_Isaac and the Philistines_
(Yahwist, Redactor, Priestly-Code).
The chapter comprises the entire cycle of Isaac-legends properly so
called; consisting, as will be seen, almost exclusively of incidents
already related of Abraham (compare especially chapter 20 f.). The
introductory notice of his arrival in Gerar (¹⁻⁶: compare 20¹ ᶠᐧ) is
followed by his denial of his marriage with Rebekah (⁷⁻¹¹ ∥ 12¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ
20² ᶠᶠᐧ), his success in agriculture (¹²⁻¹⁶,――the only circumstance
without an Abrahamic parallel), his quarrels with the Philistines
about wells (¹⁷⁻²² ∥ 21²⁵ ᶠᐧ), and, lastly, the Covenant of Beersheba,
with an account of the naming of the place (²³⁻³³ ∥ 21²²⁻³⁴).――The
notice of Esau’s wives (³⁴ ᶠᐧ) is an excerpt from Priestly-Code.
_Source._――The style, except in ³⁴ ᶠᐧ and some easily recognised
redactional patches (¹ᵃ{βγ}ᐧ ²ᵃ{β}ᵇᐧ ³ᵇ⁻⁵ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸: see the notes),
is unmistakably Yahwistic: compare יהוה (²ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁵ [even in
the mouth of Abimelech, ²⁸ᐧ ²⁹]); טובת מראה, ⁷ (24¹⁶); השקיף, ⁸;
העתיק, ²² (12⁸); קרא בשם יהוה, ²⁵; אָלָה, ²⁸ (24⁴¹); בְּרוּךְ יהוה, ²⁹ (24³¹).
Some critics find traces of Elohist in ¹ ᶠᐧ, but these are
dubious.――The relation of the passage to other strata of the
Yahwist document is very difficult to determine. On the one hand,
the extremely close parallelism to chapter 20 f. suggests that
it is a secondary compilation based on Jehovist as a composite
work, with the name of Isaac substituted for that of Abraham.
But it is impossible to imagine a motive for such an operation;
and several considerations favour the theory that chapter 26 is
a continuation of the source distinguished as Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ in
the history of Abraham. (1) The Abrahamic parallels all belong
to the Negeb tradition (Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ and Elohist); and it
is natural to think that Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ, representing the Hebron
tradition, would connect the Negeb narratives with the name of
Isaac (whether Abraham or Isaac was the original hero of these
legends we cannot well ascertain). (2) The language on the whole
confirms this view (compare השקיף, העתיק, קרא בשם י׳, וירא י׳, and all
the phrases of ²⁵ᵃ). (3) The ideal of the patriarchal character
agrees with that which we find in Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ (magnanimity,
peaceableness, etc.).――In any case, it is to be observed that
the chapter stands out of its proper order. The Rebekah of ⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ
is plainly not the mother of two grown-up sons, as she is at the
close of chapter 25; and 27¹ is the immediate continuation of
25³⁴ or ²⁸ (see Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und
der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 30).
=1‒6. Isaac migrates to Gerar.=――Cleared of interpolations, the
section reads: (¹ᵃ{α}) _There was a famine in the land;_ (¹ᵇ) _and
Isaac went to Abimelech, king of the Philistines, to Gerar._ (²ᵃ{α})
_And Yahwe appeared to him and said,_ (³ᵃ) _Sojourn in this land,
and I will be with thee and bless thee._ (⁶) _So Isaac abode in
Gerar._――=1.= Isaac comes probably from Beer Laḥai-roi, 25¹¹.――On
_Abimelech_ and _Gerar_, see 20¹ ᶠᐧ. The assumption that Gerar was
a Philistine kingdom is an anachronism (see on 10¹⁴), made also in
Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ (21³²) but not in Elohist.――=3a.= _and bless thee_]
a promise fulfilled in Isaac’s successful husbandry (¹² ᶠᶠᐧ), and other
tokens of the divine favour (²²ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁸ ᶠᐧ), with no reference primarily
to the blessing of Abraham.
¹ᵃ{βγ} (מלבד――אברהם) is a redactional gloss (Redactorᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ
or Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ), pointing back to 12¹⁰.――²ᵃ{β}ᵇ (אל־תרד וגו׳)
is obviously inconsistent with ³ᵃ, and is best explained as a
gloss from the same hand as ¹ᵃ{βγ} (Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger),
Dillmann, Gunkel, al. consider it a variant from a parallel
narrative of Elohist (compare אשר אמר אליך with 22²), to which
Dillmann quite unnecessarily assigns also ¹ᵃ{α} and ⁶; but
the evidence is too weak to warrant the improbable hypothesis
of a _second_ Elohist version of 20¹ ᶠᶠᐧ.――³ᵇ⁻⁵ an expansion
in the manner of 22¹⁵⁻¹⁸, emphasising the immutability of the
oath to Abraham (see on 15¹⁸), and showing many traces of late
composition.
* * * * *
=3.= הארצות] so verse ⁴; LXX, _Jubilees_ read singular.
The nearest analogies to this use of plural (which is rare
and mostly late) are 1 Chronicles 13², 2 Chronicles 11²³ =
‘districts’ (of Palestine).――האל] see 19⁸.――=4a.= The comparison
with the stars, as 15⁵ 22¹⁷.――=4b, 5= almost verbally identical
with 22¹⁸: note especially the uncommon עקב אשר.――=5b= is made
up of Priestly and Deuteronomic expressions: compare Leviticus
26⁴⁶, Deuteronomy 6² 28⁴⁵ 30¹⁰ etc.――שמר משמרת denotes chiefly
the service of priests in the sanctuary, but is here used in
a wider sense (compare Leviticus 18³⁰ 22⁹, Deuteronomy 11¹,
Joshua 22³, 1 Kings 2³, Malachi 3¹⁴). The expression is highly
characteristic of Priestly-Code (Holzinger _Einleitung in
den Hexateuch_ 344).――אברהם] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_, LXX + אָבִיךָ.
* * * * *
=7‒11. Rebekah’s honour compromised.=――=7, 8.= Isaac’s lie (as 12¹³
20²), and the king’s accidental discovery of it.――_looked out at
a window_] possibly into a court of the palace: compare 2 Samuel
11².――מְצַחֵק אֵת] exchanging conjugal caresses (see on 21⁶),――a play on
the name Isaac. The verb is nowhere else construed with אֵת.――=9, 10.=
Abimelech’s rebuke of Isaac, and the latter’s self-exculpation.――_thou
mightest have brought guilt_] Compare 20⁹. It is an instance of
the writer’s timid handling of the theme (see below) that no actual
complication arises.――=11.= So stern an injunction would have been in
place in chapter 12 or chapter 20, but here it is unmotived.
That the three narratives 12¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 20, 26⁷⁻¹¹ are variations
of a common theme, appears not only from their close material
resemblance, but also from particular phrases recurrent in each:
_e.g._ אחתי הוא, הרג, מה־זאת עשית לנו, גור, טובת [יפת] מראה, etc. (compare
Kuenen _Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de
verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds_ i. 228). Although
many good scholars (Wellhausen, Kuenen, Holzinger, al.) are of
a different opinion, the present passage appears to be the most
colourless and least original form of the tradition. In 12¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ
(Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ) the leading features――the beauty of the
heroine, the patriarch’s fear for his life, his stratagem, the
plagues on the heathen monarch, his rebuke of the patriarch,
and the rewards heaped on the latter――are combined in a strong
and convincing situation, in which each element stands out in
its full natural significance. In chapter 20 (Elohist), the
connexion of ideas is in the main preserved; though a tendency
to soften the harsher aspects of the incident appears in God’s
communication to Abimelech, in the statement that no actual
harm had come to Sarah, and in the recognition of the half-truth
in Abraham’s account of his relation to Sarah. In 26⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ
(Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ) this tendency is carried so far as to obscure
completely the dramatic significance of those features which are
retained. Though Isaac is the guest of Abimelech (verse ¹), it
is only the ‘men of the place’ who display a languid interest in
his beautiful wife: no one wants to marry Rebekah, least of all
the king, who is introduced merely as the accidental discoverer
of the true state of affairs, and is concerned only for the
morality of his subjects. No critical situation arises; and
the exemplary self-restraint manifested by the men of Gerar
affords no adequate basis for the stern injunction of ¹¹,
which would have been appropriate enough in chapter 12 or
chapter 20. It is, of course, impossible to assign absolute
priority in every respect to any one of the three recensions;
but it may reasonably be affirmed that in general their
relative antiquity is represented by the order in which they
happen to stand――Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ, Elohist, Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ.
The transference of the scene from Gerar to Egypt is perhaps
the only point in which the first version is less faithful to
tradition than the other two.――See the elaborate comparison in
Gunkel 197 ff.
* * * * *
=7.= אנשי המקום] compare 29²² 38²², Judges 19¹⁶.――לֵאמֹר] a very
rare and questionable use of the word as a real infinitive
(_dicere_, not _dicendo_). Should אשתי be deleted? _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX read אִשְׁתִּי הִיא.――=10.= כמעט]
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 _p_.――והבאת] construct perfect; ‘thou
wouldst (in that case) have brought.’――=11.= העם] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX עַמּוֹ.
* * * * *
=12‒16.――Isaac’s successful husbandry.=――=12.= Cultivation on a small
scale is still occasionally practised by the Bedouin (see Palmer,
_The Desert of the Exodus_ ii. 296). The only other allusions in
the patriarchal history are 30¹⁴ 37⁷.――=13‒16.= Isaac’s phenomenal
prosperity excites the jealousy of the Philistines, which leads to his
enforced departure.――=15.= See on ¹⁸ below.
* * * * *
=13‒16.= Gunkel thinks the verses are a pendant to the Rebekah
incident, corresponding to the gifts of the heathen king (12¹⁶
20¹⁴) and the expulsion of Abraham (12²⁰). It is more natural to
consider ¹² ᶠᶠᐧ the continuation of ⁶; indeed, it might fairly be
questioned whether ⁷⁻¹¹ is not a later insertion, interrupting
the continuity of the main narrative.――=12.= שערים] LXX, Peshiṭtå
wrongly שְׂעֹרִים, ‘barley.’ The word is שֶׂעַר, meaning ‘measure’ or
‘value’ (compare שָׁעַר = ‘reckon,’ in Proverbs 23⁷, with allied
words in Yahwist. Aramaic and New Hebrew; especially New Hebrew
שׁיעור = ‘measure’).――=13.= וילך הלוך וגדל] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 _u_.
* * * * *
=17‒22. Isaac’s wells.=――See on 21²⁵ ᶠᐧ.――=17.= Isaac retires to the
_Wādī of Gĕrār]_ probably the _Ǧurf el-Ǧerār_, above (South-east) _Umm
el-Ǧerār_ (20¹), into which several wādīs converge, including West
er-Ruḥaibeh (verse ²²) and West es-Seba‛.――=19, 20.= The first well
is named _‛Eseḳ_ (‘annoyance’); the name has not been found.――=21.=
_Siṭnāh_ (‘hostility’) is possibly to be sought in the _West Šuṭnet
er-Ruḥaibeh_, close to Ruḥaibeh, though verse ²² seems to imply that
the places were some distance apart.――=22.= _Rĕḥôbôth_ (‘room’) is
plausibly identified with _er-Ruḥaibeh_, in the wādī of the same name,
about 20 miles South-west of Beersheba (a description in Palmer, ii.
382 f.).
In the narrative, Isaac himself was represented as the
discoverer of these wells, though another tradition (partially
preserved in 21²⁵ ᶠᐧ) ascribed the discovery and naming of them
to Abraham. Verses ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ are an ancient gloss, inserted to
harmonise the two views by the supposition that the wells had
been stopped up by the Philistines,――a practice frequently
resorted to in desert warfare (2 Kings 3²⁵).
* * * * *
=17.= ויחן] so (of an individual) 33¹⁸ (Elohist).――=18.= בימי]
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate,
_Jubilees_ עַבְדֵי.――ויסתמום] used in the same sense 2 Kings 3¹⁹ᐧ ²⁵,
2 Chronicles 32³ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ³⁰. On the masculine suffix (so verse ¹⁵),
see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 60 _h_, 135 _o_.――=19.= בנחל] LXX +
Γεράρων.――=20.= עשק] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. עסק is common in New Hebrew,
Targum in the sense of ‘be busy, occupied’; in Syrian it means
_durus, asper, molestus, fuit_: hence in Ethiopian _difficilem
se præbuit_.――=21.= LXX prefix וַיַּעְתֵּק מִשָּׁם יצחק] (with following verb
in singular), as verse ²²: compare 12⁸.――=22.= ופרינו] LXX, Vulgate,
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ וַיַּפְרֵנוּ, compare 28³.
* * * * *
=23‒25. The theophany at Beersheba.=――=23.= _went up_] though Bīr
es-Seba‛ lies considerably lower than er-Ruḥaibeh.――=24.= That an
_inaugural_ theophany (see on 12⁷) is meant, is clear from verse ²⁵.
According to this narrative, no patriarch had previously visited
Beersheba (compare 21³³).――_my servant_] LXX reads ‘thy father.’
Nowhere else in Genesis is Abraham spoken of as the servant of
Yahwe.――=25a.= Note the correspondence of the phraseology with 12⁷ ᶠᐧ
13⁴ᐧ ¹⁸.――=25b.= See verse ³².
* * * * *
=24, 25aα= are regarded by Gunkel as an interpolation of
the same character as ³ᵇ⁻⁵; but the linguistic marks of late
authorship which abound in ³ᵇ⁻⁵ are scarcely to be detected here,
and the mention of the altar before the tent is not sufficient
to prove dislocation of the text. Nor is it quite correct to
say that verse ³³ implies a different origin of the sacredness
of Beersheba from ²⁴ ᶠᐧ: the consecration of the sanctuary and
the naming of the place are separate things which were evidently
kept distinct in Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ (21³³).――=25.= ויכרו] synonymous
with חָפַר in Numbers 21¹⁸; elsewhere only used of a grave (50⁵) or
pit (Exodus 21³³ etc.).
* * * * *
=26‒33. The treaty with Abimelech.=――=26.= _’Aḥuzzath (v.i.) his
friend_] his confidential adviser, or ‘vizier,’――an official title
common in Egypt from an early period, and amongst the Ptolemies and
Seleucids (1 Maccabees 2¹⁸ 10⁶⁵; compare 2 Samuel 16¹⁶ ᶠᐧ, 1 Kings
4⁵, 1 Chronicles 27³³).――_Pîkōl_] see on 21²².――=27.= See verses
¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶.――=28.= The אָלָה is properly the curse invoked on the violation
of the covenant; בְּרִית refers to the symbolic ceremony (not here
described) by which it was ratified (see on 15¹⁷ ᶠᐧ).――=29.= Abimelech
dictates the terms of the covenant: compare 21²³.――=30, 31.= The
common meal seems to be a feature of the covenant ceremony (compare
31⁵³ ᶠᐧ), though here the essential transaction takes place on the
morning of the following day.――=32, 33.= The naming of the well (²⁵ᵇ).
The peculiar form _Šib‛āh_ (_v.i._) is perhaps chosen as a compromise
between שְׁבֻעָה, ‘oath’ (as Gunkel points), and שֶׁבַע, the actual name of
the place.
It is possible to recognise in these imperfectly preserved
legends a reflexion of historic or pre-historic relations
between nomadic tribes of the Negeb (afterwards incorporated
in Israel) and the settled population of Gerar. The ownership
of certain wells was disputed by the two parties; others were
the acknowledged possession of the Hebrew ancestors. In the
oldest tradition (Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ) the original purpose of the
covenant of Beersheba still appears: it was to put a stop to
these disputes, and secure the right of Israel at least to the
important sanctuary of Beersheba (21³⁰). In the later variations
this connexion is lost sight of, and the covenant becomes a
general treaty of peace and amity, which may also have had
historic importance for a later period. In Elohist there is
no mention of contested wells at all, nor even a hint that
Abraham had dug the well of Beersheba; while Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ seems
expressly to bar any connexion between the covenant and the
discovery of the well.
* * * * *
=26.= אחזתּ] (for the ending, see Driver _Notes on the Hebrew Text
of the Books of Samuel_ 107) has sometimes been mistaken for the
noun meaning ‘possession’ (17⁸), taken in the sense of a _body
holding together_ (see Rashi _ad loc._); so Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ סיעת
רחמוהו, ‘_company_ of his friends’; Jerome _collegium amicorum
ejus_; Græcus-Venetus κατοχή τε τοῦ φίλου (Field).――מרע] a rare
word for ‘companion,’ _sodalis_ (Judges 14¹¹ᐧ ²⁰ 15²ᐧ ⁶, 2 Samuel
3⁸, Proverbs 12²⁶(?) 19⁷†), whose use in the story of Samson
suggested the νυμφαγωγὸς of LXX here.――=28.= בינותינו] need not
be deleted (LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate, al.). The form בינות (42²³,
Joshua 22³⁴, Judges 11¹⁰, 2 Samuel 21⁷, Jeremiah 25¹⁶, Ezekiel
10²ᐧ ⁶ ᶠᐧ†) is always _two-sided_, and is here resolved into the
commoner בֵּין ... וּבֵין, exactly as 2 Samuel 21⁷. Hence in the first
case “us” means all the parties to the covenant, in the second
only the Philistine representatives.――=29.= תעשֶׁה] On the ־ֵ, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 _hh_.――אתה עתה] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ עתה אתה, LXX וע׳ א׳, a more natural order.――=32.=
לו] LXX strangely reads Οὐχ [εὕρομεν ὕδωρ].――=33.= אֹתָהּ] LXX,
Peshiṭtå better שְׁמָהּ.――שִׁבְעָה (ἅπαξ λεγόμενον)] LXX Ὅρκος;
but Aquila, Symmachus πλησμονή, Vulgate _Abundantiam_,
Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (שֵׁבְעָה, Ezekiel 16⁴⁹). In spite of the
interchange of sibilants, one is tempted to agree with these
authorities: Jerome pertinently asks: ‘Quæ enim etymologia est,
propterea vocari _juramentum_, quod aquam _non_ (compare LXX)
invenissent?’――שם] LXX, Peshiṭtå prefix קָרָא.
* * * * *
=34, 35. Esau’s Ḥittite wives (Priestly-Code).=――In Priestly-Code, Esau
is represented as still living with Isaac at Mamre (35²⁹).――_Ḥittite_
for ‘Canaanite’: see on 23³. It is possible, however, that in the case
of Basemath the true text was ‘Ḥivvite’ (so LXX, Peshiṭtå).――On the
names, see on 36² ᶠᐧ.
XXVII. 1‒45.
_How Jacob secured his Father’s Blessing_
(Jehovist).
This vivid and circumstantial narrative, which is to be read
immediately after 25³⁴ (or 25²⁸), gives yet another explanation of
the historical fact that Israel, the younger people, had outstripped
Edom in the race for power and prosperity. The clever but heartless
stratagem by which Rebekah succeeds in thwarting the intention of
Isaac, and diverting the blessing from Esau to Jacob, is related with
great vivacity, and with an indifference to moral considerations which
has been thought surprising in a writer with the fine ethical insight
of Yahwist (Dillmann). It must be remembered, however, that “Yahwist”
is a collective symbol, and embraces many tales which sink to the
level of ordinary popular morality. We may fairly conclude with Gunkel
(272) that narratives of this stamp were too firmly rooted in the mind
of the people to be omitted from any collection of national traditions.
_Sources_.――The presence of a dual narrative is rendered
probable by the following _duplicates_ (see Wellhausen _Die
Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des
Alten Testaments_² 34‒36): (a) ³³ᐧ ³⁴ ∥ ³⁵⁻³⁸. In ³⁵ (ויאמר) we are
recalled to the same stage as the ויאמר of ³³; and ³⁴ (Esau’s cry)
carries us forward to the same point as ³⁸.――(b) ²¹⁻²³ ∥ ²⁴⁻²⁷ᵃ:
here again ויאמר commences two sections which must be alternative,
since both lead up to the blessing (ויברכהו).――(c) A less obvious
doublet may be discovered in ¹¹⁻¹³ᐧ ¹⁶ ∥ ¹⁵: in the one case
Jacob is disguised by the skin of the kids, in the other by
wearing Esau’s clothes.――(d) ³⁰ᵃ{α} ∥ ³⁰ᵇ{β}.――(e) ⁴⁴ᵇ ∥ ⁴⁵ᵃ{α}
(to ממך).――The language is predominantly that of Yahwist, with
occasional traces of Elohist; and that the incident was actually
recorded in both these documents appears from chapters 32,
35³ᐧ ⁷. In the parallels just enumerated, however, the stylistic
criteria are hard to trace; and in the attempt to disentangle
them almost everything hangs on the word יהוה in ²⁷. As to (b),
²⁴⁻²⁷ is certainly Yahwist, and ²¹⁻²³ consequently Elohist; it
will follow that in (c) ¹⁵ belongs to Yahwist and ¹¹⁻¹³ᐧ ¹⁶ to
Elohist. With regard to (a), it is almost impossible to decide
which is Yahwist’s variant and which Elohist’s. Gunkel assigns
³⁵⁻³⁸ to Elohist, on the somewhat subtle ground that in Yahwist
(³³ᐧ ²⁷) Isaac is ignorant who it is that has personated Esau,
whereas in Elohist (³⁵ᐧ ²²) he knows very well that it is Jacob
(so _Oxford Hexateuch_, _Students’ Old Testament_). Most critics
have taken the opposite view, but without any decisive positive
reason. See Gunkel page 270 f.; Procksch 19 f.――It is not worth
while to push the precarious analysis further: anything else of
importance may be reserved for the notes.
=1‒5. Isaac’s purpose to bless Esau=: explained by his partiality
for his first-born son, and (more naïvely) by his fondness for
venison (25²⁸). It is quite contrary to the sense of the narrative to
attribute to him the design of frustrating the decree of Providence
expressed in the independent legend of 25²³.――=1.= Blindness is spoken
of as a frequent concomitant of old age (compare 48¹⁰, 1 Samuel 3²,
1 Kings 14⁴, Ecclesiastes 12³: contrast Deuteronomy 34⁷).――=3.=
_thy quiver_ (_v.i._) _and thy bow_] the latter, the hunter’s weapon
(Isaiah 7²⁴; compare 2 Kings 13¹⁵).――=4.= _that my soul may bless
thee_] so ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ³¹. As if the expiring _nephesh_ gathered up all
its force in a single potent and prophetic wish. The universal belief
in the efficacy of a dying utterance appears often in Old Testament
(48¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 50²⁴ ᶠᐧ, Deuteronomy 33, Joshua 23, 2 Samuel 23¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Kings
2¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, 2 Kings 13¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ).――=5.= _But Rebekah was listening_] compare
18¹⁰.
The close connexion of the blessing and the eating, which is
insisted on throughout the narrative, is hardly to be explained
as a reward for the satisfaction of a sensual appetite; it
rests, no doubt, on some religious notion which we can no
longer recover. Holzinger compares the physical stimuli by
which prophetic inspiration was induced (compare 1 Samuel
10⁵ ᶠᐧ, 2 Kings 3¹⁵); Gunkel surmises that a sacrificial meal,
establishing communion with the Deity, was originally intended
(compare לפני י׳, verse ⁷: see Numbers 23¹).
* * * * *
=1.= וַתכהין] On _vav consecutive_ in the subordinate clause,
compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 111 _q_.――The last clause (ויאמר וגו׳)
contains a characteristic formula of Elohist (compare 22¹ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹¹
31¹¹: so verse ¹⁸), and is probably to be assigned to that
source.――=2.= הנה־נא] Yahwist; see on 12¹¹.――=3.= תְּלִי] (_The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ תליתך): only here, from √
תלה, ‘hang,’ is a more suitable designation of the ‘quiver’ (LXX,
Vulgate, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Abraham Ibn Ezra) than of the ‘sword’
(Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Rashi).――צָֽידָה Kethîb may here be noun of unity
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 122 _t_) = ‘piece of game’ from צָֽיִד (Qĕrê)
(so Tuch, Delitzsch, Dillmann, Gunkel). Elsewhere (42²⁵ 45²¹
etc.) it means ‘provisions,’ especially for a journey. This
may be explained by the fact that game was practically the only
kind of animal food used by the Semites (see _Lectures on the
Religion of the Semites_², 222 f.); but the identity of the √ √
is doubted (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 845 a).――=5.= להביא] LXX לְאָבִיו is
better, unless both words should be read.
* * * * *
=6‒17. Rebekah’s stratagem.=――The mother’s jealousy for her favourite
son (25²⁸) is aroused by what she has overheard; and she instantly
devises a scheme whose daring and ingenuity illustrate the Hebrew
notion of capable and quick-witted womanhood.――=7.= _before Yahwe_] in
the solemn consciousness of Yahwe’s presence: see on verse ⁴.――=11‒13=
probably belong to Elohist (see above), and may be omitted from the
other narrative, with the effect of making Rebekah’s initiative still
more apparent: Jacob obeys her without a word.――=11.= _a hairy man_]
see 25²⁵. The objection shows just enough shrewdness on Jacob’s part
to throw his mother’s resourcefulness into bolder relief.――=13.= _On
me be thy curse_] compare 16⁵.――=15.= _the choice clothes_] the festal
raiment: the fact that this would have been put on by Esau proves once
more that the blessing was a religious ceremony. Since the clothes
were in Rebekah’s charge, Esau must (as Holzinger points out) have
been still an unmarried man (contrast Priestly-Code 26³⁴ ᶠᐧ).――=16.=
goes with ¹¹⁻¹³ (Elohist), and may be removed without breach of
continuity.――=17.= Rebekah’s part being now ended, Jacob is left to
his own resources.
* * * * *
=6.= בנה] compare בְּנוֹ, verse ⁵; the addition of הַקָּטָן (LXX) is
unnecessary.――=8.= בְּקֹלִי and לַֽאֲשֶׁר וגו׳ may be variants: accusative
to Dillmann שָׁמַע בְּ is characteristic of Elohist, and שׁמע לְ of
Yahwist.――=12.= מתעתע (√ תעע]), properly ‘a stammerer’ (compare
Arabic _ta‛ta‛a_) then ‘a mocker’ (2 Chronicles 36¹⁶); hence
not a mere practical joker (Knobel-Dillmann), but a profaner
of religious solemnities (Holzinger, Gunkel).――והבאתי] Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac word) (Second person, singular, feminine).――=13.=
אַךְ is given by Dillmann as a mark of Elohist, in distinction
from Yahwist’s רַק (19⁸ 24⁸).――=15.= בֶּגֶד being masculine (except
Leviticus 6²⁰), and חֲמֻדָה in usage a substitute, it is best
to suppose בִּגְדֵי repeated as _nomen regens_ before the genitive
(otherwise Davidson § 27).
* * * * *
=18‒29. Jacob obtains the blessing.=――=20.= _How very quickly thou
hast found it, my son!_――] an exclamation rather than a question: the
answer being: _Yes, for Yahwe, etc._――הִקְרָה לְפָנַי] caused the right thing
to happen, as 24¹² (Yahwist).――=21‒23= may be the direct continuation
of ¹⁹ᵃ (Elohist); the clause _and so he blessed him_ must have
been followed by the words of blessing.――=24‒27= bring the parallel
narrative (Yahwist) up to the same point.――=27a.= The smelling of the
garments seems to have a twofold significance: on the one hand it is
a final test of Esau’s identity (otherwise the disguise verse ¹⁵ would
have no meaning), on the other it supplies the sensuous impression
which suggests the words of the blessing ²⁷ᵇ (so Gunkel).
The section, we have seen, is composite (perhaps ¹⁸ᐧ ¹⁹ᵃᐧ ²¹⁻²³ᐧ
²⁸ = Elohist ∥ ¹⁹ᵇᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁴⁻²⁷ = Yahwist); in the primary documents
the interview was less complicated, and the movement quicker,
than it now appears: but since neither has been preserved intact,
we cannot tell how long Isaac’s hesitation and Jacob’s suspense
lasted in each case. In Yahwist as it stands, it would seem that
Isaac’s suspicions are first aroused by the promptness of the
supposed hunter’s return, and perhaps only finally allayed by
the smell of Esau’s garments. In Elohist it is the voice which
almost betrays Jacob, and the feel of his arms which saves him
from detection. For details, see the footnotes.
* * * * *
=18.= ויאמר וגו׳ ¹ is probably to be assigned to Elohist for the same
reason as ¹ᵇ, though something similar must have stood in the
other source: Gunkel, however, makes ¹⁹ᵇ the direct sequel of
אל־אביו (ויאמר) in ¹⁸ᵃ (Yahwist), giving ¹⁹ᵃ to Elohist.――ויבא] LXX,
Vulgate, Peshiṭtå וַיָּבֵא (compare ¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ³¹).――=23.= ויברכהו] Another
view of the construction, avoiding the division of documents,
in Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 75.
The narrator is supposed to “hasten at once to state briefly
the issue of the whole, and afterwards, as though forgetting
that he had anticipated, proceed to annex the particulars by
the same means” (וַ consecutive). Ewald and Hitzig applied the
same principle to several other passages (see _ib._); but the
explanation seems to me not very natural.――=24.= אַתָּה] _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ האתה.――=25.= מציד בני] LXX
מִצֵּידְךָ בְּנִי; but see verse ³¹.
* * * * *
=27b‒29.= The blessing is partly natural (²⁷ᵇᐧ ²⁸), partly political
(²⁹), and deals, of course, not with the personal history of Jacob,
but with the future greatness of Israel. Its nearest analogies are
the blessings on Joseph, Genesis 49²² ᶠᶠᐧ, Deuteronomy 33¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ; and it
is not improbable that its Elohistic elements (_v.i._) originated in
North Israel.――=27b= (Yahwist). _the smell of a rich field_] compare
Deuteronomy 33²³ (_v.i._).――=28= (Elohist). _fat places of the earth_]
for the image compare Isaiah 5¹ 28¹, Numbers 13²⁰. “Heaven and earth
conspire to give him of their best” (Gunkel).――_corn and must_] often
combined with ‘oil’ in pictures of agricultural felicity (Deuteronomy
7¹³, Hosea 2⁸ᐧ ²² etc.).――=29aα= (Yahwist). _Peoples ... nations_]
compare 25²³. The reference is to the neighbouring nations subdued by
David (2 Samuel 8).――=29aβ= (Elohist) resembles a _tribal_ blessing
(compare 49⁸). At all events the mention of _brethren_ (plural) shows
that the immediate situation is forgotten.――=29b= (Yahwist). Compare
12³.
* * * * *
=27b‒29.= The critical analysis of the blessing, precarious at
the best, depends on such considerations as these: יהוה ²⁷ᵇ points
decisively to Yahwist; האלהים ²⁸, less certainly, to Elohist,
which is confirmed by דגן ותירש (compare ³⁷). ²⁹ᵃ{α} (to לאמים) is
Yahwist because of the last word (25²³); and ²⁹ᵇ because of the
resemblance to 12³. ²⁹ᵃ{β} (from הוה) is Elohist (compare ³⁷):
(so Gunkel). Kautzsch-Socin and Holzinger differ first in
treating ²⁹ᵃ{β}ᵇ as wholly ∥ ²⁹ᵃ{α}, thus assigning ²⁹ᵃ{α} to
Elohist and ᵃ{β} to Yahwist (thus far Procksch agrees with them);
then in the inference that ³⁷ is Yahwist; and, lastly, in the
reflex inference that ²⁸ᵇ is Elohist.――The metrical structure is
irregular. Parallelism appears in ²⁸ᵃ and in ²⁹ throughout. ²⁷ᵇ
falls into three trimeters; but ²⁹ (also Yahwist) can only be
scanned in tetrameters. In Elohist trimeters and tetrameters
are combined. See Sievers, i. 405, 577, ii. 79, 316.――=27b.= שדה]
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ (ungrammatically)
השדה מלא. The מלא, however, is rendered in LXX, Vulgate, and should
perhaps be retained.――=28.= משׁמני] ∥ מִטַּל, and therefore = שְׁמַנֵּי + מִן
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 20 _m_), from שָׁמָן (³⁹†).――=29.= וישתחוֻ] the
final וּ should be supplied with Qrê and _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ (see next clause).――הֱוֵה = הֱיֵה] (הוא) הוה is the
common Aramaic and New Hebrew form of היה (compare Phœnician הוא =
חָיָה, חֲיָא): in Old Testament Hebrew only here, Isaiah 16⁴, Nehemiah
6⁶, Job 37⁶, Ecclesiastes 2²² 11³†, and (accusative to Exodus
3¹⁴) in the name יהוה. Its occurrence in early Hebrew, as here,
is surprising.――גביר] verse ³⁷†.――לְאַחֶיךָ] LXX, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ לְאָחִיךָ,
wrongly.――בני אמך] LXX בּ׳ אָבִיךָ after 49⁸.――On the distributive
singular (אָרוּר, בָּרוּך), see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 145 _l_.
* * * * *
=30‒40. Esau sues in vain for a blessing.=――=30.= Both Yahwist and
Elohist bring out how narrowly Jacob escaped being detected (_v.i._).
=31b.= Esau’s address (jussives) is if anything a little more
deferential than Jacob’s (verse ¹⁹).――=33.= _Who, then, is he...?_]
The words express but a momentary uncertainty; before the sentence is
finished Isaac knows on whom the blessing has fallen. The clause is a
real parallel to ³⁵, but a difference of conception is scarcely to be
thought of (Gunkel: see above).――_and blessed he shall be_] Not that
Isaac now acquiesces in the ruling of Providence, and _refuses_ to
withdraw the blessing; but that such an oracle once uttered is in
its nature irrevocable.――=34.= _bless me too_] parallel to the same
words in ³⁸. Here Yahwist’s narrative breaks off, and ³⁵ (Elohist)
resumes from the standpoint of ³².――=36.= _Is it because he was named
Overreacher_]――that he must always be overreaching me?――Note the
word-play ׃בְּכֹרָתִי: בִּרְכָתִי.――=37.= Compare ²⁹ᵃ{β}ᐧ ²⁸ᵇ (Elohist). All that
makes a blessing――political supremacy, and material wealth――has
been given away; what remains for Esau?――=38.= _Is that the only
blessing thou hast?_] That the blessing can be revoked, Esau does
not imagine; but he still hopes that a second (inferior) blessing
may be his.――_lifted up ... wept_] corresponding to ³⁴ᵃ. “Those tears
of Esau, the sensuous, wild, impulsive man,――almost like the cry of
some ‘trapped creature,’ are among the most pathetic in the Bible”
(Davidson, _Hebrews_, 242).――=39, 40a.= His importunity draws forth
what is virtually a curse, though couched in terms similar to those
of verse ²⁹:
_Away from the fat places of the earth shall thy dwelling be;
And away from the dew of heaven above!_
The _double entendre_ in the use of מִן has misled Vulgate and some
commentaries into thinking this a _replica_ of the blessing of Jacob
(compare Nöldeke _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 1184). Compare 40¹³ with
40¹⁹.――=40a.= _live by thy sword_] by raids on neighbouring territory,
plunder of caravans, etc.¹――_serve thy brother_] fulfilled in the
long subjection of Edom to Israel, from the time of David to that
of Joram (2 Kings 8²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ), or even Ahaz (16⁶).――=40b.= The prosaic
form suggests that this may be a later addition dating from after the
emancipation of Edom (Holzinger, Gunkel).――_break his yoke_] a common
figure: Jeremiah 2²⁰ 5⁵ 28²ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ¹¹ 30⁸, Leviticus 26¹³, Isaiah 9³ etc.
¹ Compare Josephus on the Idumæans: θορυβῶδες καὶ ἄτακτον
ἔθνος αἰεί τε μετέωρον πρὸς τὰ κινήματα καὶ μεταβολαῖς
χαῖρον κτλ. (_War of the Jews_, iv. 231), and φύσει τε
ὠμότατοι φονεύειν ὄντες (_ib._ 310). Compare Diodorus
ii. 48.
The territory of Edom is divided into two parts by the Arabah;
that to the East is described by Strabo (XVI. iv. 21) as χώρα
ἔρημος ἡ πλείστη καὶ μάλιστα ἡ πρὸς Ἰουδαίᾳ. Modern travellers,
however, speak of it as extremely fertile (Robinson, _Biblical
Researches in Palestine_, ii. 154; Palmer, _The Desert of the
Exodus_ ii. 430 f.; compare Buhl, _Edomiter_, 15 f.). Buhl
accordingly thinks the curse refers only to the barren plateau
West of the Arabah; and this is perhaps better than (with
Nöldeke, Driver) to assimilate the terms of the blessing and
the curse.
It is probable that Yahwist’s narrative contained a form of the
curse on Esau, but whether any part is preserved in ³⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ is
doubtful. ³⁹ is certainly from the same source as ²⁸ (Elohist);
with regard to ⁴⁰ᵃ the question stands open.――On the metre,
see again Sievers, i. 404 f., ii. 78 f., 317. Ball’s denial of
metrical form is based wholly on the doubtful ⁴⁰ᵇ.
* * * * *
=30a= contains two variants, of which the second is connected
syntactically with ³⁰ᵇ. Since the form of ᵃ resembles 18³³
24²² 43² (all Yahwist), we may assign this to Yahwist, and
the rest of the verse to Elohist.――=31.= יָקֻם] Pt. rather יָקֹם
(jussive).――=33.= מִכֹּל] Kautzsch-Socin conjecture אָכֹל (emphatic
infinitive absolute).――א׳ גם ברוך יהיה] The emendation of Hitzig
(Olshausen, Ball) וַיְהִי: אֲבָ׳ גַּם בָּרוֹךְ is hardly suitable: such a sentence
would require to be preceded by another action, of which it
was an aggravating or supplementary circumstance (compare 31¹⁵
46⁴, Numbers 16¹³). It is better (with _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_) to read וְגַם, and (with LXX) to _insert_ וַיְהִי at
the beginning of ³⁴.――=36.= הכי] compare 29¹⁵, 2 Samuel 9¹ (23¹⁹
?), Job 6²²†. The rendering above, ‘is it that?’ etc., satisfies
every case (see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 472 a), and is simpler
than that given in Gesenius-Kautzsch § 150 _e_.――Holzinger (so
Gunkel) thinks ³⁶ᵃ a redactional expansion; but it has to be
considered whether ³⁶ᵇ (∥ ³⁸ᵃ{α}) is not rather a fragment
of Yahwist.――=38.= ברכני גם אני אבי] = ³⁴ᵇ (Yahwist). On the syntax
of אני, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 135 _e_.――וַיִּשָּׂא וגו׳] LXXᴬᐧ ᵃˡᐧ
omitted, but MSS and daughter-Versions retain, some with the
addition κατανυχθέντος δὲ Ἰσαακ (וַיִּדֹּם יִצְחָק).――=40.= חָיָה עַל] compare
Deuteronomy 8³, Ezekiel 33¹⁹.――תָּרִיד (Jeremiah 2³¹, Hosea 12¹ [?],
Psalms 55³, Judges 11³⁷ [emphatic]†) probably connected with
Arabic _rāda_, ‘go to and fro’ (Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der
deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxxvii. 539 f.):
‘when thou becomest restive.’ _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ תאדר, LXX καθέλῃς = תֹּורִיד.
* * * * *
=41‒45. Esau’s purpose of revenge.=――=41.= Esau _cherished enmity_
(50¹⁵) against Jacob.――_the days of mourning_ (50¹⁰)] a period of
seven days, within which Esau hoped to accomplish his revenge.――=42.=
Thy brother _is going to take satisfaction of thee_ (Isaiah 1²⁴,
Ezekiel 5¹³) _by killing thee_.――=44, 45.= _a few days ... till he
forget_] reckoning on Esau’s well-known instability, and at the same
time making light of the trial of separation.――_bereaved of you both_]
The writer has in view the custom of blood-revenge (compare 2 Samuel
14⁷), though in the case supposed there would be no one to execute it.
* * * * *
=43.= ברח־לך] LXX + εἰς τὴν Μεσοποταμίαν.――=44 f.= אחדים] as
29²⁰, Daniel 11²⁰; contrast Genesis 11¹.――עַד אשר תשוב and עד־שוב
are obviously doublets, though there are no data for assigning
either to its proper source. LXX runs both together: ἕως τοῦ
ἀποστρέψαι τὸν θυμὸν καὶ τὴν ὀργὴν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου.
* * * * *
XXVII. 46‒XXVIII. 9.
_Isaac’s Charge to Jacob_
(Priestly-Code).
This short section records the only action attributed to Isaac
in the Priestly Code. Two facts are taken over from the earlier
tradition (Jehovist): Isaac’s blessing of Jacob, and Jacob’s visit
to Mesopotamia. But the unedifying stories of Jacob’s treachery,
which were the essential link of connexion between them, are here
omitted; and a new motive is introduced, viz., the inadmissibility of
intermarriage with the inhabitants of Canaan. By transgressing this
unwritten law, Esau forfeits his title to the ‘blessing of Abraham,’
which is thus transferred to Jacob; and Jacob’s flight is transformed
into an honourable mission in search of a wife. The romantic interest
of Jacob’s love-story (chapter 29) is largely discounted by this
prosaic representation of the course of events (compare Gunkel 341).
Marks of Priestly-Code’s style are abundant: אֵל שֶׂדַּי, ³; אֱלֹהִים ⁴;
הָֽאֲרַמִּי, ⁵; פַּדַּן אֲרָם, ²ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁷; פָּרָה וְרָבָה, ³; אֶרֶץ מְגֻרִים ⁴; בְּנוֹת כְּנַעַן ¹ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁸
(Yahwist בּ׳ הַכְּנַֽעֲנִי, 24³ᐧ ³⁷); קְהַל עַמִּים, ³.
=46.= is an amplification of 26³⁵ (מֹרַת רוּחַ), but attributes to Rebekah
an initiative more in the spirit of Jehovist than of Priestly-Code. It
may have been supplied by Redactor to facilitate the transition from
chapter 27 to 28 (_v.i._).――=XXVIII. 1.= The language seems modelled on
24³ᐧ ³⁷.――=2.= _thy mother’s father_] The earlier affinity between the
two families is again ignored by Priestly-Code: see on 25¹⁹ ᶠᐧ.――=4.=
_the blessing_ (Vulgate, Peshiṭtå ‘blessings’) _of Abraham_] Compare
17⁸. Whereas in Jehovist, Isaac is the inspired author of an original
blessing, which fixes the destiny of his descendants, in Priestly-Code
he simply transmits the blessing attached to the covenant with
Abraham.――=9.= _went to Ishmael_] Not to dwell with him permanently,
but to procure a wife (see 36⁶ ᶠᐧ). It is undoubtedly assumed that
Ishmael was still alive (Dillmann), in spite of the chronological
difficulties raised by Delitzsch.
* * * * *
=46.= The objections to assigning the verse to Priestly-Code
(Kuenen, Kautzsch-Socin, Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.)
are perhaps not decisive. If Massoretic Text be right, בנות חת
agrees in substance with 26³⁴ ᶠᐧ, though in 28¹ ᶠᶠᐧ Priestly-Code
consistently uses ב׳ כנען. LXX, however, omits the words
מִבְּנוֹת־חֵת כָּאֵלֶּה.――=2.= פדנה] (so ⁵ᐧ ⁷) compare Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 90 _i_.――=3.= קהל עמים] 35¹¹ 48⁴ (Priestly-Code), Ezekiel 23²⁴
32³; = הֲמוֹן גּוֹיִם 17⁴ ᶠᐧ. In spite of Deuteronomy 33³ (Dillmann),
the phrase cannot well denote the tribes of Israel. It seems
to correspond to Yahwist’s ‘In thee shall _all nations_,’
etc. (12³ etc.), and probably expresses some sort of Messianic
outlook.――=7.= ואל־אמו] perhaps a gloss suggested by 27⁴³ ᶠᐧ
(Dillmann al.).――=9.= אל־ישמעאל] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ omitted.――מַֽחֲלַת] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (compare
Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ); see on 36³.
* * * * *
XXVIII. 10‒22.
_Jacob at Bethel_
(Jehovist).
On his way to Ḥarran, Jacob passes the night at Bethel, where the
sacredness of the ‘place’ is revealed to him by a dream of a ladder
leading from earth to heaven. Awaking, he consecrates the stone on
which his head had lain, as a ‘house of God,’――at the same time naming
the place Bethel,――and vows to dedicate a tithe of all he has, in the
event of his safe return.
_Analysis._――The section consists of a complete Elohistic
narrative (¹¹ ᶠᐧ ¹⁷⁻²²), with a Yahwistic insertion (¹³⁻¹⁶). For
Elohist, compare אלהים; ¹²ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ²⁰; מַצֵּבָה, ¹⁸ᐧ ²²; the dream, ¹²; the
tithe, ²²; and the retrospective references in 31¹³ 35³ᐧ ⁷. For
Yahwist, יהוה ¹³ ⁽ᵇⁱˢ⁾ᐧ ¹⁶; נִצָּב עַל ¹³, and the resemblances to 12³ᐧ ⁷
13¹⁵ ᶠᐧ 18¹⁸ 22¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 26²⁴ 32¹³. To Yahwist belong, further, ¹⁰
(חָרָֽנָה), and (if genuine) ²¹ᵇ, though the latter is more probably
interpolated. ¹⁹ᵃ breaks the connexion of ¹⁸ and ²⁰, and _may_
be taken from Yahwist; ¹⁹ᵇ is an explanatory gloss. (So nearly
all recent critics.) Kuenen (_Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar
het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds_
i. 145, 247) considers ¹³⁻¹⁶ a redactional addition to Elohist,
similar to 22¹⁴⁻¹⁸, etc., on the ground that Yahwist attributes
the inauguration of the worship at Bethel to Abraham (12⁸), and
nowhere alludes to the theophany here recorded (so Meyer, _Die
Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 236³). But (to say nothing
of ¹⁹ᵃ) the parallelism of ¹⁶ and ¹⁷ appears to prove a real
amalgamation of primary sources (Dillmann). Gunkel regards ¹⁴
as secondary, on account of its stereotyped phraseology.
=10‒12= (Elohist). =Jacob’s dream.=――=11.= _he lighted upon the
place_] _i.e._, the ‘holy place’ of Bethel (see 12⁶), whose sanctity
was revealed by what followed.――_he took_ [at haphazard] _one of the
stones of the place_] which proved itself to be the abode of a deity
by inspiring the dream which came to Jacob that night.――=12.= _a
ladder_] or ‘stair’ (the word only here). The origin of the idea is
difficult to account for (see on verse ¹⁷). Its permanent religious
significance is expressed with profound insight and truth in John
1⁵¹.――_angels of God_] So (in plural) only in Elohist (compare 32²) in
the Hexateuch. As always in Old Testament, the angels are represented
as wingless beings (compare Enoch lxi. 1).
In verse ¹¹ the rendering ‘a certain place’ would be
grammatically correct (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 _r_); but it
destroys the point of the sentence, which is that night overtook
the patriarch just at the sacred spot (see Exodus 3⁵). The
idea expressed by the primitive form of the legend is that the
inherent sanctity of the place, and in particular of the stone,
was unknown till it was discovered by Jacob’s dream. It is very
probable, as Holzinger suggests, that this points to an ancient
custom of incubation at Bethel, in which dream-oracles were
sought by sleeping with the head in contact with the sacred
stone (see Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 475 f.).
* * * * *
=11.= מראשתיו] Accusative of place (literally ‘at his head-place’),
as 1 Samuel 19¹³ᐧ ¹⁶ 26⁷ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁶, 1 Kings 19⁶.――=12.= ויחלם והנה] The
usual vivid formula in relating a dream: 37⁷ (LXX) ⁹ 40⁹ 41¹,
Judges 7¹³, Isaiah 29⁸.
* * * * *
=13‒16= (Yahwist). =The promise.=
In place of the vision of the ladder, which in Elohist
constitutes the whole revelation, Yahwist records a personal
appearance of Yahwe, and an articulate communication to the
patriarch. That it was a nocturnal theophany (as in 26²⁴)
appears from ¹⁶ᵃ{α}, as well as the word שֹׁכֵב in ¹³. The promise
is partly addressed to Jacob’s special circumstances (¹³ᐧ ¹⁵),
partly a renewal of the blessing of Abraham (¹⁴). The latter is
not improbably a later amplification of the former (see above).
=13.= _Yahwe stood by him_ (_v.i._), and announced Himself as one with
the God of his fathers. This unity of Yahwe amidst the multiplicity
of His local manifestations is a standing paradox of the early
religion of Israel: compare verse ¹⁶.――_the land whereon thou liest_]
a description peculiarly appropriate to the solitary and homeless
fugitive who had not where to lay his head.――=14.= Compare 13¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ
22¹⁷ ᶠᐧ 26⁴ᐧ ²⁴ 32¹³.――On ¹⁴ᵇ see the note on 12³.――=16.= _Yahwe is in
this place, etc._] The underlying feeling is not joy (Dillmann), but
fear, because in ignorance he had treated the holy place as common
ground (Targum ᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ). The exclamation doubtless preserves
an echo of the local tradition, more forcibly represented in Elohist
(verse ¹⁷). It is the only case in Genesis where a theophany occasions
surprise (compare Exodus 3³).
* * * * *
=13.= נצב עליו] 18² 24¹³ 45¹ (all Yahwist). LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå
take סֻלָּם as antecedent to the suffix; but the idea would have
been expressed otherwise (מִמַּעַל לוֹ), and the translation loses
all its plausibility when the composition of documents is
recognised.――Before הארץ, LXX inserts μὴ φοβοῦ.――=14.= כעפר הארץ]
LXX ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, after 32¹³ 41⁴⁹.――ופרצת] LXX וּפָרַץ: for
the word――properly ‘break through’ [bounds],――compare 30³⁰ᐧ ⁴³,
Exodus 1¹², Isaiah 54³ etc.――=15.= בכל] LXX + הַדָּרָךְ.
* * * * *
=17‒19. Consecration and naming of the place.=――=17= follows verse ¹²
(Elohist) without sensible breach of continuity; even the mention of
Jacob’s awaking (¹⁶) is not absolutely indispensable (see ¹⁸). The
impression of fear is far more powerfully expressed than in Yahwist;
the place is no ordinary _ḥarām_, but one superlatively holy, the most
sacred spot on earth. Only a North Israelite could have written thus
of Bethel.――_a house of God ... the gate of heaven_] The expressions
rest on a materialisation of the conception of worship as spiritual
intercourse between God and man.
The first designation naturally arises from the name _Bêth-’ēl_,
which (as we see from verse ²²) was first applied to the sacred
stone, but was afterwards extended to the sanctuary as a whole.
When to this was added the idea of God’s dwelling in heaven,
the earthly sanctuary became as it were the entrance to the true
heavenly temple, with which it communicated by means of a ladder.
We may compare the Babylonian theory of the temple-tower as the
means of ascent to the dwelling-place of the gods in heaven (see
page 226 above). It is conceivable that the ‘ladder’ of Bethel
may embody cosmological speculations of a similar character,
which we cannot now trace to their origin. The Egyptian theology
also knew of a ‘ladder’ by which the soul after death mounted
up to ‘the gate of heaven’ (Erman, _A Handbook of Egyptian
Religion_ 96). Whether it has any connexion with the _sillu_,
or decorated arch over a palace gate, depicted in _Das Alte
Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 13, remains doubtful.
That the image was suggested by physical features of the
locality――a stony hillside rising up in terraces towards
heaven――seems a fanciful explanation to one who has not visited
the spot; but the descriptions given of the singular freak of
nature which occurs near the summit of the slope to the north
of _Beitīn_ (“huge stones piled one upon another to make columns
nine or ten feet or more in height ...”) lend some plausibility
to the conjecture (see Peters, _Early Hebrew Story_, 110 ff.).
=18.= Jacob set up the stone, whose mystic properties he had
discovered, as a _maẓẓēbāh_, or sacred pillar (_v.i._), and _poured
oil on the top of it_ (35¹⁴), in accordance with a custom widely
attested in ancient and modern times (see page 380).――=19a= gives
Yahwist’s account of the naming of the place. If a similar notice
occurred in Elohist (as seems implied in 31¹³ 35³), it would naturally
have stood later.――=19b= is usually considered a gloss. From Joshua
16² (18¹³) it appears that _Lûz_ was really distinct from Bethel, but
was overshadowed by the more famous sanctuary in the neighbourhood.
* * * * *
=18.= מַצֵּבָה] (‘thing _set up_,’ Arabic _nuṣb_, Phœnician מצבת) is
the technical name of the sacred monolith which was apparently
an adjunct of every fully equipped Canaanite (or Phœnician) and
early Hebrew sanctuary (see Vincent, _Canaan_, 96, 102 f., 140).
Originally a fetish, the supposed abode of a spirit or deity,――a
belief of which there are clear traces in this passage,――it came
afterwards to be regarded as a vague symbol of Yahwe’s presence
in the sanctuary, and eventually as the memorial of a theophany
or other noteworthy occurrence. In this harmless sense the word
is freely used by Elohist (31¹³ᐧ ⁴⁵ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵² 33²⁰ [emphatic] 35¹⁴,
Exodus 24⁴); but not by Yahwist, who never mentions the object
except in connexion with Canaanitish worship (Exodus 34¹³).
But that the emblem retained its idolatrous associations in
the popular religion is shown by the strenuous polemic of the
prophets and the Deuteronomic legislation against it (Hosea
10¹ ᶠᐧ, Micah 5¹², Deuteronomy 12³ etc., especially 16²² [compare
Leviticus 26¹]); and Yahwist’s significant silence is probably
an earlier indication of the same tendency. It is only at a very
late period that we find the word used once more without offence
(Isaiah 19¹⁹). See Driver on Deuteronomy 16²¹ ᶠᐧ; _Lectures
on the Religion of the Semites_², 204 ff., 456 f.; Moore in
_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 2974 ff.; Whitehouse in _A Dictionary
of the Bible_, iii. 879 ff.――וַיִּצֹּק] On this, the usual form, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 71.――=19.= ואולם] A strong adversative, found
in Pentateuch only 48¹⁹, Exodus 9¹⁶, Numbers 14²¹. For ואו׳ לוז,
LXX has καὶ Οὐλαμμαύς; compare Judges 18²⁹ (LXX).――לוז] 35⁶ 48³,
Joshua 16² 18¹³, Judges 1²³†. The name Λουζὰ appears to have
been known in the time of Eusebius (_Onomastica Sacra_, 135¹);
and Müller (_Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_,
165) thinks it may be identical with _Ruṣa_ on Egyptian
inscriptions.
* * * * *
=20‒22= (Elohist). =Jacob’s vow.=――The vow in Old Testament “consists
essentially of a solemn promise to render God some service, in the
event of some particular prayer or wish being granted” (Driver);¹
hence it falls into two parts: a condition (²⁰ ᶠᐧ), and a promise
(²²).――=20, 21a.= The conditions correspond with the divine promise
in ¹⁵ (Yahwist)――(a) the presence of God; (b) protection; (c) safe
return――except as regards the stipulation for _bread to eat and
raiment to wear_. The separation of sources relieves Jacob from the
suspicion of questioning the sincerity of an explicit divine promise.
On =21b=, _v.i._――=22.= The promise. _this stone ... shall be_ (LXX
adds _to me_) _a house of God_] _i.e._ (in the view of the writer),
a place of worship. It is to be noted that this reverses the actual
development: the stone was _first_ the residence of the _numen_, and
_afterwards_ became a maẓẓēbāh.――=22b.= He will pay a tithe of all his
possessions. This and Amos 4⁴ are the only pre-Deuteronomic references
to the tithe (compare 14²⁰).
¹ But Wellhausen (_Reste arabischen Heidentums_² 190) remarks
of the Arabian custom: “Die Araber geloben nicht _in
eventum_: wenn der und der Fall eintritt, so will ich das
tun; sondern sie übernehmen durch das Gelübde eine absolut
bindende Pflicht.”
In its present setting the above narrative forms the transition
link between the Jacob-Esau and the Jacob-Laban cycle of legends.
In substance it is, we can hardly doubt, a modification of the
cultus-legend of Bethel (now _Beitīn_, situated on an eminence
about 10 miles North of Jerusalem, a little East of the road to
Nābulus), the founding of which was ascribed to the patriarch
Jacob. The concrete features which point to a local origin――the
erection of the maẓẓebāh, the ladder, the gate of heaven,
and the institution of the tithe――are all indeed peculiar to
the account of Elohist, which obviously stands nearer to the
sources of the native tradition than the stereotyped form of
the theophany given by Yahwist. From Elohist we learn that
the immemorial sanctity of Bethel was concentrated in the
sacred stone which was itself the original _Bêth-’ēl_, i.e. the
residence of a god or spirit. This belief appears to go back
to the primitive stone-worship of which traces are very widely
diffused over the surface of the globe.¹ The characteristic rite
of anointing the stone, originally perhaps a sacrifice to the
indwelling _numen_, was familiar to classical writers.² The most
instructive parallel is the fact mentioned by Pausanias (x. 24,
6), that on a small stone in the sanctuary of Delphi oil was
poured every day: we may conjecture that a similar practice
was kept up at Bethel long after its original significance
was forgotten. Though the monolith of Bethel is not elsewhere
explicitly referred to in Old Testament, we may assume that,
stripped of its pagan associations and reduced to the rank of
a _maẓẓebāh_, it was still recognised in historic times as the
chief religious symbol of that great centre of Hebrew worship.
¹ See Tylor, _Primitive Culture_³ ii. 160 ff.; Frazer,
_Pausanias’s Description of Greece_ iv. 154 f., _Adonis_,
21; _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 204 ff.,
232 f. The wide distribution of these sacred objects seems
fatal to the theory of Lagrange, that they were miniature
reproductions of the Babylonian temple-towers, which
again were miniature symbols of the earth conceived as
a mountain,――a difficulty of which the author himself is
conscious (_Études_², 192 ff.).
² On anointed stones (λίθοι λιπαροί, ἀληλιμμένοι, _lapides
uncti, lubricati_, etc.), see Clement of Alexandria
_Stromata_ vii. 4, 26; and the remarkable statements
of Theophrastus, _Characters_ 16; Lucian, _Alexander_,
30; and Arnobius, _Adversus Gentes_, i. 39,――quoted by
Frazer, _Pausanias’s Description of Greece_ v. 354.――For
Assyriological parallels see _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,
i. 44 f., ii. 113, 151, 261.――A curious development of the
ancient belief appears in the name Βαίτυλος, Βαιτύλιον,
_Betulus_, applied to small stones (aerolites?), supposed
to be self-moving and endowed with magical properties, which
played a considerable part in the private superstitions of
the beginning of the Christian era (Eusebius _Præparatio
Evangelica_ i. 10, 18; Photius, _Bibliotheca_ [Migne, ciii.
1292 f.]; Pliny, _Naturalis Historia_, xxxvii. 135, etc.).
The existence of a Canaanitish deity _Bait-ili_ (who can
only be regarded as a personification of the temple or the
sacred stone) is proved by unimpeachable Assyriological
evidence (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 437
f.; Lagrange, _l.c._ 196). Since Βαίτυλος is also the name
of a god in Philo-Byblius, it seems unreasonable to doubt
the etymological and material connexion between the ancient
Semitic בֵּית־אֵל and the portable betyl of the Græco-Roman
period, which was so named as the residence of a spirit;
but see the important article of Moore, _Journal of the
Archæological Institute of America_, vii. (1903), No. 2,
page 198 ff.
* * * * *
=21.= ושבתי] LXX καὶ ἀποστρέψῃ με, as verse ¹⁵.――=21b= can with
difficulty be assigned either to the protasis or to the apodosis
of the sentence. The word יהוה shows that it does not belong to
Elohist; and in all probability the clause is to be omitted as
a gloss (Dillmann al.). The apodosis then has the same unusual
form as in 22¹.
* * * * *
XXIX. 1‒30.
_Jacob’s Marriage with Laban’s Daughters_
(Jehovist, Priestly-Code).
Instead of spending a few days (27⁴⁴) as Laban’s guest, Jacob was
destined to pass 20 years of his life with his Aramæan kinsman.
The circumstances which led to this prolonged exile are recorded
in the two episodes contained in this section; viz. Jacob’s meeting
with Rachel at the well (¹⁻¹⁴), and the peculiar conditions of his
marriage to Leah and Rachel (¹⁵⁻³⁰). The first, a purely idyllic
scene reminding us of 24¹¹⁻³³ and Exodus 2¹⁵⁻²², forms a pleasing
introduction to the cycle of Jacob-Laban narratives, without a trace
of the petty chicanery which is the leading motive of that group
of legends.¹ In the second, the true character of Laban is exposed
by the unworthy trick which he practises on Jacob; and the reader’s
sympathies are enlisted on the side of Jacob in the trial of
astuteness which is sure to ensue.
¹ Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ thinks it necessary to introduce a hint of
the coming rivalry into the conversation between Jacob and
Rachel (verse ¹³).
_Analysis._――Fragments of Priestly-Code’s narrative can be
easily recognised in verses ²⁴ᐧ ²⁹, and probably also in ²⁸ᵇ.
The separation of Yahwist and Elohist is uncertain on account
of the close parallelism of the two documents and the absence of
material differences of representation to support or correct the
literary analysis. Most subsequent critics agree with Dillmann
that verse ¹ belongs to Elohist (see the notes), and ²⁻¹⁴ to
Yahwist: compare רוץ לקראת, ¹³ (18² 24¹⁷); עצמי ובשרי, ¹⁴ (2²³). In
¹⁶ ᶠᐧ Rachel appears to be introduced for the first time; hence
Dillmann regards Elohist as the main source of ¹⁵ (or ¹⁵ᵇ) ⁻³⁰,
excluding, however, verse ²⁶, where צְעִירָה and בְּכִירָה reveal the hand
of Yahwist: characteristic expressions of Elohist are משכרת, ¹⁵
(31⁷ᐧ ⁴¹); גדלה and קטנה, ¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸; יפת תאר וגו׳, ¹⁷. So Gunkel, Procksch
nearly. Ball and Cornill assign all from ¹⁹ onwards to Yahwist.
=1‒14. Jacob’s meeting with Rachel.=――=1.= _the sons of the East_]
Since the goal of Jacob’s journey is in Yahwist, Ḥarran (28¹⁰ 29⁴)
and in Priestly-Code, Paddan Aram (28⁷), it is to be presumed that
this third variation comes from Elohist (Dillmann). Now the בְּנֵי קֶדֶם
are everywhere else the tribes of the Syro-Arabian desert, and
31²¹ ᶠᶠᐧ certainly suggests that Laban’s home was not so distant from
Canaan as Ḥarran (see on 24¹⁰ ᶠᐧ [city of Nahor]). It is possible,
therefore, that in the tradition followed by Elohist, Laban was the
representative of the nomadic Aramæans between Palestine and the
Euphrates (see page 334 above).――=2.= The well _in the open country_
is evidently distinct, even in Yahwist, from the town-well of Ḥarran
(compare 24¹³).――_For ... they used to water, etc._] To the end
of verse ³ is an explanatory parenthesis describing the ordinary
procedure. The custom of covering the well with a heavy stone is
referred to by Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, i. 490;
Thomson, _The Land and the Book_, 589; Palmer, _The Desert of the
Exodus_ ii. 319 f.; compare also Diodorus ii. 48, xix. 94.――=4.= Jacob
accosts the shepherds, and learns that they come _from Ḥarran_. There
is nothing else in the narrative to suggest the proximity of a great
city; Laban is no city-dweller as in chapter 24, but a nomad sheikh;
and the life depicted is everywhere that of the desert. All this
confirms the impression that the topography of Elohist (verse ¹) has
been modified by Yahwist in accordance with the theory that Ḥarran
was the city of Nahor.――=5.= _the son of Nāḥôr_] see on 24¹⁵.――=7, 8.=
Jacob is puzzled by the leisurely ways of these Eastern herdsmen, whom
he ironically supposes to have ceased work for the day. He is soon to
show them an example of how things should be done, careless of the
conventions which they plead as an excuse.――=9.= _a shepherdess_]
compare Exodus 2¹⁶. The trait is in accordance with the freedom still
allowed to unmarried girls among the Bedouin. Burckhardt found it
an established rule among the Arabs of Sinai that only girls should
drive the cattle to pasture (_Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys_,
i. 351).――=10.= The removal of the stone is a feat of strength
which has been thought to belong to a more primitive legend, in
which Jacob figured as a giant (Dillmann, Gunkel, al.): compare
32²⁶.――=11.= _wept aloud_] ‘after the demonstrative fashion of the
Oriental’ (Bennett),――tears of joy at the happy termination of his
journey.――=12.= _brother_] as in verse ¹⁵ 13⁸ 14¹⁴ (24⁴⁸?).――=13.=
_kissed him repeatedly_ (Piel)] The effusive display of affection,
perhaps not wholly disinterested, is characteristic of Laban (compare
24²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ).――=14.= _my bone and my flesh_] as 37²⁷, Judges 9², 2 Samuel
5¹ 19¹³ ᶠᐧ. It is an absurd suggestion that the exclamation is called
forth by the recital of Jacob’s dealings with Esau, in which Laban
recognised a spiritual affinity to himself! The phrase denotes literal
consanguinity and nothing more.
* * * * *
=1.= The curious expression ‘lifted up his feet’ is found only
here.――LXX, Vulgate omit בְּנֵי; and LXX adds to the verse πρὸς
Λαβὰν κτλ., as 28⁵ᵇ.――=2.= והאבן גדלה can only mean ‘and the stone
was great’: it is perhaps better to omit the article (with
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_).――=3.= העדרים]
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ הרעים, needlessly
substituted by Ball. So also verse ⁸, where _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ is supported by LXX.――=6.=
Before והנה, LXX inserts ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος (as verse ⁹). An
assimilating tendency reappears at the end of the verse; and
the variations have no critical value.――=9.= ב֫אה] perfect;
contrast the participle בא֫ה in verse ⁶.――רעה הוא] LXX + τὰ πρόβατα
τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῆς.――=10.= ויגל] with original _i_ in imperfect Qal
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 _p_).――=13.= שמע (LXX שֵׁם) = ‘the report
concerning,’ followed as always by genitive objective.――=14.=
חדש ימים] ‘a whole month’; see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 131 _d_.
* * * * *
=15‒30. Jacob’s double marriage.=――=15.= Laban’s character begins
to unfold itself as that of a man ostensibly actuated by the most
honourable motives, but at heart a selfish schemer, always ready with
some plausible pretext for his nefarious conduct (see verses ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁶).
His apparently generous offer proves a well-laid trap for Jacob,
whose love for Rachel has not escaped the notice of his shrewd
kinsman.――=16‒18a.= An explanatory parenthesis. The manner in which
Rachel is introduced, as if for the first time, is thought to mark
the transition to another source (Dillmann al.).――On the names _Lē’āh_
and _Rāḥēl_, _v.i._――=17.= Leah’s eyes were _weak_ (רַכּוֹת, LXX ἀσθενεῖς,
Aquila, Symmachus ἁπαλοί): _i.e._ they lacked the lustrous brilliancy
which is counted a feature of female beauty in the East.――=18b.= Jacob,
not being in a position to pay the purchase price (_mōhar_) for so
eligible a bride, offered seven years’ service instead. The custom
was recognised by the ancient Arabs, and is still met with (Wellhausen
_Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften
zu Göttingen_, 1893, 433 f.; Burckhardt _Travels in Syria and the
Holy Land_, i. 297 f.).――=19.= The first cousin has still a prior
(sometimes an exclusive) right to a girl’s hand among the Bedouin and
in Egypt (Burckhardt, _Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys_, i. 113, 272;
Lane, _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_⁵
i. 199).――=22.= Laban proceeds to the execution of his long meditated
_coup_. He himself arranges the marriage feast (contrast Judges
14¹⁰), inviting _all the men of the place_, with a view doubtless
to his self-exculpation (verse ²⁶).――=23.= The substitution of
Leah for Rachel was rendered possible by the custom of bringing the
bride to the bridegroom veiled (24⁶⁵). To have thus got rid of the
unprepossessing Leah for a handsome price, and to retain his nephew’s
services for other seven years (verse ²⁷), was a master-stroke of
policy in the eyes of a man like Laban.――=25.= Jacob’s surprise and
indignation are vividly depicted.――=26.= _It is not so done_] compare
34⁷, 2 Samuel 13¹². Laban no doubt correctly states the local usage:
the objection to giving a younger daughter before an older is natural,
and prevails in certain countries (Lane, i. 201; compare _Jubilees_
xxviii., Judges 15¹ ᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 18¹⁷).――=27, 28.= _Fulfil the week
of this one_] _i.e._, the usual seven days (Judges 14¹², Tobit 11¹⁹)
of the wedding festival for Leah. For the bridegroom to break up the
festivities would, of course, be a gross breach of decorum, and Jacob
has no alternative but to fall in with Laban’s new proposal and accept
Rachel on his terms.――=30.= Laban’s success is for the moment complete;
but in the alienation of both his daughters, and their fidelity to
Jacob at a critical time (31¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ), he suffered a just retribution
for the unscrupulous assertion of his paternal rights.
* * * * *
In Jacob’s marriages it has been surmised that features survive
of that primitive type of marriage (called _beena_ marriage) in
which the husband becomes a member of the wife’s kin (William
Robertson Smith _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 207).
Taken as a whole the narrative hardly bears out that view. It
is true that Jacob attaches himself to Laban’s family; but it
does not follow that he did not set up a house of his own. His
remaining with Laban was due to his inability to pay the _mōhar_
otherwise than in the way of personal service. As soon as
the contract expired he pleads his right to ‘provide for his
own house’ (30³⁰ Yahwist). On the other hand, Laban certainly
claimed the right to detain his daughters, and treated them as
still members of his family (31²⁶ᐧ ⁴³ Elohist); and it might be
imagined that the Elohistic tradition recognised the existence
of _beena_ marriage, at least among the Aramæans. But it is
doubtful if the claim is more than an extreme assertion of the
right of a powerful family to protect its female relatives even
after marriage.
* * * * *
=15.= הכי] see on 27³⁶.――מַשְׂכֹּרֶת] 31⁷ᐧ ⁴¹ (Elohist), Ruth 2¹²†;
שָׂכָר is common to Yahwist (30²⁸ᐧ ³² ᶠᐧ) and Elohist (31⁸, Exodus
2⁹).――=16.= גדל and קטן are in such connexions characteristic of
Elohist (verse ¹⁸ 42¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ³²ᐧ ³⁴); see Holzinger _Einleitung
in den Hexateuch_ 104.――רָחֵל means ‘ewe’ (Arabic _raḫil_ =
she-lamb); hence by analogy לֵאָה has been explained by Arabic
_la’āt_, ‘bovine antelope’ (see Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der
deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 167; Stade
_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, i. 112
ff.), and the names are cited as evidence of a primitive Hebrew
totemism (_Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 254 f.).
Others prefer the derivation from Assyrian _li’at_, ‘lady’
(see Haupt, _Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften zu Göttingen_, 1883, 100).――=18.= ברחל] בְּ _pretii_
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 _p_); so ²⁰ᐧ ²⁵.――=20.= ויהיו――אתה]
LXXᴬ omits.――=21.= הב֫ה] _Milra‛_ before א (Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 69 _o_).――=24.= שפחה] better לְשִׁ׳ (_The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ); see verse ²⁹.――=26.= הצעירה]
distinctive of Yahwist; see verse ¹⁶.――=27.= וְנִתְּנָה is rather 3rd
feminine, singular, perfect, Niphal, than 1st plural cohortative
Qal (as most). _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,
Peshiṭtå, Vulgate read וְאֶתֵּן.――=28b.= לו לאשה] The double dative is
characteristic of Priestly-Code, to whom the whole clause may be
assigned along with ²⁹.――=30.= The second גּם has no sense, and
should probably be deleted (LXX, Vulgate).
* * * * *
XXIX. 31‒XXX. 24.
_The Birth of Jacob’s Children_
(Jehovist).
A difficult section, in which the origin of the tribes of Israel is
represented in the fictitious form of a family history. The popular
etymologies attached to the names are here extremely forced, and
sometimes unintelligible; it is remarkable that, with hardly an
exception, they are based on the rivalry between Jacob’s two wives.
(The names are bestowed by the mothers, as is generally the case
in Jehovist.) How far genuine elements of tradition are embodied in
such a narrative is a question which it is obviously impossible to
answer with certainty. We cannot be wrong in attributing historical
significance to the distinction between the tribes whose descent was
traced to Jacob’s wives and those regarded as sons of concubines;
though we are ignorant of the actual circumstances on which the
classification depends. It is also certain that there is a solid
basis for the grouping of the chief tribes under the names of Leah
and Rachel, representing perhaps an older and a later settlement of
Hebrews in Palestine (Stade _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, i. 112 f.). The fact that all the children except
Benjamin are born in Mesopotamia may signify that the leading tribal
divisions existed before the occupation of Canaan; but the principle
certainly cannot be applied in detail, and the nature of the record
forbids the attempt to discover in it reliable data for the history
of the tribes. (For a conspectus of various theories, see Luther,
_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi. 36 ff.;
compare Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 291 f., 509 ff.)
The _sources_ are Yahwist and Elohist, with occasional clauses
from Priestly-Code.――29³¹⁻³⁵ is wholly from Yahwist (יהוה,
³¹ᐧ ³²ᐧ ³³ᐧ ³⁵; עֲקָרָה, ³¹; הַפַּעַם, ³⁴ᐧ ³⁵), with the possible exception
of ³²ᵇ{γ}.――30¹⁻⁸ is mainly Elohist (אלהים, ²ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁸; אָמָה, ³ᵃ);
but ³ᵃ{β} reminds us of Yahwist (16²), ⁴ᵃ is assigned to
Priestly-Code (שִׁפְחָה and compare 16³), and in ⁷ שִׁפְחָה must
be either from Yahwist (Kautzsch-Socin, Ball, Gunkel) or
Priestly-Code (Holzinger).――30⁹⁻¹³ is again mostly from
Yahwist (שִׁפְחָה, ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²; compare ⁹ᵃ with 29³¹ 30¹ 29³⁵). ⁹ᵇ is
Priestly-Code.――30¹⁴⁻²⁴ presents a very mixed text, whose
elements are difficult to disentangle; note the double
etymologies in ¹⁸ᐧ (compare ¹⁶) ²⁰ᐧ ²³ ᶠᐧ The hand of Elohist
clearly appears in ¹⁷ᵃᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ²⁰ᵃ{αβ}ᐧ ²²ᵇ{α}ᐧ (²²ᵃ may be
from Priestly-Code: compare 8¹) ²³. Hence the parallels
¹⁴⁻¹⁶ᐧ ²⁰ᵃ{γ}ᐧ ²⁴ must be assigned to Yahwist, who is further
characterised, according to Gunkel, by the numeration of the
sons (¹⁷ᵇᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᵃ{γ}). ²¹ is interpolated.
=31‒35. The sons of Leah.=――=31.= _hated_] The rendering is too
strong. שְׂנוּאָה is almost a technical term for the less favoured of two
wives (Deuteronomy 21¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ); where the two are sisters the rivalry is
naturally most acute, hence this practice is forbidden by the later
law (Leviticus 18¹⁸). The belief that Yahwe takes the part of the
unfortunate wife and rewards her with children, belongs to the
strongly marked family religion of Israel (1 Samuel 1² ᶠᶠᐧ).――=32.=
_Rĕ’ûbēn_] The only plausible explanation of the etymology is that it
is based on the form רְאוּבֵל (_v.i._) = רְאוּ־בַעַל, and that יהוה is substituted
for the divine name בַּֽעַל. Most commentaries suppose that the writer
resolves ראובן into רָאָ[ה] בְ[עָ]נְ[יִי]; but that is too extravagant for even
a Hebrew etymologist.――=33.= _Šim‛ôn_] derived from שָׁמַע, ‘hear,’
expressing precisely the same idea as Rĕ’ûbēn.――=34.= _Lēvî_, as the
third son, is explained by a verb for ‘adhere’ (Niphal √ לוה), on the
principle that a threefold cord is not easily broken.――=35.= _Yĕhûdāh_]
connected with a word meaning ‘praise’ (הוֹדָה: compare imperfect יְהוֹדֶה,
Nehemiah 11¹⁷). So in 49⁸.
* * * * *
=32.= רְאוּבֵן] LXX Ῥουβην, etc.; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word);
Josephus Ῥουβηλος. The origin of the name has given rise to an
extraordinary number of conjectures (see Hogg, _Encyclopædia
Biblica_, 4091 ff.). We seem driven to the conclusion that the
original form (that on which the etymology is based: _v.s._)
was ראובל. In that form the name has been connected with Arabic
_ri’bāl_, ‘lion,’ or ‘wolf,’ in which case Reuben might have to
be added to the possibly totemistic names of the Old Testament.
Another plausible suggestion is that the word is softened from
רְעוּ־בַעַל a theophorous compound after the analogy of רְעוּאֵל――=33.=
After בֵּן, LXX inserts שֵׁנִי, which may be correct (compare
30⁷ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁴).――שִׁמְעוֹן] Another supposed animal name, from
Arabic _sim‛_, a cross between the wolf and hyæna (see William
Robertson Smith _The Journal of Philology_ ix. 80). Ewald
regarded it as a diminutive of יִשְׁמָעֵאל, and similarly recently
Cheyne (_Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 375).――=34.=
קרא] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ,
Peshiṭtå קָֽרְאָה; LXXᴬ ἐκλήθη.――לֵוִי] Wellhausen’s conjecture that
this is the gentilic of לֵאָה is widely accepted (Stade, William
Robertson Smith, Nöldeke, Meyer, al.). Hommel, on the other
hand, compares South Arabian _lavi’u_ = ‘priest,’ Levi being
the priestly tribe (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated
by the Monuments_, 278 f.; compare Benzinger _Hebräische
Archäologie_² 56).
* * * * *
=XXX. 1‒8. Rachel’s adopted sons.=――=1, 2.= A passionate scene,
showing how Rachel was driven by jealousy of her sister to yield her
place to her maid. Her petulant behaviour recalls that of Sarah (16⁵),
but Jacob is less patient than Abraham.――_Am I in God’s stead?_] So
50¹⁹, compare 2 Kings 5⁷.――=3.= _bear upon my knees_] An allusion to
a primitive ceremony of adoption, which here simply means that Bilhah’s
children will be acknowledged by Rachel as her own.――_obtain children
by her_] see on 16².――=6.= The putative mother names the adopted
child.――_Dân_] The etymology here given (√ דִּין, ‘judge’) is very
probably correct, the form being an abbreviated theophorous name
(compare, _Abi-dan_, Assyrian _Asshur-dan_, etc.).――=8.= _wrestlings
of God I have wrestled_] The words are very obscure (see Cheyne 376
ff.). Either ‘I have had “a veritable God’s bout” (Ball) with my
sister,’ or (less probably) ‘I have wrestled with God (in prayer) like
my sister.’――_and have overcome_] This seems to imply that Leah had
only one son at the time (Gunkel); and there is nothing to prevent the
supposition that the concubinage of Bilhah followed immediately on the
birth of Reuben.
On the ceremony referred to, see Stade _Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, vi. 143 ff.; Holzinger 196;
Driver 274. Its origin is traced to a widespread custom,
according to which, in lawful marriage, the child is actually
brought forth on the father’s knees (compare Job 3¹²; _Iliad_
ix. 455 f.; _Odyssey_ xix. 401 ff.); then it became a symbol
of the legitimisation of a natural child, and finally a form
of adoption generally (50²³). Gunkel, however, thinks the rite
originated in cases like the present (the slave being delivered
on the knees of her mistress), and was afterwards transferred to
male adoption.
* * * * *
=3.= בִּלְהָה] (of unknown etymology) is probably to be connected
with the Ḥorite clan בִּלהָן (36²⁷).――=6.= דָּנַנִּי] On the form, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 26 _g_.――=7aβb= must be assigned to Yahwist,
on account of שׁפחה and בן שני (note also the expression of subject
after _second_ verb).――=8.= נפתולי] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. The verb has
nowhere else the sense of ‘wrestle,’ but means primarily to
‘twist’ (compare Proverbs 8⁸, Job 5¹³, Psalms 18²⁷†); hence נַפְתָּלִי
might be the ‘tortuous,’ ‘cunning’ one (Brown-Driver-Briggs).
But a more plausible etymology derives it from a hypothetical
_Naphtal_ (from נֶפֶת [Joshua 17¹¹†,――if correctly vocalised],
usually taken to mean ‘height’: compare כַּרְמֶל from כֶּרֶם), denoting
the northern highlands West of the Upper Jordan (Meyer _Die
Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 539).――The Versions render
the verb more or less paraphrastically, and give no help to the
elucidation of the sense.