to be precarious, and the popular religion sought to\n reassure itself by the inviolability of Yahwe\u2019s oath to the\n fathers. And that is hardly earlier than the 7th century\n (Staerk, 47).\n\n\n CHAPTER XVI.\n _The Flight of Hagar and Birth of Ishmael_\n (Yahwist and Priestly-Code).\n\nSarai, having no hope of herself becoming a mother, persuades Abram\nto take her Egyptian maid Hagar as a concubine. Hagar, when she finds\nherself pregnant, becomes insolent towards her mistress, from whose\nharsh treatment she ultimately flees to the desert. There the Angel of\nYahwe meets her, and comforts her with a disclosure of the destiny of\nthe son she is to bear, at the same time commanding her to go back and\nsubmit to her mistress. In due course Ishmael is born.\n\n In the carefully constructed biographical plan of the editors\n the episode finds an appropriate place between the promise of a\n bodily heir in 15 and the promise of a son through Sarai in 18\n (Yahwist) or 17 (Priestly-Code). The narrative itself contains\n no hint of a trial of Abram\u2019s faith, or an attempt on his\n part to forestall the fulfilment of the promise. Its real\n interest lies in another direction: partly in the explanation\n of the sacredness of a certain famous well, and partly in the\n characterisation of the Ishmaelite nomads and the explication\n of their relation to Israel. The point of the story is obscured\n by a redactional excrescence (\u2079), obviously inserted in view of\n the _expulsion_ of Hagar at a later stage. In reality chapter 16\n (Yahwist) and 22\u2078\u207b\u00b2\u00b9 (Elohist) are variants of one tradition; in\n the Yahwistic version Hagar never returned, but remained in the\n desert and bore her son by the well Lahai Roi (Wellhausen _Die\n Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des Alten\n Testaments_\u00b2 22).\u2015\u2015The chapter belongs to the oldest stratum\n of the Abrahamic legends (Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43), and is plausibly\n assigned by Gunkel to the same source as 12\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2070. From the\n main narrative of Yahwist (Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f) it is marked off\n by its somewhat unfavourable portraiture of Abram, and by the\n topography which suggests that Abram\u2019s home was in the Negeb\n rather than in Hebron. The primitive character of the legend is\n best seen from a close comparison with the Elohistic parallel\n (see page 324).\n\n _Analysis._\u2015\u2015Verses \u00b9\u1d43\u1427 \u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2076 belong to Priestly-Code: note\n the chronological data in \u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2076; the naming of the child by the\n father \u00b9\u2075 (contrast \u00b9\u00b9); \u05d0\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5 \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05df\u200e, \u00b3; and the stiff and formal\n precision of the style.\u2015\u2015The rest is Yahwist: compare \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e,\n\u200e \u00b2\u1427 \u2075\u1427 \u2077\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3; \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05e4\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u1427 \u2075\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u2078 (also \u00b3 [Priestly-Code]);\n\u200e \u200e\u05e0\u05d0\u200e, \u05d4\u05b4\u05e0\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4\u05be\u05e0\u05b8\u05d0\u200e, \u00b2.\u2015\u2015The redactional addition in \u2079 \u1da0\u1427 (_v.s._) betrays\n its origin by the threefold repetition of \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b9\u05bc\u05d0\u05de\u05b6\u05e8 \u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc \u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05b7\u05da\u05b0 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, a fault\n of style which is in striking contrast to the exquisite artistic\n form of the original narrative, though otherwise the language\n shows no decided departure from Yahwistic usage (Dillmann, but\n see on verse \u00b9\u2070).\n\n=1\u20126. The flight of Hagar.=\u2015\u2015=1.= Hagar is not an ordinary household\nslave, but the peculiar property of Sarai, and therefore not at the\nfree disposal of her master (compare 24\u2075\u2079 29\u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2079: see Benzinger,\n_Hebr\u00e4ische Arch\u00e4ologie_\u00b2 104 f., 126 f.).\u00b9\u2015\u2015_an Egyptian_] so verse\n\u00b3 (Priestly-Code), 21\u2079 (Elohist); compare 21\u00b2\u00b9. This consistent\ntradition points to an admixture of Egyptian blood among the\nIshmaelites, the reputed descendants of Hagar.\u00b2\u2015\u2015=2.= _peradventure\nI may be built up_\u2015\u2015or _obtain children_ (_v.i._)\u2015\u2015_from her_] by\nadopting Hagar\u2019s son as her own; compare 30\u00b3.\u2015\u2015=3= is Priestly-Code\u2019s\nparallel to \u00b2\u1d47\u1427 \u2074\u1d43.\u2015\u2015=4.= _and went in, etc._ (see on 6\u2074)] the\nimmediate continuation of \u00b2\u1d47 in Yahwist.\u2015\u2015_was despised_] a natural\nfeeling, enhanced in antiquity by the universal conviction that the\nmysteries of conception and birth are peculiarly a sphere of divine\naction.\u2015\u2015=5.= _My wrong be upon thee_] _i.e._ \u2018May my grievance\nbe avenged on thee!\u2019\u2015\u2015her injured self-respect finding vent in a\npassionate and most unjust imprecation.\u2015\u2015=6.= _Thy maid is in thy\nhand_] Is this a statement of fact, or does it mean that Abram _now_\nhands Hagar back to her mistress\u2019s authority? The latter is Gunkel\u2019s\nview, who thinks that as a concubine Hagar was no longer under the\ncomplete control of Sarai.\u2015\u2015_treated her harshly_] The word (\u05e2\u05b4\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e)\nsuggests excessive severity; Hagar\u2019s flight is justified by the\nindignities to which she was subjected (verse \u00b9\u00b9).\n\n \u00b9 \u201cSome wives have female slaves who are their own property,\n generally purchased for them, or presented to them, before\n their marriage. These cannot be the husband\u2019s concubines\n without their mistress\u2019s permission, which is sometimes\n granted (as it was in the case of Hagar); but very seldom\u201d\n (Lane, _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern\n Egyptians_ i. 233 [from Driver]).\u2015\u2015On the resemblance to\n Code of \u1e2aammurabi \u00a7 146, see Introduction, page xvii.\n\n \u00b2 The instance is one of the most favourable in Genesis to\n Winckler\u2019s theory that under \u05de\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05e8\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e we are frequently to\n understand the North Arabian land of Mu\u1e63ri (Gunkel; compare\n Cheyne _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 3164; _Die Keilinschriften\n und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 146 f.). Yet even here the case\n is far from clear. An Egyptian strain among the Bedouin\n of Sinai would be easily accounted for by the very early\n Egyptian occupation of the Peninsula; and Burton was struck\n by the Egyptian physiognomy of some of the Arabs of that\n region at the present day. (Driver _A Dictionary of the\n Bible_, ii. 504\u1d43).\n\n * * * * *\n\n =1a= is assigned to Priestly-Code partly because of \u05d0\u05e9\u05ea \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05dd\u200e\n (compare verse \u00b3), and partly because the statement as to\n Sarai\u2019s barrenness supplies a gap in that document, whereas in\n Yahwist it is anticipated by 11\u00b3\u2070.\u2015\u2015=1b.= \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05e4\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] (from the same \u221a\n as \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e) is originally the slave-concubine; and it is a question\n whether the purpose of presenting a newly-married woman with a\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05e4\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e may not have been to provide for the event of the marriage\n proving childless. In usage it is largely coextensive with \u05d0\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e,\n and is characteristic of Yahwist against Elohist, though not\n against Priestly-Code.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d2\u05e8\u200e] The motive of Hagar\u2019s \u2018flight\u2019 may\n have been suggested by a supposed connexion with Arabic _ha\u01e7ara_,\n \u2018flee.\u2019 For another etymology, see N\u00f6ldeke _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n Biblica_, 1933\u00b2.\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05d0\u05b4\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e0\u05b6\u05d4\u200e] (so only 30\u00b3) may be either a\n denominative from \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05df\u200e (so apparently LXX, Vulgate, Symmachus),\n or a metaphor from the family as a house (Exodus 1\u00b2\u00b9, 1 Samuel\n 2\u00b3\u2075, Ruth 4\u00b9\u00b9 etc.).\u2015\u2015=5.= \u05d7\u05de\u05e1\u05d9\u200e] genitive of objective,\n Gesenius-Kautzsch, \u00a7 128 _h_ (compare Obadiah \u00b9\u2070). LXX \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\n \u1f10\u03ba \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05b9\u05da\u200e] The point over \u05d9\u200e indicates a clerical error: read\n (with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_) \u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b5\u05d9\u05e0\u05b6\u05da\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=7\u201214. The theophany at the well.=\u2015\u2015=7.= _the Angel of Yahwe_] (see\nbelow) is here introduced for the first time as the medium of the\ntheophany. The scene is a _fountain of water_ (as yet nameless:\nverse \u00b9\u2074) _in the desert ... on the way to Sh\u00fbr_. Sh\u00fbr is an unknown\nlocality on the North-east frontier of Egypt (see Driver _A Dictionary\nof the Bible_, iv. 510\u1d47), which gave its name to the adjacent desert:\n20\u00b9 25\u00b9\u2078, Exodus 15\u00b2\u00b2, 1 Samuel 15\u2077 27\u2078 (_v.i._).\n\n The \u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05b7\u05da\u05b0 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e (or \u05de\u05f3 \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e) is \u201cYahwe Himself in self-manifestation,\u201d\n or, in other words, a personification of the theophany. This\n somewhat subtle definition is founded on the fact that in very\n many instances the Angel is at once identified with God and\n differentiated from Him; compare _e.g._ verses \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3 with \u00b9\u00b9.\n The ultimate explanation of the ambiguity is no doubt to be\n sought in the advance of religious thought to a more spiritual\n apprehension of the divine nature. The oldest conception of the\n theophany is a visible personal appearance of the deity (chapter\n 2 f., Exodus 24\u00b9\u2070, Numbers 12 etc.). A later, though still early,\n age took exception to this bold anthropomorphism, and reconciled\n the original narratives with the belief in the invisibility of\n God by substituting an \u2018angel\u2019 or \u2018messenger\u2019 of Yahwe as the\n agent of the theophany, without, however, effacing all traces\n of the primitive representation (Gunkel 164 f.). That the idea\n underwent a remarkable development within the Old Testament\n religion must, of course, be recognised (see especially Exodus\n 23\u00b2\u00b9); but the subject cannot be further investigated here. See\n Oehler, _Theologie des Alten Testaments_\u00b3 203\u2012211; Schultz, _Old\n Testament Theology_ ii. 218\u2012223 [Engish translation]; Davidson,\n _A Dictionary of the Bible_, i. 94; Delitzsch _Neuer Commentar\n \u00fcber die Genesis_ 282 ff.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =7b= seems to be a duplicate of \u00b9\u2074\u1d47, and one or other may be a\n gloss. The words \u05d1\u05de\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05d5\u05e8\u200e are omitted by LXX\u1d38\u1d58\u1d9c\u2071\u1d43\u207f entirely, and\n partly in several cursives: Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 omits \u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05e2\u05d9\u05df\u200e].\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e (\u2018wall\u2019)?\n has been supposed (doubtfully) to be a line of fortifications\n guarding the North-east frontier of Egypt. The \u05d7\u05d2\u05e8\u05d0\u200e of\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f (if an Arabism) may express \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e in the\n sense of \u2018wall\u2019: Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 has (\u2021 Syriac word) (= \u05d2\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05e8\u200e, 20\u00b9).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=8.= The Angel\u2019s question reveals a mysterious knowledge of Hagar\u2019s\ncircumstances, who on her part is as yet ignorant of the nature of her\nvisitant (compare 18\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015=9, 10= are interpolated (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=11,\n12.= The prophecy regarding Ishmael (not \u00b9\u00b2 alone: Gunkel) is in\nmetrical form: two triplets with lines of 4 or 3 measures.\u2015\u2015_Behold,\netc._] The form of announcement seems consecrated by usage; compare\nJudges 13\u2075\u1427 \u2077, Isaiah 7\u00b9\u2074.\u2015\u2015_Yishm\u0101\u201b\u0113l_] properly, \u2018May God hear,\u2019\nis rendered \u2018God hears,\u2019 in token of Yahwe\u2019s regard for the mother\u2019s\ndistress (\u05e2\u05b8\u05e0\u05b0\u05d9\u05b5\u05da\u05b0\u200e; compare \u05d5\u05b7\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u05e0\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4\u05b8\u200e, \u2076).\u2015\u2015=12.= _a wild ass of a man_] or\nperhaps _the wild ass of humanity_ (Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, Abraham\nIbn Ezra, Delitzsch, al.)\u2015\u2015Ishmael being among the families of mankind\nwhat the wild ass is amongst animals (Job 39\u2075\u207b\u2078, Jeremiah 2\u00b2\u2074). It is\na fine image of the free intractable Bedouin character which is to be\nmanifested in Ishmael\u2019s descendants.\u2015\u2015_dwell in the face of all his\nbrethren_ (compare 25\u00b9\u2078)] hardly \u2018to the east of,\u2019 which is too weak a\nsense. \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u05be\u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9\u200e seems to express the idea of defiance (as Job 1\u00b9\u00b9), though\nit is not easy to connect this with the verb. Possibly the meaning\nis that Ishmael will be an inconvenient neighbour (\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05db\u05b5\u05df\u200e) to his settled\nbrethren.\u2015\u2015=13, 14.= From this experience of Hagar the local deity\nand the well derive their names. =13.= _Thou art a God of vision_]\n_i.e._ (if the following text can be trusted) both in an objective\nand a subjective sense,\u2015\u2015a God who may be seen as well as one who\nsees.\u2015\u2015_Have I even here_ (? _v.i._) _seen after him who sees me?_]\nThis is the only sense that can be extracted from the Massoretic Text,\nwhich, however, is strongly suspected of being corrupt.\u2015\u2015=14.= _B\u0115\u2019\u0113r\nLahay R\u014d\u00ee_] apparently means either \u2018Well of the Living One who sees\nme,\u2019 or \u2018Well of \u201cHe that sees me lives\u201d\u2019. The name occurs again\n24\u2076\u00b2 25\u00b9\u00b9.\u2015\u2015_between \u1e32adesh and Bered_] On \u1e32adesh, see on 14\u2077. Bered\nis unknown. In Arab tradition the well of Hagar is plausibly enough\nidentified with _\u201bAin-Muweili\u1e25_, a caravan station about 12 miles to\nthe West of \u1e32adesh (Palmer, _The Desert of the Exodus_ ii. 354 ff.).\nThe well must have been a chief sanctuary of the Ishmaelites; hence\nthe later Jews, to whom Ishmael was a name for all Arabs, identified\nit with the sacred well Zemzem at Mecca.\u2015\u2015=15, 16.= The birth of\nIshmael, recorded by Priestly-Code.\n\n The general scope of \u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427 is clear, though the details are very\n obscure. By a process of syncretism the original numen of the\n well had come to be regarded as a particular local manifestation\n of Yahwe; and the attempt is made to interpret the old names\n from the standpoint of the higher religion. \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc \u05e8\u05b3\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e and \u05dc\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05d9 \u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u200e are\n traditional names of which the real meaning had been entirely\n forgotten, and the etymologies here given are as fanciful as\n in all similar cases. (1) In \u05dc\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05d9 \u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u200e the Massoretic punctuation\n recognises the roots \u05d7\u05d9\u200e, \u2018live,\u2019 and \u05e8\u05d0\u05d4\u200e, \u2018see,\u2019 taking \u05dc\u200e\n as circumscribed genitive; but that can hardly be correct.\n Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_\u2076 323 f.),\n following Michaelis and Gesenius (_Thesaurus philologicus\n criticus Lingu\u00e6 Hebr\u00e6\u00e6 et Chald\u00e6\u00e6 Veteris Testamenti_ 175),\n conjectures that in the first element we have the word \u05dc\u05b0\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u200e,\n \u2018jaw-bone\u2019 (Judges 15\u00b9\u2077), and in the second an obsolete animal\n name: hence \u2018Well of the antelope\u2019s (?) jaw-bone.\u2019 Von Gall\n (_Altisraelitische Kultst\u00e4tten_ 40 ff.) goes a step further\n and distinguishes two wells, \u05e2\u05b5\u05d9\u05df (\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05e8) \u05e8\u05b3\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e and \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05e8 \u05dc\u05b6\u05bd\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, the former\n peculiar to Yahwist and the latter to Elohist (compare LXX of\n\u200e 24\u2076\u00b2 25\u00b9\u00b9).\u2015\u2015(2) \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc \u05e8\u05b3\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, whatever its primary significance, is of\n a type common in the patriarchal narratives (see page 291). Of\n the suggested restorations of \u00b9\u00b3\u1d47, by far the most attractive\n is that of Wellhausen (_l.c._), who changes \u05d4\u05dc\u05dd\u200e to \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, reads\n\u200e \u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u200e as \u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b0\u05d9\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, inserts \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u200e between \u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9\u200e and \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u200e, and renders, \u201cHave I\n actually seen God and lived after my vision?\u201d\u2015\u2015an allusion to\n the prevalent belief that the sight of God is followed by death\n (Exodus 33\u00b2\u2070, Judges 6\u00b2\u00b3 13\u00b2\u00b3 etc.). The emendation has at least\n the advantage of giving a meaning to _both_ elements in the\n name of the well. Gunkel\u2019s objection that the emphatic \u2018here\u2019\n is indispensable, is of doubtful validity, for unfortunately \u05d4\u05b2\u05dc\u05b9\u05dd\u200e\n does not mean \u2018here\u2019 but \u2018hither.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\n =9, 10= are a double interpolation. The command to return\n to Sarai was a necessary consequence of the amalgamation of\n Yahwist and Elohist (22\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427); and \u00b9\u2070 was added to soften the\n return to slavery (Gunkel). \u00b9\u2070 is impossible before \u00b9\u00b9, and\n is besides made up of phrases characteristic of redactional\n additions to Jehovist (compare 22\u00b9\u2077 32\u00b9\u00b3).\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e] Infinitive\n absolute; Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 75 ff.\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05d5\u05b0\u05d9\u05b9\u05dc\u05b7\u05d3\u05b0\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u200e for \u05d5\u05d9\u05dc\u05b6\u05d3\u05b6\u05ea\u200e] so\n Judges 13\u2075\u1427 \u2077 (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 80 _d_).\u2015\u2015=12.= \u05e4\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e] see\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 128 _k_, _l_. Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 has (\u2021 Syriac phrase),\n and Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f \u05de\u05e8\u05de\u05d9 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d1\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e0\u05e9\u05d0\u200e.\u2015\u2015=13.= \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc \u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u200e] LXX \u03a3\u1f7a \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\n \u1f41 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b9\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5, Vulgate _Tu Deus qui vidisti me_: both reading \u05e8\u05b9\u05d0\u05b4\u05bd\u05d9\u200e\n (participle with suffix).\u2015\u2015For \u05d0\u05b7\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, Ball would substitute \u05d0\u05b4\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05bc\u200e,\n deleting \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015The \u05e8\u05b9\u05d0\u05b4\u05bd\u05d9\u200e of \u00b9\u00b3\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u2074\u1d43 is not the pausal form of\n the preceding \u05e8\u05b3\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e (which would be \u05e8\u05b9\u05bd\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e: 1 Samuel 16\u00b9\u00b2, Nahum 3\u2076,\n Job 33\u00b2\u00b9), but Qal participle with suffix. The authority of\n the accentuation may, of course, be questioned.\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05e7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u200e]\n indefinite subjective, for which _The Samaritan Recension of\n the Pentateuch_ substitutes \u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05e8\u05b6\u05d3\u200e] Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word),\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d4\u05d2\u05e8\u05d0\u200e (see on verse \u2077). Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f has \u05d7\u05dc\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u200e\n (Elusa), probably _el-\u1e24ala\u1e63a_, about 12 miles South-west of\n Beersheba. It has been supposed that \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05e8\u05b6\u05d3\u200e may be identical with\n a place \u0392\u03b7\u03c1\u03b4\u03ac\u03bd in the Gerar district, mentioned by Eusebius\n (_Onomasticon_, 145\u00b2 [Lagarde 299\u2077\u2076]), who explains the name\n as \u03a6\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1\u03c1 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 (= \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05e8 \u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05df\u200e): see von Gall, _Altisraelitische\n Kultst\u00e4tten_ 43.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n CHAPTER XVII.\n _The Covenant of Circumcision_\n (Priestly-Code).\n\nTo Abram, who is henceforth to be called Abraham (\u2075), God reveals\nHimself under a new name (\u00b9), entering into a covenant with him (\u00b2\u207b\u2078),\nof which the sign is the rite of circumcision (\u2079\u207b\u00b9\u2074). The heir of this\ncovenant is to be a son born to Sarai (whose name is changed to Sarah)\nin the following year (\u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b2\u00b2). Abraham immediately circumcises all\nthe males of his household (\u00b2\u00b3\u207b\u00b2\u2077).\u2015\u2015To the writer of the Priestly\nCode the incident is important (1) as an explanation of the origin of\ncircumcision, which in his day had become a fundamental institution\nof Judaism; and (2) as marking a new stage in the revelation of the\ntrue God to the world. The Abrahamic covenant inaugurates the third of\nthe four epochs (commencing respectively with Adam, Noah, Abraham and\nMoses) into which the Priestly theory divides the history of mankind.\nOn the ethnic parallels to this scheme, Gunkel\u2019s note (page 233 ff.)\nmay be consulted.\n\n _Source._\u2015\u2015The marks of Priestly-Code\u2019s authorship appear in\n every line of the chapter. Besides the general qualities of\n style, which need not again be particularised, we may note the\n following expressions: \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (throughout, except verse \u00b9, where\n\u200e \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e is either a redactional change or a scribal error); \u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u200e, \u00b9;\n\u200e \u05d4\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u200e, \u05e0\u05ea\u05df \u05d1\u05f3\u200e, \u00b2\u1427 \u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9; \u05d1\u05de\u05d0\u05d3 \u05de\u05d0\u05d3\u200e, \u00b2\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2070; \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\u05da \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05da\u200e, \u2077\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u1427\n\u200e \u00b9\u2079; \u05dc\u05d3\u05e8\u05ea\u05dd\u200e, \u2077\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2; \u05de\u05d2\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u2078; \u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05db\u05e0\u05e2\u05df\u200e, \u2078; \u05d0\u05d7\u05d6\u05d4\u200e, \u2078; \u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d6\u05db\u05e8\u200e, \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3;\n\u200e \u05de\u05e7\u05e0\u05d4\u200e, \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u2077; \u05d1\u05df\u05be\u05e0\u05db\u05e8\u200e, \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2077; \u05d5\u05e0\u05db\u05e8\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e, \u00b9\u2074; \u05e4\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4\u200e, \u00b2\u2070; \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0\u05dd\u200e,\n\u200e \u00b2\u2070; \u05d4\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05d3\u200e, \u00b2\u2070; \u05d1\u05e2\u05e6\u05dd \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\u200e, \u00b2\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u2076; see Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel.\n References to the passage in other parts of Priestly-Code are 21\n \u00b2\u1427 \u2074 28\u2074 35\u00b9\u00b2, Exodus 2\u00b2\u2074 6\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427 (Leviticus 12\u00b3 ?).\n\n The close parallelism with chapter 15 makes it probable that\n that chapter, in its present composite form, is the literary\n basis of Priestly-Code\u2019s account of the covenant. Common to the\n two narratives are (a) the self-introduction of the Deity (17\u00b9\n \u2225 15\u2077); (b) the covenant (17 _passim_ \u2225 15\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427); (c) the promise\n of a numerous seed (17\u2074 _passim_ \u2225 15\u2075); (d) of the land (17\u2078 \u2225\n 15\u00b9\u2078), (e) of a son (17\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9 \u2225 15\u2074); (f) Abraham\u2019s incredulity\n (17\u00b9\u2077 \u2225 15\u00b3\u1427 \u2078). The features peculiar to Priestly-Code, such as\n the sign of circumcision, the etymology of \u05d9\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05e7\u200e in verse \u00b9\u2077, the\n changes of names, etc., are obviously not of a kind to suggest\n the existence of a separate tradition independent of Yahwist and\n Elohist.\n\n=1\u20128. The Covenant-promises.=\u2015\u2015These are three in number: (a) Abraham\nwill be the father of a numerous posterity (\u00b2\u1d47\u1427 \u2074\u207b\u2076); (b) God will\nbe a God to him and to his seed (\u2077\u1d47\u1427 \u2078\u1d47); (c) his seed shall inherit\nthe land of Canaan (\u2078\u1d43). We recognise here a trace of the ancient\nreligious conception according to which god, land, and people formed\nan indissoluble triad, the land being an indispensable pledge of\nfellowship between the god and his worshippers (see _Lectures on the\nReligion of the Semites_\u00b2, 92 f.).\u2015\u2015=1.= _appeared to Abram_] _i.e._,\nin a theophany, as is clear from verse \u00b2\u00b2. It is the only direct\ncommunication of God to Abram recorded in Priestly-Code. Priestly-Code\nis indeed very sparing in his use of the theophany, though Exodus 6\u00b3\nseems to imply that his narrative contained one to each of the three\npatriarchs. If that be so, the revelation to Isaac has been lost, while\nthat to Jacob is twice referred to (35\u2079 48\u00b3).\u2015\u2015_I am \u2019El Shaddai_] The\norigin, etymology, and significance of this title are alike obscure:\nsee the footnote. In Priestly-Code it is the signature of the\npatriarchal age (Exodus 6\u00b3); or rather it designates the true God\nas the patron of the Abrahamic covenant, whose terms are explicitly\nreferred to in every passage where the name occurs in Priestly-Code\n(28\u00b3 35\u00b9\u00b9 48\u00b3). That it marks an advance in the revelation of the\ndivine character can hardly be shown, though the words immediately\nfollowing may suggest that the moral condition on which the covenant\nis granted is not mere obedience to a positive precept, but a life\nruled by the ever-present sense of God as the ideal of ethical\nperfection.\u2015\u2015_Walk before me_ (compare 24\u2074\u2070 48\u00b9\u2075)] _i.e._, \u2018Live\nconsciously in My presence,\u2019 1 Samuel 12\u00b2, Isaiah 38\u00b3; compare 1\nJohn 1\u2077.\u2015\u2015_perfect_] or \u2018blameless\u2019; see on 6\u2079.\u2015\u2015=2.= On the idea\nand scope of the covenant (\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u200e), see page 297 f. below.\u2015\u2015=4.= _father\nof a multitude_ (literally _tumult_) _of nations_] In substance the\npromise is repeated in 28\u00b3 48\u2074 (\u05e7\u05b0\u05d4\u05b7\u05dc \u05e2\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e) and 35\u00b9\u00b9 (\u05e7\u05f3 \u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e); the peculiar\nexpression here anticipates the etymology of verse \u2075. While Yahwist\n(12\u00b2 18\u00b9\u2078 46\u00b3) restricts the promise to Israel (\u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d9 \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u200e), Priestly-Code\nspeaks of \u2018nations\u2019 in the plural, including the Ishmaelites and\nEdomites amongst the descendants of Abraham. See, however, on\n28\u00b3.\u2015\u2015=5.= Abram\u2019s name is changed to _Abraham_, interpreted as \u2018Father\nof multitude.\u2019 Compare Nehemiah 9\u2077.\n\n The equation \u05d0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u05b8\u05dd\u200e = \u05d0\u05b7\u05d1 \u05d4\u05b2\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05df [\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd]\u200e is so forced that Dillmann al.\n doubt if a serious etymology was intended. The line between\n word-play and etymology is difficult to draw; and all that can\n safely be said is that the strained interpretation here given\n proves that \u05d0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u05b8\u05dd\u200e is no artificial formation, but a genuine\n element of tradition. (1) The form \u05d0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05dd\u200e is an abbreviation of\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b2\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u05b8\u05dd\u200e (Numbers 16\u00b9 etc.: compare \u05d0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05e8\u200e, 1 Samuel 14\u2075\u00b9 etc., with\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b2\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05e0\u05b5\u05e8\u200e, 1 Samuel 14\u2075\u2070; \u05d0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd\u200e, 2 Chronicles 11\u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9, with \u05d0\u05b2\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd\u200e,\n 1 Kings 15\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2070), which occurs as a personal name not only in\n Hebrew but also as that of an Assyrian official (_Ab\u00ee-r\u00e2mu_)\n under Esarhaddon, B.C. 677 (see _Die Keilinschriften und\n das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 482)\u00b9. (2) Of \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd\u200e, on the other hand,\n no scientific etymology can be given. The nearest approach\n to Priestly-Code\u2019s explanation would be found in the Arabic\n _ruh\u0101m_ = \u2018copious number\u2019 (from a \u221a descriptive of a fine\n drizzling rain: Lane, _s.v._).\u00b2 Delitzsch thinks this the best\n explanation; but the etymology is far-fetched, and apart from\n the probably accidental correspondence with Priestly-Code\u2019s\n interpretation the sense has no claim to be correct.\u2015\u2015With\n regard to the relation of the two forms, various theories are\n propounded. Hommel (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated\n by the Monuments_, 275 ff.; _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen\n Gesellschaft_, ii. 271) regards the difference as merely\n _orthographic_, the \u05d4\u200e being inserted, after the analogy\n of Min\u00e6an, to mark the long _\u0101_ (\u05d0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u05dd\u200e), while a later\n misunderstanding is responsible for the pronunciation \u05be\u05e8\u05b8\u05d7\u05b8\u05dd\u200e.\n Strack and Stade (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche\n Wissenschaft_, i. 349) suppose a _dialectic_ distinction:\n according to the latter, \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd\u200e is the original (Edomite) form,\n of which \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05dd\u200e is the Hebra\u00efzed equivalent.\u00b3 Winckler (_Geschichte\n Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 26) finds in them two\n distinct epithets of the moon-god Sin, one describing him as\n father of the gods (_Sin abu il\u00e2ni_), and the other (\u2018father of\n the strife of peoples\u2019) as god of war (_Sin \u1e33arib il\u00e2ni_). The\n possibility must also be considered that the difference is due\n to the fusion in tradition of two originally distinct figures\n (see Paton, _The Early History of Syria and Palestine_ 41). It\n is quite a plausible supposition, though the thoroughness of\n the redaction has effaced the proof of it, that \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05dd\u200e was peculiar\n to Yahwist and \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd\u200e to Elohist.\u2015\u2015Outside of Genesis (with the\n exception of the citations 1 Chronicles 1\u00b2\u2077, Nehemiah 9\u2077) the\n form Abraham alone is found in Old Testament.\n\n \u00b9 Hommel\u2019s reading of _Ab\u00ee-r\u00e2mu_ on a contract tablet of\n Abil-Sin, the grandfather of \u1e2aammurabi (see _The Ancient\n Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 96),\n has proved to be incorrect, the true reading being\n _Ab\u00ee-Era\u1e2b_ (see Ranke, _Die Personennamen in den Urkunden\n der Hammurabi-dynastie_, 1902, page 48). The name has,\n however, recently been discovered in several documents\n of the time of Ammizaduga, the 10th king of the same\n dynasty. See _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Assyriologie und semitischen\n Sprachwissenschaft_, vi. (1909), Heft 5, page 60, where\n Ungnad shows that the name is not West Semitic, but\n Babylonian, that the pronunciation was _Abaram_, and that\n the first element is an accusative. He suggests that it\n may mean \u201che loves the father\u201d (_r\u00e2ma_ = \u05e8\u05d7\u05dd\u200e), the unnamed\n subject being probably a god. Compare _The Expository\n Times._, xxi. (1909), 88 ff.\n\n \u00b2 The Arabic _kuny\u0101_, _\u2019Ab\u016b-ruhm_ is only an accidental\n coincidence: N\u00f6ldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen\n morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xlii. 484\u00b2.\n\n \u00b3 Similarly von Gall (_Altisraelitische Kultst\u00e4tten_ 53), who\n compares Aramaic (\u2021 Syriac word), Arabic _bht_, appearing in\n Hebrew as \u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e9\u05c1\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc \u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u200e] For a summary of the views held regarding this divine\n name, the reader may be referred to Baethgen, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur\n Geschichte C\u00f6lestins_ 293 ff., or Kautzsch in _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n Biblica_, iii. 3326 f. (compare Cheyne _ib._ iv. 4419 f.); on\n the renderings of the ancient versions, see the synopses of\n Dillmann (259), Driver (404 f.), and Valeton (_Zeitschrift\n f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xii. 11\u00b9).\u2015\u2015It is\n unfortunately impossible to ascertain whether \u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u200e was originally\n an independent noun, or an attribute of \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e: N\u00f6ldeke and Baethgen\n decide for the latter view. The traditional Jewish etymology\n resolves the word into \u05e9\u05c1\u200e = \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8\u200e and \u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u200e,\u2015\u2015\u2018the all-sufficient\u2019\n or \u2018self-sufficient\u2019 (_Bereshith Rabba_ \u00a7 46: compare Rashi\n\u200e \u05d0\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d3\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9 \u05dc\u05db\u05dc \u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05d4\u200e). Though this theory can be traced as far\n back as the rendering of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion\n (\u1f31\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2), it is an utterly groundless conjecture that\n Priestly-Code used the name in this sense (Valeton). On the\n other hand, it seems rash to conclude (with N\u00f6ldeke al.) that\n the Massoretic punctuation has no better authority than this\n untenable interpretation, so that we are at liberty to vocalise\n as we please in accordance with any plausible etymological\n theory. The old derivation from \u221a \u05e9\u05c1\u05e8\u05d3\u200e = \u2018destroy,\u2019 is still the\n best: it is grammatically unobjectionable, has at least some\n support in Isaiah 13\u2076, Joel 1\u00b9\u2075, and is free from difficulty if\n we accept it as an ancient title appropriated by Priestly-Code\n without regard to its real significance. The assumption of a\n by-form \u05e9\u05c1\u05e8\u05d4\u200e (Ewald, Tuch, al.) is gratuitous, and would yield\n a form \u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05d9\u200e, not \u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u200e. Other proposed etymologies are: from \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d3\u200e\n originally = \u2018lord\u2019 (Arabic _sayyid_), afterwards = \u2018demon\u2019\n (pointing \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u200e or \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d3\u05b7\u05d9\u200e [plural majority]: N\u00f6ldeke _Zeitschrift der\n deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 735 f., xlii.\n 480 f.); from \u221a \u05e9\u05c1\u05d3\u05d4\u200e (Arabic _\u1e6fad\u0101_) = \u2018be wet\u2019 (\u2018the raingiver\u2019:\n _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_\u00b2, 424); from Syrian\n (\u2021 Syriac word), \u2018hurl\u2019 (Schwally, _Zeitschrift der deutschen\n morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, lii. 136: \u201ca dialectic\n equivalent of \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e in the sense of lightning-thrower\u201d [\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05d9\u200e]).\n Vollers (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, xvii. 310) argues for\n an original \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d3\u200e (\u221a \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05d3\u200e), afterwards, through popular etymology\n and change of religious meaning, fathered on \u221a \u05e9\u05c1\u05d3\u05d3\u200e. Several\n Assyriologists connect the word with _\u0161ad\u00fb rab\u00fb_, \u2018great\n mountain,\u2019 a title of B\u00eal and other Babylonian deities (Hommel\n _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_,\n 109 f.; Zimmern, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3,\n 358): a view which would be more plausible if, as Friedrich\n Delitzsch (_Prolegomena eines neuen hebr\u00e4isch-aram\u00e4ischen\n W\u00f6rterbuchs zum Alten Testament_ 95 f.) has maintained,\n the Assyrian \u221a meant \u2018lofty\u2019; but this is denied by other\n authorities (Halevy, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Keilschriftsforschung_,\n ii. 405 ff.; Jensen _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, i. 251). As\n to the origin of the name, there is a probability that \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc \u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u200e was\n an old (compare Genesis 49\u00b2\u2075) Canaanite deity, of the same class\n as _\u2019El \u201bEly\u00f4n_ (see on 14\u00b9\u2078), whom the Israelites identified\n with Yahwe (so Gunkel 235).\u2015\u2015=4.= \u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] is _casus pendens_ (Driver\n _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ \u00a7 197 (4)), not\n emphatic anticipation of following suffix (as Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 135 _f_).\u2015\u2015=5.= \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05e9\u05de\u05da\u200e] Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 121 _a_, _b_; but\n\u200e \u05d0\u05ea\u200e is omitted in some MSS and in _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=6.= The promise of _kings_ among Abraham\u2019s descendants is again\npeculiar to Priestly-Code (35\u00b9\u00b9). The reference is to the Hebrew\nmonarchy: the rulers of Ishmael are only \u2018princes\u2019 (\u05e0\u05b0\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d9\u05d0\u05b4\u05dd\u200e, verse \u00b2\u2070),\nand those of Edom (36\u2074\u2070) are styled \u05d0\u05b7\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e3\u200e\u2015\u2015=7.= _to be to thee a God_]\nThe essence of the covenant relation is expressed by this frequently\nrecurring formula.\u00b9 It is important for Priestly-Code\u2019s notion of the\ncovenant that the correlative \u2018they (ye) shall be to me a people,\u2019\nwhich is always added in other writings (except Ezekiel 34\u00b2\u2074), is\nusually omitted by Priestly-Code (except Exodus 6\u2077, Leviticus 26\u00b9\u00b2).\nThe _b\u0115r\u00eeth_ is conceived as a self-determination of God to be to\none particular race all that the word God implies, a reciprocal\nact of choice on man\u2019s part being no essential feature of the\nrelation.\u2015\u2015=8.= _land of thy sojourning_] 28\u2074 36\u2077 37\u00b9 47\u2079, Exodus 6\u2074\n(all Priestly-Code).\n\n \u00b9 The list of passages as given by Driver (page 186) is as\n follows: In Priestly-Code, Exodus 6\u2077 29\u2074\u2075, Leviticus 11\u2074\u2075;\n in Priestly-Code\u02b0, Leviticus 22\u00b3\u00b3 25\u00b3\u2078 26\u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u2074\u2075, Numbers 15\u2074\u00b9;\n elsewhere, Deuteronomy 29\u00b9\u00b3 (compare 26\u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1427), Jeremiah 7\u00b2\u00b3\n 11\u2074 24\u2077 30\u00b2\u00b2 31\u00b9\u1427 \u00b3\u00b3, Ezekiel 11\u00b2\u2070 14\u00b9\u00b9 34\u00b2\u2074 36\u00b2\u2078 37\u00b2\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u2077,\n 2 Samuel 2\u00b2\u2074 (= 1 Chronicles 17\u00b2\u00b2), Zechariah 8\u2078.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =6.= \u05de\u05de\u05da\u200e] Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac phrase) = \u05de\u05b4\u05de\u05b5\u05bc\u05e2\u05b6\u05d9\u05da\u05b8\u200e; see on 15\u2074.\u2015\u2015=8.=\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b2\u05d7\u05bb\u05d6\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e] a common word in Priestly-Code; elsewhere only Psalms 2\u2078,\n Ezekiel 44\u00b2\u2078, 1 Chronicles 7\u00b2\u2078.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=9\u201214. The sign of the Covenant.=\u2015\u2015To the promises of verses \u00b2\u207b\u2078 there\nis attached a single command, with regard to which it is difficult\nto say whether it belongs to the content of the covenant (verse \u00b9\u2070),\nor is merely an adjunct,\u2015\u2015an external mark of the invisible bond\nwhich united every Jew to Yahwe (\u00b9\u00b9): see page 297. The theme at all\nevents is the institution of circumcision. The legal style of the\nsection is so pronounced that it reads like a stray leaf from the\nbook of Leviticus (note the address in 2nd person plural from \u00b9\u2070\nonwards).\u2015\u2015=9.= _And God said_] marks a new section (compare \u00b9\u2075), \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b7\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e\nbeing the antithesis to \u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e in \u2074.\u2015\u2015_keep my covenant_] \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05e8\u200e is opposed\nto \u05d4\u05b5\u05e4\u05b7\u05bd\u05e8\u200e, \u2018break,\u2019 in \u00b9\u2074; hence it cannot mean \u2018watch over\u2019 (Valeton),\nbut must be used in the extremely common sense of \u2018observe\u2019 or \u2018act\naccording to.\u2019 The question would never have been raised but for a\ndisinclination to admit anything of the nature of a stipulation into\nPriestly-Code\u2019s idea of the covenant.\u2015\u2015=10.= _This is my covenant_]\nCircumcision is both the covenant and the sign of the covenant: the\nwriter\u2019s ideas are sufficiently vague and elastic to include both\nrepresentations. It is therefore unnecessary (with Olshausen and\nBall) to read \u05d6\u05d0\u05ea \u05d0\u05b9\u05ea \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9\u200e (see verse \u00b9\u00b3).\u2015\u2015=11.= _for a covenant-sign_]\n_i.e._, after the analogy of 9\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427, a token by which God is reminded\nof the existence of the covenant. The conception rises out of the\nextraordinary importance of the rite when the visible fabric of Hebrew\nnationality was dissolved, and nothing remained but this corporal badge\nas a mark of the religious standing of the Jew before Yahwe.\u2015\u2015=12a.=\n_at the age of eight days_] connected with the period of the mother\u2019s\nuncleanness: Leviticus 12\u00b9\u1427 \u00b3; compare Genesis 21\u2074, Luke 1\u2075\u2079 2\u00b2\u00b9,\nPhilippians 3\u2075; Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 214.\u2015\u2015=12b, 13=\ngo together (Delitzsch), extending the obligation to _slaves_, who\nas members of the household follow the religion of their master.\u2015\u2015The\npenalty of disobedience is death or excommunication, according as one\nor the other is meant by the obscure formula: _be cut off from its\nkindred_ (_v.i._).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =10.= \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\u05da \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05da\u200e] LXX + \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. The whole is\n possibly a gloss (Kautzsch-Socin, Ball, Gunkel), due to\n confusion between the legislative standpoint of \u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 with\n its plural address, and the special communication to Abraham;\n see, however, verses \u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05dc\u200e] infinitive absolute used as\n jussive; Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 113 _cc_, _gg_: compare Exodus\n 12\u2074\u2078, Leviticus 6\u2077, Numbers 6\u2075.\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05d5\u05bc\u05e0\u05b0\u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05ea\u05b6\u05bc\u05dd\u200e] treated by\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f as active, from \u221a \u05e0\u05de\u05dc\u200e, but really\n abbreviated Niphal of \u221a \u05de\u05dc\u05dc\u200e (compare Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 67\n _dd_), a rare by-form (Joshua 5\u00b2) of \u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4\u200e, adopted by Ball.\u2015\u2015=12.= \u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u200e]\n see 14\u00b9\u2074.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05e7\u05e0\u05ea \u05db\u05e1\u05e3\u200e] only verses \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u2077 and Exodus 12\u2074\u2074.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\u05da\u200e\n is the individualising use of 2nd person singular, frequently\n alternating with 2nd plural in legal enactments. So verse\n\u200e \u00b9\u00b3.\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05e2\u05e8\u05dc\u05ea\u05d5\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,\n LXX + \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u200e (Ball).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05e0\u05db\u05e8\u05ea\u05d4\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05d4\u200e] So Exodus 30\u00b3\u00b3\u1427 \u00b3\u2078 31\u00b9\u2074,\n Leviticus 7\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2077 17\u2079 19\u2078 23\u00b2\u2079, Numbers 9\u00b9\u00b3,\u2015\u2015all in\n Priestly-Code, who employs a number of similar phrases\u2015\u2015\u2018his\n people,\u2019 \u2018Israel,\u2019 \u2018the congregation of Israel,\u2019 \u2018the assembly,\u2019\n etc.\u2015\u2015to express the same idea (see Driver 187\u00b2). \u05e2\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e is here\n used in the sense of \u2018kin,\u2019 as occasionally in Old Testament\n (see 19\u00b3\u2078 25\u2078). It is the Arabic _\u201bamm_, which combines the two\n senses of \u2018people,\u2019 and \u2018relative on the father\u2019s side\u2019: see\n Wellhausen _Nachrichten von der K\u00f6niglichen Gesellschaft der\n Wissenschaften zu G\u00f6ttingen_, 1893, 480, and compare Driver\n on Deuteronomy 32\u2075\u2070 (page 384); Krenkel, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die\n alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, viii. 280 ff.; Nestle, _ib._\n xvi. 322 f.; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3,\n 480 f. With regard to the sense of the formula there are\n two questions: (a) whether it embraces the death-penalty, or\n merely exclusion from the _sacra_ of the clan and from burial\n in the family grave; and (b) whether the punishment is to be\n inflicted by the community, or by God in His providence. The\n interpretation seems to have varied in different ages. Exodus\n 31\u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427 clearly contemplates the death penalty at the hands of\n the community; while Leviticus 17\u2079 \u1da0\u1427 20\u00b3\u1427 \u2076 point as clearly to\n a divine interposition. The probability is that it is an archaic\n juridical formula for the punishment of death, which came to\n be used vaguely \u201cas a strong affirmation of divine disapproval,\n rather than as prescribing a penalty to be actually enforced\u201d\n (Driver). See Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i.\n 421 f.; Holzinger page 127 f.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b5\u05e4\u05b7\u05bd\u05e8\u200e] pausal form for \u05d4\u05b5\u05e4\u05b5\u05e8\u200e\n (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 29 _q_).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=15\u201222. The heir of the Covenant.=\u2015\u2015The promise of the birth of Isaac\nis brought into connexion with the main idea of the chapter by the\nassurance (\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9) that the covenant is to be established with him\nand not with Ishmael.\u2015\u2015=15.= Sarai\u2019s name is changed to _Sarah_. The\nabsence of an etymological motive is remarkable (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=16b.= In\nLXX, _Jubilees_, Vulgate and Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, the blessing on Sarah is by\nslight changes of text turned into a blessing on the son whose birth\nhas just been foretold (_v.i._). The Massoretic Text, however, is\nmore likely to be correct.\u2015\u2015=17.= Abraham\u2019s demeanour is a strange\nmixture of reverence and incredulity: \u201cpartim gaudio exultans, partim\nadmiratione extra se raptus, in risum prorumpit\u201d is Calvin\u2019s comment.\nIt is Priestly-Code\u2019s somewhat unnatural clothing of the traditional\netymology of Isaac (\u05d9\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05e7\u200e, verse \u00b9\u2079); compare 18\u00b9\u00b2 (Yahwist), 21\u2076\n(Elohist).\u2015\u2015=18.= The prayer, _O that Ishmael might live before\nthee!_\u2015\u2015under Thy protection and with Thy blessing (Hosea 6\u00b2)\u2015\u2015is a\nfine touch of nature; but the writer\u2019s interest lies rather in the\n\u2018determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,\u2019 which overrides human\nfeeling and irrevocably decrees the election of Israel (\u00b9\u2079).\u2015\u2015=19a.=\nCompare the language with 16\u00b9\u00b9, and observe that the naming of the\nchild is assigned to the father.\u2015\u2015=20.= \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05e2\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05da\u05b8\u200e] a remote allusion to\nthe popular explanation of \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b8\u05e2\u05b5\u05d0\u05dc\u200e, \u2018May God hear\u2019 (compare 16\u00b9\u00b9 21\u00b9\u2077).\nIshmael is to be endowed for Abraham\u2019s sake with every kind of\nblessing, except the religious privileges of the covenant.\u2015\u2015_twelve\nprinces_] (compare 25\u00b9\u2076) as contrasted with the \u2018kings\u2019 of\n\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2076.\u2015\u2015=22.= The close of the theophany.\u2014\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u2014\u05de\u05b5\u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u200e as 35\u00b9\u00b3.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =15.= \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05b7\u05d9\u200e (LXX \u03a3\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1) and \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (LXX \u03a3\u03ac\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b1)] According to N\u00f6ldeke\n (_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xl.\n 183, xlii. 484), \u05be\u05b7\u05d9\u200e is \u2666an old feminine terminator surviving in\n Syrian, Arabian and Ethiopian. On this view \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05b7\u05d9\u200e may be either the\n same word as \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u2018princess\u2019 (\u221a \u05e9\u05e8\u05e8\u200e), or (as the differentiation\n of LXX suggests) from \u221a \u05e9\u05e8\u05d4\u200e, \u2018strive,\u2019 with which the name Israel\n was connected (Genesis 32\u00b2\u2079, Hosea 12\u2074: see William Robertson\n Smith _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_\u00b2, 34 f. [N\u00f6ldeke\n dissents]). On Lagarde\u2019s (_Mittheilungen_ ii. 185) attempt to\n connect the name with Arabic _\u0161ara\u02b8_ = \u2018wild fertile spot,\u2019 and\n so to identify Abraham (as \u2018husband of Sarai\u2019) with the Nabatean\n god Dusares (_\u1e0f\u016b-\u0161\u0161ara\u02b8_), see Meyer _Die Israeliten und\n ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 269 f., who thinks the conjecture raised\n beyond doubt by the discovery of the name _\u0160arayat_ as consort\n of Dusares on an inscription at Bo\u1e63ra in the \u1e24aur\u00e2n. The\n identification remains highly problematical.\u2015\u2015=16.= \u05d5\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4\u200e] _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d5\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5\u200e. So LXX, _Jubilees_,\n Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, which consistently maintain the masculine\n to the end of the verse.\u2015\u2015=17.= \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b2\u05f3\u200e] a combination of the\n disjunctive question with _casus pendens_; see Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 150 _g_.\n\n \u2666 duplicate word \u201can\u201d removed\n\n\u200e =19.= \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc\u200e] \u2018_Nay, but_,\u2019\u2015\u2015a rare asseverative (42\u00b2\u00b9, 2 Samuel 14\u2075,\n 2 Kings 4\u00b9\u2074, 1 Kings 1\u2074\u00b3) and adversative (Daniel 10\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9, Ezra\n 10\u00b9\u00b3, 2 Chronicles 1\u2074 19\u00b3 33\u00b9\u2077) particle. See the interesting\n note in Burney, _Notes on Kings_, page 11; and compare K\u00f6nig, ii.\n\u200e 265.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd appears to\n imply a preceding clause \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, which is found in many\n cursives. This is probably the correct reading.\u2015\u2015=20.= \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0\u05dd\u200e] LXX\n \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=23\u201227. Circumcision of Abraham\u2019s household.=\u2015\u2015=23.= _on that\nvery day_ (compare 7\u00b9\u00b3)] repeated in verse \u00b2\u2076. Throughout the\nsection, Priestly-Code excels himself in pedantic and redundant\ncircumstantiality of narration. The circumcision of Ishmael, however,\nis inconsistent with the theory that the rite is a sign of the\ncovenant, from which Ishmael is excluded (Holzinger, Gunkel).\u2015\u2015=25.=\n_thirteen years old_] This was the age of circumcision among the\nancient Arabs, according to Josephus. _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 214.\nOrigen (Eusebius _Pr\u00e6paratio Evangelica_ vi. 11:\u00b9 compare Wellhausen\n_Reste arabischen Heidentums_\u00b2 175\u00b3); and Ambrose (_de Abraham_ ii.\n348) give a similar age (14 years) for the Egyptians. It is possible\nthat the notice here is based on a knowledge of this custom. Among\nthe modern Arabs there is no fixed rule, the age varying from three to\nfifteen years: see Dillmann 264; Driver in _A Dictionary of the Bible_,\nii. 504\u1d47.\n\n \u00b9 Edited by Heinichen, page 310 f.\n\n _Circumcision_ is a widely diffused rite of primitive religion,\n of whose introduction among the Hebrews there is no authentic\n tradition. One account (Exodus 4\u00b2\u2074 \u1da0\u1427) suggests a Midianite\n origin, another (Joshua 5\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) an Egyptian: the mention of\n flint knives in both these passages is a proof of the extreme\n antiquity of the custom (the Stone Age).\u00b9 The anthropological\n evidence shows that it was originally performed at puberty, as\n a preliminary to marriage, or, more generally, as a ceremony of\n initiation into the full religious and civil status of manhood.\n This primary idea was dissipated when it came to be performed in\n infancy; and its perpetuation in this form can only be explained\n by the inherited belief that it was an indispensable condition\n of participation in the common cultus of the clan or nation.\n \u2666Passages like Deuteronomy 10\u00b9\u2076 30\u2076, Ezekiel 44\u2077\u1427 \u2079, show that in\n Israel it came to be regarded as a token of allegiance to Yahwe;\n and in this fact we have the germ of the remarkable development\n which the rite underwent in post-Exilic Judaism. The new\n importance it then acquired was due to the experience of the\n Exile (partly continued in the Dispersion), when the suspension\n of public worship gave fresh emphasis to those rites which\n (like the Sabbath and circumcision) could be observed by the\n individual, and served to distinguish him from his heathen\n neighbours. In this way we can understand how, while the earlier\n legal codes have no law of circumcision, in Priestly-Code it\n becomes a prescription of the first magnitude, being placed\n above the Mosaic ritual, and second in dignity only to the\n Sabbath. The explicit formulating of the idea that circumcision\n is the sign of the national covenant with Yahwe was the work of\n the Priestly school of jurists; and very few legislative acts\n have exercised so tremendous an influence on the genius of a\n religion, or the character of a race, as this apparently trivial\n adjustment of a detail of ritual observance. For information on\n various aspects of the subject, see Ploss, _Das Kind in Brauch\n und Sitte der V\u00f6lker_\u00b2 (1894), i. 342\u2012372; Wellhausen _Reste\n arabischen Heidentums_\u00b2 174 f., _Prolegomena zur Geschichte\n Israels_\u2076 338 ff.; Stade _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche\n Wissenschaft_, vi. 132\u2012143; the articles in _A Dictionary of the\n Bible_ (Macalister) and _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_ (Benzinger); and\n the notes in Dillmann 258; Holzinger 129; Gunkel 237; Driver 189\n ff.; Strack\u00b2, 67; Matthes, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche\n Wissenschaft_, xxix. 70 ff.\n\n \u00b9 In a tomb of the Old Empire at Sakkara there are\n wall-pictures of the operation, where the surgeon uses\n a flint knife: see G. Elliot Smith in _British Medical\n Journal_, 1908, 732 (quoted by Matthes); and the\n illustration in _Texte und Bilder_, ii. page 126.\n\n \u2666 \u201cPasssages\u201d replaced with \u201cPassages\u201d\n\n _The Covenant-idea in Priestly-Code_ (see also page 290 f.\n above). In Priestly-Code\u2019s scheme of four world-ages, the\n word \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u200e is used only of the revelations associated with Noah\n and Abraham. In the Creation-narrative the term is avoided\n because the constitution of nature then appointed was afterwards\n annulled, whereas the _B\u0115r\u00eeth_ is a permanent and irreversible\n determination of the divine will. The conception of the Mosaic\n revelation as a covenant is Jehovistic (Exodus 24\u00b3\u207b\u2078 34\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\n etc.) and Deuteronomic (Deuteronomy 4\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 5\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 9\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\n etc.); and there are traces of it in secondary strata of\n Priestly-Code (Leviticus 26\u2074\u2075 [Priestly-Code\u02b0], Exodus 31\u00b9\u2076 \u1da0\u1427\u00b9\n [Priestly-Code\u02e2]); but it is not found in the historical work\n which is the kernel of the Code (Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1). Hence in\n trying to understand the religious significance of the _B\u0115r\u00eeth_\n in Priestly-Code\u1d37\u1d49\u02b3\u207f\u1d49\u02e1, we have but two examples to guide\n us. And with regard to both, the question is keenly discussed\n whether it denotes a self-imposed obligation on the part of God,\n irrespective of any condition on the part of man (so Valeton,\n _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xii.\n 1 ff.), or a bilateral engagement involving _reciprocal_\n obligations between God and men (so in the main Kraetzschmar,\n _Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament_ 183 ff.). The answer\n depends on the view taken of circumcision in this chapter.\n According to Valeton, it is merely a sign and nothing more;\n _i.e._, a means whereby God is reminded of the covenant.\n According to Kraetzschmar, it is both a sign and a constituent\n of the covenant, forming the condition on which the covenant\n is entered into. The truth seems to lie somewhere between two\n extremes. The _B\u0115r\u00eeth_ is neither a simple divine promise to\n which no obligation on man\u2019s part is attached (as in 15\u00b9\u2078), nor\n is it a mutual contract in the sense that the failure of one\n party dissolves the relation. It is an immutable determination\n of God\u2019s purpose, which no unfaithfulness of man can invalidate;\n but it carries conditions, the neglect of which will exclude the\n individual from its benefits. It is perhaps an over-refinement\n when Kraetzschmar (_l.c._ 201) infers from the expressions\n\u200e \u05d4\u05b5\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e and \u05e0\u05b8\u05ea\u05b7\u05df\u200e that for Priestly-Code there is only _one_ eternal\n divine _B\u0115r\u00eeth_, immutably established by God and progressively\n revealed to man.\n\n \u00b9 Could this, however, be taken to mean that the Sabbath was a\n \u2018sign\u2019 of the _Adamic_ dispensation conceived as a covenant?\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =24.= \u05e9\u05e0\u05d4\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_\n\u200e \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05d5\u200e] The Niphal is here either reflexive or passive;\n in \u00b2\u2075 it is passive.\u2015\u2015=26.= \u05e0\u05de\u05d5\u05dc\u200e] irregular perfect Niphal;\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 72 _ee_. Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 takes it as active.\n\u200e (\u221a \u05e0\u05de\u05dc\u200e?) with Ishmael as object; and so LXX in verse \u00b2\u2077\n (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n CHAPTER XVIII.\n _The Theophany at Hebron:\n Abraham\u2019s Intercession for Sodom_\n (Yahwist).\n\nUnder the terebinths of Mamre, Abraham hospitably entertains three\nmysterious visitors (\u00b9\u207b\u2078), and is rewarded by the promise of a son to\nbe born to Sarah in her old age (\u2079\u207b\u00b9\u2075). The three \u2018men,\u2019 whose true\nnature had been disclosed by their supernatural knowledge of Sarah\u2019s\nthoughts, then turn towards Sodom, accompanied by Abraham (\u00b9\u2076), who,\non learning Yahwe\u2019s purpose to destroy that city (\u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u00b9), intercedes\neloquently on its behalf (\u00b2\u00b2\u207b\u00b3\u00b3).\n\n The first half of the chapter (\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2076) shows at its best the\n picturesque, lucid, and flexible narrative style of Yahwist, and\n contains many expressions characteristic of that document: \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e,\n\u200e \u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2074; \u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05e5 \u05dc\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05e8\u05b7\u05d0\u05ea\u200e, \u00b2 (only in Yahwist 24\u00b9\u2077 29\u00b9\u00b3 33\u2074); \u05de\u05b8\u05e6\u05b8\u05d0 \u05d7\u05b7\u05df\u200e, \u00b3;\n\u200e \u05e0\u05b8\u05d0\u200e, \u00b3\u1427 \u2074; \u05e2\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05da\u05b8\u200e (for 1st person), \u00b3\u1427 \u2075; \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05be\u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u05be\u05db\u05b5\u05bc\u05df\u200e, \u2075; \u05dc\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d6\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, \u00b9\u00b3; \u05d4\u05e9\u05e7\u05d9\u05e3\u200e,\n \u00b9\u2076. The latter part (\u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b3\u00b3) is also Yahwistic (\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2076\u1427\n\u200e \u00b3\u00b3; [\u05d4\u05b4\u05e0\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4]\u05be\u05e0\u05b8\u05d0\u200e, \u00b2\u2077\u1427 \u00b3\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427; \u05d7\u05b8\u05dc\u05b4\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u00b2\u2075; \u05d4\u05b7\u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u05dd\u200e, \u00b3\u00b2), but contains two\n expansions of later date than the primary narrative. Wellhausen\n (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher\n des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 27 f.) appears to have proved that the\n original connexion between 18\u00b9\u2075 and 19\u00b9 consists of \u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u00b2\u1d43\u1427\n \u00b3\u00b3\u1d47; and that \u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1d47\u207b\u00b3\u00b3\u1d43 are editorial insertions reflecting\n theological ideas proper to a more advanced stage of thought\n (see below). A more comprehensive analysis is attempted\n by Kraetzschmar in _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche\n Wissenschaft_, xvii. 81 ff., prompted by the perplexing\n alternation of the singular ([\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e] \u00b9\u1427 \u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u00b9\u1427\n \u00b2\u00b2\u1d47\u207b\u00b3\u00b3) and plural (\u00b2\u1427 \u2074\u1427 \u2075\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1d43)\u00b9 in the dialogue\n between Abraham and his guests. The theory will repay a closer\n examination than can be given to it here; but I agree with\n Gunkel in thinking that the texture of \u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2076 is too homogeneous\n to admit of decomposition, and that some other explanation of\n the phenomenon in question must be sought than the assumption\n of an interweaving of a singular and a plural recension of the\n legend (see on verse \u00b9 and page 303 below).\u00b2 With Gunkel also,\n we may regard the chapter as the immediate sequel to 13\u00b9\u2078 in the\n legendary cycle which fixes the residence of Abraham at Hebron\n (Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f). The conception of Abraham\u2019s character is\n closely akin to what we meet throughout that section of Yahwist,\n and differs appreciably from the representation of him in\n 12\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2070 and 16.\n\n \u00b9 It is important, however, to observe that in _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ (if we except the introductory\n \u00b9\u1d43) the singular does not appear till \u00b9\u2070, but after that\n regularly up to \u00b9\u2075.\n\n \u00b2 The same solution had occurred to Ball (_The Sacred Books of\n the Old Testament_, 1896), but was rightly set aside by him\n as unproved.\n\n=1\u20128. The entertainment of the three wayfarers.=\u2015\u2015The description\n\u201cpresents a perfect picture of the manner in which a modern Bedawee\nsheikh receives travellers arriving at his encampment. He immediately\norders his wife or women to make bread, slaughters a sheep or other\nanimal, and dresses it in haste; and, bringing milk and any other\nprovisions that he may have at hand, with the bread and the meat that\nhe has dressed, sets them before his guests: if they are persons of\nhigh rank he also stands by them while they eat\u201d (Lane, _An Account\nof the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_\u2075 i. 364: from\nDriver).\u2015\u2015=1.= _Yahwe appeared, etc._] This introductory clause\nsimply means that the incident about to be related has the value of a\ntheophany. In what way the narrator conceived that Yahwe was present\nin the three men\u2015\u2015whether He was one of the three, or whether all\nthree were Yahwe in self-manifestation (Delitzsch)\u2015\u2015we can hardly tell.\nThe common view that the visitors were Yahwe accompanied by two of His\nangels does not meet the difficulties of the exegesis; and it is more\nprobable that to the original Yahwist the \u2018men\u2019 were emissaries and\nrepresentatives of Yahwe, who was not visibly present (see page 304\nf.).\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05d7\u05b9\u05dd \u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd\u200e] at the hottest (and drowsiest) time of the day (2 Samuel\n4\u2075).\u2015\u2015=2.= _and behold_] The mysteriously sudden advent of the\nstrangers marks them as superhuman beings (Joshua 5\u00b9\u00b3), though this\nmakes no impression on Abraham at the time. The interest of the\nstory turns largely on his ignorance of the real character of his\nguests.\u2015\u2015=3.= The Massoretic pointing \u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05b9\u05e0\u05b8\u05d9\u200e implies that Abraham\nrecognised Yahwe as one of the three (Tuch, Delitzsch, al.); but\nthis we have just seen to be a mistake. The correct form is either\n\u200e\u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05b9\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e (as 23\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9, etc.: so Dillmann, Driver), or (better, as 19\u00b2) \u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05b9\u05e0\u05b7\u05d9\u200e:\n_Sirs!_\u2015\u2015restoring (with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_)\nthe plural throughout the verse.\u2015\u2015The whole of Abraham\u2019s speech\nis a fine example of the profuse, deferential, self-depreciatory\ncourtesy characteristic of Eastern manners.\u2015\u2015=4.= _wash your feet_]\nCompare 19\u00b2 24\u00b3\u00b2 43\u00b2\u2074, Judges 19\u00b2\u00b9, 2 Samuel 11\u2078, Luke 7\u2074\u2074, 1 Timothy\n5\u00b9\u2070.\u2015\u2015_recline yourselves_] not at meat (Gunkel), but during the\npreparation of the meal. Even in the time of Amos (6\u2074) reclining at\ntable seems to have been a new-fangled and luxurious habit introduced\nfrom abroad: contrast the ancient custom 27\u00b9\u2079, Judges 19\u2076, 1 Samuel\n20\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2074, 1 Kings 13\u00b2\u2070.\u2015\u2015=5.= _support your heart_] with the food,\nJudges 19\u2075\u1427 \u2078, 1 Kings 13\u2077, Psalms 104\u00b9\u2075; compare bread the \u2018staff\u2019 of\nlife, Leviticus 26\u00b2\u2076, Isaiah 3\u00b9.\u2015\u2015_seeing that, etc._] Hospitality is,\nso to speak, the logical corollary of passing Abraham\u2019s tent.\u2015\u2015=6\u20128.=\nThe preparation of a genuine Bedouin repast, consisting of hastily\nbaked _cakes_ of bread, _flesh_, and _milk_ in two forms. On the items,\n_v.i._\u2015\u2015=8.= _and they ate_] So 19\u00b3\u2015\u2015the only cases in Old Testament\nwhere the Deity is represented as eating (contrast Judges 6\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1427 13\u00b9\u2076).\nThe anthropomorphism is evaded by Josephus (_Antiquities of the Jews_\ni. 197: \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd; compare Tobit 12\u00b9\u2079),\nTargum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, Rashi, al.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\u2015\u2015In \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u200e the suffix may refer back directly\n to 13\u00b9\u2078 (see on the verse).\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05d0\u05dc\u05e0\u05d9 \u05de\u05de\u05e8\u05d0\u200e] LXX \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u03c1\u03c5\u1fd2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039c\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u1fc7;\n see on 13\u00b9\u2078.\u2015\u2015=3.= Read with _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05db\u05dd\u200e, \u05ea\u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u200e, \u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05db\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015=5.= \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05ea\u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u200e (_The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f) is\n the better reading, to which LXX adds \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f41\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd (compare\n\u200e 19\u00b2).\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05d9\u05be\u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05db\u05df\u200e is not to be resolved into \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e and \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u05be\u05db\u05b5\u05bc\u05df\u200e, _denn eben\n desshalb_ (Gesenius-Buhl\u00b9\u2074, 308 a; Delitzsch, al.); but is\n a compound conjunction = _quandoquidem_, \u2018inasmuch as\u2019 (Tuch,\n Dillmann, Driver), as usage clearly shows; compare 19\u2078 33\u00b9\u2070\n 38\u00b2\u2076 Numbers 10\u00b3\u00b9 14\u2074\u00b3 (all Yahwist), Judges 6\u00b2\u00b2, 2 Samuel\n 18\u00b2\u2070, Jeremiah 29\u00b2\u2078 38\u2074\u2020; see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 158 _b_\u00b3;\n Brown-Driver-Briggs, 475 b.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05ea\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc\u200e LXX \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 = \u05e1\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05ea\u05b6\u05bc\u05dd \u05d0\u05b6\u05dc\u200e\n (19\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427), which is too rashly accepted by Ball.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b9\u05bc\u05d0\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u200e] LXX has\n the singular wrongly.\u2015\u2015=6.= _Three seahs_ would be (according\n to Kennedy\u2019s computation, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iv.\n 912) approximately equal to 4\u00bd pecks.\u2015\u2015\u05e7\u05de\u05d7 \u05e1\u05dc\u05ea\u200e] LXX \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2,\n [Vulgate _simil\u00e6_] which might stand either for \u05e7\u05de\u05d7\u200e (1 Samuel\n 1\u00b2\u2074) or \u05e1\u05dc\u05ea\u200e (as in every other instance). The latter (the finer\n variety) is here probably a gloss on \u05e7\u05de\u05d7\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05d2\u05d5\u05ea\u200e] (LXX \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2,\n Vulgate _subcinericios panes_) are thin round cakes baked on hot\n stones or in the ashes (Benzinger _Hebr\u00e4ische Arch\u00e4ologie_\u00b2\n\u200e 64).\u2015\u2015=8.= \u05d7\u05de\u05d0\u05d4\u200e is the Arabic _laban_, milk slightly soured by\n fermentation, which is greatly esteemed by the nomads of Syria\n and Arabia as a refreshing and nourishing beverage (see\n _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, iii. 3089 f.).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=9\u201215. The promise of a son to Sarah.=\u2015\u2015The subject is introduced\nwith consummate skill. In the course of the conversation which\nnaturally follows the meal, an apparently casual question leads to\nan announcement which shows superhuman knowledge of the great blank\nin Abraham\u2019s life, and conveys a first intimation of the real nature\nof the visitors. See Gunkel\u2019s fine exposition, 172 f.; and contrast\nthe far less delicate handling of an identical situation in 2 Kings\n4\u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2076.\u2015\u2015=9.= The question shows that Sarah had not been introduced\nto the strangers, in accordance probably with Hebrew custom\n(Gunkel).\u2015\u2015=10.= _I will return_] The definite transition to the\nsingular takes place here (see on verse \u00b3). In the original legend\nthe plural was no doubt kept up to the end; but the monotheistic\nhabit of thought was too strong for Hebrew writers, when they came\nto words which could be properly ascribed only to Yahwe.\u2015\u2015On \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05e2\u05b5\u05ea \u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e,\n_v.i._\u2015\u2015_Sarah was listening_] with true feminine curiosity; compare\n27\u2075. The last two words should probably be rendered: _she being\nbehind it_ (the tent or the door); compare the footnote.\u2015\u2015=11.=\nA circumstantial sentence explaining Sarah\u2019s incredulity (verse\n\u00b9\u00b2).\u2015\u2015_after the manner of women_ (compare 31\u00b3\u2075)] \u201cquo genere\nloquendi verecunde menses notat qui mulieribus fluunt\u201d (Calvin);\nLXX \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1; Vulgate _muliebria_.\u2015\u2015=12.= _Sarah laughed_ (\u05d5\u05b7\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05e6\u05b0\u05d7\u05b7\u05e7\u200e)\n_within herself_] obviously a proleptic explanation of the name \u05d9\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05e7\u200e\n(see on 17\u00b9\u2077), although the sequel in this document has not been\npreserved.\u2015\u2015_waxed old_] literally \u2018worn away,\u2019 a strong word used,\n_e.g._, of worn out garments (Deuteronomy 8\u2074 29\u2074 etc.).\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b6\u05d3\u05b0\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (only\nhere), \u2018sensuous enjoyment\u2019 (_Liebeswonne_).\u2015\u2015=13.= This leads to a\nstill more remarkable proof of divine insight: the speaker knows that\nSarah has laughed, though he has neither seen nor heard her (\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e7\u05b4\u05e8\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05bc\u200e,\nverse \u00b9\u00b2). The insertion of Yahwe here was probably caused by the\noccurrence of the name in the next verse.\u2015\u2015=14.= _Is anything too\nstrange for Yahwe?_] As the narrative stands, the sentence does not\nimply identity between the speaker and Yahwe, but rather a distinction\nanalogous to that frequently drawn between Yahwe and the angel\nof Yahwe (see on 16\u2077).\u2015\u2015=15.= _Sarah denied it_] startled by the\nunexpected exposure of her secret thoughts into fear of the mysterious\nguests.\n\n From the religious-historical point of view, the passage just\n considered, with its sequel in chapter 19, is one of the most\n obscure in Genesis. According to Gunkel (174 ff.), whose genial\n exposition has thrown a flood of light on the deeper aspects\n of the problem, the narrative is based on a widely diffused\n Oriental myth, which had been localised in Hebron in the\n pre-Yahwistic period, and was afterwards incorporated in the\n Abrahamic tradition. On this view, the three strangers were\n originally three deities, disguised as men, engaged in the\n function described in the lines of Homer (_Odyssey_ xvii.\n 485 ff.):\n\n \u039a\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u03be\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c6\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b7\u03b1\u03c2,\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u1f55\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\u00b9\n\n Dr. Rendel Harris goes a step further, and identifies the gods\n with the Dioscuri or Kabiri, finding in the prominence given to\n hospitality, and the renewal of sexual functions, characteristic\n features of a Dioscuric visitation (_Cult of the Heavenly Twins_,\n 37 ff.). Of the numerous parallels that are adduced, by far\n the most striking is the account of the birth of Orion in Ovid,\n _Fasti_, v. 495 ff.: Hyrieus, an aged peasant of Tanagra, is\n visited by Zeus, Poseidon, and Hermes, and shows hospitality\n to them; after the repast the gods invite him to name a wish;\n and he, being widowed and childless, asks for a son. \u2018Pudor\n est ulteriora loqui\u2019; but at the end of ten months Orion is\n miraculously born. The resemblance to Genesis 18 is manifest;\n and since direct borrowing of the B\u0153otian legend from Jewish\n sources is improbable, there is a presumption that we have to\n do with variations of the same tale. The theory is rendered\n all the more plausible by the fact that a precisely similar\n origin is suggested by the leading motives of chapter 19 (see\n below).\u2015\u2015Assuming that some such pagan original is the basis\n of the narrative before us, we find a clue to that confusion\n between the singular and plural which has been already referred\n to as a perplexing feature of the chapter. It is most natural\n to suppose that the threefold manifestation is a remnant of the\n original polytheism, the heathen deities being reduced to the\n rank of Yahwe\u2019s envoys. The introduction of Yahwe Himself as one\n of them would thus be a later modification, due to progressive\n Hebra\u00efzing of the conception, but never consistently carried\n through. An opposite view is taken by Fripp (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\n die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xii. 23 ff.), who restores\n the singular throughout, and by Kraetzschmar, who, as we have\n seen, distinguishes between a singular and a plural recension,\n but regards the former as the older. The substitution of angels\n for Yahwe might seem a later refinement on the anthropomorphic\n representation of a bodily appearance of Yahwe; but the\n resolution of the _one_ Yahwe into _three_ angels would be\n unaccountable, especially in Yahwist, who appears never to speak\n of angels in the plural (see on 19\u00b9). See Gunkel 171, and Cheyne\n _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, iv. 4667 f.\n\n \u00b9 The belief appears to be very ancient. Dr. Frazer cites\n several primitive rites in which strangers are treated as\n deities\u2015\u2015not always to their advantage (_Golden Bough_, ii.\n 225, 232, 234 f., and especially 237; _Adonis Attis Osiris_,\n 21 ff.).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =9.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u200e] LXX \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e (wrongly).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b9\u05dc\u05d9\u05b9\u05d5\u05b9\u200e] The superlinear points\n (compare 16\u2075) are thought to indicate a reading \u05dc\u05d5\u200e.\u2015\u2015=10.= \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05e2\u05b5\u05ea \u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e]\n This peculiar phrase (recurring only verse \u00b9\u2074, 2 Kings 4\u00b9\u2076 \u1da0\u1427)\n is now almost invariably rendered \u2018at the (this) time, when it\n revives,\u2019 _i.e._, next year, or spring (so Rashi, Abraham Ibn\n Ezra; compare Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus criticus Lingu\u00e6\n Hebr\u00e6\u00e6 et Chald\u00e6\u00e6 Veteris Testamenti_ 470; Gesenius-Buhl\u00b9\u2074, 202\n a; Brown-Driver-Briggs, 312 a; Ewald _Ausf\u00fchrliches Lehrbuch der\n hebr\u00e4ischen Sprache des alten Bundes_ \u00a7 337 a; Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 118 _u_; K\u00f6nig _Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebr\u00e4ischen\n Sprache_ \u00a7 387 e); but the sense is extremely forced. It\n is surprising that no one seems to suspect a reference to\n the period of pregnancy. In New Hebrew \u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e means a woman in\n child-birth (so perhaps \u05d7\u05b8\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4\u200e in Exodus 1\u00b9\u2079 [Holzinger _ad v._]);\n and here we might point \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e2\u05b5\u05ea \u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e or \u05db\u05bc\u05f3 \u05d7\u05b8\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, rendering \u2018according to\n the time of a pregnant woman,\u2019 or 9 months hence. \u05dc\u05b7\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05e2\u05b5\u05d3\u200e in verse\n \u00b9\u2074 is no obstacle, for \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e2\u05b5\u05d3\u200e is simply the time determined by the\n previous promise, and there is no need to add \u05d4\u05b7\u05d6\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4\u200e (LXX after\n 17\u00b2\u00b9). 2 Kings 4\u00b9\u2076 (\u05dc\u05b7\u05de\u05bc\u05f3 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d6\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4\u200e) does present a difficulty; but that\n late passage is modelled on this, and the original phrase may\n have been already misunderstood, as it is by all versions:\n _e.g._ LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2; Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u2018at\n a time when you are living\u2019; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u2018at this time, she being\n alive\u2019; Vulgate _tempore isto, vita comite_. Ball also points\n as construct, but thinks \u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e an old name for spring.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05d4\u200e] LXX,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 read \u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b8\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05f3\u200e; so LXX \u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f44\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. Massoretic Text\n is perhaps a neglect of the _Q\u0115r\u00ea perpet_ (\u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05d5\u05d0\u200e).\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05d1\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e]\n compare 24\u00b9, Joshua 13\u00b9 23\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2, 1 Kings 1\u00b9.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05e8\u05d7 \u05db\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] Ball,\n Kittel more smoothly, \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b9\u05e8\u05b7\u05d7 \u05e0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015=12.= \u05d0\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b6\u05d3\u05b0\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u039f\u1f54\u03c0\u03c9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd presupposes an impossible text \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05d4\u05b8\u05bd\u05d9\u05b0\u05ea\u05b8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05b4\u05d9 \u05e2\u05b2\u05d3\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e.\n The change is perhaps alluded to in _Mechilta_ on Exodus 12\u2074\u2070\n (see page 14 above; Geiger, _Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der\n Bibel in ihrer Abh\u00e4ngigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des\n Judenthums_ 439, 442).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d1\u05b0\u05dc\u05b9\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] Aquila \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\n \u03bc\u03b5; Symmachus (less accurately) \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03bc\u03b5.\u2015\u2015=14.=\n\u200e \u05d4\u05d9\u05e4\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05df\u200e] Jeremiah 32\u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u2077, Deuteronomy 17\u2078 30\u00b9\u00b9.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=16\u201222a. The judgement of Sodom revealed.=\n\n The soliloquy of Yahwe in \u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b9\u2079 breaks the connexion between\n \u00b9\u2076 and \u00b2\u2070, and is to all appearance a later addition (see\n page 298). (a) The insertion assumes that Yahwe is one of the\n three strangers; but this is hardly the intention of the main\n narrative, which continues to speak of \u2018the men\u2019 in the plural\n (\u00b2\u00b2\u1d43). (b) In \u00b9\u2077 Yahwe has resolved on the destruction of Sodom,\n whereas in \u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1427 He proposes to abide by the result of a personal\n investigation. (c) Both thought and language in \u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b9\u2079 show signs\n of Deuteronomic influence (see Holzinger and Gunkel). Dillmann\u2019s\n assertion (265), that \u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1427 have no motive apart from \u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b9\u2079 and\n \u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, is incomprehensible; the difficulty rather is to assign\n a reason for the addition of \u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427. The idea seems to be that\n Abraham (as a prophet: compare Amos 3\u2077) must be initiated into\n the divine purpose, that he may instruct his descendants in the\n ways of Yahwe.\n\n=16.= _and looked out in view of Sodom_ (compare 19\u00b2\u2078)] The Dead Sea\nnot being visible from Hebron, we must understand that a part of the\njourney has been accomplished. Tradition fixed the spot at a village\nover 3 miles East of Hebron, called by Jerome _Caphar Barucha_, now\nknown as _Beni Na\u201bim_, but formerly _Kefr Bar\u00eek_, from which the\nSea is seen through gaps in the mountains (see Robinson, _Biblical\nResearches in Palestine_, i. 490 f.; Buhl, _Geographie des alten\nPalaestina_, 158 f.).\u2015\u2015=17.= _But Yahwe had said_] _sc._ \u2018to Himself\u2019;\nthe construction marking the introduction of a circumstance.\u2015\u2015=18.=\n_Seeing Abraham, etc._] Yahwe reflects, as it were, on the religious\nimportance of the individual beside Him.\u2015\u2015_and all nations, etc._] See\nthe notes on 12\u00b3. \u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e possibly refers not to Abraham but to \u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d9\u200e; compare\n22\u00b9\u2078 (Wellhausen).\u2015\u2015=19.= Compare Deuteronomy 6\u00b9\u207b\u00b3.\u2015\u2015_For I have\nknown_ (_i.e._ \u2018entered into personal relations with\u2019: as Amos 3\u00b2,\nHosea 13\u2075) _him in order that, etc._] There is a certain incongruity\nbetween the two parts of the verse: here the establishment of the true\nreligion is the purpose of Abraham\u2019s election; in \u00b9\u2079\u1d47 the end of the\nreligion is the fulfilment of the promises made to Abraham.\u2015\u2015=20.=\nResuming verse \u00b9\u2076. An earlier form of the story no doubt read \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b9\u05bc\u05d0\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u200e\ninstead of \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b9\u05bc\u05d0\u05de\u05b6\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e].\u2015\u2015On the peculiar construction, _v.i._\u2015\u2015=21.=\nRestoring the plural as before, the verse reads as a disjunctive\nquestion: _We will go down that we may see whether ... or not: we\nwould know._\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =16.= \u05e1\u05b0\u05d3\u05b9\u05dd\u200e] LXX + \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0393\u03bf\u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2.\u2015\u2015=17.= After \u05d0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u05b8\u05dd\u200e LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n read \u05e2\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e.\u2015\u2015=19.= \u05d9\u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate omit the suffix, while LXX, Vulgate,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 treat what follows as an object clause (_quod_, etc.),\n through a misunderstanding of the sense of \u05d9\u05d3\u05e2\u200e.\u2015\u2015=20.= \u05d6\u05e2\u05e7\u05ea\u200e] _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05e6\u05e2\u05e7\u05ea\u200e as verse \u00b2\u00b9.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e\n (_bis_)] Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d0\u05e8\u05d9\u200e. The particle is ignored by LXX,\n Vulgate; also by Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, which supplies (\u2021 Syriac phrase)\n and omits \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05e8\u05b7\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e. If the text be retained the \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e is either\n _corroborative_ (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\u00a7 148 _d_, 159 _ee_), or\n _causal_ (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 473 b); but neither construction\n is natural. Moreover, the parallelism of clauses is itself\n objectionable; for whether the \u2018sin\u2019 actually corresponds to\n the \u2018cry\u2019 is the very point to be investigated (verse \u00b2\u00b9).\n This material difficulty is not removed by the addition of\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05e2\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e (Olshausen) or \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b7\u05d9\u200e (Kittel). Its removal is the sole\n recommendation of Wellhausen\u2019s proposal to omit \u05d5\u05b0\u200e before\n\u200e \u05d7\u05b7\u05d8\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05ea\u05b8\u05dd\u200e and render, \u2018There is a rumour about Sodom and Gomorrah\n that their sin is great, that it is very grievous.\u2019\u2015\u2015=21.=\n Read with LXX, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d4\u05b7\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e6\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e7\u05b8\u05ea\u05b8\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015On \u05d4\u05b7\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05bd\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e for \u05d4\u05b7\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05b8\u05bd\u05d4\u200e, see\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 138 _k_.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e is difficult: compare Exodus\n 11\u00b9, another doubtful passive. Wellhausen here suggests \u05db\u05bb\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05bc\u200e,\n Olshausen \u05db\u05bb\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=22b\u201233. Abraham\u2019s intercession.=\n\n The secondary character of \u00b2\u00b2\u1d47\u207b\u00b3\u00b3\u1d43 (see page 298) appears from\n the following considerations: (a) In \u00b2\u00b2\u1d43 \u2018the men\u2019 (_i.e._ all\n three) have moved away to Sodom; in \u00b2\u00b2\u1d47 Yahwe remains behind\n with Abraham. That Yahwe was one of the three is certainly the\n view of the later editors (see on 19\u00b9); but if that had been the\n original conception, it must have been clearly expressed at this\n point. (b) In \u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1427 we have seen that the fate of Sodom still\n hangs in the balance, while in \u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 its destruction is assumed\n as already decreed. (c) The whole tenor of the passage stamps it\n as the product of a more reflective age than that in which the\n ancient legends originated. It is inconceivable that the early\n Yahwist should have entirely overlooked the case of Lot, and\n substituted a discussion of abstract principles of the divine\n government. Gunkel points out that the most obvious solution of\n the actual problem raised by the presence of Lot in Sodom would\n have been a promise of deliverance for the few godly people in\n the city; that consequently the line of thought pursued does\n not arise naturally from the story itself, but must have been\n suggested by the theological tendencies of the age in which the\n section was composed. The precise point of view here represented\n appears most clearly in such passages as Jeremiah 15\u00b9, Ezekiel\n 14\u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427; and in general it was not till near the Exile that\n the allied problems of individual responsibility and vicarious\n righteousness began to press heavily on the religious conscience\n in Israel.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =22b= contains one of the 18 \u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05e7\u05bb\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e1\u05b9\u05e4\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (corrections of the\n scribes). The original reading \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d3\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05de\u05d3 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d1\u05f3\u200e is said to\n have been changed out of a feeling of reverence (Ginsburg,\n _Introduction of the Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew\n Bible_ 352 f.). The worth of the tradition is disputed, the\n present text being supported by all versions as well as by\n 19\u00b2\u2077; and the sense certainly does not demand the suggested\n restoration (Tuch, Dillmann, against Kautzsch-Socin, Ball,\n Gunkel, al.).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=23.= _Wilt thou even sweep away, etc._] The question strikes\nthe keynote of the section,\u2015\u2015a protest against the thought of an\nindiscriminate judgement (compare Job 9\u00b2\u00b2).\u2015\u2015=24.= _Suppose there\nshould be fifty, etc._] A small number in a city, but yet sufficient\nto produce misgiving if they should perish unjustly.\u2015\u2015_and not forgive\nthe place_] In Old Testament, righteousness and clemency are closely\nallied: there is more injustice in the death of a few innocent persons\nthan in the sparing of a guilty multitude. The problem is, to what\nlimits is the application of this principle subject?\u2015\u2015=25.= _Shall\nnot the Judge, etc._] Unrighteousness in the Supreme Ruler of the\nworld would make piety impossible: compare Romans 3\u2076.\u2015\u2015=27.= _I have\nventured_] compare Jeremiah 12\u00b9. \u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dc\u200e expresses the overcoming of\na certain inward reluctance (Joshua 7\u2077).\u2015\u2015_dust and ashes_] an\nalliterative combination (Job 30\u00b9\u2079 42\u2076, Sirach 40\u00b3). As a description\nof human nature, the phrase recurs only Sirach 10\u2079 17\u00b3\u00b2.\u2015\u2015=28.= \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u05b2\u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05d4\u200e]\nliterally \u2018on account of the 5\u2019; a somewhat paradoxical form of\nexpression.\u2015\u2015=30\u201232=. Emboldened by success, Abraham now ventures on\na reduction by 10 instead of 5 (Delitzsch); this is continued till the\nlimit of human charity is reached, and Abraham ceases to plead.\u2015\u2015=33.=\n_went_] not to Sodom, but simply \u2018departed.\u2019\u2015\u2015=33b= would be equally\nappropriate after \u00b3\u00b3\u1d43 or \u00b2\u00b2\u1d43.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =23, 24.= \u05d4\u05d0\u05e3\u200e] Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d2\u05d6\u200e, mistaking for \u05d0\u05b7\u05e3\u200e = \u2018anger\u2019: so\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f.\u2015\u2015=23= end] LXX + \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\n \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f00\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03ae\u03c2 (\u00b2\u2075\u1d43).\u2015\u2015=24.= \u05ea\u05e9\u05d0\u200e] _sc._ \u05e2\u05b8\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e = \u2018forgive\u2019: Numbers\n 14\u00b9\u2079, Isaiah 2\u2079, Hosea 1\u2076 etc.\u2015\u2015=25.= \u05d7\u05b8\u05dc\u05b4\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] literally \u2018_profanum_\n (_sit_),\u2019 construed with \u05de\u05b4\u05df\u200e, as 44\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2077, often. The full\n formula is \u05d7\u05f3 \u05dc\u05f3 \u05de\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e (1 Samuel 24\u2077 26\u00b9\u00b9 etc.).\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8\u200e] Vulgate\n (_nequaquam facies judicium hoc_) and Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (which takes \u05d4\u05e9\u05c1\u05e4\u05d8\u200e\n as vocative) mistake the sense.\u2015\u2015=28.= \u05d9\u05d7\u05e1\u05e8\u05d5\u05df\u200e] The regular use of\n the ending \u05d5\u05bc\u05df\u200e (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 47 _m_) from this point onwards\n is remarkable (Dillmann). The form, though _etymologically_\n archaic, is by no means a mark of antiquity in Old Testament,\n and is peculiarly frequent in Deuteronomic style (Driver on\n Deuteronomy 1\u00b9\u2077).\u2015\u2015=32.= \u05d4\u05e4\u05e2\u05dd\u200e] see on 2\u00b2\u00b3.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n XIX. 1\u201229.\n _The Destruction of Sodom and Deliverance of Lot_\n (Yahwist and Priestly-Code).\n\nThe three men (see on verse \u00b9) who have just left Abraham reach\nSodom in the evening, are received as guests by Lot (\u00b9\u207b\u00b3), but are\nthreatened with outrage by the Sodomites (\u2074\u207b\u00b9\u00b9). Thus convinced of\nthe depravity of the inhabitants, they secure the safety of Lot\u2019s\nhousehold (\u00b9\u00b2\u207b\u00b2\u00b2), after which the city is destroyed by fire and\nbrimstone (\u00b2\u00b3\u207b\u00b2\u2078).\n\n Thus far Yahwist: compare \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2077; \u05e0\u05d0\u200e, \u00b2\u1427 \u2077\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2079\u1427\n\u200e \u00b2\u2070; \u05d8\u05e8\u05dd\u200e, \u2074; \u05db\u05d9\u05be\u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05db\u05df\u200e, \u2078; \u05dc\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea\u200e, \u00b9; \u05e4\u05e6\u05e8\u200e, \u00b3\u1427 \u2079; \u05d4\u05e9\u05e7\u05d9\u05e3\u200e, \u00b2\u2078.\u2015\u2015The summary\n in \u00b2\u2079 is from Priestly-Code: compare \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u05e9\u05d7\u05ea\u200e, \u05e2\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05db\u05db\u05e8\u200e, (compare\n 6\u00b9\u2077 9\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2075).\u2015\u2015The passage continues 18\u00b2\u00b2\u1d43\u1427 \u00b3\u00b3\u1d47 (Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f),\n and forms an effective contrast to the scene in Abraham\u2019s\n tent (18\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2075). The alternation of singular and plural is less\n confusing than in 18; and Kraetzschmar\u2019s theory (see page 298\n f.) does less violence to the structure of the passage. Indeed,\n Gunkel himself admits that the singular section \u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u00b2 (with \u00b2\u2076)\n is an \u2018intermezzo\u2019 from another Yahwistic author (Gunkel 181).\n\n=1\u20123. Lot\u2019s hospitality.=\u2015\u2015Compare Judges 19\u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b2\u00b9.\u2015\u2015=1a.= _the\ntwo angels_] Read \u2018the men,\u2019 as 18\u00b9\u2076 [19\u2075\u1427 \u2078] \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2076; see the\nfootnote.\u2015\u2015_in the gate_] the place of rendezvous in Eastern\ncities for business or social intercourse; Ruth 4\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9, Job 29\u2077\netc.\u2015\u2015Compare 18\u00b2.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05b9\u05e0\u05b7\u05d9\u200e] _Sirs!_ See on 18\u00b3. Delitzsch\u2019s inference that\nLot\u2019s spiritual vision was less clear than Abraham\u2019s may be edifying,\nbut is hardly sound.\u2015\u2015=2b.= The refusal of the invitation may be\nmerely a piece of Oriental politeness, or it may contain a hint of the\npurpose of the visit (18\u00b2\u00b9). In an ordinary city it would be no great\nhardship to spend the night in the street: Lot knows only too well\nwhat it would mean in Sodom.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] This word has not been used before, and recurs\n only in verse \u00b9\u2075 (in _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_\n also verse \u00b9\u00b2, and in LXX verse \u00b9\u2076). The phrase is, no doubt,\n a correction for \u05d4\u05b8\u05bd\u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, caused by the introduction of \u00b2\u00b2\u1d47\u207b\u00b3\u00b3\u1d43,\n and the consequent identification of Yahwe with one of the\n original three, and the other two with His angels (Wellhausen\n _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des\n Alten Testaments_\u00b2 27 f.).\u2015\u2015=2=. \u05d4\u05b4\u05e0\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4 \u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u200e] so pointed only here:\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 20 __d_, 100 _o_.\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05e4\u05e6\u05e8\u200e] Only again 19\u2079\n 33\u00b9\u00b9 (Yahwist), Judges 19\u2077, 2 Kings 2\u00b9\u2077 5\u00b9\u2076.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=4\u201211. The assault of the Sodomites.=\u2015\u2015=4.= _They had not yet retired\nto rest when, etc._] That _all_ the men of the city were involved in\nthe attack is affirmed with emphasis (\u05de\u05b4\u05e7\u05b8\u05bc\u05e6\u05b6\u05d4\u200e: _v.i._): an instance of the\n\u2018shamelessness\u2019 of Sodom (Isaiah 3\u2079).\u2015\u2015=5.= The unnatural vice which\nderives its name from the incident was viewed in Israel as the lowest\ndepth of moral corruption: compare Leviticus 18\u00b2\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 20\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3, Ezekiel\n16\u2075\u2070, Judges 19\u00b2\u00b2.\u2015\u2015=6\u20128.= Lot\u2019s readiness to sacrifice the honour\nof his daughters, though abhorrent to Hebrew morality (compare Judges\n19\u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b3\u2070), shows him as a courageous champion of the obligations of\nhospitality in a situation of extreme embarrassment, and is recorded\nto his credit. Compare 12\u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\u2015\u2015=8.= _inasmuch as they have come\nunder the shadow_ (_i.e._ \u2018protection\u2019) _of my roof-tree_] \u05e7\u05b9\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u2018beam\u2019\n(like \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1), for \u2018house.\u2019\u2015\u2015=9=. Lot is reminded of his solitary\n\u200e(\u05d4\u05b8\u05bd\u05d0\u05b6\u05d7\u05b8\u05d3\u200e, _der Eine da_) and defenceless position as a _g\u00ear_ (see on\n12\u00b9\u2070).\u2015\u2015=11.= The divine beings smite the rabble with demonic\nblindness (\u05e1\u05b7\u05e0\u05b0\u05d5\u05b5\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e: _v.i._).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =4.= \u05d0\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9 \u05e1\u05d3\u05dd\u200e] probably a gloss (Olshausen).\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05e7\u05e6\u05d4\u200e] (LXX \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1\u200e)\n an abbreviation of \u05de\u05df\u05be\u05d4\u05e7\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e2\u05d3\u05be\u05d4\u05e7\u05e6\u05d4\u200e (Genesis 47\u00b2\u00b9, Exodus 26\u00b2\u2078,\n Deuteronomy 13\u2078 etc.) = \u2018exhaustively\u2019: so Isaiah 56\u00b9\u00b9, Jeremiah\n 51\u00b3\u00b9, Ezekiel 25\u2079.\u2015\u2015=6.= \u05d4\u05e4\u05ea\u05d7\u05d4\u200e] omitted by LXX, Vulgate.\u2015\u2015=8.=\n\u200e \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u200e] = \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4\u200e (only again 19\u00b2\u2075 26\u00b3 \u1da0, Leviticus 18\u00b2\u2077, Deuteronomy\n 4\u2074\u00b2 7\u00b2\u00b2 19\u00b9\u00b9, 1 Chronicles 20\u2078) is an orthographic variant\n (not in _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_), meant\n originally to be pronounced \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u200e. See Driver on Deuteronomy\n\u200e 4\u2074\u00b2.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05d9\u05be\u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05db\u05df\u200e] as 18\u2075.\u2015\u2015=9.= \u05d4\u05dc\u05d0\u05d4\u200e [_The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ \u05d2\u05e9\u05d4\u200e]\u05d2\u05b6\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u05be\u200e] LXX \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6: \u2018stand back there\u2019; compare\n\u200e \u05d2\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d4\u05be\u05dc\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e, Isaiah 49\u00b2\u2070.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8 \u05e9\u05e4\u05d5\u05d8\u200e] Consecutive imperfect expressing\n \u2018paradoxical consequence\u2019 (Delitzsch); compare 32\u00b3\u00b9 40\u00b2\u00b3,\n Job 2\u00b3: see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 111 _l_, _m_. The infinitive\n absolute _after_ its verb properly denotes continuance of the\n action; here its position seems due to the consecutive \u05d5\u200e, and\n its force as if it had stood first (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 113\n _r_, _p_)\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05e1\u05b7\u05e0\u05b0\u05d5\u05b5\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] (2 Kings 6\u00b9\u2078\u2020) is related to ordinary\n blindness (\u05e2\u05b4\u05d5\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e, Deuteronomy 28\u00b2\u2078, Zechariah 12\u2074\u2020), somewhat\n as \u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d3\u05b5\u05bc\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (2\u00b2\u00b9) is to ordinary sleep. If from \u221a \u05e0\u05d5\u05e8\u200e (\u2018shine\u2019),\n it is either a common oriental euphemism (K\u00f6nig ii. page 404),\n or dazzling from excess of light (Acts 9\u00b3): compare Hoffmann,\n _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, ii. 68\u00b9.\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05d0\u200e means both \u2018brightness\u2019 and \u2018blindness\u2019;\n and in the Talmud _Shabriri_ is a demon of blindness\n (_Jewish Encyclop\u00e6dia_, iv. 517 a). Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word),\n \u2018hallucinations.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\n=12\u201216. The deliverance of Lot.=\u2015\u2015=12=. On the construction,\n_v.i._\u2015\u2015=13.= _Yahwe has sent us_] _i.e._ the \u2018three\u2019 are agents of\nYahwe, who is therefore _not_ present in person.\u2015\u2015=14.= Lot warns\nhis (prospective) _sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters_: so\nJosephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 202, Vulgate, Tuch, Dillmann,\nDriver, al. Others (LXX, Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Delitzsch,\nal.) take \u05dc\u05b9\u05e7\u05b0\u05d7\u05b5\u05d9\u200e as referring to the past, which is possible (compare\n27\u2074\u2076).\u2015\u2015_as one that jested_] see on 21\u2079.\u2015\u2015=15.= _as the dawn\nappeared_] The judgement must be accomplished by sunrise (\u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427);\nhence the urgency of the summons.\u2015\u2015_the angels_] \u2018the men,\u2019 as verse\n\u200e\u00b9.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05de\u05b0\u05e6\u05b8\u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u200e] _who are at hand_ (1 Samuel 21\u2074).\u2015\u2015=16.= _he hesitated_]\nreluctant, and only half-convinced.\u2015\u2015_through Yahwe\u2019s compassion on\nhim_].\u2015\u2015_left him without the city_] rather suggests, as Gunkel (186)\nholds, that there he is in safety.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =12.= \u05e2\u05d3 \u05de\u05d9\u05be\u05dc\u05da \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e] The stiff construction has led to various\n operations on the text. LXX, Vulgate seem to have read \u05d7\u05b2\u05ea\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\n\u200e \u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e0\u05b9\u05ea\u200e; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 has \u05d7\u05b2\u05ea\u05b8\u05e0\u05b6\u05d9\u05da\u05b8\u200e. Dillmann suggests that the letters \u05d5\u05d1\u05e0\u200e\n have been accidentally thrust into the word \u05d7\u05ea\u05e0\u05be\u05d9\u05da\u200e; Holzinger\n and Gunkel omit \u05d5\u200e in \u05d5\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05da\u200e (so _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_) and commence a new sentence there; Ball, Kittel\n delete \u05d7\u05ea\u05df \u05d5\u200e. The text may be retained if we take the first\n clause as indirect question: \u2018Whomsoever thou hast here as a\n son-in-law, and thy sons ... bring forth,\u2019 etc.\u2015\u2015At end add \u05d4\u05b7\u05d6\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e\n with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX.\u2015\u2015=15.=\n\u200e \u05db\u05de\u05d5\u200e] \u201crare and poetic\u201d (Dillmann). Here used as conjunction\n\u200e (= \u05db\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u200e).\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05e0\u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u05ea\u200e] LXX \u1f03\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5; Vulgate _quas\n habes_.\u2015\u2015=16.= \u05d7\u05de\u05dc\u05ea\u200e] future infinitive construct.\u2015\u2015=16b= is\n omitted by LXX\u1d2c\u1427 \u1d43\u02e1\u1427, but is found in many cursives.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=17\u201222. The sparing of Zoar.=\u2015\u2015=17.= _the mountain_] the elevated\nMoabite plateau, which rises steeply to heights of 2500\u20123000\nfeet. from the East side of the Sea.\u2015\u2015_look not behind thee_] Such\nprohibitions are frequent in legends and incantations; compare the\nstory of Orpheus and Eurydice (Ovid, _Metamorphoses_ x. 51; Virgil\n_Georgics_ iv. 491); compare also Virgil _Eclogues_ viii. 102; Ovid\n_Fasti_, v. 439.\u2015\u2015=20.= _is near enough to flee to_].\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u200e] _a trifle_:\nrepeated with a view to the etymology of \u00b2\u00b2\u1d47.\n\n The city of \u1e92\u014d\u201bar (LXX \u03a3\u03b7\u03b3\u03c9\u03c1) was well known, not only in\n Old Testament times (13\u00b9\u2070 14\u00b2\u1427 \u2078, Deuteronomy 34\u00b3, Isaiah 15\u2075,\n Jeremiah 48\u00b3\u2074), but also in the time of the Crusades, and\n to the Arabic geographers, who call the Dead Sea the Sea of\n _Zu\u0121ar_. That this medi\u00e6val Zoar was at the South end of the\n lake is undisputed; and there is no good reason to question its\n identity with the biblical city (see Josephus _War of the Jews_,\n iv. 482; _Onomastica Sacra_\u00b9, 261\u00b3\u2077). Since Wetzstein, it is\n usually located at _Gh\u014dr e\u1e63-\u1e62\u0101fiyeh_, about 5 miles South-east\n from the present shore of the Sea (compare Dillmann 273; Buhl,\n _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 271; Smith, _Historical\n Geography of the Holy Land_, 505 ff.; and especially Driver\n _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iv. 985b ff.). The situation of\n the city naturally gave birth to the secondary legend that it\n had been saved from the fate of the adjacent cities on account\n of the intercession of Lot; while the name in Hebrew readily\n suggested the etymology of \u00b2\u00b2\u1d47.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =17.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e] LXX, Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 have plural, which is\n supported by the previous \u05d4\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0\u05dd\u200e and the following \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05dd\u200e, though\n the singular is maintained in the rest of the section.\u2015\u2015\u05ea\u05d1\u05d9\u05d8\u200e]\n for \u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05d8\u200e; Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 107 _p_.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05d8\u200e] five times repeated\n in the six verses is thought by Ball to be a play on the name\n\u200e \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d8\u200e.\u2015\u2015=20.= \u05d5\u05ea\u05d7\u05d9 \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05d9\u200e] LXX + \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6, a slavish imitation of\n\u200e 12\u00b9\u00b3.\u2015\u2015=21.= \u05e0\u05e9\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9 \u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05da\u200e] \u2018have accepted thee\u2019 (literally \u2018lifted\n up thy face\u2019: opposite \u05d4\u05e9\u05d9\u05d1 \u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e)\u2015\u2015here in a good sense (as 32\u00b2\u00b9,\n 2 Kings 3\u00b9\u2074, Malachi 1\u2078 \u1da0\u1427), more frequent in the bad sense of\n partiality in judgement (Leviticus 19\u00b9\u2075, Deuteronomy 10\u00b9\u2077,\n Malachi 2\u2079, Job 13\u00b9\u2070 etc.).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=23\u201228. The catastrophe.=\u2015\u2015Brevity in the description of physical\nphenomena is in accord with the spirit of the Hebrew legend, whose\nmain interest is the dramatic presentation of human character and\naction.\u2015\u2015=23, 24.= The clause _when Lot entered Zoar_, presupposes\n\u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u00b2, and, if the latter be from a separate source, must be\ndeleted as an interpolation (Gunkel). The connexion is improved\nby the excision: just as the sun rose the catastrophe took place\n(Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 164 _b_).\u2015\u2015_sulphur and fire_ (Ezekiel 38\u00b2\u00b2,\nPsalms 11\u2076)] a feature suggested by permanent physical phenomena of\nthe region (see below).\u2015\u2015_Yahwe rained ... from Yahwe_] A distinction\nbetween Yahwe as present in the angels and Yahwe as seated in heaven\n(Dillmann) is improbable. We must either suppose that the original\nsubject was \u2018the men\u2019 (so Gunkel: compare verse \u00b9\u00b3), or that \u05de\u05b5\u05d0\u05b5\u05ea \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e\nis a doublet to \u05de\u05b4\u05df\u05be\u05d4\u05b7\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e: the latter phrase, however, is generally\nconsidered to be a gloss (Olshausen, Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Gunkel,\nKittel).\u2015\u2015=25.= \u05d5\u05b7\u05bd\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05d4\u05b2\u05e4\u05b9\u05da\u05b0\u200e] see on \u00b2\u2079.\u2015\u2015=26.= Lot\u2019s wife transgresses the\nprohibition of \u00b9\u2077, and is turned into a _pillar of salt_.\n\n The literal interpretation of this notice, though still\n maintained by Strack, is clearly inadmissible. The pillar is\n mentioned as still existing in Wisdom of Solomon 10\u2077, Josephus\n _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 203; the reference obviously being\n to some curious resemblance to a female figure, round which the\n popular imagination had woven a legend connecting it with the\n story of Lot. Whether it be identical with the huge cylindrical\n column, 40 feet high, on the East side of _\u01e6ebel Usdum_,\n described by Lynch, is, of course, doubtful.\u00b9 The fact that\n \u01e6ebel Usdum is on the South-west side of the lake, while Zoar\n was on the South-east, would not preclude the identification:\n it would simply mean that the whole region was haunted by the\n legend of Lot. But the disintegration of the rock-salt of which\n that remarkable ridge is mainly composed, proceeds so rapidly,\n and produces so many fantastic projections and pinnacles,\n that the tradition may be supposed to have attached itself to\n different objects at different periods. See Driver _A Dictionary\n of the Bible_, iii. 152.\n\n \u00b9 I cannot find the proof of Gunkel\u2019s assertion that _this_\n pillar is now called \u2018the daughter of Lot.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =23.= \u200e\u05d9\u05e6\u05d0\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d9\u05e6\u05d0\u05d4\u200e;\n compare 15\u00b9\u2077.\u2015\u2015=25.= \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u200e (verse \u2078)] LXX + \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05b8\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d1 \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05b5\u05df \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d8\u200e, as verse\n \u00b2\u2079.\u2015\u2015=26.= The verse stands out of its proper position (note\n the \u05d5\u200e consecutive, and the suffixes), and belongs to \u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u00b2 rather\n than to the main narrative (Gunkel).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=27, 28.= Abraham\u2019s morning visit to the spot where he had parted from\nhis heavenly guests forms an impressive close to the narrative.\u2015\u2015_and\nhe looked, etc._] an effective contrast to 18\u00b9\u2076.\u2015\u2015_the smoke of the\nland_ was afterwards believed to ascend permanently from the site of\nthe guilty cities (Wisdom 10\u2077).\u2015\u2015The idea may have been suggested by\nthe cloud of vapour which generally hangs over the surface of the Dead\nSea (see Dillmann).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =27=. \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05db\u05dd\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u200e] pregnant construct.\u2015\u2015=27b.= must have been\n interpolated after the expansion of chapter 18 by verses\n\u200e \u00b2\u00b2\u1d47\u207b\u00b3\u00b3\u1d43.\u2015\u2015=28.= \u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d4\u05db\u05db\u05e8\u200e does not occur elsewhere. The variations\n of _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n warrant the emendation \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05b7\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u200e (Kittel)\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05e7\u05d9\u05d8\u05e8 \u05d4\u05db\u05db\u05e9\u05df\u200e] the same simile\n in Exodus 19\u00b9\u2078 (also Yahwist).\u2015\u2015\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u05d8\u05b9\u05e8\u200e] Psalms 119\u2078\u00b3 148\u2078\u2020.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=29.= (From Priestly-Code: see page 306.) Gunkel conjectures that the\nverse formed the introduction to a lost genealogy of Lot; and that its\noriginal position in Priestly-Code was after 13\u00b9\u00b2\u1d43. The dependence of\nPriestly-Code on Yahwist is very manifest.\u2015\u2015_the cities in [one of]\nwhich Lot dwelt_] as 8\u2074, Judges 12\u2077.\n\n _The destruction of the Cities of the Plain._\u2015\u2015The narrative\n of chapter 19 appears at first sight to be based on vague\n recollection of an actual occurrence,\u2015\u2015the destruction of a\n group of cities situated in what is now the Dead Sea, under\n circumstances which suggested a direct interposition of divine\n power. It seems unreasonable to suppose that a legend so\n firmly rooted in Hebrew tradition, so full of local colour, and\n preserving so tenaciously the names of the ruined cities, should\n be destitute of historic foundation; and to doubt whether any\n such cities as Sodom and Gomorrah ever existed in the Dead Sea\n basin appears an unduly sceptical exercise of critical judgement.\n It has been shown, moreover, that a catastrophe corresponding\n in its main features to the biblical description is an extremely\n probable result of volcanic and other forces, acting under the\n peculiar geological conditions which obtain in the Dead Sea\n depression. According to Sir J. W. Dawson, it might have been\n caused by an explosion of bitumen or petroleum, like those\n which so frequently prove destructive in Canada and the United\n States (see _The Expositor_ 1886, i. page 74; _Modern Science in\n Bible Lands_, 486 ff.). A similar theory has been worked out in\n elaborate and picturesque detail by Blanckenhorn in _Zeitschrift\n des deutschen Pal\u00e4stina-Vereins_, xix. 1\u201264, xxi. 65\u201283 (see\n Driver page 202 f.).\u00b9 These theories are very plausible, and\n must be allowed their full weight in determining the question of\n historicity. At the same time it requires to be pointed out that\n they do not prove the incident to be historical; and several\n considerations show that a complete explanation of the legend\n cannot be reached on the lines of physical science. (a) It is\n impossible to dissociate the legend altogether from the current\n Old Testament representation (13\u00b9\u2070 14\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2070) that prior to this\n event the Dead Sea did not exist,\u2015\u2015an idea which geology proves\n to be absolutely erroneous. It is true that the narrative does\n not state that the cities were submerged by the waters of the\n Dead Sea; and it is possible to suppose that they were situated\n either south of the present margin of the lake, or in its\n shallow southern bay (which might possibly have been formed\n within historic times). The fact, however, remains, that the\n Israelites had a mistaken notion of the origin of the Dead Sea;\n and this fact throws some suspicion on the whole legend of the\n \u2018cities of the Plain.\u2019 (b) It is remarkable that the legend\n contains no mention of the Dead Sea, either as the cause of\n the catastrophe, or as originating contemporaneously with it\n (Gunkel). So important an omission suggests the possibility\n that the Sodom-legend may have arisen in a locality answering\n still more closely to the volcanic features of the description\n (such as the \u2018dismal _\u1e24arras_ of Arabia\u2019 [Meyer]), and been\n transferred to the region of the Dead Sea valley. (c) The\n stereotyped term \u05de\u05b7\u05d4\u05b0\u05e4\u05b5\u05bc\u05db\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (see on verse \u00b2\u2079), which seems to have\n been imported with the legend, points clearly to an earthquake\n as the main cause of the overthrow; and there is no mention of\n an earthquake in any Hebrew version of the story (see Cheyne\n _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 4668 f.)\u2015\u2015another indication that it\n has been transplanted from its native environment. (d) The most\n important consideration is that the narrative seems to belong\n to a widely diffused class of popular tales, many interesting\n examples of which have been published by Cheyne in _The New\n World_, 1892, 239 ff. It is indeed obvious that no physical\n explanation of the cataclysm furnishes any clue to the\n significance of the angels\u2019 visit to Lot; but a study of\n the folklore parallels shows that the connexion between that\n incident and the destruction of Sodom is not accidental, but\n rests on some mythological motive whose origin is not as yet\n explained. Thus in the story of Philemon and Baucis (Ovid,\n _Metamorphoses_ viii. 625 ff.), an aged Phrygian couple give\n shelter in their humble dwelling to Zeus and Hermes in human\n guise, when every other door is closed against them. As a\n reward for their hospitality they are directed to flee to the\n mountain, and there, looking back, they see the whole district\n inundated by a flood, except their own wretched hut, which has\n been transformed into a temple, etc. The resemblance here is so\n great that Cheyne (_l.c._ 240) pronounces the tale a secondary\n version of Genesis 19; but other parallels, hardly less striking,\n present the same combination of kindness to divine beings\n rewarded by escape from a destructive visitation in which\n a whole neighbourhood perishes for its impious neglect of\n the duties of hospitality.\u2015\u2015On these grounds some writers\n consider the narrative before us to be a Hebrew adaptation of a\n widespread legend, its special features being suggested by the\n weird scenery of the Dead Sea region,\u2015\u2015its barren desolation,\n the cloud of vapour hanging over it, its salt rocks with their\n grotesque formations, its beds of sulphur and asphalt, with\n perhaps occasional conflagrations bursting out amongst them (see\n Gunkel 188 f.). Dr. Rendel Harris (_Heavenly Twins_, 39 ff.)\n takes it to be a form of the Dioscuric myth, and thus a natural\n sequel to 18\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2075 (see page 302 above). Assyriologists have found\n in it a peculiar modification of the Deluge-legend (Jastrow\n _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, xiii. 291, 297; _The Religion\n of Babylonia and Assyria_\u00b9, 507), or of the World-conflagration\n which is the astronomical counterpart of that conception (_Das\n Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 360 ff.): both\n forms of the theory are mentioned by Zimmern with reserve (_Die\n Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 559 f.).\u2015\u2015Whatever\n truth there may be in these speculations, the religious value\n of the biblical narrative is not affected. Like the Deluge-story,\n it retains the power to touch the conscience of the world as\n a terrible example of divine vengeance on heinous wickedness\n and unnatural lust; and in this ethical purpose we have another\n testimony to the unique grandeur of the idea of God in ancient\n Israel.\n\n \u00b9 Physical explanations of the catastrophe were also current\n in ancient times. Strabo (XVI. ii. 44) says that it took\n place \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03b4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03c4\u03c9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd, in consequence of which the lake\n burst its bounds, the rocks took fire, and so on. Compare\n Josephus _War of the Jews_, iv. 484 f., _Antiquities of the\n Jews_ i. 203; Tacitus, _Histories_ v. 7.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =29.= \u05d4\u05d4\u05e4\u05db\u05d4\u200e \u2018the overthrow,\u2019 \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. The usual verbal\n noun is \u05de\u05d4\u05e4\u05db\u05d4\u200e (Deuteronomy 29\u00b2\u00b2, Isaiah 1\u2077 [read \u05e1\u05b0\u05d3\u05b9\u05dd\u200e for \u05d6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e],\n 13\u00b9\u2079, Jeremiah 49\u00b9\u2078 50\u2074\u2070, Amos 4\u00b9\u00b9\u2020), which is never used except\n in connexion with this particular judgement. The unhebraic form\n of infinitive, with the fact that where subject is expressed it\n is always (even in Amos) \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e and not \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, justify the conclusion\n that the phraseology was stereotyped in a heathen version of\n the story (Kraetzschmar, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche\n Wissenschaft_, xvii. 87 f.). Compare the use of the verb\n 19\u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2079, Deuteronomy 29\u00b2\u00b2, Jeremiah 20\u00b9\u2076, Lamentations\n\u200e 4\u2076.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05d4\u05e4\u05da\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d1\u05d4\u05e4\u05db\u05d5\u200e is\n easier. LXX \u05d1\u05d4\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =XIX. 30\u201238.\u2015\u2015_Lot and his Daughters_ (Yahwist).=\n\nThis account of the origin of the Moabites and Ammonites is a pendant\nto the destruction of Sodom, just as the story of Noah\u2019s drunkenness\n(9\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) is an appendix to the Deluge narrative. Although it has\npoints of contact with \u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u2078, it is really an independent myth, as to\nthe origin and motives of which see the concluding Note (page 314).\n\n _Source._\u2015\u2015Though the criteria of authorship are slight, there\n is no reason to doubt that the section belongs to Yahwist: note\n the two daughters, and the mention of Zoar in \u00b3\u2070; and compare\n\u200e \u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d6\u05b6\u05e8\u05b7\u05e2\u200e, \u00b3\u00b2\u1427 \u00b3\u2074; with 7\u00b3; and \u05e6\u05b0\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e\u200e, \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05db\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u00b3\u00b9\u1427 \u00b3\u00b3\u207b\u00b3\u2075\u1427 \u00b3\u2077\u1427 \u00b3\u2078, with 29\u00b2\u2076.\n\n=30a= is a transition clause, connecting what follows with \u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u2078,\nespecially with \u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u00b2.\u2015\u2015_in the mountain_] of Moab; compare verse\n\u00b9\u2077.\u2015\u2015_he was afraid to dwell in Zoar_] lest it should be consumed,\nthough the motive involves a slight discrepancy with \u00b2\u00b9.\u2015\u2015=30b.=\n_in the cave_] probably a particular cave which was named after Lot\n(compare 1 Kings 19\u2079). It is pointed out that \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d8\u05b8\u05df\u200e, a possible variant\nof \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d8\u200e, is named as a _\u1e24\u014drite_ (Troglodyte?) in 36\u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2079. The habit\nis said to have persisted till modern times in that region (Dillmann,\nDriver, after Buckingham, _Travels in Syria_ [1825]).\u2015\u2015=31.= _there\nis no man in the earth_] \u2018We are the survivors of a universal\ncatastrophe.\u2019 So Gunkel, following Pietschmann, _Geschichte der\nPh\u00f6nizier_, 115; Jastrow, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, xiii.\n298 (see below). The usual explanations: \u2018no man in the vicinity\u2019\n(Dillmann al.), or \u2018all men will shrink from us\u2019 (Driver), hardly do\njustice to the language.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05d3\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05da\u05b0 \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5\u200e] So in the Jewish marriage formula\n\u200e\u05d5\u05d0\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e2\u05dc \u05dc\u05d5\u05ea\u05da \u05db\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\u05d7 \u05db\u05dc \u05d0\u05e8\u05e2\u05d0\u200e (Delitzsch).\u2015\u2015=32.= The intoxication of Lot shows\nthat the revolting nature of the proposal was felt by the Hebrew\nconscience. \u201cWhen the existence of the race is at stake, the woman\nis more eager and unscrupulous than the man\u201d (Gunkel 192).\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b5\u05d0\u05b8\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u200e]\nrepeated in \u00b3\u2074\u1427 \u00b3\u2076, anticipating the etymology of \u00b3\u2077.\u2015\u2015=33, 35.=\n_he knew not, etc._] still minimising Lot\u2019s culpability (compare\n38\u00b9\u2076 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015=37.= \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05d0\u05b8\u05d1\u200e] as if = \u05de\u05b5\u05d0\u05b8\u05d1\u200e, \u2018_from a_ (my?) _father_\u2019\n(_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=38.= \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05df\u05be\u05e2\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e] not \u2018son of my people,\u2019 which would be nothing\ndistinctive of any child, but \u2018son of my (paternal) kinsman\u2019 (see\n17\u00b9\u2074). Note the formal correspondence with \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e2\u05b7\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e, which (and not \u05e2\u05b7\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e\nsimply) is the invariable designation of the people in Old Testament\n(except Psalms 83\u2078, and Massoretic Text of 1 Samuel 11\u00b9\u00b9 [LXX \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e2\u05f3\u200e]).\nBoth etymologies are obviously pointless except as expressing the\nthought of the mothers, who, as is usual in Yahwist, name the children.\n\n _Original idea of the legend._\u2015\u2015It is very natural to regard\n this account of the origin of Moab and Ammon as an expression of\n intense national hatred and contempt towards these two peoples.\n It has further been surmised (though with little proof)\u00b9 that\n incestuous marriages, such as are here spoken of, were customary\n in these lands, and gave an edge to this Hebrew taunt (so\n Dillmann). That the story was so understood by later readers is\n indeed probable; but how precarious it is to extend this feeling\n to ancient times appears from chapter 38, where the ancestry of\n the noble tribe of Judah (held in special honour by Yahwist) is\n represented as subject to a similar taint. The truth seems to\n be that while incest was held in abhorrence by Israel (as by the\n ancient Arabs; see Wellhausen _Nachrichten von der K\u00f6niglichen\n Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G\u00f6ttingen_, 1893, 441), it\n was at one time regarded as justified by extreme necessity, so\n that deeds like those here related could be told without shame.\n Starting from this view of the spirit of the narrative, Gunkel\n (190 f.) gives a suggestive interpretation of the legend. It\n is, he thinks, originally a Moabite legend tracing the common\n ancestry of Moab and Ammon to Lot, who was probably worshipped\n at the \u2018cave\u2019 referred to in verse \u00b3\u2070. Verse \u00b3\u00b9, however,\n presupposes a universal catastrophe, in which the whole human\n race had perished, except Lot and his two daughters. In the\n ordinary course the daughters would have been doomed to\n barrenness, and mankind would have become extinct; and it is\n to avert this calamity that the women resolve on the desperate\n expedient here described. That such an origin should have been a\n subject of national pride is conceivable, though one may fail to\n find that feeling reflected in the forced etymologies of \u00b3\u2077 \u1da0\u1427.\n If Gunkel\u2019s theory is anywhere near the truth, we are here on\n the track of a Moabite parallel to the story of the Flood, which\n is probably of greater antiquity than the legend of 19\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427. Lot\n is the counterpart of the Hebrew Noah; and just as the Noah of\n 9\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 steps into the place of the Babylonian Deluge-hero, so\n the Lot of 19\u00b3\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 was identified with the entertainer of deity\n in the heathen myth which probably lies at the basis of 19\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\u00b2\n\n \u00b9 Compare the similar conjecture with regard to Reuben (page\n 515 below). It is difficult to know what to make of Palmer\u2019s\n curious observation that in that region a wife is commonly\n spoken of as _bint_ (daughter): _Desert of the Exodus_, ii.\n 478; see Driver 205.\n\n \u00b2 The connexion with the Deluge-legend was anticipated by\n Jastrow in the article already cited, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\n Assyriologie_, xiii. 197 f.\u2015\u2015It is a flood of water which\n destroys the inhospitable people in the parallel from Ovid\n cited above (page 312).\n\n * * * * *\n\n =30.= end] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,\n Vulgate + \u05e2\u05b4\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e.\u2015\u2015=31.= \u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dc\u05f3\u200e] in this sense only Deuteronomy\n\u200e 25\u2075.\u2015\u2015=32.= \u05dc\u05db\u05d4\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_\n\u200e \u05dc\u05db\u05d9\u200e.\u2015\u2015=33.= \u05d5\u05ea\u05e9\u05e7\u05d9\u05df\u200e] (so \u00b3\u2075\u1427 \u00b3\u2076); Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 47 _l_.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u200e]\n (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d4\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u200e). On omission\n of article with demonstrative, see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 126\n _y_; compare 30\u00b9\u2076 32\u00b2\u00b3 38\u00b2\u00b9, 1 Samuel 19\u00b9\u2070.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d4\u200e] LXX + \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n \u03bd\u03cd\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05e7\u05d5\u05bc\u05c4\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc\u200e] \u2018Appungunt desuper, quasi incredibile\u2019!\n (Jeremias). In reality the point probably marks a superfluous\n letter (compare verse \u00b3\u2075).\u2015\u2015=34.= \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u200e] LXX \u05d0\u05b8\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u200e.\u2015\u2015=37=. \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05d0\u05b8\u05d1\u200e] LXX +\n \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1, \u1f18\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 (\u05de\u05b5\u05d0\u05b8\u05d1\u05b4[\u05d9]\u200e). For the equivalence of \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u200e and\n\u200e \u05de\u05b5\u200e, compare Numbers 11\u00b2\u2076 \u1da0\u1427 (\u05de\u05b5\u05d9\u05d3\u05b8\u05d3\u200e = _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ \u05de\u05d5\u05d3\u05d3\u200e, LXX \u039c\u03c9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b4), Jeremiah 48\u00b2\u00b9 (\u05de\u05b5\u05d9\u05e4\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05ea\u200e, Qr\u00ea perpetuum =\n\u200e \u05de\u05d5\u05e4\u05e2\u05ea\u200e, Kittel), etc.: see _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche\n Wissenschaft_, xvi. 322 f. The real etymology is, of course,\n uncertain. Hommel ingeniously and plausibly explains the name\n as a contraction of \u05d0\u05b4\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d0\u05b8\u05d1\u200e, \u2018his mother is the father,\u2019 after\n the analogy of a few Assyrian proper names (_Verhand. d. XIII.\n Orient.-Kong._ 261). The view of Knobel and Delitzsch that \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u200e is\n Aramaic \u05de\u05d5\u05d9\u200e (= \u05de\u05b5\u05d9\u200e), \u2018water,\u2019 and that the word meant \u2018water (_i.e._\n _semen_) of a father,\u2019 hardly deserves consideration.\u2015\u2015=38.=\n\u200e \u05d1\u05df\u05be\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u200e] LXX \u1f08\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd, \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, missing the significance\n of the \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05df\u200e (_v.s._).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n CHAPTER XX.\n _Abraham and Sarah at the Court of Gerar_\n (Elohist).\n\nThe chapter deals with an incident closely similar to that recorded\nin 12\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2070. It is indeed impossible to doubt that the two are variants\nof the same tradition; a view which is confirmed rather than shaken by\nStrack\u2019s enumeration of petty differences. A close comparison (see page\n364 f. below) appears to show that the passage before us is written\nfrom a more advanced ethical standpoint than that represented by\nchapter 12: note the tendency to soften the harsher features of the\nincident (\u2074\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2076), and to minimise the extent of Abraham\u2019s departure\nfrom strict veracity.\n\n _Source._\u2015\u2015The narrative is the first continuous excerpt from\n Elohist; and contains several stylistic and other peculiarities\n of that document: especially [\u05d4\u05b8]\u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u00b3\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2077 (\u00b9\u2078 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e\n is a gloss); \u05d0\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (Yahwist \u200e\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05e4\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e), \u00b9\u2077; \u05dc\u05b5\u05d1\u05b8\u05d1\u200e (Yahwist \u05dc\u05d1\u200e), \u2075; see\n also the notes on \u05e0\u05b4\u05e7\u05b8\u05bc\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e, \u2075; \u05d0\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05e8 \u05d0\u05b8\u05dc\u05be\u200e, \u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3; \u05e0\u05b8\u05ea\u05b7\u05df \u05dc\u05b0\u200e, \u2076; \u05d0\u05b8\u05de\u05b0\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u00b9\u00b2 (compare\n Dillmann 279; Holzinger 159; Gunkel 193).\u2015\u2015The appearing of God\n in a dream is characteristic of Elohist; and the conception of\n Abraham as a prophet (\u2077) is at least foreign to the original\n Yahwist (but see on 15\u00b9). Another circumstance proving the use\n of a source distinct from Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f or Priestly-Code is that\n Sarah is here conceived as a young woman capable of inspiring\n passion in the king (contrast 18\u00b9\u00b2 17\u00b9\u2077). Lastly, it is to be\n observed that chapter 20 is the beginning of a section (20\u201222)\n mainly Elohistic, representing a cycle of tradition belonging to\n the Negeb and, in particular, to Beersheba.\n\n=1, 2. Introductory notice.=\u2015\u2015The method of the narrator, Gunkel\npoints out, is to let the story unfold itself in the colloquies\nwhich follow, verses \u00b9 \u1da0\u1427 containing just enough to make these\nintelligible.\u2015\u2015=1.= _the land of the Negeb_] see on 12\u2079.\u2015\u2015_between\n\u1e32\u0101d\u0113sh_ (14\u2077) _and Sh\u00fbr_ (16\u2077) would be in the extreme South of\nthe Negeb, if not beyond its natural limits. The words \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d2\u05b8\u05e8 \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d2\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05e8\u200e (note\nthe paronomasia) are not a nearer specification of the previous\nclause, but introduce a new fact,\u2015\u2015a further stage of the patriarch\u2019s\nwanderings. There is therefore no reason to suppose that _G\u0115r\u0101r_ lay\nas far South as \u1e32adesh (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=2.= The bareness of the narration\nis remarkable, and was felt by the Greek translators to be wanting\nin lucidity (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015_Abimelech, king of G\u0115r\u0101r_] \u05d0\u05b2\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05de\u05b6\u05dc\u05b6\u05da\u05b0\u200e = \u2018_Milk_ is\n[my] father,\u2019 is a genuine Canaanite name, compounded with the name\nof the god _Milk_ (see Baethgen _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte C\u00f6lestins_\n37 ff.). It occurs as the name of the governor of Tyre (_Abi-milki_)\nin the Tel-Amarna Tablets (149\u2012156). There is no trace here of the\nanachronism which makes him a Philistine prince (chapter 26); Gerar\nis an independent Canaanite kingdom.\u2015\u2015_took Sarah_] _sc._ as wife; the\nsame ellipsis as 19\u00b9\u2074.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05e1\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u200e ] see 11\u00b2.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05e6\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d4\u05b7\u05e0\u05b6\u05bc\u05d2\u05b6\u05d1\u200e] \u05d0\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5 \u05d4\u05b7\u05e0\u05bc\u05f3\u200e only 24\u2076\u00b2, Joshua 15\u00b9\u2079, Judges\n 1\u00b9\u2075 (Yahwist), Numbers 13\u00b2\u2079 (Elohist?).\u2015\u2015\u05d2\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05e8\u200e] (10\u00b9\u2079 26\u00b9\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2077\n\u200e [\u05e0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05dc \u05d2\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05e8\u200e], \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u2076, 2 Chronicles 14\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427\u2020) LXX \u0393\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n (\u2021 Syriac word); commonly identified, on the authority\n of _Onomastica Sacra_, 240\u00b2\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 (\u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\n \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd), with the modern _Umm \u01e6er\u0101r_ (\u2018place\n of water-pots\u2019), 6 miles South-south-east of Gaza (so Rowlands,\n _Holy City_, i. 464; Robinson [who did not find the name],\n _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, ii. 43 f. [compare i. 189],\n Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). This suits 26\u00b9 (according to which it\n was in Philistine territory), 10\u00b9\u2079 and 2 Chronicles 14\u00b9\u00b3; but\n hardly 26\u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, and it is certainly inconsistent with the notice\n\u200e \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05df \u05e7\u05b8\u05d3\u05b5\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b5\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e. There happens to be a _W\u0101d\u012b \u01e6er\u016br_, approximately\n 13 miles South-west of \u1e32adesh, which exactly agrees with this\n description; and so Trumbull (_Kadesh-Barnea_ 62 f., 255) and\n others have decided that this must be the biblical Gerar, while\n others think there may have been two places of the name (Cheyne\n _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, ii. 1705 f.). The question really turns\n on 26\u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427: so far as the present reference is concerned, we\n have seen that the argument rests on a misconception; and it is\n not even necessary to assume (with Kautzsch-Socin) that \u00b9\u1d43 is\n a redactional clause, or (with Holzinger, Gunkel) that part of\n Elohist\u2019s narrative has been suppressed between \u00b9\u1d43 and \u00b9\u1d47. It is\n true that \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05dd\u200e has no antecedent in Elohist, and it is, of course,\n conceivable that it was written by Redactor\u1d31\u02e1\u1d52\u02b0\u2071\u02e2\u1d57 to connect\n the following with a previous section of Elohist (Gunkel), or by\n Redactor\u1d36\u1d49\u02b0\u1d52\u1d5b\u2071\u02e2\u1d57 to mark the transition from Hebron (18\u00b9) to the\n Negeb. A redactor, however, would not have been likely to insert\n the notice \u2018between \u1e32adesh and Shur\u2019 unless he had meant it as a\n definition of the site of Gerar.\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05d0\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05e8 \u05d0\u05b6\u05dc\u05be\u200e] = \u2018said regarding\u2019\n is rare: 2 Kings 19\u00b3\u00b2, Jeremiah 22\u00b9\u2078 27\u00b9\u2079; compare \u05d0\u05f3 \u05dc\u05b0\u200e, verse \u00b9\u00b3,\n Judges 9\u2075\u2074, Psalms 3\u00b3 71\u00b9\u2070.\u2015\u2015After Athnach, LXX inserts \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\n \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u0393\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae \u03bc\u03bf\u03cd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bc\u03ae \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31\n \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd (from 26\u2077\u1d47).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=3\u20127. Abimelech\u2019s dream.=\u2015\u2015This mode of revelation is peculiar\nto Elohist (21\u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2074 22\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 28\u00b9\u00b2 31\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2074 37\u2075 46\u00b2, Numbers 12\u2076\n22\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2070), and probably indicates a more spiritual idea of God than the\ntheophanies of Yahwist. It must be remembered, however, that according\nto primitive ideas the \u2018coming\u2019 of God (so 31\u00b2\u2074, Numbers 22\u00b2\u2070) would\nbe as real an event in a dream as in waking experience.\u2015\u2015=4a.=\n_had not drawn near her_] Not an explanation of Abimelech\u2019s good\nconscience (which depended solely on the purity of his motives), but\nof Yahwe\u2019s words in \u2076\u1d47. _Why_ he had not come near her, we gather\nfully from \u00b9\u2077.\u2015\u2015=4b, 5.= Abimelech protests his innocence.\u2015\u2015_innocent\nfolk_]\u2015\u2015\u2018such as I am\u2019 (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=5.= \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05ea\u05b8\u05dd\u05be\u05dc\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] \u2018unsuspectingly\u2019;\ncompare 2 Samuel 15\u00b9\u00b9, 1 Kings 22\u00b3\u2074; in the wider sense of moral\nintegrity the phrase occurs 1 Kings 9\u2074, Psalms 78\u2077\u00b2 101\u00b2.\u2015\u2015=6.=\n_have kept thee back from sinning_ (_i.e._ inexpiably) _against\nme_] The sin is not mere infringement of the rights of a privileged\nperson (Dillmann), but the moral offence of violating the marriage\nbond.\u2015\u2015_suffered thee not_] by sickness (verse \u00b9\u2077).\u2015\u2015=7.= The\nsituation is altered by this disclosure of the facts to Abimelech:\nif he _now_ retains Sarah, he will be on every ground deserving\nof punishment.\u2015\u2015_he is a prophet_] in a secondary sense, as a \u2018man\nof God,\u2019 whose person and property are inviolable: compare Psalms\n105\u00b9\u2075.\u2015\u2015On _intercession_ as a function of the prophet, Deuteronomy\n9\u00b2\u2070, 1 Samuel 7\u2075 12\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3, Jeremiah 7\u00b9\u2076 etc.; but compare Job\n42\u2078.\u2015\u2015_that thou mayest live_] or \u2018recover.\u2019\n\n The section (\u00b3\u207b\u2077) exhibits a vacillation which is characteristic\n of the conception of sin in antique religion. Sin is not wholly\n an affair of the conscience and inward motive, but an external\n fact\u2015\u2015a violation of the objective moral order, which works out\n its consequences with the indifference of a law of nature to the\n mental condition of the transgressor (compare the matricide of\n Orestes, etc.; and see Smend, _Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen\n Religionsgeschichte_\u00b2, 108 f.). At the same time God Himself\n recognises the relative validity of Abimelech\u2019s plea of\n ignorance (\u2076). It is the first faint protest of the moral sense\n against the hereditary mechanical notion of guilt. But it is a\n long way from Abimelech\u2019s faltering protestation of innocence\n to Job\u2019s unflinching assertion of the right of the individual\n conscience against the decree of an unjust fate.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =3.= \u05e2\u05dc\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05e2\u05dc \u05d0\u05e0\u05d3\u05ea\u200e:\n compare 21\u00b9\u00b9, Exodus 18\u2078, Numbers 12\u00b9 13\u00b2\u2074 (Elohist), Genesis\n 21\u00b2\u2075 26\u00b3\u00b2 (Yahwist), Joshua 14\u2076 (Redactor), Judges 6\u2077.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u05ea \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u200e]\n a married woman, Deuteronomy 22\u00b2\u00b2.\u2015\u2015=4.= To \u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d9\u200e in the indefinite\n sense of \u2018people\u2019 (_Leute_) we may compare Psalms 43\u00b9, Daniel\n 11\u00b2\u00b3; but the sense is doubtful, and the idea may be that the\n whole nation is involved in the punishment of the king (Strack).\n Eerdmans (_Die Komposition der Genesis_, 41) offers the\n incredible suggestion that \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u200e here has its late Jewish sense of\n an individual \u2018heathen.\u2019 Geiger, Graetz, al. regard the word\n as a gloss or a corrupt dittography. LXX has \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\u2015\u2015=5.= \u05e0\u05b4\u05e7\u05b8\u05bc\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e] only here in Hexateuch; Elohist is addicted\n to rare expressions. For \u05e0\u05f3 \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u200e, compare Psalms 26\u2076 73\u00b9\u00b3.\u2015\u2015=6.=\n\u200e \u05de\u05b5\u05d7\u05b2\u05d8\u05d5\u05b9\u05bc\u200e] for \u05de\u05b5\u05d7\u05b2\u05d8\u05b9\u05d0\u200e; Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 75 _qq_.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05b8\u05ea\u05b7\u05df \u05dc\u05b0\u05f3\u200e] = \u2018permit,\u2019\n 31\u2077, Numbers 20\u00b2\u00b9 21\u00b2\u00b3 22\u00b9\u00b3 (Elohist), Exodus 12\u00b2\u00b3 (Yahwist),\n 3\u00b9\u2079 (Redactor), Deuteronomy 18\u00b9\u2074, Joshua 10\u00b9\u2079 (Deuteronomic):\n see _Oxford Hexateuch_, i. 192.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=8\u201213. Abimelech and Abraham.=\u2015\u2015=9.= _a great sin_] _i.e._, a state\nof things which, though unwittingly brought about, involves heavy\njudgement from God (see on \u00b3\u207b\u2077 above).\u2015\u2015_deeds that are not done_]\nare not sanctioned by the conventional code of morals: compare 34\u2077,\n2 Samuel 13\u00b9\u00b2 etc.\u2015\u2015To this rebuke Abraham (as in 12\u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1427) has no reply,\nand Abimelech proceeds in\u2015\u2015=10= to inquire into his motive for so\nacting.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b8\u05d4 \u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u05b8\u200e \u2018_What possessed thee?_\u2019 (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=11\u201213.= Abraham\u2019s\nself-exculpation, which is at the same time the writer\u2019s apology for\nhis conduct, consists of three excuses: (1) he was actuated by fear\nfor his life; (2) he had not been guilty of direct falsehood, but only\nof mental reservation; (3) the deceit was not practised for the first\ntime on Abimelech, but was a preconcerted scheme which (it is perhaps\nimplied) had worked well enough in other places. Whether 2 and 3 had\nany foundation in the Elohistic tradition, or were invented by the\nnarrator _ad hoc_ (Gunkel), we cannot now determine.\u2015\u2015=11.= _There is\nno piety_ (\u05d9\u05b4\u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b7\u05ea \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e) _in this place_] Religion was the only sanction\nof international morality, the _g\u00ear_ having no civil rights; compare\n42\u00b9\u2078: see Bertholet, _Die stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den\nfremden_, 15. Compare 12\u00b9\u00b2.\u2015\u2015=12.= _Besides, she really is my sister_]\nMarriage with a half-sister on the father\u2019s side was frequent among\nthe Semites (Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_\u00b2, 191 f.),\nand was allowed in ancient Israel (2 Samuel 13\u00b9\u00b3), though prohibited\nby later legislation (Deuteronomy 27\u00b2\u00b2, Leviticus 18\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9 20\u00b9\u2077).\u2015\u2015=13.=\n_When God caused me to stray_] The expression is peculiar, as if God\nhad driven him forth an aimless wanderer (Dillmann). It proves that in\nElohist, as in Yahwist and Priestly-Code, Abraham was an immigrant in\nCanaan.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =8.= \u05d4\u05d0\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,\n Vulgate prefix \u05db\u05dc\u200e.\u2015\u2015=9.= \u05de\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea \u05dc\u05e0\u05d5\u200e] Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac phrase)\n\u200e = \u05de\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05dc\u05da\u200e, rashly adopted by Ball, Holzinger, Kittel\u2015\u2015\u05d7\u05d8\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9\u200e]\n LXX \u1f21\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd.\u2015\u2015=10.= \u05de\u05b8\u05d4 \u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u05b8\u200e LXX \u03c4\u03af \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd; so Vulgate, Ball\n conjecture \u05d9\u05b8\u05e8\u05b5\u05d0\u05ea\u05b8\u200e; Gunkel \u05e8\u05b8\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u05b8\u200e. The translation given above is\n taken from Bacher, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche\n Wissenschaft_, xix. 345 ff., who cites many examples\n from New Hebrew of the idiom (literally \u2018What hast thou\n experienced?\u2019).\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ \u05db\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9 \u05db\u05d9\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05e8\u05b7\u05e7\u200e] = \u2018[I should act otherwise] _only_,\u2019\n etc.: a purely asseverative force (Brown-Driver-Briggs)\n seems to me insufficiently established by Deuteronomy 4\u2076,\n 1 Kings 21\u00b2\u2075, 2 Chronicles 28\u00b9\u2070, Psalms 32\u2076.\u2015\u2015=12.= \u05d0\u05b8\u05de\u05b0\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ [?\u05d4]\u05d0\u05de\u05e0\u05dd\u200e, as 18\u00b9\u00b3, Numbers\n 22\u00b3\u2077; but compare Joshua 7\u00b2\u2070. These are all the occurrences\n in Hexateuch.\u2015\u2015=13.= \u05d4\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ \u05d4\u05ea\u05e2\u05d4\u200e. The construct of \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (_plural eminent_) with\n plural predicate is exceptional, though not uncommon (31\u2075\u00b3 35\u2077,\n Joshua 24\u00b9\u2079), and does not appear to be regulated in our present\n text by any principle. A tendency to substitute singular for\n plural is shown by 1 Chronicles 17\u00b2\u00b9 compared with 2 Samuel\n 7\u00b2\u00b3; and it is probable that the change has taken place in many\n cases where we have no means of tracing it: see Strack\u00b2 77;\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 145 _i_. A kindred and equally inexplicable\n anomaly is the sporadic use of the article with this word (so\n verses \u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2077). Both phenomena are probably survivals from a\n polytheistic form of the legend.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_ + \u05d5\u05de\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05de\u05d9\u05dc\u05d3\u05ea\u05d9\u200e (as 12\u00b9).\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd\u200e] determined by\n following relative clause; so Exodus 20\u00b2\u2074, Deuteronomy 11\u00b2\u2074.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=14\u201218. Abimelech makes reparation to Abraham.=\u2015\u2015=14.= The present to\nAbraham in 12\u00b9\u2076 was of the nature of _m\u014dhar_ or purchase-price of a\nwife; here it is a compensation for injury unwittingly inflicted. The\nrestoration of Sarah is, of course, common to both accounts.\u2015\u2015=15.=\nThe invitation to dwell in the land is a contrast to the honourable\nbut peremptory dismissal of 12\u00b9\u2079 \u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015=16.= _see, I give ... to thy\nbrother_] For injury done to a woman compensation was due to her\nrelatives if unmarried, to her husband if married or betrothed (Exodus\n22\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1427, Deuteronomy 22\u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427): Abimelech, with a touch of sarcasm, puts\nSarah in the former category.\u2015\u2015_1000_ (shekels) _of silver_] not the\nmoney value of the gifts in verse \u00b9\u2074 (Strack), but a special present\nas a solatium on behalf of Sarah.\u2015\u2015_a covering of the eyes_] seemingly\na forensic expression for the prestation by which an offence ceases\nto be seen, _i.e._, is condoned. The figure is applied in various ways\nin Old Testament; compare Job 9\u00b2\u2074, Genesis 32\u00b2\u00b9, Exodus 23\u2078, 1 Samuel\n12\u00b3.\u2015\u2015The clause \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05dc \u05d5\u05b0\u05e0\u05b9\u05db\u05b8\u05bd\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea\u200e is obscure, and the text hardly correct\n(_v.i._). The general sense is that Sarah\u2019s honour is completely\nrehabilitated.\u2015\u2015=17.= _God healed Abimelech_] The first explicit\nintimation (see \u2074\u1427 \u2076) that Abimelech had been smitten with a bodily\nmalady, whose nature is indicated by the last word \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b5\u05bd\u05d3\u05d5\u05bc\u200e.\u2015\u2015=18.= A\nsuperfluous and inadequate explanation of \u00b9\u2077, universally recognised\nas a gloss; note also \u200e\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b8\u05e6\u05b7\u05e8\u200e] see on 16\u00b2.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =14.= \u05e6\u05b9\u05d0\u05df\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX\n prefix \u05d0\u05dc\u05e3 \u05db\u05e1\u05e3\u200e (from \u00b9\u2076) wrongly.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e9\u05e4\u05d7\u05ea\u200e] probably a gloss\n from 12\u00b9\u2076, this being the only instance of \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05e4\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e in an Elohist\n context.\u2015\u2015=16.= \u05d4\u05b4\u05e0\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b4\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05da\u05b0\u200e] LXX \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6; Vulgate _hoc erit tibi\n in velamen oculorum ad omnes qui tecum sunt [et quocunque\n perrexeris]_; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac phrase). The difficulties\n of the verse commence here. The suggestion that \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u200e refers to\n Abraham (Abraham Ibn Ezra) may be dismissed, and also the\n fantastic idea that Sarah is recommended to spend the money in\n the purchase of a veil, so that she may not again be mistaken\n for an unmarried woman (24\u2076\u2075)! The first question is, Whose eyes\n are to be covered?\u2015\u2015Sarah\u2019s own (\u05dc\u05b8\u05da\u05b0\u200e), or those of the people\n about her (\u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05b9\u05dc \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e), or both (\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05b9\u05dc\u200e [with _The Samaritan Recension of\n the Pentateuch_, LXX])? Dillmann adopts the second view, taking\n\u200e \u05dc\u05b8\u05da\u05b0\u200e as _dative complement_. To this Delitzsch forcibly replies\n that _dative complement_ before dative of reference is unnatural:\n hence he takes the first view (\u05dc\u05b8\u05da\u05b0\u200e, dative of reference, and \u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05b9\u05dc\u200e =\n _bezugs aller_); _i.e._, \u201cHer credit with her household, which\n had been injured by her forcible abduction, would be restored,\n and the malicious taunts or gossip of men and maids would be\n checked, when they saw how dearly the unintentional insult had\n been atoned for\u201d (Ball). A better sense would be obtained if\n\u200e \u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05b9\u05dc \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8\u200e could be taken as neuter: \u2018all that has befallen thee\u2019\n (Tuch, Holzinger, al.). That is perhaps impossible with the\n present text; hence Gunkel\u2019s emendation \u05d0\u05b8\u05ea\u05b8\u05da\u05b0\u200e (perfect \u221a \u05d0\u05b8\u05ea\u05b8\u05d4\u200e\n with accusative: Job 3\u00b2\u2075) is not unattractive.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05ea\u05be\u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05dc \u05d5\u05b0\u05e0\u05b9\u05db\u05b8\u05bd\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea\u200e]\n Untranslatable. LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd; Vulgate _quocunque\n perrexeris: mementoque te deprehensam_; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac\n phrase) (\u2018about all wherewith thou hast reproached me\u2019);\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc \u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05ea \u05d0\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u05db\u05d7\u05ea\u200e. The change to \u05d5\u05b0\u05e0\u05b9\u05db\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea\u05bc\u200e (2nd singular\n perfect) is of no avail, the difficulty being mostly in \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05dc\u200e,\n which cannot be continuation of \u05d0\u05b4\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05da\u05b0\u200e (Tuch al.), or of \u05dc\u05b8\u05da\u05b0 \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e1\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea \u05e2\u05b5\u05d9\u05e0\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e,\n but must with Massoretic Text accents be taken with \u05d5\u05e0\u05f3\u200e. The\n rendering \u2018and before all men thou shalt be righted\u2019 (Dillmann,\n Delitzsch, Driver) is the best that can be made of the text.\n The easiest emendation is that of Gunkel: \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b7\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc \u05db\u05bb\u05bc\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9 \u05e0\u05b9\u05db\u05b8\u05bd\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea\u200e = \u2018and thou\n in all this (affair) art justified,\u2019 though the sense given to\n\u200e \u05db\u05dc\u05d5h has no clear example in the Old Testament. The more drastic\n remedies of Ball do not commend themselves.\u2015\u2015=18.= \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e] _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n XXI. 1\u201221.\n _Birth of Isaac and Expulsion of Ishmael_\n (Yahwist, Elohist, and Priestly-Code).\n\nThe birth, circumcision, and naming of Isaac are briefly recorded in\na section pieced together from the three sources (\u00b9\u207b\u2077). Then follows a\nnotice of the weaning festival (\u2078), to which, by a finely descriptive\ntouch (\u2079), is linked the Elohistic version of the origin of the\nIshmaelites (\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u00b9). A comparison with the Yahwistic parallel (chapte\n16) will be found below (page 324).\n\n _Analysis._\u2015\u2015\u00b2\u1d47\u207b\u2075 are from Priestly-Code (who by the way ignores\n altogether the expulsion of Ishmael [see on 25\u2079]): observe the\n naming by the father and the exact correspondence with 16\u00b9\u2076\n in \u00b3, circumcision (\u2074), the chronology (\u2075); and the words \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e,\n\u200e \u00b2\u1d47\u1427 \u2074; \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e2\u05b5\u05d3\u200e, \u00b2\u1d47 (compare 17\u00b2\u00b9); \u05de\u05b0\u05d0\u05b7\u05ea \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u2075. \u00b2\u1d43 is to be assigned to\n Yahwist (\u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05df \u05dc \u05b4\u05d6\u05b0\u05e7\u05bb\u05e0\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5\u200e, _v.i._); and also, for the same reason, \u2077. There\n remain the doublets \u00b9\u1d43 \u2225 \u00b9\u1d47 and \u2076\u1d43 \u2225 \u2076\u1d47. Since the continuity\n of Priestly-Code is seldom sacrificed, \u00b9\u1d47 is usually assigned\n to that source (\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, a scribal error), leaving \u00b9\u1d43 to Yahwist\n\u200e (\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05e7\u05b7\u05d3\u200e). \u2076\u1d47 goes with \u2077 (therefore Yahwist: _v.i._); and\n there remains for Elohist the solitary half-verse \u2076\u1d43 (\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e),\n which cannot belong to Priestly-Code because of the different\n etymology implied for \u05d9\u05e6\u05d7\u05e7\u200e. So Holzinger, Gunkel; Dillmann,\n Strack differ only in assigning the whole of \u2076 to Elohist.\u2015\u2015The\n Yahwist fragments \u00b9\u1d43\u1427 \u00b2\u1d43\u1427 \u2077\u1427 \u2076\u1d47 form a completely consecutive\n account of the birth of Isaac; which, however, is not the\n sequel to chapter 18 (see on \u2076\u1d43), and therefore belongs to\n Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43 rather than Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f (Gunkel).\u2015\u2015\u2078\u207b\u00b2\u00b9 is\n wholly Elohistic: \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2070; \u05d0\u05de\u05d4\u200e, \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3; \u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u200e,\n \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2078 (Yahwist \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05f3\u200e, 12\u00b2; Priestly-Code \u05e0\u05ea\u05df \u05dc\u05f3\u200e, 17\u00b2\u2070); and rare\n expressions like \u05d7\u05de\u05ea\u200e, \u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2079; \u05de\u05d8\u05d7\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e7\u05e9\u05ea\u200e, \u00b9\u2076; \u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05e7\u05e9\u05ea\u200e, \u00b2\u2070. Further\n characteristics are the revelation of God by night (\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427), and\n in a voice from heaven (\u00b9\u2077).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=1\u20127. The birth of Isaac.=\u2015\u2015=2.= _a son to his old age_] so\nverse \u2077 24\u00b3\u2076 37\u00b3 44\u00b2\u2070 (all Yahwist). All the sources emphasise the\nfact that Isaac was a late-born child; but this section contains\nnothing implying a miracle (contrast chapters 17, 18).\u2015\u2015=3\u20125.=\nThe naming and circumcision of Isaac, in accordance with 17\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\n(Priestly-Code).\u2015\u2015=6a.= _God has made laughter for me_] Both here and\nin \u2076\u1d47 laughter is an expression of joy, whereas in 18\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 17\u00b9\u2077 it\nexpresses incredulity.\u2015\u2015=6b, 7= is the Yahwistic parallel. It has been\npointed out by Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 224: so Kittel,\nKautzsch-Socin, Holzinger) that the transposition of \u2076\u1d47 to the end of\n\u2077 greatly improves the sense, and brings out the metrical form of the\noriginal (in Hebrew 4 trimeters):\n\n Who would have said to Abraham,\n \u201cSarah gives children suck\u201d?\n For I have borne him a son in his old age!\n Every one that hears will laugh at me!\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1a.= \u05e4\u05e7\u05d3\u200e] never used by Priestly-Code _sensu bono_\n (Strack).\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05d4\u05e0\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05be\u200e] pointed as perfect with\n article (18\u00b2\u00b9).\u2015\u2015=6a.= \u05e6\u05d7\u05e7\u200e] The \u221a \u05e6\u05d7\u05e7\u200e never occurs outside of\n Pentateuch, except Judges 16\u00b2\u2075 (where \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05d7\u05b7\u05e7\u200e should probably be\n read) and Ezekiel 23\u00b3\u00b2 (but see Cornill and Toy), the Qal being\n used only in connexion with Isaac (17\u00b9\u2077 18\u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2075 21\u2076), while\n Piel has a stronger sense (19\u00b9\u2074 21\u2079 26\u2078 39\u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2077, Exodus 32\u2076).\n The other form \u05e9\u05c2\u05d7\u05e7\u200e (not in Pentateuch) is mostly later than\n Jeremiah (except Judges 16\u00b2\u2077, 1 Samuel 18\u2077, 2 Samuel 2\u00b9\u2074 6\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9):\n in four cases (Amos 7\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2076, Jeremiah 33\u00b2\u2076, Psalms 105\u2079) even\n the name \u05d9\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05e7\u200e appears as \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05d7\u05b8\u05e7\u200e. It will be seen that in Genesis\n we have no fewer than 4 (17\u00b9\u2077 18\u00b9\u00b2 21\u2076\u1d43\u1427 \u2076\u1d47) or 5 (21\u2079?)\n different suggestions of a connexion of \u05d9\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05e7\u200e with \u221a \u05e6\u05d7\u05e7\u200e. Analogy\n would lead us to suppose that in reality it is a contraction\n of \u05d9\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05d4\u05b8\u05e7\u05b5\u05d0\u05dc\u200e, in all probability the name of an extinct tribe\n (compare \u05d9\u05b0\u05e8\u05b7\u05d7\u05b0\u05de\u05b0\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc , \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b8\u05e2\u05b5\u05d0\u05dc\u200e, etc.).\u2015\u2015=6b.= \u05d9\u05b4\u05e6\u05b2\u05d7\u05b7\u05e7\u200e] see Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 10 _g_.\u2015\u2015=7.= \u05de\u05b4\u05dc\u05b5\u05bc\u05dc\u200e] Aramaic; in Hebrew rare and poetic.\u2015\u2015On\n the _modal_ use of perfect (\u2018would have said\u2019), compare\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 106 _p_; Driver _A Treatise on the use of\n the Tenses in Hebrew_ \u00a7 19.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] plural of species; compare\n Exodus 21\u00b2\u00b2, 1 Samuel 17\u2074\u00b3, Canticles 2\u2079 (Dillmann). LXX has\n singular.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d6\u05e7\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\u200e LXX \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u03ae\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=8\u201210. Sarah demands the ejection of Ishmael.=\u2015\u2015=8.= The occasion\nwas the customary family feast of the weaning of Isaac (Benzinger\n_Hebr\u00e4ische Arch\u00e4ologie_\u00b2 131). The age of weaning in modern Palestine\nis said to be 2 or 3 years (_ib._ 116); in ancient Israel also it must\noften have been late (1 Samuel 1\u00b2\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427,, 2 Maccabees 7\u00b2\u2077 \u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015=9.=\n_playing with Isaac her son_] The last words are essential to the\nsense, and must be restored with LXX, Vulgate (see _Jubilees_ xvii. 4,\nwith Charles\u2019s Note). It is the spectacle of the two young children\nplaying together, innocent of social distinctions, that excites\nSarah\u2019s maternal jealousy and prompts her cruel demand. The chronology\nof Priestly-Code, according to which Ishmael was some 17 years old,\nhas for uncritical readers spoiled the effect; and given rise to the\nnotion of Ishmael as a rude lad scoffing at the family joy, or to the\nstill more fanciful explanations current in Jewish circles.\u00b9\u2015\u2015=10.=\n_with my son_] If this presupposes an equal right of inheritance as\nbetween the sons of the wife and the concubine (Gunkel), it also shows\na certain opposition to that custom: compare the case of Jephthah,\nJudges 11\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 (see Benzinger _Hebr\u00e4ische Arch\u00e4ologie_\u00b2 296).\u2015\u2015_this\nslave girl_ (\u05d0\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e)] In Elohist, Hagar is not Sarah\u2019s maid, but simply a\nhousehold slave, who has become her master\u2019s concubine.\n\n \u00b9 St. Paul\u2019s allusion to Ishmael as persecuting Isaac\n (Galatians 4\u00b2\u2079, \u1f10\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd) is based on this \u05de\u05b0\u05e6\u05b7\u05d7\u05b6\u05e7\u200e. For other\n Haggadic interpretations, see _Bereshith Rabba_ \u00a7 liii;\n Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 503b, and _The Book\n of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 210. Unchastity\n (compare 39\u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2077), idolatry (Exodus 32\u2076, Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f,\n Rashi), attempted murder (2 Samuel 2\u00b9\u2074, Proverbs 26\u00b9\u2079), etc.,\n are among the crimes inferred from this unfortunate word.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =9.= \u05de\u05b0\u05e6\u05b7\u05d7\u05b6\u05e7\u200e LXX \u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f38\u03c3\u03b1\u03b1\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2; so Vulgate\n (compare Zechariah 8\u2075). The sense \u2018mock\u2019 (\u2018play with\u2019 in a bad\n sense) would require a following \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u200e, but it is doubtful if it\n actually occurs. 39\u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2077 may be explained after 26\u2078; in 19\u00b9\u2074\n it means simply \u2018play\u2019 as opposed to serious behaviour (compare\n Proverbs 26\u00b9\u2079). See above on verse \u2076.\u2015\u2015On the pausal \u05be\u05b6\u200e , see\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 52 _n_.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=11\u201213. Abraham\u2019s misgivings removed.=\u2015\u2015=11.= _on account of his son_]\nwhom he loves as his own flesh and blood; for the mother, as a slave,\nhe has no particular affection.\u2015\u2015=12.= It is revealed to him (by\nnight: compare \u00b9\u2074) that Sarah\u2019s maternal instincts are in accord\nwith the divine purpose.\u2015\u2015_shall a seed be called to thee_] _i.e._,\n\u2018in the line of Isaac shall thy name be perpetuated\u2019 (Isaiah 41\u2078,\ncompare Romans 9\u2077, Hebrews 11\u00b9\u2078). The same idea otherwise expressed\nin Priestly-Code (17\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9).\u2015\u2015=13.= Hagar\u2019s child (still unnamed) is\nalso Abraham\u2019s seed, though his descendants are not to be known as\nsuch.\u2015\u2015_a great nation_ (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,\nLXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5)] compare 17\u00b2\u2070.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =11= end] LXX + \u1f38\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03b7\u03bb (wrongly).\u2015\u2015=12.= \u05d9\u05b5\u05e8\u05b7\u05e2\u200e] LXX + \u03c4\u1f78\n \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1.\u2015\u2015=13.= _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX\n read \u05d4\u05d0\u05de\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d6\u05d0\u05ea \u05dc\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u200e: \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u200e also in Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05b0\u05d2\u05d5\u05b9\u05d9 [\u05d2\u05f3]\u200e\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd\u200e]\n so verse \u00b9\u2078 46\u00b3 (Elohist).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=14\u201216. Mother and child in the desert.=\u2015\u2015The sufferings and\ndespair of the helpless outcasts are depicted with fine feeling and\ninsight.\u2015\u2015=14.= _a skin of water_] \u05d7\u05b5\u05de\u05b6\u05ea\u200e (_v.i._), the usual Eastern\nwater-bag, answering to the of the _\u01e7irby_ of the modern Bedouin\n(Doughty, _Travels in Arabia Deserta_ i. 227, ii. 585).\u2015\u2015_and the boy\nhe placed on her shoulder_ (_v.i._)] compare \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2076.\u2015\u2015_the wilderness\nof Beersheba_ (see on \u00b3\u00b9)] implying that Abraham dwelt _near_,\nbut not necessarily _at_, Beersheba.\u2015\u2015=15.= _she cast the boy_\n(whom, therefore, she must have been carrying) _under one of the\nbushes_] for protection from the sun (1 Kings 19\u2074 \u1da0\u1427). To save\nPriestly-Code\u2019s chronology, Delitzsch and Strack make _cast_ =\n\u2018eilends niederlegen\u2019\u2015\u2015with what advantage does not quite\nappear.\u2015\u2015=16.= _a bowshot off_] out of sight of her child, but within\nhearing of his cry.\u2015\u2015The last clause should be read with LXX; _and the\nboy lifted up his voice and wept_ (verse \u00b9\u2077): the change of subject\nbeing due to the false impression that Ishmael was now a grown lad.\nHagar\u2019s dry-eyed despair is a more effective picture than that given\nby Massoretic Text.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =14.= \u05d7\u05de\u05ea\u200e] Only here (\u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2079) = Arabic _\u1e25am\u012bt_ (\u221a _\u1e25amita_,\n \u2018rancid\u2019?). On the forms \u05d7\u05b5\u05de\u05b7\u05ea\u200e\u200e, \u05d7\u05b5\u0591\u05de\u05b6\u05ea\u200e\u200e, or \u05d7\u05b6\u0591\u05de\u05b6\u05ea\u200e\u200e, \u05d7\u05b5\u05de\u05b6\u05ea\u200e\u200e, see\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 95 _l_.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc\u05be \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e] The transposition\n\u200e \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05dc\u05b6\u05d3 \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05dd \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u05be\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05db\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc\u200e was suggested by Olshausen, and is by far the\n best remedy for an awkward construct. In Massoretic Text it\n would be necessary to take \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05f3\u200e as second object to \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05df\u200e, and\n\u200e \u05e9\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05e9\u05db\u05de\u05d4\u200e as a parenthetic circumstantial clause (so Dillmann,\n Delitzsch, Strack). It is an effort to evade the absurdity of\n a youth of 17 being carried on his mother\u2019s back.\u2015\u2015=15.= \u05d4\u05e9\u05d9\u05d7\u05dd\u200e]\n \u2018desert shrubs\u2019; see on 2\u2075.\u2015\u2015=16.= \u05d4\u05e8\u05d7\u05e7\u200e] Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 113\n _h_.\u2015\u2015\u200e\u05db\u05de\u05d8\u05d7\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e7\u05e9\u05ea\u200e] literally \u2018as (far as) bowmen do\u2019; LXX \u1f61\u03c3\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac phrase), hardly imply a different\n text. On \u05de\u05b0\u05d8\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05d5\u05b5\u05d9\u200e (participle Palestinian \u221a \u05d8\u05d7\u05d4\u200e,\u2015\u2015only here), see\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 75 _kk_.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05ea\u05e9\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e] LXX \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c2\u05d0 [\u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05b6\u05bc\u05dc\u05b6\u05e8] \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05e7\u05b9\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05da\u05b0\u05bc\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=17\u201219. The Divine succour= comes in two forms: a voice from heaven\n(\u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1427), and an opening of Hagar\u2019s eyes (\u00b9\u2079).\u2015\u2015=17.= _God heard_]\n(twice) preparing for an explanation of \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b8\u05e2\u05b5\u05d0\u05dc\u200e.\u2015\u2015While God Himself\nhears, the medium of His revelation is _the Angel of God_ (as 28\u00b9\u00b2\n31\u00b9\u00b9 32\u00b2, Exodus 14\u00b9\u2079), who by a refinement peculiar to Elohist (22\u00b9\u00b9)\nspeaks _from heaven_. This goes beyond the primary conception of the\nAngel: see on 16\u2077.\u2015\u2015=18.= Hagar is encouraged by a disclosure of the\nfuture greatness of her son.\u2015\u2015=19.= _opened her eyes_] compare 3\u2075\u1427 \u2077.\nThe tact of the narrator leaves us in doubt whether the well was now\nmiraculously opened, or had been there all along though unseen. In any\ncase it is henceforth a sacred well.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =17b.= \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05e7\u05d5\u05dc\u200e] MSS and _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_\n\u200e \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05e7\u05b4\u05f3\u200e.\u2015\u2015=19.= \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8 \u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX + \u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e,\u2015\u2015attractive! (compare 26\u00b9\u2079).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=20, 21. Ishmael\u2019s career.=\u2015\u2015Here we expect the naming of the child,\nbased on verse \u00b9\u2077: this has been omitted by Redactor in favour of\nYahwist (16\u00b9\u00b9).\u2015\u2015=20.= The boy _grew up_, amidst the perils and\nhardships of the desert,\u2015\u2015a proof that _God was with him_.\u2015\u2015_he became\na bowman_] (pointing \u05e8\u05b9\u05d1\u05b6\u05d4 \u05e7\u05b7\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05bd\u05c1\u05ea\u200e: _v.i._), the bow being the weapon of his\ndescendants (Isaiah 21\u00b9\u2077).\u2015\u2015=21.= The _wilderness of P\u0101r\u0101n_ is et-T\u012bh,\nbounding the Negeb on the South.\u2015\u2015His mother took him a wife _from the\nland of Egypt_] her own country (verse \u2079): see page 285 above.\n\n _Comparison of chapter 16 with 21\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u00b9._\u2015\u2015That these two\n narratives are variations of a common legendary theme is obvious\n from the identity of the leading motives they embody: viz. the\n significance of the name Ishmael (16\u00b9\u00b9 21\u00b9\u2077); the mode of life\n characteristic of his descendants (16\u00b9\u00b2 21\u00b2\u2070); their relation to\n Israel; and the sacredness of a certain well, consecrated by a\n theophany (16\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2074 21\u00b9\u2079).\u00b9 Each tale is an exhaustive expression\n of these motives, and does not tolerate a supplementary anecdote\n alongside of it. Chapter 21, however, represents a conception\n of the incident further removed from primitive conditions than\n 16: contrast the sympathetic picture of nomadic life in 16\u00b9\u00b2\n with the colourless notice of 21\u00b2\u2070; in 16, moreover, Hagar is\n a high-spirited Bedawi woman who will not brook insult, and is\n at home in the desert; while in 21 she is a household slave who\n speedily succumbs to the hardships of the wilderness. In Elohist\n the appeal is to universal human sympathies rather than to the\n peculiar susceptibilities of the nomad nature; his narrative\n has a touch of pathos which is absent from Yahwist; it is\n marked by a greater refinement of moral feeling, and by a less\n anthropomorphic idea of God.\u2015\u2015See the admirable characterisation\n of Gunkel, page 203 f.\n\n \u00b9 The well is not identified in Elohist. Gunkel\u2019s view, that\n it was Beersheba, has little to commend it.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =20.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05e7\u05e9\u05ea\u200e] \u2018and he became, growing up, an archer\u2019; Vulgate\n _juvenis sagittarius_ (so Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2). But \u05e7\u05b7\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05ea\u200e is \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, the syntax is peculiar, and, besides, the growing\n up has been already mentioned. The true text is doubtless that\n given above and implied by LXX \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u03be\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2. Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n (\u2021 Syriac phrase) also implies \u05e7\u05b6\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05ea\u200e; but there are further\n divergences in that Version. \u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 = \u2018shoot\u2019 (not so elsewhere),\n might be a by-form of \u05e8\u05d1\u05d1\u200e (see on 49\u00b2\u00b3; and compare \u05e8\u05b7\u05d1\u200e =\n \u2018shooter,\u2019 in Jeremiah 50\u00b2\u2079, Job 16\u00b9\u00b3); but it may be a question\n whether in these three cases we should not substitute \u05e8\u05d1\u05d4\u200e for\n\u200e \u05e8\u05d1\u05d1\u200e, or whether in this passage we should not read \u05e8\u05b9\u05de\u05b5\u05d4 \u05e7\u05b6\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05ea\u200e with\n Ball (see especially Jeremiah 4\u00b2\u2079, Psalms 78\u2079). The rendering\n \u2018a shooter, an archer\u2019 (Delitzsch), is clumsy; and the idea\n that \u05e7\u05b7\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05ea\u200e is an explanatory gloss on \u05e8\u05b9\u05d1\u05b6\u05d4\u200e (Kautzsch-Socin) is not\n probable.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n XXI. 22\u201234.\n _Abraham\u2019s Covenant with Abimelech_\n (Elohist and Yahwist).\n\nTwo distinct narratives, each leading up to a covenant at Beersheba,\nare here combined. (A) In the first, Abraham, acceding to a request\nof Abimelech, enters into a covenant of permanent friendship with\nhim, from which the place derives its name \u2018Well of the Oath\u2019\n(\u00b2\u00b2\u207b\u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2077\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9).\u2015\u2015(B) In the other, the covenant closes a long-standing\ndispute about springs, and secures the claim of Abraham\u2019s people to\nthe wells of Beersheba, where Abraham subsequently plants a sacred\ntree (\u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2078\u207b\u00b3\u2070\u1427 \u00b3\u00b2\u1427 \u00b3\u00b3).\n\n _Sources._\u2015\u2015The passage, except some redactional touches in\n \u00b3\u00b2\u207b\u00b3\u2074, has usually been assigned to Elohist (Wellhausen, Kuenen,\n Dillmann, Holzinger, Strack). Its disjointed character has,\n however, been felt, and tentative solutions have been proposed\n by several critics (compare Kautzsch-Socin _Anm._ 92, 93;\n Kraetzschmar _Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament_ 14,\n 31; von Gall, _Altisraelitische Kultst\u00e4tten_ 46 f.; _Oxford\n Hexateuch_ ii. 30 f.). The most successful is that of Gunkel,\n who assigns \u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2078\u207b\u00b3\u2070\u1427 \u00b3\u00b2\u207b\u00b3\u2074 to Yahwist, the rest to Elohist:\n the reasons will appear in the notes. The analysis rests on the\n duplicates (\u00b2\u2077\u1d43 \u2225 \u00b3\u2070\u1d43, \u00b2\u2077\u1d47 \u2225 \u00b3\u00b2\u1d43) and material discrepancies of\n the section; the linguistic criteria being indecisive as between\n Yahwist and Elohist, though quite decisive against Priestly-Code\n\u200e (\u05d7\u05b6\u05e1\u05b6\u05d3\u200e, \u05d4\u05b5\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, \u00b2\u00b3; \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05ea \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u200e, \u00b2\u2077; \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e, \u00b3\u2070). But the connexion with\n chapter 20, and \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e in \u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3, prove that the main account is\n from Elohist; while \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, \u00b3\u00b3, and \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e, \u00b3\u2070, show the other to be\n Yahwist. Since the scene is Beersheba, the Yahwistic component\n must be Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43.\u2015\u2015\u00b3\u00b2\u207b\u00b3\u2074 have been considerably modified\n by Redactors. Procksch (10 ff.) holds that in the original\n Elohist verses \u00b2\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 preceded \u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u2070; his detailed analysis being\n almost identical with Gunkel\u2019s.\n\n=22\u201224.= Abimelech proposes an oath of perpetual amity between his\npeople and Abraham\u2019s, and the latter consents (Elohist).\u2015\u2015=22.=\n_P\u00eek\u014dl_ (_v.i._), _his commander-in-chief_, seems here merely a symbol\nof the military importance of Gerar: otherwise 26\u00b2\u2076 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, where P\u00eek\u014dl\nis a party to the covenant.\u2015\u2015=23.= _Swear to me here_] in the place\nafterwards known as Beersheba (\u00b3\u00b9). Abraham\u2019s departure from Gerar,\nand Abimelech\u2019s visit to him in Beersheba, must have stood in Elohist\nbetween 20\u00b9\u2077 and 21\u00b2\u00b2 (compare 26\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u2076).\u2015\u2015=24.= This unreserved\nconsent is inconsistent with the expostulation of\u2015\u2015=25, 26= (Yahwist),\nwhich presupposes strained relations between the parties, and repeated\ndisputes about the ownership of wells. Note (1) the frequentative\n\u200e\u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05db\u05b4\u05d7\u05b7\u200e\u200e, (2) the plural \u2018wells\u2019 (retained by LXX), (3) the fuller parallel\nof 26\u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, which shows that the right to several wells had been\ncontested.\u2015\u2015_And as often as Abraham took Abimelech to task about the\nwells ... Abimelech would answer_]\u2015\u2015that he knew nothing of the matter\n(so Gunkel).\u2015\u2015=27.= Continuing \u00b2\u2074 (Elohist). Giving (or exchange?) of\npresents seems to have been customary when a covenant was made (1 Kings\n15\u00b9\u2079, Isaiah 30\u2076, Hosea 12\u00b2). The action would be no suitable answer\nto verse \u00b2\u2076.\u2015\u2015=28\u201230= (Yahwist). _the seven ewe lambs_ are set apart\nfor the purpose explained in \u00b3\u2070; but the article shows that they must\nhave been mentioned in the previous context. It is clear from \u00b3\u2070 that\nthe lacuna is in Yahwist, not in Elohist; while Abimelech\u2019s question\n\u00b2\u2079 proves that the lambs were not an understood part of the ceremony\n(Dillmann).\u2015\u2015=30.= _that it_ (the acceptance of the present) _may\nbe a witness, etc._] so that in future there may be no quarrel about\nBeersheba.\u2015\u2015=31.= belongs to Elohist: \u05e0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u200e, compare \u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427; \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9\u05d4\u05b6\u05dd\u200e, compare\n\u200e\u00b2\u2077.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05e8 \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d1\u05b7\u05e2\u200e = \u2018seven wells,\u2019 is here explained as \u2018Well of the Oath,\u2019\nthe oath being the central feature of the _ber\u00eeth_. The etymology is\nnot altogether at fault, since \u05e0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05e2\u200e may mean literally to \u2018put oneself\nunder the influence of seven,\u2019 the sacred number (Herodotus iii. 8;\nHomer _Iliad_ xix. 243 ff.; Pausanias iii. 20. 9).\u2015\u2015=32a.= Yahwist\u2019s\nparallel to \u00b2\u2077\u1d47.\u00b9\u2015\u2015=33.= The inauguration of the cult of Beersheba\n(Yahwist: compare 26\u00b2\u2075). Among the _sacra_ of that famous shrine\nthere must have been a sacred tamarisk believed to have been planted\nby Abraham (see on 12\u2076). The planting of a sacred tree is no more a\n_contradictio in adjecto_ (Stade in von Gall, 47) than the erecting\nof a sacred stone, or the digging of a sacred well. The opinion\n(Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger) that the subject is Isaac, and that the\nverse should stand after 26\u00b2\u2075, rests on the incorrect assumption that\nno stratum of Yahwist puts Abraham in connexion with Beersheba.\u2015\u2015_\u2019El\n\u201b\u00d4l\u00e2m_] presumably the pre-Israelite name of the local _numen_, here\nidentified with Yahwe (Gunkel: see 16\u00b9\u00b3). Canaanite analogies are\n\u1f2e\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (Eusebius _Pr\u00e6paratio Evangelica_ i. 10, 13 ff.),\nand \u03a7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ae\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (Damascius _Difficulties and Solutions of\nFirst Principles_ 123).\u2015\u2015=34.= The assumption that Beersheba was in\nPhilistine territory being incompatible with \u00b3\u00b2\u1d47, the verse must be\nan interpolation.\u2015\u2015On the historical background of these legends, see\nafter 26\u00b3\u00b3.\n\n \u00b9 \u00b3\u00b2\u1d47 would be a natural conclusion to Elohist\u2019s narrative\n (compare \u00b2\u00b2), but for the fact that that source never speaks\n of a Philistine occupation of Gerar. The last three verses,\n however, seem to have been altered by a compiler.\u2015\u2015It is\n probable that Yahwist gave an explanation of the name of the\n well, connecting it with the seven lambs; so Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f\n\u200e (\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d3\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2 \u05d7\u05d5\u05e8\u05e4\u05df\u200e).\n\n Beersheba is the modern _Bi\u2019r-es-Seba\u201b_, in the heart of the\n Negeb, some 28 miles South-west from Hebron, and 25 South-east\n from _Umm el-\u01e6er\u0101r_. Its importance as a religious centre in\n the Old Testament appears not only from its frequent mention\n in the patriarchal history (22\u00b9\u2079 26\u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0 28\u00b9\u2070 46\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427),\n but still more from the fact that in the 8th century its\n oracle (compare 25\u00b2\u00b2) was resorted to by pilgrims from the\n northern kingdom (Amos 5\u2075 8\u00b9\u2074). Von Gall (44 ff.) questions\n the opinion that it was originally a group of 7 wells, holding\n that there was but one, whose name meant \u2018Well of the Oath.\u2019\n But that \u201camong the Semites a special sanctity was attached\n to groups of seven wells\u201d is shown by Smith (_Lectures on the\n Religion of the Semites_\u00b2, 181 f.: compare N\u00f6ldeke _Archiv f\u00fcr\n Religionswissenschaft._, vii. 340 ff.); and the existence of a\n plurality of wells at Bi\u2019r es-Seba\u201b has never been disputed. See\n Robinson _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, i. 204 ff.; Smith,\n _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 284 f.; Robinson,\n _Biblical World_, xvii. (1901), 247 ff.; Gautier, _ib._ xviii.\n 49 ff.; Driver _The Expository Times_, vii. (1896), 567 f.;\n _Joel and Amos_\u00b2 (1901), page 239 f.; Trumbull, _The Expository\n Times_, viii. 89.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =22.= \u05d5\u05e4\u05d9\u05db\u05dc\u200e] LXX prefix \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f48\u03c7\u03bf\u03b6\u1f70\u03b8 \u1f41 \u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (from\n 26\u00b2\u2076). Spiegelberg (_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_, ix. 109)\n considers this one of the few Egyptian names in Old Testament =\n _p{<}\u1e2a-r(j)_, \u201cthe Syrian.\u201d\u2015\u2015=23.= \u05d0\u05dd\u200e] Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 149\n _c_.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05e0\u05db\u05d3\u200e] (_proles et soboles_) an alliterative phrase found\n in Isaiah 14\u00b2\u00b2, Job 18\u00b9\u2079, Sirach 41\u2075 47\u00b2\u00b2\u2020.\u2015\u2015=25.= \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05db\u05d7\u200e] \u201cmust be\n corrected to \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05db\u05b7\u05d7\u200e\u201d (Ball, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 112 _tt_):\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05d7\u200e. But Massoretic\n Text is probably right, with frequent sense of perfect given\n above. For the following \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e (instead of \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e), see Driver\n _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ \u00a7 114 \u03b2.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u200e]\n LXX \u03c6\u03c1\u03b5\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, _ut sup._\u2015\u2015=28.= \u05d4\u05e6\u05d0\u05df\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_ (which also omits \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u200e) \u05e6\u05d0\u05df\u200e. Delitzsch thinks\n this one of the few cases (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 127 _e_)\n where article determines only its own word, and not the whole\n expression.\u2015\u2015=29.= Read \u05d4\u05db\u05d1\u05e9\u05ea\u200e with _The Samaritan Recension of\n the Pentateuch_ (\u00b3\u2070).\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d1\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05bd\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (_The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ \u05dc\u05d1\u05d3\u05d4\u05df\u200e)]. On suffix compare Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 91 _f_.\n The form is chiefly pausal; and though the only other example in\n Pentateuch (Genesis 42\u00b3\u2076) is Elohist, 30\u2074\u00b9 (\u05be\u05b6\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e) is Yahwist, and\n the form cannot be considered distinctive of Elohist.\u2015\u2015=31.=\n\u200e \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u200e] LXX \u03a6\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1\u03c1 \u1f41\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6, but in \u00b3\u00b2 \u03a6\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5. The\n construction (number in genitive after singular noun) has\n been supposed by Stade to be Canaanite idiom (compare \u05e7\u05b4\u05e8\u05b0\u05d9\u05b7\u05ea \u05d0\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05e2\u200e,\n\u200e 23\u00b2).\u2015\u2015=33.= \u05d0\u05b5\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dc\u200e] Arabic _\u2019a\u1e6fl_, Aramaic \u05d0\u05ea\u05dc\u05d0\u200e, Assyrian _a\u0161lu_;\n 1 Samuel 22\u2076 31\u00b9\u00b3 [in 1 Chronicles 10\u00b9\u00b2 \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e]\u2020, in both cases\n probably denoting a _sacred_ tree. The word seems to have been\n strange to versions: LXX \u1f04\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, Aquila \u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1, Symmachus\n \u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, Vulgate _nemus_, etc. The substitution of \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e proposed\n by Stade (_v.s._) is uncalled for, though see _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n Biblica_, 4892 f.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015=34= is wanting in Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f (edited\n by Ginsburger).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n CHAPTER XXII.\n _The Sacrifice of Isaac_\n (Elohist and Redactor\u1d36\u1d49\u02b0\u1d52\u1d5b\u2071\u02e2\u1d57).\n\nThe only incident in Abraham\u2019s life expressly characterised as a\n\u2018trial\u2019 of his faith is the one here narrated, where the patriarch\nproves his readiness to offer up his only son as a sacrifice at\nthe command of God. The story, which is the literary masterpiece of\nthe Elohistic collection, is told with exquisite simplicity; every\nsentence vibrates with restrained emotion, which shows how fully the\nauthor realises the tragic horror of the situation.\n\n _Source._\u2015\u2015The original narrative consists of verses \u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2079. In\n spite of \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e in \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2074, this belongs to Elohist: compare [\u05d4\u05b8]\u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e,\n\u200e \u00b9\u1427 \u00b3\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2; \u05e2\u05b7\u05d3\u05be\u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05d4\u200e \u2075]; the revelation by night, \u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427; the Angel\n calling from heaven, \u00b9\u00b9.\u2015\u2015On \u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b9\u2078 see below. Compare Dillmann,\n Holzinger, Gunkel.\n\n=1\u20128. Abraham\u2019s willing preparation for the sacrifice.=\u2015\u2015=1.=\n_God tempted Abraham_] _i.e._, tested him, to \u201cknow what was in his\nheart\u201d (Deuteronomy 8\u00b2),\u2015\u2015an anthropomorphic representation: compare\nExodus 16\u2074 20\u00b2\u2070, Deuteronomy 8\u00b9\u2076 13\u2074 33\u2078 etc. This sentence governs\nthe narrative and prepares the reader for a good ending.\u2015\u2015=2.=\n_thy son\u2015\u2015thine only one\u2015\u2015whom thou lovest\u2015\u2015Isaac_] emphasising the\ngreatness of the sacrifice, as if to say that God knows right well how\nmuch He asks.\u2015\u2015_the land of M\u014driyy\u0101h_ (\u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05b9\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e)] All attempts to explain\nthe name and identify the place have been futile.\u2666\u2015\u2015_which I will name\nto thee_] _When_ this more precise direction was imparted, does not\nappear.\u2015\u2015=3.= While the outward preparations are graphically described,\nno word is spared for the conflict in Abraham\u2019s breast,\u2015\u2015a striking\nillustration of the reticence of the legends with regard to mental\nstates.\u2015\u2015=4.= _saw the place afar off_] The spot, therefore, has\nalready been indicated (verse \u00b2). We are left to imagine the pang\nthat shot through the father\u2019s heart when he caught sight of it.\u2015\u2015=5.=\nAnother touch, revealing the tense feeling with which the story is\ntold: the servants are put off with a pretext whose hollowness the\nreader knows.\u2015\u2015=6.= \u201cThe boy carries the heavier load, the father the\nmore dangerous: knife and fire\u201d (Gunkel). It is curious that the Old\nTestament has no allusion to the method of producing fire.\u2015\u2015=7, 8.=\nThe pathos of this dialogue is inimitable: the artless curiosity of\nthe child, the irrepressible affection of the father, and the stern\nambiguity of his reply, can hardly be read without tears. Note the\neffect of the repetition: _and they went both of them together_\n(\u2076\u1427 \u2078).\u2015\u2015_God will provide_] \u05d9\u05b4\u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05d4\u200e, literally \u2018look out\u2019; as 41\u00b3\u00b3\n[Deuteronomy 12\u00b9\u00b3 33\u00b2\u00b9], 1 Samuel 16\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2077. The word points forward to\nverse \u00b9\u2074.\n\n \u2666 reconnected with previous paragraph split in error\n\n The prevalent Jewish and Christian tradition puts the scene\n on the Temple mount at Jerusalem (\u05d4\u05b7\u05e8 \u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, 2 Chronicles 3\u00b9;\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u039c\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 224,\n compare 226). But (a) the attestation of the name is so late and\n unreliable that it is a question whether the Chronicler\u2019s use\n of it rests on a traditional interpretation of this passage, or\n whether it was introduced here on the strength of his notice.\n (b) Even if [\u05d4\u05b7]\u05de\u05b9\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e were a genuine ancient name for the Temple\n hill, it is not credible that it was extended to the _land_\n in which it was, and still less that the hill itself should be\n described as \u2018one of the mountains\u2019 in the region named after it.\n There is reason to suspect that the name of a land may have been\n modified (either in accordance with a fanciful etymology [verse\n \u00b9\u2074], or on the authority of 2 Chronicles 3\u00b9) in order that the\n chief sanctuary of later times might not be altogether ignored\n in the patriarchal history. The Samaritan tradition identified\n Moriah with Shechem.\u00b9 This view has been revived in two forms:\n (1) that the name is a corruption or variant of \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b6\u05d4\u200e in 12\u2076 etc.\n (Bleek, _Theologische Studien und Kritiken_, 1831, 520 ff.;\n Tuch, von Gall [see LXX _infinitive_]); and (2) that it is a\n corruption of \u05d7\u05b2\u05de\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (\u2018land of the \u1e24amorites\u2019 [33\u00b9\u2079]) (Wellhausen).\n But both these names are too local and restricted to suit the\n context; and the distance is perhaps too great. Of the attempts\n to recover the original name, the simplest is \u05d0\u05f3 \u05d4\u05b8\u05bd\u05d0\u05b1\u05de\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, which would\n be a natural designation of Palestine in Elohist:\u00b2 see on 10\u00b9\u2076.\n If the legend be very ancient, there is no certainty that the\n place was in the Holy Land at all. Any extensive mountainous\n region, well known at the time, and with a lingering tradition\n of human sacrifice, would satisfy the conditions. Hence,\n Cheyne\u2019s suggestion that the land of \u2018Mu\u1e63ri\u2019 is to be read\n (_Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 3200; Winckler _Geschichte Israels in\n Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 44), is not devoid of plausibility.\n On Gunkel\u2019s solution, see below.\n\n \u00b9 See _Zeitschrift des deutschen Pal\u00e4stina-Vereins_, vi. 198,\n vii. 133.\u2015\u2015Von Gall (_Altisraelitische Kultst\u00e4tten_ 112)\n seems in error when he says this was a _Jewish_ tradition.\n\n \u00b2 But it is doubtful if the restoration can claim the\n authority of Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, for that version reads (\u2021 Syriac\n phrase) in 2 Chronicles 3\u00b9 also.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d3\u05f3 \u05d4\u05d0\u05f3\u200e 15\u00b9.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05e0\u05e1\u05d4\u200e] The reluctance of grammarians to\n admit that this can be the main sentence, and apodosis after\n time determination, is intelligible (Delitzsch, Dillmann,\n Gunkel), the order being that of the circumstantial clause; but\n it is difficult, without sophistical distinctions, to take it\n any other way. As circumstantial clause it could only mean \u2018when\n God _had_ tempted Abraham,\u2019 which is nonsense; and to speak of\n it as a _Verumst\u00e4ndung_ of the following \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e (Delitzsch) is to\n deceive oneself with a word. The right explanation in Driver _A\n Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ \u00a7 78 (3).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd\u200e]\n repeated in LXX, Vulgate; compare \u00b9\u00b9.\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05d4\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4\u200e] The word was no\n doubt popularly connected with \u221a \u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e as used in \u00b9\u2074 (compare _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4\u200e, Aquila \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u1fc6,\n Symmachus \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, Vulgate _visionis_), though a real\n derivation from that \u221a is impossible. LXX \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f51\u03c8\u03b7\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd (compare\n 12\u2076). Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 has (\u2021 Syriac word), Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f \u05e4\u05d5\u05dc\u05d7\u05e0\u05d0\u200e\n (\u2018worship\u2019).\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e0\u05f3\u200e] So Numbers 22\u00b2\u00b2. The determination\n is peculiar. That it means _the_ two slaves with whom a person\n of importance usually travelled (Gunkel) is little probable.\n It is possible that in this legend Abraham was conceived as a\n man of moderate wealth, and that these were all the servants\n he had.\u2015\u2015=5.= \u05e2\u05d3\u05be\u05db\u05d4\u200e] On \u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05d4\u200e as demonstrative of _place_, see\n Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ (\u2018rare, chiefly in Elohist\u2019);\n compare 31\u00b3\u2077.\u2015\u2015=7.= \u05d4\u05e0\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u200e] \u2018Yes, my son\u2019; the \u2018Here am I\u2019 of\n English Version is much too pompous. LXX, Vulgate excellently:\n \u03c4\u03af \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd; _Quid vis, fili?_\u2015\u2015=8.= \u05d4\u05e9\u05d4\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX omit article (Ball).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=9\u201214. The sacrifice averted.=\u2015\u2015=9, 10.= The verses describe with\ngreat minuteness the preliminary ritual of the \u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e in highly technical\nlanguage (\u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05da\u05b0\u200e\u200e, \u200e\u05e2\u05b8\u05e7\u05b7\u05d3\u200e, \u200e\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d7\u05b7\u05d8\u200e); _v.i._\u2015\u2015=11, 12.= At the extreme moment\nAbraham\u2019s hand is stayed by a voice from heaven.\u2015\u2015=11= is certainly\nfrom Elohist; \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e must therefore be a redactional accommodation to\nverse \u00b9\u2075 (compare Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 _infinitive_).\u2015\u2015The repetition of _Abraham_\nexpresses urgency; as 46\u00b2, Exodus 3\u2074 (Elohist), 1 Samuel 3\u00b9\u2070.\u2015\u2015=12.=\nThe Angel speaks in the name of God, as 16\u00b9\u2070, 21\u00b9\u2078.\u2015\u2015_now I know,\netc._] Thus early was the truth taught that the essence of sacrifice\nis the moral disposition (Psalms 51\u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015=13.= The substitution\nof the ram for the human victim takes place without express command,\nAbraham recognising by its mysterious presence that it was \u2018provided\u2019\nby God for this purpose.\u2015\u2015=14a.= The naming of the place is an\nessential feature of the legend, and must therefore be assigned to\nElohist.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d9\u05b4\u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05d4\u200e alludes to verse \u2078; but that any sanctuary actually\nbore this name is scarcely probable. In truth, it seems to be given\nas the explanation, not of a name, but of a current proverbial saying\n(Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 450), which can hardly be\nthe original intention (see below).\u2015\u2015=14b.= The words \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d4\u05b7\u05a5\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u0596\u05d4 \u05d9\u05b5\u05bd\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b6\u05bd\u05d4\u200e yield\nno sense appropriate to the context.\n\n Massoretic Text might be rendered: (a) \u2018In the mount of Yahwe\n he (it) is seen\u2019 (Strack), or (b) \u2018In the mount of Yahwe men\n appear\u2019 [for worship] (Driver 220, compare Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\n _infinitive_), or (disregarding accusative) (c) \u2018In the mount\n where Yahwe is seen\u2019: in this case the saying would be \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d9\u05b4\u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05d4\u200e\n (\u00b9\u2074\u1d43), and \u00b9\u2074\u1d47 would merely mean that it was used in the Temple\n mount. All these are obviously unsatisfactory. With a slight\n change (\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05b8\u05e8\u200e for \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05f3\u200e) the clause would read \u2018In the mount Yahwe\n appears\u2019 (so LXX), or (with \u05d9\u05b4\u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05d4\u200e for \u05d9\u05b5\u05bd\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b6\u05d4\u200e) \u2018In ... Yahwe sees\u2019\n (Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5).\u2015\u2015The text has probably been altered under\n the same tendency which gave rise to \u05de\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e in verse \u00b2; and the\n recovery of the original is impossible. Gunkel, with brilliant\n ingenuity, conjectures that the name of the sanctuary was \u05d9\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e\n (2 Chronicles 20\u00b9\u2076); this he inserts after \u05d4\u05b7\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u200e; and restores the\n remainder of the verse as follows: \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05e8 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05b8\u05e8 \u05d9\u05b4\u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e = \u2018for he\n said, \u201cTo-day, in this mountain, God provideth.\u201d\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =9.= \u05e2\u05e8\u05da\u200e] of the arranging of the wood on the altar, 1 Kings 18\u00b3\u00b3,\n Numbers 23\u2074, Isaiah 30\u00b3\u00b3.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05e7\u05d3\u200e] (\u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd) in New Hebrew\n means to \u2018bind the bent fore- and hind-legs of an animal for\n sacrifice\u2019 (Driver): LXX \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2\u2015\u2015=10.= \u05e9\u05c1\u05d7\u05d8\u200e is technically\n to cut the throat of a sacrificial victim (Jacob, _Zeitschrift\n f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvii. 51).\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e]\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e; so verse \u00b9\u2075.\u2015\u2015=13.= \u05d0\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dc \u05d0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05e8\u200e] \u2018a ram behind\u2019; so\n Tuch, Dillmann, Delitzsch, Strack, (Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2, Symmachus in\n temporal sense). _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,\n LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, _Jubilees_ and Hebrew MSS have\n\u200e \u05d0\u05f3 \u05d0\u05b6\u05d7\u05b8\u05d3\u200e, \u2018a [certain] ram\u2019; which may be _nichtssagend_, but is\n preferable to Massoretic Text (Holzinger, Gunkel).\u2015\u2015Read also\n (with LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5) \u05e0\u05b6\u05bd\u05d0\u05b1\u05d7\u05b8\u05d6 (participle) for perfect.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05e1\u05d1\u05da\u200e] LXX\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03ad\u03ba, Symmachus \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03c4\u03cd\u1ff3 (\u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05d1\u05b8\u05db\u05b8\u05d4\u200e), Aquila \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03c7\u03bd\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b9,\n Vulgate _inter vepres_.\u2015\u2015=14.= The paraphrase of Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\n is interesting: \u2018And Abraham worshipped and prayed there \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dd\u200e\n for \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dd\u200e), in that place, saying before the Lord, Here shall\n generations worship. So it is said at this day, In this mountain\n Abraham worshipped before the Lord.\u2019\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d4\u05b7\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d9\u05b5\u05bd\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b6\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n \u1f44\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7, Vulgate _in monte Dominus videbit_, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n (\u2021 Syriac phrase).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=15\u201219. Renewal of the promises: Conclusion.=\u2015\u2015=15.= The occasion\nseemed to a Jehovistic redaction to demand an ampler reward than\nthe sparing of Isaac; hence a supplementary revelation (\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u200e) is\nappended.\u2015\u2015=16.= _By myself I swear_] compare Exodus 32\u00b9\u00b3 (also\nRedactor\u1d36\u1d49\u02b0\u1d52\u1d5b\u2071\u02e2\u1d57), elsewhere Isaiah 45\u00b2\u00b3, Jeremiah 22\u2075 49\u00b9\u00b3\u2020.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05b0\u05d0\u05bb\u05dd \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e]\nliterally \u2018murmur of Yahwe,\u2019 an expression for the prophetic\ninspiration, whose significance must have been forgotten before it\ncould be put in the mouth of the Angel. Even Priestly-Code (Numbers\n14\u00b2\u2078) is more discriminating in his use of the phrase.\u2015\u2015=17.= _occupy\nthe gate of their enemies_] _i.e._, take possession of their cities\n(LXX \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2); compare 24\u2076\u2070.\u2015\u2015=18.= _by thy seed ... bless themselves_\n(Hithpael)] So 26\u2074; compare Deuteronomy 29\u00b9\u2078, Isaiah 65\u00b9\u2076, Jeremiah 4\u00b2,\nPsalms 72\u00b9\u2077\u2020. See on 12\u00b3.\u2015\u2015=19.= The return to Beersheba is the close\nof Elohist\u2019s narrative, continuing verse \u00b9\u2074.\n\n The secondary character of \u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b9\u2078 is clear not only from its\n loose connexion with the primary narrative, but also from its\n combination of Elohistic conceptions with Yahwistic phraseology,\n the absence of originality, the improper use of \u05e0\u05b0\u05d0\u05bb\u05dd \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, etc.\n Compare Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der\n historischen B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 20; Dillmann 291;\n Holzinger 165.\u2015\u2015The view of Delitzsch (324 f.) and Strack (82),\n that \u00b9\u2074\u207b\u00b9\u2078 are from a Yahwist parallel to 22\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2074, is untenable.\n\n The difficult question of the _meaning_ of this incident is\n approached from two sides. (1) Those who regard it as a literal\n occurrence in the life of a man of eminent piety, holding views\n of truth in advance of his age, are undoubtedly able to give\n it an interpretation charged with deep religious significance.\n Familiar with the rite of child-sacrifice amongst the\n surrounding heathen, the patriarch is conceived as arrested by\n the thought that even this terrible sacrifice might rightly be\n demanded by the Being to whom he owed all that he was; and as\n brooding over it till he seemed to hear the voice of God calling\n on him to offer up his own son as proof of devotion to Him.\n He is led on step by step to the very verge of accomplishing\n the act, when an inward monition stays his hand, and reveals\n to him that what God really requires is the surrender of the\n will\u2015\u2015that being the _truth_ in his previous impression; but\n that the sacrifice of a human life is not in accordance with\n the character of the true God whom Abraham worshipped. But it\n must be felt that this line of exposition is not altogether\n satisfying. The story contains no word in repudiation of human\n sacrifice, nor anything to enforce what must be supposed to\n be the main lesson, viz., that such sacrifices were to find\n no place in the religion of Abraham\u2019s descendants. (2) Having\n regard to the origin of many other Genesis narratives, we\n must admit the possibility that the one before us is a legend,\n explaining the substitution of animal for human sacrifices\n in some type of ancient worship. This view is worked out\n with remarkable skill by Gunkel (211\u2012214), who thinks he\n has recovered the lost name of the sanctuary from certain\n significant expressions which seem to prepare the mind for\n an etymological interpretation: viz. \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05b4\u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05d4\u200e, \u2078 (compare \u00b9\u2074);\n\u200e \u05d9\u05b0\u05e8\u05b5\u05d0 \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u00b9\u00b2; and \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d0 [\u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05d4] \u05d0\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dc\u200e, \u00b9\u00b3. From these indications he\n concludes that the original name in \u00b9\u2074 was \u05d9\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e; and he is\n disposed to identify the spot with a place of that name\n somewhere near Tekoa, mentioned in 2 Chronicles 20\u00b9\u2076 (\u05d9\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e in\n 1 Chronicles 7\u00b2 is excluded by geographical considerations).\n Here he conjectures that there was a sanctuary where the custom\n of child-sacrifice had been modified by the substitution of a\n ram for a human being. The basis of Genesis 22 would then be the\n local cultus-legend of this place. Apart from the philological\n speculations, which are certainly pushed to an extreme, it is\n not improbable that Gunkel\u2019s theory correctly expresses the\n character of the story; and that it originally belonged to the\n class of \u00e6tiological legends which everywhere weave themselves\n round peculiarities of ritual whose real origin has been\n forgotten or obscured.\u2015\u2015An older cultus-myth of the same\n kind is found in the Ph\u0153nician story in which Kronos actually\n sacrifices his only son \u1f38\u03b5\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4 (\u05d9\u05d7\u05d5\u05d3\u200e = \u05d9\u05b8\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u200e?) or \u1f38\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4 (\u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u200e?) to his\n father Uranus (Eusebius _Pr\u00e6paratio Evangelica_ i. 10, 29). The\n sacrifice of Iphigeneia, and the later modification in which a\n hind is substituted for the maiden, readily suggests itself as\n a parallel (Euripides, _Iphigenia in Aulis_ 1540 ff.).\n\n * * * * *\n\n =16.= end] Add \u05de\u05b4\u05de\u05b6\u05bc\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e as verse \u00b9\u00b2: so LXX, Vulgate.\u2015\u2015=18.= \u05e2\u05e7\u05d1 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u200e]\n elsewhere only 26\u2075, 2 Samuel 12\u2076.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n XXII. 20\u201224.\n _The Sons of N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r_\n (Yahwist, Redactors).\n\nIn the singular form of a report brought to Abraham, there is here\nintroduced a list of 12 tribes tracing their descent to N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r. Very\nfew of the names can be identified; but so far as the indications\ngo, they point to the region East and North-east of Palestine as the\narea peopled by the Na\u1e25orite family. The division into legitimate\n(\u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u00b3) and illegitimate (\u00b2\u2074) sons expresses a distinction between the\npure-blooded stock and hybrid, or perhaps alien and subjugated, clans\n(Guthe, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, 5).\n\n The verses bear the unmistakable signature of a Yahwistic\n genealogy: compare \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dd \u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05d0\u200e \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u2074, with 4\u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2076 10\u00b2\u00b9 19\u00b3\u2078; \u00b2\u00b9\u1d43\n with 10\u00b9\u2075; \u00b2\u00b3\u1d47 with 9\u00b9\u2079 (10\u00b2\u2079 25\u2074); \u05d9\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05d3\u200e \u00b2\u00b3 (see page 98). Of\n Priestly-Code\u2019s style and manner there is no trace; and with\n regard to _\u201bAram\u00e6an,\u2019\u0102r\u0101m_, there is a material discrepancy\n between the two documents (verse \u00b2\u00b9 compared with 10\u00b2\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427). The\n introductory formula \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d3\u05f3 \u05d4\u05d0\u05f3\u200e is not exclusively Elohistic (see\n on 15\u00b9), and in any case would be an insufficient reason for\n ascribing (Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der\n historischen B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 29 f.) the whole\n section to Elohist. See Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_\n 220 ff.\u2015\u2015The genealogy appears to have been inserted with\n reference to chapter 24, from which it was afterwards separated\n by the amalgamation of Priestly-Code (chapter 23) with the\n older documents. Its adaptation to this context is, however,\n very imperfect. Here Abraham is informed of the birth of\n N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r\u2019s _children_, whereas in the present text of 24 the\n _grand_children (Laban and Rebekah) are grown up. Moreover, with\n the excision of the gloss \u00b2\u00b3\u1d43 (_v.i._), the only point of direct\n contact with chapter 24 disappears; and even the gloss does\n not agree with the view of Rebekah\u2019s parentage originally given\n by Yahwist (see on 24\u00b9\u2075). Hence we must suppose that the basis\n of the passage is an ancient genealogy, which has been recast,\n annotated, and inserted by a Yahwistic writer at a stage _later_\n than the composition of chapter 24, but _earlier_ than the final\n redaction of the Pentateuch.\n\n\u200e =20.= \u05de\u05b4\u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e] see on 11\u00b2\u2079.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05e0\u05d7\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05da\u200e] 11\u00b2\u00b2.\u2015\u2015=21.= \u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u05e5\u200e] in 10\u00b2\u00b3 a\n subdivision of Aram, is here the principal (\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05db\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u200e) Na\u1e25orite\n tribe (compare 36\u00b2\u2078).\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d6\u200e (\u0392\u03b1\u03cd\u03be, \u0392\u03b1\u03cd\u03b6, etc.)] mentioned in\n Jeremiah 25\u00b2\u00b3 after D\u0115d\u0101n and T\u00eam\u0101, is probably the _B\u00e2zu_\n of Esarhaddon\u2019s inscription (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,\n ii. 130 f.), an unidentified district of North Arabia (so Job\n\u200e 32\u00b2).\u2015\u2015\u05e7\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e] unknown; see Praetorius, _Zeitschrift der deutschen\n morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, 1903, 780.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b2\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b2\u05e8\u05b8\u05dd\u200e (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03a3\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd)\n is possibly a gloss (Gunkel), but the classification of the\n powerful Aram\u00e6ans (see on 10\u00b2\u00b2) as a minor branch of the\n Na\u1e25orites is none the less surprising: see page 334 below.\u2015\u2015=22.=\n\u200e \u05db\u05b6\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d3\u200e] The eponym of the \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e. But whether by these the well-known\n Chald\u00e6ans of South Babylonia are meant is a difficult question.\n Probability seems in favour of the theory that here, as in 2\n Kings 24\u00b2, Job 1\u00b9\u2077, an Arabian (or rather Aram\u00e6an) nomadic tribe\n is to be understood, from which the Babylonian \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e may have\n sprung (Winckler _Altorientalische Forschungen_, ii. 250 ff.;\n Gunkel). The result has a bearing on the meaning of Arpak\u0161ad\n in 10\u00b2\u00b2 (see also on 11\u00b2\u2078).\u2015\u2015\u05d7\u05b2\u05d6\u05d5\u05b9\u200e (\u1f08\u03b6\u03b1\u1fe6)] probably the _\u1e2aaz\u00fb_\n mentioned after _B\u00e2zu_ in Esarhaddon\u2019s inscription (above).\u2015\u2015\u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u200e\n and \u05d9\u05b4\u05d3\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05e3\u200e (\u1f38\u03b5\u03bb\u03b4\u03ac\u03c6, \u1f38\u03b5\u03b4\u03bb\u03ac\u03c6) are not known. With the former have\n been compared Palmer \u05e4\u05dc\u05d3\u05e9\u05d5\u200e (Levy, _Zeitschrift der deutschen\n morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xiv. 440) and Sin. \u05e4\u05e0\u05d3\u05e9\u05d5\u200e\n (Cook, _A Glossary of the Aramaic Inscriptions_ 98; Lidzbarski\n _Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik_ 352), both personal\n names.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05ea\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e] as personal name 24\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 (Yahwist), 25\u00b2\u2070 28\u00b2\u1427 \u2075\n (Priestly-Code).\u2015\u2015=23a.= is a gloss (Dillmann, Gunkel) excluded\n by the general scheme of the genealogy and by the number 8 in\n \u00b2\u00b3\u1d47. The last consideration is decisive against Dillmann\u2019s view\n that the original text was \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05dc\u05b8\u05d1\u05b8\u05df \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05e8\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05e7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015=24.= \u05d5\u05bc\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dc\u05b7\u05d2\u05b0\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05b9\u200e] _casus\n pendens_: Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\u00a7 111 _h_, 147 _e_. \u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dc\u05b6\u05d2\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1\u200e = \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03c2\n (see Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 380): a \u1e24ittite\n origin is suggested by Jensen (_Zeitschrift der deutschen\n morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xlviii. 468 ff., developing a\n hint of Ewald).\u2015\u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_\n\u200e \u05e8\u05d5\u05de\u05d4\u200e, LXX \u1fec\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1, \u1fec\u03b5\u03b7\u03c1\u03ac, etc.\u2015\u2015\u05d8\u05b6\u05d1\u05b7\u05d7\u200e] rightly read by LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n in 2 Samuel 8\u2078 (Massoretic Text \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05d8\u05b7\u05d7\u200e \u2225 \u05d8\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea\u200e 1 Chronicles 18\u2078),\n a city of \u2019\u0102ram-\u1e92\u00f4b\u0101h, probably identical with the _Tubi\u1e2bi_\n of Tel-Amarna Tablets Number 127, and Papyrus Anastasi, near\n \u1e32adesh on the Orontes (but see M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa nach\n alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_, 173, 396).\u2015\u2015\u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u05dd\u200e (\u03a4\u03b1\u03b1\u03bc, \u0393\u03b1\u03b1\u03bc, etc.)]\n unknown.\u2015\u2015\u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1\u200e (\u03a4\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, \u0398\u03b1\u03b1\u03c2, etc.)] probably Egyptian _Te\u1e2bisi_,\n on the Orontes, North of \u1e32adesh (_Asien und Europa nach\n alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_, 258; Winckler _Mittheilungen\n der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, i. 207).\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05db\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (\u039c\u03b1\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1,\n \u039c\u03c9\u03c7\u03b1,)] Deuteronomy 3\u00b9\u2074, Joshua 12\u2075 13\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3 2 Samuel 10\u2076\u1427 \u2078,\n 1 Chronicles 19\u2076 \u1da0\u1427; an Aram\u00e6an tribe and state occupying the\n modern \u01e6\u014dl\u0101n, South of Hermon, and East of the Upper Jordan.\n\n To the discrepancies already noted (page 333) between the\n genealogy and chapter 24, Meyer (_Die Israeliten und ihre\n Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 239 ff.) adds the important observation that the\n territorial distribution of the sons of N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r fits in badly with\n the theory of Yahwist, which connects N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r and Laban with the\n city of \u1e24arran. He points out that the full-blooded Na\u1e25orites,\n so far as identified, are tribes of the Syro-Arabian desert,\n while those described as hybrids belong to the settled regions\n of Syria, where nomadic immigrants would naturally amalgamate\n with the native population. Now the Syro-Arabian desert is in\n other parts of the Old Testament the home of the _Bn\u00ea \u1e32edem_;\n and according to Elohist (see on 29\u00b9) it was among the _Bn\u00ea\n \u1e32edem_ that Jacob found his uncle Laban. Meyer holds that this\n was the original tradition, and finds a confirmation of it in\n the geographical background of the list before us. In other\n words, the Israelites were historically related, not to the\n civilised Aram\u00e6ans about \u1e24arran, but to nomadic Aram\u00e6an tribes\n who had not crossed the Euphrates, but still roamed the deserts\n where Aram\u00e6ans first appear in history (see page 206). Yahwist\u2019s\n representation is partly due to a misunderstanding of the name\n \u2018Aram\u00e6an,\u2019 which led him to transfer the kinsfolk of Abraham\n to the region round \u1e24arran, which was known as the chief seat\n of Aram\u00e6an culture. The genealogy is therefore an authentic\n document of great antiquity, which has fortunately been\n preserved by a Yahwistic editor in spite of its inconsistency\n with the main narrative. It may be added that the Palestinian\n view-point will explain the subordinate position assigned to the\n name _Aram_. It can hardly be denied that Meyer\u2019s reasoning is\n sufficiently cogent to outweigh the traces of the names N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r\n and Milkah in the neighbourhood of \u1e24arran (pages 232, 237 f.).\n Meyer\u2019s explanation of N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r as a modification of _N\u0101h\u0101r_ (the\n Euphrates) is, however, not likely to commend itself.\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIII.\n _Purchase of the Cave of Machpelah_\n (Priestly-Code).\n\nOn the death of Sarah at the age of 127 years (\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2), Abraham becomes,\nthrough formal purchase from the \u1e24ittites, the owner of the field and\ncave of Machpelah (\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2078), and there buries his dead (\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2070).\u2015\u2015This\nis the second occasion (compare chapter 17) on which the Priestly\nepitome of Abraham\u2019s life expands into circumstantial and even graphic\nnarration. The transaction must therefore have had a special interest\nfor the writer of the Code; though it is not easy to determine of what\nnature that interest was (see the closing note).\n\n _Source._\u2015\u2015That the chapter belongs to Priestly-Code is proved\n (a) by allusions in later parts of the Code (25\u2079 \u1da0\u1427 49\u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\n 50\u00b9\u00b3); (b) by the juristic formalism and redundancy of the style;\n (c) by the names \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d7\u05ea\u200e, \u05de\u05db\u05e4\u05dc\u05d4\u200e, \u05e7\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u200e, \u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05db\u05e0\u05e2\u05df\u200e; and the expressions\n\u200e \u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u200e, \u2074; \u05d0\u05d7\u05d6\u05d4\u200e, \u2074\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2070; \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0\u200e, \u2076; \u05e7\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd\u200e, \u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u2070; \u05de\u05e7\u05e0\u05d4\u200e, \u00b9\u2078 (see the notes;\n and compare Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel). Against this we have\n to set the \u05d0\u05e0\u05db\u05d9\u200e of verse \u2074, which is never elsewhere used by\n Priestly-Code.\u2015\u2015At the same time it is difficult to acquiesce\n in the opinion that we have to do with a \u2018free composition\u2019\n of the writers of Priestly-Code. The passage has far more the\n appearance of a transcript from real life than any other section\n in the whole of Priestly-Code; and its markedly secular tone\n (the name of God is never once mentioned) is in strong contrast\n to the free introduction of the divine activity in human affairs\n which is characteristic of that document. It seems probable that\n the narrative is based on some local tradition by which the form\n of representation has been partly determined. A similar view\n is taken by Eerdmans (_Die Komposition der Genesis_ 88), who,\n however, assigns the chapter to the oldest stratum of Genesis,\n dating at latest from 700 B.C. Steuernagel (_Theologische\n Studien und Kritiken_, 1908, 628) agrees that chapter 23 is not\n in Priestly-Code\u2019s manner; but thinks it a midrashic expansion\n of a brief notice in that document.\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 Sayce\u2019s contention (_The Early History of the Hebrews_,\n 57 ff.), that the incident \u2018belongs essentially to the early\n Babylonian and not to the Assyrian period,\u2019 is not borne\n out by the cuneiform documents to which he refers; the\n correspondences adduced being quite as close with contracts\n of the later Assyrian kings as with those of the age of\n \u1e2aammurabi. Thus, the expression \u2018full silver\u2019 (verse \u2079) is\n frequent under Sargon and subsequently (_Keilinschriftliche\n Bibliothek_, iv. 108 ff.); under the first Babylonian\n dynasty the phrase is \u2018silver to the full price\u2019 (_ib._\n 7 ff.). The formula for \u2018before\u2019 (a witness) is, in the\n earlier tablets, _ma\u1e2bar_; in the later, _p\u00e2n_,\u2015\u2015neither the\n precise equivalent of those here used (\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b8\u05d6\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9\u200e and \u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b5\u05d9\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9\u200e). There\n remains only the expression \u2018_weigh_ silver,\u2019 which does\n appear to be characteristic of the older contracts; but\n since this phrase survived in Hebrew till the latest times\n (Zechariah 11\u00b9\u00b2, Esther 3\u2079), it is plain that nothing can\n be inferred from it. Sayce has not strengthened his case by\n the arguments in _The Expository Times_, 1907, 418 ff.; see\n Driver 230, and _Addenda_\u2077, XXXVII f.\n\n=1, 2. The death of Sarah.=\u2015\u2015=2.= _\u1e32iryath-\u2019Arba\u201b_] an old name of\nHebron, _v.i._\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b9\u05d0\u200e] not \u2018came,\u2019 but _went in_\u2015\u2015to where the body\nlay.\u2015\u2015_to wail ... weep_] with the customary loud demonstrations of\ngrief (Schwally, _Das Leben nach dem Tode_, 20; _A Dictionary of the\nBible_, iii. 453 ff.).\n\n * * * * *\n\n =1.= After \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u200e it is advisable to insert \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9\u200e (Ball, Kittel:\n compare 47\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2078). The omission may have caused the addition of\n the gloss \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9 \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e at the end (wanting in LXX).\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05e7\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u200e\n (LXX \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b2\u03cc\u03ba)] The old name of Hebron (Joshua 14\u00b9\u2075,\n Judges 1\u00b9\u2070), though seemingly in use after the Exile (unless\n Nehemiah 11\u00b2\u2075 be an artificial archaism [Meyer _Die Entstehung\n des Judenthums_ 106]). The name means \u2018Four cities\u2019 (see on \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05e8\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d1\u05b7\u05e2\u200e, page 326). The personification of \u05d0\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05e2\u200e as _heros eponymus_\n (Joshua 14\u00b9\u2075 15\u00b9\u00b3 21\u00b9\u00b9) has no better authority (as LXX shows)\n than the mistake of a copyist (see Moore, _Judges_ 25). Jewish\n Midrash gave several explanations of the numeral: amongst others\n from the 4 patriarchs buried there\u2015\u2015Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and\n _Adam_ (_Bereshith Rabba_; _P. R. Eliezer_, 20, 36; Rashi)\u2015\u2015the\n last being inferred from \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd \u05d4\u05b7\u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u200e in Joshua 14\u00b9\u2075 (Jerome,\n _Onomastica Sacra_, 84\u00b9\u00b2). The addition of _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d0\u05dc \u05e2\u05de\u05e7\u200e (LXX \u1f25 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9)\n seems a corruption of \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9 \u05e2\u05e0\u05e7\u200e (Ball) or (with LXX) \u05d0\u05b5\u05dd \u05e2\u05f3\u200e in Joshua\n\u200e 15\u00b9\u00b3 21\u00b9\u00b9.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05e1\u05e4\u05d3\u200e] In Hebrew usage, as in that of all the cognate\n languages, \u05e1\u05e4\u05d3\u200e means \u2018to wail\u2019; see Micah 1\u2078.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=3\u20127. The request for a burying-place.=\u2015\u2015The negotiations fall into\nthree well-defined stages; and while they illustrate the leisurely\ncourtesy of the East in such matters, they cover a real reluctance\nof the \u1e24ittites to give Abraham a legal title to land by purchase\n(Gunkel). To his first request they respond with alacrity: the best of\ntheir sepulchres is at his disposal.\u2015\u2015=3.= _arose_] from the sitting\nposture of the mourner (2 Samuel 12\u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2070).\u2015\u2015_the sons of \u1e24\u0113th_] see on\n10\u00b9\u2075.\n\n Priestly-Code is the only document in which \u1e24ittites are\n definitely located in the South of Canaan (compare 26\u00b3\u2074 36\u00b2);\n and the historic accuracy of the statement is widely questioned.\n It is conceivable that the Cappadocian \u1e24ittites (page 215) had\n extended their empire over the whole country prior to the Hebrew\n invasion. But taking into account that Priestly-Code appears to\n use \u2018\u1e24\u0113th\u2019 interchangeably with \u2018Canaan\u2019 (compare 26\u00b3\u2074 27\u2074\u2076 36\u00b2\u1d47\n with 28\u00b9\u1427 \u2078 36\u00b2\u1d43), it may be more reasonable to hold that with\n him \u2018\u1e24ittite\u2019 is a general designation of the pre-Israelite\n inhabitants, as \u2018Canaanite\u2019 with Yahwist and \u2018Amorite\u2019 with\n Elohist (compare Joshua 1\u2074, Ezekiel 16\u00b3). It may, of course,\n be urged that such an idea could not have arisen unless the\n \u1e24ittites had once been in actual occupation of the land, and\n that this assumption would best explain the all but constant\n occurrence of the name in the lists of conquered peoples (see\n page 284). At present, however, we have no proof that this was\n the case; and a historic connexion between the northern \u1e24ittites\n and the natives of Hebron remains problematical. Another\n solution is propounded by Jastrow (_Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_,\n 2094 ff.), viz., that Priestly-Code\u2019s \u1e24ittites are an entirely\n distinct stock, having nothing but the name in common with\n either the \u2018conventional\u2019 \u1e24ittites of the enumerations or the\n great empire of North Syria. See Driver 228 ff.\n\n=4.= _a sojourner and dweller_] so Leviticus 25\u00b3\u2075\u1427 \u2074\u2077, Numbers 35\u00b9\u2075,\nand (in a religious sense) Psalms 39\u00b9\u00b3 (compare 1 Peter 2\u00b9\u00b9). The\ntechnical distinction between \u05d2\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e and \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d1\u200e is obscure (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=6.=\n_O if thou wouldst hear us_ (read \u05dc\u05d5\u05bc \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b8\u05e2\u05b5\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u200e, _v.i._)]. The formula always\nintroduces a suggestion preferable to that just advanced: compare\n\u200e\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3 \u00b9\u2075.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05b0\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e is more than \u2018a mighty prince\u2019 (as Psalms 36\u2077 68\u00b9\u2076\n104\u00b9\u2076 etc.); it means one deriving his patent of nobility straight\nfrom Almighty God.\u2015\u2015_Not a man of us will withhold, etc._] therefore\nthere is no need to buy. Behind their generosity there lurks an\naversion to the idea of purchase.\u2015\u2015=7.= The verse has almost the force\nof a refrain (compare 12). The first stage of the negotiations is\nconcluded.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =4.= \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d1\u200e] Abraham Ibn Ezra \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d2\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200e. According to\n Bertholet (_Die stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu\n den fremden_ 156\u2012166), the \u05ea\u05bc\u05f3\u200e is simply a _g\u00ear_ (see on 12\u00b9\u2070)\n who resides fixedly in one place, without civil rights, and\n perhaps incapable of holding land; see _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_,\n\u200e 4818.\u2015\u2015=5.= \u05dc\u05b5\u05d0\u05de\u05b9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e (so verse \u00b9\u2074) is an abnormal combination,\n doubtfully supported by Leviticus 11\u00b9. The last word must be\n joined to verse \u2076, and read either \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0\u200e (as verse \u00b9\u00b9: so _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX), or \u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u200e (as \u00b9\u00b3). The\n last is the only form suitable in all four cases (\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2075).\n On \u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u200e with imperative, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 110 _e_.\u2015\u2015=6.=\n\u200e \u05d9\u05b4\u05db\u05b0\u05dc\u05b6\u05d4\u200e] = \u05d9\u05b4\u05db\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d0\u200e, Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 75 _qq_.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=8\u201212. The appeal to \u201bEphr\u00f4n.=\u2015\u2015In his second speech Abraham shows\nhis tact first by ignoring tacitly the suggestion of a free gift, and\nthen by bringing the favourable public opinion just expressed to bear\non the individual he wishes to reach.\u2015\u2015=9.= _On the cave of Makp\u0113l\u0101h_,\nsee at the close.\u2015\u2015_in the end of his field_] Abraham apparently\ndoes not contemplate the purchase of the whole field: that was thrust\non him by \u201bEphr\u00f4n\u2019s offer.\u2015\u2015_for full money_] see page 335 above\n(footnote). The same expression occurs in 1 Chronicles 21\u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2074.\u2015\u2015=10.=\n_entering the gate, etc._] _i.e._, his fellow-citizens, with the right\nof sitting in public assembly at the gate (compare \u05d9\u05b9\u05e6\u05b0\u05d0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05c1\u05f3 \u05e2\u05f3\u200e, 34\u00b2\u2074).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =8.= \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05db\u05dd\u200e] \u2018in accordance with your [inner] mind.\u2019 Compare\n 2 Kings 9\u00b9\u2075, 1 Samuel 20\u2074: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 661\n a.\u2015\u2015=9.= \u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05b7\u05bc\u05db\u05b0\u05e4\u05b5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] Elsewhere only 25\u2079 49\u00b3\u2070 50\u00b9\u00b3; always with\n article, showing that it retained an appellative sense. LXX (\u03c4\u1f78\n \u03c3\u03c0\u03ae\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd), Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f\n are probably right in deriving it from \u221a \u05db\u05e4\u05dc\u200e, \u2018double\u2019\n (see page 339).\u2015\u2015=10.= \u05dc\u05db\u05dc\u200e] \u05dc\u05b0\u200e = \u2018namely\u2019 (see on 9\u00b9\u2070:\n compare Brown-Driver-Briggs, 514 b); in \u00b9\u2078 it is replaced\n by \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u200e = \u2018among.\u2019\u2015\u2015=11.= For \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0\u200e point \u05dc\u05bb\u05d0\u200e: see on \u2075.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05ea\u05ea\u05d9 \u05dc\u05da\u200e] LXX\n omitted.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05b0\u05ea\u05b7\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05d4\u05b8\u200e is perfect of instant action: \u2018I give it\u2019;\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 106 _m_.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=13\u201216. The purchase of the field.=\u2015\u2015With the same tactful\npersistency, Abraham seizes on \u201bEphr\u00f4n\u2019s expression of goodwill,\nwhile waving aside the idea of a gift.\u2015\u2015=13.= _If only thou\u2015\u2015pray\nhear me!_] The anakolouthon expresses the polite embarrassment of the\nspeaker.\u2015\u2015=14, 15.= \u201bEphr\u00f4n\u2019s resistance being now broken down, he\nnames his price with the affectation of generosity still observed in\nthe East.\u00b9\u2015\u2015_land_ [worth] _400 shekels ... what is that...?_] The\nword for \u2018land\u2019 is better omitted with LXX; it is not the land but the\nmoney that \u201bEphr\u00f4n pretends to disparage.\u2015\u2015=16.= Abraham immediately\npays the sum asked, and clenches the bargain.\u2015\u2015_current with the\nmerchant_] The precious metals circulated in ingots, whose weight\nwas approximately known, without, however, superseding the necessity\nfor \u2018weighing\u2019 in important transactions (Benzinger, _Hebr\u00e4ische\nArch\u00e4ologie_\u00b2 197; Kennedy, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 420;\n_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, iii. 391 f.).\u00b2\n\n \u00b9 \u201cThe peasants will often say, when a person asks the price\n of any thing which they have for sale, \u2018Receive it as a\n present\u2019: this answer having become a common form of speech,\n they know that advantage will not be taken of it; and\n when desired again to name the price, they will do so, but\n generally name a sum that is exhorbitant.\u201d Lane, _An Account\n of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_\u2075 ii.\n 13 f.\n\n \u00b2 Cuneiform records recently discovered in Cappadocia seem to\n prove that shekels \u201cstamped with a seal\u201d were in use in the\n time of \u1e2aammurabi. See Sayce, _The Contemporary Review_,\n August, 1907, page 259.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =13.= For \u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u200e, LXX, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f (? Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5) read \u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u200e,\n mistaking the idiom.\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u200e: \u05dc\u05b5\u05d0\u05de\u05b9\u05e8\u200e] as \u2075.\u2015\u2015=15.= LXX (\u039f\u1f50\u03c7\u03af,\n \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5, \u1f00\u03ba\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03b1 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1) does not render \u05d0\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5\u200e, but the \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 is odd.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u200e]\n better \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b7\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u200e (LXX).\u2015\u2015=16.= \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e1\u05d7\u05e8\u200e] The only other instance of this\n use of \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u200e (2 Kings 12\u2075) is corrupt (read \u05e2\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05da\u05b0\u200e, LXX).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=17\u201220. Summary and conclusion.=\u2015\u2015=17, 18= are in the form of a\nlegal contract. Specifications of the dimensions and boundaries of\na piece of land, and of the buildings, trees, etc., upon it, are\ncommon in ancient contracts of sale at all periods; compare _e.g._\n_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, iv. 7, 17, 33 (1st Babylonian\ndynasty), 101, and 161 (8th century B.C.), 223\u20125 (6th century); the\n_Assouan Papyri_ (5th century); and especially the Petra Inscription\ncited in _Authority and Arch\u00e6ology_, page 135.\n\n The traditional site of the Cave of Makp\u0113l\u0101h is on the East\n side of the narrow valley in which Hebron lies, and just within\n the modern city (_el-\u1e2aal\u012bl_). The place is marked by a sacred\n enclosure (the _\u1e24ar\u0101m_), within which Christians have seldom\n been admitted. The South-east half is occupied by a mosque,\n and six cenotaphs are shown: those of Abraham and Sarah in\n the middle, of Isaac and Rebekah in the South-east (within the\n mosque), and of Jacob and Leah in the North-west: that of Joseph\n is just outside the \u1e24ar\u0101m on the North-west. The cave below\n has never been examined in modern times, but is stated by its\n guardians to be double. There is no reason to doubt that the\n tradition as to the site has descended from biblical times;\n and it is quite probable that the name Makp\u0113l\u0101h is derived\n from the feature just referred to. That the name included the\n field attached to the cave (verse \u00b9\u2079 49\u00b3\u2070 50\u00b9\u00b3) is natural;\n and even its extension to the adjacent district (see on \u00b9\u2077)\n is perhaps not a decisive objection.\u2015\u2015For further particulars,\n see Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, ii. 75 ff.;\n Baedeker, _Palestine and Syria: handbook for travellers_\u00b3\n 141 f.; _Palestine Exploration Fund: Quarterly Statements_,\n 1882, 197\u2012214; Warren, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 197 ff.;\n Driver, _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 228.\n\n Whatever assumption we make as to the origin of this narrative,\n Priestly-Code\u2019s peculiar interest in the transaction is a\n fact that has to be explained. The motive usually assigned is\n that the purchase was a pledge of the possession of the land\n by Abraham\u2019s descendants; that view is, indeed, supported by\n nothing in the passage (see Gunkel 241), but it is difficult\n to imagine any other explanation. It is just conceivable that\n the elaboration of the narrative was due to a dispute as to the\n possession of the sacred place between Jews and Edomites in the\n age of Priestly-Code. It has been held probable on independent\n grounds that the Edomites had advanced as far north as Hebron\n during the Exile (see Meyer _Die Entstehung des Judenthums_\n 106, 114), and from Nehemiah 11\u00b2\u2075 we learn that a colony of Jews\n settled there after the return. We can at least imagine that a\n contest for the ownership of the holy place (like those which\n have so largely determined the later history of Palestine) would\n arise; and that such a situation would account for the emphasis\n with which the Priestly jurists asserted the legal claim\n of the Jewish community to the traditional burying-place of\n its ancestors. So Gunkel\u00b9 251; _Students\u2019 Old Testament_, 99:\n otherwise Gunkel\u00b2 241 f.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e=17.= \u05e7\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd\u200e] = \u2018pass into permanent possession,\u2019 as Leviticus 25\u00b3\u2070\n27\u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2079 (Priestly-Code).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05de\u05db\u05e4\u05dc\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u1f43\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c0\u03bb\u1ff7\n\u03c3\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u1ff3 is nonsense; but Vulgate _in quo erat spelunca duplex_\nsuggests a reading \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9 \u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05bc\u05f3\u200e which (if it were better attested)\nwould remove the difficulty of supposing that the name \u2018double\ncave\u2019 was applied to the district around.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u200e] _The Samaritan\nRecension of the Pentateuch_ \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u200e as in \u00b9\u2079 = \u2018in front of,\u2019\nperhaps \u2018to the East of.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIV.\n _Procuring a Wife for Isaac_\n (Yahwist, [Elohist?]).\n\nAbraham on his death-bed (see below) solemnly charges his\nhouse-steward with the duty of procuring a wife for Isaac amongst his\nMesopotamian relatives (\u00b9\u207b\u2079). The servant is providentially guided\nto the house of N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r, in whose daughter (see on verse \u00b9\u2075) Rebekah he\nis led to recognise the divinely appointed bride for Isaac (\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u2074\u2079).\nHaving obtained the consent of the relatives, and of the maiden\nherself (\u2075\u2070\u207b\u2076\u00b9), he brings her to Canaan, where Isaac marries her\n(\u2076\u00b2\u207b\u2076\u2077).\n\n The chapter is one of the most perfect specimens of descriptive\n writing that the Book of Genesis contains. It is marked by\n idyllic grace and simplicity, picturesque elaboration of scenes\n and incidents, and a certain \u2018epic\u2019 amplitude of treatment,\n seen in the repetition of the story in the form of a speech (see\n Driver 230). These artistic elements so predominate that the\n primary ethnographic motive is completely submerged. It may be\n conjectured that the basis of the narrative was a reinforcement\n of the Aram\u00e6an element in the Hebrew stock, as in the kindred\n story of Jacob and his wives (see Steuernagel, _Die Einwanderung\n der israelitischen St\u00e4mme in Kanaan_ 39 f.). But if such a\n historical kernel existed, it is quite lost sight of in the\n graphic delineation of human character, and of ancient Eastern\n life, which is to us the main interest of the passage. We\n must also note the profoundly religious conception of Yahwe\u2019s\n providence as an unseen power, overruling events in answer to\n prayer. All these features seem to indicate a somewhat advanced\n phase in the development of the patriarchal tradition. The\n chapter belongs to the literary type most fully represented in\n the Joseph-narrative (compare Gunkel 220).\n\n _Source and Unity of the Narrative._\u2015\u2015From the general character\n of the style, and the consistent use of the name \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, critical\n opinion has been practically unanimous in assigning the whole\n chapter to Yahwist. It is admitted, however, that certain\n \u2018unevennesses of representation\u2019 occur; and the question arises\n whether these are to be explained by accidental dislocations\n of the text, or by the interweaving of two parallel recensions.\n Thus, the servant\u2019s objection that the maiden may not be willing\n to follow him (\u2075\u1427 \u00b3\u2079), is met by Abraham in two ways: on the one\n hand by the confident assurance that this will not happen (\u2077\u1427 \u2074\u2070),\n and on the other by absolving him from his oath if his mission\n should miscarry (\u2078\u1427 \u2074\u00b9). In \u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1427 Laban _twice_ goes out to the\n man at the well (\u00b2\u2079\u1d47 \u2225 \u00b3\u2070\u1d47); \u00b2\u2078 speaks of the _mother\u2019s_ house,\n \u00b2\u00b3\u1d47 of the _father\u2019s_: in \u2075\u2070 the servant negotiates with _Laban\n and Bethuel_, in \u2075\u00b3\u1427 \u2075\u2075 with the _brother and mother_ of the\n bride; in \u2075\u00b9 the request is at once agreed to by the _relatives_\n without regard to Rebekah\u2019s wish, whereas in \u2075\u2077 \u1da0\u1427 the decision\n is left to _herself_; in \u2075\u2079 Rebekah is sent away with her\n _nurse_, in \u2076\u00b9\u1d43 she takes her own _maidens_ with her; her\n departure is _twice_ recorded (\u2076\u00b9\u1d43 \u2225 \u2076\u00b9\u1d47). These doublets and\n variants are too numerous to be readily accounted for either\n by transpositions of the text (Dillmann al.) or by divergences\n in the _oral_ tradition (_Students\u2019 Old Testament_, 96); and\n although no complete analysis is here attempted, the presence\n of two narratives must be recognised. That one of these is\n Yahwist is quite certain; but it is to be observed that the\n characteristically Yahwistic expressions are somewhat sparsely\n distributed, and leave an ample margin of neutral ground\n for critical ingenuity to sift out the variants between two\n recensions.\u00b9 The problem has been attacked with great acuteness\n and skill by Gunkel (215\u2012221) and Procksch (14 f.), though with\n very discordant results. I agree with Procksch that the second\n component is in all probability Elohist, mainly on the ground\n that a fusion of Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f and Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43 (Gunkel)\n is without parallel, whereas Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43 and Elohist are\n combined in chapter 21. The stylistic criteria are, indeed, too\n indecisive to permit of a definite conclusion; but the parallels\n instanced above can easily be arranged in two series, one\n of which is free from positive marks of Yahwist; while, in\n the other, everything is consistent with the supposition that\n Abraham\u2019s residence is Beersheba (see page 241 above).\n\n \u200e \u00b9 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, \u00b9\u1427 \u00b3\u1427 \u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2077\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9\u1427 \u00b3\u2075\u1427 \u2074\u2070\u1427 \u2074\u00b2\u1427 \u2074\u2074\u1427 \u2074\u2078\u1427 \u2075\u2070\u1427 \u2075\u00b9\u1427 \u2075\u00b2\u1427 \u2075\u2076;\n \u200e \u05d0\u05e8\u05dd \u05e0\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u00b9\u2070 (against Priestly-Code\u2019s \u05e4\u05d3\u05df \u05d0\u05e8\u05dd\u200e); \u05d0\u05e8\u05e6\u05d9 \u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05ea\u05d9\u200e, \u2074 (12\u00b9);\n \u200e \u05d1\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e \u00b9 (see on 18\u00b9\u00b9); \u05d8\u05d1\u05ea \u05de\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4\u200e, \u00b9\u2076 (26\u2077, compare 12\u00b9\u00b9); \u05d9\u05d3\u05e2\u200e, \u00b9\u2076\n (see on 4\u00b9); \u05d9\u05e9\u200e with suffix and participle \u2074\u00b2\u1427 \u2074\u2079; \u05d8\u05e8\u05dd\u200e, \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u2074\u2075;\n \u200e \u05d4\u05e6\u05dc\u05d9\u05d7\u200e, \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u2074\u2070\u1427 \u2074\u00b2\u1427 \u2075\u2076 (39\u00b2\u1427 \u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3); \u05d4\u05e7\u05e8\u05d4\u200e, \u00b9\u00b2 (27\u00b2\u2070); \u05e8\u05d5\u05e5 \u05dc\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea\u200e, \u00b9\u2077\n (see 18\u00b2); \u05e0\u05d0\u200e, \u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3\u1427 \u2074\u00b2\u1427 \u2074\u00b3\u1427 \u2074\u2075.\n\n _The Death of Abraham._\u2015\u2015It is impossible to escape the\n impression that in verses \u00b9\u207b\u2079 Abraham is very near his end,\n and that in \u2076\u00b2\u207b\u2076\u2077 his death is presupposed. It follows that\n the account of the event in Jehovist must have occurred in this\n chapter, and been suppressed by the Redactor in favour of that\n of Priestly-Code (25 \u2077\u207b\u00b9\u00b9), according to which Abraham survived\n the marriage of Isaac by some 35 years (compare 25\u00b2\u2070). The only\n question is whether it happened before or after the departure\n of the servant. Except in \u00b9\u2074\u1d47{\u03b1}, the servant invariably speaks\n as if his master were still alive (compare \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2074\u1d47{\u03b2}\u1427 \u00b2\u2077\u1427 \u00b3\u2077\u1427 \u2074\u00b2\u1427\n \u2074\u2074\u1d47\u1427 \u2074\u2078\u1427 \u2075\u00b9\u1427 \u2075\u2074\u1427 \u2075\u2076). In \u2076\u2075, on other hand, he seems to be aware,\n before meeting Isaac, that Abraham is no more. There is here\n a slight diversity of representation, which may be due to the\n composition of sources. Gunkel supposes that in the document to\n which \u00b9\u2074\u1d47{\u03b1}\u1427 \u00b3\u2076\u1d47 and \u2076\u2075 belong (Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43), the death was\n recorded after \u2079 (and related by the servant after \u2074\u00b9); while in\n the other (Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f) it was first noticed in connexion with\n the servant\u2019s meeting with Isaac (before \u2076\u2076). Procksch thinks\n Elohist\u2019s notice followed verse \u2079, but doubts whether Abraham\u2019s\n death was presupposed by Yahwist\u2019s account of the servant\u2019s\n return.\u2015\u2015Verse \u00b3\u2076\u1d47 is thought to point _back_ to 25\u2075; and\n hence some critics (Hupfeld, Wellhausen, Dillmann, al.) suppose\n that 25\u00b9\u207b\u2076 \u207d\u00b9\u00b9\u1d47\u207e originally preceded chapter 24; while others\n (Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Gunkel) find a more suitable place\n for 25\u2075 (with or without \u00b9\u00b9\u1d47) between 24\u00b9 and 24\u00b2. See, further,\n on 25 \u00b9\u207b\u2076 below.\n\n=1\u20129. The servant\u2019s commission.=\u2015\u2015=1.= _had blessed, etc._] His\nlife as recorded is, indeed, one of unclouded prosperity.\u2015\u2015=2.= _the\noldest_ (_i.e._ senior in rank) _servant, etc._] who, in default of\nan heir, would have succeeded to the property (15\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427), and still acts\nas the trusted guardian of the family interests; compare the position\nof Ziba in 2 Samuel 9\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 16\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015_put thy hand, etc._] Only again\n47\u00b2\u2079)\u2015\u2015another death-bed scene! It is, in fact, only the imminence of\ndeath that can account for the action here: had Abraham expected to\nlive, a simple command would have sufficed (Gunkel).\n\n The reference is to an oath by the genital organs, as emblems\n of the life-giving power of deity,\u2015\u2015a survival of primitive\n religion whose significance had probably been forgotten in the\n time of the narrator. Traces have been found in various parts\n of the world: see Ewald _Antiquities of Israel_ 19\u2076 [English\n translation]; Dillmann 301; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des\n alten Orients_\u00b2, 395; and especially the striking Australian\n parallel cited by Spurreil (\u00b2218) from Sir G. Grey.\u00b9 By\n Jewish writers it was considered an appeal to the covenant\n of circumcision (Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, Jerome _Qu\u00e6stiones sive\n Traditiones hebraic\u00e6 in Genesim_, Rashi; so Tuch, Delitzsch).\n Abraham Ibn Ezra explains it as a symbol of subjection, (adding\n that it was still a custom in India); Ewald, Dillmann, Holzinger,\n al. as invoking posterity (\u05d9\u05b9\u05e6\u05b0\u05d0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d9\u05b0\u05e8\u05b5\u05db\u05d5\u05b9\u200e, 46\u00b2\u2076, Exodus 1\u2075, Judges 8\u00b3\u2070)\n to maintain the sanctity of the oath.\n\n \u00b9 \u201cOne native remains seated on the ground with his heels\n tucked under him...; the one who is about to narrate a\n death to him approaches ... and seats himself cross-legged\n upon the thighs of the other; ... and the one who is seated\n uppermost _places his hands under the thighs of his friend_;\n ... an inviolable pledge to avenge the death has by this\n ceremony passed between the two.\u201d\n\n=3.= _God of heaven and of earth_] an expression for the divine\nomnipresence in keeping with the spiritual idea of God\u2019s providence\nwhich pervades the narrative. The full phrase is not again found\n(see verse \u2077).\u2015\u2015_thou shalt not take, etc._] The motive is a natural\nconcern for the purity of the stock: see Bertholet, _Die stellung der\nIsraeliten und der Juden zu den fremden_ 67.\u2015\u2015=5\u20128.= The servant\u2019s\nfear is not that he may fail to find a bride for Isaac, but that\nthe woman may refuse to be separated so far from her kindred: would\nthe oath bind him in that event to take Isaac back to \u1e24arran? The\nsuggestion elicits from the dying patriarch a last utterance of his\nunclouded faith in God.\u2015\u2015=7.= _God of heaven_] _v.i._\u2015\u2015_send his\nAngel_] compare Exodus 23\u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3 33\u00b2, Numbers 20\u00b9\u2076. The Angel is here\nan invisible presence, almost a personification of God\u2019s providence;\ncontrast the older conception in 16\u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =3.= \u05dc\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u200e] LXX + \u1f38\u03c3\u03b1\u03ac\u03ba (as verse \u2074); so verse \u2077.\u2015\u2015=4.= \u05db\u05d9\u200e] _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05db\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015At the end LXX,\n Vulgate add \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05dd\u200e as verse \u2077.\u2015\u2015=5.= \u05d0\u05b8\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] always with negative,\n except Isaiah 1\u00b9\u2079, Job 39\u2079 (Sirach 6\u00b3\u00b3).\u2015\u2015=7.= \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] appears\n only in late books (Jonah 1\u2079, 2 Chronicles 36\u00b2\u00b3 = Ezra 1\u00b2,\n Nehemiah 1\u2074 \u1da0\u1427 2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2070: \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u200e is frequent in Aramaic parts of\n Ezra and Daniel). The words are wanting in one Hebrew MS (see\n Kittel), and may be deleted as a gloss. Otherwise we must add\n with LXX \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200e (compare \u00b3).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e0\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2 \u05dc\u05d9\u200e] probably interpolated\n by a later hand (Dillmann); see page 284 above.\u2015\u2015=8.= \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05da\u200e] LXX +\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05e9\u05d1\u200e (but _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ \u05ea\u05e9\u05d9\u05d1\u200e)] jussive with \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0\u200e; Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 109 _d_.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=10\u201214. The servant at the well.=\u2015\u2015On the fidelity of the picture to\nEastern life, see Thomson, _The Land and the Book_, i. 261.\u2015\u2015=10.=\n_ten camels_] to bring home the bride and her attendants (\u2076\u00b9). But\n\u201csuch an expedition would not now be undertaken ... with any other\nanimals, nor with a less number.\u201d\u2015\u2015_goodly things_] for presents to\nthe bride and her relations (\u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u2075\u00b3).\u2015\u2015On _\u2019Aram Naharaim_, see the\nfootnote.\u2015\u2015_the city of N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r_ in Yahwist would be \u1e24arran (compare\n27\u2074\u00b3 28\u00b9\u2070 29\u2074): but the phrase is probably an Elohistic variant to\n_\u2019Aram Naharaim_, in which case a much less distant locality may be\nreferred to (see on 29\u00b9).\u2015\u2015=12\u201214.= The servant\u2019s prayer. The request\nfor a sign is illustrated by Judges 6\u00b3\u2076 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, 1 Samuel 14\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427: note\n\u200e\u05d4\u05b4\u05e0\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b8\u05bd\u05e0\u05b9\u05db\u05b4\u05d9 [\u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b0\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc]\u200e in all three cases. A spontaneous offer to draw for the\ncamels would (if Thomson\u2019s experience be typical) be unusual,\u2015\u2015in\nany case the mark of a kind and obliging disposition.\u2015\u2015=13.= _the\ndaughters ... to draw water_] compare 1 Samuel 9\u00b9\u00b9.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =10.= Unless we admit a duality of sources, it will be necessary\n to omit the first \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b6\u05da\u05b0\u200e (with LXX).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u200e] better \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u200e (LXX, Vulgate,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05e8\u05dd \u05e0\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] Deuteronomy 23\u2075, Judges 3\u2078, Psalms 60\u00b2,\n 1 Chronicles 19\u2076\u2020. Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d0\u05e8\u05dd \u05d3\u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05e8\u05ea\u200e. The identity of\n the second element with Egyptian _Naharin_, Tel-Amarna Tablets\n _Na\u1e2brima_ (79\u00b9\u2074 [rev.], 181\u00b3\u2074, 119\u00b3\u00b2) is beyond dispute; but\n it is perhaps too readily assumed that geographically the\n expressions correspond. The Egyptian Naharin extended from East\n of the Euphrates to the valley of the Orontes (_Asien und Europa\n nach alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_, 249 ff.); all that can be\n certainly affirmed about the biblical term is that it embraced\n _both_ sides of the Euphrates (\u1e24arran on the East; Pethor on\n the West [Deuteronomy 23\u2075]). Since there is no trace of a dual\n in the Egyptian and Canaanite forms, it is doubtful if the\n Hebrew ending be anything but a Massoretic caprice (read \u05e0\u05d4\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e?),\n or a locative termination, to be read _-\u0101m_ (Wellhausen _Die\n Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des Alten\n Testaments_\u00b2 45\u00b9; Meyer, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche\n Wissenschaft_, iii. 307 f.: compare Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 88\n _c_, and Strack page 135 f. with reff.). There would in\n this last case be no need to find a _second_ river (Tigris,\n Chaboras, Bali\u1e2b, Orontes, etc.) to go with Euphrates. The old\n identification with the Greek Mesopotamia must apparently be\n abandoned. See, further, Dillmann 302; Moore, _Judges_ 87, 89;\n _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 28 f.\u2015\u2015=12.=\n\u200e \u05d4\u05e7\u05e8\u05d4\u200e] \u2018make it occur,\u2019 27\u00b2\u2070 (Yahwist).\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05d4\u05b7\u05bd\u05e0\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u05b2\u05e8\u05b8\u05af\u200e] \u1e32r\u00ea. \u05d4\u05e0\u05e2\u05e8\u05d4\u200e;\n so verses \u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2078\u1427 \u2075\u2075\u1427 \u2075\u2077 34\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2, Deuteronomy 22\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3\u207b\u00b2\u2079.\n\u200e \u05d4\u05e0\u05e2\u05e8\u05d4\u200e is found as Ke. in Pentateuch only Deuteronomy 22\u00b9\u2079, but\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ reads so throughout.\n It is hazardous to postulate an archaic epicene use of \u05e0\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05e8\u200e\n on such restricted evidence: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 655 a;\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 17 _c_.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05e9\u05e7\u05d4\u200e] LXX + \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b9\u05db\u05b7\u05d7\u05b0\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u200e] _decide_, _adjudicate_, here = \u2018allot\u2019; so\n only verse \u2074\u2074. Contrast 20\u00b9\u2076 21\u00b2\u2075 31\u00b3\u2077\u1427 \u2074\u00b2\u2020 (Elohist), Leviticus\n 19\u00b9\u2077\u2020 (Priestly- Code).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4\u200e] \u2018and thereby\u2019; Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 135 _p_.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=15\u201227. The servant and Rebekah.=\u2015\u2015=15.= _who was born to Bethuel,\netc._] compare \u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u2074\u2077.\n\n The somewhat awkward phrasing has led Dillmann al. to surmise\n that all these verses have been glossed, and that here the\n original text ran \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05b8\u05bd\u05dc\u05b0\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4 \u05de\u05b4\u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e, Rebekah being the daughter of\n Milkah and N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r. Compare 29\u2075, where Laban is described as\n the son of N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r. The redactional insertion of Beth\u00fb\u2019\u0113l would\n be explained by the divergent tradition of Priestly-Code (25\u00b2\u2070\n 28\u00b2\u1427 \u2075), in which Beth\u00fb\u2019\u0113l is simply an \u2018Aram\u00e6an,\u2019 and not\n connected with N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r at all (see Budde 421 ff.). The question\n can hardly be decided (Holzinger 168); but there is a\n considerable probability that the original Yahwist made Laban\n and Rebekah the children of N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r. In that case, however, it\n will be necessary to assume that the tradition represented by\n Priestly-Code was known to the Yahwistic school before the final\n redaction, and caused a remodelling of the genealogy of 22\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\n (see page 333). Compare, however, Bosse, _Mittheilungen der\n vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1908, 2, page 8 f.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =15.= After \u05d8\u05e8\u05dd\u200e read \u05d9\u05b0\u05db\u05b7\u05dc\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4\u200e (compare \u2074\u2075); Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 107\n _c_.\u2015\u2015_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate\n inserts \u05d0\u05b6\u05dc\u05be\u05dc\u05b4\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e after \u05dc\u05b0\u05d3\u05b7\u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e (\u2074\u2075).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=16.= Taking no notice of the stranger, the maiden _went down to\nthe fountain_ (\u05e2\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05df\u200e) ... _and came up_] In Eastern wells the water\nis frequently reached by steps: contrast Exodus 2\u00b9\u2076 (\u05d5\u05b7\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d3\u05b0\u05dc\u05b6\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e), John\n4\u00b9\u00b9.\u2015\u2015=19, 20.= The writer lingers over the scene, with evident\ndelight in the alert and gracious actions of the damsel.\u2015\u2015=21.= The\nservant meanwhile has stood _gazing at her in silence_, watching the\nample fulfilment of the sign.\u2015\u2015=22.= The _nose-ring_ and _bracelets_\nare not the bridal gift (Gunkel), but a reward for the service\nrendered, intended to excite interest in the stranger, and secure\nthe goodwill of the maiden. See Lane, _An Account of the Manners and\nCustoms of the Modern Egyptians_\u2075 ii. 320, 323; compare _Lectures on\nthe Religion of the Semites_\u00b2, 453\u00b2.\u2015\u2015=23\u201225.= In the twofold question\nand answer, there is perhaps a trace of the composition of narratives;\n_v.i._\u2015\u2015=24.= See on \u00b9\u2075. Read _the daughter of Milkah whom she bore\nto N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r_ (as 34\u00b9).\u2015\u2015=26, 27.= The servant\u2019s act of worship marks the\nclose of the scene.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =18= end] LXX + \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, omitting the first two\n words of verse \u00b9\u2079.\u2015\u2015=20.= \u05d4\u05e9\u05e7\u05ea\u200e] _the_ stone trough for watering\n animals, found at every well (30\u00b3\u2078, compare 30\u2074\u00b9, Exodus\n\u200e 2\u00b9\u2076).\u2015\u2015=21.= \u05de\u05e9\u05ea\u05d0\u05d4\u200e] not \u2018wondering\u2019 (\u221a \u05e9\u05c1\u05d0\u05d4\u200e; so Delitzsch), but\n \u2018gazing\u2019 (by-form of \u221a \u05e9\u05e2\u05d4\u200e) as Isaiah 41\u00b9\u2070. Construct state\n before preposition: Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 130 _a_.\u2015\u2015=22.= \u05de\u05e9\u05e7\u05dc\u05d5\u200e]\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc \u05d0\u05e4\u05d4\u200e, a\n necessary addition (compare \u2074\u2077). \u05e0\u05b6\u05d6\u05b6\u05dd\u200e accordingly is here a\n \u2018nose-jewel\u2019 (Isaiah 3\u00b2\u00b9, Proverbs 11\u00b2\u00b2), in 35\u2074, Exodus 32\u00b2\u1427 \u00b3\n (Elohist) an earring.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05e7\u05e2\u200e] = \u00bd shekel (Exodus 38\u00b2\u2076).\u2015\u2015=23\u201225.=\n The theory of two recensions derives some little support from\n the repeated \u05d5\u05ea\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u200e of \u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2075. A mere rearrangement such as Ball\n proposes (\u00b2\u00b3\u1d43\u1427 \u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3\u1d47\u1427 \u00b2\u2075) only cures one anomaly by creating\n another; and is, besides, impossible if the amendment given\n above for verse \u00b2\u2074 be accepted.\u2015\u2015=25.= \u05dc\u05dc\u05d5\u05df\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05dc\u05dc\u05d9\u05df\u200e, as verse \u00b2\u00b3; but infinitive\n elsewhere is always \u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05df\u200e.\u2015\u2015=27.= \u05d0\u05e0\u05db\u05d9\u200e emphasises the following\n accusative suffix (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\u00a7 143 _b_, 135 _d_, _e_).\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word) implies perhaps \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b4\u05dd\u200e (Ball) or \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e\n (Kittel); if not a mistake for (\u2021 Syriac word).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u200e] Point \u05d0\u05b2\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u200e\n (singular) with versions.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=28\u201232. Laban\u2019s hospitality= is inspired by the selfish greed for\nwhich that worthy was noted in tradition.\u2015\u2015=28.= _her mother\u2019s house_\ncannot mean merely the female side of the family (Dillmann), for Laban\nbelongs to it, and \u2075\u00b3\u1427 \u2075\u2075 imply that the father (whether Bethuel or\nN\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r) is not the head of the house. Some find in the notice a relic\nof matriarchy (Holzinger, Gunkel); but the only necessary inference\nis that the father was dead.\u2015\u2015=31.= _seeing I have cleared the house_]\nturning part of it into a stable.\u2015\u2015=32.= _he_ (Laban) _brought\nthe man in (v.i.) ... and ungirt the camels_] without removing the\npack-saddles.\u00b9\u2015\u2015_to wash his feet, etc._] compare 18\u2074.\n\n \u00b9 \u201cThe camel is very delicate, and could easily catch a chill\n if the saddle were taken away imprudently; and on no account\n can the camel stay out of doors in bad weather. It is then\n taken into the house, part of which is turned into a stable\u201d\n (Baldensperger, _Palestine Exploration Fund: Quarterly\n Statements_, 1904, 130).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =28.= \u05d0\u05b4\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05bc\u200e] Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word) (wrongly).\u2015\u2015=30.= \u05db\u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5\u200e\n (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_) is better than\n Massoretic Text \u05db\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e2\u05de\u05d3\u200e] see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 116 _s_;\n Davidson \u00a7 100 (_a_).\u2015\u2015=31.= \u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] \u2018cleared away,\u2019 as Leviticus\n 14\u00b3\u2076, Isaiah 40\u00b3 etc.; compare Arabic \u221a _fana\u02b8_ IV. = _effecit\n ut dispareret_.\u2015\u2015=32.= \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b5\u05d0\u200e] (Vulgate) avoids an awkward change\n of subject, and is to be preferred (Olshausen, Kautzsch-Socin,\n Gunkel). The objection (Dillmann al.) that this would require\n to be followed by \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u200e is answered by the very next clause.\n Irregularity in the use of \u05d0\u05b8\u05ea\u05be\u200e is a puzzling phenomenon in the\n chapter, which unfortunately fits in with no workable scheme of\n documentary analysis.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=33\u201249. The servant\u2019s narrative.=\u2015\u2015A recapitulation of the story up\nto this point, with intentional variations of language, and with some\nabridgment. LXX frequently accommodates the text to what has gone\nbefore, but its readings need not be considered.\u2015\u2015=35.= Compare 12\u00b9\u2076\n13\u00b2.\u2015\u2015=36b.= _has given him all that he had_] This is the only\nmaterial addition to the narrative. But the notice is identical with\n25\u2075, and probably points back to it in some earlier context (see page\n341 above).\u2015\u2015=40.= _before whom I have walked_] Compare 17\u00b9. Gunkel\u2019s\nsuggested alteration: \u2018who has gone before me,\u2019 is an unauthorised\nand unnecessary addition to the _Tikk\u00fbn\u00ea S\u014dpher\u00eem_ (see 18\u00b2\u00b2).\u2015\u2015=41.=\n\u200e\u05d0\u05b8\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (_bis_) for \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e2\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, verse \u2078. On the connexion of _oath_ and _curse_,\nsee Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_\u00b2 192 f.\u2015\u2015=45\u201247.=\nGreatly abbreviated from \u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b2\u2075.\u2015\u2015_the daughter of [Beth\u00fb\u2019\u0113l the son of\nN\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r; etc._] see on \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2074.\u2015\u2015=48.= _daughter of my master\u2019s brother_]\n\u2018Brother,\u2019 may, of course, stand for \u2018relative\u2019 or \u2018nephew\u2019 (29\u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2075);\nbut if Bethuel be interpolated in \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u2074\u2077, Rebekah was actually first\ncousin to Isaac, and such marriages were considered the most eligible\nby the Na\u1e25orites (29\u00b9\u2079).\u2015\u2015=49.= _that I may turn, etc._] not to seek a\nbride elsewhere (Dillmann), but generally \u2018that I may know how to act.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =33.= \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05bc\u05d9\u05bc\u05e9\u05b7\u05c2\u05dd\u05af\u200e] \u1e32r\u00ea and _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_\n\u200e \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05dd\u200e (Hophal \u221a \u05e9\u05c2\u05d5\u05dd\u200e), LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05dd\u200e. But Keth\u00eeb recurs in\n Massoretic Text of 50\u00b2\u2076 (\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05dd\u200e), again with passive significance.\n The anomalous form may be passive of Qal (Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 73 _f_), or metaplastic Niphal from \u05d9\u05e9\u05c2\u05dd\u200e or \u05d5\u05e9\u05c2\u05dd\u200e (N\u00f6ldeke,\n _Beitr\u00e4ge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft_ 39 f.).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e\u00b2]\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b9\u05bc\u05d0\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u200e,\n which is perhaps better.\u2015\u2015=36.= \u05d6\u05e7\u05e0\u05ea\u05d4\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_, LXX \u05d6\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05e0\u05b8\u05ea\u05d5\u05b9\u200e.\u2015\u2015=38.= \u05d0\u05b4\u05dd \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0\u200e never has the sense\n of Aramaic \u05d0\u05b6\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u200e (_sondern_), and must be taken as the common\n form of adjuration (Delitzsch), _The Samaritan Recension of\n the Pentateuch_ (_London Polyglott_) has \u05db\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015=41.= \u05de\u05d0\u05dc\u05ea\u05d9\u200e]\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 95 _n_.\u2015\u2015The verse contains a slight\n redundancy (\u1d43{\u03b1} \u2225 \u1d47{\u03b2}), but nothing is gained by interposing\n a clause between \u1d43{\u03b2} and \u1d47{\u03b1} (Kautzsch-Socin).\u2015\u2015=46.= \u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u200e]\n LXX \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u2019 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 (conflate?); Vulgate _de\n humero_ (compare \u00b9\u2078).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=50\u201261. Departure of Rebekah, with the consent and blessing of her\nrelatives.=\u2015\u2015=50.= The relatives, recognising the hand of Providence\nin the servant\u2019s experiences, decline to answer _bad or good_: i.e.,\nanything whatever, as 31\u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2079, Numbers 24\u00b9\u00b3 etc.\n\n The verse as a whole yields a perfectly good sense: \u2018_we_ cannot\n speak, because _Yahwe_ has decided\u2019; and \u2075\u00b9 is a natural sequel.\n It is a serious flaw in Gunkel\u2019s analysis of \u2075\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, that he\n has to break up \u2075\u2070, connecting \u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d9\u05b8\u05e6\u05b8\u05d0 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8\u200e with \u2075\u00b9, and the rest\n of the verse with \u2075\u2077 \u1da0\u1427 (\u2018_we_ cannot speak: let the _maiden_\n decide\u2019).\u2015\u2015On the other hand, \u05dc\u05b8\u05d1\u05b8\u05df \u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05ea\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e in \u2075\u2070 is barely consistent\n with \u05d0\u05b8\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05d4\u05b8 \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b4\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05bc\u200e in \u2075\u00b3\u1427 \u2075\u2075. Since the mention of the father after the\n brother would in any case be surprising, Dillmann al. suppose\n that here again \u05d5\u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u200e is an interpolation; Kittel reads \u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b5\u05ea\u05d5\u05b9\u200e, and\n Holzinger substitutes \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05dc\u05b0\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e. Gunkel (219) considers that in this\n recension Bethuel is a younger brother of Laban.\n\n=51.= Here, at all events, the matter is settled in accordance with\ncustom, without consulting the bride.\u2015\u2015=53.= The presents are given\npartly to the bride and partly to her relatives. In the latter we\nmay have a _survival_ of the \u05de\u05b9\u05d4\u05b7\u05e8\u200e (34\u00b9\u00b2, Exodus 22\u00b9\u2076, 1 Samuel 18\u00b2\u2075\u2020)\nor purchase-price of a wife; but Gunkel rightly observes that the\nnarrative springs from a more refined idea of marriage, from which the\nnotion of actual purchase has all but disappeared. So in Islam _mahr_\nand _\u1e63ada\u1e33_ (the gift to the wife) have come to be synonymous terms\nfor dowry (_Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_\u00b2, 93, 96): compare\nBenzinger, _Hebr\u00e4ische Arch\u00e4ologie_\u00b2 106.\u2015\u2015=55.= The reluctance to\npart with Rebekah is another indication of refined feeling (Gunkel).\nOn \u05d9\u05b8\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5\u05b9 \u05e2\u05b8\u05e9\u05c2\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u200e, _v.i._\u2015\u2015=56.= The servant\u2019s eagerness to be gone arises\nfrom the hope of finding his old master still alive.\u2015\u2015=57, 58.= The\nquestion here put to Rebekah is not whether she will go now or wait\na few days, but whether she will go at all. The reference to the\nwishes of the bride may be exceptional (owing to the distance, etc.);\nbut a discrepancy with \u2075\u00b9 cannot easily be got rid of.\u2015\u2015=59.=\n_their sister_] compare \u2018your daughter,\u2019 34\u2078, the relation to the\nfamily being determined by that to the head of the house. But it\nis better to read \u05d0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b6\u05d9\u05d4\u05b8\u200e (plural) in \u2075\u00b3\u1427 \u2075\u2075 with Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\nand MSS of LXX.\u2015\u2015_her nurse_] see on 35\u2078.\u2015\u2015=60.= The blessing on\nthe marriage (compare Ruth 4\u00b9\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427)), rhythmic in form, is perhaps\nan ancient fragment of tribal poetry associated with the name of\nRebekah.\u2015\u2015_possess the gate_] as 22\u00b9\u2077.\u2015\u2015=61a= and =61b= seem to be\nvariants. For another solution (Kautzsch-Socin), see on \u2076\u00b2.\u2015\u2015_her\nmaidens_] parallel to \u2018her nurse\u2019 in \u2075\u2079.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =53.= \u05de\u05d2\u05d3\u05e0\u05ea\u200e (Ezra 1\u2076, 2 Chronicles 21\u00b3 32\u00b2\u00b3\u2020)] \u2018costly gifts,\u2019\n from \u221a \u05de\u05d2\u05d3\u200e, Arabic _ma\u01e7ada_ = \u2018be noble.\u2019\u2015\u2015=55.= \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05d4\u05b8\u200e] LXX,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Vulgate read \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b6\u05d9\u05d4\u05b8\u200e; and so Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Vulgate and many\n Greek cursives in \u2075\u00b3.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05e8\u200e] \u2018a few days, say ten,\u2019 is a\n fairly satisfying rendering (LXX \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c3\u03b5\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1); \u2018a year\n or ten months\u2019 (Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2, Rashi) is hardly admissible.\n But the text seems uncertain: _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d7\u05d3\u05e9\u200e; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac phrase) (compare 29\u00b9\u2074).\n In deference to _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 we may insert \u05d7\u05b9\u05d3\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1\u200e before \u05d9\u05b8\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e: \u2018a month or at least\n ten days\u2019 (Olshausen, Ball).\u2015\u2015\u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b5\u05da\u05b0\u200e] probably 3rd feminine (so\n all Versions).\u2015\u2015=59.= \u05de\u05e0\u05e7\u05ea\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 = \u05de\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05e0\u05b8\u05ea\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc\u200e, a\n word of Priestly-Code.\u2015\u2015=60.= \u05d0\u05b7\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u200e is appositional vocative, not\n subject to \u05d0\u05b2\u05d7\u05b9\u05ea\u05b5\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u200e (_soror nostra es_, Vulgate).\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b2\u05d9\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] with abnormal\n\u200e \u200f\u05be\u05b2\u200e (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 63 _q_).\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_ \u05d0\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u200e, as 22\u00b9\u2077.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=62\u201267. The home-bringing of Rebekah.=\u2015\u2015=62.= _Now Isaac had come ..._]\nWhat follows is hardly intelligible. The most probable sense is that\nduring the servant\u2019s absence Isaac had removed to Beer-la\u1e25ai-roi, and\nthat near that well the meeting took place.\n\n The difficulty lies partly in the corrupt \u05de\u05b4\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d0\u200e (_v.i._), partly\n in the circumstantial form of the sentence, and partly in the\n unexplained disappearance of Abraham. Keeping these points\n in mind, the most conservative exegesis is that of Delitzsch:\n Isaac (supposed to be living with his father at Beersheba) \u2018was\n coming _from a walk in the direction of_ Beersheba\u2019, when he met\n the camels; this, however, makes \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b5\u05bc\u05e6\u05b5\u05d0\u200e (\u2076\u00b3) pluperfect, which is\n hardly right. More recent writers proceed on the assumption that\n the death of Abraham had been explicitly recorded. Holzinger\n suggests that Isaac had removed to La\u1e25airoi during his father\u2019s\n life (transposing 25\u00b9\u00b9\u1d47 before 24\u00b2), and that now he comes\n _from_ that place (reads \u05de\u05b4\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05d3\u05b0\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05e8\u200e) on hearing of Abraham\u2019s death.\n Dillmann reads \u2076\u00b2\u1d43 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05d0[\u05d9\u05e6\u05d7\u05e7] \u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d1\u05f3\u200e, and finds in these words\n the notice of Isaac\u2019s migration _to_ Beersheba.\u2015\u2015Kautzsch-Socin,\n reading as Dillmann, but making the servant implicit subject\n of \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05d0\u200e, puts the chief hiatus between \u2076\u00b9\u1d43 and \u2076\u00b9\u1d47: the servant\n on his return learned that Abraham was dead; then (\u2076\u00b9\u1d47) took\n Rebekah and went further; and (\u2076\u00b2\u1d43) came to La\u1e25airoi.\u2015\u2015Gunkel\n (operating with two sources) considers \u2076\u00b2 the immediate sequel\n to \u2076\u00b9\u1d43 in the document where Abraham\u2019s death preceded the\n servant\u2019s departure, so that nothing remained to be chronicled\n but Isaac\u2019s removal to La\u1e25airoi (reads \u05de\u05b0\u05d1\u05d5\u05b9\u05d0\u200e, \u2018to the entrance\n of\u2019). This solution is attractive, and could perhaps be carried\n through independently of his division of sources. For even if\n the death followed the departure, it might very well have been\n recorded in the early part of the chapter (after \u00b9\u2070).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =62.= \u05de\u05b4\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d0\u200e] cannot be infinitive construct with \u05de\u05b4\u05df\u200e; the French\n _il vint d\u2019arriver_ (Hupfeld 29) has no analogy in Hebrew idiom.\n Nor can it readily be supposed equivalent to \u05de\u05b4\u05dc\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05d5\u05b9\u05d0\u200e (1 Kings 8\u2076\u2075;\n Delitzsch _v.s._); for the _direction_ in which Isaac took\n his walk is an utterly irrelevant circumstance, _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ and LXX (\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5) read\n\u200e \u05d1\u05de\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u200e, from which a fairly suitable text (\u05de\u05b4\u05d3\u05b0\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05e8\u200e or \u05de\u05b4\u05de\u05bc\u05f3\u200e) could be\n obtained (compare Dillmann and Holzinger _s._). Gunkel\u2019s \u05de\u05b0\u05d1\u05d5\u05b9\u05d0\u200e\n (as accusative of direction) has no parallel except the very\n remote one of \u05de\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05d9\u05dd\u200e, Ezekiel 27\u00b3 (of the situation of Tyre).\n Other suggestions are to delete the word as an uncorrected\n lapse of the pen; to read \u05de\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05e8\u200e with omission of the following\n\u200e \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05e8\u200e (Lagarde, Procksch); to substitute \u05de\u05d1\u05d0[\u05e8\u05e9\u05c1\u05d1\u05e2]\u200e (\u2018from Beersheba\n to\u2019: Ball).\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05d0\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d7\u05d9 \u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u200e] LXX (here and 25\u00b9\u00b9) \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f41\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2,\n omitting \u05dc\u05d7\u05d9\u200e; refer to page 289 above.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e=63.= \u05dc\u05b8\u05e9\u05c2\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u200e] a word of uncertain meaning, possibly _to roam_\n(_v.i._).\u2015\u2015_toward the approach of evening_] (Deuteronomy 23\u00b9\u00b2), when\nthe Oriental walks abroad (compare 3\u2078).\u2015\u2015_camels were coming_] In the\ndistance he cannot discern them as his own.\u2015\u2015=64.= At the sight of\na stranger Rebekah dismounts (\u05e0\u05b8\u05e4\u05b7\u05dc\u200e as 2 Kings 5\u00b2\u00b9), a mark of respect\nstill observed in the East (_The Land and the Book_, i. 762; Seetzen,\n_Reisen_, iii. 190); compare Joshua 15\u00b9\u2078, 1 Samuel 25\u00b2\u00b3.\u2015\u2015=65.= _It\nis my master_] Apparently the servant is aware, before meeting Isaac,\nthat Abraham is dead.\u2015\u2015The putting on of the _veil_ (compare _nubere\nviro_), the survival of a primitive marriage taboo, is part of the\nwedding ceremony (see Lane, _An Account of the Manners and Customs\nof the Modern Egyptians_\u2075, i. 217 f.).\u2015\u2015=67.= _brought her into the\ntent_] The next phrase (\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b4\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e) violates a fundamental rule of syntax,\nand must be deleted as a gloss. Isaac\u2019s own tent is referred to. This\nis the essential feature of the marriage ceremony in the East (see\nBenzinger _Hebr\u00e4ische Arch\u00e4ologie_\u00b2 108 f.).\u2015\u2015_comforted himself\nafter_ [the death of] _his mother_] It is conjectured (Wellhausen\nal.) that the real reading was \u2018his father,\u2019 whose death had recently\ntaken place. The change would naturally suggest itself after Yahwist\u2019s\naccount of the death of Abraham had been suppressed in accordance with\nPriestly-Code\u2019s chronology. The death of Sarah is likewise unrecorded\nby Yahwist or Elohist.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =63.= \u05dc\u05b8\u05e9\u05c2\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u200e] \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd commonly identified with \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d9\u05d7\u05b7\u200e =\n \u2018muse,\u2019 \u2018complain,\u2019 \u2018talk,\u2019 etc.; so LXX (\u1f00\u03b4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9), Aquila\n (\u1f41\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9), Symmachus (\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9), Vulgate (_ad meditandum_: so\n Tuch, Delitzsch), Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f (\u05dc\u05e6\u05dc\u05d0\u05d4\u200e: Rashi); Dillmann,\n Kautzsch-Socin, al. think the sense of \u2018mourning\u2019 (for his\n father) most probable; but? Abraham Ibn Ezra (\u2018to walk among\n the shrubs\u2019) and B\u00f6ttcher (\u2018to gather brushwood\u2019) derive from \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d9\u05d7\u05b7\u200e\n (21\u00b9\u2075). Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word) is thought to rest on a reading\n\u200e \u05dc\u05b8\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05d8\u200e (adopted by Gesenius al.), but is rather a conjecture.\n N\u00f6ldeke (_Beitr\u00e4ge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft_ 43 f.)\n suggests a connexion with Arabic _s\u0101\u1e25a_ = \u2018stroll\u2019 (point\n\u200e \u05dc\u05b8\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u200e).\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d2\u05de\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e of _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ is\n wrong (_v.s._).\u2015\u2015=65.= \u05d4\u05b7\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d6\u05b6\u05d4\u200e] 37\u00b9\u2079\u2020; _The Samaritan Recension of\n the Pentateuch_ \u05d4\u05dc\u05d6\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05e6\u05e2\u05d9\u05e3\u200e] 38\u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2079\u2020 (Yahwist). On the article\n compare Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 126 _s_. After Lagarde\u2019s brilliant\n note (_Semitica_ 23 ff.), it can scarcely be doubted that the\n word denotes a large double square wrapper or shawl, of any\n material.\u2015\u2015=67.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05d0\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d0\u05d4\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e8\u05d4\u200e] article with\n construct is violently ungrammatical; Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 127\n _f_.\u2015\u2015For \u05d0\u05b4\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e\u00b2 read \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05d0\u05b8\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05d5\u200e (Kittel) _v.s._\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n XXV. 1\u20126.\n _The Sons of \u1e32e\u1e6durah_\n (Yahwist? Redactor?).\n\nThe Arabian tribes with whom the Israelites acknowledged a looser\nkinship than with the Ishmaelites or Edomites are here represented as\nthe offspring of Abraham by a second marriage (compare 1 Chronicles\n1\u00b3\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427).\n\n The names Midian, Sheba, Dedan (see below) show that these\n \u1e32e\u1e6durean peoples must be sought in North Arabia, and in the\n tract of country partly assigned to the Ishmaelites in verse\n \u00b9\u2078. The fact that in Judges 8\u00b2\u2074 Midianites are classed as\n Ishmaelites (compare Genesis 37\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) points to some confusion\n between the two groups, which in the absence of a Yahwistic\n genealogy of Ishmael it is impossible altogether to clear up.\n Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen\n B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 29\u00b9) has dropped a hint that\n \u1e32e\u1e6durah may be but a traditional variant of Hagar;\u00b9 Holzinger\n conjectures that the names in \u00b2\u207b\u2074 are taken from Yahwist\u2019s\n lost Ishmaelite genealogy; and Kent (_Students\u2019 Old Testament_,\n i. 101) thinks it not improbable that \u1e32e\u1e6durah was originally\n the wife of Ishmael. Glaser (ii. 450) considers the \u1e32e\u1e6dureans\n remains of the ancient Min\u00e6an people, and not essentially\n different from the Ishmaelites and Edomites. See, further, on\n verse \u00b9\u2078 below.\n\n \u00b9 So Jewish interpreters: Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, _Bereshith Rabba_,\n Jerome _Qu\u00e6stiones sive Traditiones hebraic\u00e6 in Genesim_,\n Rashi (but not Abraham Ibn Ezra).\n\n _Source._\u2015\u2015(a) The genealogy (\u00b9\u207b\u2074) contains slight traces of\n Yahwist in \u05d9\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05e8\u200e, \u00b3; \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9\u200e \u2074 (compare 10\u00b2\u2079 9\u00b9\u2079); Priestly-Code\n is excluded by \u05d9\u05dc\u05d3\u200e, and the discrepancy with 10\u2077 as to Sheba\n and Dedan; while Elohist appears not to have contained any\n genealogies at all. The verses must therefore be assigned to\n some Yahwistic source, in spite of the different origin given\n for Sheba in 10\u00b2\u2078.\u2015\u2015(b) The section as a whole cannot, however,\n belong to the primary Yahwistic document; because there the\n death of Abraham had already been recorded in chapter 24, and\n 24\u00b3\u2076 refers _back_ to 25\u2075.\u00b9 We must conclude that 25\u00b9\u207b\u2076 is the\n work of a compiler, who has incorporated the genealogy, and\n taken verse \u2075 from its original position (see on 24\u00b3\u2076) to bring\n it into connexion with Abraham\u2019s death. These changes may have\n been made in a revised edition of Yahwist (so Gunkel); but in\n this case we must suppose that the account of Abraham\u2019s death\n was also transferred from chapter 24, to be afterwards replaced\n by the notice of Priestly-Code. It seems to me easier (in view\n of \u00b9\u00b9\u1d47 and \u00b9\u2078) to hold that the adjustments were effected during\n the final redaction of the Pentateuch, in accordance with the\n chronological scheme of Priestly-Code.\n\n \u00b9 The mere transposition of 25\u00b9\u207b\u2076 before chapter 24 (Hupfeld,\n Wellhausen, al.) does not fully meet the difficulty, there\n being, in fact, no suitable place for a second marriage of\n Abraham anywhere in the original Yahwist (Holzinger).\n\n=1.= _\u1e32\u0115\u1e6d\u00fbr\u0101h_, called a \u2018concubine\u2019 in 1 Chronicles 1\u00b3\u00b2 (compare\nverse \u2076 below), is here a _wife_, the death of Sarah being presupposed.\nThe name occurs nowhere else, and is probably fictitious, though\nArabian genealogists speak of a tribe _\u1e32a\u1e6d\u016bra_ in the vicinity of\nMecca (Knobel-Dillmann). There is no \u2018absurdity\u2019 (Delitzsch) in the\nsuggestion that it may contain an allusion to the traffic in incense\n\u200e(\u05e7\u05b0\u05d8\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e) which passed through these regions (see Meyer _Die Israeliten\nund ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 313).\u2015\u2015=2\u20124.= The \u1e32e\u1e6durean stock is divided\ninto 6 (LXX 7) main branches, of which only one, Midian, attained\nhistoric importance. The minor groups number 10 (LXX 12), including\nthe well-known names Sheba and Dedan.\n\n\u200e =2.= \u05d6\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05df\u200e (\u0396\u03b5\u03b2\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd, \u0396\u03bf\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd, etc.) has been connected with the\n \u0396\u03b1\u03b2\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc [\u0396\u03b1\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc?] of Ptolemy vi. 7. 5, West of Mecca (Knobel);\n and with the _Zamareni_ of Pliny, _Naturalis Historia_, vi.\n 158, in the interior; but these are probably too far South.\n The name is probably derived from \u05d6\u05b6\u05de\u05b6\u05e8\u200e = \u2018wild goat,\u2019 the ending\n _\u0101n_ (which is common in the \u1e32e\u1e6durean and \u1e24orite lists and\n rare elsewhere) being apparently gentilic: compare \u05d6\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, Numbers\n 25\u00b9\u2074, 1 Chronicles 2\u2076 8\u00b3\u2076 9\u2074\u00b2. A connexion with \u05d6\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e (Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n (\u2021 Syriac word)), Jeremiah 25\u00b2\u2075 is very doubtful. On \u05d9\u05b8\u05e7\u05b0\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05df\u200e (\u1f38\u03b5\u03be\u03ac\u03bd,\n \u1f39\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd, etc.) see on verse \u00b3\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b0\u05d3\u05b8\u05df\u200e (\u039c\u03b1\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc)] unknown. Wetzstein\n instances a W\u0101d\u012b Med\u0101n near the ruins of Daidan.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b4\u05d3\u05b0\u05d9\u05b8\u05df\u200e (\u039c\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc)]\n The name appears as \u039c\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1 = \u039c\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1 in Ptolemy vi. 7. 2, 27\n (compare Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ ii. 257; Eusebius\n _Onomasticon_, page 276), the _Madyan_ of Arab geography, a town\n on the East side of the Gulf of A\u1e33aba, opposite the South end\n of the Sinaitic peninsula (see N\u00f6ldeke _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_,\n 3081). The chief seat of this great tribe or nation must\n therefore have been in the northern \u1e24i\u01e7\u0101z, whence roving bands\n ravaged the territory of Moab, Edom (Genesis 36\u00b3\u2075), and Israel\n (Judges 6\u20128). The mention of Midianites in the neighbourhood of\n Horeb may be due to a confusion between Yahwist and Elohist (see\n Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 3 f.); and after\n the time of the Judges they practically disappear from history.\n \u201cAs to their occupations, we sometimes find them described as\n peaceful shepherds, sometimes as merchants [Genesis 37\u00b2\u2078\u1427 \u00b3\u2076,\n Isaiah 60\u2076], sometimes as roving warriors, delighting to\n raid the more settled districts\u201d (N\u00f6ldeke).\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e7\u200e and \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u200e have\n been identified by Friedrich Delitzsch (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\n Keilschriftsforschung_, ii. 91 f., _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 297 f.)\n and Glaser (ii. 445 f.), with _Yasbu\u1e33_ and _S\u00fb\u1e2bu_ of Assyrian\n monuments (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 159, 33, 99,\n 101), both regions of northern Syria. Delitzsch has since\n abandoned the latter identification (_Hiob_, 139) for phonetic\n reasons.\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d1\u05b8\u05d0\u200e and \u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05d3\u05b8\u05df\u200e] see on 10\u2077. As they are there\n bracketed under \u05e8\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, so here under \u05d9\u05b8\u05e7\u05b0\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05df\u200e, a name otherwise unknown.\n The equation with \u05d9\u05b8\u05e7\u05b0\u05d8\u05b8\u05df\u200e (10\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), proposed by Tuch and accepted\n by Meyer (318), is phonologically difficult. Since the Sab\u00e6ans\n are here still in the North, it would seem that this genealogy\n goes farther back than that of the Yok\u1e6danite Arabs in chapter\n 10. Between Sheba and Dedan, LXX inserts \u0398\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd (= \u05ea\u05b5\u05d9\u05de\u05b8\u05d0\u200e, verse\n \u00b9\u2075).\u2015\u2015=3b.= The sons of Dedan are wanting in 1 Chronicles,\n and are probably interpolated here (note the plural). LXX\n has in addition \u03a1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u1f74\u03bb (compare 36\u00b9\u2070) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039d\u03b1\u03b2\u03b4\u03b5\u03ae\u03bb (compare\n verse \u00b9\u00b3).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b7\u05e9\u05bc\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05dd\u200e] certainly not the Assyrians (\u05d0\u05b7\u05e9\u05bc\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e), but some\n obscure North Arabian tribe,\u2015\u2015_possibly_ the \u05d0\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u200e mentioned\n on two Min\u00e6an inscriptions along with \u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u200e (Egypt), \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e0\u05d4\u05e8\u05df\u200e, and\n Gaza (Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated\n by the Monuments_, 248 f., 252 f., _Aufs\u00e4tze und Abhandlungen\n arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts_, 297 ff.; Glaser, ii. 455\n ff.; Winckler, _Altorientalische Forschungen_, i. 28 f.; K\u00f6nig,\n _F\u00fcnf Landschaften_, 9: compare, on the other side, Meyer\n _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, xi. 327 ff., _Die Israeliten\n und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 320 ff.).\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05b0\u05d8\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05dd\u200e] The personal name \u05dc\u05d8\u05e9\u05d5\u200e\n (as also \u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u200e) has been found in Nabatean inscriptions; see Levy,\n _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xiv.\n 403 f., 447, 477 f., where attention is called to the prevalence\n of craftsmen\u2019s names in these inscriptions, and a connexion of\n\u200e \u05dc\u05f3\u200e with \u05dc\u05b9\u05d8\u05b5\u05e9\u05c1\u200e in 4\u00b2\u00b2 is suggested.\u2015\u2015=4.= Five sons of Midian.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b5\u05d9\u05e4\u05b8\u05d4\u200e\n is named along with Midian in Isaiah 60\u2076 as a trading tribe.\n It has been identified with the _\u1e2aayapa_ (= \u05e2\u05b2\u05d9\u05b8\u05e4\u05b8\u05d4\u200e?) mentioned\n by Tiglath-pileser IV. and Sargon, along with some 6 other\n rebellious Arab tribes (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,\n ii. 21, 43): see Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 304, _Die\n Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 58.\u2015\u2015With \u05e2\u05b5\u05e4\u05b6\u05e8\u200e,\n Wetzstein compares the modern _\u201bOfr_ (Dillmann); Glaser\n (449), Assyrian _Apparu_ (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii.\n\u200e 223).\u2015\u2015\u05d7\u05b2\u05e0\u05b9\u05da\u05b0\u200e] Perhaps _Han\u0101kiya_ near _\u201bOfr_ (Knobel-Dillmann).\u2015\u2015It\n is noteworthy that these three names\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05d9\u05e4\u05d4\u200e, 1 Chronicles 2\u2074\u2076 \u1da0\u1427;\n\u200e \u05e2\u05e4\u05e8\u200e, 1 Chronicles 4\u00b9\u2077 5\u00b2\u2074; \u05d7\u05e0\u05da\u200e, Genesis 46\u2079, Exodus 6\u00b9\u2074, Numbers\n 26\u2075, 1 Chronicles 5\u00b3\u2015\u2015are found in the Hebrew tribes most\n exposed to contact with Midian (Judah, Manasseh, Reuben).\n Does this show an incorporation of Midianite clans in Israel?\n (N\u00f6ldeke).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b2\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u05b8\u05e2\u200e (_\u201bAb\u00ee-yada\u201ba_) and \u05d0\u05b6\u05dc\u05b0\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05e2\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (_\u2019Il- yeda\u201b_ and\n _Yeda-\u2019il_) are personal names in Sab\u00e6an, the former being borne\n by several kings (_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen\n Gesellschaft_, xxvii. 648, xxxvii. 399; Glasser ii. 449).\n\n=5.= See on 24\u00b3\u2076.\u2015\u2015=6.= The exodus of the _Bn\u00ea \u1e32edem_ (composed by\na redactor).\u2015\u2015_the concubines_] apparently Hagar and \u1e32e\u1e6durah, though\nneither bears that opprobrious epithet in Genesis: in 16\u00b3 Hagar\nis even called \u05d0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05d4\u200e. Moreover, Ishmael and his mother, according to\nYahwist and Elohist, had long been separated from Abraham.\u2015\u2015_sent\nthem away from off Isaac_] so as not to be a burden upon him. Compare\nJudges 11\u00b2.\u2015\u2015_eastward to the land of \u1e32edem_] the Syro-Arabian desert.\n\n So we must render, unless (with Gunkel) we are to take the two\n phrases \u05e7\u05b5\u05d3\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e and \u05d0\u05b6\u05dc\u05be\u05d0\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5 \u05e7\u05b6\u05d3\u05b6\u05dd\u200e as variants. But \u05e7\u05b6\u05d3\u05b6\u05dd\u200e in Old Testament\n is often a definite geographical expression, denoting the region\n East and South-east of the Dead Sea (compare 29\u00b9, Numbers 23\u2077,\n Judges 6\u00b3\u1427 \u00b3\u00b3 7\u00b9\u00b2 8\u00b9\u2070, Isaiah 11\u00b9\u2074, Jeremiah 49\u00b2\u2078, Ezekiel 25\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2070,\n Job 1\u00b3); and although its appellative significance could, of\n course, not be forgotten, it has almost the force of a proper\n name. It is so used in the Egyptian romance of Sinuhe (_circa_\n 1900 B.C.): see M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa nach alt\u00e4gyptischen\n Denkm\u00e4lern_, 46 f.; Winckler _Geschichte Israels in\n Einzeldarstellungen_, 52 ff.; Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre\n Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 243 f.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =5= end] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 + \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u200e.\u2015\u2015=6.= \u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dc\u05b6\u05d2\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1\u200e (see on 22\u00b2\u2074) is used of \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05e4\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e in\n\u200e 35\u00b2\u00b2.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd\u200e] LXX \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n XXV. 7\u201211.\n _The Death and Burial of Abraham_\n (Priestly-Code).\n\n \u2077\u207b\u00b9\u00b9\u1d43 are the continuation of 23\u00b2\u2070 in Priestly-Code. Note the\n characteristic phrases: \u05d9\u05b0\u05de\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u200e, \u2077; \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d5\u05b7\u05e2\u200e, \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d9\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d8\u05d5\u05b9\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u05e0\u05b6\u05bd\u05d0\u05b1\u05e1\u05b7\u05e3 \u05d0\u05b6\u05dc\u05be\u05e2\u05b7\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05d9\u05d5\u200e \u2078; \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e,\n \u00b9\u00b9\u1d43; the chronology \u2077, the reminiscences of chapter 23, and the\n backward reference in 49\u00b3\u00b9.\u2015\u2015\u00b9\u00b9\u1d47 belongs to Yahwist.\n\n=8.= _gathered to his kindred_ (see on 17\u00b9\u2074)] Originally, this and\nsimilar phrases (15\u00b9\u2075 47\u00b3\u2070, Deuteronomy 31\u00b9\u2076 etc.) denoted burial\nin the family sepulchre; but the popular conception of She\u00f4l as a\nvast aggregate of graves in the under world enabled the language\nto be applied to men who (like Abraham) were buried far from\ntheir ancestors.\u2015\u2015_Isaac and Ishmael_] The expulsion of Ishmael is\nconsistently ignored by Priestly-Code.\u2015\u2015=11a.= Transition to the\nhistory of Isaac (25\u00b9\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427).\n\n \u00b9\u00b9\u1d47 (like verse \u2075) has been torn from its context in Yahwist,\n where it may have stood after 24\u00b9 25\u2075, or (more probably)\n after the notice of Abraham\u2019s death (compare 24\u2076\u00b2). Meyer\n (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 253, 323) makes the\n improbable conjecture that the statement referred originally\n to Ishmael, and formed, along with verse \u00b9\u2078, the conclusion of\n chapter 16.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =8.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d2\u05d5\u05e2 \u05d5\u05d9\u05de\u05ea\u200e] verse \u00b9\u2077 35\u00b2\u2079; see on 6\u00b9\u2077.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX better \u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2 \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, as\n\u200e 35\u00b2\u2079.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05e1\u05e3 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e] so 25\u00b9\u2077 35\u00b2\u2079 49\u00b2\u2079\u1427 \u00b3\u00b3, Numbers 20\u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2076 27\u00b9\u00b3 31\u00b2,\n Deuteronomy 32\u2075\u2070\u2020 (all Priestly-Code).\u2015\u2015=10.= \u05d4\u05e9\u05d3\u05d4\u200e] LXX + \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ae\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05dc\u05d7\u05d9 \u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u200e] see on 24\u2076\u00b2.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n XXV. 12\u201218.\n _The Genealogy and Death of Ishmael_\n (Priestly-Code).\n\nWith the exception of verse \u00b9\u2078, which is another isolated fragment of\nYahwist, the passage is an excerpt from the _T\u00f4led\u00f4th_ of the Priestly\nCode.\u2015\u2015The names of the genealogy (\u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2076) represent at once \u2018princes\u2019\n\u200e(\u05e0\u05b0\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d9\u05d0\u05b4\u05dd\u200e: compare the promise of 17\u00b2\u2070) and \u2018peoples\u2019 (\u05d0\u05bb\u05de\u05b9\u05bc\u05ea\u200e, \u00b9\u2076); that is\nto say, they are the assumed eponymous ancestors of 12 tribes which\nare here treated as forming a political confederacy under the name of\nIshmael.\n\n In the geography of Priestly-Code the Ishmaelites occupy a\n territory intermediate between the Arabian Cushites on the\n South (10\u2077), the Edomites, Moabites, etc., on the West, and\n the Aram\u00e6ans on the North (10\u00b2\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427); _i.e._, roughly speaking,\n the Syro-Arabian desert north of \u01e6ebel Shammar. In Yahwist they\n extend West to the border of Egypt (verse \u00b9\u2078).\u2015\u2015The Ishmaelites\n have left very little mark in history. From the fact that\n they are not mentioned in Egyptian or Assyrian records, Meyer\n infers that their flourishing period was from the 12th to the\n 9th centuries B.C. (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_,\n 324). In Old Testament the latest possible traces of Ishmael\n as a people are in the time of David (compare 2 Samuel 17\u00b2\u2075,\n 1 Chronicles 2\u00b9\u2077 27\u00b3\u2070), though the name occurs sporadically\n as that of an individual or clan in much later times (Jeremiah\n 40\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, 2 Kings 25\u00b2\u00b3, 1 Chronicles 8\u00b3\u2078 9\u2074\u2074, 2 Chronicles 19\u00b9\u00b9\n 23\u00b9, Ezra 10\u00b2\u00b2). In Genesis 37\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, Judges 8\u00b2\u2074, it is possible\n that \u2018Ishmaelites\u2019 is synonymous with Bedouin in general (see\n Meyer, 326).\n\n\u200e =13.= \u05e0\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05d9\u05b9\u05ea \u05d5\u05b0\u05e7\u05b5\u05d3\u05b8\u05e8\u200e] are the _Nabayati_ and _\u1e32idri_ of Assyrian\n monuments (Asshurbanipal: _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii.\n 215 ff.; compare Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 297, 299; _Die\n Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 151), and possibly the\n _Nabat\u00e6i_ and _Cedrei_ of Pliny, v. 65 (compare vi. 157, etc.).\n The references do not enable us to locate them with precision,\n but they must be put somewhere in the desert East of Palestine\n or Edom. The Nabat\u00e6ans of a later age (see Sch\u00fcrer, _Geschichte\n des j\u00fcdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi_\u00b3\u1427 \u2074, i. 728 ff.)\n were naturally identified with \u05e0\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05d9\u05b9\u05ea\u200e by Josephus (_Antiquities\n of the Jews_ i. 220 f.), Jerome (_Qu\u00e6stiones sive Traditiones\n hebraic\u00e6 in Genesim_), Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f [\u05e0\u05d1\u05d8\u200e], as they still are\n by Schrader, Sch\u00fcrer, and some others. But since the native name\n of the Nabat\u00e6ans was \u05e0\u05d1\u05d8\u05d5\u200e, the identification is doubtful, and is\n now mostly abandoned. The two tribes are mentioned together in\n Isaiah 60\u2077: \u05e0\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05d9\u05b9\u05ea\u200e alone only Genesis 28\u2079 36\u00b3; but \u05e7\u05b5\u05d3\u05b8\u05e8\u200e is alluded to\n from the time of Jeremiah downwards as a typical nomadic tribe\n of the Eastern desert. In late Hebrew the name was extended to\n the Arabs as a whole (so Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f \u05e2\u05e8\u05d1\u200e).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b7\u05d3\u05b0\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e (\u039d\u03b1\u03b2\u03b4\u03b5\u03ae\u03bb:\n see on verse \u00b3)] Perhaps an Arab tribe _Idibi\u2019il_ which\n Tiglath-pileser IV. (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 21)\n appointed to watch the Egyptian frontier (not necessarily the\n border of Egypt proper).\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05dd\u200e] a Simeonite clan (1 Chronicles\n 4\u00b2\u2075), otherwise not known.\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b8\u05e2\u200e follows \u05de\u05d1\u05e9\u05dd\u200e in\n 1 Chronicles 4\u00b2\u2075. Dillmann compares a _\u01e6ebel Misma\u2019_ South-east\n of K\u0101f, and another near \u1e24\u0101yil East of Teima.\u2015\u2015\u05d3\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] Several\n places bearing this name are known (Dillmann); but the one that\n best suits this passage is the D\u016bmah which Arabic writers place\n 4 days\u2019 journey North of Teima: viz. _D\u016bmat el-\u01e6endel_, now\n called _el-\u01e6\u014df_, a great oasis in the South of the Syrian desert\n and on the border of the _Nef\u016bd_ (Doughty, _Travels in Arabia\n Deserta_ ii. 607; compare Burckhardt, _Travels in Syria and\n the Holy Land._ 602). It is probably the \u0394\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1 of Ptolemy\n v. 18 (19). 7, the _Domata_ of Pliny vi. 157.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b7\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c2\u05d0\u200e] See on\n 10\u00b3\u2070, and compare Proverbs 31\u00b9. A tribe _Mas\u2019a_ is named by\n Tiglath-pileser IV. along with Teima (verse \u00b9\u2075), Saba\u2019, Hayapa\n (\u2074), Idibi\u2019il (\u00b9\u00b3), and may be identical with the \u039c\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n of Ptolemy v. 18 (19). 2, North-east of \u0394\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1.\u2015\u2015=15.= \u05d7\u05b2\u05d3\u05b7\u05d3\u200e]\n unknown.\u2015\u2015\u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05de\u05b8\u05d0\u200e (Isaiah 21\u00b9\u2074, Jeremiah 25\u00b2\u00b3, Job 6\u00b9\u2079) is the\n modern _Teima_, on the West border of the Ne\u01e7d, _circa_ 250\n miles South-east of A\u1e33\u0101ba, still an important caravan station on\n the route from Yemen to Syria, and (as local inscriptions show)\n in ancient times the seat of a highly developed civilisation:\n see the descriptions in Doughty, _Travels in Arabia Deserta_ i.\n 285 ff., 549 ff.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05b0\u05d8\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e and \u05e0\u05b8\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u200e are named together in 1 Chronicles\n 5\u00b9\u2079 among the East-Jordanic tribes defeated by the Reubenites in\n the time of Saul. \u05d9\u05d8\u05d5\u05e8\u200e is no doubt the same people which emerges\n about 100 B.C. under the name \u1f38\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, as a body of fierce and\n predatory mountaineers settled in the Anti-Lebanon (see Sch\u00fcrer,\n _Geschichte des j\u00fcdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi_,\n i. 707 ff.).\u2015\u2015Of \u05e7\u05b5\u05d3\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e nothing is known. Should we read \u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u05d3\u05b8\u05d1\u200e\n as 1 Chronicles 5\u00b9\u2079 (Ball, Kittel)?\u2015\u2015=16.= \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u05e6\u05b0\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9\u05d4\u05b6\u05dd\u200e] \u2018in their\n settlements\u2019 or \u2018villages\u2019; compare Isaiah 42\u00b9\u00b9 \u2018the villages\n that Kedar doth inhabit.\u2019\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05d8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05dd\u200e] \u05d8\u05b4\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (Numbers 31\u00b9\u2070, Ezekiel\n 25\u2074, Psalms 69\u00b2\u2076, 1 Chronicles 6\u00b3\u2079) is apparently a technical\n term for the circular encampment of a nomadic tribe. According\n to Doughty (i. 261), the Arabic _d\u012brah_ denotes the Bedouin\n circuit, but also, in some cases, their town settlements.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05bb\u05de\u05b9\u05bc\u05ea\u05b8\u05dd\u200e]\n \u2018according to their peoples.\u2019 \u05d0\u05bb\u05de\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4\u200e is the Arabic _\u2019ummat_, rare in\n Hebrew (Numbers 25\u00b9\u2075, Psalms 117\u00b9\u2020).\u2015\u2015=17.= Compare verses \u2077\u1427 \u2078.\n\n Verse \u00b9\u2078 is a stray verse of Yahwist, whose original setting\n it is impossible to determine. There is much plausibility in\n Holzinger\u2019s conjecture that it was the conclusion of Yahwist\u2019s\n lost genealogy of Ishmael (compare 10\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b3\u2070). Gunkel thinks it\n was taken from the end of chapter 16: similarly Meyer, who makes\n \u00b9\u00b9\u1d47 (page 352 above) a connecting link. Dillmann suggests that\n the first half may have followed 25\u2076, the reference being not\n to the Ishmaelites but to the \u1e32e\u1e6dureans; and that the second\n half is a gloss from 16\u00b9\u00b2. But even \u00b9\u2078\u1d43 is not consistent with\n \u00b9\u00b9\u1d47, for we have seen that the \u1e32e\u1e6dureans are found East and\n South-east of Palestine, and Sh\u00fbr is certainly not \u2018eastward\u2019\n from where Abraham dwelt.\u2015\u2015If \u1e24av\u00eelah has been rightly located\n on page 202 above, Yahwist fixes the eastern limit of the\n Ishmaelites in the neighbourhood of the \u01e6\u014df es-Sirh\u0101n, while the\n western limit is the frontier of Egypt (on _Sh\u00fbr_, see on 16\u2077).\n This description is, of course, inapplicable to Priestly-Code\u2019s\n Ishmaelites; but it agrees sufficiently with the statement of\n Elohist (21\u00b2\u00b9) that their home was the wilderness of Paran;\n and it includes Lahai-roi, which was presumably an Ishmaelite\n sanctuary. Since a reference to Assyria is here out of place,\n the words \u05d1\u05b9\u05bc\u05d0\u05b2\u05db\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b7\u05e9\u05bc\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e must be either deleted as a gloss (Wellhausen,\n Dillmann, Meyer, al.), or else read \u05d1\u05bc\u05f3 \u05d0\u05b8\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e; \u05d0\u05b8\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e being the\n hypothetical North Arabian tribe supposed to be mentioned in\n 25\u00b3 (so Gunkel; compare Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition\n as illustrated by the Monuments_, 240 f.; K\u00f6nig _F\u00fcnf Neue\n Arabische Landschaftsnamen im Alten Testament_ 11 ff.), a\n view for which there is very little justification.\u2015\u2015\u00b9\u2078\u1d47 is\n an adaptation of 16\u00b9\u00b2\u1d47, but throws no light on that difficult\n sentence. Perhaps the best commentary is Judges 7\u00b9\u00b2, where again\n the verb \u05e0\u05b8\u05e4\u05b7\u05dc\u200e has the sense of \u2018settle\u2019 (= \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05db\u05b5\u05df\u200e in 16\u00b9\u00b2). Hommel\u2019s\n restoration \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u05be\u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05db\u05b6\u05dc\u05b7\u05d7\u200e, \u2018in front of Kela\u1e25\u2019 (a secondary gloss on\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b7\u05e9\u05bc\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e), is a brilliant example of misplaced ingenuity.\n\n\n\n\n THE HISTORY OF JACOB.\n CHAPTERS XXV. 19\u2012XXXVI.\n\n\n Setting aside chapter 26 (a misplaced appendix to the history\n of Abraham: see page 363), and chapter 36 (Edomite genealogies),\n the third division of the Book of Genesis is devoted exclusively\n to the biography of Jacob. The legends which cluster round the\n name of this patriarch fall into four main groups (see Gunkel\n 257 ff.).\n\n A. _Jacob and Esau_:\n\n 1. The birth and youth of Esau and Jacob (25\u00b9\u2079\u207b\u00b2\u2078). 2. The\n transference of the birthright (25\u00b2\u2079\u207b\u00b3\u2074). 3. Jacob procures his\n father\u2019s blessing by a fraud (27).\n\n B. _Jacob and Laban_:\n\n 1. Jacob\u2019s meeting with Rachel (29\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2074). 2. His marriage to\n Leah and Rachel (29\u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b3\u2070). 3. The births of Jacob\u2019s children\n (29\u00b3\u00b9\u201230\u00b2\u2074). 4. Jacob\u2019s bargain with Laban (30\u00b2\u2075\u207b\u2074\u00b3). 5. The\n flight from Laban and the Treaty of Gilead (31\u00b9\u201232\u00b9).\n\n C. _Jacob\u2019s return to Canaan_ (loose and fragmentary):\n\n 1. Jacob\u2019s measures for appeasing Esau (32\u2074\u207b\u00b2\u00b2).\u00b9 2. The meeting\n of the brothers (33\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2077).\u00b9 3. The sack of Shechem (34). 4. The\n visit to Bethel, etc. (35\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2075). 5. The birth of Benjamin and\n death of Rachel (35\u00b9\u2076\u207b\u00b2\u2070). 6. Reuben\u2019s incest (35\u00b2\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427).\n\n D. Interspersed amongst these are several _cult-legends_,\n connected with sanctuaries of which Jacob was the reputed\n founder.\n\n 1. The dream at Bethel (28\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u00b2)\u2015\u2015a transition from A to B.\n 2. The encounter with angels at Mahanaim\u2015\u2015a fragment (32\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427).\n 3. The wrestling at Peniel (32\u00b2\u00b3\u207b\u00b3\u00b3). 4. The purchase of a lot\n at Shechem (33\u00b9\u2078\u207b\u00b2\u2070). 5. The second visit to Bethel\u2015\u2015partly\n biographical (see below) (35\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2075).\n\n \u00b9 Gunkel recognises a second series of Jacob-Esau stories in\n C. 1, 2; but these are entirely different in character from\n the group A. To all appearance they are conscious literary\n creations, composed in a biographical interest, and without\n historical or ethnographic significance.\n\n The section on Jacob exhibits a much more intimate fusion\n of sources than that on Abraham. The _disjecta membra_ of\n Priestly-Code\u2019s epitome can, indeed, be distinguished without\n much difficulty, viz. 25\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u2076\u1d47 26\u00b3\u2074 \u1da0\u1427 28\u00b9\u207b\u2079 29\u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2078\u1d47\u1427 \u00b2\u2079\n 30\u2074\u1d43\u1427 \u2079\u1d47\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1d43 31\u00b9\u2078\u1d43{\u03b2\u03b3\u03b4}\u1d47 33\u00b9\u2078\u1d43{\u03b2} 35\u2076\u1d43\u1427 \u2079 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u00b3\u1d43\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1d47\u207b\u00b2\u2076\u1427\n \u00b2\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u2079 36\u00b9. Even here, however, the redactor has allowed\n himself a freedom which he hardly uses in the earlier portions\n of Genesis. Not only are there omissions in Priestly-Code\u2019s\n narrative to be supplied from the other sources, but\n transposition seems to have been resorted to in order to\n preserve the sequence of events in Jehovist.\u2015\u2015The rest of\n the material is taken from the composite Jehovist, with the\n exception of chapter 34, which seems to belong to an older stage\n of tradition (see page 418). But the component documents are no\n longer represented by homogeneous sections (like chapters 16.\n 18 f. [Yahwist], 20. 22 [Elohist]); they are so closely and\n continuously blended that their separation is always difficult\n and occasionally impossible, while no lengthy context can be\n wholly assigned to the one or to the other.\u2015\u2015These phenomena\n are not due to a deliberate change of method on the part of\n the redactors, but rather to the material with which they had\n to deal. The Yahwist and Elohist recensions of the life of\n Jacob were so much alike, and so complete, that they ran easily\n into a single compound narrative whose strands are naturally\n often hard to unravel; and of so closely knit a texture that\n Priestly-Code\u2019s skeleton narrative had to be broken up here and\n there in order to fit into the connexion.\n\n To trace the growth of so complex a legend as that of Jacob is\n a tempting but perhaps hopeless undertaking. It may be surmised\n that the Jacob-Esau (A) and Jacob-Laban (B) stories arose\n independently and existed separately, the first in the south\n of Judah, and the second east of the Jordan. The amalgamation\n of the two cycles gave the idea of Jacob\u2019s flight to Aram and\n return to Canaan; and into this framework were fitted various\n cult-legends which had presumably been preserved at the\n sanctuaries to which they refer. As the story passed from mouth\n to mouth, it was enriched by romantic incidents like the meeting\n of Jacob and Rachel at the well, or the reconciliation of Jacob\n and Esau; and before it came to be written down by Yahwist and\n Elohist, the history of Jacob as a whole must have assumed a\n fixed form in Israelite tradition. Its most remarkable feature\n is the strongly marked biographic motive which lends unity\n to the narrative, and of which the writers must have been\n conscious,\u2015\u2015the development of Jacob\u2019s character from the\n unscrupulous roguery of chapters 25, 27 to the moral dignity\n of 32 ff. Whether tradition saw in him a type of the national\n character of Israel is more doubtful.\n\n As regards the historicity of the narratives, it has to be\n observed in the first place that the _ethnographic_ idea is much\n more prominent in the story of Jacob than in that of any other\n patriarch. It is obvious that the Jacob-Esau stories of chapters\n 25, 27 reflect the relations between the nations of Israel and\n Edom; and similarly at the end of chapter 31, Jacob and Laban\n appear as representatives of Israelites and Aram\u00e6ans. It has\n been supposed that the ethnographic motive, which comes to\n the surface in these passages, runs through the entire series\n of narratives (though disguised by the biographic form), and\n that by means of it we may extract from the legends a kernel of\n ancient tribal history. Thus, according to Steuernagel, Jacob\n (or Ya\u201b\u0103\u1e33\u014db-\u0113l) was a Hebrew tribe which, being overpowered by\n the Edomites, sought refuge among the Aram\u00e6ans, and afterwards,\n reinforced by the absorption of an Aram\u00e6an clan (Rachel),\n returned and settled in Canaan: the events being placed between\n the Exodus from Egypt and the conquest of Palestine (_Die\n Einwanderung der israelitischen St\u00e4mme in Kanaan_ 38 ff.,\n 56 ff.: compare Bennett 286). There are indeed few parts of the\n patriarchal history where this kind of interpretation yields\n more plausible results; and it is quite possible that the above\n construction contains elements of truth. At the same time,\n the method is one that requires to be applied with very great\n caution. In the first place, it is not certain that Jacob, Esau,\n and Laban were _originally_ personifications of Israel, Edom,\n and Aram respectively: they may be real historic individuals; or\n they may be mythical heroes round whose names a rich growth of\n legend had gathered before they were identified with particular\n peoples. In the second place, even if they were personified\n tribes, the narrative must necessarily contain many features\n which belong to the personifications, and have no ethnological\n significance whatever. If, _e.g._, one set of legends describes\n Israel\u2019s relations with Edom in the south and another its\n relations with the Aram\u00e6ans in the east, it was necessary\n that the ideal ancestor of Israel should be represented as\n journeying from the one place to the other; but we have no right\n to conclude that a similar migration was actually performed by\n the nation of Israel. And there are many incidents even in this\n group of narratives which cannot naturally be understood of\n dealings between one tribe and another. As a general rule, the\n ethnographic interpretation must be confined to those incidents\n where it is either indicated by the terms of the narrative, or\n else confirmed by external evidence.\n\n\n XXV. 19\u201234.\n _The Birth of Esau and Jacob,\n and the Transference of the Birthright_\n (Priestly-Code, Jehovist).\n\nIn answer to Isaac\u2019s prayer, Rebekah conceives and bears twin children,\nEsau and Jacob. In the circumstances of their birth (\u00b2\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u2076), and in\ntheir contrasted modes of life (\u00b2\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u2078), Hebrew legend saw prefigured\nthe national characteristics, the close affinity, and the mutual\nrivalry of the two peoples, Edom and Israel; while the story of Esau\nselling his birthright (\u00b2\u2079\u207b\u00b3\u2074) explains how Israel, the younger nation,\nobtained the ascendancy over the older, Edom.\n\n _Analysis._\u2015\u2015verses \u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2070 are taken from Priestly-Code; note\n\u200e \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4 \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b0\u05d3\u05b9\u05ea\u200e, \u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u200e, \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b2\u05e8\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e (_bis_), \u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05df \u05d0\u05b2\u05e8\u05b8\u05dd\u200e. To Priestly-Code must also\n be referred the chronological notice \u00b2\u2076\u1d47, which shows that\n an account of the birth of the twins in that source has been\n suppressed in favour of Yahwist. There is less reason to\n suspect a similar omission of the marriage of Isaac before\n verse \u00b2\u2070.\u2015\u2015The rest of the passage belongs to the composite\n work Jehovist. The stylistic criteria (\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e 21 \u00b2\u00b9 \u1d47\u2071\u02e2\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3;\n\u200e \u05e2\u05b8\u05ea\u05b7\u05e8\u200e, \u00b2\u00b9 \u1d47\u2071\u02e2; \u05dc\u05b8\u05bd\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05be\u05d6\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4\u200e\u200e, \u00b2\u00b2; \u05e6\u05b8\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u200e, \u00b2\u00b3) and the resemblance of \u00b2\u2074\u207b\u00b2\u2076 to\n 38\u00b2\u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 point to Yahwist as the leading source of \u00b2\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u2078; though\n Elohistic variants may possibly be detected in \u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2077 (Dillmann,\n Gunkel, Procksch, al.). Less certainty obtains with regard\n to \u00b2\u2079\u207b\u00b3\u2074, which most critics are content to assign to Yahwist\n (so Dillmann, Wellhausen, Kuenen, Cornill, Kautzsch-Socin,\n Holzinger, Driver, al.), while others (_Oxford Hexateuch_,\n Gunkel, _Students\u2019 Old Testament_. Procksch) assign it to\n Elohist because of the allusion in 27\u00b3\u2076. That reason is not\n decisive, and the linguistic indications are rather in favour\n of Yahwist (\u05e0\u05b8\u05d0\u200e, \u00b3\u2070; \u05dc\u05b8\u05bd\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05be\u05d6\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, \u00b3\u00b2 [Wellhausen _Die Composition des\n Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2\n\u200e 36]; \u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05db\u05df \u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u200e, \u00b3\u2070).\n\n=19, 20. Isaac\u2019s marriage.=\u2015\u2015Priestly-Code follows Elohist (31\u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u2074)\nin describing Rebekah\u2019s Mesopotamian relatives as _Aram\u00e6ans_ (compare\n28\u2075), though perhaps in a different sense. Here it naturally means\ndescendants of \u2019\u0102r\u0101m, the fifth son of Shem (10\u00b2\u00b3). That this is a\nconscious divergence from the tradition of Yahwist is confirmed by\n28\u00b2: see Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 420 ff.\u2015\u2015On _B\u0115th\u00fb\u2019\u0113l_,\nsee page 247 above.\u2015\u2015_Paddan \u2019\u0102r\u0101m_] (28\u00b2\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u2077 31\u00b9\u2078 33\u00b9\u2078 35\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2076 46\u00b9\u2075\n\u200e[\u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05df\u200e alone 48\u2077]: LXX \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2) is Priestly-Code\u2019s equivalent for\n\u2019\u0102ram Nah\u0103raim in Yahwist (24\u00b9\u2070); and in all probability denotes the\nregion round \u1e24arran (_v.i._).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =19.= \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05ea\u05f3 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d7\u05e7\u200e] commonly regarded as the heading of the section\n (of Genesis or) of Priestly-Code ending with the death of Isaac\n (35\u00b2\u2079); but see the notes on pages 40 f., 235 f. The use of the\n formula is anomalous, inasmuch as the birth of Isaac, already\n recorded in Priestly-Code, is included in his own genealogy. It\n looks as if the editor had handled his document somewhat freely,\n inserting the words \u05d9\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05e7 \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05df\u05be\u200e in the original heading \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b0\u05d3\u05b9\u05ea \u05d0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u05b8\u05dd\u200e]\n (compare verse \u00b9\u00b2).\u2015\u2015=20.= \u05e4\u05d3\u05df\u200e] Syriac (\u2021 Syriac word), Arabic\n _fadd\u0101n_ = \u2018yoke of oxen\u2019; hence (in Arabic) a definite measure\n of land (_jugerum_: compare Lane, 2353 b). A similar sense has\n been claimed for Assyrian _padanu_ on the authority of II R. 62,\n 33 a, b (Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 135). On this view\n\u200e \u05e4\u05f3 \u05d0\u05e8\u05dd\u200e would be equivalent to \u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05d3\u05b5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b2\u05e8\u05b8\u05dd\u200e = \u2018field of Aram\u2019 in Hosea\n 12\u00b9\u00b3. Ordinarily, _padanu_ means \u2018way\u2019 (Delitzsch _Assyrisches\n Handw\u00f6rterbuch_, 515 f.); hence it has been thought that\n the word is another designation of \u1e24arran (see 11\u00b3\u00b9), in the\n neighbourhood of which a place _Padd\u0101n\u0101_ (_vicus prope \u1e24arran_:\n Robert Payne Smith _Thesaurus Syriacus_ 3039) has been known\n from early Christian times: N\u00f6ldeke, however, thinks this\n may be due to a Christian localisation of the biblical story\n (_Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, i. 278). Others less plausibly connect\n the name with the kingdom of _Patin_, with its centre North of\n the Lake of Antioch (Winckler _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte\n Testament_\u00b3, 38).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=21\u201223. The pre-natal oracle.=\u2015\u2015=21.= With the prolonged barrenness of\nRebekah, compare the cases of Sarah, and Rachel (29\u00b3\u00b9), the mothers of\nSamson (Judges 13\u00b2), Samuel (1 Samuel 1\u00b2), and John the Baptist (Luke\n1\u2077).\u2015\u2015_Isaac prayed to Yahwe_] Compare 1 Samuel 1\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427. No miraculous\nintervention is suggested; and our only regret is that this glimpse\nof everyday family piety is so tantalisingly meagre.\u2015\u2015=22.= During\npregnancy the children _crushed one another_] ( _v.i._) in a struggle\nfor priority of birth.\n\n Compare the story of Akrisios and Proitus (Apollodorus\n _Bibliotheca_ ii. 2. 1 ff.), sons of Abas, king of Argos, who\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. The sequel\n presents a certain parallelism to the history of Esau and Jacob,\n which has a bearing on the question whether there is an element\n of mythology behind the ethnological interpretation of the\n biblical narrative (see pages 455 f.). Another parallel is\n the Polynesian myth of the twins Tangaroa and Rongo (Cheyne\n _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 356).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =21.= \u05e2\u05ea\u05e8\u200e] peculiar to Yahwist in Hexateuch: Exodus 8\u2074\u1427 \u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2074\u1427\n \u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2076 9\u00b2\u2078 10\u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2078. In Arabic _\u201batr_ and _\u201bat\u012brat_ mean animals\n slain in sacrifice; hence Hebrew \u05d4\u05b7\u05e2\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e8\u200e (Hiphil may everywhere\n be read instead of Qal) probably referred originally to\n sacrifice accompanied by prayer, though no trace of the\n former idea survives in Hebrew: \u201cDas Gebet ist der Zweck oder\n die Interpretation des Opfers, die Begriffe liegen nahe bei\n einander\u201d (Wellhausen 142).\n\n * * * * *\n\nRebekah, regarding this as a portent, expresses her dismay in words\nnot quite intelligible in the text: _If it_ [is to] _be so, why then\nam I...?_] _v.i._\u2015\u2015_to inquire of Yahwe_] to seek an oracle at the\nsanctuary.\u2015\u2015=23.= The oracle is communicated through an inspired\npersonality, like the Arabic _k\u0101hin_ (Wellhausen _Reste arabischen\nHeidentums_\u00b2, 134 ff.), and is rhythmic in form (_ib._ 135).\u2015\u2015_two\nnations_] whose future rivalries are prefigured in the struggle of the\ninfants.\u2015\u2015The point of the prophecy is in the last line: _The elder\nshall serve the younger_ (see on 27\u00b2\u2079\u1427 \u2074\u2070).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =22.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05e8\u05e6\u05e6\u05d5\u200e] LXX \u1f10\u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03c1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (the same word as Luke 1\u2074\u00b9\u1427 \u2074\u2074),\n perhaps confusing \u05e8\u05d5\u05e5\u200e, \u2018run,\u2019 with \u05e8\u05e6\u05e5\u200e, \u2018break.\u2019 More correctly,\n Aquila \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b8\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd; Symmachus \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05dd \u05db\u05df \u05dc\u05de\u05d4 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e0\u05db\u05d9\u200e] LXX \u03b5\u1f30\n \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf; But the \u05d6\u05b8\u05d4\u200e merely\n emphasises the interrogative (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 136 _c_),\n and the latter part of the sentence seems incomplete: Vulgate\n _quid necesse fuit concipere?_ Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac phrase).\n Graetz supplies \u05d4\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e; Dillmann, Ball, Kittel \u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e (compare 27\u2074\u2076);\n Frankenberg (_G\u00f6ttingische gelehrte Anzeigen_, 1901, 697)\n changes \u05d0\u05e0\u05db\u05d9\u200e to \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d4\u200e, while Gunkel makes it \u05d0\u05bb\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u200e (Psalms 91\u00b9\u2070),\n with \u05d6\u05d4\u200e as subject.\u2015\u2015=23.= \u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05b9\u05dd\u200e] a poetic word; in Hexateuch only\n 27\u00b2\u2079 (Yahwist).\u2015\u2015\u05e6\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u200e] \u2018the small[er],\u2019 in the sense of \u2018younger,\u2019\n is characteristic of Yahwist (19\u00b3\u00b9\u1427 \u00b3\u2074\u1427 \u00b3\u2075\u1427 \u00b3\u2078 29\u00b2\u2076 43\u00b3\u00b3, Joshua\n 6\u00b2\u2076 [1 Kings 16\u00b3\u2074]\u2020).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=24\u201226. Birth and naming of the twins.=\u2015\u2015=24.= Compare 38\u00b2\u2077\u207b\u00b3\u2070, the\nonly other description of a twin-birth in the Old Testament.\u2015\u2015=25.=\n\u200e\u05d0\u05b7\u05d3\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e\u2015\u2015either _tawny_ or _red-haired_\u2015\u2015is a play on the name Edom (see\non verse \u00b3\u2070); similarly, _all over like a mantle of hair_ (\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u200e) is\na play on S\u0113\u201b\u00eer, the country of the Edomites (36\u2078). It is singular\nthat the name _\u201b\u0112s\u0101w_ itself (on which _v.i._) finds no express\netymology.\u2015\u2015=26a.= _with his hand holding Esau\u2019s heel_] (Hosea 12\u2074)\na last effort (verse \u00b2\u00b2) to secure the advantage of being born first.\nThere are no solid grounds for thinking (with Gunkel, Luther [_Die\nIsraeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 128], Nowack, al.) that Hosea 12\u2074\u1d43\n\u200e(\u05d1\u05d1\u05d8\u05df \u05e2\u05b8\u05e7\u05b7\u05d1 \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u200e) presupposes a different version of the legend, in which\nJacob actually wrested the priority from his brother (compare 38\u00b2\u2078 \u1da0\u1427).\nThe clause is meant as an explanation of the name \u2018Jacob.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =24.= \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] properly \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b9\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (so _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_), as 38\u00b2\u2077.\u2015\u2015=25.= \u05d0\u05b7\u05d3\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e used again only of David,\n 1 Samuel 16\u00b9\u00b2 17\u2074\u00b2. It is usually explained of the \u2018reddish\n brown\u2019 hue of the skin; but there is much to be said for the\n view that it means \u2018red-haired\u2019 (LXX \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2, Vulgate _rufus_:\n so Gesenius, Tuch, al.). The incongruity of the word with\n the name \u05e2\u05b5\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d5\u200e creates a suspicion that it may be either a gloss\n or a variant from a parallel source (Dillmann): for various\n conjectures see Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 217\u00b2;\n Cheyne _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 1333; Winckler _Altorientalische\n Forschungen_, i. 344 f.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b5\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d5\u200e has no Hebrew etymology. The nearest\n comparison is Arabic _\u2019a\u201bta\u02b8_ (so most) = \u2018hirsute\u2019 (also\n \u2018stupid\u2019), though that would require as strict Hebrew equivalent\n\u200e \u05e2\u05b5\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d5\u200e (Driver). A connexion with the Ph\u0153nician \u039f\u1f50\u03c3\u03c9\u03bf\u03c2, brother of\n _\u0160am\u00eamr\u00fbm_, and a hero of the chase, is probable, though not\n certain. There is also a goddess _\u201bAs\u00eet_, figured on Egyptian\n monuments, who has been thought to be a female form of Esau\n (M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa nach alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_,\n 316 f.).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u200e] LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05dc\u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u200e, as verse \u00b2\u2076; but _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ has plural both times. In\n any case the subject is indefinite.\u2015\u2015=26.= \u05d9\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e7\u05b9\u05d1\u200e is a contraction\n of \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1\u05d0\u05dc\u200e (compare \u05d9\u05b4\u05e4\u05b0\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7\u200e, Joshua 15\u2074\u00b3), Judges 11\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 with \u05d9\u05b4\u05e4\u05b0\u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u05be\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e,\n Joshua 19\u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2077; \u05d9\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05e0\u05b6\u05d4\u200e, 2 Chronicles 26\u2076 with \u05d9\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05e0\u05b0\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e, Joshua 15\u00b9\u00b9)\n which occurs (a) as a _place_ name in central Palestine on\n the list of Thothmes III. (No 102: _Y\u201b\u1e33b\u2019r_);\u00b9 and (b) as a\n _personal_ name (_Ya\u201b\u1e33ub-ilu_)\u00b2 in a Babylonian contract tablet\n of the age of \u1e2aammurabi. The most obvious interpretation of\n names of this type is to take them as verbal sentences, with\n \u2019\u0112l as subject: \u2018God overreaches,\u2019 or \u2018follows,\u2019 or \u2018rewards,\u2019\n according to the sense given to the \u221a \u05e2\u05e7\u05d1\u200e (see Gray, _Studies\n in Hebrew Proper Names_, 218).\u00b3 They may, however, be nominal\n sentences: \u2018Ya\u201b\u1e33\u014db is God\u2019 (see Meyer 282); in which case the\n meaning of the name \u05d9\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e7\u05b9\u05d1\u200e is pushed a step farther back. The\n question whether Jacob was originally a tribe, a deity, or an\n individual man, thus remains unsettled by etymology.\u2015\u2015At end of\n verse, LXX adds \u1fec\u03b5\u03b2\u03ad\u03ba\u03ba\u03b1,\u2015\u2015an improvement in style.\n\n \u00b9 Meyer _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,\n vi. 8; _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 251 f.,\n 281 f.; M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa nach alt\u00e4gyptischen\n Denkm\u00e4lern_, 162 f.; Luther, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die\n alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi. 60 ff.\u2015\u2015The name\n has since been read by M\u00fcller in a list of Ramses II.,\n and (defectively written) in one of Ramses III.: see\n _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1907,\n i. 27.\u2015\u2015Questioned by Langdon, _The Expository Times_,\n xxi. (1909), page 90.\n\n \u00b2 Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the\n Monuments_, 96, 112. According to Hommel, the contracted\n form _Ya\u1e33ubu_ also occurs in the Tablets (_ib._ 203\u00b9).\n\n \u00b3 In Hebrew the verb (a denominative from \u05e2\u05b8\u05e7\u05b5\u05d1\u200e, \u2018heel\u2019) is only\n used with allusion to the story or character of Jacob (27\u00b3\u2076,\n Hosea 12\u2074, Jeremiah 9\u00b3\u2020: in Job 37\u2074 the text is doubtful),\n and expresses the idea of insidiousness or treachery. So\n\u200e \u05e2\u05b8\u05e7\u05b5\u05d1\u200e (Psalms 49\u2076\u2020), \u05e2\u05b8\u05e7\u05b9\u05d1\u200e (Jeremiah 17\u2079), \u05e2\u05b8\u05e7\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e (2 Kings 10\u00b9\u2079\u2020).\n The meanings \u2018follow\u2019 and \u2018reward\u2019 are found in Arabic\n (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 784 a).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=27, 28. Their manner of life.=\u2015\u2015=27.= Esau becomes _a man skilled\nin hunting, a man of the field_] It is hardly necessary to suppose\nthat the phrases are variants from different documents. Though this\nconception of Esau\u2019s occupation is not consistently maintained (see\n33\u2079), it has doubtless some ethnographic significance; and game\nis said to be plentiful in the Edomite country (Buhl, _Edomiter_,\n43).\u2015\u2015Jacob, on the other hand, chooses the half-nomadic pastoral\nlife which was the patriarchal ideal. \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1 \u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd\u200e, elsewhere \u2018an ethically\nblameless man\u2019 (Job 1\u2078 etc.), here describes the _orderly_,\nwell-disposed _man_ (_Scotic\u00e8_, \u2018douce\u2019), as contrasted with the\nundisciplined and irregular huntsman.\u2015\u2015=28.= A preparation for chapter\n27, which perhaps followed immediately on these two verses. Verse \u00b2\u2077,\nhowever, is also presupposed by\u2666\n\n \u2666 Text missing in original book.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =28.= \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05e6\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05d3 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] A curious phrase, meaning \u2018venison was to his\n taste.\u2019 It would be easier to read (with Ball al.) \u05dc\u05b0\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05d5\u200e; or an\n adjective (\u05d8\u05d5\u05b9\u05d1\u200e?) may have fallen out. LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 appear to\n have read \u05e6\u05b5\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=29\u201234. Esau parts with the birthright.=\u2015\u2015The superiority of Israel\nto Edom is popularly explained by a typical incident, familiar to the\npastoral tribes bordering on the desert, where the wild huntsman would\ncome famishing to the shepherd\u2019s tent to beg for a morsel of food. At\nsuch times the \u2018man of the field\u2019 is at the mercy of the tent-dweller;\nand the ordinary Israelite would see nothing immoral in a transaction\nlike this, where the advantage is pressed to the uttermost.\u2015\u2015The\nlegend takes no account of the fact that Edom, as a settled state\nolder than Israel, must have been something more than a mere nation\nof hunters. The contrasted types of civilisation\u2015\u2015Jacob the shepherd\nand Esau the hunter\u2015\u2015were firmly fixed in the popular mind; and the\nsupremacy of the former was an obvious corollary.\u2015\u2015=29.= Jacob _stewed\nsomething_: an intentionally indefinite description, the nature of\nthe dish being reserved as a surprise for verse \u00b3\u2074.\u2015\u2015=30.= _Let me\ngulp some of the red\u2015\u2015that red there!_] With a slight vocalic change\n(_v.i._), we may render: _some of that red seasoning_ (strictly\n\u2018obsonium\u2019).\u2015\u2015_\u2019\u0114d\u014dm_] a play on the word for \u2018red\u2019 (\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b9\u05dd\u200e). The name is\n\u201ca memento of the never-to-be-forgotten greed and stupidity of the\nancestor\u201d (Gunkel).\u2015\u2015=31.= Jacob seizes the opportunity to secure the\nlong-coveted \u2018birthright,\u2019 _i.e._ the superior status which properly\nbelonged to the first-born son.\n\n The rare term \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05db\u05b9\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e denotes the advantages and rights usually\n enjoyed by the eldest son, including such things as (a) natural\n vigour of body and character (Genesis 49\u00b3, Deuteronomy 21\u00b9\u2077:\n\u200e \u2225 \u05e8\u05b5\u05d0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e), creating a presumption of success in life, (b) a\n position of honour as head of the family (Genesis 27\u00b2\u2079 49\u2078),\n and (c) a double share of the inheritance (Deuteronomy 21\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427).\n By a legal fiction this status was conceived as transferable\n from the actual first-born to another son who had proved himself\n more worthy of the dignity (1 Chronicles 5\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427). When applied\n to tribes or nations, it expresses superiority in political\n might or material prosperity; and this is the whole content of\n the notion in the narrative before us. The idea of _spiritual_\n privilege, or a mystic connexion (such as is suggested in\n Hebrews 12\u00b9\u2076 \u1da0\u1427) between the birthright and the blessing of\n chapter 27, is foreign to the spirit of the ancient legends,\n which owe their origin to \u00e6tiological reflexion on the historic\n relations of Israel and Edom. The passage furnishes no support\n to the ingenious theory of Jacob\u2019s (_Biblical Archaeology_\n 46 ff.), that an older custom of \u201cjunior right\u201d is presupposed\n by the patriarchal tradition.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =29.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d6\u05d3\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05d6\u05d9\u05d3\u200e] \u05d6\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3\u200e only here in the literal sense; elsewhere =\n \u2018act presumptuously.\u2019 The derivative \u05e0\u05d6\u05d9\u05d3\u200e (2 Kings 4\u00b3\u2078, Haggai 2\u00b9\u00b2)\n with rare prefix _na_ (common in Assyrian).\u2015\u2015=30.= \u05d4\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05d8\u05b5\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e (\u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be\n \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd)] a coarse expression suggesting bestial voracity;\n used in New Hebrew of the feeding of cattle.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e] The\n repetition of the same word is awkward, even in an expression\n of impatient greed. The emendation referred to above consists\n in reading the first \u05d4\u05b8\u05bd\u05d0\u05b1\u05d3\u05b9\u05dd\u200e after Arabic _\u2019id\u0101m_ = \u2018seasoning or\n condiment for bread\u2019 (compare verse \u00b3\u2074): so Boysen (cited in\n Schleusner\u00b2, i. 969), T. D. Anderson (_ap._ Dillmann). This is\n better than (Driver al.) to make the change in both places, LXX\n (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f11\u03c8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5) and Vulgate (_de coctione hac\n rufa_) seem to differentiate the words.\u2015\u2015=31.= \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd\u200e] = \u2018first of\n all,\u2019 as \u00b3\u00b3, 1 Samuel 2\u00b9\u2076, 1 Kings 1\u2075\u00b9 22\u2075 (Brown-Driver-Briggs,\n 400 b).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=32.= Esau\u2019s answer reveals the sensual nature of the man: the remoter\ngood is sacrificed to the passing necessity of the moment, which\nhis ravenous appetite leads him to exaggerate.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b9\u05dc\u05b5\u05da\u05b0 \u05dc\u05b8\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea\u200e does not mean\n\u2018exposed to death sooner or later\u2019 (Abraham Ibn Ezra, Dillmann, al.),\nbut \u2018_at the point of death_ now.\u2019\u2015\u2015=34.= The climax of the story\nis Esau\u2019s unconcern even when he discovers that he has bartered the\nbirthright for such a trifle as a dish of lentil soup.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b2\u05d3\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (2 Samuel\n17\u00b2\u2078, 23\u00b9\u00b9, Ezekiel 4\u2079), still a common article of diet in Egypt and\nSyria, under the name _\u201badas_: the colour is said to be \u2018a darkish\nbrown\u2019 (_A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 95a).\u2015\u2015The last clause\nimplies a certain moral justification of the transaction: if Esau\nwas defrauded, he was defrauded of that which he was incapable of\nappreciating.\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVI.\n _Isaac and the Philistines_\n (Yahwist, Redactor, Priestly-Code).\n\nThe chapter comprises the entire cycle of Isaac-legends properly so\ncalled; consisting, as will be seen, almost exclusively of incidents\nalready related of Abraham (compare especially chapter 20 f.). The\nintroductory notice of his arrival in Gerar (\u00b9\u207b\u2076: compare 20\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427) is\nfollowed by his denial of his marriage with Rebekah (\u2077\u207b\u00b9\u00b9 \u2225 12\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\n20\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), his success in agriculture (\u00b9\u00b2\u207b\u00b9\u2076,\u2015\u2015the only circumstance\nwithout an Abrahamic parallel), his quarrels with the Philistines\nabout wells (\u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u00b2 \u2225 21\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427), and, lastly, the Covenant of Beersheba,\nwith an account of the naming of the place (\u00b2\u00b3\u207b\u00b3\u00b3 \u2225 21\u00b2\u00b2\u207b\u00b3\u2074).\u2015\u2015The\nnotice of Esau\u2019s wives (\u00b3\u2074 \u1da0\u1427) is an excerpt from Priestly-Code.\n\n _Source._\u2015\u2015The style, except in \u00b3\u2074 \u1da0\u1427 and some easily recognised\n redactional patches (\u00b9\u1d43{\u03b2\u03b3}\u1427 \u00b2\u1d43{\u03b2}\u1d47\u1427 \u00b3\u1d47\u207b\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2078: see the notes),\n is unmistakably Yahwistic: compare \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e (\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2075 [even in\n the mouth of Abimelech, \u00b2\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u2079]); \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05ea \u05de\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4\u200e, \u2077 (24\u00b9\u2076); \u05d4\u05e9\u05e7\u05d9\u05e3\u200e, \u2078;\n\u200e \u05d4\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05e7\u200e, \u00b2\u00b2 (12\u2078); \u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e9\u05dd \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, \u00b2\u2075; \u05d0\u05b8\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u00b2\u2078 (24\u2074\u00b9); \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05da\u05b0 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, \u00b2\u2079 (24\u00b3\u00b9).\n Some critics find traces of Elohist in \u00b9 \u1da0\u1427, but these are\n dubious.\u2015\u2015The relation of the passage to other strata of the\n Yahwist document is very difficult to determine. On the one hand,\n the extremely close parallelism to chapter 20 f. suggests that\n it is a secondary compilation based on Jehovist as a composite\n work, with the name of Isaac substituted for that of Abraham.\n But it is impossible to imagine a motive for such an operation;\n and several considerations favour the theory that chapter 26 is\n a continuation of the source distinguished as Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f in\n the history of Abraham. (1) The Abrahamic parallels all belong\n to the Negeb tradition (Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43 and Elohist); and it\n is natural to think that Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f, representing the Hebron\n tradition, would connect the Negeb narratives with the name of\n Isaac (whether Abraham or Isaac was the original hero of these\n legends we cannot well ascertain). (2) The language on the whole\n confirms this view (compare \u05d4\u05e9\u05e7\u05d9\u05e3\u200e, \u05d4\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05e7\u200e, \u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e9\u05dd \u05d9\u05f3\u200e, \u05d5\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d9\u05f3\u200e, and all\n the phrases of \u00b2\u2075\u1d43). (3) The ideal of the patriarchal character\n agrees with that which we find in Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f (magnanimity,\n peaceableness, etc.).\u2015\u2015In any case, it is to be observed that\n the chapter stands out of its proper order. The Rebekah of \u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\n is plainly not the mother of two grown-up sons, as she is at the\n close of chapter 25; and 27\u00b9 is the immediate continuation of\n 25\u00b3\u2074 or \u00b2\u2078 (see Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und\n der historischen B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 30).\n\n=1\u20126. Isaac migrates to Gerar.=\u2015\u2015Cleared of interpolations, the\nsection reads: (\u00b9\u1d43{\u03b1}) _There was a famine in the land;_ (\u00b9\u1d47) _and\nIsaac went to Abimelech, king of the Philistines, to Gerar._ (\u00b2\u1d43{\u03b1})\n_And Yahwe appeared to him and said,_ (\u00b3\u1d43) _Sojourn in this land,\nand I will be with thee and bless thee._ (\u2076) _So Isaac abode in\nGerar._\u2015\u2015=1.= Isaac comes probably from Beer La\u1e25ai-roi, 25\u00b9\u00b9.\u2015\u2015On\n_Abimelech_ and _Gerar_, see 20\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427. The assumption that Gerar was\na Philistine kingdom is an anachronism (see on 10\u00b9\u2074), made also in\nYahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43 (21\u00b3\u00b2) but not in Elohist.\u2015\u2015=3a.= _and bless thee_]\na promise fulfilled in Isaac\u2019s successful husbandry (\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), and other\ntokens of the divine favour (\u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2078 \u1da0\u1427), with no reference primarily\nto the blessing of Abraham.\n\n \u00b9\u1d43{\u03b2\u03b3} (\u05de\u05dc\u05d1\u05d3\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd\u200e) is a redactional gloss (Redactor\u1d36\u1d43\u02b0\u02b7\u2071\u02e2\u1d57\n or Redactor\u1d36\u1d49\u02b0\u1d52\u1d5b\u2071\u02e2\u1d57), pointing back to 12\u00b9\u2070.\u2015\u2015\u00b2\u1d43{\u03b2}\u1d47 (\u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05ea\u05e8\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e)\n is obviously inconsistent with \u00b3\u1d43, and is best explained as a\n gloss from the same hand as \u00b9\u1d43{\u03b2\u03b3} (Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger),\n Dillmann, Gunkel, al. consider it a variant from a parallel\n narrative of Elohist (compare \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05da\u200e with 22\u00b2), to which\n Dillmann quite unnecessarily assigns also \u00b9\u1d43{\u03b1} and \u2076; but\n the evidence is too weak to warrant the improbable hypothesis\n of a _second_ Elohist version of 20\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015\u00b3\u1d47\u207b\u2075 an expansion\n in the manner of 22\u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b9\u2078, emphasising the immutability of the\n oath to Abraham (see on 15\u00b9\u2078), and showing many traces of late\n composition.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =3.= \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea\u200e] so verse \u2074; LXX, _Jubilees_ read singular.\n The nearest analogies to this use of plural (which is rare\n and mostly late) are 1 Chronicles 13\u00b2, 2 Chronicles 11\u00b2\u00b3 =\n \u2018districts\u2019 (of Palestine).\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u200e] see 19\u2078.\u2015\u2015=4a.= The comparison\n with the stars, as 15\u2075 22\u00b9\u2077.\u2015\u2015=4b, 5= almost verbally identical\n with 22\u00b9\u2078: note especially the uncommon \u05e2\u05e7\u05d1 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u200e.\u2015\u2015=5b= is made\n up of Priestly and Deuteronomic expressions: compare Leviticus\n 26\u2074\u2076, Deuteronomy 6\u00b2 28\u2074\u2075 30\u00b9\u2070 etc.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05de\u05e8 \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u05ea\u200e denotes chiefly\n the service of priests in the sanctuary, but is here used in\n a wider sense (compare Leviticus 18\u00b3\u2070 22\u2079, Deuteronomy 11\u00b9,\n Joshua 22\u00b3, 1 Kings 2\u00b3, Malachi 3\u00b9\u2074). The expression is highly\n characteristic of Priestly-Code (Holzinger _Einleitung in\n den Hexateuch_ 344).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_, LXX + \u05d0\u05b8\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05da\u05b8\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=7\u201211. Rebekah\u2019s honour compromised.=\u2015\u2015=7, 8.= Isaac\u2019s lie (as 12\u00b9\u00b3\n20\u00b2), and the king\u2019s accidental discovery of it.\u2015\u2015_looked out at\na window_] possibly into a court of the palace: compare 2 Samuel\n\u200e11\u00b2.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b0\u05e6\u05b7\u05d7\u05b5\u05e7 \u05d0\u05b5\u05ea\u200e] exchanging conjugal caresses (see on 21\u2076),\u2015\u2015a play on\nthe name Isaac. The verb is nowhere else construed with \u05d0\u05b5\u05ea\u200e.\u2015\u2015=9, 10.=\nAbimelech\u2019s rebuke of Isaac, and the latter\u2019s self-exculpation.\u2015\u2015_thou\nmightest have brought guilt_] Compare 20\u2079. It is an instance of\nthe writer\u2019s timid handling of the theme (see below) that no actual\ncomplication arises.\u2015\u2015=11.= So stern an injunction would have been in\nplace in chapter 12 or chapter 20, but here it is unmotived.\n\n That the three narratives 12\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 20, 26\u2077\u207b\u00b9\u00b9 are variations\n of a common theme, appears not only from their close material\n resemblance, but also from particular phrases recurrent in each:\n _e.g._ \u05d0\u05d7\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u200e, \u05d4\u05e8\u05d2\u200e, \u05de\u05d4\u05be\u05d6\u05d0\u05ea \u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea \u05dc\u05e0\u05d5\u200e, \u05d2\u05d5\u05e8\u200e, \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05ea [\u05d9\u05e4\u05ea] \u05de\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4\u200e, etc. (compare\n Kuenen _Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de\n verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds_ i. 228). Although\n many good scholars (Wellhausen, Kuenen, Holzinger, al.) are of\n a different opinion, the present passage appears to be the most\n colourless and least original form of the tradition. In 12\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\n (Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43) the leading features\u2015\u2015the beauty of the\n heroine, the patriarch\u2019s fear for his life, his stratagem, the\n plagues on the heathen monarch, his rebuke of the patriarch,\n and the rewards heaped on the latter\u2015\u2015are combined in a strong\n and convincing situation, in which each element stands out in\n its full natural significance. In chapter 20 (Elohist), the\n connexion of ideas is in the main preserved; though a tendency\n to soften the harsher aspects of the incident appears in God\u2019s\n communication to Abimelech, in the statement that no actual\n harm had come to Sarah, and in the recognition of the half-truth\n in Abraham\u2019s account of his relation to Sarah. In 26\u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\n (Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f) this tendency is carried so far as to obscure\n completely the dramatic significance of those features which are\n retained. Though Isaac is the guest of Abimelech (verse \u00b9), it\n is only the \u2018men of the place\u2019 who display a languid interest in\n his beautiful wife: no one wants to marry Rebekah, least of all\n the king, who is introduced merely as the accidental discoverer\n of the true state of affairs, and is concerned only for the\n morality of his subjects. No critical situation arises; and\n the exemplary self-restraint manifested by the men of Gerar\n affords no adequate basis for the stern injunction of \u00b9\u00b9,\n which would have been appropriate enough in chapter 12 or\n chapter 20. It is, of course, impossible to assign absolute\n priority in every respect to any one of the three recensions;\n but it may reasonably be affirmed that in general their\n relative antiquity is represented by the order in which they\n happen to stand\u2015\u2015Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43, Elohist, Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f.\n The transference of the scene from Gerar to Egypt is perhaps\n the only point in which the first version is less faithful to\n tradition than the other two.\u2015\u2015See the elaborate comparison in\n Gunkel 197 ff.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =7.= \u05d0\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9 \u05d4\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd\u200e] compare 29\u00b2\u00b2 38\u00b2\u00b2, Judges 19\u00b9\u2076.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05b5\u05d0\u05de\u05b9\u05e8\u200e] a very\n rare and questionable use of the word as a real infinitive\n (_dicere_, not _dicendo_). Should \u05d0\u05e9\u05ea\u05d9\u200e be deleted? _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX read \u05d0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05d0\u200e.\u2015\u2015=10.= \u05db\u05de\u05e2\u05d8\u200e]\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 106 _p_.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d4\u05d1\u05d0\u05ea\u200e] construct perfect; \u2018thou\n wouldst (in that case) have brought.\u2019\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05d4\u05e2\u05dd\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX \u05e2\u05b7\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=12\u201216.\u2015\u2015Isaac\u2019s successful husbandry.=\u2015\u2015=12.= Cultivation on a small\nscale is still occasionally practised by the Bedouin (see Palmer,\n_The Desert of the Exodus_ ii. 296). The only other allusions in\nthe patriarchal history are 30\u00b9\u2074 37\u2077.\u2015\u2015=13\u201216.= Isaac\u2019s phenomenal\nprosperity excites the jealousy of the Philistines, which leads to his\nenforced departure.\u2015\u2015=15.= See on \u00b9\u2078 below.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =13\u201216.= Gunkel thinks the verses are a pendant to the Rebekah\n incident, corresponding to the gifts of the heathen king (12\u00b9\u2076\n 20\u00b9\u2074) and the expulsion of Abraham (12\u00b2\u2070). It is more natural to\n consider \u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 the continuation of \u2076; indeed, it might fairly be\n questioned whether \u2077\u207b\u00b9\u00b9 is not a later insertion, interrupting\n the continuity of the main narrative.\u2015\u2015=12.= \u05e9\u05e2\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n wrongly \u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05e2\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u2018barley.\u2019 The word is \u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05e2\u05b7\u05e8\u200e, meaning \u2018measure\u2019 or\n \u2018value\u2019 (compare \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e2\u05b7\u05e8\u200e = \u2018reckon,\u2019 in Proverbs 23\u2077, with allied\n words in Yahwist. Aramaic and New Hebrew; especially New Hebrew\n\u200e \u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8\u200e = \u2018measure\u2019).\u2015\u2015=13.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05dc\u05da \u05d4\u05dc\u05d5\u05da \u05d5\u05d2\u05d3\u05dc\u200e] Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 113 _u_.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=17\u201222. Isaac\u2019s wells.=\u2015\u2015See on 21\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015=17.= Isaac retires to the\n_W\u0101d\u012b of G\u0115r\u0101r]_ probably the _\u01e6urf el-\u01e6er\u0101r_, above (South-east) _Umm\nel-\u01e6er\u0101r_ (20\u00b9), into which several w\u0101d\u012bs converge, including West\ner-Ru\u1e25aibeh (verse \u00b2\u00b2) and West es-Seba\u201b.\u2015\u2015=19, 20.= The first well\nis named _\u201bEse\u1e33_ (\u2018annoyance\u2019); the name has not been found.\u2015\u2015=21.=\n_Si\u1e6dn\u0101h_ (\u2018hostility\u2019) is possibly to be sought in the _West \u0160u\u1e6dnet\ner-Ru\u1e25aibeh_, close to Ru\u1e25aibeh, though verse \u00b2\u00b2 seems to imply that\nthe places were some distance apart.\u2015\u2015=22.= _R\u0115\u1e25\u00f4b\u00f4th_ (\u2018room\u2019) is\nplausibly identified with _er-Ru\u1e25aibeh_, in the w\u0101d\u012b of the same name,\nabout 20 miles South-west of Beersheba (a description in Palmer, ii.\n382 f.).\n\n In the narrative, Isaac himself was represented as the\n discoverer of these wells, though another tradition (partially\n preserved in 21\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427) ascribed the discovery and naming of them\n to Abraham. Verses \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2078 are an ancient gloss, inserted to\n harmonise the two views by the supposition that the wells had\n been stopped up by the Philistines,\u2015\u2015a practice frequently\n resorted to in desert warfare (2 Kings 3\u00b2\u2075).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =17.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05df\u200e] so (of an individual) 33\u00b9\u2078 (Elohist).\u2015\u2015=18.= \u05d1\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u200e]\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate,\n _Jubilees_ \u05e2\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05d3\u05b5\u05d9\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05e1\u05ea\u05de\u05d5\u05dd\u200e] used in the same sense 2 Kings 3\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2075,\n 2 Chronicles 32\u00b3\u1427 \u2074\u1427 \u00b3\u2070. On the masculine suffix (so verse \u00b9\u2075),\n see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\u00a7 60 _h_, 135 _o_.\u2015\u2015=19.= \u05d1\u05e0\u05d7\u05dc\u200e] LXX +\n \u0393\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd.\u2015\u2015=20.= \u05e2\u05e9\u05e7\u200e] \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. \u05e2\u05e1\u05e7\u200e is common in New Hebrew,\n Targum in the sense of \u2018be busy, occupied\u2019; in Syrian it means\n _durus, asper, molestus, fuit_: hence in Ethiopian _difficilem\n se pr\u00e6buit_.\u2015\u2015=21.= LXX prefix \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u05b0\u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05e7 \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05dd \u05d9\u05e6\u05d7\u05e7\u200e] (with following verb\n in singular), as verse \u00b2\u00b2: compare 12\u2078.\u2015\u2015=22.= \u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u200e] LXX, Vulgate,\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05e4\u05b0\u05e8\u05b5\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u200e, compare 28\u00b3.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=23\u201225. The theophany at Beersheba.=\u2015\u2015=23.= _went up_] though B\u012br\nes-Seba\u201b lies considerably lower than er-Ru\u1e25aibeh.\u2015\u2015=24.= That an\n_inaugural_ theophany (see on 12\u2077) is meant, is clear from verse \u00b2\u2075.\nAccording to this narrative, no patriarch had previously visited\nBeersheba (compare 21\u00b3\u00b3).\u2015\u2015_my servant_] LXX reads \u2018thy father.\u2019\nNowhere else in Genesis is Abraham spoken of as the servant of\nYahwe.\u2015\u2015=25a.= Note the correspondence of the phraseology with 12\u2077 \u1da0\u1427\n13\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2078.\u2015\u2015=25b.= See verse \u00b3\u00b2.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =24, 25a\u03b1= are regarded by Gunkel as an interpolation of\n the same character as \u00b3\u1d47\u207b\u2075; but the linguistic marks of late\n authorship which abound in \u00b3\u1d47\u207b\u2075 are scarcely to be detected here,\n and the mention of the altar before the tent is not sufficient\n to prove dislocation of the text. Nor is it quite correct to\n say that verse \u00b3\u00b3 implies a different origin of the sacredness\n of Beersheba from \u00b2\u2074 \u1da0\u1427: the consecration of the sanctuary and\n the naming of the place are separate things which were evidently\n kept distinct in Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43 (21\u00b3\u00b3).\u2015\u2015=25.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05db\u05e8\u05d5\u200e] synonymous\n with \u05d7\u05b8\u05e4\u05b7\u05e8\u200e in Numbers 21\u00b9\u2078; elsewhere only used of a grave (50\u2075) or\n pit (Exodus 21\u00b3\u00b3 etc.).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=26\u201233. The treaty with Abimelech.=\u2015\u2015=26.= _\u2019A\u1e25uzzath (v.i.) his\nfriend_] his confidential adviser, or \u2018vizier,\u2019\u2015\u2015an official title\ncommon in Egypt from an early period, and amongst the Ptolemies and\nSeleucids (1 Maccabees 2\u00b9\u2078 10\u2076\u2075; compare 2 Samuel 16\u00b9\u2076 \u1da0\u1427, 1 Kings\n4\u2075, 1 Chronicles 27\u00b3\u00b3).\u2015\u2015_P\u00eek\u014dl_] see on 21\u00b2\u00b2.\u2015\u2015=27.= See verses\n\u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2076.\u2015\u2015=28.= The \u05d0\u05b8\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e is properly the curse invoked on the violation\nof the covenant; \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u200e refers to the symbolic ceremony (not here\ndescribed) by which it was ratified (see on 15\u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015=29.= Abimelech\ndictates the terms of the covenant: compare 21\u00b2\u00b3.\u2015\u2015=30, 31.= The\ncommon meal seems to be a feature of the covenant ceremony (compare\n31\u2075\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427), though here the essential transaction takes place on the\nmorning of the following day.\u2015\u2015=32, 33.= The naming of the well (\u00b2\u2075\u1d47).\nThe peculiar form _\u0160ib\u201b\u0101h_ (_v.i._) is perhaps chosen as a compromise\nbetween \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d1\u05bb\u05e2\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u2018oath\u2019 (as Gunkel points), and \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d1\u05b7\u05e2\u200e, the actual name of\nthe place.\n\n It is possible to recognise in these imperfectly preserved\n legends a reflexion of historic or pre-historic relations\n between nomadic tribes of the Negeb (afterwards incorporated\n in Israel) and the settled population of Gerar. The ownership\n of certain wells was disputed by the two parties; others were\n the acknowledged possession of the Hebrew ancestors. In the\n oldest tradition (Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43) the original purpose of the\n covenant of Beersheba still appears: it was to put a stop to\n these disputes, and secure the right of Israel at least to the\n important sanctuary of Beersheba (21\u00b3\u2070). In the later variations\n this connexion is lost sight of, and the covenant becomes a\n general treaty of peace and amity, which may also have had\n historic importance for a later period. In Elohist there is\n no mention of contested wells at all, nor even a hint that\n Abraham had dug the well of Beersheba; while Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f seems\n expressly to bar any connexion between the covenant and the\n discovery of the well.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =26.= \u05d0\u05d7\u05d6\u05ea\u05bc\u200e] (for the ending, see Driver _Notes on the Hebrew Text\n of the Books of Samuel_ 107) has sometimes been mistaken for the\n noun meaning \u2018possession\u2019 (17\u2078), taken in the sense of a _body\n holding together_ (see Rashi _ad loc._); so Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05e1\u05d9\u05e2\u05ea\n\u200e \u05e8\u05d7\u05de\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u200e, \u2018_company_ of his friends\u2019; Jerome _collegium amicorum\n ejus_; Gr\u00e6cus-Venetus \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 (Field).\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05e8\u05e2\u200e] a rare\n word for \u2018companion,\u2019 _sodalis_ (Judges 14\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2070 15\u00b2\u1427 \u2076, 2 Samuel\n 3\u2078, Proverbs 12\u00b2\u2076(?) 19\u2077\u2020), whose use in the story of Samson\n suggested the \u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 of LXX here.\u2015\u2015=28.= \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u200e] need not\n be deleted (LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Vulgate, al.). The form \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u200e (42\u00b2\u00b3,\n Joshua 22\u00b3\u2074, Judges 11\u00b9\u2070, 2 Samuel 21\u2077, Jeremiah 25\u00b9\u2076, Ezekiel\n 10\u00b2\u1427 \u2076 \u1da0\u1427\u2020) is always _two-sided_, and is here resolved into the\n commoner \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05df ... \u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b5\u05d9\u05df\u200e, exactly as 2 Samuel 21\u2077. Hence in the first\n case \u201cus\u201d means all the parties to the covenant, in the second\n only the Philistine representatives.\u2015\u2015=29.= \u05ea\u05e2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d4\u200e] On the \u05be\u05b5\u200e, see\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 75 _hh_.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05e2\u05ea\u05d4\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_ \u05e2\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4\u200e, LXX \u05d5\u05e2\u05f3 \u05d0\u05f3\u200e, a more natural order.\u2015\u2015=32.=\n\u200e \u05dc\u05d5\u200e] LXX strangely reads \u039f\u1f50\u03c7 [\u03b5\u1f55\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1].\u2015\u2015=33.= \u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc\u200e] LXX,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 better \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d1\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (\u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd)] LXX \u1f4d\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2;\n but Aquila, Symmachus \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae, Vulgate _Abundantiam_,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word) (\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d1\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, Ezekiel 16\u2074\u2079). In spite of the\n interchange of sibilants, one is tempted to agree with these\n authorities: Jerome pertinently asks: \u2018Qu\u00e6 enim etymologia est,\n propterea vocari _juramentum_, quod aquam _non_ (compare LXX)\n invenissent?\u2019\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05dd\u200e] LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 prefix \u05e7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=34, 35. Esau\u2019s \u1e24ittite wives (Priestly-Code).=\u2015\u2015In Priestly-Code, Esau\nis represented as still living with Isaac at Mamre (35\u00b2\u2079).\u2015\u2015_\u1e24ittite_\nfor \u2018Canaanite\u2019: see on 23\u00b3. It is possible, however, that in the case\nof Basemath the true text was \u2018\u1e24ivvite\u2019 (so LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5).\u2015\u2015On the\nnames, see on 36\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427.\n\n\n XXVII. 1\u201245.\n _How Jacob secured his Father\u2019s Blessing_\n (Jehovist).\n\nThis vivid and circumstantial narrative, which is to be read\nimmediately after 25\u00b3\u2074 (or 25\u00b2\u2078), gives yet another explanation of\nthe historical fact that Israel, the younger people, had outstripped\nEdom in the race for power and prosperity. The clever but heartless\nstratagem by which Rebekah succeeds in thwarting the intention of\nIsaac, and diverting the blessing from Esau to Jacob, is related with\ngreat vivacity, and with an indifference to moral considerations which\nhas been thought surprising in a writer with the fine ethical insight\nof Yahwist (Dillmann). It must be remembered, however, that \u201cYahwist\u201d\nis a collective symbol, and embraces many tales which sink to the\nlevel of ordinary popular morality. We may fairly conclude with Gunkel\n(272) that narratives of this stamp were too firmly rooted in the mind\nof the people to be omitted from any collection of national traditions.\n\n _Sources_.\u2015\u2015The presence of a dual narrative is rendered\n probable by the following _duplicates_ (see Wellhausen _Die\n Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des\n Alten Testaments_\u00b2 34\u201236): (a) \u00b3\u00b3\u1427 \u00b3\u2074 \u2225 \u00b3\u2075\u207b\u00b3\u2078. In \u00b3\u2075 (\u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e) we are\n recalled to the same stage as the \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e of \u00b3\u00b3; and \u00b3\u2074 (Esau\u2019s cry)\n carries us forward to the same point as \u00b3\u2078.\u2015\u2015(b) \u00b2\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u00b3 \u2225 \u00b2\u2074\u207b\u00b2\u2077\u1d43:\n here again \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e commences two sections which must be alternative,\n since both lead up to the blessing (\u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d4\u05d5\u200e).\u2015\u2015(c) A less obvious\n doublet may be discovered in \u00b9\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2076 \u2225 \u00b9\u2075: in the one case\n Jacob is disguised by the skin of the kids, in the other by\n wearing Esau\u2019s clothes.\u2015\u2015(d) \u00b3\u2070\u1d43{\u03b1} \u2225 \u00b3\u2070\u1d47{\u03b2}.\u2015\u2015(e) \u2074\u2074\u1d47 \u2225 \u2074\u2075\u1d43{\u03b1}\n (to \u05de\u05de\u05da\u200e).\u2015\u2015The language is predominantly that of Yahwist, with\n occasional traces of Elohist; and that the incident was actually\n recorded in both these documents appears from chapters 32,\n 35\u00b3\u1427 \u2077. In the parallels just enumerated, however, the stylistic\n criteria are hard to trace; and in the attempt to disentangle\n them almost everything hangs on the word \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e in \u00b2\u2077. As to (b),\n \u00b2\u2074\u207b\u00b2\u2077 is certainly Yahwist, and \u00b2\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u00b3 consequently Elohist; it\n will follow that in (c) \u00b9\u2075 belongs to Yahwist and \u00b9\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2076 to\n Elohist. With regard to (a), it is almost impossible to decide\n which is Yahwist\u2019s variant and which Elohist\u2019s. Gunkel assigns\n \u00b3\u2075\u207b\u00b3\u2078 to Elohist, on the somewhat subtle ground that in Yahwist\n (\u00b3\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u2077) Isaac is ignorant who it is that has personated Esau,\n whereas in Elohist (\u00b3\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2) he knows very well that it is Jacob\n (so _Oxford Hexateuch_, _Students\u2019 Old Testament_). Most critics\n have taken the opposite view, but without any decisive positive\n reason. See Gunkel page 270 f.; Procksch 19 f.\u2015\u2015It is not worth\n while to push the precarious analysis further: anything else of\n importance may be reserved for the notes.\n\n=1\u20125. Isaac\u2019s purpose to bless Esau=: explained by his partiality\nfor his first-born son, and (more na\u00efvely) by his fondness for\nvenison (25\u00b2\u2078). It is quite contrary to the sense of the narrative to\nattribute to him the design of frustrating the decree of Providence\nexpressed in the independent legend of 25\u00b2\u00b3.\u2015\u2015=1.= Blindness is spoken\nof as a frequent concomitant of old age (compare 48\u00b9\u2070, 1 Samuel 3\u00b2,\n1 Kings 14\u2074, Ecclesiastes 12\u00b3: contrast Deuteronomy 34\u2077).\u2015\u2015=3.=\n_thy quiver_ (_v.i._) _and thy bow_] the latter, the hunter\u2019s weapon\n(Isaiah 7\u00b2\u2074; compare 2 Kings 13\u00b9\u2075).\u2015\u2015=4.= _that my soul may bless\nthee_] so \u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9. As if the expiring _nephesh_ gathered up all\nits force in a single potent and prophetic wish. The universal belief\nin the efficacy of a dying utterance appears often in Old Testament\n(48\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 50\u00b2\u2074 \u1da0\u1427, Deuteronomy 33, Joshua 23, 2 Samuel 23\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, 1 Kings\n2\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, 2 Kings 13\u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015=5.= _But Rebekah was listening_] compare\n18\u00b9\u2070.\n\n The close connexion of the blessing and the eating, which is\n insisted on throughout the narrative, is hardly to be explained\n as a reward for the satisfaction of a sensual appetite; it\n rests, no doubt, on some religious notion which we can no\n longer recover. Holzinger compares the physical stimuli by\n which prophetic inspiration was induced (compare 1 Samuel\n 10\u2075 \u1da0\u1427, 2 Kings 3\u00b9\u2075); Gunkel surmises that a sacrificial meal,\n establishing communion with the Deity, was originally intended\n (compare \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05f3\u200e, verse \u2077: see Numbers 23\u00b9).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05d5\u05b7\u05ea\u05db\u05d4\u05d9\u05df\u200e] On _vav consecutive_ in the subordinate clause,\n compare Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 111 _q_.\u2015\u2015The last clause (\u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e)\n contains a characteristic formula of Elohist (compare 22\u00b9\u1427 \u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\n 31\u00b9\u00b9: so verse \u00b9\u2078), and is probably to be assigned to that\n source.\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05d4\u05e0\u05d4\u05be\u05e0\u05d0\u200e] Yahwist; see on 12\u00b9\u00b9.\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] (_The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05ea\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea\u05da\u200e): only here, from \u221a\n\u200e \u05ea\u05dc\u05d4\u200e, \u2018hang,\u2019 is a more suitable designation of the \u2018quiver\u2019 (LXX,\n Vulgate, Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, Abraham Ibn Ezra) than of the \u2018sword\u2019\n (Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2, Rashi).\u2015\u2015\u05e6\u05b8\u05bd\u05d9\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4\u200e Keth\u00eeb may here be noun of unity\n (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 122 _t_) = \u2018piece of game\u2019 from \u05e6\u05b8\u05bd\u05d9\u05b4\u05d3\u200e (Q\u0115r\u00ea)\n (so Tuch, Delitzsch, Dillmann, Gunkel). Elsewhere (42\u00b2\u2075 45\u00b2\u00b9\n etc.) it means \u2018provisions,\u2019 especially for a journey. This\n may be explained by the fact that game was practically the only\n kind of animal food used by the Semites (see _Lectures on the\n Religion of the Semites_\u00b2, 222 f.); but the identity of the \u221a \u221a\n is doubted (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 845 a).\u2015\u2015=5.= \u05dc\u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u200e] LXX \u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05d5\u200e is\n better, unless both words should be read.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=6\u201217. Rebekah\u2019s stratagem.=\u2015\u2015The mother\u2019s jealousy for her favourite\nson (25\u00b2\u2078) is aroused by what she has overheard; and she instantly\ndevises a scheme whose daring and ingenuity illustrate the Hebrew\nnotion of capable and quick-witted womanhood.\u2015\u2015=7.= _before Yahwe_] in\nthe solemn consciousness of Yahwe\u2019s presence: see on verse \u2074.\u2015\u2015=11\u201213=\nprobably belong to Elohist (see above), and may be omitted from the\nother narrative, with the effect of making Rebekah\u2019s initiative still\nmore apparent: Jacob obeys her without a word.\u2015\u2015=11.= _a hairy man_]\nsee 25\u00b2\u2075. The objection shows just enough shrewdness on Jacob\u2019s part\nto throw his mother\u2019s resourcefulness into bolder relief.\u2015\u2015=13.= _On\nme be thy curse_] compare 16\u2075.\u2015\u2015=15.= _the choice clothes_] the festal\nraiment: the fact that this would have been put on by Esau proves once\nmore that the blessing was a religious ceremony. Since the clothes\nwere in Rebekah\u2019s charge, Esau must (as Holzinger points out) have\nbeen still an unmarried man (contrast Priestly-Code 26\u00b3\u2074 \u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015=16.=\ngoes with \u00b9\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u00b3 (Elohist), and may be removed without breach of\ncontinuity.\u2015\u2015=17.= Rebekah\u2019s part being now ended, Jacob is left to\nhis own resources.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =6.= \u05d1\u05e0\u05d4\u200e] compare \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u200e, verse \u2075; the addition of \u05d4\u05b7\u05e7\u05b8\u05bc\u05d8\u05b8\u05df\u200e (LXX) is\n unnecessary.\u2015\u2015=8.= \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e7\u05b9\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u200e and \u05dc\u05b7\u05bd\u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e may be variants: accusative\n to Dillmann \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05e2 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u200e is characteristic of Elohist, and \u05e9\u05c1\u05de\u05e2 \u05dc\u05b0\u200e of\n Yahwist.\u2015\u2015=12.= \u05de\u05ea\u05e2\u05ea\u05e2\u200e (\u221a \u05ea\u05e2\u05e2\u200e]), properly \u2018a stammerer\u2019 (compare\n Arabic _ta\u201bta\u201ba_) then \u2018a mocker\u2019 (2 Chronicles 36\u00b9\u2076); hence\n not a mere practical joker (Knobel-Dillmann), but a profaner\n of religious solemnities (Holzinger, Gunkel).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d4\u05d1\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9\u200e] Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n (\u2021 Syriac word) (Second person, singular, feminine).\u2015\u2015=13.=\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b7\u05da\u05b0\u200e is given by Dillmann as a mark of Elohist, in distinction\n from Yahwist\u2019s \u05e8\u05b7\u05e7\u200e (19\u2078 24\u2078).\u2015\u2015=15.= \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05d2\u05b6\u05d3\u200e being masculine (except\n Leviticus 6\u00b2\u2070), and \u05d7\u05b2\u05de\u05bb\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4\u200e in usage a substitute, it is best\n to suppose \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d2\u05b0\u05d3\u05b5\u05d9\u200e repeated as _nomen regens_ before the genitive\n (otherwise Davidson \u00a7 27).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=18\u201229. Jacob obtains the blessing.=\u2015\u2015=20.= _How very quickly thou\nhast found it, my son!_\u2015\u2015] an exclamation rather than a question: the\nanswer being: _Yes, for Yahwe, etc._\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05b0\u05e4\u05b8\u05e0\u05b7\u05d9\u200e] caused the right thing\nto happen, as 24\u00b9\u00b2 (Yahwist).\u2015\u2015=21\u201223= may be the direct continuation\nof \u00b9\u2079\u1d43 (Elohist); the clause _and so he blessed him_ must have\nbeen followed by the words of blessing.\u2015\u2015=24\u201227= bring the parallel\nnarrative (Yahwist) up to the same point.\u2015\u2015=27a.= The smelling of the\ngarments seems to have a twofold significance: on the one hand it is\na final test of Esau\u2019s identity (otherwise the disguise verse \u00b9\u2075 would\nhave no meaning), on the other it supplies the sensuous impression\nwhich suggests the words of the blessing \u00b2\u2077\u1d47 (so Gunkel).\n\n The section, we have seen, is composite (perhaps \u00b9\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2079\u1d43\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u00b3\u1427\n \u00b2\u2078 = Elohist \u2225 \u00b9\u2079\u1d47\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u2074\u207b\u00b2\u2077 = Yahwist); in the primary documents\n the interview was less complicated, and the movement quicker,\n than it now appears: but since neither has been preserved intact,\n we cannot tell how long Isaac\u2019s hesitation and Jacob\u2019s suspense\n lasted in each case. In Yahwist as it stands, it would seem that\n Isaac\u2019s suspicions are first aroused by the promptness of the\n supposed hunter\u2019s return, and perhaps only finally allayed by\n the smell of Esau\u2019s garments. In Elohist it is the voice which\n almost betrays Jacob, and the feel of his arms which saves him\n from detection. For details, see the footnotes.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =18.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e \u00b9 is probably to be assigned to Elohist for the same\n reason as \u00b9\u1d47, though something similar must have stood in the\n other source: Gunkel, however, makes \u00b9\u2079\u1d47 the direct sequel of\n\u200e \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5 (\u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8)\u200e in \u00b9\u2078\u1d43 (Yahwist), giving \u00b9\u2079\u1d43 to Elohist.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05d0\u200e] LXX,\n Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b5\u05d0\u200e (compare \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9).\u2015\u2015=23.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d4\u05d5\u200e] Another\n view of the construction, avoiding the division of documents,\n in Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ \u00a7 75.\n The narrator is supposed to \u201chasten at once to state briefly\n the issue of the whole, and afterwards, as though forgetting\n that he had anticipated, proceed to annex the particulars by\n the same means\u201d (\u05d5\u05b7\u200e consecutive). Ewald and Hitzig applied the\n same principle to several other passages (see _ib._); but the\n explanation seems to me not very natural.\u2015\u2015=24.= \u05d0\u05b7\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e] _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d4\u05d0\u05ea\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015=25.= \u05de\u05e6\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u200e] LXX\n\u200e \u05de\u05b4\u05e6\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05d3\u05b0\u05da\u05b8 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e; but see verse \u00b3\u00b9.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=27b\u201229.= The blessing is partly natural (\u00b2\u2077\u1d47\u1427 \u00b2\u2078), partly political\n(\u00b2\u2079), and deals, of course, not with the personal history of Jacob,\nbut with the future greatness of Israel. Its nearest analogies are\nthe blessings on Joseph, Genesis 49\u00b2\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, Deuteronomy 33\u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427; and it\nis not improbable that its Elohistic elements (_v.i._) originated in\nNorth Israel.\u2015\u2015=27b= (Yahwist). _the smell of a rich field_] compare\nDeuteronomy 33\u00b2\u00b3 (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=28= (Elohist). _fat places of the earth_]\nfor the image compare Isaiah 5\u00b9 28\u00b9, Numbers 13\u00b2\u2070. \u201cHeaven and earth\nconspire to give him of their best\u201d (Gunkel).\u2015\u2015_corn and must_] often\ncombined with \u2018oil\u2019 in pictures of agricultural felicity (Deuteronomy\n7\u00b9\u00b3, Hosea 2\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2 etc.).\u2015\u2015=29a\u03b1= (Yahwist). _Peoples ... nations_]\ncompare 25\u00b2\u00b3. The reference is to the neighbouring nations subdued by\nDavid (2 Samuel 8).\u2015\u2015=29a\u03b2= (Elohist) resembles a _tribal_ blessing\n(compare 49\u2078). At all events the mention of _brethren_ (plural) shows\nthat the immediate situation is forgotten.\u2015\u2015=29b= (Yahwist). Compare\n12\u00b3.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =27b\u201229.= The critical analysis of the blessing, precarious at\n the best, depends on such considerations as these: \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e \u00b2\u2077\u1d47 points\n decisively to Yahwist; \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e \u00b2\u2078, less certainly, to Elohist,\n which is confirmed by \u05d3\u05d2\u05df \u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8\u05e9\u200e (compare \u00b3\u2077). \u00b2\u2079\u1d43{\u03b1} (to \u05dc\u05d0\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e) is\n Yahwist because of the last word (25\u00b2\u00b3); and \u00b2\u2079\u1d47 because of the\n resemblance to 12\u00b3. \u00b2\u2079\u1d43{\u03b2} (from \u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e) is Elohist (compare \u00b3\u2077):\n (so Gunkel). Kautzsch-Socin and Holzinger differ first in\n treating \u00b2\u2079\u1d43{\u03b2}\u1d47 as wholly \u2225 \u00b2\u2079\u1d43{\u03b1}, thus assigning \u00b2\u2079\u1d43{\u03b1} to\n Elohist and \u1d43{\u03b2} to Yahwist (thus far Procksch agrees with them);\n then in the inference that \u00b3\u2077 is Yahwist; and, lastly, in the\n reflex inference that \u00b2\u2078\u1d47 is Elohist.\u2015\u2015The metrical structure is\n irregular. Parallelism appears in \u00b2\u2078\u1d43 and in \u00b2\u2079 throughout. \u00b2\u2077\u1d47\n falls into three trimeters; but \u00b2\u2079 (also Yahwist) can only be\n scanned in tetrameters. In Elohist trimeters and tetrameters\n are combined. See Sievers, i. 405, 577, ii. 79, 316.\u2015\u2015=27b.= \u05e9\u05d3\u05d4\u200e]\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ (ungrammatically)\n\u200e \u05d4\u05e9\u05d3\u05d4 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u200e. The \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u200e, however, is rendered in LXX, Vulgate, and should\n perhaps be retained.\u2015\u2015=28.= \u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u200e] \u2225 \u05de\u05b4\u05d8\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u200e, and therefore = \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05e0\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u200e + \u05de\u05b4\u05df\u200e\n (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 20 _m_), from \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05de\u05b8\u05df\u200e (\u00b3\u2079\u2020).\u2015\u2015=29.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05ea\u05d7\u05d5\u05bb\u200e] the\n final \u05d5\u05bc\u200e should be supplied with Qr\u00ea and _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_ (see next clause).\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b1\u05d5\u05b5\u05d4\u200e = \u05d4\u05b1\u05d9\u05b5\u05d4\u200e] \u200f(\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0) \u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e\u200e is the\n common Aramaic and New Hebrew form of \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4\u200e (compare Ph\u0153nician \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u200e =\n\u200e \u05d7\u05b8\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u05d7\u05b2\u05d9\u05b8\u05d0\u200e): in Old Testament Hebrew only here, Isaiah 16\u2074, Nehemiah\n 6\u2076, Job 37\u2076, Ecclesiastes 2\u00b2\u00b2 11\u00b3\u2020, and (accusative to Exodus\n 3\u00b9\u2074) in the name \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e. Its occurrence in early Hebrew, as here,\n is surprising.\u2015\u2015\u05d2\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u200e] verse \u00b3\u2077\u2020.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b6\u05d9\u05da\u05b8\u200e] LXX, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05da\u05b8\u200e,\n wrongly.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05de\u05da\u200e] LXX \u05d1\u05bc\u05f3 \u05d0\u05b8\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05da\u05b8\u200e after 49\u2078.\u2015\u2015On the distributive\n singular (\u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e, \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05da\u200e), see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 145 _l_.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=30\u201240. Esau sues in vain for a blessing.=\u2015\u2015=30.= Both Yahwist and\nElohist bring out how narrowly Jacob escaped being detected (_v.i._).\n=31b.= Esau\u2019s address (jussives) is if anything a little more\ndeferential than Jacob\u2019s (verse \u00b9\u2079).\u2015\u2015=33.= _Who, then, is he...?_]\nThe words express but a momentary uncertainty; before the sentence is\nfinished Isaac knows on whom the blessing has fallen. The clause is a\nreal parallel to \u00b3\u2075, but a difference of conception is scarcely to be\nthought of (Gunkel: see above).\u2015\u2015_and blessed he shall be_] Not that\nIsaac now acquiesces in the ruling of Providence, and _refuses_ to\nwithdraw the blessing; but that such an oracle once uttered is in\nits nature irrevocable.\u2015\u2015=34.= _bless me too_] parallel to the same\nwords in \u00b3\u2078. Here Yahwist\u2019s narrative breaks off, and \u00b3\u2075 (Elohist)\nresumes from the standpoint of \u00b3\u00b2.\u2015\u2015=36.= _Is it because he was named\nOverreacher_]\u2015\u2015that he must always be overreaching me?\u2015\u2015Note the\nword-play \u05c3\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05db\u05b9\u05e8\u05b8\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9\u200e: \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05db\u05b8\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9\u200e.\u2015\u2015=37.= Compare \u00b2\u2079\u1d43{\u03b2}\u1427 \u00b2\u2078\u1d47 (Elohist). All that\nmakes a blessing\u2015\u2015political supremacy, and material wealth\u2015\u2015has\nbeen given away; what remains for Esau?\u2015\u2015=38.= _Is that the only\nblessing thou hast?_] That the blessing can be revoked, Esau does\nnot imagine; but he still hopes that a second (inferior) blessing\nmay be his.\u2015\u2015_lifted up ... wept_] corresponding to \u00b3\u2074\u1d43. \u201cThose tears\nof Esau, the sensuous, wild, impulsive man,\u2015\u2015almost like the cry of\nsome \u2018trapped creature,\u2019 are among the most pathetic in the Bible\u201d\n(Davidson, _Hebrews_, 242).\u2015\u2015=39, 40a.= His importunity draws forth\nwhat is virtually a curse, though couched in terms similar to those\nof verse \u00b2\u2079:\n\n _Away from the fat places of the earth shall thy dwelling be;\n And away from the dew of heaven above!_\n\nThe _double entendre_ in the use of \u05de\u05b4\u05df\u200e has misled Vulgate and some\ncommentaries into thinking this a _replica_ of the blessing of Jacob\n(compare N\u00f6ldeke _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 1184). Compare 40\u00b9\u00b3 with\n40\u00b9\u2079.\u2015\u2015=40a.= _live by thy sword_] by raids on neighbouring territory,\nplunder of caravans, etc.\u00b9\u2015\u2015_serve thy brother_] fulfilled in the\nlong subjection of Edom to Israel, from the time of David to that\nof Joram (2 Kings 8\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), or even Ahaz (16\u2076).\u2015\u2015=40b.= The prosaic\nform suggests that this may be a later addition dating from after the\nemancipation of Edom (Holzinger, Gunkel).\u2015\u2015_break his yoke_] a common\nfigure: Jeremiah 2\u00b2\u2070 5\u2075 28\u00b2\u1427 \u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9 30\u2078, Leviticus 26\u00b9\u00b3, Isaiah 9\u00b3 etc.\n\n \u00b9 Compare Josephus on the Idum\u00e6ans: \u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03b2\u1ff6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b5\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n \u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb. (_War of the Jews_, iv. 231), and \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\n \u1f60\u03bc\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (_ib._ 310). Compare Diodorus\n ii. 48.\n\n The territory of Edom is divided into two parts by the Arabah;\n that to the East is described by Strabo (XVI. iv. 21) as \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\n \u1f14\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u1fb3. Modern travellers,\n however, speak of it as extremely fertile (Robinson, _Biblical\n Researches in Palestine_, ii. 154; Palmer, _The Desert of the\n Exodus_ ii. 430 f.; compare Buhl, _Edomiter_, 15 f.). Buhl\n accordingly thinks the curse refers only to the barren plateau\n West of the Arabah; and this is perhaps better than (with\n N\u00f6ldeke, Driver) to assimilate the terms of the blessing and\n the curse.\n\n It is probable that Yahwist\u2019s narrative contained a form of the\n curse on Esau, but whether any part is preserved in \u00b3\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 is\n doubtful. \u00b3\u2079 is certainly from the same source as \u00b2\u2078 (Elohist);\n with regard to \u2074\u2070\u1d43 the question stands open.\u2015\u2015On the metre,\n see again Sievers, i. 404 f., ii. 78 f., 317. Ball\u2019s denial of\n metrical form is based wholly on the doubtful \u2074\u2070\u1d47.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =30a= contains two variants, of which the second is connected\n syntactically with \u00b3\u2070\u1d47. Since the form of \u1d43 resembles 18\u00b3\u00b3\n 24\u00b2\u00b2 43\u00b2 (all Yahwist), we may assign this to Yahwist, and\n the rest of the verse to Elohist.\u2015\u2015=31.= \u05d9\u05b8\u05e7\u05bb\u05dd\u200e] Pt. rather \u05d9\u05b8\u05e7\u05b9\u05dd\u200e\n (jussive).\u2015\u2015=33.= \u05de\u05b4\u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05dc\u200e] Kautzsch-Socin conjecture \u05d0\u05b8\u05db\u05b9\u05dc\u200e (emphatic\n infinitive absolute).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05f3 \u05d2\u05dd \u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05da \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4\u200e] The emendation of Hitzig\n (Olshausen, Ball) \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u200e: \u05d0\u05b2\u05d1\u05b8\u05f3 \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dd \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05da\u05b0\u200e is hardly suitable: such a sentence\n would require to be preceded by another action, of which it\n was an aggravating or supplementary circumstance (compare 31\u00b9\u2075\n 46\u2074, Numbers 16\u00b9\u00b3). It is better (with _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_) to read \u05d5\u05b0\u05d2\u05b7\u05dd\u200e, and (with LXX) to _insert_ \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u200e at\n the beginning of \u00b3\u2074.\u2015\u2015=36.= \u05d4\u05db\u05d9\u200e] compare 29\u00b9\u2075, 2 Samuel 9\u00b9 (23\u00b9\u2079\n ?), Job 6\u00b2\u00b2\u2020. The rendering above, \u2018is it that?\u2019 etc., satisfies\n every case (see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 472 a), and is simpler\n than that given in Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 150 _e_.\u2015\u2015Holzinger (so\n Gunkel) thinks \u00b3\u2076\u1d43 a redactional expansion; but it has to be\n considered whether \u00b3\u2076\u1d47 (\u2225 \u00b3\u2078\u1d43{\u03b1}) is not rather a fragment\n of Yahwist.\u2015\u2015=38.= \u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d2\u05dd \u05d0\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u200e] = \u00b3\u2074\u1d47 (Yahwist). On the syntax\n of \u05d0\u05e0\u05d9\u200e, see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 135 _e_.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c2\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e] LXX\u1d2c\u1427 \u1d43\u02e1\u1427\n omitted, but MSS and daughter-Versions retain, some with the\n addition \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c5\u03c7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f38\u03c3\u03b1\u03b1\u03ba (\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05d3\u05b9\u05bc\u05dd \u05d9\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05e7\u200e).\u2015\u2015=40.= \u05d7\u05b8\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4 \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u200e] compare\n Deuteronomy 8\u00b3, Ezekiel 33\u00b9\u2079.\u2015\u2015\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u200e (Jeremiah 2\u00b3\u00b9, Hosea 12\u00b9 [?],\n Psalms 55\u00b3, Judges 11\u00b3\u2077 [emphatic]\u2020) probably connected with\n Arabic _r\u0101da_, \u2018go to and fro\u2019 (N\u00f6ldeke _Zeitschrift der\n deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xxxvii. 539 f.):\n \u2018when thou becomest restive.\u2019 _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ \u05ea\u05d0\u05d3\u05e8\u200e, LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u1fc3\u03c2 = \u05ea\u05b9\u05bc\u05d5\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=41\u201245. Esau\u2019s purpose of revenge.=\u2015\u2015=41.= Esau _cherished enmity_\n(50\u00b9\u2075) against Jacob.\u2015\u2015_the days of mourning_ (50\u00b9\u2070)] a period of\nseven days, within which Esau hoped to accomplish his revenge.\u2015\u2015=42.=\nThy brother _is going to take satisfaction of thee_ (Isaiah 1\u00b2\u2074,\nEzekiel 5\u00b9\u00b3) _by killing thee_.\u2015\u2015=44, 45.= _a few days ... till he\nforget_] reckoning on Esau\u2019s well-known instability, and at the same\ntime making light of the trial of separation.\u2015\u2015_bereaved of you both_]\nThe writer has in view the custom of blood-revenge (compare 2 Samuel\n14\u2077), though in the case supposed there would be no one to execute it.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =43.= \u05d1\u05e8\u05d7\u05be\u05dc\u05da\u200e] LXX + \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd.\u2015\u2015=44 f.= \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] as\n 29\u00b2\u2070, Daniel 11\u00b2\u2070; contrast Genesis 11\u00b9.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b7\u05d3 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u200e and \u05e2\u05d3\u05be\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u200e\n are obviously doublets, though there are no data for assigning\n either to its proper source. LXX runs both together: \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n XXVII. 46\u2012XXVIII. 9.\n _Isaac\u2019s Charge to Jacob_\n (Priestly-Code).\n\nThis short section records the only action attributed to Isaac\nin the Priestly Code. Two facts are taken over from the earlier\ntradition (Jehovist): Isaac\u2019s blessing of Jacob, and Jacob\u2019s visit\nto Mesopotamia. But the unedifying stories of Jacob\u2019s treachery,\nwhich were the essential link of connexion between them, are here\nomitted; and a new motive is introduced, viz., the inadmissibility of\nintermarriage with the inhabitants of Canaan. By transgressing this\nunwritten law, Esau forfeits his title to the \u2018blessing of Abraham,\u2019\nwhich is thus transferred to Jacob; and Jacob\u2019s flight is transformed\ninto an honourable mission in search of a wife. The romantic interest\nof Jacob\u2019s love-story (chapter 29) is largely discounted by this\nprosaic representation of the course of events (compare Gunkel 341).\n\n Marks of Priestly-Code\u2019s style are abundant: \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc \u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u200e, \u00b3; \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e \u2074;\n\u200e \u05d4\u05b8\u05bd\u05d0\u05b2\u05e8\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e, \u2075; \u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05df \u05d0\u05b2\u05e8\u05b8\u05dd\u200e, \u00b2\u1427 \u2075\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u2077; \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u00b3; \u05d0\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5 \u05de\u05b0\u05d2\u05bb\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e \u2074; \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05df\u200e \u00b9\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u2078\n (Yahwist \u05d1\u05bc\u05f3 \u05d4\u05b7\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, 24\u00b3\u1427 \u00b3\u2077); \u05e7\u05b0\u05d4\u05b7\u05dc \u05e2\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u00b3.\n\n=46.= is an amplification of 26\u00b3\u2075 (\u05de\u05b9\u05e8\u05b7\u05ea \u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u200e), but attributes to Rebekah\nan initiative more in the spirit of Jehovist than of Priestly-Code. It\nmay have been supplied by Redactor to facilitate the transition from\nchapter 27 to 28 (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=XXVIII. 1.= The language seems modelled on\n24\u00b3\u1427 \u00b3\u2077.\u2015\u2015=2.= _thy mother\u2019s father_] The earlier affinity between the\ntwo families is again ignored by Priestly-Code: see on 25\u00b9\u2079 \u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015=4.=\n_the blessing_ (Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u2018blessings\u2019) _of Abraham_] Compare\n17\u2078. Whereas in Jehovist, Isaac is the inspired author of an original\nblessing, which fixes the destiny of his descendants, in Priestly-Code\nhe simply transmits the blessing attached to the covenant with\nAbraham.\u2015\u2015=9.= _went to Ishmael_] Not to dwell with him permanently,\nbut to procure a wife (see 36\u2076 \u1da0\u1427). It is undoubtedly assumed that\nIshmael was still alive (Dillmann), in spite of the chronological\ndifficulties raised by Delitzsch.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =46.= The objections to assigning the verse to Priestly-Code\n (Kuenen, Kautzsch-Socin, Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.)\n are perhaps not decisive. If Massoretic Text be right, \u05d1\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d7\u05ea\u200e\n agrees in substance with 26\u00b3\u2074 \u1da0\u1427, though in 28\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 Priestly-Code\n consistently uses \u05d1\u05f3 \u05db\u05e0\u05e2\u05df\u200e. LXX, however, omits the words\n\u200e \u05de\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u05be\u05d7\u05b5\u05ea \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05e4\u05d3\u05e0\u05d4\u200e] (so \u2075\u1427 \u2077) compare Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 90 _i_.\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05e7\u05d4\u05dc \u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] 35\u00b9\u00b9 48\u2074 (Priestly-Code), Ezekiel 23\u00b2\u2074\n\u200e 32\u00b3; = \u05d4\u05b2\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05df \u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e 17\u2074 \u1da0\u1427. In spite of Deuteronomy 33\u00b3 (Dillmann),\n the phrase cannot well denote the tribes of Israel. It seems\n to correspond to Yahwist\u2019s \u2018In thee shall _all nations_,\u2019\n etc. (12\u00b3 etc.), and probably expresses some sort of Messianic\n outlook.\u2015\u2015=7.= \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u200e] perhaps a gloss suggested by 27\u2074\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427\n (Dillmann al.).\u2015\u2015=9.= \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05d9\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d0\u05dc\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ omitted.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05dc\u05b7\u05ea\u200e] Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word) (compare\n Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f); see on 36\u00b3.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n XXVIII. 10\u201222.\n _Jacob at Bethel_\n (Jehovist).\n\nOn his way to \u1e24arran, Jacob passes the night at Bethel, where the\nsacredness of the \u2018place\u2019 is revealed to him by a dream of a ladder\nleading from earth to heaven. Awaking, he consecrates the stone on\nwhich his head had lain, as a \u2018house of God,\u2019\u2015\u2015at the same time naming\nthe place Bethel,\u2015\u2015and vows to dedicate a tithe of all he has, in the\nevent of his safe return.\n\n _Analysis._\u2015\u2015The section consists of a complete Elohistic\n narrative (\u00b9\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u00b2), with a Yahwistic insertion (\u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2076). For\n Elohist, compare \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e; \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u2070; \u05de\u05b7\u05e6\u05b5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u00b9\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2; the dream, \u00b9\u00b2; the\n tithe, \u00b2\u00b2; and the retrospective references in 31\u00b9\u00b3 35\u00b3\u1427 \u2077. For\n Yahwist, \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e \u00b9\u00b3 \u207d\u1d47\u2071\u02e2\u207e\u1427 \u00b9\u2076; \u05e0\u05b4\u05e6\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1 \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u200e \u00b9\u00b3, and the resemblances to 12\u00b3\u1427 \u2077\n 13\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1427 18\u00b9\u2078 22\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 26\u00b2\u2074 32\u00b9\u00b3. To Yahwist belong, further, \u00b9\u2070\n\u200e (\u05d7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05bd\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e), and (if genuine) \u00b2\u00b9\u1d47, though the latter is more probably\n interpolated. \u00b9\u2079\u1d43 breaks the connexion of \u00b9\u2078 and \u00b2\u2070, and _may_\n be taken from Yahwist; \u00b9\u2079\u1d47 is an explanatory gloss. (So nearly\n all recent critics.) Kuenen (_Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar\n het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds_\n i. 145, 247) considers \u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2076 a redactional addition to Elohist,\n similar to 22\u00b9\u2074\u207b\u00b9\u2078, etc., on the ground that Yahwist attributes\n the inauguration of the worship at Bethel to Abraham (12\u2078), and\n nowhere alludes to the theophany here recorded (so Meyer, _Die\n Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 236\u00b3). But (to say nothing\n of \u00b9\u2079\u1d43) the parallelism of \u00b9\u2076 and \u00b9\u2077 appears to prove a real\n amalgamation of primary sources (Dillmann). Gunkel regards \u00b9\u2074\n as secondary, on account of its stereotyped phraseology.\n\n=10\u201212= (Elohist). =Jacob\u2019s dream.=\u2015\u2015=11.= _he lighted upon the\nplace_] _i.e._, the \u2018holy place\u2019 of Bethel (see 12\u2076), whose sanctity\nwas revealed by what followed.\u2015\u2015_he took_ [at haphazard] _one of the\nstones of the place_] which proved itself to be the abode of a deity\nby inspiring the dream which came to Jacob that night.\u2015\u2015=12.= _a\nladder_] or \u2018stair\u2019 (the word only here). The origin of the idea is\ndifficult to account for (see on verse \u00b9\u2077). Its permanent religious\nsignificance is expressed with profound insight and truth in John\n1\u2075\u00b9.\u2015\u2015_angels of God_] So (in plural) only in Elohist (compare 32\u00b2) in\nthe Hexateuch. As always in Old Testament, the angels are represented\nas wingless beings (compare Enoch lxi. 1).\n\n In verse \u00b9\u00b9 the rendering \u2018a certain place\u2019 would be\n grammatically correct (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 126 _r_); but it\n destroys the point of the sentence, which is that night overtook\n the patriarch just at the sacred spot (see Exodus 3\u2075). The\n idea expressed by the primitive form of the legend is that the\n inherent sanctity of the place, and in particular of the stone,\n was unknown till it was discovered by Jacob\u2019s dream. It is very\n probable, as Holzinger suggests, that this points to an ancient\n custom of incubation at Bethel, in which dream-oracles were\n sought by sleeping with the head in contact with the sacred\n stone (see Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 475 f.).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =11.= \u05de\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] Accusative of place (literally \u2018at his head-place\u2019),\n as 1 Samuel 19\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2076 26\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2076, 1 Kings 19\u2076.\u2015\u2015=12.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05dc\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05d4\u200e] The\n usual vivid formula in relating a dream: 37\u2077 (LXX) \u2079 40\u2079 41\u00b9,\n Judges 7\u00b9\u00b3, Isaiah 29\u2078.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=13\u201216= (Yahwist). =The promise.=\n\n In place of the vision of the ladder, which in Elohist\n constitutes the whole revelation, Yahwist records a personal\n appearance of Yahwe, and an articulate communication to the\n patriarch. That it was a nocturnal theophany (as in 26\u00b2\u2074)\n appears from \u00b9\u2076\u1d43{\u03b1}, as well as the word \u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05db\u05b5\u05d1\u200e in \u00b9\u00b3. The promise\n is partly addressed to Jacob\u2019s special circumstances (\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2075),\n partly a renewal of the blessing of Abraham (\u00b9\u2074). The latter is\n not improbably a later amplification of the former (see above).\n\n=13.= _Yahwe stood by him_ (_v.i._), and announced Himself as one with\nthe God of his fathers. This unity of Yahwe amidst the multiplicity\nof His local manifestations is a standing paradox of the early\nreligion of Israel: compare verse \u00b9\u2076.\u2015\u2015_the land whereon thou liest_]\na description peculiarly appropriate to the solitary and homeless\nfugitive who had not where to lay his head.\u2015\u2015=14.= Compare 13\u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\n22\u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1427 26\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2074 32\u00b9\u00b3.\u2015\u2015On \u00b9\u2074\u1d47 see the note on 12\u00b3.\u2015\u2015=16.= _Yahwe is in\nthis place, etc._] The underlying feeling is not joy (Dillmann), but\nfear, because in ignorance he had treated the holy place as common\nground (Targum \u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f). The exclamation doubtless preserves\nan echo of the local tradition, more forcibly represented in Elohist\n(verse \u00b9\u2077). It is the only case in Genesis where a theophany occasions\nsurprise (compare Exodus 3\u00b3).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =13.= \u05e0\u05e6\u05d1 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] 18\u00b2 24\u00b9\u00b3 45\u00b9 (all Yahwist). LXX, Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n take \u05e1\u05bb\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd\u200e as antecedent to the suffix; but the idea would have\n been expressed otherwise (\u05de\u05b4\u05de\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u05dc \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e), and the translation loses\n all its plausibility when the composition of documents is\n recognised.\u2015\u2015Before \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200e, LXX inserts \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6.\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05db\u05e2\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200e]\n LXX \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f21 \u1f04\u03bc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, after 32\u00b9\u00b3 41\u2074\u2079.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05e6\u05ea\u200e] LXX \u05d5\u05bc\u05e4\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05e5\u200e: for\n the word\u2015\u2015properly \u2018break through\u2019 [bounds],\u2015\u2015compare 30\u00b3\u2070\u1427 \u2074\u00b3,\n Exodus 1\u00b9\u00b2, Isaiah 54\u00b3 etc.\u2015\u2015=15.= \u05d1\u05db\u05dc\u200e] LXX + \u05d4\u05b7\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05da\u05b0\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=17\u201219. Consecration and naming of the place.=\u2015\u2015=17= follows verse \u00b9\u00b2\n(Elohist) without sensible breach of continuity; even the mention of\nJacob\u2019s awaking (\u00b9\u2076) is not absolutely indispensable (see \u00b9\u2078). The\nimpression of fear is far more powerfully expressed than in Yahwist;\nthe place is no ordinary _\u1e25ar\u0101m_, but one superlatively holy, the most\nsacred spot on earth. Only a North Israelite could have written thus\nof Bethel.\u2015\u2015_a house of God ... the gate of heaven_] The expressions\nrest on a materialisation of the conception of worship as spiritual\nintercourse between God and man.\n\n The first designation naturally arises from the name _B\u00eath-\u2019\u0113l_,\n which (as we see from verse \u00b2\u00b2) was first applied to the sacred\n stone, but was afterwards extended to the sanctuary as a whole.\n When to this was added the idea of God\u2019s dwelling in heaven,\n the earthly sanctuary became as it were the entrance to the true\n heavenly temple, with which it communicated by means of a ladder.\n We may compare the Babylonian theory of the temple-tower as the\n means of ascent to the dwelling-place of the gods in heaven (see\n page 226 above). It is conceivable that the \u2018ladder\u2019 of Bethel\n may embody cosmological speculations of a similar character,\n which we cannot now trace to their origin. The Egyptian theology\n also knew of a \u2018ladder\u2019 by which the soul after death mounted\n up to \u2018the gate of heaven\u2019 (Erman, _A Handbook of Egyptian\n Religion_ 96). Whether it has any connexion with the _sillu_,\n or decorated arch over a palace gate, depicted in _Das Alte\n Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 13, remains doubtful.\n That the image was suggested by physical features of the\n locality\u2015\u2015a stony hillside rising up in terraces towards\n heaven\u2015\u2015seems a fanciful explanation to one who has not visited\n the spot; but the descriptions given of the singular freak of\n nature which occurs near the summit of the slope to the north\n of _Beit\u012bn_ (\u201chuge stones piled one upon another to make columns\n nine or ten feet or more in height ...\u201d) lend some plausibility\n to the conjecture (see Peters, _Early Hebrew Story_, 110 ff.).\n\n=18.= Jacob set up the stone, whose mystic properties he had\ndiscovered, as a _ma\u1e93\u1e93\u0113b\u0101h_, or sacred pillar (_v.i._), and _poured\noil on the top of it_ (35\u00b9\u2074), in accordance with a custom widely\nattested in ancient and modern times (see page 380).\u2015\u2015=19a= gives\nYahwist\u2019s account of the naming of the place. If a similar notice\noccurred in Elohist (as seems implied in 31\u00b9\u00b3 35\u00b3), it would naturally\nhave stood later.\u2015\u2015=19b= is usually considered a gloss. From Joshua\n16\u00b2 (18\u00b9\u00b3) it appears that _L\u00fbz_ was really distinct from Bethel, but\nwas overshadowed by the more famous sanctuary in the neighbourhood.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =18.= \u05de\u05b7\u05e6\u05b5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] (\u2018thing _set up_,\u2019 Arabic _nu\u1e63b_, Ph\u0153nician \u05de\u05e6\u05d1\u05ea\u200e) is\n the technical name of the sacred monolith which was apparently\n an adjunct of every fully equipped Canaanite (or Ph\u0153nician) and\n early Hebrew sanctuary (see Vincent, _Canaan_, 96, 102 f., 140).\n Originally a fetish, the supposed abode of a spirit or deity,\u2015\u2015a\n belief of which there are clear traces in this passage,\u2015\u2015it came\n afterwards to be regarded as a vague symbol of Yahwe\u2019s presence\n in the sanctuary, and eventually as the memorial of a theophany\n or other noteworthy occurrence. In this harmless sense the word\n is freely used by Elohist (31\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u2074\u2075\u1427 \u2075\u00b9\u1427 \u2075\u00b2 33\u00b2\u2070 [emphatic] 35\u00b9\u2074,\n Exodus 24\u2074); but not by Yahwist, who never mentions the object\n except in connexion with Canaanitish worship (Exodus 34\u00b9\u00b3).\n But that the emblem retained its idolatrous associations in\n the popular religion is shown by the strenuous polemic of the\n prophets and the Deuteronomic legislation against it (Hosea\n 10\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427, Micah 5\u00b9\u00b2, Deuteronomy 12\u00b3 etc., especially 16\u00b2\u00b2 [compare\n Leviticus 26\u00b9]); and Yahwist\u2019s significant silence is probably\n an earlier indication of the same tendency. It is only at a very\n late period that we find the word used once more without offence\n (Isaiah 19\u00b9\u2079). See Driver on Deuteronomy 16\u00b2\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427; _Lectures\n on the Religion of the Semites_\u00b2, 204 ff., 456 f.; Moore in\n _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 2974 ff.; Whitehouse in _A Dictionary\n of the Bible_, iii. 879 ff.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05e6\u05b9\u05bc\u05e7\u200e] On this, the usual form, see\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 71.\u2015\u2015=19.= \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd\u200e] A strong adversative, found\n in Pentateuch only 48\u00b9\u2079, Exodus 9\u00b9\u2076, Numbers 14\u00b2\u00b9. For \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05f3 \u05dc\u05d5\u05d6\u200e,\n LXX has \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039f\u1f50\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03cd\u03c2; compare Judges 18\u00b2\u2079 (LXX).\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d5\u05d6\u200e] 35\u2076 48\u00b3,\n Joshua 16\u00b2 18\u00b9\u00b3, Judges 1\u00b2\u00b3\u2020. The name \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03b6\u1f70 appears to have\n been known in the time of Eusebius (_Onomastica Sacra_, 135\u00b9);\n and M\u00fcller (_Asien und Europa nach alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_,\n 165) thinks it may be identical with _Ru\u1e63a_ on Egyptian\n inscriptions.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=20\u201222= (Elohist). =Jacob\u2019s vow.=\u2015\u2015The vow in Old Testament \u201cconsists\nessentially of a solemn promise to render God some service, in the\nevent of some particular prayer or wish being granted\u201d (Driver);\u00b9\nhence it falls into two parts: a condition (\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1427), and a promise\n(\u00b2\u00b2).\u2015\u2015=20, 21a.= The conditions correspond with the divine promise\nin \u00b9\u2075 (Yahwist)\u2015\u2015(a) the presence of God; (b) protection; (c) safe\nreturn\u2015\u2015except as regards the stipulation for _bread to eat and\nraiment to wear_. The separation of sources relieves Jacob from the\nsuspicion of questioning the sincerity of an explicit divine promise.\nOn =21b=, _v.i._\u2015\u2015=22.= The promise. _this stone ... shall be_ (LXX\nadds _to me_) _a house of God_] _i.e._ (in the view of the writer),\na place of worship. It is to be noted that this reverses the actual\ndevelopment: the stone was _first_ the residence of the _numen_, and\n_afterwards_ became a ma\u1e93\u1e93\u0113b\u0101h.\u2015\u2015=22b.= He will pay a tithe of all his\npossessions. This and Amos 4\u2074 are the only pre-Deuteronomic references\nto the tithe (compare 14\u00b2\u2070).\n\n \u00b9 But Wellhausen (_Reste arabischen Heidentums_\u00b2 190) remarks\n of the Arabian custom: \u201cDie Araber geloben nicht _in\n eventum_: wenn der und der Fall eintritt, so will ich das\n tun; sondern sie \u00fcbernehmen durch das Gel\u00fcbde eine absolut\n bindende Pflicht.\u201d\n\n In its present setting the above narrative forms the transition\n link between the Jacob-Esau and the Jacob-Laban cycle of legends.\n In substance it is, we can hardly doubt, a modification of the\n cultus-legend of Bethel (now _Beit\u012bn_, situated on an eminence\n about 10 miles North of Jerusalem, a little East of the road to\n N\u0101bulus), the founding of which was ascribed to the patriarch\n Jacob. The concrete features which point to a local origin\u2015\u2015the\n erection of the ma\u1e93\u1e93eb\u0101h, the ladder, the gate of heaven,\n and the institution of the tithe\u2015\u2015are all indeed peculiar to\n the account of Elohist, which obviously stands nearer to the\n sources of the native tradition than the stereotyped form of\n the theophany given by Yahwist. From Elohist we learn that\n the immemorial sanctity of Bethel was concentrated in the\n sacred stone which was itself the original _B\u00eath-\u2019\u0113l_, i.e. the\n residence of a god or spirit. This belief appears to go back\n to the primitive stone-worship of which traces are very widely\n diffused over the surface of the globe.\u00b9 The characteristic rite\n of anointing the stone, originally perhaps a sacrifice to the\n indwelling _numen_, was familiar to classical writers.\u00b2 The most\n instructive parallel is the fact mentioned by Pausanias (x. 24,\n 6), that on a small stone in the sanctuary of Delphi oil was\n poured every day: we may conjecture that a similar practice\n was kept up at Bethel long after its original significance\n was forgotten. Though the monolith of Bethel is not elsewhere\n explicitly referred to in Old Testament, we may assume that,\n stripped of its pagan associations and reduced to the rank of\n a _ma\u1e93\u1e93eb\u0101h_, it was still recognised in historic times as the\n chief religious symbol of that great centre of Hebrew worship.\n\n \u00b9 See Tylor, _Primitive Culture_\u00b3 ii. 160 ff.; Frazer,\n _Pausanias\u2019s Description of Greece_ iv. 154 f., _Adonis_,\n 21; _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_\u00b2, 204 ff.,\n 232 f. The wide distribution of these sacred objects seems\n fatal to the theory of Lagrange, that they were miniature\n reproductions of the Babylonian temple-towers, which\n again were miniature symbols of the earth conceived as\n a mountain,\u2015\u2015a difficulty of which the author himself is\n conscious (_\u00c9tudes_\u00b2, 192 ff.).\n\n \u00b2 On anointed stones (\u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03af, \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, _lapides\n uncti, lubricati_, etc.), see Clement of Alexandria\n _Stromata_ vii. 4, 26; and the remarkable statements\n of Theophrastus, _Characters_ 16; Lucian, _Alexander_,\n 30; and Arnobius, _Adversus Gentes_, i. 39,\u2015\u2015quoted by\n Frazer, _Pausanias\u2019s Description of Greece_ v. 354.\u2015\u2015For\n Assyriological parallels see _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,\n i. 44 f., ii. 113, 151, 261.\u2015\u2015A curious development of the\n ancient belief appears in the name \u0392\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u0392\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\n _Betulus_, applied to small stones (aerolites?), supposed\n to be self-moving and endowed with magical properties, which\n played a considerable part in the private superstitions of\n the beginning of the Christian era (Eusebius _Pr\u00e6paratio\n Evangelica_ i. 10, 18; Photius, _Bibliotheca_ [Migne, ciii.\n 1292 f.]; Pliny, _Naturalis Historia_, xxxvii. 135, etc.).\n The existence of a Canaanitish deity _Bait-ili_ (who can\n only be regarded as a personification of the temple or the\n sacred stone) is proved by unimpeachable Assyriological\n evidence (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 437\n f.; Lagrange, _l.c._ 196). Since \u0392\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 is also the name\n of a god in Philo-Byblius, it seems unreasonable to doubt\n the etymological and material connexion between the ancient\n Semitic \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05ea\u05be\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e and the portable betyl of the Gr\u00e6co-Roman\n period, which was so named as the residence of a spirit;\n but see the important article of Moore, _Journal of the\n Arch\u00e6ological Institute of America_, vii. (1903), No. 2,\n page 198 ff.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =21.= \u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d9\u200e] LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u1fc3 \u03bc\u03b5, as verse \u00b9\u2075.\u2015\u2015=21b= can with\n difficulty be assigned either to the protasis or to the apodosis\n of the sentence. The word \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e shows that it does not belong to\n Elohist; and in all probability the clause is to be omitted as\n a gloss (Dillmann al.). The apodosis then has the same unusual\n form as in 22\u00b9.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n XXIX. 1\u201230.\n _Jacob\u2019s Marriage with Laban\u2019s Daughters_\n (Jehovist, Priestly-Code).\n\nInstead of spending a few days (27\u2074\u2074) as Laban\u2019s guest, Jacob was\ndestined to pass 20 years of his life with his Aram\u00e6an kinsman.\nThe circumstances which led to this prolonged exile are recorded\nin the two episodes contained in this section; viz. Jacob\u2019s meeting\nwith Rachel at the well (\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2074), and the peculiar conditions of his\nmarriage to Leah and Rachel (\u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b3\u2070). The first, a purely idyllic\nscene reminding us of 24\u00b9\u00b9\u207b\u00b3\u00b3 and Exodus 2\u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b2\u00b2, forms a pleasing\nintroduction to the cycle of Jacob-Laban narratives, without a trace\nof the petty chicanery which is the leading motive of that group\nof legends.\u00b9 In the second, the true character of Laban is exposed\nby the unworthy trick which he practises on Jacob; and the reader\u2019s\nsympathies are enlisted on the side of Jacob in the trial of\nastuteness which is sure to ensue.\n\n \u00b9 Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f thinks it necessary to introduce a hint of\n the coming rivalry into the conversation between Jacob and\n Rachel (verse \u00b9\u00b3).\n\n _Analysis._\u2015\u2015Fragments of Priestly-Code\u2019s narrative can be\n easily recognised in verses \u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2079, and probably also in \u00b2\u2078\u1d47.\n The separation of Yahwist and Elohist is uncertain on account\n of the close parallelism of the two documents and the absence of\n material differences of representation to support or correct the\n literary analysis. Most subsequent critics agree with Dillmann\n that verse \u00b9 belongs to Elohist (see the notes), and \u00b2\u207b\u00b9\u2074 to\n Yahwist: compare \u05e8\u05d5\u05e5 \u05dc\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea\u200e, \u00b9\u00b3 (18\u00b2 24\u00b9\u2077); \u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d1\u05e9\u05e8\u05d9\u200e, \u00b9\u2074 (2\u00b2\u00b3). In\n \u00b9\u2076 \u1da0\u1427 Rachel appears to be introduced for the first time; hence\n Dillmann regards Elohist as the main source of \u00b9\u2075 (or \u00b9\u2075\u1d47) \u207b\u00b3\u2070,\n excluding, however, verse \u00b2\u2076, where \u05e6\u05b0\u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e and \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05db\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e reveal the hand\n of Yahwist: characteristic expressions of Elohist are \u05de\u05e9\u05db\u05e8\u05ea\u200e, \u00b9\u2075\n\u200e (31\u2077\u1427 \u2074\u00b9); \u05d2\u05d3\u05dc\u05d4\u200e and \u05e7\u05d8\u05e0\u05d4\u200e, \u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2078; \u05d9\u05e4\u05ea \u05ea\u05d0\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e, \u00b9\u2077. So Gunkel, Procksch\n nearly. Ball and Cornill assign all from \u00b9\u2079 onwards to Yahwist.\n\n=1\u201214. Jacob\u2019s meeting with Rachel.=\u2015\u2015=1.= _the sons of the East_]\nSince the goal of Jacob\u2019s journey is in Yahwist, \u1e24arran (28\u00b9\u2070 29\u2074)\nand in Priestly-Code, Paddan Aram (28\u2077), it is to be presumed that\nthis third variation comes from Elohist (Dillmann). Now the \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e7\u05b6\u05d3\u05b6\u05dd\u200e\nare everywhere else the tribes of the Syro-Arabian desert, and\n31\u00b2\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 certainly suggests that Laban\u2019s home was not so distant from\nCanaan as \u1e24arran (see on 24\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1427 [city of Nahor]). It is possible,\ntherefore, that in the tradition followed by Elohist, Laban was the\nrepresentative of the nomadic Aram\u00e6ans between Palestine and the\nEuphrates (see page 334 above).\u2015\u2015=2.= The well _in the open country_\nis evidently distinct, even in Yahwist, from the town-well of \u1e24arran\n(compare 24\u00b9\u00b3).\u2015\u2015_For ... they used to water, etc._] To the end\nof verse \u00b3 is an explanatory parenthesis describing the ordinary\nprocedure. The custom of covering the well with a heavy stone is\nreferred to by Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, i. 490;\nThomson, _The Land and the Book_, 589; Palmer, _The Desert of the\nExodus_ ii. 319 f.; compare also Diodorus ii. 48, xix. 94.\u2015\u2015=4.= Jacob\naccosts the shepherds, and learns that they come _from \u1e24arran_. There\nis nothing else in the narrative to suggest the proximity of a great\ncity; Laban is no city-dweller as in chapter 24, but a nomad sheikh;\nand the life depicted is everywhere that of the desert. All this\nconfirms the impression that the topography of Elohist (verse \u00b9) has\nbeen modified by Yahwist in accordance with the theory that \u1e24arran\nwas the city of Nahor.\u2015\u2015=5.= _the son of N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r_] see on 24\u00b9\u2075.\u2015\u2015=7, 8.=\nJacob is puzzled by the leisurely ways of these Eastern herdsmen, whom\nhe ironically supposes to have ceased work for the day. He is soon to\nshow them an example of how things should be done, careless of the\nconventions which they plead as an excuse.\u2015\u2015=9.= _a shepherdess_]\ncompare Exodus 2\u00b9\u2076. The trait is in accordance with the freedom still\nallowed to unmarried girls among the Bedouin. Burckhardt found it\nan established rule among the Arabs of Sinai that only girls should\ndrive the cattle to pasture (_Notes on the Bedouins and Wah\u00e1bys_,\ni. 351).\u2015\u2015=10.= The removal of the stone is a feat of strength\nwhich has been thought to belong to a more primitive legend, in\nwhich Jacob figured as a giant (Dillmann, Gunkel, al.): compare\n32\u00b2\u2076.\u2015\u2015=11.= _wept aloud_] \u2018after the demonstrative fashion of the\nOriental\u2019 (Bennett),\u2015\u2015tears of joy at the happy termination of his\njourney.\u2015\u2015=12.= _brother_] as in verse \u00b9\u2075 13\u2078 14\u00b9\u2074 (24\u2074\u2078?).\u2015\u2015=13.=\n_kissed him repeatedly_ (Piel)] The effusive display of affection,\nperhaps not wholly disinterested, is characteristic of Laban (compare\n24\u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015=14.= _my bone and my flesh_] as 37\u00b2\u2077, Judges 9\u00b2, 2 Samuel\n5\u00b9 19\u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427. It is an absurd suggestion that the exclamation is called\nforth by the recital of Jacob\u2019s dealings with Esau, in which Laban\nrecognised a spiritual affinity to himself! The phrase denotes literal\nconsanguinity and nothing more.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =1.= The curious expression \u2018lifted up his feet\u2019 is found only\n here.\u2015\u2015LXX, Vulgate omit \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9\u200e; and LXX adds to the verse \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n \u039b\u03b1\u03b2\u1f70\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb., as 28\u2075\u1d47.\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05d5\u05d4\u05d0\u05d1\u05df \u05d2\u05d3\u05dc\u05d4\u200e can only mean \u2018and the stone\n was great\u2019: it is perhaps better to omit the article (with\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_).\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05d4\u05e2\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200e]\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d4\u05e8\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, needlessly\n substituted by Ball. So also verse \u2078, where _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ is supported by LXX.\u2015\u2015=6.=\n Before \u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05d4\u200e, LXX inserts \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (as verse \u2079). An\n assimilating tendency reappears at the end of the verse; and\n the variations have no critical value.\u2015\u2015=9.= \u05d1\u05ab\u05d0\u05d4\u200e] perfect;\n contrast the participle \u05d1\u05d0\u05ab\u05d4\u200e in verse \u2076.\u2015\u2015\u05e8\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u200e] LXX + \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2.\u2015\u2015=10.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d2\u05dc\u200e] with original _i_ in imperfect Qal\n (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 67 _p_).\u2015\u2015=13.= \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u200e (LXX \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dd\u200e) = \u2018the report\n concerning,\u2019 followed as always by genitive objective.\u2015\u2015=14.=\n\u200e \u05d7\u05d3\u05e9 \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] \u2018a whole month\u2019; see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 131 _d_.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=15\u201230. Jacob\u2019s double marriage.=\u2015\u2015=15.= Laban\u2019s character begins\nto unfold itself as that of a man ostensibly actuated by the most\nhonourable motives, but at heart a selfish schemer, always ready with\nsome plausible pretext for his nefarious conduct (see verses \u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2076).\nHis apparently generous offer proves a well-laid trap for Jacob,\nwhose love for Rachel has not escaped the notice of his shrewd\nkinsman.\u2015\u2015=16\u201218a.= An explanatory parenthesis. The manner in which\nRachel is introduced, as if for the first time, is thought to mark\nthe transition to another source (Dillmann al.).\u2015\u2015On the names _L\u0113\u2019\u0101h_\nand _R\u0101\u1e25\u0113l_, _v.i._\u2015\u2015=17.= Leah\u2019s eyes were _weak_ (\u05e8\u05b7\u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u200e, LXX \u1f00\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2,\nAquila, Symmachus \u1f01\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03af): _i.e._ they lacked the lustrous brilliancy\nwhich is counted a feature of female beauty in the East.\u2015\u2015=18b.= Jacob,\nnot being in a position to pay the purchase price (_m\u014dhar_) for so\neligible a bride, offered seven years\u2019 service instead. The custom\nwas recognised by the ancient Arabs, and is still met with (Wellhausen\n_Nachrichten von der K\u00f6niglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften\nzu G\u00f6ttingen_, 1893, 433 f.; Burckhardt _Travels in Syria and the\nHoly Land_, i. 297 f.).\u2015\u2015=19.= The first cousin has still a prior\n(sometimes an exclusive) right to a girl\u2019s hand among the Bedouin and\nin Egypt (Burckhardt, _Notes on the Bedouins and Wah\u00e1bys_, i. 113, 272;\nLane, _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_\u2075\ni. 199).\u2015\u2015=22.= Laban proceeds to the execution of his long meditated\n_coup_. He himself arranges the marriage feast (contrast Judges\n14\u00b9\u2070), inviting _all the men of the place_, with a view doubtless\nto his self-exculpation (verse \u00b2\u2076).\u2015\u2015=23.= The substitution of\nLeah for Rachel was rendered possible by the custom of bringing the\nbride to the bridegroom veiled (24\u2076\u2075). To have thus got rid of the\nunprepossessing Leah for a handsome price, and to retain his nephew\u2019s\nservices for other seven years (verse \u00b2\u2077), was a master-stroke of\npolicy in the eyes of a man like Laban.\u2015\u2015=25.= Jacob\u2019s surprise and\nindignation are vividly depicted.\u2015\u2015=26.= _It is not so done_] compare\n34\u2077, 2 Samuel 13\u00b9\u00b2. Laban no doubt correctly states the local usage:\nthe objection to giving a younger daughter before an older is natural,\nand prevails in certain countries (Lane, i. 201; compare _Jubilees_\nxxviii., Judges 15\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427, 1 Samuel 18\u00b9\u2077).\u2015\u2015=27, 28.= _Fulfil the week\nof this one_] _i.e._, the usual seven days (Judges 14\u00b9\u00b2, Tobit 11\u00b9\u2079)\nof the wedding festival for Leah. For the bridegroom to break up the\nfestivities would, of course, be a gross breach of decorum, and Jacob\nhas no alternative but to fall in with Laban\u2019s new proposal and accept\nRachel on his terms.\u2015\u2015=30.= Laban\u2019s success is for the moment complete;\nbut in the alienation of both his daughters, and their fidelity to\nJacob at a critical time (31\u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), he suffered a just retribution\nfor the unscrupulous assertion of his paternal rights.\n\n * * * * *\n\n In Jacob\u2019s marriages it has been surmised that features survive\n of that primitive type of marriage (called _beena_ marriage) in\n which the husband becomes a member of the wife\u2019s kin (William\n Robertson Smith _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_\u00b2, 207).\n Taken as a whole the narrative hardly bears out that view. It\n is true that Jacob attaches himself to Laban\u2019s family; but it\n does not follow that he did not set up a house of his own. His\n remaining with Laban was due to his inability to pay the _m\u014dhar_\n otherwise than in the way of personal service. As soon as\n the contract expired he pleads his right to \u2018provide for his\n own house\u2019 (30\u00b3\u2070 Yahwist). On the other hand, Laban certainly\n claimed the right to detain his daughters, and treated them as\n still members of his family (31\u00b2\u2076\u1427 \u2074\u00b3 Elohist); and it might be\n imagined that the Elohistic tradition recognised the existence\n of _beena_ marriage, at least among the Aram\u00e6ans. But it is\n doubtful if the claim is more than an extreme assertion of the\n right of a powerful family to protect its female relatives even\n after marriage.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =15.= \u05d4\u05db\u05d9\u200e] see on 27\u00b3\u2076.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea\u200e] 31\u2077\u1427 \u2074\u00b9 (Elohist), Ruth 2\u00b9\u00b2\u2020;\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05db\u05b8\u05e8\u200e is common to Yahwist (30\u00b2\u2078\u1427 \u00b3\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427) and Elohist (31\u2078, Exodus\n\u200e 2\u2079).\u2015\u2015=16.= \u05d2\u05d3\u05dc\u200e and \u05e7\u05d8\u05df\u200e are in such connexions characteristic of\n Elohist (verse \u00b9\u2078 42\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b3\u00b2\u1427 \u00b3\u2074); see Holzinger _Einleitung\n in den Hexateuch_ 104.\u2015\u2015\u05e8\u05b8\u05d7\u05b5\u05dc\u200e means \u2018ewe\u2019 (Arabic _ra\u1e2bil_ =\n she-lamb); hence by analogy \u05dc\u05b5\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e has been explained by Arabic\n _la\u2019\u0101t_, \u2018bovine antelope\u2019 (see N\u00f6ldeke _Zeitschrift der\n deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 167; Stade\n _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, i. 112\n ff.), and the names are cited as evidence of a primitive Hebrew\n totemism (_Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_\u00b2, 254 f.).\n Others prefer the derivation from Assyrian _li\u2019at_, \u2018lady\u2019\n (see Haupt, _Nachrichten von der K\u00f6niglichen Gesellschaft der\n Wissenschaften zu G\u00f6ttingen_, 1883, 100).\u2015\u2015=18.= \u05d1\u05e8\u05d7\u05dc\u200e] \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u200e _pretii_\n (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 119 _p_); so \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u2075.\u2015\u2015=20.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05ea\u05d4\u200e]\n LXX\u1d2c omits.\u2015\u2015=21.= \u05d4\u05d1\u05ab\u05d4\u200e] _Milra\u201b_ before \u05d0\u200e (Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 69 _o_).\u2015\u2015=24.= \u05e9\u05e4\u05d7\u05d4\u200e] better \u05dc\u05b0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05f3\u200e (_The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2); see verse \u00b2\u2079.\u2015\u2015=26.= \u05d4\u05e6\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4\u200e]\n distinctive of Yahwist; see verse \u00b9\u2076.\u2015\u2015=27.= \u05d5\u05b0\u05e0\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e is rather 3rd\n feminine, singular, perfect, Niphal, than 1st plural cohortative\n Qal (as most). _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Vulgate read \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05df\u200e.\u2015\u2015=28b.= \u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0\u05e9\u05d4\u200e] The double dative is\n characteristic of Priestly-Code, to whom the whole clause may be\n assigned along with \u00b2\u2079.\u2015\u2015=30.= The second \u05d2\u05bc\u05dd\u200e has no sense, and\n should probably be deleted (LXX, Vulgate).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n XXIX. 31\u2012XXX. 24.\n _The Birth of Jacob\u2019s Children_\n (Jehovist).\n\nA difficult section, in which the origin of the tribes of Israel is\nrepresented in the fictitious form of a family history. The popular\netymologies attached to the names are here extremely forced, and\nsometimes unintelligible; it is remarkable that, with hardly an\nexception, they are based on the rivalry between Jacob\u2019s two wives.\n(The names are bestowed by the mothers, as is generally the case\nin Jehovist.) How far genuine elements of tradition are embodied in\nsuch a narrative is a question which it is obviously impossible to\nanswer with certainty. We cannot be wrong in attributing historical\nsignificance to the distinction between the tribes whose descent was\ntraced to Jacob\u2019s wives and those regarded as sons of concubines;\nthough we are ignorant of the actual circumstances on which the\nclassification depends. It is also certain that there is a solid\nbasis for the grouping of the chief tribes under the names of Leah\nand Rachel, representing perhaps an older and a later settlement of\nHebrews in Palestine (Stade _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche\nWissenschaft_, i. 112 f.). The fact that all the children except\nBenjamin are born in Mesopotamia may signify that the leading tribal\ndivisions existed before the occupation of Canaan; but the principle\ncertainly cannot be applied in detail, and the nature of the record\nforbids the attempt to discover in it reliable data for the history\nof the tribes. (For a conspectus of various theories, see Luther,\n_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi. 36 ff.;\ncompare Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 291 f., 509 ff.)\n\n The _sources_ are Yahwist and Elohist, with occasional clauses\n from Priestly-Code.\u2015\u201529\u00b3\u00b9\u207b\u00b3\u2075 is wholly from Yahwist (\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e,\n\u200e \u00b3\u00b9\u1427 \u00b3\u00b2\u1427 \u00b3\u00b3\u1427 \u00b3\u2075; \u05e2\u05b2\u05e7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u00b3\u00b9; \u05d4\u05b7\u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u05dd\u200e, \u00b3\u2074\u1427 \u00b3\u2075), with the possible exception\n of \u00b3\u00b2\u1d47{\u03b3}.\u2015\u201530\u00b9\u207b\u2078 is mainly Elohist (\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u00b2\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u2078; \u05d0\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u00b3\u1d43);\n but \u00b3\u1d43{\u03b2} reminds us of Yahwist (16\u00b2), \u2074\u1d43 is assigned to\n Priestly-Code (\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05e4\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e and compare 16\u00b3), and in \u2077 \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05e4\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e must\n be either from Yahwist (Kautzsch-Socin, Ball, Gunkel) or\n Priestly-Code (Holzinger).\u2015\u201530\u2079\u207b\u00b9\u00b3 is again mostly from\n Yahwist (\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05e4\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2; compare \u2079\u1d43 with 29\u00b3\u00b9 30\u00b9 29\u00b3\u2075). \u2079\u1d47 is\n Priestly-Code.\u2015\u201530\u00b9\u2074\u207b\u00b2\u2074 presents a very mixed text, whose\n elements are difficult to disentangle; note the double\n etymologies in \u00b9\u2078\u1427 (compare \u00b9\u2076) \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427 The hand of Elohist\n clearly appears in \u00b9\u2077\u1d43\u1427 \u00b9\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1d43{\u03b1\u03b2}\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1d47{\u03b1}\u1427 (\u00b2\u00b2\u1d43 may be\n from Priestly-Code: compare 8\u00b9) \u00b2\u00b3. Hence the parallels\n \u00b9\u2074\u207b\u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1d43{\u03b3}\u1427 \u00b2\u2074 must be assigned to Yahwist, who is further\n characterised, according to Gunkel, by the numeration of the\n sons (\u00b9\u2077\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1d43{\u03b3}). \u00b2\u00b9 is interpolated.\n\n=31\u201235. The sons of Leah.=\u2015\u2015=31.= _hated_] The rendering is too\nstrong. \u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e is almost a technical term for the less favoured of two\nwives (Deuteronomy 21\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427); where the two are sisters the rivalry is\nnaturally most acute, hence this practice is forbidden by the later\nlaw (Leviticus 18\u00b9\u2078). The belief that Yahwe takes the part of the\nunfortunate wife and rewards her with children, belongs to the\nstrongly marked family religion of Israel (1 Samuel 1\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015=32.=\n_R\u0115\u2019\u00fbb\u0113n_] The only plausible explanation of the etymology is that it\nis based on the form \u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b5\u05dc\u200e (_v.i._) = \u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05be\u05d1\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u200e, and that \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e is substituted\nfor the divine name \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u200e. Most commentaries suppose that the writer\nresolves \u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05d1\u05df\u200e into \u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8[\u05d4] \u05d1\u05b0[\u05e2\u05b8]\u05e0\u05b0[\u05d9\u05b4\u05d9]\u200e; but that is too extravagant for even\na Hebrew etymologist.\u2015\u2015=33.= _\u0160im\u201b\u00f4n_] derived from \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05e2\u200e, \u2018hear,\u2019\nexpressing precisely the same idea as R\u0115\u2019\u00fbb\u0113n.\u2015\u2015=34.= _L\u0113v\u00ee_, as the\nthird son, is explained by a verb for \u2018adhere\u2019 (Niphal \u221a \u05dc\u05d5\u05d4\u200e), on the\nprinciple that a threefold cord is not easily broken.\u2015\u2015=35.= _Y\u0115h\u00fbd\u0101h_]\nconnected with a word meaning \u2018praise\u2019 (\u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4\u200e: compare imperfect \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05d3\u05b6\u05d4\u200e,\nNehemiah 11\u00b9\u2077). So in 49\u2078.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =32.= \u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b5\u05df\u200e] LXX \u1fec\u03bf\u03c5\u03b2\u03b7\u03bd, etc.; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word);\n Josephus \u1fec\u03bf\u03c5\u03b2\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. The origin of the name has given rise to an\n extraordinary number of conjectures (see Hogg, _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n Biblica_, 4091 ff.). We seem driven to the conclusion that the\n original form (that on which the etymology is based: _v.s._)\n was \u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05d1\u05dc. In that form the name has been connected with Arabic\n _ri\u2019b\u0101l_, \u2018lion,\u2019 or \u2018wolf,\u2019 in which case Reuben might have to\n be added to the possibly totemistic names of the Old Testament.\n Another plausible suggestion is that the word is softened from\n\u200e \u05e8\u05b0\u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u05be\u05d1\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u200e a theophorous compound after the analogy of \u05e8\u05b0\u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e\u2015\u2015=33.=\n After \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05df\u200e, LXX inserts \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, which may be correct (compare\n\u200e 30\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2074).\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05de\u05b0\u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e] Another supposed animal name, from\n Arabic _sim\u201b_, a cross between the wolf and hy\u00e6na (see William\n Robertson Smith _The Journal of Philology_ ix. 80). Ewald\n regarded it as a diminutive of \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b8\u05e2\u05b5\u05d0\u05dc\u200e, and similarly recently\n Cheyne (_Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 375).\u2015\u2015=34.=\n\u200e \u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX\u1d38\u1d58\u1d9c\u2071\u1d43\u207f,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05e7\u05b8\u05bd\u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e; LXX\u1d2c \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05b5\u05d5\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] Wellhausen\u2019s conjecture that\n this is the gentilic of \u05dc\u05b5\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e is widely accepted (Stade, William\n Robertson Smith, N\u00f6ldeke, Meyer, al.). Hommel, on the other\n hand, compares South Arabian _lavi\u2019u_ = \u2018priest,\u2019 Levi being\n the priestly tribe (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated\n by the Monuments_, 278 f.; compare Benzinger _Hebr\u00e4ische\n Arch\u00e4ologie_\u00b2 56).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=XXX. 1\u20128. Rachel\u2019s adopted sons.=\u2015\u2015=1, 2.= A passionate scene,\nshowing how Rachel was driven by jealousy of her sister to yield her\nplace to her maid. Her petulant behaviour recalls that of Sarah (16\u2075),\nbut Jacob is less patient than Abraham.\u2015\u2015_Am I in God\u2019s stead?_] So\n50\u00b9\u2079, compare 2 Kings 5\u2077.\u2015\u2015=3.= _bear upon my knees_] An allusion to\na primitive ceremony of adoption, which here simply means that Bilhah\u2019s\nchildren will be acknowledged by Rachel as her own.\u2015\u2015_obtain children\nby her_] see on 16\u00b2.\u2015\u2015=6.= The putative mother names the adopted\nchild.\u2015\u2015_D\u00e2n_] The etymology here given (\u221a \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05df\u200e, \u2018judge\u2019) is very\nprobably correct, the form being an abbreviated theophorous name\n(compare, _Abi-dan_, Assyrian _Asshur-dan_, etc.).\u2015\u2015=8.= _wrestlings\nof God I have wrestled_] The words are very obscure (see Cheyne 376\nff.). Either \u2018I have had \u201ca veritable God\u2019s bout\u201d (Ball) with my\nsister,\u2019 or (less probably) \u2018I have wrestled with God (in prayer) like\nmy sister.\u2019\u2015\u2015_and have overcome_] This seems to imply that Leah had\nonly one son at the time (Gunkel); and there is nothing to prevent the\nsupposition that the concubinage of Bilhah followed immediately on the\nbirth of Reuben.\n\n On the ceremony referred to, see Stade _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die\n alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, vi. 143 ff.; Holzinger 196;\n Driver 274. Its origin is traced to a widespread custom,\n according to which, in lawful marriage, the child is actually\n brought forth on the father\u2019s knees (compare Job 3\u00b9\u00b2; _Iliad_\n ix. 455 f.; _Odyssey_ xix. 401 ff.); then it became a symbol\n of the legitimisation of a natural child, and finally a form\n of adoption generally (50\u00b2\u00b3). Gunkel, however, thinks the rite\n originated in cases like the present (the slave being delivered\n on the knees of her mistress), and was afterwards transferred to\n male adoption.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =3.= \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05d4\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] (of unknown etymology) is probably to be connected\n with the \u1e24orite clan \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05dc\u05d4\u05b8\u05df\u200e (36\u00b2\u2077).\u2015\u2015=6.= \u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05e0\u05b7\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e] On the form, see\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 26 _g_.\u2015\u2015=7a\u03b2b= must be assigned to Yahwist,\n on account of \u05e9\u05c1\u05e4\u05d7\u05d4\u200e and \u05d1\u05df \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u200e (note also the expression of subject\n after _second_ verb).\u2015\u2015=8.= \u05e0\u05e4\u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u200e] \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. The verb has\n nowhere else the sense of \u2018wrestle,\u2019 but means primarily to\n \u2018twist\u2019 (compare Proverbs 8\u2078, Job 5\u00b9\u00b3, Psalms 18\u00b2\u2077\u2020); hence \u05e0\u05b7\u05e4\u05b0\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u200e\n might be the \u2018tortuous,\u2019 \u2018cunning\u2019 one (Brown-Driver-Briggs).\n But a more plausible etymology derives it from a hypothetical\n _Naphtal_ (from \u05e0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05ea\u200e [Joshua 17\u00b9\u00b9\u2020,\u2015\u2015if correctly vocalised],\n usually taken to mean \u2018height\u2019: compare \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05de\u05b6\u05dc\u200e from \u05db\u05b6\u05bc\u05e8\u05b6\u05dd\u200e), denoting\n the northern highlands West of the Upper Jordan (Meyer _Die\n Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 539).\u2015\u2015The Versions render\n the verb more or less paraphrastically, and give no help to the\n elucidation of the sense.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=9\u201213. Leah\u2019s adopted sons.=\u2015\u2015=11.= _Gad_ is the name of an Aram\u00e6an\nand Ph\u0153nician god of Luck (\u03a4\u03cd\u03c7\u03b7), mentioned in Isaiah 65\u00b9\u00b9 (see\n_Cambridge Bible_, _ad loc._; compare Baethgen, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur\nGeschichte C\u00f6lestins_ 76 ff. 159 ff.). There is no difficulty in\nsupposing that a hybrid tribe like Gad traced its ancestry to this\ndeity, and was named after him; though, of course, no such idea\nis expressed in the text. In Leah\u2019s exclamation the word is used\nappellatively: _With luck!_ (_v.i._). It is probable, however, that\nat an earlier time it was current in the sense \u2018With Gad\u2019s help\u2019\n(Ball, Gunkel).\u2015\u2015=13.= The name _\u2019\u0100\u0161\u0113r_ naturally suggested to Hebrew\nwriters a word for happiness; hence the two etymologies: \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e \u2018_In my\nhappiness_,\u2019 and \u05d0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05bc\u05c1\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e \u2018(women) _count me happy_.\u2019 It is possible that\nthe name is historically related to the Canaanite goddess _\u2019A\u0161\u0113r\u0101h_\n(Ball, Holzinger), as Gad is to the Aram\u00e6an deity. _Aser_ appears in\nEgyptian monuments as the name of a district in North-west Palestine\nas early as Seti and Ramses II. (M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa nach\nalt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_, 236 ff.).\n\n * * * * *\n\n =10.= Both here and verse \u00b9\u00b2 LXX gives a much fuller text.\u2015\u2015=11.=\n\u200e \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d2\u05d3\u200e] So _Keth\u00eeb_, LXX \u1f18\u03bd \u03c4\u03cd\u03c7\u1fc3, Vulgate _Feliciter_. But _Qr\u00ea_\n\u200e \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0 \u05d2\u05b8\u0591\u05d3\u200e is ancient, being presupposed by Syrian (\u2021 Syriac phrase)\n and Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f. These Versions render \u2018Good fortune\n comes\u2019 (so Rashi): another translation, suggested by 49\u00b9\u2079, is\n \u2018A troop (\u05d2\u05b0\u05bc\u05d3\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3\u200e) comes\u2019 (Abraham Ibn Ezra).\n\n\u200e =13.= \u05d0\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8\u200e is \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05bc\u05c1\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] perfect of confidence\n (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 106 _n_). It is to be noted that perfects\n greatly preponderate in Elohist\u2019s etymologies, and imperfects\n in those of Yahwist; the two exceptions (29\u00b3\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427) may be only\n apparent, and due to the absence of definite stylistic criteria.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=14\u201224. The later children.=\u2015\u2015=14\u201216.= The incident of the love-apples\nis a piece of folklore, adopted with reserve by the writer (Yahwist),\nand so curtailed as to be shorn of its original significance. The\nstory must have gone on to tell how Rachel partook of the fruit and\nin consequence became pregnant, while Leah also conceived through the\nrestoration of her marriage rights (see Wellhausen _Die Composition\ndes Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 38\nf.). How much of this stood in Yahwist and has been suppressed in the\nhistory of the text we cannot say; we here read just what is necessary\nto explain the name of Leah\u2019s child.\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05d3\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3\u05b8\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (_v.i._) is the round,\ngreenish-yellow, plum-like fruit of _mandragora vernalis_, which in\nSyria ripens in May\u2015\u2015_the days of wheat harvest_\u2015\u2015and is still eagerly\nsought in the East to promote conception (see Tuch\u2019s note, 385 ff.).\nReuben is named, probably as the only child old enough to follow\nthe reapers in the field (compare 2 Kings 4\u00b9\u2078). The agricultural\nbackground shows that the episode is out of place in its present\nnomadic setting.\u2015\u2015=15.= _he shall lie with thee to-night_] Jacob,\ntherefore, had wrongly withheld from Leah her conjugal rights (\u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e,\nExodus 21\u00b9\u2070).\u2015\u2015=16.= _I have hired thee_ (\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05db\u05b9\u05e8 \u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05db\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05da\u05b8\u200e)] Obviously an\nanticipation of Yahwist\u2019s lost etymology of Issachar.\u2015\u2015=18.= Elohist\u2019s\ninterpretation of \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c2\u05e9\u05c2\u05db\u05b8\u05e8\u200e, which is, of course, independent of the story\nof the mandrakes. The name is resolved either into \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1 \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05db\u05b8\u05e8\u200e, \u2018man of\nhire,\u2019 or into \u05d9\u05b5\u05e9\u05c1 \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05db\u05b8\u05e8\u200e, \u2018there is a reward\u2019 (Tuch, Dillmann); or else\nthe \u05d9\u200e and quiescent \u05e9\u200e are simply dropped (Gunkel): _v.i._\u2015\u2015=20.=\nTwo etymologies of _Z\u0115b\u00fbl\u00fbn_; the first from Elohist (\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e), and\nthe second, therefore, from Yahwist: both are somewhat obscure\n(_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=21.= _D\u00een\u0101h_] The absence of an etymology, and the fact\nthat Dinah is excluded from the enumeration of 32\u00b2\u00b3, make it probable\nthat the verse is interpolated with a view to chapter 34.\u2015\u2015=22\u201224.=\nAt last Rachel bears a son, long hoped for and therefore marked out\nfor a brilliant destiny\u2015\u2015_Y\u00f4s\u0113ph._\u2015\u2015=23b, 24b.= Elohist derives the\nname from \u05d0\u05b8\u05e1\u05b7\u05e3\u200e, \u2018take away\u2019; Yahwist more naturally from \u05d9\u05b8\u05e1\u05b7\u05e3\u200e, \u2018add\u2019:\n_May Yahwe add to me another son!_\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =14.= \u05d3\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3\u05b8\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (Canticles 7\u00b9\u2074\u2020)] LXX \u03bc\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n (\u2021 Syriac word), Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f \u05d9\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05d7\u05d9\u05df\u200e (= Arabic _yabr\u016bh_,\n explained to be the _root_ of the plant). The singular is\n\u200e \u05d3\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3\u05b7\u05d9\u200e, from the same \u221a as \u05d3\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d3\u200e, \u2018lover,\u2019 and \u05d3\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e \u2018love\u2019; and very\n probably associated with the love-god \u05d3\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4\u200e (_Me\u0161a_, 1. 12). Cheyne\n plausibly suggests (379) that this deity was worshipped by the\n Reubenites; hence Reuben is the finder of the apples.\u2015\u2015=15.= \u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc\u200e]\n LXX \u05dc\u05b5\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05dc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05e7\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea\u200e (infinitive)] Driver _A Treatise\n on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ \u00a7 204; but \u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05e7\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u200e (perfect\n future) would be easier.\u2015\u2015=16.= \u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05d5\u05b9\u05d0\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_, LXX + \u05d4\u05b7\u05dc\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05dc\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u200e] see on 19\u00b3\u00b3.\u2015\u2015=17a= is\n from Elohist; but =17b= probably from Yahwist, on account of the\n numeral.\u2015\u2015=18a\u03b2=, while correctly expressing the idea of Elohist,\n contains the word \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05e4\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, which Elohist avoids; and is therefore\n probably redactional.\u2015\u2015=18b.= \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c2\u05e9\u05db\u05b8\u05e8\u200e] So Ben Asher regularly,\n with _Qr\u00ea perpetuum_ \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c2\u05db\u05b8\u05e8\u200e: B. Naphtali has \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05db\u05b8\u05e8\u200e, or \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05db\u05b8\u05e8\u200e (see\n Baer-Delitzsch _Liber Genesis_ 84 f.; Ginsburg, _Introduction of\n the Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible_ 250 ff.).\n The duplication of the \u05e9\u200e cannot be disposed of as a Massoretic\n caprice, and is most naturally explained by the assumption\n that two components were recognised, of which the first was \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u200e\n (Wellhausen _Der Text der B\u00fccher Samuelis_, page v). For the\n second component Wellhausen refers to the \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05db\u05b8\u05e8\u200e of 1 Chronicles\n 11\u00b3\u2075 26\u2074; Ball compares an Egyptian deity _Sokar_; while Meyer\n (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 536) is satisfied\n with the interpretation \u2018man of hire,\u2019 corresponding to the\n description of the tribe in Genesis 49\u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015=20.= \u05d6\u05b6\u05d1\u05b6\u05d3\u200e, \u05d6\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] The\n \u221a (except in proper names) is not found in the Old Testament,\n but is explained by Aramaic (compare (\u2021 Syriac word), \u2018dowry\u2019),\n and is common in Palmer proper names (Brown-Driver-Briggs,\n _s.v._). The interchange of \u05dc\u200e and \u05d3\u200e is probably dialectic\n (compare _dacrima_ = _lacrima_), and hardly justifies Cheyne\u2019s\n view that the name in the writer\u2019s mind was \u05d6\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05d3\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e] (_l.c._\n\u200e 380).\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05d6\u05d1\u05dc\u05e0\u05d9\u200e] Another \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd apparently connected with \u05d6\u05b0\u05d1\u05bb\u05dc\u200e,\n poetical for \u2018abode\u2019: Versions \u2018dwell with\u2019 (as English Version).\n This gives a good enough sense here, and is perhaps supported\n by 49\u00b9\u00b3 (see on the verse); but \u05d6\u05b0\u05d1\u05bb\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05df\u200e remains without any natural\n explanation. See Hogg, in _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 5385 ff.\n Meyer (538) derives it from the personal name \u05d6\u05b0\u05d1\u05bb\u05dc\u200e (Judges\n 9\u00b2\u2078).\u2015\u2015=21= end] LXX + \u05d5\u05ea\u05e2\u05de\u05d3 \u05de\u05dc\u05d3\u05ea\u200e (as 29\u00b3\u2075).\u2015\u2015=24.= \u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05e1\u05b5\u05e3\u200e] Probably a\n contraction of \u05d9\u05d5\u05e1\u05e3\u05be\u05d0\u05dc\u200e, though the _Y\u0161p\u2019r_ of the list of Thothmes\n III. (Number 78) is less confidently identified with Joseph\n than the companion _Y\u201b\u1e33b\u2019r_ with Jacob (compare page 360\n above; Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 262;\n Spiegelberg, _Randglossen_, 13 f.; M\u00fcller, _Mittheilungen der\n vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1907, i. 23, and _Journal of\n Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, 1909, 31). But _Ya\u0161upili_\n has been found in contract tablets of the \u1e24ammurabi period\n along with _Ya\u1e33ub-ili_ (Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition\n as illustrated by the Monuments_, 96 [from Sayce]).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n XXX. 25\u201243.\n _Jacob enriched at Laban\u2019s Expense_\n (Jehovist).\n\nJacob, having accomplished his 14 years of service for his wives, is\nnow in a position to dictate terms to Laban, who, in his eagerness\nto keep him, invites him to name the price for which he will remain\nwith him. It is interesting to contrast the relative attitudes of the\ntwo men with their bearing in \u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 Jacob here shows a decision of\npurpose which causes Laban to adopt an obsequious tone very unlike his\nformer easy assurance. He is overjoyed to find his nephew\u2019s demands so\nreasonable; and correspondingly mortified (31\u00b2) when he discovers how\ncompletely he has been deceived by Jacob\u2019s apparent moderation.\u2015\u2015The\nstory, as Gunkel reminds us, was originally told to shepherds, who\nwould follow with keen interest the various tricks of their craft\nwhich Jacob so successfully applies (and of which he was probably\nregarded as the inventor). To more refined readers these details were\nirksome; hence the abridged and somewhat unintelligible form in which\nthe narrative stands.\n\n _Sources._\u2015\u2015In the earlier verses (\u00b2\u2075\u207b\u00b3\u00b9) several duplicates\n show the composition of Yahwist and Elohist: \u00b2\u2075 \u2225 \u00b2\u2076\u1d43; \u00b2\u2076\u1d47 \u2225 \u00b2\u2079\u1d43;\n \u00b2\u2078 \u2225 \u00b3\u00b9\u1d43; \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e in \u00b2\u2077 and \u00b2\u2078; \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u200e, \u00b2\u2076\u1d47 and \u00b2\u2079\u1d43. Here \u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2077\u1427\n \u00b2\u2079\u207b\u00b3\u00b9 are from Yahwist (\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, \u00b2\u2077\u1427 \u00b3\u2070; \u05de\u05b8\u05e6\u05b8\u05d0 \u05d7\u05b5\u05df\u200e, \u00b2\u2077; \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d2\u05b0\u05dc\u05b7\u05dc\u200e \u00b2\u2077), and \u00b2\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2078\n from Elohist,\u2015\u2015each narrative being nearly complete (compare\n Dillmann, Gunkel, Procksch).\u2015\u2015In \u00b3\u00b2\u207b\u00b3\u2076 it is quite possible, in\n spite of the scepticism of Dillmann and others, to distinguish\n two conceptions of Jacob\u2019s reward (Wellhausen _Die Composition\n des Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des Alten\n Testaments_\u00b2 40 ff.). (a) In the first, Jacob is that very day\n to take out from Laban\u2019s flock all abnormally coloured animals:\n _that_ is to be his hire (\u00b3\u00b2). On the morrow (or in time to\n come), Laban may inspect Jacob\u2019s flock: if he find in it any\n normally coloured animals, Jacob is at once convicted of fraud\n \u00b3\u00b3. This account belongs to Elohist (compare \u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05db\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, \u00b3\u00b2, with \u00b2\u2078),\n though it is doubtful if to the same stratum of Elohist as\n 31\u2077\u207b\u00b9\u00b2. (b) In the other, Laban himself separates the flocks,\n leaving the _normally_ coloured sheep and goats in Jacob\u2019s\n keeping, and removing the others to a distance of three days\u2019\n journey, under the charge of his sons (\u00b3\u00b2\u1d43{\u03b2} [from \u05d4\u05b8\u05e1\u05b5\u05e8\u200e \u00b3\u2075 \u1da0\u1427).\n Thus Jacob receives for the present nothing at all (\u00b3\u00b9 Yahwist).\n The narrative must have gone on to explain that his hire was\n to consist of any variegated animals appearing in the normally\n coloured flock now left in his charge (\u00b3\u2076\u1d47); Laban\u2019s precautions\n aim at securing that these shall be few or none. Hence we\n obtain for Yahwist \u00b3\u00b2\u1d43{\u03b2}\u1427 \u00b3\u2075\u1427 \u00b3\u2076, and for Elohist \u00b3\u00b2\u1d43{\u03b1\u03b4}\u1d47\u1427 \u00b3\u00b3\u1427\n \u00b3\u2074.\u2015\u2015\u00b3\u2077\u207b\u2074\u2075 is the natural continuation of Yahwist\u2019s account,\n but with numerous insertions, which may be either from variants\n or glosses.\u2015\u2015The text here is very confused, and LXX has many\n variations.\n\n=25\u201231. Jacob proposes to provide for his own house.=\u2015\u2015A\npreliminary parley, in which both parties feel their way to an\nunderstanding.\u2015\u2015=26= (Elohist). _thou knowest with what kind of\nservice, etc._] Elohist always lays stress on Jacob\u2019s rectitude\n(compare \u00b3\u00b3).\u2015\u2015=27= (Yahwist). _If I have found favour, etc._]\nfollowed by aposiopesis, as 18\u00b3 23\u00b9\u00b3.\u2015\u2015Laban continues: _I have\ntaken omens_ (\u05e0\u05b4\u05d7\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e; compare 44\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2075, 1 Kings 20\u00b3\u00b3) _and_ (found that)\n_Yahwe has blessed me, etc._]\u2015\u2015an abject plea for Jacob\u2019s remaining\nwith him.\u2015\u2015=28= (Elohist). Laban surrenders at once (the answer\nis in verse \u00b3\u00b2), whereas\u2015\u2015=29,30= in Yahwist, Jacob presses for a\ndischarge: his service has been of immense value to Laban, but he has\na family to consider.\u2015\u2015=31.= _anything at all_] See introductory note\nabove.\u2015\u2015_this thing_] which I am about to mention.\u2015\u2015_resume herding\nthy flock_] Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 120 _g_.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =26.= \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d9\u05dc\u05d3\u05d9\u200e] Not necessarily a gloss; the children might\n fairly be considered included in Jacob\u2019s wages.\u2015\u2015=27.= On \u05e0\u05b4\u05d7\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1\u200e,\n _verb_ 44\u2075.\u2015\u2015\u200e\u05d1\u05d2\u05dc\u05dc\u05da\u200e] LXX \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u1fc7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03cc\u03b4\u1ff3, Armenian _in pede tuo_ =\n\u200e \u05dc\u05e8\u05d2\u05dc\u05da\u200e (\u00b3\u2070).\u2015\u2015=28.= LXX, Vulgate omit \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e, smoothing over the\n transition from Yahwist to Elohist.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05e7\u05d1\u05d4\u200e] \u2018designate\u2019 (literally\n \u2018prick [off]\u2019): compare the use of Niphal in Numbers 1\u00b9\u2077,\n 1 Chronicles 16\u2074\u00b9 etc.\u2015\u2015=29.= \u05d0\u05ea \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u200e] \u2018the manner in which\u2019\n (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 157 _c_); but Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 reads as in verse\n\u200e \u00b2\u2076.\u2015\u2015=30.= \u05dc\u05e8\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u200e] contrasted with \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u200e above. Prosperity has\n followed Jacob \u2018wherever he went\u2019 (compare Isaiah 41\u00b2, Job 18\u00b9\u00b9\n etc.). It is unnecessary to emend \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d2\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u200e (Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2,\n Cheyne).\u2015\u2015=31.= \u05d0\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u200e] (LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 prefix \u05d5\u05b0\u200e) must be deleted on\n account of its awkward position.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=32\u201236. The new contract.=\u2015\u2015The point in both narratives is that\nparti-coloured animals form a very small proportion of a flock, the\nSyrian sheep being nearly all white (Canticles 4\u00b2 6\u2076, Daniel 7\u2079) and\nthe goats black or brown (Canticles 4\u00b9\u1d47). In Elohist, Jacob simply\nasks this small share as his payment.\u2015\u2015=32.= _and it shall be my hire_]\nThe rendering \u2018and of this sort shall be my hire\u2019 (in future), is\nmerely a violent attempt to obliterate the difference between Yahwist\nand Elohist.\u2015\u2015=33.= _my righteousness shall testify against me_]\n_i.e._, the proposal is so transparently fair that Jacob will be as it\nwere automatically convicted of theft if he violates the compact. \u05e6\u05b0\u05d3\u05b8\u05e7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e,\n\u2018unimpeachable conduct,\u2019 here means \u2018fair dealing,\u2019 \u2018honesty.\u2019\u2015\u2015_in\ntime to come_] whenever Laban chooses to make an investigation.\u2015\u2015=35,\n36= (Yahwist). _And he_ (Laban, see \u00b3\u00b2\u1d43{\u03b2}) _removed that day, etc._]\nLaban\u2019s motive in removing the variegated animals to a distance of\nthree days\u2019 journey is obvious; he wishes to reduce to a minimum the\nchance that any such animals should henceforth be born amongst those\nnow entrusted to Jacob.\u2015\u2015_white_] Hebrew _l\u0101b\u0101n_, perhaps a play on\nLaban\u2019s name.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =32.= \u05d0\u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u200e, \u05d4\u05e1\u05e8\u200e] To get rid of the change of person (and\n the division of sources) many construe the latter as\n infinitive absolute (\u2018removing\u2019); but the only natural\n rendering is imperative (compare \u00b3\u2075). LXX has imperative both\n times.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05e9\u05d4\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05d6\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03be\u03af\u03bd, a smoother\n and therefore less original text. The Hebrew seems overloaded;\n Gunkel strikes out \u05d5\u05b0\u05db\u05b8\u05dc\u05be\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d4\u05be\u05d7\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, and the corresponding clauses\n in \u00b3\u00b3\u1427 \u00b3\u2075.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05b8\u05e7\u05b9\u05d3 \u05d5\u05b0\u05d8\u05b8\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u200e] \u2018speckled and spotted,\u2019 \u2018parti-coloured.\u2019 The\n words are practically synonymous, both being distinct from \u05e2\u05b8\u05e7\u05b9\u05d3\u200e\n (\u00b3\u2075\u1427 \u00b3\u2079\u1427 \u2074\u2070 31\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u2020), which means \u2018striped.\u2019 If there be a\n difference, \u05e0\u05f3\u200e (\u00b3\u2075\u1427 \u00b3\u2079 31\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u2020) suggests smaller spots than\n\u200e \u05d8\u05f3\u200e (compare Ezekiel 16\u00b9\u2076, Joshua 9\u2075, the only places where the\n \u221a occurs outside this passage).\u2015\u2015\u05d7\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd\u200e] only in this chapter: =\n \u2018black\u2019 or \u2018dark-brown.\u2019\u2015\u2015=33.= \u05e2\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d1\u200e] \u2018testify against\u2019 (see\n 1 Samuel 12\u00b3, 2 Samuel 1\u00b9\u2076, Isaiah 3\u2079). An easier sense would\n be obtained if we could translate \u2018witness _for_,\u2019 but there\n seem to be no examples of that usage. Driver\u2019s interpretation:\n \u2018there will be nothing whatever to allege against my honesty,\u2019\n seems, on the other hand, too subtle.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05de\u05d7\u05e8\u200e] \u2018in time to\n come\u2019 (Exodus 13\u00b9\u2074, Deuteronomy 6\u00b2\u2070). If we could insist on\n the literal rendering \u2018on the morrow,\u2019 the proof of divergence\n between Yahwist and Elohist would be strengthened, but the sense\n is less suitable.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05d9\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05da\u200e] LXX \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\n \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5.\u2015\u2015=36.= \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,\n LXX \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ follows \u00b3\u2076\n with a long addition based on 31\u00b9\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u00b3.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=37\u201243. Jacob\u2019s Stratagem.=\u2015\u2015The main account is from Yahwist,\nto whose narrative the artifice is essential, but there are many\ninterpolations.\u2015\u2015=37\u201239.= The first step is to work on the imagination\nof the females by rods of poplar, etc., peeled in such a way as to\nshow patches of white, and placed in the drinking troughs.\u2015\u2015=38, 39.=\nRemoving glosses, Yahwist\u2019s account reads: _And he placed the rods\nwhich he had peeled in the runnels ... in front of the flock, and they\nbred when they came to drink.... And the flock brought forth streaked,\nspeckled, and spotted_ (young).\n\n The physiological law involved is said to be well established\n (Driver), and was acted on by ancient cattle breeders (see the\n list of authorities in Bochart, _Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum\n opus de animalibus Sacr\u00e6 Scriptur\u00e6_ ii. chapter 49; and compare\n Jerome _Qu\u00e6stiones sive Traditiones hebraic\u00e6 in Genesim_ _ad\n loc._). The full representation seems to be that the ewes saw\n the reflexion of the rams in the water, blended with the image\n of the parti-coloured rods, and were deceived into thinking they\n were coupled with parti-coloured males (Jerome, Wellhausen _Die\n Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des Alten\n Testaments_\u00b2 41).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =37.= \u05dc\u05d1\u05e0\u05d4\u200e (Hosea 4\u00b9\u00b3\u2020)] the \u2018white\u2019 tree; according to some,\n _populus alba_ (Dillmann al.), but very probably _styrax\n officinalis_ (Arabic _lubna\u02b8_, so called from its exuding a\n _milk_-like gum), (Gesenius, Delitzsch, Driver, al.).\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d6\u200e\u2020]\n = Aramaic \u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d6\u05b8\u05d0\u200e, \u2018almond tree.\u2019\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e (Ezekiel 31\u2078\u2020)] _platanus\n orientalis_ (Assyrian _irme\u00e2nu_).\u2015\u2015Instead of the last three\n words LXX has \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03ac\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, \u1f43 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd,\u2015\u2015a very sensible comment, but hardly original. The\n whole clause \u2018(with) a laying bare (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 117 _r_)\n of the white on the rods,\u2019 is superfluous, and certainly looks\n like a variant.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05d4\u05df\u200e] plural; \u05de\u05e7\u05dc\u200e being collective.\u2015\u2015=38 ff.= The\n text of Yahwist, as sifted by Wellhausen, commends itself by its\n lucidity and continuity. It is impossible to tell whether the\n interpolated words are variants from another source (Elohist?)\n or explanatory glosses.\u2015\u2015=38.= \u05e8\u05b7\u05d4\u05b7\u05d8\u200e (verse \u2074\u00b9, Exodus 2\u00b9\u2076\u2020)]\n either \u2018trough,\u2019 from Arabic _raha\u1e6da_, \u2018be collected,\u2019 or\n \u2018runnel,\u2019 from Aramaic \u05e8\u05d4\u05d8\u200e = \u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05e5\u200e (see N\u00f6ldeke _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\n Assyriologie_, xii. 187).\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05e7\u05b2\u05ea\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u200e] construction plural of \u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05e7\u05b6\u05ea\u200e,\n 24\u00b2\u2020.\u2015\u2015The words \u05d1\u05e9\u05e7\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05e9\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea\u200e divorce \u05dc\u05e0\u05db\u05d7 \u05d4\u05e6\u05d0\u05df\u200e from its connexion,\n and must be omitted from the text of Yahwist. LXX appears to\n have changed \u05d4\u05e6\u05d0\u05df \u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u200e to \u05d4\u05de\u05e7\u05dc\u05b9\u05d5\u05ea\u200e, rendering thus (\u00b3\u2078\u1d47) \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd\n \u1f14\u03bb\u03b8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1fe5\u03ac\u03b2\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd [\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76] \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (\u00b3\u2079) \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u05de\u05b0\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] On\n the unusual preference of 3rd person feminine plural, see\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 47 _k_.\u2015\u2015=39a= is a doublet to the last\n three words of \u00b3\u2078.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05de\u05d5\u200e] _ib._ \u00a7 69 _f_; _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=40.= _And (these) lambs Jacob set apart ... and made separate flocks\nfor himself and did not add them to Laban\u2019s stock_ (Wellhausen).\u2015\u2015=41,\n42.= A further refinement: Jacob employed his device only in the case\nof the sturdy animals, letting the weakly ones gender freely. The\ndifference corresponds to a difference of breeding-time (_v.i._). The\nconsequence is that Jacob\u2019s stock is hardy and Laban\u2019s delicate.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =40.= \u2018He set the faces of the flock towards a (_sic_) streaked\n and every dark one in Laban\u2019s flock,\u2019 is an imperfect text,\n and an impossible statement in Yahwist, where Laban\u2019s cattle\n are three days distant. LXX vainly tries to make sense by\n omitting \u05dc\u05b8\u05d1\u05b8\u05df\u200e, and rendering \u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9\u200e = \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, and \u05d0\u05b6\u05dc\u05be\u05e2\u05b8\u05e7\u05b9\u05d3\u200e = \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd (\u05d0\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dc\u200e!)\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd.\u2015\u2015=41.= \u05d1\u05bc\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u200e] LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2, supply\n\u200e \u05e2\u05b5\u05ea\u200e.\u2015\u2015=42.= \u05d4\u05e7\u05e9\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u05d4\u05e2\u05d8\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, \u1f04\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1; but Symmachus\n (paraphrasing) \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03ca\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f44\u03c8\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1, and similarly Aquila, Vulgate,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2. It is the fact that the stronger sheep\n conceived in summer and yeaned in winter, while the weaker\n conceived in autumn and yeaned in the spring: Pliny, _Naturalis\n Historia_, viii. 187 (\u2018postea concepti invalidi\u2019).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n XXXI. 1\u2012XXXII. 1.\n _Jacob\u2019s Flight from Laban: their friendly Parting_\n (Yahwist, Elohist).\n\nJacob perceives from the altered demeanour of Laban and his sons\nthat he has outstayed his welcome (\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2); and, after consultation with\nhis wives, resolves on a secret flight (\u00b3\u207b\u00b2\u00b9). Laban pursues, and\novertakes him at Mt. Gilead (\u00b2\u00b2\u207b\u00b2\u2075), where, after a fierce altercation\n(\u00b2\u2076\u207b\u2074\u00b3), they enter into a treaty of peace (from which Gilead receives\nits name), and separate with many demonstrations of goodwill (31\u2074\u2074\u201232\u00b9).\n\n _Sources._\u2015\u2015\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2076 is an almost homogeneous (though perhaps\n not continuous) excerpt from Elohist: \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u2077\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2076; \u05de\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05ea\u200e,\n \u2077 (compare \u2074\u00b9 29\u00b9\u2075); \u05de\u05b9\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u2077 (\u2074\u00b9); \u05de\u05b7\u05e6\u05b5\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e \u00b9\u00b3; the revelation by\n dream, \u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1427; the summons and answer, \u00b9\u00b9 (22\u00b9\u1427 \u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9); and the\n explanation of Jacob\u2019s wealth \u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427; compare also the reference\n to 28\u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u00b2. \u00b9 and \u00b3 are from a Yahwist parallel: \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, \u00b3; \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b7\u05d3\u05b0\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05da\u05b8\u200e, \u00b3;\n the \u2018sons\u2019 of Laban, \u00b9 (compare 30\u00b3\u2075).\u2015\u2015In \u00b9\u2077\u207b\u2075\u2074 Elohist still\n preponderates, though Yahwist is more largely represented than\n some critics (Dillmann, Kuenen, Kautzsch-Socin, Driver, al.)\n allow. The detailed analysis is here very intricate, and will\n be best dealt with under the several sections.\u2015\u2015\u00b9\u2078 (except the\n first four words) is the only extract from Priestly-Code.\n\n=1\u201216. Preparations for flight.=\u2015\u2015=1, 3= (Yahwist). The jealousy of\nLaban\u2019s sons corresponds to the dark looks of Laban himself in Elohist\n(verse \u00b2); the divine communication is a feature of both narratives\n(verse \u00b9\u00b3).\u2015\u2015=4\u201213.= Jacob vindicates his conduct towards Laban, and\nsets forth the reasons for his projected flight. The motive of the\nspeech is not purely literary, affording the writer an opportunity to\nexpress his belief in Jacob\u2019s righteousness (Gunkel); it is first of\nall an appeal to the wives to accompany him: compare the question to\nRebekah in 24\u2075\u2078.\u2015\u2015=6.= _Ye yourselves know, etc._] Compare 30\u00b2\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2079.\nBut to repeat the protestation after the work of the last six years\nimplies great hardihood on Jacob\u2019s part; and rather suggests that the\npassage belongs to a stratum of Elohist which said nothing about his\ntricks with the flock.\u2015\u2015=7.= _changed my wages ten times_] Perhaps a\nround number, not to be taken literally.\u2015\u2015=8.= A sample of Laban\u2019s\ntergiversations, and their frustration by God\u2019s providence.\u2015\u2015=9.= _And\nso God has taken away, etc._] The hand of God has been so manifest\nthat Laban\u2019s displeasure is altogether unreasonable.\u2015\u2015=10\u201212.= Jacob\nreceives through a dream the explanation of the singular good fortune\nthat has attended him.\n\n In the text verses \u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b9\u00b2 form part of the same revelation\n as that in which Jacob is commanded to depart (\u00b9\u00b3). But, as\n Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen\n B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 39) asks, \u201cHow could two such\n dissimilar revelations be coupled together in this way?\u201d Verse\n \u00b9\u2070 recalls an incident of the past, while \u00b9\u00b3 is in the sphere of\n the present: moreover, \u2018I am the God of Bethel\u2019 must surely open\n the communication. Wellhausen solves the difficulty by removing\n \u00b9\u2070 and \u00b9\u00b2 (assigning them to an unknown source), and leaving\n \u00b9\u00b9 as the introduction to \u00b9\u00b3: similarly Dillmann, Holzinger,\n _Oxford Hexateuch_, al. Gunkel supposes parts of Jacob\u2019s speech\n to have been omitted between \u2079 and \u00b9\u2070 and between \u00b9\u00b2 and \u00b9\u00b3.\u2015\u2015It\n is scarcely possible to recover the original sense of the\n fragment. If the dream had preceded the negotiations with Laban,\n it might have been a hint to Jacob of the kind of animals he was\n to ask as his hire (Strack, Gunkel); but that is excluded by \u00b9\u00b2\u1d47;\n and, besides, in verse \u2078 it is Laban who fixes the terms of the\n contract. We can only understand it vaguely as an assurance to\n Jacob that against all natural expectations the transaction will\n be overruled to his advantage.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =2.= \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05e0\u05d5\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05dd\u200e (so\n verse \u2075).\u2015\u2015=6.= \u05d0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4\u200e] only here and thrice in Ezekiel (compare\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 32 _i_).\u2015\u2015=7.= \u05d5\u05d4\u05d7\u05dc\u05e3\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05dc\u05e3\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05ea \u05de\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX (\u2018nescio qua\n opinione ducti\u2019 [Jerome]) \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bc\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd (so \u2074\u00b9\u2015\u2015probably a\n transliteration, afterwards made into a Greek word). \u05de\u05b9\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (\u2074\u00b9\u2020)\n from \u221a \u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u200e, \u2018count,\u2019 for the usual \u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e2\u05b8\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e (so \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2076\u1d43).\u2015\u2015=9.= \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u200e]\n LXX \u05d0\u05b8\u05ea\u05be\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05db\u05dd\u200e] for \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05db\u05df\u200e (_The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_); Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 135 _o_.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=13.= _I am the God of Bethel_] links this theophany with that of\n28\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, and is (in Elohist) the first assurance given to Jacob that\nhis vow (28\u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u00b2) had been accepted.\u2015\u2015=14\u201216.= Jacob\u2019s appeal has\nbeen addressed to willing ears: his wives are already alienated from\ntheir father, and eagerly espouse their husband\u2019s cause.\u2015\u2015=14b.=\nCompare 2 Samuel 20\u00b9, 1 Kings 12\u00b9\u2076.\u2015\u2015=15.= _has sold us_] like\nslaves.\u2015\u2015_consumed our money_] _i.e._, the price paid for us (compare\nExodus 21\u00b3\u2075). The complaint implies that it was considered a mark of\nmeanness for a man to keep the _m\u014dhar_ for himself instead of giving\nit to his daughters. A similar change in the destination of the\n_mahr_ appears in Arabia before Islam (Wellhausen _Nachrichten von\nder K\u00f6niglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G\u00f6ttingen_, 1893,\n434 f.).\u2015\u2015=16.= _is ours and our children\u2019s_] Elohist never mentions\nsons of Laban; and apparently looks on Leah and Rachel as the sole\nheiresses.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =13.= \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d0\u05dc\u200e] The article with construct violates a well known\n rule of syntax (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 127 _f_); and it is doubtful\n if the anomaly be rightly explained by supposing the ellipsis of\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e or \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b5\u05d9\u200e. The original text may have been \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc [\u05d4\u05b7\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b6\u05d9\u05da\u05b8 \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05de\u05b0\u05e7\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd] \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05ea\u05b0\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e;\n (so [but without \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d0\u05dc\u200e] LXX, adopted by Ball); or \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc[\u2015\u2015\u05d1]\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d0\u05dc\u200e\n (Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, Kittel).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05de\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05ea\u05da\u200e] see on 11\u00b2\u2078. It is\n the only occurrence of \u05de\u05f3\u200e in Elohist.\u2015\u2015LXX adds \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\n \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6.\u2015\u2015=15.= \u05e0\u05db\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,\n LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Vulgate \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b8\u05f3\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d2\u05dd \u05d0\u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u200e] see on 27\u00b3\u00b3.\u2015\u2015=16.= \u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u200e] LXX +\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=17\u201225. The flight and pursuit.=\u2015\u2015=18.= _and drove away all his\ncattle_] Hence the slowness of his march as compared with Laban\u2019s\n(33\u00b9\u00b3\u1d47).\u2015\u2015The rest of the verse is from Priestly-Code (compare 12\u2075\n36\u2076 46\u2076).\u2015\u2015_to Isaac his father_] 35\u00b2\u2077.\u2015\u2015=19.= _Now Laban had gone\nto shear his flock_] Sheep-shearing was the occasion of an important\nfestival in ancient Israel (38\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, 1 Samuel 25\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, 2 Samuel\n13\u00b2\u00b3).\u2015\u2015With Rachel\u2019s theft of the _t\u0115r\u0101ph\u00eem_ (the household idol:\n_v.i._), compare Virgil _Aeneid_ ii. 293 f., iii. 148 f.\u2015\u2015=20.=\n_stole the heart_] (\u00b2\u2076, 2 Samuel 15\u2076\u2020) \u2018deceived\u2019; the heart being\nthe seat of intelligence (Hosea 4\u00b9\u00b9): compare \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03c8\u03b5 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03bd, _Iliad_\nxiv. 217.\u2015\u2015_the Aram\u00e6an_ (only here and \u00b2\u2074)] The emphasising of\nLaban\u2019s nationality at this point is hard to explain. That it is\nthe correction (by Elohist\u00b2) of an older version (Elohist\u00b9), in\nwhich Laban was not an Aram\u00e6an (Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre\nNachbarst\u00e4mme_, 236), is not probable. Budde (_Die biblische\nUrgeschichte_ 422\u00b9) regards it as a gloss, inserted with a view\nto verse \u2074\u2077\u2015\u2015=21.= _crossed the River_ (Yahwist)] the Euphrates\n(Exodus 23\u00b3\u00b9, Joshua 24\u00b2 etc.).\u2015\u2015=23.= _his brethren_] his\nfellow-clansmen. In the sequel Jacob also is surrounded by his\nclansmen (\u00b3\u2077\u1427 \u2074\u2076\u1427 \u2075\u2074),\u2015\u2015a proof that tribal relations are clothed\nin the guise of individual biography.\u2015\u2015_seven days\u2019 journey_] The\ndistance of Gilead from \u1e24arran (_circa_ 350 miles as the crow flies)\nis much too great to be traversed in that time.\n\n If the verse be from Yahwist (Gunkel, Procksch), we must assume\n (what is no doubt conceivable) that the writer\u2019s geographical\n knowledge was defective. But it is a strong reason for assigning\n the verse to Elohist, that in that source nothing is said of\n \u1e24arran or the Euphrates, and Laban\u2019s home is placed somewhere in\n the eastern desert (see 29\u00b9).\n\n * * * * *\n\n =17\u201225.= A complete analysis of the verses cannot be effected.\n The hand of Elohist is recognised in \u00b9\u2079\u1d47 (\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, compare \u00b3\u2070 35\u00b2\n \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), \u00b2\u2070, (? \u05d4\u05b8\u05bd\u05d0\u05b2\u05e8\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e, as \u00b2\u2074), and especially \u00b2\u2074 (\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u05d7\u05b2\u05dc\u05b9\u05dd\u200e; compare\n \u00b2\u2079\u1427 \u2074\u00b2). Yahwist betrays its presence chiefly by doublets:\n \u00b2\u00b9\u1d43{\u03b2} \u2225 \u00b9\u2077 (\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05e7\u05b8\u05dd\u200e), and \u00b2\u2075\u1d43 \u2225 \u00b2\u00b3\u1d47 (\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05e9\u05b5\u05bc\u05c2\u05d2\u200e, \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05d3\u05b0\u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e7\u200e). The assignment of\n \u00b2\u00b9\u1d43{\u03b2} to Yahwist is warranted by the mention of the Euphrates:\n hence \u00b9\u2077 is Elohist. Further than this we cannot safely go.\n Gunkel\u2019s division (\u00b9\u2079\u1d43\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u2075\u1d47 = Yahwist; \u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2078\u1d43{\u03b1}\u1427 \u00b9\u2079\u1d47\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1427\n \u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2075\u1d43 = Elohist) is open to the objection that it ignores\n the discrepancy between the seven days of \u00b2\u00b3\u1d43 and the crossing\n of the Euphrates in \u00b2\u00b9\u1d43 (see on \u00b2\u00b3 above); but is otherwise\n attractive. Meyer (235 ff.) gets rid of the geographical\n difficulty by distinguishing two strata in Elohist, of which\n the later had been accommodated to the representation of\n Yahwist.\u2015\u2015\u00b9\u2078 (from \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u05e8\u05b0\u05db\u05bb\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05b9\u200e) is obviously Priestly-Code.\u2015\u2015=17.=\n _sons and wives_] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,\n LXX \u2018wives and sons.\u2019\u2015\u2015=18.= LXX omits the clause \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8\u2015\u2015\u05e7\u05b4\u05e0\u05b0\u05d9\u05b8\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u200e (so\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5); and adds after \u05d0\u05b2\u05e8\u05b8\u0591\u05dd\u200e, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\u2015\u2015=19.= \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] A\n plural of eminence, like \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, etc.; hence it is doubtful whether\n one image or several is here referred to. The teraphim was a god\n (\u00b3\u2070), its form and size were those of a man (1 Samuel 19\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2076),\n it was used in private houses as well as in temples (Judges 17\u2075\n 18\u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, Hosea 3\u2074), and was an implement of divination (Ezekiel\n 21\u00b2\u2076, Zechariah 10\u00b2). The indications point to its being an\n emblem of ancestor-worship which survived in Israel as a private\n superstition, condemned by the enlightened conscience of the\n nation (35\u00b2, 1 Samuel 15\u00b2\u00b3, 2 Kings 23\u00b2\u2074). It seems implied\n by the present narrative that the cult was borrowed from the\n Aram\u00e6ans, or perhaps rather that it had existed before the\n separation of Hebrews and Aram\u00e6ans. (See Moore, _Judges_ 379\n ff.)\u2015\u2015=20.= \u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u200e] \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, is difficult. \u05e2\u05dc\u200e for \u05e2\u05dc \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u200e is\n rare and poetic (Psalms 119\u00b9\u00b3\u2076: Brown-Driver-Briggs, 758 a);\n\u200e \u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u200e (poetic for \u05dc\u05d0\u200e) is also rare with finite verb (_ib._ 115 b).\n Since the following clause is a specification of the preceding,\n \u2018wegen Mangels davon dass\u2019 (Dillmann) is not a suitable\n rendering. We should expect \u05dc\u05b0\u05d1\u05b4\u05dc\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d2\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05d3\u200e, \u2018in not telling him\n that,\u2019 etc.: _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_\n has \u05e2\u05d3 \u05d1\u05dc\u05ea\u05d9\u200e.\u2015\u2015=22.= \u05dc\u05dc\u05d1\u05df\u200e] LXX + \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a3\u03cd\u03c1\u1ff3.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=24.= God (not the Angel of God, as verse \u00b9\u00b9) warns Laban in a\ndream to take heed to his words when he encounters Jacob.\u2015\u2015_good or\nbad_] \u2018anything whatever\u2019 (24\u2075\u2070, 2 Samuel 13\u00b2\u00b2 etc.). Laban did not\ninterpret the prohibition literally (\u00b2\u2079).\u2015\u2015=25.= _in the mountain\n..._] The idea suggested being that Jacob and Laban encamped each on\na different mountain, we must suppose the name to have been omitted.\nThe insertion of _Mi\u1e93p\u0101h_ (verse \u2074\u2079) is strongly recommended by Judges\n10\u00b9\u2077 (see Ball, 88).\u2015\u2015On the situation of _Mount Gilead_, see page\n402 f.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =25.= \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] Better \u05d0\u05b8\u05bd\u05d4\u05b3\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e (Ball).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=26\u201243. The altercation.=\n\n The subjects of recrimination are: on Laban\u2019s part, (a) the\n secret flight, (b) the carrying off of his daughters, and (c)\n the theft of his god; on Jacob\u2019s part, (d) the hardships of his\n 20 years\u2019 service, and (e) the attempts to defraud him of his\n hire. Of these, b, c, and e certainly belong to Elohist; a and\n d more probably to Yahwist.\u2015\u2015In detail, the verses that can\n be confidently assigned to Elohist are: \u00b2\u2076 (\u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05e0\u05b7\u05d1 \u05dc\u05b5\u05d1\u200e, as \u00b2\u2070), \u00b2\u2078\n (continuation of \u00b2\u2076), \u00b2\u2079 (compare \u00b2\u2074), \u00b3\u2070\u1427 \u00b3\u00b2\u207b\u00b3\u2075 (\u05ea\u05e8\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e), \u2074\u00b9 (\u2018ten\n times\u2019), \u2074\u00b2 (compare \u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2079) and \u2074\u00b3 (because of the connexion\n with \u00b2\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2078): note also \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u00b2\u2079\u1427 \u2074\u00b2; \u05d0\u05b2\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u05b9\u05ea\u200e, \u00b3\u00b3. The sequence of\n Elohist is interrupted by \u00b2\u2077 \u207d\u2225 \u00b2\u2076\u207e\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9\u1d47 (the natural answer\n to \u00b2\u2077), \u00b3\u2076\u1d43 \u207d\u2225 \u00b3\u2076\u1d47\u207e: these clauses are accordingly assigned to\n Yahwist; along with \u00b3\u2078\u207b\u2074\u2070 (a parallel to \u2074\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427). The analysis\n (which is due to Gunkel) yields for Elohist a complete narrative:\n \u00b2\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2078\u207b\u00b3\u00b9\u1d43\u1427 \u00b3\u00b2\u207b\u00b3\u2075\u1427 \u00b3\u2076\u1d47\u1427 \u00b3\u2077\u1427 \u2074\u00b9\u207b\u2074\u00b3. The Yahwistic parallel is all but\n complete (\u00b2\u2077\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9\u1d43\u1427 \u1d47\u1427 \u00b3\u2076\u1d43\u1427 \u00b3\u2078\u207b\u2074\u2070); but we miss something after \u00b3\u00b9\n to account for Jacob\u2019s exasperation in \u00b3\u2076. We may suppose (with\n Gunkel) that Laban had accused Jacob of stealing his flocks, and\n that \u00b3\u2078\u207b\u2074\u2070 is a reply to this charge.\u2015\u2015Procksch\u2019s division is\n slightly different.\n\n=26\u201228.= Laban offers a sentimental pretext for his warlike\ndemonstration: in Elohist his slighted affection for his offspring\n(\u00b2\u2078); in Yahwist his desire to honour a parting guest (\u00b2\u2077).\u2015\u2015=27.=\n_with mirth and music_] This manner of speeding the parting guest is\nnot elsewhere mentioned in Old Testament.\u2015\u2015=29.= _It is in my power\n(v.i.) to do you harm_]\u2015\u2015but for the interposition of God.\u2015\u2015=30.=\n_Thou hast gone off forsooth, because forsooth, etc._] The infinitives\nabsolute express irony (Davidson \u00a7 86).\u2015\u2015_stolen my god(s)_] This is a\nserious matter, and leads up to the chief scene of the dispute.\u2015\u2015=32.=\nJacob is so sure of the innocence of his household that he offers to\ngive up the culprit to death if the theft can be proved: a similar\nenhancement of dramatic interest in 44\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015=33\u201235.= The search for\nthe teraphim is described with a touch of humour, pointed with sarcasm\nat a prevalent form of idolatry.\u2015\u2015=34.= Rachel had hidden the idol in\nthe _camel\u2019s litter_ or palanquin (Burckhardt _Notes on the Bedouins\nand Wah\u00e1bys_ ii. 85; Doughty, _Travels in Arabia Deserta_ i. 437, ii.\n304; Brown-Driver-Briggs, 1124), in which she was apparently resting\nwithin the tent, on account of her condition.\u2015\u2015=35.= \u05d3\u05b6\u05bc\u05e8\u05b6\u05da\u05b0 \u05e0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd\u200e = \u05d0\u05b9\u05e8\u05b7\u05d7 \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd\u200e\n(18\u00b9\u00b9, Yahwist). Women in this condition were protected by a powerful\ntaboo (compare Leviticus 15\u00b9\u2079 etc.).\u2015\u2015=36, 37.= Jacob now turns on\nLaban, treating the accusation about the teraphim as mere pretext for\nsearching his goods.\u2015\u2015=38\u201240= (Yahwist). A fine picture of the ideal\nshepherd, solicitous for his master\u2019s interests, sensitive to the\nleast suspicion of fraud, and careless of his personal comfort.\u2015\u2015=39.=\n_I brought not to thee_] as a witness (Exodus 22\u00b9\u00b2). Jacob had thus\ngone far beyond his legal obligation.\u2015\u2015_made it good_] literally\n\u2018counted it missing.\u2019\u2015\u2015=40.= _heat by day and frost by night_]\nJeremiah 36\u2078\u2070. Under the clear skies of the East the extreme heat of\nthe day is apt to be followed by intense cold at night (see Smith,\n_Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 69 ff.).\u2015\u2015=41, 42= (Elohist).\n_the Fear of Isaac_] The deity feared and worshipped by Isaac (\u2075\u00b3\u2020).\nThat \u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u05d3 \u05d9\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05e7\u200e meant originally the terror _inspired_ by Isaac, the local\ndeity of Beersheba (Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_,\n254 f.), is a hazardous speculation.\u2015\u2015=43.= Laban maintains his right,\nbut speedily adopts a more pathetic tone, leading on to the pacific\nproposal of \u2074\u2074.\u2015\u2015The question _what shall I do to ...?_] means \u2018what\nlast kindness can I show them?\u2019 (Gunkel, Driver); not \u2018how can I do\nthem harm?\u2019 (Dillmann and most).\n\n * * * * *\n\n =26, 27.= LXX omits \u05d5\u05ea\u05d2\u05e0\u05d1 \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05dc\u05d1\u05d1\u05d9\u200e, and transposes \u00b2\u2077\u1d43\u1427 \u00b2\u2076\u1d47.\u2015\u2015=27.= \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0\u200e]\n LXX \u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05bb\u05d0\u200e, which is perhaps better than Massoretic Text.\u2015\u2015=28.= \u05e0\u05d8\u05e9\u200e]\n usually \u2018reject\u2019 or \u2018abandon\u2019; only here = \u2018allow.\u2019\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u200e] for \u05e2\u05b2\u05e9\u05c2\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u200e\n (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 75 _n_).\u2015\u2015=29.= \u05d9\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1\u05be\u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc \u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] Micah 2\u00b9, Proverbs\n 3\u00b2\u2077, Sirach 5\u00b9 (Deuteronomy 28\u00b3\u00b2, Nehemiah 5\u2075). The meaning is\n certain (\u2018be within one\u2019s power\u2019), but the expression is very\n obscure. The current explanations (both represented in the\n Versions) are: (1) That \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e is an abstract noun = \u2018power,\u2019 and\n\u200e \u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u200e genitive. (2) That \u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u200e is subject of the sentence and \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e the\n word for God: \u2018my hand is for a God.\u2019 The first depends on a\n singular sense of \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e; and for the second \u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d0\u05dc\u200e would have\n been more natural. A third view has recently been propounded\n by Brockelmann (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche\n Wissenschaft_, xxvi. 29 ff.), who renders \u2018it belongs to the\n God of my hand,\u2019 a survival of a primitive belief in special\n deities or spirits animating different members of the body\n (compare Tylor, _Primitive Culture_\u2074 ii. 127).\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05de\u05db\u05dd\u200e, \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05db\u05dd\u200e]\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX have singular\n suffix.\u2015\u2015=30.= \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05da\u200e] LXX + \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af. The \u05d5\u05b0\u200e should probably\n be restored.\u2015\u2015=31.= LXX omits \u05db\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9\u200e.\u2015\u2015=32.= The opening words\n in LXX \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b9\u05d0\u05de\u05b6\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9 \u05d9\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e7\u05b9\u05d1\u200e may be original, introducing the duplicate from\n Elohist.\u2015\u2015=32b.= is preceded in LXX by the variant \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd.\u2015\u2015=33.= \u05dc\u05d1\u05df\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of\n the Pentateuch_ + \u05d6\u05d9\u05d7\u05d1\u05e9\u200e (read \u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05e4\u05e9\u200e); so LXX.\u2015\u2015The clause \u00b3\u00b3\u1d43{\u03b2}\n disagrees with what follows, and may be a gloss. LXX reduces\n the discrepancy by omissions, and a complete rearrangement of\n clauses.\u2015\u2015=36.= \u05de\u05b7\u05d4\u200e\u00b2] Read \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b7\u05d4\u200e with Hebrew MSS _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5.\u2015\u2015=39.= On \u05d0\u05b2\u05d7\u05b7\u05d8\u05b6\u05bc\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e for\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b2\u05d7\u05b7\u05d8\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 74 _k_ or 75 _oo_.\u2015\u2015\u05d2\u05e0\u05d1\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd\n\u200e \u05d5\u05d2\u05f3 \u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4\u200e is probably an archaic technical phrase, preserving an old\n case-ending (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 90 _l_).\u2015\u2015=40.= On the syntax,\n see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 143 _a_.\u2015\u2015=41.= _These twenty years_]\n The repetition (verse \u00b3\u2078) would, as Dillmann says, not be\n surprising in animated speech; and is not of itself evidence\n of a change of source. But Jacob\u2019s oratory is more dignified\n if relieved of this slight touch of affectation.\u2015\u2015\u05d6\u05d4\u200e] not\n here a pronoun but used adverbially, as 27\u00b3\u2076 etc. (see\n Brown-Driver-Briggs, 261 b).\u2015\u2015=42.= \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd\u200e may be a gloss\n (Gunkel): LXX omits \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=44\u201254. The treaty of Gilead.=\n\n Evidences of a double recension appear in every circumstance of\n the narrative. (a) _Two_ names are explained: Gilead (\u2074\u2078\u1d47), and\n Mi\u1e93p\u0101h (\u2074\u2079\u1d43); (b) _two_ sacred monuments are erected, a cairn\n (\u2074\u2076\u1427 \u2074\u2078\u1427 \u2075\u00b9\u1427 \u2075\u00b2), and a monolith (\u2074\u2075\u1427 \u2075\u00b9\u1427 \u2075\u00b2); (c) the covenant\n feast is _twice_ recorded (\u2074\u2076\u1d47\u1427 \u2075\u2074); (d) the terms of the\n covenant are given in _two_ forms: (1) Jacob will not ill-treat\n Laban\u2019s daughters (\u2075\u2070), and (2) the cairn is to mark the\n boundary between two peoples (\u2075\u00b2); (e) God is _twice_ called\n to witness (\u2074\u2079 \u1da0\u1427 \u2075\u00b3). To arrange these duplicates in two\n parallel series is difficult, because of the numerous glosses\n and dislocations of the text; but some connecting lines can be\n drawn. Since Yahwist always avoids the word \u05de\u05b7\u05e6\u05b5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (page 378), we\n assume first of all that the monolith (and consequently _Mi\u1e93p\u0101h_)\n belongs to Elohist, and the cairn to Yahwist. Now the cairn goes\n with the _frontier_ treaty (\u2075\u00b9\u1427 \u2075\u00b2 [removing glosses], Yahwist),\n and Mi\u1e93p\u0101h with the _family_ compact (\u2074\u2079, Elohist). To Yahwist\n we must obviously assign \u2074\u2076\u1427 \u2074\u2078, and also (if we may suppose\n that only the \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u200e was spoken of as an \u05e2\u05b5\u05d3\u200e) \u2074\u2074; while Elohist\n as naturally claims \u2074\u2075. At the end, \u2075\u00b3\u1d47 is Elohist (\u05e4\u05d7\u05d3 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d7\u05e7\u200e,\n compare \u2074\u00b2), and likewise \u2075\u2074 (the feast, \u2225 \u2074\u2076, Yahwist). \u2075\u00b3\u1d43\n is probably Yahwist: note the difference of divine names. Thus:\n \u2074\u2074\u1427 \u2074\u2076\u1427 \u2074\u2078\u1427 \u2075\u00b9\u207b\u2075\u00b3\u1d43 = Yahwist; \u2074\u2075\u1427 \u2074\u2079\u1427 \u2075\u2070\u1427 \u2075\u00b3\u1d47\u1427 \u2075\u2074 = Elohist.\u2015\u2015The\n analysis is due to Holzinger and Gunkel; Procksch practically\n agrees, with the important difference that the parts of Yahwist\n and Elohist are (quite wrongly, as it seems to me) interchanged.\n It is superior to the schemes of Wellhausen, Dillmann,\n Kautzsch-Socin, al., which assign the cairn and the ma\u1e93\u1e93eb\u0101h to\n the same sources.\u2015\u2015The principal glosses (many of which excite\n suspicion apart from the analysis) are \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1\u200e in \u2074\u2075 and \u2074\u2076; verses\n \u2074\u2077\u1427 \u2074\u2079\u1d43{\u03b1}; \u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d1\u05d4\u200e in \u2075\u00b9; \u05d5\u05e2\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d1\u05d4\u200e and \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d6\u05d0\u05ea\u200e in \u2075\u00b2: on\n these _v.i._ Nearly all are retained by LXX, where, however,\n the confusion is increased by a complete change in the order\n of clauses: \u2074\u2078\u1d43\u1427 \u2074\u2077\u1427 \u2075\u00b9\u1427 \u2075\u00b2\u1d43\u1427 \u2074\u2078\u1d47\u1427 \u2074\u2079\u1427 \u2075\u2070\u1d43\u1427 \u2075\u00b2\u1d47,\u2015\u2015\u2075\u2070\u1d47 being inserted\n after \u2074\u2074.\u2015\u2015The analysis works out in translation as follows\n (glosses being enclosed in square brackets, and necessary\n additions and corrections in \u231c\u231d):\n\n Yahwist: \u2074\u2074 And now (the speaker Elohist: \u2074\u2075 And \u231che\u231d (_i.e._\n is Laban), come, let us make a Laban) [Jacob] took a stone and\n covenant, I and thou; ... and it set it up as a pillar. \u2074\u2079\u1d43{\u03b2}\u1d47\n shall be for a witness between \u231cand he said\u231d, May \u231cGod\u231d [Yahwe]\n me and thee. \u2074\u2076 And \u231che\u231d (_i.e._ watch between me and thee,\n Laban) [Jacob], said to his when we are hidden from one\n brethren, Gather stones; and another. \u2075\u2070 If thou ill-treat\n they took stones, and made a my daughters, or take other\n cairn, and they ate there upon wives besides my daughters, no\n the cairn. [\u2074\u2077 And Laban called man being with us, see, God is\n it _Y\u1d49gar S\u0101h\u0103d\u00fbth\u0101_, but Jacob witness between me and thee. \u2075\u00b3\u1d47\n called it _Gal\u201b\u0113d_.] \u2074\u2078 And And Jacob swore by the Fear of\n Laban said, This cairn is a his father Isaac. \u2075\u2074 And Jacob\n witness between me and thee offered a sacrifice on the\n this day; therefore he called mountain and called his brethren\n its name \u231cGil\u201bad\u231d [\u2074\u2079\u1d43{\u03b1} and to eat bread; and they ate\n Mi\u1e93pah, for he said]. \u2075\u00b9 And bread, and spent the night on\n Laban said to Jacob, Behold this the mountain.\n cairn [and behold the pillar]\n which I have thrown up between\n me and thee\u2015\u2015\u2075\u00b2 a witness is\n this cairn [and a witness is the\n pillar]: I will not pass this\n cairn to thee, and thou shalt\n not pass this cairn [and this\n pillar] to me, with evil intent.\n \u2075\u00b3\u1d43 The God of Abraham and the\n God of Na\u1e25or be Judge between\n us! [the God of their father].\n\n=44.= Compare 21\u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 26\u00b2\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\u2015\u2015The subject of \u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b8\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4\u200e cannot be \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u200e,\nwhich is feminine, and is rather the fact to be witnessed to than a\nwitness of something else. There must be a lacuna before \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4\u200e, where we\nmust suppose that some material object (probably the cairn: compare\n\u2074\u2078, Yahwist) was mentioned.\u2015\u2015=45= (Elohist). _And he took a stone_]\nSince it is Laban who explains the meaning of the stone (\u2074\u2079), it must\nhave been he who set it up; hence \u05d9\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e7\u05b9\u05d1\u200e is to be deleted as a false\nexplication of the implicit subject.\u2015\u2015_set it on high as a ma\u1e93\u1e93eb\u0101h_]\nsee 28\u00b9\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2. The monolith may have stood on an eminence and formed\na conspicuous feature of the landscape (Dillmann).\u2015\u2015=46= (Yahwist).\n_And he_ (Laban) _said, etc._] Here \u05d9\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e7\u05b9\u05d1\u200e is certainly wrong, for Laban\nexpressly says that the cairn was raised by him (\u2075\u00b9).\u2015\u2015_a cairn_] \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u200e\nmeans simply a heap of stones (_v.i._), not a rampart (Wellhausen,\nDillmann). The idea that the \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u200e was originally the mountain range of\nGilead itself, Laban and Jacob being conceived as giants (Wellhausen,\nGunkel, Meyer), has certainly no support in the text.\u2015\u2015_they ate upon\nthe cairn_] The covenant feast, which may very well have preceded\nthe covenant ceremony; see 26\u00b3\u2070.\u2015\u2015=47.= In spite of its interesting\nand philologically correct notice, the verse must unfortunately be\nassigned to a glossator, for the reasons given below.\u2015\u2015=48= (Yahwist).\nLaban explains the purpose of the cairn, and names it accordingly:\n_cairn of witness_.] The stone heap is personified, and was no doubt\nin ancient times regarded as animated by a deity (compare Joshua 24\u00b2\u2077).\n\u200e\u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b5\u05d3\u200e is, of course, an artificial formation, not the real or original\npronunciation of \u05d2\u05b4\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05d3\u200e.\u2015\u2015=49= (Elohist). _And [the] Mi\u1e93p\u0101h, for he\nsaid_] The text, if not absolutely ungrammatical, is a very uncouth\ncontinuation of \u2074\u2078\u1d47, with which in the primary documents it had\nnothing to do; see further _inf._\u2015\u2015_May God_ (read so with LXX)\n_watch_] Mi\u1e93p\u0101h means \u2018watch-post.\u2019 On its situation, see page\n403.\u2015\u2015=50.= The purport of the covenant, according to Elohist.\nJacob swears (\u2075\u00b3\u1d47) that he will not maltreat Laban\u2019s daughters, nor\neven marry other wives besides them. The latter stipulation has a\nparallel in a late Babylonian marriage contract (_Keilinschriftliche\nBibliothek_, iv. 187, Number XI.).\u2015\u2015_God is witness_] The idea is\nless primitive than that of Yahwist, where the witness is an inanimate\nobject.\u2015\u2015We observe how the religious sanction is invoked where human\nprotection fails (compare 20\u00b9\u00b9 42\u00b9\u2078, both Elohist).\u2015\u2015=51\u201253a.= The\nterms of the covenant in Yahwist: neither party (people) is to pass\nthe cairn with hostile intent. All the references to the ma\u1e93\u1e93eb\u0101h\n(\u2075\u00b9\u1d47\u1427 \u2075\u00b2\u1d43\u1427 \u1d47) are to be deleted as glosses. \u2015\u2015_The God of Abraham\n... N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r_] Whether a polytheistic differentiation of two gods is\nattributed to Laban can hardly be determined. The plural verb would\nnot necessarily imply this in Elohist (see 20\u00b9\u00b3), though in Yahwist it\nmight.\u2015\u2015=53b, 54.= The covenant oath and feast in Elohist.\u2015\u2015_The Fear\nof ... Isaac_] See on verse \u2074\u00b2.\u2015\u2015=54.= _his brethren_] not Laban and\nhis companions, but his own fellow-clansmen (verse \u00b3\u2077).\u2015\u2015_spent the\nnight, etc._] Is this part of the religious ceremony? (Gunkel).\n\n _The Scene of the Treaty._\u2015\u2015The name _Gil\u201b\u0101d_ (often with\n article) in Old Testament is sometimes applied to the whole\n region Elohist of the Jordan (Joshua 22\u2079 etc.), but more\n properly denotes the mountain range (\u05d4\u05b7\u05e8 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d2\u05b4\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05d3\u200e) extending from the\n Yarmuk to the Arnon (2 Kings 10\u00b3\u00b3 etc.), divided by the Jabbo\u1e33\n into two parts (Joshua 12\u00b2), corresponding to the modern _\u01e6ebel\n \u201bA\u01e7l\u016bn_ and _el-Bel\u1e33\u0101_, North and South respectively of the\n W\u0101d\u012b ez-Zer\u1e33\u0101. The name _\u01e6ebel \u01e6il\u201b\u0101d_ still survives as that\n of a mountain, crowned by the lofty summit of _\u01e6ebel \u014csha\u201b_,\n North of es-Sal\u1e6d, where are found the ruined cities _\u01e6il\u201b\u0101d_\n and _\u01e6al\u201baud_ (Burckhardt. _Travels in Syria and the Holy Land_,\n 348). It is therefore natural to look here in the first instance\n for the \u2018cairn of witness\u2019 from which the mountain and the whole\n region were supposed to have derived their names. The objections\n to this view are (1) that Jacob, coming from the North, has\n not yet crossed the Jabbo\u1e33, which is identified with the Zer\u1e33a;\n and (2) that the frontier between Israel and the Aram\u00e6ans (of\n Damascus) could not have been so far South. These reasons have\n prevailed with most modern authorities, and led them to seek a\n site somewhere in the North or North-east of \u01e6ebel \u201bA\u01e7l\u016bn. But\n the assumption that Laban represents the Aram\u00e6ans of Damascus is\n gratuitous, and has no foundation in either Yahwist or Elohist\n (see the next note). The argument from the direction of Jacob\u2019s\n march applies only to Yahwist, and must not be too rigorously\n pressed; because the treaty of Gilead and the crossing of the\n Jabbo\u1e33 belong to different cycles of tradition, and the desire\n to finish off Jacob\u2019s dealings with Laban before proceeding\n to his encounter with Esau might very naturally occasion a\n departure from strict geographical consistency.\u00b9\u2015\u2015The site of\n _Mi\u1e93p\u0101h_ has to be investigated separately, since we cannot be\n certain that Yahwist and Elohist thought of the same locality.\n East of the Jordan there was a Mi\u1e93p\u0101h (Judges 10\u00b9\u2077 11\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b3\u2074,\n Hosea 5\u00b9) which is thought to be the same as \u05de\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05e4\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d2\u05b4\u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05d3\u200e (Judges\n 11\u00b2\u2079) and \u05e8\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05ea \u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05e6\u05b0\u05e4\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4\u200e (Joshua 13\u00b2\u2076); but whether it lay South or\n North of the Jabbo\u1e33 cannot be determined. The identification\n with R\u0101m\u00f4th-Gil\u201b\u0101d, and of this with _er-Remte_, South-west of\n the ancient Edrei, is precarious. The name (\u2018watch-post\u2019) was\n a common one, and may readily be supposed to have occurred more\n than once East of the Jordan. See Smith, _Historical Geography\n of the Holy Land_, 586; Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_,\n 262; Driver in smaller _A Dictionary of the Bible_, _s.v._; and\n on the whole of this note, compare Smend, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die\n alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, 1902, 149 ff.\n\n \u00b9 It seems to me very doubtful how far Jacob\u2019s route, as\n described in chapters 32, 33, can be safely used as a clue\n to the identification of the localities mentioned (Gilead,\n Mi\u1e93pah, Ma\u1e25anaim, the Ford, Peniel, Succoth). The writers\n appear to have strung together a number of Transjordanic\n legends connected with the name of Jacob, but without much\n regard to topographical consistency or consecutiveness (see\n page 408). The impossibility of the current identifications\n (_e.g._ those of Merrill and Conder), _as stages of an\n actual itinerary_, is clearly shown by Driver in _The\n Expository Times_, xiii. (1902), 457 ff. It is only when\n that assumption is frankly abandoned that the identification\n of Gilead with _\u01e6il\u201b\u0101d_, of Mahanaim with _Ma\u1e25ne_ (page 405),\n of the Ford with _Mu\u1e2b\u0101dat en-Nu\u1e63r\u0101n\u012byeh_ (page 408), becomes\n feasible.\n\n _Historical Background of 31\u2074\u2074\u207b\u2075\u2074._\u2015\u2015The treaty of Gilead in\n Yahwist evidently embodies ethnographic reminiscences, in which\n Jacob and Laban were not private individuals, but represented\n Hebrews and Aram\u00e6ans respectively. The theory mostly favoured by\n critical historians is that the Aram\u00e6ans are those of Damascus,\n and that the situation reflected is that of the Syrian wars\n which raged from _circa_ 860 to _circa_ 770 B.C. (see Wellhausen\n _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_\u2076 320 f.). Gunkel (page 312)\n has, however, pointed out objections to this assumption; and has\n given strong reasons for believing that the narratives refer to\n an earlier date than 860. The story reads more like the record\n of a loose understanding between neighbouring and on the whole\n friendly tribes, than of a formal treaty between two highly\n organised states like Israel and Damascus; and it exhibits no\n trace of the intense national animosity which was generated\n during the Syrian wars. In this connexion, Meyer\u2019s hypothesis\n that in the original tradition Laban represented the early\n unsettled nomads of the eastern desert (see page 334), acquires\n a new interest. Considering the tenacity with which such legends\n cling to a locality, there is no difficulty in supposing that in\n this case the tradition goes back to some prehistoric settlement\n of territorial claims between Hebrews and migratory Aram\u00e6ans.\n It is true that Meyer\u2019s theory is based on notices peculiar\n to Elohist, while the tribal compact belongs to Yahwist; and\n it may appear hazardous to go behind the documents and build\n speculations on a substratum of tradition common to both. But\n the only material point in which Yahwist differs from Elohist\n is his identification of Laban with the Aram\u00e6ans of \u1e24arran; and\n this is not inconsistent with the interpretation here suggested.\n In any case, his narrative gives no support to the opinion that\n he has in view the contemporary political relations with the\n kingdom of Damascus.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =44b.= The omitted words (_v.s._) might be \u05d5\u05b0\u05e0\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d4 \u05d2\u05b7\u05dc\u200e or some such\n expression (Olshausen, Dillmann, Ball, Gunkel, al.). To the\n end of the verse LXX appends: \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03c9\u03b2, \u1f38\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a \u03bf\u1f50\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f30\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 (from\n verse \u2075\u2070).\u2015\u2015=46.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05d7\u05d5\u200e] LXX \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05e7\u05b0\u05d8\u05d5\u05bc\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u200e] From \u221a \u05d2\u05dc\u05dc\u200e \u2018roll\u2019 (stones,\n 29\u00b3, Joshua 10\u00b9\u2078, 1 Samuel 14\u00b3\u00b3, Proverbs 26\u00b2\u2077). On sacred\n stone-heaps among the Arabs, see Wellhausen _Reste arabischen\n Heidentums_\u00b2 111 f. (with which compare Doughty, _Travels in\n Arabia Deserta_ i. 26, 81, 431); Curtiss, _Primitive Semitic\n Religion to-day_, 80 (cairn as witness); on the eating\n _upon_ the cairn, Frazer, _Folklore in the Old Testament_, 131\n ff.\u2015\u2015=47.= \u05d9\u05b0\u05d2\u05b7\u05e8 \u05e9\u05b8\u05bd\u05c2\u05d7\u05b2\u05d3\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea\u05b8\u05d0\u200e is the precise Aramaic equivalent of Hebrew\n\u200e \u05d2\u05b7\u05dc \u05e2\u05b5\u05d3\u200e, \u2018heap of witness.\u2019 The decisive reasons for rejecting the\n verse are: (1) It stands out of its proper place, anticipating\n \u2074\u2078\u1d47; (2) it contradicts \u2074\u2078\u1d47, where the _Hebrew_ name \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b5\u05d3\u200e is\n given by Laban; (3) it assumes (contrary to the implication\n of all the patriarchal narratives) that the Na\u1e25orites spoke a\n different dialect from the ancestors of the Hebrews. It may be\n added that the Aramaic phrase shows the glossator to have taken\n\u200e \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b5\u05d3\u200e as construct and genitive, whereas the latter in \u2074\u2078\u1d47 is\n more probably a sentence \u2018the heap is witness\u2019 (see Nestle,\n _Marginalien und Materialien_, 10 f.). The actual name \u200f[\u05d4\u05b7]\u05d2\u05b4\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05d3\u200e is\n usually, but dubiously, explained by Arabic _\u01e7al\u201bad_ \u2018hard,\u2019\n \u2018firm.\u2019\u2015\u2015=48.= \u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05db\u05df \u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u200e] so 11\u2079 19\u00b2\u00b2 29\u00b3\u2074 \u1da0\u1427 (all Yahwist), 25\u00b3\u2070\n (Yahwist?).\u2015\u2015=49.= \u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05e6\u05b0\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ \u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d1\u05d4\u200e, which Wellhausen thinks the original name\n of the place, afterwards changed to \u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05e4\u05d4\u200e because of the\n evil associations of the word ma\u1e93\u1e93eb\u0101h. He instances the\n transcription of LXX \u039c\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c6\u03b1, as combining the consonants of\n the new name with the vowels of the old (_Die Composition des\n Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2\n 44\u00b9). The argument is precarious; but there seems to be a\n word-play between the names; and since the opening is evidently\n corrupt, it is possible that both stood in the text. Ball\u2019s\n restoration \u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 [\u05d4\u05b5\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05e7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0 \u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05e6\u05b0\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9] \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e has met with the approval\n of several scholars (Holzinger, Strack); but as the sequence to\n \u2074\u2075 we should rather expect \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05e7\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0 \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc \u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05e6\u05b0\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e. LXX has \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f29 \u1f45\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f23\u03bd\n \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd, following Massoretic Text.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e] LX \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e must be adopted\n if the verse is rightly ascribed to Elohist.\u2015\u2015=51.= \u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d1\u05d4\u200e]\n LXX + \u05d4\u05b7\u05d6\u05b9\u05bc\u05d0\u05ea\u200e (so verse \u2075\u00b2).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05e9\u05c1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9\u200e] \u2018which I have thrown up.\u2019\n\u200e \u05d9\u05e8\u05d4\u200e, \u2018throw,\u2019 is most commonly used of shooting arrows, and only\n here of piling up stones. Once it means to lay (_jacere_) a\n foundation (Job 38\u2076), but it could hardly be applied to the\n erection of a pillar. It is an advantage of the analysis given\n above that it avoids the necessity of retaining the ma\u1e93\u1e93eb\u0101h\n as object of \u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9\u200e and rejecting the cairn.\u2015\u2015=52.= \u05d0\u05dd\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d0\u200e (_bis_)]\n The double negative is contrary to the usage of asseverative\n sentences (compare \u2075\u2070), but may be explained by an anakolouthon\n (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 167 _b_).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05d2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\u200e] LXX omits.\u2015\u2015=53.= \u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u05e4\u05d8\u05d5\u200e]\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4\u05b9\u05bc\u05d8\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd\u200e] LXX and Hebrew MSS omit, _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d0\u05f3 \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd\u200e, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word).\n Probably a margin gloss to \u2075\u00b3\u1d43.\u2015\u2015=XXXII. 1.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05dc\u05da \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05d1\u200e] LXX \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d1 \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b6\u05da\u05b0\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n XXXII. 2\u201233.\n _Jacob\u2019s Measures for propitiating Esau:\n His Wrestling with the Deity at Peniel_\n (Yahwist, Elohist).\n\nAfter a vision of angels at Ma\u1e25anaim (\u00b2\u1427 \u00b3), Jacob sends a\nhumble message announcing his arrival to Esau, but learns to his\nconsternation that his brother is advancing to meet him with 400\nmen (\u2074\u207b\u2077). He divides his company into two bands, and invokes God\u2019s\nhelp in prayer (\u2078\u207b\u00b9\u2074\u1d43); then prepares a present for Esau, and sends\nit on in advance (\u00b9\u2074\u1d47\u207b\u00b2\u00b2). Having thus done all that human foresight\ncould suggest, he passes a lonely night in the ravine of the Jabbo\u1e33,\nwrestling with a mysterious antagonist, who at daybreak blesses him\nand changes his name to Israel (\u00b2\u00b3\u207b\u00b3\u00b3).\n\n _Sources._\u2015\u2015Verses \u00b2\u1427 \u00b3 are an isolated fragment of Elohist\n\u200e (\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d2\u05b7\u05e2 \u05d1\u05bc\u200e, [28\u00b9\u00b9]); \u2074\u207b\u00b9\u2074\u1d43 and \u00b9\u2074\u1d47\u207b\u00b2\u00b2 are parallels (compare\n \u00b9\u2074\u1d43 with \u00b2\u00b2\u1d47), the former from Yahwist \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, \u00b9\u2070; \u05e9\u05e4\u05d7\u05d4\u200e, \u2076; \u05de\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05ea\u200e,\n\u200e \u00b9\u2070; \u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d7\u05df\u200e, \u2076; contrast the implied etymology of \u05de\u05b7\u05d7\u05b2\u05e0\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e in \u2078\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\n with Elohist\u2019s in \u00b3): \u00b9\u2074\u1d47\u207b\u00b2\u00b2 must therefore be Elohist, though\n positive marks of that writer\u2019s style cannot be detected.\u2015\u2015On\n the complicated structure of \u00b2\u00b3\u207b\u00b3\u00b3 (Jehovist), see page 407\n below.\n\n=2, 3. The legend of Ma\u1e25anaim.=\u2015\u2015=2.= _angels ... met him_] The\nverb for \u2018meet,\u2019 as here construed (_v.i._), usually means to\n\u2018oppose.\u2019\u2015\u2015=3.= _This is God\u2019s camp_] or _a camp of gods_. The idea of\ndivine armies appears elsewhere in Old Testament (compare Joshua 5\u00b9\u2074),\nand perhaps underlies the expression \u2018Host of heaven\u2019 and the name\n_Yahwe \u1e92eb\u0101\u2019\u00f4th_.\u2015\u2015_Ma\u1e25anaim_ is here apparently not regarded as a\ndual (contrast \u2078\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9). On its site, _v.i._\n\n The brief statement of the text seems to be a torso of a legend\n which had gathered round the name Ma\u1e25anaim, whose original\n meaning has been lost. The curtailment probably indicates that\n the sequel was objectionable to the religious feeling of later\n times; and it has been surmised that the complete story told\n of a conflict between Jacob and the angels (originally divine\n beings), somewhat similar to the wrestling of verses \u00b2\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\n (Gunkel, Bennett). The word \u2018camp\u2019 (compare the fuller text of\n LXX _inf._), and the verbal phrase \u05e4\u05d2\u05e2 \u05d1\u200e both suggest a warlike\n encounter.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =2.= After \u05dc\u05d3\u05e8\u05db\u05d5\u200e LXX inserts \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd, enhancing the vividness of the\n description.\u2015\u2015\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d2\u05b7\u05e2 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u200e] = \u2018encounter with hostility,\u2019 Judges 8\u00b2\u00b9 15\u00b9\u00b2\n 18\u00b2\u2075, 1 Samuel 22\u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1427, 2 Samuel 1\u00b9\u2075, 1 Kings 2\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, Ruth 2\u00b2\u00b2; =\n \u2018intercede,\u2019 Job 21\u00b9\u2075, Jeremiah 7\u00b9\u2076 27\u00b9\u2078, Ruth 1\u00b9\u2076. The neutral\n sense \u2018meet,\u2019 with personsal objective, is doubtfully supported\n by Numbers 35\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9, Joshua 2\u00b9\u2076, where hostile intention is\n evidently implied: elsewhere this is expressed by _accusative_\n personsal (Exodus 5\u00b2\u2070 23\u2074, 1 Samuel 10\u2075, Amos 5\u00b9\u2079). Genesis\n 28\u00b9\u00b9 is somewhat different, the object being impersonal (compare\n the use in Joshua 16\u2077 17\u00b9\u2070 etc.).\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05de\u05d7\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] an important\n East Jordanic city and sanctuary, the capital of Ish-bosheth\n (2 Samuel 2\u2078), and David\u2019s headquarters during the revolt of\n Absalom (2 Samuel 17\u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2077), the centre of a fiscal district\n under Solomon (1 Kings 4\u00b9\u2074). The situation of _Ma\u1e25ne_ or _Mi\u1e25ne_\n on _W\u0101d\u012b el-\u1e24im\u0101r_, some 14 miles North of the Jabbo\u1e33 (see Buhl,\n _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 257), suits all the other\n references (compare Joshua 13\u00b2\u2076\u1427 \u00b3\u2070\u2015\u2015the boundary of Gad and\n Manasseh), but is too far from the Jabbo\u1e33 for this narrative\n (verse \u00b2\u00b3). On the ending, which is probably no real dual, see\n on 24\u00b9\u2070.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=4\u201214a. Jacob\u2019s precautionary measures= (Yahwist).\u2015\u2015=4.= Isaac\u2019s\ndeath and Esau\u2019s settlement in the country afterwards occupied by his\ndescendants are here assumed to have already taken place: otherwise\nPriestly-Code (36\u2076).\u2015\u2015=5, 6.= We note the extreme servility of Jacob\u2019s\nlanguage:\u2015\u2015_my lord ... thy servant ... find grace_,\u2015\u2015dictated by fear\nof his brother\u2019s vengeance (27\u2074\u00b9). In substance the message is nothing\nbut an announcement of his arrival and his great wealth (compare 33\u00b9\u00b2\n\u1da0\u1da0\u1427) The shepherd, with all his success, is at the mercy of the fierce\nmarauder who was to \u2018live by his sword\u2019 (27\u2074\u2070).\u2015\u2015=7.= The messengers\nreturn with the ominous news that Esau is already on the march with\n400 men. How he was ready to strike so far north of his own territory\nis a difficulty (see page 415).\u2015\u2015=8, 9.= Jacob\u2019s first resource\nis to divide his company into _two camps_, in the hope that one\nmight escape while the other was being captured. The arrangement is\nperhaps adverted to in 33\u2078.\u2015\u2015=10\u201213.= Jacob\u2019s prayer, consisting of\nan invocation (\u00b9\u2070), thanksgiving (\u00b9\u00b9), petition (\u00b9\u00b2), and appeal to\nthe divine faithfulness (\u00b9\u00b3), is a classic model of Old Testament\ndevotion (Gunkel); though the element of confession, so prominent in\nlater supplications, is significantly absent.\u2015\u2015=12.= _mother with_\n(or _on_) _children_] Hosea 10\u00b9\u2074; compare Deuteronomy 22\u2076. A popular\nsaying,\u2015\u2015the mother conceived as bending over the children to protect\nthem (Tuch).\u2015\u2015=14a.= _spent that night there_] _i.e._, at Ma\u1e25anaim\n(verse \u00b2\u00b2). We may suppose (with Wellhausen, Gunkel) that an explicit\netymology, based on the \u2018two camps\u2019 (verses \u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9), preceded or\nfollowed this clause.\n\n Verses \u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b9\u00b3 appear to be one of the later expansions of the\n Yahwistic narrative, akin to 13\u00b9\u2074\u207b\u00b9\u2077 22\u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b9\u2078 26\u00b3\u1d47\u207b\u2075 28\u00b9\u2074. They\n can be removed without loss of continuity, \u00b9\u2074\u1d43 being a natural\n continuation of \u2079. The insertion gives an interpretation to\n the \u2018two camps\u2019 at variance with the primary motive of the\n division (verse \u2079); and its spirit is different from that of the\n narrative in which it is embedded. Compare also \u05d7\u05d5\u05dc \u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e with 22\u00b9\u2077,\n\u200e \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8 \u05de\u05e8\u05d1\u200e with 16\u00b9\u2070 22\u00b9\u2077. See Gunkel 316.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =4.= \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] LXX omits\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05dd\u200e] (compare Judges 5\u2074) is probably\n a gloss on \u05d0\u05e8\u05e6\u05d4 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u200e.\u2015\u2015=5.= \u05ea\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u05df\u200e] compare 18\u00b2\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05b8\u05d0\u05b5\u05d7\u05b7\u05e8\u200e] for \u05d5\u05b8\u05d0\u05b6\u05bd\u05d0\u05b1\u05d7\u05b7\u05e8\u200e\n (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 64 _h_).\u2015\u2015=6.= \u05d5\u05d0\u05e9\u05dc\u05d7\u05d4\u200e] Cohortative form\n with vav consecutive\u2015\u2015chiefly late; see Driver _A Treatise\n on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ \u00a7 69 _Obsolete_, \u00a7 72;\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 49 _e_.\u2015\u2015=8.= \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b5\u05bc\u05e6\u05b6\u05e8\u200e] \u221a \u05e6\u05e8\u05e8\u200e intransitive =\n \u2018be cramped\u2019; on the form, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 67\n _p_.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d4\u05d2\u05de\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX\u1d2c omits and transposes \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05d1\u05e7\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05e6\u05d0\u05df\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u200e]\n That this implies an etymology of Ma\u1e25anaim, and that Yahwist\n located the incident there, cannot reasonably be doubted (as\n by Holzinger). The name is obviously regarded as a dual (in\n contrast to verse \u00b3), showing that the current pronunciation is\n very ancient (Dillmann).\u2015\u2015=9.= \u05d4\u05d0\u05d7\u05ea\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_ \u05d4\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3\u200e (masculine), which is demanded by the\n context, as well as by prevailing usage (Albrecht, _Zeitschrift\n f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvi. 52).\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05e7\u05d8\u05e0\u05ea\u05d9\n\u200e \u05de\u05df\u200e] \u2018too insignificant for\u2019; Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 133 _c_.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d9\u05e8\u05d3\u05df \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\u200e]\n The writer apparently locates Ma\u1e25anaim in the vicinity of the\n Jordan; but the allusion, in an editorial passage, has perhaps\n no great topographical importance.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=14b\u201222. The present for Esau= (Elohist).\u2015\u2015=14.= _a present_] Not\n\u2018tribute\u2019 (as often) in acknowledgment of vassalage, but (as 43\u00b9\u00b9,\n2 Kings 8\u2078 \u1da0\u1427) a gift to win favour.\u2015\u2015=17\u201220.= By arranging the cattle\nin successive droves following at considerable intervals, Jacob hopes\nto wear out Esau\u2019s resentment by a series of surprises. The plan has\nnothing in common with the two \u2018camps\u2019 of verse \u2078 \u1da0\u1427 in Yahwist.\u2015\u2015=21a.=\nA repetition of \u00b9\u2079\u1d47: Jacob lays stress on this point, because the\neffect would obviously be weakened if a garrulous servant were to let\nout the secret that other presents were to follow.\u2015\u2015=21b.= _Let me\npacify him_] literally \u2018cover\u2019 (or \u2018wipe clean\u2019) his face,\u2015\u2015the same\nfigure, though in different language, as 20\u00b9\u2076. On \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05e4\u05b6\u05bc\u05e8\u200e, see _The Old\nTestament in the Jewish Church_\u00b2, 381; _A Dictionary of the Bible_,\niv. 128 f.\u2015\u2015_see his face_] \u2018obtain access to his presence\u2019: compare\n43\u00b3\u1427 \u2075 44\u00b2\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u2076, Exodus 10\u00b2\u2078, 2 Samuel 14 \u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2078\u1427 \u00b3\u00b2, 2 Kings 25\u00b9\u2079,\nEsther 1\u00b9\u2074. The phrase is thought to convey an allusion to _P\u0115n\u00fb\u2019\u0113l_\n(Gunkel); see on 33\u00b9\u2070.\u2015\u2015=22.= _spent ... camp_ (\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05de\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u05b2\u05e0\u05b6\u05bd\u05d4\u200e)] compare \u00b9\u2074\u1d43.\nWellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen\nB\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 46) renders \u2018in Ma\u1e25aneh\u2019 (_i.e._\nMa\u1e25anaim), but the change is hardly justified.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =14.= \u05de\u05df\u05be\u05d4\u05d1\u05d0\u200e] Article with participle (not perfect); see\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 138 _k_; Driver _Notes on the Hebrew\n Text of the Books of Samuel_ 57 f.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05e0\u05d7\u05d4\u200e] see on 4\u00b3.\u2015\u2015=17.=\n\u200e \u05e8\u05b6\u05d5\u05b7\u05d7\u200e (Esther 4\u00b9\u2074\u2020)] \u221a \u05e8\u05b8\u05d5\u05b7\u05d7\u200e, \u2018be wide\u2019 (1 Samuel 16\u00b2\u00b3, Job\n 32\u00b2\u2070).\u2015\u2015=18.= On the forms \u05d9\u05b4\u05bd\u05e4\u05b0\u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05da\u05b8\u200e (Ben Naphtali), \u05d9\u05b8\u05bd\u05e4\u05b4\u05d2\u05b8\u05bd\u05e9\u05b2\u05c1\u05da\u05b8\u200e (Ben Asher),\n see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\u00a7 9 _v_, 10 _g_ (_c_), 60 _b_, [and\n Baer-Delitzsch, _Liber Genesis_ page 85]; and on \u05d5\u05e9\u05d0\u05b5\u05bd\u05dc\u05da\u200e, \u00a7 64\n _f._\u2015\u2015=20.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05e6\u05d5\u200e] LXX + \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1ff3.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b9\u05e6\u05b7\u05bd\u05d0\u05b2\u05db\u05b6\u05dd\u200e] irregular infinitive\n for \u05de\u05b8\u05e6\u05b0\u05d0\u05b2\u05db\u05b6\u05dd\u200e (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\u00a7 74 _h_, 93 _q_).\u2015\u2015=21.=\n\u200e \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f + \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=23\u201233. The wrestling at Peniel= (Jehovist).\u2015\u2015=23, 24.= The crossing\nof the Jabbo\u1e33. The _Yabb\u014d\u1e33_ is now almost universally, and no doubt\ncorrectly, identified with the _Nahr es-Zer\u1e33\u0101_ (Blue River), whose\nmiddle course separates \u01e6ebel \u201bA\u01e7l\u016bn from el-Bel\u1e33\u0101, and which flows\ninto the Jordan about 25 miles North of the Dead Sea. See Smend,\n_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, 1902, 137 ff.;\nand the descriptions in Riehm, _Assyrisches Handw\u00f6rterbuch_\u00b2 665;\nSmith, _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 583\u20125.\u2015\u2015The _ford_\nreferred to cannot be determined; that of _Mu\u1e2b\u0101dat en-Nu\u1e63r\u0101n\u012byeh_,\nwhere the road from \u01e6era\u0161 to es-Sal\u1e6d crosses the deep narrow gorge\nwhich cleaves the mountains of Gilead, as described by Thomson (_The\nLand and the Book_, iii. 583 ff.) and Tristram (_Land of Israel_\u00b3,\n549), supplies a more fitting background for the weird struggle\nabout to be narrated than the one in the Jordan valley; but on the\ndifficulties of this identification, see Driver _The Expository Times_,\nxiii. 459.\n\n The passage of the river seems to be twice described, \u00b2\u2074\u1d43 and\n \u00b2\u2074\u1d47 being apparently doublets. The former continues \u00b2\u00b3\u1d43, which\n belongs to Yahwist (\u05e9\u05e4\u05d7\u05d4\u200e). Following this clue, we may divide\n thus: \u00b2\u00b3\u1d43\u1427 \u00b2\u2074\u1d43 = Yahwist; \u00b2\u00b3\u1d47\u1427 \u00b2\u2074\u1d47 = Elohist (so Gunkel). While\n Elohist implies that Jacob crossed with his company, the account\n of Yahwist is consistent with the statement of \u00b2\u2075\u1d43, that after\n sending the others across he himself was \u2018left alone.\u2019 On any\n view the action is somewhat perplexing. To cross a ford by\n night, with flocks, etc., was a dangerous operation, only to be\n explained by apprehension of an attack from Esau (Wellhausen).\n But Esau is represented as advancing from the south; and Jacob\n is in haste to put his people and possessions on that side of\n the river on which they were exposed to attack. Either the\n narrative is defective at this point, or it is written without\n a clear conception of the actual circumstances.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =23\u201233.= The analysis of the passage is beset by insurmountable\n difficulties. While most recognise doublets in \u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427 (_v.s._),\n \u00b2\u2075\u207b\u00b3\u00b3 have generally been regarded as a unity, being assigned\n to Yahwist by Wellhausen, Kuenen, Cornill, Kautzsch-Socin,\n Driver, al.; but by Dillmann to Elohist. In the view of more\n recent critics, both Yahwist and Elohist are represented, though\n there is the utmost variety of opinion in regard to details.\n In the notes above, _possible_ variants have been pointed out\n in \u00b2\u2076\u1d43 \u2225 \u00b2\u2076\u1d47 (the laming of the thigh) and \u00b2\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u2079 \u2225 \u00b3\u2070 (the name\n and the blessing); to these may be added the still more doubtful\n case \u00b3\u00b9 \u2225 \u00b3\u00b2 (Peniel, Penuel). As showing traces of more\n primitive conceptions, \u00b2\u2076\u1d43 and \u00b3\u2070 would naturally go together,\n and also \u00b2\u2077 for the same reason. Since Yahwist prefers the name\n Israel in the subsequent history, there is a slight presumption\n that \u00b2\u2078 \u1da0\u1427 belong to him; and the \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e of \u00b3\u00b9 points (though not\n decisively) to Elohist. Thus we should obtain, for Elohist:\n \u00b2\u2076\u1d43\u1427 \u00b2\u2077\u1427 \u00b3\u2070\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9; leaving for Yahwist: \u00b2\u2076\u1d47\u1427 \u00b2\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u2079\u1427 \u00b3\u00b2: verse \u00b3\u00b3\n may be a gloss. The result corresponds nearly, so far as\n it goes, with Gunkel\u2019s (318 f.). The reader may compare the\n investigations of Holzinger (209 f.), Procksch (32), Meyer\n (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 57 f.).\u2015\u2015=23.= \u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u200e\n (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d4\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u200e)] as 19\u00b3\u00b3\n\u200e 30\u00b9\u2076.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05b7\u05d1\u05b9\u05bc\u05e7\u200e (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d4\u05d9\u05d1\u05e7\u200e)\n (Numbers 21\u00b2\u2074, Deuteronomy 2\u00b3\u2077 3\u00b9\u2076, Joshua 12\u00b2, Judges 11\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u2020)\n is naturally explained as the \u2018gurgler,\u2019 from \u221a \u05d1\u05e7\u05e7\u200e (Arabic\n _ba\u1e33\u1e33a_), the resemblance to \u05d0\u05d1\u05e7\u200e (verse \u00b2\u2075) being, of course, a\n popular word-play.\u2015\u2015=24b.= Insert \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u200e before \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u200e (_The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Vulgate).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=25.= _a man wrestled with him till the appearing of the dawn_]\u2015\u2015Only\nlater does Jacob discover that his unknown antagonist is a god in\nhuman form (compare 18\u00b2 19\u2075).\u2015\u2015The rare word (_v.i._) for \u2018wrestle\u2019\n\u200e(\u05d0\u05d1\u05e7\u200e) is chosen because of the assonance with \u05d9\u05d1\u05b9\u05bc\u05e7\u200e\u2015\u2015=26a.= _he saw that\nhe prevailed not_] The ambiguity of the subject extends to the next\nclause, and leaves two interpretations open (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015_struck the\nsocket of his thigh_] putting it out of joint.\u2015\u2015=26b.= _the socket of\nJacob\u2019s thigh was dislocated as he wrestled with him_.\n\n The dislocation of the thigh seems to be twice recorded (see\n Kautzsch-Socin _An._ 159), and it is highly probable that the\n two halves of the verse come from different sources. In \u00b2\u2076\u1d43\n it is a stratagem resorted to by a wrestler unable to gain\n the advantage by ordinary means (like the trick of Ulysses\n in _Iliad_ xxiii. 725 ff.); in \u00b2\u2076\u1d47 it is an accident which\n happens to Jacob in the course of the struggle. It has even\n been suggested that in the original legend the subject of \u00b2\u2076\u1d43\n was Jacob\u2015\u2015that it was he who disabled his antagonist in the\n manner described (Holzinger, Gunkel, Cheyne: see M\u00fcller,\n _Asien und Europa nach alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_, 163\u00b9; Luther,\n _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi. 65\n ff.; Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 57). It is\n possible (though certainly not probable) that this was the view\n of the document (Yahwist or Elohist) to which \u00b2\u2076\u1d43 belongs, and\n that it underlies Hosea 12\u2075.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =25.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05d1\u05e7\u200e] A verb used only here and verse \u00b2\u2076, distinct from\n New Hebrew \u05d4\u05ea\u05d0\u05d1\u05e7\u200e, \u2018make oneself dusty,\u2019 and very probably a\n modification of \u05d7\u05d1\u05e7\u200e, \u2018clasp\u2019 (Delitzsch, Dillmann).\u2015\u2015=26.=\n\u200e \u05d5\u05ea\u05e7\u05e2\u200e] \u221a \u05d9\u05e7\u05e2\u200e, literally \u2018be rent away\u2019 (compare Jeremiah 6\u2078):\n LXX \u1f10\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word), Vulgate _emarcuit_,\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d6\u05e2\u200e (\u2018gave way\u2019),\u2015\u2015all conjectural.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=27.= _Let me go, for the dawn is breaking_] Compare Plautus,\n_Amphitryon_ 532 f., where Jupiter says: \u201cCur me tenes? Tempus est:\nexire ex urbe priusquam lucescat volo.\u201d It is a survival of the\nwide-spread belief in spirits of the night which must vanish at dawn\n(_Hamlet_, Act 1. Scene i.); and as such, a proof of the extreme\nantiquity of the legend.\u2015\u2015But the request reveals to Jacob the\nsuperhuman character of his adversary, and he resolves to hold him\nfast till he has extorted a blessing from him.\u2015\u2015=28, 29=. Here the\nblessing is imparted in the form of a new name conferred on Jacob in\nmemory of this crowning struggle of his life.\u2015\u2015_thou hast striven with\nGod_] _Yisr\u0101\u2019\u0113l_, probably = \u2018God strives\u2019 (_v.i._), is interpreted\nas \u2018Striver with God\u2019; compare a similar transformation of \u05d9\u05b0\u05e8\u05bb\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u200e (\u2018Baal\ncontends\u2019) in Judges 6\u00b3\u00b2. Such a name is a true \u2018blessing,\u2019 as a\npledge of victory and success to the nation which bears it.\u2015\u2015_and\nwith men_] This can hardly refer merely to the contests with Laban and\nEsau; it points rather to the existence of a fuller body of legend,\nin which Jacob figured as the hero of many combats, culminating in\nthis successful struggle with deity.\u2015\u2015=30.= Jacob vainly endeavours\nto extort a disclosure of the name of his antagonist. This is possibly\nan older variant of \u00b2\u2078 \u1da0\u1427, belonging to a primitive phase of thought,\nwhere he who possesses the true name of a god can dispose of the power\nof its bearer (Cheyne _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_,\n401\u00b9; _A Dictionary of the Bible_, v. 640). For the concealment\nof the name, compare Judges 13\u00b9\u2078 (the same words).\u2015\u2015Gunkel thinks\nthat in the original narrative the name of the wrestler was actually\nrevealed.\u2015\u2015=31.= _P\u0115n\u00ee\u2019\u0113l_] \u2018Face of God\u2019 (_v.i._). The name is\nderived from an incidental feature of the experience: that Jacob\nhad seen \u201cGod _face_ to _face_\u201d (Exodus 33\u00b9\u00b9, Deuteronomy 34\u00b9\u2070), and\nyet lived (see on 16\u00b9\u00b3).\u2015\u2015The site of Peniel is unknown: see Driver\n_The Expository Times_, xiii. 457 ff., and _The Book of Genesis with\nIntroduction and Notes_ 300 ff.\u2015\u2015=32.= _limping on his thigh_] in\nconsequence of the injury he had received (\u00b2\u2076\u1d47). That he bore the\nhurt to his death, as a memorial of the conflict, is a gratuitous\naddition to the narrative.\u2015\u2015=33.= The food-taboo here mentioned is\nnowhere else referred to in Old Testament; and the Mishnic prohibition\n(_\u1e24ull\u00een_, 7) is probably dependent on this passage. William Robertson\nSmith explains it from the sacredness of the thigh as a seat of life\n(_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_\u00b2, 380\u00b9);\u00b9 and Wellhausen\n(_Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 168\u00b3) calls attention to a trace of it\nin ancient Arabia. For primitive parallels, see Frazer, _Golden Bough_,\nii. 419 ff., _Folklore in Old Testament_, 142 f. The precise meaning\nof \u05d2\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d4\u05b7\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d4\u200e is uncertain (_v.i._).\n\n \u00b9 \u201cThe nature of the lameness produced by injury to the sinew\n of the thigh socket is explained by the Arabic lexicons,\n _s.v._ _\u1e25\u0101rifat_; the man can only walk on the tips of\n his toes. This seems to have been a common affection, for\n poetical metaphors are taken from it.\u201d\n\n In its fundamental conception the struggle at Peniel is not a\n dream or vision like that which came to Jacob at Bethel; nor\n is it an allegory of the spiritual life, symbolising the inward\n travail of a soul helpless before some overhanging crisis of\n its destiny. It is a real physical encounter which is described,\n in which Jacob measures his strength and skill against a divine\n antagonist, and \u2018prevails,\u2019 though at the cost of a bodily\n injury. No more boldly anthropomorphic narrative is found in\n Genesis; and unless we shut our eyes to some of its salient\n features, we must resign the attempt to translate it wholly\n into terms of religious experience. We have to do with a\n legend, originating at a low level of religion, in process of\n accommodation to the purer ideas of revealed religion; and its\n history may have been somewhat as follows: (1) We begin with\n the fact of a hand-to-hand conflict between a god and a man.\n A similar idea appears in Exodus 4\u00b2\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, where we read that\n Yahwe met Moses and \u2018sought to kill him.\u2019 In the present passage\n the god was probably not Yahwe originally, but a local deity,\n a night-spirit who fears the dawn and refuses to disclose his\n name. Dr. Frazer has pointed out that such stories as this\n are associated with water-spirits, and cites many primitive\n customs (_Folklore in the Old Testament_, 136 ff.) which seem\n to rest on the belief that a river resents being crossed, and\n drowns many who attempt it. He hazards the conjecture that the\n original deity of this passage was the spirit of the Jabbo\u1e33;\n in which case the word-play between \u05d9\u05b7\u05d1\u05b9\u05bc\u05e7\u200e and \u05d0\u05d1\u05e7\u200e may have greater\n significance than appears on the surface. (2) Like many\n patriarchal theophanies, the narrative accounts for the\n foundation of a sanctuary\u2015\u2015that of Peniel. Of the cultus at\n Peniel we know nothing; and there is very little in the story\n that can be supposed to bear upon it, unless we assume, with\n Gunkel and others, that the limping on the thigh refers to a\n ritual dance regularly observed there (compare 1 Kings 18\u00b2\u2076).\u00b9\n (3) By Yahwist and Elohist the story was incorporated in the\n national epos as part of the history of Jacob. The God who\n wrestles with the patriarch is Yahwe; and how far the wrestling\n was understood as a literal fact remains uncertain. To these\n writers the main interest lies in the origin of the name Israel,\n and the blessing bestowed on the nation in the person of its\n ancestor. (4) A still more refined interpretation is found, it\n seems to me, in Hosea 12\u2074\u1427 \u2075: \u2018In the womb he overreached his\n brother; and in his prime he strove with God. He strove (\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05e8\u200e)\n with the Angel and prevailed; he wept and made supplication\n to him.\u2019 The substitution of the Angel of Yahwe for the\n divine Being Himself shows increasing sensitiveness to\n anthropomorphism; and the last line appears to mark an advance\n in the spiritualising of the incident, the subject being not the\n Angel (as Gunkel and others hold), but Jacob, whose \u2018prevailing\u2019\n thus becomes that of importunate prayer.\u2015\u2015We may note in a word\n Steuernagel\u2019s ethnological interpretation. He considers the\n wrestling to symbolise a victory of the invading Israelites over\n the inhabitants of North Gilead. The change of name reflects\n the fact that a new nation (Israel) arose from the fusion of the\n Jacob and Rachel tribes (_Die Einwanderung der israelitischen\n St\u00e4mme in Kanaan_ 61 f.).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =29.= \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e] A name of the same type as \u05d9\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d0\u05dc\u200e, \u05d9\u05e8\u05d7\u05de\u05d0\u05dc\u200e, etc.,\n with some such meaning as \u2018God strives\u2019 or \u2018Let God strive\u2019;\n originally (it has been suggested) a war-cry which passed\n into a proper name (see Steuernagel, _Die Einwanderung der\n israelitischen St\u00e4mme in Kanaan_ 61). The verb \u05e9\u05c2\u05e8\u05d4\u200e, however,\n only occurs in connexion with this incident (Hosea 12\u2074\u1427 \u2075, where\n read \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05e8\u200e), and in the personal name \u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4\u200e; and its real meaning\n is uncertain. If it be the Hebrew equivalent of Arabic _\u0161ariya_,\n Driver argues that it must mean \u2018persist\u2019 or \u2018persevere\u2019 rather\n than \u2018strive\u2019 (_A Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 530), which\n hardly yields a suitable idea. Some take it as a by-form of\n\u200e \u05e9\u05c2\u05e8\u05e8\u200e, either in a denominative sense (\u2018rule,\u2019 from \u05e9\u05b7\u05c2\u05e8\u200e, prince),\n or in its assumed primary significance \u2018shine forth\u2019 (Assyrian\n _\u0161ar\u00e2ru_: see Vollers, _Archiv f\u00fcr Religionswissenschaft_, ix.\n 184). Some doubt has even been thrown on the traditional Hebrew\n pronunciation by the form _Ysir\u2019r_, found on an inscription of\n Merneptah (Steindorff, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche\n Wissenschaft_, xvi. 330 ff.), with which we may compare Assyrian\n _Sir-\u2019-lai_ (= \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u200e) (see Kittel, _SBOT Chronicles_, page 58).\n Compare also Cheyne _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_,\n\u200e 404.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u200e] LXX \u1f10\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, Aquila \u1f26\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03c2, Symmachus \u1f24\u03c1\u03be\u03c9, Vulgate\n _fortis fuisti_, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word), Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\n\u200e \u05e8\u05b7\u05d1 \u05d0\u05b7\u05ea\u05bc\u200e.\u2015\u2015=31.= \u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0\u05dc\u200e] LXX \u0395\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, _The Samaritan Recension of\n the Pentateuch_, Symmachus, Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 read \u05e4\u05e0\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u200e as verse\n \u00b3\u00b2. The formal difference arises from the old case-endings of\n genitive and nominative (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 90 _o_). Strabo\n (XVI. ii. 16, 18) mentions a Ph\u0153nician promontory near Tripolis\n called \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd: it is not improbable that in both cases\n the name is derived from a fancied resemblance to a face.\u2015\u2015=33.=\n\u200e \u05d2\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d4\u05e0\u05e9\u05d4\u200e] \u05e0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d4\u200e is to be explained by Arabic _nas\u1d43\u207f_ (for _nasay\u1d58\u207f_),\n which means the _nervus ischiadicus_, or the thigh in which\n it is found (Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus criticus Lingu\u00e6\n Hebr\u00e6\u00e6 et Chald\u00e6\u00e6 Veteris Testamenti_ 921 f.). The question\n remains whether \u05d2\u05d9\u05d3\u200e denotes here a nerve, an artery, a sinew,\n or a muscle; the first seems by far the most probable. So it\n seems to have been understood by Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 ((\u2021 Syriac phrase) =\n tetanus-nerve), and by LXX and Vulgate, which appear to have\n connected \u05e0\u05e9\u05d4\u200e with the verb for \u2018forget\u2019 (Gr\u00e6cus-Venetus, \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd!). The modern Jewish restriction applies,\n according to Delitzsch, to the \u201cSpannader, d. h. die innere Ader\n des sogen. Hinterviertels mit Einschluss der \u00e4usseren und der\n Ver\u00e4stelungen beider.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXIII.\n _The Meeting of the Brothers:\n Jacob\u2019s March to Shechem_\n (Jehovist, Priestly-Code).\n\nThe dreaded meeting at last takes place; the brothers are reconciled,\nand part in friendship; Esau returning to Seir, while Jacob moves on\nby slow stages first to Succoth and then to Shechem.\u2015\u2015It is difficult\nto characterise the spirit in which the main incident is conceived.\nWas Esau\u2019s purpose friendly from the first, or was he turned from\nthoughts of vengeance by Jacob\u2019s submissive and flattering demeanour?\nDoes the writer regard the reconciliation as equally honourable\nto both parties, or does he only admire the skill and knowledge of\nhuman nature with which Jacob tames his brother\u2019s ferocity? The truth\nprobably lies between two extremes. That Esau\u2019s intention was hostile,\nand that Jacob gained a diplomatic victory over him, cannot reasonably\nbe doubted. On the other hand, the narrator must be acquitted of a\ndesire to humiliate Esau. If he was vanquished by generosity, the\nnoblest qualities of manhood were released in him; and he displays a\nchivalrous magnanimity which no appreciative audience could ever have\nheld in contempt. So far as any national feeling is reflected, it is\none of genuine respect and goodwill towards the Edomites.\n\n _Sources._\u2015\u2015Verses \u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2077 are rightly assigned in the main to\n Yahwist, in spite of the fact that the only divine name which\n occurs is \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, in \u2075\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9. In these verses we must recognise\n the hand of Elohist (compare also \u2075\u1d47 with 48\u2079, and \u00b9\u2070\u1d47 with\n 32\u00b2\u00b9); and, for all that appears, Elohist\u2019s influence may extend\n further. The chief indications, however, both material and\n linguistic, point to Yahwist as the leading source: the 400 men\n (32\u2077), the \u2018camp\u2019 in verse \u2078 (32\u2078), and the expressions: \u05e9\u05c1\u05e4\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea\u200e,\n\u200e \u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u1427 \u2076; \u05e8\u05d5\u05e5 \u05dc\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea\u200e, \u2074; \u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d7\u05df\u200e, \u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u2075; \u05db\u05d9\u05be\u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05db\u05df\u200e, \u00b9\u2070. The documents are\n so deftly interwoven that it is scarcely possible to detect a\n flaw in the continuity of the narrative.\u2015\u2015\u00b9\u2078\u207b\u00b2\u2070 are probably\n from Elohist, except \u00b9\u2078\u1d43{\u03b2}, which is taken from Priestly-Code\n (see on the verse below).\n\n=1\u20127. The meeting.=\u2015\u2015=1, 2.= Jacob\u2019s fears revive at sight of the\n400 men (32\u2077). He marshals his children (not the whole company, as\n32\u2078 \u1da0\u1427, though the motive is the same) under their mothers, and in the\nreverse order of his affection for them.\u2015\u2015=3.= _passed on before them_]\nhaving previously been in the rear.\u2015\u2015He approaches his brother with\nthe reverence befitting a sovereign; the sevenfold prostration is a\nfavourite formula of homage in the Tel Amarna tablets: \u201cAt the feet of\nmy Lord, my Sun, I fall down seven and seven times\u201d (38 ff. _passim_).\nIt does not follow, however, that Jacob acknowledged himself Esau\u2019s\nvassal (Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_, 12; Cheyne _Traditions\nand Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 405); compare 1 Samuel 20\u2074\u00b9.\u2015\u2015=4.=\n_fell on his neck_] 45\u00b9\u2074 46\u00b2\u2079 (Yahwist); Luke 15\u00b2\u2070.\u2015\u2015=5\u20127.= An\ninteresting picture: the mothers with their little ones come forward\nin groups to pay their respects to the grim-visaged warrior, whose\nname had caused such terror in the camp.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =2.= \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd ... \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX \u1f40\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c9 ... \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac\n phrase). Read accordingly \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd\u200e for the first \u05d0\u05f3\u200e.\u2015\u2015=4.= \u05d5\u05c4\u05d9\u05c4\u05e9\u05c4\u05e7\u05c4\u05d4\u05c4\u05d5\u05c4\u200e] The\n _puncta extraordinaria_ mark some error in the text. Dillmann\n observes that elsewhere (45\u00b9\u2074 46\u00b2\u2079) \u2018fell on his neck\u2019 is\n immediately followed by \u2018wept.\u2019 The word should probably be\n inserted (with LXX) after \u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05d1\u05e7\u05d4\u05d5\u200e (so 29\u00b9\u00b3; compare 48\u00b9\u2070).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u200e]\n The singular would be better, unless we add with LXX \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9\u05d4\u05b6\u05dd\u200e. \u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05d1\u05e7\u05d4\u05d5\n\u200e \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05e7\u05d4\u05d5\u200e \u2225 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e4\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc \u05e6\u05d5\u05d0\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05da\u200e seem to be variants; of which one or other will\n be due to Elohist.\u2015\u2015=5.= \u05d4\u05e0\u05df\u200e] with double accusative, literally\n \u2018has been gracious to me (with) them\u2019 (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 117\n ff.) = \u2018has graciously given\u2019 (so verse \u00b9\u00b9); compare Judges\n 21\u00b2\u00b2, Psalms 119\u00b2\u2079.\u2015\u2015=7.= \u05e0\u05b4\u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u200e] Niphal for the previous Qal.\n Point\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05b8\u05d2\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1\u200e?\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05d5\u05e1\u05e3 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d7\u05dc\u200e] LXX transposes as verse \u00b2.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=8\u201211. The present.=\u2015\u2015=8.= Esau remembers another great caval\ncade\u2015\u2015_camp_\u2015\u2015which he had met. The \u2018present\u2019 of 32\u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 (Elohist)\ncannot be referred to, for Esau must have been told repeatedly what\n_it_ was for (32\u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1427). The word \u05de\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b2\u05e0\u05b6\u05d4\u200e points rather to the arrangement\nof 32\u2078 \u1da0\u1427 (Yahwist). Gunkel somewhat ingeniously explains thus: Esau\nhad met the first division of Jacob\u2019s company; and Jacob, ashamed\nto avow his original motive, by a happy inspiration now offers \u2018this\nwhole camp\u2019 as a present to his brother.\u2015\u2015=9.= Esau at first refuses,\nbut, =10, 11=, Jacob insists on his accepting the gift.\u2015\u2015_as one sees\nthe face of God_] with the feelings of joy and reverence with which\none engages in the worship of God. For the flattering comparison of a\nsuperior to the Deity, compare 1 Samuel 29\u2079, 2 Samuel 14\u00b9\u2077 19\u00b2\u2078. It is\npossible that the phrase here contains a reminiscence of the meaning\nof P\u0115n\u00ee\u2019el in 32\u00b3\u00b9 (Wellhausen, Dillmann, al.), the common idea\nbeing that \u201cat Peniel the unfriendly God is found to be friendly\u201d\n(Dillmann). The resemblance suggests a different form of the legend,\nin which the deity who wrestled with Jacob was Esau\u2015\u2015the Us\u014dus of\nPh\u0153nician mythology (see on 25\u00b2\u2075; compare _Die Israeliten und ihre\nNachbarst\u00e4mme_, 278).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =10.= \u05db\u05d9\u05be\u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05db\u05df\u200e] see on 18\u2075. This and the preceding \u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d7\u05df\u200e mark\n the verse as Yahwist\u2019s, in spite of the appellative use of\n\u200e \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015=11a= is a doublet of \u00b9\u2070\u1d43, and may be assigned to\n Elohist.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d4\u200e] \u2018blessing,\u2019 hence the gift which is meant to\n procure a blessing: 1 Samuel 25\u00b2\u2077 30\u00b2\u2076, 2 Kings 18\u00b3\u00b9.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05bb\u05d1\u05b8\u05d0\u05ea\u200e]\n see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 74 _g_; but _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 read better \u05d4\u05b5\u05d1\u05b5\u05d0\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=12\u201217. The parting.=\u2015\u2015=12.= Esau, assuming that they are no more to\nbe separated, proposes to march in front with his troop.\u2015\u2015=13.= But\nJacob has other objects in view, and invents a pretext for getting rid\nof his brother\u2019s company.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05d9\u200e] literally _are giving suck upon me_:\n_i.e._ their condition imposes anxiety upon me.\u2015\u2015=14.= _I will proceed\nby stages_ (? _v.i._), _gently, according to the pace of the cattle\nbefore me_].\u2015\u2015_till I come ... to S\u0113\u201b\u00eer_] It is, of course, implied\nthat he is to follow in Esau\u2019s track; and the mention of Seir as\na possible goal of Jacob\u2019s journey causes difficulty. Meyer (_Die\nIsraeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 275 f.) advances the attractive\ntheory that in Yahwist Jacob does not cross the Jordan at all,\nbut goes round by Seir and the South of the Dead Sea to Hebron.\nThe question has an important bearing on the criticism of chapter\n34.\u2015\u2015=15\u201217.= The offer of an armed escort having been courteously\ndeclined, Jacob proceeds but a short distance, and takes up his\nquarters at _Sukk\u00f4th_ (_v.i._). The name is derived from the _booths_,\nor temporary shelters for cattle, which he erects there.\u2015\u2015_built\nhimself a house_] showing that he contemplated a lengthy sojourn.\n\n Here Esau disappears from the histories of Yahwist and Elohist.\n We have already remarked on the change of tone in this last\n episode, as compared with the earlier Jacob-Esau stories\n of chapters 25, 27. Esau is no longer the rude natural man,\n the easy victim of his brother\u2019s cunning, but a noble and\n princely character, whose bearing is evidently meant to inspire\n admiration. Jacob, too, is presented in a more favourable\n light: if he is still shrewd and calculating, and not perfectly\n truthful, he does not sink to the knavery of his earlier\n dealings with Esau and Laban, but exhibits the typical virtues\n of the patriarchal ideal. The contrast betrays a difference\n of spirit and origin in the two groups of legends. It is\n conceivable that the second group came from sanctuaries\n frequented by Israelites and Edomites in common (so Holzinger\n 212); but it is also possible that the two sets reflect the\n relations of Israel and Edom at different periods of history.\n It is quite obvious that chapters 25 and 27 took shape after the\n decay of the Edomite empire, when the ascendancy of Israel over\n the older people was assured. If there be any ethnological basis\n to 32, 33, it must belong to an earlier period. Steuernagel\n (_Die Einwanderung der israelitischen St\u00e4mme in Kanaan_ 105)\n suggests as a parallel Numbers 20\u00b9\u2074\u207b\u00b2\u00b9, where the Edomites\n resist the passage of Israel through their territory. Meyer\n (387\u00b9) is disposed to find a recollection of a time when Edom\n had a powerful empire extending far north on the East of the\n Jordan, where they may have rendered assistance to Israel in the\n Midianite war (_ib._ 382), though they were unable ultimately\n to maintain their position. If there be any truth in either of\n these speculations (which must remain extremely doubtful), it\n is evident that chronologically 32 f. precede 25, 27; and the\n attempt to interpret the series (as a whole) ethnographically\n must be abandoned.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =13.= \u05e2\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea\u200e] \u221a \u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u200e, of which only the participle is in use\n (1 Samuel 6\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2070, Isaiah 40\u00b9\u00b9, Psalms 78\u2077\u00b9\u2020).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d3\u05e4\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd\u200e] better with\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05d5\u05bc\u05d3\u05b0\u05e4\u05b7\u05e7\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e.\n On the syntax see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 159 _q_.\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05d0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e]\n LXX \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03c3\u03c9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f41\u03b4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. Why Cheyne\n (405 f.) finds it necessary to resolve the text into a series\n of geographical glosses is not apparent. \u05d4\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4\u05dc\u200e, Hithpael is\n \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, but is a natural extension of the Piel \u2018guide\n [to a watering-place?],\u2019 Isaiah 40\u00b9\u00b9 49\u00b9\u2070. \u05d0\u05b7\u05d8\u200e in the sense of\n \u2018gentleness\u2019 (2 Samuel 18\u2075, 1 Kings 21\u00b2\u2077, Isaiah 8\u2076, Job 15\u00b9\u00b9),\n and \u05e8\u05b6\u05d2\u05b6\u05dc\u200e in the sense of \u2018pace\u2019 are unexceptionable: the \u05dc\u05b0\u200e of\n _norm_ with both words (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 516 b). For \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4\u200e\n in the sense of \u2018property,\u2019 we have examples in Exodus 22\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2070,\n 1 Samuel 15\u2079.\u2015\u2015=15.= \u05d0\u05e6\u05d9\u05d2\u05d4\u200e] literally \u2018let me set.\u2019 The sense\n suggested by the context, \u2018leave behind,\u2019 is supported by\n Exodus 10\u00b2\u2074 (Hophal).\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e] The Hebrew is peculiar. The obvious\n rendering would be, \u2018Why should I find favour, etc.?\u2019; but as\n that is hardly possible, we must translate \u2018Why so? May I find,\n etc.\u2019\u2015\u2015a very abrupt transition. We should at least expect\n\u200e \u05d0\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05e0\u05d0\u200e.\u2015\u2015=17.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1\u200e] The precedence of subject indicates contrast,\n and shows that the verse continues \u00b9\u2076 (Yahwist).\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05e1\u05e2\u200e] see on\n\u200e 11\u00b2.\u2015\u2015\u05e1\u05bb\u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05ea\u200e was East of the Jordan, but nearer to it than Peniel\n (Joshua 13\u00b2\u2077, Judges 8\u2074\u1427 \u2075\u1427 \u2078). The site is unknown (see Smith,\n _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 585; Buhl, _Geographie\n des alten Palaestina_, 206, 260; Driver _The Expository Times_,\n xiii. 458 a, _n_. 1). The modern _Ain es-S\u0101\u1e33\u016b\u1e6d_ (9 miles South\n of Beisan) is excluded on phonetic grounds, and is besides on\n the wrong side of the Jordan.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=18\u201220. Jacob at Shechem.=\u2015\u2015=18.= The crossing of the Jordan is not\nrecorded; it is commonly supposed to have taken place at the ford\n_ed-D\u0101miyeh_, a little South of the Jabbo\u1e33, on the road from es-Sal\u1e6d\nto Shechem.\u2015\u2015_in safety_ (\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dc\u05b5\u05dd\u200e)] after his escape from Esau, Elohist\nnot having recorded the lengthened stay at Succoth. On the rendering\nof \u05e9\u05dc\u05dd\u200e as a proper name, _v.i._\u2015\u2015_encamped in front of the city_] in\nthe vale to the East of it, where Jacob\u2019s well is still shown (John\n4\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2).\u2015\u2015=19.= The purchase of the ground is referred to in Joshua\n24\u00b3\u00b2 in the account of Joseph\u2019s burial. It is significant that\nIsrael\u2019s claim to the grave of Joseph is based on purchase, just\nas its right to that of Abraham (chapter 23).\u2015\u2015The _Bn\u00ea \u1e24\u0103m\u00f4r_ were\nthe dominant clan in Shechem (chapter 34, Judges 9\u00b2\u2078).\u2015\u2015_a hundred\n\u1e33\u0115s\u00ee\u1e6d\u0101hs_] an unknown sum (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=20.= _he set up there an\naltar_] or more probably (since \u05d4\u05b4\u05e6\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05d1\u200e is never used of an altar) _a\nma\u1e93\u1e93eb\u0101h_.\u2015\u2015_called it \u2019\u0112l, God of Israel_] the stone being identified\nwith the deity; compare 28\u00b2\u00b2 35\u2077, Exodus 17\u00b9\u2075, Judges 6\u00b2\u2074. For heathen\nparallels, see Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 295.\n\n Israel is here the name of the nation: compare Joshua 8\u00b3\u2070, where\n Joshua builds an altar on Ebal (East of Shechem) to Yahwe, God\n of Israel. The stone and its name are undoubtedly historical,\n and go back to an early time when Shechem (or Ebal?) was the\n sacred centre of the confederacy of Israelitish tribes (compare\n 1 Kings 12\u00b9). We cannot therefore conclude with Dillmann that\n the verse refers back to 32\u00b2\u2079, and comes from the same document.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =18.= \u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05e9\u05db\u05dd\u200e [_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd\u200e]\n\u200e \u05e9\u05dc\u05dd\u200e] The rendering given above is pronounced by Wellhausen to\n be impossible, no doubt on the ground that \u05e9\u05dc\u05dd\u200e, meaning properly\n \u2018whole\u2019 (Deuteronomy 27\u2076), is nowhere else used in the sense\n \u2018safe and sound\u2019 of a person. Still, in view of \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd\u200e (compare\n 28\u00b2\u00b9 43\u00b2\u2077), and \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05dc\u05dd\u200e in Job 9\u2074, it may be reasonably supposed\n that it had that sense. LXX, _Jubilees_, Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n take \u05e9\u05dc\u05dd\u200e as a proper noun; a view which though it derives some\n plausibility from the fact that there is still a village _Salim_\n about 4 miles East of N\u0101bulus (Robinson, _Biblical Researches\n in Palestine_, ii. 275, 279), implies a sense not consonant\n with usage; there being no case of a village described as a\n \u2018city\u2019 _of_ the neighbouring town (Delitzsch). Wellhausen (_Die\n Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des Alten\n Testaments_\u00b2 316\u00b9) emends \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05db\u05b5\u05dd\u200e: \u2018Shechem the city of (the man)\n Shechem.\u2019 Procksch accepts the emendation, but regards the words\n as a conflation of variants from two sources (page 34). LXX\n distinguishes the name of the city (\u03a3\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, see on 12\u2076) from\n that of the man (\u03a3\u03c5\u03c7\u03b5\u03bc, verse \u00b9\u2079 34\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05df\u200e] as 26\u00b9\u2077.\u2015\u2015=19.=\n\u200e \u05e7\u05e9\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4\u200e (Joshua 24\u00b3\u00b2, Job 42\u00b9\u00b9\u2020)] apparently a coin or weight; but\n the etymology is obscure. LXX, Vulgate, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 render\n \u2018lamb\u2019; and it was thought that light had been thrown on this\n traditional explanation by the Aramaic Assuan papyri, where\n\u200e \u05db\u05d1\u05e9\u200e (lamb) is used of a coin (of the value of 10 shekels?) (so\n Sayce-Cowley, _Aramaic papyri discovered at Assouan_, page 23).\n But Lidzbarski (_Deutsche Lzg._, 1906, 3210 ff.) holds that\n the word there should be read \u05db\u05e8\u05e9\u200e (found on a Persian weight:\n _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology_, 1888,\n 464 ff.).\u2015\u2015=20.= Read \u05de\u05e6\u05d1\u05d4\u200e for \u05de\u05d6\u05d1\u05d7\u200e, and consequently \u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc\u200e for\n\u200e \u05dc\u05d5\u200e (Wellhausen al.).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e] LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd\n \u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u03ae\u03bb.\u2015\u2015Except the clause \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d0\u05f3 \u05db\u05f3 \u05d1\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e4\u05d3\u05df \u05d0\u05e8\u05dd\u200e in verse \u00b9\u2078, which\n is evidently from Priestly-Code, the whole section \u00b9\u2078\u207b\u00b2\u2070 may\n safely be assigned to Elohist.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXIV.\n _The Outrage on Dinah._\n\nTwo narratives are here combined:\n\n I. Shechem, son of \u1e24amor, the II. Shechem dishonours Dinah,\n native princeling, falls in but lets her return to her\n love with Dinah, the daughter of family (\u00b9\u207b\u00b3*; compare \u00b9\u2077);\n Leah, abducts her, and keeps her but continuing to love her, he\n in his house (\u00b9\u207b\u00b3*; compare \u00b2\u2076). appeals to \u1e24amor to arrange a\n He asks her in marriage from her marriage (\u2074). \u1e24amor comes to\n father and brothers, offering speak to Jacob (\u2076), and finds\n to accept any conditions they him and his sons together (\u2077).\n may impose (\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2). They raise He proposes not only a marriage\n an objection on the score between Shechem and Dinah, but a\n of circumcision (\u00b9\u2074), but general _connubium_ which would\n eventually consent on terms not legalise all such unions in\n expressed in this recension. the future (\u2078\u207b\u00b9\u2070). Jacob\u2019s sons\n Shechem complies with the agree, on condition that all the\n condition, whatever it was clan be circumcised (\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b9\u2078).\n (\u00b9\u2079). Simeon and Levi, however, \u1e24amor proceeds to the gate of\n decide that the insult can only the city, and persuades his\n be wiped out by blood; they people to undergo the operation\n gain access to Shechem\u2019s house, (\u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2074). While the fever is on\n slay him, and depart with their them, the sons of Jacob rush\n sister (\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427). Their father, the city, kill all the males,\n fearing an uprising of the capture the women and children,\n country against him, reproves and carry off the spoil (\u00b2\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u2079).\n them for their rash act, which \u2015\u2015The sequel is _perhaps_\n they proudly justify (\u00b3\u2070\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9). summarised in 35\u2075.\n \u2015\u2015The conclusion is lost.\n\n \u00b9 The parts left unresolved are verses \u00b9\u207b\u00b3 and \u2075\u1427 \u2077.\u2015\u2015In \u00b9\u207b\u00b3,\n \u00b3\u1d43 looks like a first mention of Dinah; and in \u00b2\u1d47 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05db\u05d1 \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4\u200e is\n perhaps \u2225 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05d7 \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05e0\u05d4\u200e; and with a transposition we might read\n thus: II. \u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u1d43 And Dinah ... and Shechem ... saw her, \u00b2\u1d47\n and lay with her. \u00b3\u1d47{\u03b2} And he comforted the girl...: I.\n \u00b3\u1d43 And the soul [of Shechem ...] clave to Dinah ... \u00b2\u1d47 and\n he took her and violated her. \u00b3\u1d47{\u03b1} And he loved the girl\n ...\u2015\u2015\u2075 and \u2077 seem to me to belong to II. rather than I.;\n but the indications are conflicting, and they are possibly\n redactional verses, inserted to explain the transition\n from the singular in \u2076 to the plural in \u2078.\u2015\u2015Naturally the\n redactor has been busy smoothing over discrepancies; and\n to him may be attributed \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05e9\u05db\u05dd \u05d5\u200e in \u00b3\u1d43, the whole of \u00b9\u00b3\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u2078\u1d47,\n\u200e \u05d5\u05e9\u05db\u05dd \u05d1\u05e0\u05d5\u200e in \u00b2\u2070\u1d43, \u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u05dd\u200e for \u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u200e in \u00b2\u2070\u1d47 (compare \u00b2\u2074), \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05e9\u05db\u05dd \u05d1\u05e0\u05d5\u200e in\n\u200e \u00b2\u2074; \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d7\u05de\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u200e and \u05d1\u05e0\u05d5\u200e in \u00b2\u2076\u1d43; and the removal of \u00b2\u2075\u1d47 from \u00b2\u2077\n (_v.i._).\n\n This rough analysis\u00b9 rests mainly on the material incongruities\n of the narrative, viz.: (a) In II., after the seduction Dinah\n is still in the hands of her relatives, \u00b9\u2077; but in I. she is\n in Shechem\u2019s house and has to be rescued by force, \u00b2\u2076. (b) The\n negotiations are conducted by \u1e24\u0103m\u00f4r alone, \u2076\u1427 \u2078\u207b\u00b9\u2070 (II.); but\n in \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2 (I.) Shechem is abruptly introduced pleading his own\n cause. (c) Shechem has already fulfilled the compact, \u00b9\u2079 (I.),\n before the people of the city are consulted, \u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2074 (II.). (d)\n Simeon and Levi alone avenge the outrage, and are alone held\n responsible for the consequences, \u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b3\u2070 \u1da0\u1427 (I.); but all the\n sons of Jacob are implicated in the sack of the city, \u00b2\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u2079\n (II.).\n\n _Sources._\u2015\u2015If _style_ alone were decisive, I. might safely be\n identified with Yahwist: note \u05d3\u05d1\u05e7 \u05d1\u200e, \u00b3 (2\u00b2\u2074); \u05e0\u05e2\u05e8\u05b8\u200e, \u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2; \u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d7\u05df \u05d1\u05e2\u05f3\u200e,\n\u200e \u00b9\u00b9; \u05d1\u05db\u05e0\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d1\u05e4\u05e8\u05d6\u05d9\u200e, \u00b3\u2070. In II., Cornill has pointed out some linguistic\n affinities with Elohist (see the notes on \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc \u05dc\u05d1\u200e, \u00b3; \u05d9\u05dc\u05d3\u05d4\u200e, \u2074; \u05e1\u05d7\u05e8\u200e,\n \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9 etc.); but they are insignificant in comparison with the\n strongly marked Priestly phraseology of this recension: \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0\u200e, \u00b2;\n\u200e \u05d8\u05de\u05bc\u05d0\u200e, \u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u2077; \u05e0\u05d0\u05d7\u05d6\u200e, \u00b9\u2070; \u05d4\u05de\u05dc \u05dc\u05db\u05dd \u05db\u05dc \u05d6\u05db\u05e8\u200e, \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2; \u05e7\u05e0\u05d9\u05df\u200e and \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4\u200e, \u00b2\u00b3; \u05db\u05dc \u05d6\u05db\u05e8\u200e,\n\u200e \u00b2\u2074; \u05db\u05dc \u05d9\u05e6\u05d0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e2\u05e8 \u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u200e \u00b2\u2074 (_bis_): compare the list in Kuenen _Gesammelte\n Abhandlungen_ 269 f. These are so striking that Dillmann and\n Driver assign the narrative unhesitatingly to Priestly-Code, and\n all admit that it has undergone a Priestly redaction (Cornill\n calls attention to a very similar case in Numbers 31).\n\n But there are grave _material_ difficulties in assigning either\n recension to Yahwist or Elohist. (1) In chapter 34, Jacob\u2019s\n children are grown up; and this implies a considerable lapse of\n time since chapter 33. (2) A bloody encounter with the natives\n of the land is contrary to the peaceful ideal of patriarchal\n life consistently maintained by Yahwist and (hardly less\n consistently) by Elohist. (3) Against I. = Yahwist, in\n particular, (a) In Yahwist the patriarch is generally named\n Israel after 32\u00b2\u2078; and here Jacob is used throughout. (b) We\n have seen reason to believe that in Yahwist, Jacob was not West\n of the Jordan at all at this time (page 414). (c) The sons of\n Jacob would not be found quietly feeding their flocks at Shechem\n (37\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) if an incident like this had been of recent occurrence.\n (4) As regards II. = Elohist, there is less difficulty; but\n on this hypothesis the amalgamation with Yahwist must be due\n to Redactor\u1d36\u1d49\u02b0\u1d52\u1d5b\u2071\u02e2\u1d57; and how does it happen that the assumed\n Priestly redaction is confined to the one component? Moreover,\n the incident is irreconcilable with 48\u00b2\u00b2 (Elohist). (5) Finally,\n if _\u1e24\u014drite_ be the true reading in verse \u00b2, we have here a\n tradition differing from any of the Pentateuch documents.\n\n These objections are urged with great force by Meyer, who also\n shows that in Genesis there are sporadic traces of a divergent\n tradition which ignored the Exodus, and traced the conquest and\n division of the land directly to Jacob and his sons (chapters\n 38. 48\u00b2\u00b2). To this (older) tradition he assigns chapter 34.\n The first recension must have taken literary shape within\n the Yahwistic school, and the second may have been current\n in Elohistic circles; but neither found a place in the main\n document of the school to which it belonged, and its insertion\n here was an afterthought suggested by a supposed connexion with\n 33\u00b9\u2079 (Elohist). This seems to me the best solution, though it\n leaves the dual recension, the amalgamation, and the Priestly\n redaction unexplained riddles.\u2015\u2015Calling the two narratives\n Yahwist\u02e3 and Elohist\u02e3, we divide as follows:\n\n Yahwist\u02e3 (= I.): \u00b3\u1d43\u1427 \u00b2\u1d47*\u1427 \u00b3\u1d47{\u03b1}\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2075\u1d43\u1427 \u00b2\u2076\u1427 \u00b3\u2070\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9.\n\n Elohist\u02e3 (= II.): \u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u1d43\u1427 \u00b2\u1d47*\u1427 \u00b3\u1d47{\u03b2}\u1427 \u2074\u1427 \u2075{?}\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u2077{?}\u1427 \u2078\u207b\u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1d43\u1427\n \u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b9\u2078\u1d43\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2077\u1427 \u207d\u00b2\u2075\u1d47\u207e\u1427 \u00b2\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u2079.\n\n Compare Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der\n historischen B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 45 f., 314 ff.;\n Kuenen _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, 1880, 257 ff. (= _Gesammelte\n Abhandlungen_ 255 ff.), _Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar\n het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds_\n i. 315 f.; Cornill _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche\n Wissenschaft_, xi. 1\u201215; Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre\n Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 412 ff.; Delitzsch 413; Dillmann 368 ff.;\n Holzinger 213 ff.; Gunkel 326 ff.; Strack 126 f.; Procksch 35 f.\n\n=1\u201212. Dinah is seduced by Shechem, and afterwards sought in\nmarriage.=\u2015\u2015=2.= _the \u1e24ivvite_] see on 10\u00b9\u2077; LXX _the \u1e24\u014drite_\n(_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=3.= _spoke to_ (literally _over_) _the heart_] 50\u00b2\u00b9\n(Elohist). The phrase means \u2018to comfort,\u2019 not \u2018to woo\u2019; compare\nHosea 2\u00b9\u2076, Isaiah 40\u00b2, Ruth 2\u00b9\u00b3 etc.\u2015\u2015=4.= Compare 21\u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2074 38\u2076,\nJudges 14\u00b2.\u2015\u2015=5.= _kept silence_] took no steps to redress the\ninjury (2 Samuel 19\u00b9\u00b9).\u2015\u2015=7.= _wrought scandalous folly in Israel_]\na standing phrase for crimes of the kind here indicated (Deuteronomy\n22\u00b2\u00b9, Judges 20\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2070; compare Judges 19\u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427, 2 Samuel 13\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427); though\n\u2018in Israel\u2019 is an anachronism. \u05e0\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e is never mere foolishness, but\nalways disgraceful conduct or language.\u2015\u2015_such things are not done_]\n20\u2079 29\u00b2\u2076.\u2015\u2015=8\u201210.= \u1e24\u0103m\u014dr, as prince, takes a broad view: not content\nwith arranging this particular marriage, he proposes an amalgamation\nof the two races; thinking apparently that the advantage to Jacob\nwould be sufficient compensation for the offence.\u2015\u2015=9.= Almost\nverbally identical with Deuteronomy 7\u00b3 (compare Joshua 23\u00b9\u00b2).\u2015\u2015=11,\n12.= Shechem\u2019s offer relates only to his own private affair.\u2015\u2015_Ask\nme ever so much_] literally \u2018Multiply upon me.\u2019 The Hebrew law of\ncompensation for seduction is given in Exodus 22\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b9\u05d4\u05b7\u05e8\u200e, the price\npaid to the parents (Exodus 22\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1427, 1 Samuel 18\u00b2\u2075), and \u05de\u05b7\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05df\u200e (so only\nhere), the gift to the bride, are virtually distinguished in 24\u2075\u00b3.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05d1\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200e 27\u2074\u2076 (Priestly-Code or Redactor).\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05d4\u05d7\u05d5\u05d9\u200e] LXX \u05d4\u05b7\u05d7\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e.\n Confusion of \u05d5\u200e and \u05e8\u200e is common; but LXX deserves consideration\n as the harder reading; and also because the only other place\n where LXX has \u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u200e for Massoretic Text \u05d7\u05d5\u05d9\u200e is Joshua 9\u2077, a passage\n somewhat similar to this (see Meyer _Die Israeliten und\n ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 331). It is a slight confirmation of\n LXX that animal names are frequent among the \u1e24orite clans\n (36\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), and \u1e24\u0103m\u00f4r means \u2018he-ass.\u2019\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0\u200e] a favourite word\n of Priestly-Code; compare 17\u00b2\u2070 23\u2076 25\u00b9\u2076.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05db\u05d1 \u05d0\u05ea\u200e (verse \u2077 35\u00b2\u00b2\n etc.)] The Massoretic always point the \u05d0\u05ea\u200e in this phrase as _not\n accusative_.\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05e0\u05e2\u05e8\u05b8\u200e] see 24\u00b9\u2074.\u2015\u2015=5.= \u05d8\u05b4\u05de\u05b5\u05bc\u05d0\u200e] in the sexual sense\n verses \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u2077, Ezekiel 18\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2075 22\u00b9\u00b9\u2020; otherwise very frequent\n in Priestly-Code.\u2015\u2015=7.= \u05db\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05dd\u200e] occupies an unusual position;\n and there are other small syntactic anomalies in \u2075\u1427 \u2077.\u2015\u2015=8.=\n\u200e \u05d7\u05e9\u05e7 \u05d1\u200e] Deuteronomy 7\u2077 10\u00b9\u2075 21\u00b9\u00b9, Psalms 91\u00b9\u2074\u2020: contrast \u05d3\u05d1\u05e7\u200e, verse\n \u00b3.\u2015\u2015On the _casus pendens_, Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 143 _b_.\u2015\u2015=9.=\n\u200e \u05d4\u05ea\u05d7\u05ea\u05df\u200e] \u2018enter into the relation of \u05d7\u05b9\u05ea\u05b5\u05df\u200e and \u05d7\u05b8\u05ea\u05b8\u05df\u200e\u2019 (1 Samuel 18\u00b2\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427,\n 1 Kings 3\u00b9), and more generally \u2018form marriage alliance\u2019\n (Deuteronomy 7\u00b3, Joshua 23\u00b9\u00b2, Ezra 9\u00b9\u2074).\u2015\u2015=10.= \u05e1\u05d7\u05e8\u200e] as 42\u00b3\u2074\n (Elohist); but compare 23\u00b9\u2076 (Priestly-Code).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d4\u05d0\u05d7\u05d6\u05d5\u200e] Niphal\n in this sense peculiar to Priestly-Code (47\u00b2\u2077, Numbers 32\u00b3\u2070,\n Joshua 22\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2079).\u2015\u2015=12.= \u05de\u05d4\u05e8 \u05d5\u05de\u05ea\u05df\u200e] LXX \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bd\u03ae\u03bd.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=13\u201217. The answer.=\u2015\u2015=13a.= _with duplicity_] In this recension\n(Elohist\u02e3) the requirement of circumcision is merely a pretext to\nrender the Shechemites incapable of self-defence.\u2015\u2015=14.= Here, on the\ncontrary (Yahwist\u02e3), the family acts in good faith, and the compact\nis violated by Simeon and Levi alone.\u2015\u2015_that were a reproach to us_]\nJoshua 5\u2079. Circumcision is regarded as a tribal custom, which it would\nbe a disgrace to infringe. That the custom actually existed from the\nearliest time among the Hebrews is extremely probable (page 296 f.);\nbut the fact that both Yahwist (Exodus 4\u00b2\u2075) and Elohist (Joshua 5\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427)\nrecord its introduction in the age of the Exodus is an additional\nproof that this chapter follows an independent tradition.\u2015\u2015=15.=\nContinuing \u00b9\u00b3\u1d43.\u2015\u2015_Only on this condition will we consent_] referring\nprimarily to the _connubium_.\u2015\u2015=16.= _become one people_] A result\nreally desired by the Shechemites, but not seriously contemplated by\nthe sons of Jacob.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =13b= occupies a syntactically impossible position, and must\n be deleted as a redactional gloss. \u05d5\u05d9\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u200e joins on to \u00b9\u2075.\u2015\u2015=14.=\n LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03a3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u1f7c\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039b\u03b5\u03c5\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1f76 \u0394\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1f76\n \u03b4\u1f72 \u039b\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb.\u2015\u2015an intelligent anticipation of critical results\n (compare \u00b2\u2075)?\u2015\u2015Or is this the original text?\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05f3 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05e2\u05e8\u05dc\u05d4\u200e\n for \u2018uncircumcised\u2019 does not recur.\u2015\u2015=15.= \u05e0\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u200e] Either\n (Brown-Driver-Briggs) imperfect Niphal, or (Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 72 _h_) intransitive imperfect Qal of \u221a \u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u200e, \u2018consent\u2019 (\u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3,\n 2 Kings 12\u2079\u2020).\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d4\u05de\u05dc \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e] as 17\u00b9\u2070.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=18\u201224. The condition accepted.=\u2015\u2015=19.= _the most honoured member\nof his family_] emphasising the greatness of his sacrifice, and the\nstrength of his attachment to Dinah.\u2015\u2015=21\u201223.= \u1e24\u0103m\u014dr naturally says\nnothing of the personal matter, but dwells on the advantages the clan\nwill derive from union with the Israelites. The men are already _on\nfriendly terms_ with them; the land is _spacious_ enough; and by\nadopting circumcision they will obtain a great accession to their\nwealth.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =19.= \u05d0\u05b5\u05d7\u05b7\u05e8\u200e] Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 64 _d_.\u2015\u2015=21.= \u05e8\u05d7\u05d1\u05ea \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (LXX\n \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1)] \u2018broad on both sides\u2019; Judges 18\u00b9\u2070, Isaiah 22\u00b9\u2078 [33\u00b2\u00b9,\n 1 Chronicles 4\u2074\u2070, Nehemiah 7\u2074, Psalms 104\u00b2\u2075]\u2020.\u2015\u2015=24.= Between \u05d5\u05d9\u05de\u05dc\u05d5\u200e\n and \u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d6\u05db\u05e8\u200e] LXX inserts \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d9\u05e6\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e]\n compare 23\u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u2078. The repetition of the phrase is avoided by LXX.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=25\u201231. The vengeance of the Hebrews.=\u2015\u2015=25.= _on the third day_] when\nthe inflammation is said, in the case of adults, to be at its height\n(Delitzsch, Dillmann).\u2015\u2015_Simeon and Levi, the brothers of Dinah_]\ncompare 49\u2075. In chapter 29 f., Leah had four other sons who were as\nmuch full brothers of Dinah as these two. Was there another tradition,\naccording to which Simeon and Levi were the only sons of Leah (so\nMeyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 286\u00b9, 426 f.)?\u2015\u2015=26.=\n\u200e\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05d7\u05e8\u05d1\u200e] according to the usage of war: without quarter (compare\n2 Samuel 11\u00b2\u2075).\u2015\u2015_and went out_] Evidently this is the close of\nthe exploit.\u2015\u2015=27.= _came upon the slain_] Compare Vulgate _Quibus\negressis, irruerunt super occisos c\u00e6teri filii Jacob_. That is\nperhaps the sense intended by the redactor. But, to say nothing of the\nimprobability of two men being able to kill all the males of the city,\nthe second narrative (Elohist\u02e3) must have given an independent account\nof the attack on Shechem. \u00b2\u2075\u1d47 must be transferred to this verse; and\nanother word must be substituted for \u05d7\u05b2\u05dc\u05b8\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=28, 29.= Compare\nthe similar phraseology of Numbers 31\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9 (Priestly-Code).\u2015\u2015=30,\n31= (continuing \u00b2\u2076). Jacob rebukes Simeon and Levi, not for their\ntreachery and cruelty, but for their recklessness in exposing the\nwhole tribe to the vengeance of the Canaanites.\u2015\u2015_I am few in number_]\nit is the tribal, not the individual, consciousness which finds\nexpression here.\n\n The legend at the basis of chapter 34 reflects, we can scarcely\n doubt, an incident of the Hebrew settlement in Canaan. Shechem\n is the eponymus of the ancient city of that name, and \u1e24\u0103m\u00f4r\n of the tribe dwelling there; \u1e24\u0103m\u00f4r is the father of Shechem,\n because the tribe is older than its possession of the city.\n Jacob, in like manner, stands for the Israelites, who are nomads\n ranging the country round Shechem, and on friendly terms with\n its inhabitants. Whether D\u00een\u0101h was a weak Hebrew clan threatened\n with absorption by the \u1e24amorites is not so certain; it is more\n natural to suppose that a literal outrage of the kind described\n was the cause of the racial quarrel which ensued.\u00b9\u2015\u2015There\n are two historic events which seem to stand in some connexion\n with the narrative\u2015\u2015the Hebrew conquest of Shechem, and the\n dissolution of Simeon and Levi as tribal entities. (1) The\n conquest of Shechem is presupposed in Joshua 24; but it is\n remarkable that it is never mentioned either among the cities\n captured by the Israelites, or among those which remained\n independent. The account of its destruction by Abimelech in\n Judges 9 appears to imply that it had been continuously in the\n possession of the Bn\u00ea \u1e24\u0103m\u00f4r down to that time. On the other\n hand, the poetic fragment Genesis 48\u00b2\u00b2 attributes the conquest\n to Jacob himself, but as an honourable feat of arms unstained\n by the treachery which is so prominent in chapter 34. How these\n conflicting data are to be reconciled, we can hardly conjecture.\n The differences are too great to justify the opinion that\n 48\u00b2\u00b2 and 34 are merely legendary reflexions of the historic\n fact recorded in Judges 9. Yet it is scarcely credible that\n Shechem was thrice conquered, twice from the same people under\n circumstances of general similarity. One chief objection to\n identifying 34 with Judges 9 is the prominence of Simeon and\n Levi in Yahwist\u02e3. We may either (with Steuernagel) put back the\n incident (which may after all have been an _unsuccessful_ attack\n on Shechem) to the early days of the Hebrew migration, while\n Simeon and Levi were independent and still migratory tribes; or\n (with Meyer) assume that the story of Dinah originated near the\n Simeonite territory in the South, and was afterwards transferred\n to Shechem because of certain points of affinity with the\n historic overthrow of that city under Abimelech.\u2015\u2015(2) The\n dispersion of Simeon and Levi is referred to in the Blessing\n of Jacob (49\u2076\u1427 \u2077), as the consequence of deeds of violence,\n disapproved by the conscience of the nation. It is universally\n assumed by critics that the two passages are variations of\n the same theme; hence it is held by many (Wellhausen, Stade,\n Gunkel, Steuernagel, al.) that Yahwist\u02e3 went on to tell how the\n Canaanites actually retaliated by the slaughter of Simeon and\n Levi, while the other brothers escaped. That is just possible;\n but if so, the narrative departs very widely from the prevailing\n tradition, according to which Simeon and Levi not only survived,\n but went down into Egypt with the rest of the family. And\n there is room for doubt whether the curse on Simeon and Levi in\n chapter 49 is the result of any particular action of these two\n tribes (see page 516 f.).\u2015\u2015The one point, indeed, which stands\n out with some degree of evidence from these discussions is that\n there was a form of the patriarchal tradition which knew nothing\n of the sojourn in Egypt, and connected the story of the conquest\n with the name of Jacob.\n\n \u00b9 A singularly apposite and interesting modern parallel\n is quoted by Bennett (page 318 f.) from Doughty, _Arabia\n Deserta_, ii. 114.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=27\u201229= are regarded by Dillmann as a late interpolation; and this\nis perhaps necessary if the second account is to be identified with\nPriestly-Code. The possibility that the verses have been glossed by\nsome one who had Numbers 31 in mind is not to be denied.\u2015\u2015=27.= \u05d7\u05dc\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e]\nliterally \u2018pierced,\u2019 means either \u2018slain\u2019 (Numbers 19\u00b9\u2078 31\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2079 etc.),\nor (rarely) \u2018fatally wounded\u2019 (Lamentations 2\u00b9\u00b2 etc.); neither\nsense being suitable here. Gunkel suggests \u05d7\u05b9\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u2018sick\u2019 \u2225 \u05db\u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, verse\n\u200e\u00b2\u2075.\u2015\u2015=29.= \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d1\u0596\u05d5\u05bc \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b9\u0591\u05d6\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u200e] Remove athnach to \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u200e (\u221a \u05e9\u05d1\u05d4\u200e) and omit \u05d5\u200e before \u05d0\u05ea\u200e\n(compare _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,\nPeshi\u1e6dt\u00e5).\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u200e] collective; but Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word) LXX \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2.\u2015\u2015=30.= \u05e2\u05db\u05e8\u200e] = Arabic _\u201bakira_, \u2018be\nturbid,\u2019 in Hebrew literally \u2018make turbid\u2019 = \u2018undo,\u2019\u2015\u2015a strong word;\ncompare Joshua 6\u00b9\u2078 7\u00b2\u2075, 1 Kings 18\u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1427\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05ea\u05d9 \u05de\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8\u200e] literally \u2018men of\nnumber,\u2019 numerable, and therefore few; Deuteronomy 4\u00b2\u2077 33\u2076, Jeremiah\n44\u00b2\u2078 etc.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXV.\n _Jacob in Canaan_\n (Elohist, Yahwist, Priestly-Code).\n\nThe compiler\u2019s interest in the story of Jacob would seem to have\nflagged after he had brought him safely back to Canaan; and he hurries\nto a close with a series of fragmentary excerpts from his sources: a\nsecond visit to Bethel, with the death and burial of Deborah, \u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2075;\nthe birth of Benjamin and death of Rachel, \u00b9\u2076\u207b\u00b2\u2070; Reuben\u2019s incest,\n\u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1d43; a list of Jacob\u2019s sons, \u00b2\u00b2\u1d47\u207b\u00b2\u2076; the death and burial of Isaac,\n\u00b2\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u2079.\n\n _Sources._\u2015\u2015The Priestly-Code sections are easily recognised\n by their phraseology, viz. \u2076\u1d43\u1427* \u2079\u207b\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1d47\u207b\u00b2\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u2079. The\n last continuous extract from Priestly-Code was 28\u00b9\u207b\u2079; and\n the connecting links are 29\u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2078\u1d47\u1427 \u00b2\u2079 30\u2074\u1d43\u1427 \u2079\u1d47\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1d43 31\u00b9\u2078\u1d43{\u03b2\u03b3\u03b4}\u1d47\n 33\u00b9\u2078\u1d43{\u03b2}. The natural position of 35\u00b2\u00b2\u1d47\u207b\u00b2\u2076 is between 30\u00b2\u00b2\u1d43\n and 31\u00b9\u2078 (see verse \u00b2\u2076); and this transposition is adopted by\n Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_\u2076 327); but\n perhaps a still better position would be in 37\u00b2 (see page 443).\n A more thorough readjustment is proposed by Gunkel: 28\u00b9\u207b\u2079\n 35\u2076\u1d43\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u00b3\u1d43\u1427 \u00b9\u2075 29\u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2078\u1d47\u1427 \u00b2\u2079 30\u2074\u1d43\u1427 \u2079\u1d47\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1d43 35\u00b2\u00b2\u1d47\u207b\u00b2\u2076 31\u00b9\u2078\u1d43{\u03b2\u03b3\u03b4}\u1d47\n 33\u00b9\u2078\u1d43{\u03b2} 35\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u2079. This division of the Bethel-theophany\n into two, one on the way to Mesopotamia and the other after\n the return (as in Elohist), is very attractive, and relieves\n some critical difficulties, as shown in the notes on \u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015To\n Elohist belong \u00b9\u207b\u2075\u1427 \u2076\u1d47\u207b\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2074: compare [\u05d4]\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u00b9\u1427 \u2075\u1427 \u2077; \u05d0\u05dc\u200e, \u00b3\u1427 \u2077;\n\u200e \u05de\u05e6\u05d1\u05d4\u200e, \u00b9\u2074; \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e0\u05db\u05e8\u200e, \u00b2\u1427 \u2074 (compare Joshua 24\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3); and the\n reference in verse \u00b9 to 28\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015\u00b9\u2076\u207b\u00b2\u2070 are also from Elohist in\n the main, though perhaps with Yahwist variants (\u05de\u05e6\u05d1\u05d4\u200e, \u00b2\u2070; compare\n the retrospective reference in 48\u2077).\u2015\u2015The only purely Yahwistic\n section is \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1d43 (\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u200e _bis_).\n\n=1\u20128 + 14. Bethel re-visited: the death of Deborah.=\u2015\u2015=1.= Jacob is\nreminded of his vow at Bethel (28\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), and commanded to build an\naltar there.\u2015\u2015_go up_] From Shechem to Bethel there is a continuous\nascent of over 1000 feet.\u2015\u2015_and dwell there_] It would almost seem\nthat Bethel is to be Jacob\u2019s permanent residence; and this (though\ncontradicted by verse \u00b9\u2076) would be in harmony with the tenor of the\nElohistic tradition, which closely associates this patriarch with the\nchief Ephraimite sanctuary.\u2015\u2015=2.= Jacob purifies his household for a\nsolemn act of worship.\u2015\u2015_Put away the strange gods_] The same words\nspoken under the same tree by Joshua (24\u00b2\u00b3 [Elohist]), point, it would\nappear, to the memory of a great national renunciation of idolatry at\nShechem in the early history of Israel (see verse \u2074). A reference to\nthe Teraphim stolen by Rachel (31\u00b9\u2079) does not exhaust the significance\nof the notice.\u2015\u2015=3.= The use of the old name \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e here and verse \u00b9\n(compare verse \u2077) is noticeable.\u2015\u2015=4.= _the earrings_ (see on 24\u00b2\u00b2)]\nObjects of superstition, being used as amulets, and in false worship\n(Hosea 2\u00b9\u2075, compare Judges 8\u00b2\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015_the terebinth near Shechem_] See\non 12\u2076. The burial of idolatrous emblems under this sacred tree has\nsome traditional meaning which we cannot now explain.\u2015\u2015=5.= _a terror\nof God_] a \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bc\u03b1 (Delitzsch); compare Exodus 23\u00b2\u2077, 1 Samuel\n14\u00b9\u2075, 2 Chronicles 14\u00b9\u00b3 etc.\n\n Verse \u2075 presupposes an incident like that recorded in chapter\n 34. The intervening verses \u00b9\u207b\u2074 are not in keeping with this view\n of the situation; and the change of subject from \u2018Jacob\u2019 to \u2018the\n sons of Jacob\u2019 makes it highly probable that verse \u2075 is either\n redactional (Kuenen), or belongs to a different stratum of\n Elohist.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05be\u05d0\u05dc\u200e] LXX \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u0392\u03b1\u03b9\u03b8\u1f74\u03bb is not unlikely to be\n original (compare 28\u00b9\u00b9 12\u2076).\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05d5\u05d0\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u05d5\u05e0\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015=4= end]\n LXX + \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ce\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2.\u2015\u2015=5.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05e1\u05e2\u05d5\u200e] LXX\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd \u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u1f74\u03bb \u1f10\u03ba \u03a3\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1\u200e] LXX \u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u03ae\u03bb.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=6a= (Priestly-Code). See below.\u2015\u2015=7.= The designation of _the place_\n(_i.e._ the sanctuary: 12\u2076 28\u00b9\u00b9) as _\u2019\u0112l B\u00eath\u2019\u0113l_ is not confirmed\nby any other Old Testament allusion. Partial analogies may be found\nin such place-names as A\u0161ter\u00f4th-\u1e32arnaim, N\u0115b\u00f4, Baal-\u1e24\u0103\u1e93\u00f4r, Baal-Gad,\netc., where the name of the deity is extended to the sacred precincts\n(Gunkel 248); but the text is not above suspicion.\u2015\u2015_there the\ngods had revealed themselves to him_] The plural verb together with\nthe use of the article suggests that the sentence preserves a more\npolytheistic version of the Bethel-legend than 28\u00b9\u00b2,\u2015\u2015one in which the\n\u2018angels of God\u2019 were spoken of as simply \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015=8, 14.= The death and\nburial of Deborah.\u2015\u2015_below B\u00eath\u2019\u0113l_] means apparently \u2018to the South\nof Bethel.\u2019\u2015\u2015_under the oak_] or \u2018sacred tree\u2019 (see on 12\u2076).\u2015\u2015_tree\nof weeping_] But _v.i._\u2015\u2015=14.= For the grounds on which this verse is\nconnected with \u2078, see the footnote _ad loc._\u2015\u2015_set up a ma\u1e93\u1e93\u0113b\u0101h_] So\nverse \u00b2\u2070 at the grave of Rachel. These monuments came to be regarded\nas simple grave-stones; but were doubtless originally objects of\nworship, as the next clause indicates.\u2015\u2015_poured out a libation on\nit_] The libation was in the first instance an offering to the dead,\naccording to a custom attested among many ancient peoples,\u00b9 and found\nin Catholic countries at the present day.\u2015\u2015_poured oil_] 28\u00b9\u2078.\n\n \u00b9 Egyptians (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 307), Persians\n (Herodotus vii. 43), Greeks (Homer _Iliad_ xxiii. 196,\n _Odyssey_ xi. 26 ff.), Arabs (Wellhausen _Reste arabischen\n Heidentums_\u00b2 182 f.). It is not mentioned in Old Testament,\n but food-offerings to the dead are referred to in\n Deuteronomy 26\u00b9\u2074 (Tobit 4\u00b9\u2078, Sirach 30\u00b9\u2078).\n\n The notice of Deborah is in many ways perplexing. The nurse who\n accompanied Rebekah (24\u2075\u2079) is nameless, and there is nothing\n to lead us to expect that she was to be an important figure in\n Hebrew legend. How she could have come into Jacob\u2019s family is\n quite inexplicable; and the conjectures that have been advanced\n on this point are all puerile. Moreover, the sacred tree\n referred to is in all probability identical with the palm-tree\n of Deborah \u2018between Ramah and Bethel\u2019 in Judges 4\u2074 \u1da0\u1427. There\n seems to have been a confusion in the local tradition between\n the famous prophetess and the nurse; and the chief mystery is\n how the name of Rebekah got introduced in this connexion at\n all. If we could suppose with Cheyne (417 f.) that \u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05ea\u200e should\n be \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05db\u05b9\u05e8\u05b7\u05ea\u200e and that this is an alternative form of \u05e8\u05d1\u05e7\u05d4\u200e, so that the\n real name of the tree was \u2018Tree of Rebekah,\u2019 we might be a step\n nearer a solution. The identity of the two trees would then have\n to be abandoned. It is, however, an unsafe argument to say that\n a \u2018nurse\u2019 could not have been conspicuous in legend: compare\n the grave of the nurse of Dionysus at Scythopolis, in Pliny,\n _Naturalis Historia_, v. 74 (Delitzsch, Gunkel).\n\n * * * * *\n\n =6a.= \u05dc\u05d5\u05d6\u05d4\u200e] See on 28\u00b9\u2079. The clause is an amalgam of Priestly-Code\n and Elohist.\u2015\u2015=7.= \u05dc\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd\u200e] LXX \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05dc \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05be\u05d0\u05dc\u200e] LXX,\n Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d0\u05dc\u200e.\u2015\u2015=8.= \u05d5\u05ea\u05e7\u05d1\u05e8\u200e] LXX omitted.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b7\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e] see on\n\u200e 12\u2076.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05ea\u200e] \u2018weeping.\u2019 The text is perhaps confirmed by \u05d1\u05b9\u05bc\u05db\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e\n (weepers), Judges 2\u2075, which may be the same place. But though\n\u200e \u05d1\u05db\u05d9\u05dd\u200e might plausibly be regarded as a corruption of \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05db\u05b8\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (2 Samuel\n 5\u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, Psalms 84\u2077), it is difficult to think that \u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05ea\u200e is so:\n \u2018sacred tree of the baka-trees\u2019 is an improbable combination\n (see von Gall, _Altisraelitische Kultst\u00e4tten_ 103).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=9, 10. Jacob\u2019s name changed= (Priestly-Code).\u2015\u2015Compare 32\u00b2\u2078 \u1da0\u1427\n(Yahwist).\u2015\u2015_when he came from Paddan \u2019\u0102r\u0101m_] On Gunkel\u2019s\nrearrangement (page 423 above), there is nothing to suggest Bethel as\nthe scene of the revelation. It is a faint echo of 32\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 from which\nevery element of local tradition, down to the name of the sanctuary,\nhas been eliminated.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =9.= \u05e2\u05d5\u05d3\u200e] LXX + \u1f10\u03bd \u039b\u03bf\u1fe6\u03b6\u03b1.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05ea\u05d5\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_, LXX + \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015=10.= LXX simplifies by omitting\n\u200e \u05e9\u05de\u05da \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1\u200e and \u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d0\u05ea \u05e9\u05de\u05d5 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=6a, 11\u201213, 15. The blessing transmitted to Jacob=: Priestly-Code\u2019s\nparallel to 28\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015=11, 12.= _\u2019\u0112l Shaddai_] see on 17\u00b9.\u2015\u2015For other\nexpressions in the verses, compare 17\u2076\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2076 28\u00b3\u1427 \u2074 46\u00b2\u2076 48\u2074.\u2015\u2015=13a.=\n_God went up from him_] as 17\u00b2\u00b2.\u2015\u2015=13b= is an awkward continuation,\nand has probably arisen through dittography from verse \u00b9\u2075.\u2015\u2015=15.= The\nnaming of the place, as 28\u00b9\u2079.\n\n That the section refers to Jacob\u2019s outward journey, and that\n \u2079 \u1da0\u1427 describe a different theophany on his return, is probable\n from the following considerations: (1) The analogy of the older\n tradition (Jehovist). (2) \u05d1\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e4\u05d3\u05df \u05d0\u05e8\u05dd\u200e (\u2079) is superfluous after\n we have read (\u2076\u1d43) that he had reached a spot \u05d1\u05d0\u05f3 \u05db\u05e0\u05e2\u05df\u200e. (3) That\n two consecutive verses (\u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9) should commence with \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d0\u05f3\u200e\n is unnatural even in Priestly-Code (so Kautzsch-Socin). (4)\n The self-disclosure of the divine speaker (\u00b9\u00b9) must introduce\n the revelation (compare 17\u00b9). (5) The \u05e2\u05d5\u05d3\u200e of verse \u2079 (generally\n treated as redactional) presupposes a former revelation. The one\n difficulty in this theory of Gunkel is to imagine an adequate\n reason for the dislocation of Priestly-Code.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =12.= \u05e0\u05ea\u05ea\u05d9\u200e] Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05e0\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u200e (so a scholia in Field).\u2015\u2015=14.= The\n verse cannot possibly be from Priestly-Code, who recognises\n no ma\u1e93\u1e93eb\u0101s, and no ritual worship of any kind before the\n Sinaitic legislation. As a part of the Bethel-narrative, it\n is unintelligible in Elohist, who has already described the\n origin of the ma\u1e93\u1e93eb\u0101h there (28\u00b9\u2078), and still more in Yahwist,\n who does not sanction ma\u1e93\u1e93eb\u0101s at all. The impression that the\n scene is Bethel depends solely on the words \u05d1\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05ea\u05d5\u200e, which\n can easily be excised, as a gloss from \u00b9\u2075. The suggestion that\n the verse continues \u2078 is due to Cornill (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die\n alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xi. 15 ff.), and seems the most\n satisfactory solution of the problem.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05b6\u05e1\u05b6\u05da\u05b0\u200e] 2 Kings 16\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2075 is\n the only other instance of the word before Jeremiah, though the\n verb appears in 2 Samuel 23\u00b9\u2076, Hosea 9\u2074. In Jeremiah, Ezekiel\n (20\u00b2\u2078), and II Isaiah it is an accompaniment of heathenish\n worship; its legalisation for the worship of the temple appears\n in Ezekiel 45\u00b9\u2077 and Priestly-Code. Its mention here is a proof\n of the great antiquity of the notice (Cornill _l.c._).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=16\u201220. Rachel dies in child-birth= (Elohist).\u2015\u2015=16.= The event took\nplace on the journey from Bethel to _\u2019Ephr\u0101th_, an unknown locality\nin the later territory of Benjamin (see after verse \u00b2\u2070).\u2015\u2015=17.=\n_This also is a son for thee_] So the nurse cheers the dying woman\nby recalling her prayer at the birth of Joseph (30\u00b2\u2074).\u2015\u2015=18.= With\nher last breath Rachel names her son _Ben-\u2019\u00f4n\u00ee_; but the father, to\navert the omen, calls him _Bin-y\u0101m\u00een_. The pathos of the narrative\nflows in sympathy with the feelings of the mother: a notice of Jacob\u2019s\nlife-long grief for the loss of Rachel is reserved for 48\u2077.\u2015\u2015=19.=\n_on the way to \u2019Ephr\u0101th_] The next clause, _that is Bethlehem_, is a\ngloss (see Stade _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,\niii. 1 ff.).\u2015\u2015=20.= See on verse \u00b9\u2074.\n\n The site of Rachel\u2019s grave is determined by 1 Samuel 10\u00b2 (on\n the border of Benjamin, between Ramah and Gibeah) and Jeremiah\n 31\u00b9\u2074 (compare 40\u00b9). Christian tradition places it about a mile\n North of Bethlehem, in accordance with the gloss at the end\n of \u00b9\u2079. This, however, rests on a confusion of Ephrath and the\n better known clan-name \u05d0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05ea \u05be\u05b8\u05d4 \u05be\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, which is always connected with\n Bethlehem. It is unnecessary to assume a divergence of ancient\n tradition regarding the site. The beautiful verse of Jeremiah\n 31\u00b9\u2074 shows how vivid and persistent was the hold of these\n legends on the popular mind.\u2015\u2015The birth of Benjamin in Canaan is\n interpreted by many critics to mean that this tribe, unlike the\n rest, was formed after the conquest of the country (Wellhausen,\n Stade, Guthe, al.): Steuern, goes further, and infers that the\n rise of Benjamin brought about the dissolution of the Rachel\n tribe. But all such speculations are precarious. The _name_\n Benjamin, however, does furnish evidence that this particular\n tribe _was_ formed in Palestine (_v.i._ on \u00b9\u2078).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =16.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05e1\u05e2\u05d5 \u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d0\u05dc\u200e] LXX \u1f08\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03b2 + \u1f14\u03c0\u03b7\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u0393\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03c1 (from \u00b2\u00b9), showing the influence\n of the theory that \u05de\u05d2\u05d3\u05dc \u05e2\u05d3\u05e8\u200e was at Jerusalem, which Jacob would\n naturally pass on the way to Bethlehem.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05d1\u05e8\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200e] 48\u2077, 2 Kings\n 5\u00b9\u2079\u2020 (without article). Apparently a measure of distance\n (Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 a parasang); but nothing is certain. Accusative to\n Hoffmann (_G\u00f6ttingische gelehrte Anzeigen_, 1890, 23 ff.),\n \u2018as far as one can see.\u2019\u2015\u2015=17.= \u05d1\u05d4\u05e7\u05e9\u05ea\u05d4\u200e (Hiphil) \u2225 \u05d5\u05ea\u05e7\u05e9\u200e (Piel) in\n \u00b9\u2076,\u2015\u2015possibly variants from Elohist and Yahwist.\u2015\u2015Another trace\n of Yahwist is \u05d2\u05dd \u05d6\u05d4\u200e, pointing back to 30\u00b2\u2074\u1d47.\u2015\u2015=18.= \u05d1\u05df\u05be\u05d0\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u200e] \u2018son of\n my sorrow,\u2019 from \u05d0\u05b8\u05d5\u05b6\u05df\u200e, \u2018trouble.\u2019 Not improbably it is an obsolete\n proper name, having some connexion with \u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u200e, a city and valley\n in Benjamin (Bennett 325; Cheyne 420).\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05df\u05be\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05df\u200e] Usually understood\n as \u2018son of good fortune,\u2019 the right hand being in antiquity\n the lucky or fortunate side. The original meaning is probably\n \u2018son of the south\u2019 (compare 1 Samuel 23\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2074, Psalms 89\u00b9\u00b3 etc.),\n Benjamin being the most southerly of the Rachel tribes.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=21, 22a. Reuben\u2019s incest= (Yahwist).\u2015\u2015=21.= _Tower of the Flock_]\nSuch towers would be numerous in any pastoral country; and the\nplace here referred to is unknown. Micah 4\u2078 proves nothing; and the\ntradition which locates it near Bethlehem rests on this passage. The\norder of Yahwist\u2019s narrative (see page 414) would lead us to seek it\nEast of the Jordan, where the tribe of Reuben was settled.\u2015\u2015=22a.=\n_and when Israel heard_] Probably a temporal clause, of which the\napodosis has been intentionally omitted.\n\n The story, no doubt, went on to tell of a curse pronounced on\n Reuben, which explained his loss of the birthright (so Gunkel;\n otherwise Dillmann). The crime is referred to in 49\u2074. The\n original motive is perhaps suggested by the striking parallel\n in _Iliad_ ix. 449 ff. (Gunkel):\n\n \u1f45\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c7\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u00b7\n \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd,\n \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f21 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u1f72 \u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd,\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f35\u03bd\u2019 \u1f10\u03c7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b5 \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\n\n Note that in 30\u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 also, Reuben plays a part in the\n restoration of his mother\u2019s conjugal rights.\u2015\u2015An ethnographic\n reading of the legend finds its historic basis in some\n humiliation inflicted by Reuben on the Bilhah-tribe, or one\n of its branches (Dan or Naphtali). See on 49\u2074.\n\n=22b\u201226. A list of Jacob\u2019s sons= (Priestly-Code).\u2015\u2015In two points the\nlist deviates from the tradition of Jehovist (chapters 29. 30): The\nchildren are arranged according to their mothers; and the birth of\nBenjamin is placed in Mesopotamia. Otherwise the order of Jehovist\nis preserved: Leah precedes Rachel; but Rachel\u2019s maid precedes\nLeah\u2019s.\u2015\u2015On the position of the section in the original Code, see\npages 423, 443.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =22a.= The double accentuation means that \u00b2\u00b2\u1d43 was treated\n by the Massoretic sometimes as a whole verse, sometimes as a\n half; the former for private, the latter for liturgical reading\n (Strack 129; Wickes, _Prose Accents_, 130). Note the \u2018gap in\n the middle of the verse,\u2019 which LXX fills up with \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u200e] The name, instead of Jacob, is from\n this point onwards a fairly reliable criterion of the document\n Yahwist in Genesis.\u2015\u2015=26.= \u05d9\u05dc\u05d3\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ and Hebrew MSS \u05d9\u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=27\u201229. The death of Isaac= (Priestly-Code).\u2015\u2015In Jehovist Isaac was\nat the point of death when Jacob fled from Esau; whereas, according to\nthe chronology of Priestly-Code, he survived for 80 years. An equally\nremarkable divergence from the earlier tradition is seen in Esau\u2019s\nliving on with his father in Hebron (see on 32\u2074), and the unbroken\nfriendship between him and Jacob.\u2015\u2015=27.= _Mamr\u0113, \u1e32iryath-\u2019Arba\u201b,\n\u1e24ebr\u00f4n._ See 13\u00b9\u2078 23\u00b2.\u2015\u2015=29.= Compare 25\u2078\u1427 \u2079.\u2015\u2015Isaac is buried by\n_Esau and Jacob his sons_] as Abraham by Isaac and Ishmael (25\u2079).\nPriestly-Code always lays stress on the harmony of the patriarchal\nfamily life.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =27.= \u05e7\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u200e] Read perhaps \u05e7\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u200e (Kittel).\u2015\u2015\u05d7\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05df\u200e] LXX,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 + \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05db\u05e0\u05e2\u05df\u200e.\u2015\u2015=28.= \u05d9\u05e6\u05d7\u05e7\u200e] LXX + \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d7\u05d9\u200e (as 25\u2077).\u2015\u2015=29= end]\n Syriac (\u2021 Syriac phrase).\u2015\u2015In Priestly-Code\u2019s chronology, Jacob\n at his father\u2019s death had reached the age of 120 years (compare\n 35\u00b2\u2078 with 25\u00b2\u2076); he was 40 years old when he set out for Paddan\n Aram. The interval of 80 years has to be divided between his\n sojourn with Laban and his subsequent residence with Isaac; but\n in what proportions we have no data to determine.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXVI.\n _Edomite Genealogies, etc._\n (partly Priestly-Code).\n\nThe chapter consists of seven (or eight) sections: I. Esau\u2019s wives and\nchildren, \u00b9\u207b\u2075; II. His migration to Mount Seir, \u2076\u207b\u2078; III. A list of\nEsau\u2019s descendants, \u2079\u207b\u00b9\u2074; IV. An enumeration of clans or clan-chiefs\nof Esau, \u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b9\u2079; V. Two \u1e24orite lists: a genealogy, \u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u2078, and a list\nof clans, \u00b2\u2079\u1427 \u00b3\u2070; VI. The kings of Edom, \u00b3\u00b9\u207b\u00b3\u2079; VII. A second list of\nclans of Esau, \u2074\u2070\u207b\u2074\u00b3.\u2015\u2015The lists are repeated with variations in 1\nChronicles 1\u00b3\u2075\u207b\u2075\u2074.\n\n The chapter evidently embodies authentic information regarding\n the history and ethnology of Edom. Whether the statistics were\n compiled by Israelite writers from oral tradition, or are the\n scanty remains of a native Edomite literature, it is naturally\n impossible to determine; the early development of political\n institutions in Edom makes the latter hypothesis at least\n credible (see Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_,\n 329, 383 f.).\n\n _Analysis._\u2015\u2015A section headed \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05ea\u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea\u200e would, if homogeneous,\n be unhesitatingly ascribed to Priestly-Code; but the repetition\n of the formula (verse \u2079) throws doubt on its unity, and betrays\n the hand of a redactor. The phraseology of Priestly-Code is\n most apparent in II. and VII., but can be detected occasionally\n elsewhere (\u00b2\u1d43\u1427 \u2075\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u1d43\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1d47\u1427 \u00b3\u2070\u1d47: _i.e._ in I., III., and V.).\n The crucial difficulty is the contradiction as to Esau\u2019s\n wives between I. and 26\u00b3\u2074 28\u2079 (see on verses \u00b9\u207b\u2075). On this\n point I., III., and IV. hang together; and if these sections\n are excluded, there remains nothing that can be plausibly\n assigned to Priestly-Code except II. and VII. (so Wellhausen,\n Kuenen, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). The argument for reducing\n Priestly-Code\u2019s share in the chapter to this minimum rests,\n however, on the assumption that the Code is the compilation\n of a single writer, who cannot be supposed to lapse into\n self-contradiction. The facts seem to point to a redactional\n process and a divergence of tradition within the Priestly school;\n and I am inclined to think that in I. (?), III., and IV. we have\n excerpts from the book of T\u00f4led\u00f4th incorporated in Priestly-Code,\n whose main narrative will have included 26\u00b3\u2074 28\u2079, and in which\n 35\u00b2\u2079 36\u2076\u207b\u2078 37\u00b9 may have read continuously. VII. must then\n be rejected as a late compilation in which the style of the\n T\u00f4led\u00f4th is successfully imitated (so Meyer).\u2015\u2015As regards V. and\n VI. little can be said. The former might well have been part of\n the T\u00f4led\u00f4th; the latter is unique in Genesis, and there are no\n positive reasons for assigning it to Yahwist (so most) or any\n other source.\n\n=1\u20125. Esau\u2019s wives and sons.=\u2015\u2015The scheme here projected supplies\nthe common framework of the two Edomite genealogies, \u2079\u207b\u00b9\u2074 and \u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b9\u2079,\nexcept that in the following sections the second and third wives\nexchange places. These marriages and births are said to have taken\nplace _in the land of Canaan_, before the migration to S\u0113\u201b\u00eer; but the\nfact that \u2019Oholibamah is a \u1e24orite (see below), indicates an absorption\nof \u1e24orite clans in Edom which would naturally have followed the\nsettlement in Se\u201bir.\u2015\u2015Here we come on a difference of tradition\nregarding the names and parentage of Esau\u2019s wives.\n\n According to 26\u00b3\u2074 28\u2079 (Priestly-Code), the three wives are (a)\n _Y\u0115h\u00fbd\u00eeth_ bath-B\u0115\u2019\u0113r\u00ee, the Hittite; (b) _B\u0101s\u0115math_ bath-\u2019\u0112l\u00f4n,\n the \u1e24ittite (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX\u1d2c,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u1e24ivvite); (c) _Ma\u1e25\u0103lath_ bath-Yi\u0161m\u0101\u201b\u0113l, sister of\n N\u0115bay\u00f4th. Here they are (a) _\u201b\u0100d\u0101_ bath-\u2019El\u00f4n, the \u1e24ittite;\n (b) _\u2019Oh\u014fl\u00eeb\u0101m\u0101h_ bath-\u201b\u0102n\u0101h, the \u1e24orite; (c) _B\u0101s\u0115math_\n bath-Yi\u0161m\u0101\u201b\u0113l, sister of N\u0115b\u0101y\u00f4th. The confusion is too great\n to be accounted for naturally by textual corruption, though\n that may have played a part. We can only conjecture vaguely that\n verses \u2079\u207b\u00b9\u2074 represent a different tradition from 26\u00b3\u2074 28\u2079; and\n that in \u00b2\u207b\u2075\u1d43 a clumsy and half-hearted attempt has been made\n to establish some points of contact between them. If we accept\n the \u05d4\u05d7\u05d5\u05d9\u200e of _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, etc., in\n 26\u00b3\u2074, the two traditions agree in the main ethnological point,\n that the Edomite people was composed of \u1e24ittite (? Canaanite),\n \u1e24ivvite (? \u1e24orite), and Ishmaelite elements.\n\n _On the Names._\u2015\u2015(a) \u05e2\u05d3\u05d4\u200e is the name of one of Lamech\u2019s wives:\n see on 4\u00b9\u2079.\u2015\u2015(b) \u05d0\u05d4\u05dc\u05d9\u05d1\u05de\u05d4\u200e (\u1f48\u03bb\u03b9\u03b2\u03b5\u03bc\u03ac, \u1f18\u03bb\u03b9\u03b2\u03b5\u03bc\u03ac, etc.). Somewhat\n similar compounds with \u05d0\u05d4\u05dc\u200e are found in Ph\u0153nician (\u05d0\u05d4\u05dc\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u200e, \u05d0\u05d4\u05dc\u05de\u05dc\u05da\u200e)\n and Sabbatian (\u05d0\u05d4\u05dc\u05e2\u05b9\u05ea\u05ea\u05e8\u200e, \u05d0\u05d4\u05dc\u05d0\u05dc\u200e) as well as in Hebrew (\u05d0\u05d4\u05dc\u05d9\u05d0\u05d1\u200e, Exodus\n\u200e 31\u2076; \u05d0\u05d4\u05dc\u05d9\u05d1\u05d4\u200e, Ezekiel 23\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) (see Gray, _Studies in Hebrew Proper\n Names_, 246\u00b9). The first component is presumably Arabic and\n Sabbatian _\u2019ahl_, \u2018family\u2019; the second ought by analogy to be\n a divine name, though none such is known. It is philologically\n probable that names of this type were originally clan-names;\n and \u05d0\u05d4\u05f3\u200e is taken from the old list of \u1e24orite clans (verse \u00b2\u2075,\n compare \u2074\u00b9).\u2015\u2015(c) \u05d1\u05e9\u05de\u05ea\u200e (for which _The Samaritan Recension of\n the Pentateuch_ always reads \u05de\u05d7\u05dc\u05ea\u200e, 28\u2079), if from \u221a \u05d1\u05e9\u05dd\u200e, \u2018smell\n sweetly,\u2019 is likely to have been a favourite woman\u2019s name, but\n recurs only 1 Kings 4\u00b9\u2075 of a daughter of Solomon. On \u05e2\u05e0\u05d4\u200e and \u05e6\u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05df\u200e,\n see on verse \u00b2\u2070: the obvious connexion with that verse makes it\n practically certain that \u05d7\u05b4\u05d5\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e in verse \u00b2 is a mistake for \u05d7\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e.\u2015\u2015On\n the sons, see below.\u2015\u2015It is pointed out by Holzinger (187) that\n both in \u2079\u207b\u00b9\u2074 and \u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b9\u2079 the \u2019Oholibamah branch holds a somewhat\n exceptional position. This may mean that it represents hybrid\n clans, whereas the other two are of pure Edomite stock: that it\n is a later insertion in the lists \u2666is less likely.\n\n \u2666 Printing error fixed.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05dd\u200e] probably a gloss (compare verse \u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2079); but the\n persistency with which the equivalence is asserted is itself\n instructive. Esau and Edom are really distinct names (see page\n 359 f.), and Priestly-Code has no legendary identification\n of them, such as 25\u00b3\u2070. Hence the connexion is established in\n two ways: Esau = Edom (\u00b9\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2079); and Esau the father of Edom\n\u200e (\u2079\u1427 \u2074\u00b3).\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05e2\u05e9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e7\u05d7\u200e] \u2018had taken,\u2019 as already recorded (26\u00b3\u2074\n\u200e 28\u2079).\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05ea \u05e6\u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05df\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05d1\u05df\u05be\u05e6\u05f3\u200e; deleted by Holzinger and Gunkel as a gloss. But in\n clan names gender is not always carefully distinguished; and the\n writer probably took \u05e2\u05e0\u05d4\u200e as feminine. In verse \u00b2\u2075 \u2019Oholibamah is\n herself one of the _sons_ of \u201bAnah.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d7\u05d5\u05d9\u200e] Read \u05d4\u05b7\u05d7\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, _v.s._\u2015\u2015=5.=\n\u200e \u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u200e] Keth\u00eeb as verse \u00b9\u2074, 1 Chronicles 7\u00b9\u2070; Qr\u00ea \u05d9\u05b0\u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u200e, as verse \u00b9\u2078,\n 1 Chronicles 1\u00b3\u2075 8\u00b3\u2079 23\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1427, 2 Chronicles 11\u00b9\u2079\u2020.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=6\u20128. Esau\u2019s migration to Se\u201bir.=\u2015\u2015=6.= Compare 12\u2075 (34\u00b2\u00b3).\u2015\u2015_and his\ndaughters_] None are mentioned in \u00b2\u207b\u2075.\u2015\u2015_to the land of S\u0115\u201b\u00eer_] So\nwe must read with Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5.\u2015\u2015=7.= The motive for the separation is\nthe same as that which led to the parting of Abraham and Lot (13\u2076\u1d43),\nimplying that Esau had lived at Hebron after Jacob\u2019s return; contrast\nYahwist, 32\u2074 33 \u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2076.\u2015\u2015=8.= _the mountain of S\u0113\u201b\u00eer_] the mountainous\ncountry East of the Arabah, the southern part of which is now called\n_e\u0161-\u0160era\u201b_ and the northern _\u01e6eb\u0101l_ (Buhl, _Geschichte der Edomiter_\n28 ff.). The _land_ Se\u201bir includes the whole Edomite territory as\nfar West as \u1e32adesh (Numbers 20\u00b9\u2076). See on 14\u2076 27\u00b3\u2079 \u1da0\u1427, and below on\nverse \u00b2\u2070.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =6.= \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200e gives no sense, and to insert \u05d0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea\u200e\n (Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, Vulgate) is inadmissible without a\n change of text. _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,\n LXX \u05de\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05db\u05e0\u05e2\u05df\u200e is possible; but it is simplest to follow Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n\u200e \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u034f\u05e8\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u200e] \u2018on account of,\u2019 as 6\u00b9\u00b3 27\u2074 etc.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=9\u201214. The genealogy of Esau.=\u2015\u2015=9, 10.= For the double heading \u05d5\u05d0\u05f3 \u05ea\u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea\u200e\nfollowed by \u05d5\u05d0\u05f3 \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u200e, compare 25\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015_Esau the father of Edom_] see\nfootnote on verse \u00b9. It is strange that except in these glosses _Edom_\nis never the eponymus of the nation, although it appears to have been\nthe name of a god (\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd\u200e, 2 Samuel 6\u00b9\u2070).\u2015\u2015=11 ff.= The total number\nof the tribes, excluding the bastard _\u201bAm\u0101l\u0113\u1e33_, is 12, as in the cases\nof Israel and Ishmael (25\u00b9\u00b2\u207b\u00b9\u2076). The sons of \u2019Oholibamah are, however,\nput on a level with the grandsons of the other two wives (so verse \u00b9\u2078).\nThe list may be tabulated thus:\n\n (a) Adah.\n \u0114l\u00eephaz.\n 1. T\u00eam\u00e2n.\n 2.\u2019\u00d4m\u0101r.\n 3. \u1e92\u0115ph\u00f4.\n 4. Ga\u201bt\u0101m.\n 5. \u1e32\u0115naz.\n [\u201bAm\u0101l\u0113\u1e33] by [Timna\u201b].\n\n (b) Basemath.\n R\u0115\u2018\u00fb\u2019\u0113l.\n 6. Na\u1e25ath.\n 7. Zera\u1e25.\n 8. \u0160amm\u0101h.\n 9. Mizz\u0101h.\n\n (c) \u201bOholibamah.\n 10. Y\u0115\u2019\u00fb\u0161.\n 11. Ya\u2019l\u0101m.\n 12. \u1e32\u014dra\u1e25.\n\n _The Names._\u2015\u2015(a) \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05e4\u05d6\u200e] Known otherwise only as the name of the\n oldest and wisest of Job\u2019s friends (Job 2\u00b9\u00b9 etc.), probably\n borrowed from this list.\u2015\u2015(1) \u05ea\u05d9\u05de\u05df\u200e (\u0398\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd)] Frequently mentioned\n as a district of Edom (Jeremiah 49\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u2070, Ezekiel 25\u00b9\u00b3, Amos 1\u00b9\u00b2,\n Obadiah \u2079, Habakkuk 3\u00b3), famous for its wisdom, the home of\n Eliphaz (Job 2\u00b9\u00b9) and of the third king of Edom (verse \u00b3\u2074).\n A village bearing the Greek name, 15 Roman miles from Petra,\n is mentioned in _Onomastica Sacra_, 260; but the site is now\n lost.\u2015\u2015(2) \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8\u200e (\u1f68\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1, \u1f68\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd), (3) \u05e6\u05e4\u05d5\u200e (\u03a3\u03c9\u03c6\u03b1\u03c1, 1 Chronicles \u05e6\u05e4\u05d9\u200e),\n\u200e (4) \u05d2\u05e2\u05ea\u05dd\u200e (\u0393\u03bf\u03b8\u03bf\u03bc, etc.) are quite unknown, unless \u03a3\u03c9\u03c6\u03b1\u03c1 be the\n original of Job\u2019s third friend.\u2015\u2015(5) \u05e7\u05e0\u05d6\u200e] the eponym of the\n \u1e32enizzites, the group to which Kaleb (the \u2018dog\u2019-tribe, settled\n in \u1e24ebron) and Othniel belonged (Numbers 32\u00b9\u00b2, Joshua 14\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2074\n 15\u00b9\u2077, Judges 1\u00b9\u00b3 3\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9). The incorporation of these families\n in Judah is a typical example of the unstable political\n relations of the southern tribes between Israel and Edom, a\n fact abundantly illustrated from the lists before us.\u2015\u2015The\n once powerful people of \u05e2\u05de\u05dc\u05e7\u200e (see on 14\u2077) is here described\n as descended from \u05ea\u05de\u05e0\u05e2\u200e, a \u1e24orite clan absorbed in Edom (verses\n \u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u2074\u2070), of which nothing else is known. The reference may be to\n an offshoot of the old Amalekites who had found protection from\n the Edomites.\u2015\u2015(b) \u05e8\u05e2\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u200e (\u1fec\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03ae\u03bb)] \u2018Friend of God\u2019 (?) is one\n of the names of Moses\u2019 father-in-law (a Midianite) (Exodus 2\u00b9\u2078,\n Numbers 10\u00b2\u2079), also that of a Gadite (Numbers 1\u00b9\u2074 2\u00b9\u2074) and of\n a Benjamite (1 Chronicles 9\u2078).\u2015\u2015(6) \u05e0\u05d7\u05ea\u200e (\u039d\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03b8, \u039d\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc)] compare\n 2 Chronicles 31\u00b9\u00b3.\u2015\u2015(7) \u05d6\u05e8\u05d7\u200e (\u0396\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5)] (compare verse \u00b3\u00b3). Also\n a clan of Judah (38\u00b3\u2070); compare Numbers 26\u00b9\u00b3 (Simeonite),\n 1 Chronicles 6\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2076 (Levite).\u2015\u2015(8) \u05e9\u05de\u05d4\u200e (\u03a3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5)] compare 1 Samuel\n 16\u2079 (David\u2019s brother), 2 Samuel 23\u00b9\u00b9 (one of his heroes); also\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05de\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u200e in Yera\u1e25meel (1 Chronicles 2\u00b2\u2078\u1427 \u00b3\u00b2) and Kaleb (2\u2074\u2074 \u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015(9)\n\u200e \u05de\u05d6\u05d4\u200e (\u039c\u03bf\u03b6\u03b5, \u1f49\u03bc\u03bf\u03b6\u03b5, etc.)] only here. It is pointed out that the\n four names form a doggerel sentence: \u2018descent and rising, there\n and here\u2019 (Kautzsch-Socin _An._ 178); but three of them are\n sufficiently authenticated; and the fact does not prove them\n to be inventions of an idle fancy.\u2015\u2015(10) \u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u200e (\u1f38\u03b5[\u03bf]\u03c5\u03c2, \u1f38\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb,\n etc.)] _v.i._ on verse \u2075. As an Israelite name, 1 Chronicles\n 7\u00b9\u2070 8\u00b3\u2079 (Benjamite), 23\u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1427 (Levite), 2 Chronicles 11\u00b9\u2079 (son of\n Rehoboam). The name is thought by some to be identical with that\n of an Arabian lion-god _Ya\u0121\u016b\u1e6f_ (though LXX must have pronounced\n\u200e \ufecb\u200e not \ufecf\u200e), meaning \u2018helper,\u2019 whose antiquity is vouched for by\n inscriptions of Thamud (William Robertson Smith _Kinship and\n Marriage in Early Arabia_\u00b2, 254; Wellhausen _Reste arabischen\n Heidentums_\u00b2 19, 146; N\u00f6ldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen\n morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 168; Fischer, _ib._\n lviii. 869; Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_,\n 351 f.; on the other side, N\u00f6ldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen\n morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xlv. 595; Dillmann 384; Buhl,\n _Geschichte der Edomiter_ 48 f.).\u2015\u2015(11) \u05d9\u05e2\u05dc\u05dd\u200e (\u1f38\u03b5\u03b3\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc, etc.)]\n possibly an animal name from \u05d9\u05b8\u05e2\u05b5\u05dc\u200e = \u2018ibex\u2019; but see Gray, _Studies\n in Hebrew Proper Names_, 90\u2075; compare \u05d9\u05b8\u05e2\u05b5\u05dc\u200e, Judges 4\u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 5\u00b2\u2074, and\n\u200e \u05d9\u05b7\u05e2\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, Ezra 2\u2075\u2076.\u2015\u2015(12) \u05e7\u05e8\u05d7\u200e (\u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5)] a son of \u1e24ebron, and therefore\n a Kalebite clan in 1 Chronicles 2\u2074\u00b3. Meyer (352\u2075) traces to this\n Edomite-Kalebite family the origin of the \u1e32ora\u1e25ite singers and\n subordinate officials of the second Temple, who were afterwards\n admitted to the ranks of the Levites, and received an artificial\n genealogy (Exodus 6\u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2074, Numbers 26\u2075\u2078, 1 Chronicles 6 \u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\n etc.).\n\n=15\u201219. The clan-chiefs of Edom.=\u2015\u2015=15.= On the word \u05d0\u05b7\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e3\u200e, _v.i._\u2015\u2015Since\nthe list is all but identical with verses \u2079\u207b\u00b9\u2074, we have here a clear\nproof of the artificial character of the family trees used in Old\nTestament to set forth ethnological relations. It is not improbable\nthat this is the original census of Edomite \u2018thousands\u2019 from which the\ngenealogy of \u2079\u207b\u00b9\u2074 was constructed.\u2015\u2015=16.= _\u201bAm\u0101l\u0113k_ is here placed on\na level with the other branches (contrast verse \u00b9\u00b2).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =15.= \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5\u05e3\u200e] LXX \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u1f7c\u03bd, Vulgate _dux_, whence English Version\n \u2018duke.\u2019 The word means properly \u2018chiliarch,\u2019 the chief of an\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b6\u05dc\u05b6\u05e3\u200e (= \u2018thousand\u2019 or \u2018clan\u2019): so Exodus 15\u00b9\u2075, Zechariah 12\u2075\u1427 \u2076\n 9\u2077. Elsewhere it signifies \u2018friend\u2019; and since the sense\n \u2018clan\u2019 would be suitable in all the passages cited, it has been\n proposed to read in each case, as well as in this chapter, \u05d0\u05b8\u05dc\u05b6\u05e3\u200e\n as the original text (William Robertson Smith _The Journal of\n Philology_ ix. 90; Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_,\n 330). Practically it makes no difference; for in any case the\n \u2018chiefs\u2019 are but personifications of their clans.\u2015\u2015=16.= \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5\u05e3 \u05e7\u05e8\u05d7\u200e]\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ omits, probably a\n gloss from verse \u00b9\u2078.\u2015\u2015=18.= \u05d1\u05ea\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u200e] LXX omits.\u2015\u2015=19.= \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05dd\u200e] LXX\n \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03af \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f18\u03b4\u03c9\u03bc.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=20\u201230. \u1e24orite genealogies.=\u2015\u2015=20.= _the inhabitants of the land_]\n(Exodus 23\u00b3\u00b9, Numbers 32\u00b9\u2077, Judges 1\u00b3\u00b3); compare 14\u2076, Deuteronomy 2\u00b9\u00b2.\nThese autochthones are described geographically and ethnologically as\nsons of _S\u0113\u201b\u00eer the \u1e24orite_, i.e., a section of the \u1e24orite population\nsettled in Mount Se\u201bir, Se\u201bir being personified as the fictitious\nancestor of the natives of the country.\n\n The name \u05d7\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e is now generally regarded as a geographical\n designation, identical with the _\u1e2aaru_ of the Egyptian monuments\n (M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa nach alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_,\n 137, 149 ff., 240; Jensen _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, x.\n 332 f., 346 f.; Schwally _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche\n Wissenschaft_, xviii. 126; Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre\n Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 330 f.), The older theory that the name is\n derived from \u05d7\u05d5\u05e8\u200e and means \u2018cave-dwellers,\u2019 is not necessarily\n discredited by this identification. Even if the \u1e24orites were\n a stratum of population that once covered the region from the\n Egyptian frontier to the neighbourhood of Damascus, there still\n seems no reason why they should not have been largely an old\n troglodyte race, from whom the country derived its name.\n\n _The Classification._\u2015\u2015According to \u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1427 there were seven\n main branches of the \u1e24orites in Se\u201bir, represented by L\u00f4\u1e6d\u0101n,\n \u0160\u00f4b\u0101l, \u1e92ib\u201b\u00f4n, \u201b\u0102n\u0101h, D\u00ee\u0161\u00f4n, \u2019\u0112\u1e93er, and R\u00ee\u0161\u0101n (see below).\n Of these, however, \u201bAnah and Di\u0161on reappear as subdivisions\n of \u1e92ib\u201bon and \u201bAnah respectively. The duplication has\n been explained by supposing that parts of these tribes had\n amalgamated with kindred branches, and thus came to figure both\n as sons and grandsons of the original ancestor (Dillmann, Gunkel,\n al.). It is more likely that \u201bAnah and Di\u0161on were at first\n subordinate septs of \u1e92ib\u201bon (so Meyer 341); that they came\n into the list of _\u2019all\u00fbph\u00eem_ (\u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1427) as heads of clan groups;\n and, finally, obtained a primary position amongst the \u2018sons\u2019 of\n Se\u201bir. The relationship as thus reconstructed may be exhibited\n as follows:\n\n (a) L\u00f4\u1e6d\u0101n.\n (Timna\u201b).\n \u1e24\u014dr\u00ee.\n H\u0113m\u0101m.\n\n (b) \u0160\u00f4b\u0101l.\n \u201bAlw\u0101n.\n M\u0101na\u1e25at.\n \u201b\u0206b\u0101l.\n \u0160\u0115ph\u00f4.\n \u2019\u00d4n\u0101m.\n\n (c) \u1e92ib\u201b\u00f4n.\n \u2019Ayy\u0101h.\n \u201b\u0102n\u0101h.\n D\u00ee\u0161\u00f4n (Oh\u014fl\u00eeb\u0101m\u0101h).\n \u1e24emd\u0101n.\n \u2019E\u0161b\u0101n.\n Yithr\u0101n.\n K\u0115r\u0101n.\n\n (d) \u2019\u0112\u1e93er.\n Bilh\u0101n.\n Za\u201b\u0103v\u0101n [Z\u00fb\u201b\u0101n].\n [Ya]\u201b\u0103k\u0101n.\n\n (e) R\u00ee\u0161\u0101n.\n \u201b\u00db\u1e93.\n \u2019\u0102r\u0101n.\n\n _The Names._\u2015\u2015(a) \u05dc\u05d5\u05d8\u05df\u200e is plausibly connected with \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d8\u200e (also a\n cave-dweller, 19\u00b3\u2070), who may have been originally an ancestral\n deity worshipped in these regions.\u2015\u2015Philologically it is\n interesting to observe the frequency of the endings _-\u0101n_,\n _-\u014dn_ in this list, pointing to a primitive _nunation_, as\n \u2666contrasted with sporadic cases of _mimation_ in the Edomite\n names.\u2015\u2015\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u200e (verse \u00b2\u00b2)] The occurrence of the national name\n (verse \u00b2\u2070) as a subdivision of itself is surprising. Meyer\n (339) suspects confusion with another genealogy in which L\u00f4\u1e6dan\n figured as ancestor of the whole \u1e24orite race.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d9\u05de\u05dd\u200e (1 Chronicles\n\u200e \u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05de\u05b8\u05dd\u200e, LXX \u0391\u1f31\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd)] compare \u05d4\u05b5\u05d9\u05de\u05b8\u05df\u200e, 1 Kings 5\u00b9\u00b9, 1 Chronicles 2\u2076,\n Psalms 89\u00b9.\u2015\u2015\u05ea\u05de\u05e0\u05e2\u200e, strangely introduced as the \u2018sister\u2019 of\n L\u00f4\u1e6dan, is the same as the concubine of Eliphaz (verse \u00b9\u00b2):\n probably interpolated in both places.\u2015\u2015(b) \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05d1\u05dc\u200e (\u03a3\u03c9\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb)] also a\n Kalebite tribe settled in \u1e32iryath-Ye\u201barim, incorporated in Judah\n (1 Chronicles 2\u2075\u2070\u1427 \u2075\u00b2 4\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427). The name was connected by William\n Robertson Smith with Arabic _\u0161ibl_, \u2018young lion.\u2019 Arabic \u0634\u200e\n ought to be \u05e9\u05c2\u200e in Hebrew; but the objection is perhaps not final\n in a borrowed name (but see N\u00f6ldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen\n morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 168; Gray, _Studies in\n Hebrew Proper Names_, 109).\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05dc\u05d5\u05df\u200e (1 Chronicles \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05df\u200e, LXX \u0393\u03c9\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd,\n \u0393\u03c9\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc, etc.)] compare \u05e2\u05dc\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, verse \u2074\u2070; otherwise unknown.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05e0\u05d7\u05ea\u200e]\n It cannot be accidental that in 1 Chronicles 2\u2075\u00b2 the \u2018half of\n Mana\u1e25at\u2019 is again represented as descended from \u0160\u00f4b\u0101l. These\n Mana\u1e25athites are further connected with \u05e6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (verse \u2075\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427), a\n notice which Wellhausen (Bleek\u2074, 197) has ingeniously combined\n with Judges 13\u00b2, where \u05de\u05b8\u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u05d7\u05b7\u200e, the father of Samson, is a native\n of \u1e92or\u201bah. It seems to follow, not only that \u05de\u05e0\u05d5\u05d7\u200e is originally\n the eponymus of \u05de\u05e0\u05d7\u05ea\u200e, but that this \u1e24orite clan lived in early\n times in \u1e92or\u201bah and was included in the mixed tribe of Dan\n (Meyer 340).\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05d9\u05d1\u05dc\u200e (\u0393\u03b1\u03b9\u03b2\u03b7\u03bb)] Meyer identifies with the well-known\n mountain East of Shechem, originally a \u1e24orite settlement\n\u200e (?).\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05c1\u05e4\u05d5\u200e (1 Chronicles \u05e9\u05c1\u05e4\u05d9\u200e, LXX \u03a3\u03c9\u03c6\u03ac\u03c1, \u03a3\u03c9\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd, \u03a3\u03c9\u03c6, etc.)]\n unknown.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d5\u05e0\u05dd\u200e (\u1f68\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f68\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd)] A Yera\u1e25meelite name, 1 Chronicles\n 2\u00b2\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2078. The name of Judah\u2019s son \u05d0\u05d5\u05e0\u05df\u200e (Genesis 38\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) may also be\n compared.\u2015\u2015(c) \u05e6\u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05df\u200e (\u03a3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03b3\u03ce\u03bd)] Possibly a hy\u00e6na-tribe (_\u1e0dabu\u201b_,\n (\u2021 Syriac word), New Hebrew, \u05e6\u05d1\u05d5\u05e2\u200e) (Smith, _Kinship and Marriage\n in Early Arabia_\u00b2, 254; Gray, 95).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d9\u05d4\u200e] \u2018falcon\u2019 (Leviticus\n 11\u00b9\u2074, Deuteronomy 14\u00b9\u00b3, Job 28\u2077); compare the personal name,\n 2 Samuel 3\u2077 21\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05e0\u05d4\u200e] unknown.\u2015\u2015\u05d3\u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05df\u200e, \u05d3\u05d9\u05e9\u05df\u200e (\u0394\u03b7\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd, \u0394\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd)] =\n \u2018mountain-goat\u2019 (Deuteronomy 14\u2075).\u2015\u2015\u05d7\u05de\u05d3\u05df\u200e (Chronicles \u05d7\u05b7\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05df\u200e) and\n\u200e \u05d0\u05e9\u05d1\u05df\u200e are not known.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05ea\u05e8\u05df\u200e] Derived from a widely diffused personal\n name (Hebrew, Babylonian, Sabbatian, Nabatean), best known in\n Old Testament as that of Moses\u2019s father-in-law (Exodus 3\u00b9 etc.);\n also a son of Gideon (Judges 8\u00b2\u2070), and the Ishmaelite father\n of Amasa (2 Samuel 17\u00b2\u2075 etc.).\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05e8\u05df\u200e (\u03a7\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd)] only here.\u2015\u2015(d)\n\u200e \u05d0\u05e6\u05e8\u200e] unknown.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05dc\u05d4\u05df\u200e] can scarcely be dissociated from Rachel\u2019s\n handmaid \u05d1\u05dc\u05d4\u05d4\u200e, whose \u1e24orite origin would be somewhat more\n intelligible if \u1e24orite clans were amalgamated in one of her\n subdivisions (Dan; see on _Mana\u1e25at_ above).\u2015\u2015\u05d6\u05e2\u05d5\u05df\u200e (_The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d6\u05d5\u05e2\u05df\u200e, LXX \u0396\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u03ac\u03bc,\u0396\u03b1\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd = \u05d6\u05d5\u05bc\u05e2\u05b8\u05df\u200e)]\n unknown.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05e7\u05df\u200e (better \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05df\u200e, as 1 Chronicles 1\u2074\u00b2)] The tribe is\n doubtless to be identified with the \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d9\u05b7\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e7\u05b8\u05df\u200e mentioned in Numbers\n 33\u00b3\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427, Deuteronomy 10\u2076 as the owners of some wells South\n of \u1e32adesh.\u2015\u2015(e) \u05d3\u05d9\u05e9\u05df\u200e (LXX \u03a1[\u03b5]\u03b9\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd)] Read \u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05df\u200e or \u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05df\u200e, to avoid\n concurrence with the \u05d3\u05d9\u05e9\u05df\u200e of verse \u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05d5\u05e5\u200e (\u1f6c\u03c2)] see on\n\u200e 10\u00b2\u00b3 22\u00b2\u00b9.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05e8\u05df\u200e] Perhaps connected with the Yera\u1e25meelite \u05d0\u05b9\u05e8\u05b6\u05df\u200e,\n 1 Chronicles 2\u00b2\u2075. The reading \u05d0\u05e8\u05dd\u200e (Hebew MSS, LXX, Vulgate,\n Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f) is probably a mistake caused by the proximity\n of \u05e2\u05d5\u05e5\u200e.\n\n \u2666 \u201cconstrasted\u201d replaced with \u201ccontrasted\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =20.= \u05d9\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u200e] LXX singular.\u2015\u2015=24b.= \u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05b5\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05dd\u200e] The word is utterly\n obscure. LXX, Theodotion \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bd; Aquila \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f20\u03bc\u03af\u03bd [\u1f30\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc]\n (see Field); _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_\n\u200e \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (Deuteronomy 2\u00b9\u2070: so Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05d0\u200e); Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f\n \u2018wild-asses\u2019 and \u2018mules\u2019; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac phrase) (\u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e ?);\n Vulgate _aqu\u00e6 callid\u00e6_. If Vulgate be right (and it is certainly\n the most plausible conjecture for sense), \u00b2\u2074\u1d47 is a fragment of\n an old well-legend, claiming the proprietorship of these hot\n springs for the tribe of \u201bAnah (compare Judges 1\u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427). See,\n further, Haupt, in Ball, _The Sacred Books of the Old Testament_,\n 118.\u2015\u2015=30b= is in the style of Priestly-Code.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u200e] LXX \u1f18\u03b4\u03ce\u03bc.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=31\u201239. The kings of Edom.=\u2015\u2015=31.= _before there reigned a king of the\nIsraelites_ (_v.i._)] This may mean either before the institution of\nthe monarchy in Israel, or before any Israelitish sovereign ruled over\nEdom. The natural _terminus ad quem_ is, of course, the overthrow of\nEdomite independence by David (page 437 below).\u2015\u2015The document bears\nevery mark of authenticity, and may be presumed to give a complete\nlist of Edomite kings. Unfortunately the chronology is wanting. An\naverage reign of 20 years for the eight kings (Meyer) is perhaps a\nreasonable allowance in early unsettled times; and the foundation of\nthe Edomite monarchy may be dated approximately from 150 to 200 years\nbefore the time of David.\u2015\u2015The monarchy was obviously not hereditary,\nnone of the kings being the son of his predecessor; that it was\nelective (Tuch, Knobel, Dillmann, Delitzsch, Driver, al.) is more than\nwe have a right to assume. Frazer (_Adonis Attis Osiris: Studies in\nthe history of Oriental Religion_, 11\u00b3) finds here an illustration\nof his theory of female succession, the crown passing to men of\nother families who married the hereditary princesses; but verse \u00b3\u2079\nis fatal to this view. The fact that the kings reigned in different\ncities supports an opinion (Winckler, _Geschichte Israels in\nEinzeldarstellungen_, i. 192; Cheyne 429) that they were analogous to\nthe Hebrew Judges, _i.e._ local chiefs who held supreme power during\ntheir life, but were unable to establish a dynasty. A beginning of the\nrecognition of the hereditary principle may be traced in the story\nof Hadad \u2018of the seed royal\u2019 (1 Kings 11\u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), who is regarded as\nheir-presumptive to the throne (Meyer).\n\n\u200e =32.= \u05d1\u05dc\u05e2 \u05d1\u05df\u05be\u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8\u200e (LXX \u0392\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0392\u03b5\u03ce\u03c1)] The name of the first\n king bears a striking resemblance to \u05d1\u05dc\u05e2\u05dd \u05d1\u05df\u05be\u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8\u200e, the soothsayer\n whom the king of Moab hired to curse Israel (Numbers 22 ff.),\n and who afterwards died fighting for Midian (Numbers 31\u2078\n [Priestly-Code]). The identity of the two personages is\n recognised by (amongst others) Knobel-Dillmann, N\u00f6ldeke\n (_Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_ 87), Hommel\n (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_,\n 153, 222\u00b9), Sayce (_The Early History of the Hebrews_, 224,\n 229), Cheyne, al., though the legend which places his home at\n Pethor on the Euphrates (Elohist) is hardly consistent with\n this notice.\u2015\u2015\u05d3\u05e0\u05d4\u05d1\u05d4\u200e (\u0394\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1), his city, is not known; according\n to Jerome, _Onomastica Sacra_, page 115\u00b9, it is _Dannaia_,\n between Ar Moab and the Arnon, or _Dannaba_ near Heshbon\n (compare Eusebius _Onomastica Sacra_, 114\u00b3\u00b9, [page 249]);\n Hommel and Sayce suggest Dunip, somewhere in North Syria.\u2015\u2015=33.=\n\u200e \u05d9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d1\u200e (\u1f38\u03c9[\u03b1]\u03b2\u03ac\u03b2, \u1f38\u03ce\u03b2, etc.)] identified by LXX (Job 42\u00b9\u2078) with\n the patriarch Job.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05e6\u05e8\u05d4\u200e] A chief city of Edom (Isaiah 34\u2076\n 63\u00b9, Jeremiah 48\u00b2\u2074 49\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2, Amos 1\u00b9\u00b2), now _el-Bu\u1e63aireh_, 20\n miles South-east of the Dead Sea.\u2015\u2015=34.= \u05d7\u05e9\u05c1\u05dd\u200e (\u1f09\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n (\u2021 Syriac word) = \u05d7\u05b8\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd\u200e)].\u2015\u2015_the land of the Temanite_] see on\n verse \u00b9\u00b9.\u2015\u2015=35.= \u05d4\u05d3\u05d3\u200e bears the well-known name of an Aram\u00e6an\n deity, whose worship must have prevailed widely in Edom (see\n verse \u00b3\u2079, 1 Kings 11 \u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015_who smote Midian, etc._] The\n solitary historical notice in the list. It is a tempting\n suggestion of Ewald (_History of Israel_, ii. 336), that the\n battle was an incident of the great Midianite raid under which\n Israel suffered so severely, so that this king was contemporary\n with Gideon (compare Meyer, 381 f.).\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u200e] LXX \u0393\u03b5\u03b8\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03bc = \u05e2\u05b4\u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e,\n on which reading Marquart (_Fundamente israelitischer und\n j\u00fcdischer Geschichte_, 11) bases an ingenious explanation of\n the mysterious name \u05db\u05d5\u05e9\u05df \u05e8\u05e9\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd\u200e in Judges 3\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 (\u05d7\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dd \u05e8\u05b9\u05d0\u05e9\u05c1 \u05e2\u05b4\u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e,\u2015\u2015a\n confusion of the third and fourth kings in our list).\u2015\u2015=36.=\n\u200e \u05e9\u05de\u05dc\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u05e9\u05dc\u05de\u05d4\u200e, perhaps the same name as Solomon.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05e9\u05e8\u05e7\u05d4\u200e] A place\n of this name (\u039c\u03b1\u03c3\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac) is mentioned in _Onomastica Sacra_, 137\u00b9\u2070\n (page 277), in Gebalene, the northern part of Mount Seir.\u2015\u2015=37.=\n\u200e \u05e9\u05d0\u05d5\u05dc\u200e] The name of the first king of Israel.\u2015\u2015\u05e8\u05d7\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e0\u05d4\u05e8\u200e] so called\n to distinguish it from other places of the same name (compare\n 26\u00b2\u00b2), is probably the \u1fec\u03bf\u03c9\u03b2\u03ce\u03b8 of _Onomastica Sacra_, 145\u00b9\u2075 (page\n 286), a military post in Gebalene. The river is, therefore, not\n the Euphrates (although a place _Rahaba_ has been discovered on\n its West side), but some perennial stream in the North of Edom,\n defined by the city on its banks (compare 2 Kings 5\u00b9\u00b2).\u2015\u2015=38.=\n\u200e \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05d7\u05e0\u05df\u200e] \u2018Baal is gracious.\u2019 The name of the seventh king is the\n only existing trace of Baal-worship in Edom.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u200e] \u2018jerboa\u2019\n (Arabic _\u201bakbar_): see William Robertson Smith _Kinship and\n Marriage in Early Arabia_\u00b2, 235\u00b9. Here it is probably a\n clan-name, but appears as personal in Old Testament (2 Kings\n 22\u00b9\u2074, Jeremiah 26\u00b2\u00b2 36\u00b9\u00b2).\u2015\u2015=39.= \u05d4\u05d3\u05e8\u200e] To be read \u05d4\u034f\u034f\u05d3\u05d3\u200e (Hebrew\n MSS, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5,\n LXX partly, and 1 Chronicles 1\u2075\u2070).\u2015\u2015For \u05e4\u05e2\u05d5\u200e (1 Chronicles \u05e4\u05e2\u05d9\u200e),\n LXX has \u03a6\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03c1, _i.e._ \u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u200e, the mountain in Moab (Numbers 23\u00b2\u2078\n etc.).\u2015\u2015Why the wife of Hadad II. is named we cannot tell.\n\u200e \u05de\u05d4\u05d9\u05d8\u05d1\u05d0\u05dc\u200e (\u2018God does good\u2019) is a man\u2019s name in Nehemiah 6\u00b9\u2070.\u2015\u2015For\n\u200e \u05d1\u05ea \u05de\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4\u05d1\u200e it would be better to read \u05d1\u05df \u05de\u05f3\u200e (LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5). But \u05de\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4\u05d1\u200e\n (gold-water) is more likely to be the name of a place than of\n a person; hence Marquart\u2019s emendation \u05de\u05df \u05de\u05f3\u200e (_l.c._ 10) is very\n plausible, as is his identification of \u05de\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4\u05d1\u200e with the miswritten\n\u200e \u05d3\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4\u05d1\u200e of Deuteronomy 1\u00b9.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =31.= \u05dc\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u200e] Expression of genitive by \u05dc\u200e to prevent\n determination of the governing noun by the following determinate\n genitive (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 129 _c_), \u2018a king belonging to\n the Israelites.\u2019 The second interpretation given above is the\n only natural one. LXX\u1d2c \u1f10\u03bd \u1f38\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc, LXX\u1d38\u1d58\u1d9c\u2071\u1d43\u207f \u1f10\u03bd \u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u03ae\u03bb,\u2015\u2015the\n latter too readily approved by Ball.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=40\u201243. The chiefs of Esau.=\u2015\u2015This second list of _\u2019All\u00fbph\u00eem_ presents\nmore features of Priestly-Code\u2019s style than any other section of the\nchapter, but is of doubtful antiquarian value. Of the eleven names,\nmore than one half are found in the preceding lists (\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b3\u2079); the\nnew names, so far as they can be explained, are geographical. It\nis possible that the document preserves a statistical survey of\nadministrative districts of Edom subsequent to the overthrow of its\nindependence (Ewald, Dillmann, Driver, al.); but there is no evidence\nthat this is the case.\n\n\u200e =40.= \u05e2\u05dc\u05d5\u05d4\u200e = \u05e2\u05dc\u05d5\u05df\u200e, verse \u00b2\u00b3.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05ea\u05ea\u200e (\u1f39\u03b5\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1, etc.)] probably \u05d9\u05b6\u05ea\u05b6\u05e8\u200e = \u05d9\u05ea\u05e8\u05df\u200e,\n verse \u00b2\u2076.\u2015\u2015=41.= \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u200e is supposed to be the seaport \u05d0\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea\u200e; see on\n\u200e 14\u2076.\u2015\u2015\u05e4\u05d9\u05e0\u05df\u200e (\u03a6\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, \u03a6[\u03b5]\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd) = \u05e4\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e0\u05b9\u05df\u200e, Numbers 33\u2074\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427, the \u03a6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03bd\n (_Fenon_) of _Onomastica Sacra_, 123\u2079 (page 299; compare page\n 123), a village between Petra and Zoar, where were copper mines\n worked by convicts. The name (see Seetzen, iii. 17), and the\n ruins of the mines have been discovered at _Fen\u0101n_, 6 or 7\n miles North-north-west of \u0160obek (Meyer, 353 f.).\u2015\u2015=42.= \u05de\u05d1\u05e6\u05e8\u200e]\n According to _Onomastica Sacra_, 137\u00b9\u00b9 (page 277), \u039c\u03b1\u03b2\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\n was a very large village in Gebalene, subject to Petra.\u2015\u2015=43.=\n\u200e \u05de\u05d2\u05d3\u05d9\u05d0\u05dc\u200e and \u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u05dd\u200e are unknown. For the latter, LXX has \u0396\u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03b5\u03af[\u03bd] =\n\u200e \u05e6\u05e4\u05d5\u200e, verse \u00b9\u00b9. It is probable that in the original text both\n names were contained, as in an anonymous chronicle edited by\n Lagarde (_Septuagint Studies_ ii.; see Nestle, _Marginalien und\n Materialien_ 12), making the number up to twelve.\n\n It remains to state briefly the more important historical\n results yielded by study of these Edomite lists. (1) At the\n earliest period of which we have any knowledge, the country of\n Se\u201bir was peopled by a supposed aboriginal race called \u1e24orites.\n Though remnants of this population survived only in Se\u201bir, there\n are a few traces of its former existence in Palestine; and it\n is possible that it had once been coextensive with the wide\n region known to the Egyptians as _\u1e24aru_ (page 433).\u2015\u2015(2) Within\n historic times the country was occupied by a body of nomads\n closely akin to the southern tribes of Judah, who amalgamated\n with the \u1e24orites and formed the nation of Edom.\u2015\u2015(3) The date\n of this invasion cannot be determined. Se\u201birites and Edomites\n appear almost contemporaneously in Egyptian documents, the\n former under Ramses III. as a nomadic people whom the king\n attacked and plundered; and the latter about 50 years earlier\n under Merneptah, as a band of Bedouin who were granted admission\n to the pastures of W\u0101d\u012b \u1e6cum\u012bl\u0101t within the Egyptian frontier\n (_Papyrus Harris_ and _Anastasi_: see M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa\n nach alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_, 135 f.; compare Meyer _Die\n Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 337 f.). Since both are\n described as Bedouin, it would seem that the Edomites were still\n an unsettled people at the beginning of the 12th century. The\n land of _\u0160\u00eari_, however, is mentioned in the Tel-Amarna Tablets\n (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 201) more than\n two centuries earlier.\u2015\u2015(4) The list of kings shows that Edom\n attained a political organisation much sooner than Israel: hence\n in the legends Esau is the elder brother of Jacob. The interval\n between Ramses III. and David is sufficient for a line of eight\n kings; but the institution of the monarchy must have followed\n within a few decades the expedition of Ramses referred to above.\n It is probable (though not certain) that the last king Hadad II.\n was the one subdued by David, and that the Hadad who fled\n to Egypt and afterwards returned to trouble Solomon (1 Kings\n 11\u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) was of his family.\u2015\u2015(5) The genealogies furnish\n evidence of the consanguinity of Edomite and Jud\u00e6an tribes.\n In several instances we have found the same name amongst the\n descendants of Esau or Se\u201bir and amongst those of Judah (see\n the notes _passim_). This might be explained by assuming that a\n clan had been split up, one part adhering to Edom, and another\n attaching itself to Judah; but a consideration of the actual\n circumstances suggests a more comprehensive theory. The\n consolidation of the tribe of Judah was a process of political\n segregation: the desert tribes that had pushed their way\n northwards towards the Jud\u00e6an highlands, were welded together\n by the strong hand of the Davidic monarchy, and were reckoned\n as constituents of the dominant southern tribe. Thus it would\n happen that a \u1e24orite or Edomite clan which had belonged to the\n empire of Edom was drawn into Judah, and had to find a place in\n the artificial genealogies which expressed the political unity\n resulting from the incorporation of diverse ethnological groups\n in the tribal system. If Meyer be right in holding that the\n genealogies of the Chronicler reflect the conditions of the\n late post-Exilic age, when a wholesale conversion of Kalebite\n and Yera\u1e25meelite families to Judaism had taken place (_Die\n Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 300 f.; _Die Entstehung\n des Judenthums_ 114 ff., 130 ff.), a comparison with Genesis 36\n yields a striking testimony to the persistency of the minor\n clan-groups of the early \u1e24orites through all vicissitudes of\n political and religious condition.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =40.= \u05dc\u05de\u05e7\u05de\u05ea\u05dd\u200e] Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05dc\u05ea\u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05e9\u05de\u05ea\u05dd\u200e] LXX \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e6\u05ea\u05dd \u05d5\u05d1\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd\u200e\n\u200e (10\u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9).\u2015\u2015=43.= \u05dc\u05de\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05dd\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ \u05dc\u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd\u200e (verse \u2074\u2070).\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u200e] see on verse \u00b9.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\n JOSEPH AND HIS BRETHREN.\n\n CHAPTERS XXXVII\u2012L.\n\n\n The last division of the Book of Genesis is occupied almost\n entirely with the history of Joseph,\u2015\u2015at once the most artistic\n and the most fascinating of Old Testament biographies. Its\n connexion is twice interrupted: (a) by the story of Judah\n and Tamar (chapter 38); and (b) by the so-called Blessing of\n Jacob (49\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u2078): see the introductory notes on these chapters.\n Everywhere else the narrative follows the thread of Joseph\u2019s\n fortunes; the plan and contents being as follows:\n\n I. Chapters 37. 39\u201241. Joseph\u2019s solitary career in Egypt:\u2015\u20151.\n Joseph betrayed by his brethren and carried down to Egypt (37).\n 2. How he maintained his virtue against the solicitation of his\n master\u2019s wife, and was thrown into prison (39). 3. His skill in\n interpreting dreams discovered (40). 4. His interpretation of\n Pharaoh\u2019s dreams, and his consequent elevation to the highest\n dignity in Egypt (41).\n\n II. Chapters 42\u201245. The reunion of Joseph and his brethren:\u2015\u20155.\n The first meeting of the brethren with Joseph in Egypt (42). 6.\n The second meeting (43. 44). 7. Joseph reveals himself to his\n brethren (45).\n\n III. Chapters 46\u201250. The settlement of the united family in\n Egypt:\u2015\u20158. Jacob\u2019s journey to Egypt and settlement in Goshen\n (46. 47\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u00b2). 9. Joseph\u2019s agrarian policy (47\u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b2\u2078). 10. Joseph\n at his father\u2019s death-bed (47\u00b2\u2079\u207b\u00b3\u00b9 48). 11. Death and burial of\n Jacob, and death of Joseph (49\u2079\u207b\u00b3\u00b3 50).\n\n The composition of documents is of the same general character\n as in the previous section of Genesis, though some peculiar\n features present themselves. The Priestly epitome (37\u00b2 41\u2074\u2076\u1d43\n 42\u2075\u1427 \u2076\u1d43 46\u2076\u1427 \u207d\u2078\u207b\u00b2\u2077\u207e 47\u2075*\u1427 \u2076\u1d43\u1427 \u2077\u207b\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2077\u1d47\u1427 \u00b2\u2078 48\u00b3\u207b\u2076 49\u00b9\u1d43\u1427 \u00b2\u2078\u1d47\u207b\u00b3\u00b3\u1d43{\u03b1}\u1d47\n 50\u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3) is hardly less broken and fragmentary than in\n the history of Jacob, and produces at first sight the same\n impression as there, of being merely supplementary to the older\n narratives,\u2015\u2015an impression, however, which a closer inspection\n easily dispels. Certain late words and constructions have led\n some critics to the conclusion that the Jehovist passages have\n been worked over by an editor of the school of Priestly-Code\n (Giesebrecht, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche\n Wissenschaft_, i. 237, 266\u00b2; Holzinger 234). The cases in point\n have been examined by Kuenen (_Historisch-critisch Onderzoek\n naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden\n Verbonds_ i. page 317 f.), who rightly concludes that they are\n too few in number to bear out the theory of systematic Priestly\n redaction.\u2015\u2015With regard to the composition of Yahwist and\n Elohist, the most important fact is that the clue to authorship\n supplied by the divine names almost entirely fails us, and is\n replaced by the distinction between Israel and Jacob which as\n names of the patriarch are characteristic of Yahwist and Elohist\n respectively (exceptions are 46\u00b2 48\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9 [50\u00b2\u2075{?}] 46\u2075\u1d47).\n\u200e \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e occurs only in chapter 39 (7 times); elsewhere \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e is\n invariably used, sometimes in contexts which would otherwise\n be naturally assigned to Yahwist, though no reason appears why\n Yahwist should depart from his ordinary usage (_e.g._ 42\u00b2\u2078). It\n may not always be safe to rely on this characteristic when it\n is not supported by other indications. Eerdmans, who rejects in\n principle the theory of a Yahwistic and an Elohistic document,\n is obliged to admit the existence of an _Israel_-recension and\n a _Jacob_-recension, and makes this distinction the basis of\n an independent analysis. A comparison of his results with those\n commonly accepted by recent critics is instructive in more ways\n than one.* On the whole, it increases one\u2019s confidence in the\n ordinary critical method.\n\n * The Israel-recension (I-R) consists, according to Eerdmans,\n of 37\u00b3\u207b\u00b2\u2074 (Yahwist + Elohist), \u00b2\u2078\u1d43 (Elohist), \u00b2\u2079 (Elohist),\n \u00b3\u2070\u207b\u00b3\u00b3 (Elohist + Yahwist), \u00b3\u2076 (Elohist); 43 (Yahwist);\n 44 (Yahwist); 45\u00b2\u2078 (Yahwist), 46\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u1d43 (Jehovist), \u00b2\u2078\u207b\u00b3\u2074\n (Yahwist); 47\u00b9\u207b\u2075 (Yahwist [verse \u2075, Priestly-Code*]),\n \u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b2\u2077\u1d43 (Yahwist), \u00b2\u2077\u1d47 (Priestly-Code), \u00b2\u2079\u207b\u00b3\u00b9 (Yahwist);\n 48\u00b9 (Elohist), \u00b2\u1d47 (Yahwist), \u2078\u207b\u00b2\u00b2 (Yahwist + Elohist);\n 50\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u00b9 (Yahwist), \u00b9\u2074\u207b\u00b2\u2076 (Elohist*). To the Jacob-recension\n (J-R) he assigns 37\u00b2 (Priestly-Code), \u00b2\u2075\u207b\u00b2\u2077 (Yahwist),\n \u00b2\u2078\u1d47 (Yahwist), \u00b3\u2074 (Jehovist), \u00b3\u2075 (Yahwist); 40; 41; 42\n (all Elohist); 45\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u2077 (Elohist*), 46\u00b2\u1d47\u207b\u2075 (Elohist*), \u2076\u1427 \u2077\n (Priestly-Code); 47\u2076\u207b\u00b9\u00b9 (Priestly-Code*), \u00b9\u00b2 (Elohist), \u00b2\u2078\n (Priestly-Code); 49\u00b9\u1d43 (Priestly-Code), \u00b2\u2079\u207b\u00b3\u00b3 (Priestly-Code);\n 50\u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3 (Priestly-Code) (_Die Komposition der Genesis_\n 65\u201271): the usual analysis is roughly indicated by the\n symbols within brackets. How does this compare with the\n generally accepted critical results? (1) No distinction\n is recognised between Priestly-Code and the other sources;\n the fragments are mostly assigned to the J-R, but 48\u00b3\u207b\u2076 is\n rejected as an interpolation (page 27). (2) Eerdmans regards\n chapter 39 (the incident of Potiphar\u2019s wife) as the addition\n of an unintelligent redactor; mainly on the ground that\n it contains the name \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e (the use of the divine names is\n thus after all a reliable criterion of authorship when\n it suits Eerdmans\u2019 purpose!). A more arbitrary piece of\n criticism could hardly be found. (3) Apart from these two\n eccentricities, and the finer shades of analysis which\n Eerdmans refuses to acknowledge, it will be seen that except\n in chapter 37 his division agrees _a potiori_ with that of\n the majority of critics; _i.e._, the I-R corresponds in the\n main with Yahwist and the J-R with Elohist. (4) In chapter\n 37, on the contrary, the relation is reversed: I-R = Elohist,\n and J-R = Yahwist. But this divergence turns on a wholly\n arbitrary and indefensible selection of data. Since the J-R\n in 45\u2075 speaks of a _sale_ of Joseph (to the Ishmaelites),\n it is inferred that 37\u00b2\u2075\u207b\u00b2\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u2078\u1d47 belonged to it. It is\n conveniently overlooked that 40\u00b9\u2075 (also J-R) refers back\n to 37\u00b2\u2078\u1d43\u1427 \u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1427 (the _stealing_ of Joseph), that 42\u00b2\u00b2\n (J-R) presupposes 37\u00b2\u00b2 (I-R); to say nothing of the broad\n distinction that Judah\u2019s leadership is as characteristic\n of one source as Reuben\u2019s is of the other. If Eerdmans had\n duly considered the whole of the evidence, he would have\n seen first that it is absolutely necessary to carry the\n analysis further than he chooses to do, and next that the\n two recensions in chapter 37 must exchange places in order\n to find their proper connexions in the following chapters.\n With that readjustment, it is not unfair to claim him as\n an unwilling witness to the essential soundness of the\n prevalent theory. With the best will in the world, he has\n not been able to deviate very far from the beaten track;\n and where he does strike out a path of his own, he becomes\n entangled in difficulties which may yet cause him to retrace\n his steps.\n\n The story of Joseph is the finest example in Genesis, or even\n in the Old Testament, of what is sometimes called \u2018novelistic\u2019\n narrative. From the other patriarchal biographies it is\n distinguished first of all by the dramatic unity of a clearly\n conceived \u2018plot,\u2019 the unfolding of which exhibits the conflict\n between character and circumstances, and the triumph of moral\n and personal forces amidst the chances and vicissitudes of human\n affairs. The ruling idea is expressed in the words of Elohist,\n \u201cYe intended evil against me, but God intended it for good\u201d\n (50\u00b2\u2070; compare 45\u2075\u1427 \u2077): it is the sense of an overruling, yet\n immanent, divine Providence, realising its purpose through the\n complex interaction of human motives, working out a result which\n no single actor contemplated. To this higher unity everything is\n subordinated; the separate scenes and incidents merge naturally\n into the main stream of the narrative, each representing a step\n in the development of the theme. The style is ample and diffuse,\n but never tedious; the vivid human interest of the story,\n enhanced by a vein of pathos and sentiment rarely found in the\n patriarchal narratives, secures the attention and sympathy of\n the reader from the beginning to the close. We note, further,\n a certain freedom in the handling of traditional material,\n and subordination of the legendary to the ideal element in the\n composition. The comparatively faint traces of local colour, the\n absence of theophanies and cult-legends generally, the almost\n complete elimination of tribal relations, are to be explained\n in this way; and also perhaps some minute deviations from the\n dominant tradition, such as the conception of Jacob\u2019s character,\n the disparity of age between Joseph and his older brothers,\n the extreme youth of Benjamin (suggesting that he had been born\n since Joseph left home), the allusions to the mother as if still\n alive, etc. Lastly, the hero himself is idealised as no other\n patriarchal personality is. Joseph is not (like Jacob) the\n embodiment of one particular virtue, but is conceived as an\n ideal character in all the relations in which he is placed:\n he is the ideal son, the ideal brother, the ideal servant, the\n ideal administrator.\n\n The close parallelism of Yahwist and Elohist, together with the\n fact that the literary features enumerated above are shared by\n both, show that it had taken shape before it came into the hands\n of these writers, and strongly suggest that it must have existed\n in written form. The hypothesis of BBernhard Luther (_Die\n Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 141 ff.), that the original\n author was Yahwist, and that he composed it as a connecting\n link between the patriarchal legends and those of the Exodus,\n is destitute of probability. The motive suggested is inadequate\n to account for the conception of a narrative so rich in concrete\n detail as that before us. Moreover, there is no reason to think\n that Elohist is dependent on Yahwist; and it is certain that in\n some points (the leadership of Reuben, _e.g._) Elohist follows\n the older tradition. Nor is there much foundation for Luther\u2019s\n general impression that such a narrative must be the creation\n of a single mind. In any case the mastery of technique which\n is here displayed implies a long cultivation of this type of\n literature (_ib._ 143); and the matter of the Joseph-narratives\n must have passed through many successive hands before it reached\n its present perfection of form.\n\n It is impossible to resolve such a composition completely\n into its traditional or legendary elements; but we may perhaps\n distinguish broadly the three kinds of material which have\n been laid under contribution. (1) The element of tribal history\n or relationships, though slight and secondary, is clearly\n recognisable, and supplies a key which may be used with caution\n to explain some outstanding features of the narrative. That\n there was an ancient tribe named Joseph, afterwards subdivided\n into Ephraim and Manasseh, is an item of Hebrew tradition whose\n authenticity there seems no good reason to question (see page\n 533); and the prestige and prowess of this tribe are doubtless\n reflected in the distinguished position held by Joseph as\n the hero of the story. Again, actual tribal relations are\n represented by the close kinship and strong affection between\n Joseph and Benjamin; and by the preference of Ephraim before\n Manasseh, and the elevation of both to the status of adopted\n sons of Jacob. The birthright and leadership of Reuben in\n Elohist implies a hegemony of that tribe in very early times,\n just as the similar position accorded to Judah in Yahwist\n reflects the circumstances of a later age. These are perhaps\n all the features that can safely be interpreted of real tribal\n relations. Whether there was a migration of the tribe of Joseph\n to Egypt, whether this was followed by a temporary settlement\n of all the other tribes on the border of the Delta, etc., are\n questions which this history does not enable us to answer;\n and attempts to find a historical significance in the details\n of the narrative (such as the sleeved tunic of Joseph, the\n enmity of his brethren, his wandering from Hebron to Shechem\n and thence to Dothan, the deliverance of Joseph by Reuben or\n Judah, and so on) are an abuse of the ethnographic principle of\n interpretation.\u2015\u2015For (2) alongside of this there is an element\n of individual biography, which may very well preserve a\n reminiscence of actual events. There must have been current in\n ancient Israel a tradition of some powerful Hebrew minister in\n Egypt, who was the means of saving the country from the horrors\n of famine, and who used his power to remodel the land-system\n of Egypt to the advantage of the crown. That such a tradition\n should be true in essentials is by no means improbable. There\n were \u2018Hebrews\u2019 in Palestine as early as the 14th century B.C.\n (page 218), and that one of these should have been kidnapped and\n sold as a boy into slavery in Egypt, and afterwards have risen\n to the office of viceroy, is in accordance with many parallels\n referred to in the monuments (page 469); while his promoting\n the immigration of his kinsfolk under stress of famine is an\n incident as likely to be real as invented. The figure of Yan\u1e2bamu,\n the Semitic minister of Amenhotep IV. (pages 501 f.), presents a\n partial counterpart to that of Joseph, though the identification\n of the two personages rests on too slender data to be plausible.\n The insoluble difficulty is to discover the point where\n this personal history passes into the stream of Israelite\n national tradition,\u2015\u2015or where Joseph ceases to be an individual\n and becomes a tribe. The common view that he was the actual\n progenitor of the tribe afterwards known by his name is on many\n grounds incredible; and the theory that he was the leader of\n a body of Hebrew immigrants into Egypt does violence to the\n most distinctive features of the representation. Steuernagel\u2019s\n suggestion (_Die Einwanderung der israelitischen St\u00e4mme\n in Kanaan_ 67), that the story is based on feuds between\n the _tribe_ Joseph and the other tribes, in the course of\n which _individual_ Josephides were sold as slaves to Egypt,\n illustrates the futility of trying to explain the narrative\n from two points of view at once. The tribal and the personal\n conceptions must be kept distinct, each may contain a kernel of\n history of its own kind; but the union of the two was effected\n not on the plane of history in either sense, but during the\n process of artistic elaboration of the theme. (3) There is,\n lastly, an element of Egyptian folklore, which has been drawn\n on to some extent for the literary embellishment of the story.\n The incident of Joseph\u2019s temptation (chapter 39) appears to\n be founded on an Egyptian popular tale (page 459). The obscure\n allusions to Joseph as a potent magician are very probably\n surviving traces of a motive which was more boldly developed\n in an Egyptian source. The prominence of dreams and their\n interpretation perhaps hardly falls under this head; it may\n rather be part of that accurate acquaintance with Egyptian life\n which is one of the most striking features of the narrative.\n That in this legendary element there is an admixture of mythical\n material is very possible; but a direct influence of mythology\n on the story of Joseph is extremely speculative.\u2015\u2015It has been\n argued with some force that the presence of this Egyptian\n colouring itself goes far to show that we have to do with\n genuine history, not with a legend \u2018woven by popular fancy\n upon the hills of Ephraim\u2019 (Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_,\n ii. 771 _b_). At the same time it has to be considered that\n the material may have been largely woven in Egypt itself, and\n afterwards borrowed as drapery for the Israelite hero Joseph.\n Egyptian folklore might easily have been naturalised in Canaan\n during the long Egyptian domination, or have been imported later\n as a result of Egyptian influence at the court of Jeroboam I.\n It is not difficult to suppose that it was appropriated by the\n Hebrew rhapsodists, and incorporated in the native Joseph-legend,\n and gradually moulded into the exquisite story which we now\n proceed to examine.\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXVII.\n _How Joseph was lost to his Father through\n his Brethren\u2019s Hatred and Treachery_\n (Priestly-Code, Jehovist).\n\nAs the favoured child of the family, and because of dreams portending\na brilliant future, Joseph becomes an object of hatred and envy to his\nbrothers (\u00b2\u207b\u00b9\u00b9). A favourable opportunity presenting itself, they are\nscarcely restrained from murdering him by prudential and sentimental\nconsiderations urged by one or other of their number (Judah, Reuben);\nbut eventually consent to dispose of him without actual bloodshed\n(\u00b9\u00b2\u207b\u00b3\u2070). With heartless cruelty they pretend that Joseph must have\nbeen devoured by a wild beast, and witness their father\u2019s distress\nwithout being moved to confession (\u00b3\u00b9\u207b\u00b3\u2075).\u2015\u2015The chapter is not only\nfull of thrilling human interest, but lays the \u2018plot\u2019 for the highly\ndramatic story which is to follow. The sudden disappearance of the\nmost interesting member of the family, the inconsolable grief of the\nfather, the guilty secret shared by the brothers, and, above all, the\nuncertainty which hangs over the fate of Joseph, appeal irresistibly\nto the romantic instinct of the reader, who feels that all this is\nthe prelude to some signal manifestation of divine providence in the\nworking out of Joseph\u2019s destiny.\n\n _Sources._\u2015\u2015Verses \u00b9\u1427 \u00b2 belong to Priestly-Code (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015The\n analysis of the rest of the chapter may start from \u00b2\u2075\u207b\u00b3\u2070, where\n evidences of a double recension are clearest. In one account,\n Joseph is _sold_ to _Ishmaelites_ on the advice of _Judah_; in\n the other, he is _kidnapped_ by passing _Midianites_, unknown\n to the brethren, and to the dismay of _Reuben_, who had hoped\n to save him (see the notes). The former is Yahwist (compare\n 45\u2074 \u1da0\u1427), the latter Elohist (40\u00b9\u2075). Another safe clue is found\n in the double motive assigned for the envy of the brethren: \u00b3\u1427 \u2074\n (the sleeved tunic) \u2225 \u2075\u207b\u00b9\u00b9 (the dreams): the dream-motive is\n characteristic of Elohist throughout the narrative, and \u00b3 \u1da0\u1427 are\n from Yahwist because of \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u200e (compare \u00b9\u00b3, and contrast \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1\u200e in \u00b3\u2074).\n Smaller doublets can be detected in \u00b9\u00b2\u207b\u00b9\u2074; in \u00b9\u2078\u207b\u00b2\u2070, in \u00b2\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427,\n and in \u00b3\u2074 \u1da0\u1427. The analysis has been worked out with substantial\n agreement amongst critics; and, with some finishing touches\n from the hand of Gunkel (353 ff.), the result is as follows:\n Yahwist = \u00b3\u1427 \u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1d43\u1427 \u00b9\u2074\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u2078\u1d47\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u2075\u207b\u00b2\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u2078\u1d43{\u03b3} (\u05d5\u05d9\u05de\u05db\u05e8\u05d5\u200e to \u05db\u0591\u05e1\u05e3\u200e),\n \u00b3\u00b9\u1427 \u00b3\u00b2\u1d43{\u03b1\u03b3}\u1d47\u1427 \u00b3\u00b3\u1d43{\u03b1}\u1d47\u1427 \u00b3\u2074\u1d47\u1427 \u00b3\u2075\u1d43; Elohist = \u2075\u207b\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u2074\u1d43\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2078\u1d43\u1427\n \u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2078\u1d43{\u03b1\u03b2} (to \u05d4\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u200e) \u1d47\u1427 \u00b2\u2079\u1427 \u00b3\u2070\u1427 \u00b3\u00b2\u1d43{\u03b2}\u1427 \u00b3\u00b3\u1d43{\u03b2}\u1427 \u00b3\u2074\u1d43\u1427 \u00b3\u2075\u1d47\u1427 \u00b3\u2076.\n This may be accepted as the basis of the exposition, though some\n points are open to question, particularly the assumption that\n all references to a tunic of any kind are to be ascribed to\n Yahwist.\n\n=1\u201211. The alienation between Joseph and his brethren.=\u2015\u2015=1, 2.=\nThree disjointed fragments of Priestly-Code, of which verse \u00b9 is\nthe original continuation of 36\u2076\u207b\u2078 (see page 429); and \u00b2\u1d43{\u03b1} is a\nheading from the Book of _T\u00f4led\u00f4th_ (see page 40 f.), which ought to\nbe followed by a genealogy,\u2015\u2015perhaps 35\u00b2\u00b2\u1d47\u207b\u00b2\u2076,\u00b9 which we have seen to\nstand out of its proper connexion (page 423): \u00b2\u1d43{\u03b2\u03b3}\u1d47 then introduces\nPriestly-Code\u2019s history of Joseph, which has been mostly suppressed\nby the redactor.\u2015\u2015The clause \u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05e8\u200e is difficult. As a parenthesis\n(Driver) it is superfluous after the definite statement of Joseph\u2019s\nage in \u00b2\u1d43{\u03b2}, and leaves us with a wrong identification of the sons of\nthe concubines with the previous \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u200e. If it be joined to what follows,\nGunkel has rightly seen that we want a word expressing something that\nJoseph was or did in relation to the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. The\nmeaning probably is that Joseph, while shepherding with (all) his\nbrethren, fell out with the four sons of the concubines.\n\n \u00b9 Rather than 46\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, as suggested by Kurtz (quoted by Hupfeld\n _Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung_\n 216).\n\n With this change, Dillmann\u2019s objections to the unity of verse\n \u00b2 fall to the ground, and the whole may be safely ascribed to\n Priestly-Code (note the chronology, the supplementary \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u200e,\n and the phrase \u05d3\u05d1\u05d4 \u05e8\u05e2\u05d4\u200e).\u2015\u2015Short as the fragment is, it shows that\n Priestly-Code\u2019s account was peculiar in two respects: (1) He\n restricts the hostility to the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, and\n (2) he traces it to Joseph\u2019s reporting their misdeeds to Jacob.\n It is plain that Priestly-Code is no mere supplementer of the\n older history, but an independent author, though his account has\n been sacrificed to the more graphic narratives of Yahwist and\n Elohist.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05de\u05d2\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (17\u2078) and \u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05db\u05e0\u05e2\u05df\u200e (but see page 474) are characteristic\n of Priestly-Code.\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05e8\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d1\u05f3\u200e] \u2018like verbs of governing\u2019 (Strack);\n so 1 Samuel 16\u00b9\u00b9 17\u00b3\u2074.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e0\u05e2\u05e8\u200e] Gunkel suggests \u05d5\u05d4\u05f3 \u05e0\u05b5\u05e2\u05b9\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc\u200e (Niphal\n\u200e \u221a \u05e2\u05d5\u05e8\u200e: compare Jeremiah 6\u00b2\u00b2 etc., and the Hithpael in Job 17\u2078),\n or \u05d5\u05d4\u05f3 \u05e8\u05b9\u05e2\u05b6\u05d4\u200e (= \u2018kept company with\u2019),\u2015\u2015neither proposal just\n convincing.\u2015\u2015\u05d3\u05d1\u05ea\u05dd \u05e8\u05e2\u05d4\u200e (so Numbers 14\u00b3\u2077)] literally \u2018brought the\n report of them evil,\u2019 \u05e8\u05f3\u200e being second accusative, or tertiary\n predicate (Davidson \u00a7 76). A bad sense is inherent in \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, which\n is a late word, in Hexateuch confined to Priestly-Code (Numbers\n 13\u00b3\u00b2 14\u00b3\u2076 \u1da0\u1427).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=3, 4= (Yahwist). _Now Israel loved Joseph...._] These are evidently\nthe opening words of Yahwist\u2019s Joseph-story, in which the sole motive\nof the brothers\u2019 hatred is the father\u2019s favouritism towards the\n_son of_ his _old age_ (16\u00b2 44\u00b2\u2070 Yahwist).\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05ea\u05b9\u05e0\u05b6\u05ea \u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05e1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] a shirt or tunic\nreaching to the extremities (\u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05e1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e), _i.e._ the wrists and ankles,\nwhereas the ordinary under-garment was sleeveless, and reached only\nto the knees. That it was an unusual habiliment appears also from\n2 Samuel 13\u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1427; but speculations as to its mythological significance\n(_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 384) have no\nsupport in either passage.\u2015\u2015=4.= _could not address him peaceably_] or,\n\u2018salute him.\u2019 The text is doubtful (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=5\u201211.= Joseph\u2019s dreams\n(Elohist).\u2015\u2015=6, 7.= The first dream\u2015\u2015a harvest scene\u2015\u2015represents\nJacob\u2019s family as agriculturists (see on 26\u00b9\u00b2); in verses \u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\n46\u00b3\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 they are shepherds. There may be some hint of the immediate\ncause of its fulfilment, a failure of the harvest (Gunkel), though\nthis is questionable.\u2015\u2015=8a.= _Wilt thou, forsooth, be king over\nus?_] The language points beyond the personal history of Joseph\nto the hegemony of the \u2018house of Joseph\u2019 in North Israel (Judges\n1\u00b2\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015=9.= The second dream presages Joseph\u2019s elevation not only\nover his brothers, but over his father (Holzinger), _i.e._ Israel\ncollectively.\u2015\u2015_eleven stars_] Supposed by some to be an allusion to\nthe signs of the Zodiac (Delitzsch, Gunkel, al., compare Jeremias _Das\nAlte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 383), the twelfth being\neither Joseph himself, or the constellation obscured by Joseph as\nthe sun-god. The theory will stand or fall with the identification of\nJacob\u2019s twelve sons with the Zodiacal signs (see pages 534 f.); the\nabsence of the article here makes it, however, at least improbable\nthat the theory was in the mind of the writer.\u2015\u2015=11.= _envied_ is the\nappropriate word for Elohist\u2019s account, as \u2018hated\u2019 (verse \u2074) is for\nYahwist\u2019s (\u2075\u1d47 and \u2078\u1d47 are redactional).\u2015\u2015_his father kept the matter_\n(in mind)] LXX \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd. Compare Luke 2\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u2075\u00b9.\n\n While significant dreams bulk largely in Elohist\u2019s\n Joseph-narrative (chapter 40 f.), it is characteristic of\n this section of the work that the dreams contain no oracular\n revelations (like 20\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 31\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2074), but have a meaning in\n themselves which is open to human interpretation. The religious\n spirit of these chapters (as also of chapter 24), both in\n Yahwist and Elohist, is a mature faith in God\u2019s providential\n ruling of human affairs, which is independent of theophanies,\n or visible interpositions of any kind. It can scarcely be\n doubted that such narratives took shape at a later period of\n Old Testament religion than the bulk of the patriarchal legends.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =3.= \u05d5\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05e9\u200e. As\n the tense can hardly be frequentative, it is best to restore \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05e2\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d4\u200e\n (Ball, Kittel).\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05ea\u05e0\u05ea \u05e4\u05e1\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] Compare Josephus _Antiquities of the\n Jews_ vii. 171: \u1f10\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2. Except LXX\n (\u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd) and Vulgate (_tunicam polymitam_ [but compare\n verse \u00b2\u00b3]), all Versions here support this sense: Aquila \u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\n \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, Symmachus \u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac\n phrase) (\u2018with sleeves\u2019), Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05db\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d3\u05e4\u05e1\u05d9\u200e, etc. In 2 Samuel\n 13, LXX, Vulgate, and Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 curiously change sides (\u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u1f7c\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, _talaris tunica_, (\u2021 Syriac word) [= tunica striata]).\n The real meaning is determined by New Hebrew and Aramaic\n\u200e \u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05e1\u200e (Daniel 5\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2074) = \u05d0\u05b8\u05e4\u05b0\u05e1\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e, Ezekiel 47\u00b3; see Bevan, _A Short\n Commentary on Daniel_ 100.\u2015\u2015=4.= \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u200e\u00b2] Hebrew MSS, _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\u200e; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac\n phrase).\u2015\u2015\u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9 \u05dc\u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd\u200e On the suffix, see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 115 _c_.\n But no other case occurring of \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05e8\u200e with accusative of person\n addressed (Numbers 26\u00b3 is corrupt), Gunkel points \u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u200e (\u2018could\n not take his matter peaceably\u2019), Kittel emends to \u05dc\u05b0\u05d3\u05b7\u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9 \u05dc\u05f3\u200e (the \u05dc\u200e\n might be omitted: see Exodus 2\u00b3 etc.).\u2015\u2015=5b= is out of place\n _before_ the telling of the dream, and is omitted by LXX.\u2015\u2015=7.=\n Insert \u05d7\u05dc\u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u200e at the beginning, with LXX.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b4\u05dc\u05b5\u05bc\u05dd\u200e] \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd;\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b2\u05dc\u05bb\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, Psalms 126\u2076\u2020.\u2015\u2015=8b.= Another redactional addition, though\n found in LXX; note the plural \u2018dreams\u2019 when only one has been\n told.\u2015\u2015=10a.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u200e is an interpolation intended to explain\n what immediately follows. LXX omits, and seeks to gain the same\n end by inserting \u05dc\u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u200e before \u05dc\u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u200e in \u2079.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=12\u201217. Jacob sends Joseph to inquire after his brethren.=\u2015\u2015=12, 13a,\n14b= Yahwist \u2225 =13b, 14a= Elohist (see the analysis below). In Yahwist,\nJacob is dwelling in _the vale of Hebron_; the sons have gone to\n_Shechem_. If the incident of chapter 34 belonged to the same cycle\nof tradition, the brethren would perhaps hardly have ventured into the\nneighbourhood of Shechem so soon (see page 418); though it has been\nargued that this very circumstance accounts for Jacob\u2019s solicitude.\nIn Elohist we find no indication of either the starting-point or\nthe goal of the journey. =14a= suggests that the flocks were at\nsome distance from Jacob\u2019s home: possibly the narrative is based\non a stratum of Elohist in which Jacob\u2019s permanent residence was at\nBethel (see on 35\u00b9).\u2015\u2015=15\u201217.= The man who directs Joseph to Dothan\nis not necessarily a neighbour of the family who knew Joseph by\nsight (Gunkel); nor is the incident a faded version of a theophany\n(Holzinger, Bennett): it is simply a vivid description of the\nuncertainty of Joseph\u2019s persistent search for his brethren.\u2015\u2015_D\u00f4th\u0101n_\n(2 Kings 6\u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, Judith 3\u2079 4\u2076 7\u00b9\u2078) is the modern _Tell D\u014dth\u0101n_, near\n\u01e6en\u012bn, about 15 miles North of Shechem. Some local legend may have\nconnected it with the history of Joseph.\n\n \u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b9\u2077 would be a sufficiently natural continuation of \u00b9\u2074\u1d47\n (Yahwist), and Gunkel\u2019s conjecture (above) establishes no\n presumption to the contrary. They may, however, be from Elohist:\n in this case it is probable that Elohist did not mention Shechem\n at all, nor Yahwist Dothan.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =12\u201214= is composite. \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u200e shows that \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1d43 belong to Yahwist;\n and \u05d4\u05e0\u05e0\u05d9\u200e shows that \u00b9\u00b3\u1d47 is from Elohist (compare 22\u00b9\u1427 \u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9 27\u00b9\n 31\u00b9\u00b9). Hence \u00b9\u2074\u1d43 is not a specification, but a variant, of \u00b9\u00b3\u1d43,\n continuing \u00b9\u00b3\u1d47. \u00b9\u2074\u1d47 obviously follows \u00b9\u00b3\u1d43.\u2015\u2015=12.= \u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u05b9\u200e] with\n _puncta extraordinaria_, because for some reason the text was\n suspected.\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05de\u05e2\u05de\u05e7 \u05d7\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05df\u200e (23\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2079)] The words might be a gloss\n based on Priestly-Code (35\u00b2\u2077 49\u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 50\u00b9\u00b3); but Steuernagel\u2019s\n proposal to remove them (_Die Einwanderung der israelitischen\n St\u00e4mme in Kanaan_ 36) takes too little account of the\n fragmentariness of Yahwist\u2019s narrative in chapter 35; and\n Gunkel\u2019s argument that the journey was too long for a young\n lad is weak.\u2015\u2015=17.= \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_, LXX \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d3\u05ea\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4\u200e, \u05d3\u05ea\u05df\u200e] The form with \u05d9\u200e is the older\n (compare Egyptian _Tu-ti-y-na_, M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa nach\n alt\u00e4gyptischen Denkm\u00e4lern_, 88), the other an accommodation to\n a common nominal termination. The ending \u05be\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05df\u200e is not dual, but an\n old (Aramaic ?) locative corresponding to Hebrew \u05be\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e (see pages\n 342 f.; Barth, _Die Nominalbildung in den Semitischen Sprachen_,\n 319\u2075; Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 88 _c_).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=18\u201230. The plot to murder Joseph frustrated by Reuben= (Elohist),\n=or Judah= (Yahwist).\u2015\u2015=18a, 19, 20= Elohist \u2225 =18b= Yahwist. Common\nto both sources is the proposal to kill Joseph; Elohist develops it\nmost fully, revealing the motive of the crime and the device by which\nit was to be concealed.\u2015\u2015=19.= _yon master-dreamer_] a mocking epithet;\ncompare \u00b2\u2070\u1d47.\u2015\u2015=20.= _and throw him_ (his dead body) _into one of the\npits_] The idea would suit either narrative; and we cannot be sure\nthat the indefinite \u2018one of the pits\u2019 does not come from Yahwist\n(see \u00b2\u00b2).\u2015\u2015=21= Yahwist \u2225 =22= Elohist. In \u00b2\u00b9 we must read _Judah_\nfor _Reuben_.\u2015\u2015_and delivered him out of their hand_] is premature\n(verse \u00b2\u00b3): the clause might stand more naturally in Yahwist between\n\u00b2\u00b3 and \u00b2\u2075, though the rest of the verse must be left where it is\n(so Gunkel).\u2015\u2015_we will not kill him outright_] Judah has as yet no\ncounter-proposal.\u2015\u2015=22.= Reuben, on the other hand, has his scheme\nready: he appeals to the antique horror of shed blood, which cries\nfor vengeance on the murderer (4\u00b9\u00b9).\u2015\u2015_this pit_] a particular cistern\nwhich Reuben knew to be empty of water (\u00b2\u2074\u1d47). It is probable that one\nof the numerous pits round Dothan was traditionally associated with\nthe fate of Joseph (Gunkel): compare the _Khan \u01e6ubb Y\u016bsuf_ near Safed,\nincorrectly identified with the Dothan cistern (_Biblical Researches\nin Palestine_, ii. 418 f.).\u2015\u2015=24= (Elohist).\u2015\u2015=25\u201227, 28a\u03b2= (Yahwist).\nThe fate of Joseph is apparently still undecided, when Judah makes an\nappeal to the cupidity of his brothers (_what profit, etc.?_), by\nproposing to sell him to some passing Ishmaelites.\u2015\u2015=25.= _a caravan\n... from Gilead_] The plain of Dothan is traversed by a regular trade\nroute from Gilead through Beisan to Ramleh, and thence (by the coast)\nto Egypt (Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 127). Shechem also\nlies on several routes from the East of the Jordan to the coast.\u2015\u2015The\nnatural products mentioned (_v.i._) were much in request in Egypt\nfor embalming, as well as for medicinal and other purposes.\u2015\u2015=26.=\n_cover his blood_] Ezekiel 24\u2077, Isaiah 26\u00b2\u00b9, Job 16\u00b9\u2078.\u2015\u2015=28.=\n_twenty_ (shekels) _of silver_] compare Leviticus 27\u2075 with Exodus\n21\u00b3\u00b2 (see Driver).\u2015\u2015=28a\u03b1b, 29, 30= (Elohist). Joseph is kidnapped by\ntrading Midianites, who pass unobserved after the brothers have left\nthe spot.\u2015\u2015=30.= Only now does Reuben reveal his secret design of\ndelivering Joseph. It is interesting to note his own later confusion\nof the intention with the act, in 42\u00b2\u00b2.\n\n That the last section is from another source than \u00b2\u2075\u207b\u00b2\u2077 appears\n from (a) the different designation of the merchants, (b) the\n absence of the article showing that they have not been mentioned\n before, (c) Reuben\u2019s surprise at finding the pit empty. The\n composite narrative requires us to assume that the brethren are\n the subject of \u05d5\u05d9\u05de\u05e9\u05db\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05dc\u05d5\u200e, against the natural construction of the\n sentence.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =18a= and =18b\u03b1= are obviously doublets; the analysis adopted\n above gives the simplest arrangement.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05e0\u05db\u05dc\u05d5\u200e] \u2018acted craftily,\u2019\n only found in late writings (Numbers 25\u00b9\u2078, Malachi 1\u00b9\u2074, Psalms\n 105\u00b2\u2075\u2020), but the \u221a occurs in Aramaic and Assyrian.\u2015\u2015On the\n accusative, see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 117 _w_.\u2015\u2015=19.= \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d7\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u200e\n The rendering above is a little too strong; for the use of \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u200e\n as \u2018noun of relation,\u2019 see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 127 b.\u2015\u2015=21.=\n\u200e \u05e0\u05db\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u200e] Second accusative of respect, Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 117 _ll_.\u2015\u2015=22.= \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd, a false\n assimilation to verse \u00b2\u2070.\u2015\u2015=23.= \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05db\u05ea\u05e0\u05ea\u05d5\u200e] LXX omits. It is\n impossible to say whether this and the following appositional\n phrase are variants from Elohist and Yahwist respectively,\n or whether the second is a (correct) gloss on Yahwist.\n Vulgate combines both in the rendering _tunica talari et\n polymita_.\u2015\u2015=25.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05dc\u05d7\u05dd\u200e] Assigned by many critics (Dillmann,\n al.) to Elohist, and certainly not necessary in Yahwist. But we\n still miss a statement in Elohist that the brothers had moved\n away from the pit.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05db\u05d0\u05ea\u200e (43\u00b9\u00b9\u2020)] supposed to be \u2018gum-tragacanth\u2019;\n Arabic _naka\u2019at._\u2015\u2015\u05e6\u05b3\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9 = [\u05d5\u05bc]\u05e6\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] the resinous gum for which\n Gilead was famous (43\u00b9\u00b9, Jeremiah 8\u00b2\u00b2 46\u00b9\u00b9 51\u2078, Ezekiel 27\u00b9\u2077\u2020);\n possibly that exuded by the mastic-tree; but see _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n Biblica_, 465 f.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05b9\u05d8\u200e (43\u00b9\u00b9\u2020) Greek \u03bb\u03ae\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, Latin _ladanum_,\n the gum of a species of cistus-rose (_Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_,\n 2692 f.). Mentioned amongst objects of Syrian tribute (_ladunu_)\n by Tiglath-pileser IV. (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte\n Testament_\u00b2, 151).\u2015\u2015=27.= \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX + \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4\u200e. The word is\n apparently used in the general sense of \u2018Bedouin,\u2019 as Judges 8\u00b2\u2074\n (compare 6\u00b9 etc.): see on 16\u00b9\u00b2.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05e9\u05e8\u05e0\u05d5\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Vulgate prefix \u05d5\u05bc\u200e.\u2015\u2015=28b= is\n assigned to Elohist because of \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05d5\u200e, Yahwist using \u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05d3\u200e in this\n connexion (\u00b2\u2075 39\u00b9 43\u00b9\u00b9 etc.).\u2015\u2015=29.= \u05d0\u05d9\u05df\u200e] LXX \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f41\u03c1\u1fb7.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=31\u201236. The deceiving of Jacob.=\u2015\u2015=31, 32.= Gunkel remarks that the\nsending of a bloody token is a favourite motive in popular tales.\nWhether the incident is peculiar to Yahwist, or common to Yahwist and\nElohist, can hardly be determined (_v.i._)\u2015\u2015=33.= _an evil beast has\ndevoured him_] Exactly as verse \u00b2\u2070 (Elohist). A slight change of text\nin \u00b3\u00b2 (_v.i._) would enable us to take the words as spoken by the sons\nto Jacob (so Gunkel). =34, 35.= The grief of Jacob is depicted in both\nsources, but with a difference. Elohist (\u00b3\u2074\u1d43\u1427 \u00b3\u2075\u1d47) hardly goes beyond\nthe conventional signs of mourning\u2015\u2015\u2018the trappings and the suits of\nwoe\u2019; but Yahwist (\u00b3\u2074\u1d47\u1427 \u00b3\u2075\u1d43) dwells on the inconsolable and life-long\nsorrow of the bereaved father. This strain of pathos and subjectivity\nis very marked in Yahwist in the Joseph narratives.\u2015\u2015_rent his clothes\n... put on sackcloth_] On these customs, the origin of which is still\nobscure, see Schwally, _Das Leben nach dem Tode_, 11 ff.; Gr\u00fcneisen,\n_Der Ahnenkultus Und Die Urreligion Israels_, 61 ff.; Engert, _Ehe-\nund Familienrecht der Hebr\u00e4er_, 96 ff.\u2015\u2015=34b.= \u05d4\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05d0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05dc\u200e, chiefly used\nin reference to the dead, includes the outward tokens of mourning:\nExodus 33\u2074, 2 Samuel 14\u00b2; compare Isaiah 61\u00b3, Psalms 35\u00b9\u2074.\u2015\u2015=35.=\n_all his daughters_] There was really only one daughter in the family.\nA similar indifference to the prevalent tradition in details is seen\nin the disparity of age between Joseph and his brothers (verse \u00b3),\nand the assumption that Rachel was still alive (\u00b9\u2070).\u2015\u2015_go down ...\nas a mourner_] Jacob will wear the mourner\u2019s garb till his death,\nso that in the underworld his son may know how deep his grief had\nbeen (Gunkel). The shade was believed to appear in _She\u2019\u014dl_ in the\ncondition in which it left the world (Schwally 63 f.).\u2015\u2015=36= (Elohist)\nresuming \u00b2\u2078\u1d47. See, further, on 39\u00b9.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =31.= The reason for assigning the verse to Yahwist (Gunkel)\n is the precarious assumption that Joseph\u2019s coat plays no part\n at all in Elohist. There is a good deal to be said for the view\n that it belongs to Elohist (Dillmann, Holzinger, al.).\u2015\u2015=32.=\n\u200e \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05d5\u200e] Gunkel \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05d5\u05b9\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u200e, \u2018and they came\u2019 (see on \u00b3\u00b3 above), which\n would be an excellent continuation of \u00b3\u00b9: in Elohist they dip\n the coat in blood, _come_ to their father, and _say_ \u2018an evil\n beast,\u2019 etc.; in Yahwist they _send_ the coat unstained, and let\n Jacob form his own conclusion.\u2015\u2015In any case \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e is Elohist\u2019s\n parallel to Yahwist\u2019s \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05dc\u05d7\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05db\u05e8\u05be\u05e0\u05d0\u200e (compare 38\u00b2\u2075), and the\n disjunctive question (compare 18\u00b2\u00b9 24\u00b2\u00b9) point distinctly to\n Yahwist (Dillmann).\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b7\u05db\u05bc\u05ea\u05e0\u05ea\u200e] Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 100 _l_.\u2015\u2015=33.=\n After \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u200e, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 insert \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d8\u05b8\u05e8\u05b9\u05e3 \u05d8\u05b9\u05e8\u05b7\u05e3\u200e] compare 44\u00b2\u2078. On infinitive absolute\n Qal used with Pual, see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 113 _w_.\u2015\u2015=35.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u200e]\n LXX \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad, adding \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd before \u05dc\u05e0\u05d7\u05de\u05d5\u200e.\u2015\u2015=36.= \u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e]\n Read with all Versions \u05d5\u05d4\u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e as verse \u00b2\u2078.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXVIII.\n _Judah and Tamar_\n (Yahwist).\n\nJudah, separating himself from his brethren, marries a Canaanitish\nwife, who bears to him three sons, \u201bEr, \u2019\u00d4n\u0101n and Sh\u0113l\u0101h (\u00b9\u207b\u2075).\n\u201bEr and \u2019Onan become in succession the husbands of Tamar (under the\nlevirate law), and die without issue; and Judah orders Tamar to remain\na widow in her father\u2019s house till Shelah should reach manhood (\u2076\u207b\u00b9\u00b9).\nFinding herself deceived, Tamar resorts to a desperate stratagem,\nby which she procures offspring from Judah himself (\u00b9\u00b2\u207b\u00b2\u2076). With the\nbirth of her twin sons, Pere\u1e93 and Zera\u1e25, the narrative closes (\u00b2\u2077\u207b\u00b3\u2070).\n\n The story rests on a substratum of tribal history, being in the\n main a legendary account of the origin of the principal clans\n of Judah. To this historical nucleus we may reckon such facts\n as these: the isolation of Judah from the rest of the tribes\n (see on verse \u00b9); the mixed origin of its leading families;\n the extinction of the two oldest clans, \u201bEr and \u2019Onan; the\n rivalry of the younger branches, Pere\u1e93 and Zera\u1e25, ending in the\n supremacy of the former; and (possibly) the superiority of these\n two (as sons of Judah) to the more ancient Shelah (his grandson).\n See Steuernagel, _Die Einwanderung der israelitischen St\u00e4mme\n in Kanaan_ 79 f.; where, however, the ethnological explanation\n is carried further than is reasonable.\u2015\u2015It is obvious that the\n legend belongs to a cycle of tradition quite independent of\n the story of Joseph. The latter knows of no separation of Judah\n from his brethren, and this record leaves no room for a reunion.\n Although Priestly-Code, who had both before him, represents\n Judah and his sons as afterwards accompanying Jacob to Egypt\n (46\u00b9\u00b2), there can be no doubt that the intention of this passage\n is to relate the permanent settlement of Judah in Palestine.\n Where precisely the break with the prevalent tradition occurs,\n we cannot certainly determine. It is possible that the figure\n of Judah here is simply a personification of the tribe, which\n has never been brought into connexion with the family history\n of Jacob: in this case the events reflected may be assigned to\n the period subsequent to the Exodus. It seems a more natural\n supposition, however, that the legend ignores the Exodus\n altogether, and belongs to a stratum of tradition in which\n the occupation of Canaan is traced back to Jacob and his\n immediate descendants (see pages 418, 507).\u2015\u2015On some touches of\n mythological colouring in the story of Tamar, see below, pages\n 452, 454.\n\n _Source._\u2015\u2015The chapter is a pure specimen of Yahwistic\n narration, free from redactional manipulation. The following\n characteristics of Yahwist may be noted: \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, \u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2070; \u05e8\u05e2 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u200e, \u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2070;\n\u200e \u05d4\u05d1\u05d4\u05be\u05e0\u05d0\u200e, \u00b9\u2076; \u05d4\u05db\u05e8\u05be\u05e0\u05d0\u200e, \u00b2\u2075 (37\u00b3\u00b2); \u05db\u05d9\u05be\u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05db\u05df\u200e, \u00b2\u2076; \u05d9\u05d3\u05e2\u200e; \u00b2\u2076; further, the\n naming of the children by the mother, \u00b3\u207b\u2075; and the resemblance\n of \u00b2\u2077 \u1da0\u1427 to 25\u00b2\u2074 \u1da0\u1427. Since the sequence of 39\u00b9 on 37\u00b3\u2076 would\n be harsh, it is probable that chapter 38 was inserted here by\n Redactor\u1d36\u1d49\u02b0\u1d52\u1d5b\u2071\u02e2\u1d57 (Holzinger).\n\n=1\u20125. Judah founds a separate family at Adullam.=\u2015\u2015=1.= _went down\nfrom his brethren_] Since the chapter has no connexion with the\nhistory of Joseph, we cannot tell when or where the separation is\nconceived to have taken place. From the situation of _\u201bAdull\u0101m_, it is\nclear that some place in the central highlands is indicated. Adullam\nis _possibly \u201b\u012ad el-M\u012bye_ (or _\u201bAid el-M\u0101_), on the border of the\nShephelah, 12 miles South-west of Bethlehem and 7 North-east of\nEleutheropolis (Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 193; Smith,\n_Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 229). It is marked on the\nPalestinian Survey map as 1150 feet above sea-level.\n\n The isolation of the tribe of Judah was a fact of capital\n importance in the early history of Israel. The separation is\n described in Judges 1\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427; in the song of Deborah (Judges 5)\n Judah is not mentioned either for praise or blame; and his\n reunion with Israel is prayed for in Deuteronomy 33\u2077. The\n rupture of the Davidic kingdom, and the permanent cleavage\n between south and north, are perhaps in part a consequence of\n the stronger infusion of foreign blood in the southern tribe.\n The verse suggests that the first Judahite settlement was at\n \u201bAdullam, where the tribe gained a footing by alliance with\n a native clan named \u1e24\u00eer\u0101h; but Meyer (_Die Israeliten und\n ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 435 f.) thinks it presupposes a previous\n occupation of the region round Bethlehem, and deals merely with\n an extension towards the Shephelah. It is certainly difficult\n otherwise to account for the verb \u05d9\u05e8\u05d3\u200e (contrast \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u200e, Judges 1\u2074);\n but were Judah\u2019s brethren ever settled at Bethlehem? Gunkel\u2019s\n emendation, \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d3\u200e, \u2018freed himself\u2019 (see on 27\u2074\u2070; compare Hosea 12\u00b9),\n would relieve the difficulty, but is too bold for a plain prose\n narrative.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d8\u200e] LXX \u1f00\u03c6\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf the precise force here of \u05e0\u05d8\u05d4\u200e, \u2018turn\n aside,\u2019 is doubtful. The change of \u05e2\u05d3\u200e to \u05d0\u05dc\u200e (Ball) is unnecessary\n (compare 1 Samuel 9\u2079).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=2.= A more permanent amalgamation with the Canaanites is represented\nby Judah\u2019s marriage with or _Bath-Sh\u00fba\u201b_ or _Bath-Sheva\u201b_ (See on\nverse \u00b9\u00b2). The freedom with which connubium with the Canaanites is\nacknowledged (contrast 34. 24\u00b3) may be a proof of the antiquity of the\nsource (Holzinger, Gunkel).\u2015\u2015=5b.= _in K\u0115z\u00eeb, etc._] It is plausibly\ninferred that K\u0115z\u00eeb (= _\u2019Akz\u00eeb_, an unknown locality in the Shephelah,\nJoshua 15\u2074\u2074, Micah 1\u00b9\u2074) was the centre of the clan of Shelah; though\nLXX makes all three births happen there.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =2.= \u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u200e] LXX \u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc\u200e. See on verse \u00b9\u00b2.\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u200e] Better as\n verses \u2074\u1427 \u2075 \u05d5\u05ea\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u200e (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,\n Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, Hebrew MSS).\u2015\u2015=5.= \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u03a3\u03b7\u03bb\u03ce\u03bc; compare\n the gentilic \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dc\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, Numbers 26\u00b2\u2070.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4\u200e] is impossible, and _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u200e little better. Read\n with LXX \u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05d0\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05db\u05d6\u05d9\u05d1\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_\n\u200e \u05d1\u05db\u05d6\u05d1\u05d4\u200e, compare \u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05d6\u05b5\u05d1\u05b8\u05d0\u200e, 1 Chronicles 4\u00b2\u00b2.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05ea\u05d5\u200e] LXX \u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015Nothing can\n be made of the strange renderings of \u2075\u1d47 in Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 and Vulgate:\n (\u2021 Syriac phrase); _quo nato parere ultra cessavit_ (compare\n 29\u00b3\u2075 30\u2079).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=6\u201211. Tamar\u2019s wrong.=\u2015\u2015=6.= _Tamar_, the Hebrew word for date-palm,\noccurs twice as a female name in David\u2019s family (2 Samuel 13\u00b9\n14\u00b2\u2077). There is therefore little probability that it is here a\npersonification of the city of the same name on the South border of\nPalestine (Ezekiel 47\u00b9\u2079) (so Steuernagel). A mythological origin is\nsuggested on page 452 below.\u2015\u2015As head of the family, Judah chooses a\nwife for his first-born (24\u00b3 34\u2074 21\u00b2\u00b9), as he is also responsible for\nthe carrying out of the levirate obligation (\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9).\u2015\u2015=7.= No crime\nis alleged against _\u201b\u0112r_, whose untimely death was probably the only\nevidence of Yahwe\u2019s displeasure with him (Proverbs 10\u00b2\u2077).\u2015\u2015=8\u201210.=\n_\u2019On\u0101n_, on the other hand, is slain because of the revolting manner\nin which he persistently evaded the sacred duty of raising up seed\nto his brother. It is not correct to say (with Gunkel) that his\n_only_ offence was his selfish disregard of his deceased brother\u2019s\ninterests.\u2015\u2015=11.= Judah sends Tamar home to her family, on the pretext\nthat his third son Shelah is too young to marry her. His real motive\nis fear lest his only surviving son should share the fate of \u201bEr and\n\u2019Onan, which he plainly attributes in some way to Tamar herself.\u2015\u2015_in\nthy father\u2019s house_] according to the law for a childless widow\n(Leviticus 22\u00b9\u00b3, Ruth 1\u2078).\n\n The custom of levirate marriage here presupposed prevailed\n widely in primitive times, and is still observed in many\n parts of the world. In its Hebrew form it does not appear\n to have implied more than the duty of a surviving brother to\n procure male issue for the oldest member of a family, when\n he dies childless: the first-born son of the union is counted\n the son, and is the heir, to the deceased; and although in\n Deuteronomy 25\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 the widow is said to become the wife of\n her brother-in-law, it may be questioned if in early times the\n union was more than temporary. It is most naturally explained\n as a survival, under patriarchal conditions, of some kind of\n polyandry, in which the wife was the common property of the\n kin-group (Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_\u00b2,\n 146 ff.); and it naturally tended to be relaxed with the\n advance of civilisation. Hence the law of Deuteronomy 25\u2075\u207b\u00b9\u2070 is\n essentially a concession to the prevalent reluctance to comply\n with the custom. This is also illustrated by the conduct of\n \u2019Onan: the sanctity of the obligation is so strong that he does\n not dare openly to defy it; yet his private family interest\n induces him to defeat its purpose. It is noteworthy that the\n only other historical example of the law\u2015\u2015the analogous though\n not identical case of Boaz and Ruth\u2015\u2015also reveals the tendency\n to escape its operation.\u2015\u2015See Driver, _A critical and exegetical\n commentary on Deuteronomy_ 280 ff. (with the authorities there\n cited); also Engert, _Ehe- und Familienrecht der Hebr\u00e4er_,\n 15 ff.; Barton, _A Sketch of Semitic Origins_\u00b9, 66 ff.\n\n Judah\u2019s belief that Tamar was the cause of the deaths of \u201bEr\n and \u2019Onan (_v.s._) may spring from an older form of the legend,\n in which she was actually credited with death-dealing power.\n Stucken and Jeremias recognise in this a common mythical\n motive,\u2015\u2015the goddess who slays her lovers,\u2015\u2015and point to the\n parallel case of Sara in the Book of Tobit (3\u2078). Tamar and Sara\n (_\u0161arratu_, a title of I\u0161tar) were originally forms of I\u0161tar\n (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 381 f.).\n The connexion is possible; and if there be any truth in Barton\u2019s\n speculation that the date-palm was sacred to I\u0161tar (_A Sketch\n of Semitic Origins_\u00b9, 92, 98, 102 ff.), it might furnish an\n explanation of the name Tamar.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =7.= \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e\u00b2] LXX \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\u2015\u2015=8.= \u05d9\u05b7\u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05dd\u200e] Deuteronomy 25\u2075\u1427 \u2077\u2020;\n denominative from \u05d9\u05b8\u05d1\u05b8\u05dd\u200e, the _terminus technicus_ for \u2018husband\u2019s\n brother\u2019 in relation to the levirate institution.\u2015\u2015=9.=\n\u200e \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dd\u200e] \u2018as often as\u2019; Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 159 _o_.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d7\u05b5\u05ea\u200e\n (sc. _semen_)] in the sense of \u2018spoil,\u2019 \u2018make ineffective\u2019\n (Brown-Driver-Briggs).\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05b0\u05ea\u05b8\u05df\u05be\u200e for \u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05ea\u200e] only again Numbers 20\u00b2\u00b9;\n compare \u05d4\u05b2\u05dc\u05b9\u05da\u05b0\u200e, Exodus 3\u00b9\u2079, Numbers 22\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2076.\u2015\u2015=10.= \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4\u200e]\n LXX, prefix \u05d4\u05b7\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8\u200e.\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, \u05d5\u05b7\u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d1\u200e] Ball al. propose \u05e9\u05bb\u05c1\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, \u05d5\u05b7\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d1\u200e,\n after Leviticus 22\u00b9\u00b3; but see Isaiah 47\u2078.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=12\u201219. Tamar\u2019s daring stratagem.=\u2015\u2015=12.= _Bath-Sh\u016ba\u201b_] See the\nfootnote.\u2015\u2015_was comforted_] a conventional phrase for the effect\nof the mourning ceremonies; see Jeremiah 16\u2077.\u2015\u2015The death of Judah\u2019s\nwife is mentioned as a palliation of his subsequent behaviour: \u201ceven\nin early times it was considered not quite _comme il faut_ for a\nmarried man to have intercourse with harlots\u201d (Gunkel).\u2015\u2015On the\n_sheep-shearing_, see 31\u00b9\u2079.\u2015\u2015_\u1e24\u00eer\u0101h his associate_] (see verse \u00b9)\nis mentioned here because of the part he has to play in the story\n(verses \u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u00b3).\u2015\u2015_went up ... to Timnah_] This cannot be the\nDanite Timnah (Joshua 15\u00b9\u2070 19\u2074\u00b3, Judges 14\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u1427 \u2075), which lies lower\nthan \u201bAdullam. Another Timnah South of Hebron (Joshua 15\u2075\u2077), but\nunidentified, might be meant; or it may be the modern _Tibne_, West\nof Bethlehem, though this is only 4 miles from \u201bAdullam, and room has\nto be found for \u201bEnaim between them (but _v.i._ on verse \u00b9\u2074).\u2015\u2015=14.=\n_her widow\u2019s garments_] Compare Judith 8\u2075 10\u00b3 16\u2078.\u2015\u2015She assumes the\ngarb of a common prostitute, and sits, covered by _the veil_ (see\nbelow on verse \u00b2\u00b9), by the wayside; compare Jeremiah 3\u00b2, Ezekiel 16\u00b2\u2075,\nEpistle of Jeremiah 43.\u2015\u2015=15.= _for she had covered her face_] This\nexplains, not Judah\u2019s failure to recognise her, but his mistaking\nher for a harlot (see verse \u00b9\u2076).\u2015\u2015=17.= _a kid of the goats_] Compare\nJudges 15\u00b9. The present of a kid on these occasions may be due to\nthe fact that (as in classical antiquity) the goat was sacred to\nthe goddess of love (Pausanias vi. 25. 2 [with Frazer\u2019s Note, volume\niv. 106]; compare Tacitus _Histories_ 2, 3, and Lucian, _Dialogi\nMeretricii_ 7. 1) (Knobel-Dillmann).\u2015\u2015=18.= The master-stroke\nof Tamar\u2019s plot is the securing of a pledge which rendered the\nidentification of the owner absolutely certain. _Seal_, _cord_, and\n_staff_ must have been the insignia of a man of rank amongst the\nIsraelites, as seal and staff were among the Babylonians (Herodotus\ni. 195)\u00b9 and Egyptians (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 228 f.). The\n_cord_ may have been used to suspend the seal, as amongst modern town\nArabs (Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, i. 36), or may\nhave had magical properties like those occasionally worn by Arab men\n(Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 166). For illustrations of\nancient Hebrew seals, see Benzinger, _Hebr\u00e4ische Arch\u00e4ologie_\u00b2 82,\n179 f., 228 ff.\n\n \u00b9 \u03a3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019\n \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03ba\u03ae\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff3 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u03bc\u1fc6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u1fe5\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22\n \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b5\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f22 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u03c4\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u1f54 \u03c3\u03c6\u03b9 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\u2015\u2015Similarly Strabo, XVI. i. 20.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =12.= \u05d1\u05ea\u05be\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u200e] Apparently a compound proper name, as in 1\n Chronicles 2\u00b3 = \u05d1\u05ea\u05be\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d1\u05b7\u05e2\u200e (compare 1 Chronicles 3\u2075 with 2 Samuel 11\u00b3\n etc.), through an intermediate \u05d1\u05ea\u05be\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d5\u05b7\u05e2\u200e. LXX, both here and verse \u00b2\n (but _not_ 1 Chronicles 2\u00b3), gives \u05e9\u05d5\u05e2\u200e as the name of Judah\u2019s\n _wife_.\u2015\u2015\u05e8\u05b5\u05e2\u05b5\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u200e] LXX, Vulgate \u05e8\u05b9\u05e2\u05b5\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u200e, \u2018his shepherd,\u2019 wrongly.\u2015\u2015=13.=\n\u200e \u05d7\u05b8\u05dd\u200e] \u2018husband\u2019s father,\u2019 1 Samuel 4\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9\u2020. Smith (_Kinship and\n Marriage in Early Arabia_\u00b2, 161 f.) finds in the Arabic usage a\n distinct trace of ba\u201bal-polyandry; the correlative is _kanna_,\n \u201cwhich usually means the wife of a son or brother, but in the\n \u1e24am\u0101sa is used ... to designate one\u2019s own wife.\u201d\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05d5\u05b7\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05db\u05b7\u05e1\u200e] so\n Deuteronomy 22\u00b9\u00b2, Jonah 3\u2076. Read either \u05d5\u05b7\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05e1\u200e, Niphal (Gunkel), or\n\u200e \u05d5\u05b7\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05ea\u05b0\u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e1\u200e, Hithpael, with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_\n (as 24\u2076\u2075).\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05e4\u05ea\u05d7 \u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac phrase), Vulgate _in\n bivio itineris_, and Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f take the meaning to\n be \u2018at the cross-roads\u2019 (of which there are several on the short\n way from \u201bAid el-M\u0101 to Tibne). The sense is good, and it is\n tempting to think that these versions are on the right track,\n though their rendering has no support in Hebrew usage. If \u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e be\n a proper name it may be identical with the unknown \u05e2\u05b5\u05d9\u05e0\u05b8\u05dd\u200e of Joshua\n 15\u00b3\u2074, in the Shephelah.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 \u05e0\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e] LXX \u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 \u05e0\u05b0\u05ea\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e, better.\u2015\u2015=15.=\n end] LXX + \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=20\u201223. Judah fails to recover his pledge.=\u2015\u2015=20.= It is significant\nthat Judah employs his _fidus Achates_ \u1e24irah in this discreditable\naffair, and will rather lose his seal, etc., than run the risk\nof publicity (verse \u00b2\u00b3).\u2015\u2015=21.= _Where is that \u1e32\u0115d\u0113sh\u0101h?_]\nstrictly \u2018sacred prostitute,\u2019\u2015\u2015one \u2018dedicated\u2019 for this purpose to\nI\u0161tar-Astarte, or some other deity (Deuteronomy 23\u00b9\u2078, Hosea 4\u00b9\u2074\u2020).\n\n This is the only place where \u05e7\u05d3\u05e9\u05d4\u200e appears to be used of\n an ordinary harlot; and Luther (_Die Israeliten und ihre\n Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 180) points out that it is confined to the\n conversation of \u1e24irah with the natives, the writer using \u05d6\u05d5\u05b9\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e.\n The code of \u1e24ammurabi (\u00a7 110) seems to contemplate the case\n of a temple-votary (_\u1e33adistu_, _Die Keilinschriften und das\n Alte Testament_\u00b3, 423; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten\n Orients_\u00b2, 380) separating herself for private prostitution; and\n it is possible that this custom was familiar to the Canaanites,\n though not in Israel.\u2015\u2015That the harlot\u2019s _veil_ (verses \u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2079)\n was a symbol of dedication to I\u0161tar the veiled goddess (_Die\n Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b3, 276, 432; _Das Alte\n Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 109) is possible,\n though it is perhaps more natural to suppose that the veiling of\n I\u0161tar is an idealisation of the veiling of her votaries, which\n rests on a primitive sexual taboo (compare the bridal veil 24\u2076\u2075).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =21.= \u05de\u05e7\u05de\u05d4\u05bc\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05d4\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd\u200e (verse \u00b2\u00b2). If this reading be accepted, there is\n no reason to hold that \u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05dd\u200e (if a place-name at all) was Tamar\u2019s\n native village.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b4\u05d5\u05d0\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_\n\u200e \u05d4\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0\u200e; but see 19\u00b3\u00b3 etc.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=24\u201226. The vindication of Tamar. =\u2015\u2015=24.= As the widow of \u201bEr, or\nthe betrothed of Shelah, Tamar is guilty of adultery, and it falls to\nJudah as head of the family to bring her to justice.\u2015\u2015_Lead her out_]\na forensic term, Deuteronomy 22\u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2074.\u2015\u2015_let her be burnt_] Death by\nburning is the punishment imposed in \u1e2aammurabi, \u00a7 157, for incest with\na mother, and was doubtless the common punishment for adultery on the\npart of a woman in ancient Israel. In later times the milder penalty\nof stoning was substituted (Leviticus 20\u00b9\u2070, Deuteronomy 22\u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427,\nEzekiel 16\u2074\u2070, Jonah 8\u2075), the more cruel death being reserved for\nthe prostitution of a priest\u2019s daughter (Leviticus 21\u2079; compare\n\u1e2aammurabi \u00a7 110).\u2015\u2015=25.= By waiting till the last moment, Tamar makes\nher justification as public and dramatically complete as possible.\nAddressing the crowd she says, _To the man who owns these things,\netc._; to Judah himself she flings out the challenge, _Recognise to\nwhom this seal, etc., belong!_\u2015\u2015=26.= _She is in the right as against\nme_ (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 133 _b_\u00b3; compare Job 4\u00b9\u2077 32\u00b2)] _i.e._, her\nconduct is justified by the graver wrong done to her by Judah.\n\n To suppose that incidents like that recorded in \u00b9\u00b2\u207b\u00b2\u2076 were of\n frequent occurrence in ancient Israel, or that it was the duty\n of the father-in-law under _any_ circumstances to marry his\n son\u2019s widow, is to miss entirely the point of the narrative.\n On the contrary, as Gunkel well shows (365 f.), it is just\n the exceptional nature of the circumstances that explains the\n writer\u2019s obvious admiration for Tamar\u2019s heroic conduct. \u201cTamar\n shows her fortitude by her disregard of conventional prejudice,\n and her determination by any means in her power to secure her\n wifely rights within her husband\u2019s family. To obtain this right\n the intrepid woman dares the utmost that womanly honour could\n endure,\u2015\u2015stoops to the level of an unfortunate girl, and does\n that which in ordinary cases would lead to the most cruel and\n shameful death, bravely risking honour and life on the issue.\n At the same time, like a true mother in Judah, she manages her\n part so cleverly that the dangerous path conducts her to a happy\n goal.\u201d\u2015\u2015It follows that the episode is not meant to reflect\n discredit on the tribe of Judah. It presents Judah\u2019s behaviour\n in as favourable a light as possible, suggesting extenuating\n circumstances for what could not be altogether excused; and\n regards that of Tamar as a glory to the tribe (compare Ruth 4\u00b9\u00b2).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =24.= \u05db\u05de\u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ more\n correctly \u05db\u05de\u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u05ea\u200e.\u2015\u2015=25.= On the syntax, see Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7\u00a7 116 _u_, _v_, 142 _e_; Driver _A Treatise on the use of the\n Tenses in Hebrew_ \u00a7 166 ff.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u200e] construct state with clause\n as genitive; Holzinger al. point \u05dc\u05b8\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d7\u05ea\u05de\u05ea\u200e] feminine only\n here.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05e4\u05ea\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,\n Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d4\u05e4\u05ea\u05d9\u05dc\u200e (as verse \u00b9\u2078).\u2015\u2015=26.=\n\u200e \u05db\u05d9\u05be\u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05db\u05df\u200e] see on 18\u2075.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=27\u201230. Birth of Pere\u1e93 and Zera\u1e25.=\u2015\u2015The story closely resembles that\nof Rebekah in 25\u00b2\u2074\u207b\u00b2\u2076 (38\u00b2\u2077\u1d47 = 25\u00b2\u2074\u1d47), and is probably a variation of\nthe same originally mythical theme (see page 359).\u2015\u2015=28.= The _scarlet_\nthread probably represents some feature of the original myth (note\nthat in 25\u00b2\u2075 \u2018the first came out _red_\u2019). The forced etymology of\n_Zera\u1e25_ (verse \u00b3\u2070) could not have suggested it.\u2015\u2015=29.= _What a breach\nhast thou made for thyself!_] The name _Pere\u1e93_ expresses the violence\nwith which he secured the priority.\u2015\u2015=30.= _Zera\u1e25_] An Edomite clan in\n36\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b3\u00b3. On the etymology, _v.i._\n\n To the name Pere\u1e93, Cheyne (_Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient\n Israel_, 357) aptly compares Plutarch\u2019s account of the birth\n of Typhon, brother of Osiris: \u201cneither in due time, nor in\n the right place, but _breaking through with a blow_, he leaped\n out through his mother\u2019s side\u201d (_De Iside et Osiride_ chapter\n 12).\u2015\u2015The ascendancy of the Pere\u1e93 clan has been explained by the\n incorporation of the powerful families of Caleb and Jera\u1e25meel,\n 1 Chronicles \u2075\u1427 \u2079 (so Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_,\n i. 158 f.); but a more obvious reason is the fact that David\u2019s\n ancestry was traced to this branch (Romans 4\u00b9\u2078\u207b\u00b2\u00b2).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =28.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05df\u05be\u05d9\u05d3\u200e] _sc._ \u05d4\u05b7\u05e0\u05b9\u05bc\u05ea\u05b5\u05df\u200e (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 144 _e_); LXX + \u1f41\n \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2.\u2015\u2015=29.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05b5\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05d1\u200e] An ungrammatical use of the participle.\n Read with Ball \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05d5\u05b9 \u05d4\u05b5\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05d1\u200e (compare 19\u00b9\u2075).\u2015\u2015\u05e4\u05e8\u05e6\u05ea\u2015\u2015\u05e4\u05e8\u05e5\u200e] cognitive\n accusative. The rendering as a question (\u05de\u05d4\u200e = \u2018why\u2019: Delitzsch,\n Dillmann, Driver) is less natural than that given above; and to\n detach \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05da \u05e4\u05e8\u05e5\u200e [_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u200e]\n as a separate exclamation (\u2018A breach upon thee!\u2019) is worse.\n LXX (\u03c4\u03af \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c3\u1f72 \u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2;) Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 take the\n verb in a passive sense.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f \u05d5\u05ea\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u200e (so verse \u00b3\u2070).\u2015\u2015=30.=\n\u200e \u05d6\u05b6\u05e8\u05b7\u05d7\u200e] as a Hebrew word would mean \u2018rising\u2019 (of the sun, Isaiah\n 60\u00b3) or \u2018autochthonous\u2019 (= \u05d0\u05b8\u05d6\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d7\u200e). A connexion with the idea of\n \u2018redness\u2019 is difficult to establish. It is commonly supposed\n that there is a play on the Aramaic \u05d6\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u05d0\u200e (which is used here by\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2, and is the equivalent of Hebrew \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e),\n and Babylonian _za\u1e2buritu_ (so Delitzsch, Driver, Gunkel, al.);\n but this is not convincing.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXIX.\n _Joseph is cast into Prison_\n (Yahwist).\n\nJoseph is sold by the Ishmaelites (37\u00b2\u2078\u1427 \u00b3\u2076) to an Egyptian householder,\nwho finds him so capable and successful that ere long he entrusts him\nwith the whole administration of his estate (\u00b9\u207b\u2076). But his master\u2019s\nwife conceives a guilty passion for him, and when her advances are\nrepelled, falsely accuses him of attempted outrage, with the result\nthat he is thrown into prison (\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u2070). Here again he wins the favour\nof his superior, and is soon charged with the oversight of the prison\n(\u00b2\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u00b3).\n\n _Source._\u2015\u2015With the exception of a harmonising gloss in \u00b9\u1d47{\u03b1},\n and a sprinkling of Elohist variants (discussed in the notes),\n the whole passage is from Yahwist. It represents the chief\n divergence between the two recensions of the history of Joseph.\n In Yahwist, Joseph is first sold to a private Egyptian \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u200e,\n verse \u00b9), then cast into the state prison in the way here\n narrated, where he gains the confidence of the (unnamed)\n governor, so that when the butler and baker are sent thither\n they naturally fall under his charge. In Elohist, Joseph is\n sold at once to Potiphar (37\u00b3\u2076), the palace officer in whose\n house the butler and baker are afterwards confined (40\u00b3\u1d43); and\n Joseph, without being himself a prisoner, is told off to wait\n on these eminent persons (40\u2074). The imprisonment, therefore,\n is indispensable in Yahwist, and at least embarrassing in\n Elohist.\u2015\u2015This conclusion is partly confirmed by the literary\n phenomena: \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, \u00b2\u1427 \u00b3\u1427 \u2075; the Ishmaelites, \u00b9; \u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05d3\u200e, \u00b9; \u05d4\u05e6\u05dc\u05d9\u05d7\u200e, \u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3;\n\u200e \u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d7\u05df\u200e, \u2074; \u05d1\u05d2\u05dc\u05dc\u200e, \u2075. It is somewhat disconcerting to find that none\n of these occur in the central section, \u2077\u207b\u00b2\u2070; and (Wellhausen,\n _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher\n des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 56) positively assigns \u2076\u207b\u00b9\u2079 to Elohist,\n because of the phrases \u05d9\u05e4\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d0\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e4\u05d4 \u05de\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4\u200e, \u2076\u1d47 (compare 29\u00b9\u2077); \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05f3\n\u200e \u05d4\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05f3\u200e, \u2077 (compare 15\u00b9 22\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2070 40\u00b9 48\u00b9); \u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u200e, \u00b9\u2074; and \u05dc\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u2079.\n These are not decisive (see Dillmann, 403; Holzinger, 231), and\n on the whole the material argument must be held to outweigh the\n dubious linguistic evidence that can be adduced on the other\n side.\u2015\u2015Procksch (42 f.) assigns \u2077\u207b\u00b9\u2070 to Elohist and \u00b9\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u00b3 to\n Yahwist; but nothing is gained by the division.\n\n=1\u20126. Joseph becomes the controller of an Egyptian estate.=\u2015\u2015=1.=\n_But Joseph had been taken down, etc._] while his father was mourning\nover him as one dead (37\u00b3\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427); the notice resumes 37\u00b2\u2078\u1d43.\u2015\u2015_a certain\nEgyptian_] who is nameless in Yahwist (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=2.= The secret of\nJoseph\u2019s success: a combination of ability with personal charm which\nmarked him out as a favourite of Yahwe (compare \u00b3\u1427 \u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3).\u2015\u2015_remained\nin the house, etc._] under his master\u2019s observation, instead of being\nsent to work in the field.\u2015\u2015=4a.= _served him_] _i.e._, \u2018became his\npersonal attendant.\u2019\u2015\u2015The phrase is a variant from Elohist (compare\n40\u2074).\u2015\u2015=4b.= In Yahwist, Joseph\u2019s position is far higher, that, namely,\nof _mer-per_ (_mer-pa, mer en peri-t, etc._), or superintendent of the\nhousehold, frequently mentioned in the inscriptions (Ebers, _\u00c4gypten\nund die B\u00fccher Moses_ 303 ff.; Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 187\nf.).\u2015\u2015=6a.= _knew not with him_] (_i.e._ with Joseph [verse \u2078]):\n\u2018held no reckoning with him\u2019;\u2015\u2015a hyperbolical expression for absolute\nconfidence.\u2015\u2015=6b= is introductory to \u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =1.= The words \u05e4\u05d5\u05d8\u05d9\u05e4\u05e8\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d8\u05d1\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd\u200e are a repetition by Redactor\u1d36\u1d49\u02b0\u1d52\u1d5b\u2071\u02e2\u1d57\n from 37\u00b3\u2076 (Elohist), in order to harmonise the two sources.\n But the contradiction appears (1) in the meaningless \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u200e\n after the specific designation (this is not to be got rid\n of by Ebers\u2019s observation that under a Hyksos dynasty a high\n official was not necessarily a native Egyptian), and (2) the\n improbability of a eunuch being married (though cases of this\n kind are known [Ebers, 299]).\u2015\u2015\u05e4\u05d5\u05d8\u05d9\u05e4\u05e8\u200e] LXX \u03a0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c6\u03c1\u03b7[\u03c2], an exact\n transcription of Egyptian _Pedephr\u0113_ = \u2018He whom the sun-god\n gives\u2019 (see _A Dictionary of the Bible_, i. 665b; _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n Biblica_, 3814); but the long _o_ of the Hebrew has not been\n explained. Compare Heyes, 105\u2012112.\u2015\u2015\u05e1\u05e8\u05d9\u05e1\u200e] means \u2018eunuch\u2019 in\n New Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, (as is shown by the denominative\n verbs = \u2018be impotent\u2019), and there is no case in Old Testament\n where the strict sense is inapplicable (Gesenius, _Thesaurus\n philologicus criticus Lingu\u00e6 Hebr\u00e6\u00e6 et Chald\u00e6\u00e6 Veteris\n Testamenti_ 973 b). That such a word should be extended to mean\n \u2018courtier\u2019 in general is more intelligible than the reverse\n process (so Heyes, 122), in spite of the opinion of several\n Assyriologists who derive it from _\u0161a r\u00ea\u0161i_ = \u2018he who is the\n head\u2019 (Zimmern, _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen\n Gesellschaft_, liii. 116; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte\n Testament_\u00b3, 649).\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d8\u05d1\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, a title like\n\u200e \u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd\u200e and \u05e9\u05f3 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d5\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e in chapter 40 (Elohist). Compare \u05e8\u05d1 \u05d4\u05d8\u05f3\u200e,\n 2 Kings 25\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, Jeremiah 39\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 40\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 etc., Daniel 2\u00b9\u2074. The\n\u200e \u05d8\u05d1\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd\u200e were apparently the royal cooks or butchers (1 Samuel\n 9\u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427), who had come to be the bodyguard (Smith, _The Old\n Testament in the Jewish Church_\u00b2, 262\u00b9).\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05de\u05e6\u05dc\u05d9\u05d7\u200e] The\n intransitive Hiphil is thought by Dillmann, Gunkel, al. to be\n inconsistent with Yahwist\u2019s usage (verses \u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3 24\u00b2\u00b9); therefore\n Elohist.\u2015\u2015=4.= \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,\n LXX, Vulgate \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d9\u05e9\u05be\u05dc\u05d5\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ inserts \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u200e as verse \u2075 \u1d47\u2071\u02e2\u1427 \u2078.\u2015\u2015=4a= is wholly\n assigned to Elohist by Gunkel; but \u05d5\u05d9\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d7\u05df\u200e pleads strongly for\n Yahwist.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=7\u201220. Joseph tempted by his master\u2019s wife.=\u2015\u2015=7\u201210.= The first\ntemptation. The solicitation of a young man by a married woman is a\nfrequent theme of warning in Proverbs 1\u20129.\u2015\u2015=9a.= \u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05e0\u05b6\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u200e does not mean\n\u2018there is none\u2019 (which would require \u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05df\u200e), but \u2018he is not.\u2019\u2015\u2015=9b.= _sin\nagainst God_] The name Yahwe is naturally avoided in conversation with\na foreigner. All the more striking is the consciousness of the divine\npresence which to the exiled Israelite is the ultimate sanction of\nmorality.\u2015\u2015=11, 12.= The final temptation.\u2015\u2015On the freedom of social\nintercourse between the sexes, see Ebers, 306 f. But the difficulties\nraised about Joseph\u2019s access to the harem do not really arise, when\nwe remember that Yahwist is depicting the life of a simple Egyptian\nfamily, and not that of a high palace official (see Tuch).\u2015\u2015=13\u201220.=\nThe woman\u2019s revenge.\u2015\u2015=14.= A covert appeal to the jealousy of\nthe men-servants against the hated Hebrew, and to the fears of the\nwomen, whom she represents as unsafe from insult (_to mock us_). An\nadditional touch of venom lurks in the contemptuous reference to her\nhusband as \u2018_he_.\u2019\u2015\u2015_Hebrew_ may be here a general designation of the\nAsiatic Bedouin (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2,\n387); but see on 40\u00b9\u2075.\u2015\u2015=19.= Her distorted account of the facts has\nthe desired effect on her husband.\u2015\u2015_his wrath was kindled_] against\nJoseph, of course. There is no hint that he suspected his wife, and\nwas angry with her also (Delitzsch, Dillmann).\u2015\u2015=20.= Imprisonment\nwould certainly not be the usual punishment for such a crime as Joseph\nwas believed to have committed; but the sequel demanded it, Joseph\u2019s\nfurther career depending on his being lodged in the _place where the\nking\u2019s prisoners were bound_. That he became a king\u2019s slave (according\nto \u1e24ammurabi \u00a7 129) is not indicated (against Jeremias _Das Alte\nTestament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 388). The term for _prison_\n(_v.i._) is peculiar, and recurs only \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3 40\u00b3\u1427 \u2075.\n\n To this episode in Joseph\u2019s life there is an Egyptian parallel\n so close that we can hardly fail to recognise in it the original\n of the Hebrew story. It is the \u2018Tale of the two brothers\u2019 in the\n d\u2019Orbiney Papyrus, assigned by Egyptologists to the 19th dynasty.\n Two brothers lived together, the older Anpu having a house and\n wife, and the younger Batu serving him in the field. One day\n Batu enters the house to fetch seed for the sowing, and is\n tempted by his brother\u2019s wife, exactly as Joseph was by his\n mistress. Furiously indignant\u2015\u2015\u201clike a panther for rage\u201d\u2015\u2015he\n rejects her advances, out of loyalty to the brother who has been\n like a father to him, and expresses horror of the \u2018great sin\u2019\n which she had suggested. Promising silence, he returns to his\n brother in the field. In the evening Anpu comes home to find\n his wife covered with self-inflicted wounds, and listens to a\n tale which is a perfect parallel to the false accusation against\n Joseph. Anpu seeks to murder his brother; but being at last\n convinced of his innocence, he slays his wife instead. Here the\n human interest of the story ceases, the remainder being fairy\n lore of the most fantastic description, containing at least a\n reminiscence of the Osiris myth. (See Ebers, 311 ff.; Erman,\n _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 378 ff.; Petrie, _Egyptian Tales\n Translated from the Papyri_, ii. 36 ff.; V\u00f6lter, _Aegypten und\n die Bibel_, 50 f. [who takes the story as a whole to be founded\n on the myth of Set and Osiris].) It is true that the theme is\n not exclusively Egyptian (see the numerous parallels in Lang,\n _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, ii. 303 ff.); but the fact that\n the scene of the biblical narrative is in Egypt, and the close\n resemblance to the Egyptian tale, make it extremely probable\n that there is a direct connexion between them.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =8.= \u05de\u05d4\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05de\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d4\u200e (verse\n\u200e \u00b2\u00b3).\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Vulgate \u05d1\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u200e.\u2015\u2015=10.= \u05dc\u05e9\u05db\u05d1 \u05d0\u05e6\u05dc\u05d4\u200e and \u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05de\u05d4\u200e look like\n variants; but one swallow does not make a summer, and it would\n be rash to infer an Elohistic recension.\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05db\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\u200e] A very\n obscure expression, see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 400 b. Of the\n other occurrences (Deuteronomy 6\u00b2\u2074, Jeremiah 44\u00b2\u00b2, Ezra 9\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2075,\n Nehemiah 9\u00b9\u2070\u2020) all except the last are perfectly transparent:\n \u2018as [it is] this day,\u2019\u2015\u2015a sense quite unsuitable here. One\n must suspect that the phrase, like the kindred \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd\u200e and \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd \u05d4\u05b7\u05d6\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4\u200e\n (compare especially 1 Samuel 22\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3), had acquired some elusive\n idiomatic meaning which we cannot recover. Neither \u2018on a certain\n day\u2019 (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 126 _s_) nor \u2018on this particular\n day\u2019 (Brown-Driver-Briggs) can be easily justified.\u2015\u2015=13.=\n\u200e \u05d5\u05d9\u05e0\u05e1\u200e] MSS, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX + \u05d5\u05d9\u05e6\u05d0\u200e\n\u200e (\u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2075).\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05dc\u05e6\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05b6\u05e7 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d5\u200e] see on 26\u2078.\u2015\u2015=15.= \u05d0\u05e6\u05dc\u05d9\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Vulgate (_pallium quod\n tenebam_) read \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u200e,\u2015\u2015wrongly, since to have said this would\n have been to betray herself (Delitzsch, Dillmann).\u2015\u2015=17= end]\n LXX + \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03ad\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u039a\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 [LXX\u1d2c \u039a\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019\n \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6].\u2015\u2015=18.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9 \u05db\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u200e] LXX \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f24\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f55\u03c8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05e0\u05e1\u200e] LXX,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 + \u05d5\u05d9\u05e6\u05d0\u200e.\u2015\u2015=20.= \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05e1\u05d4\u05e8\u200e] Only in \u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u00b3 40\u00b3\u1427 \u2075 (Yahwist).\n The name may be Egyptian (see Ebers, 317 ff.; Driver _A\n Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 768 a, _n._), but has not been\n satisfactorily explained.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b0\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u200e] Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 130\n _c_.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u200e] so _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ (and\n also in verse \u00b2\u00b2); but read with Qr\u00ea \u05d0\u05e1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u200e (\u00b2\u00b2).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=21\u201223.= =Joseph in prison.=\u2015\u2015His good fortune and consequent\npromotion are described in terms nearly identical with those of verses\n\u00b9\u207b\u2076.\u2015\u2015In Yahwist, the governor of the prison is anonymous, and Joseph\nis made superintendent of the other prisoners.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =21.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05d7\u05e0\u05d5\u200e] (as Exodus 3\u00b2\u00b9 11\u00b3 12\u00b3\u2076\u2020) genitive of object =\n \u2018favour towards him.\u2019\u2015\u2015=22.= \u05e2\u05b9\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] On omission of subject, see\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 116 _s_.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4\u200e] LXX\u1d2c\u1427 \u1d43\u02e1\u1427 omitted.\u2015\u2015=23.=\n\u200e \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u200e] LXX \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f26\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u03b7\u03c6.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05e6\u05dc\u05d9\u05d7\u200e] LXX + \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n \u03c7\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n CHAPTER XL.\n _Joseph proves his Gift of interpreting Dreams_\n (Elohist).\n\nJoseph is appointed to wait on two officers of the court who have\nbeen put under arrest in his master\u2019s house (\u00b9\u207b\u2074), and finds them\none morning troubled by dreams for which they have no interpreter\n(\u2075\u207b\u2078). He interprets the dreams (\u2079\u207b\u00b9\u2079), which are speedily verified by\nthe event (\u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u00b2). But his eager request that the chief butler would\nintercede for him with Pharaoh (\u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1427) remains unheeded (\u00b2\u00b3).\n\n _Source._\u2015\u2015The main narrative, as summarised above, obviously\n belongs to Elohist (see page 456 f.). Joseph is not a prisoner\n (as in Yahwist 39\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), but the servant of the captain of\n the guard (compare 37\u00b3\u2076 41\u00b9\u00b2); the officers are not strictly\n imprisoned, but merely placed \u2018in ward\u2019 (\u05d1\u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u200e) in Potiphar\u2019s\n house (\u00b3\u1427 \u2074\u1427 \u2077); and Joseph was \u2018stolen\u2019 from his native land\n (\u00b9\u2075\u1d43; compare 37\u00b2\u2078\u1d43), not sold by his brethren as 37\u00b2\u2078\u1d47\n (Yahwist).\u2015\u2015Fragments of a parallel narrative in Yahwist can\n be detected in \u00b9\u1d43{\u03b2}\u1d47 (a duplicate of \u00b2), \u00b3\u1d43{\u03b2} (from \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05f3\u200e) \u1d47\n (Joseph a prisoner), \u2075\u1d47 (the officers imprisoned), and \u00b9\u2075\u1d47.\u2015\u2015In\n the phraseology note Yahwist\u2019s \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05e7\u05d4\u200e, \u05d4\u05d0\u05e4\u05d4\u200e, \u00b9\u1427 \u2075\u1d47 \u2225 Elohist\u2019s\n\u200e \u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u05e9\u05f3 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u00b2\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3; Yahwist \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05e1\u05d4\u05e8\u200e, \u00b3\u1d43{\u03b2}\u1427\n \u2075\u1d47 \u2225 Elohist \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u200e, \u00b3\u1d43{\u03b1}\u1427 \u2074\u1427 \u2077; while \u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d8\u05d1\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u00b3\u1427 \u2074, and \u05e1\u05e8\u05d9\u05e1\u200e,\n \u00b2\u1427 \u2077, connect the main narrative with 37\u00b3\u2076 (Elohist).\u2015\u2015That in\n Yahwist the turn of Joseph\u2019s fortune depended on the successful\n interpretation of dreams does not explicitly appear, but may be\n presumed from the fact that he was afterwards brought from the\n dungeon to interpret them (41\u00b9\u2074\u1d43{\u03b2} Yahwist).\n\n=1\u20128. Pharaoh\u2019s officers in disgrace: their dreams.=\u2015\u2015=1.= _the\nbutler ... the baker_] Yahwist writes as if the king had only one\nservant of each class: his notions of a royal establishment are\nperhaps simpler than Elohist\u2019s. In Babylonia the highest and oldest\ncourt offices are said to have been those of the baker and the butler\n(_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 54; compare\nZimmern, _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_,\nliii. 119 f.).\u2015\u2015=2.= _chief of the butlers ... bakers_ (Elohist)]\nThe rise of household slaves to high civil dignity seems to have\nbeen characteristic of the Egyptian government under the 19th dynasty\n(Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 105). Titles corresponding to\nthose here used are \u2018scribe of the sideboard,\u2019 \u2018superintendent\nof the bakehouse,\u2019 etc. (Erman, 187).\u2015\u2015=3a.= The officers are not\nincarcerated, but merely detained in custody pending investigation\n(Gunkel).\u2015\u2015=3b = (Yahwist). _bound_] _i.e._ \u2018confined\u2019; compare\n39\u00b2\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015=4.= Joseph is charged with the duty of waiting on them (\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05e8\u05b5\u05ea\u200e\nas 39\u2074, 2 Samuel 13\u00b9\u2077). =5\u20128= is a skilful piece of narration: the\neffect of the dreams is vividly depicted before their character is\ndisclosed.\u2015\u2015=5.= _each according to the interpretation of his dream_]\na sort of _idem per idem_ construction, meaning that the dreams\nhad each a peculiar significance.\u2015\u2015=5b= (Yahwist).\u2015\u2015=8.= _no one\nto interpret it_] No professional interpreter, such as they would\ncertainly have consulted had they been at liberty.\u2015\u2015_interpretations\nbelong to God_] The maxim is quite in accord with Egyptian sentiment\n(Herodotus, ii. 83), but in the mouth of Joseph it expresses the\nHebrew idea that inspiration comes directly from God and is not a\n\u200e\u05de\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05d5\u05b7\u05ea \u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05b0\u05dc\u05bb\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (Isaiah 29\u00b9\u00b3).\n\n On the Egyptian belief in divinely inspired dreams, see\n Ebers, 321 f.; Wiedemann, _Religion of the ancient Egyptians_\n 266 ff.; Heyes, 174 ff.: on the belief in classical antiquity,\n Homer _Iliad_ ii. 5\u201234, _Odyssey_ iv. 795 ff.; Cicero, _De\n Divinatione_ i. \u00a7 39 ff. etc.; in modern Egypt, Lane, _An\n Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_\u2075,\n i. 330. While this idea was fully shared by the Israelites, the\n _interpretation_ of dreams, as a distinct art or gift, is rarely\n referred to in Old Testament (only in the case of Joseph, and\n that of Daniel, which is largely modelled on it). Elsewhere\n the dream either _contains_ the revelation (20\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 etc.), or\n carries its significance on its face (28\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 37\u00b9\u2070). See Stade\n _Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments_ \u00a7 63. 1.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05e7\u05b5\u05d4\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d4\u05d0\u05e4\u05d4\u200e] On the syntax, see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\u00a7 128 _a_,\n 129 _h_; Davidson \u00a7 27 (_b_): compare verse \u2075.\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05e6\u05e3\u200e is the\n regular continuation of the time-clause in \u00b9\u1d43 (Elohist).\u2015\u2015\u05e1\u05b8\u05bd\u05e8\u05d9\u05e1\u05d9\u05d5\u200e]\n with so-called _qamez impurum_; so always except in construct\n state (40\u2077 etc.).\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05d1\u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05b7\u05e8\u200e] Better perhaps \u05d1\u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u200e (compare\n verse \u2074), with \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u200e as accusative of place. So verse \u2077.\u2015\u2015=4.= \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e\n = \u2018for some time\u2019; Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 139 _h_.\u2015\u2015=6.= \u05d6\u05e2\u05e3\u200e] \u2018be\n fretful\u2019; elsewhere late (Daniel 1\u00b9\u2070, Proverbs 19\u00b3, 2 Chronicles\n\u200e 26\u00b9\u2079\u2020).\u2015\u2015=8.= \u05e4\u05ea\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df\u200e] On the order, Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 152\n _o_.\u2015\u2015\u05e4\u05ea\u05e8\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX \u05e4\u05ea\u05e8\u05e0\u05b8\u05dd\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=9\u201219. The dreams interpreted.=\u2015\u2015=9\u201211.= The butler had seen a vine\npass rapidly through the stages of its growth; had seemed to squeeze\nthe ripe grapes into a cup and present it to Pharaoh,\u2015\u2015a mixture of\nthe \u2018realistic\u2019 and the \u2018fantastic\u2019 which belongs to the psychology of\nthe dream (Gunkel). It is disputed whether the drinking of the fresh\njuice is realism or phantasy. \u201cThe ordinary interpretation is that\nthe king drank the fresh grape-juice; but as the butler sees the\nnatural process of the growth of the grapes take place with dream-like\nswiftness, so probably it is taken for granted that the juice became\nwine in similar fashion\u201d (Bennett; so Gunkel). On the other hand,\nEbers (_Durch Gosen zum Sinai_\u00b2, 492) cites two texts in which a\nbeverage prepared by squeezing grapes into water is mentioned.\u2015\u2015=12,\n13.= The interpretation: the butler will be restored to his office\nwithin three days.\u2015\u2015_lift up thy head_] Commonly understood of\nrestoration to honour. But in view of the fact that the phrase is\nused of the baker also, it may be doubted if it be not a technical\nphrase for release from prison (as it is in 2 Kings 25\u00b2\u2077, Jeremiah\n52\u00b3\u00b9).\u2015\u2015=14, 15.= Joseph\u2019s petition.\u2015\u2015_remember me_] On the difficult\nconstruction, _v.i._\u2015\u2015_from this house_] Not the prison (as version,\nbelow), but Potiphar\u2019s house, where he was kept as a slave.\u2015\u2015=15a.= _I\nwas stolen_] compare 37\u00b2\u2078\u1d43{\u03b1} (Elohist).\u2015\u2015_the land of the Hebrews_]\nThe expression is an anachronism in the patriarchal history. It\nis barely possible that both here and in 39\u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2077 (41\u00b9\u00b2) there is a\nfaint reminiscence of the historical background of the legends, the\nearly occupation of Palestine by Hebrew tribes.\u2015\u2015=15b= (Yahwist) was\nprobably followed in the original document by an explanation of the\ncircumstances which led to his imprisonment.\u2015\u2015=16\u201219.= The baker\u2019s\ndream contains sinister features which were absent from the first,\nthe decisive difference being that while the butler dreamed that he\nactually performed the duties of his office, the baker only sought\nto do so, and was prevented (Gunkel).\u2015\u2015=16.= _three baskets of white\nbread_] The meaning of \u05d7\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, however, is doubtful (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015_upon my\nhead_] See the picture of the court-bakery of Rameses III. in Ebers,\n_\u00c4gypten und die B\u00fccher Moses_ 332; Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_,\n191. According to Ebers, the custom of carrying on the head (Herodotus\nii. 35) was not usual in ancient Egypt _except_ for bakers.\u2015\u2015=17.= _in\nthe uppermost basket_] Were the other two empty (Holzinger, Bennett)?\nor were they filled with inferior bread for the court (Gunkel)?\u2015\u2015_all\nmanner of bakemeats_] The court-baker of Rameses III. \u201cis not content\nwith the usual shapes used for bread, but makes his cakes in all\nmanner of forms. Some are of a spiral shape like the \u2018snails\u2019 of our\nconfectioners; others are coloured dark-brown or red,\u201d etc. (Erman,\n192).\u2015\u2015_while the birds kept eating_] In real life he would have\ndriven off the birds (compare 15\u00b9\u00b9); in the dream\u2015\u2015and this is the\nominous circumstance\u2015\u2015he cannot.\u2015\u2015=19.= _lift thy head from off thee_]\nIn view of the fulfilment, it is perhaps better (with Ball) to remove\n\u200e\u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05da\u200e as a mistaken repetition of the last word of the verse, and to\nunderstand the phrase of the baker\u2019s release from prison (see on verse\n\u00b9\u00b3). The verb _hang_ may then refer to the mode of execution, and\nnot merely (as generally supposed) to the exposure of the decapitated\ncorpse. Decapitation is said to have been a commoner punishment in\nEgypt than hanging, but the latter was not unknown (Ebers, 334). The\ndestruction of the corpse by birds must have been specially abhorrent\nto Egyptians, from the importance they attached to the preservation\nof the body after death. For Old Testament examples, see Deuteronomy\n21\u00b2\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427, Joshua 10\u00b2\u2076, 2 Samuel 4\u00b9\u00b2, and especially 2 Samuel 21 \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2070.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =10.= \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05db\u05e4\u05e8\u05d7\u05ea\u200e] Not \u2018when it budded\u2019 (Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2),\n for such a use of \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u200e with a participle (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\n 164 _g_) is dubious even in the Mishnah (_The Jewish Quarterly\n Review_, 1908, 697 f.). If the text be retained we must render\n \u2018as if budding\u2019 (Driver, _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses\n in Hebrew_ page 172\u00b2). Ball emends (after LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1)\n\u200e \u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05de\u05b7\u05e4\u05b0\u05e8\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea\u200e (compare Job 14\u2079, Psalms 92\u00b9\u2074); Kittel \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e4\u05b8\u05e8\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05b4\u05e6\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05bc\u200e] The\n masculine \u05e0\u05b5\u05e5\u200e does not occur (in this sense) in biblical Hebrew,\n and a contraction of \u05be\u05b8\u05ea\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc\u200e to \u05be\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc\u200e is doubtful (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\n 91 _e_); hence it is better to read \u05e0\u05b4\u05e6\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e as accusative: \u2018it (the\n vine) went up in blossom.\u2019 It is possible that here and Isaiah\n\u200e 18\u2075 \u05e0\u05b4\u05e6\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e means \u2018berry-cluster\u2019; see Derenbourg, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\n die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, v. 301 f.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d1\u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u200e] literally\n \u2018cooked\u2019; Hiphil only here.\u2015\u2015Note the asyndetous construction,\n expressing the rapidity of the process.\u2015\u2015=13.= \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c2\u05d0\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b8\u05ea\u05be\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05da\u200e] LXX\n \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 ... \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5; similarly Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5,\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05b5\u05bc\u05df\u200e] literally \u2018pedestal,\u2019 used metaphorically as\n here in 41\u00b9\u00b3, Daniel 11\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b3\u2078\u2020.\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05db\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dd\u05be\u05d6\u05db\u05e8\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u200e] LXX \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n \u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, Vulgate _tantum memento mei_; similarly Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n and Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f. Something like this must be the\n meaning; the difficulty is (since a precative perfect is\n generally disallowed in Hebrew) to fit the sense to any known\n use of the bare perfect. (a) If it be perfect of certitude,\n the nearest analogy seems to me to be Judges 15\u2077, where \u05db\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dd\u200e has\n strong affirmative force, perhaps with a suppressed adjuration,\n as 2 Kings 5\u00b2\u2070 (\u05d7\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05db\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dd \u05e8\u05e6\u05ea\u05d9\u200e): \u2018thou wilt surely remember me.\u2019\n To supply a negative sentence like \u2018I desire nothing [except\n that thou remember me]\u2019 (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 163 _d_; Delitzsch,\n Strack), destroys the idea of perfect of certainty, and is a\n doubtful expedient for the additional reason that \u05db\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dd\u200e may mean\n \u2018except,\u2019 but hardly \u2018except that.\u2019 (b) It may be future perfect,\n in which case the \u05d0\u05dd\u200e must have its separate conditional sense;\n and then it is better (with Wellhausen) to change \u05db\u05d9\u200e to \u05d0\u05b7\u05da\u05b0\u200e: \u2018only,\n if thou remember me.\u2019 The objection (Delitzsch, Dillmann) that\n the remembrance is too essential an element of the request to\n be made a mere condition, has no great weight; and might be\n met by giving \u05d0\u05b4\u05dd\u200e interrogative force (Holzinger). See, further,\n Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ \u00a7 119\n (\u03b4).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea\u05be\u05e0\u05d0\u200e] The only case of consecutive perfect followed\n by \u05e0\u05d0\u200e (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 105 _b_).\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05df\u05be\u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\u200e] LXX, Vulgate,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f seem to have read \u05de\u05df\u05be\u05d4\u05b7\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\u200e, or\n\u200e \u05de\u05b4\u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05b7\u05e1\u05b9\u05bc\u05d4\u05b7\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015=16.= \u05d7\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e] \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, commonly derived from\n\u200e \u221a \u05d7\u05b8\u05d5\u05b7\u05e8\u200e \u2018be white\u2019; so virtually LXX, Aquila, Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5,\n Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f; but Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u2018of nobility\u2019 (\u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05d7\u05b5\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u200e). Others\n (Rashi, al.) understand it as a characteristic of the baskets:\n \u2018perforated\u2019 (from \u05d7\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u200e, \u2018hole\u2019). The \u03b2\u03b1\u03ca\u03bd\u03ac (of palm-leaves)\n of Symmachus seems to rest on Aramaic (Field).\u2015\u2015=19.= \u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05da\u200e\u00b9]\n Omitted by two MSS and Vulgate (Ball, Kittel).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=20\u201223. The dreams fulfilled.=\u2015\u2015=20.= That it was customary for the\nPharaoh to celebrate his birthday by court assemblies and granting of\namnesties, is proved for the Ptolemaic period by the tables of Rosetta\nand Canopus.\u2015\u2015_lifted the head_] see on verse \u00b9\u2079.\u2015\u2015=23.= The notice of\nthe butler\u2019s ingratitude forms an effective close, leaving the reader\nexpectant of further developments.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =20.= \u05d4\u05dc\u05d3\u05ea \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u200e] as Ezekiel 16\u2075; compare Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 69 _w_,\n 121 _b_.\u2015\u2015=21.= \u05de\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e7\u05b6\u05d4\u200e] is never elsewhere used of the office of\n butler: perhaps \u2018over his [Pharaoh\u2019s] drink\u2019 (as we should say,\n \u2018his cellar\u2019), as Leviticus 11\u00b3\u2074, 1 Kings 10\u00b2\u00b9, Isaiah 32\u2076 (so\n Gesenius, _Thesaurus philologicus criticus Lingu\u00e6 Hebr\u00e6\u00e6 et\n Chald\u00e6\u00e6 Veteris Testamenti_, Dillmann).\u2015\u2015=23.= \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05bc\u05e9\u05db\u05d7\u05d4\u05d5\u200e] Expressing\n \u201ca logical or necessary consequence of that which immediately\n precedes\u201d (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 111 _l_); compare Davidson \u00a7 47.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n CHAPTER XLI.\n _Joseph becomes Viceroy of Egypt_\n (Jehovist, Priestly-Code).\n\nTwo years after the events of chapter 40, the king of Egypt has a\nwonderful double dream, which none of his magicians is able to\ninterpret (\u00b9\u207b\u2078). The chief butler is naturally reminded of his own\nexperience, and mentions Joseph, who is forthwith summoned into the\nroyal presence (\u2079\u207b\u00b9\u2074). Having interpreted the dreams as a prophecy of\na great famine (\u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b3\u00b2), Joseph adds some sage advice on the right way\nto cope with the emergency (\u00b3\u00b3\u207b\u00b3\u2076); and Pharaoh is so impressed by his\nsagacity that he entrusts him with the execution of the scheme, and\nmakes him absolute ruler of Egypt (\u00b3\u2077\u207b\u2074\u2076). In pursuance of the policy\nhe had foreshadowed, Joseph stores the surplus of seven years of\nplenty, and sells it during the subsequent famine (\u2074\u2077\u207b\u2075).\n\n _Analysis._\u2015\u2015The connexion of this chapter with the preceding\n appears from \u00b9\u1d43 and \u2079\u207b\u00b9\u00b3: note \u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u05e9\u05f3 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u05e9\u05f3 \u05d4\u05d8\u05d1\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u200e,\n\u200e \u05e7\u05e6\u05e3\u200e (40\u00b2); Joseph the servant of the \u05e9\u05f3 \u05d4\u05d8\u05f3\u200e; the officers confined\n in his \u2018house\u2019; Joseph \u2018with them\u2019 (\u00b9\u2070, compare 40\u00b3\u1427 \u2074); and\n compare \u00b9\u00b9 with 40\u2075. In the first half of the chapter there is\n no sufficient reason to suspect a second source except in \u00b9\u2074\u1d47\n (Yahwist); the repetitions and slight variations are not greater\n than can be readily explained by a desire for variety in the\n elaboration of detail. The whole of this section (\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u2078) may\n therefore be safely assigned to Elohist (compare \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df\u05be\u05e4\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd\u200e,\n\u200e \u2078, \u05d5\u05e4\u05ea\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05ea\u05d5\u200e, \u00b9\u2075 with 40\u2078\u1d43; \u00b9\u2076 with 40\u2078\u1d47).\u2015\u2015In the second\n half, however, there are slight diversities of expression and\n representation which show that a parallel narrative (Yahwist)\n has been freely utilised. Thus, in \u00b3\u00b3 Joseph recommends the\n appointment of a single dictator, in \u00b3\u2074 the appointment of\n \u2018overseers\u2019; in \u00b3\u2074 a _fifth part_ is to be stored, in \u00b3\u2075\u1427 \u2074\u2078\n _all_ the corn of the good years; in \u00b3\u2075\u1d47{\u03b1} the collection is to\n be centralised under the royal authority, in \u1d47{\u03b2} localised in\n the different cities; \u05e6\u05d1\u05d3 \u05d1\u05e8\u200e alternates with \u05e7\u05d1\u05e5 \u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u200e (\u00b3\u2075\u1d47{\u03b1}\u1427 \u2074\u2079 \u200e \u2225\n \u00b3\u2075\u1d43\u1427 \u2074\u2078). Further, \u00b3\u2078 seems \u2225 \u00b3\u2079; \u2074\u00b9 \u2225 \u2074\u2074; and \u2074\u2075\u1d47 \u2225 \u2074\u2076\u1d47; \u2074\u2075\u1d43 \u05e4\u05d5\u05d8\u05d9\n\u200e \u05e4\u05e8\u05e2\u200e = \u05e4\u05d5\u05d8\u05d9\u05e4\u05e8\u200e can hardly be from Elohist, who has employed the name\n for another person (37\u00b3\u2076). Some of these differences may, no\n doubt, prove to be illusory; but taken cumulatively they suffice\n to prove that the passage is composite, although a satisfactory\n analysis cannot be given. For details, see the notes below; and\n consult Holzinger 234; Gunkel 380 f.; Procksch 43 f.\u2015\u2015\u2074\u2076\u1d43 is\n from Priestly-Code, and \u2075\u2070\u1d47 is a gloss.\n\n=1\u20128. Pharaoh\u2019s dreams.=\u2015\u2015=2.= _from the Nile_ (_v.i._)] the source\nof Egypt\u2019s fertility (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 425 ff.),\nworshipped as \u2018the father of the gods,\u2019 and at times identified with\nOsiris or Amon-re (Erman, _A Handbook of Egyptian Religion_, 14 f.,\n80 ff.).\u2015\u2015_seven cows, etc._] \u201cAccording to Diodorus Siculus i. 51,\nthe male ox is the symbol of the Nile, and sacred to Osiris, the\ninventor of agriculture (_ib._ i. 21).... The Osiris-steer often\nappears accompanied by _seven cows_, e.g. on the vignettes of the old\nand new Book of the Dead\u201d (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten\nOrients_\u00b2, 389).\u2015\u2015=4.= The devouring of one set of cows by the other\nis a fantastic but suggestive feature of the dream; the symbolism is\nalmost transparent.\u2015\u2015=5\u20127.= The second dream is, if possible, more\nfantastic and at the same time more explicit.\u2015\u2015=6.= _blasted with the\neast-wind_ (LXX \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9)] the dreaded sirocco or, _\u1e24ams\u012bn_, which\nblows from the South-east from February to June, destroying vegetation,\nand even killing the seed-corn in the clods (Ebers, 340; Erman,\n_Life in Ancient Egypt_, 9; Smith, _Historical Geography of the Holy\nLand_, 67 ff.).\u2015\u2015=8.= _all the magicians and wise men of Egypt_]\nThe possessors of occult knowledge of all sorts, including the\ninterpretation of dreams (see page 461); compare Tacitus, _Histories_\niv. 83: \u201cPtolem\u00e6us ... sacerdotibus \u00c6gyptiorum, quibus mos talia\nintellegere, nocturnos visus aperit\u201d; see Ebers, 341\u2012349. The\nmotive\u2015\u2015the confutation of heathen magic by a representative of the\ntrue religion\u2015\u2015is repeated in the histories of Moses (Exodus 7\u20129)\nand Daniel (chapters 2. 5); compare Isaiah 47\u00b9\u00b2 etc.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d7\u05dc\u05dd\u200e] Participial clause as apodosis; see Driver _A\n Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ \u00a7 78 (3).\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0\u05e8\u200e]\n An Egyptian loan-word (_\u2019iotr_, _\u2019io\u2019r_ = \u2018stream\u2019), used in\n Old Testament of the Nile and its canals (except Isaiah 33\u00b2\u00b9,\n Job 28\u00b9\u2070, Daniel 12\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427); found also in Assyrian in the form\n _ya\u2019aru_. See Ebers, 337 f.; Steindorff, _BA_, i. 612 (compare\n\u200e 171).\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05d0\u05d7\u05d5\u200e (41\u00b9\u2078, Job 8\u00b9\u00b9\u2020)] \u2018Nile-grass\u2019 = Egyptian _a\u1e25u_,\n from _a\u1e25a_, \u2018be green\u2019 (Ebers, 338). LXX \u1f04\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 occurs also\n verses \u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2079, Isaiah 19\u2077, Sirach 40\u00b9\u2076.\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05d5\u05d3\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d5\u05e8\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea\u200e (so verse \u2074). It is naturally\n difficult to decide which is right; but Ball pertinently points\n to the alliterations as determining the choice: read therefore\n\u200e \u05e8\u05f3\u200e in \u00b3\u1427 \u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u2077, but \u05d3\u05bc\u05f3\u200e in \u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3,\u2015\u2015in other words, \u05e8\u05f3\u200e always\n of the cows and \u05d3\u05bc\u05f3\u200e always of the ears.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05e6\u05dc\u200e] LXX omits, thus\n making all the 14 cows stand together.\u2015\u2015=4.= \u05d5\u05ea\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05e0\u05d4\u200e] LXX + \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d1\u05b7\u05e2\u200e;\n so \u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u2074. LXX has many similar variations (which need not\n be noted), revealing a tendency to introduce uniformity into\n the description.\u2015\u2015=8.= \u05d5\u05ea\u05e4\u05e2\u05dd\u200e] \u2018was perturbed\u2019; as Daniel 2\u00b3 (2\u00b9\n Hithpael), Psalms 77\u2075.\u2015\u2015\u05d7\u05e8\u05d8\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] Only in this chapter, in Exodus\n 7\u20129 (Priestly-Code), and (by imitation) in Daniel 2\u00b2. The word\n is thus practically confined to Egyptian magicians, though\n no Egyptian etymology has been found; and it may be plausibly\n derived from Hebrew \u05d7\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05d8\u200e, _stylus_.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05ea\u05dd\u200e] Read with LXX \u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u05d5\u05b9\u200e, after\n\u200e \u05d7\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u200e; the dream is \u2018one\u2019 (verses \u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2076).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=9\u201214. Joseph summoned to interpret the dreams.=\u2015\u2015=9.= The butler\u2019s\nungrateful memory is stimulated by the opportunity of ingratiating\nhimself with his royal master, though this requires him to _make\nmention of_ his old offence.\u2015\u2015=12.= _according to each man\u2019s dream\nhe interpreted_] Note the order of ideas as contrasted with verse \u00b9\u00b9\n(40\u2075): there is a pre-established harmony between the interpretation\nand the dream, and the office of the interpreter is to penetrate the\nimagery of the dream and reach the truth it was sent to convey.\u2015\u2015=13.=\n_I was restored ... he was hanged_] Literally \u2018Me one restored,\u2019\netc., according to Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 144 _d_, _e_. To suppose the\nomission of _Pharaoh_, or to make Joseph the subject, is barely\nadmissible.\u2015\u2015=14.= _and they brought him hastily from the dungeon_]\nis a clause inserted from Yahwist.\u2015\u2015_shaved himself_] his head and\nbeard,\u2015\u2015a custom which seems to have been peculiar to the priests\nunder the New Empire (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 219; compare\nHerodotus, ii. 37).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =9.= \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05e4\u05e8\u05e2\u05d4\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ better\n\u200e \u05d0\u05dc \u05e4\u05f3\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d7\u05d8\u05d0\u05b7\u05d9\u200e] LXX \u05d7\u05d8\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e (singular). The resemblance of the clause (\u2079\u1d47)\n to 40\u00b9 does not prove it to be from Yahwist (Gunkel).\u2015\u2015=10.= \u05d0\u05ea\u05d9\u200e]\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d0\u05ea\u05dd\u200e, LXX \u05d0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5\u200e.\u2015\u2015=11.=\n\u200e \u05d5\u05e0\u05d7\u05dc\u05de\u05d4\u200e] Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 49 _e_.\u2015\u2015=12.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05e4\u05ea\u05e8\u2015\u2015\u05e4\u05ea\u05e8\u200e] LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=15\u201224. Pharaoh\u2019s recital of his dreams.=\u2015\u2015=15.= _thou canst hear a\ndream to interpret it_] _i.e._, \u2018thou canst interpret a dream when\nthou hearest it\u2019: Hebrew subordinates the emphatic clause where we\nwould subordinate the condition.\u2015\u2015=16.= Compare 40\u2078.\u2015\u2015The answer (on\nthe form, _v.i._) exhibits a fine combination of religious sincerity\nand courtly deference.\u2015\u2015=17\u201221.= The first dream.\u2015\u2015The king gives a\nvivid subjective colouring to the recital by expressing the feelings\nwhich the dream excited. This is natural, and creates no presumption\nthat a parallel narrative is drawn upon. Similarly, the slight\ndifferences in phraseology (\u05ea\u05d0\u05e8\u200e for \u05de\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4\u200e, \u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u200e, etc.) are due to the\nliterary instinct for variety.\u2015\u2015=22\u201224.= The second dream.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =15.= \u05ea\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u200e] _Oratio obliqua_ after \u05dc\u05b5\u05d0\u05de\u05b9\u05e8\u200e (without \u05db\u05d9\u200e),\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 157 _a_; Davidson \u00a7 146, _R._ 1.\u2015\u2015=16.=\n\u200e \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05d9\u200e] literally \u2018Apart from me\u2019 (Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05df \u05d7\u05d5\u05db\u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u200e), used\n as 14\u00b2\u2074. _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX read\n\u200e \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b2\u05d3\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05b5\u05e2\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e = \u2018Apart from God, one will not be answered,\u2019\n etc.; compare Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac phrase)\" (\u2018Dost thou expect\n that apart from God one will answer?\u2019 etc.). Vulgate _Absque me\n Deus respondebit_, shifting the accent. There seems a _double\n entendre_ in the use of \u05d9\u05e2\u05e0\u05d4\u200e: \u2018answer\u2019 and \u2018correspond\u2019: \u2018God\n will give an answer corresponding to the welfare,\u2019 etc.\u2015\u2015=19.=\n\u200e \u05d3\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea\u200e] \u2018flaccid\u2019; LXX omitted.\u2015\u2015=21.= \u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05b6\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] On the suffix\n compare Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 91 _f_.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u05d4\u05df\u200e] Singular (_ib._ \u00a7 93\n _ss_).\u2015\u2015=23.= \u05e6\u05e0\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u200e] Aramaic = \u2018dried,\u2019 \u2018hardened.\u2019 The word is\n \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd in Old Testament, and is omitted by LXX, Vulgate,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd\u200e] MSS and _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ \u05d4\u05b6\u05df\u200e\u2015\u2015. The irregular gender of Massoretic Text only\n here in this chapter.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=25\u201232. The interpretation.=\u2015\u2015=25\u201227a.= The general outline of the\ninterpretation: the dream is one; it is a presage of what is to\nhappen; the number seven refers to years. The methodical exposition\nis meant to be impressive.\u2015\u2015=27b= brings the climax: _There shall be\nseven years of famine_ (so Procksch _v.i._).\u2015\u2015=28.= It is uncertain\nwhether \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u200e refers back to \u00b2\u2075\u1d47 (\u2018This is what [I meant when] I said\nto Pharaoh\u2019), or to \u00b2\u2077\u1d47 (\u2018This is the announcement I [now] make to\nPharaoh\u2019). In any case =29= looks like a new commencement, and may\nintroduce a variant from Yahwist (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=31.= \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05b4\u05d5\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u05b7\u05e2\u200e goes back to\nthe \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05d5\u05b9\u05d3\u05b7\u05e2\u200e of \u00b2\u00b9.\u2015\u2015=32.= If the dream is one, why was it twice repeated?\nBecause, says Joseph, the crisis is certain and urgent. So he rounds\noff his finished and masterly explanation of the dreams.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =26.= \u05e4\u05e8\u05ea\u200e] Omission of article may be justified on the\n ground that the numeral is equivalent to a determinant\n (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 126 _x_); but _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_ \u05d4\u05e4\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea\u200e is much to be preferred.\u2015\u2015=27.= \u05d4\u05e8\u05b5\u05e7\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u200e]\n \u2018empty.\u2019 The pointing is suggested partly by the contrast to\n\u200e \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u200e (\u00b2\u00b2 etc.), partly by the fact that (in Massoretic Text) \u05e8\u05b7\u05e7\u200e\n has not been used of the ears. We ought undoubtedly to read \u05d4\u05b7\u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05e7\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u200e\n (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5).\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e]\n The translation above is not free from difficulty; it omits a\n prediction of unusual plenty preceding the famine, which is,\n nevertheless, presupposed by what follows. But the ordinary\n rendering is also weak: why should the seven thin ears alone\n be fully interpreted? Besides, \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d1\u05b3\u05bc\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e is feminine.\u2015\u2015=28\u201232.= The\n critical difficulties of the chapter commence in this section.\n Procksch assigns \u00b2\u2079\u207b\u00b3\u00b9 to Yahwist (\u2225 \u00b2\u2077 \u1da0\u1427 _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_), instancing \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05dc\u05b4\u05bc\u05d4\u200e (compare 18\u00b3\u00b3 24\u00b9\u2075\u1427\n \u00b9\u2079 27\u00b3\u2070 43\u00b2 44\u00b9\u00b2), and \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b5\u05d3\u200e (12\u00b9\u2070 43\u00b9 47\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3) as characteristic\n of Yahwist; but they are not decisive. Gunkel limits Yahwist to\n \u00b2\u2079\u1427 \u00b3\u2070\u1d43\u1427 \u00b3\u00b2\u1d47{\u03b2} (\u2225 \u00b2\u2077 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b3\u2070\u1d47\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9\u1427 \u00b3\u00b2\u1d43\u1d47{\u03b1} Elohist). This is on the\n whole more satisfying, since \u05d5\u05e0\u05e9\u05db\u05d7\u200e and \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05b4\u05d5\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05e2\u200e appear to be doublets\n (Dillmann); but a positive conclusion will hardly be reached.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=33\u201236. Joseph\u2019s advice to Pharaoh.=\u2015\u2015Here Joseph proves himself to\nbe no mere expert in reading dreams, but a man with a large reserve\nof practical wisdom and statesmanship.\u2015\u2015=33\u201235.= There is an apparent\ndiscrepancy between the appointment of a single official (\u00b3\u00b3\u1d43) and\nthat of a commission of \u2018overseers\u2019 (\u00b3\u2074\u1d43); and again between the\nfifth part (\u00b3\u2074\u1d47) and the whole (\u00b3\u2075\u1d43); we note also the transition\nfrom singular (\u05d5\u05d7\u05de\u05e9\u200e) to plural (\u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05d1\u05e6\u05d5\u200e, etc.). For attempts at division\nof sources, see below.\u2015\u2015=34.= The taxing of a fifth part of the crop\nseems to have been a permanent Egyptian institution (see on 47\u00b2\u2074),\nwhose origin the Hebrews traced to the administration of Joseph.\u2015\u2015=35.=\n_under the hand_ (_i.e._ the authority) _of Pharaoh_] compare Exodus\n18\u00b9\u2070, 2 Kings 13\u2075, Isaiah 3\u2076.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =33\u201236.= The passage is certainly composite, and can be\n resolved into two nearly complete sequences as follows: Elohist\n = \u00b3\u00b3\u1427 \u00b3\u2074\u1d47\u1427 \u00b3\u2075\u1d47{\u03b1} (to \u05e4\u05e8\u05e2\u05d4\u200e) \u00b3\u2076\u1d43{\u03b2\u03b3}; Yahwist = \u00b3\u2074\u1d43\u1427 \u00b3\u2075\u1d43\u1d47{\u03b2} (from\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b9\u05db\u05b6\u05dc\u200e)\u1427 \u00b3\u2076\u1d43{\u03b1} \u1d47. Characteristic of Elohist are \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d1\u05e8\u200e, \u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u05e6\u05d1\u05e8\u200e,\n against Yahwist\u2019s \u05e4\u05e7\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (with \u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05e7\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e), \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200e, \u05e7\u05d1\u05e5 \u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u200e; and the only\n necessary change is \u05d9\u05e6\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u200e to \u05d9\u05e6\u05d1\u05e8\u200e. The result corresponds pretty\n closely with Gunkel\u2019s analysis; that of Procksch differs\n widely.\u2015\u2015=33.= \u05d9\u05b5\u05e8\u05b6\u05ab\u05d0\u200e] see Baer-Delitzsch page 78; Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 75 _p_. Strack, however, holds the true reading to be\n\u200e \u05d9\u05b5\u05ab\u05e8\u05b6\u05d0\u200e.\u2015\u2015=34.= \u05d9\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_\n\u200e \u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05e9\u200e. To the peculiar idiom, Delitzsch compares the Latin _fac\n scribas_; \u05d9\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4\u200e may, however, mean \u2018take action,\u2019 as 1 Kings\n\u200e 8\u00b3\u00b2.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d7\u05de\u05e9\u200e] LXX plural.\u2015\u2015=35.= \u05d0\u05db\u05dc \u05d1\u05e2\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u200e] Ball prefixes \u05d5\u05b0\u05d9\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u200e\n (as verse \u2074\u2078); some such expedient is necessary to make sense\n of the last word.\u2015\u2015For \u05d5\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u200e, _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 have \u05d9\u05e9\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u200e; LXX \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9 (\u05d9\u05e6\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u200e?).\u2015\u2015=36.=\n\u200e \u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05e7\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e] Leviticus 5\u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3\u2020; obviously suggested here by \u05e4\u05e7\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200e in\n verse \u00b3\u2074.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=37\u201246. Joseph\u2019s elevation.=\u2015\u2015=37, 39= (Elohist) \u2225 =38=\n(Yahwist).\u2015\u2015The _thing_ that _was pleasing to Pharaoh, etc._, is not\nthe interpretation of the dreams, but the practical suggestion with\nwhich it was followed up, though it was the former which proved that\nJoseph was truly inspired. The statement that the policy commended\nitself comes from Elohist; in Yahwist, Pharaoh improves upon it\nby entrusting the supervision to Joseph himself instead of to\nthe \u2018overseers\u2019 he had proposed.\u2015\u2015=38.= _the spirit of God_] here\nfirst mentioned in Genesis as the source of inward illumination and\nintellectual power. The idea that eminent mental gifts proceed from\nthe indwelling of the divine spirit, which is implied in Pharaoh\u2019s\nexclamation, was probably ancient in Israel, although the proofs of it\nare comparatively late (compare Exodus 31\u00b3, Numbers 27\u00b9\u2078; see Stade,\n_Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments_ \u00a7 43. 1).\u2015\u2015=40.= _over my\nhouse_] The dignity may be compared to that of \u201cMayor of the palace\u201d\nunder the Merovingian kings; compare 1 Kings 4\u2076 16\u2079, Isaiah 22\u00b9\u2075\netc.\u2015\u2015=41.= _over all the land of Egypt_] The most coveted civic\noffice in Egypt was that of the _T\u2019ate_, the chief of the whole\nadministration, \u201cthe second after the king in the court of the palace\u201d\n(see Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 87 ff., 69). The elevation of\nSyrian slaves to such dignities is likewise attested for the age of\nthe New Empire (_ib._ 106, 517 f.).\u2015\u2015=42.= The form of investiture is\nspecifically Egyptian.\u2015\u2015_his signet-ring_] used in sealing documents\n(Esther 3\u00b9\u00b2 8\u2078), and given as a token of authority (Esther 3\u00b9\u2070 8\u00b2,\n1 Maccabees 6\u00b9\u2075 etc.).\u2015\u2015_fine linen_] the weaving of which was\ncarried to extreme perfection in Egypt; Erman, 448 ff.\u2015\u2015_the golden\ncollar_] There is probably an allusion to \u2018the reward of the gold,\u2019 a\ndecoration (including necklets of gold) often conferred in recognition\nof eminent service to the crown (Erman, 118 ff.: see the engraving,\n208\u00b9).\u2015\u2015=43.= _the second-best chariot_] Horses and carriages first\nappear on monuments of the 18th dynasty, and must have been introduced\n\u201cduring the dark period between the Middle and the New Empire\u201d (Erman,\n490).\u2015\u2015_they cried before him \u2019Abr\u0113k_] A very obscure word; for\nconjectures, _v.i._\u2015\u2015=44.= An almost exact parallel (Yahwist) to\n\u2074\u00b9 (Elohist).\u2015\u2015=45a.= Joseph\u2019s marriage.\u2015\u2015The conferring of a new\nname naturally accompanied promotions like that of Joseph (Erman,\n144).\u2015\u2015_the high priest of \u2019\u00d4n_] was an important personage in the\nreligion and politics of the New Empire (see Erman, _Life in Ancient\nEgypt_, 76, 83, 89, and _passim_), and the priestly college there was\nreputed the greatest in the country for learning (Herodotus, ii. 3;\nStrabo, XVII. i. 29). _\u2019\u00d4n_ (Egyptian _Anu_) is Heliopolis, 7 miles\nNorth-east of Cairo, an ancient seat of the worship of the sun-god\nRa.\u2015\u2015On the other names in the verse, _v.i._\u2015\u2015=45b= and =46b= are\ndoublets.\u2015\u2015=46a= (Priestly-Code). The chronology is altogether\ninconsistent with the assumptions of Jehovist regarding the relative\nages of Joseph and Benjamin (see Bennett 360).\u2015\u2015_stood before Pharaoh_]\ncompare 47\u2077 (Priestly-Code).\n\n \u00b9 Compare Heyes, _Bibel und \u00c4gypten: Abraham und seine\n Nachkommen in \u00c4gypten_ 248 ff.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =37\u201246.= _Analysis._\u2015\u2015To Elohist we may pretty confidently\n assign \u00b3\u2077\u1427 \u00b3\u2079 (\u05e0\u05d1\u05d5\u05df \u05d5\u05d7\u05db\u05dd\u200e as \u00b3\u00b3) \u2074\u2070; to Yahwist \u00b3\u2078\u1427 \u2074\u2074\u1427 \u2074\u2075. Whether\n Yahwist\u2019s parallel to \u2074\u2070 commences with \u2074\u00b9 (Procksch), or is\n delayed to \u2074\u2074 (Gunkel), it is hard to decide. \u2074\u00b9\u1d47 reads like a\n formula of investiture accompanying the action of \u2074\u00b2\u1d43, of which\n \u2074\u00b3\u1d47 would be the explication. \u2074\u2076\u1d47{\u03b2} would be a natural sequel\n to \u2074\u00b3\u1d43 (\u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u200e). Hence, if a division must be attempted, that of\n Procksch may be followed, viz., Elohist = \u2074\u2070\u1427 \u2074\u00b2\u1d47\u1427 \u2074\u00b3\u1d43\u1427 \u2074\u2076\u1d47{\u03b2};\n Yahwist = \u2074\u00b9\u1427 \u2074\u00b2\u1d43\u1427 \u2074\u00b3\u1d47\u1427 \u2074\u2074\u1427 \u2074\u2075.\u2015\u2015=38.= \u05d4\u05e0\u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u200e] 1st plural imperfect\n Qal.\u2015\u2015=40.= \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05e4\u05d9\u05da \u05d9\u05e9\u05e7\u200e] LXX \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. The\n meaning \u2018kiss\u2019 being obviously unsuitable, Tuch, Delitzsch,\n Dillmann render \u2018arrange themselves\u2019 (from Arabic _nasa\u1e33a_);\n others point \u05d9\u05b8\u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05e7\u200e, \u2018run\u2019; but no explanation is quite satisfactory.\n\u200e \u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05e4\u05d9\u05da\u200e may, of course, mean \u2018at thy command\u2019 (45\u00b2\u00b9, Exodus 17\u00b9\n etc.).\u2015\u2015\u05e8\u05e7 \u05d4\u05db\u05e1\u05d0\u200e] \u2018only as regards the throne\u2019; Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 118 _h_.\u2015\u2015=41.= \u05d0\u05ea\u05da\u200e] LXX + \u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\u2015\u2015=42.= \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05e9\u05c1\u200e] Apparently an\n Egyptian word (Coptic _\u0161ens_), replaced in post-Exilic Hebrew\n by \u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e5\u200e. It is disputed whether it means cotton alone, or linen\n alone, or both; see Dillmann\u2019s exhaustive note on Exodus\n 25\u2074, and _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, 2800 f.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\u05d1\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d6\u05d4\u05d1\u200e.\u2015\u2015=43.= \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05e8\u05db\u05d1\u05ea\u200e] Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 85 _h_.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,\n LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b5\u05da\u05b0\u200e] The word remains an enigma. The\n resemblance to Hebrew \u05d1\u05e8\u05da\u200e has misled no ancient Version\n except Aquila (\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) and Vulgate (_ut genuflecterent_).\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 renders (\u2021 Syriac phrase); Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d1\u05d0 \u05dc\u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d0\u200e;\n Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05d1\u05d0 \u05dc\u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d0 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05d1\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05ea\u05d0 \u05d5\u05e8\u05db\u05d9\u05da \u05d1\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\u05d0\u200e; LXX has \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1\u03c5\u03be as\n subject of verb (Vulgate also has _clamante pr\u00e6cone_). The\n speculations of Egyptologists are too numerous to mention:\n see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._, or Heyes, 254 ff. The best is\n that of Spiegelberg (_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ vi. 317\n ff.), who considers that it is a call to \u2018Attention!\u2019 (Egyptian\n _\u2019b r-k_; literally, \u2018Thy heart to thee!\u2019). Friedrich Delitzsch\n (_Wo lag das Paradies?_ 225) suggested a connexion with Assyrian\n _abarakku_ (the title of a high official), which his father\n declared to be a \u201cneckischer Zufall\u201d! Radical emendations of the\n text have been proposed by Ball ([\u05dc]\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05db\u05f3 \u05e0\u05d9\u05df\u200e) and Cheyne (\u05d0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05e8 \u05db\u05d9\u05e0\u05d0\u05ea\u05df\u200e\n = \u2018Mighty one of Chuenaten\u2019 [Amenophis IV.]: _Orientalische\n Litteraturzeitung_ iii. 151 f.); these are wholly unsatisfying,\n and the latter has not survived the criticisms of M\u00fcller\n (_ib._ 325 f.): see _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_,\n\u200e 467.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05e0\u05ea\u05d5\u05df\u200e] \u2018thus placing.\u2019 As continuation of \u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05df\u200e in \u2074\u00b2\u1d43, the\n infinitive absolute is grammatically correct (Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 113 _z_); and though the idiom is infrequent, there is no\n reason to suspect the text. \u2015\u2015=45.= \u05e6\u05b8\u05bd\u05e4\u05b0\u05e0\u05b7\u05ea \u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05d7\u05b7\u200e] LXX \u03a8\u03bf\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c7\n (transposing \u05e6\u200e and \u05e4\u200e? [see Nestle, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die\n alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxv. 209 ff.]). The old\n interpretations follow two lines: (1) \u2018Revealer of secrets\u2019\n (Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ ii. 91; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5,\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, Patr.), connecting with Hebrew \u05e6\u05e4\u05df\u200e; and\n (2) \u2018Saviour of the world\u2019 (Coptic _p-sot-om-ph-ene\u1e2b_, Delitzsch,\n Holzinger); so Vulgate, Jerome _Qu\u00e6stiones sive Traditiones\n hebraic\u00e6 in Genesim_. Of modern Egyptological theories the one\n most in favour seems to be that propounded by Steindorff in\n _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr \u00e4gyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde_ xxvii.\n 41 f.: that it represents Egyptian _De- pnute-ef\u201b-on\u1e2b_, and\n means \u2018The god speaks and he lives.\u2019 It is said (_ib._ 42) that\n personal names of this type (though with the _proper_ name of\n a deity) are common from the beginning of the 22nd dynasty.\n See the discussion in Heyes, _op. cit._ 258 ff., who prefers\n the interpretation of Lieblein (_Proceedings of the Society\n of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology_, 1898, 202 ff.): _defenti_ [or\n _defenta_]_-pa-an\u1e2b_ = \u201ccelui qui donne la nourriture de la\n vie.\u201d\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b8\u05bd\u05e1\u05b0\u05e0\u05b7\u05ea\u200e] Explained, with some hesitation, as \u2018belonging to\n (the goddess) Neith\u2019 (Steindorff, Spiegelberg, al.).\u2015\u2015\u05e4\u05d5\u05d8\u05d9 \u05e4\u05e8\u05e2\u200e]\n (LXX \u03a0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c6\u03c1\u1fc6, etc.) is a fuller form of \u05e4\u05d5\u05d8\u05d9\u05e4\u05e8\u200e; see on 39\u00b9.\u2015\u2015It\n is worthy of remark that, except in the case of Asenath,\n the suggested Egyptian analogues of these names do not\n occur, save sporadically, earlier than the 22nd dynasty\n (that of Shishak).\u2015\u2015=45b.= LXX omits.\u2015\u2015=46.= \u05e4\u05e8\u05e2\u05d4 \u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200e\n is an amplification in the style of Priestly-Code (Exodus\n 6\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u2079 14\u2078).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=47\u201257. Joseph\u2019s measures for relief of the famine.=\u2015\u2015=47, 49=\n(Elohist) \u2225 =48= (Yahwist). He stores corn during the seven years\nof plenty.\u2015\u2015=50\u201252= (Elohist?). Joseph\u2019s two sons.\u2015\u2015_M\u0115na\u0161\u0161eh_]\ninterpreted quite grammatically as \u2018causing to forget.\u2019 The etymology\nis not to be taken too literally, as if the narrator meant that Joseph\nhad actually forgotten his father\u2019s house (compare Psalms 45\u00b9\u00b9).\u2015\u2015=52.=\n_made me fruitful_] The name of the tribe is generally thought to\ncontain the idea of fruitfulness, from the fertility of the region in\ncentral Palestine which it occupied.\u2015\u2015=54\u201257.= The beginning of the\nfamine.\u2015\u2015=54, 55= contain a slight discrepancy. According to \u2075\u2074\u1d47 the\nEgyptians had no lack of bread, and consequently no need to apply\nto Joseph, though they were indebted to his forethought. In \u2075\u2075 they\nare famishing, and have to buy their food from Joseph: this view\nis connected with 47\u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015=56.= _opened all that was in them_]\nRead with LXX \u2018all the granaries,\u2019 though the Hebrew text cannot be\ncertainly restored (_v.i._)\u2015\u2015=57.= prepares for the next scene of the\ndrama (chapter 42).\n\n State granaries, for the sustenance of the army, the\n officials and the serfs, were a standing feature of Egyptian\n administration (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 107 f.; compare\n 433 f.), and were naturally drawn upon for the relief of the\n populace in times of scarcity (_ib._ 126). The \u2018superintendent\n of the granaries\u2019 was a high officer of state, distinct, as a\n rule, from the vizier or _T\u2019ate_ (page 469); but a union of the\n two dignities was just as easy under exceptional circumstances\n as the combination of the Premiership with the Chancellorship\n of the Exchequer would be with us (see Erman, 89). We can\n readily understand that such a wise and comprehensive provision\n impressed the imagination of the Israelites, and was attributed\n by them to a divine inspiration of which one of their ancestors\n was the medium (compare Gunkel 384).\u2015\u2015Besides these general\n illustrations of the writer\u2019s acquaintance with Egyptian\n conditions, two special parallels to this aspect of Joseph\u2019s\n career are cited from the monuments: (1) Ameny, a monarch under\n Usertsen I. (12th dynasty), records on his grave at Beni-Hasan\n that when years of famine came he ploughed all the fields of his\n district, nourished the subjects of his sovereign and gave them\n food, so that there was none hungry among them. (2) Similarly,\n on a grave of the 17th dynasty at El-Kab: \u201cWhen a famine arose,\n lasting many years, I distributed corn to the city in each\n year of the famine\u201d (see _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des\n alten Orients_\u00b2, 390; Driver 346 f.). For the sale of grain to\n foreigners, we have the case of Yan\u1e2bamu, governor of Yarimutu,\n in the Amarna letters (see below on 47\u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015It is impossible\n to desire a fuller demonstration of the Egyptian background\n of the Joseph-stories than chapter 41 affords. The attempt to\n minimise the coincidences, and show that \u201cin a more original\n and shorter form the story of Joseph had a North Arabian and\n not a Palestinian and Egyptian background, and consequently that\n \u2018Pharaoh, king of Egypt,\u2019 should be \u2018Pir\u2019u, king of Mi\u1e63rim\u2019\u201d\n (_Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 454\u2012473), tends to\n discredit rather than confirm the seductive Mu\u1e63ri-theory, which\n is pushed to such an extravagant length.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =47\u201257.= _Analysis._\u2015\u2015Starting from the presumption that the\n storing of food in the cities and the direct appeal of the\n famishing people to Pharaoh are not from the same source, the\n best division seems the following: Elohist = \u2074\u2077\u1427 \u2074\u2079\u1427 \u2075\u2074\u1d43\u1427 \u2075\u2075\u1427 \u2075\u2076\u1d47;\n Yahwist = \u2074\u2078\u1427 \u2075\u00b3\u1427 \u2075\u2074\u1d47\u1427 \u2075\u2076\u1d43\u1427 \u2075\u2077 (compare Gunkel and Procksch). \u2075\u2070\u207b\u2075\u00b2\n are universally assigned to Elohist (on account of \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e) in\n spite of the fact that the children are named by the father.\n Priestly-Code\u2019s authorship is perhaps excluded by the explicit\n etymologies, to which there are no real analogies in that\n document. The verses in any case interrupt the context of\n Jehovist, and may be a supplementary notice inserted by a late\n hand at what seemed the most suitable place.\u2015\u2015=47.= \u05dc\u05e7\u05de\u05e6\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] The\n \u221a is elsewhere peculiar to Priestly-Code (Leviticus 2\u00b2 5\u00b9\u00b2 6\u2078,\n Numbers 5\u00b2\u2076\u2020); and Ball assigns \u2074\u2076\u207b\u2074\u2078 to that source. But the\n sense \u2018by handfuls\u2019 is doubtful, and is represented by none of\n the old versions except the clumsy paraphrases of Vulgate and\n Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f; so that the text is probably at fault. LXX has\n \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 and Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 (\u2021 Syriac word) and \u05dc\u05d0\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05df\u200e\n [with (\u2021 Syriac word) and \u05d5\u05db\u05e0\u05e9\u05e8\u200e for \u05d6\u05ea\u05e2\u05e9\u200e]\u2015\u2015=48.= \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] Read\n with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX \u05d4\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4\n\u200e \u05d4\u05b7\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c2\u05d1\u05b8\u05e2\u200e.\u2015\u2015=50.= \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e0\u05b7\u05ea\u200e] LXX \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b7.\u2015\u2015=51.= \u05e0\u05b7\u05e9\u05bc\u05c1\u05e0\u05d9\u200e] Piel only here;\n both the form and the irregular vocalisation (Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 52 _m_) are chosen for the sake of assonance with \u05de\u05b0\u05e0\u05b7\u05e9\u05b5\u05bc\u05c2\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015=54.=\n\u200e \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd; so Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\u2015\u2015a natural misunderstanding.\u2015\u2015=56.=\n\u200e \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d4\u05dd\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d4\u05dd \u05d1\u05e8\u200e. The\n context imperatively demands a noun [LXX \u03c3\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n (\u2021 Syriac word)]. Lagarde (_Symmicta_ i. 57) suggested a Hebrew\n equivalent of Talmud. \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0\u200e; Wellhausen some derivative of \u05e9\u05d1\u05e8\u200e;\n Delitzsch, Ball, and Kittel (combining _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_ and Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5) \u05d0\u05d5\u05e6\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05b7\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05d1\u05e8\u200e] Pointed \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e\n (Hiphil); compare 42\u2076.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05d6\u05e7 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e] LXX omits.\u2015\u2015=57.= \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200e\u00b9] Better\n\u200e \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea\u200e as LXX (compare \u2075\u2074).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n CHAPTER XLII.\n _Joseph\u2019s Brethren come to Egypt to buy Food_\n (Elohist, Yahwist)\n\nOne thing is still wanting to the dramatic completeness of the story\nof Joseph: the recognition of his greatness by his family, or (in\nElohist) the fulfilment of his youthful dreams. This is the theme of\nthe second part of the history (chapters 42\u201245), where the writers\ntax their inventiveness to the utmost in retarding the _d\u00e9nouement_\nof the plot. Two visits to Egypt, and not fewer than four interviews\nwith Joseph, are needed to prepare for the final reconciliation; and\nthe hearers\u2019 attention is all the while kept on the stretch by the\nsurprising expedients adopted by Joseph to protract the suspense and\nexcite the compunction of his brethren.\u2015\u2015In chapter 42 we are told how\nthe ten brothers are brought to Egypt by stress of famine (\u00b9\u207b\u2074), are\nrecognised by Joseph, and denounced and imprisoned as spies (\u2075\u207b\u00b9\u2077);\nand how after three days\u2019 confinement they are sent home, leaving\nSimeon behind them as a hostage (\u00b9\u2078\u207b\u00b2\u2078). Arrived in Canaan, they\nrelate their adventure to Jacob, who bitterly complains of the loss of\ntwo children, and refuses to trust Benjamin to their charge (\u00b2\u2079\u207b\u00b3\u2078).\nThe incident of the money found in the sacks (\u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2077 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b3\u2075) increases\nthe dread with which they contemplate a return to Egypt.\n\n _Analysis._\u2015\u2015Chapter 42 belongs _a potiori_ to Elohist, and\n 43. 44 to Yahwist (Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs\n und der historischen B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 58 ff.). A\n distinct difference of representation appears from a comparison\n of 42\u00b2\u2079\u207b\u00b3\u2077 (which, _pace_ Procksch, is an undiluted excerpt from\n Elohist) with 43\u00b3\u207b\u2077 44\u00b9\u2079\u207b\u00b2\u00b3 (Yahwist). \u201cIn chapter 42, Joseph\n secures, by the detention of Simeon, that the brethren shall\n return under any circumstances, with Benjamin or without; in\n chapter 43 f., on the contrary, he forbids them to return unless\n Benjamin is with them\u201d (Wellhausen). In Yahwist, moreover,\n the brethren do not volunteer the information that they have\n a younger brother, but it is drawn out of them by searching\n questions. It is certain (from doublets and phraseology) that\n both Yahwist and Elohist are represented in 42\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2074; though the\n former is so fragmentary that it is difficult to reconstruct\n a narrative consistent with 43\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 44\u00b9\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427. Apparently, the\n colloquy reproduced in 43\u2077 44\u00b2\u2070\u207b\u00b2\u00b3 43\u00b3 must have followed the\n acknowledgment that they were all one man\u2019s sons (\u00b9\u00b9\u1d43 \u2225 \u00b9\u00b3\u1d43\n Elohist),\u2015\u2015a view which seems to fit in with all the literary\n indications. Elohist\u2019s account can easily be traced with\n the help of \u00b2\u2079\u207b\u00b3\u2077: it includes the charge of espionage\n (\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b3\u2070), the imprisonment (\u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b3\u2070), the detention\n of Simeon (\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b3\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427), the command to bring down Benjamin\n (\u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b3\u2074), and the putting of the money in the sacks\n (\u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b3\u2075).\u2015\u2015In \u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2074, the more obvious doublets are \u00b9\u1d43 \u2225 \u00b2\u1d43,\n \u2075\u1d43 \u2225 \u2076\u1d47, \u2077\u1d43 \u2225 \u2078, \u00b9\u00b9\u1d43 \u2225 \u00b9\u00b3\u1d43; characteristic phrases of Yahwist:\n\u200e \u05d9\u05e8\u05d3\u200e, \u00b2\u1427 \u00b3; \u05d5\u05e0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u200e, \u00b2 (43\u2078 47\u00b9\u2079); \u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05df\u200e, \u2075 (42\u00b3\u2078 44\u00b2\u2079); \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u200e,\n\u200e \u2075; \u05d0\u05b9\u05db\u05b6\u05dc\u200e, \u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2070. Possibly also \u05dc\u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200e, \u2079\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1d47, is Yahwist\u2019s\n variant for Elohist\u2019s \u05de\u05e8\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u2079\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1d47 etc. (compare \u00b3\u2070\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9\u1427 \u00b3\u2074)\n (Gunkel). Hence we may assign to Yahwist \u00b2\u1427 \u00b3\u1d43\u1427 \u2074\u1d47\u1427 \u2075{?}\u1427 \u2077 (except\n\u200e \u05d5\u05d9\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05ea\u05dd \u05e7\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u200e, which should probably follow \u2079\u1d43 in Elohist [Dillmann,\n Kautzsch-Socin, Gunkel]), \u2079\u1d47{\u03b2}\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1d43\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2; and to Elohist all\n the rest (so Gunkel nearly: Procksch, however, very plausibly\n assigns \u2075\u1427 \u2076\u1d43 to Priestly-Code).\u2015\u2015After \u00b9\u00b2 there is no trace of\n Yahwist till we come to \u00b2\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u2078\u1d43\u1d47{\u03b1\u03b2}, an obvious duplicate of\n \u00b3\u2075, containing Yahwist\u2019s peculiar word \u05d0\u05de\u05ea\u05d7\u05ea\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u00b2\u2079\u207b\u00b3\u2077 are from\n Elohist: note the name Jacob, \u00b2\u2079\u1427 \u00b3\u2076; Reuben\u2019s leadership, \u00b3\u2077;\n and the words \u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05d5\u200e, \u00b3\u2074; \u05ea\u05e1\u05d7\u05e8\u05d5\u200e \u00b3\u2074 (37\u00b2\u2078 [? 34\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1427]); \u05db\u05bb\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u00b3\u2076.\n We also obtain some new expressions which may be employed\n as criteria of Elohist: \u05e7\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u200e, \u00b3\u2070 (compare \u2077); \u05db\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u00b3\u00b9\u1427 \u00b3\u00b3\u1427 \u00b3\u2074\n (compare \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2079); \u05e8\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05df \u05d1\u05ea\u05d9\u05db\u05dd\u200e, \u00b3\u00b3 (compare \u00b9\u2079); \u05e9\u05c2\u05e7\u200e, \u00b3\u2075 (compare\n \u00b2\u2075).\u2015\u2015\u00b3\u2078 belongs to Yahwist, but its proper place is after\n 43\u00b2 (see on the verse).\u2015\u2015A peculiar feature of this and the\n following chapters is the name \u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05db\u05e0\u05e2\u05df\u200e, which is elsewhere in\n Genesis characteristic of Priestly-Code (see page 245). From\n this and some similar phenomena, Giesebrecht and others have\n inferred a Priestly redaction of the Joseph pericope; but the\n usage may be due to the constant and unavoidable antithesis\n between Canaan and Egypt (see page 438 above).\n\n=1\u20124. The journey to Egypt.=\u2015\u2015=1, 2.= Another effective change\nof scene (compare 39\u00b9 41\u00b9), introducing the deliberations in\nJacob\u2019s family regarding a supply of food; where the energy and\nresourcefulness of the father is set in striking contrast to the\nperplexity of the sons.\u2015\u2015=4.= Benjamin has taken Joseph\u2019s place in\nhis father\u2019s affection (44\u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427); Jacob\u2019s unwillingness to let him\nout of his sight is a leading motive both in Yahwist and Elohist.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d1\u05b6\u05e8\u200e] of uncertain etymology, is always used of grain as\n an article of commerce (Amos 8\u2075, Nehemiah 10\u00b3\u00b2).\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1\u200e] LXX\n omits.\u2015\u2015\u05ea\u05ea\u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u200e] LXX \u1fe5\u1fb3\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 (? = \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b2\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u200e, Kittel). Though the\n Hithpael occurs elsewhere only in the sense of \u2018face one another\n in battle\u2019 (2 Kings 14\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9 = 2 Chronicles 25\u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9), a change\n of text is uncalled for.\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e] LXX omits.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05e9\u05dd\u200e] LXX \u05de\u05e2\u05d8 \u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u200e\n (as 43\u00b2); read perhaps \u05de\u05e9\u05dd \u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u200e.\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d4\u200e] \u2018ten in number,\u2019\n accusative of condition.\u2015\u2015=4.= \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1\u200e] LXX omits.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=5\u201217. The arrival in Egypt, and first interview with Joseph.=\u2015\u2015On =5,\n6a=, _v.i._\u2015\u2015=6b.= As suspicious strangers the brothers are brought\nbefore the viceroy.\u2015\u2015_bowed themselves, etc._] Reminding Joseph of\nhis dreams (verse \u2079). The original connexion in Elohist is broken by\nthe insertion of verse \u2077 from Yahwist.\u2015\u2015=7= (Yahwist) \u2225 =8= (Elohist).\nThat Joseph was not recognised by his brethren is natural, and\ncreates a situation of whose dramatic possibilities the narrators\ntake full advantage. The strange mixture of harshness and magnanimity\nin Joseph\u2019s treatment of his brothers, the skill with which he plays\nalternately on their fears and their hopes, the struggle in his mind\nbetween assumed severity and real affection, form the chief interest\nof the narratives up to the time of the final disclosure. It is\nunnecessary to suppose that the writers traced in all this the\nunfolding of a consistent ethical purpose on Joseph\u2019s part, and\nit is certainly an exaggeration to speak of it as an exhibition of\n\u2018seelsorgerische geistliche Weisheit\u2019 (Delitzsch). On the other hand,\nto say that his object was merely to punish them (Gunkel), is clearly\ninadequate. To the writers, as to the brethren, the official Joseph is\nan inscrutable person, whose motives defy analysis; and it is probably\na mistake to try to read a moral meaning into all the devices by which\nhis penetrating knowledge of the human heart is exemplified.\u2015\u2015=9.=\n_Ye are spies_] A charge that travellers in the East often encounter\n(see page 484 below). The eastern frontier of Egypt was fortified and\nclosely watched (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 537 ff.), and a band\nof ten men seeking to cross it excited suspicion.\u2015\u2015_the nakedness of\nthe land_] Not its poverty, but its open and defenceless spots.\u2015\u2015=11=\n(Yahwist) \u2225 =13= (Elohist). _sons of one man, etc._] Their eagerness\nto clear their character betrays them into a disclosure of their\nfamily circumstances, which in Yahwist is followed up by direct\ninterrogation and a warning that they need not return without their\nyoungest brother (page 473 above); while in Elohist, Joseph seizes on\nthe reference to Benjamin as a test of their veracity, and threatens\nthat they shall not leave Egypt until he is produced (\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015_one is\nnot_] It is a fine instance of literary tact that Joseph never presses\nthe question as to the fate of the missing brother.\u2015\u2015=14.= _This is\nwhat I said_] \u2018It is as I have said\u2019 (compare 41\u00b2\u2078). Joseph maintains\nhis opinion with well-feigned official obstinacy (Dillmann).\u2015\u2015=15, 16.=\n_By this shall ye be tested_] The pretext covers a real desire to see\nBenjamin, which is explicitly avowed in Yahwist (44\u00b2\u00b9\u1d47 43\u00b3\u2070).\u2015\u2015_By the\nlife of Pharaoh_] In Egypt the king was honoured as a god (Diodorus\ni. 90; Erman, _A Handbook of Egyptian Religion_ 36 f.); and the oath\nby his life is attested by an inscription of the 20th dynasty. The Old\nTestament analogies cited by Knobel (1 Samuel 17\u2075\u2075, 2 Samuel 11\u00b9\u00b9)\nare not in point, since they do not differ from the same formula\naddressed to private persons (1 Samuel 20\u00b3 25\u00b2\u2076).\u2015\u2015=17.= The three\ndays\u2019 imprisonment is rather meaningless after verse \u00b9\u2076 (see page\n477). Gunkel remarks on the prominence of imprisonment in the Joseph\nnarratives, and surmises that a good many Hebrews had known the inside\nof an Egyptian jail.\n\n * * * * *\n\n =5a= reads like a new beginning, and =5b= is superfluous after\n \u00b9\u207b\u2074. Procksch is probably right in the opinion that \u2075\u1427 \u2076\u1d43 are\n the introduction to Priestly-Code\u2019s lost narrative of the visit,\n a view which is confirmed by the unnecessary explanation of\n \u2076\u1d43, and by the late word.\u2015\u2015=6.= \u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05d8\u200e] only Ecclesiastes 7\u00b9\u2079\n 8\u2078 10\u2075 [Ezekiel 16\u00b3\u2070] and Aramaic portions of Ezra and Daniel\n (Kuenen _Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en\n de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds_ i. page 318).\n The resemblance to \u03a3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, the name of the first Hyksos king\n in Josephus, _Against Apion_ i. 77, can hardly be other than\n accidental.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u200e\u00b2] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u200e.\u2015\u2015=9.= \u05e2\u05b6\u05e8\u05b0\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] literally _pudenda_, is\n only here used of defencelessness. Arabic _\u201baurat_ is similarly\n used of a \u2018breach in the frontier of a hostile country\u2019\n (Lane, 2194 c); compare _\u1e32oran_ Surah 33\u00b9\u00b3 \u201cour houses are\n _\u201baurat_,\u201d\u2015\u2015a nakedness, _i.e._ unoccupied and undefended.\n LXX has \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f34\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7 (reading perhaps \u05e2\u05e7\u05d1\u05b9\u05ea\u200e [Ball]); Symmachus \u03c4\u1f70\n \u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03ac.\u2015\u2015=10.= \u05d5\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05da\u200e] compare Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 163 _a_: _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 omit\n\u200e \u05d5\u200e.\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05e0\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5\u200e] So Exodus 16\u2077\u1427 \u2078, Numbers 32\u00b3\u00b2, Lamentations\n 3\u2074\u00b2\u2020 (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 32 _d_); _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_ \u05d0\u05e0\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] literally \u2018right men,\u2019 is used\n of persons only in this chapter.\u2015\u2015=13.= \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3\u200e] LXX omits,\n perhaps rightly; compare the \u2225 verse \u00b9\u00b9.\u2015\u2015=16.= \u05d4\u05d0\u05e1\u05e8\u05d5\u200e] Improved\n expressing a determination, Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 110 _c_.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d9 \u05e4\u05e8\u05e2\u05d4\u200e]\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 93 _aa_\u00b9. The distinction between \u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u200e and \u05d7\u05b5\u05d9\u200e\n is a Massoretic caprice (Dillmann).\u2015\u2015At the end of the verse\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ inserts a refusal of\n the condition in the exact terms of 4444\u00b2\u00b2\u1d43{\u03b2} (Yahwist), which\n undoubtedly smooths the transition to verse \u00b9\u2077, but cannot be\n original.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=18\u201226. The second interview.=\u2015\u2015After three days Joseph appears to\nrelent, and to entertain the idea that they may after all be telling\nthe truth. He now proposes to retain only one of them as a hostage,\nand let the rest carry corn for their starving households.\u2015\u2015=18.=\n_I fear God_] the guardian of \u2018international religious morality\u2019\n(Gunkel), which is presupposed throughout the patriarchal history; see\non 20\u00b3 39\u2079.\u2015\u2015=21.= _Nay, but we are guilty_] The confession is wrung\nfrom them by the distress (\u05e6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e) which has overtaken them, reminding\nthem of Joseph\u2019s distress of soul (\u05e6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05ea \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05d5\u200e) when they left him to\ndie,\u2015\u2015_when he pleaded with us_] This touch of pathos is not recorded\nin chapter 37.\u2015\u2015=22.= Reuben had a right to dissociate himself from\nthe confession of guilt, for he had _meant_ to save Joseph; but like\nmany another man he claims credit for his good intention rather than\nfor the temporising advice he had actually given (37\u00b2\u00b2).\u2015\u2015_his very\nblood is required_] in spite of the fact that the speaker had kept\nthem from actual bloodshed.\u2015\u2015=23.= _an interpreter_] This is the only\nplace in the patriarchal history where diversity of language appears\nas a bar to intercourse.\u2015\u2015=24.= Joseph is moved to tears by this\nfirst proof of penitence.\u2015\u2015_Simeon_ is chosen as hostage as the oldest\nnext to Reuben, of whose attempt to save him Joseph has just learned\nfor the first time. The effect on the brothers would be the same as\nin 43\u00b3\u00b3.\u2015\u2015=25.= The rest are treated with great generosity; though\nwhether the restoration of the money is pure kindness or a trap, we\ncan hardly say.\u2015\u2015_provision for the way_] Hence in Elohist the sacks\nare not opened till the journey\u2019s end (\u00b3\u2075).\n\n Verses \u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b2\u2074 show a disconnectedness which is unusual in\n the lucid and orderly Joseph story, and which cannot be\n explained by discrepancies between Yahwist and Elohist. The\n first proposal\u2015\u2015to send one man to fetch Benjamin\u2015\u2015leads\n to no consequences, but is followed, most unnaturally, by\n the imprisonment of all the ten. This in like manner serves\n no purpose but to give Joseph time to change his mind. And\n the colloquy of the brothers (\u00b2\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427) could hardly find a less\n appropriate place than the moment when hope breaks in on their\n forebodings. The proper setting for the imprisonment would\n seem to be their first encounter with Joseph (as verse \u00b3\u2070\n LXX); and the confession of guilt would stand in a suitable\n connexion there. It is possible that \u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1427 are a variant to \u00b9\u2079 \u1da0\u1427,\n belonging to a somewhat different recension. If Gunkel (page 387)\n be right in thinking that the earliest form of the legend knew\n of only one visit to Egypt, it is easy to conceive that in the\n process of amplification several situations were successively\n invented, and that two of these have been preserved side by side\n by an editor, in spite of their imperfect consistency.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =18.= \u05d6\u05d0\u05ea \u05e2\u05e9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] See Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 110 _f_.\u2015\u2015=19.= \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3\u200e]\n without article (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_\n\u200e \u05d4\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3\u200e) _ib._ \u00a7 134 _d_; compare 43\u00b9\u2074; contrast 42\u00b3\u00b3.\u2015\u2015=20.=\n\u200e \u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05be\u05db\u05df\u200e] The words are out of place (compare \u00b2\u2075\u1d47). Did they stand\n originally after verse \u00b9\u2076?\u2015\u2015=21.= \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc\u200e] \u2018Nay, but\u2015\u2015,\u2019 indicating\n an affirmation of what one would gladly deny (see on 17\u00b9\u2079).\u2015\u2015\u05e6\u05e8\u05ea\u200e]\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d1\u05e6\u05e8\u05ea\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u200e\u00b2] _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05db\u05dc\u200e.\u2015\u2015=25.= \u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u05e9\u05d9\u05d1\u200e]\n Continuation of verb finite by infinitive (as here) is very\n unusual (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 120 _f_).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05e9\u200e] \u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u200e? compare\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Vulgate.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=26\u201238. The return to Canaan.=\u2015\u2015=27, 28.= Yahwist\u2019s parallel to \u00b3\u2075\n(Elohist).\u2015\u2015To leave room for the latter, the account is cut short\nwith the opening of the first sack. In Yahwist, _each_ man found\nhis money at the \u2018inn\u2019 (43\u00b2\u00b9).\u2015\u2015=28.= _their heart went out_] \u2018their\ncourage sank.\u2019 Partly from the anticipated accusation of theft (43\u00b9\u2078),\nbut still more from the superstitious notion that God was bringing\ntrouble upon them.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b7\u05de\u05b0\u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea\u200e] Yahwist\u2019s peculiar word for \u2018corn-sack\u2019\n(_v.i._)\u2015\u2015The last clause, however, _What has God_ (\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e) _done to\nus?_] is apparently taken from Elohist, probably transposed from the\nend of \u00b3\u2075 (Kautzsch-Socin).\u2015\u2015=29\u201234.= They recount their experiences\nto Jacob.\u2015\u2015=30.= _treated us as spies_] Better, as LXX (_v.i._),\n\u2018put us in ward as spies.\u2019\u2015\u2015=35.= See on \u00b2\u2077 \u1da0\u1427. The incident explains\nJacob\u2019s foreboding (verse \u00b3\u2076) that Simeon and Benjamin are as good as\nlost.\u2015\u2015=36.= _Me have ye bereaved ... upon me all this has come_] The\npoint of the complaint is that it is _his_ children, not their own,\nthat they are throwing away one after another: to which Reuben\u2019s offer\nto sacrifice his two sons is the apt rejoinder.\u2015\u2015=37= is Elohist\u2019s\nvariant to 43\u2079: here Reuben, there Judah, becomes surety for Benjamin.\nIn Elohist an immediate return to Egypt is contemplated, that Simeon\nmay be released; hence the discussion about sending Benjamin takes\nplace at once. In Yahwist the thought of returning is put off to the\nlast possible moment (43\u2078), and the difficulty about Benjamin does not\nyet arise.\u2015\u2015=38= therefore has been removed from its original context:\nsee on 43\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2.\u2015\u2015_bring down ... to She\u2019\u014dl_] See on 37\u00b3\u2075.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =27.= \u05e9\u05e7\u05d5\u200e] Read \u05d0\u05de\u05ea\u05d7\u05ea\u05d5\u200e with LXX.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05e1\u05e4\u05d5\u05d0\u200e] characteristic of\n Yahwist (24\u00b2\u2075\u1427 \u00b3\u00b2 43\u00b2\u2074), also Judges 19\u00b9\u2079\u2020.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05dc\u05d5\u05df\u200e] (\u221a \u05dc\u05d5\u05df\u200e) strictly\n \u2018resting-place for the night\u2019 (Exodus 4\u00b2\u2074) or \u2018night encampment\u2019\n (Joshua 4\u00b3),\u2015\u2015perhaps a rude shelter of bushes or canvas\n (compare \u05de\u05dc\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4\u200e, \u2018hut,\u2019 Isaiah 1\u2078 24\u00b2\u2070) rather than a khan or\n caravanserai.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05e1\u05e4\u05d5\u200e] Elohist says \u05e6\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8 \u05db\u05e1\u05e4\u05d5\u200e (\u00b3\u2075 \u1d47\u2071\u02e2); so LXX here,\n wrongly.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b7\u05de\u05b0\u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea\u200e] A word recurring 13 times in chapters 43 f.\n (Yahwist), and nowhere else in Old Testament: LXX is invariably\n \u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2. The \u221a \u05de\u05ea\u05d7\u200e = \u2018spread out\u2019 (Isaiah 40\u00b2\u00b2), found in\n New Hebrew Aramaic Arabic.\u2015\u2015=28.= \u05d4\u05e0\u05d4\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_, LXX add \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u200e unnecessarily.\u2015\u2015\u05d7\u05e8\u05d3 \u05d0\u05dc\u200e] pregnant\n construct; Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 119 _gg_.\u2015\u2015=30.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05d0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5\u200e] LXX +\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u1fc7 (= \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u200e).\u2015\u2015=32.= \u05d0\u05e0\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of\n the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 transposed.\u2015\u2015=33.= \u05e8\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05df\u200e] Read with\n LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e8\u05f3\u200e, as verse \u00b9\u2079.\u2015\u2015=34.= \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05db\u05dd\u200e]\n LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Vulgate prefix \u05d5\u200e.\u2015\u2015=35.= On the syntax, compare\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 111 _g_.\u2015\u2015=36.= \u05db\u05dc\u05e0\u05d4\u200e] for \u05db\u05bb\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05df\u200e, as Proverbs\n 31\u00b2\u2079 (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 91 _f_). On Elohist\u2019s preference for\n these lengthened suffixes, see Dillmann on 41\u00b2\u00b9.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n CHAPTERS XLIII. XLIV.\n _The second Visit to Egypt_\n (Yahwist).\n\nThe supply of food being exhausted, another family council is held,\nat which Jacob\u2019s reluctance to part with Benjamin is at last overcome\nby Judah becoming surety for his safe return: the eleven brethren set\nout with a present for Joseph and double money in their hand (\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2074).\nTo their surprise they are received with every mark of honour as\nthe guests of the viceroy; and their fears give place to convivial\nabandonment at his hospitable table (\u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b3\u2074). But Joseph has devised\none more trial for them: his silver cup is secretly placed in\nBenjamin\u2019s sack, and on their homeward journey they are overtaken with\nthe accusation of theft. Brought back to Joseph\u2019s presence, they offer\nto surrender their freedom in expiation of some hidden guilt which God\nhas brought home to them (44\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2076). But when Joseph proposes to detain\nBenjamin alone, Judah comes forward and, in a speech of noble and\ntouching eloquence, pleads that he may be allowed to redeem his pledge\nby bearing the punishment for his youngest brother (\u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b3\u2074).\n\n The second journey \u201cbrings to light the disposition of the\n brethren to one another and to their father, thus marking an\n advance on the first, which only brought them to the point of\n self-accusation\u201d (Dillmann). That is true of the narrative as\n it stands; but since the first journey is taken almost entirely\n from Elohist and the second from Yahwist, the difference\n indicated is probably due to the different conceptions\n represented by the two writers, rather than to a conscious\n development of the plot.\n\n _Source._\u2015\u2015That the chapters are not the continuation of\n 42 (Elohist) appears (a) from the more reasonable attitude\n attributed to Joseph, (b) from the ignoring of Simeon\u2019s\n confinement, and (c) the consequent postponement of the second\n journey to the last moment, and (d) the divergent account of\n the first meeting with Joseph (page 473). Positive points of\n contact with Yahwist are (a) the discovery of the money at the\n first halting-place (43\u00b2\u00b9), (b) Judah as spokesman and leader\n (43\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 \u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 44\u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), (c) the name Israel (43\u2076\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9),\n and the expressions: \u05d0\u05b9\u05db\u05b6\u05dc\u200e, 43\u00b2\u1427 \u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2 44\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2075; \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u200e (of Joseph,\n without qualification), 43\u00b3\u1427 \u2075\u1427 \u2076 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427 44\u00b2\u2076; \u05d5\u05e0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u200e, 43\u2078;\n\u200e \u05d4\u05ea\u05de\u05d4\u05de\u05d4\u05bc\u200e, 43\u00b9\u2070; \u05d9\u05e8\u05d3\u200e and \u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05d3\u200e, 43\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2; \u05d0\u05de\u05ea\u05d7\u05ea\u200e, 43\u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\n 44\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427; \u05de\u05dc\u05d5\u05df\u200e, 43\u00b2\u00b9; \u05de\u05e1\u05e4\u05d5\u05d0\u200e, 43\u00b2\u2074; \u05e7\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05df\u200e, 44\u00b2\u2079. The only\n clear traces of Elohist\u2019s parallel narrative are the allusions\n to Simeon in 43\u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3\u1d47. Procksch makes \u00b9\u00b2\u1d43\u1427 (\u2225 \u00b9\u00b2\u1d47{\u03b1}) \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2074\u1427\n \u00b9\u2075\u1d43{\u03b2}\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u2076\u1d43{\u03b1}\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3\u1d47 a continuous sequence from Elohist; but the\n evidence is conflicting (note \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u200e, \u00b9\u2074; \u05d5\u05d9\u05e8\u05d3\u05d5\u200e, \u00b9\u2075\u1d47): see, however,\n on \u00b9\u00b2.\n\n=1\u201214. The journey resolved on.=\u2015\u2015=2.= Jacob speaks in evident\nignorance of the stipulation regarding Benjamin; hence 42\u00b3\u2078 (Yahwist)\nstands out of its proper place. The motive of the transposition is\nobvious, viz., to account for the seeming rejection of Reuben\u2019s\nsponsorship in 42\u00b3\u2077.\n\n The original order in Yahwist can be recovered by the help of\n 44\u00b2\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427. After verse \u00b2 there must have been an announcement,\n in terms similar to 44\u00b2\u2076, of the necessity for taking Benjamin\n with them, to which Jacob replies with the resolute refusal\n of 43\u00b3\u2078 (compare 44\u00b2\u2079). Then follows (\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) the more emphatic\n declaration of Judah, and his explanation of the circumstances\n out of which the inexorable demand had arisen (see Wellhausen\n _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des\n Alten Testaments_\u00b2 59 f.).\n\n=3\u20125.= Judah\u2019s ultimatum. On the difference of representation from\nElohist, see page 473 above.\u2015\u2015=6.= The reproachful question is\nintelligible only on the understanding that Jacob has just heard\nfor the first time that he must part with Benjamin.\u2015\u2015=7.= _according\nto the tenor, etc._] In accordance with the governor\u2019s leading\nquestions.\u2015\u2015=8\u201210.= Judah becomes responsible for Benjamin\u2019s safety\n(as in Elohist Reuben, 42\u00b3\u2077).\u2015\u2015=9.= _I shall be a sinner, etc._] For\nthe idea, compare 1 Kings 1\u00b2\u00b9: guilt is measured not by the moral\nintention, but by the external consequences, of an action.\u2015\u2015=11\u201214.=\nJacob yields to the inevitable; but with characteristic shrewdness\nsuggests measures that may somewhat ease the situation.\u2015\u2015=11.= _the\nproduce of the land_] its rarer products, as a token of homage. On \u05d6\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e,\n_v.i._\u2015\u2015On \u05e6\u05b3\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, \u05dc\u05b9\u05d8\u200e, \u05e0\u05b0\u05db\u05b9\u05d0\u05ea\u200e, see 37\u00b2\u2075.\u2015\u2015_honey_] may here mean grape-syrup,\nthe _dibs_ of modern Syria (see Robinson, _Biblical Researches in\nPalestine_, ii. 81, iii. 381); but there seems no reason to depart\nfrom the usual Old Testament sense of the word, viz., the honey of\nthe wild-bee (see Kennedy\u2019s careful article in _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_,\n2104 ff.).\u2015\u2015_pistachio-nuts_ (_v.i._) are highly esteemed as a\ndelicacy in Egypt and Syria, although the tree is said to be rarely\nfound in Palestine (according to Rosen, _Zeitschrift der deutschen\nmorgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, xii. 502, not at all).\u2015\u2015=12.= _double\nmoney ... and the money, etc._] can hardly mean double money _besides_\nthat which had been returned; unless (Procksch) the first clause be\na variant from Elohist, we must take \u05d5\u05b0\u200e as = \u2018namely.\u2019\u2015\u2015=14.= _\u2019\u0112l\nShaddai_ does not occur elsewhere in Yahwist or Elohist (see on 17\u00b9),\nand may be redactional. On the composition of the verse, _v.i._\u2015\u2015_as I\nam bereaved, etc._] An utterance of subdued resignation: compare 42\u00b3\u2076,\n2 Kings 7\u2074, Esther 4\u00b9\u2076.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =3.= \u05d1\u05dc\u05ea\u05d9\u200e] followed by nominal sentence, Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 163\n _c_.\u2015\u2015Instead of \u05d0\u05ea\u05db\u05dd\u200e, LXX has \u1f41 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad.\u2015\u2015=5.=\n\u200e \u05de\u05e9\u05dc\u05d7\u200e] LXX + \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd.\u2015\u2015=10.= \u05db\u05d9 \u05e2\u05ea\u05d4\u200e] \u2018in\n that case,\u2019 as 31\u2074\u00b2; see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 159 _ee_.\u2015\u2015=11.=\n\u200e \u05d6\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03af, Vulgate _optimis fructibus_,\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05de\u05b0\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05bd\u05d7 \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e2\u05d0\u200e, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac phrase). The\n meaning is obscure. The derivation from \u221a \u05d6\u05de\u05e8\u200e, \u2018praise\u2019 [in\n song] (Vulgate, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, Tuch, al.) is perhaps\n too poetic to be natural, though it yields a good sense; that\n from \u221a \u05d6\u05de\u05e8\u200e, \u2018prune,\u2019 is hardly suitable (see Dillmann). D. H.\n M\u00fcller (in Gesenius _Handw\u00f6rterbuch des biblischen Altertums_\u00b9\u2070\n page 983) connects with Aramaic (\u2021 Syriac word), \u2018admire\u2019:\n \u2018admirable products,\u2019\u2015\u2015practically the same idea as Tuch. (On\n Arabic _\u1e0famara_, _\u1e0fim\u0101r_ [agreeing _phonetically_ with Aramaic\n and Hebrew], v. Lane, 977 f.)\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05d8\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. Almost\n certainly nuts of _Pistacia vera_, belonging to the terebinth\n family (hence LXX \u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03bc[\u03b2]\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd, so Vulgate), for which the\n Syrian name is (\u2021 Syriac word) (Aramaic \u05d1\u05d5\u05d8\u05e0\u05d0\u200e, Arabic _bu\u1e6dm_,\n Assyrian _bu\u1e6dnu_); see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._\u2015\u2015=12.=\n\u200e \u05db\u05e1\u05e3 \u05de\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4\u200e] compare \u05de\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05db\u05e1\u05e3\u200e, verse \u00b9\u2075; and see Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 131 _e_, _q_.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d1\u200e] See Baer-Delitzsch page 79 (\u2018pathachatum\n uti expresse ait Masora\u2019), Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\u00a7 72 _bb_,\n 93 _pp_.\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,\n LXX \u05d4\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3\u200e. The phrasing is peculiar, and suggests that\n Redactor\u1d36\u1d49\u02b0\u1d52\u1d5b\u2071\u02e2\u1d57 may have added to Yahwist the words \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05df\u200e,\n at the same time inserting \u05dc\u05db\u05dd\u200e (which LXX omits), to bring about\n the desired allusion to Simeon.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05db\u05b8\u05bd\u05dc\u05ea\u05d9\u200e] Pausal: Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 29 _u_.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=15\u201225. In Joseph\u2019s house.=\u2015\u2015=15.= They first present themselves\nbefore Joseph at his official bureau, and are afterwards conducted by\nthe steward to his private residence. The house of a wealthy Egyptian\nof the 18th dynasty will be found described in Erman, _Life in Ancient\nEgypt_, 153, 177 ff.\u2015\u2015=16.= Joseph\u2019s desire to \u2018set his eyes on\u2019\nBenjamin being now gratified, he rewards his brothers by a display of\nkindness which must have seemed excessive.\u2015\u2015_slay and make ready_]\nIn Egypt, according to Herodotus ii. 37, 77, Diodorus i. 70, flesh\nwas eaten daily by priests and kings, although the former had to\nabstain from certain kinds of animal food (Knobel-Dillmann).\u2015\u2015=18.=\nTo the simple-minded peasants all this looks like an elaborate\nmilitary stratagem to overwhelm them by main force and reduce them to\nslavery.\u2015\u2015=19\u201222.= To forestall the suspicion of theft, they offer to\nreturn the money found in their sacks.\u2015\u2015_in its full weight_] On the\nweighing of money, see 23\u00b9\u2076.\u2015\u2015=23.= _your money came to me_] Therefore\nwhat you found has nothing to do with it. The steward has entered\ninto Joseph\u2019s purpose, and encourages them to believe that it was a\nsupernatural occurrence, but of auspicious omen, and not, as they had\nimagined, a calamity.\u2015\u2015The notice of Simeon\u2019s release is here inserted\nas the most convenient place, from Elohist.\u2015\u2015=24.= Compare 24\u00b3\u00b2.\u2015\u2015=25.=\n_they had heard, etc._] In conversation with the steward (compare\nverse \u00b9\u2076).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =16.= \u05d0\u05b4\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,\n Vulgate \u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05dd \u05d5\u05b0\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05df\u200e] LXX + \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d1\u05df\u05be\u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u200e (verse \u00b2\u2079).\u2015\u2015\u05d8\u05b0\u05d1\u05b9\u05d7\u05b7\u200e] The only\n case of imperative in _\u014d_ with final guttural (Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 65 _b_).\u2015\u2015=18.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d5\u200e] LXX \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_, LXX \u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d1\u200e (verse \u00b9\u00b2).\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d4\u05ea\u05d2\u05dc\u05dc\u200e] \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 read \u05dc\u05d4\u05ea\u05d2\u05d3\u05dc\u200e (see Ball). LXX \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, Vulgate _ut devolvat in nos calumniam_. The\n text is not to be questioned.\u2015\u2015=20.= \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e] Always followed by \u05d0\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u200e\n (44\u00b9\u2078, Exodus 4\u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3, Numbers 12\u00b9\u00b9 Joshua 7\u2078, Judges 6\u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2075 13\u2078,\n 1 Samuel 1\u00b2\u2076, 1 Kings 3\u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u2076\u2020). It is commonly derived from \u221a\n\u200e \u05d1\u05e2\u05d4\u200e, \u2018ask,\u2019 or (Brown-Driver-Briggs) Arabic _bayya_, \u2018entreat\u2019:\n might it not rather be regarded as a shortening of \u05d0\u05b8\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u200e (2 Kings\n 5\u00b9\u00b3, Job 34\u00b3\u2076) from \u221a \u05d0\u05d1\u05d4\u200e, \u2018be willing\u2019?\u2015\u2015=23.= \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05db\u05dd\u200e] _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX \u05d0\u05d1\u05ea\u05d9\u05db\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015=24.=\n\u200e \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05df\u200e] LXX omits.\u2015\u2015=25.= \u05d9\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05d5\u200e] LXX more easily \u05d9\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u200e (of Joseph).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=26\u201234. At Joseph\u2019s table.=\u2015\u2015=27, 28.= Joseph\u2019s courteous inquiries\nas to their welfare and that of their father are a studied prelude\nto\u2015\u2015=29\u201231=, his profound emotion at the sight of Benjamin,\u2015\u2015_his_\n(full) _brother, the son of his mother_. The disparity in age\nmust have been great (\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e): one wonders whether the narrative does\nnot presuppose that Benjamin had been born since Joseph had been\nlost.\u2015\u2015=30, 31.= For the second time (42\u00b2\u2074) Joseph\u2019s affection\nfinds relief in tears, and again he restrains himself, that he\nmay carry out his plan.\u2015\u2015The interlude reveals, as Gunkel remarks,\na power of psychological observation which is absent from the\noldest legends.\u2015\u2015=32\u201234.= The feast brings two more surprises:\nthe arrangement of the brothers in the order of seniority (see on\n42\u00b2\u2074); and the special favour shown to Benjamin.\u2015\u2015=32= affords an\ninteresting glimpse of Egyptian manners. Joseph\u2019s isolation at table\nwas perhaps due to his having been admitted a member of the priestly\ncaste (41\u2074\u2075), which kept itself apart from the laity (Knobel-Dillmann).\nThe Egyptian exclusiveness in intercourse with foreigners, which\nwould have been perfectly intelligible to the later Jews, evidently\nstruck the ancient Israelites as peculiar (Gunkel). Compare Herodotus\nii. 41.\u2015\u2015=34.= The custom of honouring a guest by portions from the\ntable is illustrated by 2 Samuel 11\u2078; compare Homer, _Iliad_ vii.\n321 f., _Odyssey_ iv. 65 f., xiv. 437.\u2015\u2015_five times_].\n\n It is hardly accidental that the number five occurs so often in\n reference to matters Egyptian (41\u00b3\u2074 45\u00b2\u00b2 47\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2074, Isaiah 19\u00b9\u2078).\n Whether there be an allusion to the five planets recognised by\n the Egyptians (Knobel), or to their ten days\u2019 week (Dillmann),\n it is impossible to say. Jeremias (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte\n des alten Orients_\u00b2, 385) connects it with the five intercalary\n days by which the Egyptian calendar adjusted the difference\n between the conventionalised lunar year (12 months of 30 days)\n and the solar year (365 days),\u2015\u2015these belonging to Benjamin as\n the representative of the 12th month! The explanation is too\n ingenious, and overlooks the occurrence of the numeral where\n Benjamin is not concerned.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =26.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05c4\u05d5\u200e] On Daghesh or Mappiq in \u05d0\u200e, see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\n 14 _d_.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05e8\u05e6\u05d4\u200e] LXX prefix \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015=27.= \u05d4\u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd\u200e] noun? or adjective?\n See Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 141 _c_\u2074.\u2015\u2015=28.= After Athnach _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX insert \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05da \u05d4\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d4\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\n\u200e \u05dc\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e,\u2015\u2015a parallel to the benediction on Benjamin (\u00b2\u2079): clumsy\n in expression and hardly original.\u2015\u2015=29.= \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05ea\u05dd\u200e] LXX + \u05dc\u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u200e,\u2015\u2015an\n interesting and perhaps correct addition.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05b8\u05d7\u05e0\u05da\u200e] for \u05d9\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05e0\u05b0\u05da\u05b8\u200e (as\n Isaiah 30\u00b9\u2079); see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 67 _n_.\u2015\u2015=30.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05de\u05d4\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05e7\u05e9\u200e]\n \u2018hastily sought,\u2019 though an intermediate clause between the\n complementary verbs is very unusual.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05dc\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05e2\u05dc\u200e.\u2015\u2015=32.= \u05dc\u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e] Better \u05dc\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05e6\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e:\n so versions Ball.\u2015\u2015LXX adds \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, in mistaken\n accommodation to 46\u00b3\u2074.\u2015\u2015=34.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05d0\u200e] LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05d0\u05d5\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea\u200e] =\n \u2018shares\u2019 or \u2018times,\u2019 47\u00b2\u2074, 2 Kings 11\u2077, 2 Samuel 19\u2074\u2074, Nehemiah\n 11\u00b9, Daniel 1\u00b2\u2070\u2020.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05db\u05e8\u05d5\u200e] hardly \u2018got drunk\u2019: \u05e9\u05db\u05e8\u200e of convivial\n drinking, Haggai 1\u2076, Canticles 5\u00b9.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=XLIV. 1\u201217. The cup in Benjamin\u2019s sack.=\u2015\u2015=1, 2.= This final test\nof the brethren\u2019s disposition is evidently arranged between Joseph\nand the steward on the evening of the banquet, to be carried out at\ndaybreak (verse \u00b3).\u2015\u2015=1b.= _each man\u2019s money, etc._] Though this seems\na useless repetition of 42\u2075\u2075, with no consequences in the sequel, the\nclause ought scarcely to be omitted (with Gunkel) before \u00b2\u1d43.\u2015\u2015=2.=\n_the silver cup_] Joseph\u2019s ordinary drinking-vessel, but at the\nsame time an implement of divination (verse \u2075): therefore his most\nprecious possession.\u2015\u2015=3\u20125.= The trap is skilfully laid: just when\nthey have emerged from the city, and think all danger is left behind,\nexulting in the fresh morning air, and still unwearied by travel,\nthey are arrested by the steward\u2019s challenge, and finally plunged in\ndespair.\u2015\u2015=4.= _Why have ye ... good?_] LXX adds, \u2018Why have ye stolen\nmy silver cup?\u2019 The addition seems necessary in view of the following\n\u200e\u05d6\u05b6\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015=5.= _and, moreover, he divines with_ (or _in_) _it_] See on\nverse \u00b9\u2075.\n\n On the widely prevalent species of divination referred to\n (\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, \u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1,), compare Augustine, _De civitate\n Dei_, vii. 35; Strabo, XVI. ii. 39; Iamblichus, _De mysteriis_\n iii. 14. Various methods seem to have been employed; _e.g._,\n amongst the Babylonians oil was poured into a vessel of water,\n and from its movements omens were deduced according to a set of\n fixed rules of interpretation: see Hunger, _Becherwahrsagung bei\n den Babyloniern nach zwei Keilschriften aus der Hammurabi-zeit_\n (_Leipziger Semitistische Studien_, 1903, i. 1\u201280).\u2015\u2015An\n interesting modern parallel is quoted by Driver (358\u00b9), and\n Hunger (4), from the Travels of Norden (_circa_ 1750), where a\n Nubian sheikh says: \u2018_I have consulted my cup_, and I find that\n you are Franks in disguise, who have come to spy out the land.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\n =1.= LXX inserts \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u03ae\u03c6 as subject.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05d5\u05db\u05dc\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05d0\u05ea\u200e] Ball plausibly,\n\u200e \u05d9\u05d5\u05db\u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e9\u05d0\u05ea\u200e.\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05e2\u05b7\u200e] Used of the golden cups of the candlestick\n (Exodus 25\u00b3\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 37\u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427); elsewhere only Jeremiah 35\u2075, along\n with the ordinary word for \u2018cup\u2019 (\u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e1\u200e), of the \u2018bowls\u2019 of wine\n set before the Rechabites.\u2015\u2015=3, 4.= On the syntax of these\n verses see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\u00a7 142 _e_, 156 _f_; Davidson \u00a7\u00a7\n 141, 41, _R._ 3. The addition in LXX runs: \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03af \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd;.\u2015\u2015=5.= \u05e0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b5\u05e9\u05c1\u200e] The derivation of this verb\n from \u05e0\u05b8\u05d7\u05b8\u05e9\u05c1\u200e, \u2018serpent,\u2019 first suggested by Bochartus (_Hierozoicon,\n sive bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacr\u00e6 Scriptur\u00e6_ i. 3),\n is supported by (amongst others) N\u00f6ldeke (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\n V\u00f6lkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft_, i. 413) and Baudissin\n (_Studien zur semitischen religionsgeschichte_ i. 287); on the\n other hand, see Wellhausen _Skizzen und Vorarbeiten._, iii. 147;\n and William Robertson Smith _The Journal of Philology_ xiv. 115.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=6\u20129.= The brethren appeal to their honesty in the matter of the money\nreturned in their sacks, and propose the severest punishment\u2015\u2015death to\nthe thief, slavery for the rest\u2015\u2015should the missing article be found\nwith them.\u2015\u2015=10.= The servant holds them to their pledge, but offers\neasier terms: the thief alone shall be Joseph\u2019s slave.\u2015\u2015=11\u201213.= To\nthe dismay of the brethren the cup is found in Benjamin\u2019s sack.\u2015\u2015=12.=\n_beginning ... youngest_] A calculated strain on the brethren\u2019s\nsuspense, and (on the part of the narrator) an enhancement of\nthe reader\u2019s interest: compare 1 Samuel 16\u2076 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015=13.= Their\nsubmissiveness shows that no suspicion of a trick crossed their minds;\ntheir sense of an adverse fate was quickened by the still unsolved\nmystery of the money in the sacks, to which they had so proudly\nappealed in proof of their innocence.\u2015\u2015=14\u201217.= The brethren before\nJoseph.\u2015\u2015=14.= _he was still there_] had not gone out to his place of\nbusiness (see 43\u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2077), but was waiting for them.\u2015\u2015=15.= _that a man\nin my position_ (one of the wise men of Egypt) _can divine_.\n\n It is difficult to say how much is implied in this claim of\n superhuman knowledge on Joseph\u2019s part. No doubt it links itself\n on the one hand to the feeling in the brethren\u2019s mind that a\n divine power was working against them, and on the other to the\n proofs they had had of the governor\u2019s marvellous insight. But\n whether Joseph is conceived as really practising divination, or\n only as wishing his brothers to think so, does not appear. Not\n improbably, as Gunkel surmises, the motive comes from an older\n story, in which the prototype of Joseph actually achieved his\n ends by means of occult knowledge.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =8.= \u05db\u05e1\u05e3\u200e\u00b9] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_\n \u200e\u05d4\u05db\u05e1\u05e3\u200e.\u2015\u2015=9.= \u05d0\u05ea\u05d5\u200e] LXX + \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05de\u05ea\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of\n the Pentateuch_ \u05d9\u05d5\u05de\u05ea\u200e, equally good.\u2015\u2015=12.= \u05d4\u05d7\u05dc ... \u05db\u05dc\u05d4\u200e] infinitives\n absolute (\u05d4\u05b8\u05d7\u05b5\u05dc ... \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4\u200e) would be more idiomatic than the perfect\n (so Ball).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=16.= _God has found out, etc._] The exclamation does not necessarily\nimply consciousness of particular guilt (see on 43\u2079), and is certainly\nnot meant as a confession of the wrong done to Joseph: at the same\ntime we may be sure that that is the crime to which their secret\nthoughts gravitate (42\u00b2\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015=17.= Judah\u2019s proposal that _all_\nshould remain as slaves is rejected by Joseph, who insists on\nseparating Benjamin\u2019s fate from that of the rest. Did he purpose to\nretain him by his side, while sustaining the rest of the family in\ntheir homes?\n\n * * * * *\n\n =16.= Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der\n historischen B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 60) would omit \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4\u200e\n and read \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u200e; but the text is safeguarded by verse \u00b9\u2074, and the\n change is uncalled for. Judah speaks here in the name of all,\n in \u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 for himself.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=18\u201234. Judah\u2019s plea for Benjamin.=\u2015\u2015The speech, which is the finest\nspecimen of dignified and persuasive eloquence in the Old Testament,\nis perhaps modelled on the style of forensic oratory to which the\nHebrews were accustomed in public assemblies at the city gates\n(contrast the stilted oration of Tertullus in Acts 24). Sincerity and\ndepth of feeling are not more remarkable than the skilful selection\nand disposition of the points most likely to appeal to the governor:\n(1) a recital of the interview in which Joseph had insisted on\nBenjamin being brought down (\u00b9\u2079\u207b\u00b2\u00b3); (2) a pathetic description of\nthe father\u2019s reluctance to part with him, overcome only by the harsh\nnecessity of hunger (\u00b2\u2074\u207b\u00b2\u2079); (3) a suggestion of the death-stroke\nwhich their return without Benjamin would inflict on their aged parent\n(\u00b3\u2070\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9); and, lastly, (4) the speaker\u2019s personal request to be allowed\nto redeem his honour by taking Benjamin\u2019s punishment on himself\n(\u00b3\u00b2\u207b\u00b3\u2074).\u2015\u2015The Massoretes commence a new Parashah with verse \u00b9\u2078,\nrightly perceiving that Judah\u2019s speech is the turning-point in the\nrelations between Joseph and his brethren.\u2015\u2015=19\u201223.= On the divergent\nrepresentations of Yahwist and Elohist, see on page 473 above.\u2015\u2015=20.=\n_to his mother_] See page 449.\u2015\u2015=28.= The words of Jacob enable\nJudah to draw a veil over the brothers\u2019 share in the tragedy of\nJoseph.\u2015\u2015_and I have not seen him till now_] Compare the rugged pathos\nof Lowell\u2019s\n\n \u201cWhose comin\u2019 home there\u2019s them that wan\u2019t\u2015\u2015\n No, not life-long\u2015\u2015leave off awaitin\u2019.\u201d\n\nThe simple words, with their burden of suppressed emotion,\nhave a meaning for the governor of which the speaker is all\nunconscious.\u2015\u2015=29.= _in trouble to She\u2019\u014dl_] Compare 42\u00b3\u2078 37\u00b3\u2075\n44\u00b3\u00b9.\u2015\u2015=30.= _his soul_ (not \u2018life\u2019) _is bound up, etc._] a figure\nfor inalienable affection; as 1 Samuel 18\u00b9.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =18.= \u05db\u05de\u05d5\u05da \u05db\u05e4\u05f3\u200e] Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 161 _c_.\u2015\u2015=20.= \u05dc\u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u200e] LXX\n\u200e \u05dc\u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u200e.\u2015\u2015=24.= \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,\n LXX, Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u200e (so LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 in \u00b2\u2077, and LXX,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Vulgate in \u00b3\u2070).\u2015\u2015=28.= \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e] LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5.\u2015\u2015=31.=\n\u200e \u05d4\u05e0\u05e2\u05e8\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 + \u05d0\u05b4\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u200e (as verse \u00b3\u2070).\u2015\u2015=32.= \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u200e, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u200e.\u2015\u2015=34.= \u05d0\u05ea\u05d9\u200e] LXX\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b4\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n CHAPTER XLV.\n _Joseph reveals himself to his Brethren_\n (Elohist, Yahwist).\n\nThe crisis so slowly matured and so skilfully led up to is at last\nreached, and in a scene of inimitable power and tenderness Joseph\nmakes himself known to his brethren (\u00b9\u207b\u2078). In a message to his father\nhe discloses his plans for the future, inviting the whole family to\nsettle in Egypt while the famine lasted (\u2079\u207b\u00b9\u2075). The invitation is\nconfirmed by the king (\u00b9\u2076\u207b\u00b2\u2070); and the brethren depart laden with rich\ngifts and provision for the journey (\u00b2\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u2074). Jacob, after a momentary\nincredulity, is cheered by the prospect of seeing Joseph before his\ndeath (\u00b2\u2075\u207b\u00b2\u2078).\n\n The _sources_, Elohist and Yahwist, are here so intimately\n blended that a complete analysis is impossible. The main fact is\n the preponderance of Elohist, which appears both from language\n\u200e (\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u2075\u1427 \u2077\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u2079; \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1\u200e, \u00b2\u2075; \u05d7\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9\u200e, \u2075 [31\u00b3\u2075]; \u05e6\u05d3\u05d4\u200e, \u00b2\u00b9 [42\u00b2\u2075]; \u05d1\u05e8\u200e,\n \u00b2\u00b3; perhaps also \u05de\u05d6\u05d5\u05df\u200e, \u00b2\u00b3; and \u05d8\u05e2\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u05db\u05dd\u200e, \u00b9\u2077 [contrast Yahwist\u2019s\n\u200e \u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05de\u05e1 \u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05d7\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u200e, 44\u00b9\u00b3]), and representation: contrast verse \u00b3 with\n 43\u00b2\u2077 \u1da0\u1427, \u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b2\u2070 with 46\u00b3\u00b9\u201247\u2075 (Yahwist), where Joseph\u2019s kindred\n are apparently brought under Pharaoh\u2019s notice for the first time.\n Indubitable traces of Yahwist are found in \u2074\u1d47\u1427 \u2075\u1d43 (the _selling_\n of Joseph), \u00b9\u2070 (Goshen,\u2015\u2015see the notes), \u00b2\u2078 (\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u200e); these are\n supported by the expressions, \u05d4\u05ea\u05d0\u05e4\u05e7\u200e, \u00b9\u1d43 (as 43\u00b3\u00b9); \u05e0\u05e2\u05e6\u05d1\u200e, \u2075\u1d43;\n\u200e \u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05d3\u200e, \u00b9\u00b3; \u05e0\u05e4\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05e6\u05d5\u05d0\u05e8\u05d9\u200e, \u00b9\u2074. Thus far in the main Wellhausen and\n Dillmann. More subtle and less reliable criteria are applied\n by Gunkel (402 f., 406), and (with very different results)\n by Procksch (52 f.). It is probable that \u00b3 (Elohist) is \u2225 \u2074\n (Yahwist), and (against Procksch) \u2079 (Elohist) \u2225 \u00b9\u00b3 (Yahwist).\n But it is very doubtful if the dismissal of the attendants (\u00b9)\n be inconsistent with the overhearing of the weeping (\u00b2), or\n if the latter be necessarily connected with the Pharaoh\u2019s\n invitation (\u00b9\u2076 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015Some minor questions, such as the \u2018waggons\u2019\n of \u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2077 (compare 46\u2075), and the authorship of verses \u00b9\u2079\u207b\u00b2\u00b9,\n must be reserved for the notes.\n\n=1\u20128. The disclosure.=\u2015\u2015=1, 2.= Joseph\u2019s self-restraint gives way\nbefore Judah\u2019s irresistible appeal.\u2015\u2015It is pressing matters too far\nto say that the dismissal of the attendants is a device to keep his\nrelation to the strangers a secret from Pharaoh (see on the sources\nabove).\u2015\u2015=3.= _is my father yet alive?_) The question is slightly\nless natural in the context of Yahwist (see 43\u00b2\u2076 \u1da0\u1427 44\u00b2\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) than\nin Elohist, where the absence of any mention of Jacob since the\nfirst visit (42\u00b9\u00b3) might leave room for uncertainty in Joseph\u2019s\nmind. But since he does not wait for an answer, the doubt can\nhardly be real.\u2015\u2015_were troubled before him_] Compare 50\u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b2\u00b9 (also\nElohist).\u2015\u2015=4.= Yahwist\u2019s parallel to verse \u00b3,\u2015\u2015probably the immediate\ncontinuation of verse \u00b9 (compare 44\u00b9\u2078).\u2015\u2015=5\u20128.= With singular\ngenerosity Joseph reassures them by pointing out the providential\npurpose which had overruled their crime for good; compare 50\u00b2\u2070. The\nprofoundly religious conviction which recognises the hand of God,\nnot merely in miraculous interventions, but in the working out of\ndivine ends through human agency and what we call secondary causes, is\ncharacteristic of the Joseph-narrative amongst the legends of Genesis:\nsee Gunkel 404 (compare chapter 24).\u2015\u2015=7.= \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d0\u05b5\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u200e] \u2018remnant,\u2019 perhaps\nin the sense of \u2018descendants\u2019 (2 Samuel 14\u2077, Jeremiah 44\u2077). But the\nuse of \u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05b5\u05d9\u05d8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (strictly \u2018_escaped_ remnant,\u2019 compare 32\u2079) is difficult,\nseeing the whole family was saved (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=8.= _a father to\nPharaoh_] Probably an honorific title of the chief minister (compare\n1 Maccabees 11\u00b3\u00b2, Add. Esther 3\u00b9\u00b3 8\u00b9\u00b2); see, further, _inf._\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2\u200e] Numbers 12\u2076\u2020 (Elohist?).\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e] LXX\n\u200e \u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e. The pointing \u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e _without_ article (Gunkel) is no\n improvement.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u200e] LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05e2\u200e, as in verse \u00b9\u2076; so\n Holzinger, Gunkel. The clause, however, is best regarded as\n a doublet of the preceding, in which case Massoretic Text\n is preferable.\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05d9\u05d5\u05e1\u05e3\u200e\u00b2] LXX + \u1f41 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f43\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u0391\u1f34\u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd (as verse \u2074).\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] LXX omits.\u2015\u2015=4a.= LXX\u1d2c omits\n entirely.\u2015\u2015=5.= \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05d9\u05d7\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05db\u05dd\u200e] (compare 31\u00b3\u2075) is Elohist\u2019s variant\n to \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05ea\u05e2\u05e6\u05d1\u05d5\u200e (6\u2076 34\u2077 Yahwist).\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b4\u05d7\u05b0\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] In Judges 6\u2074 17\u00b9\u2070 the word\n signifies \u2018means of subsistence\u2019; in 2 Chronicles 14\u00b9\u00b2 perhaps\n \u2018preservation of life\u2019; and so here if the pointing be right.\n Ball plausibly emends \u05de\u05b0\u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, \u2018preserver of life\u2019 (1 Samuel\n\u200e 2\u2076).\u2015\u2015=6.= \u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d5\u05e7\u05e6\u05d9\u05e8\u200e] Exodus 34\u00b2\u00b9 (Yahwist?).\u2015\u2015=7.= \u05d4\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05e4\u05dc\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4\u200e] The\n want of an object after \u05d4\u05d7\u05f3\u200e is harsh (compare 47\u00b2\u2075 50\u00b2\u2070). The\n omission of the \u05dc\u200e (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,\n LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Olshausen, Ball, al.) improves the grammar, but\n the sense remains unsatisfying (_v.s._).\u2015\u2015=8.= \u05d0\u05d1\u200e ... \u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05df\u200e] That\n the words are used in their Hebrew sense (\u2018father\u2019 ... \u2018lord\u2019)\n is not to be questioned; in spite of the fact that Brugsch has\n compared two Egyptian titles, identical in form but altogether\n different in meaning (see Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_,\n ii. 774; Strack, page 157 f.).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=9\u201215. Joseph\u2019s message to his father.=\u2015\u2015That both Yahwist and Elohist\nrecorded the invitation may be regarded as certain, apart from nice\nquestions of literary analysis: Eerdmans\u2019 suggestion that, in Yahwist,\nJacob conceived the project of going down to Egypt \u201cauf eigene Faust\u201d\n(_Die Komposition der Genesis_ 65, 70) being contrary to every natural\nview of the situation. We may therefore be prepared to find traces of\nthe dual narrative in these verses.\u2015\u2015=10.= On _the land of Goshen_,\nsee the footnote.\u2015\u2015_be near to me_] The clause is not inconsistent\nwith the preceding; for, as compared with Canaan, Goshen was certainly\n\u2018near\u2019 to where Joseph dwelt. Nevertheless it is best regarded as a\nvariant from Elohist, continued in \u00b9\u00b9\u1d43. It is only in Yahwist that the\nIsraelites are represented as dwelling in Goshen.\u2015\u2015=12\u201215.= The close\nof Joseph\u2019s speech, followed by his affectionate embrace, and the free\nconverse of the brethren.\u2015\u2015=13= and =14= (Yahwist) are respectively\nparallel to \u2079 and \u00b9\u2075 (Elohist).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =10.= \u05d2\u05e9\u05df\u200e] LXX \u0393\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03bc \u1f08\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (as 46\u00b3\u2074). The name is peculiar\n to Yahwist (46\u00b2\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u2079\u1427 \u00b3\u2074 47\u00b9\u1427 \u2074\u1427 \u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2077 50\u2078, Exodus 8\u00b9\u2078 9\u00b2\u2076 \u2020);\n Priestly-Code has \u2018land of Ramses\u2019 (47\u00b9\u00b9), compare Exodus\n 1\u00b9\u00b9 12\u00b3\u2077, Numbers 33\u2075); while Elohist uses no geographical\n designation. That Priestly-Code and Yahwist mean the same\n locality is intrinsically probable (though Naville considers\n that the land of Ramses was a larger area than Goshen), and\n is confirmed by recent excavations. The city of Pithom (see\n on 46\u00b2\u2078) has been identified by Naville with the modern _Tell\n el-Maskhu\u1e6da_, 12 miles West of Ismailia, in W\u0101d\u012b \u1e6cum\u012bl\u0101t, a long\n and narrow valley leading \u201cstraight from the heart of the Delta\n to a break in the chain of the Bitter Lakes,\u201d and therefore\n marking a weak spot in the natural defences of Egypt (Erman,\n _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 525 f.). In the same region, though\n not quite so far East, excavations at the village of _\u1e62af\u1e6d\n el-\u1e24enneh_ have established its identity with _Pa-soft_ (also\n called on local inscriptions _Kes_), which is stated to have\n been the capital of the 20th Nome of Lower Egypt. A rare name of\n this nome is _Kesem_; and it is at least a plausible conjecture\n that this is the same as the biblical \u05d2\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05df\u200e (\u0393\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03bc); and if so\n the situation of Goshen is fixed as a part of W\u0101d\u012b \u1e6cum\u012bl\u0101t\n surrounding Saft el-\u1e24enneh. A confirmation of this may be found\n in the \u1f08\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03af\u03b1 of LXX, for this in Gr\u00e6co-Roman times (Ptolemy iv.\n 5, 53) was the name of one of the 23 nomes of the Delta, whose\n capital \u03a6\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 (compare Strabo, XVII. i. 26) has long been\n conjectured to be the ancient _Kes_, preceded by the article\n _pa_.\u2015\u2015See Naville, _Land of Goshen_, etc. (Fifth Memoir of EEF,\n 1887), 15 ff., 20; _Store City of Pithom_, etc. (\u2074 1903), 4 ff.;\n Spiegelberg, _Der Aufenthalt Israels in Aegypten im Lichte\n der aegyptischen Monumente_ etc. 52; M\u00fcller in _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n Biblica_, 1758 ff.; and Griffith in _BD_, ii. 232 f.\u2015\u2015=11.=\n\u200e \u05db\u05dc\u05db\u05dc\u200e] compare 50\u00b2\u00b9 (Elohist).\u2015\u2015\u05e4\u05df\u05be\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05e9\u200e] \u2018lest thou come to want\u2019\n (literally \u2018be dispossessed\u2019); compare Judges 14\u00b9\u2075, Proverbs\n 20\u00b9\u00b3 23\u00b2\u00b9 30\u2079.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=16\u201220. Pharaoh\u2019s invitation.=\u2015\u2015This, as already explained, is\npeculiar to Elohist. It is just possible (though hardly probable) that\nin this source Joseph\u2019s invitation (\u2079\u207b\u00b9\u00b9) extended only to his father,\nwhile the idea of transplanting the whole family emanated from the\nking.\u2015\u2015=16a.= Compare verse \u00b2.\u2015\u2015=18.= _the best of the land (v.i.) ...\nthe fat of the land_] The expressions are not altogether inapplicable\nto Goshen (W\u0101d\u012b \u1e6cum\u012bl\u0101t), which was rendered fertile by a canal,\nand is still spoken of as the best pasture-land in Egypt (Robinson,\n_Biblical Researches in Palestine_, i. 53 f.). But since Elohist never\nmentions a separate location in Goshen, there is no need to force that\nsense upon them; the meaning is general: the best of everything that\nEgypt can afford (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=19.= The opening words (_v.i._) throw\nsome doubt on the originality of the verse; and there certainly\nseems no more reason for ascribing it to Yahwist (Gunkel) than to\nElohist.\u2015\u2015The _baggage- waggon_ (\u05e2\u05b2\u05d2\u05b8\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e) is said to have been introduced\ninto Egypt from Canaan, with its Semitic name (Egyptian _\u201bagolt_):\nErman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 491.\u00b9\u2015\u2015=20.= _Let not your eye pity_]\nThe phrase is Deuteronomic, and seems a very strong one for concern\nabout household implements. According to Yahwist (\u00b9\u2070\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1d47 46\u00b9\u1427 \u00b3\u00b2)\nthey brought \u2018all they possessed,\u2019 which, if they were half-nomads,\nwould be possible without waggons.\n\n \u00b9 Compare Heyes, _Bibel und \u00c4gypten: Abraham und seine\n Nachkommen in \u00c4gypten_ i. 251.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =17.= \u05d8\u05e2\u05df\u200e] \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd (Aramaic); contrast \u05e2\u05de\u05e1\u200e, 44\u00b9\u00b3\n (Yahwist).\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u200e Exodus 22\u2074, Numbers 20\u2074\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9 (Elohist), Psalms\n\u200e 78\u2074\u2078\u2020.\u2015\u2015=18.= \u05d8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u200e] = \u2018best things,\u2019 as verses \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3 24\u00b9\u2070, 2 Kings\n 8\u2079; LXX \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd.\u2015\u2015For \u2018the best _part_,\u2019 Priestly-Code\n uses \u05de\u05b5\u05d9\u05d8\u05b8\u05d1\u200e (47\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9).\u2015\u2015=19.= \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05e6\u05bb\u05bc\u05d5\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05ea\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] The passive is awkward in\n itself, and has no syntactic connexion with the following \u05d6\u05d0\u05ea \u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u200e\n [hence Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 inserts (\u2021 Syriac phrase)]. Dillmann, Kittel\n emend \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05e6\u05b7\u05d5\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05dd\u200e; Ball \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d6\u05d0\u05ea\u200e (after LXX \u03a3\u1f7a \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1; compare Vulgate); Gunkel \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc \u05e6\u05b4\u05d5\u05b5\u05bc\u05d9\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9\u200e: the first is best. But\n it is still difficult to understand the extreme emphasis laid\n on this point; and a suspicion remains that either the whole\n verse (Dillmann), or the introduction, is due to a scribe who\n wished to make it clear that the waggons were not sent without\n Pharaoh\u2019s express authority: see on verse \u00b2\u00b9.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=21\u201228. The brethren return to Canaan.=\u2015\u2015=22.= Presents of expensive\nclothes are a common mark of courtesy in the East: compare Judges\n14\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b9\u2079, 2 Kings 5\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015_changes of raiment_] such as were\nsubstituted for ordinary clothing on festal occasions (see on\n27\u00b9\u2075).\u2015\u2015Benjamin receives _five_ such suits: see on 43\u00b3\u2074.\u2015\u2015=23.= _of\nthe best_ (produce) _of Egypt_] A munificent return for Jacob\u2019s modest\ncomplimentary present (43\u00b9\u00b9).\u2015\u2015_corn and bread and sustenance for\nthe journey_] compare verse \u00b2\u2070.\u2015\u2015=24.= _Do not get excited by the\nway_] _sc._, with mutual recriminations,\u2015\u2015a caution suggested by\n42\u00b2\u00b2.\u2015\u2015=25\u201228.= Jacob\u2019s reception of the tidings.\u2015\u2015=26.= _his heart\nbecame cold_, or _numb_] unable to take in the startling intelligence,\nas too good to be true.\u2015\u2015=27.= But gradually, as they rehearse _the\nwords of Joseph_, and show him the _waggons_ as a pledge of his power,\n_his spirit revived_] he recovered his wonted energy of thought and\naction.\u2015\u2015=28.= From Yahwist.\u2015\u2015_It is enough_] The father\u2019s heart\nis indifferent to Joseph\u2019s grandeur \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9) and princely gifts; the\nfact that his son lives is sufficient consolation for all he has\nendured (compare 46\u00b3\u2070). The psychology of old age could not be more\nsympathetically or convincingly treated.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =21.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u200e] The statement is premature, and furnishes\n an additional indication that this part of the narrative has\n been worked over. The repeated \u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05df\u200e also suggests a doublet or\n interpolation. In \u00b9\u2079\u207b\u00b2\u00b9, Dillmann leaves to Elohist only \u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05d9\u05f3\n\u200e \u05e2\u05d2\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05df \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05e6\u05d3\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d3\u05e8\u05da\u200e; Kautzsch-Socin only the second of these clauses,\n the rest being redactional.\u2015\u2015\u05e6\u05d3\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d3\u05e8\u05da\u200e] as 42\u00b2\u2075 (Elohist).\u2015\u2015=23.=\n\u200e \u05db\u05b0\u05d6\u05d0\u05ea\u200e] (so pointed only here): \u2018in like manner\u2019 (Judges 8\u2078).\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05d6\u05d5\u05df\u200e)\n (2 Chronicles 11\u00b2\u00b3\u2020) from an Aramaic \u221a \u05d6\u05d5\u05df\u200e = \u2018feed.\u2019\u2015\u2015Of the\n three nouns, \u05d1\u05e8\u200e, \u05dc\u05d7\u05dd\u200e, and \u05de\u05d6\u05d5\u05df\u200e, LXX expresses only \u05dc\u05d7\u05dd\u200e. Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n has (\u2021 Syriac word), \u2018wine,\u2019 for \u05dc\u05d7\u05dd\u200e, but perhaps through\n dittography of (\u2021 Syriac word), \u2018asses.\u2019\u2015\u2015=24.= \u05d0\u05dc \u05ea\u05e8\u05d2\u05d6\u05d5\u200e] LXX \u03bc\u1f74\n \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5, Vulgate _Ne irascamini_, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word),\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05ea\u05e0\u05e6\u05d5\u05df\u200e (\u2018quarrel\u2019). But the Hebrew verb denotes\n simply agitation, by whatever emotion produced.\u2015\u2015=26.= \u05e4\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d2\u200e] In\n Arabic and Syriac the \u221a means to be or grow \u2018cold,\u2019 in Syriac,\n also, and New Hebrew, figuratively \u2018grow inactive,\u2019 \u2018fail,\u2019\n \u2018vanish\u2019; in Old Testament the prevailing idea seems to be that\n of numbness (Br own-Driver-Briggs); compare Habakkuk 1\u2074 (of\n _t\u00f4r\u00e2h_), Psalms 38\u2079.\u2015\u2015=28.= \u05e8\u05d1\u200e] As an exclamation = \u2018enough!\u2019;\n compare Exodus 9\u00b2\u2078, Numbers 16\u00b3\u1427 \u2077, Deuteronomy 1\u2076 2\u00b3 etc.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n XLVI. 1\u2012XLVII. 12.\n _The Settlement of Jacob and his Family in Egypt_\n (Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly-Code).\n\nJacob, encouraged by a night vision at Beersheba, takes his departure\nfor Egypt (\u00b9\u207b\u2077): (here is inserted a list of the persons who were\nsupposed to accompany him, \u2078\u207b\u00b2\u2077). He sends Judah to announce his\narrival to Joseph, who proceeds to Goshen and tenderly welcomes his\nfather (\u00b2\u2078\u207b\u00b3\u2070). Having instructed his brethren in the part he wishes\nthem to play (\u00b3\u00b9\u207b\u00b3\u2074), Joseph presents five of them before Pharaoh, and\nobtains permission for them to settle for a time in Goshen (47\u00b9\u207b\u2076).\nJacob\u2019s interview with Pharaoh closes the account of the migration\n(\u2077\u207b\u00b9\u00b2).\n\n _Sources._\u2015\u2015The narrative of Jehovist is several times\n interrupted by excerpts from Priestly-Code, whose peculiar style\n and viewpoint can be recognised in 46\u2076\u207b\u00b2\u2077 47\u2075\u1427 \u2076\u1d43\u1427 \u2077\u207b\u00b9\u00b9 (but see\n the notes below, page 439 ff.).\u2015\u2015Disregarding these verses, we\n have a continuous Yahwist narrative from 46\u00b2\u2078\u201247\u2076: note \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u200e,\n \u00b2\u2079\u1427 \u00b3\u2070; _Goshen_, \u00b2\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u2079\u1427 \u00b3\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u1427 \u2074\u1427 \u2076\u1d47; the leadership of Judah, \u00b2\u2078;\n the ignoring of Pharaoh\u2019s invitation (45\u00b9\u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 Elohist); \u05e0\u05e4\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc \u05e6\u05d5\u05d0\u05e8\u05d9\u200e,\n\u200e \u00b2\u2079; \u05d4\u05e4\u05e2\u05dd\u200e, \u00b3\u2070; \u05de\u05e0\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u200e, \u05d1\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u200e, \u00b3\u2074.\u2015\u201546\u00b9\u207b\u2075 is in the main from Elohist,\n as appears from the night vision, the form of address, \u00b2;\n Jacob\u2019s implied hesitation, \u00b3 (contrast 45\u00b2\u2078); the name _Jacob_,\n \u00b2\u1427 \u2075\u1d43; \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u00b2; \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e, \u00b3.\u2015\u2015\u00b9\u1d43 (\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u200e) and _possibly_ \u2075\u1d47 belong\n to Yahwist.\u2015\u201547\u00b9\u00b2 is doubtful,\u2015\u2015probably Elohist (\u05db\u05dc\u05db\u05dc\u200e, as\n 45\u00b9\u00b9).\u2015\u2015See Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der\n historischen B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 60 f.; Dillmann,\n Holzinger, Gunkel, Procksch, 54 f. (who assigns 47\u2077 to Elohist\n instead of Priestly- Code and 47\u00b9\u00b2 to Yahwist).\n\n=1\u20127. Jacob bids farewell to Canaan.=\u2015\u2015=1.= _came to Be\u2019ersheba\u201b_]\nThere is in Elohist no clear indication of where Jacob lived after\nhis return from Laban (see on 35\u00b9). If at Beersheba, the above clause\nis redactional, written on the assumption that he started from Hebron\n(37\u00b9\u2074 Yahwist). The point would be determined if \u2075\u1d47 were the original\ncontinuation of \u2075\u1d43, for it is absurd to suppose that the waggons were\nfirst put to use in the middle of the journey (Wellhausen). But even\napart from that, the natural view undoubtedly is that Jacob would not\nstart until his misgivings were removed in answer to his sacrifice,\nand that consequently his dwelling-place at this time was Beersheba.\nThat he sacrificed at the last patriarchal sanctuary on the way is\na much less plausible explanation.\u2015\u2015_the God of ... Isaac_] Isaac is\napparently regarded as the founder of the sanctuary, as in chapter\n26 (Yahwist\u1d34\u1d49\u1d47\u02b3\u1d52\u207f); an Elohistic parallel to that tradition may\nhave existed though in 21\u00b3\u00b9 (Elohist with Yahwist\u1d2e\u1d49\u1d49\u02b3\u02e2\u02b0\u1d49\u1d47\u1d43) its\nconsecration is attributed to Abraham.\u2015\u2015=2\u20124.= The last of the\npatriarchal theophanies. Compare 12\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, where the theophany\nsanctions the occupation of Canaan, as this sanctions the leaving of\nit (Dillmann); and 26\u00b2, where, under circumstances similar to Jacob\u2019s,\nIsaac is forbidden to go down to Egypt.\u2015\u2015=3.= _the God of thy father_]\nAs elsewhere in Genesis, \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e denotes the local _numen_, who here\ndistinguishes himself from other divine beings,\u2015\u2015a trace of the\nprimitive polytheistic representation (compare 31\u00b9\u00b3 35\u00b9 33\u00b2\u2070 21\u00b3\u00b3\n16\u00b9\u00b3).\u2015\u2015_Fear not, etc._] The purpose of the revelation is to remove\nthe misgiving natural to an old man called to leave his hearth\nand his altar. The thought is confined to Elohist (contrast 45\u00b2\u2078\nYahwist).\u2015\u2015_for ... nation_] The words, if genuine, should follow\nthe immediate grounds of comfort in verse \u2074. They are probably to\nbe regarded (with Kautzsch-Socin, Gunkel, al.) as an expansion of\nthe same character as 13\u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 22\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 28\u00b9\u2074 etc.\u2015\u2015=4.= _I will go\ndown with thee_] So in 31\u00b9\u00b3 the _\u2019\u0112l_ of Bethel is with Jacob in\nMesopotamia.\u2015\u2015_bring thee up_] The reference must be to the Exodus\n(Exodus 3\u2078 6\u2078 etc.), not to Jacob\u2019s burial in Canaan (47\u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1427\n50\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015_lay his hand upon thine eyes_] _i.e._, close them after\ndeath; for classical parallels, compare Homer _Iliad_ xi. 453,\n_Odyssey_ xi. 426, xxiv. 296; Euripides _Ph\u0153nician Women_ 1451 f.,\n_Hecuba_ 430; Virgil _Aeneid_ ix. 487, etc. (Knobel-Dillmann).\u2015\u2015=6,\n7.= Priestly-Code\u2019s summary of the migration (_v.i._).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u200e] LXX here and verse \u2075 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 (see page\n\u200e 326).\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u200e] The word has crept in from verse \u00b9 through\n an inadvertence of the redactor or a later scribe: \u201c\u2018God said\n to Israel, Jacob! Jacob!\u2019 is a sentence which no original\n writer would have penned\u201d (Wellhausen).\u2015\u2015On the form of\n the verse, see on 22\u00b9\u00b9.\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05de\u05b7\u05bd\u05e8\u05b0\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] From \u05e8\u05b5\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, the rare form\n of infinitive construct of \u05e4\u05f4\u05d9\u200e verbs, peculiar to Elohist:\n see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 69 _m_\u00b2; Holzinger _Einleitung in\n den Hexateuch_ 190.\u2015\u2015=4.= \u05d2\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc\u05d4\u200e] See on 27\u00b3\u00b3 31\u00b9\u2075. LXX \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2.\u2015\u2015=5.= \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1\u200e \u00b2] LXX omits.\u2015\u2015\u05e4\u05e8\u05e2\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u03b7\u03c6.\u2015\u2015=6, 7.= Compare\n 12\u2075 31\u00b9\u2078 36\u2076 (Priestly-Code). Further marks of Priestly-Code:\n\u200e \u05e8\u05db\u05e9\u200e, \u05e8\u05db\u05d5\u05e9\u200e, \u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\u05d5 \u05d0\u05ea\u05d5\u200e (17\u2077\u1427 \u2079 \u1da0\u1427 35\u00b9\u00b2), and the redundant phraseology.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=8\u201227. A list of Jacob\u2019s immediate descendants.=\u2015\u2015The passage\nprofesses to give the names of those who went down with Jacob to Egypt,\nbut is in reality a list of the leading clans of the Israelite tribes,\nclosely corresponding to Numbers 26\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427. These traditionally numbered\n_seventy_ (compare the 70 elders, Exodus 24\u00b9\u1427 \u2079, Numbers 11\u00b9\u2076). Closely\nconnected with this was another tradition, that the number of the\nIsraelites at the settlement in Egypt was 70 (Deuteronomy 10\u00b2\u00b2). In\nthe more careful statement of Exodus 1\u2075 (Priestly-Code), this means\nall the _descendants_ of Jacob at the time: _i.e._, it includes Joseph\n(and presumably his sons, though they were in Egypt already) and,\nof course, excludes Jacob himself. In the mind of the writer of the\npresent passage these two traditional schemes appear to have got mixed\nup and confused. As it stands, it is neither an accurate enumeration\nof Jacob\u2019s descendants (for the number 70 includes Jacob and excludes\nEr and Onan), nor a list of those who accompanied him to Egypt (for\nit embraces Joseph and his sons: see on \u00b2\u2076 \u1da0\u1427). When cleared of certain\nobvious accretions (\u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\u200e \u2078; \u00b9\u00b2\u1d47{\u03b1}; \u00b9\u2075\u1d43{\u03b3}; \u05d5\u05d1\u05e0\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5\u200e \u00b9\u2075\u1d47; \u05e9\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e9\u05e9\u200e \u00b2\u2076 and\nthe whole of \u00b2\u2077 except the last word \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd\u200e), we find as its nucleus\na list of Jacob\u2019s sons and grandsons, originally compiled without\nreference to the migration to Egypt, on the basis of some such\ncensus-list as Numbers 26\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\n\n That the section belongs in general to the Priestly strata\n of the Pentateuch is seen from its incompatibility with the\n narrative (and particularly the chronology) of Jehovist; from\n its correspondence with Numbers 26\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, Exodus 6\u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427; and from\n literary indications (\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u200e, \u2078 [compare 25\u00b9\u00b3 36\u00b9\u2070]; \u05e4\u05d3\u05df \u05d0\u05e8\u05dd\u200e, \u00b9\u2075;\n\u200e \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u200e \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2078\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2\u1427 \u00b2\u2075\u207b\u00b2\u2077; \u05d9\u05e6\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e8\u05da\u200e, \u00b2\u2076). As regards its relation to the\n main document of Priestly-Code, three views are possible: (1)\n That the list was originally drawn up by Priestly-Code, and\n afterwards accommodated to the tradition of Jehovist by a later\n editor (N\u00f6ldeke, Dillmann, al.). This implies the perfectly\n tenable assumption that Priestly-Code did not accept the\n tradition as to the death of Er and Onan, or that of Benjamin\u2019s\n extreme youth at the time of the migration; but also the less\n probable view that he numbered the sons of Joseph amongst those\n who \u2018went down\u2019 to Egypt. (2) That the interpolations are due to\n Priestly-Code, who thus turned an older list of Jacob\u2019s children\n into an enumeration of those who accompanied him to Egypt\n (Driver). The only serious objection to this theory is that it\n makes Priestly-Code (in opposition to Exodus 1\u2075) reckon Jacob as\n one of the 70. It is nevertheless the most acceptable solution.\n (3) That the whole section was inserted by a late editor of\n the school of Priestly-Code (Wellhausen, Kuenen, Gunkel, al.).\n Even on this hypothesis, the original list will have had nothing\n to do with the migration to Egypt.\u2015\u2015The discrepancy in the\n computation lies in the first section (\u2078\u207b\u00b9\u2075). The 33 of verse\n \u00b9\u2075 was in the original list the true number of the _sons_ of\n Leah. The interpolator, whoever he was, had to exclude Er and\n Onan; to make up for this he inserts Dinah (\u00b9\u2075\u1d43), and reckons\n Jacob amongst the sons of Leah! Another sign of artificial\n manipulation of the figures appears in the proportions between\n the number of _children_ assigned to each wife: Leah 32,\n Zilpah 16, Rachel 14, Bilhah 7 (in all 69); each concubine-wife\n receiving just half as many children as her mistress. The text\n of LXX presents some important variations _v.i._.\n\n=8a.= The heading is identical with Exodus 1\u00b9\u1d43, except the\nwords \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\u200e, which are obviously interpolated (see introductory\nnote).\u2015\u2015=8b\u201215.= The sons of Leah: viz. _four_ sons of Reuben\n(verse \u2079), _six_ of Simeon (\u00b9\u2070), _three_ of Levi (\u00b9\u00b9), _five_ sons\nand _two_ grandsons of Judah (\u00b9\u00b2), _four_ sons of Issachar (\u00b9\u00b3), and\n_three_ of Zebulun (\u00b9\u2074).\u2015\u2015=15.= _thirty-three_ is thus the correct\nnumber of sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of Jacob by Leah. To\npreserve this number intact with the omission of Er and Onan, the\ninterpolator was obliged to add Dinah, and to include Jacob himself\n(see below).\n\n =9.= Exactly as Exodus 6\u00b9\u2074, Numbers 26\u2075 \u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5\u05da\u200e is also a\n Midianite tribe (25\u2074); the Reubenites occupied Midianite\n territory (Joshua 13\u00b2\u00b9).\u2015\u2015\u05d7\u05e6\u05e8\u05d5\u05df\u200e] and \u05db\u05e8\u05de\u05d9\u200e] also Judahite clans (see\n verse \u00b9\u00b2 and Joshua 7\u00b9).\u2015\u2015=10.= (= Exodus 6\u00b9\u2075). Numbers 26\u00b9\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\n omits \u05d0\u05d4\u05d3\u200e and reads \u05e0\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e for \u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u200e, and \u05d6\u05e8\u05d7\u200e for \u05e6\u05d4\u05e8\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05e6\u05d4\u05e8\u200e] The\n name of Ephron\u2019s father in 23\u2078.\u2015\u2015_the son of the Canaanitess_]\n representing a clan of notoriously impure stock.\u2015\u2015=11.=\n (= Exodus 6\u00b9\u2076).\u2015\u2015=12.= As Numbers 26\u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015The note on the\n death of Er and Onan is an interpolation (see above).\u2015\u2015\u05d7\u05e6\u05e8\u05d5\u05df\u200e]\n (see on verse \u2079) was a town in Judah (Joshua 15\u00b2\u2075).\u2015\u2015\u05d7\u05de\u05d5\u05dc\u200e] _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d7\u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u200e; LXX \u1f38\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03ae\u03bb.\u2015\u2015=13.=\n (= Numbers 26\u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015\u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05e2\u200e] Compare the judge of the same name,\n son of \u05e4\u05d5\u05d0\u05d4\u200e, of the tribe of Issachar (Judges 10\u00b9).\u2015\u2015\u05e4\u05bb\u05bc\u05d5\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e] _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05e4\u05d5\u05d0\u05d4\u200e, as 1\n Chronicles 7\u00b9, Judges 10\u00b9.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05d5\u05d1\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ and LXX (\u1f38\u03b1\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03b2[\u03c6]) read \u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u200e as Numbers 26: Winckler\n connects with _Ya\u0161ub-ilu_ under the 1st Babylonian dynasty\n (_Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, ii. 68\u00b3).\u2015\u2015=14.= (Numbers\n\u200e 26\u00b2\u2076).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5\u05df\u200e a Zebulunite judge in Judges 12\u00b9\u00b9.\u2015\u2015=15.= \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u200e\n and \u05d5\u05d1\u05e0\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5\u200e are glosses.\n\n=16\u201218.= The sons of Zilpah (Leah\u2019s handmaid): _seven_ sons of Gad\n(\u00b9\u2076), _four_ sons, _one_ daughter, and _two_ grandsons of Asher (\u00b9\u2077):\n_sixteen_ in all (\u00b9\u2078).\n\n =16.= (As Numbers 26\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, with textual differences).\u2015\u2015\u05e6\u05e4\u05d9\u05d5\u05df\u200e]\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX \u05e6\u05e4\u05d5\u05df\u200e, as Numbers\n\u200e 26\u00b9\u2075.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05e6\u05d1\u05df\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d0\u05e6\u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05df\u200e,\n LXX \u0398\u03b1\u03c3\u03bf\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd, stands for \u05d0\u05d6\u05e0\u05d9\u200e in Numbers 26\u00b9\u2076.\u2015\u2015=17.= \u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, a\n variant of the following \u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05d9\u200e (?), does not appear in Numbers\n 26\u2074\u2074 \u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015The two grandsons \u05d7\u05d1\u05e8\u200e and \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d9\u05d0\u05dc\u200e have been connected with\n the _\u1e2aabiri_ and the (chief) _Milkili_ of the Amarna Tablets\n (Jastrow, _Journal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, xi.\n 120).\n\n=19\u201222.= The sons of Rachel: _two_ of Joseph (\u00b2\u2070) and _ten_ of\nBenjamin (\u00b2\u00b9), in all _fourteen_.\n\n\u200e =20.= \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05d5\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05b5\u05d3\u200e] LXX + \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u03af. But the relative clause \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05df\u200e was\n probably added by the glossator, in which case the \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e of LXX\n is superfluous.\u2015\u2015LXX adds, in partial agreement with Numbers\n 26\u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, five names as sons and grandsons of Manasseh and\n Ephraim.\u2015\u2015=21.= In LXX only the first three names are sons of\n Benjamin, the next six being sons, and the last a grandson, of\n Bela\u201b. Still another grouping is found in Numbers 26\u00b3\u2078\u207b\u2074\u2070.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05db\u05e8\u200e]\n (LXX \u03a7\u03cc\u03b2\u03c9\u03c1): compare Sheba\u201b _the Bichrite_ in 2 Samuel 20\u00b9: in\n Numbers 26 \u05d1\u05db\u05e8\u200e is an Ephraimite.\u2015\u2015\u05d2\u05e8\u05d0\u200e] omitted in Numbers 26, is\n the clan of Ehud (Judges 3\u00b9\u2075) and Shimei (2 Samuel 16\u2075).\u2015\u2015For\n the two names \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u200e, Numbers 26\u00b3\u2078 \u1da0\u1427 has \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc\u05dd\u200e, for \u05de\u05e4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u05e9\u05e4\u05d5\u05e4\u05dd\u200e\n or \u05e9\u05d5\u05e4\u05dd\u200e, and for \u05d7\u05e4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u05d7\u05d5\u05bc\u05e4\u05b8\u05dd\u200e (see Gray, _Studies in Hebrew Proper\n Names_, 35).\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05e2\u05de\u05df\u200e and \u05d0\u05e8\u05d3\u200e are sons of \u05d1\u05dc\u05e2\u200e in Numbers 26\u2074\u2070.\u2015\u2015=22.=\n\u200e \u05d9\u05dc\u05bc\u05d3\u200e] MSS, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX \u05d9\u05dc\u05d3\u05d4\u200e.\n\n=23\u201225.= The sons of Bilhah (Rachel\u2019s maid): _one_ of Dan (\u00b2\u00b3, in spite\nof \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u200e), and _four_ of Naphtali (\u00b2\u2074): _seven_ in all.\n\n\u200e =23.= \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u200e] So Numbers 26\u2074\u00b2, where for \u05d7\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd\u200e we find \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b8\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015=24.=\n (as Numbers 26\u2074\u2078 \u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05dc\u05dd\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd\u200e (as 1 Chronicles 7\u00b9\u00b3), LXX \u03a3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc.\n\n=26, 27.= The final summations.\n\n The original computation (70 = 33 + 16 + 14 + 7) included Er\n and Onan, but excluded Dinah and Jacob. The secondary figure\n 66 (= 32 + 16 + 11 + 7) excludes Er and Onan, and Joseph and\n his two sons, but includes Dinah. To make up the original 70\n it was necessary to reckon not only the family of Joseph (3),\n but Jacob himself.\u2015\u2015LXX, with its 5 additional descendants of\n Joseph (see on verse \u00b2\u2070), makes the total 75 (so Acts 7\u00b9\u2074), but\n inadvertently substitutes \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03ad\u03b1, instead of \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u03ac, for the \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e\n of Massoretic Text \u00b2\u2077, overlooking the fact that both Jacob and\n Joseph have to be reckoned in the 75.\u2015\u2015=26.= \u05d9\u05e6\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e8\u05db\u05d5\u200e] 35\u00b9\u00b9, Exodus\n\u200e 1\u2075.\u2015\u2015=27.= \u05d9\u05dc\u05bc\u05d3\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d9\u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u200e.\n\n=28\u201230. The meeting of Jacob and Joseph.=\u2015\u2015=28.= _to direct before\nhim to Goshen_] The Hebrew here gives no tolerable sense. The meaning\ncannot be that Judah was to guide the travellers to Goshen, for he\nis sent straight to Joseph; and for the idea that Joseph was to give\nthe needful instructions for their reception in Goshen (Dillmann),\nthe expression would be extremely harsh. The only natural purpose of\nJudah\u2019s mission was to bring Joseph to meet his father; and the least\ndifficult course is to read (with versions _v.i._): _to appear before\nhim in Goshen_, which had already been indicated by Joseph as the goal\nof the journey (45\u00b9\u2070).\u2015\u2015=29.= _went up_] Goshen lying somewhat higher\nthan the Nile-valley.\u2015\u2015=30.= The verse prepares us for the death-bed\nscenes (47\u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), which in Jehovist must have taken place soon after,\nnot as in Priestly-Code at an interval of 17 years.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =28.= \u05dc\u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX?\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05dc\u05b0\u05d4\u05b5\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u200e (Wellhausen \u05dc\u05b0\u05d4\u05b5\u05e8\u05b8\u05d9\u05b9\u05ea\u200e), which is confirmed by \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u200e\n in the next verse. There is no need to take the \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\u200e in a\n temporal sense. The construction is pregnant, but otherwise\n unobjectionable; the tone of superiority assumed by Jacob\n towards Joseph is hardly a serious difficulty. Ball thinks that\n the \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 of LXX implies a reading \u05dc\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05e7\u05b4\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u200e (\u2018to meet\u2019); but\n the Niphal of \u05e7\u05e8\u05d4\u200e would rather mean \u2018to come upon unexpectedly\u2019\n (Deuteronomy 22\u2076, 2 Samuel 18\u2079).\u2015\u2015\u05d2\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4\u2015\u2015\u05d2\u05e9\u05df\u200e] LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f29\u03c1\u03ce\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u1fec\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ae. Hero\u00f6polis has been shown by the excavations\n of Naville (_Store City of Pithom_, etc.\u2074, 5 ff.; compare\n Gillett in _Journal of [the Society of] Biblical Literature and\n Exegesis_, December, 1886, page 69 ff.) to be Pithom (Exodus\n 1\u00b9\u00b9), now _Tell el-Maskhu\u1e6da_ (see page 488 above). The Bohairic\n version substitutes _Pethom_ for the \u1f29\u03c1\u03ce\u03c9\u03bd of LXX. LXX thus\n makes the meeting take place at the frontier town in the\n W\u0101d\u012b \u1e6cum\u012bl\u0101t towards the desert (so verse \u00b2\u2079). The reading is\n noteworthy textually as containing Priestly-Code\u2019s name for\n Goshen.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,\n Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05d0\u200e (better).\u2015\u2015=29.= \u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05e6\u05d5\u05d0\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d5\u05d3\u200e] LXX \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03b8\u03bc\u1ff7\n \u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9 (variation \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9).\u2015\u2015The \u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05d3\u200e is strange; but compare\n Psalms 84\u2075 (Ruth 1\u00b9\u2074 is not in point).\u2015\u2015=30.= \u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05da\u200e] Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 + \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=XLVI. 31\u2012XLVII. 12.\u2015\u2015Joseph obtains Pharaoh\u2019s permission for his\nbrethren to settle in Goshen.=\u2015\u2015=31\u201234= (Yahwist). He prepares his\nbrethren for an introduction to Pharaoh, in the expectation that by\nlaying stress on their herdsmen\u2019s calling they may have the desirable\nfrontier district of Goshen assigned to them. It is evident that\nin Yahwist the migration was resolved on without the invitation,\nor perhaps the knowledge, of the king.\u2015\u2015=32.= _for they were\ncattle-breeders_] a more comprehensive category than _shepherds_.\nGunkel thinks that the representation made to Pharaoh cannot have\nbeen strictly true, or Joseph would not have made such a point of\nit;\u00b9 and we must at least suppose that he advises them to emphasise\nthat side of their life which was most likely to gain the end in view.\nUnfortunately, while he bids them say they are cattle-breeders, they\nactually describe themselves as shepherds (47\u00b3), and yet Pharaoh would\nmake them cattle-overseers (47\u2076\u1d47). Some confusion of the two terms\nmay be suspected, but as the text stands, nothing can be made of\nthe distinction.\u2015\u2015=34.= _that ye may dwell, etc._] What motive in\nthe mind of the king is appealed to is not quite clear. If the last\nclause\u2015\u2015_for every shepherd, etc._\u2015\u2015be genuine, it was the Egyptian\nabhorrence of the class to which they belonged. But such a feeling\nwould be more likely to exclude them from Egypt altogether than to\nprocure their admission to the best pasture-land in the country, where\nPharaoh\u2019s herds were kept (47\u2076\u1d47). Moreover, while there is evidence\nthat swine-herds (Herodotus, ii. 47) and cowherds (Erman, _Life\nin Ancient Egypt_, 439 f.) were looked down on by the Egyptians,\nthe statement that shepherds were held in special abhorrence has not\nbeen confirmed; and the clause (\u00b3\u2074\u1d47{\u03b2}) is probably an interpolation\nsuggested by 43\u00b3\u00b2. See, further, on 47\u00b3 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015=XLVII. 1\u20125a, 6b=\n(Yahwist). Pharaoh grants the request.\u2015\u2015=1.= _and behold ... Goshen_]\nIt is evident that in this narrative Joseph relies on the _fait\naccompli_ to procure a favourable response from Pharaoh. The idea\nthat Pharaoh decided such matters in person may be na\u00efve (Gunkel);\nit is certainly a curious restriction of the absolute authority\nelsewhere assigned to Joseph.\u2015\u2015=2.= _he had taken five, etc._] On\nthe significance of the number, see on 43\u00b3\u2074.\u2015\u2015=3, 4.= The anticipated\nquestion (46\u00b3\u00b3) is answered in accordance with Joseph\u2019s instructions,\nthough the phraseology differs by the substitution of \u05e8\u05b9\u05e2\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e6\u05b9\u05d0\u05df\u200e for\n\u200e\u05d0\u05b7\u05e0\u05b0\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d9 \u05de\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05e0\u05b6\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015It is possible that the repeated \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u200e is due to the omission\nbetween \u00b3 and \u2074 of a further question by Pharaoh as to the reasons\nfor their coming to Egypt (so Ball, Gunkel). The whole leads up to\na straight-forward request for a temporary domicile in Goshen; and\nthe point may be simply that as herdsmen they had brought their means\nof subsistence with them, and needed nothing but grazing land, which\nmust have been obtainable in spite of the famine. There is no hint\nof any aversion to the strangers or their manner of life.\u2015\u2015=6b.=\n_Let them dwell, etc._] is the continuation of \u2075\u1d43 in LXX (_v.i._),\nwhose arrangement of these verses is obviously more original than\nthat of Massoretic Text.\u2015\u2015As an additional favour, Pharaoh offers to\ntake any capable members of the family into his service as _cattle\nsuperintendents_ (\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9 \u05de\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05e0\u05b6\u05d4\u200e),\u2015\u2015an office frequently mentioned in the\nmonuments as one of high dignity (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_,\n94 f., 108, 143). The breeding of cattle was carried to great\nperfection in ancient Egypt (_ib._ 436 ff.).\n\n \u00b9 So Eerdmans (_Vorgeschichte Israels_, 42; _The Expositor_,\n August, 1908, page 124 f.), who draws the conclusion that,\n as the Israelites here represent themselves as nomads, they\n cannot have really been so!\n\n The admission of pastoral tribes within the frontier of Egypt\n is an incident twice represented in Egyptian inscriptions of\n the period here supposed. Under \u1e24or-em-heb of the 18th dynasty,\n some barbarians have a definite district assigned to them by\n a high officer; and reference has already been made (page 437)\n to the Edomite nomads who in the time of Merenptah were allowed\n to pass the fortifications and feed their flocks in \u201cthe great\n pasture-land of Pharaoh\u201d\u2015\u2015probably this very W\u0101d\u012b \u1e6cum\u012bl\u0101t\n where Goshen was (see _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten\n Orients_\u00b2, 393; Driver, 372).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =31.= \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] LXX omits, perhaps rightly.\u2015\u2015=32.= \u05db\u05d9\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u200e]\n regarded as a gloss by Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger,\n Gunkel, al.\u2015\u2015=34.= \u05d2\u05e9\u05df\u200e] LXX \u0393\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bc \u1f08\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03af\u1fb3.\u2015\u2015\u05e8\u05e2\u05d4\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ (Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2)\n\u200e \u05e8\u05e2\u05d9\u200e.\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05de\u05e7\u05e6\u05d4\u200e] = \u2018from the totality of,\u2019 as 1 Kings 12\u00b3\u00b9, Exodus\n 33\u00b2 (otherwise Genesis 19\u2074).\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05e7\u05d7\u200e] (pluperfect) _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ + \u05e2\u05b4\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e.\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f\n\u200e \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e1\u05e3\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05e8\u05e2\u05d4\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05e8\u05e2\u05d9\u200e (as\n 46\u00b3\u2074).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=5, 6a, 7\u201211.= Jacob before Pharaoh (Priestly-Code).\u2015\u2015=5.= The text of\nLXX (_v.i._) supplies the following opening to Priestly-Code\u2019s account\n(continuing 46\u2077): _And Jacob and his sons came to Egypt to Joseph;\nand Pharaoh king of Egypt heard it_ (\u2075\u1d43), _and Pharaoh said to Joseph,\netc._\u2015\u2015It is plain that \u2075\u1d47 continues _this_ conversation and not that\nbetween Pharaoh and the five brethren.\u2015\u2015=6a.= Here Pharaoh himself\nselects _the best_ [part] _of the land_ for the Hebrew family to dwell\nin (see verse \u00b9\u00b9).\u2015\u2015=7.= Joseph introduces his father to Pharaoh,\u2015\u2015an\nimpressive and dignified scene.\u2015\u2015_blessed_], _i.e._ \u2018saluted\u2019 on\nentering (compare 1 Samuel 13\u00b9\u2070, 2 Kings 4\u00b2\u2079, 2 Samuel 13\u00b2\u2075 19\u2074\u2070),\nbut recorded, no doubt, with a sense that \u201cthe less is blessed of the\nbetter\u201d (Hebrews 7\u2077).\u2015\u2015=9.= _few and evil_] The expression shows that\nPriestly-Code must have recorded Jacob\u2019s long exile with Laban and his\nprotracted sorrow for the loss of Joseph; it is still more interesting\nas showing that that writer could conceive a good man\u2019s life as spent\nin adversity and affliction.\u2015\u2015=11.= _the land of Ra\u201bmses_] The name\nonly here and LXX 46\u00b2\u2078 (see on 45\u00b9\u2070), so called from the city built\nby Ramses II. (Exodus 1\u00b9\u00b9) and named after him \u2018the house of Ramses,\u2019\nin the East of the Delta (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 48). The\nsituation is still uncertain; Naville (_Goshen_, 20) was inclined to\nidentify it with \u1e62af\u1e6d el-\u1e24enneh (see page 488); but Petrie now claims\nto have discovered its site at _Tel er-Re\u1e6dabeh_, in the middle of W\u0101d\u012b\n\u1e6cum\u012bl\u0101t, 8 mile West of Pithom (_Hyksos and Israelite Cities_, 1906,\npage 28 ff.)\u2015\u2015=12.= Probably from Elohist \u2225 \u00b2\u2077\u1d43 (Yahwist).\n\n * * * * *\n\n =5, 6.= The overlapping of Yahwist and Priestly-Code at this\n point can be proved and corrected from LXX. After \u2075\u1d43 (omitting\n\u200e \u05dc\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e) LXX reads \u2076\u1d47; then \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u0391\u1f34\u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u1f7c\u03b2\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f24\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03a6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u1f7c \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 (= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\n\u200e \u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05de\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05d9\u05d5\u05e1\u05e3 \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05de\u05e2 \u05e4\u05e8\u05e2\u05d4 \u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200e); then \u2075\u1d43 (repeated) \u2075\u1d47\u1427 \u2076\u1d43\u1427 \u2077 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427.\n It will hardly be disputed that the text of LXX is here the\n original, and that Priestly-Code\u2019s narrative commences with\n the additional sentences quoted above. The editor of Massoretic\n Text felt the doublet to be too glaring; he therefore omitted\n these two sentences; and then by transposition worked the two\n accounts into a single scene. A further phase is represented by\n Hexateuch Syriac, where \u2075\u1d47 and \u2076\u1d43 are omitted. We have here an\n instructive example of the complex process by which the sources\n were gradually worked into a smooth narrative, and one which\n deserves the attention of those writers who ridicule the minute\n and intricate operations which the critical theory finds it\n necessary to attribute to the redactors.\u2015\u2015=6b.= \u05d5\u05d0\u05dd \u05d9\u05d3\u05e2\u05ea \u05d5\u05b0\u05d9\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1\u05be\u200e] See\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 120 _e_. The \u05d4\u05d9\u05e9\u200e of _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_ is certainly not preferable (Ball).\u2015\u2015=11.=\n\u200e \u05de\u05d9\u05d8\u05d1\u200e] verse \u2076, Exodus 22\u2074, 1 Samuel 15\u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u2020. The identification\n of \u05de\u05f3 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200e with the \u2018land of Ramses\u2019 probably rests on a\n misunderstanding of Elohist\u2019s \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d4\u05d0\u05f3\u200e (see on 45\u00b9\u2078), and a\n combination of it with Yahwist\u2019s \u05d2\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05df\u200e.\u2015\u2015=12.= \u05d4\u05d8\u05e3\u200e] apparently\n including here the women: compare 50\u00b2\u00b9.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n XLVII. 13\u201227.\n _Joseph\u2019s Agrarian Policy_\n (Yahwist?).\n\nJoseph is here represented as taking advantage of the great famine\nto revolutionize the system of land-tenure in Egypt for the benefit\nof the crown. In one year the famishing people have exhausted their\nmoney and parted with their live-stock, in exchange for bread; in the\nnext they forfeit their lands and their personal freedom. Thus by a\nbold stroke of statesmanship private property in land (except in the\ncase of the priests) is abolished throughout Egypt, and the entire\npopulation reduced to the position of serfs, paying a land-tax of 20\nper cent. _per annum_ to the king.\n\n _Source._\u2015\u2015The section \u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b2\u2076, dealing as it does with\n matters purely Egyptian and without interest for the national\n history of Israel, occupies an anomalous position among the\n Joseph-narratives, and cannot be confidently assigned to\n either of the main documents (Wellhausen _Die Composition des\n Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2\n 61). Linguistic indications are on the whole in favour of\n Yahwist: \u05db\u05d1\u05d3\u200e, \u00b9\u00b3; \u05e0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u200e, \u00b9\u2079 (42\u00b2 43\u2078); \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea\u200e, \u00b2\u2074 (43\u00b3\u2074);\n\u200e \u05de\u05e7\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e6\u05d0\u05df \u05d5\u05de\u05e7\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d1\u05e7\u05e8\u200e, \u00b9\u2077 (26\u00b9\u2074); \u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d7\u05df \u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u200e, \u00b2\u2075 (see Gunkel and\n Dillmann). But there are also traces of Elohist\u2019s diction: \u05d7\u05d6\u05e7\u200e,\n\u200e \u00b2\u2070; \u05d4\u05d1\u05d4\u200e, \u05d4\u05d1\u05d5\u200e, \u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1427 (29\u00b2\u00b9 30\u00b9,\u2015\u2015differing from 11\u00b3\u1427 \u2074\u1427 \u2077) (Dillmann,\n Holzinger); besides some peculiar expressions very unusual in\n Pentateuch: \u05dc\u05d4\u05d4\u200e, \u00b9\u00b3; \u05d0\u05e4\u05dd\u200e, \u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1427; \u05ea\u05e9\u05dd\u200e (Qal), \u00b9\u2079; \u05d4\u05b5\u05d0\u200e, \u00b2\u00b3 (Dillmann).\n It is possible that Holzinger (251 f.) and Procksch (54 f.) are\n right in thinking the passage composite; but no satisfactory\n analysis can be effected. That it is out of place in its present\n connexion is generally admitted, but that it finds a more\n suitable position between chapters 41 and 42 (Dillmann, Gunkel,\n al.) is not at all obvious. It is not improbable that a piece\n of so peculiar a character is a later addition to the original\n cycle of Joseph-legends, and belongs neither to Yahwist nor\n Elohist.\u2015\u2015Verse \u00b2\u2077 appears to be from Priestly-Code, with\n glosses (see the notes).\n\n=13, 14.= Joseph takes up all the money in Egypt and Canaan. _Canaan_\nis bracketed with Egypt as far as verse \u00b9\u2075, after which the situation\nis purely Egyptian. It is natural to suppose that the references to\nCanaan are interpolated (Holzinger, Gunkel); but considering the close\npolitical relations of the two countries, it would be rash to assume\nthis too easily.\u2015\u2015_15\u201217._ The live-stock is next exhausted.\u2015\u2015_horses_]\nSee on 12\u00b9\u2076.\u2015\u2015=18\u201222.= The people surrender their lands and persons\nfor bread. This is the decisive stroke of Joseph\u2019s statecraft, making\na return to the old conditions impossible; and it is noteworthy that\n(as if to relieve Joseph of the odium) the proposal is represented as\ncoming from the people themselves.\u2015\u2015=18.= _that year ... the second\nyear_] Not the first and second years of the famine (for we can hardly\nsuppose that the money and cattle were exhausted in a single year),\nbut simply two successive years.\u2015\u2015=19.= _buy us and our land_] The\nonly basis of personal independence in a state like ancient Egypt\nbeing the possession of land, the peasants know that in parting with\ntheir land they sacrifice their freedom as well.\u2015\u2015_give seed, etc._] A\ntemporary provision (see verse \u00b2\u2074) for the time of famine, or perhaps\nfor the first sowing after it was over (Holzinger). It is in any case\nmost natural to suppose that these drastic changes took place towards\nthe end of the 7 years.\u2015\u2015=21.= _and the people he reduced to bondmen_]\nRead so with Versions, _v.i._ (Knobel, Dillmann, Delitzsch, al.).\nThe Massoretic Text: \u2018he brought them over to the cities\u2019 appears\nto mean that he brought the rural population to the cities where\nthe corn-magazines were (41\u00b3\u2075\u1427 \u2074\u2078); but the emphasis on the object\nleads us to expect a parallelism to the appropriation of the land in\nverse \u00b2\u2070 (Dillmann). A universal redistribution of the inhabitants\n(Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2, Tuch, al.) could not be expressed by the words, and\nwould, moreover, be a senseless measure.\u2015\u2015=22.= The priests\u2019 property\nwas exempted, because they had a statutory provision of food, and\ndid not need to sell their lands. So the writer explains a privilege\nwhich existed in his day (see page 501 below). Compare Erman, _Life\nin Ancient Egypt_, 129, where Ramses III. is said to have given\n185,000 sacks of corn annually to the temples.\u2015\u2015=23\u201226.= Institution\nof the land-tax.\u2015\u2015=23.= _Here is seed for you_] The gift is not\nto be repeated; hence the incident naturally belongs to the end of\nthe famine.\u2015\u2015=24.= _a fifth part_] According to Oriental ideas, and\nconsidering the fertility of Egypt, the impost is not excessive;\na much higher percentage being frequently exacted under Eastern\ngovernments (compare 1 Maccabees 10\u00b3\u2070, and the authorities cited by\nDillmann page 444). On the severities of taxation under the New Empire,\nsee _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 122.\u2015\u2015=25.= The people gratefully accept\nthe terms.\u2015\u2015=26.= The arrangement is fixed by administrative decree,\nand survives to the time of the writer.\u2015\u2015=27.= (Priestly-Code, _v.i._)\nis the conclusion of the settlement of Israel in Egypt (verse \u00b9\u00b9).\n\n The system of land-tenure reflected in verses \u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b2\u2076 is supposed\n by Erman to have actually arisen through the extermination of\n the old landed aristocracy which followed the expulsion of the\n Hyksos and the founding of the New Empire (_Life in Ancient\n Egypt_, 102 f.). The same writer thus sums up what is known or\n surmised of social conditions under the New Empire: \u201cThe landed\n property was partly in the hands of the state, partly in those\n of the priesthood; it was tilled by peasant-serfs; there seem\n to have been no private estates belonging to the nobility, at\n any rate not under the 19th dynasty. The lower orders consisted\n mostly of serfs and foreign slaves; the higher, of officials in\n the service of the state and of the temples\u201d (_ib._ 129). The\n peculiar privileges of the priests (and soldiers) are attested\n by Diodorus, i. 73 f.; Herodotus, ii. 168 (but compare ii. 141):\n the latter says that every priest and warrior possessed 12\n \u1f04\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 of land tax-free. Of the amount of the land-tax (one\n fifth) there appears to be no independent confirmation.\u2015\u2015The\n interest of the biblical account is \u00e6tiological. The Hebrews\n were impressed by the vast difference between the land-tenure\n of Egypt and that under which they themselves lived; and sought\n an explanation of the \u2018abnormal agrarian conditions\u2019 (Erman)\n prevailing in the Nile-valley. Whether the explanation here\n given rests on any Egyptian tradition, or is due to the national\n imagination of Israel, working on material supplied by the story\n of Joseph, remains as yet uncertain (see Gunkel 410 f.).\n\n The close connexion between Egypt and Palestine in the matter\n of food-supply is illustrated by the Amarna letters, where\n a powerful minister named Yan\u1e2bamu is frequently mentioned as\n holding a position somewhat corresponding to that of Joseph.\n Yan\u1e2bamu, whose name suggests Semitic extraction, was governor of\n an unknown province called Yarimuta, which some have tried (but\n on the slenderest grounds) to identify with the biblical Goshen\n (Winckler, _Altorientalische Forschungen_, iii. 215; Jeremias\n _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_, 391\u00b3). The\n references imply that he had control of the state-granaries;\n and complaints are made of the difficulty of procuring supplies\n from the high-handed official; in particular, it is alleged that\n the people have had to part with their sons and their daughters,\n and the very woodwork of their houses, in return for corn (see\n Knudtzon, _El-Amarna Tafeln_, page 407). That this historic\n figure is the original of some features in the portrait of\n Joseph (a combination first suggested by Marquart, and approved\n by Winckler, Cheyne, Jeremias, al.) is conceivable enough;\n though definite points of contact are very restricted, and the\n historical background of Yan\u1e2bamu\u2019s activity has completely faded\n from the biography of Joseph.\n\n An equally striking, and equally unconvincing, parallel is\n pointed out by Eerdmans (_Vorgeschichte Israels_, 68) from a\n much later period\u2015\u2015the end of the 19th dynasty,\u2015\u2015when, according\n to the Papyrus Harris, Arisu (_\u2019I-\u2019ir-sw_), a Syrian, \u201cin years\n of scarcity\u201d which followed \u201cthe abundant years of the past,\u201d\n \u201cmade the whole land tributary to himself alone\u201d (see Petrie,\n _A History of Egypt_ iii. 134). The resemblance vanishes on\n closer inspection. Arisu is simply a Syrian chief, who, in a\n time of anarchy, gets the upper hand in Egypt by the help of\n his companions, oppresses the people, and engages in a crusade\n against the native religion. To say that \u201cthe circumstances\n of this time correspond in all respects [ganz und gar] to the\n statements of the Joseph-stories,\u201d is a manifest exaggeration.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =13.= \u05d5\u05ea\u05dc\u05d4\u05bc\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d5\u05ea\u05dc\u05d0\u200e. The\n\u200e \u221a \u05dc\u05d4\u05d4\u200e is Aramaic \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd = \u05dc\u05d0\u05d4\u200e, \u2018languish.\u2019 It is one of\n several rare expressions which occur in this section.\u2015\u2015=14.=\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] LXX + \u05d5\u05d9\u05db\u05dc\u05db\u05dc\u05dd\u200e (verse \u00b9\u00b2).\u2015\u2015=15.= \u05d0\u05b8\u05e4\u05b5\u05dd\u200e] The verb only here\n (and verse \u00b9\u2076) in Pentateuch: elsewhere poetic (Isaiah 16\u2074 29\u00b2\u2070,\n Psalms 77\u2079\u2020).\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05e1\u05e3\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_\n\u200e \u05d4\u05db\u05e1\u05e3\u200e, LXX \u05db\u05e1\u05e4\u05e0\u05d5\u200e (so verse \u00b9\u2076).\u2015\u2015=16.= \u05dc\u05db\u05dd\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate + \u05dc\u05b6\u05d4\u05b6\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015=17.= \u05e0\u05d4\u05dc\u200e] Only here in\n the sense of \u2018sustain\u2019 [with food]; elsewhere, if the \u221a be the\n same, it means \u2018lead\u2019 (to watering-place, goal, etc.): see page\n\u200e 414.\u2015\u2015=18.= \u05db\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dd\u200e] may be rendered equally well (with LXX) \u2018that,\n if\u2019 (protasis to \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05e9\u05d0\u05e8\u200e), or with Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u2018but\u2019 [_sondern_]\n (Delitzsch, Holzinger).\u2015\u2015=19.= \u05d2\u05dd \u05d0\u05e0\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d2\u05dd \u05d0\u05d3\u05de\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5\u200e] LXX avoids the\n bold zeugma, and substitutes \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b3\u1fc6 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7, as at the end\n of the verse.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05e0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd (\u05d5\u05e0\u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\u200e?).\u2015\u2015=21.= \u05d4\u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05e2\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200e]\n Massoretic Text is supported by Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f,\n while _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX read\n\u200e \u05d4\u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05d3\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, as does the loose paraphrase of Vulgate.\u2015\u2015=23.= \u05d4\u05b5\u05d0\u200e]\n Only Exodus 16\u2074\u00b3 and Aramaic Daniel 2\u2074\u00b3.\u2015\u2015=24.= \u05d1\u05ea\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u200e] It seems\n necessary here to take \u05ea\u05f3\u200e as a noun of action: \u2018at the bringings\n in\u2019 (Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2, Delitzsch, Dillmann), though elsewhere it\n always means \u2018increase\u2019 or \u2018produce.\u2019 To omit \u05d1\u200e (with LXX) does\n not yield a natural construction.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05db\u05dd\u200e] Ball happily emends\n\u200e \u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05b9\u05db\u05b6\u05dc \u05dc\u05b8\u05db\u05b6\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05dc \u05dc\u05d8\u05e4\u05db\u05dd\u200e] Better omitted with LXX.\u2015\u2015=26.= \u05dc\u05d7\u05de\u05e9\u200e] LXX \u05dc\u05b0\u05d7\u05b7\u05de\u05b5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u200e.\n\u200e \u05d7\u05b9\u05de\u05b8\u05e9\u05c1\u200e is not found, and the expression is very awkward. A good\n sense might be obtained by transposing \u05dc\u05b0\u05d7\u05b7\u05de\u05b5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e8\u05e2\u05d4\u200e (with LXX\u1d2c\u1427 \u1d43\u02e1\u1427);\n but whether that is the original text is very doubtful.\u2015\u2015=27.=\n The verse is usually divided between Yahwist and Priestly-Code;\n but \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u200e is no sure sign of Yahwist, since it denotes the nation.\n The only characteristic of Yahwist is \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d2\u05e9\u05df\u200e, which may be very\n well excised as a gloss: the rest may then quite suitably be\n assigned to Priestly-Code (compare \u05e0\u05d0\u05d7\u05d6\u200e, \u05e4\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4\u200e).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n XLVII. 28\u2012XLVIII. 22.\n _Jacob\u2019s last Interview with Joseph_\n (Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly-Code).\n\nThe death-bed scenes of Jacob are described in great detail by all\nthree narrators, because of the importance of the dying utterances of\nthe last ancestor of all Israel. There are four main incidents: (1)\nJacob\u2019s charge to Joseph with regard to his burial (\u00b2\u2078\u207b\u00b3\u00b9); (2) the\nblessing of Joseph and his two sons (48); (3) Jacob\u2019s oracles on the\nfuture of all the tribes (49\u00b9\u207b\u00b2\u2078); and (4) his instructions regarding\nhis burial in Machpelah (\u00b2\u2079\u207b\u00b3\u00b3).\u2015\u2015The first two may be conveniently\ntreated together.\n\n _Sources._\u2015\u2015The triple thread of narrative is shown by the\n three beginnings: 47\u00b2\u2078 (Priestly-Code), 47\u00b2\u2079 (Yahwist), and\n 48\u00b9 (Elohist). To Priestly-Code belong 47\u00b2\u2078 48\u00b3\u207b\u2076: note the\n chronology and syntax of 47\u00b2\u2078, the connexion of 48\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427 with\n 35\u2076\u1d43\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2; \u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u200e, \u00b3; \u05d4\u05e4\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4\u200e, \u2074; \u05e7\u05d4\u05dc \u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u2074; \u05d0\u05d7\u05d6\u05ea \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd\u200e, \u2074; \u05d4\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05d3\u200e,\n \u2076.\u2015\u2015Equally decisive are the indications of Yahwist in 47\u00b2\u2079\u207b\u00b3\u00b9;\n\u200e \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u200e, \u00b2\u2079\u1427 \u00b3\u00b9; \u05d0\u05dd \u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e, \u00b2\u2079; \u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05e0\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d3\u05da \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e, \u00b2\u2079 (24\u00b2); \u05d7\u05e1\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05ea\u200e, \u00b2\u2079 (24\u2074\u2079\n\u200e 32\u00b9\u00b9); \u05e9\u05db\u05d1\u05ea\u05d9 \u05e2\u05dd\u05be\u05d0\u05d1\u05ea\u05d9\u200e, \u00b3\u2070.\u2015\u2015The analysis of 48\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u1427 \u2078\u207b\u00b2\u00b2 is more\n doubtful: formerly the passage was treated as a unity and\n assigned to Elohist (Hupfeld, Wellhausen, _Die Composition des\n Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2\n 61 f., Driver al.), but the evidences of double recension are\n too numerous to be overlooked. (See Budde, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die\n alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, iii. 56 ff.) Thus, while \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1\u200e,\n \u00b2\u1d43, and \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u2070 \u1da0\u1427, and \u05d4\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d9\u200e, \u00b2\u00b2, point to Elohist, \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u200e,\n \u00b2\u1d47\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2070 \u1da0\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0, and \u05d4\u05e6\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u200e, \u00b9\u2074, point to Yahwist. A clue to the\n analysis is supplied by (a) the double presentation of Manasseh\n and Ephraim, \u00b9\u2070\u1d47 \u2225 \u00b9\u00b3 (\u05d5\u05d9\u05d2\u05e9\u05c1\u200e); and (b) the obvious intrusion of\n \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2076 between \u00b9\u2074 and \u00b9\u2077. \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b9\u2079 hang together and are\n from Yahwist; \u00b9\u2075 links on to \u00b9\u00b2, and \u00b9\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427 presuppose \u00b9\u2070\u1d43. Taking\n note of the finer criteria, the analysis works out somewhat as\n follows: Elohist = \u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1d43{\u03b2\u03b3}\u1d47\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2;\n Yahwist = \u00b2\u1d47{?}\u1427 \u00b9\u2070\u1d43\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2077\u207b\u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1d43{\u03b1} (to \u05d4\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u200e);\u2015\u2015deleting \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u200e\n in \u00b2\u1d47{?}\u1427 \u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9 as a redactional explication. So in general\n Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Gunkel; also Procksch, who,\n however, places \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2 before \u2077 in Elohist\u2019s narrative.\u2015\u2015The\n source of \u2077 is difficult to determine; usually it has been\n assigned to Priestly-Code or Redactor, but by Gunkel and\n Procksch to Elohist (see the notes).\n\n=28\u201231. Joseph promises to bury Jacob in Canaan.=\u2015\u2015=28=\n(Priestly-Code). Jacob\u2019s age at the time of his death; compare\n47\u2079.\u2015\u2015=29\u201231= (Yahwist). Compare the parallel in Priestly-Code,\n49\u00b2\u2079\u207b\u00b3\u00b2.\u2015\u2015=29.= On the form of oath, see on 24\u00b2.\u2015\u2015=30.= _lie with my\nfathers_] _i.e._, in She\u2019\u00f4l (see on 25\u2078); compare Deuteronomy 31\u00b9\u2076,\n1 Kings 2\u00b9\u2070 etc.\u2015\u2015_in their burying-place_] But in 50\u2075 (also Yahwist)\nJacob speaks of \u201cmy grave which I have digged for myself.\u201d The latter\nis no doubt the original tradition, and the text here must have\nbeen modified in accordance with the theory of Priestly-Code 49\u00b3\u2070 \u1da0\u1427\n(Wellhausen).\u2015\u2015=31.= _bowed over the head of the bed_] An act of\nworship, expressing gratitude to God for the fulfilment of his last\nwish (compare 1 Kings 1\u2074\u2077). Holzinger\u2019s conjecture (based on 1 Samuel\n19\u00b9\u00b3), that there was an image at the top of the bed, is a possible,\nthough precarious, explanation of the origin of the custom. The\nmistaken rendering of LXX (_v.i._) may have arisen from the fact\nthat the oath over the staff was an Egyptian formality (Spiegelberg,\n_Recueil des Travaux_, xxv. 184 ff.; compare _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_,\n4779\u00b9; Sayce, _Contemporary Review_, August, 1907, 260).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =29.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u200e] Compare Deuteronomy 31\u00b9\u2074 (Yahwist), 1 Kings\n\u200e 2\u00b9.\u2015\u2015=30.= \u05d5\u05e9\u05db\u05d1\u05ea\u05d9\u200e] must be taken as protasis to \u05d5\u05e0\u05e9\u05d0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u200e (Strack,\n Holzinger, Gunkel, al.).\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05e7\u05d1\u05e8\u05ea\u05dd\u200e] Kittel \u05d1\u05e7\u05d1\u05e8\u05ea\u05d9\u200e, to resolve\n the contradiction spoken of _supra_. But where intentional\n manipulation of the text is to be suspected, small emendations\n are of little avail.\u2015\u2015=31.= \u05d4\u05de\u05d8\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03ac\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n (\u2021 Syriac word) (= \u05de\u05b7\u05d8\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u200e); compare Hebrews 11\u00b2\u00b9. Other Versions\n follow Massoretic Text, which is undoubtedly right: see 48\u00b2 49\u00b3\u00b3.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n XLVIII.\n Adoption and blessing of Joseph\u2019s two sons.\n\n=1, 2.= The introduction to all that follows: from Elohist.\u2015\u2015_took\nhis two sons._] It seems implied in verse \u2078 that Jacob had not yet\nseen the lads,\u2015\u2015so soon did his last illness follow his arrival\nin Egypt.\u2015\u2015=3\u20126.= Priestly-Code\u2019s brief account of the adoption of\nEphraim and Manasseh. Dillmann thinks the verses have been transferred\nfrom their original connexion with 49\u00b2\u2078\u1d47, where they were spoken\nin presence of all the brethren.\u2015\u2015=3, 4.= The reference is to the\nrevelation at Luz (35\u00b9\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427), where the promise of a numerous offspring\nwas coupled with the possession of Canaan. On the phraseology,\nsee above.\u2015\u2015=5.= _And now_] In view of these promises he elevates\nEphraim and Manasseh to the status of full tribes, to share with\nhis own sons in the future partition of the land.\u2015\u2015_Ephraim and\nManasseh_] The order is the only hint that Ephraim was the leading\ntribe (compare verse \u00b2\u2070 Elohist); but it is not that usually observed\nby Priestly-Code (see Numbers 26\u00b2\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 34\u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427, Joshua 14\u2074 16\u2074 17\u00b9;\notherwise Numbers 1\u00b9\u2070).\u2015\u2015_as Reuben and Simeon_] The two oldest are\nchosen for comparison.\u2015\u2015=6.= Later-born sons of Joseph (none such,\nhowever, are anywhere mentioned) are to be _called by the name of\ntheir brethren, etc._] _i.e._, are to be counted as Ephraimites and\nManassites.\u2015\u2015=7.= The presence of Joseph reminds the dying patriarch\nof the dark day on which he buried Rachel on the way to Ephrath. The\nexpressions reproduce those of 35\u00b9\u2076\u207b\u00b2\u2070.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05d9\u200e] _to my sorrow_; literally\n\u2018(as a trouble) upon me\u2019 (compare 33\u00b9\u00b3).\n\n The notice\u2015\u2015one of the most pathetic things in Genesis\u2015\u2015is very\n loosely connected with what precedes, and must in its original\n setting have led up to something which has been displaced in the\n redaction. But it is difficult to find a suitable connexion for\n the verse in the extant portions of any of the three sources.\n In Priestly-Code (to which the word \u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05df\u200e at first sight seems to\n point), Delitzsch, Dillmann, al. would put it immediately before\n\u200e [\u05d5\u05e2\u05ea\u05d4] \u05d0\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e0\u05d0\u05e1\u05e3\u200e in 49\u00b2\u2079; but that view relieves no difficulty, and\n leads nowhere. A more natural position in that document might be\n after the mention of the burial of Leah in 49\u00b3\u00b9 (verse \u00b3\u00b2 may be\n an interpolation); but the form of the verse is not favourable\n to that assumption, and no good reason can be imagined for the\n transposition. (See Budde _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche\n Wissenschaft_, iii. 67 f.) Bruston (in _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die\n alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, vii. 208) puts forward the\n attractive suggestion (adopted by Kautzsch-Socin, Ball, Gunkel,\n Procksch, al.) that the verse introduced a request to be buried\n in the same grave as Rachel. Such a wish is evidently impossible\n in Priestly-Code; and Bruston (followed with some hesitation by\n Ball, Kautzsch-Socin) accordingly found a place for it (with the\n necessary alterations of text) between 47\u00b2\u2079 and \u00b3\u2070 (Yahwist):\n against this 50\u2075\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9 seem decisive. Gunkel and Procksch assign\n it to Elohist, the latter placing it after verse \u00b2\u00b2, which is\n certainly its most suitable position in Elohist. But is the idea\n after all any more conceivable in Elohist than in Priestly-Code?\n The writer who recorded the request, whoever he may have\n been, must have supposed that it was fulfilled; and it is not\n just likely that any writer should have believed that Jacob\n was buried in the grave traditionally known as Rachel\u2019s.\n No satisfactory solution can be given. Hupfeld and Schrader\n consider the verse redactional; so Budde, who thinks it was\n inserted to correct Priestly-Code\u2019s original statement that\n Rachel was buried in Machpelah (see on 49\u00b3\u00b9).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e] So 1 Samuel 16\u2074 19\u00b2\u00b2. The plural \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u200e is more usual\n in such cases (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 144 _d_\u00b2): we might also\n point as Niphal \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b5\u05bc\u05d0\u05b8\u05de\u05b5\u05e8\u200e (Joshua 2\u00b2).\u2015\u2015At end of verse add with\n LXX \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1\u200e.\u2015\u2015=2.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d2\u05d3\u200e] Better \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05bb\u05bc\u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05d3\u200e.\u2015\u2015=2b= is usually assigned to\n Yahwist because of \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u200e. But the clause comes very naturally\n after \u00b2\u1d43; and as there are three other cases of confusion\n between the two names in this chapter (\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9), the name is not\n decisive.\u2015\u2015=4.= \u05e7\u05d4\u05dc \u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] 28\u00b3; compare 35\u00b9\u00b9.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\u05da\u200e] LXX \u05dc\u05da \u05d5\u05dc\u05d6\u05f3\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d7\u05d6\u05ea\n\u200e \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd\u200e] 17\u2078.\u2015\u2015=7.= \u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05df\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,\n LXX + \u05d0\u05b2\u05e8\u05b8\u05dd\u200e, as in every other case where the name occurs (see on\n 25\u00b2\u2070). That the difference is documentary, and points to Elohist\n rather than Priestly-Code, is a hazardous assumption (Gunkel);\n and to substitute \u200f\u05d7\u05e8\u05df\u200e, for the sake of accommodation to Yahwist\n (Bruston, Ball), is quite arbitrary.\u2015\u2015\u05e8\u05d7\u05dc\u200e] LXX + \u1f21 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 (so\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=8, 9.= Elohist\u2019s narrative is resumed.\u2015\u2015Observe that Jacob _sees_ the\nboys (who are quite young children [41\u2075\u2070]), whereas in \u00b9\u2070\u1d43 (Yahwist)\nhe _could not see_.\u2015\u2015=9b= is usually assigned to Yahwist, but for\nno very convincing reason.\u2015\u2015=10b, 11= (Elohist). _I had not thought,\netc._] The words are charged with deep religious feeling: gratitude\nto the God in whose name he is to bless the lads, and whose marvellous\ngoodness had brought his clouded life to a happy end.\u2015\u2015=12= (Elohist).\n_from between his_ (Jacob\u2019s) _knees_] There must be a reference to\nsome rite of adoption not described, which being completed, Joseph\nremoves the children and _prostrates himself_ to receive the blessing\n(continued in \u00b9\u2075).\u2015\u2015=10a, 13, 14= (Yahwist). Whether this is a second\ninterview in Yahwist, or a continuation of that in 47\u00b2\u2079\u207b\u00b3\u00b9, does not\nappear; in either case something has been omitted.\u2015\u2015=10a.= See on\n27\u00b9.\u2015\u2015=13 f.= The crossing (_v.i._) of Jacob\u2019s hands has a weird\neffect: the blind man is guided by a supernatural impulse, which\nmoves unerringly in the line of destiny. The right hand conveys the\nricher blessing.\u2015\u2015=15, 16.= The Blessing (Elohist).\u2015\u2015The three-fold\ninvocation of the Deity reminds us of the Aaronic benediction (Numbers\n6\u00b2\u2074 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), which has some resemblance to a feature of Babylonian\nliturgies (see Jeremias, _H\u00f6lle und Paradies_, 30): \u201cin such cases the\npolytheist names all the gods he worships, the ancient monotheist all\nthe names and attributes of the God he knows\u201d (Gunkel).\u2015\u2015_before whom\n... walked_] compare 17\u00b9.\u2015\u2015_who shepherded me_] Compare 49\u00b2\u2074, Psalms\n23\u00b9 28\u2079, Isaiah 40\u00b9\u00b9. The image is appropriate in the mouth of the\nmaster-shepherd Jacob (Dillmann).\u2015\u2015=16.= _the Angel ... evil_] The\npassages in Jacob\u2019s life where an angel or angels intervene (28\u00b9\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427\n31\u00b9\u00b9 32\u00b2 \u1da0\u1427) all belong to the source Elohist; they are not, however,\nspecially connected with deliverances from evil; and the substitution\nof \u2018angel\u2019 for \u2018God\u2019 is not explained.\u2015\u2015_let my name be named in them_]\n\u2018Let them be known as sons of Jacob,\u2019 and reckoned among the tribes\nof Israel.\u2015\u2015=17\u201219.= Continuing \u00b9\u2074 (Yahwist).\u2015\u2015Joseph thinks his\nfather had counted on the elder being on his left (Joseph\u2019s right)\nhand, and will now correct his mistake.\u2015\u2015=19.= But Jacob, speaking\nunder inspiration, declares his action to be significant.\u2015\u2015_the\nfulness of the nations_] A peculiar expression for populousness.\nCompare Deuteronomy 33\u00b9\u2077 (\u2018myriads of Ephraim\u2019; \u2018thousands of\nManasseh\u2019).\u2015\u2015=20.= The clause _And he blessed them that day_] is (if\nnot redactional) the conclusion of Yahwist\u2019s account: the words of\nblessing are not given. The rest of the verse concludes the blessing\nof Elohist (\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1427).\u2015\u2015_By thee_ (LXX _you_) _shall Israel bless_] The\nformula must have been in actual use, and is said to be still current\namongst Jews (Strack).\u2015\u2015_he put Ephraim before Manasseh_] If the\nwords are original (Elohist), they call attention to the fact that\nin the benediction Ephraim had been named first, and find in that\nslight circumstance an augury of the future pre-eminence of Ephraim\n(Gunkel).\u2015\u2015=21, 22.= Closing words to Joseph (Elohist).\u2015\u2015=21.= A\nprediction of the return to Canaan, in terms very similar to 50\u00b2\u2074\n(also Elohist). The explicit anticipations of the Exodus are probably\nall from this document (15\u00b9\u2076 [?] 46\u2074 50\u00b2\u2074).\u2015\u2015=22.= _one shoulder_]\nThe word \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05db\u05b6\u05dd\u200e may very well (like the synonymous \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05ea\u05b5\u05e3\u200e) have had in common\nspeech the secondary sense of \u2018mountain-slope,\u2019 though no instance\noccurs in Old Testament. At all events there is no reasonable doubt\nthat the reference is to the city of Shechem, standing on the \u2018slope\u2019\nof Gerizim, the most important centre of Israelite power in early\ntimes (see page 416), and consecrated by the possession of Joseph\u2019s\ntomb (Joshua 24\u00b3\u00b2). The peculiar value of the gift in Jacob\u2019s\neyes is that the conquest was a trophy of his warlike prowess,\u2015\u2015a\ntradition which has left no trace whatever except in this verse (see\nbelow).\u2015\u2015_With my sword and with my bow_] Contrast Joshua 24\u00b9\u00b2.\n\n Verses \u00b2\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u00b2 stand in no organic connexion with each other,\n or with what precedes. Verse \u00b2\u00b2, in particular, not only\n presupposes a version of the capture of Shechem different from\n any found elsewhere\u00b9 (see page 422 above), but is out of harmony\n with the situation in which the words are assumed to have been\n uttered. For it is scarcely credible that Jacob should have\n referred thus to a conquest which he had subsequently lost, and\n which would have to be recovered by force of arms before the\n bequest could take effect. But further, the expression \u2018above\n thy brethren\u2019 naturally implies that the portions of the other\n sons had been allotted by Jacob before his death. The verse,\n in short, seems to carry us back to a phase of the national\n tradition which ignored the sojourn in Egypt, and represented\n Jacob as a warlike hero who had effected permanent conquests in\n Palestine, and died there after dividing the land amongst his\n children. The situation would thus be parallel to the so-called\n \u2018Blessing of Jacob\u2019 in chapter 49, which is also independent of,\n though not quite incompatible with, the final recension of the\n patriarchal history and the migration to Egypt. For the first\n statement of this theory, see Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre\n Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 227, 414 f.\n\n \u00b9 Attempts to bring the notice into line with the recorded\n history, by inserting \u05dc\u05d0\u200e before \u05d1\u05d7\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u200e and \u05d1\u05e7\u05e9\u05ea\u05d9\u200e (as Joshua\n 24\u00b9\u00b2) (Kuenen), or by taking \u05dc\u05e7\u05d7\u05ea\u05d9\u200e as a future-perfect (Tuch,\n Delitzsch, Strack, al.), are obviously unsatisfactory.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =8.= \u05de\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX +\n\u200e \u05dc\u05da\u200e.\u2015\u2015=9.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e\u00b2] LXX + \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03b2.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05b6\u05dd\u200e (Baer-Delitzsch, page 80).\n On the pausal seghol, see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7\u00a7 29 _q_, 60\n _d_.\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b9\u05d4\u200e] Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 75 _n_ (compare 31\u00b2\u2078).\u2015\u2015\u05e4\u05dc\u05dc\u05ea\u05d9\u200e]\n Literally \u2018had not judged\u2019; only here = \u2018opine.\u2019\u2015\u2015=12.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05ea\u05d7\u05d5\u200e]\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 have\n the plural.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] hardly makes sense. Read with LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n\u200e \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9 \u05d0\u05b7\u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_\n inserts \u05d9\u05d3\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05db\u05b5\u05bc\u05dc\u200e] Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d0\u05d7\u05db\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05df\u200e, deriving from \u221a \u05e9\u05c2\u05db\u05dc\u200e, \u2018be\n prudent\u2019 (whose Piel does not occur); but LXX \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03be, Vulgate\n _commutans_, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word), Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f \u05e4\u05e8\u05d2\u200e.\n These Versions may be guessing at the sense; but most moderns\n appeal to Arabic _\u0161akala_, a _secondary_ meaning of which is\n to \u2018_plait_ two locks of hair together and _bind_ them to the\n other locks.\u2019 In spite of the philological equivalence, Driver\n is justly sceptical of so remote an analogy.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05d9 \u05de\u05e0\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05e8\u200e] LXX\n omits.\u2015\u2015=15.= \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d9\u05d5\u05e1\u05e3\u200e] LXX \u05d0\u05ea\u05dd\u200e] wrongly, the original connexion\n being with \u00b9\u00b2\u1d47.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9\u200e] (Numbers 22\u00b3\u2070\u2020) \u2018ever since I was.\u2019 LXX,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Vulgate \u2018from my youth\u2019 (\u05de\u05e0\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u200e ?).\u2015\u2015=16.= For \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da\u200e,\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ reads \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05da\u200e.\u2015\u2015=19.=\n\u200e \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd\u200e] \u2018but for all that\u2019 (compare 28\u00b9\u2079).\u2015\u2015=20.= \u05d1\u05da\u200e] LXX \u05d1\u05db\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8\u05b5\u05da\u05b0\u200e]\n LXX, Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05d9\u05b4\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b5\u05da\u05b0\u200e (Niphal; see on 12\u00b3). The most natural\n form would be Hithpael \u05d9\u05ea\u05d1\u05e8\u05da\u200e.\u2015\u2015=22.= \u05e9\u05db\u05dd \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3\u200e] LXX \u03a3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd,\n Aquila \u1f66\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1. For \u05d0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05d3\u200e instead of \u05d0\u05b6\u05d7\u05b8\u05d3\u200e, see Gesenius-Kautzsch\n \u00a7 130 _g_. On \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05ea\u05b5\u05e3\u200e in the sense of \u2018mountain-slope\u2019 (_v.s._), see\n Numbers 34\u00b9\u00b9, Joshua 15\u2078 [Isaiah 11\u00b9\u2074?], etc.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n XLIX. 1\u201228a.\n _The Blessing of Jacob._\n\nThis important and difficult section\u2015\u2015one of the oldest pieces of\nHebrew poetry which we possess\u2015\u2015consists of a series of oracles\ndescribing the characters and fortunes of the twelve tribes of Israel,\nas unfolded during the age of the Judges and under the early monarchy.\nThat it was composed from the first in the name of Jacob appears\nclearly from internal indications (verses \u00b3 \u1da0\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u207d\u00b9\u2078\u207e\u1427 \u00b2\u2076); but that\nit was actually uttered by the patriarch on his death-bed to his\nassembled sons is a hypothesis which several considerations combine\nto render incredible. In the first place, the outlook of the poem\nis bounded (as we shall afterwards see) by a particular historical\nsituation, removed by many centuries from the supposed time of\nutterance. No reason can be imagined why the vista of the future\ndisclosed to Jacob should open during the settlement of the tribes\nin Canaan, and suddenly close at the reign of David or Solomon; why\ntrivial incidents like the maritime location of Zebulun (verse \u00b9\u00b3),\nor the \u2018royal dainties\u2019 produced by Asher (\u00b2\u2070), or even the loss of\ntribal independence by Issachar (\u00b9\u2075), etc., should be dwelt upon to\nthe exclusion of events of far greater national and religious\nimportance, such as the Exodus, the mission of Moses, the leadership\nof Joshua, or the spiritual prerogatives of the tribe of Levi. It is\nobvious that the document as a whole has historic significance only\nwhen regarded as a production of the age to which it refers. The\nanalogy of Old Testament prophecy, which has been appealed to,\nfurnishes no instance of detailed prevision of a remote future,\nunrelated to the moral issues of the speaker\u2019s present. In the next\nplace, the poem is animated by a strong _national_ sentiment such as\ncould not have existed in the lifetime of Jacob, while there is a\ncomplete absence of the family feeling which would naturally find\nexpression in the circumstances to which it is assigned, and which, in\nfact, is very conspicuous in the prose accounts of Jacob\u2019s last days.\nThe subjects of the oracles are not Jacob\u2019s sons as individuals, but\nthe tribes called by their names (see \u00b2\u2078\u1d43); nor is there any allusion\nto incidents in the personal history of Jacob and his sons except in\nthe sections on Reuben and on Simeon and Levi, and even there a tribal\ninterpretation is more natural. Finally, the speaker is not Jacob the\nindividual patriarch, but (as is clear from verses \u2076\u1427 \u2077\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u2076) Jacob\nas representing the ideal unity of Israel (see Kohler, page 8 f.).\nAll these facts point to the following conclusion (which is that of\nthe great majority of modern interpreters): the poem is a series of\n_vaticinia ex eventu_, reflecting the conditions and aspirations of\nthe period that saw the consolidation of the Hebrew nationality. The\nexamination of the separate oracles will show that some (_e.g._ those\non Issachar and Dan) are certainly pre-monarchic; and that indeed\nall may be so except the blessing on Judah, which presupposes the\nestablishment of the Davidic kingdom. The process of composition must\ntherefore have been a protracted one; the poem may be supposed to have\nexisted as a traditional document whose origin dates from the early\ndays of the Israelite occupation of Palestine, and which underwent\nsuccessive modifications and expansions before it took final shape\nin the hands of a Jud\u00e6an poet of the age of David or Solomon. The\nconception of Jacob as the speaker belongs to the original intention\nof the poem; the oracles express the verdict of the collective\nconsciousness of Israel on the conduct and destiny of the various\ntribes, an idea finely suggested by putting them in the mouth of the\nheroic ancestor of the nation. Ultimately the song was incorporated\nin the patriarchal tradition, probably by the Yahwist, who found a\nsuitable setting for it amongst the dying utterances of Jacob.\n\n _Literary Parallels._\u2015\u2015Before proceeding to consider the more\n intricate problems arising out of the passage, it will be useful\n to compare it with (1) the Song of Deborah (Judges 5), and\n (2) the Blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 33).\u2015\u20151. The former is\n like an instantaneous photograph: it exhibits the attitude and\n disposition of the tribes in a single crisis of the national\n history. It resembles Genesis 49 in the strong feeling of\n national unity which pervades it, and in the mingling of\n blame and commendation. It reveals, however, a very different\n historical background. The chief differences are: the entire\n ignoring of the southern tribes Judah, Simeon, and Levi; the\n praise bestowed on Issachar; the substitution of Gilead for Gad;\n and the division of the unity of Joseph into its constituents\n Ephraim and Machir (= Manasseh). The importance of these and\n other divergences for the determination of the relative dates\n of the two documents is obvious, although the evidence is\n frequently of a kind which makes it very difficult to form\n a confident judgement.\u2015\u20152. The Blessing of Moses shows signs\n (especially in the section on Joseph) of literary dependence on\n Genesis 49; it is therefore a later composition, written very\n probably in North Israel after the division of the kingdom (see\n Driver _A critical and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy_\n 388). It is distinguished from the Blessing of Jacob by its\n uniform tone of benediction, and its strongly religious point\n of view as contrasted with the secular and warlike spirit\n of Genesis 49. Simeon is passed over in silence, while his\n \u2018brother\u2019 Levi is the subject of an enthusiastic eulogium;\n Judah is briefly commended in a prayer to Yahwe; the separation\n of Ephraim and Manasseh is recognised in an appendix to\n the blessing on Joseph. All these indications point more or\n less decisively to a situation considerably later than that\n presupposed by the oracles of Jacob.\n\n _Date and Unity of the Poem._\u2015\u2015That the song is not a perfect\n literary unity is suggested first of all by the seemingly\n complex structure of the sections on Dan (two independent\n oracles) and Judah (with three exordiums in verses \u2078\u1427 \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2070).\n We find, further, that a double motive runs through the series,\n viz., (1) etymological play on the name of the tribe (Judah,\n Zebulun?, Dan, Gad, Asher?), and (2) tribal emblems (chiefly\n animal) (Judah, Issachar, Dan, Naphtali, Joseph, Benjamin): one\n or other of these can be detected in each oracle except those on\n Reuben and Simeon-Levi. It is, of course, not certain that these\n are characteristic of two independent groups of oracles; but the\n fact that both are represented in the sayings on Judah and Dan,\n while neither appears in those on Reuben and Simeon-Levi, does\n confirm the impression of composition and diversity of origin.\n The decisive consideration, however, is that no single period\n of history can be found which satisfies all the indications of\n date drawn from the several oracles. Those on Reuben, Simeon,\n and Levi refer to events which belong to a remote past, and were\n in all probability composed before the Song of Deborah, while\n these events were still fresh in the national memory; those\n on Issachar, Dan, and Benjamin could hardly have originated\n after the establishment of the monarchy; while the blessing of\n Judah clearly presupposes the existence of the Davidic kingdom,\n and must have been written not earlier than the time of David\n or Solomon. A still later date is assigned by most critics\n since Wellhausen, (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der\n historischen B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b3 320) to the blessing\n on Joseph, which is generally considered to refer to the kingdom\n of North Israel and to the Aram\u00e6an wars under the dynasties of\n Omri and Jehu. It is argued in the notes below that the passage\n is susceptible of a different interpretation from that adopted\n by the majority of scholars, and may, in fact, be one of the\n oldest parts of the poem. As for the rest of the oracles,\n their character is such that it seems quite impossible to\n decide whether they originated before or after the founding\n of the kingdom. In any case we hardly get much beyond a broad\n chronological division into pre-Davidic and post-Davidic oracles;\n but at the same time that distinction is so clearly marked as\n to exclude absolutely the hypothesis of unity of authorship.\u2015\u2015It\n has been supposed by some writers (Renan, Kuenen, al.) that\n the poem consists of a number of fugitive oracles which had\n circulated independently among the tribes, and were ultimately\n collected and put in the mouth of Jacob. But, apart from the\n general objection that characterisation of one tribe by the\n rest already implies a central point of view, the inadequacy of\n the theory is seen when we observe that all the longer passages\n (Reuben, Simeon-Levi, Judah, Joseph) assume that Jacob is the\n speaker, while the shorter pieces are too slight in content\n to have any significance except in relation to the whole.\u2015\u2015An\n intermediate position is represented by Land, who distinguished\n six stages in the growth of the song: (1) A primary poem,\n consisting of the two tristichs, verses \u00b3 and \u2078, written at the\n time of David\u2019s victories over the Philistines, and celebrating\n the passing of the hegemony from Reuben to Judah: to this\n verse \u2074 was afterwards added as an appendix. (2) A second poem\n on Judah, Dan, and Issachar (verses \u2079\u1427 \u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1427: distichs),\n describing under animal figures the condition of these tribes\n during the peaceful interval of David\u2019s reign in Hebron: to\n which was appended later the verse on Benjamin (\u00b2\u2077). (3) The\n Shiloh oracle (verses \u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b9\u00b2), dating from the same period. (4)\n The decastich on Simeon and Levi (verses \u2075\u207b\u2077), from the time of\n the later Judges. (5) The blessing of Joseph (\u00b2\u00b2\u207b\u00b2\u2076), a northern\n poem from about the time of Deborah. (6) The five distichs on\n Zebulun, Dan, Gad, Asher, and Naphtali (in that order: verses\n \u00b9\u00b3\u1427 \u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u00b9), commemorating the victory of Deborah and Barak\n over the Canaanites. The theory rests on dubious interpretations,\n involves improbable historical combinations, and is altogether\n too intricate to command assent; but it is noteworthy\n nevertheless as perhaps the first elaborate attempt to solve\n the problem of the date and integrity of the poem, and to do\n justice to the finer lines of structure that can be discovered\n in it.\u2015\u2015On the whole, however, the theory of the \u2018traditional\n document\u2019 (_v.s._), altered and supplemented as it was handed\n down from one generation to another, while sufficiently elastic,\n seems the one that best satisfies all the requirements of the\n problem (so Gunkel, 420 f.).\n\n The _order_ in which the tribes are enumerated appears to be\n partly genealogical, partly geographical. The six Leah-tribes\n come first, and in the order of birth as given in chapters\n 29 f., save that Zebulun and Issachar change places. Then follow\n the four concubine or hybrid tribes; but the order is that\n neither of birth nor of the mothers, the two Zilpah-tribes,\n Gad and Asher, coming between the Bilhah tribes, Dan and\n Naphtali. The Rachel-tribes, Joseph and Benjamin, stand last.\n Geographically, we may distinguish a southern group (Reuben,\n Simeon, Levi, Judah), a northern (Zebulun, Issachar, Dan?, Gad\n [trans-Jordanic], Asher, Naphtali), and a central group (Joseph,\n Benjamin). The general agreement of the two classifications\n shows that the genealogical scheme itself reflects the tribal\n affinities and historical antecedents by which the geographical\n distribution of the tribes in Palestine was in part determined.\n The suggestion of Peters (_Early Hebrew story_, 61 ff.), that\n the ages of Jacob\u2019s children represent approximately the order\n in which the respective tribes obtained a permanent footing in\n Canaan, is a plausible one, and probably contains an element\n of truth; although the attempt to reconstruct the history of\n the invasion and conquest on such precarious data can lead to\n no secure results. It is clear at all events that neither the\n genealogical nor the geographical principle furnishes a complete\n explanation of the arrangement in Genesis 49; and we have to\n bear in mind the possibility that this ancient document may have\n preserved an older tradition as to the grouping and relations\n of the tribes than that which is given in the prose legends\n (chapters 29. 30).\u2015\u2015On the question whether a sojourn in Egypt\n is presupposed between the utterance and the fulfilment of the\n predictions, the poem naturally throws no direct light. It is\n not improbable that in this respect it stands on the same plane\n as 48\u00b2\u00b2 (34. 38), and traces the conquest of Palestine back to\n Jacob himself.\n\n _Metrical Form._\u2015\u2015See Sievers, _Metrische Studien_, i. 404 ff.,\n ii. 152 ff., 361 ff. The poem (verses \u00b2\u207b\u00b2\u2077) exhibits throughout\n a clearly marked metrical structure, the unit being the trimeter\n distich, with frequent parallelism between the two members. The\n lines which do not conform to this type (verses \u2077\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3\u1d47\u1427 \u00b9\u2078, and\n especially \u00b2\u2074\u1d47\u207b\u00b2\u2076) are so few that interpolation or corruption\n of text may reasonably be suspected; although our knowledge of\n the laws of Hebrew poetry does not entitle us to say that an\n occasional variation of rhythm is in itself inadmissible.\n\n _Source._\u2015\u2015Since the poem is older than any of the Pentateuchal\n documents, the only question that arises is the relatively\n unimportant one of the stage of compilation at which it was\n incorporated in the narrative of Genesis. Of the primary sources,\n Elohist and Priestly-Code are excluded; the former because\n of the degradation of Reuben, which is nowhere recognised by\n Elohist; and the latter by the general tendency of that work,\n and its suppression of discreditable incidents in the story\n of the patriarchs. The passage is in perfect harmony with\n the representation of Yahwist, and may without difficulty be\n assigned to that document, as is done by the majority of critics.\n At the same time, the absence of literary connexion with the\n narrative leaves a considerable margin of uncertainty; and it\n is just as easy to suppose that the insertion took place in\n the combined narrative Jehovist, perhaps by the same hand which\n inserted the Blessing of Moses in Deuteronomy (see Wellhausen\n _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher\n des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 62). That it was introduced during the\n final redaction of the Pentateuch is less probable, especially\n if \u00b2\u2078\u1d47{\u03b2} (\u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05e8\u05da\u200e) was the original continuation of \u00b9\u1d47 in\n Priestly-Code (see on verse \u00b9).\n\n Monographs on the Song: Diestel, _Der Segen Jakob\u2019s in Genesis\n xlix. historisch erl\u00e4utert_ (1853); Land, _Disputatio de carmine\n Jacobi_ (1858); Kohler, _Der Segen Jakob\u2019s mit besonderer\n Ber\u00fccksichtigung der alten Versionen und des Midrasch\n historisch-kritisch untersucht und erkl\u00e4rt_ (1867); compare\n also Meier, _Geschichte der poetischen National Literatur der\n Hebr\u00e4er_ (1856), pages 109\u2012113; Peters, _Journal of the Society\n of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, 1886, pages 99\u2012116; and\n see the copious references in Tuch or Dillmann.\n\n=1, 2. Introduction.=\u2015\u2015The poem begins with a preamble (verse \u00b2)\nfrom the hand of the writer who composed or collected the oracles and\nput them in the mouth of Jacob. \u00b9\u1d47 is a prose introduction, supplied\nprobably by the editor who incorporated the Song in the narrative\nof Yahwist or Jehovist; while \u00b9\u1d43 appears to be a fragment of\nPriestly-Code divorced from its original connexion with \u00b2\u2078\u1d43\u1d47{\u03b2} by\nRedactor\u1d3e\u1d49\u207f\u1d57\u1d43\u1d57\u1d49\u1d58\u1d9c\u02b0.\u2015\u2015=1b.= _that I may make known, etc._] The poem is\nexpressly characterised as a prophecy (not, however, as a _blessing_\n[as \u00b2\u2078\u1d47]), which it obviously is as ascribed to Jacob, though the\nsinger\u2019s real standpoint is contemporary or retrospective (page 508\nabove).\u2015\u2015_in the after days_] The furthest horizon of the speaker\u2019s\nvision (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=2.= A trimeter distich, exhibiting the prevalent\nmetrical scheme of the poem:\n\n Assemble, ye sons of Jacob,\n And hearken to Israel your father!\n\nWith the call to attention, compare 4\u00b2\u00b3, Deuteronomy 32\u00b9, Isaiah 1\u00b9\u2070\n28\u00b9\u2074, etc.\u2015\u2015Whether in the mind of the poet Israel is the literal or\nthe ideal father of the nation may be doubtful: compare verse \u2077, and\npage 509 above.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =1.= \u05d1\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] The phrase occurs 13 times in Hebrew Old\n Testament (Numbers 24\u00b9\u2074, Deuteronomy 4\u00b3\u2070 31\u00b2\u2079, Isaiah 2\u00b2,\n Jeremiah 23\u00b2\u2070 30\u00b2\u2074 48\u2074\u2077 49\u00b3\u2079, Exodus 38\u00b9\u2076, Hosea 3\u2075, Micah 4\u00b9,\n Daniel 10\u00b9\u2074\u2020), and its Aramaic equivalent in Daniel 2\u00b2\u2078. In the\n prophets it is used technically of the advent of the Messianic\n age; here and elsewhere (Numbers 24\u00b9\u2074 etc.) it has the general\n sense of the remote future (like Assyrian _a\u1e2brat \u00fbmi_: _Die\n Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_\u00b2, 143). That the\n eschatological sense is primary, and the other an imitation\n of prophetic style (Gunkel), cannot be proved; and there is no\n justification for deleting either the phrase itself (Staerk,\n _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xi. 247\n ff.), or the whole clause in which it occurs (Land).\u2015\u2015=2.=\n The repetition of \u05d5\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u200e is against the rules of parallelism. We\n may either omit the word in \u00b2\u1d43 (Gunkel, Sievers), or vary the\n expression (\u05d5\u05e2\u05d0\u05d6\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u200e, \u05d5\u05d4\u05e7\u05e9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u200e) in \u00b2\u1d47 (Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2, Ball). Metrically,\n either expedient would be admissible, but the former is much\n easier. In LXX\u1d2e\u1427 \u1d43\u02e1\u1427 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 is used thrice.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=3, 4. Reuben.=\n\n \u00b3 Reuben! My first-born art thou:\n My strength and best of my vigour.\n Exceeding in pride and exceeding in fury,\n \u2074 Impetuous as water, thou may\u2019st not excel.\n For thou wentest up to thy father\u2019s bed;\n There thou profanedst \u2e22the\u2e23 couch....\n\nThe original presents both obscurities and niceties not reflected in\nthe translation; but the general sense is clear. As the first-born,\nReuben is endowed with a superabundant vitality, which is the cause\nat once of his pre-eminence and of his undoing: his energy degenerates\ninto licentious passion, which impels him to the crime that draws down\nthe curse. As a characterisation of the tribe, this will mean that\nReuben had a double share of the \u2018frenetic\u2019 Bedouin nature, and wore\nout his strength in fierce warfare with neighbouring tribes. If the\noutrage on his father\u2019s honour (verse \u2074) have historic significance\n(see below), it must denote some attack on the unity of Israel which\nthe collective conscience of the nation condemned. It is to be noted\nthat the recollection of the event has already assumed the legendary\nform, and must therefore reach back to a time considerably earlier\nthan the date of the poem (Gunkel).\u2015\u2015=3b, 4a.= _exceeding ... excel_]\nNo English word brings out the precise force of the original, where\nthe \u221a \u05d9\u05ea\u05e8\u200e occurs three times in a sense hovering between \u2018exceed\u2019\nand \u2018excel.\u2019 The idea of excess being native to the root, the\nrenderings _pride_ and _fury_ are perhaps preferable to \u2018dignity\u2019 and\n\u2018power,\u2019 \u00b3\u1d9c as well as \u2074 being understood _sensu malo_, as a censure\nof Reuben.\u2015\u2015=4b.= _Then ... went up_] A corrupt text: for various\nsuggestions, _v.i._ Gunkel\u2019s translation \u2018Then I profaned the couch\nwhich he ascended,\u2019 at least softens the harsh change from 2nd person\nto 3rd.\n\n The \u2018birthright\u2019 of Reuben must rest on some early ascendancy\n or prowess of the tribe which has left no traces in history. Its\n choice of a settlement East of the Jordan (Numbers 32, etc.),\n shows an attachment to nomadic habits, and perhaps an unfitness\n for the advance to civilised life which the majority of the\n tribes had to make. In the Song of Deborah, Reuben is still\n an important tribe, but one that had lost enthusiasm for the\n national cause (Judges 5\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1427). In the Blessing of Moses it\n still survives, but is apparently on the verge of extinction\n (Deuteronomy 33\u2076). It was doubtless exhausted by struggles\n like those with the Hagarenes (1 Chronicles 5\u00b9\u2070\u1427 \u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), but\n especially with the Moabites, who eventually occupied most of\n its territory (compare Numbers 32\u00b3\u2077, Joshua 13\u00b9\u2076 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 with Isaiah\n 15, Jeremiah 48 _passim_, and Moabite Stone).\u2015\u2015The incident\n to which the downfall of Reuben is here traced (\u2074\u1d43{\u03b2}\u1d47) is\n connected with the fragmentary notice of 35\u00b2\u00b2, and is variously\n interpreted: (1) According to William Robertson Smith, _Kinship\n and Marriage in Early Arabia_\u00b2, 109\u00b2, Steuernagel, _Die\n Einwanderung der israelitischen St\u00e4mme in Kanaan_ 16, Holzinger,\n it records the fact that Reuben had misused its power as the\n leading tribe to assail the independence of a weaker member\n of the confederation (Bilhah, or one of the Bilhah-tribes),\u2015\u2015a\n rather hazardous speculation. (2) Another theory, not\n necessarily inconsistent with the former (see William Robertson\n Smith, _l.c._), finds a reference to the persistence in\n Reuben of an old Semitic custom of marriage with the wives or\n concubines of a (deceased!) father (Dillmann, Stade, _Geschichte\n des Volkes Israel_, i. 151 f.), which the general moral\n sense of Israel had outgrown. In this case we must suppose\n that 49\u2074 contains the germ of the legend of which 35\u00b2\u00b2, with\n its particular mention of Bilhah, is a later phase. (3) It\n is probable that the _form_ of the legend has been partly\n determined by a mythological motive, to which a striking\n parallel is found in the story of Ph\u0153nix and Amyntor (_Iliad_\n ix. 447 ff.: quoted above, page 427).\u2015\u2015_Metrical Structure._\n The oracle is better divided as above into three distichs, than\n (with Massoretic Text) into two tristichs (so Land, who assigns\n each to a separate author). The trimeter measure is easily\n traced throughout (except line 3) by following the Hebrew\n accents, supplying Maqqeph after \u05db\u05d9\u200e and \u05d0\u05d6\u200e in verse \u2074. Line 3 may\n be scanned uu\u00b4|u\u00b4|u\u00b4 (Sievers).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =3a.= \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u200e (Deuteronomy 21\u00b9\u2077, compare Psalms 78\u2075\u00b9 105\u00b3\u2076)]\n Not \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 (LXX, Theodotion), still less _principium\n doloris mei_ (Vulgate from \u05d0\u05b8\u05d5\u05b6\u05df\u200e, \u2018trouble\u2019; so Aquila, Symmachus);\n but \u2018best part of my virility\u2019 (Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2).\n On \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea\u200e, see page 12; \u05d0\u05d5\u05df\u200e as Hosea 12\u2074.\u2015\u2015=3b.= LXX \u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03b8\u03ac\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2; Vulgate _prior in donis, major\n in imperio_.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05b6\u05ea\u05b6\u05e8\u200e (abstractum pro concreto) might mean \u2018excess\u2019\n (Aquila, Symmachus), or \u2018superiority\u2019 (Vulgate), or \u2018remnant\u2019\n (Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5; so Peters, page 100): whether it is here used in\n a good sense or a bad (for the latter, compare Proverbs 17\u2077)\n depends on the meaning assigned to the next two words.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05d0\u05ea\u200e]\n Literally \u2018lifting\u2019 (LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5), several times means \u2018exaltation\u2019; but in Habakkuk 1\u2077\n it has distinctly the sense of \u2018arrogance,\u2019 the idea preferred\n above. To read \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u200e, \u2018turbulence\u2019 (Gunkel), is unnecessary,\n and \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d0\u05ea\u200e, \u2018destruction\u2019 (Peters), gives a wrong turn to the\n thought.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b8\u05d6\u200e] Pausal for \u05e2\u05b9\u05d6\u200e, \u2018power,\u2019 but the sense of \u2018fury\u2019 is\n supported by verse \u2077, Isaiah 25\u00b3.\u2015\u2015=4.= \u05e4\u05d7\u05d6\u2015\u2015\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8\u200e] LXX \u1f10\u03be\u03cd\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2\n \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1, \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b6\u03ad\u03c3\u1fc3\u03c2; Aquila \u1f10\u03b8\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 ... \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u1fc3\u03c2;\n Symmachus \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 ... \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2; Vulgate _effusus\n es sicut aqua, non crescas_; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac phrase). The\n comparison to water is ambiguous; and it is doubtful if we may\n introduce the simile of water \u2018boiling over\u2019 (Symmachus, LXX\n and many moderns). The image may be that of a wild rushing\n torrent,\u2015\u2015a fit emblem of the unbridled passion which was\n Reuben\u2019s characteristic (so Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2).\u2015\u2015\u05e4\u05d4\u05d6\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05e4\u05d7\u05d6\u05ea\u200e. Though the other Versions also\n have 2nd person, we cannot assume that they _read_ so; and the\n analogy of verse \u00b3 leads us to expect another abstractum pro\n concreto. The noun is \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd; the particle occurs Judges\n 9\u2074, Zephaniah 3\u2074, with the sense \u2018reckless\u2019 or \u2018irresponsible\u2019\n (compare \u05e4\u05d7\u05d6\u05d5\u05ea\u200e, Jeremiah 23\u00b3\u00b2). In Arabic the \u221a means \u2018be\n insolent,\u2019 in Aramaic \u2018be lascivious\u2019: the common idea is\n perhaps \u2018uncontrollableness\u2019 (_ut s._).\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea\u05b7\u05e8\u200e] For the pausal\n _a_, see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 53 _n_, and compare Ruth 2\u00b9\u2074.\u2015\u2015=4b.=\n No very acceptable rendering of this difficult clause has been\n proposed. If we follow the accentuation, \u05d9\u05e6\u05d5\u05e2\u05d9\u200e is object of \u05e2\u05dc\u05d4\u200e,\n and \u05d9\u05e6\u05d5\u05e2\u05d9 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d4\u200e a detached sentence: \u2018Then thou actedst profanely. He\n went up to my bed\u2019; but apart from the harsh change of person,\n this is inadmissible, because \u05d7\u05b4\u05dc\u05b5\u05bc\u05dc\u200e is never used intransitively.\n To read \u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u05b8\u200e with LXX is perhaps a too facile emendation; and\n to omit \u05e2\u05dc\u05d4\u200e with Vulgate is forbidden by rhythm. On the whole it\n is best (with Gunkel) to point \u05d7\u05b4\u05dc\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u200e, and take \u05e2\u05dc\u05d4\u200e as a relative\n clause (_v.s._). Other suggestions are: \u05d7\u05f3 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d5\u05e2\u05b7\u05d9 \u05e2\u05b9\u05dc\u05b6\u05d4\u200e (Land); \u05d9\u05e6\u05d5\u05e2\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d1\u05b4\u05dc\u05b0\u05d4\u05b8\u05d4\u200e\n (Geiger, Kittel); \u05d9\u05f3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b6\u05d3\u05b0\u05da\u05b8\u200e (Ball); but all these are, for one reason\n or another, objectionable.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=5\u20127. Simeon and Levi.=\n\n \u2075 Simeon and Levi\u2015\u2015brothers!\n Weapons of ruth are their daggers (?).\n \u2076 Into their council my soul would not enter,\n In their assembly my mind would not join:\n For in their anger they slaughter men,\n And in their gloating they disable oxen.\n \u2077 Accursed be their wrath for it is fierce,\n And their rage for it is cruel!\n I will divide them in Jacob,\n And scatter them in Israel.\n\n=5a.= _brothers_] Hardly \u1f41\u03bc\u03cc\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 (scholium in Field) = \u2018true\nbrother-spirits\u2019 (Tuch al.), or \u2018associates\u2019 in a common enterprise.\nThe epithet is probably a survival from an old tradition in which\nSimeon and Levi were the only sons of Leah (see 34\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u2075; compare Meyer,\n_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 286\u00b9, 426). It is universally\nassumed that that incident\u2015\u2015the treacherous attack on Shechem\u2015\u2015is the\nground of the curse here pronounced; but the terms of the oracle are\nperfectly general and in part unsuited to the supposed circumstances;\nand it seems to me to be the habitual character of the tribes which\nis denounced, and not any particular action.\u2015\u2015=5b.= The translation\nis doubtful, owing partly to uncertainty of text, and partly to\nthe obscurity of the \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u05de\u05b0\u05db\u05b5\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (_v.i._). The rendering\nabove gives a good sense, and Ball\u2019s objection, that daggers are\n_necessarily_ implements of violence, has no force.\u2015\u2015=6a.= _council\n... assembly_] The tribal gatherings, in which deeds of violence\nwere planned, and sanguinary exploits gloated over. The distich\nexpresses vividly the thought that the true _ethos_ of Israel was\nnot represented in these bloody-minded gatherings.\u2015\u2015=6b.= _men ...\noxen_] The nouns are collectives.\u2015\u2015_slaughter ... hough_] Perfects of\nexperience. The latter operation (disable by cutting the sinew of the\nhind-leg) was occasionally performed by Israelites on horses (Joshua\n11\u2076\u1427 \u2079, 2 Samuel 8\u2074); to do it to a domestic animal was evidently\nconsidered inhuman. No such atrocity is recorded of the assault on\nShechem (see 34\u00b2\u2078).\u00b9\u2015\u2015=7b.= _in Jacob ... in Israel_] The speaker is\nplainly not the individual patriarch, nor the Almighty (Land), but the\npersonified nation.\n\n \u00b9 Zimmern (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, vii. 162 f.) finds\n in \u2076\u1d47 a reminiscence of the mutilation of the celestial\n Bull by Gilgame\u0161 and Eabani in the Babylonian Gilgame\u0161-Epic.\n Simeon and Levi, like Gilgame\u0161 and Eabani, represent the\n Gemini of the Zodiac; and it is pointed out that the Bull in\n the heavens is \u1f21\u03bc\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, _i.e._ only its fore-half appears\n as a constellation. The \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u200e then corresponds to the tyrant\n \u1e2aumbaba, who was slain by Gilgame\u0161 and Eabani; and Jacob\u2019s\n curse answers to the curse of I\u0161tar on the two heroes for\n mutilating the Bull.\u2015\u2015Whatever truth there may be in this\n mythological interpretation, it does not relieve us of\n the necessity of finding a _historical_ explanation of the\n incidents.\n\n The dispersion of these two tribes must have taken place at a\n very early period of the national history. As regards Simeon,\n it is doubtful if it ever existed as a separate geographical\n unit. Priestly-Code is only able to assign to it an inheritance\n scooped out of the territory of Judah (compare Joshua 19\u00b9\u207b\u2079\n with 15\u00b2\u2076\u207b\u00b3\u00b2\u1427 \u2074\u00b2: see also 1 Chronicles 4\u00b2\u2078\u207b\u00b3\u00b3); and so-called\n Simeonite cities are assigned to Judah as early as the time of\n David (1 Samuel 27\u2076 30\u00b3\u2070, 2 Samuel 24\u2077; compare 1 Kings 19\u00b3).\n In the Blessing of Moses it is passed over in silence. Traces of\n its dispersion may be found in such Simeonite names as Shime\u201bi,\n Sh\u0101\u00fbl, Y\u0101m\u00een in other tribes (William Robertson Smith, _The\n Journal of Philology_ ix. 96); and we may assume that the\n tribe had disappeared before the establishment of the monarchy\n (see Steuernagel, 70 ff.; Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre\n Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 75 ff.).\u2015\u2015Very different was the fate of Levi.\n Like Simeon, it lost its independence and, as a _secular_ tribe,\n ceased to exist. But its scattered members had a spiritual\n bond of unity in the possession of the Mosaic tradition and the\n sacred lot (Deuteronomy 33\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), in virtue of which it secured a\n privileged position in the Israelite sanctuaries (Judges 17 f.),\n and was eventually reconstituted on a sacerdotal basis. The\n contrast between this passage, where Levi is the subject of a\n curse, and Deuteronomy 33, where its prerogatives are celebrated\n with enthusiasm, depends on the distinction just indicated:\n here Levi is the secular tribe, destroyed by its own ferocity,\n whose religious importance has not yet emerged; there, it is\n the Priestly tribe, which, although scattered, yet holds the\n _sacra_ and the T\u00f4r\u0101h of the Yahwe-religion (Wellhausen, _Die\n Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des Alten\n Testaments_\u2076 136 ff.).\u2015\u2015The _Metre_ is regular, except that\n in the last two lines the trimeters are replaced by a binary\n couplet. That is no sufficient reason for deleting them as an\n interpolation (Sievers).\n\n * * * * *\n\n =5b.= LXX \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd (Old Latin\n _consummaverunt iniquitatem adinventionis su\u00e6_); Aquila\n \u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03cd\u03b7 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u1f76 [\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd]; Vulgate _vasa iniquitatis\n bellantia_ [Jerome _arma eorum_]; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac phrase);\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e2 \u05ea\u05d5\u05ea\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4\u05d5\u05df \u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0\u200e; Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f [\u05de\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9] \u05d6\u05d9\u05d9\u05e0\u05d0 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d0 \u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\n\u200e \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e9\u05ea\u05de\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4\u05d5\u05df\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05dc\u05d9\u200e] So Aquila, Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f;\n but _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u200e: \u2018they accomplished.\u2019\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05db\u05e8\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd\u200e] As to the\n consecutive text, that of LXX cannot be certainly restored;\n Keth\u00eeb is supported by Aquila, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 (\u05de\u05b0\u05db\u05bb\u05e8\u05b9\u05ea\u05f3\u200e:\n compare Exodus 16\u00b3 21\u00b3\u2075 29\u00b9\u2074), by Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f (from \u221a\n\u200e \u05e0\u05db\u05e8\u200e, see Abraham Ibn Ezra), and probably Vulgate. The textual\n tradition must therefore be accepted as fairly reliable. Of the\n many Hebrew etymologies proposed (see Dillmann, 459), the most\n plausible are those which derive from \u221a \u05db\u05e8\u05e8\u200e, or (reading \u05de\u05b4\u05db\u05b0\u05e8\u05b9\u05f3\u200e)\n from \u221a \u05db\u05e8\u05d4\u200e, \u2018to dig.\u2019 No \u221a \u05db\u05e8\u05e8\u200e, \u2018dig,\u2019 is actually found, though\n it might perhaps be assumed as a by-form of \u05db\u05e8\u05d4\u200e: this would give\n the meaning \u2018digging instrument\u2019 (compare _gladio confodere_),\n which Vollers (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, xiv. 355) tries\n to support from Assyrian. The \u221a \u05db\u05e8\u05e8\u200e means in Arabic \u2018to turn\u2019\n or \u2018wheel round\u2019; hence Dillmann conjectured that \u05de\u05b0\u05db\u05b5\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e may be\n a _curved_ knife or sabre. Some weapon suits the context, but\n what exactly it is must remain uncertain. How far the exegesis\n has been influenced by the resemblance to the Greek \u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1 (R.\n Johanan [died, 279 A.D.], cited in _Bereshith Rabba_ \u00a7 99; Rashi)\n we cannot tell. Ball and Gunkel take the word to be \u05de\u05b4\u05db\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, the\n former rendering \u2018plots\u2019 (from Arabic _makara_, \u2018to plot\u2019) and\n the latter \u2018pits\u2019 (compare \u05de\u05b4\u05db\u05b0\u05e8\u05b6\u05d4\u200e, Zephaniah 2\u2079); but neither \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc \u05d7\u05b2\u05de\u05b7\u05e1\n\u200e \u05de\u05b4\u05db\u05b0\u05e8\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05dd\u200e (Ball) nor \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05dc\u05b7\u05d9 \u05d5\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05e1 \u05de\u05b4\u05db\u05b0\u05e8\u05b9\u05ea\u05b5\u05d9\u05d4\u05b6\u05dd\u200e [\u2018knavery and violence are their\n pits\u2019] (Gunkel) is so good as the ordinary interpretation. Ball,\n however, rightly observes that \u05de\u05b4\u05db\u05b0\u05e8\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05dd\u200e yields a better metre than\n\u200e \u05ea\u05b5\u05d9\u05d4\u05b6\u05dd\u200e\u2015\u2015(so Sievers).\u2015\u2015=6a.= \u05db\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u200e] Read with LXX \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05b5\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, \u2018my liver,\u2019 the\n seat of mental affections in Lamentations 2\u00b9\u00b9 (compare Psalms\n 16\u2079 30\u00b9\u00b3 57\u2079 108\u00b2: Massoretic Text \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05d5\u05b9\u05d3\u200e): compare _kabittu_,\n \u2018Gem\u00fcth,\u2019 in Assyrian.\u2015\u2015\u05ea\u05d7\u05d3\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_ \u05d9\u05d7\u05e8\u200e. Since \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b5\u05d3\u200e is masculine, read \u05d9\u05b5\u05d7\u05b7\u05d3\u200e.\u2015\u2015=6b.= \u05e8\u05e6\u05d5\u05df\u200e]\n \u2018self-will,\u2019 \u2018wantonness\u2019; compare Nehemiah 9\u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b3\u2077, Esther 1\u2078 9\u2075\n etc.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b4\u05e7\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e] On certain difficulties in the usage of the word, see\n Batten, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,\n xxviii. 189 ff., where it is argued that the sense is\n general\u2015\u2015\u2018make useless.\u2019\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u200e] Aquila, Symmachus, Vulgate,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 read \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e, \u2018wall,\u2019 perhaps to avoid the\n supposed contradiction with 34\u00b2\u2078 \u1da0\u1427. Hence the correct \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n of LXX is instanced in _Mechilta_ as a change made by the LXX\n translators (see page 14).\u2015\u2015=7.= \u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8\u200e, \u05d5\u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05ea\u05dd\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d0\u05d3\u05d9\u05e8\u200e, \u05d5\u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05ea\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b8\u05bd\u05d6\u200e] Here pausal form\n of \u05e2\u05b7\u05d6\u200e (contrast verse \u00b3).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=8\u201212. Judah.=\n\n \u2078 Judah! Thee shall thy brethren praise\u2015\u2015\n Thy hand on the neck of thy foes\u2015\u2015\n Bow down to thee shall thy father\u2019s sons.\n\n \u2079 A lion\u2019s whelp is Judah,\n From the prey, my son, thou\u2019rt gone up!\n He crouched, he couched like a lion,\n And an old lion\u2015\u2015who shall arouse him?\n\n \u00b9\u2070 Departs not the sceptre from Judah,\n Nor staff from between his feet,\n Until ... come ... (?),\n And to him the peoples obey.\n\n \u00b9\u00b9 Binding his ass to the vine,\n And his foal to the choicest vine!\n He washes his raiment in wine,\n And his clothes in the blood of the grape!\n \u00b9\u00b2 With eyes made dull by wine,\n And teeth whitened with milk!\n\n=8.= _Thee_] The emphasis on the pronoun (see Gesenius-Kautzsch\n\u00a7 135 _e_) is explained by the contrast to the preceding oracles: at\nlast the singer comes to a tribe which he can unreservedly praise.\nNowhere else does the poem breathe such glowing enthusiasm and such\nelevation of feeling as here. The glories of Judah are celebrated\nin four aspects: (1) as the premier tribe of Israel, \u2078; (2) as the\npuissant and victorious lion-tribe, \u2079; (3) as the bearer (in some\nsense) of the Messianic hope, \u00b9\u2070; (4) as lavishly endowed with the\nblessings of nature, \u00b9\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05d3\u05d5\u05bc\u05da\u05b8\u200e] The same fanciful etymology\nas in 29\u00b3\u2075.\u2015\u2015_thy hand ... foes_] The image seems to be that of a\ndefeated enemy, caught by the (back of the) neck in his flight, and\ncrushed (Exodus 23\u00b2\u2077, Psalms 18\u2074\u00b9, Job 16\u00b9\u00b2).\u2015\u2015_thy brethren ...\nthy father\u2019s sons_] The other tribes, who acknowledge the primacy of\nJudah.\u2015\u2015=9.= A vivid picture of the growth of Judah\u2019s power; to be\ncompared with the beautiful lyric, Ezekiel 19\u00b2\u207b\u2079.\u2015\u2015_a lion\u2019s whelp_]\nSo Deuteronomy 33\u00b2\u00b2 (of Dan). The image naturally suggests the \u2018mighty\nyouth\u2019 of the tribe, as its full development is represented by the\n_lion_, and _old lion_ of the following lines. Hence the clause\n\u200e\u05de\u05b4\u05d8\u05b6\u05bc\u05e8\u05b6\u05e3\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u05b8\u200e is rendered by some (Gunkel al.): _On prey, my son, thou\nhast grown up_ (been reared), which is perhaps justified by Ezekiel\n19\u00b3. But it is better to understand it of the lion\u2019s ascent, after\na raid, to his mountain fastness, where he rests in unassailable\nsecurity (\u2079\u1d47).\u2015\u2015_he crouches, etc._] So (of Israel as a whole)\nNumbers 24\u2079.\u2015\u2015=10a.= Judah\u2019s political pre-eminence.\u2015\u2015_sceptre ...\nstaff_] The latter word (\u05de\u05b0\u05d7\u05b9\u05e7\u05b5\u05e7\u200e) might be used personally = \u2018prescriber\n[of laws]\u2019 (LXX, Vulgate, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f al.); but \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d1\u05b6\u05d8\u200e is\nnever so used, and parallelism requires that \u05de\u05d7\u05e7\u05e7\u200e should be understood\nof the commander\u2019s _staff_ (Numbers 21\u00b9\u2078, Psalms 60\u2079 = 108\u2079).\u2015\u2015_from\nbetween his feet_] The chieftain is conceived as seated with his\nwand of office held upright in front of him. The Bedouin sheikhs and\nheadmen of villages are said still to carry such insignia of authority.\n\n The question arises whether the emblems denote (a) kingly\n authority, or (b) military leadership of the other tribes, or\n merely (c) tribal autonomy. Driver (_The Journal of Philology_\n xiv. 26) decides for (a), because (1) \u05e9\u05d1\u05d8\u200e, without qualification,\n suggests a royal sceptre; (2) the last phrase presents the\n picture of a king seated on a throne; (3) the word \u05d9\u05e9\u05ea\u05d7\u05d5\u05d5\u200e in \u2078\u1d47\n most naturally expresses the homage due to a king (compare 37\u2077).\n But in favour of (c) it might be urged (1) that \u05de\u05d7\u05e7\u05e7\u200e never has\n this meaning, and (2) that \u05e9\u05d1\u05d8\u200e is the word for \u2018tribe\u2019 (_e.g._\n verses \u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b2\u2078), and, if the passage be early, is likely to be\n used as the symbol of tribal independence. The idea of military\n hegemony (b) is in no way suggested, apart from the connexion\n with verse \u2078, which is dubious. The point has an important\n bearing on the exegesis of the next clause. If (a) be right,\n the Davidic monarchy is presupposed, and \u00b9\u2070\u1d47 assigns a term to\n its continuance; whereas, if (c) be right, \u00b9\u2070\u1d47 is possibly (not\n necessarily) a prophecy of David and his dynasty. See, further,\n the note at the end of this verse.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =8.= \u05d9\u05d3\u05da\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX\n\u200e \u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05d9\u05da\u05b8\u200e.\u2015\u2015=9.= \u05de\u05d8\u05e8\u05e3\u200e] LXX \u1f10\u03ba \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, taking the word as in 8\u00b9\u00b9,\n Ezekiel 17\u2079.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u200e] LXX \u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac phrase). The\n common rendering \u2018lioness\u2019 is based on Arabic, but it is by\n no means certain that in Hebrew the word denotes specially the\n female. It is never construed as feminine; and in Ezekiel 19\u00b2\n the pointing \u05dc\u05b0\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u200e shows that the Massoretes considered \u05dc\u05b8\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05d0\u200e as\n masculine.\u2015\u2015=10a.= \u05e9\u05d1\u05d8\u200e and \u05de\u05d7\u05e7\u05e7\u200e are found together in Judges 5\u00b9\u2074,\n where \u05de\u05d7\u05e7\u05e7\u200e (\u2225 \u05de\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05da\u05b0 \u05d1\u05e9\u05f3\u200e) has the personal sense of \u2018commander.\u2019 But\n in Numbers 21\u00b9\u2078, Psalms 60\u2079 [= 108\u2079] it denotes the commander\u2019s\n staff; and since \u05e9\u05d1\u05d8\u200e is always the instrument, the impersonal\n sense is to be preferred here: hence the \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd of LXX is wrong,\n and the personal renderings of \u05de\u05d7\u05f3\u200e in all Versions at least\n doubtful.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05e8\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_\n \u200e\u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d3\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u200e, \u2018from between his banners,\u2019 gives no sense. LXX,\n Theodotion, Vulgate interpret after Deuteronomy 28\u2075\u2077 \u2018from\n his thighs\u2019; and hence Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u2018from his sons\u2019 sons,\u2019\n Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f \u2018from his seed.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\n=10b.= The logical relation of the two halves of the verse is clear:\nthe state of things described by \u00b9\u2070\u1d43 shall endure _until_\u2015\u2015something\nhappens which shall inaugurate a still more glorious future. Whether\nthis event be the advent of a person\u2015\u2015an ideal Ruler\u2015\u2015who shall take\nthe sceptre out of Judah\u2019s hands, or a crisis in the fortunes of\nJudah which shall raise that tribe to the height of its destiny,\nis a question on which no final opinion can be expressed (see\nbelow).\u2015\u2015_and to him_] Either Judah, or the predicted Ruler, according\nto the interpretation of \u00b9\u2070\u1d47{\u03b1}.\u2015\u2015_obedience of peoples_] Universal\ndominion, which, however, need not be understood absolutely.\n\n The _crux_ of the passage is thus \u00b9\u2070\u1d47{\u03b1}: \u05e2\u05d3 \u05db\u05d9\u05be\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4\u200e. For a\n fuller statement of the various interpretations than is here\n possible, see Werliin, _De laudibus Jud\u00e6_, 1838 (not seen);\n Driver _The Journal of Philology_ xiv. 1\u201228 (and more briefly\n _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 410\u2012415);\n Posnanski, _Schilo Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Messiaslehre_:\n 1 Theil: _Auslegung von Genesis 49\u00b9\u2070 im Alterthume [und] bis zu\n Ende des Mittelalters_, 1904; Dillmann 462 ff.\u2015\u2015The renderings\n grammatically admissible fall into two groups, (i.) Those which\n adhere to the _textus receptus_, taking \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4\u200e as a proper noun (a)\n \u2018Until Shiloh come\u2019 (Shiloh, a name of the Messiah), the most\n obvious of all translations, first became current in versions\n and commentaries of the 16th century, largely through the\n influence of Sebastian M\u00fcnster (1534). Although the Messianic\n acceptation of the passage prevailed in Jewish circles from the\n earliest times, it attached itself either to the reading \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dc\u05b9\u05bc\u05d4\u200e (ii.\n below) or to the rendering \u2018his son\u2019 (\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05dc\u200e), or (later and more\n rarely) to \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e (\u2018gifts to him\u2019). The earliest trace (if not\n the actual origin) of Shiloh as a personal name is found in the\n following passage of the Talmud (_Sanhedrin_ 98_b_): \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d9\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\n\u200e \u05e2\u05dc\u05de\u05d0 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d5\u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05e0\u05df \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05dc\u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d7 \u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05de\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d1\u05d9 \u05e8\u05f3 \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e9\u05de\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05db\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d1\u05d0\n\u200e \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4\u200e (the words are repeated in _Echa Rabba_, with the addition\n\u200e \u05e9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1\u200e): \u201cRab said, The world was created only for the sake of\n David; but Samuel said, For the sake of Moses; but R. Yo\u1e25anan\n said, For the sake of the Messiah. What is his name? Those of\n the school of R. Shela say, Shiloh is his name, as it is said,\n \u2018Until Shiloh come.\u2019\u201d The sequel of the quotation is: \u201cThose of\n the school of R. Yannai say, Yinn\u00f4n is his name, as it is said\n (Psalms 72\u00b9\u2077), Let his name be for ever, before the sun let his\n name be perpetuated (\u05d9\u05b4\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e). Those of the school of R. \u1e24aninah say,\n \u1e24an\u00een\u0101h is his name, as it is said (Jeremiah 16\u00b9\u00b3), For I will\n give you no favour (\u05d7\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e). And some say Menahem is his name, \u2666as\n it is said (Lamentations 1\u00b9\u2076), For comforter (\u05de\u05b0\u05e0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b5\u05dd\u200e) and restorer\n of my soul is far from me. And our Rabbis say, The leprous one\n of the school of Rabbi is his name, as it is said (Isaiah 53\u2074),\n Surely our sicknesses he hath borne, and our pains he hath\n carried them, though we did esteem him stricken (_sc._ with\n leprosy), smitten of God, and afflicted.\u201d Now there is nothing\n here to suggest that Shiloh was already a current designation\n of the Messiah any more than, _e.g._, the verb \u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05df in Psalms 72\u00b9\u2077\n can have been a Messianic title. Yet, as Driver says, it is\n \u201cin this doubtful company that Shiloh is first cited as a name\n of the Messiah, though we do not learn how the word was read,\n or what it was imagined to signify.\u201d Subsequently Shiloh as a\n personal name appears in lists of Messianic titles of the 11th\n century (Posnanski, 40), and it is so used (alongside of the\n interpretation \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e) by Samuel of Russia (1124). Partly from this\n lack of traditional authority, and partly from the impossibility\n of finding a significant etymology for the word (_v.i._),\n this explanation is now universally abandoned.\u2015\u2015(b) \u2018Until he\n [Judah] come to Shiloh\u2019 (Herder, Ewald, Delitzsch, Dillmann\n [hesitatingly], al.). This is grammatically unexceptionable\n (compare 1 Samuel 4\u00b9\u00b2), and has in its favour the fact that\n\u200e \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4\u200e (\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e, \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e [originally \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e]) everywhere in Old Testament is\n the name of the central Ephraimite sanctuary in the age of\n the Judges (Joshua 18\u00b9 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, 1 Samuel 1\u20124 etc.). At the great\n gathering of the tribes at Shiloh, where the final partition\n of the land took place (Joshua 18 f.), Judah is imagined to\n have laid down the military leadership which had belonged to\n it during the wars of conquest; so that the prophecy marks the\n termination of that troubled period of the national life. But\n all this is unhistorical. The account in Joshua 18 belongs to\n the later idealisation of the conquest of Canaan; there is no\n evidence that Judah ever went to Shiloh, and none of a military\n hegemony of that tribe over the others, or of a subjugation\n of \u2018peoples\u2019 (\u00b9\u2070\u1d47{\u03b2}), until the time of David, by which\n time Shiloh had ceased to be the central sanctuary. Even if\n (with Dillmann) we abandon the reference to Joshua 18, and\n take the sense to be merely that Judah will remain in full\n warlike activity till it has conquered its own territory, it\n is difficult to see (as Dillmann himself acknowledges) how that\n consummation could be expressed by a coming to Shiloh.\u2015\u2015(c)\n The translation \u2018As long as one comes to Shiloh,\u2019 _i.e._ for\n ever (Hitzig, Tuch), gives a sense to \u05e2\u05d3 \u05db\u05d9\u200e which is barely\n defensible.\u2015\u2015(ii.) Those which follow the text underlying all\n ancient Versions except Vulgate, viz. \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dc\u05b9\u05bc\u05d4\u200e = \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e. (a) \u2018Until he\n comes to that which is his\u2019 (Orelli, Br.) involves an improbable\n use of the accusative; and it is not easy to see how Judah\u2019s\n coming to his own could be the signal for the cessation of any\n prerogatives previously enjoyed by him.\u2015\u2015(b) \u2018Until that which\n is his shall come\u2019 is a legitimate rendering; but the thought is\n open to the same objection as ii. (a).\u2015\u2015(c). The most noteworthy\n of this group of interpretations is: \u2018Until he come whose\u2019 [it\n is], _sc._ the sceptre, the kingdom, the right, etc.; _i.e._ the\n Messiah. This has the support not only of nearly all Versions,\n but of Ezekiel 21\u00b3\u00b2 (where, however, the subject \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8\u200e is\n expressed). The omission of the subject is a serious syntactic\n difficulty; and this, added to the questionable use of \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05be\u200e\n in an early and Jud\u00e6an passage, makes this widely accepted\n interpretation extremely precarious. The first objection would\n be removed if (after a suggestion of Wellhausen [see _Die\n Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen B\u00fccher des Alten\n Testaments_\u00b2 320]) we could delete the following \u05d5\u05dc\u05d5\u200e as a gloss,\n and read \u2018Until he come whose is the obedience,\u2019 etc. But\n metrical considerations preclude this, as well as the more\n drastic excision of \u05e9\u05dc\u05d4\u200e as a gloss on \u05d5\u05dc\u05d5\u200e (_ib._ 321).\u2015\u2015Of\n conjectural emendations the only one that calls for notice is\n that of Ball (followed by Gressmann), who reads \u05de\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u200e: \u2018Until his\n ruler (_i.e._ the Messiah) come.\u2019\n\n \u2666 duplicate word \u201cas\u201d removed\n\n With regard to the general scope of the verse, the question\n recurs, whether the term fixed by \u00b9\u2070\u1d47{\u03b1} is historic or ideal;\n whether, in other words, it is a prophecy of the Davidic kingdom\n or of a future Messiah. (1) The tendency of recent scholars\n has been to regard verse \u00b9\u2070 as Messianic, but interpolated\n (Wellhausen, Stade, Dillmann, Holzinger, Driver, al.), on the\n double ground that it breaks the connexion between \u2079 and \u00b9\u00b9, and\n that the idea of a personal Messiah is not older than the 8th\n century. But (apart from the question whether the subject in\n \u00b9\u00b9 \u1da0\u1427 be Judah or the Messiah) the connexion between \u2079 and \u00b9\u00b9\n is in any case not so obvious as to justify the removal of \u00b9\u2070;\n and the assumption that the figure of the Messiah is a creation\n of the literary Prophets is based more on our ignorance of the\n early religious conceptions of the Israelites than on positive\n evidence. (2) Accordingly, Gunkel (followed by Gressmann, _Der\n Ursprung der israelitisch-j\u00fcdischen Eschatologie_, 263) finds in\n the passage proof of a pre-prophetic eschatology, which looked\n forward to the advent of a Ruler who should found a world-empire,\n the point of the oracle being that till that great event\n Judah\u2019s dominion should not pass away. It is difficult, however,\n to believe that the climax of a blessing on Judah is the\n expectation of a world-ruler who takes the sceptre out of\n Judah\u2019s hands; and though a reference to a Messianic tradition\n is quite conceivable, it is probable that it is here already\n applied to the Davidic monarchy. (3) It seems to me, therefore,\n that justice is done to the terms and the tenor of the oracle\n if we regard it as a prophecy of David and his dynasty,\u2015\u2015a\n _vaticinium ex eventu_, like all the other oracles in the\n chapter. The meaning would be that Judah shall retain its\n tribal independence (see on \u00b9\u2070\u1d43) against all adversaries until\n its great hero makes it the centre of a powerful kingdom,\n and imposes his sovereignty on the neighbouring peoples. As\n for the enigmatic \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4\u200e, we may, of course, adopt the reading\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e, which is as appropriate on this view as on the directly\n Messianic interpretation. But if the oracle rests on an early\n eschatological tradition, it is just possible that \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u200e is a\n cryptic designation of the expected Ruler, which was applied\n by the poet to the person of David. Bennett (page 397) calls\n attention to the resemblance with \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e in chapter 38; and it is a\n wonder that those who recognise mythical elements in the story\n of Judah and Tamar have not thought of identifying the \u05e9\u05dc\u05d4\u200e of\n our passage with Judah\u2019s third son, of whose destiny the story\n leaves us in ignorance. Is it possible that this connexion was\n in the minds of the Jewish authorities (_v.i._), who render \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4\u200e\n \u2018his youngest son\u2019? (see Posnanski, 36\u00b3).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =10b.= \u05e2\u05d3\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4\u200e] LXX, Theodotion \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03b8\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7\n [variants \u1fa7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 ..., \u1fa7 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 ... etc.]; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n (\u2021 Syriac phrase); Vulgate _donec veniat qui mittendus est_\n (reading \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dc\u05bb\u05d7\u05b7\u200e: compare \u03a3\u03b9\u03bb\u03c9\u03ac\u03bc (\u1f43 \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f08\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2), John\n 9\u2077); Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e2\u05dc\u05de\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d3 \u05d3\u05d9\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d7\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d3\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4\u05bc \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea\u05d0\u200e; Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f\n\u200e \u05dc\u05d3 \u05d6\u05de\u05df \u05d3\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d0 \u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d7\u05d0 \u05d6\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d5\u05d9\u200e. This last curious rendering (\u2018the youngest\n of his sons\u2019) is followed by Kimchi and others; and apparently\n rests on a misunderstanding of \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05dc\u05b0\u05d9\u05b8\u05ea\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc\u200e (\u2018afterbirth\u2019) in\n Deuteronomy 28\u2075\u2077 (Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d6\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e0\u05d4\u05d0\u200e).\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05d3 \u05db\u05d9\u05be\u200e] Only here with\n imperfect. With perfect (26\u00b9\u00b3 41\u2074\u2079, 2 Samuel 23\u00b9\u2070) it always\n marks a limit in the past (\u2018until\u2019); but \u05e2\u05b7\u05d3\u200e alone sometimes\n means \u2018while,\u2019 both with perfect and imperfect (1 Samuel 14\u00b9\u2079,\n Psalms 141\u00b9\u2070), and so \u05e2\u05b7\u05d3 \u05e9\u05b6\u05be\u200e (Canticles 1\u00b9\u00b2), \u05e2\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d0\u200e (Proverbs 8\u00b2\u2076),\n and \u05e2\u05d3 \u05d0\u05e9\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d0\u200e (Ecclesiastes 12\u00b9\u1427 \u00b2\u1427 \u2076): see Brown-Driver-Briggs,\n page 725 a. The translation \u2018as long as\u2019 is thus perhaps not\n altogether impossible, though very improbable.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4\u200e] MSS\n and _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05e9\u05dc\u05d4\u200e, probably\n the original text. The _scriptio plena_ may have no better\n foundation than the common Jewish interpretation \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e, \u2018his\n son,\u2019\u2015\u2015an impossible etymology, since there is no such word as\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dc\u200e in Hebrew, and the two forms which appear to have suggested\n it (viz., New Hebrew \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05dc\u200e = \u2018f\u0153tus\u2019 and \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05dc\u05b0\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4\u200e = \u2018afterbirth\u2019\n [Deuteronomy 28\u2075\u2077\u2020]) are obviously superficial and fallacious\n analogies. The Massoretic vocalisation is therefore open to\n question, and we are free to try any pronunciation of the\n _Keth\u00eeb_ \u05e9\u05dc\u05d4\u200e which promises a solution of the exegetical riddle\n with which we are confronted. In spite of the unanimity of the\n Versions, the pointing \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dc\u05b9\u05bc\u05d4\u200e is suspicious for the reasons given\n above,\u2015\u2015the presence of\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u200e in an early document, and the want\n of a subject in the relative sentence. On the other hand, the\n attempts to connect the word with \u221a \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05d4\u200e, \u2018be quiet,\u2019 are all\n more or less dubious. (a) There is no complete parallel in\n Hebrew to a noun like \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u200e from a \u05dc\u05f4\u05d4\u200e root. If it be of the type\n _q\u00eet\u00f4l_, the regular form would be \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d9\u200e; although K\u00f6nig (ii. page\n 147) argues that as we find \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05db\u05b6\u05d4\u200e alongside of \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05db\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, so we might have\n a \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u200e alongside of \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d9\u200e. Again, if _\u00f4_ be an apocopated form of\n the nominal termination _\u00f4n_, the \u221a would naturally be not \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05d4\u200e\n but \u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05dc\u200e (in Arabic = \u2018flow,\u2019 whence _seil_, \u2018a torrent\u2019) or \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05dc\u200e.\n It is true there are a few examples of _un_apocopated nouns of\n this type from \u05dc\u05f4\u05d4\u200e verbs (\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u05b4\u05e6\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e, \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e, [Ezekiel 40\u00b9\u2075?], \u05d4\u05b5\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e [Genesis\n 3\u00b9\u2076\u2020\u2015\u2015probably an error for the regular \u200f\u05d4\u05b5\u05e8\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e\u200e, Hosea 9\u00b9\u00b9, Ruth\n 4\u00b9\u00b3\u2020]); and the possibility of deriving the form in _\u00f4_ from\n a root of this kind cannot be absolutely excluded (compare \u05d0\u05b2\u05d1\u05b7\u05d3\u05b9\u05bc\u05d4\u200e\n with \u05d0\u05b2\u05d1\u05b7\u05d3\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e). (b) But even if these philological difficulties could\n be removed, there remains the objection that \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05d4\u200e (as contrasted\n with \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05dd\u200e) is in Old Testament at most a negative word, denoting\n mere tranquillity rather than full and positive prosperity,\n and is often used of the careless worldly ease of the ungodly.\n For all these reasons it is difficult to acquiesce in the view\n that \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u200e can be a designation of the Messiah as the _Peaceful_\n or the _Pacifier_; while to change the pointing and render\n till tranquillity (\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dc\u05b6\u05d4\u200e) \u2018come,\u2019 is exposed to the additional\n objection that the \u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e of the following line is left without an\n antecedent.\u2015\u2015\u05d9\u05e7\u05bc\u05d4\u05ea\u200e] (Proverbs 30\u00b9\u2077\u2020) _Dagesh forte dirimens_. The\n \u221a appears in Arabic _wa\u1e33iha_, \u2018be obedient\u2019; Sabaean \u05d5\u05e7\u05d4\u200e. That\n a verb (\u05d9\u05b4\u05e7\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05b2\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u200e, \u05d9\u05b4\u05e7\u05b8\u05bc\u05d5\u05d5\u05bc\u200e?) would be more natural (Ball) is not apparent;\n the verbs in Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f paraphrase the sense given\n above. The \u221a was evidently not understood by LXX, Theodotion\n (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1), Vulgate (_expectatio_), Aquila (\u03c3\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1), Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n (\u2021 Syriac word) all of which probably derived from \u221a \u05e7\u05b7\u05d5\u05b7\u05d4\u200e (Aquila\n from \u221a \u05e7\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, II.: Brown-Driver-Briggs).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=11, 12.= As usually understood, the verses give a highly coloured\npicture of Jud\u00e6an life after the conquest, in a land where vines\nare so common that they are used for tethering the ass, and wine\nso abundant that garments are washed in it. As a description of the\nvine-culture for which Judah was famous, the hyperbole is perhaps\nextreme; and Gressmann (_l.c._ 287) takes the subject to be not\nthe personified tribe, but the Ruler of verse \u00b9\u2070, the verses being\na prediction of the ideal felicity to be introduced by his reign.\nWhether this be the original sense of the passage or not is hard to\ndecide; but Gressman is doubtless right in thinking that it supplied\nthe imagery for the well-known picture of the Messianic king in\nZechariah 9\u2079.\u2015\u2015=12.= LXX, Vulgate take the adjectives as comparatives:\n\u2018brighter than wine (_v.i._) ... whiter than milk\u2019: but this is less\nnatural.\n\n The section on Judah lacks the unity of the first two oracles,\n and is very probably composed of strophes of diverse origin\n and date. Verse \u2078 opens with a play on the name, like verses\n \u00b9\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2079, while verse \u2079 starts afresh with an animal comparison,\n like verses \u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2077\u1427 \u00b2\u2077 (see Introductory Note, page 510). The\n impression of discontinuity is partly confirmed by the poetic\n form; verse \u2078 being an irregular tristich, and the remainder a\n series of 7 perfect trimeter distichs. The dekastich \u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b9\u00b2 seems\n distinct from what precedes (note the repetition of the name\n in \u00b9\u2070), but is itself a unity. The proposal to remove verse \u00b9\u2070\n as a late Messianic interpolation, and to make verse \u00b9\u00b9 the\n continuation of verse \u2079, does not commend itself; and the\n excision of the third line in verse \u00b9\u2070 (Meier, Fripp) merely\n avoids an exegetical difficulty by sacrificing the strophic\n arrangement.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =11.= \u05d0\u05e1\u05e8\u05d9\u200e] with archaic case-ending: compare \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u200e below, and\n perhaps \u05d7\u05db\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u200e in verse \u00b9\u00b2.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05c2\u05e8\u05b5\u05e7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd = \u05e9\u05c2\u05e8\u05b5\u05e7\u200e, Isaiah\n 5\u00b2, Jeremiah 2\u00b2\u00b9 [\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05b9\u05e7\u200e, Isaiah 16\u2078]; probably from the _red_\n colour of the best grapes.\u2015\u2015\u05e1\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_ \u05db\u05e1\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4\u200e, \u2018covering\u2019 (Exodus 21\u00b9\u2070 etc.). \u05e1\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea\u200e\n\u200e (\u221a \u05e1\u05b8\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4\u200e?) does not occur elsewhere.\u2015\u2015=12.= \u05d7\u05db\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u200e] In Proverbs 23\u00b2\u2079\n\u200e \u05d7\u05b7\u05db\u05b0\u05dc\u05b4\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea \u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e means \u2018_dulness_ of eyes,\u2019 the effect of excessive\n drinking. This is the only sense justified by etymology\n (Assyrian _ak\u00e2lu_, \u2018be gloomy\u2019; Arabic _\u1e25akala_, IV, \u2018be\n confused\u2019: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ \u05d7\u05db\u05dc\u200e), and must be\n retained here, although, of course, it does not imply reproach,\n any more than \u05e9\u05c1\u05db\u05e8\u200e in 43\u00b3\u2074. LXX \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9[\u03bf\u03af], \u2018glad-eyed\u2019; and\n similarly Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=13\u201215. Zebulun and Issachar.=\n\n \u00b9\u00b3 Zebulun shall dwell by the shore of the sea,\n And ... shore of ships (?),\n And his flank is on \u1e92idon.\n\n \u00b9\u2074 Issachar is a bony ass\n Crouching between the panniers (?):\n \u00b9\u2075 And he saw that rest was good,\n And that the land was sweet;\n So he bent his shoulder to bear,\n And became a labouring drudge.\n\n=13.= _shall dwell_] An allusion to the etymology in 30\u00b2\u2070. It is\nplausibly conjectured that \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05df\u200e has been substituted by mistake\nfor the original \u05d9\u05b4\u05d6\u05b0\u05d1\u05b9\u05bc\u05dc\u200e (Gunkel al.).\u2015\u2015The second and third lines are\nunintelligible, and the text is probably corrupt. The comparison\nof Zebulun to a recumbent animal, with \u2018itself\u2019 (\u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u200e) towards the\nsea-coast, and its hind-parts towards \u1e92idon (Dillmann, Gunkel, al.),\nis unsatisfying and almost grotesque. Deuteronomy 33\u00b9\u2079\u1d47 shows that\nit is the advantageousness of Zebulun\u2019s geographical position which\nis here celebrated.\u2015\u2015_\u1e92\u00eed\u00f4n_] may be a name for Ph\u0153nicia, in whose\ncommercial pursuits it has been surmised that Zebulun became more and\nmore involved (Stade, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 171).\u2015\u2015=14.=\n_bony_] _i.e._ strong-limbed. Issachar had strength enough, but\npreferred ease to exertion.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05ea\u05b8\u05bd\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e] The common interpretation\n\u2018sheep-pens\u2019 has no appropriateness here, and may be a conjecture\nbased on Judges 5\u00b9\u2076. Equally unsuitable are the renderings of the old\nVersions (\u2018boundaries,\u2019 etc.), and the \u2018fire-places\u2019 or \u2018ash-heaps\u2019\nwhich the Hebrew etymology would suggest. The form is dual, and one\nnaturally thinks of the \u2018panniers\u2019 carried by the ass (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=15.=\n\u200e\u05de\u05b0\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e] A technical term for the settled, as contrasted with the nomadic,\nlife (Gunkel).\u2015\u2015_a labouring drudge_] literally \u2018became a toiling\nlabour-gang\u2019; compare Joshua 16\u00b9\u2070. \u05de\u05b7\u05e1\u200e is a levy raised under the\nsystem of forced labour (_corv\u00e9e_). That a Hebrew tribe should submit\nto this indignity was a shameful reversal of the normal relations\nbetween Israel and the Canaanites (Joshua 16\u00b9\u2070 17\u00b9\u00b3 [= Judges 1\u00b2\u2078],\nJudges 1\u00b3\u2070\u1427 \u00b3\u00b3\u1427 \u00b3\u2075).\n\n The two northern Leah-tribes found a settlement in Lower Galilee,\n where they mingled with the Canaanite inhabitants. According to\n Joshua 19\u00b9\u2070\u207b\u00b9\u2076, Zebulun occupied the hills north of the Great\n Plain, being cut off from the sea both by Asher and by the strip\n of Ph\u0153nician coast. We must therefore suppose that the tribal\n boundaries fluctuated greatly in early times, and that at the\n date of the poem Zebulun had access at some point to the sea.\n The almost identical description on Judges 5\u00b9\u2077 is considered by\n Gunkel to have been transferred from Zebulun to Asher,\u2015\u2015a view\n which, if it can be substantiated, affords a reliable criterion\n of the relative dates of the two oracles. The district of\n Issachar seems to have been between the Great Plain and the\n Jordan, including the Vale of Jezreel,\u2015\u2015a position in which\n it was peculiarly difficult for a Hebrew tribe to maintain its\n independence. The tribe is not even mentioned in the survey of\n Judges 1, as if it had ceased to be part of Israel. Yet both it\n and Zebulun had played a gallant part in the wars of the Judges\n (Judges 4\u2076\u1427 \u00b9\u2070 5\u00b9\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2078 6\u00b3\u2075 5\u00b9\u2075). The absence of any allusion to\n these exploits lends colour to the view that this part of the\n poem is of older date than the Song of Deborah.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =13.= \u05d7\u05d5\u05e3 \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] Judges 5\u00b9\u2077; compare \u05d7\u05f3 \u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, Deuteronomy 1\u2077, Joshua 9\u00b9,\n Jeremiah 47\u2077, Ezekiel 25\u00b9\u2076\u2020: \u05d7\u05d5\u05e3\u200e is never found with any other\n genitive except in the next line.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e] One is tempted to\n construe prosaically thus: \u2018And _that_ a shore for ships, with\n its flank on \u1e92idon\u2019; but this would entail elision of \u05dc\u05b0\u200e, to\n the detriment of the rhythm: besides, the repetition of \u05d7\u05d5\u05e3\u200e\n and the unique combination \u05d7\u05f3 \u05d0\u05e0\u05d9\u05bc\u05ea\u200e are suspicious. Ball reads\n\u200e \u05d9\u05d2\u05d5\u05e8\u200e for \u05dc\u05d7\u05d5\u05e3\u200e (after Judges 5\u00b9\u2077), and deletes the last line.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05dc\u200e]\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f \u05e2\u034f\u05d3\u200e.\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05d7\u05de\u05e8 \u05d2\u05e8\u05dd\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d7\u05f3 \u05d2\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u2018ass of sojourners\u2019 (unless\n\u200e \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e be an adjective from \u05d2\u05e8\u05dd\u200e). LXX \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd (= \u05d7\u05b8\u05de\u05b6\u05d3 \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05dd\u200e:\n Ginsburg, _Introduction of the Massoretico-critical edition of\n the Hebrew Bible_ page 254); Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac phrase), Aquila\n and Vulgate support on the whole Massoretic Text.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd\u200e]\n Judges 5\u00b9\u2076\u2020, but compare Psalms 68\u00b9\u2074. The three passives are\n somehow interrelated, although no sense will suit them all.\n Versions mostly render \u2018territories,\u2019 or something equivalent,\n both here and in Judges. But the \u03b4\u03b9\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 of LXX in Judges (see\n Schleusner) is noteworthy, and shows that the rendering above\n has some show of authority. So the late Gr\u00e6cus-Venetus \u1f21\u03bc\u03b9\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1.\n For the rest, see Moore on Judges 5\u00b9\u2076.\u2015\u2015=15.= \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05de\u05e1 \u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u200e] LXX \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2\n (Ginsburg, _l.c._).\u2015\u2015On \u05de\u05e1\u200e, see Brown-Driver-Briggs, and Moore,\n _Judges_ page 47.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=16\u201221. Dan, Gad, Asher, and Naphtali.=\n\n \u00b9\u2076 Dan shall judge his people,\n As one of the tribes of Israel.\n \u00b9\u2077 Be Dan a serpent on the way,\n A horned snake on the path,\n That bites the hoofs of the horse,\n And the rider tumbles backwards!\n\n \u00b9\u2078 [I wait for thy salvation, Yahwe!]\n\n \u00b9\u2079 Gad\u2015\u2015raiders shall raid him,\n But he shall raid their rear!\n\n \u00b2\u2070 Asher\u2015\u2015his bread shall be fat,\n And he shall yield dainties for kings.\n\n \u00b2\u00b9 Naphtali is a branching terebinth (?)\n Producing comely tops (?).\n\n=16.= _D\u00e2n ... judge_] See on 30\u2076.\u2015\u2015_his people_] Not Israel, but\nhis own tribesmen. The meaning is not that Dan will produce a judge\n(Samson) as well as the other tribes (Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f), nor\nthat he will champion the national cause (Ewald, Delitzsch, Dillmann,\nal.); but that he will successfully assert an equal status with the\nother tribes. Note that in Judges 18\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2079 the Danites are spoken of\nas a \u2018clan\u2019 (\u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e).\u2015\u2015=17.= The little snake, concealed by the wayside,\nmay unhorse the rider as effectually as a fully armed antagonist: by\nsuch insidious, but not ignoble, warfare Dan in spite of his weakness\nmay succeed.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05e4\u05b9\u05df\u200e] \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd is probably the _cerastes cornutus_,\nwhose habits are here accurately described (see Driver, and Tristram,\n_The Natural History of the Bible_, 274).\u2015\u2015=18.= An interpolation,\nmarking (as nearly as possible) the middle of the poem (so Olshausen,\nBall, Sievers, al.). The attempts to defend its genuineness as a\nsigh of exhaustion on Jacob\u2019s part, or an utterance of the nation\u2019s\ndependence on Yahwe\u2019s help in such unequal conflicts as those\npredicted for Dan, are inept.\u2015\u2015Dan was one of the weakest of the\ntribes, and perhaps the latest to secure a permanent settlement\n(Judges 1\u00b3\u2074 \u1da0\u1427, Joshua 19\u2074\u2077, Judges 18). Its migration northward, and\nconquest of Laish, must have taken place early in what is known as\nthe Judges\u2019 period; and is apparently presupposed here and in Judges\n5\u00b9\u2077.\u2015\u2015=19.= Strictly: \u2018A marauding band shall attack him, but he shall\nattack their heel\u2019 (reading \u05e2\u05b2\u05e7\u05b5\u05d1\u05b4\u05dd\u200e, _v.i._); _i.e._, press upon them\nin their flight. The marauders are the warlike peoples to the East,\nspecially the Ammonites (1 Chronicles 5\u00b9\u2078 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427, Judges 10 f.), who at\na later time dispossessed the tribe (Jeremiah 49\u00b9). As yet, however,\nGad maintains its martial character (compare 1 Chronicles 12\u2078\u207b\u00b9\u2075),\nand more than holds its own.\u2015\u2015=20.= Asher settled in the fertile strip\nalong the coast, North of Carmel. The name occurs as a designation\nof Western Galilee in Egyptian inscriptions of the time of Seti\nand Ramses II. (see M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa nach alt\u00e4gyptischen\nDenkm\u00e4lern_, 236 ff.).\u2015\u2015_fat_] Probably an allusion to the\noil (Deuteronomy 33\u00b2\u2074) for which the region was, and still is,\nfamous.\u2015\u2015_royal dainties_] fit for the tables of Ph\u0153nician kings\n(compare Ezekiel 27\u00b9\u2077).\u2015\u2015=21.= The verse on Naphtali is ambiguous.\nInstead of \u05d0\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u2018hind,\u2019 many moderns read \u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e (\u2018a spreading terebinth\u2019).\nThe following clause: \u2018giving fair speeches,\u2019 suits neither image; on\nthe one view it is proposed to read \u2018yielding goodly lambs\u2019 (\u05d0\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9\u200e), on\nthe other \u2018producing goodly shoots\u2019 (\u05d0\u05b2\u05de\u05b4\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9\u200e). No certain conclusion can\nbe arrived at.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =17.= \u05e9\u05e4\u05d9\u05e4\u05df\u200e LXX \u1f10\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, taking the \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd as an\n adjective.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05e4\u05dc\u200e Ball \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05e4\u05b5\u05bc\u05dc\u200e (after Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word)).\u2015\u2015=19.=\n\u200e \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u200e] The name is here (otherwise than 30\u00b9\u00b9) connected with \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05d3\u200e,\n \u2018band\u2019 (1 Samuel 30\u2078\u1427 \u00b9\u2075\u1427 \u00b2\u00b3, 1 Kings 11\u00b2\u2074, 2 Kings 5\u00b2 6\u00b2\u00b3 etc.),\n and with \u221a \u05d2\u05d5\u05d3\u200e, \u2018assail\u2019 (Habakkuk 3\u00b9\u2076, Psalms 94\u00b2\u00b9\u2020).\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1\u200e] Read\n\u200e \u05e2\u05e7\u05d1\u05b8\u05dd\u200e, taking the \u05dd\u200e from the beginning of verse \u00b2\u2070.\u2015\u2015=20.= \u05de\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u200e]\n Read with LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Vulgate \u05d0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05e8\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05e9\u05de\u05df\u200e.\u2015\u2015=21.= \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d7\u05d4\u200e] So Aquila,\n Vulgate (Jerome, _Qu\u00e6stiones sive Traditiones hebraic\u00e6 in\n Genesim_). Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 and Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f probably had the\n same text, but render \u2018a swift messenger.\u2019 On Jerome\u2019s _ager\n irriguus_ (_Qu\u00e6stiones sive Traditiones hebraic\u00e6 in Genesim_)\n and its Rabbinical parallels, see Rahmer, _Die Hebr\u00e4ischen\n Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus_ page 55. LXX \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2\n seems to imply \u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e; but Ball dissents.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05e0\u05ea\u05df\u200e] After either \u05d0\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e\n or \u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u05e0\u05b9\u05ea\u05b0\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e would be better.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9\u200e] \u2018words,\u2019 is unsuitable, and\n caused Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 and Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f to change the metaphor to\n that of a messenger. An allusion to the eloquence of the tribe\n is out of place in the connexion. The reading \u05d0\u05b2\u05de\u05b4\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9\u200e, \u2018topmost\n boughs,\u2019 has but doubtful support in Isaiah 17\u2076 (see the\n commentary). \u05d0\u05b4\u05de\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e, \u2018lamb,\u2019 is not Hebrew, but is found in Assyrian,\n Ph\u0153nician, Aramaic, and Arabic. LXX \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 is traced by\n Ball to \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05e4\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e; but?\u2015\u2015\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e4\u05b6\u05e8\u200e] \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\u2015\u2015Ball argues ingeniously,\n but unconvincingly, that \u05d0\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e belongs to verse \u00b2\u00b2, and that the\n\u200e \u05e4\u05e8\u05ea\u200e of that verse stood originally in \u00b2\u00b9. His amended text reads:\n\n\u200e \u05e0\u05e4\u05ea\u05dc\u05d9 \u05e4\u05b9\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05ea \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05dc\u05bb\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e\n\u200e \u05d4\u05e0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e4\u05e8\u200e\n\n _Naphtali is a branching vine,_\n _That yieldeth comely fruit._\n\n * * * * *\n\n=22\u201226. Joseph.=\n\n \u00b2\u00b2 A fruitful bough (?) is Joseph\u2015\u2015\n A fruitful bough by a well (?).\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u00b2\u00b3 And ... dealt bitterly with him,\n And the archers harassed him sorely.\n \u00b2\u2074 Yet his bow abode unmoved,\n And nimble were the arms of his hands.\n Through the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob,\n Through the \u2e22name\u2e23 of the Shepherd of the Israel-Stone,\n \u00b2\u2075 Through thy father\u2019s God\u2015\u2015may he help thee!\n And El Shaddai\u2015\u2015may he bless thee!\n Blessings of heaven above,\n Blessings of T\u0115h\u00f4m \u2e22 \u2e23 beneath,\n Blessings of breast and womb,\n \u00b2\u2076 Blessings of ... (?),\n Blessings of the eternal, \u2e22mountains\u2e23,\n \u2e22Produce\u2e23 of the everlasting hills\u2015\u2015\n Be on the head of Joseph,\n And on the crown of the consecrated one of his brethren.\n\n The section is full of obscurities, and the text frequently\n quite untranslatable. Its integrity has naturally not passed\n unquestioned. We may distinguish four stages in the unfolding of\n the theme: (1) The opening tristich (\u00b2\u00b2), celebrating (as far as\n can be made out) the populousness and prosperity of the central\n double-tribe. (2) Joseph\u2019s contest with the \u2018archers\u2019 (\u00b2\u00b3\u1427 \u00b2\u2074\u1d43).\n (3) A fourfold invocation of the Deity (\u00b2\u2074\u1d47\u1427 \u00b2\u2075\u1d43{\u03b1\u03b2}). (4)\n The blessing proper (\u00b2\u2076\u1d43{\u03b3\u03b4}\u1d47\u1427 \u00b2\u2076), which closely resembles\n the corresponding part of the Blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy\n 33\u00b9\u00b3\u207b\u00b9\u2076), the two being probably variants of a common original.\n Meyer (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 282 ff.)\n accepts (1), (2), and (4) as genuine, but rejects (3) as a\n later addition, which has displaced the original transition\n from the conflict to the blessing. Fripp (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die\n alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi. 262 ff.) would remove\n (3) and (4) (\u00b2\u2074\u1d47\u207b\u00b2\u2076), which he holds to have been inserted by\n an Ephraimite editor from Deuteronomy 33: Holzinger seems in the\n main to agree. Sievers also (II. 362) questions the genuineness\n of \u00b2\u2074\u1d47\u207b\u00b2\u2076 on metrical grounds. But we may admit the northern\n origin of some of the verses, and the resemblance to Deuteronomy\n 33, and even a difference of metre, and still hold that the\n whole belongs to the earliest literary recension of the Song to\n which we have access. The warm enthusiasm of the eulogy, and the\n generous recognition of Joseph\u2019s services to the national cause,\n are no doubt remarkable in a Jud\u00e6an document; but such a tone\n is not unintelligible in the time of David, when the unity of\n the empire had to be maintained by a friendly and conciliatory\n attitude to the high-spirited central tribes.\n\n=22.= On the ordinary but highly questionable rendering, the image\nis that of a young thriving vine planted by a fountain and thus well\nsupplied with water, whose tendrils extend over the wall.\u2015\u2015_a fruitful\nbough_] Or \u2018A young fruit-tree\u2019: literally \u2018son of a fruitful [tree\u2019\nor \u2018vine\u2019]. There is probably an etymological allusion to Ephraim (\u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05ea\u200e\n\u200e= \u05d0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05ea\u200e: Wellhausen).\u2015\u2015=23, 24.= The figure is abruptly changed: Joseph\nis now represented as beset by troops of archers, whose attack he\nrepels.\u2015\u2015_dealt bitterly ..._] The following word \u05d5\u05b8\u05e8\u05b9\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u200e requires some\namendment of text (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=24.= _abode unmoved_] or \u2018constant.\u2019\nTaken with the next line, this suggests a fine picture: the bow held\nsteadily in position, while the hand that discharges the arrows in\nquick succession moves nimbly to and fro (Gunkel). The expressions,\nhowever, are peculiar, and a different reading of the second\nline given in some Versions is approved by several scholars\n(_v.i._).\u2015\u2015_Strong One of Jacob_] A poetic title of Yahwe, recurring\nIsaiah 49\u00b2\u2076 60\u00b9\u2076, Psalms 132\u00b2\u1427 \u2075, and (with Israel for Jacob) Isaiah\n1\u00b2\u2074. See, further, the footnote below.\u2015\u2015_Through the name_] \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b5\u05bc\u05c1\u05dd\u200e,\nthe reading of Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 and Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2, though not entirely\nsatisfactory, is at least preferable to the meaningless \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05dd\u200e of\nMassoretic Text.\u2015\u2015_the Shepherd of the Israel-Stone_] A second\ndesignation of Yahwe as the Guardian of the Stone of Israel,\u2015\u2015either\nthe sacred stone of Bethel, or (better) that of Shechem (Joshua\n24\u00b2\u2076 \u1da0\u1427), which was the religious rendezvous of the tribes in\nearly times (see page 416): so Luther, _Die Israeliten und ihre\nNachbarst\u00e4mme_, 284\u00b9. Both text and translation are, however,\nuncertain (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=25, 26.= The construction is ambiguous: it is\nnot clear whether the lines beginning with _Blessings_ are a series\nof accusatives depending on the \u05d5\u05b4\u05d9\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8\u05b0\u05db\u05b6\u05da\u05b8\u05bc\u200e of \u00b2\u2075\u1d43 (\u2018may he bless thee\n_with_ blessings,\u2019 etc.), or subjects to \u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05bd\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05b6\u05d9\u05df\u200e in \u00b2\u2076\u1d47. The second\nview is adopted above; but the ambiguity may be an intentional\nrefinement.\u2015\u2015=25a\u03b1\u03b2.= _\u2019\u0112l Shaddai_] For the reading, _v.i._;\nand see on 17\u00b9.\u2015\u2015=25a\u03b3\u03b4b, 26a.= The blessings, arranged in three\nparallel couplets,\u2015\u2015the first referring to the fertility of the\nsoil.\u2015\u2015_Blessings of heaven above_] Rain and dew, the cause of\nfertility (so Deuteronomy 33\u00b9\u00b3 emended).\u2015\u2015_T\u0115h\u00f4m ... beneath_]\nThe subterranean flood, whence springs and rivers are fed: see\non 1\u00b2. \u2015\u2015_Blessings of breasts and womb_] Contrast the terrible\nimprecation, Hosea 9\u00b9\u2074.\u2015\u2015=26a.= Passing over the first four words\nas absolutely unintelligible (_v.i._), we come to the third pair of\nblessings: _... of the eternal mountains ... of the everlasting hills_\n(Deuteronomy 33\u00b9\u2075, Habakkuk 3\u2076)] In what sense the mountains were\nconceived as a source of blessing is not clear,\u2015\u2015perhaps as abodes of\ndeity; compare the \u2018dew of Hermon\u2019 (Psalms 133\u00b3).\u2015\u2015The word rendered\n_produce_ is uncertain; we should expect \u2018blessings,\u2019 as LXX actually\nreads (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=26b.= _Be on the head_] as in benediction the hand\nis laid on the head (48\u00b9\u2074): compare Proverbs 10\u2076 11\u00b2\u2076.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05b0\u05d6\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05b6\u05d7\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] So\nDeuteronomy 33\u00b9\u2076. The \u05e0\u05b8\u05d6\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u200e is either the _Nazirite_\u2015\u2015one \u2018consecrated\u2019\nto God by a vow involving unshorn hair (Judges 13\u2075\u1427 \u2077 etc.)\u2015\u2015or the\n_prince_ (so only Lamentations 4\u2077). For the rendering \u2018crowned one\u2019\nthere are no examples. The second interpretation is that usually\nadopted by recent scholars; some explaining it of the Northern\nmonarchy, of which the Joseph-tribes were the chief part; though\nothers think it merely ascribes to Joseph a position of princely\nsuperiority to his brethren. The other view is taken by Sellin\n(_Beitr\u00e4ge zur israelitischen und j\u00fcdischen religionsgeschichte_ ii. 1,\n132 ff.) and Gunkel, who conceive the ancient Nazirite as a man like\nSamson, dedicated to single-handed warfare against the foes of Israel\n(compare Schwally, _Semitische Kriegsaltert\u00fcmer_, 101 ff.), and hold\nthat Joseph is so designated as being the foremost champion of the\nnational cause. The interpretation is certainly plausible; but it\nderives no support from the word \u05e7\u05b8\u05d3\u05b0\u05e7\u05b9\u05d3\u200e (\u2225 \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05c1\u200e), which is never used in\nconnexion with the Nazirite, and is quite common in other connexions\n(see Deuteronomy 33\u00b2\u2070).\n\n The opinion confidently entertained by many scholars (see\n Wellhausen, _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen\n B\u00fccher des Alten Testaments_\u00b2 321), that the Blessing of Joseph\n presupposes the divided kingdom, rests partly on this expression,\n and partly on the allusion to an arduous struggle in \u00b2\u00b3 \u1da0\u1427. But\n it is clear that neither indication is at all decisive. If \u05e0\u05b8\u05d6\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u200e\n could mean only \u2018crowned one,\u2019 we should no doubt find ourselves\n in the time of the dual monarchy. In point of fact, it never\n denotes the king, and only once \u2018princes\u2019; and we have no\n right to deny that its import is adequately explained by the\n leadership which fell to the house of Joseph in the conquest of\n Canaan (Judges 1\u00b2\u00b2 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427). Similarly, the \u2018archers\u2019 of verse \u00b2\u00b3\n _might_ be the Aram\u00e6ans of Damascus, in which case Joseph would\n be a name for the Northern kingdom as a whole; but they may as\n well be the Midianites (Judges 6 ff.) or other marauders who\n attacked central Israel between the settlement and the founding\n of the monarchy, and whose repeated and irritating incursions\n would admirably suit the terms of the description. The general\n considerations which plead for an early date are: (1) The\n analogy of the rest of the poem, some parts of which are\n earlier, and none demonstrably later, than the age of David\n or Solomon. (2) The incorporation of the blessing in a Jud\u00e6an\n work is improbable at a time when Israel was a rival kingdom.\n (3) Although Joseph sometimes stands for the Northern kingdom,\n it can hardly do so here in an enumeration of the tribes.\n Consequently it takes us back to the time when Joseph was still\n a single tribe, or when at least the separation of Ephraim and\n Manasseh was not clearly recognised: the addition in Deuteronomy\n 33\u00b9\u2077\u1d47 is instructive in this regard (see Gunkel, and Sellin,\n _l.c._ 134).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =22.= \u05d1\u05df \u05e4\u05e8\u05ea\u200e] \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05df\u200e is construct state: the rhythmic accent forbids\n the usual shortening of the vowel with Maqqeph (\u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05da\u200e).\u2015\u2015\u05e4\u05b9\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05ea\u200e]\n Contracted from \u05e4\u05b9\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05ea\u200e, \u2018fruitful\u2019 (Isaiah 17\u2076 32\u00b9\u00b2, Ezekiel\n 19\u00b9\u2070, Psalms 128\u00b3), or \u05e4\u05b9\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05ea\u200e, with archaic feminine termination.\n\u200e \u05e4\u05b9\u05bc\u05d0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u2018bough\u2019 (Ezekiel 17\u2076 31\u2075\u1427 \u2076), might be thought of, but\n would be hardly suitable as genitive after \u05d1\u05df\u200e.\u2015\u2015Down to \u05e2\u05d9\u05df\u200e\n the Versions have substantially the same text.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05e6\u05e2\u05d3\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d5\u05e8\u200e]\n defies explanation. Literally _fili\u00e6 discurrerunt super murum_\n (Vulgate). But \u05d1\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u200e = \u2018tendrils,\u2019 has no analogy; \u05e6\u05e2\u05d3\u200e means\n \u2018march\u2019 or \u2018stride,\u2019 but not \u2018extend\u2019; and the discord of number\n is harsh (notwithstanding Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 145 _k_). The\n Versions reveal early corruption of the text, without suggesting\n anything better. LXX \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (= _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e6\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u200e) \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd (= \u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05d9 \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u200e).\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac phrase).\u2015\u2015Zimmern\u2019s zodiacal theory, which\n identifies Joseph with the sign Taurus, finds two tempting\n points of contact in the consonantal text: reading \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05ea\u200e = \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e,\n \u2018juvenca,\u2019 at the beginning, and \u05e9\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u200e, \u2018ox,\u2019 at the end. But the\n reconstruction of the text on these lines, with the help of\n Deuteronomy 33\u00b9\u2077 (see _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, vii. 164\n ff.; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 399),\n has no title to respect: against it see Ball, page 116.\u2015\u2015=23.=\n\u200e \u05d5\u05b8\u05e8\u05b9\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u200e] From \u221a \u05e8\u05d1\u05d1\u200e, a by-form of \u05e8\u05d1\u05d4\u200e,\u00b9 \u2018shoot,\u2019 with intransitive\n perfect (Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 67 _m_). The simple perfect\n between two consecutive imperfects being suspicious, the\n least change demanded is \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b9\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u200e. _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_, LXX (\u1f10\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd) and Vulgate (_jurgati sunt_) read\n\u200e \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05d1\u05bb\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u200e, \u2018strove with him.\u2019 Parallelism suggests a noun as subject\n to \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05de\u05f3\u200e; we might read \u05e8\u05b7\u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u2018bowmen\u2019 (Jeremiah 50\u00b2\u2079), or (since\n the line is too short) \u05e8\u05b9\u05d1\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e7\u05b6\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05ea\u200e (21\u00b2\u2070)\u2015\u2015=24a.= LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b2\u03b7\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd [= \u05d5\u05b7\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05d1\u05b5\u05e8 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05ea\u05b8\u05df \u05e7\u05b7\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd\u200e].\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05ea\u05e9\u05d1\u200e] Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n (\u2021 Syriac word) = \u05d5\u05b7\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05bd\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d1\u200e. The sense \u2018abide\u2019 for \u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u05d1\u200e is justified\n by Leviticus 12\u2074, 1 Kings 22\u00b9, Psalms 125\u00b9, and nothing is\n gained by departing from Massoretic Text.\u2015\u2015\u05d1\u05d0\u05d9\u05ea\u05df\u200e] Literally\n \u2018as a permanent one\u2019 (\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u200e _essenti\u00e6_).\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d9\u05e4\u05d6\u05e8\u200e] 2 Samuel 6\u00b9\u2076\u2020. LXX\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word) may represent \u05d5\u05d9\u05e4\u05d6\u05e8\u05d5\u200e (see\n Ball).\u2015\u2015[LXX \u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd\u200e] \u05d6\u05e8\u05d5\u05e2\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] is a hard combination, but perhaps not\n too bold.\u2015\u2015=24b.= \u05d0\u05b2\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u200e] occurs only in the passive cited above.\n It is reasonably suspected that the Massoretic changed the\n punctuation to avoid association of ideas with \u05d0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e8\u200e, \u2018bull,\u2019 the\n idolatrous emblem of Yahwe in North Israel. Whether the name\n as applied to Yahwe be really a survival of the bull-worship of\n Bethel and Dan is another question; \u05d0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e8\u200e (strong) is an epithet\n of men (Judges 5\u00b2\u00b2, Job 24\u00b2\u00b2 34\u00b2\u2070, Jeremiah 46\u00b9\u2075, 1 Samuel 21\u2078\n etc.), and horses (Jeremiah 8\u00b9\u2076 47\u00b3 50\u00b9\u00b9) much more often than\n of bulls (Psalms 22\u00b9\u00b3 68\u00b3\u00b9 50\u00b9\u00b3, Isaiah 34\u2077), and might have\n been transferred to Yahwe in its adjective sense. On the other\n hand, the parallelism with \u2018Stone of Israel\u2019 in the next line\n favours the idea that the title is derived from the cult of the\n Bull at Bethel, which may have had a more ancient significance\n than an image of Yahwe (compare Meyer, _Die Israeliten\n und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 282 ff.; Luther, _Zeitschrift\n f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi. 70 ff.). The\n further inference (N\u00f6ldeke, Luther, Meyer) that Jacob was\n the deity originally worshipped in the bull is perhaps too\n adventurous.\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05dd\u200e] So LXX, Vulgate; but Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\n\u200e \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b5\u05bc\u05c1\u05dd\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d1\u05df \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u200e] Compare \u05e6\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e9\u05f3\u200e, 2 Samuel 23\u00b3, Isaiah 30\u00b2\u2079; also \u05d0\u05f3 \u05d4\u05b8\u05e2\u05b6\u05d6\u05b8\u05e8\u200e,\n 1 Samuel 4\u00b9 5\u00b9 7\u00b9\u00b2. The translation above agrees with Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5;\n Massoretic Text puts \u05e8\u05b9\u05e2\u05b6\u05d4\u200e in apposition with \u05d0\u05f3 \u05d9\u05f3\u200e (so Vulgate);\n LXX \u2666\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u03ae\u03bb omits \u05d0\u05d1\u05df\u200e, and may have read \u05e2\u05d6\u05e8\u200e\n (Ball). The line is too long for the metre, but \u05d0\u05d1\u05df\u200e is the one\n word that should _not_ be omitted.\u2015\u2015=25.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8\u05da ... \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05da\u200e] Compare\n Psalms 69\u00b3\u00b3, and see Ewald \u00a7 347 _a_.\u2015\u2015\u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u200e] Read with _The\n Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX (\u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2),\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e: though \u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u200e alone (Numbers 24\u2074\u1427 \u00b9\u2076) would be suitable\n in an ancient poem.\u2015\u2015\u05e8\u05d1\u05e6\u05ea\u200e] Metrically necessary in Deuteronomy\n 33\u00b9\u00b3, but here redundant; probably, therefore, a gloss from the\n other recension (Sievers).\u2015\u2015=26.= \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05da \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05ea \u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d3\u05be\u200e] There are\n two stages of corruption, one remediable, the other not. The\n last line is to be restored with LXX \u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05ea \u05d4\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e2\u05b7\u05d3\u200e, \u2018blessings of\n the eternal mountains\u2019 (Deuteronomy 33\u00b9\u2075, Habakkuk 3\u2076). But\n the first three words, though represented by all Versions, must\n be wrong; for to put \u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05ea\u200e under the regimen of \u05e2\u05dc\u200e destroys the\n parallelism, and the verb \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05bd\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u200e cuts off \u05ea\u05d4\u05d9\u05d9\u05df\u200e from its subject. What\n is obviously required is a line parallel to \u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05ea \u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e8\u05d7\u05dd\u200e. Gunkel\u2019s\n suggested emendation, though far from satisfying, is the best\n that can be proposed: \u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05ea \u05d0\u05b8\u05d1 \u05d0\u05b7\u05da\u05b0 \u05e0\u05b6\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05e8 \u05d5\u05b8\u05e2\u05bb\u05dc\u200e = \u2018Blessings of father,\n yea, man and child.\u2019\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05da\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the\n Pentateuch_, LXX + \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05da\u200e, suggested no doubt by the previous\n line.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u200e] Vulgate, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f render\n \u2018my progenitors,\u2019 by an impossible derivation from \u221a \u05d4\u05e8\u05d4\u200e,\n \u2018be pregnant.\u2019\u2015\u2015\u05ea\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u200e] English Version \u2018utmost bound\u2019 (so\n Delitzsch, from \u221a \u05ea\u05d0\u05d4\u200e or \u05ea\u05d5\u05d4\u200e; see Brown-Driver-Briggs),\n has no real philological or traditional justification.\n If the text were reliable, it might be the common word\n \u2018desire,\u2019 from \u221a \u05d0\u05d5\u05d4\u200e (LXX\u1d9c\u1d58\u02b3\u02e2\u2071\u1d5b\u1d49\u02e2, Old Latin Version, Vulgate,\n Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f), in the sense of \u2018desirable things.\u2019\n With some hesitation I follow above Olshausen, Gunkel, al.,\n reading \u05ea\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u200e after Deuteronomy 33\u00b9\u2074. But LXX\u1d2e \u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05ea\u200e has great\n weight (all the greater that the translator has lost the thread\n of the thought), and ought perhaps to be preferred.\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05d6\u05d9\u05e8\u200e] is\n not necessarily a derivative from the noun \u05e0\u05b5\u05d6\u05b8\u05e8\u200e, \u2018diadem,\u2019 = \u2018the\n crowned one\u2019; more probably it comes from the verb directly,\u2015\u2015\u05e0\u05d6\u05e8\u200e\n = \u2018dedicate\u2019 (compare \u05e0\u05d3\u05e8\u200e)\u2015\u2015which admits various shades of\n meaning. Of the Versions LXX, Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f represent the\n idea of \u2018prince\u2019 or \u2018ruler,\u2019 Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u2018the separated one,\u2019\n Vulgate, Saadya \u2018the Nazirite,\u2019 Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 \u2018the crown\u2019 (\u05e0\u05b7\u05d6\u05b8\u05e8\u200e).\n\n \u00b9 But see above on 21\u00b2\u2070.\n\n \u2666 \u201c\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u201d replaced with \u201c\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n=27. Benjamin.=\n\n \u00b2\u2077 Benjamin is a ravening wolf:\n In the morning he devours the prey,\n And at eve divides the spoil.\n\nBenjamin is praised for its predatory instincts, and its unflagging\nzest for war. The early history contains a good deal to justify the\ncomparison: its fight with Moab (Judges 3\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427), its share in the\nstruggle with the Canaanites (Judges 5\u00b9\u2074), its desperate stand against\nunited Israel (Judges 19 f.); it was famous for its skill in slinging\nand archery (Judges 20\u00b9\u2076, 1 Chronicles 8\u2074\u2070 12\u00b2, 2 Chronicles 14\u2077 17\u00b9\u2077).\nBut a special reference to the short-lived reign of Saul is probable:\nthe dividing of spoil reminds us of the king who clothed the daughters\nof Israel with scarlet and ornaments (2 Samuel 1\u00b2\u2074).\u2015\u2015The contrast\nbetween this description and the conception of Benjamin in the\nJoseph-stories is an instructive example of how tribal characteristics\nwere obscured in the biographical types evolved by the popular\nimagination.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =27.= \u05d6\u05d0\u05d1 \u05d9\u05d8\u05e8\u05b8\u05e3\u200e] Descriptive imperfect, see Davidson \u00a7 44, _R._ 3,\n \u00a7 142. On pausal _\u0101_ see Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 29 _u_.\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05d3\u200e] =\n \u2018booty,\u2019 Isaiah 33\u00b2\u00b3, Zephaniah 3\u2078 [? Isaiah 9\u2075]; LXX \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=28ab\u03b1= (to \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd\u200e) is the subscription to the poem; the remainder of\nthe verse belongs to Priestly-Code, and probably continued \u00b9\u1d43 in that\nsource.\u2015\u2015_the tribes of Israel, twelve_ in number] The division into\n12 tribes is an artificial scheme, whose origin is uncertain (see\nLuther, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi.\n33 ff.; Peters, _Early Hebrew Story_, 55 ff.). It obtained also\namongst the Edomites, Ishmaelites, and other peoples; and in Israel\nbetrays its theoretic character by the different ways in which the\nnumber was made up, of which the oldest is probably that followed in\nthe Song of Jacob. In Deuteronomy 33, Simeon is omitted, and Joseph\ndivided into Ephraim and Manasseh; in Priestly-Code (Numbers 2) Joseph\nis again divided, to the exclusion not of Simeon, but of Levi.\n\n The recently revived theory of a connexion between the original\n sayings of the Blessing and the signs of the Zodiac calls for\n a brief notice at this point. The most striking correspondences\n were set forth by Zimmern in _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, vii.\n (1892), 161 ff.; viz., Simeon and Levi = Gemini (see page 517);\n Judah = Leo, with the king-star Regulus on its breast (\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05e8\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u200e);\n and Joseph = Taurus. This last comparison, it is true, rests on\n Deuteronomy 33 rather than Genesis 49, and is only imported into\n this passage by a violent reconstruction of verse \u00b2\u00b2 (page 530).\n Other possible combinations mentioned by Zimmern are Issachar\n = Aselli (in Cancer), Dan = Serpens (North of Libra), Benjamin\n = Lupus (South of Scorpio), and Naphtali = Aries (reading\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dc\u200e for \u05d0\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e). Stucken (_Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen\n Gesellschaft_, 1902, 166 ff.), after a laboured proof\n that Reuben corresponds to Behemoth (hippopotamus), an old\n constellation now represented by Aquarius, completed the circle\n after a fashion, with the necessary addition of Dinah = Virgo\n as the missing sign; and his results are adopted by Jeremias\n (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_\u00b2, 395 ff.).\n A somewhat different arrangement is given by Winckler in\n _Altorientalische Forschungen_, iii. 465 ff. These conjectures,\n however, add little to the evidence for the theory, which must\n in the main be judged by the seven coincidences pointed out in\n Zimmern\u2019s article. That these amount to a demonstration of the\n theory cannot be affirmed; but they seem to me to go far to show\n that it contains an element of truth. It is hardly accidental\n that in each series we have one double sign (Gemini, Simeon-Levi)\n and one female personification (Virgo, Dinah), and that all\n the animal names occurring in the Song (lion, ass, serpent,\n ram?, ox?, wolf) can be more or less plausibly identified with\n constellations either in the Zodiac or sufficiently near it\n to have been counted as Zodiacal signs in early times. The\n incompleteness of the correspondence is fairly explained by two\n facts: first, that the poem has undergone many changes in the\n course of its transmission, and no longer preserves the original\n form and order of the oracles; and second, that while the\n twelve-fold division of the ecliptic goes back to the remotest\n antiquity, the traditional names of the twelve signs cannot all\n be traced to the ancient Babylonian astronomy. It may be added\n that there is no _prima facie_ objection to combinations of\n this sort. The theory does not mean that the sons of Jacob\n _are_ the earthly counterparts of the Zodiacal constellations,\n and nothing more. All that is implied is that an attempt was\n made to discover points of resemblance between the fortunes\n and characteristics of the twelve tribes on the one hand, and\n the astro-mythological system on the other. Such combinations\n were necessarily arbitrary, and it might readily happen that\n some were too unreal to live in the popular memory. Where the\n correspondence is plausible, we may expect to find that the\n characterisation of the tribe has been partly accommodated to\n the conceptions suggested by the comparison; and great caution\n will have to be observed in separating the bare historical facts\n from the mythological allusions with which they are embellished.\n In the present state of the question, it may be safely said that\n the historical interpretation must take precedence. The Zodiacal\n theory will have to be reckoned with in the interpretation of\n the Song; but it has as yet furnished no trustworthy clue either\n to the explanation of obscure details, or to the restoration of\n the text.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =28.= \u05e9\u05d1\u05d8\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u200e] LXX \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03b2.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05f3\u200e] Such a construction is\n impossible. We must either omit the relatives (Versions) or read\n\u200e \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u200e (Olshausen, Delitzsch, Kautzsch-Socin, Gunkel, al.).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n XLIX. 28b\u2012L. 26.\n _The Death and Burial of Jacob; and the Death of Joseph_\n (Priestly-Code, Yahwist, Elohist).\n\nJacob charges his sons to bury him in the family sepulchre at\nMachpelah, and expires (\u00b2\u2078\u1d47\u207b\u00b3\u00b3). Joseph causes the body to be embalmed;\nand, accompanied by his brethren and an imposing _cort\u00e8ge_, conveys\nit to its last resting-place in Canaan (50\u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u2074). He pacifies and\nreassures his brethren, who fear his vengeance now that their father\nis gone (\u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b2\u00b9). He dies in a good old age, after exacting an oath\nthat his bones shall be carried up from Egypt when the time of\ndeliverance comes (\u00b2\u00b2\u207b\u00b2\u2076).\n\n _Sources._\u2015\u201549\u00b2\u2078\u1d47{\u03b2}\u207b\u00b3\u00b3 belongs to Priestly-Code, with the\n possible exceptions of \u00b3\u00b2 (a gloss), and the clause \u00b3\u00b3\u1d43{\u03b2}; note\n the reference to chapter 23 and the identical phraseology of the\n two passages; also the expressions \u05d2\u05d5\u05e2\u200e, \u05d0\u05d7\u05d6\u05d4\u200e, \u05e0\u05d0\u05e1\u05e3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05d5\u200e (_bis_).\u2015\u2015In\n chapter 50, verses \u00b9\u00b2\u1427 \u00b9\u00b3 are from Priestly-Code (Machpelah, etc.:\n note also that the suffix in \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\u200e refers back to 49\u00b3\u00b3). Verses\n \u00b9\u207b\u00b9\u00b9\u1427 \u00b9\u2074 are mainly Yahwist (\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u200e, \u00b2; \u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d7\u05df \u05d1\u05e2\u05f3\u200e, \u2074; \u05d2\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05df\u200e, \u2078; \u05d4\u05db\u05e0\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u200e, \u00b9\u00b9:\n note the reference [\u2075 \u1da0\u1427] to Joseph\u2019s oath [47\u00b2\u2079\u207b\u00b3\u00b9]); and \u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b2\u2076\n Elohist (\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, \u00b9\u2079\u1427 \u00b2\u2070\u1427 \u00b2\u2074\u1427 \u00b2\u2075; \u05db\u05dc\u05db\u05dc\u200e, \u00b2\u00b9 [45\u00b9\u00b9 47\u00b9\u00b2]; \u05d4\u05ea\u05d7\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e0\u05d9\u200e \u00b9\u2079\n [30\u00b2]): the resemblance to 45\u2075\u1427 \u2077; and the backward reference\n in Exodus 13\u00b9\u2079, Joshua 24\u00b3\u00b2). The analysis might stop here\n (Dillmann, Wellhausen, Driver, al.); but a variant in \u00b9\u2070\n (\u00b9\u2070\u1d47 \u2225 \u00b9\u2070\u1d43{\u03b2}), and the double name of the place of burial\n suggest that there may be two accounts of the funeral (see\n Kautzsch-Socin _An._ 242). Holzinger, Gunkel, Procksch,\n however, seem to me to go too far in the attempt to establish\n a _material_ difference of representation (_e.g._, that in\n Elohist\u2019s account Joseph\u2019s brethren did not go up with him to\n the burial). Traces of Yahwist in \u00b9\u2075\u207b\u00b2\u2076 are equally\n insignificant (see the notes).\n\n=28b\u201233. Jacob\u2019s charge to his sons.=\u2015\u2015=28b\u03b2.= The sequel to \u00b9\u1d43 in\nPriestly-Code. Note the close formal parallel to 28\u00b9 (Priestly-Code):\n_And ... called ... and blessed ... and charged ... and said ...\u2015\u2015each\nwith a special blessing_] _v.i._\u2015\u2015=29, 30.= See on chapter 23.\u2015\u2015=31.=\n_Abraham and Sarah his wife_] 25\u2079 23\u00b9\u2079. The burying-place of Isaac\n(35\u00b2\u2079) is not elsewhere specified; and the burials of Rebekah and\nLeah are not recorded at all.\u2015\u2015On the possibility that the notice of\nRachel\u2019s burial (48\u2077) stood here originally, see page 504 f.\u2015\u2015=32.=\nProbably a gloss (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=33.= _drew up his feet into the bed_] The\nclause may have been inserted from Yahwist; compare 48\u00b2\u1d47.\u2015\u2015As in the\ncase of all the patriarchs except Joseph, the actual account of the\ndeath is left to Priestly-Code.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =29.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05e6\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd\u200e] LXX omits.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05e2\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e] Read \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05e2\u05b7\u05de\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u200e (compare \u00b3\u00b3): see\n on 25\u2078.\u2015\u2015=30.= For \u05d1\u05e9\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d4\u05de\u05f3\u200e, LXX has simply \u05d1\u05de\u05db\u05e4\u05dc\u05d4\u200e, and for the\n following \u05d4\u05e9\u05d3\u05d4\u200e, \u05d4\u05de\u05e2\u05e8\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015=31.= \u05e7\u05d1\u05e8\u05ea\u05d9\u200e] LXX \u05e7\u05b8\u05bd\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u200e.\u2015\u2015At the end of\n the verse Budde would add \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05e8\u05d7\u05dc\u200e as Priestly-Code\u2019s original\n statement (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_,\n iii. 82).\u2015\u2015=32.= The verse has no syntactic connexion with the\n preceding, the construction is cumbrous in the extreme, and the\n notice superfluous after \u00b3\u2070\u1d47. It should probably be deleted as\n a marginal variant to \u00b3\u2070\u1d47 (so Delitzsch, Gunkel).\u2015\u2015\u05de\u05e7\u05e0\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u05d1\u05de\u05f3\u200e.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=L. 1\u201214. The burial of Jacob.=\u2015\u2015=1.= The forms in which Joseph\u2019s\ngrief expressed itself were doubtless conventional, though they are\nnot elsewhere alluded to in Old Testament.\u2015\u2015=2.= The Egyptian practice\nof embalming originated in ideas with which the Hebrew mind had no\nsympathy,\u2015\u2015the belief that the _ka_ or ghostly double of the man might\nat any time return to take possession of the body, which consequently\nhad at all costs to be preserved (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_,\n307). In the cases of Jacob and Joseph (verse \u00b2\u2076), it is merely an\nexpedient for preserving the body till the burial could take place.\nOn the various methods employed, see Herodotus, ii. 86\u201288; Diodorus,\ni. 91; and Budge, _The Mummy_, 160 ff., 177 ff.\u2015\u2015_the physicians_]\nIn Egypt the embalmers formed a special profession.\u2015\u2015=3.= _forty days\n... seventy days_] The process of embalming occupied, according to\nDiodorus, over 30 days, according to Herodotus, 70 days; exact data\nfrom the monuments are not yet available (Erman, 315, 319 f.; Budge,\n179). The mourning for Aaron and Moses lasted 30 days (Numbers 20\u00b2\u2079,\nDeuteronomy 34\u2078); the Egyptians (who are here expressly mentioned)\nare said to have mourned for a king 72 days (Diodorus, i. 72).\u2015\u2015=4\u20126.=\nJoseph seeks Pharaoh\u2019s permission to absent himself from Egypt. Why\nhe needed the court to intercede for him in such a matter does not\nappear.\u2015\u2015=5a.= Compare 47\u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015_have digged_] The rendering \u2018have\npurchased\u2019 is possible, but much less probable (compare 2 Chronicles\n16\u00b9\u2074). The confused notice Acts 7\u00b9\u2076 might suggest a tradition that\nJacob\u2019s grave was in the plot of ground he bought near Shechem (33\u00b9\u2079\nElohist), which is the view maintained by Bruston (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\ndie alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, vii. 202 ff.). On any view the\ncontradiction to 47\u00b3\u2070 remains.\u2015\u2015=7\u20129.= The funeral procession is\ndescribed with _empressement_ as a mark of the almost royal honours\nbestowed on the patriarch. Such processions are frequently depicted\non Egyptian tombs: Erman, 320 f.; Ball, _Light from the East_,\n119 f.\u2015\u2015_horsemen_, however, never appear in them: \u201cWe have no\nrepresentations of Egyptians on horseback; and were it not for\na few literary allusions, we should not know that the subjects\nof the Pharaoh knew how to ride\u201d (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_,\n492 f.).\u2015\u2015=10, 11.= The mourning at the grave.\u2015\u2015_G\u014dren h\u0101-\u0100\u1e6d\u0101d]_\n\u2018the threshing-floor of the bramble\u2019; the locality is unknown\n(_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=11.= _\u0100b\u0113l Mi\u1e93raim_] one of several place-names compounded\nwith \u05d0\u05b8\u05d1\u05b5\u05dc\u200e = \u2018meadow\u2019 (Numbers 33\u2074\u2079, Judges 11\u00b3\u00b3, 2 Samuel 20\u00b9\u2075,\n2 Chronicles 16\u2074); here interpreted as \u05d0\u05b5\u05d1\u05dc \u05de\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05e8\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e \u2018mourning of Egypt.\u2019 The\nreal name \u2018meadow of Egypt\u2019 may have commemorated some incident of the\nEgyptian occupation of Palestine; but the situation is unknown.\u2015\u2015The\nrecord of the actual burying in Yahwist and Elohist has not been\npreserved.\n\n It is difficult to say whether _G\u014dren h\u0101-\u0100\u1e6d\u0101d_ and _\u0100b\u0113l\n Mi\u1e93raim_ are two different places, or two names for one place.\n Jerome (_Onomastica Sacra_, 85\u00b9\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427) identifies the former with\n Bethagla (= _\u201bAin \u1e24a\u01e7la_, or _\u1e32a\u1e63r \u1e24a\u01e7la_, South of Jericho\n [Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 180]), but on what\n authority we do not know. The conjecture that it was in the\n neighbourhood of Rachel\u2019s grave depends entirely on a dubious\n interpretation of 48\u2077. Since there appears to be a doublet in\n verse \u00b9\u2070 (\u00b9\u2070\u1d43{\u03b2} \u2225 \u00b9\u2070\u1d47), it is natural to suppose that one name\n belongs to Yahwist and the other to Elohist, and therefore there\n is no great presumption that the localities are identical (\u05d1\u05d2\u05f3 \u05d4\u05d0\u05f3\u200e\n in \u00b9\u00b9 may be a gloss). According to the present text, both were\n East of the Jordan (\u00b9\u2070\u1d43\u1427 \u00b9\u00b9\u1d47); but such a statement if found in\n one document would readily be transferred by a redactor to the\n other; and all we can be reasonably confident of is that one or\n other was across the Jordan, for it is almost inconceivable that\n\u200e \u05d0\u05f3 \u05d1\u05e2\u05f3 \u05d4\u05d9\u05e8\u05d3\u05df\u200e should be an interpolation in _both_ cases. Since it is\n to be assumed that in Yahwist and Elohist the place of mourning\n was also the place of burial, and since the theory of a _d\u00e9tour_\n round the Dead Sea and the East of Jordan to arrive at any\n spot in West Palestine is too extravagant to have arisen from\n a fanciful etymology, it would seem to follow that, according\n to at least one tradition, Jacob\u2019s grave was shown at some now\n unknown place East of the Jordan (Meyer, _Die Israeliten und\n ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 280 f.). Meyer\u2019s inference that Jacob was\n originally a transjordanic hero, is, however, a doubtful one;\n for the East is dotted with graves of historic personages in\n impossible places, and we have no assurance that tradition was\n more reliable in ancient times.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =2.= \u05d7\u05e0\u05d8\u200e] verse \u00b2\u2076, Canticles 2\u00b9\u00b3\u2020. Apparently a Semitic \u221a,\n meaning in Arabic \u2018become mature,\u2019 applied in Hebrew Aramaic and\n Arabic to the process of embalming.\u2015\u2015=3.= \u05d7\u05e0\u05bb\u05d8\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd;\n abstract plural. = \u2018embalming.\u2019\u2015\u2015=4.= \u05d1\u05db\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u200e] The feminine only\n here, for \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05db\u05b4\u05d9\u200e. The suffix probably genitive object (weeping _for_\n Jacob).\u2015\u2015\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05be\u05e0\u05d0\u200e] Add with LXX \u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u05b5\u05d9\u200e.\u2015\u2015=5.= \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX\u1d2c\u1427 \u1d43\u02e1\u1427 + \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u200e.\u2015\u2015\u05d4\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e0\u05db\u05d9 \u05de\u05ea\u200e] LXX\n omits. The phrase occurs in Elohist 48\u00b2\u00b9, and (without \u05d4\u05e0\u05d4\u200e)\n\u200e 50\u00b2\u2074.\u2015\u2015\u05db\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9\u200e] LXX, Vulgate, Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f \u2018have digged\u2019; Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5\n \u2018have purchased,\u2019 Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2 \u05d0\u05b7\u05ea\u05b0\u05e7\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05ea\u200e = \u2018have prepared.\u2019 The\n first sense preponderates in usage (the second, Deuteronomy 2\u2076,\n Hosea 3\u00b2, Job 6\u00b2\u2077 40\u00b3\u2070\u2020), and is here to be preferred.\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u200e]\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + \u05db\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u200e.\u2015\u2015=10.=\n\u200e \u05d0\u05d8\u05d3\u200e] The word for \u2018bramble\u2019 in Jotham\u2019s parable from Gerizim,\n Judges 9\u00b9\u2074 \u1da0\u1427 (only Psalms 58\u00b9\u2070 again). Can there be an allusion\n to the threshing-floor of this passage at Shechem?\u2015\u2015=11.= \u05d1\u05d2\u05f3 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d8\u05d3\u200e]\n Possibly a gloss from verse \u00b9\u2070. If so, \u05e9\u05de\u05d4\u05bc\u200e (_The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u200e), referring to \u05d2\u05e8\u05df\u200e (whose gender\n is uncertain), must have been substituted for \u05e9\u05dd \u05d4\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd\u200e (so Vulgate,\n Targum\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f, Gunkel).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=12, 13.= The account of the actual burial (from Priestly-Code).\u2015\u2015It\nis significant that here the Egyptians take no part in the obsequies:\nthe final redactor may have assumed that they were left behind at\nthe mourning place East of the Jordan.\u2015\u2015See further on 49\u00b2\u2079 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427.\u2015\u2015=14=\n(Yahwist). The return to Egypt.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =12.= \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d5\u200e] The suffixes find no suitable antecedents nearer than\n 49\u00b3\u00b3, the last excerpt from Priestly-Code.\u2015\u05db\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e6\u05d5\u05dd\u200e] LXX\u1d2e\u1427 \u1d43\u02e1\u1427 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f14\u03b8\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6.\u2015\u2015=13.= \u05e9\u05d3\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ae\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, and so again for\n\u200e\u200e \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05e9\u05d3\u05d4\u200e.\u2015\u2015=14.= \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u2015\u2015\u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] LXX omits.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=15\u201221. Joseph removes his brethren\u2019s fears=.\u2015\u2015The verses contain a\nvariation of the theme of 45\u2075 \u1da0\u1da0\u1427 (Gunkel), as if to emphasize the\nlesson of the whole story, that out of a base intent God brought good\nto His people.\u2015\u2015=15.= _saw_] _i.e._ \u2018realised,\u2019\u2015\u2015took in the full\nsignificance of the fact (compare 30\u00b9). If it were meant that they\n\u2018learned\u2019 for the first time that their father was dead, the inference\nwould surely be not merely that the brethren had not been present\nat the funeral (Gunkel), but that Elohist had not recorded it at\nall.\u2015\u2015=16, 17.= They send a message to Joseph, recalling a dying\nrequest of their father (not elsewhere mentioned).\u2015\u2015_the servants of\nthe God of thy father_] Religion is a stronger plea than even kinship\n(Gunkel).\u2015\u2015=18.= Compare 44\u00b9\u2076. The verse may have been inserted from\nYahwist (_v.i._).\u2015\u2015=19.= _am I in God\u2019s stead?_] (30\u00b2): to judge\nand punish at my pleasure.\u2015\u2015=20.= Compare 45\u2075\u1427 \u2077\u1427 \u2078.\u2015\u2015=21.= The\ncontinuance of the famine seems presupposed, in opposition to the\nchronology of Priestly-Code (47\u00b2\u2078).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =15.= \u05dc\u05d5\u05bc \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5\u05f3\u200e] Conditional sentence with suppressed apodosis,\n Gesenius-Kautzsch \u00a7 159 _y_.\u2015\u2015=16.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u200e] LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf,\n and Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 (\u2021 Syriac word), seem to have read \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05bc\u05d2\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u200e, which\n if correct would make the excision of verse \u00b9\u2078 from Elohist\n almost imperative (see on the verse). But the sense of \u05e6\u05b4\u05d5\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, \u2018to\n commission,\u2019 is justified by Exodus 6\u00b9\u00b3, Jeremiah 27\u2074, Esther\n 3\u00b9\u00b2 etc.; and \u05e0\u05d2\u05e9\u200e would not properly be followed by \u05dc\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e.\u2015\u2015=17.=\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u200e] a strong particle of entreaty; in Pentateuch only Exodus\n\u200e 32\u00b3\u00b9.\u2015\u2015=18.= \u05d2\u05dd\u2015\u2015\u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\u200e] LXX omits.\u2015\u2015For \u05d5\u05d9\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u200e, Ball (after Vatke)\n reads \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u200e, which would give point to the following \u05d2\u05dd\u200e. But the\n change is not necessary: \u05d5\u05d9\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u200e would mean \u2018they went away\u2019 only\n if they had previously been present. That certainly seems\n implied in \u00b9\u2077\u1d47 (apart from the reading of LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 in \u00b9\u2076);\n and hence there is much to be said for assigning verse \u00b9\u2078 to\n Yahwist (Dillmann, Holzinger, Procksch).\u2015\u2015=19b.= LXX reads\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03af.\u2015\u2015=20.= \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_ \u05d5\u05d4\u05d0\u05f3\u200e: LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5, Vulgate also have the\n copula.\u2015\u2015=21.= \u05d5\u05e2\u05ea\u05d4\u200e] LXX \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=22\u201226. Joseph\u2019s old age and death.=\u2015\u2015=22.= _a hundred and ten years_]\nCompare Joshua 24\u00b2\u2079. It is hardly a mere coincidence, but rather\nan instance of the Egyptian affinities of the narrative, that 110\nyears is at least three times spoken of as an ideal lifetime in\nEgyptian writings (Stern, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr \u00c4gyptische Sprache\nund Altertumskunde_, 1873, 75 f.).\u2015\u2015=23.= Joseph lived to see his\ngreat-grandchildren by both his sons,\u2015\u2015another token of a life\ncrowned with blessing (Psalms 128\u2076, Proverbs 13\u00b2\u00b2 17\u2076 etc.). The\nexpressions used of Ephraim\u2019s descendants are somewhat difficult\n(_v.i._).\u2015\u2015_M\u0101k\u00eer_] the most powerful clan of Manasseh, in the Song\nof Deborah (Judges 5\u00b9\u2074) numbered among the tribes of Israel, and\npossibly therefore an older unit than Manasseh itself (see Meyer,\n_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, 507, 516 f.).\u2015\u2015The expression\n_born on Joseph\u2019s knees_ implies the adoption of Machir\u2019s sons by\nJoseph (see on 30\u00b3), though the action does not seem to have any\ntribal significance.\u2015\u2015=24, 25.= Joseph predicts the Exodus (as did\nJacob, 48\u00b2\u00b9), and directs his bones to be carried to Canaan. For the\nfulfilment of the wish, see Exodus 13\u00b9\u2079, Joshua 24\u00b3\u00b2.\u2015\u2015_his brethren_\nare here the Israelites as a whole (verse \u00b2\u2075).\u2015\u2015=26.= The death of\nJoseph.\u2015\u2015_in a coffin_] or mummy-case, the wooden inner shell, shaped\nlike the mummy, which was placed in the stone sarcophagus (see Erman,\n_Life in Ancient Egypt_, 315 f.; Ball, _Light from the East_, 121). A\nmythological allusion to the \u2018coffin\u2019 of Osiris (V\u00f6lter, 55) is not to\nbe thought of.\n\n * * *\n\n\u201cThis \u2018coffin in Egypt,\u2019\u201d remarks Delitzsch, \u201cis the coffin of all\nIsrael\u2019s spiritual satisfaction in Egypt.\u201d Gunkel shows sounder\njudgement and truer insight when he bids us admire the restful close\nof the narrative, and the forward glance to the eventful story of the\nExodus.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u200e =22.= \u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u200e] LXX \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1.\u2015\u2015=23.=\n\u200e \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05f3\u200e: so LXX,\n Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5 Targum\u1d3c\u207f\u1d4f\u1d49\u02e1\u1d52\u02e2\u207b\u1d36\u1d52\u207f\u1d43\u1d57\u02b0\u1d43\u207f. \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05dc\u05b5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd\u200e means \u2018great-grandchildren\u2019\n (Exodus 34\u2077); hence \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05f3\u200e ought to mean \u2018great-great-grandchildren\u2019\n (not, of course, of Ephraim, but of Joseph in Ephraim\u2019s line).\n But there being no reason why the descent should be carried\n further in the line of Ephraim than in that of Manasseh, we\n must understand \u2018great-grandchildren,\u2019 whether we read with\n _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, or take \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05f3\u200e as\n appositional genitive (see Dillmann).\u2015\u2015\u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d9\u200e] _The Samaritan\n Recension of the Pentateuch_ \u05d1\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u200e, \u2018in the days of,\u2019\u2015\u2015\u2018a bad\n correction\u2019 (Ball), supported by no other Version.\u2015\u2015=24.= \u05e0\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u200e]\n LXX + \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd.\u2015\u2015=25= end. Add with Hebrew\n MSS, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshi\u1e6dt\u00e5,\n Vulgate \u05d0\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05db\u05b6\u05dd\u200e, \u2018with you.\u2019\u2015\u2015=26.= \u05d5\u05d9\u05d9\u05e9\u05dd\u200e] _The Samaritan Recension\n of the Pentateuch_ \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05dd\u200e. See on 24\u00b3\u00b3.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\n INDEXES.\n\n\n I. ENGLISH.\n\n Abel, 103 ff.\n\n \u2019\u0100b\u0113l Mi\u1e93raim, 538.\n\n \u2019Ab\u00eeda\u201b, 351.\n\n \u201bAb\u00eem\u0101\u2019\u0113l, 221.\n\n Abimelech, 316 ff., 325 ff., 363 ff.\n\n _Ab\u00ee-r\u00e2mu_, 292.\n\n Abraham,\n his religious significance, xxvi f.;\n his migration, xxi, xxvii f., 238, 242 ff.;\n as Mahdi, xxviii, 247;\n legend of, xliv, 241 f.;\n covenants with, 276 ff., 289 ff.;\n name of, 244, 292 f.;\n death of, 341, 351 f.\n\n Abram, name, xxv, 292.\n\n Abram, Field of, xxv, 244.\n\n Accusative,\n of condition, 77, 282, 474.\n of definition, 29.\n after passive, 220.\n of place, 376.\n of time, 260.\n\n \u201b\u0100d\u0101h, 118, 429 f.\n\n Adapa and the South-wind, myth of, 92.\n\n \u2019Adbe\u2019\u0113l, 353.\n\n \u201bAdull\u0101m, 450.\n\n Aetiological motive in myth and legend, xi f., 70, 95, 140, 332, 362.\n\n Agriculture, 84, 87, 106, 110, 185, 365.\n\n \u2019A\u1e25uzzath, 367.\n\n \u201bAi, 247.\n\n \u201bA\u1e33\u0101n, 434.\n\n \u201bAkb\u00f4r, 436.\n\n \u2019Akkad, 210.\n\n \u2019Alm\u00f4d\u0101d, 221.\n\n \u201bAm\u0101l\u0113\u1e33, 263, 431.\n\n Amorite, 215, 263, 265, 282, 503.\n\n \u2019Amr\u0101phel, 257.\n\n Anachronisms, v, xviii, 116, 149, 265, 272, 316, 364, 419, 463.\n\n \u201bAn\u0101m\u00eem, 212.\n\n Angel of God, 323, 342, 376.\n\n Angel of Yahwe, 286 f.\n\n Angels, 31, 36, 141 f.\n\n Anthropomorphism, instances of, 7, 37, 51, 129, 149, 154, 172, 300,\n 328, 411.\n\n \u201bApriw, xvi, 218 f.\n\n \u2019Ar\u0101m, 206, 333 f.\n\n \u2019Aram-naharaim, 342.\n\n Aram\u00e6ans, xxiii, 334, 356, 358, 403 f.\n\n \u2019\u0102r\u0101n (\u2019Oren), 434.\n\n Arara\u1e6d, 166.\n\n Archaisms, 29, 272, 306, 399.\n\n \u2019Ari\u014dk, 258.\n\n \u201bAr\u1e33\u00ee, 216.\n\n \u2019Arpakshad, 205, 231.\n\n Article, anomalous pointing of, 163.\n\n Article, with construct, 348, 395.\n\n \u2019Arv\u0101d, 216.\n\n \u2019\u0100senath, 471.\n\n Asher, xviii, 388, 528.\n\n \u2019Ashkenaz, 197.\n\n \u201bAshter\u00f4th-\u1e32arnaim, 260, 262.\n\n \u2019\u0100sh\u00fbr, 351, 354.\n\n \u2019Assh\u00fbr, 211, 350.\n\n \u2019Assh\u00fbr\u00eem, 350.\n\n \u201bAv\u00eeth, 435.\n\n Ayy\u0101h, 434.\n\n\n Ba\u201bal \u1e24\u0101n\u0101n, 436.\n\n Babel, 210, 227.\n\n Babel-legends, 228 f.\n\n B\u0101semath, 430.\n\n Bdellium, 60.\n\n \u201cBear upon knees,\u201d 386.\n\n _Beena_ marriage, 70, 384.\n\n B\u0115\u2019\u0113r Lahay R\u014d\u00ee, 288, 347 f., 352.\n\n Beersheba, 325 ff., 331, 366 f., 491.\n\n Beker, 494.\n\n Bela\u201b, 259, 435.\n\n Benjamin, 426, 534.\n\n Ben-\u2019\u00f4n\u00ee, 426.\n\n Bered, 288.\n\n Berossus (quoted), 41 f., 132, 137.\n\n Bethel, 247, 377 ff., 423 ff., 446.\n\n Beth\u00fb\u2019\u0113l, 333.\n\n Betyl, 380.\n\n Bilh\u0101h, 386.\n\n Bilh\u0101n, 434.\n\n Blessing, 38, 498.\n\n Blessing of Jacob, 507 ff.;\n Monographs on, 512.\n\n Blood, crying for vengeance, 170, 447, 477.\n\n Blood-revenge, 110, 112 ff., 374.\n\n Books, \u201ctraditional,\u201d xxx, 509, 511.\n\n Bo\u1e93r\u0101h, 435.\n\n B\u00fbz, 333.\n\n\n Cain, 100, 102, 121 f.\n\n Cain-legend, origin of, 111 ff.\n\n Camel, 249 f., 345.\n\n Canaan, 182 ff., 187, 201, 245.\n\n Case-endings (old), 29, 117 f., 267, 399, 524.\n\n Chald\u00e6ans, 237, 333.\n\n Chaos, 14, 16, 19, 43, 46.\n\n Chedorla\u201bomer, 258.\n\n Cherubim, 89 f.\n\n Chronology, xiv f., 134 ff., 167 f., 233 f.\n\n Circumcision, 296 f., 420.\n\n Cities of the Plain, destruction of the, 310 ff.\n\n Cohortative form with vav consecutive, 405.\n\n Concubine-slave, xvii, 285.\n\n Cosmogonies, 6 ff., 18;\n Babylonian, ix, 20, 41 ff.;\n Etruscan, 50;\n Indian, 46;\n Persian, 19, 50;\n Ph\u0153nician, 46, 48 ff.\n\n Covenants,\n divine, 171 ff., 280 ff., 290 ff.;\n human, 325 ff., 367 f., 400 ff.;\n -feast, 367, 401;\n idea of, 283 f., 297 f.;\n sign of, 172, 294, 297.\n\n \u201cCovering of the Eyes,\u201d 319.\n\n Cult-legends, xi f., lx, 379, 411.\n\n Cup (in divination), 483.\n\n \u201cCut off\u201d (from people, etc.), 294.\n\n\n Damascius (quoted), 42.\n\n Dan, 266, 387, 527.\n\n Dead Sea, vii, 252, 264, 273 f.\n\n Deb\u014dr\u0101h, 425.\n\n Ded\u0101n, 204, 350.\n\n Deluge traditions, 174 ff.;\n origin of, 180 f.;\n Babylonian, 175 ff.;\n Greek, 179 f.;\n Indian, 179;\n Ph\u0153nician, 180;\n Phrygian, 180;\n Syrian, 180.\n\n Di\u1e33l\u0101h, 221.\n\n D\u00een\u0101h, 389, 421.\n\n Dinh\u0101b\u0101h, 435.\n\n Dioscuri, 302, 312.\n\n D\u00eesh-\u0101n, -\u00f4n, 434.\n\n Divine Names in Genesis, xxxv ff., xlviii f.\n\n D\u00f4d\u0101nim, 199.\n\n D\u00f4th\u0101n, 446 f.\n\n Dreams, 316, 376, 394, 397, 445, 460 ff., 465 ff.\n\n Dreams, interpretation of, 461, 466.\n\n D\u00fbm\u0101h, 353.\n\n\n Eabani (legend of), 91 ff., 517.\n\n Eden, 57.\n\n Eden, site of, 62 ff.\n\n Edom, Edomites, 356, 362, 373, 437.\n\n Egypt, river of, 283.\n\n Egyptian domination in Palestine, xvi, xviii, 538.\n\n Egyptian influence on Joseph-story, 442.\n\n Elam, Elamites, 204 f., 257 ff., 272, 276.\n\n \u2019\u00calath (\u2019\u00cal\u00f4th), 262, 436.\n\n \u2019Ed\u0101\u201b\u0101h, 351.\n\n \u2019Eliezer, 279.\n\n \u2019El\u00eephaz, 431.\n\n \u2019El\u00eesh\u0101h, 198.\n\n Elohistic source,\n of Genesis, xxxvi ff.;\n characteristics of style, etc., xlvii ff.;\n age of, lii ff.\n\n \u2019\u0112l\u00f4n, 494.\n\n \u0112l-P\u0101r\u0101n, 261.\n\n Embalming, 537.\n\n \u2019\u0112m\u00eem, 263.\n\n Enoch-legend, 132.\n\n \u2019En\u00f4sh, 126.\n\n _Enuma el\u01d0s_, 9, 43 ff.\n\n Envy of the Gods, 75, 87, 94, 229.\n\n \u201b\u00caph\u0101h, 351.\n\n \u201b\u0112pher, 351.\n\n Ephraim, 471, 504, 530, 540.\n\n \u2019Ephr\u0101th, 426.\n\n Eponyms, xx f., xxv, 189 f., 265.\n\n Erech, 210.\n\n Esau, 359 ff., 405 ff., 428 ff.\n\n \u201bEse\u1e33, 366.\n\n Ethnographic idea in legend, xii, xix ff., 186, 356, 403, 411 f.,\n 427, 450.\n\n Etymological motive in legends, xiii, 220.\n\n Eudemos (quoted), 49.\n\n Euhemerism, 147.\n\n Eve, 86, 102;\n and the Serpent, 85 f.\n See \u05d7\u05b7\u05d5\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e.\n\n Exodus, date of, xv.\n\n\n Family,\n genealogical division of, 194;\n patriarchal type of, 189;\n religious solidarity of, 152.\n\n Fig leaves, 76, 93.\n\n Firmament, 21 f.\n\n Five (occurrence of numbers in matters Egyptian), 483.\n\n Flood. See Deluge.\n\n Flood-narrative analysed, 147 ff.\n\n Fragmentary hypothesis, xxxii, xxxvii.\n\n\n Gad, 387, 528.\n\n Ga\u1e25am, 334.\n\n Gematria, 266.\n\n Genealogies, artificial character of, 231.\n\n Genealogy,\n Cainite, 98;\n Sethite, 99 f.;\n relation of Cainite and Sethite, 138 f.;\n Edomite, 428 ff.;\n Shemite, 231;\n of Ishmael, 352 f.;\n of \u1e32eturah, 350;\n of N\u0101\u1e25\u00f4r, 332 ff.;\n of Tera\u1e25, 235 ff.\n\n Genesis, Book of.\n Title, ii f.\n canonical position of, i.\n scope of, ii.\n nature of tradition in, iii ff., xxxii.\n structure and composition of, xxxii ff.\n ruling idea of, xxxiii.\n sources of, xxxiv ff.\n\n Gera, 494.\n\n Ger\u0101r, 217, 315, 325, 364, 366.\n\n G\u00ee\u1e25\u00f4n, 61.\n\n Gilead, 402 f.\n\n Gilgame\u0161 Epic, 91, 175 ff., 209, 517.\n\n Girgashite, 216.\n\n Golden age, 35, 73, 87, 92, 159.\n\n G\u014dmer, 196.\n\n Good and evil, knowledge of, 95.\n\n G\u014dren h\u0101-\u2019\u0100\u1e6d\u0101d, 538.\n\n Goshen, 488, 495, 497 f.\n\n Granaries (State), 472.\n\n\n \u1e2aabiri, xvi, xxii, 187, 218, 265.\n\n Had\u00f4r\u0101m, 221.\n\n Ha\u1e0dramaut, 221.\n\n Hagar, 284 ff., 322 ff.\n name, 286.\n\n Haggada, 28, 33, 237, 245.\n\n H\u0101m, 262.\n\n \u1e24\u0101m, 182, 195.\n\n \u1e24amath, 217.\n\n \u1e2aammurabi, xiv, xxii, xxvii, 257 f., 335.\n\n \u1e2aammurabi, Code of, xvii, xviii, xix, 285, 454, 455, 459.\n\n \u1e24\u0103m\u00f4r, 416, 421.\n\n \u1e24\u0103n\u00f4k, 117, 351, 493.\n\n H\u0101r\u0101n, 236.\n\n \u1e24arr\u0101n, 238.\n\n \u1e24av\u00eel\u0101h, 59, 65, 202.\n\n \u1e24a\u1e93e\u1e93\u00f4n-T\u0101m\u0101r, 263.\n\n \u1e24\u0103z\u00f4, 333.\n\n \u201cHead,\u201d to \u201clift up,\u201d 462 f.\n\n Hebrews, 187, 217, 265, 458, 462 f.\n\n Hesperides, 94.\n\n \u1e24e\u1e93r\u00f4n, 494.\n\n \u1e24idde\u1e33el, 61.\n\n Historicity of chapter 14, xviii f., 271 ff.\n\n History and legend compared, iii f.\n\n Hittites, xvi, 214 f., 336, 368.\n\n \u1e24ivvite, 216.\n\n Hobah, 267.\n\n \u1e24\u014drite, 263, 433, 437.\n\n \u1e24\u00fbl, 206.\n\n \u1e24\u00fbsh\u0101m, 435.\n\n\n Image of God, 31 f.\n\n Immortality, 88, 92, 95, 132.\n\n Imperative,\n expressing consequence, 243.\n expressing a determination, 476.\n\n Imperfect consecutive,\n expressing \u2018paradoxical consequence,\u2019 307.\n expressing descriptive, 533.\n\n Incubation, 376.\n\n Infinitive absolute,\n used as jussive, 294;\n expressing irony, 398;\n after its verb, 307.\n\n Infinitive, gerundial, 87.\n\n Intoxication, 183, 482.\n\n \u201bIr\u0101d, 117.\n\n Isaac,\n name, 321;\n birth of, 321;\n sacrifice of, 327 ff.;\n marriage of, 339 ff., 358;\n death of, 428.\n\n Isaac, Fear of, 399, 402.\n\n Ishmael, 287, 352.\n Ishmaelites, 448.\n\n Israel, name, 409 f.\n Israel-Stone, Shepherd of, 531.\n\n Issachar, 389, 525 f.\n\n\n J\u0101b\u0101l, 115, 120.\n\n Jabbo\u1e33, 407.\n\n Jacob,\n name, 360;\n history of, 355\u2012428;\n legends regarding, 356;\n as tribal eponym, xxiv, 356 f.;\n grave of, 538;\n as transjordanic hero, 538.\n\n Jacob, Strong One of, 531.\n\n Japheth, 183 ff., 195, 208.\n\n Javan, 198.\n\n Jerusalem, 268, 328.\n\n Joseph,\n name of, 389 f.;\n story of, 438\u2012528;\n elements in Joseph-legend, 441 f.;\n as diviner, 484;\n his agrarian policy, 498 ff.;\n parallel figures in history, 501 f.;\n blessing on, 529 ff.;\n death of, 540.\n\n J\u00fbb\u0101l, 120.\n\n Jubilee-periods (Klostermann\u2019s theory of), 233 f.\n\n Judah,\n name of, 386, 519;\n separation from his brethren, 450 f.;\n his leadership in Yahwist, lvi, 443, 495, etc.\n\n Judah, blessing on, 518\u2012525.\n\n Jussive of purpose, 227.\n\n Jussive unapocopated, 22.\n\n Justification by faith, 280.\n\n\n \u1e32\u0101d\u0113sh, 262.\n\n \u1e32admonites, 284.\n\n Kaln\u0113h, 210.\n\n Kapht\u014dr\u00eem, 213.\n\n Kasl\u00fb\u1e25\u00eem, 213.\n\n \u1e32\u0113d\u0101r, 352.\n\n \u1e32ed\u0113sh\u0101h, 454.\n\n Kela\u1e25, 211, 354.\n\n \u1e32em\u00fb\u2019\u0113l, 333.\n\n \u1e32\u00ean\u0101n, 131.\n\n \u1e32enaz, 431.\n\n \u1e32enites, 113, 284.\n\n \u1e32enizzites, 284.\n\n \u1e32e\u1e6durah, 349 f.\n\n K\u0115z\u00eeb, 451.\n\n Kid, as gift, 453.\n\n \u1e32iryath-\u2019Arba\u201b, 335.\n\n Kitt\u00eem, 199.\n\n \u1e32\u00f4ra\u1e25, 432.\n\n \u1e32oran, 140, 166.\n\n Kudur-lagamar, 258 f.\n\n K\u00fbsh, 61, 65, 200, 207.\n\n\n Lamech, 117, 133;\n Song of, 120 ff.;\n sons of, 120, 123.\n\n Land-tenure in Egypt, 501.\n\n Leah, 383, 385, 387 ff., 420, 493 f., 516.\n\n Legend, idealisation of, xiii.\n\n Legendary aspects of Genesis, v ff.\n\n Leh\u0101b\u00eem, 213.\n\n Le\u1e6d\u00fbsh\u00eem, 351.\n\n Levi, 386, 420, 518.\n\n Levirate marriage, 452.\n\n Libation, 424.\n\n _Literal minuscule_, 40.\n\n Liver, as seat of mental affection, 517.\n\n Lo\u1e6d, 236.\n\n L\u00f4\u1e6d\u0101n, 313, 433.\n\n L\u00fbd, L\u00fbd\u00eem, 206, 212.\n\n L\u00fbz, 378 f.\n\n\n Ma\u201bak\u0101h, 334.\n\n M\u0101dai, 197.\n\n Magic, 96.\n\n M\u0101g\u00f4g, 197.\n\n Mah\u0103lal\u2019\u0113l, 131.\n\n Ma\u1e25anaim, 405.\n\n M\u0101k\u00eer, 540.\n\n Makp\u0113l\u0101h, 337 f.\n\n Mamre, 254, 265.\n\n M\u0101na\u1e25ath, 432 f.\n\n Manasseh, 471, 504, 540.\n\n Marduk, 209 f.\n\n Mash, 207.\n\n Masr\u0113\u1e33\u0101h, 435.\n\n Mass\u0101, 353.\n\n Matriarchate, 102, 344.\n\n Ma\u1e93\u1e93\u0113b\u0101h, l, 378 f., 401, 416, 424.\n\n Med\u0101n, 350.\n\n Media, Medes, 197.\n\n Meh\u00ea\u1e6dab\u2019\u0113l, 436.\n\n Melki\u1e93ede\u1e33, 267 ff.\n\n Meshech, 199.\n\n Messianic applications, 79 ff., 185 f., 521 ff.\n\n Methuselah, 132 f.\n\n Mibs\u0101m, 353.\n\n Mib\u1e93\u0101r, 436.\n\n Midian, Midianites, 350, 448.\n\n Mishm\u0101\u201b, 353.\n\n Mi\u1e93p\u0101h, 401 ff.\n\n Mi\u1e93raim, 201, 285.\n\n Mizz\u0101h, 431.\n\n M\u014dchos (quoted), 49.\n\n M\u014dhar, xviii, 319, 346, 383 f., 395, 419.\n\n Monotheism, ix, 6, 25, 48, 72, 178, 269, 301.\n\n M\u00f4reh, 245 f.\n\n Moriah, land of, 328 f.\n\n Mourning rites, 335, 374, 449, 537.\n\n Mu\u1e63ri-theory, 201, 249, 285, 472.\n\n Myth and legend distinguished, viii f., xxv.\n\n\n Na\u201bam\u0101h, 120.\n\n Na\u1e25\u00f4r, 232.\n\n Names, 68;\n popular etymology of, xiii f.;\n naming of child by mother, 105 f., 314, 385;\n naming of child by father, 296;\n person and name, 127;\n proper noun compounded with participle, 131.\n\n N\u0101ph\u00eesh, 353.\n\n Naphtali, 387, 527 f.\n\n Napht\u00fb\u1e25\u00eem, 213.\n\n Neb\u0101y\u00f4th, 352.\n\n Negeb, 248.\n\n Neph\u00eel\u00eem, 140, 145 f.\n\n Nile, 465.\n\n Nimrod, 207.\n\n Nineveh, 211.\n\n Noah, 133, 151 ff., 174, 181 ff., 195.\n\n Nod, 111.\n\n Nomadic life, 111.\n\n Numbers (sacred), 8, 39, 98, 326, 483.\n\n\n Oath, 345.\n\n Oath, by genital organs, 341.\n\n Oath, by king\u2019s life, 476.\n\n \u201b\u00d4b\u0101l, 221.\n\n \u2019Ohol\u00eeb\u0101mah, 430.\n\n Olive, 156.\n\n \u2019\u00d4n, 470.\n\n \u00d4n\u0101m, 434.\n\n Ophir, 222.\n\n _Oratio obliqua_ without \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e, 248.\n\n\n Paddan Aram, lxiv, 358, 425.\n\n Paradise. See Eden.\n\n Paradise Legend, origin and significance of, 90 ff.\n\n P\u0101r\u0101n, 324.\n\n Parenthesis, 14, 34.\n\n Passive of Qal, 345.\n\n Pathr\u00fbs\u00eem, 213.\n\n Patriarchal tradition,\n background of, xiv ff.;\n local centre of, lv.\n\n Patriarchs,\n as individuals, xxiii ff.;\n as deities, xxiv f.;\n as eponymous ancestors, xx f.\n\n Peleg, 220, 232.\n\n Peniel, 410 ff.\n\n P\u0115\u201b\u00f4, 436.\n\n Peoples, Table of, 187 ff.\n\n Pere\u1e93, 456.\n\n Perfect,\n of certainty, 172, 462;\n of confidence, 388.\n of experience, 120, 517.\n of instant action, 172, 337;\n modal use of, 321;\n with sense of pluperfect, 283.\n\n Philistines, 213, 327, 363 ff.\n\n Philo Byblius (quoted), 48, 66, 105, 123 f.\n\n P\u00eek\u014dl, 325.\n\n Pild\u0101sh, 333.\n\n P\u00eesh\u00f4n, 59.\n\n Pithom, 488, 495.\n\n Plural,\n of eminence, 318, 396;\n of species, 321.\n\n Polytheism, traces of, 160, 303, 318, 424, 491.\n\n Potiphar, 457, 471.\n\n Prayer, 305, 358 f., 406.\n\n Priestly code,\n in Genesis, lvii ff.;\n chronology of, 135;\n characteristics of, lx ff.;\n literary style of, lxii ff., 11, 149;\n geographical horizon of, 191 ff.\n\n Prophet, li, 317.\n\n Prophetic guilds, xxxi.\n\n _Protevangelium_, 81, 97.\n\n _Puncta extraordinaria_, 413, 446.\n\n Punic _Tabella devotionis_, 85.\n\n P\u00fb\u1e6d, 201.\n\n\n Rachel, 383, 386, 388 f., 426 f., 504 f.;\n grave of, 426.\n\n Rainbow in mythology, 172 f.\n\n Ra\u201bm\u0101h, 203.\n\n Ra\u201bmses, land of, 498.\n\n Reclining at table, 300.\n\n Re\u1e25\u00f4b\u00f4th, 366, 436.\n\n Resen, 211.\n\n Re\u201bu, 232.\n\n Re\u2018\u00fb\u2019\u0113l, 431.\n\n Reuben, 386, 388, 427, 515.\n\n Re\u2019\u00fbm\u0101h, 333.\n\n R\u00eephath, 197.\n\n\n Sab\u00e6ans, 203, 350.\n\n Sabbath, 35 f., 38 f.\n\n Sabt\u0101h, 202.\n\n Sabtek\u0101h, 203.\n\n Sacrifice, 105, 157;\n child and animal, 331 f.;\n essence of, 330;\n patriarchal, l, lx, 491.\n\n Salem, 268.\n\n Sanchuniathon (quoted), 48, 71 f., 123, 140.\n\n Sanctuaries,\n origin of, xii, 246;\n as repositories of tradition, xxxi, 415.\n\n Sarah, 237, 248 ff., 284 ff., 295, 300 ff., 315 ff., 335.\n\n Seba, 202.\n\n \u2018Seed of woman,\u2019 80 ff.\n\n S\u0113\u201b\u00eer, 262, 360, 412, 414, 430, 437.\n\n Serpent, in Paradise, 72 f., 93 f.;\n\n Serpent-worship, 81.\n\n Ser\u00fbg, 232.\n\n S\u0113th, 125 f., 131, 139.\n\n Shamm\u0101h, 431.\n\n Sheba, 202, 203, 222, 350.\n\n Shechem, 246, 421, 507.\n\n Sh\u0113l\u0101h, 451, 524.\n\n Sheleph, 221.\n\n Sh\u0113m, 195, 269.\n\n Shemites, 217 ff., 231 ff.\n\n She\u00f4l, 352, 449.\n\n Shepherd, ideal, 398.\n\n Shiloh, xxxi, 522 f.\n\n Shin\u201b\u0101r, 210, 225.\n\n Sh\u00f4b\u0101l, 433.\n\n \u201cShort stories\u201d of Genesis, xxviii f.\n\n Sh\u00fba\u1e25, 350.\n\n Sh\u00fbr, 286, 315 f., 353 f.\n\n Siddim, 260.\n\n Signet-ring, 454, 469.\n\n Simeon, 386, 420, 518.\n\n Sin, 97, 129, 317.\n\n S\u00eenite, 216.\n\n Sinuhe, Tale of, xvi, xvii.\n\n Si\u1e6dn\u0101h, 366.\n\n \u201cSons of God,\u201d 141 f.\n\n \u201cSpeak over the heart,\u201d 419.\n\n Spirit of God, 17 f., 469.\n\n Stone-worship, 380, 531.\n\n Story-tellers, professional, xxxi.\n\n Sukk\u00f4th, 415.\n\n Supplementary Hypothesis, xxxii, xxxvii.\n\n\n Taboos, 66, 398, 410, 454.\n\n \u201cTale of the two brothers,\u201d 69, 459.\n\n T\u0101m\u0101r, 451.\n\n Tarsh\u00eesh, 198.\n\n \u1e6ceba\u1e25, 334.\n\n Tel-Amarna Tablets, 92, 187, 201, 413, 501 f.\n\n T\u00eam\u0101, 353.\n\n T\u00eam\u0101n, 431.\n\n Tera\u1e25, 232.\n\n Teraphim, 396, 423.\n\n Tid\u2019al, 259.\n\n _Ti\u1e33\u1e33\u00fbn\u00ea S\u014dpher\u00eem_, 304, 345.\n\n Timna\u201b, 433.\n\n Timn\u0101h, 453.\n\n T\u00eer\u0101s, 199.\n\n Tithe, 379.\n\n T\u014dgarm\u0101h, 197.\n\n T\u00f4la\u201b, 494.\n\n T\u00f4led\u00f4th, xxxiii f., 39 ff., 174, 231, 358, 428;\n Book of, 40, 130, 236, 428 f., 443.\n\n Totem clan-names, 232, 383, 386.\n\n Tradition, historical value of, vii, xiii ff.\n\n Tree,\n of Life, 88, 90, 94;\n of Knowledge of Good and Evil, 94 f.\n\n T\u00fbbal, 120, 199.\n\n Tubal-Cain, 115, 119 f.\n\n Twin-births, xvii, 103, 359.\n\n\n Ur, 229, 236.\n\n Us\u014dos, xi, 124, 360.\n\n \u201bU\u1e93, 206, 333.\n\n \u2019\u00dbz\u0101l, 221.\n\n\n Vav consecutive in subordinate clause, 369.\n\n Veil, 348, 454.\n\n _Volkssage_, iv.\n\n Vow, 378 f.\n\n\n Women (no religious standing in Old Testament), 169.\n\n Word of God, 7.\n\n Word of Jahwe, 277 f.\n\n \u2018World-egg,\u2019 18, 49 f.\n\n\n Ya\u201ba\u1e33\u014db-\u0113l, xvi, xviii, 360, 390.\n\n Yahwistic source, xxxiv ff.;\n a composite work, xliv ff., 1 ff., 240 f.;\n characteristics of, xlvii ff.;\n date of, lii ff.;\n place of origin, lv.\n\n Ya\u201blam, 432.\n\n Yan\u1e2bamu, 441, 501 f.\n\n Ye\u201b\u00eesh, Ye\u201b\u00fbsh, 431.\n\n Yera\u1e25, 221.\n\n Yered, 131.\n\n Y\u0115\u1e6d\u00fbr, 353.\n\n Yidl\u0101ph, 333.\n\n Yishba\u1e33, 350.\n\n Yisk\u0101h, 238.\n\n Yithr\u0101n, 434.\n\n Y\u00f4b, 494.\n\n Y\u00f4b\u0101b, 222, 435.\n\n Yo\u1e33\u1e6d\u0101n, 220.\n\n Y\u00f4seph-\u0113l, xvi, 389.\n\n\n Zebulun, 389, 525 f.\n\n \u1e92em\u0101r\u00ee, 217.\n\n Zera\u1e25, 431, 456.\n\n \u1e92ib\u201b\u00f4n, 434.\n\n \u1e92\u00eed\u00f4n, 215, 525.\n\n Zikkurat, 226, 228 f., 377, 380.\n\n \u1e92ill\u0101h, 118.\n\n Zimr\u0101n, 350.\n\n \u1e92\u00f4ar, 252 f., 257, 309.\n\n Zodiac, signs of, 22, 26, 44, 65, 90, 133, 146, 181.\n\n Zodiacal theory of the tribes, 445, 517, 530, 534 f.\n\n \u1e92\u014dhar, 494.\n\n Z\u00fbz\u00eem, 263.\n\n\n II. HEBREW\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b2\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u200e, 531.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b2\u05d1\u05b8\u05dc\u200e, 296, 476.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b5\u05da\u05b0\u200e, 470.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b5\u05d3\u200e, 55.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd\u200e, 56, 66, 68, 83, 125, 130.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 56.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b7\u05d3\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, 359.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u200e (= \u2018consent\u2019), 420.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b2\u05d7\u05b8\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 225.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b8\u05d7\u05d5\u05bc\u200e, 465.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 513.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, 200.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e, 398, 491;\n\u200e \u05d0\u05dc \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd\u200e, 327;\n\u200e \u05d0\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05df\u200e, 270;\n\u200e \u05d0\u05dc \u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u200e, 289;\n\u200e \u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05c1\u05d3\u05d9\u200e, 290 f., 481.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, xxxv ff.;\n article with, 131, 159;\n\u200e \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 342.\n\n\u200e (\u05d4\u05b8)\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e = \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, 307, 309, 364.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b8\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 367.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, \u05d0\u05b7\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, 245.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e, \u05d0\u05b7\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e, 245, 424.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b7\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e3\u200e, 432.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05bb\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, 353.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u200e (= \u2018speak\u2019), 107.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u200e, 316.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b7\u05de\u05b0\u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea\u200e, 477.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b1\u05e0\u05d5\u05e9\u05c1\u200e, 126.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b7\u05e3 \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e, 73.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05d4\u200e and \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u200e, 69.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b5\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dc\u200e, 326.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u200e, (= \u2018with\u2019), 102.\n\n\u200e \u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u200e (= \u2018sign\u2019), 25, 103, 110, 112, 172.\n\n\n\u200e \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u200e, various uses of, 30, 149, 169, 226, 383, 530.\n\n\u200e \u05d1\u05b9\u05bc\u05d0\u05b2\u05db\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 214.\n\n\u200e \u05d1\u05d0 \u05dc\u05e4\u05d1\u05d9\u200e, 160.\n\n\u200e \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d4\u200e, 29.\n\n\u200e \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u200e, 481.\n\n\u200e \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u200e, 367.\n\n\u200e \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05db\u05b9\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 362.\n\n\u200e \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05d9\u200e, 271, 467.\n\n\u200e \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05e7\u05b7\u05e2\u200e, 344.\n\n\u200e \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05e7\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 225.\n\n\u200e \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u200e, 14 f.\n\n\u200e \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u200e, 163, 276, 283 f., 367;\n\u200e \u05e0\u05ea\u05df (\u05d4\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd) \u05d1\u05f3\u200e, 171;\n\u200e \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d1\u05f3\u200e, 266.\n\n\u200e \u05d1\u05ea\u05e8\u200e (_piel_), 281.\n\n\n\u200e \u05d2\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u200e, 146, 207.\n\n\u200e \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05e2\u05b7\u200e, 483.\n\n\u200e \u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d6\u05b8\u05dc\u200e, 281.\n\n\u200e \u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d9\u200e, 316.\n\n\u200e \u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e, 259.\n\n\u200e \u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e, 78.\n\n\u200e \u05d2\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u200e, 401.\n\n\u200e \u05d2\u05b9\u05bc\u05e4\u05b6\u05e8\u200e, 160.\n\n\n\u200e \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, 443.\n\n\u200e \u05d3\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3\u05b8\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 388.\n\n\u200e \u05d3\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea\u200e, 30.\n\n\u200e \u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05de\u05b6\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05e7\u200e, 278 f.\n\n\u200e \u05d3\u05b6\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d0\u200e, 23 f., 24.\n\n\n\u200e \u05d4\u05b8\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 225.\n\n\u200e \u05d4\u05b6\u05d1\u05b6\u05dc\u200e, 103.\n\n\u200e (\u05d4\u05d9\u05d0) \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u200e, 60.\n\n\u200e \u05d4\u05b8\u05dc\u05b7\u05da\u05b0\u200e (= \u2018die\u2019), 279.\n\n\u200e \u05d4\u05b2\u05e4\u05b5\u05db\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 310.\n\n\n\u200e \u05d5\u05b0\u200e = \u2018namely,\u2019 481.\n\n\u200e \u05d5\u05b8\u05dc\u05b8\u05d3\u200e, 237.\n\n\u200e \u05d5\u05bc\u05df\u200e\u2015\u2015(termination), 306.\n\n\n\u200e \u05d6\u05b8\u05db\u05b8\u05e8 \u05d5\u05bc\u05e0\u05b0\u05e7\u05b5\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 33.\n\n\u200e \u05d6\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 480.\n\n\n\u200e \u05d7\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u200e, 260.\n\n\u200e \u05d7\u05b9\u05d3\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d9\u05b8\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 382.\n\n\u200e \u05d7\u05b7\u05d5\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, 85, 103, 139.\n\n\u200e \u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b0\u05ea\u05d5\u05b9 \u05d0\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5\u200e, 29.\n\n\u200e \u05d7\u05b8\u05dc\u05b4\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 305.\n\n\u200e \u05d7\u05dc\u05e7\u200e, 267.\n\n\u200e \u05d7\u05b8\u05dd\u200e, 453.\n\n\u200e \u05d7\u05de\u05d0\u05d4\u200e, 300.\n\n\u200e \u05d7\u05b5\u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u200e, \u05d7\u05b9\u05de\u05b6\u05e8\u200e, 226.\n\n\u200e \u05d7\u05b5\u05de\u05b8\u05ea\u200e, 323.\n\n\u200e \u05d7\u05e0\u05d8\u200e, 537.\n\n\u200e \u05d7\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05da\u05b0\u200e, 266.\n\n\u200e \u05d7\u05e0\u05da\u05b0\u200e, 116.\n\n\u200e \u05d7\u05e8\u05d4\u200e, 104 f.\n\n\u200e \u05d7\u05e8\u05d8\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 466.\n\n\u200e \u05d7\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e = white bread, 463.\n\n\u200e \u05d7\u05ea\u05df\u200e, 419.\n\n\n\u200e \u05d8\u05b7\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 457.\n\n\u200e \u05d8\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4\u200e, 353.\n\n\u200e \u05d8\u05e2\u05df\u200e, 488.\n\n\n\u200e \u05d9\u05b0\u05d0\u05b9\u05e8\u200e, 465.\n\n\u200e \u05d9\u05b8\u05d1\u05b8\u05dd\u200e, 451.\n\n\u200e \u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e, 143.\n\n\u200e \u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea\u200e (= \u2018shares\u2019 or \u2018times\u2019), 482.\n\n\u200e \u05d9\u05d3\u05e2\u200e (euphemistically), 101, 125.\n\n\u200e \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd\u200e, 5, 20 f.\n\n\u200e \u05d9\u05b5\u05de\u05b4\u05dd\u200e, 432 f.\n\n\u200e \u05d9\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05ea\u200e, 195.\n\n\u200e \u05d9\u05b8\u05e6\u05b7\u05e8\u200e, 56.\n\n\u200e \u05d9\u05e6\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e8\u05e2\u200e, 150.\n\n\u200e \u05d9\u05b0\u05e7\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd\u200e, 153.\n\n\u200e \u05d9\u05e7\u05e2\u200e, 408.\n\n\u200e \u05d9\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 402.\n\n\u200e \u05d9\u05e8\u05e9\u05c1\u200e, 488.\n\n\u200e \u05d9\u05ea\u05e8\u200e, 514.\n\n\n\u200e \u05db\u05d1\u05e8\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200e, 426.\n\n\u200e \u05db\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\u200e, 458.\n\n\u200e \u05db\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dd\u200e, 500.\n\n\u200e \u05db\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dd \u05d6\u05db\u05e8\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u200e, 462 f.\n\n\u200e \u05db\u05d9\u05be\u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05db\u05df\u200e, 300.\n\n\u200e \u05db\u05d9 \u05e2\u05ea\u05d4\u200e, 480.\n\n\u200e \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd\u200e, 362.\n\n\u200e \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d3\u05b5\u05bc\u05df\u200e, 252.\n\n\u200e \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, 238.\n\n\u200e \u05db\u05b5\u05bc\u05df\u200e, 462;\n\u200e \u05db\u05b5\u05bc\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 475.\n\n\u200e \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u200e, 118.\n\n\u200e \u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05e4\u05b6\u05e8\u200e, 161.\n\n\u200e \u05db\u05e8\u05d4\u200e, 516, 537.\n\n\u200e \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05ea\u05b9\u05e0\u05b6\u05ea \u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05e1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 444.\n\n\u200e \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05ea\u05b5\u05e3\u200e, 506.\n\n\n\u200e \u05dc\u05b0\u200e, various uses of, 153, 170, 226, 337, 414, 434.\n\n\u200e \u05dc\u05b5\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 383.\n\n\u200e \u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05b9\u05dd\u200e, 359.\n\n\u200e \u05dc\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u200e, 519.\n\n\u200e \u05dc\u05d1\u05e0\u05d4\u200e, 392.\n\n\u200e \u05dc\u05d4\u05d4\u200e, 499.\n\n\u200e \u05dc\u05b9\u05d8\u200e, 448.\n\n\u200e \u05dc\u05d8\u05e9\u200e, 119, 351.\n\n\u200e \u05dc\u05e2\u05d8\u200e, 361.\n\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05b8\u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u200e, 24.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05b7\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u200e, 154.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05d2\u05d3\u05e0\u05ea\u200e, 346.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05b6\u05d2\u05b5\u05df\u200e, \u05de\u05b4\u05d2\u05b5\u05bc\u05df\u200e, 269.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05b7\u05d4\u05b0\u05e4\u05b5\u05bc\u05db\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 311.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b6\u05d3\u05b6\u05ea\u200e, 236.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e2\u05b5\u05d3\u200e, 26.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05d7\u05d4\u200e, 151.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05dc\u200e, 117.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05b4\u05d7\u05b0\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 487.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05d7\u05e7\u05e7\u200e, 519 f.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4\u05d1\u200e, 436.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05d9\u05df\u200e, 24, 167.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05b4\u05db\u05b0\u05e1\u05b6\u05d4\u200e, 157.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05b0\u05db\u05b5\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 516.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4\u200e, 36, 414.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05b4\u05df\u200e, 78, 108, 142.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05b0\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 526.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05b4\u05e0\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 104.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05b9\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 394.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05b7\u05e1\u200e, 526.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05b8\u05e7\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd\u200e (= \u2018sacred place\u2019), 246, 376, 423.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05b5\u05e8\u05b5\u05e2\u05b7\u200e, 367.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05ea\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e, 526.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05b6\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e7\u200e, 278 f.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05b0\u05ea\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u200e, 117.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05b0\u05ea\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dc\u05b7\u05d7\u200e, 132 f.\n\n\u200e \u05de\u05b0\u05ea\u05b7\u05e2\u05b0\u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u200e, 370.\n\n\n\u200e \u05e0\u05b0\u05d0\u05bb\u05dd \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, 331.\n\n\u200e \u05e0\u05b6\u05d2\u05b0\u05d3\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u200e, 67.\n\n\u200e \u05e0\u05d4\u05dc\u200e, 414, 499.\n\n\u200e \u05e0\u05b8\u05d6\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u200e, 532.\n\n\u200e \u05e0\u05d7\u05e9\u05c1\u200e, 391, 483.\n\n\u200e \u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05e0\u05db\u05d3\u200e, 325.\n\n\u200e \u05e0\u05db\u05d0\u05ea\u200e, 447.\n\n\u200e \u05e0\u05b6\u05e1\u05b6\u05da\u05b0\u200e, 425.\n\n\u200e \u05e0\u05e1\u05e2\u200e, 225.\n\n\u200e \u05e0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1\u200e, 34, 245, 369.\n\n\u200e \u05e0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, 28 f., 56.\n\n\u200e \u05e0\u05b4\u05e6\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, 462.\n\n\u200e \u05e0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d0 \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 309.\n\n\u200e \u05e0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d0 \u05e8\u05b7\u05d2\u05b0\u05dc\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e, 381.\n\n\u200e \u05e0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d4\u200e, 410.\n\n\n\u200e \u05e1\u05d5\u05ea\u200e, 524.\n\n\u200e \u05e1\u05bb\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd\u200e, 377.\n\n\u200e \u05e1\u05b7\u05e0\u05b0\u05d5\u05b5\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 307.\n\n\u200e \u05e1\u05e4\u05d3\u200e, 336.\n\n\u200e \u05e1\u05e8\u05d9\u05e1\u200e, 457.\n\n\n\u200e \u05e2\u05b5\u05d1\u05b6\u05e8\u200e, 217.\n\n\u200e \u05e2\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, \u05e2\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 187, 217, 265, 458 f.\n\n\u200e \u05e2\u05d2\u05b8\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 489.\n\n\u200e \u05e2\u05b7\u05d3 \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05be\u200e, 520.\n\n\u200e \u05e2\u05b5\u05d3\u05b6\u05df\u200e, 57.\n\n\u200e \u05e2\u05b2\u05d3\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 362.\n\n\u200e \u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u05d2\u05b8\u05d1\u200e, 118.\n\n\u200e \u05e2\u05b8\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e, 109.\n\n\u200e \u05e2\u05b5\u05d6\u05b8\u05e8\u200e, 67.\n\n\u200e (\u05d4\u05b8)\u05e2\u05b7\u05d9\u200e, 247.\n\n\u200e \u05e2\u05db\u05e8\u200e, 421.\n\n\u200e \u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u200e, 396.\n\n\u200e \u05e2\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd\u200e (= \u2018father\u2019s kin\u2019), 294.\n\n\u200e \u05e2\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u200e, 392.\n\n\u200e \u05e2\u05b8\u05e7\u05b7\u05d3\u200e, 330.\n\n\u200e \u05e2\u05b4\u05e7\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e, 517.\n\n\u200e \u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u05b0\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 475.\n\n\u200e \u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05dd\u200e, 70, 71, 73.\n\n\u200e \u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05da\u05b0\u200e, 330.\n\n\u200e \u05e2\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u200e, 392.\n\n\u200e (\u05db\u05b8\u05bc)\u05e2\u05b5\u05ea \u05d7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, 301.\n\n\u200e \u05e2\u05ea\u05e8\u200e, 358.\n\n\n\u200e \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d2\u05b7\u05e2 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u200e, 405.\n\n\u200e \u05e4\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d2\u200e, 490.\n\n\u200e \u05e4\u05d7\u05d6\u200e, 514.\n\n\u200e \u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dc\u05b6\u05d2\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1\u200e, 333.\n\n\u200e \u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05b5\u05d9\u05d8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 487.\n\n\u200e \u05e4\u05dc\u05dc\u200e, 505.\n\n\u200e \u05e4\u05b4\u05bc\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u200e, 344.\n\n\u200e \u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05e2\u05b9\u05d4\u200e, 249.\n\n\u200e \u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05ea\u200e, 61.\n\n\u200e \u05e4\u05b9\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05ea\u200e, 529 f.\n\n\u200e \u05e4\u05ea\u05d4\u200e, 184.\n\n\u200e \u05e4\u05ea\u05d7 \u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 453.\n\n\n\u200e \u05e6\u05d1\u05d0\u200e, 36.\n\n\u200e \u05e6\u05b7\u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e7\u200e, 158 f.\n\n\u200e \u05e6\u05b0\u05d3\u05b8\u05e7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 280.\n\n\u200e \u05e6\u05b9\u05d4\u05b7\u05e8\u200e, 161.\n\n\u200e \u05e6\u05d7\u05e7\u200e, 321, 364.\n\n\u200e \u05e6\u05b5\u05d9\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 369.\n\n\u200e \u05e6\u05b6\u05dc\u05b6\u05dd\u200e, 30.\n\n\u200e \u05e6\u05b8\u05bd\u05e4\u05b0\u05e0\u05b7\u05ea \u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u05b0\u05e0\u05b5\u05d7\u05b7\u200e, 470.\n\n\u200e \u05e6\u05b3\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, 447.\n\n\n\u200e \u05e7\u05b6\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd\u200e, 351;\n\u200e \u05e7\u05b5\u05d3\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 353;\n\u200e [\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9]\u05e7\u05d3\u05dd\u200e, 381;\n\u200e [\u05de]\u05e7\u05d3\u05dd\u200e, 57, 253.\n\n\u200e \u05e7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05df\u200e, 102, 113.\n\n\u200e \u05e7\u05e0\u05d4\u200e, 102, 268.\n\n\u200e (\u05de)\u05e7\u05e6\u05d4\u200e, 496 f.\n\n\u200e \u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e9\u05dd \u05d9\u05f3\u200e, 127.\n\n\u200e \u05e7\u05b0\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d9\u05d8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 416.\n\n\u200e \u05e7\u05b7\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05ea\u200e, 324.\n\n\n\u200e \u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 59.\n\n\u200e \u05e8\u05b5\u05d0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05ea\u200e, 12 f., 514.\n\n\u200e \u05e8\u05d1\u05d1\u200e, 530.\n\n\u200e \u05e8\u05d1\u05d4\u200e, (= \u2018shoot\u2019), 324.\n\n\u200e \u05e8\u05b7\u05d4\u05b7\u05d8\u200e, 392.\n\n\u200e \u05e8\u05b7\u05d7\u05b2\u05d1\u05b7\u05ea \u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd\u200e, 420.\n\n\u200e \u05e8\u05b0\u05d7\u05b9\u05d1\u05b9\u05ea \u05e2\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u200e, 211.\n\n\u200e \u05e8\u05b4\u05d7\u05b5\u05dc\u200e, 383.\n\n\u200e \u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3\u200e, 373.\n\n\u200e \u05e8\u05b5\u05d9\u05d7\u05b7 \u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05d7\u05b9\u05d7\u05b7\u200e, 157.\n\n\u200e \u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e7\u200e, 266.\n\n\u200e \u05e8\u05db\u05e9\u05c1\u200e, \u05e8\u05b0\u05db\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u200e, 245.\n\n\u200e \u05e8\u05b0\u05e4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 263 f.\n\n\u200e \u05e8\u05b7\u05e7\u200e, 318, 370.\n\n\u200e \u05e8\u05b8\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u05e2\u05b7\u200e, 21, 46.\n\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05d0\u05b5\u05ea\u200e, 106 f., 514.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05c2\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u200e, 348.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d9\u05d7\u05b7\u200e, 54, 323.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05c2\u05db\u05dc\u200e, Hiphil, 75.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05db\u05b5\u05bc\u05dc\u200e, 505.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05de\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 183.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 385.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e4\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 224 f.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 237.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05b7\u05d9\u200e, 295.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05c2\u05e8\u05b5\u05e7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 524.\n\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u200e, as relative, 144, 521, 523.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d1\u05b6\u05d8\u200e, 520.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d1\u05b6\u05e8\u200e, 474.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d1\u05b7\u05ea\u200e, 36 f.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d2\u05b7\u05d2\u200e, 143.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05d4\u05b7\u05dd\u200e, 60.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d5\u05b5\u05d4\u200e, 262, 267.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e3\u200e, 79.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05c1\u05d7\u05d8\u200e, 330.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4\u200e, 520 ff.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05dc\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05d8\u200e, 474.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dc\u05b5\u05dd\u200e, 415.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05dc\u05b5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 540.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dd\u200e, 195, 226.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05c1\u05de\u05e8 \u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05de\u05e8\u05ea\u200e, 364.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05e4\u05b0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 285.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05e4\u05b9\u05df\u200e, 527.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05e7\u05b6\u05ea\u200e, 344.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05c1\u05e8\u05e5\u200e, 27 f.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05e9\u05c1\u200e, 469.\n\n\u200e \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05ea\u200e, 126.\n\n\n\u200e \u05ea\u05d0\u05d5\u05d4\u200e, 532.\n\n\u200e \u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 160 f.\n\n\u200e \u05ea\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d4\u05d5, 16, 50.\n\n\u200e \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05d4\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd\u200e, 17, 23, 44 f., 48, 164, 532.\n\n\u200e \u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea\u200e, xxxiii f., 39, 174, 235, 358.\n\n\u200e \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d1\u200e, 336.\n\n\u200e \u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u200e, 369.\n\n\u200e \u05ea\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200e, 159.\n\n\u200e \u05ea\u05b5\u05bc\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u200e, 283.\n\n\u200e \u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05df\u200e, 28.\n\n\u200e \u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d3\u05b5\u05bc\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u200e, 68, 281.\n\n\u200e \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05e7\u05d4\u200e, 82, 107.\n\n\n\n\n Advertisements.\n\n\n The International Critical Commentary\n\n VOLUMES NOW READY\n\n=Numbers.= By the Rev. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew,\nMansfield College, Oxford.\n\n \u201cMost Bible readers have the impression that \u2018Numbers\u2019 is a dull\n book only relieved by the brilliancy of the Balaam chapters and\n some snatches of old Hebrew songs, but, as Prof. Gray shows with\n admirable skill and insight, its historical and religious value\n is not that which lies on the surface. Prof. Gray\u2019s Commentary\n is distinguished by fine scholarship and sanity of judgment;\n it is impossible to commend it too warmly.\u201d\u2015\u2015_Saturday Review_\n (London).\n Crown 8vo. $3.00 _net_.\n\n=Deuteronomy.= By the Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., Regius\nProfessor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.\n\n \u201cIt is a pleasure to see at last a really critical Old Testament\n commentary in English upon a portion of the Pentateuch, and\n especially one of such merit. This I find superior to any other\n Commentary in any language upon Deuteronomy.\u201d\n Professor E. L. CURTIS, of Yale University.\n Crown 8vo. $3.00 _net_.\n\n=Judges.= By Rev. GEORGE FOOT MOORE, D.D., LL.D., Professor of\nTheology in Harvard University.\n\n \u201cThe work is done in an atmosphere of scholarly interest and\n indifference to dogmatism and controversy, which is at least\n refreshing.... It is a noble introduction to the moral forces,\n ideas and influences that controlled the period of the Judges,\n and a model of what a historical commentary, with a practical\n end in view, should be.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The Independent._\n Crown 8vo. $3.00 _net_.\n\n=The Books of Samuel.= By Rev. HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D., Professor\nof Old Testament Literature and History of Religion, Meadville, Pa.\n\n \u201cProfessor Smith\u2019s Commentary will for some time be the standard\n work on Samuel, and we heartily congratulate him on scholarly\n work so faithfully accomplished.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The Athen\u00e6um._\n Crown 8vo. $3.00 _net_.\n\n=The Book of Psalms.= By CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt.,\nGraduate Professor of Theological Encyclop\u00e6dia and Symbolics, Union\nTheological Seminary, New York, and EMILIE GRACE BRIGGS, B.D.\n\n \u201cChristian scholarship seems here to have reached the highest\n level yet attained in study of the book which in religious\n importance stands next to the Gospels. His work upon it is not\n likely to be excelled in learning, both massive and minute,\n by any volume of the International Series, to which it\n belongs.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The Outlook._\n 2 Volumes. Crown 8vo. Price, $3.00 each _net_.\n\n=Proverbs.= By the Rev. CRAWFORD H. TOY, D.D., LL.D., Professor of\nHebrew in Harvard University.\n\n \u201cThis volume has the same characteristics of thoroughness and\n painstaking scholarship as the preceding issues of the series.\n In the critical treatment of the text, in noting the various\n readings and the force of the words in the original Hebrew, it\n leaves nothing to be desired.\u201d\n Crown 8vo. $3.00 _net_.\n\n=Amos and Hosea.= By WILLIAM RAINEY HARPER, Ph.D., LL.D., late\nProfessor of Semitic Languages and Literature and President of the\nUniversity of Chicago.\n\n \u201cHe has gone, with characteristic minuteness, not only into\n the analysis and discussion of each point, endeavoring in every\n case to be thoroughly exhaustive, but also into the history of\n exegesis and discussion. Nothing at all worthy of consideration\n has been passed by. The consequence is that when one carefully\n studies what has been brought together in this volume,\n either upon some passage of the two prophets treated, or upon\n some question of critical or antiquarian importance in the\n introductory portion of the volume, one feels that he has\n obtained an adequately exhaustive view of the subject.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The\n Interior._\n Crown 8vo. $3.00 _net_.\n\n=Esther.= By L. B. PATON, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Hartford\nTheological Seminary.\n\n This scholarly and critical commentary on the Book of Esther\n presents in full the remarkable additions to the Massoretic\n text and the variations in the various versions beginning with\n the Greek translation and continuing through the Vulgate and\n Peshitto down to the Talmud and Targums. These are not given in\n full in any other commentary, yet they are very important both\n for the history of the text and the history of the exegesis.\n Crown 8vo. $2.25 _net_.\n\n=Ecclesiastes.= By GEORGE A. BARTON, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical\nLiterature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa.\n\n \u201cIt is a relief to find a commentator on Ecclesiastes who is\n not endeavoring to defend some new theory. This volume, in\n the International Commentary series, treats the book in a\n scholarly and sensible fashion, presenting the conclusions\n of earlier scholars together with the author\u2019s own,\n and providing thus all the information that any student\n needs.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The Congregationalist._\n Crown 8vo. $2.25 _net_.\n\n=St. Matthew.= By the Rev. WILLOUGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow of Exeter\nCollege, Oxford.\n\n \u201cAs a microscopic and practically exhaustive study and itemized\n statement of the probable or possible sources of the Synoptic\n Gospels and of their relations, one to another, this work has\n not been surpassed. I doubt if it has been equaled. And the\n author is not by any means lacking in spiritual insight.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The\n Methodist Review_ (Nashville).\n Crown 8vo. $3.00 _net_.\n\n=St. Mark.= By the Rev. E. P. GOULD, D.D., sometime Professor of New\nTestament Exegesis, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia.\n\n \u201cThe whole make-up is that of a thoroughly helpful, instructive\n critical study of the Word, surpassing anything of the kind\n ever attempted in the English language, and to students and\n clergymen knowing the proper use of a commentary it will prove\n an invaluable aid.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The Lutheran Quarterly._\n Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_.\n\n=St. Luke.= By the Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., sometime Master of\nUniversity College, Durham.\n\n \u201cWe are pleased with the thoroughness and scientific accuracy\n of the interpretations.... It seems to us that the prevailing\n characteristic of the book is common sense, fortified by\n learning and piety.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The Herald and Presbyter._\n Crown 8vo. $3.00 _net_.\n\n=Romans.= By the Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret\nProfessor of Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and the\nRev. A. C. HEADLAM, M.A., D.D., Principal of Kings College, London.\n\n \u201cWe do not hesitate to commend this as the best commentary on\n Romans yet written in English. It will do much to popularize\n this admirable and much needed series, by showing that it\n is possible to be critical and scholarly and at the same\n time devout and spiritual, and intelligible to plain Bible\n readers.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The Church Standard._\n Crown 8vo. $3.00 _net_.\n\n=Ephesians and Colossians.= By the Rev. T. K. ABBOTT, D.D., D.Litt.,\nformerly Professor of Biblical Greek, now of Hebrew, Trinity College,\nDublin.\n\n \u201cAn able and independent piece of exegesis, and one that none\n of us can afford to be without. It is the work of a man who has\n made himself master of this theme. His exegetical perceptions\n are keen, and we are especially grateful for his strong defense\n of the integrity and apostolicity of these two great monuments\n of Pauline teaching.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The Expositor._\n Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_.\n\n=Philippians and Philemon.= By Rev. MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D., Professor\nof Biblical Literature in Union Theological Seminary, New York.\n\n \u201cProfessor Vincent\u2019s Commentary appears to me not less\n admirable for its literary merit than for its scholarship and\n its clear and discriminating discussions of the contents of\n these Epistles.\u201d\u2015\u2015Dr. GEORGE P. FISHER.\n Crown 8vo. $2.00 _net_.\n\n=St. Peter and St. Jude.= By the Rev. CHARLES BIGG, D.D., sometime\nRegius Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University, New York.\n\n \u201cThe careful and thorough student will find here a vast amount\n of information most helpful to him in his studies and researches.\n The international Critical Commentary, to which it belongs, will\n prove a great boon to students and ministers.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The Canadian\n Congregationalist._\n Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_.\n\n=Genesis.= By the Rev. JOHN SKINNER, D.D., Principal and Professor of\nOld Testament Language and Literature, College of Presbyterian Church\nof England, Cambridge, England.\n\n Crown 8vo. $3.00 _net_ (Postage additional).\n\n=The Books of Chronicles.= By the Rev. EDWARD L. CURTIS, Ph.D., D.D.,\nProfessor of Hebrew, Yale University, and Rev. ALBERT A. MADSEN, Ph.D.\n\n Crown 8vo. $3.00 _net_ (Postage additional).\n\n\n\n\n The International Theological Library\n\n\n EDITORS\u2019 PREFACE\n\nTHEOLOGY has made great and rapid advances in recent years. New lines\nof investigation have been opened up, fresh light has been cast upon\nmany subjects of the deepest interest, and the historical method has\nbeen applied with important results. This has prepared the way for a\nLibrary of Theological Science, and has created the demand for it. It\nhas also made it at once opportune and practicable now to secure the\nservices of specialists in the different departments of Theology, and\nto associate them in an enterprise which will furnish a record of\nTheological inquiry up to date.\n\nThis Library is designed to cover the whole field of Christian\nTheology. Each volume is to be complete in itself, while, at the\nsame time, it will form part of a carefully planned whole. One of the\nEditors is to prepare a volume of Theological Encyclop\u00e6dia which will\ngive the history and literature of each department, as well as of\nTheology as a whole.\n\nThe Library is intended to form a series of Text-Books for Students of\nTheology.\n\nThe Authors, therefore, aim at conciseness and compactness of\nstatement. At the same time, they have in view that large and\nincreasing class of students, in other departments of inquiry, who\ndesire to have a systematic and thorough exposition of Theological\nScience. Technical matters will therefore be thrown into the form\nof notes, and the text will be made as readable and attractive as\npossible.\n\nThe Library is international and interconfessional. It will be\nconducted in a catholic spirit, and in the interests of Theology as\na science.\n\nIts aim will be to give full and impartial statements both of the\nresults of Theological Science and of the questions which are still\nat issue in the different departments.\n\nThe Authors will be scholars of recognized reputation in the several\nbranches of study assigned to them. They will be associated with\neach other and with the Editors in the effort to provide a series\nof volumes which may adequately represent the present condition of\ninvestigation, and indicate the way for further progress.\n\n CHARLES A. BRIGGS\n STEWART D. F. SALMOND\n\n\n ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS\n\n=THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLOP\u00c6DIA.= By CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt.,\nProfessor of Theological Encyclop\u00e6dia and Symbolics, Union Theological\nSeminary, New York.\n\n=AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.= By S. R.\nDRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor of Hebrew and Canon of Christ\nChurch, Oxford.\n [_Revised and Enlarged Edition._\n\n=CANON AND TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.= By FRANCIS CRAWFORD BURKITT,\nM.A., Norrisian Professor of Divinity, University of Cambridge.\n\n=OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY.= By HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D., Professor of\nOld Testament Literature, Meadville, Pa.\n [_Now Ready._\n\n=CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.= By FRANCIS BROWN, D.D.,\nLL.D., D.Litt., President and Professor of Hebrew, Union Theological\nSeminary, New York.\n\n=THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.= By A. B. DAVIDSON, D.D., LL.D.,\nsometime Professor of Hebrew, New College, Edinburgh.\n [_Now Ready._\n\n=AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.= By Rev.\nJAMES MOFFATT, B.D., Minister United Free Church, Dundonald, Scotland.\n\n=CANON AND TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.= By CASPAR REN\u00c9 GREGORY, D.D.,\nLL.D., Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the University of\nLeipzig.\n [_Now Ready._\n\n=THE LIFE OF CHRIST.= By WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret\nProfessor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.\n\n=A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE.= By ARTHUR C.\nMCGIFFERT, D.D., Professor of Church History, Union Theological\nSeminary, New York.\n [_Now Ready._\n\n=CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.= By FRANK C. PORTER, D.D.,\nProfessor of Biblical Theology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.\n\n=THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.= By GEORGE B. STEVENS, D.D., sometime\nProfessor of Systematic Theology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.\n [_Now Ready._\n\n=BIBLICAL ARCH\u00c6OLOGY.= By G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew,\nMansfield College, Oxford.\n\n=THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC CHURCH.= By ROBERT RAINY, D.D., LL.D., sometime\nPrincipal of New College, Edinburgh.\n [_Now Ready._\n\n=THE EARLY LATIN CHURCH.=\n [_Author to be announced later._\n\n=THE LATER LATIN CHURCH.=\n [_Author to be announced later._\n\n=THE GREEK AND EASTERN CHURCHES.= By W. F. ADENEY, D.D., Principal of\nIndependent College, Manchester.\n [_Now Ready._\n\n=THE REFORMATION.= By T. M. LINDSAY, D.D., Principal of the United\nFree College, Glasgow.\n [_2 volumes. Now Ready._\n\n=CHRISTIANITY IN LATIN COUNTRIES SINCE THE COUNCIL OF TRENT.= By PAUL\nSABATIER, D.Litt.\n\n=SYMBOLICS.= By CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt., Professor of\nTheological Encyclop\u00e6dia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary,\nNew York.\n\n=HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.= By G. P. FISHER, D.D., LL.D.,\nsometime Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Yale University, New\nHaven, Conn.\n [_Revised and Enlarged Edition._\n\n=CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS.= By A. V. G. ALLEN, D.D., sometime Professor\nof Ecclesiastical History, Protestant Episcopal Divinity School,\nCambridge, Mass.\n [_Now Ready._\n\n=PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION.= By ROBERT FLINT, D.D., LL.D., sometime\nProfessor of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh.\n\n=THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS.= By GEORGE F. MOORE, D.D., LL.D., Professor\nin Harvard University.\n\n=APOLOGETICS.= By A. B. BRUCE, D.D., sometime Professor of New\nTestament Exegesis, Free Church College, Glasgow.\n [_Revised and Enlarged Edition._\n\n=THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD.= By WILLIAM N. CLARKE, D.D., Professor\nof Systematic Theology, Hamilton Theological Seminary.\n [_Now Ready._\n\n=THE DOCTRINE OF MAN.= By WILLIAM P. PATERSON, D.D., Professor of\nDivinity, University of Edinburgh.\n\n=THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST.= By H. R. MACKINTOSH, Ph.D., Professor of\nSystematic Theology, New College, Edinburgh.\n\n=THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF SALVATION.= By GEORGE B. STEVENS, D.D.,\nsometime Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University.\n [_Now Ready._\n\n=THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE.= By WILLIAM ADAMS BROWN, D.D.,\nProfessor of Systematic Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York.\n\n=CHRISTIAN ETHICS.= By NEWMAN SMYTH, D.D., Pastor of Congregational\nChurch, New Haven.\n [_Revised and Enlarged Edition._\n\n=THE CHRISTIAN PASTOR AND THE WORKING CHURCH.= By WASHINGTON GLADDEN,\nD.D., Pastor of Congregational Church, Columbus, Ohio.\n [_Now Ready._\n\n=THE CHRISTIAN PREACHER.= The Rev. A. E. GARVIE, M.A., D.D., Principal\nof New College, London, England.\n\n=RABBINICAL LITERATURE.= By S. SCHECHTER, M.A., President of the\nJewish Theological Seminary, New York City.\n\n >>> OTHER VOLUMES WILL BE ANNOUNCED LATER.\n\n\n VOLUMES NOW READY\n\n=An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament.= By Professor\nS. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt.\n\n \u201cAs a whole there is probably no book in the English Language\n equal to this \u2018Introduction to the Literature of the Old\n Testament,\u2019 for the student who desires to understand what the\n modern criticism thinks about the Bible.\u201d\u2015\u2015Dr. LYMAN ABBOTT, in\n _The Outlook_.\n Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_.\n\n=A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age. = By ARTHUR C.\nMCGIFFERT, Ph.D., D.D.\n\n \u201cThe clearness, self-consistency, and force of the whole\n impression of Apostolic Christianity with which we leave\n this book goes far to guarantee its permanent value and\n success.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The Expositor._\n Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_.\n\n=Christian Ethics.= By NEWMAN SMYTH, D.D.\n\n \u201cAs this book is the latest, so it is the fullest and most\n attractive treatment of the subject that we are familiar with.\n Patient and exhaustive in its method of inquiry, and stimulating\n and suggestive in the topic it handles, we are confident that it\n will be a help to the task of the moral understanding and\n interpretation of human life.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The Living Church._\n Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_.\n\n=Apologetics; or, Christianity Defensively Stated. = By ALEXANDER\nBALMAIN BRUCE, D.D.\n\n \u201cWe have not for a long time taken a book in hand that is more\n stimulating to faith.... Without commenting further, we repeat\n that this volume is the ablest, most scholarly, most advanced,\n and sharpest defence of Christianity that has ever been written.\n No theological library should be without it.\u201d\u2015\u2015_Zion\u2019s Herald._\n Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_.\n\n=Old Testament History.= By HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D.\n\n \u201cProf. Smith has, by his comprehensive and vitalized\n history, laid all who care for the Old Testament under great\n obligations.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The Independent._\n Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_.\n\n=The Ancient Catholic Church.= By ROBERT RAINY, D.D., LL.D.\n\n \u201cAs a comprehensive work on the formative stage of the Church\u2019s\n experience the volume will easily find its place in the\n front rank among books on the subject composed in the English\n language.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The Interior._\n Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_.\n\n=The Reformation in Germany.= By THOMAS M. LINDSAY, M.A., D.D.\n Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_.\n\n=The Reformation in Lands Beyond Germany.= By THOMAS M. LINDSAY, D.D.\n\n \u201cTogether these two volumes will at once take their place as the\n classical English History of the Reformation.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The Expository\n Times._\n\n \u201cThe good balance of material which he has attained by a self-\n denying exclusion, as well as by much research and inclusion of\n fresh material, makes the work a real addition to our materials\n for study.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The Congregationalist._\n Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_.\n\n=Canon and Text of the New Testament.= By CASPER REN\u00c9 GREGORY, D.D.,\nLL.D.\n\n \u201cThe book is a treasury of learning, and its fairness in dealing\n with the matter in hand is admirable. From first to last, the\n purpose of the author is not to show upon how slight basis\n our confidence in the canonicity of the New Testament is\n based, but rather upon how solid a foundation our confidence\n rests.\u201d\u2015\u2015_Journal and Messenger._\n Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_.\n\n=The Greek and Eastern Churches.= By WALTER F. ADENEY, M.A., D.D.\n\n \u201cIt seems to me an excellent and most useful piece of work. I\n do not know anything in English which covers the same ground and\n am sure Dr. Adeney has put us all in his debt by his scholarly,\n well-balanced and judicious treatment.\u201d\u2015\u2015_Prof. William Adams\n Brown._\n Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_.\n\n=The Christian Doctrine of God.= By WILLIAM N. CLARKE, D.D.\n Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_. Postage Additional.\n\n=The Theology of the New Testament.= By GEORGE B. STEVENS, D.D., LL.D.\n\n \u201cIt is a fine example of painstaking, discriminating, impartial\n research and statement.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The Congregationalist._\n Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_.\n\n=History of Christian Doctrine.= By GEORGE P. FISHER, D.D., LL.D.\n\n \u201cIt is only just to say that Dr. Fisher has produced the best\n History of Doctrine that we have in English.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The New York\n Evangelist._\n Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_.\n\n=The Christian Pastor and the Working Church.= By WASHINGTON GLADDEN,\nD.D., LL.D.\n\n \u201cA comprehensive, inspiring and helpful guide to a busy pastor.\n One finds in it a multitude of practical suggestions for the\n development of the spiritual and working life of the Church, and\n the answer to many problems that are a constant perplexity to\n the faithful minister.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The Christian Intelligencer._\n Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_.\n\n=Christian Institutions.= By ALEXANDER V. B. ALLEN, D.D.\n\n \u201cProfessor Allen\u2019s Christian Institutions may be regarded as\n the most important permanent contribution which the Protestant\n Episcopal Church of the United States has yet made to general\n theological thought.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The American Journal of Theology._\n Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_.\n\n=The Theology of the Old Testament.= By A. B. DAVIDSON, D.D., LL.D.,\nD.Litt.\n\n \u201cWe hope every clergyman will not rest content until he has\n procured and studied this most admirable and useful book.\n Every really useful question relating to man\u2015\u2015his nature, his\n fall, and his redemption, his present life or grace, his life\n after death, his future life, is treated of.\u201d\u2015\u2015_The Canadian\n Churchman._\n Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_.\n\n=The Christian Doctrine of Salvation.= By GEORGE B. STEVENS, D.D.,\nLL.D.\n\n \u201cProfessor Stevens has performed a task of great importance,\n certain to exert wide and helpful influence in settling the\n minds of men. He has treated the subject historically and\n has given to Christ the first place in interpreting his own\n mission.\u201d\u2015\u2015_Congregationalist and Christian World._\n Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_.","title":"A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":315315}