_God’s Covenant with Abram_
(Jehovist).
In a prolonged interview with Yahwe, Abram’s misgivings regarding the
fulfilment of the divine promises are removed by solemn and explicit
assurances, and by a symbolic act in which the Almighty binds Himself
by the inviolable ceremonial of the _berîth_.¹ In the present form of
the chapter there is a clear division between the promise of a son and
heir (¹⁻⁶) and the promise of the land (⁷⁻²¹), the latter alone being
strictly embraced in the scope of the covenant.
¹ “Die Berîth ist diejenige kultische Handlung, durch die in
feierlicher Weise Verpflichtungen oder Abmachungen irgend
welcher Art absolut bindend und unverbrüchlich gemacht
wurden” (Kraetzschmar, _Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten
Testament_, 40 f.).
_Analysis._――See, besides the commentary, Wellhausen _Die
Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten
Testaments_² 23 f.; Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 416¹;
Bacon, _Hebraica_, vii. 75 ff.; Kraetzschmar, _op. cit._ 58
ff.――The chapter shows unmistakable signs of composition, but
the analysis is beset with peculiar, and perhaps insurmountable,
difficulties. We may begin by examining the solution proposed by
Gunkel. He assigns ¹ᵃᐧ* ᵇ{γ}ᐧ ²ᵃᐧ ³ᵇᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᵃ{α}ᐧ ᵇᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸ᵃᐧ
ᵇ{α} to Yahwist; ¹ᵇ{αβ}ᐧ ³ᵃᐧ ⁽²ᵇ{?}⁾ ⁵ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᵃ{β}ᐧ ¹³ᵃᐧ ¹⁴ (to
יצאו)ᐧ ¹⁶ to Elohist; and ⁷ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹³ᵇᐧ ¹⁴ᵇ{β}ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ᵇ{β}ᐧ ¹⁹⁻²¹ to
a redactor. On this analysis the Yahwist fragments form a
consecutive and nearly complete narrative, the break at verse ⁷
being caused by Redactor’s insertion of ⁷ ᶠᐧ But (1) it is not
so easy to get rid of ⁷ ᶠᐧ Verse ⁸ is, and ⁶ is not, a suitable
point of contact for ⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ; and the omission of ⁷ ᶠᐧ would make
the covenant a confirmation of the promise of an heir, whereas
¹⁸ expressly restricts it to the possession of the land. And
(2) the parts assigned to Yahwist contain no marks of the
Yahwistic style except the name יהוה; they present features not
elsewhere observed in that document, and are coloured by ideas
characteristic of the Deuteronomic age. The following points
may be here noted: (a) the _prophetic_ character of the divine
communication to Abram (¹ᐧ ⁴); (b) the address אדני יהוה (²ᵃ [compare
⁸]); (c) the theological reflexion on the nature of Abram’s
righteousness (⁶: compare Deuteronomy 6²⁵ 24¹³); (d) the idea
of the Abrahamic covenant (found only in redactional expansions
of Jehovist, and common in Deuteronomy); to which may be added
(e) the ideal boundaries of the land and the enumeration of
its inhabitants (¹⁸ᵇ⁻²¹), both of which are Deuteronomistic
(see on the verses below). The ceremonial of ⁹ ᶠᐧ ¹⁷ is no
proof of antiquity (compare Jeremiah 34¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ), and the symbolic
representation of Yahwe’s presence in ¹⁷ is certainly not
decisive against the late authorship of the piece (against
Gunkel). It is difficult to escape the impression that the whole
of this Yahwist narrative (including ⁷ ᶠᐧ) is the composition of
an editor who used the name יהוה, but whose affinities otherwise
are with the school of Deuteronomy rather than with the early
Yahwistic writers.――This result, however, still leaves unsolved
problems. (1) It fails to account for the obvious doublets in
²ᐧ ³. ²ᵇ and ³ᵃ are generally recognised as the first traces in
the Hexateuch of the document Elohist, and ⁵ (a _night_ scene
in contrast to ¹²ᐧ ¹⁷) is naturally assigned to the same source.
(2) With regard to ⁽¹²{?}⁾ ¹³⁻¹⁶, which most critics consider to
be a redactional expansion of Yahwist, I incline to the opinion
of Gunkel, that ¹¹ᐧ ¹³⁻¹⁶ form part of the sequel to the Elohist
narrative recognised in ³ᵃᐧ ²ᵇᐧ ⁵ (note האמרי, verse ¹⁶). (3) The
renewed introduction of Yahwe in verse ⁷ forms a hiatus barely
consistent with unity of authorship. The difficulty would be
partly met by Bacon’s suggestion that the proper position of
the Yahwist material in ¹⁻⁶ is intermediate between 15¹⁸ and
16¹. But though this ingenious theory removes one difficulty
it creates others, and it leaves untouched what seems to me the
chief element of the problem, the marks of lateness both in ¹⁻⁶
and ⁷⁻²¹.――The phenomena might be most fully explained by the
assumption of an Elohistic basis, recast by a Jehovistic or
Deuteronomic editor (probably Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ), and afterwards
combined with extracts from its own original; but so complex a
hypothesis cannot be put forward with any confidence.
=1‒6. The promise of an heir= (Yahwist), =and a numerous posterity=
(Elohist).――=1.= The verse presupposes a situation of anxiety on the
part of Abram, following on some meritorious action performed by him.
It is not certain that any definite set of circumstances was present
to the mind of the writer, though the conditions are fairly well
satisfied by Abram’s defenceless position amongst the Canaanites
immediately after his heroic obedience to the divine call (Gunkel).
The attempts to establish a connexion with the events of chapter
14 (Jewish Commentary and a few moderns) are far-fetched and
misleading.――_the word of Yahwe came_] On the formula _v.i._ The
conception of Abram as a prophet has no parallel in Yahwist; and even
Elohist, though he speaks vaguely of Abram as a נָבִיא (20⁷, _q.v._),
does not describe his intercourse with God in technical prophetic
phraseology. The representation is not likely to have arisen before
the age of written prophecy.――_in a vision_] probably a night-vision
(see verse ⁵), in which case the expression must be attributed to
Elohist. The mediate character of revelation, as contrasted with
the directness of the older theophanies (_e.g._ chapter 18), is at
all events characteristic of Elohist.――_thy shield_] a figure for
protection common in later writings: Deuteronomy 33²⁹, Psalms 3⁴ 7¹¹
often, Proverbs 2⁷ 30⁵.――_thy reward_ [will be] _very great_] a new
sentence (LXX, Peshiṭtå), not (as Vulgate, English Version) a second
predicate to אָנֹכִי――=2.= _seeing I go hence childless_] So all versions,
taking הָלַךְ in the sense of ‘die’ (Psalms 39¹⁴: compare Arabic _halaka_),
though the other sense (‘walk’ = ‘live’) would be quite admissible.
To die childless and leave no name on earth (Numbers 27⁴) is a fate
so melancholy that even the assurance of present fellowship with God
brings no hope or joy.――=2b= is absolutely unintelligible (_v.i._).
The versions agree in reading the names _Eliezer_ and _Damascus_, and
also (with the partial exception of LXX) in the general understanding
that the clause is a statement as to Abram’s heir. This is probably
correct; but the text is so corrupt that even the proper names are
doubtful, and there is only a presumption that the sense agrees with
³ᵇ.――=3.= In the absence of children or near relatives, the slave, as
a member of the family, might inherit (Stade _Geschichte des Volkes
Israel_, i. 391; Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_² 113). בֶּן־בַּֽיִת is a
member of the household, but not necessarily a home-born slave (יְלִיד בַּֽיִת,
14¹⁴).――=5.= The promise of a numerous ‘_seed_’ (compare ³ᵃᐧ ¹³) is
Elohist’s parallel to the announcement of the birth of a bodily heir
in Yahwist (verse ⁴).――_the stars_] a favourite image of the later
editors and Deuteronomy (22¹⁷ 26⁴, Exodus 32¹³, Deuteronomy 1¹⁰ 10²²
28⁶²).――=6.= _counted it_ (his implicit trust in the character of
Yahwe) _as righteousness_] 1 Maccabees 2⁵². צְדָקָה is here neither
inherent moral character, nor piety in the subjective sense, but a
right relation to God conferred by a divine sentence of approval (see
Wellhausen _Psalms_, _The Sacred Books of the Old Testament_, 174).
This remarkable anticipation of the Pauline doctrine of
justification by faith (Romans 4³ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ²², Galatians 3⁶; compare
James 2²³) must, of course, be understood in the light of Old
Testament conceptions. The idea of righteousness as dependent on
a divine judgment (חָשֶׂב) could only have arisen on the basis of
legalism, while at the same time it points beyond it. It stands
later in theological development than Deuteronomy 6²⁵ 24¹³, and
has its nearest analogies in Psalms 106³¹ 24⁵. The reflexion is
suggested by the question how Abram, who had no law to fulfil,
was nevertheless ‘righteous’; and, finding the ground of his
acceptance in an inward attitude towards God, it marks a real
approximation to the Apostle’s standpoint. Gunkel (161) well
remarks that an early writer would have given, instead of this
abstract proposition, a concrete illustration in which Abram’s
faith came to light.
* * * * *
=1.= אחר[י] הדברים האלה] frequent in Elohist (22¹ 40¹ 48¹, Joshua
24²⁹), but also used by Yahwist (22²⁰ 39⁷).――הָיָה דְבַר־יהוה (compare
verse ⁴)] not elsewhere in the Hexateuch; found occasionally in
the older writings (1 Samuel 15¹⁰, 2 Samuel 24¹¹), but chiefly
in later prophets and superscriptions: specially common in
Jeremiah and Ezekiel――מַֽחֲזֶה] Only Numbers 24⁴ᐧ ¹⁶, Ezekiel 13⁷.
The _word_ is thus not at all characteristic of Elohist, though
the _idea_ of revelation through dreams and visions (מַרְאָה,
Numbers 12⁶; מַרְאֹת הַלַּיְלָה, Genesis 46²) undoubtedly is. Considering
the many traces of late editing in the chapter, it is highly
precarious to divide the phrases of verse ¹ between Yahwist
and Elohist.――הַרְבֵּה (infinitive absolute) as predicate is unusual
and late (Psalms 130⁷, Ecclesiastes 11⁸). _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ ארבה, ‘I will multiply,’ is perhaps
preferable.――=2.= אדני יהוה] (compare ⁸) is common in the elevated
style of prophecy (especially Ezekiel), but rare in the Psalms.
In the historical books it occurs only as a vocative (except
1 Kings 2²⁶): Joshua 7⁷, Judges 6²² 16²⁸,――Deuteronomy 3²⁴
9²⁶, 2 Samuel 7¹⁸ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ²⁹, 1 Kings 8⁵³. Of these the first
three are possibly Yahwist; the rest are Deuteronomic.――ובן――אליעזר]
LXX has ὁ δὲ υἱὸς Μάσεκ τῆς οἰκογενοῦς μου, οὗτος Δαμασκὸς
Ἐλιέζερ,――a meaningless sentence in the connexion, unless
supplemented by κληρονομήσει με, as in some MSS of Philo
(before οὗτος). Peshiṭtå paraphrases: (‡ Syriac phrase) is a
ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, which appears not to have been understood by
any of the Versions. LXX treats it as the name of Eliezer’s
mother, Aquila (ποτίζοντος) as = מַשְׁקֶה; Theodotion, Vulgate,
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ give it the sense of ‘steward,’ which
may be a mere conjecture like the συγγενὴς of Symmachus. Modern
commentaries generally regard the word as a modification of
מֶשֶׁךְ (Job 28¹⁸?) with the sense of ‘possession’――בֶּן־מֶשֶׁךְ = ‘son of
possession’ = ‘possessor’ or ‘inheritor’ (so Gesenius, Tuch,
Kautzsch-Socin, Strack. al.); but this has neither philological
justification nor traditional support. A √ משׁק (in spite of
מִמְשָׁק, Zephaniah 2⁹) is extremely dubious. The last clause
cannot be rendered either ‘This is Eliezer of Damascus,’
or ‘This is Damascus, namely Eliezer’ (Delitzsch). Peshiṭtå
and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ adopt the summary expedient of turning
the substantive into an adjective, and reading ‘Eliezer the
Damascene’ (similarly Ὁ Ἑβραῖος in Field). It is difficult
to imagine what Damascus can have to do here at all; and if a
satisfactory sense for the previous words could be obtained,
it would be plausible enough (with Hitzig, Tuch, Kautzsch-Socin,
al.) to strike out [הוּא] דַּמֶּשֶׂק as a stupid gloss on מֶשֶׁק. Ball’s
emendation, וּמשֵׁק בֵּיתִי הֻא בֶּן־דַּמֶּשֶׂק אֱלִיעֶזֶר, ‘and he who will possess my house
is a Damascene――Eliezer,’ is plausible, but the singular בֶּן־ with
the name of a city is contrary to Hebrew idiom. Bewer (_Journal
of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, 1908, part 2, 160 ff.) has
proposed the reading――ingenious but not convincing――וּבָנִים בִּקּשְׁתִּי אֵין לִי
זָרֲע. ²ᵃ and ³ᵃ are parallels (note the double ויאמר א׳), of which
the former obviously belongs to Yahwist, the latter consequently
to Elohist. Since ³ᵇ is Yahwist rather than Elohist (compare יוֹרֵשׁ
with verse ⁴), it follows that ³ᵃᐧ ²ᵇ must be transposed if the
latter be Elohist’s parallel to ³ᵇ.――=3.= ירש] in the sense of
‘be heir to’: compare 21¹⁰ (Elohist), 2 Samuel 14⁷, Jeremiah
49¹, Proverbs 30²³.――=4.= ממעיךָ (LXX מִמְּךָ?)] of the father, 2
Samuel 7¹² 16¹¹, Isaiah 48¹⁹; of the mother, 25²³ (Yahwist),
Isaiah 49¹, Ruth 1¹¹, Psalms 71⁶.――=5.= החוצה] in Yahwist, 19¹⁷
24²⁹ 39¹²ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ (Joshua 2¹⁹?); but also Deuteronomy 24¹¹ 25⁵
etc.――=6.= והאמין] (on the tense, see Driver _A Treatise on the use
of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 133; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 112 _ss_):
LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå add אַבְרָם. The construction with בְּ is
usual when the object of faith is God (Exodus 14³¹, Numbers 14¹¹
20¹², Deuteronomy 1³², 2 Kings 17¹⁴, 2 Chronicles 20²⁰, Psalms
78³², Jonah 3⁵): לְ only Deuteronomy 9²³, Isaiah 43¹⁰.――צְדָקָה]
second objective accusative. The change to לִצְ׳ (Psalms 106³¹) is
unnecessary.
* * * * *
=7‒21. The covenant.=――=7, 8.= The promise of the _land_, Abram’s
request for a pledge (contrast verse ⁶), and the self-introduction
of Yahwe (which would be natural only at the commencement of an
interview), are marks of discontinuity difficult to reconcile with
the assumption of the unity of the narrative. Most critics accordingly
recommend the excision of the verses as an interpolation.
So Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, Kraetzschmar, Gunkel, al. Their
genuineness is maintained by Budde, Delitzsch, Bacon, Holzinger;
Wellhausen thinks they have been at least worked over. The
language certainly is hardly Yahwistic. The אני (⁷) is not a
sufficient ground for rejection (see Budde 439); and although אור
כשדים in a Yahwist-context may be suspicious, we have no right to
assume that it did not occur in a stratum of Yahwistic tradition
(see page 239 above). But לתת――לרשתה is a decidedly Deuteronomic
phrase (see _Oxford Hexateuch_, i. 205): on אדני יהוה, see on
verse ². On the theory of a late recension of the whole passage
these linguistic difficulties would vanish; but the impression
of a change of scene remains,――an impression, however, which
the interpolation theory does not altogether remove, since the
transition from ⁶ to ⁹ is very abrupt. Bacon’s transposition of
the two sections of Yahwist is also unsatisfactory.
=9, 10.= The preparations for the covenant ceremony; on which see
below, page 283. Although not strictly sacrificial,¹ the operation
conforms to later Levitical usage in so far as the animals are all
such as were allowed in sacrifice, and the birds are not divided
(Leviticus 1¹⁷).――_of three years old_] This is obviously the meaning
of מְשֻׁלָּשׁ here (compare 1 Samuel 1²⁴ [LXX]: elsewhere = ‘threefold,’
Ezekiel 42⁶, Ecclesiastes 4¹²). Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, which renders ‘three’
(calves, etc.), is curiously enough the only version that misses the
sense; and it is followed by _Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi, al. On the
number _three_ in the Old Testament, see Stade, _Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxvi. 124 ff. [especially 127
f.].――=11.= The descent of the unclean birds of prey (עַיִט), and Abram’s
driving them away, is a sacrificial omen of the kind familiar to
antiquity.² The interpretation seems to follow in ¹³⁻¹⁶ (Dillmann,
Gunkel).――=12.= תַּרְדֵּמָה (LXX ἔκστασις) is the condition most favourable
for the reception of visions (see on 2²¹).――_a great horror_] caused
by the approach of the deity (omit חֲשֵׁכָה as a gloss). The text is mixed
(see below), and the two representations belong, the one to Yahwist,
and the other to Elohist (Gunkel). The scene is a vivid transcript of
primitive religious experience. The bloody ceremony just described was
no perfunctory piece of symbolism; it touched the mind below the level
of consciousness; and that impression (heightened in this case by the
growing darkness) induced a susceptibility to psychical influences
readily culminating in ecstasy or vision.――=13‒16.= An oracle in which
is unfolded the destiny of Abram’s descendants to the 4th generation.
It is to be noted that the prediction relates to the fortunes of
Abram’s ‘seed,’ the mention of the land (¹⁶) being indirect and
incidental. The passage may therefore be the continuation of the
Elohist-sections of ¹⁻⁶, on the understanding that in Elohist the
covenant had to do with the promise of a seed, and not with the
possession of the land.――=13.= _a sojourner_] (collective): see on
12¹⁰.――_400 years_] agreeing approximately with the 430 years of
Exodus 12⁴⁰ (Priestly-Code).――=15= is a parenthesis, if not an
interpolation, reassuring Abram as to his own personal lot (see on
25⁸).――=16.= _the fourth generation_] _e.g._ Levi, Kohath, Amram,
Aaron (or Moses) (Exodus 6¹⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ). To the reckoning of a generation
as 100 years (compare verse ¹³) doubtful classical parallels are cited
by Knobel (Varro, _De Lingua Latina_ 6, 11; Ovid, _Metamorphoses_
xii. 188, etc.).³――_the guilt of the Amorites_] (the inhabitants of
Palestine) is frequently dwelt upon in later writings (Deuteronomy
9⁵, 1 Kings 14²⁴, Leviticus 18²⁴ ᶠᐧ etc. etc.); but the parallels from
Jehovist cited by Knobel (Genesis 18²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 19¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 20¹¹) are of quite a
different character.
¹ So in the covenant between Ašur-nirâri and Mati’ilu
(_Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_,
iii. 228 ff.), the victim is expressly said _not_ to be
a sacrifice.
² Compare Virgil _Aeneid_ iii. 225 ff.
³ Compare Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶
308 (English translation, page 308), who cites these verses
as positive proof that the generation was reckoned as 100
years (see page 135 above),――a view which, of course, cannot
be held unless verse ¹³⁻¹⁶ are a unity.
Verses ¹³⁻¹⁶ are obviously out of place in Yahwist, because they
_presuppose_ ¹⁸ (the promise of the land). They are generally
assigned to a redactor, although it is difficult to conceive
a motive for their insertion. Dillmann’s suggestion, that
they were written to supply the interpretation of the omen of
verse ¹¹, goes a certain distance; but fails to explain why the
interpretation ever came to be omitted. Since ¹¹ is intimately
connected with ¹³⁻¹⁶, and at the same time has no influence on
the account of Yahwist, the natural conclusion is that both
¹¹ and ¹³⁻¹⁶ are documentary, but that the document is not
Yahwist but Elohist (so Gunkel). It will be necessary, however,
to delete the phrases בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל in ¹⁴ and תִּקָּבֵר בְּשֶׁיבָה טוֹבָה in ¹⁵ as
characteristic of the style of Priestly-Code; perhaps also אַרְבַּֽע
מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה in ¹³. The whole of ¹⁵ may be removed with advantage
to the sense.――The text of ¹² is not homogeneous, so that as a
whole it cannot be linked either with ¹¹ or with ¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ. וְתַרְדֵּמָה וגו׳
and וְהִנֵּה אֵימָה וגו׳ are doublets (note the repetition of נפל על); and
the poetic חֲשֵׁכָה (only here in Pentateuch) is doubtless a gloss
to אימה. The opening clause וַיְהִי הַשּׁ׳ לָבוֹא is presumably Yahwist (in
Elohist it is already night in verse ⁵). Elohist’s partiality
for the visionary mode of revelation may be sufficient
justification for assigning the תרדמה to him and the אימה to
Yahwist; but the choice is immaterial.
* * * * *
=9.= גוזל Deuteronomy 32¹¹† = young of the vulture; but here =
‘young dove’; Arabic _ǧauzal_; Syriac (‡ Syriac word).――=10.=
וַיְבַתֵּר] a technical term; the verb only here; compare בֶּתֶר, Jeremiah
34¹⁸ᐧ ¹⁹――בתוך] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ בתור
(infinitive absolute).――אִישׁ בִּתְרוֹ וגו׳] compare 9⁵; Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 139 _c_.――=11.= הַפְּגָרִים] LXXᴬ τὰ σώματα τὰ διχοτομήματα; a
conflation of הפגרים and ה ַגְּזָרִים (verse ¹⁷).――וַיַּשֵּׁב] Hiphil of נשׁב
only here in the sense of ‘scare away’: so Aquila (ἀπεσόβησεν)
Peshiṭtå, Vulgate. Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ read וַיָּשֶׁב, which is less
expressive; and LXX וַיֵּשֶׁב אִתָּם is quite inadmissible.――=12.= ויהי――לבוא]
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 114 _i_; compare Joshua 2⁵ (Yahwist).――=13.=
ועבדום] LXX phrase καὶ κακώσουσιν αὐτοὺς; and apparently
read וְעָבְדוּ בָם, avoiding the awkward interchange of subject and
object.――=16.= ודור רביעי] accusative of condition, ‘as a fourth
generation’ (compare Jeremiah 31⁸); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 118 _q_.
* * * * *
=17.= _a smoking oven and a blazing torch_] the two together making
an emblem of the theophany, akin to the pillar of cloud and fire of
the Exodus and Sinai narratives (compare Exodus 3² 19⁹ 13²¹ etc.).
The _oven_ is therefore not a symbol of Gehenna reserved for the
nations (Rashi).――On the appearance of the תַּנּוּר, see the descriptions
and illustrations in Riehm, _Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums_
178; Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_² 65.――_passed between these
pieces_] compare Jeremiah 34¹⁸ ᶠᐧ (the only other allusion).
On this rite see Kraetzschmar, _op. cit._ 44 ff. Although
attested by only one other Old Testament reference, its
prevalence in antiquity is proved by many analogies in classical
and other writers. Its original significance is hardly exhausted
by the well-known passage in Livy (i. 24), where a fate similar
to that of the victim is invoked on the violators of the
covenant.¹ This leaves unexplained the most characteristic
feature,――the passing between the pieces. William Robertson
Smith surmises that the divided victim was eaten by the
contracting parties, and that afterwards “the parties stood
between the pieces, as a symbol that they were taken within the
mystical life of the victim” (_Lectures on the Religion of the
Semites_², 480 f.).
¹ “... tum illo die, Juppiter, populum Romanum sic ferito,
ut ego hunc porcum hic hodie feriam, tantoque magis
ferito quanto magis potes pollesque.” Compare _Iliad_
iii. 298 ff. Precisely the same idea is expressed with
great circumstantiality in an Assyrian covenant between
Ašur-nirâri and the Syrian prince Mati’ilu: see Peiser,
_Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, iii.
228 ff.
* * * * *
=17.= ויהי――באה] perfect with sense of pluperfect
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 111 _g_).――עֲלָטָה] only here and Ezekiel
12⁶ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹². LXX φλὸξ is certainly wrong (לֶהָבָה? לַהַט?).――עָשָׁן]
LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå read the particle, hence Ball emends
עָשֵׁן.――הַגְּזָרִים] the noun recurs only Psalms 136¹³; but compare the
analogous use of the verb 1 Kings 3²⁵ᐧ ²⁶.
* * * * *
=18.= This ceremony constitutes a _Berîth_, of which the one provision
is the possession of ‘the land.’ A _Berîth_ necessarily implies
two or more parties; but it may happen that from the nature of the
case its stipulations are binding only on one. So here: Yahwe alone
passes (symbolically) between the pieces, because He alone contracts
obligation.――The _land_ is described according to its ideal limits;
it is generally thought, however, that the closing words, along with
¹⁹⁻²¹, were added by a Deuteronomic editor, and that in the original
Yahwist the promise was restricted to Canaan proper.
The נְהַר מִצְרַיִם (not, as elsewhere נַחַל מ׳ = Wādī el-Arīsh) must be the
Nile (compare Joshua 13³, 1 Chronicles 13⁵). On an old belief
that the Wādī el-Arīsh was an arm of the Nile, see Tuch.――הַנָּהָר הַגָּדוֹל
וגו׳] compare Deuteronomy 1⁷ 11²⁴, Joshua 1⁴. The boundary was
never actually reached in the history of Israel (the notice in
1 Kings 5¹ᐧ ⁴ is late and unhistorical).――=19‒21.= Such lists
of pre-Israelite inhabitants are characteristic of Deuteronomy
and Deuteronomic expansions of Jehovist. They usually contain 5
or 6 or at most 7 names: here there are 10 (see Budde 344 ff.,
and Driver’s analysis, _A critical and exegetical commentary on
Deuteronomy_ 97). The first three names appear in none of the
other lists; and the same is true of the _Rĕphāîm_ in ²⁰. The
_Ḳenites_ (see page 113) and _Ḳenizzites_ (36¹¹) are tribes of
the Negeb, both partly incorporated in Judah: the _Ḳadmonites_
(only here) are possibly identical with the בְּנֵי קֶדֶם (29¹),
the inhabitants of the eastern desert.――The _Ḥivvites_, who
regularly appear, are supplied here by _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ (after _Girgashites_) and LXX (after
_Canaanites_).――On the _Ḥittites_, see page 215; and, further,
on chapter 23 below.
The idea of a covenant (or oath) of Yahwe to the patriarchs does
not appear in the literature till the time of Jeremiah (11⁵) and
Deuteronomy (4³¹ 7¹² 8¹⁸, 2 Kings 13²³ etc.): see Kraetzschmar,
61 ff. Of 31 passages in Jehovist where Kraetzschmar finds the
conception (the list might be reduced), all but three (15¹⁸ 12⁷
24⁷) are assigned to the Deuteronomic (Jehovistic) redaction
(see Staerk, _Studien zur Religions- und Sprachgeschichte des
alten Testaments_, i. 37 ff.); and of these three 12⁷ is a mere
promise without an oath, while in 24⁷ the words וַֽאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּֽע לִי have
all the appearance of a gloss. It is, of course, quite possible
that 15¹⁷ ᶠᐧ may be very ancient, and have formed the nucleus
of the theological development of the covenant-idea in the age
of Deuteronomy. But it is certainly not unreasonable to suppose
that it emanates from the period when Israel’s tenure of Canaan
began to be precarious, and the popular religion sought to
reassure itself by the inviolability of Yahwe’s oath to the
fathers. And that is hardly earlier than the 7th century
(Staerk, 47).