_The Covenant of Circumcision_
(Priestly-Code).
To Abram, who is henceforth to be called Abraham (⁵), God reveals
Himself under a new name (¹), entering into a covenant with him (²⁻⁸),
of which the sign is the rite of circumcision (⁹⁻¹⁴). The heir of this
covenant is to be a son born to Sarai (whose name is changed to Sarah)
in the following year (¹⁵⁻²²). Abraham immediately circumcises all
the males of his household (²³⁻²⁷).――To the writer of the Priestly
Code the incident is important (1) as an explanation of the origin of
circumcision, which in his day had become a fundamental institution
of Judaism; and (2) as marking a new stage in the revelation of the
true God to the world. The Abrahamic covenant inaugurates the third of
the four epochs (commencing respectively with Adam, Noah, Abraham and
Moses) into which the Priestly theory divides the history of mankind.
On the ethnic parallels to this scheme, Gunkel’s note (page 233 ff.)
may be consulted.
_Source._――The marks of Priestly-Code’s authorship appear in
every line of the chapter. Besides the general qualities of
style, which need not again be particularised, we may note the
following expressions: אלהים (throughout, except verse ¹, where
יהוה is either a redactional change or a scribal error); אל שדי, ¹;
הקים ברית, נתן ב׳, ²ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²¹; במאד מאד, ²ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ²⁰; אתה וזרעך אחריך, ⁷ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ
¹⁹; לדרתם, ⁷ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹²; מגרים, ⁸; ארץ כנען, ⁸; אחזה, ⁸; כל־זכר, ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ²³;
מקנה, ¹²ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ²³ᐧ ²⁷; בן־נכר, ¹²ᐧ ²⁷; ונכרתה הנפש וגו׳, ¹⁴; פרה ורבה, ²⁰; נשיאם,
²⁰; הוליד, ²⁰; בעצם היום הזה, ²³ᐧ ²⁶; see Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel.
References to the passage in other parts of Priestly-Code are 21
²ᐧ ⁴ 28⁴ 35¹², Exodus 2²⁴ 6³ ᶠᐧ (Leviticus 12³ ?).
The close parallelism with chapter 15 makes it probable that
that chapter, in its present composite form, is the literary
basis of Priestly-Code’s account of the covenant. Common to the
two narratives are (a) the self-introduction of the Deity (17¹
∥ 15⁷); (b) the covenant (17 _passim_ ∥ 15⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ); (c) the promise
of a numerous seed (17⁴ _passim_ ∥ 15⁵); (d) of the land (17⁸ ∥
15¹⁸), (e) of a son (17¹⁹ᐧ ²¹ ∥ 15⁴); (f) Abraham’s incredulity
(17¹⁷ ∥ 15³ᐧ ⁸). The features peculiar to Priestly-Code, such as
the sign of circumcision, the etymology of יִצְחָק in verse ¹⁷, the
changes of names, etc., are obviously not of a kind to suggest
the existence of a separate tradition independent of Yahwist and
Elohist.
=1‒8. The Covenant-promises.=――These are three in number: (a) Abraham
will be the father of a numerous posterity (²ᵇᐧ ⁴⁻⁶); (b) God will
be a God to him and to his seed (⁷ᵇᐧ ⁸ᵇ); (c) his seed shall inherit
the land of Canaan (⁸ᵃ). We recognise here a trace of the ancient
religious conception according to which god, land, and people formed
an indissoluble triad, the land being an indispensable pledge of
fellowship between the god and his worshippers (see _Lectures on the
Religion of the Semites_², 92 f.).――=1.= _appeared to Abram_] _i.e._,
in a theophany, as is clear from verse ²². It is the only direct
communication of God to Abram recorded in Priestly-Code. Priestly-Code
is indeed very sparing in his use of the theophany, though Exodus 6³
seems to imply that his narrative contained one to each of the three
patriarchs. If that be so, the revelation to Isaac has been lost, while
that to Jacob is twice referred to (35⁹ 48³).――_I am ’El Shaddai_] The
origin, etymology, and significance of this title are alike obscure:
see the footnote. In Priestly-Code it is the signature of the
patriarchal age (Exodus 6³); or rather it designates the true God
as the patron of the Abrahamic covenant, whose terms are explicitly
referred to in every passage where the name occurs in Priestly-Code
(28³ 35¹¹ 48³). That it marks an advance in the revelation of the
divine character can hardly be shown, though the words immediately
following may suggest that the moral condition on which the covenant
is granted is not mere obedience to a positive precept, but a life
ruled by the ever-present sense of God as the ideal of ethical
perfection.――_Walk before me_ (compare 24⁴⁰ 48¹⁵)] _i.e._, ‘Live
consciously in My presence,’ 1 Samuel 12², Isaiah 38³; compare 1
John 1⁷.――_perfect_] or ‘blameless’; see on 6⁹.――=2.= On the idea
and scope of the covenant (בְּרִית), see page 297 f. below.――=4.= _father
of a multitude_ (literally _tumult_) _of nations_] In substance the
promise is repeated in 28³ 48⁴ (קְהַל עַמִּים) and 35¹¹ (ק׳ גּוֹיִם); the peculiar
expression here anticipates the etymology of verse ⁵. While Yahwist
(12² 18¹⁸ 46³) restricts the promise to Israel (גּוֹי גָּדוֹל), Priestly-Code
speaks of ‘nations’ in the plural, including the Ishmaelites and
Edomites amongst the descendants of Abraham. See, however, on
28³.――=5.= Abram’s name is changed to _Abraham_, interpreted as ‘Father
of multitude.’ Compare Nehemiah 9⁷.
The equation אַבְרָהָם = אַב הֲמוֹן [גוים] is so forced that Dillmann al.
doubt if a serious etymology was intended. The line between
word-play and etymology is difficult to draw; and all that can
safely be said is that the strained interpretation here given
proves that אַבְרָהָם is no artificial formation, but a genuine
element of tradition. (1) The form אַבְרָם is an abbreviation of
אֲבִירָם (Numbers 16¹ etc.: compare אַבְנֵר, 1 Samuel 14⁵¹ etc., with
אֲבִינֵר, 1 Samuel 14⁵⁰; אַבְשָׁלוֹם, 2 Chronicles 11²⁰ᐧ ²¹, with אֲבִישָׁלוֹם,
1 Kings 15²ᐧ ¹⁰), which occurs as a personal name not only in
Hebrew but also as that of an Assyrian official (_Abî-râmu_)
under Esarhaddon, B.C. 677 (see _Die Keilinschriften und
das Alte Testament_³, 482)¹. (2) Of אברהם, on the other hand,
no scientific etymology can be given. The nearest approach
to Priestly-Code’s explanation would be found in the Arabic
_ruhām_ = ‘copious number’ (from a √ descriptive of a fine
drizzling rain: Lane, _s.v._).² Delitzsch thinks this the best
explanation; but the etymology is far-fetched, and apart from
the probably accidental correspondence with Priestly-Code’s
interpretation the sense has no claim to be correct.――With
regard to the relation of the two forms, various theories are
propounded. Hommel (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated
by the Monuments_, 275 ff.; _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen
Gesellschaft_, ii. 271) regards the difference as merely
_orthographic_, the ה being inserted, after the analogy
of Minæan, to mark the long _ā_ (אַבְרָהם), while a later
misunderstanding is responsible for the pronunciation ־רָחָם.
Strack and Stade (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, i. 349) suppose a _dialectic_ distinction:
according to the latter, אברהם is the original (Edomite) form,
of which אברם is the Hebraïzed equivalent.³ Winckler (_Geschichte
Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 26) finds in them two
distinct epithets of the moon-god Sin, one describing him as
father of the gods (_Sin abu ilâni_), and the other (‘father of
the strife of peoples’) as god of war (_Sin ḳarib ilâni_). The
possibility must also be considered that the difference is due
to the fusion in tradition of two originally distinct figures
(see Paton, _The Early History of Syria and Palestine_ 41). It
is quite a plausible supposition, though the thoroughness of
the redaction has effaced the proof of it, that אברם was peculiar
to Yahwist and אברהם to Elohist.――Outside of Genesis (with the
exception of the citations 1 Chronicles 1²⁷, Nehemiah 9⁷) the
form Abraham alone is found in Old Testament.
¹ Hommel’s reading of _Abî-râmu_ on a contract tablet of
Abil-Sin, the grandfather of Ḫammurabi (see _The Ancient
Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 96),
has proved to be incorrect, the true reading being
_Abî-Eraḫ_ (see Ranke, _Die Personennamen in den Urkunden
der Hammurabi-dynastie_, 1902, page 48). The name has,
however, recently been discovered in several documents
of the time of Ammizaduga, the 10th king of the same
dynasty. See _Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen
Sprachwissenschaft_, vi. (1909), Heft 5, page 60, where
Ungnad shows that the name is not West Semitic, but
Babylonian, that the pronunciation was _Abaram_, and that
the first element is an accusative. He suggests that it
may mean “he loves the father” (_râma_ = רחם), the unnamed
subject being probably a god. Compare _The Expository
Times._, xxi. (1909), 88 ff.
² The Arabic _kunyā_, _’Abū-ruhm_ is only an accidental
coincidence: Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xlii. 484².
³ Similarly von Gall (_Altisraelitische Kultstätten_ 53), who
compares Aramaic (‡ Syriac word), Arabic _bht_, appearing in
Hebrew as בּוֹשׁ.
* * * * *
=1.= אֵל שֶׂדַּי] For a summary of the views held regarding this divine
name, the reader may be referred to Baethgen, _Beiträge zur
Geschichte Cölestins_ 293 ff., or Kautzsch in _Encyclopædia
Biblica_, iii. 3326 f. (compare Cheyne _ib._ iv. 4419 f.); on
the renderings of the ancient versions, see the synopses of
Dillmann (259), Driver (404 f.), and Valeton (_Zeitschrift
für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xii. 11¹).――It is
unfortunately impossible to ascertain whether שֶׂדַּי was originally
an independent noun, or an attribute of אֵל: Nöldeke and Baethgen
decide for the latter view. The traditional Jewish etymology
resolves the word into שׁ = אֲשֶׁר and דַּי,――‘the all-sufficient’
or ‘self-sufficient’ (_Bereshith Rabba_ § 46: compare Rashi
אני הוא שיש די באלהותי לכל בדיה). Though this theory can be traced as far
back as the rendering of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion
(ἱκανός), it is an utterly groundless conjecture that
Priestly-Code used the name in this sense (Valeton). On the
other hand, it seems rash to conclude (with Nöldeke al.) that
the Massoretic punctuation has no better authority than this
untenable interpretation, so that we are at liberty to vocalise
as we please in accordance with any plausible etymological
theory. The old derivation from √ שׁרד = ‘destroy,’ is still the
best: it is grammatically unobjectionable, has at least some
support in Isaiah 13⁶, Joel 1¹⁵, and is free from difficulty if
we accept it as an ancient title appropriated by Priestly-Code
without regard to its real significance. The assumption of a
by-form שׁרה (Ewald, Tuch, al.) is gratuitous, and would yield
a form שֶׂדָּי, not שֶׂדַּי. Other proposed etymologies are: from שֵׁד
originally = ‘lord’ (Arabic _sayyid_), afterwards = ‘demon’
(pointing שֵׁדִי or שֵׁדַי [plural majority]: Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der
deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 735 f., xlii.
480 f.); from √ שׁדה (Arabic _ṯadā_) = ‘be wet’ (‘the raingiver’:
_The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_², 424); from Syrian
(‡ Syriac word), ‘hurl’ (Schwally, _Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, lii. 136: “a dialectic
equivalent of יהוה in the sense of lightning-thrower” [שֶׂדָּי]).
Vollers (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xvii. 310) argues for
an original שֵׁד (√ שׁוד), afterwards, through popular etymology
and change of religious meaning, fathered on √ שׁדד. Several
Assyriologists connect the word with _šadû rabû_, ‘great
mountain,’ a title of Bêl and other Babylonian deities (Hommel
_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_,
109 f.; Zimmern, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³,
358): a view which would be more plausible if, as Friedrich
Delitzsch (_Prolegomena eines neuen hebräisch-aramäischen
Wörterbuchs zum Alten Testament_ 95 f.) has maintained,
the Assyrian √ meant ‘lofty’; but this is denied by other
authorities (Halevy, _Zeitschrift für Keilschriftsforschung_,
ii. 405 ff.; Jensen _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, i. 251). As
to the origin of the name, there is a probability that אֵל שֶׂדַּי was
an old (compare Genesis 49²⁵) Canaanite deity, of the same class
as _’El ‛Elyôn_ (see on 14¹⁸), whom the Israelites identified
with Yahwe (so Gunkel 235).――=4.= אֲנִי] is _casus pendens_ (Driver
_A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 197 (4)), not
emphatic anticipation of following suffix (as Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 135 _f_).――=5.= את־שמך] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 121 _a_, _b_; but
את is omitted in some MSS and in _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_.
* * * * *
=6.= The promise of _kings_ among Abraham’s descendants is again
peculiar to Priestly-Code (35¹¹). The reference is to the Hebrew
monarchy: the rulers of Ishmael are only ‘princes’ (נְשֵׁיאִם, verse ²⁰),
and those of Edom (36⁴⁰) are styled אַלּוּף――=7.= _to be to thee a God_]
The essence of the covenant relation is expressed by this frequently
recurring formula.¹ It is important for Priestly-Code’s notion of the
covenant that the correlative ‘they (ye) shall be to me a people,’
which is always added in other writings (except Ezekiel 34²⁴), is
usually omitted by Priestly-Code (except Exodus 6⁷, Leviticus 26¹²).
The _bĕrîth_ is conceived as a self-determination of God to be to
one particular race all that the word God implies, a reciprocal
act of choice on man’s part being no essential feature of the
relation.――=8.= _land of thy sojourning_] 28⁴ 36⁷ 37¹ 47⁹, Exodus 6⁴
(all Priestly-Code).
¹ The list of passages as given by Driver (page 186) is as
follows: In Priestly-Code, Exodus 6⁷ 29⁴⁵, Leviticus 11⁴⁵;
in Priestly-Codeʰ, Leviticus 22³³ 25³⁸ 26¹²ᐧ ⁴⁵, Numbers 15⁴¹;
elsewhere, Deuteronomy 29¹³ (compare 26¹⁷ ᶠᐧ), Jeremiah 7²³
11⁴ 24⁷ 30²² 31¹ᐧ ³³, Ezekiel 11²⁰ 14¹¹ 34²⁴ 36²⁸ 37²³ᐧ ²⁷,
2 Samuel 2²⁴ (= 1 Chronicles 17²²), Zechariah 8⁸.
* * * * *
=6.= ממך] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase) = מִמֵּעֶיךָ; see on 15⁴.――=8.=
אֲחֻזָּה] a common word in Priestly-Code; elsewhere only Psalms 2⁸,
Ezekiel 44²⁸, 1 Chronicles 7²⁸.
* * * * *
=9‒14. The sign of the Covenant.=――To the promises of verses ²⁻⁸ there
is attached a single command, with regard to which it is difficult
to say whether it belongs to the content of the covenant (verse ¹⁰),
or is merely an adjunct,――an external mark of the invisible bond
which united every Jew to Yahwe (¹¹): see page 297. The theme at all
events is the institution of circumcision. The legal style of the
section is so pronounced that it reads like a stray leaf from the
book of Leviticus (note the address in 2nd person plural from ¹⁰
onwards).――=9.= _And God said_] marks a new section (compare ¹⁵), וְאַתָּה
being the antithesis to אֲנִי in ⁴.――_keep my covenant_] שָׁמַר is opposed
to הֵפַֽר, ‘break,’ in ¹⁴; hence it cannot mean ‘watch over’ (Valeton),
but must be used in the extremely common sense of ‘observe’ or ‘act
according to.’ The question would never have been raised but for a
disinclination to admit anything of the nature of a stipulation into
Priestly-Code’s idea of the covenant.――=10.= _This is my covenant_]
Circumcision is both the covenant and the sign of the covenant: the
writer’s ideas are sufficiently vague and elastic to include both
representations. It is therefore unnecessary (with Olshausen and
Ball) to read זאת אֹת בריתי (see verse ¹³).――=11.= _for a covenant-sign_]
_i.e._, after the analogy of 9¹² ᶠᐧ, a token by which God is reminded
of the existence of the covenant. The conception rises out of the
extraordinary importance of the rite when the visible fabric of Hebrew
nationality was dissolved, and nothing remained but this corporal badge
as a mark of the religious standing of the Jew before Yahwe.――=12a.=
_at the age of eight days_] connected with the period of the mother’s
uncleanness: Leviticus 12¹ᐧ ³; compare Genesis 21⁴, Luke 1⁵⁹ 2²¹,
Philippians 3⁵; Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 214.――=12b, 13=
go together (Delitzsch), extending the obligation to _slaves_, who
as members of the household follow the religion of their master.――The
penalty of disobedience is death or excommunication, according as one
or the other is meant by the obscure formula: _be cut off from its
kindred_ (_v.i._).
* * * * *
=10.= ובין זרעך אחריך] LXX + εἰς τὰς γενεὰς αὐτῶν. The whole is
possibly a gloss (Kautzsch-Socin, Ball, Gunkel), due to
confusion between the legislative standpoint of ¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ with
its plural address, and the special communication to Abraham;
see, however, verses ¹² ᶠᐧ――המול] infinitive absolute used as
jussive; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 _cc_, _gg_: compare Exodus
12⁴⁸, Leviticus 6⁷, Numbers 6⁵.――=11.= וּנְמַלְתֶּם] treated by
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ as active, from √ נמל, but really
abbreviated Niphal of √ מלל (compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67
_dd_), a rare by-form (Joshua 5²) of מוּל.――והיה] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ והיתה, adopted by Ball.――=12.= יליד בית]
see 14¹⁴.――מקנת כסף] only verses ¹³ᐧ ²³ᐧ ²⁷ and Exodus 12⁴⁴.――מזרעך
is the individualising use of 2nd person singular, frequently
alternating with 2nd plural in legal enactments. So verse
¹³.――=14.= ערלתו] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,
LXX + ביום השמיני (Ball).――ונכרתה――מעמיה] So Exodus 30³³ᐧ ³⁸ 31¹⁴,
Leviticus 7²⁰ ᶠᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ²⁷ 17⁹ 19⁸ 23²⁹, Numbers 9¹³,――all in
Priestly-Code, who employs a number of similar phrases――‘his
people,’ ‘Israel,’ ‘the congregation of Israel,’ ‘the assembly,’
etc.――to express the same idea (see Driver 187²). עַמִּים is here
used in the sense of ‘kin,’ as occasionally in Old Testament
(see 19³⁸ 25⁸). It is the Arabic _‛amm_, which combines the two
senses of ‘people,’ and ‘relative on the father’s side’: see
Wellhausen _Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften zu Göttingen_, 1893, 480, and compare Driver
on Deuteronomy 32⁵⁰ (page 384); Krenkel, _Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, viii. 280 ff.; Nestle, _ib._
xvi. 322 f.; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³,
480 f. With regard to the sense of the formula there are
two questions: (a) whether it embraces the death-penalty, or
merely exclusion from the _sacra_ of the clan and from burial
in the family grave; and (b) whether the punishment is to be
inflicted by the community, or by God in His providence. The
interpretation seems to have varied in different ages. Exodus
31¹³ ᶠᐧ clearly contemplates the death penalty at the hands of
the community; while Leviticus 17⁹ ᶠᐧ 20³ᐧ ⁶ point as clearly to
a divine interposition. The probability is that it is an archaic
juridical formula for the punishment of death, which came to
be used vaguely “as a strong affirmation of divine disapproval,
rather than as prescribing a penalty to be actually enforced”
(Driver). See Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i.
421 f.; Holzinger page 127 f.――הֵפַֽר] pausal form for הֵפֵר
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 29 _q_).
* * * * *
=15‒22. The heir of the Covenant.=――The promise of the birth of Isaac
is brought into connexion with the main idea of the chapter by the
assurance (¹⁹ᐧ ²¹) that the covenant is to be established with him
and not with Ishmael.――=15.= Sarai’s name is changed to _Sarah_. The
absence of an etymological motive is remarkable (_v.i._).――=16b.= In
LXX, _Jubilees_, Vulgate and Peshiṭtå, the blessing on Sarah is by
slight changes of text turned into a blessing on the son whose birth
has just been foretold (_v.i._). The Massoretic Text, however, is
more likely to be correct.――=17.= Abraham’s demeanour is a strange
mixture of reverence and incredulity: “partim gaudio exultans, partim
admiratione extra se raptus, in risum prorumpit” is Calvin’s comment.
It is Priestly-Code’s somewhat unnatural clothing of the traditional
etymology of Isaac (יִצְחָק, verse ¹⁹); compare 18¹² (Yahwist), 21⁶
(Elohist).――=18.= The prayer, _O that Ishmael might live before
thee!_――under Thy protection and with Thy blessing (Hosea 6²)――is a
fine touch of nature; but the writer’s interest lies rather in the
‘determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,’ which overrides human
feeling and irrevocably decrees the election of Israel (¹⁹).――=19a.=
Compare the language with 16¹¹, and observe that the naming of the
child is assigned to the father.――=20.= שְׁמַעְתִּיךָ] a remote allusion to
the popular explanation of יִשְׁמָעֵאל, ‘May God hear’ (compare 16¹¹ 21¹⁷).
Ishmael is to be endowed for Abraham’s sake with every kind of
blessing, except the religious privileges of the covenant.――_twelve
princes_] (compare 25¹⁶) as contrasted with the ‘kings’ of
⁶ᐧ ¹⁶.――=22.= The close of the theophany.—וַיַּעַל—מֵעַל as 35¹³.
* * * * *
=15.= שָׂרַי (LXX Σάρα) and שָׂרָה (LXX Σάῤῥα)] According to Nöldeke
(_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl.
183, xlii. 484), ־ַי is ♦an old feminine terminator surviving in
Syrian, Arabian and Ethiopian. On this view שָׂרַי may be either the
same word as שָׂרָה, ‘princess’ (√ שרר), or (as the differentiation
of LXX suggests) from √ שרה, ‘strive,’ with which the name Israel
was connected (Genesis 32²⁹, Hosea 12⁴: see William Robertson
Smith _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 34 f. [Nöldeke
dissents]). On Lagarde’s (_Mittheilungen_ ii. 185) attempt to
connect the name with Arabic _šaraʸ_ = ‘wild fertile spot,’ and
so to identify Abraham (as ‘husband of Sarai’) with the Nabatean
god Dusares (_ḏū-ššaraʸ_), see Meyer _Die Israeliten und
ihre Nachbarstämme_, 269 f., who thinks the conjecture raised
beyond doubt by the discovery of the name _Šarayat_ as consort
of Dusares on an inscription at Boṣra in the Ḥaurân. The
identification remains highly problematical.――=16.= וברכתיה] _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ וברכתיו. So LXX, _Jubilees_,
Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, which consistently maintain the masculine
to the end of the verse.――=17.= ואם――הֲ׳] a combination of the
disjunctive question with _casus pendens_; see Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 150 _g_.
♦ duplicate word “an” removed
=19.= אבל] ‘_Nay, but_,’――a rare asseverative (42²¹, 2 Samuel 14⁵,
2 Kings 4¹⁴, 1 Kings 1⁴³) and adversative (Daniel 10⁷ᐧ ²¹, Ezra
10¹³, 2 Chronicles 1⁴ 19³ 33¹⁷) particle. See the interesting
note in Burney, _Notes on Kings_, page 11; and compare König, ii.
265.――לזרעו אחריו] LXX καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ μετ’ αὐτὸν appears to
imply a preceding clause εἶναι αὐτῷ θεός, which is found in many
cursives. This is probably the correct reading.――=20.= נשיאם] LXX
ἔθνη.
* * * * *
=23‒27. Circumcision of Abraham’s household.=――=23.= _on that
very day_ (compare 7¹³)] repeated in verse ²⁶. Throughout the
section, Priestly-Code excels himself in pedantic and redundant
circumstantiality of narration. The circumcision of Ishmael, however,
is inconsistent with the theory that the rite is a sign of the
covenant, from which Ishmael is excluded (Holzinger, Gunkel).――=25.=
_thirteen years old_] This was the age of circumcision among the
ancient Arabs, according to Josephus. _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 214.
Origen (Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ vi. 11:¹ compare Wellhausen
_Reste arabischen Heidentums_² 175³); and Ambrose (_de Abraham_ ii.
348) give a similar age (14 years) for the Egyptians. It is possible
that the notice here is based on a knowledge of this custom. Among
the modern Arabs there is no fixed rule, the age varying from three to
fifteen years: see Dillmann 264; Driver in _A Dictionary of the Bible_,
ii. 504ᵇ.
¹ Edited by Heinichen, page 310 f.
_Circumcision_ is a widely diffused rite of primitive religion,
of whose introduction among the Hebrews there is no authentic
tradition. One account (Exodus 4²⁴ ᶠᐧ) suggests a Midianite
origin, another (Joshua 5² ᶠᶠᐧ) an Egyptian: the mention of
flint knives in both these passages is a proof of the extreme
antiquity of the custom (the Stone Age).¹ The anthropological
evidence shows that it was originally performed at puberty, as
a preliminary to marriage, or, more generally, as a ceremony of
initiation into the full religious and civil status of manhood.
This primary idea was dissipated when it came to be performed in
infancy; and its perpetuation in this form can only be explained
by the inherited belief that it was an indispensable condition
of participation in the common cultus of the clan or nation.
♦Passages like Deuteronomy 10¹⁶ 30⁶, Ezekiel 44⁷ᐧ ⁹, show that in
Israel it came to be regarded as a token of allegiance to Yahwe;
and in this fact we have the germ of the remarkable development
which the rite underwent in post-Exilic Judaism. The new
importance it then acquired was due to the experience of the
Exile (partly continued in the Dispersion), when the suspension
of public worship gave fresh emphasis to those rites which
(like the Sabbath and circumcision) could be observed by the
individual, and served to distinguish him from his heathen
neighbours. In this way we can understand how, while the earlier
legal codes have no law of circumcision, in Priestly-Code it
becomes a prescription of the first magnitude, being placed
above the Mosaic ritual, and second in dignity only to the
Sabbath. The explicit formulating of the idea that circumcision
is the sign of the national covenant with Yahwe was the work of
the Priestly school of jurists; and very few legislative acts
have exercised so tremendous an influence on the genius of a
religion, or the character of a race, as this apparently trivial
adjustment of a detail of ritual observance. For information on
various aspects of the subject, see Ploss, _Das Kind in Brauch
und Sitte der Völker_² (1894), i. 342‒372; Wellhausen _Reste
arabischen Heidentums_² 174 f., _Prolegomena zur Geschichte
Israels_⁶ 338 ff.; Stade _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, vi. 132‒143; the articles in _A Dictionary of the
Bible_ (Macalister) and _Encyclopædia Biblica_ (Benzinger); and
the notes in Dillmann 258; Holzinger 129; Gunkel 237; Driver 189
ff.; Strack², 67; Matthes, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, xxix. 70 ff.
¹ In a tomb of the Old Empire at Sakkara there are
wall-pictures of the operation, where the surgeon uses
a flint knife: see G. Elliot Smith in _British Medical
Journal_, 1908, 732 (quoted by Matthes); and the
illustration in _Texte und Bilder_, ii. page 126.
♦ “Passsages” replaced with “Passages”
_The Covenant-idea in Priestly-Code_ (see also page 290 f.
above). In Priestly-Code’s scheme of four world-ages, the
word בְּרִית is used only of the revelations associated with Noah
and Abraham. In the Creation-narrative the term is avoided
because the constitution of nature then appointed was afterwards
annulled, whereas the _Bĕrîth_ is a permanent and irreversible
determination of the divine will. The conception of the Mosaic
revelation as a covenant is Jehovistic (Exodus 24³⁻⁸ 34¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ
etc.) and Deuteronomic (Deuteronomy 4¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 5² ᶠᶠᐧ 9⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ
etc.); and there are traces of it in secondary strata of
Priestly-Code (Leviticus 26⁴⁵ [Priestly-Codeʰ], Exodus 31¹⁶ ᶠᐧ¹
[Priestly-Codeˢ]); but it is not found in the historical work
which is the kernel of the Code (Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ). Hence in
trying to understand the religious significance of the _Bĕrîth_
in Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ, we have but two examples to guide
us. And with regard to both, the question is keenly discussed
whether it denotes a self-imposed obligation on the part of God,
irrespective of any condition on the part of man (so Valeton,
_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xii.
1 ff.), or a bilateral engagement involving _reciprocal_
obligations between God and men (so in the main Kraetzschmar,
_Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament_ 183 ff.). The answer
depends on the view taken of circumcision in this chapter.
According to Valeton, it is merely a sign and nothing more;
_i.e._, a means whereby God is reminded of the covenant.
According to Kraetzschmar, it is both a sign and a constituent
of the covenant, forming the condition on which the covenant
is entered into. The truth seems to lie somewhere between two
extremes. The _Bĕrîth_ is neither a simple divine promise to
which no obligation on man’s part is attached (as in 15¹⁸), nor
is it a mutual contract in the sense that the failure of one
party dissolves the relation. It is an immutable determination
of God’s purpose, which no unfaithfulness of man can invalidate;
but it carries conditions, the neglect of which will exclude the
individual from its benefits. It is perhaps an over-refinement
when Kraetzschmar (_l.c._ 201) infers from the expressions
הֵקִים and נָתַן that for Priestly-Code there is only _one_ eternal
divine _Bĕrîth_, immutably established by God and progressively
revealed to man.
¹ Could this, however, be taken to mean that the Sabbath was a
‘sign’ of the _Adamic_ dispensation conceived as a covenant?
* * * * *
=24.= שנה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
שנים.――בהמלו] The Niphal is here either reflexive or passive;
in ²⁵ it is passive.――=26.= נמול] irregular perfect Niphal;
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 72 _ee_. Peshiṭtå takes it as active.
(√ נמל?) with Ishmael as object; and so LXX in verse ²⁷
(περιέτεμεν αὐτούς).
* * * * *