* * * * *

=9‒13. Leah’s adopted sons.=――=11.= _Gad_ is the name of an Aramæan

and Phœnician god of Luck (Τύχη), mentioned in Isaiah 65¹¹ (see

_Cambridge Bible_, _ad loc._; compare Baethgen, _Beiträge zur

Geschichte Cölestins_ 76 ff. 159 ff.). There is no difficulty in

supposing that a hybrid tribe like Gad traced its ancestry to this

deity, and was named after him; though, of course, no such idea

is expressed in the text. In Leah’s exclamation the word is used

appellatively: _With luck!_ (_v.i._). It is probable, however, that

at an earlier time it was current in the sense ‘With Gad’s help’

(Ball, Gunkel).――=13.= The name _’Āšēr_ naturally suggested to Hebrew

writers a word for happiness; hence the two etymologies: בְּאָשְׁרִי‎ ‘_In my

happiness_,’ and אִשְּׁרוּנִי‎ ‘(women) _count me happy_.’ It is possible that

the name is historically related to the Canaanite goddess _’Ašērāh_

(Ball, Holzinger), as Gad is to the Aramæan deity. _Aser_ appears in

Egyptian monuments as the name of a district in North-west Palestine

as early as Seti and Ramses II. (Müller, _Asien und Europa nach

altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 236 ff.).

* * * * *

=10.= Both here and verse ¹² LXX gives a much fuller text.――=11.=

‎ בְּגד‎] So _Kethîb_, LXX Ἐν τύχῃ, Vulgate _Feliciter_. But _Qrê_

‎ בָּא גָ֑ד‎ is ancient, being presupposed by Syrian (‡ Syriac phrase)

and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ. These Versions render ‘Good fortune

comes’ (so Rashi): another translation, suggested by 49¹⁹, is

‘A troop (גְּדוּד‎) comes’ (Abraham Ibn Ezra).

‎ =13.= אשֶׁר‎ is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον.――אִשְּׁרוּנִי‎] perfect of confidence

(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 _n_). It is to be noted that perfects

greatly preponderate in Elohist’s etymologies, and imperfects

in those of Yahwist; the two exceptions (29³² ᶠᐧ) may be only

apparent, and due to the absence of definite stylistic criteria.

* * * * *

=14‒24. The later children.=――=14‒16.= The incident of the love-apples

is a piece of folklore, adopted with reserve by the writer (Yahwist),

and so curtailed as to be shorn of its original significance. The

story must have gone on to tell how Rachel partook of the fruit and

in consequence became pregnant, while Leah also conceived through the

restoration of her marriage rights (see Wellhausen _Die Composition

des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 38

f.). How much of this stood in Yahwist and has been suppressed in the

history of the text we cannot say; we here read just what is necessary

to explain the name of Leah’s child.――=14.= דּוּדָאִים‎ (_v.i._) is the round,

greenish-yellow, plum-like fruit of _mandragora vernalis_, which in

Syria ripens in May――_the days of wheat harvest_――and is still eagerly

sought in the East to promote conception (see Tuch’s note, 385 ff.).

Reuben is named, probably as the only child old enough to follow

the reapers in the field (compare 2 Kings 4¹⁸). The agricultural

background shows that the episode is out of place in its present

nomadic setting.――=15.= _he shall lie with thee to-night_] Jacob,

therefore, had wrongly withheld from Leah her conjugal rights (עוֹנָה‎,

Exodus 21¹⁰).――=16.= _I have hired thee_ (שָׂכֹר שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ‎)] Obviously an

anticipation of Yahwist’s lost etymology of Issachar.――=18.= Elohist’s

interpretation of יִשָּׂשׂכָר‎, which is, of course, independent of the story

of the mandrakes. The name is resolved either into אישׁ שָׂכָר‎, ‘man of

hire,’ or into יֵשׁ שָׂכָר‎, ‘there is a reward’ (Tuch, Dillmann); or else

the י‎ and quiescent ש‎ are simply dropped (Gunkel): _v.i._――=20.=

Two etymologies of _Zĕbûlûn_; the first from Elohist (אלהים‎), and

the second, therefore, from Yahwist: both are somewhat obscure

(_v.i._).――=21.= _Dînāh_] The absence of an etymology, and the fact

that Dinah is excluded from the enumeration of 32²³, make it probable

that the verse is interpolated with a view to chapter 34.――=22‒24.=

At last Rachel bears a son, long hoped for and therefore marked out

for a brilliant destiny――_Yôsēph._――=23b, 24b.= Elohist derives the

name from אָסַף‎, ‘take away’; Yahwist more naturally from יָסַף‎, ‘add’:

_May Yahwe add to me another son!_

* * * * *

‎ =14.= דּוּדָאִים‎ (Canticles 7¹⁴†)] LXX μῆλα μανδραγόρου, Peshiṭtå

(‡ Syriac word), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ יברוחין‎ (= Arabic _yabrūh_,

explained to be the _root_ of the plant). The singular is

‎ דּוּדַי‎, from the same √ as דּוֹד‎, ‘lover,’ and דּוֹדִים‎ ‘love’; and very

probably associated with the love-god דודה‎ (_Meša_, 1. 12). Cheyne

plausibly suggests (379) that this deity was worshipped by the

Reubenites; hence Reuben is the finder of the apples.――=15.= לָהּ‎]

LXX לֵאָה‎, Peshiṭtå לה לאה‎.――וְלָקַחַת‎ (infinitive)] Driver _A Treatise

on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 204; but וְלָקַחַתְּ‎ (perfect

future) would be easier.――=16.= תָּבוֹא‎] _The Samaritan Recension

of the Pentateuch_, LXX + הַלַּיְלָה‎.――בַּֽלַּיְלָה הוּא‎] see on 19³³.――=17a= is

from Elohist; but =17b= probably from Yahwist, on account of the

numeral.――=18aβ=, while correctly expressing the idea of Elohist,

contains the word שִׁפְחָה‎, which Elohist avoids; and is therefore

probably redactional.――=18b.= יִשָּׂשכָר‎] So Ben Asher regularly,

with _Qrê perpetuum_ יִשָּׂכָר‎: B. Naphtali has יִשְׂשָׂכָר‎, or יִשְׁשָׂכָר‎ (see

Baer-Delitzsch _Liber Genesis_ 84 f.; Ginsburg, _Introduction of

the Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible_ 250 ff.).

The duplication of the ש‎ cannot be disposed of as a Massoretic

caprice, and is most naturally explained by the assumption

that two components were recognised, of which the first was אִישׁ‎

(Wellhausen _Der Text der Bücher Samuelis_, page v). For the

second component Wellhausen refers to the שָׂכָר‎ of 1 Chronicles

11³⁵ 26⁴; Ball compares an Egyptian deity _Sokar_; while Meyer

(_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 536) is satisfied

with the interpretation ‘man of hire,’ corresponding to the

description of the tribe in Genesis 49¹⁴ ᶠᐧ.――=20.= זֶבֶד‎, זְבָדַנִי‎] The

√ (except in proper names) is not found in the Old Testament,

but is explained by Aramaic (compare (‡ Syriac word), ‘dowry’),

and is common in Palmer proper names (Brown-Driver-Briggs,

_s.v._). The interchange of ל‎ and ד‎ is probably dialectic

(compare _dacrima_ = _lacrima_), and hardly justifies Cheyne’s

view that the name in the writer’s mind was זַבְדּוֹן‎] (_l.c._

‎ 380).――יזבלני‎] Another ἅπαξ λεγόμενον apparently connected with זְבֻל‎,

poetical for ‘abode’: Versions ‘dwell with’ (as English Version).

This gives a good enough sense here, and is perhaps supported

by 49¹³ (see on the verse); but זְבֻלוּן‎ remains without any natural

explanation. See Hogg, in _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 5385 ff.

Meyer (538) derives it from the personal name זְבֻל‎ (Judges

9²⁸).――=21= end] LXX + ותעמד מלדת‎ (as 29³⁵).――=24.= יוֹסֵף‎] Probably a

contraction of יוסף־אל‎, though the _Yšp’r_ of the list of Thothmes

III. (Number 78) is less confidently identified with Joseph

than the companion _Y‛ḳb’r_ with Jacob (compare page 360

above; Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 262;

Spiegelberg, _Randglossen_, 13 f.; Müller, _Mittheilungen der

vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1907, i. 23, and _Journal of

Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, 1909, 31). But _Yašupili_

has been found in contract tablets of the Ḥammurabi period

along with _Yaḳub-ili_ (Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition

as illustrated by the Monuments_, 96 [from Sayce]).

* * * * *

XXX. 25‒43.

_Jacob enriched at Laban’s Expense_

(Jehovist).

Jacob, having accomplished his 14 years of service for his wives, is

now in a position to dictate terms to Laban, who, in his eagerness

to keep him, invites him to name the price for which he will remain

with him. It is interesting to contrast the relative attitudes of the

two men with their bearing in ¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ Jacob here shows a decision of

purpose which causes Laban to adopt an obsequious tone very unlike his

former easy assurance. He is overjoyed to find his nephew’s demands so

reasonable; and correspondingly mortified (31²) when he discovers how

completely he has been deceived by Jacob’s apparent moderation.――The

story, as Gunkel reminds us, was originally told to shepherds, who

would follow with keen interest the various tricks of their craft

which Jacob so successfully applies (and of which he was probably

regarded as the inventor). To more refined readers these details were

irksome; hence the abridged and somewhat unintelligible form in which

the narrative stands.

_Sources._――In the earlier verses (²⁵⁻³¹) several duplicates

show the composition of Yahwist and Elohist: ²⁵ ∥ ²⁶ᵃ; ²⁶ᵇ ∥ ²⁹ᵃ;

²⁸ ∥ ³¹ᵃ; ויאמר‎ in ²⁷ and ²⁸; אתה ידעת‎, ²⁶ᵇ and ²⁹ᵃ. Here ²⁵ᐧ ²⁷ᐧ

²⁹⁻³¹ are from Yahwist (יהוה‎, ²⁷ᐧ ³⁰; מָצָא חֵן‎, ²⁷; בִּגְלַל‎ ²⁷), and ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸

from Elohist,――each narrative being nearly complete (compare

Dillmann, Gunkel, Procksch).――In ³²⁻³⁶ it is quite possible, in

spite of the scepticism of Dillmann and others, to distinguish

two conceptions of Jacob’s reward (Wellhausen _Die Composition

des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten

Testaments_² 40 ff.). (a) In the first, Jacob is that very day

to take out from Laban’s flock all abnormally coloured animals:

_that_ is to be his hire (³²). On the morrow (or in time to

come), Laban may inspect Jacob’s flock: if he find in it any

normally coloured animals, Jacob is at once convicted of fraud

³³. This account belongs to Elohist (compare שְׂכָרִי‎, ³², with ²⁸),

though it is doubtful if to the same stratum of Elohist as

31⁷⁻¹². (b) In the other, Laban himself separates the flocks,

leaving the _normally_ coloured sheep and goats in Jacob’s

keeping, and removing the others to a distance of three days’

journey, under the charge of his sons (³²ᵃ{β} [from הָסֵר‎ ³⁵ ᶠᐧ).

Thus Jacob receives for the present nothing at all (³¹ Yahwist).

The narrative must have gone on to explain that his hire was

to consist of any variegated animals appearing in the normally

coloured flock now left in his charge (³⁶ᵇ); Laban’s precautions

aim at securing that these shall be few or none. Hence we

obtain for Yahwist ³²ᵃ{β}ᐧ ³⁵ᐧ ³⁶, and for Elohist ³²ᵃ{αδ}ᵇᐧ ³³ᐧ

³⁴.――³⁷⁻⁴⁵ is the natural continuation of Yahwist’s account,

but with numerous insertions, which may be either from variants

or glosses.――The text here is very confused, and LXX has many

variations.

=25‒31. Jacob proposes to provide for his own house.=――A

preliminary parley, in which both parties feel their way to an

understanding.――=26= (Elohist). _thou knowest with what kind of

service, etc._] Elohist always lays stress on Jacob’s rectitude

(compare ³³).――=27= (Yahwist). _If I have found favour, etc._]

followed by aposiopesis, as 18³ 23¹³.――Laban continues: _I have

taken omens_ (נִחַשְׁתִּי‎; compare 44⁵ᐧ ¹⁵, 1 Kings 20³³) _and_ (found that)

_Yahwe has blessed me, etc._]――an abject plea for Jacob’s remaining

with him.――=28= (Elohist). Laban surrenders at once (the answer

is in verse ³²), whereas――=29,30= in Yahwist, Jacob presses for a

discharge: his service has been of immense value to Laban, but he has

a family to consider.――=31.= _anything at all_] See introductory note

above.――_this thing_] which I am about to mention.――_resume herding

thy flock_] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 120 _g_.

* * * * *

‎ =26.= ואת־ילדי‎] Not necessarily a gloss; the children might

fairly be considered included in Jacob’s wages.――=27.= On נִחַשׁ‎,

_verb_ 44⁵.――‎בגללך‎] LXX τῇ σῇ εἰσόδῳ, Armenian _in pede tuo_ =

‎ לרגלך‎ (³⁰).――=28.= LXX, Vulgate omit ויאמר‎, smoothing over the

transition from Yahwist to Elohist.――נקבה‎] ‘designate’ (literally

‘prick [off]’): compare the use of Niphal in Numbers 1¹⁷,

1 Chronicles 16⁴¹ etc.――=29.= את אשר‎] ‘the manner in which’

(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 157 _c_); but Peshiṭtå reads as in verse

‎ ²⁶.――=30.= לרגלי‎] contrasted with לפני‎ above. Prosperity has

followed Jacob ‘wherever he went’ (compare Isaiah 41², Job 18¹¹

etc.). It is unnecessary to emend בִּגְלָלִי‎ (Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ,

Cheyne).――=31.= אשמר‎] (LXX, Peshiṭtå prefix וְ‎) must be deleted on

account of its awkward position.

* * * * *

=32‒36. The new contract.=――The point in both narratives is that

parti-coloured animals form a very small proportion of a flock, the

Syrian sheep being nearly all white (Canticles 4² 6⁶, Daniel 7⁹) and

the goats black or brown (Canticles 4¹ᵇ). In Elohist, Jacob simply

asks this small share as his payment.――=32.= _and it shall be my hire_]

The rendering ‘and of this sort shall be my hire’ (in future), is

merely a violent attempt to obliterate the difference between Yahwist

and Elohist.――=33.= _my righteousness shall testify against me_]

_i.e._, the proposal is so transparently fair that Jacob will be as it

were automatically convicted of theft if he violates the compact. צְדָקָה‎,

‘unimpeachable conduct,’ here means ‘fair dealing,’ ‘honesty.’――_in

time to come_] whenever Laban chooses to make an investigation.――=35,

36= (Yahwist). _And he_ (Laban, see ³²ᵃ{β}) _removed that day, etc._]

Laban’s motive in removing the variegated animals to a distance of

three days’ journey is obvious; he wishes to reduce to a minimum the

chance that any such animals should henceforth be born amongst those

now entrusted to Jacob.――_white_] Hebrew _lābān_, perhaps a play on

Laban’s name.

* * * * *

‎ =32.= אעבר‎, הסר‎] To get rid of the change of person (and

the division of sources) many construe the latter as

infinitive absolute (‘removing’); but the only natural

rendering is imperative (compare ³⁵). LXX has imperative both

times.――כל־שה――עזים‎] LXX πᾶν πρόβατον φαιὸν ἐν τοῖς ἀρνάσιν καὶ

πᾶν διάραντον λελυκὸν καὶ λευκὸν ἐν ταῖς αἰξίν, a smoother

and therefore less original text. The Hebrew seems overloaded;

Gunkel strikes out וְכָל־שֶׂה־חוּם בַּֽכְּשָׂבִים‎, and the corresponding clauses

in ³³ᐧ ³⁵.――נָקֹד וְטָלוּא‎] ‘speckled and spotted,’ ‘parti-coloured.’ The

words are practically synonymous, both being distinct from עָקֹד‎

(³⁵ᐧ ³⁹ᐧ ⁴⁰ 31⁸ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²†), which means ‘striped.’ If there be a

difference, נ׳‎ (³⁵ᐧ ³⁹ 31⁸ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²†) suggests smaller spots than

‎ ט׳‎ (compare Ezekiel 16¹⁶, Joshua 9⁵, the only places where the

√ occurs outside this passage).――חוּם‎] only in this chapter: =

‘black’ or ‘dark-brown.’――=33.= ענה ב‎] ‘testify against’ (see

1 Samuel 12³, 2 Samuel 1¹⁶, Isaiah 3⁹). An easier sense would

be obtained if we could translate ‘witness _for_,’ but there

seem to be no examples of that usage. Driver’s interpretation:

‘there will be nothing whatever to allege against my honesty,’

seems, on the other hand, too subtle.――ביום מחר‎] ‘in time to

come’ (Exodus 13¹⁴, Deuteronomy 6²⁰). If we could insist on

the literal rendering ‘on the morrow,’ the proof of divergence

between Yahwist and Elohist would be strengthened, but the sense

is less suitable.――כי――לפניך‎] LXX ὅτι ἐστὶν ὁ μισθός μου ἐνώπιόν

σου.――=36.= בינו‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,

LXX בינם‎.――_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ follows ³⁶

with a long addition based on 31¹¹⁻¹³.

* * * * *

=37‒43. Jacob’s Stratagem.=――The main account is from Yahwist,

to whose narrative the artifice is essential, but there are many

interpolations.――=37‒39.= The first step is to work on the imagination

of the females by rods of poplar, etc., peeled in such a way as to

show patches of white, and placed in the drinking troughs.――=38, 39.=

Removing glosses, Yahwist’s account reads: _And he placed the rods

which he had peeled in the runnels ... in front of the flock, and they

bred when they came to drink.... And the flock brought forth streaked,

speckled, and spotted_ (young).

The physiological law involved is said to be well established

(Driver), and was acted on by ancient cattle breeders (see the

list of authorities in Bochart, _Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum

opus de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ_ ii. chapter 49; and compare

Jerome _Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_ _ad

loc._). The full representation seems to be that the ewes saw

the reflexion of the rams in the water, blended with the image

of the parti-coloured rods, and were deceived into thinking they

were coupled with parti-coloured males (Jerome, Wellhausen _Die

Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten

Testaments_² 41).

* * * * *

‎ =37.= לבנה‎ (Hosea 4¹³†)] the ‘white’ tree; according to some,

_populus alba_ (Dillmann al.), but very probably _styrax

officinalis_ (Arabic _lubnaʸ_, so called from its exuding a

_milk_-like gum), (Gesenius, Delitzsch, Driver, al.).――לוּז‎†]

= Aramaic לוּזָא‎, ‘almond tree.’――עַרְמוֹן‎ (Ezekiel 31⁸†)] _platanus

orientalis_ (Assyrian _irmeânu_).――Instead of the last three

words LXX has ἐφαίνετο δὲ ἐπὶ ταῖς ῥάβδοις τὸ λευκόν, ὃ ἐλέπισεν

ποικίλον,――a very sensible comment, but hardly original. The

whole clause ‘(with) a laying bare (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 117 _r_)

of the white on the rods,’ is superfluous, and certainly looks

like a variant.――בהן‎] plural; מקל‎ being collective.――=38 ff.= The

text of Yahwist, as sifted by Wellhausen, commends itself by its

lucidity and continuity. It is impossible to tell whether the

interpolated words are variants from another source (Elohist?)

or explanatory glosses.――=38.= רַהַט‎ (verse ⁴¹, Exodus 2¹⁶†)]

either ‘trough,’ from Arabic _rahaṭa_, ‘be collected,’ or

‘runnel,’ from Aramaic רהט‎ = רוּץ‎ (see Nöldeke _Zeitschrift für

Assyriologie_, xii. 187).――שִׁקֲתוֹת‎] construction plural of שֹׁקֶת‎,

24²†.――The words בשקתות――לשתות‎ divorce לנכח הצאן‎ from its connexion,

and must be omitted from the text of Yahwist. LXX appears to

have changed הצאן ויחמנה‎ to המקלֹות‎, rendering thus (³⁸ᵇ) ἵνα ὡς ἂν

ἔλθωσιν τὰ πρόβατα πιεῖν, ἐνώπιον τῶν ῥάβδων [καὶ] ἐλθόντων

αὐτῶν εἰς τὸ πιεῖν, ἐνκισσήσωσιν (³⁹) τὰ πρόβατα――וַיֵּחַמְנָה‎] On

the unusual preference of 3rd person feminine plural, see

Gesenius-Kautzsch § 47 _k_.――=39a= is a doublet to the last

three words of ³⁸.――ויחמו‎] _ib._ § 69 _f_; _The Samaritan

Recension of the Pentateuch_ ויחמנה‎.

* * * * *

=40.= _And (these) lambs Jacob set apart ... and made separate flocks

for himself and did not add them to Laban’s stock_ (Wellhausen).――=41,

42.= A further refinement: Jacob employed his device only in the case

of the sturdy animals, letting the weakly ones gender freely. The

difference corresponds to a difference of breeding-time (_v.i._). The

consequence is that Jacob’s stock is hardy and Laban’s delicate.

* * * * *

=40.= ‘He set the faces of the flock towards a (_sic_) streaked

and every dark one in Laban’s flock,’ is an imperfect text,

and an impossible statement in Yahwist, where Laban’s cattle

are three days distant. LXX vainly tries to make sense by

omitting לָבָן‎, and rendering פְּנֵי‎ = ἐναντίον, and אֶל־עָקֹד‎ = κριὸν (אַיִל‎!)

διάλευκον.――=41.= בּכל־‎] LXX, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, supply

‎ עֵת‎.――=42.= הקשרים‎, העטפים‎] LXX ἐπίσημα, ἄσημα; but Symmachus

(paraphrasing) πρώϊμα ὄψιμα, and similarly Aquila, Vulgate,

Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ. It is the fact that the stronger sheep

conceived in summer and yeaned in winter, while the weaker

conceived in autumn and yeaned in the spring: Pliny, _Naturalis

Historia_, viii. 187 (‘postea concepti invalidi’).

* * * * *

XXXI. 1‒XXXII. 1.

_Jacob’s Flight from Laban: their friendly Parting_

(Yahwist, Elohist).

Jacob perceives from the altered demeanour of Laban and his sons

that he has outstayed his welcome (¹ᐧ ²); and, after consultation with

his wives, resolves on a secret flight (³⁻²¹). Laban pursues, and

overtakes him at Mt. Gilead (²²⁻²⁵), where, after a fierce altercation

(²⁶⁻⁴³), they enter into a treaty of peace (from which Gilead receives

its name), and separate with many demonstrations of goodwill (31⁴⁴‒32¹).

_Sources._――¹⁻¹⁶ is an almost homogeneous (though perhaps

not continuous) excerpt from Elohist: אלהים‎, ⁷ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁶; מַשְׂכֹּרָת‎,

⁷ (compare ⁴¹ 29¹⁵); מֹנִים‎, ⁷ (⁴¹); מַצֵבָה‎ ¹³; the revelation by

dream, ¹⁰ ᶠᐧ; the summons and answer, ¹¹ (22¹ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹¹); and the

explanation of Jacob’s wealth ⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ; compare also the reference

to 28²⁰⁻²². ¹ and ³ are from a Yahwist parallel: יהוה‎, ³; מוֹלַדְתְּךָ‎, ³;

the ‘sons’ of Laban, ¹ (compare 30³⁵).――In ¹⁷⁻⁵⁴ Elohist still

preponderates, though Yahwist is more largely represented than

some critics (Dillmann, Kuenen, Kautzsch-Socin, Driver, al.)

allow. The detailed analysis is here very intricate, and will

be best dealt with under the several sections.――¹⁸ (except the

first four words) is the only extract from Priestly-Code.

=1‒16. Preparations for flight.=――=1, 3= (Yahwist). The jealousy of

Laban’s sons corresponds to the dark looks of Laban himself in Elohist

(verse ²); the divine communication is a feature of both narratives

(verse ¹³).――=4‒13.= Jacob vindicates his conduct towards Laban, and

sets forth the reasons for his projected flight. The motive of the

speech is not purely literary, affording the writer an opportunity to

express his belief in Jacob’s righteousness (Gunkel); it is first of

all an appeal to the wives to accompany him: compare the question to

Rebekah in 24⁵⁸.――=6.= _Ye yourselves know, etc._] Compare 30²⁶ᐧ ²⁹.

But to repeat the protestation after the work of the last six years

implies great hardihood on Jacob’s part; and rather suggests that the

passage belongs to a stratum of Elohist which said nothing about his

tricks with the flock.――=7.= _changed my wages ten times_] Perhaps a

round number, not to be taken literally.――=8.= A sample of Laban’s

tergiversations, and their frustration by God’s providence.――=9.= _And

so God has taken away, etc._] The hand of God has been so manifest

that Laban’s displeasure is altogether unreasonable.――=10‒12.= Jacob

receives through a dream the explanation of the singular good fortune

that has attended him.

In the text verses ¹⁰⁻¹² form part of the same revelation

as that in which Jacob is commanded to depart (¹³). But, as

Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen

Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 39) asks, “How could two such

dissimilar revelations be coupled together in this way?” Verse

¹⁰ recalls an incident of the past, while ¹³ is in the sphere of

the present: moreover, ‘I am the God of Bethel’ must surely open

the communication. Wellhausen solves the difficulty by removing

¹⁰ and ¹² (assigning them to an unknown source), and leaving

¹¹ as the introduction to ¹³: similarly Dillmann, Holzinger,

_Oxford Hexateuch_, al. Gunkel supposes parts of Jacob’s speech

to have been omitted between ⁹ and ¹⁰ and between ¹² and ¹³.――It

is scarcely possible to recover the original sense of the

fragment. If the dream had preceded the negotiations with Laban,

it might have been a hint to Jacob of the kind of animals he was

to ask as his hire (Strack, Gunkel); but that is excluded by ¹²ᵇ;

and, besides, in verse ⁸ it is Laban who fixes the terms of the

contract. We can only understand it vaguely as an assurance to

Jacob that against all natural expectations the transaction will

be overruled to his advantage.

* * * * *

‎ =2.= איננו‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ אינם‎ (so

verse ⁵).――=6.= אתנה‎] only here and thrice in Ezekiel (compare

Gesenius-Kautzsch § 32 _i_).――=7.= והחלף‎] _The Samaritan

Recension of the Pentateuch_ ויחלף‎.――עשרת מנִים‎] LXX (‘nescio qua

opinione ducti’ [Jerome]) τῶν δέκα ἀμνῶν (so ⁴¹――probably a

transliteration, afterwards made into a Greek word). מֹנִים‎ (⁴¹†)

from √ מנה‎, ‘count,’ for the usual פְּעָמִים‎.――אלהים‎] _The Samaritan

Recension of the Pentateuch_ יהוה‎ (so ⁹ᐧ ¹⁶ᵃ).――=9.= את־‎]

LXX אָת־כָּל־‎.――אביכם‎] for אביכן‎ (_The Samaritan Recension of the

Pentateuch_); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 135 _o_.

* * * * *

=13.= _I am the God of Bethel_] links this theophany with that of

28¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ, and is (in Elohist) the first assurance given to Jacob that

his vow (28²⁰⁻²²) had been accepted.――=14‒16.= Jacob’s appeal has

been addressed to willing ears: his wives are already alienated from

their father, and eagerly espouse their husband’s cause.――=14b.=

Compare 2 Samuel 20¹, 1 Kings 12¹⁶.――=15.= _has sold us_] like

slaves.――_consumed our money_] _i.e._, the price paid for us (compare

Exodus 21³⁵). The complaint implies that it was considered a mark of

meanness for a man to keep the _mōhar_ for himself instead of giving

it to his daughters. A similar change in the destination of the

_mahr_ appears in Arabia before Islam (Wellhausen _Nachrichten von

der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen_, 1893,

434 f.).――=16.= _is ours and our children’s_] Elohist never mentions

sons of Laban; and apparently looks on Leah and Rachel as the sole

heiresses.

* * * * *

‎ =13.= האל ביתאל‎] The article with construct violates a well known

rule of syntax (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 127 _f_); and it is doubtful

if the anomaly be rightly explained by supposing the ellipsis of

‎ אֵל‎ or אֱלֹהֵי‎. The original text may have been הָאֵל [הַנִּרְאָה אֵלֶיךָ בִּמְקוֹם] בֵּיתְאֵל‎;

(so [but without ביתאל‎] LXX, adopted by Ball); or האל[――ב]ביתאל‎

(Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Kittel).――ארץ מולדתך‎] see on 11²⁸. It is

the only occurrence of מ׳‎ in Elohist.――LXX adds καὶ ἔσομαι μετὰ

σοῦ.――=15.= נכריות‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,

LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate כְּנָ׳‎.――גם אכול‎] see on 27³³.――=16.= עשר‎] LXX +

καὶ τὴν δόξαν.

* * * * *

=17‒25. The flight and pursuit.=――=18.= _and drove away all his

cattle_] Hence the slowness of his march as compared with Laban’s

(33¹³ᵇ).――The rest of the verse is from Priestly-Code (compare 12⁵

36⁶ 46⁶).――_to Isaac his father_] 35²⁷.――=19.= _Now Laban had gone

to shear his flock_] Sheep-shearing was the occasion of an important

festival in ancient Israel (38¹² ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 25² ᶠᶠᐧ, 2 Samuel

13²³).――With Rachel’s theft of the _tĕrāphîm_ (the household idol:

_v.i._), compare Virgil _Aeneid_ ii. 293 f., iii. 148 f.――=20.=

_stole the heart_] (²⁶, 2 Samuel 15⁶†) ‘deceived’; the heart being

the seat of intelligence (Hosea 4¹¹): compare ἔκλεψε νόον, _Iliad_

xiv. 217.――_the Aramæan_ (only here and ²⁴)] The emphasising of

Laban’s nationality at this point is hard to explain. That it is

the correction (by Elohist²) of an older version (Elohist¹), in

which Laban was not an Aramæan (Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre

Nachbarstämme_, 236), is not probable. Budde (_Die biblische

Urgeschichte_ 422¹) regards it as a gloss, inserted with a view

to verse ⁴⁷――=21.= _crossed the River_ (Yahwist)] the Euphrates

(Exodus 23³¹, Joshua 24² etc.).――=23.= _his brethren_] his

fellow-clansmen. In the sequel Jacob also is surrounded by his

clansmen (³⁷ᐧ ⁴⁶ᐧ ⁵⁴),――a proof that tribal relations are clothed

in the guise of individual biography.――_seven days’ journey_] The

distance of Gilead from Ḥarran (_circa_ 350 miles as the crow flies)

is much too great to be traversed in that time.

If the verse be from Yahwist (Gunkel, Procksch), we must assume

(what is no doubt conceivable) that the writer’s geographical

knowledge was defective. But it is a strong reason for assigning

the verse to Elohist, that in that source nothing is said of

Ḥarran or the Euphrates, and Laban’s home is placed somewhere in

the eastern desert (see 29¹).

* * * * *

=17‒25.= A complete analysis of the verses cannot be effected.

The hand of Elohist is recognised in ¹⁹ᵇ (תְּרָפִים‎, compare ³⁰ 35²

ᶠᶠᐧ), ²⁰, (? הָֽאֲרַמִּי‎, as ²⁴), and especially ²⁴ (אלהים‎, חֲלֹם‎; compare

²⁹ᐧ ⁴²). Yahwist betrays its presence chiefly by doublets:

²¹ᵃ{β} ∥ ¹⁷ (וַיָּקָם‎), and ²⁵ᵃ ∥ ²³ᵇ (וַיַּשֵּׂג‎, וַיַּדְבֵּק‎). The assignment of

²¹ᵃ{β} to Yahwist is warranted by the mention of the Euphrates:

hence ¹⁷ is Elohist. Further than this we cannot safely go.

Gunkel’s division (¹⁹ᵃᐧ ²¹⁻²³ᐧ ²⁵ᵇ = Yahwist; ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸ᵃ{α}ᐧ ¹⁹ᵇᐧ ²⁰ᐧ

²⁴ᐧ ²⁵ᵃ = Elohist) is open to the objection that it ignores

the discrepancy between the seven days of ²³ᵃ and the crossing

of the Euphrates in ²¹ᵃ (see on ²³ above); but is otherwise

attractive. Meyer (235 ff.) gets rid of the geographical

difficulty by distinguishing two strata in Elohist, of which

the later had been accommodated to the representation of

Yahwist.――¹⁸ (from וְאֶת־כָּל־רְכֻשׁוֹ‎) is obviously Priestly-Code.――=17.=

_sons and wives_] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,

LXX ‘wives and sons.’――=18.= LXX omits the clause אֲשֶׁר――קִנְיָנוֹ‎ (so

Peshiṭtå); and adds after אֲרָ֑ם‎, καὶ πάντα τὰ αὐτοῦ.――=19.= תְּרָפִים‎] A

plural of eminence, like אֱלֹהִים‎, etc.; hence it is doubtful whether

one image or several is here referred to. The teraphim was a god

(³⁰), its form and size were those of a man (1 Samuel 19¹³ᐧ ¹⁶),

it was used in private houses as well as in temples (Judges 17⁵

18¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ, Hosea 3⁴), and was an implement of divination (Ezekiel

21²⁶, Zechariah 10²). The indications point to its being an

emblem of ancestor-worship which survived in Israel as a private

superstition, condemned by the enlightened conscience of the

nation (35², 1 Samuel 15²³, 2 Kings 23²⁴). It seems implied

by the present narrative that the cult was borrowed from the

Aramæans, or perhaps rather that it had existed before the

separation of Hebrews and Aramæans. (See Moore, _Judges_ 379

ff.)――=20.= על־בלי‎] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, is difficult. על‎ for על אשר‎ is

rare and poetic (Psalms 119¹³⁶: Brown-Driver-Briggs, 758 a);

‎ בלי‎ (poetic for לא‎) is also rare with finite verb (_ib._ 115 b).

Since the following clause is a specification of the preceding,

‘wegen Mangels davon dass’ (Dillmann) is not a suitable

rendering. We should expect לְבִלְתִּי הַגִּיד‎, ‘in not telling him

that,’ etc.: _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_

has עד בלתי‎.――=22.= ללבן‎] LXX + τῷ Σύρῳ.

* * * * *

=24.= God (not the Angel of God, as verse ¹¹) warns Laban in a

dream to take heed to his words when he encounters Jacob.――_good or

bad_] ‘anything whatever’ (24⁵⁰, 2 Samuel 13²² etc.). Laban did not

interpret the prohibition literally (²⁹).――=25.= _in the mountain

..._] The idea suggested being that Jacob and Laban encamped each on

a different mountain, we must suppose the name to have been omitted.

The insertion of _Miẓpāh_ (verse ⁴⁹) is strongly recommended by Judges

10¹⁷ (see Ball, 88).――On the situation of _Mount Gilead_, see page

402 f.

* * * * *

‎ =25.= אחיו‎] Better אָֽהֳלוֹ‎ (Ball).

* * * * *

=26‒43. The altercation.=

The subjects of recrimination are: on Laban’s part, (a) the

secret flight, (b) the carrying off of his daughters, and (c)

the theft of his god; on Jacob’s part, (d) the hardships of his

20 years’ service, and (e) the attempts to defraud him of his

hire. Of these, b, c, and e certainly belong to Elohist; a and

d more probably to Yahwist.――In detail, the verses that can

be confidently assigned to Elohist are: ²⁶ (גָּנַב לֵב‎, as ²⁰), ²⁸

(continuation of ²⁶), ²⁹ (compare ²⁴), ³⁰ᐧ ³²⁻³⁵ (תרפים‎), ⁴¹ (‘ten

times’), ⁴² (compare ²⁴ᐧ ²⁹) and ⁴³ (because of the connexion

with ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸): note also אֱלֹהים‎, ²⁹ᐧ ⁴²; אֲמָהֹת‎, ³³. The sequence of

Elohist is interrupted by ²⁷ ⁽∥ ²⁶⁾ᐧ ³¹ᵇ (the natural answer

to ²⁷), ³⁶ᵃ ⁽∥ ³⁶ᵇ⁾: these clauses are accordingly assigned to

Yahwist; along with ³⁸⁻⁴⁰ (a parallel to ⁴¹ ᶠᐧ). The analysis

(which is due to Gunkel) yields for Elohist a complete narrative:

²⁶ᐧ ²⁸⁻³¹ᵃᐧ ³²⁻³⁵ᐧ ³⁶ᵇᐧ ³⁷ᐧ ⁴¹⁻⁴³. The Yahwistic parallel is all but

complete (²⁷ᐧ ³¹ᵃᐧ ᵇᐧ ³⁶ᵃᐧ ³⁸⁻⁴⁰); but we miss something after ³¹

to account for Jacob’s exasperation in ³⁶. We may suppose (with

Gunkel) that Laban had accused Jacob of stealing his flocks, and

that ³⁸⁻⁴⁰ is a reply to this charge.――Procksch’s division is

slightly different.

=26‒28.= Laban offers a sentimental pretext for his warlike

demonstration: in Elohist his slighted affection for his offspring

(²⁸); in Yahwist his desire to honour a parting guest (²⁷).――=27.=

_with mirth and music_] This manner of speeding the parting guest is

not elsewhere mentioned in Old Testament.――=29.= _It is in my power

(v.i.) to do you harm_]――but for the interposition of God.――=30.=

_Thou hast gone off forsooth, because forsooth, etc._] The infinitives

absolute express irony (Davidson § 86).――_stolen my god(s)_] This is a

serious matter, and leads up to the chief scene of the dispute.――=32.=

Jacob is so sure of the innocence of his household that he offers to

give up the culprit to death if the theft can be proved: a similar

enhancement of dramatic interest in 44⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=33‒35.= The search for

the teraphim is described with a touch of humour, pointed with sarcasm

at a prevalent form of idolatry.――=34.= Rachel had hidden the idol in

the _camel’s litter_ or palanquin (Burckhardt _Notes on the Bedouins

and Wahábys_ ii. 85; Doughty, _Travels in Arabia Deserta_ i. 437, ii.

304; Brown-Driver-Briggs, 1124), in which she was apparently resting

within the tent, on account of her condition.――=35.= דֶּרֶךְ נָשִׁים‎ = אֹרַח כַּנָּשִׁים‎

(18¹¹, Yahwist). Women in this condition were protected by a powerful

taboo (compare Leviticus 15¹⁹ etc.).――=36, 37.= Jacob now turns on

Laban, treating the accusation about the teraphim as mere pretext for

searching his goods.――=38‒40= (Yahwist). A fine picture of the ideal

shepherd, solicitous for his master’s interests, sensitive to the

least suspicion of fraud, and careless of his personal comfort.――=39.=

_I brought not to thee_] as a witness (Exodus 22¹²). Jacob had thus

gone far beyond his legal obligation.――_made it good_] literally

‘counted it missing.’――=40.= _heat by day and frost by night_]

Jeremiah 36⁸⁰. Under the clear skies of the East the extreme heat of

the day is apt to be followed by intense cold at night (see Smith,

_Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 69 ff.).――=41, 42= (Elohist).

_the Fear of Isaac_] The deity feared and worshipped by Isaac (⁵³†).

That פַּחַד יִצְחָק‎ meant originally the terror _inspired_ by Isaac, the local

deity of Beersheba (Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_,

254 f.), is a hazardous speculation.――=43.= Laban maintains his right,

but speedily adopts a more pathetic tone, leading on to the pacific

proposal of ⁴⁴.――The question _what shall I do to ...?_] means ‘what

last kindness can I show them?’ (Gunkel, Driver); not ‘how can I do

them harm?’ (Dillmann and most).

* * * * *

=26, 27.= LXX omits ותגנב את־לבבי‎, and transposes ²⁷ᵃᐧ ²⁶ᵇ.――=27.= ולא‎]

LXX וְלֻא‎, which is perhaps better than Massoretic Text.――=28.= נטש‎]

usually ‘reject’ or ‘abandon’; only here = ‘allow.’――עשו‎] for עֲשׂוֹת‎

(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 _n_).――=29.= יֶשׁ־לְאֵל יָדִי‎] Micah 2¹, Proverbs

3²⁷, Sirach 5¹ (Deuteronomy 28³², Nehemiah 5⁵). The meaning is

certain (‘be within one’s power’), but the expression is very

obscure. The current explanations (both represented in the

Versions) are: (1) That אֵל‎ is an abstract noun = ‘power,’ and

‎ יָדִי‎ genitive. (2) That יָדִי‎ is subject of the sentence and אֵל‎ the

word for God: ‘my hand is for a God.’ The first depends on a

singular sense of אֵל‎; and for the second יש לי ידי לאל‎ would have

been more natural. A third view has recently been propounded

by Brockelmann (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche

Wissenschaft_, xxvi. 29 ff.), who renders ‘it belongs to the

God of my hand,’ a survival of a primitive belief in special

deities or spirits animating different members of the body

(compare Tylor, _Primitive Culture_⁴ ii. 127).――עמכם‎, אביכם‎]

_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX have singular

suffix.――=30.= אביך‎] LXX + ἀπελθεῖν· καί. The וְ‎ should probably

be restored.――=31.= LXX omits כי יראתי‎.――=32.= The opening words

in LXX וַיֹאמֶר לוֹ יַֽעֲקֹב‎ may be original, introducing the duplicate from

Elohist.――=32b.= is preceded in LXX by the variant καὶ οὐκ

ἐπέγνω παρ’ αὐτῷ οὐθέν.――=33.= לבן‎] _The Samaritan Recension of

the Pentateuch_ + זיחבש‎ (read ויחפש‎); so LXX.――The clause ³³ᵃ{β}

disagrees with what follows, and may be a gloss. LXX reduces

the discrepancy by omissions, and a complete rearrangement of

clauses.――=36.= מַה‎²] Read וּמַה‎ with Hebrew MSS _The Samaritan

Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå.――=39.= On אֲחַטֶּנָּה‎ for

‎ אֲחַטְּאָנָּה‎, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 74 _k_ or 75 _oo_.――גנבתי יום

‎ וג׳ לילה‎ is probably an archaic technical phrase, preserving an old

case-ending (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 90 _l_).――=40.= On the syntax,

see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 143 _a_.――=41.= _These twenty years_]

The repetition (verse ³⁸) would, as Dillmann says, not be

surprising in animated speech; and is not of itself evidence

of a change of source. But Jacob’s oratory is more dignified

if relieved of this slight touch of affectation.――זה‎] not

here a pronoun but used adverbially, as 27³⁶ etc. (see

Brown-Driver-Briggs, 261 b).――=42.= אלהי אברהם‎ may be a gloss

(Gunkel): LXX omits אלהי‎.

* * * * *

=44‒54. The treaty of Gilead.=

Evidences of a double recension appear in every circumstance of

the narrative. (a) _Two_ names are explained: Gilead (⁴⁸ᵇ), and

Miẓpāh (⁴⁹ᵃ); (b) _two_ sacred monuments are erected, a cairn

(⁴⁶ᐧ ⁴⁸ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵²), and a monolith (⁴⁵ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵²); (c) the covenant

feast is _twice_ recorded (⁴⁶ᵇᐧ ⁵⁴); (d) the terms of the

covenant are given in _two_ forms: (1) Jacob will not ill-treat

Laban’s daughters (⁵⁰), and (2) the cairn is to mark the

boundary between two peoples (⁵²); (e) God is _twice_ called

to witness (⁴⁹ ᶠᐧ ⁵³). To arrange these duplicates in two

parallel series is difficult, because of the numerous glosses

and dislocations of the text; but some connecting lines can be

drawn. Since Yahwist always avoids the word מַצֵּבָה‎ (page 378), we

assume first of all that the monolith (and consequently _Miẓpāh_)

belongs to Elohist, and the cairn to Yahwist. Now the cairn goes

with the _frontier_ treaty (⁵¹ᐧ ⁵² [removing glosses], Yahwist),

and Miẓpāh with the _family_ compact (⁴⁹, Elohist). To Yahwist

we must obviously assign ⁴⁶ᐧ ⁴⁸, and also (if we may suppose

that only the גַּל‎ was spoken of as an עֵד‎) ⁴⁴; while Elohist

as naturally claims ⁴⁵. At the end, ⁵³ᵇ is Elohist (פחד יצחק‎,

compare ⁴²), and likewise ⁵⁴ (the feast, ∥ ⁴⁶, Yahwist). ⁵³ᵃ

is probably Yahwist: note the difference of divine names. Thus:

⁴⁴ᐧ ⁴⁶ᐧ ⁴⁸ᐧ ⁵¹⁻⁵³ᵃ = Yahwist; ⁴⁵ᐧ ⁴⁹ᐧ ⁵⁰ᐧ ⁵³ᵇᐧ ⁵⁴ = Elohist.――The

analysis is due to Holzinger and Gunkel; Procksch practically

agrees, with the important difference that the parts of Yahwist

and Elohist are (quite wrongly, as it seems to me) interchanged.

It is superior to the schemes of Wellhausen, Dillmann,

Kautzsch-Socin, al., which assign the cairn and the maẓẓebāh to

the same sources.――The principal glosses (many of which excite

suspicion apart from the analysis) are יעקב‎ in ⁴⁵ and ⁴⁶; verses

⁴⁷ᐧ ⁴⁹ᵃ{α}; והנה המצבה‎ in ⁵¹; ועדה המצבה‎ and ואת־המצבה הזאת‎ in ⁵²: on

these _v.i._ Nearly all are retained by LXX, where, however,

the confusion is increased by a complete change in the order

of clauses: ⁴⁸ᵃᐧ ⁴⁷ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵²ᵃᐧ ⁴⁸ᵇᐧ ⁴⁹ᐧ ⁵⁰ᵃᐧ ⁵²ᵇ,――⁵⁰ᵇ being inserted

after ⁴⁴.――The analysis works out in translation as follows

(glosses being enclosed in square brackets, and necessary

additions and corrections in ⌜⌝):

Yahwist: ⁴⁴ And now (the speaker Elohist: ⁴⁵ And ⌜he⌝ (_i.e._

is Laban), come, let us make a Laban) [Jacob] took a stone and

covenant, I and thou; ... and it set it up as a pillar. ⁴⁹ᵃ{β}ᵇ

shall be for a witness between ⌜and he said⌝, May ⌜God⌝ [Yahwe]

me and thee. ⁴⁶ And ⌜he⌝ (_i.e._ watch between me and thee,

Laban) [Jacob], said to his when we are hidden from one

brethren, Gather stones; and another. ⁵⁰ If thou ill-treat

they took stones, and made a my daughters, or take other

cairn, and they ate there upon wives besides my daughters, no

the cairn. [⁴⁷ And Laban called man being with us, see, God is

it _Yᵉgar Sāhădûthā_, but Jacob witness between me and thee. ⁵³ᵇ

called it _Gal‛ēd_.] ⁴⁸ And And Jacob swore by the Fear of

Laban said, This cairn is a his father Isaac. ⁵⁴ And Jacob

witness between me and thee offered a sacrifice on the

this day; therefore he called mountain and called his brethren

its name ⌜Gil‛ad⌝ [⁴⁹ᵃ{α} and to eat bread; and they ate

Miẓpah, for he said]. ⁵¹ And bread, and spent the night on

Laban said to Jacob, Behold this the mountain.

cairn [and behold the pillar]

which I have thrown up between

me and thee――⁵² a witness is

this cairn [and a witness is the

pillar]: I will not pass this

cairn to thee, and thou shalt

not pass this cairn [and this

pillar] to me, with evil intent.

⁵³ᵃ The God of Abraham and the

God of Naḥor be Judge between

us! [the God of their father].

=44.= Compare 21²³ ᶠᶠᐧ 26²⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ――The subject of וְהָיָה‎ cannot be בְּרִית‎,

which is feminine, and is rather the fact to be witnessed to than a

witness of something else. There must be a lacuna before והיה‎, where we

must suppose that some material object (probably the cairn: compare

⁴⁸, Yahwist) was mentioned.――=45= (Elohist). _And he took a stone_]

Since it is Laban who explains the meaning of the stone (⁴⁹), it must

have been he who set it up; hence יַֽעֲקֹב‎ is to be deleted as a false

explication of the implicit subject.――_set it on high as a maẓẓebāh_]

see 28¹⁸ᐧ ²². The monolith may have stood on an eminence and formed

a conspicuous feature of the landscape (Dillmann).――=46= (Yahwist).

_And he_ (Laban) _said, etc._] Here יַֽעֲקֹב‎ is certainly wrong, for Laban

expressly says that the cairn was raised by him (⁵¹).――_a cairn_] גַּל‎

means simply a heap of stones (_v.i._), not a rampart (Wellhausen,

Dillmann). The idea that the גַּל‎ was originally the mountain range of

Gilead itself, Laban and Jacob being conceived as giants (Wellhausen,

Gunkel, Meyer), has certainly no support in the text.――_they ate upon

the cairn_] The covenant feast, which may very well have preceded

the covenant ceremony; see 26³⁰.――=47.= In spite of its interesting

and philologically correct notice, the verse must unfortunately be

assigned to a glossator, for the reasons given below.――=48= (Yahwist).

Laban explains the purpose of the cairn, and names it accordingly:

_cairn of witness_.] The stone heap is personified, and was no doubt

in ancient times regarded as animated by a deity (compare Joshua 24²⁷).

‎גַּלְעֵד‎ is, of course, an artificial formation, not the real or original

pronunciation of גִּלְעָד‎.――=49= (Elohist). _And [the] Miẓpāh, for he

said_] The text, if not absolutely ungrammatical, is a very uncouth

continuation of ⁴⁸ᵇ, with which in the primary documents it had

nothing to do; see further _inf._――_May God_ (read so with LXX)

_watch_] Miẓpāh means ‘watch-post.’ On its situation, see page

403.――=50.= The purport of the covenant, according to Elohist.

Jacob swears (⁵³ᵇ) that he will not maltreat Laban’s daughters, nor

even marry other wives besides them. The latter stipulation has a

parallel in a late Babylonian marriage contract (_Keilinschriftliche

Bibliothek_, iv. 187, Number XI.).――_God is witness_] The idea is

less primitive than that of Yahwist, where the witness is an inanimate

object.――We observe how the religious sanction is invoked where human

protection fails (compare 20¹¹ 42¹⁸, both Elohist).――=51‒53a.= The

terms of the covenant in Yahwist: neither party (people) is to pass

the cairn with hostile intent. All the references to the maẓẓebāh

(⁵¹ᵇᐧ ⁵²ᵃᐧ ᵇ) are to be deleted as glosses. ――_The God of Abraham

... Nāḥôr_] Whether a polytheistic differentiation of two gods is

attributed to Laban can hardly be determined. The plural verb would

not necessarily imply this in Elohist (see 20¹³), though in Yahwist it

might.――=53b, 54.= The covenant oath and feast in Elohist.――_The Fear

of ... Isaac_] See on verse ⁴².――=54.= _his brethren_] not Laban and

his companions, but his own fellow-clansmen (verse ³⁷).――_spent the

night, etc._] Is this part of the religious ceremony? (Gunkel).

_The Scene of the Treaty._――The name _Gil‛ād_ (often with

article) in Old Testament is sometimes applied to the whole

region Elohist of the Jordan (Joshua 22⁹ etc.), but more

properly denotes the mountain range (הַר הַגִּלְעָד‎) extending from the

Yarmuk to the Arnon (2 Kings 10³³ etc.), divided by the Jabboḳ

into two parts (Joshua 12²), corresponding to the modern _Ǧebel

‛Aǧlūn_ and _el-Belḳā_, North and South respectively of the

Wādī ez-Zerḳā. The name _Ǧebel Ǧil‛ād_ still survives as that

of a mountain, crowned by the lofty summit of _Ǧebel Ōsha‛_,

North of es-Salṭ, where are found the ruined cities _Ǧil‛ād_

and _Ǧal‛aud_ (Burckhardt. _Travels in Syria and the Holy Land_,

348). It is therefore natural to look here in the first instance

for the ‘cairn of witness’ from which the mountain and the whole

region were supposed to have derived their names. The objections

to this view are (1) that Jacob, coming from the North, has

not yet crossed the Jabboḳ, which is identified with the Zerḳa;

and (2) that the frontier between Israel and the Aramæans (of

Damascus) could not have been so far South. These reasons have

prevailed with most modern authorities, and led them to seek a

site somewhere in the North or North-east of Ǧebel ‛Aǧlūn. But

the assumption that Laban represents the Aramæans of Damascus is

gratuitous, and has no foundation in either Yahwist or Elohist

(see the next note). The argument from the direction of Jacob’s

march applies only to Yahwist, and must not be too rigorously

pressed; because the treaty of Gilead and the crossing of the

Jabboḳ belong to different cycles of tradition, and the desire

to finish off Jacob’s dealings with Laban before proceeding

to his encounter with Esau might very naturally occasion a

departure from strict geographical consistency.¹――The site of

_Miẓpāh_ has to be investigated separately, since we cannot be

certain that Yahwist and Elohist thought of the same locality.

East of the Jordan there was a Miẓpāh (Judges 10¹⁷ 11¹¹ᐧ ³⁴,

Hosea 5¹) which is thought to be the same as מִצְפֵּה גִלְעָד‎ (Judges

11²⁹) and רָמַת הַמִּצְפֶּה‎ (Joshua 13²⁶); but whether it lay South or

North of the Jabboḳ cannot be determined. The identification

with Rāmôth-Gil‛ād, and of this with _er-Remte_, South-west of

the ancient Edrei, is precarious. The name (‘watch-post’) was

a common one, and may readily be supposed to have occurred more

than once East of the Jordan. See Smith, _Historical Geography

of the Holy Land_, 586; Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_,

262; Driver in smaller _A Dictionary of the Bible_, _s.v._; and

on the whole of this note, compare Smend, _Zeitschrift für die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, 1902, 149 ff.

¹ It seems to me very doubtful how far Jacob’s route, as

described in chapters 32, 33, can be safely used as a clue

to the identification of the localities mentioned (Gilead,

Miẓpah, Maḥanaim, the Ford, Peniel, Succoth). The writers

appear to have strung together a number of Transjordanic

legends connected with the name of Jacob, but without much

regard to topographical consistency or consecutiveness (see

page 408). The impossibility of the current identifications

(_e.g._ those of Merrill and Conder), _as stages of an

actual itinerary_, is clearly shown by Driver in _The

Expository Times_, xiii. (1902), 457 ff. It is only when

that assumption is frankly abandoned that the identification

of Gilead with _Ǧil‛ād_, of Mahanaim with _Maḥne_ (page 405),

of the Ford with _Muḫādat en-Nuṣrānīyeh_ (page 408), becomes

feasible.

_Historical Background of 31⁴⁴⁻⁵⁴._――The treaty of Gilead in

Yahwist evidently embodies ethnographic reminiscences, in which

Jacob and Laban were not private individuals, but represented

Hebrews and Aramæans respectively. The theory mostly favoured by

critical historians is that the Aramæans are those of Damascus,

and that the situation reflected is that of the Syrian wars

which raged from _circa_ 860 to _circa_ 770 B.C. (see Wellhausen

_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 320 f.). Gunkel (page 312)

has, however, pointed out objections to this assumption; and has

given strong reasons for believing that the narratives refer to

an earlier date than 860. The story reads more like the record

of a loose understanding between neighbouring and on the whole

friendly tribes, than of a formal treaty between two highly

organised states like Israel and Damascus; and it exhibits no

trace of the intense national animosity which was generated

during the Syrian wars. In this connexion, Meyer’s hypothesis

that in the original tradition Laban represented the early

unsettled nomads of the eastern desert (see page 334), acquires

a new interest. Considering the tenacity with which such legends

cling to a locality, there is no difficulty in supposing that in

this case the tradition goes back to some prehistoric settlement

of territorial claims between Hebrews and migratory Aramæans.

It is true that Meyer’s theory is based on notices peculiar

to Elohist, while the tribal compact belongs to Yahwist; and

it may appear hazardous to go behind the documents and build

speculations on a substratum of tradition common to both. But

the only material point in which Yahwist differs from Elohist

is his identification of Laban with the Aramæans of Ḥarran; and

this is not inconsistent with the interpretation here suggested.

In any case, his narrative gives no support to the opinion that

he has in view the contemporary political relations with the

kingdom of Damascus.

* * * * *

=44b.= The omitted words (_v.s._) might be וְנַֽעֲשֶׂה גַל‎ or some such

expression (Olshausen, Dillmann, Ball, Gunkel, al.). To the

end of the verse LXX appends: εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ Ἰακωβ, Ἰδοὺ οὐθεὶς

μεθ’ ἡμῶν ἐστίν· ἰδὲ ὁ θεὸς μάρτυς ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ (from

verse ⁵⁰).――=46.= ויקחו‎] LXX וַיִּלְקְטוּ‎.――גַּל‎] From √ גלל‎ ‘roll’ (stones,

29³, Joshua 10¹⁸, 1 Samuel 14³³, Proverbs 26²⁷). On sacred

stone-heaps among the Arabs, see Wellhausen _Reste arabischen

Heidentums_² 111 f. (with which compare Doughty, _Travels in

Arabia Deserta_ i. 26, 81, 431); Curtiss, _Primitive Semitic

Religion to-day_, 80 (cairn as witness); on the eating

_upon_ the cairn, Frazer, _Folklore in the Old Testament_, 131

ff.――=47.= יְגַר שָֽׂחֲדוּתָא‎ is the precise Aramaic equivalent of Hebrew

‎ גַל עֵד‎, ‘heap of witness.’ The decisive reasons for rejecting the

verse are: (1) It stands out of its proper place, anticipating

⁴⁸ᵇ; (2) it contradicts ⁴⁸ᵇ, where the _Hebrew_ name גַּלְעֵד‎ is

given by Laban; (3) it assumes (contrary to the implication

of all the patriarchal narratives) that the Naḥorites spoke a

different dialect from the ancestors of the Hebrews. It may be

added that the Aramaic phrase shows the glossator to have taken

‎ גַּלְעֵד‎ as construct and genitive, whereas the latter in ⁴⁸ᵇ is

more probably a sentence ‘the heap is witness’ (see Nestle,

_Marginalien und Materialien_, 10 f.). The actual name ‏[הַ]גִּלְעָד‎ is

usually, but dubiously, explained by Arabic _ǧal‛ad_ ‘hard,’

‘firm.’――=48.= על־כן קרא שמו‎] so 11⁹ 19²² 29³⁴ ᶠᐧ (all Yahwist), 25³⁰

(Yahwist?).――=49.= וְהַמִּצְפָּה‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the

Pentateuch_ והמצבה‎, which Wellhausen thinks the original name

of the place, afterwards changed to המצפה‎ because of the

evil associations of the word maẓẓebāh. He instances the

transcription of LXX Μασσηφα, as combining the consonants of

the new name with the vowels of the old (_Die Composition des

Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_²

44¹). The argument is precarious; but there seems to be a

word-play between the names; and since the opening is evidently

corrupt, it is possible that both stood in the text. Ball’s

restoration והמצבה אשר [הֵרִים קָרָא הַמִּצְפָּה כִּי] אמר‎ has met with the approval

of several scholars (Holzinger, Strack); but as the sequence to

⁴⁵ we should rather expect וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמָהּ הַמִּצְפָּה‎. LXX has καὶ Ἡ ὅρασις, ἣν

εἶπεν, following Massoretic Text.――יהוה‎] LX אלהים‎ must be adopted

if the verse is rightly ascribed to Elohist.――=51.= המצבה‎]

LXX + הַזֹּאת‎ (so verse ⁵²).――אשׁר יריתי‎] ‘which I have thrown up.’

‎ ירה‎, ‘throw,’ is most commonly used of shooting arrows, and only

here of piling up stones. Once it means to lay (_jacere_) a

foundation (Job 38⁶), but it could hardly be applied to the

erection of a pillar. It is an advantage of the analysis given

above that it avoids the necessity of retaining the maẓẓebāh

as object of יריתי‎ and rejecting the cairn.――=52.= אם――לא‎ (_bis_)]

The double negative is contrary to the usage of asseverative

sentences (compare ⁵⁰), but may be explained by an anakolouthon

(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 167 _b_).――את־הגל הזה‎] LXX omits.――=53.= ישׁפטו‎]

_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate,

Peshiṭtå יִשְׁפֹּט‎.――אלהי אביהם‎] LXX and Hebrew MSS omit, _The Samaritan

Recension of the Pentateuch_ א׳ אברהם‎, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word).

Probably a margin gloss to ⁵³ᵃ.――=XXXII. 1.= וילך וישב‎] LXX וַיָּשָׁב וַיֵּלֶךְ‎.

* * * * *

XXXII. 2‒33.

_Jacob’s Measures for propitiating Esau:

His Wrestling with the Deity at Peniel_

(Yahwist, Elohist).

After a vision of angels at Maḥanaim (²ᐧ ³), Jacob sends a

humble message announcing his arrival to Esau, but learns to his

consternation that his brother is advancing to meet him with 400

men (⁴⁻⁷). He divides his company into two bands, and invokes God’s

help in prayer (⁸⁻¹⁴ᵃ); then prepares a present for Esau, and sends

it on in advance (¹⁴ᵇ⁻²²). Having thus done all that human foresight

could suggest, he passes a lonely night in the ravine of the Jabboḳ,

wrestling with a mysterious antagonist, who at daybreak blesses him

and changes his name to Israel (²³⁻³³).

_Sources._――Verses ²ᐧ ³ are an isolated fragment of Elohist

‎ (מלאכי אלהים‎, פָּגַע בּ‎, [28¹¹]); ⁴⁻¹⁴ᵃ and ¹⁴ᵇ⁻²² are parallels (compare

¹⁴ᵃ with ²²ᵇ), the former from Yahwist יהוה‎, ¹⁰; שפחה‎, ⁶; מולדת‎,

‎ ¹⁰; מצא חן‎, ⁶; contrast the implied etymology of מַחֲנַיִם‎ in ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹¹

with Elohist’s in ³): ¹⁴ᵇ⁻²² must therefore be Elohist, though

positive marks of that writer’s style cannot be detected.――On

the complicated structure of ²³⁻³³ (Jehovist), see page 407

below.

=2, 3. The legend of Maḥanaim.=――=2.= _angels ... met him_] The

verb for ‘meet,’ as here construed (_v.i._), usually means to

‘oppose.’――=3.= _This is God’s camp_] or _a camp of gods_. The idea of

divine armies appears elsewhere in Old Testament (compare Joshua 5¹⁴),

and perhaps underlies the expression ‘Host of heaven’ and the name

_Yahwe Ẓebā’ôth_.――_Maḥanaim_ is here apparently not regarded as a

dual (contrast ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹¹). On its site, _v.i._

The brief statement of the text seems to be a torso of a legend

which had gathered round the name Maḥanaim, whose original

meaning has been lost. The curtailment probably indicates that

the sequel was objectionable to the religious feeling of later

times; and it has been surmised that the complete story told

of a conflict between Jacob and the angels (originally divine

beings), somewhat similar to the wrestling of verses ²⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ

(Gunkel, Bennett). The word ‘camp’ (compare the fuller text of

LXX _inf._), and the verbal phrase פגע ב‎ both suggest a warlike

encounter.

* * * * *

=2.= After לדרכו‎ LXX inserts καὶ ἀναβλέψας τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἴδεν

παρεμβολὴν θεοῦ παρεμβεβληκυῖαν, enhancing the vividness of the

description.――פָּגַע בְּ‎] = ‘encounter with hostility,’ Judges 8²¹ 15¹²

18²⁵, 1 Samuel 22¹⁷ ᶠᐧ, 2 Samuel 1¹⁵, 1 Kings 2²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ, Ruth 2²²; =

‘intercede,’ Job 21¹⁵, Jeremiah 7¹⁶ 27¹⁸, Ruth 1¹⁶. The neutral

sense ‘meet,’ with personsal objective, is doubtfully supported

by Numbers 35¹⁹ᐧ ²¹, Joshua 2¹⁶, where hostile intention is

evidently implied: elsewhere this is expressed by _accusative_

personsal (Exodus 5²⁰ 23⁴, 1 Samuel 10⁵, Amos 5¹⁹). Genesis

28¹¹ is somewhat different, the object being impersonal (compare

the use in Joshua 16⁷ 17¹⁰ etc.).――=3.= מחנים‎] an important

East Jordanic city and sanctuary, the capital of Ish-bosheth

(2 Samuel 2⁸), and David’s headquarters during the revolt of

Absalom (2 Samuel 17²⁴ᐧ ²⁷), the centre of a fiscal district

under Solomon (1 Kings 4¹⁴). The situation of _Maḥne_ or _Miḥne_

on _Wādī el-Ḥimār_, some 14 miles North of the Jabboḳ (see Buhl,

_Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 257), suits all the other

references (compare Joshua 13²⁶ᐧ ³⁰――the boundary of Gad and

Manasseh), but is too far from the Jabboḳ for this narrative

(verse ²³). On the ending, which is probably no real dual, see

on 24¹⁰.

* * * * *

=4‒14a. Jacob’s precautionary measures= (Yahwist).――=4.= Isaac’s

death and Esau’s settlement in the country afterwards occupied by his

descendants are here assumed to have already taken place: otherwise

Priestly-Code (36⁶).――=5, 6.= We note the extreme servility of Jacob’s

language:――_my lord ... thy servant ... find grace_,――dictated by fear

of his brother’s vengeance (27⁴¹). In substance the message is nothing

but an announcement of his arrival and his great wealth (compare 33¹²

ᶠᶠᐧ) The shepherd, with all his success, is at the mercy of the fierce

marauder who was to ‘live by his sword’ (27⁴⁰).――=7.= The messengers

return with the ominous news that Esau is already on the march with

400 men. How he was ready to strike so far north of his own territory

is a difficulty (see page 415).――=8, 9.= Jacob’s first resource

is to divide his company into _two camps_, in the hope that one

might escape while the other was being captured. The arrangement is

perhaps adverted to in 33⁸.――=10‒13.= Jacob’s prayer, consisting of

an invocation (¹⁰), thanksgiving (¹¹), petition (¹²), and appeal to

the divine faithfulness (¹³), is a classic model of Old Testament

devotion (Gunkel); though the element of confession, so prominent in

later supplications, is significantly absent.――=12.= _mother with_

(or _on_) _children_] Hosea 10¹⁴; compare Deuteronomy 22⁶. A popular

saying,――the mother conceived as bending over the children to protect

them (Tuch).――=14a.= _spent that night there_] _i.e._, at Maḥanaim

(verse ²²). We may suppose (with Wellhausen, Gunkel) that an explicit

etymology, based on the ‘two camps’ (verses ⁸ᐧ ¹¹), preceded or

followed this clause.

Verses ¹⁰⁻¹³ appear to be one of the later expansions of the

Yahwistic narrative, akin to 13¹⁴⁻¹⁷ 22¹⁵⁻¹⁸ 26³ᵇ⁻⁵ 28¹⁴. They

can be removed without loss of continuity, ¹⁴ᵃ being a natural

continuation of ⁹. The insertion gives an interpretation to

the ‘two camps’ at variance with the primary motive of the

division (verse ⁹); and its spirit is different from that of the

narrative in which it is embedded. Compare also חול הים‎ with 22¹⁷,

‎ לא יספר מרב‎ with 16¹⁰ 22¹⁷. See Gunkel 316.

* * * * *

‎ =4.= לפניו‎] LXX omits――שדה אדום‎] (compare Judges 5⁴) is probably

a gloss on ארצה שעיר‎.――=5.= תאמרון‎] compare 18²⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ――וָאֵחַר‎] for וָאֶֽאֱחַר‎

(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 64 _h_).――=6.= ואשלחה‎] Cohortative form

with vav consecutive――chiefly late; see Driver _A Treatise

on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 69 _Obsolete_, § 72;

Gesenius-Kautzsch § 49 _e_.――=8.= וַיֵּצֶר‎] √ צרר‎ intransitive =

‘be cramped’; on the form, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67

_p_.――והגמלים‎] LXXᴬ omits and transposes ואת־הבקר ואת־הצאן‎.――שני מחנות‎]

That this implies an etymology of Maḥanaim, and that Yahwist

located the incident there, cannot reasonably be doubted (as

by Holzinger). The name is obviously regarded as a dual (in

contrast to verse ³), showing that the current pronunciation is

very ancient (Dillmann).――=9.= האחת‎] _The Samaritan Recension

of the Pentateuch_ האחד‎ (masculine), which is demanded by the

context, as well as by prevailing usage (Albrecht, _Zeitschrift

für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvi. 52).――=11.= קטנתי

‎ מן‎] ‘too insignificant for’; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 133 _c_.――הירדן הזה‎]

The writer apparently locates Maḥanaim in the vicinity of the

Jordan; but the allusion, in an editorial passage, has perhaps

no great topographical importance.

* * * * *

=14b‒22. The present for Esau= (Elohist).――=14.= _a present_] Not

‘tribute’ (as often) in acknowledgment of vassalage, but (as 43¹¹,

2 Kings 8⁸ ᶠᐧ) a gift to win favour.――=17‒20.= By arranging the cattle

in successive droves following at considerable intervals, Jacob hopes

to wear out Esau’s resentment by a series of surprises. The plan has

nothing in common with the two ‘camps’ of verse ⁸ ᶠᐧ in Yahwist.――=21a.=

A repetition of ¹⁹ᵇ: Jacob lays stress on this point, because the

effect would obviously be weakened if a garrulous servant were to let

out the secret that other presents were to follow.――=21b.= _Let me

pacify him_] literally ‘cover’ (or ‘wipe clean’) his face,――the same

figure, though in different language, as 20¹⁶. On כִּפֶּר‎, see _The Old

Testament in the Jewish Church_², 381; _A Dictionary of the Bible_,

iv. 128 f.――_see his face_] ‘obtain access to his presence’: compare

43³ᐧ ⁵ 44²³ᐧ ²⁶, Exodus 10²⁸, 2 Samuel 14 ²⁴ᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ³², 2 Kings 25¹⁹,

Esther 1¹⁴. The phrase is thought to convey an allusion to _Pĕnû’ēl_

(Gunkel); see on 33¹⁰.――=22.= _spent ... camp_ (בַּֽמַּחֲנֶֽה‎)] compare ¹⁴ᵃ.

Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen

Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 46) renders ‘in Maḥaneh’ (_i.e._

Maḥanaim), but the change is hardly justified.

* * * * *

‎ =14.= מן־הבא‎] Article with participle (not perfect); see

Gesenius-Kautzsch § 138 _k_; Driver _Notes on the Hebrew

Text of the Books of Samuel_ 57 f.――מנחה‎] see on 4³.――=17.=

‎ רֶוַח‎ (Esther 4¹⁴†)] √ רָוַח‎, ‘be wide’ (1 Samuel 16²³, Job

32²⁰).――=18.= On the forms יִֽפְגָּשְׁךָ‎ (Ben Naphtali), יָֽפִגָֽשֲׁךָ‎ (Ben Asher),

see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 9 _v_, 10 _g_ (_c_), 60 _b_, [and

Baer-Delitzsch, _Liber Genesis_ page 85]; and on ושאֵֽלך‎, § 64

_f._――=20.= ויצו‎] LXX + τῷ πρώτῳ.――מֹצַֽאֲכֶם‎] irregular infinitive

for מָצְאֲכֶם‎ (Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 74 _h_, 93 _q_).――=21.=

‎ יעקב‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,

Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ + בָּא‎.

* * * * *

=23‒33. The wrestling at Peniel= (Jehovist).――=23, 24.= The crossing

of the Jabboḳ. The _Yabbōḳ_ is now almost universally, and no doubt

correctly, identified with the _Nahr es-Zerḳā_ (Blue River), whose

middle course separates Ǧebel ‛Aǧlūn from el-Belḳā, and which flows

into the Jordan about 25 miles North of the Dead Sea. See Smend,

_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, 1902, 137 ff.;

and the descriptions in Riehm, _Assyrisches Handwörterbuch_² 665;

Smith, _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 583‒5.――The _ford_

referred to cannot be determined; that of _Muḫādat en-Nuṣrānīyeh_,

where the road from Ǧeraš to es-Salṭ crosses the deep narrow gorge

which cleaves the mountains of Gilead, as described by Thomson (_The

Land and the Book_, iii. 583 ff.) and Tristram (_Land of Israel_³,

549), supplies a more fitting background for the weird struggle

about to be narrated than the one in the Jordan valley; but on the

difficulties of this identification, see Driver _The Expository Times_,

xiii. 459.

The passage of the river seems to be twice described, ²⁴ᵃ and

²⁴ᵇ being apparently doublets. The former continues ²³ᵃ, which

belongs to Yahwist (שפחה‎). Following this clue, we may divide

thus: ²³ᵃᐧ ²⁴ᵃ = Yahwist; ²³ᵇᐧ ²⁴ᵇ = Elohist (so Gunkel). While

Elohist implies that Jacob crossed with his company, the account

of Yahwist is consistent with the statement of ²⁵ᵃ, that after

sending the others across he himself was ‘left alone.’ On any

view the action is somewhat perplexing. To cross a ford by

night, with flocks, etc., was a dangerous operation, only to be

explained by apprehension of an attack from Esau (Wellhausen).

But Esau is represented as advancing from the south; and Jacob

is in haste to put his people and possessions on that side of

the river on which they were exposed to attack. Either the

narrative is defective at this point, or it is written without

a clear conception of the actual circumstances.

* * * * *

=23‒33.= The analysis of the passage is beset by insurmountable

difficulties. While most recognise doublets in ²³ ᶠᐧ (_v.s._),

²⁵⁻³³ have generally been regarded as a unity, being assigned

to Yahwist by Wellhausen, Kuenen, Cornill, Kautzsch-Socin,

Driver, al.; but by Dillmann to Elohist. In the view of more

recent critics, both Yahwist and Elohist are represented, though

there is the utmost variety of opinion in regard to details.

In the notes above, _possible_ variants have been pointed out

in ²⁶ᵃ ∥ ²⁶ᵇ (the laming of the thigh) and ²⁸ᐧ ²⁹ ∥ ³⁰ (the name

and the blessing); to these may be added the still more doubtful

case ³¹ ∥ ³² (Peniel, Penuel). As showing traces of more

primitive conceptions, ²⁶ᵃ and ³⁰ would naturally go together,

and also ²⁷ for the same reason. Since Yahwist prefers the name

Israel in the subsequent history, there is a slight presumption

that ²⁸ ᶠᐧ belong to him; and the אלהים‎ of ³¹ points (though not

decisively) to Elohist. Thus we should obtain, for Elohist:

²⁶ᵃᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ³⁰ᐧ ³¹; leaving for Yahwist: ²⁶ᵇᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ²⁹ᐧ ³²: verse ³³

may be a gloss. The result corresponds nearly, so far as

it goes, with Gunkel’s (318 f.). The reader may compare the

investigations of Holzinger (209 f.), Procksch (32), Meyer

(_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 57 f.).――=23.= בלילה הוא‎

(_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ההוא‎)] as 19³³

‎ 30¹⁶.――יַבֹּק‎ (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ היבק‎)

(Numbers 21²⁴, Deuteronomy 2³⁷ 3¹⁶, Joshua 12², Judges 11¹³ᐧ ²²†)

is naturally explained as the ‘gurgler,’ from √ בקק‎ (Arabic

_baḳḳa_), the resemblance to אבק‎ (verse ²⁵) being, of course, a

popular word-play.――=24b.= Insert כָּל־‎ before אשר‎ (_The Samaritan

Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate).

* * * * *

=25.= _a man wrestled with him till the appearing of the dawn_]――Only

later does Jacob discover that his unknown antagonist is a god in

human form (compare 18² 19⁵).――The rare word (_v.i._) for ‘wrestle’

‎(אבק‎) is chosen because of the assonance with יבֹּק‎――=26a.= _he saw that

he prevailed not_] The ambiguity of the subject extends to the next

clause, and leaves two interpretations open (_v.i._).――_struck the

socket of his thigh_] putting it out of joint.――=26b.= _the socket of

Jacob’s thigh was dislocated as he wrestled with him_.

The dislocation of the thigh seems to be twice recorded (see

Kautzsch-Socin _An._ 159), and it is highly probable that the

two halves of the verse come from different sources. In ²⁶ᵃ

it is a stratagem resorted to by a wrestler unable to gain

the advantage by ordinary means (like the trick of Ulysses

in _Iliad_ xxiii. 725 ff.); in ²⁶ᵇ it is an accident which

happens to Jacob in the course of the struggle. It has even

been suggested that in the original legend the subject of ²⁶ᵃ

was Jacob――that it was he who disabled his antagonist in the

manner described (Holzinger, Gunkel, Cheyne: see Müller,

_Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 163¹; Luther,

_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi. 65

ff.; Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 57). It is

possible (though certainly not probable) that this was the view

of the document (Yahwist or Elohist) to which ²⁶ᵃ belongs, and

that it underlies Hosea 12⁵.

* * * * *

‎ =25.= ויאבק‎] A verb used only here and verse ²⁶, distinct from

New Hebrew התאבק‎, ‘make oneself dusty,’ and very probably a

modification of חבק‎, ‘clasp’ (Delitzsch, Dillmann).――=26.=

‎ ותקע‎] √ יקע‎, literally ‘be rent away’ (compare Jeremiah 6⁸):

LXX ἐνάρκησεν, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Vulgate _emarcuit_,

Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ זע‎ (‘gave way’),――all conjectural.

* * * * *

=27.= _Let me go, for the dawn is breaking_] Compare Plautus,

_Amphitryon_ 532 f., where Jupiter says: “Cur me tenes? Tempus est:

exire ex urbe priusquam lucescat volo.” It is a survival of the

wide-spread belief in spirits of the night which must vanish at dawn

(_Hamlet_, Act 1. Scene i.); and as such, a proof of the extreme

antiquity of the legend.――But the request reveals to Jacob the

superhuman character of his adversary, and he resolves to hold him

fast till he has extorted a blessing from him.――=28, 29=. Here the

blessing is imparted in the form of a new name conferred on Jacob in

memory of this crowning struggle of his life.――_thou hast striven with

God_] _Yisrā’ēl_, probably = ‘God strives’ (_v.i._), is interpreted

as ‘Striver with God’; compare a similar transformation of יְרֻבַּֽעַל‎ (‘Baal

contends’) in Judges 6³². Such a name is a true ‘blessing,’ as a

pledge of victory and success to the nation which bears it.――_and

with men_] This can hardly refer merely to the contests with Laban and

Esau; it points rather to the existence of a fuller body of legend,

in which Jacob figured as the hero of many combats, culminating in

this successful struggle with deity.――=30.= Jacob vainly endeavours

to extort a disclosure of the name of his antagonist. This is possibly

an older variant of ²⁸ ᶠᐧ, belonging to a primitive phase of thought,

where he who possesses the true name of a god can dispose of the power

of its bearer (Cheyne _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_,

401¹; _A Dictionary of the Bible_, v. 640). For the concealment

of the name, compare Judges 13¹⁸ (the same words).――Gunkel thinks

that in the original narrative the name of the wrestler was actually

revealed.――=31.= _Pĕnî’ēl_] ‘Face of God’ (_v.i._). The name is

derived from an incidental feature of the experience: that Jacob

had seen “God _face_ to _face_” (Exodus 33¹¹, Deuteronomy 34¹⁰), and

yet lived (see on 16¹³).――The site of Peniel is unknown: see Driver

_The Expository Times_, xiii. 457 ff., and _The Book of Genesis with

Introduction and Notes_ 300 ff.――=32.= _limping on his thigh_] in

consequence of the injury he had received (²⁶ᵇ). That he bore the

hurt to his death, as a memorial of the conflict, is a gratuitous

addition to the narrative.――=33.= The food-taboo here mentioned is

nowhere else referred to in Old Testament; and the Mishnic prohibition

(_Ḥullîn_, 7) is probably dependent on this passage. William Robertson

Smith explains it from the sacredness of the thigh as a seat of life

(_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 380¹);¹ and Wellhausen

(_Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 168³) calls attention to a trace of it

in ancient Arabia. For primitive parallels, see Frazer, _Golden Bough_,

ii. 419 ff., _Folklore in Old Testament_, 142 f. The precise meaning

of גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה‎ is uncertain (_v.i._).

¹ “The nature of the lameness produced by injury to the sinew

of the thigh socket is explained by the Arabic lexicons,

_s.v._ _ḥārifat_; the man can only walk on the tips of

his toes. This seems to have been a common affection, for

poetical metaphors are taken from it.”

In its fundamental conception the struggle at Peniel is not a

dream or vision like that which came to Jacob at Bethel; nor

is it an allegory of the spiritual life, symbolising the inward

travail of a soul helpless before some overhanging crisis of

its destiny. It is a real physical encounter which is described,

in which Jacob measures his strength and skill against a divine

antagonist, and ‘prevails,’ though at the cost of a bodily

injury. No more boldly anthropomorphic narrative is found in

Genesis; and unless we shut our eyes to some of its salient

features, we must resign the attempt to translate it wholly

into terms of religious experience. We have to do with a

legend, originating at a low level of religion, in process of

accommodation to the purer ideas of revealed religion; and its

history may have been somewhat as follows: (1) We begin with

the fact of a hand-to-hand conflict between a god and a man.

A similar idea appears in Exodus 4²⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ, where we read that

Yahwe met Moses and ‘sought to kill him.’ In the present passage

the god was probably not Yahwe originally, but a local deity,

a night-spirit who fears the dawn and refuses to disclose his

name. Dr. Frazer has pointed out that such stories as this

are associated with water-spirits, and cites many primitive

customs (_Folklore in the Old Testament_, 136 ff.) which seem

to rest on the belief that a river resents being crossed, and

drowns many who attempt it. He hazards the conjecture that the

original deity of this passage was the spirit of the Jabboḳ;

in which case the word-play between יַבֹּק‎ and אבק‎ may have greater

significance than appears on the surface. (2) Like many

patriarchal theophanies, the narrative accounts for the

foundation of a sanctuary――that of Peniel. Of the cultus at

Peniel we know nothing; and there is very little in the story

that can be supposed to bear upon it, unless we assume, with

Gunkel and others, that the limping on the thigh refers to a

ritual dance regularly observed there (compare 1 Kings 18²⁶).¹

(3) By Yahwist and Elohist the story was incorporated in the

national epos as part of the history of Jacob. The God who

wrestles with the patriarch is Yahwe; and how far the wrestling

was understood as a literal fact remains uncertain. To these

writers the main interest lies in the origin of the name Israel,

and the blessing bestowed on the nation in the person of its

ancestor. (4) A still more refined interpretation is found, it

seems to me, in Hosea 12⁴ᐧ ⁵: ‘In the womb he overreached his

brother; and in his prime he strove with God. He strove (וַיִּשֶׂר‎)

with the Angel and prevailed; he wept and made supplication

to him.’ The substitution of the Angel of Yahwe for the

divine Being Himself shows increasing sensitiveness to

anthropomorphism; and the last line appears to mark an advance

in the spiritualising of the incident, the subject being not the

Angel (as Gunkel and others hold), but Jacob, whose ‘prevailing’

thus becomes that of importunate prayer.――We may note in a word

Steuernagel’s ethnological interpretation. He considers the

wrestling to symbolise a victory of the invading Israelites over

the inhabitants of North Gilead. The change of name reflects

the fact that a new nation (Israel) arose from the fusion of the

Jacob and Rachel tribes (_Die Einwanderung der israelitischen

Stämme in Kanaan_ 61 f.).

* * * * *

‎ =29.= יִשְׂרָאֵל‎] A name of the same type as ישמעאל‎, ירחמאל‎, etc.,

with some such meaning as ‘God strives’ or ‘Let God strive’;

originally (it has been suggested) a war-cry which passed

into a proper name (see Steuernagel, _Die Einwanderung der

israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan_ 61). The verb שׂרה‎, however,

only occurs in connexion with this incident (Hosea 12⁴ᐧ ⁵, where

read וַיִּשֶׂר‎), and in the personal name שְׂרָיָה‎; and its real meaning

is uncertain. If it be the Hebrew equivalent of Arabic _šariya_,

Driver argues that it must mean ‘persist’ or ‘persevere’ rather

than ‘strive’ (_A Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 530), which

hardly yields a suitable idea. Some take it as a by-form of

‎ שׂרר‎, either in a denominative sense (‘rule,’ from שַׂר‎, prince),

or in its assumed primary significance ‘shine forth’ (Assyrian

_šarâru_: see Vollers, _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft_, ix.

184). Some doubt has even been thrown on the traditional Hebrew

pronunciation by the form _Ysir’r_, found on an inscription of

Merneptah (Steindorff, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche

Wissenschaft_, xvi. 330 ff.), with which we may compare Assyrian

_Sir-’-lai_ (= ישראלי‎) (see Kittel, _SBOT Chronicles_, page 58).

Compare also Cheyne _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_,

‎ 404.――שרית‎] LXX ἐνίσχυσας, Aquila ἦρξας, Symmachus ἤρξω, Vulgate

_fortis fuisti_, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ

‎ רַב אַתּ‎.――=31.= פניאל‎] LXX Εἶδος θεοῦ, _The Samaritan Recension of

the Pentateuch_, Symmachus, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå read פנואל‎ as verse

³². The formal difference arises from the old case-endings of

genitive and nominative (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 90 _o_). Strabo

(XVI. ii. 16, 18) mentions a Phœnician promontory near Tripolis

called Θεοῦ πρόσωπον: it is not improbable that in both cases

the name is derived from a fancied resemblance to a face.――=33.=

‎ גיד הנשה‎] נָשֶׁה‎ is to be explained by Arabic _nasᵃⁿ_ (for _nasayᵘⁿ_),

which means the _nervus ischiadicus_, or the thigh in which

it is found (Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ

Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_ 921 f.). The question

remains whether גיד‎ denotes here a nerve, an artery, a sinew,

or a muscle; the first seems by far the most probable. So it

seems to have been understood by Peshiṭtå ((‡ Syriac phrase) =

tetanus-nerve), and by LXX and Vulgate, which appear to have

connected נשה‎ with the verb for ‘forget’ (Græcus-Venetus, τὸ

νεῦρον τὸ ἐπιλελησμένον!). The modern Jewish restriction applies,

according to Delitzsch, to the “Spannader, d. h. die innere Ader

des sogen. Hinterviertels mit Einschluss der äusseren und der

Verästelungen beider.”

* * * * *